Psalm 82:6, the notion of "son of God", and monarchy vs. republic

[punkdbass]

Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.'

What are some of the common Jewish interpretations of Psalm 82:6? I think most Jews tend to heavily resist the phrase "son of God" due to it's Christian connotations, but I am not interested in talking about a virgin birth, mythical super-human "son of God" who is the single King of the world, completely above and greater than any one of us, and I do not think that is what this term is meant to mean. Nor do I think you guys have much interest in talking about that here.

The reason I created this thread, is because lately this verse has become my mantra - inspired by spiritual philosopher Alan Watt's interpretation and use of the verse. No he is not Christian or Jewish, but if you are interested in getting a more hollistic view of the thoughts I've been having, watch this, or read this.

So 1) I want to know your thoughts on psalm 82:6. But 2) I want to talk about some of the political implications of this verse. To paraphrase Alan Watts:

If you picture the universe as a monarchy, how can you believe that a republic is the best form of government, and so be a loyal citizen of the United States? You will always be at odds with the idea of republic.

Hence it is often racist religious fundamentalists, who view the universe in a strict monarchy-sense that are against equality, who are "against the idea of republic," who have drawn a line between "us" and "them." Essentially, IMO Jews and Christians who think it is blasphemous for someone to claim they are a "son of God", think it is so because you are attempting to introduce democracy into the Kingdom of God - which traditionally, although in my opinion, incorrectly has been viewed as a monarchy. Is it wrong to claim you are a son of God (literally "of the nature of God")? I do not think so, although I think it would be wrong to claim you are the ONLY son of God - as mainstream Christians seem to think Jesus did.

 

[Akivah]

Psalm 82:6 actually reads in the Tanakh as:
I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High."

 

[CMike]

6. I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High."

And Rashi.

You are angelic creatures: Angels. When I gave you the Torah, I gave it to you on the condition that the Angel of Death should not rule over you.

It's important to read stuff in context.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Psalm 82:6 actually reads in the Tanakh as:
I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High."

It actually reads:

אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם​

Play with it as you wish, but know that every translation is an interpretation.

 

[RabbiO]

Is it wrong to claim you are a son of God (literally "of the nature of God")? I do not think so, although I think it would be wrong to claim you are the ONLY son of God - as mainstream Christians seem to think Jesus did.

And you get from son of G-d to saying that it means "literally 'of the nature of
G-d'", how?

And you square Psalm 82 with Psalm 8:6
ותחסרהו מעט מאלהים , how?

Just asking.

Peter

 

[punkdbass]

I must admit, my Hebrew skills are pretty bad..

But you're all telling me that the MANY english interpretations - see here are completely missing the boat? I don't buy that. I don't wish to discuss the technicalities of translation - I wish to discuss whether or not claiming to be a son of God - i.e. "of the nature of God" is heretical or not.

None of you have commented on this, and have ignored my other points and questions. I wish to have a sincere discussion here, I am not here to debate, I just want other Jewish perspectives on the topic - not a red herring discussion over technicalities of translation.

 

[Levite]

Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.'

What are some of the common Jewish interpretations of Psalm 82:6? I think most Jews tend to heavily resist the phrase "son of God" due to it's Christian connotations, but I am not interested in talking about a virgin birth, mythical super-human "son of God" who is the single King of the world, completely above and greater than any one of us, and I do not think that is what this term is meant to mean. Nor do I think you guys have much interest in talking about that here.

The reason I created this thread, is because lately this verse has become my mantra - inspired by spiritual philosopher Alan Watt's interpretation and use of the verse. No he is not Christian or Jewish, but if you are interested in getting a more hollistic view of the thoughts I've been having, watch this, or read this.

So 1) I want to know your thoughts on psalm 82:6. But 2) I want to talk about some of the political implications of this verse. To paraphrase Alan Watts:

Hence it is often racist religious fundamentalists, who view the universe in a strict monarchy-sense that are against equality, who are "against the idea of republic," who have drawn a line between "us" and "them." Essentially, IMO Jews and Christians who think it is blasphemous for someone to claim they are a "son of God", think it is so because you are attempting to introduce democracy into the Kingdom of God - which traditionally, although in my opinion, incorrectly has been viewed as a monarchy. Is it wrong to claim you are a son of God (literally "of the nature of God")? I do not think so, although I think it would be wrong to claim you are the ONLY son of God - as mainstream Christians seem to think Jesus did.

Actually, my major problem with this is not the embracing of a translation "sons of God," which, though I do think unhelpful given the resonances with Christian theology, and not resonant at all with how Jewish tradition has understood the verse, technically is a literal translation: it's the heavy-handed literalizing of the metaphor of God as monarch that is my real issue here.

We use the image of God as monarch in the tradition because of how kings were understood in the largest kingdoms of the ancient world: not merely as absolute rulers, but as the original and ultimate owners of the land they ruled over, and everything in it, and to whom their subjects and sub-kings both owed allegiance and also were owed obligations for just rule and so forth.

The reason we chose the words having to do with sovereignty and rule to describe God in key ways-- such as in the acknowledgement of brachot-- is not because God is literally a king, but because as Creator and ultimate "owner" of the universe, and as covenant partner with every created being (and with the Jews particularly in the covenant of Torah), the best available analogy that our language held for the nature of God's authority and the obligations we owe Him-- and the obligations He owes us-- were those words and ideas. But, like any anthropomorphic language, the analogy only stretches so far. It does no one any favors to insist on literalizing it, making our theology be an antiquated embrasure of Heavenly despotism, as though God were no different than Xerxes or Ramses. I think Jewish theology deserves better than such an imputation.

It seems to me that the ikar (essence) of the verse you cited is for us to remember that we are tzalmei elohim, images of God, the children of the Creator, one and all. If we go with the poetic imagery of God as King, the implication could even be, as Princes, so to speak, we are granted certain limited authority of governance under the King: to form our own societies and make laws, for example (or to make laws based in Torah, if we speak of the Jews), to rule over the earth as regents for the King, if you will-- as it says in Bere****/Genesis 1:26-28. This is especially true given the full context of the verse in Psalms, for though 82:6 reads א*ני־אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם׃ ("I have said, you are mighty ones, children of the Highest, all of you;") the continuation of the sentence, 82:7, reads אכן כאדם תמותון וכאחד השרים תפלו׃, "And yet, as mortals, you shall die, and like all princes, you shall fall." In other words, though we may be mighty, being the children of our Creator, and given some authority by Him, we are not Him. None are like God, and therefore, though we should rule justly in God's name as best we can, we must remember we are not Him, or even like Him, and, as the final verse of the psalm alludes to, only God can truly judge His creations, in any ultimate sense.

These are ideas which the language of kingship and monarchial authority may be suited to use in poetry, but they only describe deeper truths: their usefulness is far outweighed by the theological significance of the deeper reality of God's nature as the One Creator and source of all Covenants, and our natures as His creations and covenant-partners.

 

[CMike]

I must admit, my Hebrew skills are pretty bad..

But you're all telling me that the MANY english interpretations - see here are completely missing the boat? I don't buy that. I don't wish to discuss the technicalities of translation - I wish to discuss whether or not claiming to be a son of God - i.e. "of the nature of God" is heretical or not.

None of you have commented on this, and have ignored my other points and questions. I wish to have a sincere discussion here, I am not here to debate, I just want other Jewish perspectives on the topic - not a red herring discussion over technicalities of translation.

It's irrelevant if you buy it or not.

Your translation is incorrect.

The only person who is actually considered G-D in judaism, is G-D. That's it. No one else.

 

[punkdbass]

It's irrelevant if you buy it or not.

Your translation is incorrect.

The only person who is actually considered G-D in judaism, is G-D. That's it. No one else.

Interestingly, in The Book of Psalms - a translation and Commentary, by Robert Alter (an American professor of Hebrew language, Levite recommended the book to me), Psalm 82:6 is translated as follows:

"As for Me, I had thought: you were gods, and the sons of the Most High were you all. Yet indeed like humans you shall die, and like one of the princes, fall."

Although to be fair, Alters commentary somewhat goes against the ideas I am proposing:

God confesses to have been taken in by the polytheistic illusion. he imagined that these sundry gods entrusted with the administration of justice on earth would prove or justify their divine status by doing the job properly. In the event, He was sadly disappointed.

Thanks Levite, for refering me to the next verse, and helping me to better understand the general context. Your explanation of the God as King metaphor is very helpful, much appreciated. Perhaps it's just an issue of semantics, but I'm still a bit confused:

..we are not Him. None are like God...we must remember we are not Him, or even like Him

What exactly do you mean by this? To help clarify why I am confused: The Tanakh says we are made in God's image, and at times refers to us as God's children or to Israel as his first born son. Do not all these metaphors indicate some sort of likeness? Or take Jewish mysticism for example. Kabbalists believe each human being is a microcosm of the totality of the universe... does this not also indicate likeness? Or The way into jewish mystical tradition, by Harold Kushner, for example is filled with quotes by Jewish mystics along the lines of these (all indicating possible likeness with God?):

-all of creation is a manifestation of the Creator
-God is not other than the world, but being is itself made of God
-We are all waves in an ocean of God.
-For indeed there is nothing in the world except God.
-God is the Ocean of Being, and we are the waves... however no wave is entirely distinct from the ocean which is its ground.
-It’s all One and it’s all God
-you must realize you are its manifestation and therefore nothing yourself!

I'll let you reply, but perhaps the point I'm missing here, that you're trying to get me to realize, is that it is a mistake to say (using the wave and ocean metaphor) that a single finite wave is equivalent to, or even like for that matter, the entire ocean as a whole. Or as Kushner himself puts it: God is in the self but the self is not God. Or as some put it: The universe as a whole is infinitely greater than the sum of its parts - thus it's wrong to say a single part is equivalent to God, for the holistic system is infinitely greater. If everything together, as a single unity, is God, then it would be wrong to single out a single speck within God as being God... am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"As for Me, I had thought: you were gods, and the sons of the Most High were you all. Yet indeed like humans you shall die, and like one of the princes, fall."

I am a big Alter fan and have been for quite some time. Still I prefer Segal: "6. I had set you as gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;"

In any event, I see no way to read וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם as anything other than "[and] sons of Elyon, all of you."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it wrong to claim you are a son of God (literally "of the nature of God")?

First, as noted above, it is not

(literally "of the nature of God")​

but, literally,

"sons of Elyon."​

Second, I view it as being no more wrong (and no more literal) than claiming to be "sons of the commandments," i.e., bnei mitzvah.

 

[Flankerl]

Lets all consider the following: Its poetry.

 

[punkdbass]

First, as noted above, it is not

(literally "of the nature of God")​

but, literally,

"sons of Elyon."​

Second, I view it as being no more wrong (and no more literal) than claiming to be "sons of the commandments," i.e., bnei mitzvah.

Interesting. Thanks for the reply Jay!

 

[Akivah]

I must admit, my Hebrew skills are pretty bad..

But you're all telling me that the MANY english interpretations - see here are completely missing the boat? I don't buy that.

Here's a major problem. You came to the Jewish section of this thread to ask Jews a question, but present us with quotes from Christian bibles. If you refuse to accept that the Christian bible is different from the Jewish bible, then ask your questions of Christians.

 

[punkdbass]

Here's a major problem. You came to the Jewish section of this thread to ask Jews a question, but present us with quotes from Christian bibles. If you refuse to accept that the Christian bible is different from the Jewish bible, then ask your questions of Christians.

Whatever man. I have explained why I have come to ask the question here, feel free to ignore. If you read the whole thread, I have also provided a translation from respected Jewish Professor of Hebrew language Robert Alter, who does indeed translate the passage using "gods" and "son." And Levite, who seems to have a respectable knowledge of the Hebrew language, also agrees that technically "gods" and "sons" can be a literal translation.

But I have already said multiple times that the point of me creating this thread was not to discuss and argue over technicalities of translation; rather I want to know from a theological standpoint, is claiming to be a son of God, or of the nature of God, heretical to Judaism - not in the sense that you are the ONLY son of God, or the only being to be of the nature of God, but rather is claiming all human beings are of the nature of God(i.e. that we are all sons of God) heretical?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... from a theological standpoint, is claiming to be a son of God, or of the nature of God, heretical to Judaism ... ?

From Alter ...

God takes His stand in the divine assembly. Like the psalms of supplication, this poem is concerned with the infuriating preponderance of injustice in the world. It differs from them, however, not only because God is the principle speaker (from verse 2 through verse 7) but also because the psalm is frankly mythological in character. Alternatively, one could describe it as a poem about the transition from mythology to a monotheistic frame of reference because in the end the gods are rudely demoted from their divine status. [ibid]

Our Torah asserts that we are created b'tzelem 'elohim. How is this substantively different from being "of the nature of God"?

I've already noted what I believe to be a parallel between 'sons of God' and 'sons of the commandment'. Let me add another point (along with another book recommendation). "Sons of god" is not a biological relationship but, rather, a hesed relationship with implied responsibilities for each party. See, for example:

• Hesed in the Bible by Nelson Glueck, and the more recent
• The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry by Katharine D. Sakenfeld

Bottom line: whether "claiming to be a son of God, or of the nature of God" is heretical pretty much depends on what you mean by those phrases. It is certainly not necessarily or inherently heretical.

Still, I get the feeling that there's a question behind your question.

 

[punkdbass]

From Alter ...

​

Our Torah asserts that we are created b'tzelem 'elohim. How is this substantively different from being "of the nature of God"?

I've already noted what I believe to be a parallel between 'sons of God' and 'sons of the commandment'. Let me add another point (along with another book recommendation). "Sons of god" is not a biological relationship but, rather, a hesed relationship with implied responsibilities for each party. See, for example:

• Hesed in the Bible by Nelson Glueck, and the more recent
• The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry by Katharine D. Sakenfeld

Bottom line: whether "claiming to be a son of God, or of the nature of God" is heretical pretty much depends on what you mean by those phrases. It is certainly not necessarily or inherently heretical.

Still, I get the feeling that there's a question behind your question.

Awesome, thanks for the book suggestions and comments Jay.

The past few weeks have been very interesting for me, call it mystical if you will. All of my life experiences have led me to where I am today, and I'm finally starting to know God less as an abstraction and more as a living, eternal presence. As a mathematician/statistician and philosopher addict, my mind loves to inhabit the world of abstraction and ideas, and it's hard for me to truly be in the moment and be open to what really is; but I'm finally starting to expand out of this way of thinking and feel God as a truly living presence. It's taken a lot for me to get here, but lately, it's been my exploring of other faiths that has really propelled me to this spot. Basically, it is the realization that several "core eternal truths", if you will, are present in so many cultures and world religions. It's truly amazing to me, and I don't think it is mere coincidence. I guess the reason why I asked this question, was because I wanted to confirm that Judaism adheres to this vision I have, and I feel most confidently that it does, despite many people perhaps not realizing it yet.. as is true with the masses of most other faiths. It's interesting how much my spiritual journey has resembled my Dad's, despite rarely talking to him about spiritual manners. My Dad is a devote catholic, who married a Jew and raised us Jewish, and he loves to explore other religions. Many years ago he told me that it was the common core truths found in many religions and cultures(that were often completely isolated from one another) that was such strong evidence for him of God. I think I've talked to my dad about Jesus maybe once or twice in my life, but I still remember him telling me that he thought Jesus was the messiah, or son of God, but that he wasn't the only one. That there were multiple messiahs(fully awakened/self-realized people). At the time I thought he was crazy and had no clue what he meant by this but I finally do - we're all sons of God, most of us just dont realize it.

Basically, the reason I asked this question was because I wanted support for my panentheistic/universalistic idea that God is everything - that we are all sons of God(of the nature of God), or made in the divine image, or sons of the commandments, or made of Buddha nature, or we are all the Great Cosmic Actor in the eternal cosmic play(Hinduism), Krishna, etc... Or as Alan Watts says, when speaking to his predominantly Christian influenced Western readers: the good news is not that Jesus is the ONLY son of God, but rather we are all sons of God. The good news is that we are all sons of God. We live our lives trying to find meaning and purpose, we want to save ourselves.. but the truth is, we don't need any saving - each one of us came before Abraham, a manifestation of the Eternal Reality. This is the truth that sets people free.

Alright I'll stop geeking out ha

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Basically, the reason I asked this question was because I wanted support for my panentheistic/universalistic idea that God is everything - that we are all sons of God(of the nature of God), or made in the divine image, or sons of the commandments, or made of Buddha nature, or we are all the Great Cosmic Actor in the eternal cosmic play(Hinduism), Krishna, etc...

Sorry: I find such talk totally underwhelming ...

 

[Avi1001]

Basically, the reason I asked this question was because I wanted support for my panentheistic/universalistic idea that God is everything - that we are all sons of God(of the nature of God), or made in the divine image, or sons of the commandments, or made of Buddha nature, or we are all the Great Cosmic Actor in the eternal cosmic play(Hinduism), Krishna, etc...

punkdbass, I think your approach is very reasonable. As you know, I agree with your views about panentheism and non-anthropomorphism. I also think your ideas about searching other philosophies makes sense. Keep searching, you are certainly on the right track ! Also, not everyone will understand what you are doing, and some may criticize. This is an area where all that matters are your beliefs, no one knows them better than you do. Keep fighting the good fight !

 

[Avi1001]

[

​

I]Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.'[/I]

What are some of the common Jewish interpretations of Psalm 82:6? I think most Jews tend to heavily resist the phrase "son of God" due to it's Christian connotations, but I am not interested in talking about a virgin birth, mythical super-human "son of God" who is the single King of the world, completely above and greater than any one of us, and I do not think that is what this term is meant to mean. Nor do I think you guys have much interest in talking about that here.

punkdbass, I don't read Psalms or the rest of Tanach literally. So for me, son of G-d must be read metaphorically. It is true that Christianity took this notion, of son of G-d and moved it to the next level. I say good for them. If that helps them connect with G-d that is great.

My own view is very centered on non-anthropomorphism. So these sort of analogies are difficult for me to understand.

The reason I created this thread, is because lately this verse has become my mantra - inspired by spiritual philosopher Alan Watt's interpretation and use of the verse. No he is not Christian or Jewish, but if you are interested in getting a more hollistic view of the thoughts I've been having, watch this, or read this.

Watts is great. The ideas about Buddhist philosophy that he brought to the west are easily connected with Judaism.

So 1) I want to know your thoughts on psalm 82:6. But 2) I want to talk about some of the political implications of this verse. To paraphrase Alan Watts:

Hence it is often racist religious fundamentalists, who view the universe in a strict monarchy-sense that are against equality, who are "against the idea of republic," who have drawn a line between "us" and "them." Essentially, IMO Jews and Christians who think it is blasphemous for someone to claim they are a "son of God", think it is so because you are attempting to introduce democracy into the Kingdom of God - which traditionally, although in my opinion, incorrectly has been viewed as a monarchy. Is it wrong to claim you are a son of God (literally "of the nature of God")? I do not think so, although I think it would be wrong to claim you are the ONLY son of God - as mainstream Christians seem to think Jesus did.

I think you are right with your thoughts about being a son of G-d vs. the son of G-d. You are choosing a topic which has strongly reformative roots, so it will make some shiver in their boots. Keep smashing those idols !

I am thoroughly enjoying this thread, punkdbass, because you are really pushing some new boundaries. One of my favorite Midrash is when Abraham is left to watch over his father's idol store when his father goes out to lunch. When his father returns, Abraham has broken all the idols with a baseball bat, and tells his father the idols fought and killed each other. I guess you like that Midrash too!