Know Ye Not That Ye Are Gods?

[maklelan]

Hey Maklelan,

If you're reading this thread...can you provide any information on the etymology of Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34?

Or anyone who has studied etymology?

Thanks.

Sure can. Both the Greek and the Hebrew mean "deity." it unequivocally refers to a divine being. It occasionally is used metaphorically, but there's no indication whatsoever that such is the case in these two texts. It never means "judges," "rulers," or has any lexical reference to human beings.

The Hebrew word elohim is a concretized abstract plural. Based on the fundamental root el, which probably had reference to power or might but quickly took on the meaning of deity, elohim was originally an abstract plural. This is a plural form that denoted the defining abstract qualities of the noun, thus "divinity." Over time it became so common in reference to deities rather than just to the abstraction that it became concretized.

The Greek is far more straightforward. The plural just means "deities" or "gods."

[Damien the Leper]

Sure can. Both the Greek and the Hebrew mean "deity." it unequivocally refers to a divine being. It occasionally is used metaphorically, but there's no indication whatsoever that such is the case in these two texts. It never means "judges," "rulers," or has any lexical reference to human beings.

The Hebrew word elohim is a concretized abstract plural. Based on the fundamental root el, which probably had reference to power or might but quickly took on the meaning of deity, elohim was originally an abstract plural. This is a plural form that denoted the defining abstract qualities of the noun, thus "divinity." Over time it became so common in reference to deities rather than just to the abstraction that it became concretized.

The Greek is far more straightforward. The plural just means "deities" or "gods."

Thanks, Daniel. Given what you have stated...the critics are incorrect in their 'rulers' or 'judges' interpretation and argument against LDS deification theology. I would be curious as to the ECFs theologies on deification and how they would relate to the 2 scripture verses I cited before.

[orion88]

Sure can. Both the Greek and the Hebrew mean "deity." it unequivocally refers to a divine being. It occasionally is used metaphorically, but there's no indication whatsoever that such is the case in these two texts. It never means "judges," "rulers," or has any lexical reference to human beings.

Here is another commentary by a scholar called Henry. He shows the

proper context of this particular Psalm. It is fairly long but it does a good

job to show that the judges/magistrates were the ones considered "gods"

and that the Psalm is not addressing "deities."

Psa 82:1-5

We have here,

God's supreme presidency and power in all councils and courts

asserted and laid down, as a great truth necessary to be believed

both by princes and subjects (Psa_82:1): God stands, as chief

director, in the congregation of the mighty, the mighty One, in

coetu fortis - in the councils of the prince, the supreme magistrate,

and he judges among the gods, the inferior magistrates; both the

legislative and the executive power of princes is under his eye and

his hand. Observe here, 1. The power and honour of magistrates; they

are the mighty. They are so in authority, for the public good (it is

a great power that they are entrusted with), and they ought to be

so in wisdom and courage. They are, in the Hebrew dialect, called

gods; the same word is used for these subordinate governors that is

used for the sovereign ruler of the world. They are elohim. Angels

are so called both because they are great in power and might and

because God is pleased to make use of their service in the government

of this lower world; and magistrates in an inferior capacity are

likewise the ministers of his providence in general, for the keeping

up of order and peace in human societies, and particularly of his

justice and goodness in punishing evil-doers and protecting those that

do well. Good magistrates, who answer the ends of magistracy, are as

God; some of his honour is put upon them; they are his viceregents,

and great blessings to any people. A divine sentence is in the lips

of the king, Pro_16:10. But, as roaring lions and ranging bears, so

are wicked rulers over the poor people, Pro_28:15. 2. A good form and

constitution of government intimated, and that is a mixed monarchy like

ours; here is the might one, the sovereign, and here is his congregation,

his privy-council, his parliament, his bench of judges, who are called

the gods. 3. God's incontestable sovereignty maintained in and over all

the congregations of the mighty. God stands, he judges among them; they

have their power from him and are accountable to him. By him kings reign.

He is present at all their debates, and inspects all they say and do,

and what is said and done amiss will be called over again, and they

reckoned with for their mal-administrations. God has their hearts in

his hands, and their tongues too, and he directs them which way soever

he will, Pro_21:1. So that he has a negative voice in all their resolves,

and his counsels shall stand, whatever devices are in men's hearts. He

makes what use he pleases of them, and serves his own purposes and designs

by them; though their hearts little think so, Isa_10:7. Let magistrates

consider this and be awed by it; God is with them in the judgment, 2Ch_19:6;

Deu_1:17. Let subjects consider this and be comforted with it; for good

princes and good judges, who mean well, are under a divine direction, and

bad ones, who mean ever so ill, are under a divine restraint.

A charge given to all magistrates to do good with their power, as they

will answer it to him by whom they are entrusted with it, Psa_82:3, Psa_82:4.

1. They are to be the protectors of those who lie exposed to injury and the

patrons of those who want advice and assistance: Defend the poor, who have

no money wherewith to make friends or fee counsel, and the fatherless, who,

while they are young and unable to help themselves, have lost those who

would have been the guides of their youth. Magistrates, as they must be

fathers to their country in general, so particularly to those in it who are

fatherless. Are they called gods? Herein they must be followers of him, they

must be fathers of the fatherless. Job was so, Job_29:12. 2. They are to

administer justice impartially, and do right to the afflicted and needy, who,

being weak and helpless, have often wrongs done them; and will be in danger

of losing all if magistrates do not, ex officio - officially, interpose for

their relief. If a poor man has an honest cause, his poverty must be no

prejudice to his cause, how great and powerful soever those are that contend

with him. 3. They are to rescue those who have already fallen into the hands

of oppressors and deliver them. (Psa_82:4): Rid them out of the hand of the

wicked. Avenge them of their adversary, Luk_18:3. These are clients whom there

is nothing to be got by, no pay for serving them, no interest by obliging them;

yet these are those whom judges and magistrates must concern themselves for,

whose comfort they must consult and whose cause they must espouse.

A charge drawn up against bad magistrates, who neglect their duty and

abuse their power, forgetting that God standeth among them, Psa_82:2, Psa_82:5.

Observe, 1. What the sin is they are here charged with; they judge unjustly,

contrary to the rules of equity and the dictates of their consciences, giving

judgment against those who have right on their side, out of malice and ill-will,

or for those who have an unrighteous cause, out of favour and partial affection.

To do unjustly is bad, but to judge unjustly is much worse, because it is doing

wrong under colour of right; against such acts of injustice there is least fence

for the injured and by them encouragement is given to the injurious. It was as

great an evil as any Solomon saw under the sun when he observed the place of

judgment, that iniquity was there, Ecc_3:16; Isa_5:7. They not only accepted the

persons of the rich because they were rich, though that is bad enough, but (which

is much worse) they accepted the persons of the wicked because they were wicked;

they not only countenanced them in their wickedness, but loved them the better

for it, and fell in with their interests. Woe unto thee, O land! when thy judges

are such as these. 2. What was the cause of this sin. They were told plainly

enough that it was their office and duty to protect and deliver the poor; it was

many a time given them in charge; yet they judge unjustly, for they know not,

neither will they understand. They do not care to hear their duty; they will not

take pains to study it; they have no desire to take things right, but are

governed by interest, not by reason or justice. A gift in secret blinds their

eyes. They know not because they will not understand. None so blind as those that

will not see. They have baffled their own consciences, and so they walk on in

darkness, not knowing nor caring what they do nor whither they go. Those that

walk on in darkness are walking on to everlasting darkness. 3. What were the

consequences of this sin: All the foundations of the earth (or of the land) are

out of course. When justice is perverted what good can be expected? The earth and

all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved, as the psalmist speaks in a like case,

Psa_75:3. The miscarriages of public persons are public mischiefs.

Tony

[Hannah Rebekah]

I'd be interested to know what incongruities you see, ie. what beliefs do you think are fundamental to druidry that conflict with what beliefs you see as fundamental to being LDS?

One thing that I think should be said is that I am a very weird individual in any company. I don't think I truly fit in anywhere.

However, where I see a conflict, I prioritize the scriptures over anything else in my cosmology.

Nathair,

You fit in...just because you are a child of God. There is no such thing as normal. Instead of describing yourself as weird you might like to adopt another word...Eccentric. My son and I joke about this when we do something strange and the definition of that word that we like is "uniquely different."

"Eccentricity is often associated with genius, intellectually giftedness, or creativity. The individual's eccentric behavior is perceived to be the outward expression of their unique intelligence or creative impulse.In this vein, the eccentric's habits are incomprehensible not because they are illogical or the result of madness, but because they stem from a mind so original that it cannot be conformed to societal norms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentricity_%28behavior%29

Accept only the good definitions of these types of labels and dance to your own music.

[volgadon]

Here is another commentary by a scholar called Henry. He shows the

proper context of this particular Psalm. It is fairly long but it does a good

job to show that the judges/magistrates were the ones considered "gods"

and that the Psalm is not addressing "deities."

Tony

You mean Matthew Henry, the 18th c. Presbyterian theologian?

[wenglund]

Thanks, Daniel. Given what you have stated...the critics are incorrect in their 'rulers' or 'judges' interpretation and argument against LDS deification theology. I would be curious as to the ECFs theologies on deification and how they would relate to the 2 scripture verses I cited before.

King James 1, who many not necessarily be consider an ECF, though still ancient (born in 1556)), and who was steeped in Presbyterianism and Calvinism, spoke to the divine right of Kings HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 14, 2011 by wenglund

[diglot]

Here is another commentary by a scholar called Henry. He shows the

proper context of this particular Psalm. It is fairly long but it does a good

job to show that the judges/magistrates were the ones considered "gods"

and that the Psalm is not addressing "deities."

...

Tony

Matthew Henry's commentary isn't exactly a resource I would reference in an academic exchange. It's like referencing the T.V. Guide to discuss the science behind how a television works.

[volgadon]

Orion, would you mind showing me a Jewish source, one not interpreting the Bible, which terms judges gods?

[maklelan]

Here is another commentary by a scholar called Henry. He shows the

proper context of this particular Psalm. It is fairly long but it does a good

job to show that the judges/magistrates were the ones considered "gods"

and that the Psalm is not addressing "deities."

That would be Matthew Henry's 300 year-old commentary. What you describe as the "proper context" is really just a devotional exposition. It doesn't even provide any evidence for its assertions, it just nakedly asserts things.

Psa 82:1-5

We have here,

God's supreme presidency and power in all councils and courts

asserted and laid down, as a great truth necessary to be believed

both by princes and subjects (Psa_82:1): God stands, as chief

director, in the congregation of the mighty,

This is a mistranslation. The word is "gods," not "mighty." Elohim never means "mighty."

the mighty One, in

coetu fortis - in the councils of the prince, the supreme magistrate,

and he judges among the gods, the inferior magistrates; both the

legislative and the executive power of princes is under his eye and

his hand. Observe here, 1. The power and honour of magistrates; they

are the mighty. They are so in authority, for the public good (it is

a great power that they are entrusted with), and they ought to be

so in wisdom and courage. They are, in the Hebrew dialect, called

gods; the same word is used for these subordinate governors that is

used for the sovereign ruler of the world. They are elohim.

Angels

are so called both because they are great in power and might and

because God is pleased to make use of their service in the government

of this lower world; and magistrates in an inferior capacity are

likewise the ministers of his providence in general, for the keeping

up of order and peace in human societies, and particularly of his

justice and goodness in punishing evil-doers and protecting those that

do well. Good magistrates, who answer the ends of magistracy, are as

God; some of his honour is put upon them; they are his viceregents,

and great blessings to any people. A divine sentence is in the lips

of the king, Pro_16:10. But, as roaring lions and ranging bears, so

are wicked rulers over the poor people, Pro_28:15. 2. A good form and

constitution of government intimated, and that is a mixed monarchy like

ours; here is the might one, the sovereign, and here is his congregation,

his privy-council, his parliament, his bench of judges, who are called

the gods. 3. God's incontestable sovereignty maintained in and over all

the congregations of the mighty. God stands, he judges among them; they

have their power from him and are accountable to him. By him kings reign.

He is present at all their debates, and inspects all they say and do,

and what is said and done amiss will be called over again, and they

reckoned with for their mal-administrations. God has their hearts in

his hands, and their tongues too, and he directs them which way soever

he will, Pro_21:1. So that he has a negative voice in all their resolves,

and his counsels shall stand, whatever devices are in men's hearts. He

makes what use he pleases of them, and serves his own purposes and designs

by them; though their hearts little think so, Isa_10:7. Let magistrates

consider this and be awed by it; God is with them in the judgment, 2Ch_19:6;

Deu_1:17. Let subjects consider this and be comforted with it; for good

princes and good judges, who mean well, are under a divine direction, and

bad ones, who mean ever so ill, are under a divine restraint.

A charge given to all magistrates to do good with their power, as they

will answer it to him by whom they are entrusted with it, Psa_82:3, Psa_82:4.

1. They are to be the protectors of those who lie exposed to injury and the

patrons of those who want advice and assistance: Defend the poor, who have

no money wherewith to make friends or fee counsel, and the fatherless, who,

while they are young and unable to help themselves, have lost those who

would have been the guides of their youth. Magistrates, as they must be

fathers to their country in general, so particularly to those in it who are

fatherless. Are they called gods? Herein they must be followers of him, they

must be fathers of the fatherless. Job was so, Job_29:12. 2. They are to

administer justice impartially, and do right to the afflicted and needy, who,

being weak and helpless, have often wrongs done them; and will be in danger

of losing all if magistrates do not, ex officio - officially, interpose for

their relief. If a poor man has an honest cause, his poverty must be no

prejudice to his cause, how great and powerful soever those are that contend

with him. 3. They are to rescue those who have already fallen into the hands

of oppressors and deliver them. (Psa_82:4): Rid them out of the hand of the

wicked. Avenge them of their adversary, Luk_18:3. These are clients whom there

is nothing to be got by, no pay for serving them, no interest by obliging them;

yet these are those whom judges and magistrates must concern themselves for,

whose comfort they must consult and whose cause they must espouse.

A charge drawn up against bad magistrates, who neglect their duty and

abuse their power, forgetting that God standeth among them, Psa_82:2, Psa_82:5.

Observe, 1. What the sin is they are here charged with; they judge unjustly,

contrary to the rules of equity and the dictates of their consciences, giving

judgment against those who have right on their side, out of malice and ill-will,

or for those who have an unrighteous cause, out of favour and partial affection.

To do unjustly is bad, but to judge unjustly is much worse, because it is doing

wrong under colour of right; against such acts of injustice there is least fence

for the injured and by them encouragement is given to the injurious. It was as

great an evil as any Solomon saw under the sun when he observed the place of

judgment, that iniquity was there, Ecc_3:16; Isa_5:7. They not only accepted the

persons of the rich because they were rich, though that is bad enough, but (which

is much worse) they accepted the persons of the wicked because they were wicked;

they not only countenanced them in their wickedness, but loved them the better

for it, and fell in with their interests. Woe unto thee, O land! when thy judges

are such as these. 2. What was the cause of this sin. They were told plainly

enough that it was their office and duty to protect and deliver the poor; it was

many a time given them in charge; yet they judge unjustly, for they know not,

neither will they understand. They do not care to hear their duty; they will not

take pains to study it; they have no desire to take things right, but are

governed by interest, not by reason or justice. A gift in secret blinds their

eyes. They know not because they will not understand. None so blind as those that

will not see. They have baffled their own consciences, and so they walk on in

darkness, not knowing nor caring what they do nor whither they go. Those that

walk on in darkness are walking on to everlasting darkness. 3. What were the

consequences of this sin: All the foundations of the earth (or of the land) are

out of course. When justice is perverted what good can be expected? The earth and

all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved, as the psalmist speaks in a like case,

Psa_75:3. The miscarriages of public persons are public mischiefs.

Tony

No, elohim has been repeatedly shown by modern scholars to only refer to divine beings. Some good publications in light of the current discussion are Joel S. Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim; Cyrus Gordon, "Elohim in Its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” Journal of Biblical Literature 54 (1935): 139-44; A. E. Draffkorn, “Ilani/Elohim,” Journal of Biblical Literature 76 (1957): 216-24; Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” Hebrew Union College Annual 14 (1939): 30 (n. 3); Robinson, “The Council of Yahweh,”Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1944): 155; Cooke, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 35.1 (1964): 25; Rosenberg, “Yahweh Becomes King,” Journal of Biblical Literature 85. 3 (September 1966): 306; Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm 82,” Hebrew Union College Annual 40/41 (1969–1970): 126; Simon B. Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God – Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy,” Revue Biblique 102.4 (1995): 532–59; Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 10–13; Kee, “The Heavenly Council and its Type-scene,” 262.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Thanks for all the references, maklelan! *saves for further research*

Quick question: does the fundamental root el have any particular gender necessarily associated with it, or was it always an abstract neuter attribute which came to function as a descriptive title? That is, could el refer to female deities as well as male?

[maklelan]

Thanks for all the references, maklelan! *saves for further research*

Quick question: does the fundamental root el have any particular gender necessarily associated with it, or was it always an abstract neuter attribute which came to function as a descriptive title? That is, could el refer to female deities as well as male?

Not the singular el, but there's no indication of a word for "goddess" in Hebrew. In 1 Kgs 11:33, however, the word elohim is used in reference to the singular goddess Ashtoreth, adding further support to understanding elohim as a morphologically abstract noun (the abstraction is the same whether the deity is feminine or masculine).

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Cool! Thanks.

[Damien the Leper]

Not the singular el, but there's no indication of a word for "goddess" in Hebrew. In 1 Kgs 11:33, however, the word elohim is used in reference to the singular goddess Ashtoreth, adding further support to understanding elohim as a morphologically abstract noun (the abstraction is the same whether the deity is feminine or masculine).

What is the relationship between Ashtoreth and Asherah (Canaanite), Hokhma, Shekinah, and Wisdom (Proverbs 8 )?

Edited October 14, 2011 by Valentinus

[maklelan]

What is the relationship between Ashtoreth and Asherah (Canaanite), Hokhma, Shekinah, and Wisdom (Proverbs 8 )?

Ashtoreth is also known as Astarte and is a goddess of sexuality, fertility, and war. Asherah is a fertility/mother goddess from many of the same regions. Hokhma is the Hebrew word for "wisdom," which was personified in many later Hebrew Bible texts, such as Proverbs 8. While the word is feminine is form, that's largely incidental in the early texts, and expositions on her femininity come later. Shekinah means "glory," and Volgadon will be better prepared to speak about its use in early and medieval Judaism.

[Zakuska]

Sure can. Both the Greek and the Hebrew mean "deity." it unequivocally refers to a divine being. It occasionally is used metaphorically, but there's no indication whatsoever that such is the case in these two texts. It never means "judges," "rulers," or has any lexical reference to human beings.

The Hebrew word elohim is a concretized abstract plural. Based on the fundamental root el, which probably had reference to power or might but quickly took on the meaning of deity, elohim was originally an abstract plural. This is a plural form that denoted the defining abstract qualities of the noun, thus "divinity." Over time it became so common in reference to deities rather than just to the abstraction that it became concretized.

The Greek is far more straightforward. The plural just means "deities" or "gods."

I like what Dr. Heiser has done with his site.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

Edited October 15, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Here is another commentary by a scholar called Henry. He shows the

proper context of this particular Psalm. It is fairly long but it does a good

job to show that the judges/magistrates were the ones considered "gods"

and that the Psalm is not addressing "deities."

Psa 82:1-5

<snip>

Tony

Mathew Henry is a pompus wind bag trying to maintain pre concieved notions. He spends so much time explaining what a text can't possibly mean that by the time he gets around to explaining what he thinks it does mean that you get so confused that you can't make heads or tails of what the text plainly says.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Zakuska