Psalm 47: A Biblical Prayer to the Gods of

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Kevin,

Thanks for taking the time to critique my reading. As I suggested, I don

[David Bokovoy]

p.s.

I also suspect that some of the references to elohim in this psalm may have been added by a later editor, since Psalm 47 stands at the beginning of the Elohist psalter.

[USU78]

Also, who then is the God of Abraham in psalms 47. Yahweh, or these elohim?

The God of Abraham referred to in Psalm 47 is Yahweh. He appears in Deuteronomy 10:17 as the

[David Bokovoy]

Hello USU78,

David, I had always understood that the G-d of Abraham was called by him El Sh-dd-i, who may or may not be taken as Y-hw-h, depending upon your views (our LDS view being that the Master is both El Shaddai and Y-hw-h, only begotten Son of the great El/El-him and First in the Divine Council).

Personally, I think it is very difficult

[Qantas]

God was hardly

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Qantas,

I'm sorry if I have hurt your feelings. I have strong opinions and a playful personality, but I can assure you that I mean you no harm.

=="Radical Monotheists," I like that. Shows that you have some hostility to people who actually take God's word face value and disagree with you.

I certainly take God

[Markk]

Hi David,

This is what I mean when about being accountable?

QUOTE 

Deu 4:28 And there ye shall serve gods (elohim), the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. 

What does elohim refer to here?

Do you believe that these deities existed or exist?

Mark

John 1:12

[Benjamin McGuire]

I have a few comments. Kevin wrote:

Unless you have an argument thats soundly reinterprets the contextual verses, it seems the elohim, though plausibly plural in vs 7, are the givers, not the recipients of worship. Verses 8-9 unambiguously render elohim in the singular, twice referring to him as he, and as a being who sits on his throne. It would seem out of place for the preceding verse to demand worship of, not the Most High, but the choir of deities whose job is also to worship Jehovah.

I find some similarities between Psalms 47 and 82. In Psalm 82, for example, elohim is singular and then plural in the same verse (and contextually, this is the only way that the verse makes sense). David suggests that:

I also suspect that some of the references to elohim in this psalm may have been added by a later editor, since Psalm 47 stands at the beginning of the Elohist psalter.

And if this is the case, then I don't think that the change in plurality of the term is that significant in reading. Furthermore, this passage deals with an envisioned eschatology. YHWH Most High is become the King over all the earth (this parallels the end of Psalm 82, where elohim (sing. - and presumably YHWH) is asked to do this:

Arise, O God (elohim), judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Further, in verse 7 of Psalm 82, we have:

But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Compared to Psalm 47:9 (and I want to make it clear that the two identical words in English do come from different words in the Hebrew):

9The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted.

I am fairly confident that "the princes" is another reference to the elohim, and this aspect of the text has not been mentioned yet. Further, we have the inheritance motif. And this ties directly back to Deuteronomy 32 - as is also seen in Psalm 82. In the verse above, the elohim (sing.) is asked to inherit all the nations of the earth. Here, the elohim plural, receive their inheritances (i.e. their particular nation or people) from YHWH. Deuteronomy 32 reads (translation emended):

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God.

Given this additional stuff, I might suggest the following translation (agreeing with David):

Clap your hands, all you peoples;

shout gods (elohim) with loud songs of joy.

For the LORD (YHWH), the Most High, is awesome,

a great king over all the earth.

He subdued peoples under us,

and nations under our feet.

He chose our heritage for us,

the pride of Jacob whom he loves.

God (elohim) has gone up with a shout,

the LORD (YHWH) with the sound of a trumpet.

Sing O gods (elohim), Sing!

Sing to our king, Sing!

For God (elohim) is the king of all the earth;

sing praises with a psalm.

God (elohim) is king over the nations;

God (elohim) sits on his holy throne.

The princes of the peoples gather

with the people of the God (elohim) of Abraham.

For the shields of the earth belong to God (elohim);

he is highly exalted.

____

The two words translated "peoples" and "nations" are translated that way consistently, although they are interchangeable (as far as the author is concerned), and could just as easily be swtiched or one or the other used consistently in the translation. This leads, I think, to some confusion in the translation in the KJV of the last verse, with the "princes of the peoples" really being a reference to the "princes of the nations (of the earth). The whole thing strikes me as a bit of a performance, where the elohim of the other nations (i.e. the divine assembly) gather with the people of Israel and recognize YHWH as "king of all the earth". And this is why it is sometimes referred to as a Psalm of the enthronement of God. That such a Psalm exists tends to lead us back to the notion of an El apart from YHWH at some early point in Israelite theology.

The Psalm is broken into two sections, with the second paralleling the first. Here is are the pairs:

A Clap your hands, all you peoples; shout elohim with loud songs of joy.

B Elohim has gone up with a shout, YHWH with the sound of a trumpet.

A For YHWH, the Most High, is awesome, a great king over all the earth.

B Sing O elohim), Sing! Sing to our king, Sing! For God elohim is the king of all the earth; sing praises with a psalm.

A He subdued peoples under us, and nations under our feet.

B Elohim is king over the nations; Elohim sits on his holy throne.

A He chose our heritage for us, the pride of Jacob whom he loves.

B The princes of the peoples gather with the people of the elohim of Abraham.

For the shields of the earth belong to elohim; he is highly exalted.

In the beginning of the second part of the Psalm, YHWH is explicitly identified with elohim in the singular in this text. The message about the elohim is quite clear - it was YHWH who gave them dominion, and they are then subject to YHWH as the king of all the earth. The last section reiterates at the end a renewal of the special status of Israel - through the covenant relationship of Abraham - although now, the other elohim participate in this covenental relationship. This seems to me to be as much a performance as a Psalm.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Erik Johnson writes:

Daniel Peterson seems pleased with your work. At the risk of sounding cynical--perhaps if you can find a way to knock down Isaiah 43:10-11 he'll see that they put you on the BYU/FARMS payroll...

[Kevin Graham]

Perhaps a little clarity is in order. I do not challenge the possibility that verse 6 could be rendered

[Benjamin McGuire]

Qantas writes:

Something that I found a very interesting read was,

John 10:34-35

"Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'?

If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside"

--"This is a reference to the judges of Israel who,since they exercised the divine prerogative to judge (Deut 1:17), were called "gods"; cf Exodus 21:6, besides Psalm 82:6 from which the quotation comes."http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john10.htm#foot15

Notice how the "gods" are not deities. The title "god" is not just given to false idols, but to people, angels,etc. The term "god" is given to specific people to reflect their postion or power as noted above. But they are NOT deities.

In 1935, Semiticist Cyrus Gordon challenged the notion that "gods" in Hebrew could mean "judges". He claimed it was unnecessary and was nothing more than "theologically protecting God". Within 20 years, it would stop being a prevalent notion, and now is almost universally rejected - even by those within trinitarian theologies. You can read my take on this subject here:

http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Reconsidering_Psalms_82_6.html

I explain why such a reading is impossible in Psalm 82, and thus also in John 10. There is a fairly lengthy list of scholarly sources included - all of which agree with me on that point - even the evangelical scholars who find a different way to deal with the issue.

Further as relates to the issue of idols - it is true that the term elohim is used of what we would call idols. It is also true that these were apparently in widespread use in the Old Testament, and that their use was built into the Law of Moses. An example of this is Exodus 21:6 - and the ritual by which a slave accepted slavery for life:

then his master must take him before the gods. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

Here, elohim refers to teraph

[David Bokovoy]

Ben,

Thanks for your sharing your insights. As always, I really enjoy reading your contributions to these types of threads. These insights are particularly significant and, of course from my perspective, very exciting. I appreciate having someone so well-versed in these issues to share ideas with.

Kevin,

[David Bokovoy]

Here you go Mark, as promised:

You

[cksalmon]

This is a very important point that those who would deny the actual existence of the biblical gods should carefully consider.

Okay...now I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the OT argues for the "real" existence of gods in light of the fact that the OT routinely dismisses these other "elohiim" as, at least false and evil, if not the outright inventions of mankind?

The existence of lesser, evil, to-be-shunned gods doesn't seem to be the position for which LDS argue.

Are you suggesting:

(1) There are actually-existing false and evil gods?

OR

(2) There are actually-existing false and evil gods along with other true gods (who have no dominion on this earth)?

OR

(3) something else entirely?

It really sounds like you're championing the belief in the actual existence of "gods" that the God the Bible condemns as weak and false. How would belief in the existence of the weak, false, to-be-shunned, powerless, apparently-revolting-to-Yahweh gods support the truth of Mormonism's claim to an infinite regress of TRUE Gods--not weak, powerless, disgusting gods?

CKS

[Zakuska]

Benjamin said:

And if this is the case, then I don't think that the change in plurality of the term is that significant in reading. Furthermore, this passage deals with an envisioned eschatology. YHWH Most High is become the King over all the earth (this parallels the end of Psalm 82, where elohim (sing. - and presumably YHWH) is asked to do this:

To me this seems to Parallel Paul in Corinthians. The Lord finally puting all dominion under Christs feet. ie YHWH has over come.

David said to markk:

[David Bokovoy]

Hello cksalmon,

I think these questions were addressed to me, so I'm going to run with them:

==Are you suggesting that the OT argues for the "real" existence of gods

Yes.

==in light of the fact that the OT routinely dismisses these other "elohiim" as, at least false and evil, if not the outright inventions of mankind?

No. The OT only says that it is evil for Israel to worship these gods when she has a personal relationship with the God of gods. The OT also says that it is evil for all people to worship idols as gods.

==The existence of lesser, evil, to-be-shunned gods doesn't seem to be the position for which LDS argue.

The Bible doesn

[Kevin Graham]

OK, I think I understand your point better. You're not saying the passage says "praise the gods" in that they themselves should receive worship. You are simply saying that the passage, as a prayer in and of itself, exhorts the gods to join in on the praising of God Most High.

[Zakuska]

Intresting. Is that not what Catholics do when they petition their Patron saints to pray and petition God for them?

[Markk]

Hi David,

So then, in the Deut. passage what is "elohim" referring too? Is it referring to God, gods or deity, or man made images purporting to be real?

Do you believe these deities or elohim were/are real?

I'll address your questions as soon as we put this behind us.

Mark

John 1:12

[Vex]

Intresting. Is that not what Catholics do when they petition their Patron saints to pray and petition God for them?

I'm not the resident Catholic so those who are correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Catholics Pray to their patron saints that it's a mediary(sp?) to Jesus to patetion your problem/case/delimma before the lord.

Which wouldn't be the exact same as what is transpiring here. The Psalm used in a worship ceremony or within the temple (i'm assuming that it would be done in the temple considering the subject matter of the material included) would be quite similiar to "All Creatures of Our God and King"~ Where as it is a "song of the righteous is a prayer unto [God]." Whether or not it is to petition the Gods for any other reason than to praise The God of Gods.

[cksalmon]

David--

Thanks for your response. I understand what you're up to a bit better now.

And I think Markk's question is actually pretty relevant. What are your thoughts?

BTW...

The fact that the Bible is much more consistent with LDS theology than it is with Evangelical or Catholic perspectives is a fact

I really think you're stretching here to label this a fact--as if it were the unchallengeable, set-in-stone, foundational priniciple of correct biblical understanding.

Looks, on the whole, rather like a reading strategy--something we all have.

Best,

CKS

[Benjamin McGuire]

I wanted to add a couple of comments. First, to help explain I want to quote a couple of comments from Tigay's Deuteronomy (The JPS translation and commentary). First from Deuteronomy 32:7-8:

This means that when God was allotting nations to the divine beings, he made the same number of nations and territories as there were such beings. Verse 9 implies that He then assigned the other nations to those divine beings, and states explicitly that He kept Israel for Himself. This seems to be part of a concept hinted at elsewhere in the Bible and in postbiblical literature. When God organized the government of the world, He established two tiers: at the top, He Himself, "God of gods (elohei ha-elohim) and Lord of lords" (10:17), who reserved Israel for Himself, to govern personally; below Him, seventy angelic "divine beings" (benei elohim), to whom He allotted the other peoples. The conception is like that of a king or emperor governing the capital or heartland of his realm personally and assigning the provinces to subordinates.

Earlier, in his comments on Deuteronomy 4, Tigay noted that God "ordained that it [mankind] should worship idols and the heavenly bodies."

David noted:

The OT also says that it is evil for all people to worship idols as gods.

This comes into the text eventually - it is a gradual shift. Jeremiah was the first prophet to discuss the punishment of the nations for idolatry.

Zakuska writes:

To me this seems to Parallel Paul in Corinthians. The Lord finally puting all dominion under Christs feet. ie YHWH has over come.

New Testament eschatology is very dependant on the Old Testament. Psalm 82 for example mentions darkness, earthquakes, the stars of heaven falling from their places - these are the characteristics of the end of time in the New Testament, so it should not be surprising for us to see the New Testament writers portraying the returning Jesus in these same terms as well.

Finally Markk writes:

So then, in the Deut. passage what is "elohim" referring too? Is it referring to God, gods or deity, or man made images purporting to be real?

Do you believe these deities or elohim were/are real?

I'll address your questions as soon as we put this behind us.

It seems to me that David already answered these questions. For the first one, in the Deuteronomy passages, the Old Testament text is referring to divinities believed to be real existing beings, who were ruled by YHWH as the supreme divinity. The author of Deuteronomy believed that they were real, and that they all existed.

For your second question, I am really wanting to know why you think it matters? It seems to me that you fit completely the notion of the anti-critical apologist as explained by Larry Hurtado:

Wishing to preserve the religious and theological validity of traditional Christological claims, the anticritical view attempted to deny or minimize as far as possible the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion. On the other hand, the history-of-religions scholars were convinced that their demonstration of the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion proved that it was no longer to be treated as theologically valid or binding for modern Christians. In both views the assumption is the same: if something can be shown to have arisen through a historical process, then it cannot be divine "revelation" or have continuing theological validity.

He also wrote in the same book:

Thus for example, I do not think it is necessary for Jesus to have thought and spoken of himself in the same terms that his followers thought and spoke of him in the decades subsequent to his crucifixion in order for the convictions of those followers to be treated as valid by Christianity today. A good many may disagree, both among those who assert and among those who oppose traditional Christian beliefs. Most Christians will likely think that some degree of continuity between what Jesus thought of himself and what early Christians claimed about him is at least desirable and perhaps necessary for those claims to have religious validity.

In other words, I don't think it necessary to view religious teachings of the Bible as a single monolithic whole. It can be viewed as a process - as a spectrum of thought. The Old Testament does not have to reflect my theological understanding. You on the other hand, seem to believe that not only is the Bible text supposed to be consistent everywhere, but also that it is supposed to be consistent with extra-biblical Catholic teachings. And I see you as an anti-critical apologist in this sense.

Which makes me wonder why my personal theology has anything at all to do with how words in the Old Testament should be defined or read - particularly when we aren't talking about my theology, but about what the Old Testament text meant in its original context. Your theology also has no place in reading the Old Testament in its context. And if you think that it does, then I am going to consider your reading reflective not of the Old Testament, but of your current Catholic beliefs - and more or less completely irrelevant to the issues which David is raising.

Ben

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Mark,

Ben is of course correct, I already have explained my views.

The text seems rather clear. As a result of her disobedience, Israel will worship

[Markk]

Hi David,

OK, we are 1/2 way there, I should be a dentist...!

We can then say that elohim refers (in this case) to none existent things that are worshipped, in other words it is a generic term for God, or a false god, or something that has the power to command authority from a person/s , whether real or not. It can mean judges as in Exodus 21 and 22, a person who is not divine, yet hold power over a person/s. Or a false goddess as in Solomons case (1 Kings).

Then do you believe that these deities you teach about are real? While Ben seems to answer for you on why one shouldn't say what they believe when they teach something, I will say that one should for many reasons, accountability, credibility, common courtesy, it makes the conversation real, instead of a wooden string of quotes from men or women who believe who knows what, but I believe the most "important" reason is accountability.

Take care bro

Mark

John 1:12

[Benjamin McGuire]

Markk writes:

We can then say that elohim refers (in this case) to none existent things that are worshipped, in other words it is a generic term for God, or a false god, or something that has the power to command authority from a person/s , whether real or not. It can mean judges as in Exodus 21 and 22, a person who is not divine, yet hold power over a person/s. Or a false goddess as in Solomons case (1 Kings).

It cannot mean judges. It does not mean judges in Exodus 21 and Exodus 22. Nowhere in the Old Testament is the word elohim used of judges. It can be used of mortal human beings - but only in the context that those persons become a part of the divine assembly - as Moses did when he spoke with YHWH face to face.

Then do you believe that these deities you teach about are real?

No, he said that he didn't. I am not sure which of his posts you didn't read. But I thought it was pretty clear. I am not sure that I agree with you either. Should anyone discussing the meaning of a text be required to lay out all of their personal biases? Does it matter whether a person is agnostic, or Catholic, or Southern Baptist, or Mormon, or Islamic, when they are discussing the meaning of Canaanite myth in the Ugaritic texts?

I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that want to treat the Bible as not being a work of literature.

Ben