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, Part 5b Here, and Part 6a Here.
Previously we analyzed two propositions set forth by the “other gods” view regarding Psalm 82. We saw that neither the pronouncement of death upon these beings nor the description of God’s assembly serve as fatal blows for the understanding that these elohim are humans. Now, we present positive arguments for why these human beings are best understood to be magistrates rather than gods, including a look at John 10.[1]
Judges as Gods
First, we consider how the term elohim elsewhere in the Old Testament refers to judges. We find a primary example in Exod 22:8, “If the thief is not found, then the master of the house will come near to the judges [ha elohim], (to see) if he has not reached into the hand of his neighbor’s property.”[2] Many English versions translate elohim here as judges.[3]The ESV, NRSV, and NLT render the translation “God,” and the LXX (“God”) and Vulgate (“gods”) render it more literally as well. Since the legal code provides the surrounding context of the verse, seeing elohim here as judges reads more naturally. Moreover, a comparison with Exod 22:28 shows the regular usage of elohim likely refers to human rulers. It states, “You shall not treat lightly judges [elohim]; you shall not curse a ruler of your people.”[4] Exodus 22:28 reveals a parallelism related to(dis)respect for authority. The parallelism lists judges and rulers as the objects of (dis)respect. In other words, the comparison fits better with two similar authorities (judges and rulers) than dissimilar (God and rulers), just as “treating lightly” fits as a like parallel to “curse.” Moreover, the context of this verse best coheres with the legislation of Deut 17:8–13. In especially difficult cases, like that of Exod 22:8, plaintiffs may appeal to a “supreme court” at the central place of worship. There the priests and the judge render a final decision. Though a different word is used here for “judge” (shophet), the appeal in a sense comes before God’s presence because it comes to “the place YHWH will choose.” Hence a logical reason for why elohim is used in Exod 22:8. The judge, analogically, stands in God’s place.
Moffitt argues that elohim here refers to God, stating, “In unresolved cases, the Law required that the matter be brought before Yahweh for judgment (cf. Num. 27:21; Deut. 19:17–18). This meant appearing at the sanctuary, with priests facilitating, but the decision and verdict came from God Himself.”[5] However, the “devil is in the details” of the texts he cites. The text in Numbers 27 speaks of a unique situation where Joshua is ordained as Moses’ successor. Joshua comes before the high priest, who communicates with YHWH using the Urim. The Torah does not indicate that in the type of criminal cases of Exod 22:8 a priest would use the Urim. In contrast, Deut 19:17-18 mentions priests and judges (shophetim), and the judges in particular search out the matter. This, apparently, is what it means to “appear before YHWH.” The text in Deuteronomy says nothing about a verdict from “God Himself,” unless we understand that the judges stood in the place of God. The Deuteronomy text, in fact, supports the view that the elohim of Exod 22:8 are judges, rather than God.
Next, Exodus 21:6 provides another related text. If a slave wishes to remain with his master, the verse says, the master shall “bring him to the judges [ha elohim]” and then bore his ear at the doorpost. Contextually, to bring a slave before a judge in order to certify ownership sounds more coherent than bringing him to God. Contra Moffitt, this is not a “covenant oath before God” but a civil transaction.[6] Also, Moffitt says, “The priests facilitated the act, but the true witness to the oath was God.” He cites Deut 17:8–9; 19:17, but these texts mention judges as well as priests. If only priests were involved, one may have more grounds to think God is spoken of in Exod 21:6. Finally, another small grammatical detail points towards a reference to God. Exodus 21:6 says that the master shall bring his slave to “the elohim.” Then, it states that “he” will bring him to the doorpost.[7] Next, “his master” bores his ear. So, who is the “he”? The previous immediate referent is the elohim. Yet surely God does not bring the slave to the doorpost. It could be the master who brings him, but then why not say, “the master will bring him. . . he will bore . . .”? Most likely, then, the judge is the “he” who brings the slave to the doorpost, and the master proceeds with boring his ear.
Another small point in favor of the “judges” translation lies in the use of the article (ha) in Exod 22:8; 21:6. When writers use elohim as a proper noun (God), they do not need an article to mark God as grammatically definite (e.g. Gen 1:1 uses no article[8]). The presence of the article hints towards elohim not being used as a proper noun, and therefore fits with the word “judges.” Several texts in Exodus, then, seem to refer to judges as human rulers.
Men with Power
Second, besides using the title for judges, Scripture demonstrates that the title of “god” can apply to men who have uncommon majesty or power. Calvin states, “. . . [elohim] is applied to those who occupy the exalted station of princes, in which there is afforded a peculiar manifestation of the majesty of God . . . .”[9] In Exod 7:1, YHWH says to Moses, “See I have made you God [elohim] to Pharaoh.”[10] Interestingly, in Hebrew the author uses no ki preposition. While most English versions say, “I have made you as God,” translators supply the preposition as. Literally, then, YHWH makes Moses an elohim to Pharaoh, who himself believes in many elohim. Moffitt says his opponents ignore the context found in Exod 4:10–17.[11] This text actually works against his claim. In Exod 4:16, YHWH uses the lamed preposition, which significantly one does not find in Exod 7:1.[12] Often translated “as God,” the preposition has the sense of “for God.” Clearly, Moses stands in the place of God in Exod 4:16. We agree with Moffitt here that the term elohim does not function ontologically in these texts. They function analogically to describe what Moses will appear or function as. Before Aaron, he stands in the place of elohim. Before Pharaoh, he appears as God because of his power. This buttresses the case that elohim can refer to other beings analogically, without declaring an ontological status as “real gods.” In this case, clearly YHWH does not make Moses a “real god,” but perhaps Egypt’s king would consider Moses as such when he sees divine power at work. As Keach puts it, “Moses is called the god because of the commission or embassy he had to perform, in those wonderful works before Pharaoh.”[13] This has nothing to do with Moses’ ontological divinity, only with his powerful status before Pharaoh.
Likewise, the witch of Endor sees the dead Samuel and calls him/his spirit an elohim (1 Sam 28:13). While the “other gods” view argues that Samuel receives that title because he dwells in the “unseen realm,” one need not conclude such. For one, one ought not rely upon a witch for theological accuracy. In the story, a witch who believes in other gods may very well fear that a spirit is a genuine god. Even supposing that the witch accurately calls Samuel a “god,” this does not entail that other gods exist in the unseen realm. The witch could be saying, “I see a judge,” and she would be correct (1 Sam 7:6)![14] Samuel was also a prophet and had unique power. The writer could only mean that Samuel is an elohim in that he held power and status. Thus, the term elohim fits naturally with Pharaoh’s view of Moses, the description of Samuel, and the Psalmist’s view of the magistrates in Psalm 82.
John 10
Finally in regards to Psalm 82, we must consider Jesus’ quotation in John 10. Which interpretation fits best with the Lord Jesus’ divine commentary, the “other gods” view or the “human rulers” view? The Lord Jesus, responding to accusation from the Jews that he claims to be God, says, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “you are gods”’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came . . .” (John 10:34-35). Notice that Jesus says Scripture “called them” gods (ἐκείνους εἶπεν). Christ makes much of the phrase, “I said” (εἶπα) in the Psalm. If Christ’s only point was that other beings are gods, he would not have needed to include the word εἶπα. He could have only said, “Is it not written, ‘you are gods’?” This is an argument from silence, yet the use of εἶπα fits with the next phrase emphasizing them being called gods. Christ does not affirm that those of Psalm 82 are real gods. He reasons that, if the issue is blasphemy (John 10:33), calling oneself God, what about YHWH himself, who calls others gods? Moreover, with the joining of both YHWH’s words and Jesus’ words (“I said” [YHWH] in John 10:34 and “I said” [Jesus] in John 10:36), our Lord may be aligning himself with YHWH. If YHWH calls others gods, and Christ is one with him, he also can call someone God (himself).
The Lord Jesus’ argument coheres better with the interpretation that men, rather than spiritual beings, are called gods. Jesus himself is a man, so the lesser-to-greater argument works.[15] As Calvin says, “. . . if the name of God is applied to God’s officers, it with much more propriety belongs to his only begotten Son . . . .”[16] If other men can be called gods, how much more can the man who is truly the Lord God himself?[17]
On the other hand, what argument would Jesus be making if the “gods” are real gods? Some critics contend that Calvin’s a fortiori argument fails. They say that Jesus does not merely claim to be a man, but to be God himself, one with the Father. How, then, would it help his case to refer to other men who are not actually gods? Christ is trying to prove how he is dissimilar to men, not like them.[18] Thus, the “other gods” view says that Jesus’ claim only makes sense if Psalm 82 speaks of real gods. In this line of reasoning, if other gods exist, no problem arises from Jesus claiming to be one of those gods.[19] Or, to make a more conservative claim, if the term “god” can be used of other beings, why can it not (rightly) be used of Jesus?[20]
The main drawback to this view resides in the accusation from the Jews that Jesus is “mere man” (John 10:34).[21] The comparison fails if Jesus’ argument runs like this, “Other gods are called gods, and I am a man, so why can I not be called God?” The key to the a fortiori argument is that Christ speaks of being called god. The manner of Christ’s similarity between men and himself is that both are called gods. Yes, this similarity can also apply if Psalm 82 refers to angels, but in that case the comparison holds less relevance. The main concern in context seems to be whether men can claim the title “gods.” Considering these points, we still conclude a greater likelihood that in John 10 the Lord Jesus refers to men rather than angels.
Conclusion
The last two articles set forth an argument that Psalm 82 speaks of magistrates using the analogical term “gods.” This interpretation makes sense of the original context as well as the canonical interpretation of the Lord Jesus. Yet even if we are to grant that Psalm 82 speaks of angels, the Psalm does not endorse a view of angels or demons as “real gods.” For example, Kidner holds that the Psalm refers to angels, but denies that the biblical writer acknowledges “the gods of the heathens.”[22] He argues, “[T]he Old Testament never wavers in its abhorrence of heathen gods. For Yahweh to authenticate their claim with the words, ‘I say, “You are gods”’ (6), would be totally out of character.”[23] Further, he says, “. . . there is no reason whatever to make them Canaanite gods by taking the Most High in its Canaanite rather than its biblical sense. . . .”[24] The “other gods” view, though, goes farther than Kidner. By making much of the Ancient Near Eastern background to interpret texts like Psalm 82, they claim the true existence of these Canaanite gods. Yet if we are to adopt wholesale this Canaanite background, what in Psalm 82 prevents the interpreter from seeing YHWH among a pantheon of gods? If one wants to simply claim that Psalm 82 describes angels, that point may be (begrudgingly) granted. But if so, one should not then claim that pagan “gods” are real gods.
[1] Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, Vol. VIII, NPNF 1, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012), 395, calls the assembly Israel. He likens “sons of the Most High” to Israel as God’s children (e.g. Isa 1:2).
[2] אִם־לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְנִקְרַב בַּֽעַל־הַבַּיִת אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִים אִם־לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵֽהוּ׃
[3] KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, CSB, LSB, NET.
[4] אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹֽר׃
[5] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-these-verses-call-humans-elohim-a-closer-look-at-exodus-7-1-21-6-and-22-8
[6] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-these-verses-call-humans-elohim-a-closer-look-at-exodus-7-1-21-6-and-22-8
[7] הִגִּישׁוֹ. This is a third masculine singular verb.
[8] בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים
[9] Calvin, Psalms, Vol. III, 331.
[10] רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה
[11] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-these-verses-call-humans-elohim-a-closer-look-at-exodus-7-1-21-6-and-22-8
[12] לֵֽאלֹהִֽים
[13] Benjamin Keach, Tropologia, (London: City Press, 1858), 98.
[14] Keach, Tropologia, 98, writes, “So judges are in the Hebrew, called gods, . . . so 1 Sam. Xxviii. 1, that spectrum or apparition in the likeness of Samuel, is so called . . . .”
[15] See John Gill, Commentary on the Whole Bible, John 10:34 ad loc. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PCNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 399, wrongly calls Jesus’ reasoning an ad hominem argument, that Jesus attacks the “literal exegesis” of the Jews and need not subscribe to such literalness himself. However, the Lord appears to agree with the exegesis and draws out its logical entailment.
[16] Calvin, Psalms, Vol. III, 336. Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, transl. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 373, concurs that “whatever one’s view of the original meaning in Psalm 82 . . . [h]ere the reference is to the relationship between God and human beings.” Note, however, that Ridderbos uses a quixotic reasoning to deny the a fortiori argument that scholars largely acknowledge (Ridderbos, Gospel of John, 375).
[17] Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: 2004), 315, takes the “gods” to be Israel based on Talmudic evidence. In this sense, if Israel can be called “god,” so can the Son of God.
[18] Ash, Psalms, Vol. III, 419–420, citing James M. Hamilton, Jr. Psalms, Vol. II, EBTC (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2021), 90–91. Both find trouble with the “lesser-to-greater” argument. Instead, Ash claims that evil rulers share the “nature” of evil spirits just as Christ shares the nature of the Father. Unfortunately, Ash fails to explain what he means by “sharing [a] nature” with evil spirits, especially in light of how Christ claims to share his nature with the Father.
[19] Hamilton, Psalms, Vol. II, 90–91, holds that Jesus claims to be part of the divine council.
[20] Leon Morris interacts with this argument as set forth by J. A. Emerton, “Some New Testament Notes,” Journal of Theological Studies 11:2 (1960), 329–336.
[21] Carson, John, 398. Carson provides somewhat less convincing evidence which is that angels are not mentioned in the fourth gospel nor is Melchizedek. (A part of Emerton’s argument is that the angelic interpretation of Psalm 82 would be based on teaching from 11Q Melchizedek.)
[22] Kidner, Psalms 73–150, 328.
[23] Kidner, Psalms 73–150, 328.
[24] Kidner, Psalms 73–150, 330.