Isaiah’s "Denial" Verses, Incomparability and the Divine Council

[Pyreaux]

Inspired by another post by @theplains, seeing a tangent, I thought perhaps it deserves its own thread. Because this is very important if everything is held back due to an interpretation, as its one of the main prooftexts of the disagreement. When critics engage Latter-day Saint theology regarding the Council of Gods, Exaltation, or the distinct Beings of the Father and the Son (and sometimes Creation from Material), they frequently point to Isaiah’s Denial Verses, but they are also called by scholars as the Incomparability Statements of Deutero-Isaiah.

"I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me..." (Isaiah 45:5)

"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:8)

In modern Christian theology, these verses are routinely cited as absolute ontological proof of strict monotheism, the idea that literally no other divine beings exist in the universe in any sense. However, above such theologians are the scholars of the Ancient Near East, we would say most notably the late Dr. Michael Heiser, and also Latter-day Saint scholars, that highlight that modern reading misses the Hebrew rhetorical idiom.

Comparative Incomparability of Isaiah about Babylon & Nineveh

The key to understanding this idiom is looking at how Isaiah and contemporary prophets like Zephaniah uses the exact same Hebrew phrasing to describe other entities

Babylon in Isaiah 47:8 "I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow..."

Nineveh in Zephaniah 2:15, "This is the rejoicing city... that said in her heart, I am, and there is none else beside me..."

It is a claim that the city is without equal, not that other cities don't exist. When Nineveh or Babylon claim "there is none else," the author obviously does not intend to state that no other cities exist on Earth. It is a hyperbolic idiom of unrivaled preeminence and peerlessness, not spatial or numerical solitude.

The only reason we are seeing monotheism is if we strictly view them through a post-Enlightenment ontological lens. Dr. Heiser and almost any Near Eastern scholar demonstrates that Yahweh is an elohim, but so are the beings in His Heavenly Council (angels, bene elohim, holy ones). When Yahweh says, "there is no God beside me," He is not asserting that He is alone in His council in heaven. Doing so creates severe internal contradictions when set against passages like Deuteronomy 32 and the Psalms.

Reading Strict Monotheism into Isaiah Collides with Deuteronomy 32 and Psalms 82

If Isaiah’s statements were meant as strict, absolute monotheism, the Old Testament canon becomes fundamentally self-contradictory.

Deuteronomy 32:8–9, in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint,

"When the Most High [Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance... he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [Bene Elohim]".

El Elyon allocates governance of the nations to lower divine beings, and Yahweh receives Israel as His allotted "inheritance" from Elyon.

Psalm 82 & Psalm 89

Psalm 82:1 states that Yahweh "judgeth among the gods [elohim]" in the "midst" of the divine council.

One cannot be in the midst of one.

Psalm 89:6 asks, "Who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty [bene Elim] can be likened unto the Lord?"

Though incomparable, the elim are presumed to exist.

The elohim of Psalm 82 are not humans

Firstly, the inheritance connection to Deuteronomy 32, Deuteronomy 32 is the backdrop of Psalm 82. As the Lord has not yet "inherited" all the nations.

"Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations." (Psalm 82:8)

Human magistrates in Israel were given jurisdiction over matters within the borders of Israel. Israelite judges were never assigned to govern or "inherit" Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, or Philistia. Psalm 82:8 directly mirrors Deuteronomy 32:8–9, where Yahweh originally divided the non-Israelite nations among the bene elohim (sons of God) as an inheritance. In Psalm 82, because those divine rulers governed corruptly, Yahweh is called upon by the Psalmist to strip them of their authority and reclaim their inheritance over all the nations of the earth. Human judges in Israel never held that worldwide territorial mandate in the first place.

Secondly, the assembly of elohim are in heaven. Psalm 89:5-7 eliminates any ambiguity.

"Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the clouds [ba-shahaq] can be compared to the LORD? Who among the gods is like the LORD, a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?"

Psalm 89 rules out the notion that Yahweh’s council of sons of God refers to an assembly of humans because it explicitly places that council "in the clouds." There is no text that suggests that there are a group of human judges in the heavens ruling with Yahweh over the nations. That position is only being offered because of a perceived threat to monotheism.

Thirdly, Heiser frequently emphasized the irony of Psalm 82:6–7, "I have said, Ye are gods [elohim]; and all of you are children of the most High [bene Elyon]. But ye shall die like men..." It makes no sense for humans. If Yahweh is talking to mortal human judges, telling them "You will die like men" is completely redundant. Human judges already die like men, mortality is the natural state. A true condemnation is telling a divine, immortal elohim that they will be stripped of their divine status and condemned to a mortal death is an actual sentence of judgment.

Isaiah Venerates El Elyon

Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker argues extensively that Isaiah laments the purge of the First Temple, specifically the removal of the Heavenly Mother (Asherah) and the divine council during the reforms. The pre-exilic First Temple religion venerated El Elyon, His Son Yahweh, and Asherah.

Isaiah uses the title in the famous taunt song about Lucifer/Hilel, Isaiah uses Elyon precisely in contexts involving the Divine Council, the "mount of the congregation".

Ugaritic texts discovered in 1929, older traditions believed the gods gathered on Mount Zaphon, the abode of their cheif God, El, father of Baal-Hadad and 70 sons of El. In ancient Canaan, because Mount Zaphon was to the far north, the proper noun Zaphon literally became the Hebrew word for "North".

Isaiah 14:13–14, the rebel boasts, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God [El]: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation [Har Mo'ed], in the reaches [yarketei / mount] of the north [Zaphon]; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High [Elyon]."

Isaiah Venerates Asherah

Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) from Qumran of Isaiah 7:11 has a one letter difference.

Masoretic Text says "Ask a sign for yourself from [me'im] the LORD your God..."

The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) says, “Ask a sign for yourself from the Mother of [me'em] the LORD your God..."

Instead of Isaiah telling King Ahaz to ask for a sign from the Lord, the verse asks him to request a sign from the Mother of the Lord. If Ahaz is told in 7:11 to ask a sign of the Mother of Yahweh, then when the prophet declares in 7:14, "Behold, The Virgin [ha-'almah] shall conceive," is the Mother of the Lord herself and she will bring forth the Immanuel, meaning a royal Davidic child (Isaiah 8).

In royal Near Eastern mythologies such as at Ugarit, their goddess Asherah was the "Virgin" and the "Mother" of the kings. Isaiah's definite article "ha-‘Almah" is not merely "a virgin", it's "THE Virgin". In both Ugarit and pre-exilic Jerusalem, a female figure brings forth the anointed king, and formally titled The Virgin.

My Disagreement with Heiser, elohim is a noun applied to many other beings, but not a noun for ordinary beings

Heiser's view treats elohim as a realm identifier (anyone living in the spirit realm is an elohim). I have a counter-argument that elohim is an adopted family/lineage title.

Through a covenant, like the priesthood, certain beings, whether prophets, high priests, angels, or angelic localized territorial guardians are adopted into the genos (lineage/family) of El. Instead of a natural spatial status, elohim reflects a covenantal promotion. Human prophets like Samuel or Moses (Exodus 7:1) and divine messengers become elohim through the bestowal of Yahweh's authority, name, and often identifiable by priestly garments.  

1 Samuel 28:13–14, when the medium of Endor cries out that she sees an elohim ascending from the earth, Saul asks, "What form is he of?" She replies, "An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle [me'il]." The me'il was the explicit garment of priestly and royal authority (Exodus 28:31, 1 Samuel 2:19, 15:27). Samuel always wore a priestly coat since he was a child. Samuel is identified by the medium as an elohim because he wearing mantle of gods, as he retained his priestly identity beyond the veil. He is not an elohim simply because he is a ghost in the underworld; he is an elohim because he is still a priestly son of God and identified by his robe of a god.

To truly be adopted by Christ, Born Again, is actually to become a god, because that's what being a true son of God means.

Heiser argues that the fallen bene elohim (the territorial powers who rebelled) are sentenced to fall (Psalm 82:6–7). But redeemed humans are adopted as new sons of God through Christ, literally take their vacant seats in the divine council to rule with Jesus (1 Cor 6:3, Rev 2:26–27). LDS theology mirrors this concept of exaltation. Salvation alters a human's dynamic status, elevating them as literal family members rather than remaining lower-tier subjects.

The concept of sonship (ben) is defined by nature, image, and inheritance, 2 Peter 1:4 "partakers of the divine nature". To be a true "son" of any entity meant to bear the same fundamental nature and authority of that father who begot you. In ancient Near Eastern covenantal culture, adoption into a divine lineage meant being re-begotten into the nature of the Father. The divine sonship of the kings (Psalm 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14), Yahweh adopts the anointed king, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The act of coronation and divine adoption was expressed as a literal begetting into divine governance.

When early Christians spoke of becoming "sons of God", they understood that a true son inherits the rank, domain, and species-identity of the Father. Hence, the early doctrine of Theosis of the Church Fathers is explicitly linked being "Born Again". Believers are adopted into Christ to become "joint-heirs" (Romans 8:17), then whatever Christ inherits by nature, the adopted sons inherit by grace.

1 John 3:2 says, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is"

The logic of John 10 that Psalm 82 meant real gods is precisely why Jesus invokes it when accused of blasphemy for claiming to be a "Son of God" (John 10:34–36) The Charge "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33) Jesus's Response, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came... Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified... Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:34–36). If the sons of God in Psalm 82 are not real divine beings, Jesus's argument loses its point. Jesus stands in front of them as the direct fulfillment of Psalm 82:8, the true, uncorrupted Son of God has come down from the heavenly realm to judge the other elohim of the nations and adopt redeemed humanity into the divine family.

You can believe as you wish. It's just hoped you understand the argument before rejecting it.

Edited Sunday at 02:41 PM by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

On 8/15/2026 at 10:32 AM, Pyreaux said:

In modern Christian theology, these verses are routinely cited as absolute ontological proof of strict monotheism, the idea that literally no other divine beings exist in the universe in any sense. However, above such theologians are the scholars of the Ancient Near East, we would say most notably the late Dr. Michael Heiser, and also Latter-day Saint scholars, that highlight that modern reading misses the Hebrew rhetorical idiom.

I thought I would provide some links to the sources where some of this comes from.  First, for Michael Heiser:

Michael Heiser, Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible, Liberty University, 2008.  

Michael Heiser, Should the Plural אלהים of Psalm 82 Be Understood as Men or Divine Beings?, Annual Meeting, Evangelical Theological Society, 2010.

Michael Heiser, Jesus’ Quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34: A Different View of John‘s Theological Strategy,  2012 SBL regional.

And I'll add this one, because I think it is very important to the background of all of this:

Peter Hayman, "Monotheism-- A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?", as found in Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. XLII, No 1 (Spring 1991), pp. 1-15.

Peter Hayman's article is important to me because I read it back in the 90's not long after it was published, and it influenced me to dig deeper into this topic.  But the thing that really puzzled me (at first) about Hayman's article is that early on in his article he brought up the development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo.  

Hayman quotes Sefer Yesira (2:6), which the Sefaria Library website describes as follows: "Composed:  c.200 BCE  – c.200 CE.  Sefer Yetzirah (the 'Book of Creation') is the title of the earliest extant book of Jewish esotericism."  He says, "The Sefer Yesira has in [2:6] the following statement about how God created the world:  'He formed substance from chaos and made it with fire and it exists, and he hewed out great columns from intangible air'".  

Hayman continues:  "This statement is entirely congruous with what we find in Bereshit Rabba:  'R. Huna said, in the name of Bar Qappara: 'If it were not written explicitly in Scripture, it would not be possible to say it: God created the heaven and the earth.  From what?  From the earth was chaos (תֹהוּ), etc.'"  (Hayman, p. 2, italics in the original).

The quote above is from Bereshit Rabba 1:5.  The Sefaria Library website describes Bereshit Rabba as follows:  "Composed: Talmudic Israel,  400 CE.  Bereshit Rabbah is a talmudic-era midrash on the book of Genesis."

Hayman continues, "The position represented here by Sefer Yesira and Rab Huna represents no advance whatsoever on Genesis chapter one.  God creates order out of a pre-existing chaos; he does not create from nothing.  Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism."  He notes that the idea of creation ex-nihilo "came into Judaism from Christianity and Islam at the beginning of the Middle Ages and that even then it never really succeeded in establishing itself as the accepted Jewish doctrine on creation" (Hayman, p. 3).  

As I said above, it was puzzling to me at first what any of this had to do with the development of monotheism.  But I have since learned that the late second century AD development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (in Christian circles and later introduced into Judaism and Islam) has everything to do with the development of monotheism.  The development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo led to the idea that God "is so completely other in character"[1], making the journey to monotheism more complete.

Footnote [1] Hayman quoting from T. C. Vriezen on page 1 of his article.

Other studies have been published on the development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo since Hayman's article was published (the one by Gerhard May predated Hayman's article by over a decade, but it wasn't translated into English until 1994).  The scholarly consensus today is that the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was first introduced at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch.  And this teaching is contrary to the earliest teachings from Christians (and Jews) that matter is eternal and that God created all things from unformed matter. 

In addition , the development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo flips the biblical teaching that all humans are the same "kind" of being as God (Acts 17:28-29) on its head, because if humans are truly the “offspring [génos] of God” then the notion that there are other gods that coexist with God is evident, and the modern idea of monotheism can't be true in that environment.  And this is why modern Christian commentaries on Acts 17:28-29 try to come up with creative ways (no pun intended) to get around the true meaning of the text by claiming that Paul was only talking about God creating humans in those verses, and they never address what the text actually says.

[theplains]

On 8/15/2026 at 12:32 PM, Pyreaux said:

You can believe as you wish. It's just hoped you understand the argument before rejecting it.

"How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Defend the poor and fatherless: 
do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy" (Psalm 82:2–4).

So the beings addressed as "gods" are being condemned for exercising unjust judgment.

Two options:

1. Divine/heavenly beings interpretation

On this reading, the "gods" are heavenly beings who constitute God's divine council. God has assigned them 
authority to administer judgment, but they have acted corruptly and will therefore be judged.

This interpretation fits particularly well with verse 1:

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods".

It also explains why these "gods" can die like men in verse 7. They are supernatural beings who are being 
sentenced by God.

2. Human rulers/judges interpretation

Another interpretation is that "gods" refers to human rulers or judges. They are called "gods" because they
exercise delegated authority to judge on God's behalf.

This interpretation has an important connection to Exodus 21:6; 22:8–9, where elohim can be understood as 
referring to judges or authorities.

Strong's Concordance for H430.

How does Jesus use Psalm 82?

He's responding to Jewish leaders who accuse him of blasphemy because he said, "I and the Father are one" 
(John 10:30–33).

The key is that Jesus is not simply teaching that the Jews were gods (i.e. judges). He's making a tightly 
constructed argument from Psalm 82:6.

1. What Jesus is arguing

The exchange goes roughly like this:

Jesus says that he and the Father are one.
His opponents interpret this as Jesus, a man, making himself God.
They prepare to stone him for blasphemy.

Jesus answers by quoting Scripture:

"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)

Then he continues:

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of 
him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am 
the Son of God?" (John 10:35–36)

His argument is essentially: "If Scripture itself can use the word 'gods' for certain human figures to whom
God's word came, why is it blasphemous for me to call myself God's Son, especially given the works I am
doing?"

He's turning their accusation back on them.

Importantly, Jesus does not say, "You shall become gods." He is citing an existing designation from Psalm 82.

And verse 7 creates a problem for using Psalm 82 as a direct proof of human deification.

The sequence is:

v.6: "Ye are gods"
v.7: "But ye shall die like men"

So Psalm 82 is not straightforwardly saying "Human beings are currently mortal, but eventually they will 
become gods".

Rather, it is a judgment scene in which God addresses beings who have been given authority and declares 
that despite their elevated status, they are subject to God's judgment.

Jesus isn't saying:

"See, everyone is literally God, therefore I'm God too."

Rather, his argument is closer to "Your own Scriptures use divine language for beings who receive God's 
authority. So your charge of blasphemy cannot simply be based on the fact that I, a human being, am
speaking in uniquely divine terms."

And then Jesus makes the argument from the lesser to the greater.

If Scripture can call those people/beings "gods," how much more appropriate is it for the one "whom the 
Father sanctified and sent into the world" to say "I am the Son of God"?

There's an important irony.

Jesus' opponents say: "You, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33). Jesus responds by quoting 
a passage where God himself says: "Ye are gods."

So Jesus effectively says: "You're claiming that my language is inherently blasphemous, but your own 
Scripture uses elevated language for others".

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

"How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Defend the poor and fatherless: 
do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy" (Psalm 82:2–4).

So the beings addressed as "gods" are being condemned for exercising unjust judgment.

Two options:

1. Divine/heavenly beings interpretation

On this reading, the "gods" are heavenly beings who constitute God's divine council. God has assigned them 
authority to administer judgment, but they have acted corruptly and will therefore be judged.

This interpretation fits particularly well with verse 1:

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods".

It also explains why these "gods" can die like men in verse 7. They are supernatural beings who are being 
sentenced by God.

2. Human rulers/judges interpretation

Another interpretation is that "gods" refers to human rulers or judges. They are called "gods" because they
exercise delegated authority to judge on God's behalf.

This interpretation has an important connection to Exodus 21:6; 22:8–9, where elohim can be understood as 
referring to judges or authorities.

Strong's Concordance for H430.

How does Jesus use Psalm 82?

He's responding to Jewish leaders who accuse him of blasphemy because he said, "I and the Father are one" 
(John 10:30–33).

The key is that Jesus is not simply teaching that the Jews were gods (i.e. judges). He's making a tightly 
constructed argument from Psalm 82:6.

1. What Jesus is arguing

The exchange goes roughly like this:

Jesus says that he and the Father are one.
His opponents interpret this as Jesus, a man, making himself God.
They prepare to stone him for blasphemy.

Jesus answers by quoting Scripture:

"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)

Then he continues:

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of 
him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am 
the Son of God?" (John 10:35–36)

His argument is essentially: "If Scripture itself can use the word 'gods' for certain human figures to whom
God's word came, why is it blasphemous for me to call myself God's Son, especially given the works I am
doing?"

He's turning their accusation back on them.

Importantly, Jesus does not say, "You shall become gods." He is citing an existing designation from Psalm 82.

And verse 7 creates a problem for using Psalm 82 as a direct proof of human deification.

The sequence is:

v.6: "Ye are gods"
v.7: "But ye shall die like men"

So Psalm 82 is not straightforwardly saying "Human beings are currently mortal, but eventually they will 
become gods".

Rather, it is a judgment scene in which God addresses beings who have been given authority and declares 
that despite their elevated status, they are subject to God's judgment.

Jesus isn't saying:

"See, everyone is literally God, therefore I'm God too."

Rather, his argument is closer to "Your own Scriptures use divine language for beings who receive God's 
authority. So your charge of blasphemy cannot simply be based on the fact that I, a human being, am
speaking in uniquely divine terms."

And then Jesus makes the argument from the lesser to the greater.

If Scripture can call those people/beings "gods," how much more appropriate is it for the one "whom the 
Father sanctified and sent into the world" to say "I am the Son of God"?

There's an important irony.

Jesus' opponents say: "You, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33). Jesus responds by quoting 
a passage where God himself says: "Ye are gods."

So Jesus effectively says: "You're claiming that my language is inherently blasphemous, but your own 
Scripture uses elevated language for others".

It's the standard Evangelical counter-argument. You correctly identified Jesus’s use of an a fortiori (lesser-to-greater) argument in John 10, but it falls into a critical error.

Exodus 21:6 & 22:8–9 Do NOT Mean "Human Judges"

Appeals to Strong's H430 and the traditional claim that elohim refers to human judges is an outdated translation error. Modern Hebrew lexicography and Near Eastern scholarship (including Heiser, Gordon Wenham, and John Walton) have thoroughly debunked this.

Exodus 21:6 "His master shall bring him unto the elohim..." In ancient law codes, covenantal oaths were taken at a local shrine, described as going before the presence of God. Bringing someone to the elohim meant bringing them to the altar, not bringing them to human magistrates.

The claim that Exodus establishes a precedent for calling human judges elohim is an artificial lexical invention created solely to force Psalm 82 into a human mold.

"Human Judges" Destroys Jesus's A Fortiori Argument

Who is the "lesser group", "them unto whom the word of God came"?

Scenario A: They are Israelite "human judges" who are facing condemnation ruling their inherited Gentile nations poorly. God sarcastically or metaphorically calls wicked, oppressive human politicians "gods."

Jesus's Logic A: If God calls wicked human hypocrites 'gods' as a figure of speech, why are you mad that I call myself God's Son? Jesus lowers His sonship to win a legal loophole. He equates His title with a sarcastic label given to corrupt men. This gives His accusers no reason to not stone Him, because claiming to be God's son in the debased sense of being a corrupt magistrate completely abandons His claim in John 10:30 ("I and my Father are one").

Scenario B: They are the Divine Council, the real, heavenly elohim received God's word (or decree) at the council, were placed over the Gentile nations, but then rebelled.

Jesus's Logic B: If heavenly beings are legitimately classified as real elohim and sons of the Most High, how can you charge someone whom the Father sent directly down from that heavenly realm with blasphemy for saying 'I am the Son of God'? The argument is airtight.

You only assume "unto whom the word of God came" must mean mortal humans receiving scripture. But in reality, the elohim are the ones receiving that word first and mediate it. In Deuteronomy 33:2, Psalm 68:17, Acts 7:53, and Galatians 3:19 all state that the Law/word came to Israel through the heavenly council of holy ones/elohim at Sinai. The "watchers", "holy ones", "gods", mediated the word/decrees. 

"This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones" (Daniel 4:17)

"Die Like Men" Objection

The contrast proves immortality. Telling a mortal human "you will die like a human" is a meaningless. It only carries weight as a sentence of condemnation if it is spoken to beings who were naturally immortal (bene Elyon) and are now being stripped of their divine status due to rebellion.

Edited Monday at 05:42 PM by Pyreaux