This is a guest series by Dr. Drew Grumbles. See Part 1 Here, Part 2 Here, Part 3a Here, Part 3b Here, Part 4a Here, Part 4b Here, Part 5a Here, and Part 5b Here.
Thus far we have traversed many paths leading to our central destination, the view that other gods besides YHWH do not exist. We have considered the hermeneutical rule of interpreting clear texts in light of the unclear. We have looked more philosophically at the definition of the divine and angelic natures. Then, in the last few essays, we have exegeted the clear texts from Old and New Testaments which proclaim that one God exists. However, less clear texts can lead readers astray. Perhaps for some readers the exasperating question remains, “Doesn’t the Bible mention other gods?” Indeed, even the Lord Jesus makes some reference to “gods.” This essay argues that such texts need not bring unease to the reader who holds that only one God exists. Bible readers have known about texts like Psalm 82, Psalm 8:5, and Psalm 136:2 for a long time, yet do not feel these texts threaten their monotheistic beliefs.
To provide a lens for how to interpret these texts, we can look to our fathers in the faith. Past theologians see these references to the elohim as analogical.[1] The biblical writers call these beings (normally angels, but sometimes men) elohim, but do not affirm their possession of a divine nature. The Bible names them elohim to express their unusual status, authority, or majesty. Humans use analogical language regularly. One may comment after a sermon, “That was some meat!” Speaker and recipient both understand the analogy. The sermon does not need to be refrigerated lest it perish. The point of analogy lies in how meat fills the stomach and the sermon fills the soul. No other points of analogy remain between sermon and food. The book does not share the same nature as “meat.” This is obvious to us, yet some find analogical language difficult when reading the Bible. The argument goes that the text clearly, or “literally,” says beings are “gods,” and therefore they must be! Yet we must ask to what the analogy points. In this case, God (elohim) has archetypal majesty and authority. To call other beings gods (elohim) means to say they also have authority in an ectypal, or analogical, manner. This does not imply at all that the so-called gods are like God in any other way nor that they possess a divine nature. Their being, or ontology, is not like God in any way. Therefore they are not gods.
Two previously-quoted writers communicate this understanding. Thomas Goodwin says, “But, in the second place, they are said to be principalities and powers, as amongst themselves, so in respect of their government of the affairs of this world. . . . You therefore find that the angels, both good and bad, are called gods; it is a title you know given to magistrates . . . . But ye have good angels and bad angels called gods as well as magistrates here below, and they are therefore called so because they are rulers.”[2] Goodwin shows that angels and men are given the title of gods to signify rulership. Likewise, Turretin says, “The question is not whether there are many Gods so called . . . . Rather the question is whether there are more than one in reality and as to essence. The question is not whether there are more participatively and improperly (for we confess that in this sense even angels and magistrates are often called ‘gods’ in the Scriptures . . . . Rather the question is whether there are more properly and originally (which we deny).”[3] Notice that Turretin says angels and magistrates are called gods “improperly,” a technical term meaning they are not gods by nature but by analogy. As we examine elohim texts, we should have this framework in mind. We begin with Psalm 82.
Psalm 82
In this article we will examine the Psalm overall and refute the reasons why the “other gods” view says this text cannot be about men. In the following article, we will positively set for the proposal that the elohim are human rulers, including a look at the inspired commentary in John 10.
Psalm 82 clearly refers to some beings as elohim. God (YHWH), this passage declares, takes his place amidst the elohim. The Lord condemns the “gods” for their injustice and threatens them with death. A prevalent pre-modern interpretation maintains that elohim indicates human rulers.[4] Calvin takes this stance and even refers to medieval rabbis like Kimchi (Radak).[5] As he puts it, “[T]he name gods is to be understood of judges, on whom God has impressed special marks of his glory. To apply it to angels is a fancy too strained to admit of serious consideration.”[6] As far back as Augustine, some exegetes held that these “gods” were men.[7] In contrast, most OT scholars today hold that the Psalm speaks of supernatural beings.[8] Yet even if we were to admit that the Psalm speaks of angels as “gods,” the existence of other “real gods” does not follow. We have no concern over the Bible at times analogically referring to angels and demons as “gods,” so long as one understands why they are so-called. As explained before, the analogical understanding diverges greatly from a position that the beings are “real gods.”[9] Even so, this essay argues for the older view that the “gods” of Psalm 82 are human rulers, not angels. We next tackle two of the main arguments against the magistrates view.
“You Shall Die”
First, the “other gods” proponents state that this text cannot mention human rulers because the Psalm threatens death. Psalm 82:7 says, “like mankind you shall die, and fall like any one of the princes.” If men are already mortal, what teeth does the threat have? The reprimand only works if YHWH threatens angelic beings with the same fate as mankind. So goes the argument. Kidner calls this consideration “fatal” to the human judges view.[10] Interestingly, this verse uses the Hebrew word adam, which can generically refer to mankind, but can also refer to the first man, Adam. One can consider an intriguing option that the Lord threatens the fate of Adam upon these beings, whoever or whatever they are.
In response, the elohim need not be divine beings for this threat to hold legitimacy. Two possibilities explain the threat against magistrates. One, the magistrates may pridefully think themselves immune to the like suffering of the lower class.[11] YHWH, therefore, replies to them that they are but men like all men. Their status, wealth, and power will not protect them from death. Calvin even surmises the possibility that in v. 6 the judges appeal to their dignity as a shield from destruction.[12] Nevertheless, God says to them, in Calvin’s words, “. . . you have not on that account ceased to be men, subject to mortality.”[13] As a second option, perhaps YHWH threatens death as a result of a specific sin, just like with the first Adam. Here the use of adam may shed light. Two other OT passages, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, reveal a similar imagery of an Adamic figure falling and/or dying due to pride in his status as “god.” Ezekiel 28 deals with the king of Tyre, a judge and ruler. The magistrate reveals his pride when he claims to be God [El] and sit in the seat of God [elohim] (Ezek 28:2). Ezekiel corrects the king, “But you are man [adam], not God [El].” God therefore pronounces judgment, “You shall die” (Ezek 28:8).[14] The text goes on to describe the king using imagery of Adam in the garden, from his prideful height to his painful death (Ezek 28:12–19). We find a similar text in Isaiah 14 with the king of Babylon. Due to his pride, he also falls. Though Isaiah uses the word for “fall” rather than “die” (Isa 14:12), he also uses imagery of Adam in the garden (14:12–14) and includes the desire to be like the Most High [Elyon], the same term used in Ps 82:6.
When we consider these prophetic texts together with Psalm 82, we notice several commonalities. The texts each reveal Adamic imagery (Adam-like figures), a pride in the security of thinking one is an elohim, and the prophecy of certain falling and death. One may object that in Psalm 82 the Lord calls these beings elohim, so analogically, they are “gods,” not just reckoning themselves so. Yet the text reveals amongst these beings, too, an inappropriate security. For one, they failed to perform their task (Ps 82:2–5), implying a complacency of status. Second, God’s threat says, “nevertheless” (אָכֵן, a particle of contrast), and “like any prince” (כְאַחַד הַשָּׂרִים). These details imply that these creatures did not expect to face the same fate as any other Adam or prince. This fits with them understanding themselves to be analogically god-like. Moreover, the mention of being “sons of the Most High” may be a reminder that, though they are high as rulers, they are still under the Most High.[15] They thought their prominent status would bring security in the face of disobedience to God’s law, but like the kings of Tyre and Babylon, their error costs them dearly.
Rather than sounding like an empty threat because these “gods” are men, the threat of death makes more sense when levied against humans rather than supernatural beings. After all, in what sense can angels or spirit creatures “die like men”? Luke 20:36 seems to indicate that angels cannot die.[16] Angels do not have bodies. Do their spirits get destroyed? Are they merely “separated from God”? Adam’s death took place in an overtly physical manner—his body decayed and returned to dust (Gen 3:19). Angels cannot in this way “die like men/Adam.” If Psalm 82 implies angelic death, one must labor to explain how “death like men” applies. In contrast, the magistrates indeed “die like men” because they are men.
A Council of Elohim
A second cardinal argument from the “other gods” position propounds that Ps 82:1 speaks of a council of elohim. How can God, they protest, condemn magistrates if he sits amidst other elohim? Surely this must reveal an instance of a “divine council” rather than a room of justices. Upon closer inspection, notice the text states that God [elohim] stands “among the assembly of El.” Then, in parallel, it says, “in the midst of the gods [elohim] he judges.” In the first line, the writer uses the singular El rather than the plural elim or elohim. Thus, while many translate this as “divine council,” that rendering uses El as an adjective rather than a noun. Notably, El occurs twenty-four times in the OT with the meaning of “god.”[17]In no case besides Psalm 82 do the ESV translators use El as an adjective like “divine.”[18] Always the word translates as “god.” Thus, the “council” need not be an assembly of divine beings necessarily, but God [El] summoning an assembly. The ESV interprets by its translation, assuming either that the assembly is made up of elim or that readers will take “divine council” simply to refer to YHWH’s divinity, i.e. that God, the divine one, holds an assembly. In this case, the verse merely states, “God [Elohim] is standing in the assembly of God [El].”[19] God stands amidst the assembly he called, not necessarily amidst other divine beings. In addition, even if, like vanGemeren, we see parallels to Canaanite mythology (El assembling his pantheon; gods as sons of Elyon), in no way does the Psalm necessarily assert the reality of these “gods.”[20] The verse could merely state that God gathers an assembly as a polemic against how the Canaanite El would gather one for himself.
What does it mean, then, that YHWH stands “amidst the elohim holding judgment”? If these are human magistrates, how does God “stand amidst” them and judge them? Calvin takes this as a poetic description of God’s sovereignty even over the judges. He rules over them and they must give account to him.[21] We can imagine such an assembly where, ironically, God brings the judges to the judgment bar. He stands amidst them to set forth their errors and try them. Ultimately, he pronounces their death sentence for their failure to properly rule (Ps 82:7).[22]
[1] Benjamin Keach, Tropologia, (London: City Press, 1858), 97, writes, “Elohim, when taken properly, belongs to none, but the only true and eternal God . . . . But metaphorically this name is attributed to creatures also, as, 1. To Angels . . . 2. To men of eminent dignity . . . .”
[2] Thomas Goodwin, Works of Thomas Goodwin, Vol. I (Edinburgh, UK: James Nichol, 1861), 489. Emphasis mine.
[3] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. I, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992), 181.
[4] Christopher Ash mentions the following “older writers” (patristic, Reformation, and Puritan) who take the magistrates view: Augustine, Theodoret of Cyrus, Luther, Calvin, Dickson. Modern writers who support the view include Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Kirkpatrick, Spurgeon, Grogan, Motyer, and Harman. See Christopher Ash, The Psalms: A Christ-Centered Commentary, Vol. III (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 417.
[5] John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Vol. III, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), 328.
[6] Calvin, Psalms, Vol. III, 330.
[7] Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, Vol. VIII, NPNF 1, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012), 395, says, “Far however be it from us to understand by these Gods the gods of the Gentiles, or idols, or any creature in heaven or earth except men . . . .” Augustine does not believe they are rulers.
[8] See, for example, Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150, TOTC 16 (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1975), 327–330; Tremper Longman III, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC 15–16 (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2014), 305–308; Willem vanGemeren, Psalms, rev. ed., EBC 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 623–627. Ash, Psalms, Vol. III, 418 fn. 5, also lists Tucker and Grant, Goldingay, Alter, Mays, Dahood, Tate, Anderson, and Kraus.
[9] Ash calls the elohim “. . . spiritual beings, superhuman but subdivine (angels, evil spirits, the idol-gods of the nations). . .” (Ash, Psalms, Vol. III, 417). He takes something of a hybrid view that the Psalm speaks of human rulers who are, when evil, under influence of evil spirits (Ash, Psalms, Vol. III, 418–420).
[10] Kidner, Psalms 73–150, 329–330.
[11] Calvin, Psalms, Vol. III, 329, writes, “So infatuated are they by their own splendour and magnificence, as to imagine that the whole world was made only for them.”
[12] Calvin, Psalms, Vol. III, 334.
[13] Calvin, Psalms, Vol. III, 335.
[14] Henry, ad loc. Ps 82:6–7, also connects Ps 82:6–7 to Ezekiel 28.
[15] Ash, Psalms, Vol. III, 424.
[16] Luke 20:36 (ESV), “[F]or they [the son of the resurrection] cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
[17] Five other times the word occurs, but it means something like “power,” e.g. Prov 3:27.
[18] Psalm 89:6 (ESV) may be the only case that comes close, translated as, “Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord?” However, the underlying term for “heavenly beings” is actually בְנֵי אֵלִים, “sons of Elim.” First, notice that the term is elim (a plural form) not El (singular). Elimis most likely a synonym of elohim, thus the plural form denotes a singular referent, and this should be translated, “sons of God.” Therefore, there is no reason to use elim as an adjective (“divine”) in Ps 89:6.
[19] Likewise, see Ash, Psalms, Vol. III, 422. Divine council proponents often point to 1 Kings 22:19–22. Discussion of this text could be its own section. For now, we can note that the two texts use different terms. In 1 Kgs 22, YHWH sits on his throne surrounded by the host of heaven (צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם). Is this an army, angels, or astral bodies? (Proponents also use Neh 9:6 as a text arguing for the “host of heaven” as supernatural beings who worship YHWH). Moreover, each “being” in heaven speaks to each other (cf. the seraphim in Isaiah 6), but it is “the spirit” (הָרוּחַ) who/that comes forth to respond to YHWH’s invitation. In v. 24, he is called the spirit of YHWH (רוּחַ־יְהוָה). Is the spirit of YHWH one of the “gods” in a supposed divine council? Notice also that 1 Kings 22:19–22 does not use elohim but repeates the name YHWH, while Psalm 82 uses elohim and El. In short, the evidence is far from clear that 1 Kings 22 and Psalm 82 speak of the same “divine council.”
[20] See vanGemeren, Psalms, 623, 626. VanGemeren writes rather vaguely as to whether the Psalm admits the existence of pagan deities. Moffitt claims vanGemeren for his position, but the commentator adenies that the gods are principalities of other nations, instead claiming the “gods” are pagan deities (vanGemeren, Psalms, 624). He even makes statements like, “. . . one day the God who judged the non-gods to extinction will advance his judgment on earth” (vanGemeren, Psalms, 626). For Moffitt’s claim, see https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/five-hundred-years-of-the-divine-council-in-christian-reformed-history.
[21] Calvin, Psalms, Vol. III, 329.
[22] Or, one can understand the “assembly” to refer to Israel. God stands amidst his people, and brings to judgment their leaders (Ash, Psalms, Vol. III, 422).