Psalm 82 - Nielsen Tomazini

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
PSALM 82
AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS
SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR CARL J. BOSMA

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
OT 162 – PSALMS: FROM TEXT TO SERMON
BY
NIELSEN TOMAZINI
AUGUST 29, 2008
CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………..……………………………………………..iv
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………..……..………… 1
DELIMITATION OF THE PERICOPE …………………………………………..………………. 3
TEXTUAL CRITICISM …………………………………………………………………..………. 4
Presentation of the Text Tradition 4
Textual Criticism Proper 5
TRANSLATION……………………………………………………………….…………..………. 7
Verse 1 8
Verse 2 14
Verses 3 and 4 16
Verse 5 17
Verse 6 17
Verse 7 18
Verse 8 18
GRAMMATICAL AND SYNTACTICAL ANALYSIS ………………………………..…..…….19
Delimitation of the Individual Clauses 20
Inter-Clausal Analysis 21
Segmentation 23
COMPOSITIONAL STRUCTURE OUTLINE …………………………………………...……... 27
DEFINITION OF THE LITERARY GENRE ……………………………………………..…….. 30
STYLISTIC ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………………………. 31
ii
Stichometry and Scansion of the Meter 31
Types of Parallelism 36
Strophic Structure 38
Literary Techniques and Figures of Speech 40
SEMANTIC ANALYSIS ..…………………………………………………………………..…….43
SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS …………………………………………………….……………….…… 46
HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ANALYSIS…………………………………………....……. 48
EXEGESIS OF THE MESSAGE FOR THE PSALMIST AND THE ORIGINAL AUDIENCE .. 50
CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………. 52
Immediate Context 52
Remote Context 53
Context of the Psalter 53
Canonical Context 54
EXPOSITION………………………………………………………………..………….………… 55
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………..…………….………… 59
APPENDIX I: DELIMITATION OF CLAUSES……………………………...…………………..61
APPENDIX II: CLAUSAL FLOW CHAT………………………………………..…….…………62
APPENDIX III: SEGMENTATION………………………………………..………….…………..63
APPENDIX IV: SCANSION OF THE METER…………………………………….….………... 64
APPENDIX V: STROPHIC STRUCTURE…………………………………….…….………….. 65
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..….……………. 66
iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs

Hebrew and English Lexicon. Strong's, TWOT, and GK references
(Electronic ed.; Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 2000).
CPB The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version.

Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2006.
NET The NET Bible: New English Translation. Biblical Studies, 2005.
NLT Holy Bible: New Living Translation. 2d ed. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2004.
TWOT Harris, Robert Laird, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament. Electronic edition. Chicago: Moody,
1999.
iv
PSALM 82
AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
Psalm 82 has a few controversial affirmations that have created a large field of discussion. This
psalm talks about oppression, social justice, the divine assembly, the so called “sons of god,”
Yahweh and other gods, and the claim that Yahweh may judge all the earth. Further, in the
Gospel of John (10:34), Jesus Christ quotes Ps 82 when questioned about his claim of being one
with God.
Although the text of Ps 82 has been very well preserved with no major difficulties, it has
been interpreted over the centuries in many different ways.1 As W. S. Prinsloo affirms, “there is
still no real movement towards a solution.”2 He continues, saying that the main difficulty in
interpreting Ps 82 concerns the meaning of ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬in vv. 1b and 6a.3
There are three main interpretations as to what ‫אֹלהִים‬

ֱ refers.4 (1) The gods are the gods
of the nations.5 (2) The gods are human judges (or rulers).6 (3) The psalm refers to both,
1
Julian Morgenstern, "The Mythological Background of Psalm 82," HUCA 14 (1939): 29-30.
2
W. S. Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?,” Bib 76 (1995): 219.
3
Prinsloo, “Psalm 82,” 219; Morgenstern, "The Mythological Background,” 30.
4
For an outline of these interpretations and scholars see Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms
2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100 (Hermeneia; trans. Linda M. Maloney; ed. Klaus Baltzer. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 330-331; Prinsloo, “Psalm 82,” 219-220; Morgenstern, "The Mythological Background,”
30-31.
5
See, for example, Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 332-333; John Goldingay, Psalms (3 vols.; Grand
Rapids: Baker Academics, 2007), 2:558-570; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60-150: A Commentary (trans. Hilton C.
1
2
heavenly (vv. 6-7) and human beings (vv. 2-4).7 Moreover, there are also discussions regarding
who would be the gods (gods of the nations or angels?), or the human beings (Jewish judges,
Jewish kings or foreign kings?).8
We will defend here that what is pictured in vv. 1-7 has its background in Canaanite
mythology, which was applied as a poetic figure of speech to illustrate the Israelite view of the
assembly of the gods. Therefore, we do not agree with the interpretation that the mentioned
“gods” are human authorities. Rather, we will argue that the heavenly assembly is recognized as
a gathering of the gods of all nations. At the conclusion of the psalm (v. 8) Yahweh stands alone
in the control of the earth after condemning all the other gods, thus establishing his superiority
over every heavenly being. Along with this interpretation we will defend that in vv. 2-4 human
agents are indirectly condemned with the gods.
In order to engage the discussion and defend our interpretation, we must approach the
Hebrew text by means of an exegetical analysis. We will do so using the following exegetical
steps:
- delimitation of the pericope;
- textual criticism;
Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 153-158.

6
See, for example, Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Book of Psalms (2 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1907), 214-217; John Calvin, Commentary on
the Book of Psalms (3 vols.; trans. James Anderson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948-49), 3:327-336.
7
See, for example, Morgenstern, “Mythological Background,” 31, and Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100
(WBC 20. Dallas: Word, 2002), 340-341. It is important to notice that this third approach has some distinctions
between each scholar interpretation. For example, while Morgenstern see a direct reference to human authorities in
vv. 2-4, Tate interprets that human beings are indirectly addressed in those verses. For Tate, the gods are accused in
vv. 2-4, but the unjust human officials are indirectly accused too, as he states: “Thus the judgment of the gods is at
the same time a judgment of their human agents.”
8
Morgenstern, “Mythological Background,” 31.
3
- translation, with an analysis of the main terms that composes the psalm;
- grammatical and syntactical analysis;
- outline of the compositional structure;
- definition of the literary genre;
- stylistic analysis;
- semantic analysis;
- semiotic analysis;
- historical and cultural analysis;
- definition of the message for the psalmist and the original audience;
- contextual analysis;
After all these analysis, we will present an exposition of the message of Ps 82 based on the
results we have gained up to this point. As a last step we will state our general conclusions.
DELIMITATION OF THE PERICOPE
In this first step we aim to determine the limits of the text with which we are working, thus
identifying the beginning and the end of the pericope. Although this is a relatively easy step
when working with psalms, given that they can be seen as individual poems, it is a necessary
step to interpret the text on a solid base.9
Since Ps 82 has a superscription (A psalm of Asaph) and Ps 83 also has a similar
superscription (A song, a psalm of Asaph),10 the pericope is well delimited. Further, the previous
9
Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (JSOTSup 26; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1986), 18-19.
10
Both superscriptions are presented here in the NET Bible version.
4
psalm and the following psalm have different addressees and subjects. Ps 81 is a call for the
people of God to come before him; there the people hear the word of Yahweh calling them to
obedience. Thus, Ps 81 is a hymn about the relationship between Yahweh and the people of
Israel.11 Ps 83 is a communal complaint song,12 a petition to Yahweh against the enemies of
Israel. But, Ps 82 is basically a speech of Yahweh against the “gods.” Consequently, not only the
superscriptions but also the genres of the psalms give us a clear delimitation of the pericope.
A last evidence for the delimitation of the pericope is the structure of Ps 82. Verses 1 and
8 form an inclusio; both verses contain the divine name ‫ אלהים‬and the verb ‫שׁפט‬.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Once we have identified the limits of our pericope it is now necessary to establish the text we
will use for analysis. We will analyze any possible variant readings to the Hebrew text and we
will evaluate the plausibility of any suggested modification of the Masoretic Text.13
Presentation of the Text Tradition
1
‫סף‬ ָ ‫ִמזְ מֹור ְל ָא‬
‫ֱה ים יִ ְׁש ֹּפט‬
ִ ‫א"ל ְּב ֶ ק ֶרב א‬$‫ת‬ ֵ ‫ּצב ּבַ ע ֲַד‬ ָ ִ‫הים נ‬, ִ ‫א‬
2
‫סלָ ה‬$‫אּו‬
ֶ ‫רׁשָ ִ עים ִּת ְׂש‬1 ְ ‫ּופנֵ י‬
ְ ‫ע"וֶל‬$‫טּו‬ ָ ‫תי ִּת ְׁש ְּפ‬ ַ ָ‫מ‬$‫עַ ד‬
3
‫דל וְ יָת" ֹום עָ נִ י ו ָָרׁש הַ ְצ ִ ּדיקּו‬$‫טּו‬ ַ ‫ִׁש ְפ‬
11
Hermann Gunkel and Joachim Begrich. Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of
Israel. (trans. James D. Nogalski. Macon: Mercer University, 1998), 63. Gunkel classifies Psalm 81 as a “prophetic
hymn.” Although psalms 81 and 82 share a prophetic style, the subject is clearly distinct.
12
Gunkel and Begrich, Introduction to Psalms, 82.
13
Watson affirms: “In practice, the normative edition of the Hebrew text is the Masoretic text.” Watson,
Classical Hebrew Poetry, 42.
5
4
‫דל וְ אֶ ְבי"ֹון ִמּיַ ד ְרׁשָ ִע ים הַ ִ ּצילּו‬$‫טּו‬
ַ ‫ּפַ ְּל‬
‫ֹוס ֵדי ָ א ֶרץ‬ְ ‫מ‬$‫ּמֹוטּו ּכָ ל‬1 ִ‫ל ֹא י ִ ָבינּו ּבַ חֲׁשֵ ָכה יִ ְתהַ ָּל "כּו י‬ ? 5
ְ‫ל ֹא יָ ְ>ד =עּו< ו‬
6
‫ּובנֵ י עֶ ְליֹון ּכֻ ְּל ֶ כם‬ ְ ‫ֱה ים אַ ֶּת"ם‬ִ ‫מַ ְר ִּתי א‬G ָ‫א‬$‫נִ י‬H‫א‬
7
‫רים ִּת ֹּפלּו‬ ִ ָ‫חד הַ ּׂש‬ ַ ַ‫ּוכא‬
ְ ‫כֵ ן ְּכאָ ָדם ְּתמּות" ּון‬G ָ‫א‬
8
‫הַ ּגֹויִ ם‬$‫תנְ ַחל ְּבכָ ל‬1ִ ‫ּתה‬ ָ ַ‫א‬$‫ּכי‬ ִ ‫הים ׁשָ ְפ ָט ה הָ ָא ֶ"רץ‬G ִ ‫א‬ ֱ ‫קּומה‬ ָ
Textual Criticism Proper
The Masoretic Text doesn’t present many textual difficulties. On this matter R. B. Salters affirms
that “Psalm 82 is one of the most fascinating passages in the entire Old Testament; but it is also
one of the most complex. It is not that the text is very corrupt – quite the reverse; the text is far
superior to that of many psalms.”14 Prinsloo also attests to the credibility of the Masoretic Text
saying: “Although there are one or two proposals regarding text-critical change, these do not
really carry any weight and the Masoretic Text may be accepted.”15 However, it is still necessary
to present any possible variation in order to ensure a consistent interpretation of Ps 82.
Literally ‫ עדת־אל‬means “assembly of El.” But it is probably a formula for “divine
council” or “divine assembly.” The LXX reads ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, “in the assembly of the gods”
which Marvin E. Tate believes is a result of either an error of transmission or a variation of the
Hebrew text that came to be used by the LXX translators.16 The Syriac translates ‫ אל‬as
“angels,”17 thus corroborating with the LXX. James Stokes Ackerman believes that those
14
R. B. Salters, “Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint,” ZAW 103 (1991): 226.
15
Prinsloo, “Psalm 82,” 222.
16
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 329.
17
Briggs and Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 217.
6
versions indicate that “there was at one time a variant Hebrew textual tradition which read ‫אלים‬
‫ בעדת‬instead of ‫בעדת אל‬.”18 Although Ackerman’s argument has to be considered, there is no

conclusive evidence to amend the Masoretic Text. The Dead Sea Scrolls follow the MT, a fact
that corroborates to keep the text as it is.19 Because this is one of the most controversial phrases
in the interpretation of this text, in the translation section that follows, we will discuss the
implication of choosing “divine assembly” instead of “assembly of El.” Our attempt this far is
only to demonstrate that there is no important variation on the text. The difficulty comes not in
the text itself, but in the interpretation of its meaning.
Hans-Joachim Kraus calls attention to one note in the BHS apparatus that refers to the
occurrence of ‫ דַ ל‬in v. 3. Since the same term is repeated in v. 4, Kraus argues that such
repetition “is contrary to style.”20 Thus, for Kraus v. 3 should possibly have ‫דַּ ְך‬. Because there is
no manuscript evidence, the suggestion doesn’t bring any major concern. Therefore, we can
follow the MT as it is.
It is noteworthy that the LXX in v. 8 has ὅτι σὺ κατακληρονοµήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς
ἔθνεσιν, probably translated as “for you will inherit all the nations.” This follows the possibility
of ‫ נָחַל‬in Hiphil (‫)תַ נְחִיל‬, as presented in the BHS apparatus (a medieval manuscript has this
rendering). Again, here we follow the MT since there are not strong arguments for any change of
the text.21
18
James Stokes Ackerman, “An Exegetical Study of Psalm 82” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1966), 278.
19
Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., Exegetical Texts. (part 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader;
Leiden: Brill NV, 2004), 24-25.
20
Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 154.
21
See Tate, Psalms 51-100, 328-332. Here Tate presents a series of arguments on the translation of v. 8.
7
Charles A. Briggs proposes that vv. 5 and 8 are later additions to the original poem.22 It
looks like his criteria was to eliminate those clauses that not easily harmonize with the rest of the
poem’s message. Since he does not provide any evidence for his claim there is no reason to adopt
his proposal. For this paper, therefore, we adopt the MT as printed in the BHS.
TRANSLATION
In order to provide a consistent interpretation of Ps 82 we will present a translation as close to
the Hebrew text as possible while providing a meaningful text in the English language. We will
analyze the main terms that compose Ps 82, while comparing it to modern English translations.
To support our rendering of the Hebrew text, we must discuss the main arguments on the
interpretation of the message of the psalm. Therefore in this step we will discuss not only the
meaning of the Hebrew words but also their interpretation in the context of Ps 82. Such effort is
necessary because of the nature of Ps 82, as Salters affirms: “It is the lack of precise meaning
attaching to a number of words and expressions which ensures lack of unanimity among scholars
and eternal debate.”23 Thus, this step will lead us to the main discussions about the message of Ps
82.
We present below our translation followed by comments on the main terms of our text.
22
Briggs and Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 214-217.
23
Salters, “Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint,” 226.
8
1 A psalm of Asaph. ‫ִמז ְ֗מוֹר לְאָ֫ ָס֥ף‬ 1

God is standing in the divine assembly; ‫ת־אל‬
֑ ֵ ַ‫אֹל ִ֗הים נִצָּ ֥ב ַבּעֲד‬B
in the middle of the gods he judges. ‫שׁפֹּֽט׃‬ ְ ִ ‫ֱֹלהים י‬ ֣ ִ ‫בּ ֶ ְ֖ק ֶרב א‬
2 “How long will you judge unjustly ‫ְטוּ־עוֶל‬
֑ ָ ‫שׁפּ‬ ְ ִ‫עַד־ ָמ ַת֥י תּ‬ 2
And the face of the wicked, lift up? – Selah ‫אוּ־סֽלָה׃‬ ֶ ְ‫וּפְנֵ ֥י ְ֝רשָׁ ִ֗עים תִּ שׂ‬
3 Judge the weak and the fatherless; ‫ְטוּ־דל ְוי ָ֑תוֹם‬ ֥ ַ ‫שׁפ‬ ִ 3
to the oppressed and the poor, do justice. ‫ָע ִנ֖י ו ָ ָ֣רשׁ ַהצְדִּ ֽיקוּ׃‬
4 Deliver the weak and the needy; ‫ְטוּ־דל ְו ֶאבְי֑ וֹן‬ ֥ ַ ‫ַפּלּ‬ 4
from the hand of the wicked, rescue.” ‫ִמ ַיּ֖ד ְרשָׁ ִ ֣עים הַצִּ ֽילוּ׃‬
5 They don’t know and they don’t understand. ‫ֹל֤ א ָי ֽדְ ֨עוּ׀ וְֹל֥ א י ָ ִ֗בינוּ‬ 5
In darkness they walk about. ‫שׁכָ ֥ה י ִתְ ה ַָלּ֑כוּ‬ ֵ ‫ַבּ ֲח‬
Are shaken all foundations of the earth. ‫ָל־מוֹסְדֵ י ָא ֶֽרץ׃‬ ֥ ‫֝י ִ ֗מּוֹטוּ כּ‬
6 “I said: You are gods, ‫ֹלהים ַא ֶ ֑תּם‬ ֣ ִ ֱ‫\אנִי־ ֭ ָאמ ְַרתִּ י א‬ 6
and sons of the Most High are all of you. ‫וּב ְֵנ֖י ֶע ְלי֣וֹן ֻכּלְּכֶ ֽם׃‬
7 But indeed like a human being you will die ‫מוּתוּן‬ ֑ ְ‫ְאָדם תּ‬ ֣ ָ ‫֭ ָאכֵן כּ‬ 7
and like one of the rulers you will fall.” ‫ְאַחד הַשָּׂ ִ ֣רים תִּ פֹּֽלוּ׃‬ ֖ ַ ‫וּכ‬
8 Raise up God, judge the earth ‫שׁפ ָ ְ֣טה ה ָ ָ֑א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫קוּמה ֭ ֱאֹלהִים‬ ָ֣ 8
for you possess all the nations. ‫כִּ ֽי־ ַא ָ ֥תּה ֝תִ נְ ַ֗חל ְבּכָל־הַגּוֹ ִי ֽם׃‬
Verse 1
Since Ps 82 is part of the Elohistic Psalter,24 some scholars defend that the Tetragrammaton
should be read in place of the first ‫אֱֹלהִים‬.25 The two occurrences of ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬in v. 1 are not
confusing, as M. Tsevat claims to be,26 because the first is the subject of a singular verb (‫)נִצָּב‬
24
For a brief explanation about the Elohistic Psalter, see: Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 4.
25
See for example: Matitiahu Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly: an Interpretation of Psalm 82,”
HUCA 41 (1970):126; Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 154. Against this interpretation see Prinsloo, "Psalm 82: Once Again,"
222, and Lowell K. Handy, "Sounds, Words and Meanings in Psalm 82," JSOT 47 (1990): 52-53. See particularly
footnote number 8 of Handy’s article (pp. 64-65).
26
Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly,” 126. He argues that two ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬make v. 1 “both stylistically
gauche and likely to confuse the listener or reader.” But Handy (“Sounds, Words and Meaning,” 52-54) has shown
how the text as it is corroborates to a well structured composition. The two plurals for “god” (‫ )אֱֹלהִים‬bracket the
singular ‫ ֵ ֑אל‬and delimit the first section of the psalm. See also Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 291.
9
while the second can be understood as a plural by the context of the clause.27 The Septuagint
agrees with the Hebrew Text using Ὁ θεὸς. All modern translations consulted follow the Hebrew
Text as well.28 Therefore, there is no convincing argument to replace ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬for ‫י ְהוָה‬.29

The NASB and NJB use “takes His stand” to render ‫נִצָּב‬. The NRSV translates this as
“has taken his place” (present perfect), while the NIV uses “presides.”30 Although the Hebrew
word can be understood as an act of presiding, the image implied by “stand” not only follows the
more literal understanding of the Hebrew word but also makes the idea in the text more
meaningful, and powerful, because it presents Yahweh standing in the middle of the gods in the
assembly to make a solemn pronouncement. Though ‫נִצָּב‬, in the verbal form Niphal participle
(verbal adjective), is rendered by the majority of translations as “stands,”31 we translate here in
the present tense but preserving the idea of a continuous action.32 Therefore we translate ‫נִצָּב‬, as
“is standing.”33
The description of God standing in the divine assembly has caused some debate about his
function in the gathering of the gods. As pointed out by Tate, “one might assume that a king or
27
The second occurrence of ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬forms a phrase with ‫“( בּ ֶ ְ֖ק ֶרב‬in the middle of the gods”) which parallels
with the previous phrase ‫ת־אל‬ ֑ ֵ ַ‫“( ַבּעֲד‬in the divine assembly”). See the explanation given by Prinsloo, who states
that the first ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬functions as an anacrusis to the chiastic structure formed with the parallel ideas and the two
verbs. Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Again,” 223.
28
NIV, KJV, NASB, ASV, NET, NRSV, CPB, NJB.
29
See Goldingay, Psalms, 561, and Ackerman, “An Exegetical Study,” 273-278. Ackerman discusses in
some extension this issue and, though preferring Yahweh at the beginning of v. 1, he states that there is no
conclusive evidence for such change and proposes that “the question must be left open.”
31
KJV, ASV, NET, CPB.
32
Christo H. J. Van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference
Grammar (electronic ed.; Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 162.
33
The translation made by John Calvin where he interprets God as seated in his throne is noteworthy: “God
sitteth in the assembly of God.” He doesn’t give any explanation about this interpretation though he mentions
Horsley who translates “God standeth in the assembly.” Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 328-329.
10
judge would be seated.”34 Therefore, since God is standing, one might understand that he is not
presiding over the assembly. In his recent commentary, written with Frank-Lothar Hossfeld,
Zenger argues in favor of this interpretation.35 However, Tate shows that the OT is not consistent
with the concept of a judge or ruler remaining seated in his court. Tate36 summarizes the
arguments of Ackerman who discusses this issue in length against Otto Eissfeldt.37 Although
some texts show a judge or ruler seated (e.g., Exod 18:13; Judg 4:5; 1 Sam 20:5; 1 Sam 22:6-17;
Ps 122:5), there are also references to a judge or ruler standing (e.g. Isa 3:13; Ps 76:9-10; 2 Kgs
11:13-20). Therefore, the fact that God is portrayed as standing is not a consistent argument to
claim that he is not presiding over the assembly; rather, he might be standing because of the
special action that he is about to take, presented in vv. 2-7.38
Another important discussion concerns the translation of ‫עדת־אל‬. The NIV renders it as
“the great assembly,” taking ‫אל‬

ֵ as an adjective. This is unlikely since such usage is uncommon.
Furthermore, the primary meaning of ‫ אֵל‬is in reference to the God of Israel or the pagan gods
(false gods) and attested in texts that denote the superiority of God over other gods.39 This is
most likely the case in v. 1. In this discussion, the NET Bible makes a literal translation as “the
assembly of El.” Although the NET Bible translation is the closest to the Hebrew text, we render
34
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 335. See also Othmar Keel, cited by Tate, in: Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the
Biblical World: Ancient Near East Iconography and the Book of Psalms (trans. Timothy J. Hallett; Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1997), 207-208.
35
Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 333.
36
37
Ackerman, “An Exegetical Study,” 306-315, 329-336.
38
Tate states that “The standing of Yahweh indicates that a very important matter is being decided” (Tate,
Psalms 51-100, 335). Tsevat also affirrms similarly: “Whereas it is the normal posture of God, in conception or
vision, to be seated as He is surrounded by His servants and ministers (1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa. 6; Ezek. 1:26 ff.),
standing is a sign of an extraordinary event” (Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly,” 127).
39
TWOT, “‫אלה‬,” #93.
11
it here as “the divine assembly,” since the phrase ‫ עדת־אל‬is likely a fixed formula for the
gathering of the gods.40 We have to mention here that the translation of this phrase in v. 1 is
heavily dependent on the interpretation of Ps 82 as a whole. The rendering of “assembly of El”
brings the idea that God (Yahweh) stands in the assembly of another god, in this case, the god El.
We do not believe that such interpretation fits in the context of Ps 82.41
In order to argue for the translation of ‫ עדת־אל‬as “divine assembly” we present the
following arguments:
The phrase ‫עדת־אל‬, along with ‫עליון‬ ‫ בני‬in v. 6 and the context of a divine assembly,
has strong similarities with the Canaanite mythological belief of a heavenly assembly presided
over by the high god El.42 Since the discovery of the Ugarit texts, it has “apparently established
the fact that the term El was used in reference to a personal god and not merely as a generic term
in the ancient Semitic world.”43 Now what is at stake is the intention of the psalmist with the
phrase ‫עדת־אל‬. Did he want to express that Yahweh was merely a participant in the assembly of
El as a mere member? Or has ‫ עדת־אל‬not a clear appointment of the leader of the assembly,44
40
See Tate, Psalms 51-100, 329, and E. Theodore Mullen Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine
Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; ed. Frank Moore Cross, Jr.; California: Scholars,
1980), 230. See below our arguments to support this interpretation.
41
Again the work by Ackerman brings an extensive discussion (basically against Eissfeldt) on the meaning
of ‫עדת־אל‬. Ackerman, “An Exegetical Study,” 315-336.
42
Goldingay states that it is not necessary to assume a specific Canaanite influence in Israel’s literature
since, he argues, the idea of a divine assembly was “common throughout the Middle Eastern world.” (Goldingay,
Psalms, 2:560). Mullen agrees that “the parallels between council motifs in Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Israel clearly
show that the concept of the divine council must be taken as one which was common to the ancient Near East.”
(Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, 115). However, Mullen shows the close similarities between the Canaanite
literature and Ps 82 (Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, 227-244). Therefore, we argue here that, although the
concept of a divine assembly was common to the ancient Near East in general, the similarity between the Hebrew
text of Ps 82 and Canaanite literature is closer than any other foreign influence.
43
TWOT, “‫אלה‬,” #93.
44
S. B. Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God – Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy,” RB 102 (1995):
532-559. Parker defends this position. He argues against the possibility of Yahweh being the president of the
12
being it just a phrase that identifies the congregation of the gods? Or, did the psalmist wanted to
show that the assembly was Yahweh’s and that he, as leader, was judging the gods? We argue
for this third position because of the following reasons:
1 – There is no occurrence in the Hebrew Bible where El is attested as a god opposing
Yahweh. Although El appears sometimes as a proper name,45 it represents the God of Israel;
there is no occurrence of El as a foreign god. Mark S. Smith, in his book The Origins of Biblical
Monotheism, argues for a developing identification between El and Yahweh in the Hebrew
Bible.46 Now, if we assume El to be the leader of the assembly it would mean that Yahweh is
judging also El, opposing him as president, and condemning him to become a mere mortal. Such
an assumption does not find any support in the Hebrew text, Yahweh and El are never opposed;
on the contrary, they are commonly identified as referring to the same deity (cf. Isa 42:5).
2 - In the Psalter, from the 76 occurrences of El, 65 are clearly referring to Yahweh (e.g.
Ps 42:3; Ps 90:2; Ps 99:8). As for the other occurrences, most of them use El in reference to the
gods in general (e.g. Ps 81:10), but El is never understood as the name of a deity other than
Yahweh.
assembly based on the ideas that the leader of the assembly is responsible for the action of the other gods; he says on
p. 536 that “one might think that if injustice were so rampant that the foundations of the earth are quaking (v. 5b),
then the high god might be guilty of some negligence.” His argument is not strong, if the gods are being judged now
it means that someone is taking action against them, either the presiding god or any other. The responsibility of a
presiding leader over the evil behavior of his inferiors begins in the moment that he takes notice of their behavior.
We cannot infer responsibility over the presiding god here since we do not have a detailed exposition about how and
when the gods have performed their injustice neither how long it took for any other member of the council to take
action against them. Who are being judged are the “sons of Elyon,” now to assume responsibility over Elyon or
whoever may be the leader of the assembly is beyond the text.
45
See for example Gen 14:18; Gen 21:33; Num 16:22; Num 23:22; Ps 94:1.
46
Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic
Texts (New York: Oxford University, 2001). See specially chapter 7.
13
3 – It is assumed that Yahweh is superior to the other gods since in v. 6 he47 refers to the
gods as “sons of Elyon” and Elyon is another epithet of Yahweh (used in Ps 83:19). If we
assume El as the superior god in v. 1, instead of Yahweh, then we have to take Yahweh as a
mere member of the congregation and as such, a son of El as well. Following this argument, the
declaration of Yahweh in v. 6 would be awkward. Not to prolong the argument, suffice it to say
that here he would condemn the sons of El but El would be left without condemnation.
Consequently Yahweh could not assume the command of the earth as v. 8 claims because he
would not remain alone, rather El would continue to be the presiding god and Yahweh in second
position.
It is noteworthy that two scholars, namely, Smith48 and E. Theodore Mullen who have
studied the mythological background of the Hebrew Bible, agree with the interpretation and
translation of Yahweh as the leader of the divine assembly. In his remarkable interpretation of Ps
82 Mullen writes:
While we have certainly shown that ‘El’s position in the council was as dispenser of the
decree and justice, the concept that ‘El is here considered the highest god, not yet
replaced in Israelite tradition by Yahweh, is most tenuous. It seems apparent that ‘el is
here used not as an epithet of Yahweh, but rather as part of the frozen formula, ‘dt ‘l(m),
“the divine council,” borrowed from Canaanite literature. If ‘el is to be taken as a divine
name in v. 1, it is obvious that it is employed as an epithet of Yahweh and not as the
designations of a god of superior rank.
Yahweh’s position as noted in v. 1b is in the midst of the gods (beqéreḇ ‘ělōhîm). This
corresponds exactly to the other Israelite conceptions of the position of Yahweh in his
council - - he is enthroned, surrounded by the other deities (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1-2;
Pss 29; 89:6-9; Job 1:6; 2:1). Yahweh is clearly the central god in the assembly, the deity
about whom the other council members gather.49
47
We will defend the position that Yahweh is the speaker in vv. 2-4 and 6-7.
48
Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 141.
49
Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, 230-231.
14
Therefore, the similarity with the Canaanite pantheon does not suffice to assume that the
psalmist is affirming that Yahweh is in the assembly of El. It is easier to assume that the psalmist
made use of the Canaanite myth to identify the divine assembly where Yahweh is presiding.
Thus rendering ‫ עדת־אל‬as “divine assembly” in v. 1 takes the text much closer to the message
of Ps 82 as a whole.
The first occurrence of ‫( שָׁ פַט‬from 4 occurrences in our text) is a YQTL (Imperfect)
verb, and it is usually translated in the present tense50 because of its context. Neither the future
nor the modal tense51 seem to fit in the context of v. 1. A habitual tense rendering is most likely
showing that God uses to judge in the middle of the gods. However, considering the parallelism
of clauses 1a and b, which we will present later, it argues for the translation of ‫שׁפַט‬
ָ in the
present tense taking the nuance of an action that is taking place at the moment it is being
described.52 Therefore we interpret that in v. 1 the psalmist is describing that God is standing in
the divine assembly and he now pronounces judgment.
Verse 2
Verse 2 begins with a denunciation in the form of a question, “How long?” Such procedure was
common in the Israelite judicial court (1 Sam 22:13; 2 Sam 1:14; 1 Kgs 2:42-43).53 In this
50
“He holds judgment” (Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 328).
51
John Calvin opts for future tense and renders “he will judge in the midst of the gods.” Calvin,
Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 328.
52
See examples of such usage in Ps 2:2 and Isa 1:11, 18. F. W. Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar
(electronic ed.; ed. E. Kautzsch and S. A. E. Cowley Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2003), 313; See also:
Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. (3d ed.; rev. and exp. John C. Beckman; Toronto: University of
Toronto, 2007), 69.
53
Ackerman, “An Exegetical Study,” 336-337.
15
question Ackerman sees not an expectation for an answer but a complaint and an order to cease
what has been happening. Tate agrees with Ackerman that the question is not meant to receive an
answer, and that it is a complaint; however Tate does not go beyond taking the question as a
command. Here we follow Tate who states that there is no basis to see an implicit command in
the question. He shows that in some cases a command follows the question (Exod 10:3; 1 Sam
1:14; 16:1; 1 Kgs 18:21; Jer 23:26,28) and, in Ps 82, this is exactly the case (vv. 3-4).54
The second part of v. 2 (‫שׂאוּ‬

ְ ִ‫תּ‬ ‫ )וּ ְפנֵי ְרשָׁ עִים‬is understood as showing partiality to the
wicked,55as some modern translations attest.56 However, for the sake of the poetical nature of the
psalm and the careful structural work used by the psalmist,57 we translate ‫תִּ שְׂאוּ‬ ‫ וּ ְפנֵי ְרשָׁ עִים‬in
the literal sense of “and the face of the wicked, lift up?”
The YQTL verb ‫שׁפְּטוּ‬

ְ ִ‫ תּ‬is in the future tense, for the rhetorical question “How long?” is
asking when the gods will stop judging unjustly. The same future tense applies for ‫ תִּ שְׂאוּ‬since it
continues with the question of when their actions will cease.
54
See Tate, Psalms 51-100, 335-336. Goldingay argues that “How long?” is not usual for a judge or
protagonist to pronounce in court. It looks like he limits his interpretation to the Psalter context, thus ignoring the
examples shown by Ackerman. His reasoning lead him to state that it is not God who speaks in vv. 2-4 since it
would not be natural to see him as a judge in court uttering a question such as “How long?” Goldingay, Psalms, 563-
564.
55
BDB, “‫שׂא‬ ָ ָ‫נ‬,” 669-672. Here they show that ‫ נָשָׂא‬can have a positive meaning, like granting a request,
being gracious, or showing consideration. But it can also be in a bad sense like being unduly influenced by, and
specifically, showing partiality.
56
NASB, NET, NRSV, NIV. Similarly, KJV, CPB translate “and accept the persons of the wicked?”
57
See below in Literary Techniques and Figures of Speech the usage of two body parts of the wicked,
namely face and hand, to bind vv. 2 and 4.
16
Verses 3 and 4
Verses 3 and 4 have a rich variation of terms to refer to those suffering injustice (weak,
fatherless, oppressed, poor, and needy). Due to the similarity of the terms, there is no consistence
between the renderings of modern translations. However the meaning in these translations keeps
fairly the same, as well as in the translation we present here. Tate treats ‫ו ָָרשׁ‬ ‫( ָענִי‬3b), and ‫דַ ל‬
‫( ְו ֶאבְיוֹן‬4a) as hendiadys, respectively “poverty-stricken” and “powerless poor.”58 Although it is
possible to treat those words as hendiadys, the composition of this section becomes awkward if
we follow Tate because vv. 3 and 4 have three word-pairs but his proposal has only two of them.
Because of the well structured composition of the psalm, we tend to keep those words
separated.59 Therefore, our translation keeps the three lines (3a, 3b, and 4a) with two references
to the powerless60 in each of them.
Those verbs in vv. 3 and 4 are in the imperative mood. In 3b ‫הצְדִּ יקוּ‬
ַ is in the Hiphil
thematic stem denoting that the command is to cause the powerless to be justified or to be
declared just. In the same way, since ‫הצִּילוּ‬

ַ is in the Hiphil, the imperative mood is commanding
the gods to cause the powerless to be rescued from the hand of the wicked.61 The verb ‫פּלְּטוּ‬
ַ is in
the Piel thematic stem, thus indicating here a causative meaning as well, since it commands the
gods to deliver the powerless.62
58
59
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 328. Compare with the proposed structure of vv. 3 and 4 of C. R. Dickson in C. R.
Dickson, “The Hebrew Terminology for the Poor in Psalm 82,” HvTSt 51 (1995): 1038.
60
Dickson proposes in his article that “the different Hebrew words for poor should be understood as
metaphors for the concept of powerlessness.” Therefore we use here “powerless” in reference to those described in
vv. 3 and 4 as being poor and helpless. Dickson, “The Hebrew Terminology,” 1042.
61
Thomas O. Lambdin, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Scribner, 1971), §157.
62
Lambdin, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, §148. See also BDB, “‫ ָפּלַט‬,” 812, and Tate, Psalms 51-
100, 329.
17
Verse 5
The verb ‫ ָי ֽדְ עוּ‬is the first of only two QTL verbs in Ps 82. It is translated in the habitual mode,
denoting a habitual activity, since this usage is common in poetry and harmonizes with the
context.63 Together with the next verb, the behavior of the gods is described. The YQTL verb
‫ יָבִינוּ‬is translated in the habitual mode since it pictures how the gods are acting. Such
description indicates the incorrigible way of the gods. Although they have been warned about
their misbehavior, they do not seem to change. They keep on doing what they use to do. The
description in v. 5 is broadened with the Hithpael verb ‫הלָּכוּ‬

ַ ְ‫י ִת‬. The reflexive meaning of the
Hithpael shows that the gods are wandering about by themselves,64 they have not been led into
darkness, but instead, they are in darkness because of their own ways.
The verb ‫ י ִמּוֹטוּ‬is a Niphal (passive tense)65 showing that the foundations of the earth are
shaken. Thus, we interpret that the basic structure of the world suffers the consequences of the
behavior of the gods described in 5a and 5b.66
Verse 6
The verb ‫ אָמ ְַרתִּ י‬is the second occurrence of a QTL verb in Ps 82 and is the only one to be
translated in the simple past tense. Here we follow Tate’s interpretation, who proposes “to take
v6 as the recall on the part of God of a particular moment in time when he had spoken a decree
63
Lambdin, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, §44. See point no. 4.
64
Lambdin, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, §177.
65
Lambdin, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, §140. Specifically we argue here for the Incomplete
Passive tense since the agent is absent from the clause. Our affirmation that the foundations of the earth are shaken
because of the action of the gods is based on the interpretation of the context and not the clause alone.
66
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 330. See note 5.b. where Tate argues against Anderson’s interpretation of v. 5.
18
which established the duties of the gods…”67 The fact that only two QTL verbs appear in Ps 82
shows the nature of the text which describes the scene not as a narrative of the past but as a
present action.
Verse 7
There has not been much difference in most translations of v. 7, but as a core verse to the
understanding of the whole psalm we can say that the interpretation of the passage depends on
the translation as much as the other way around. The verbs ‫ תְּ מוּתוּן‬and ‫ תִּ פּ ֹלוּ‬are YQTL and
thus they are usually translated in the simple future tense. The NIV renders “you will fall like
every other ruler,” the NRSV “and fall like any prince,” and the NET Bible “you will fall like all
the rulers,” as it is attested in passages like Judg 16:7, 11. Such usage is unlikely here, because
7a states that they will die like man. This implies they are not man. As Tate argues: “In fact, if
the unity of the psalm is maintained, and there is no real reason not to do so, the simile, ‘like
humankind’ and ‘like the princes/chieftains’ in v 7 makes it impossible to assume that the ‘gods’
(who are called ‘sons of Elyon’ in v 6) could be human beings.”68
Verse 8
Verse 8 presents some difficulties of interpretation. Literally ‫הגּוֹי ִם‬

ַ ‫ְבּכָל־‬ ‫ כִּי־ ַאתָּ ה תִ נְחַל‬could
be translated as “for you take possession in all the nations,” or, as attested by the LXX, “for you
will inherit all the nations.” But those renderings do not harmonize with the content of the psalm.
67
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 337-338.
68
19
Thus, modern translations69 along with some scholars70 agree that ‫( תִ נְחַל‬qal imperfect) should
be understood not as a claim that God will take inheritance but that the nations are his
inheritance, which means his possession. Therefore we interpret ‫ תִ נְחַל‬in the habitual mode
arguing that God is continuously in possession of all the earth. Following this argument, the verb
should be translated in the present tense.71
The imperatives in 8a (‫מה‬

ָ ‫ קוּ‬and ‫שׁ ְפטָה‬
ָ ) characterize the tone of a petition, a prayer to
Yahweh, asking him to rise up and judge the earth. Consequently, the second part of v. 8 is the
reason given for Yahweh to judge. Tate writes: “In this approach, justification is given for the
plea in 8a on the basis that Yahweh has patrimonial rights in every nation; he is, and has been,
the ‘manor lord’ (Schmidt’s translation: Erbherr) over all the nations.”72
GRAMMATICAL AND SYNTACTICAL ANALYSIS
Once we have established our text and analyzed the meaning of the most important terms in Ps
82, we can now study the relationship between the sentences or clauses that compose the text.
We aim here to arrive at a segmentation of the text in order to understand better the flow of
thought and thus understand the message of the whole text.73 We will proceed through three
69
NASB, NET, NRSV,NIV, NLT.
70
Goldingay, Psalms, 568; Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 154; Tate, Psalms 51-100, 329.
71
See the valuable explanation of Tate, Psalms 51-100, 331-332; See also Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 154;
BDB, “‫נחל‬,” 635; TWOT, “‫נחל‬,” #1343.
72
73
Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 113.
20
steps to achieve our objective: (1) delimitation of the individual clauses, (2) inter-clausal
analysis, and (3) the segmentation.
Delimitation of the Individual Clauses
According to Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., a clause “is a group of words which has a subject and a
verb/predicate and which forms part of a sentence.”74 Thus, in this step we will identify and
delimit the individual clauses of Ps 82 based on the grammatical and syntactical analysis of the
text. In order to accomplish this task it will be necessary to parse all verbal forms in our text.
Therefore we will examine the person, gender and number (PGN), the thematic stem and the
type of predicate of each verbal form.
See Appendix I for a table with the clause delimitation.
The first aspect of Ps 82 that we notice in the delimitation of clauses is that only two QTL
verbs are present in the poem (5a, 6a). Since the first occurrence is translated in the present
tense,75 in 6a we find the only simple past tense in the entire psalm. As we have stated above,
this feature shows that the content of the text is not a description of the past but an action that is
taking place in the present time.
There are two verbal adjectives (participles). The first functions adjectively (1b), while
the other substantively (3b). There are also two non-verbal clauses, 6b and 6c, the later being an
ellipsis.76
74
Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 97.
75
Se above in the Translation.
76
Ellipsis is the suppression of a word or expression inside of a grammatical unit where it is expected. In
the case of clause 6c it is understood that ‫ \אנִי־אָ ַמ ְרתִּ י‬should be placed at the beginning of the clause so its meaning
would be clearer.
21
The rest of the psalm is divided into imperatives (6 occurrences) and YQTLs (9
occurrences). These YQTLs are translated in different tenses. The first YQTL in 1c is in the
present tense; those in 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b are in the simple future; those in 5b, 5c, 8c are in the
habitual tense; and 5d denotes an incomplete passive tense.77
These data help us to better comprehend the nature of the poem. The habitual tense used
in describing the behavior of the gods (5a, 5b, 5c) expresses that there is a disturbing situation
happening for a while (the injustice and ignorance of the gods threatening the foundations of the
earth), and the imperatives show Yahweh commanding changes (3a, 3c, 4a, 4b) while the people
cry out to Yahweh (8a, 8b) asking that he realizes, in the present, the necessary changes.
The PGN column demonstrates a clear division of the psalm into sections. We could say
that v. 1 is in the third person; vv. 2-4 are in the second person; v. 5 is in the third person; v. 6 is
in the first person beginning with a quoted speech of Yahweh and turning to second person plural
addressing the gods; and vv. 7 and 8 are in the second person, with v. 7 being addressed to the
gods and v. 8 addressed to Yahweh.
Such analysis helps us to verify that the text has a reasonably simple structure, although it
has not granted to Ps 82 an easy interpretation.
Inter-Clausal Analysis
See Appendix II for a clausal flow chart.
The inter-clausal analysis aims to distinguish the relationship between those individual
clauses identified in the previous step. With this analysis we classified each clause as syndetic or
77
See references above in the Translation.
22
asyndetic,78 verbal or non-verbal,79 conjunctive or disjunctive,80 dependent or independent,81
main, coordinate or subordinate clause,82 and its syntactical function.
As usual in Hebrew poetic texts, there are few occurrences of connectives that join one
clause to another. The only conjunctive clause in the whole psalm is 8c, which is a causal clause
beginning with ‫כִּי‬. Thus, clause 8c, subordinated to the previous clause, provides a reason for the
petitions in 8a and 8b. Clause 5c is the other subordinated clause in the poem. Its syntactical
function is resultative since it states the results of the behavior of the gods. Because they walk
about in darkness, the foundations of the earth are shaken.
The four occurrences of the conjunction waw (2b, 5b, 6c, 7b) are noteworthy. They all
are placed between clauses that form parallelisms.83 Such a feature makes the parallelism more
evident.
As stated in the delimitation, Ps 82 does not present much difficulty in the relationship
between its clauses. The main clauses are directly related to the change of addressee.84 Thus, the
compositional structure of the psalm reveals a clear separation between sections in the psalm.
78
The term “syndetic” stands for the clause joined to the preceding through a conjunction. The term
“asyndetic” stands for a clause that has no conjunction to link it to the preceding clause.
79
A verbal clause usually describes an action, while the non-verbal describes a state.
80
See Lambdin, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, §132. Basically a conjunctive clause is temporally or
logically posterior to the preceding clause, while disjunctive is a clause with non-sequential relationship with the
preceding clause. One criteria for this relationship is the presence of the conjunction waw (‫)ו‬.
81
An independent clause makes thematic sense by itself, while a dependent clause does not.
82
Related to the preceding norm applied, if a clause is independent, it may be a main or coordinate clause.
A main clause usually begins a new idea and normally introduces a new subject. A coordinate clause is also
independent and maintains the same though of the preceding clause. Subordinate clauses are dependent on the
preceding clause since it doesn’t make sense by itself.
83
See Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 226.
84
Compare with the Delimitation of the Individual Clauses above.
23
However, the inter-clausal analysis is related to an important discussion in scholarship today,
namely, the question about who is the speaker in v. 5. As for now suffice it to say that we
interpret clause 5a as a main clause because it has a change in addressee. As we will discuss
later, we understand v. 5 as the voice of the Levite that intersects the two utterances of Yahweh
towards the gods (vv. 2a-4b, 6a-7b).
Segmentation
The clausal analysis performed above gave us enough data to perform a division of the text into
compositional units. Now we will segment the pericope to identify the compositional units and
acquire a better view of the flow of the text. Our criteria to segment the text will be the change of
the subject of the individual clauses, the change of addressee, the change of speaker, and the
change of verbal form. See chart on Appendix III.
As we have stated above in the Inter-clausal analysis, the question concerning the speaker
is one important discussion in scholarship today. Therefore, now that we are presenting the
segmentation of the psalm in relationship to its speakers and addresses, we will analyze the most
common interpretations given by some scholars on this matter. At the same time we will defend
our interpretation in relationship to these proposals. After this discussion, we shall present our
conclusions about the segmentation.
The most controversial point about the speaker in Ps 82 occurs in v. 5. Tate affirms that
the “identity of the speaker in v 5 is ambiguous.”85 Zenger say that the “choice between the two
ways of reading v. 5 sketched here (divine discourse or ‘petitioner’) is difficult.”86 However, not
85
86
24
only v. 5 has different interpretations about the speaker. Goldingay, for example, argues that the
entire psalm is the voice of a human being.87 He goes further proposing the possibility of a
prophet, being at the assembly of the gods, speaking the accusations against the gods. He states:
In the context, either a human or a divine protest is possible, but we have had no
indication that God speaks, and “How long?” is not the kind of question that a protagonist
or a judge utters in court. I thus take it that the same person speaks in v. 2 as in v. 1, but
we may perhaps imagine this happening in the setting of the assembly of which v. 1
spoke, the assembly to which a person such as a prophet is admitted (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-
22). A little like Isaiah, who intervenes in a meeting of the assembly to confront the gods
gathered there.88
Another approach is to take v. 5 as part of the discourse of Yahweh, thus arguing that he speaks
from vv. 2 to 7.89 Yet, another approach is the idea that not only v. 5 but also v. 6 is the voice of
the psalmist.90
Tate argues that it is more likely to understand v. 5 as “an anonymous voice of one of the
members of the heavenly assembly, the narrator in vv 1 and 8.”91 Thus, Tate agrees with the
distinction of v. 5 from the speeches of 2-4 and 6-7. Now, though it may be difficult to determine
the character of the speaker in vv. 1 and 5, we believe that the distinction between those verses
and the speeches in vv. 2-4 and 6-7 can be presented without much doubt.
87
Goldingay, Psalms, 559.
88
Goldingay, Psalms, 563.
89
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 336. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 331. Zenger says that it is possible to
understand v. 5 as a direct divine discourse, a continuation of vv. 2-4.
90
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 337. See his quotation of Dahood’s affirmation.
91
25
Goldingay’s claim that there is no indication that God speaks is not plausible. Zenger has
shown that “a direct divine speech without an explicit introduction to the discourse is typical of
the Asaph Psalms.”92 In addition to Ps 82 he mentions Ps 75 as an example of this. Therefore, the
fact that the speeches in vv. 2-4 and 6-7 do not have an explicit introduction to the discourse is
not a sufficient argument to claim that these verses cannot be a discourse pronounced by another
speaker, distinct from the speaker in vv. 1 and 5. Also, we do not find Goldingay’s theory about
a prophet in the heavenly assembly accusing the gods convincing. First he fails to present an
example of a prophet or another human being that would be in the heavenly assembly with an
accusatory mission. Second, we have shown elsewhere93 that God is standing in the assembly
because he is the one accusing the gods. It is very unlikely that there would be a picture of
Yahweh, as the supreme God in the assembly, standing while someone else judges the gods. It is
more probable to be a description like that in Isa 3:13-14 where Yahweh stands to judge the
leaders of his people.
Tate’s argument on the character of the speaker in vv. 1 and 5 is based on the work of C.
R. Seitz who argues that the voices in Isaiah 40:1-8 are the voices of members of the heavenly
council.94 Although we agree that there may be similarities between this kind of narrative and Ps
82, we believe that, as part of the cultic practice, it is presumably easier to find characteristics of
the prophetic psalms in Ps 82 as described by Mowinckel.95 Mowinckel shows the possibility of
92
93
See our discussion on v. 1 in the Translation.
94
95
Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; 2 vols.; Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1962), 2:53-73.
26
prophets and Levites as performers of prophetic psalms. Thus, due to the poetical and cultic
nature of Ps 82, we believe that the speaker of vv. 1 and 5 is a Levite.96
Therefore, we follow here the opinion of many scholars that vv. 2-4 and 6-7 have
Yahweh as the speaker and the gods as the addressee. We also propose that vv. 1 and 5 are
spoken by the same person, namely, a Levite in the cultic context,97 addressing the congregation.
Verse 8 is the cry of the congregation.98
Since we have exposed our interpretation regarding the speakers of the different segments
of Ps 82 we can now present the conclusions of our segmentation.
The chart shows the Psalm segmented into seven sections, being an alternation of
speakers between God and the Levite who leads the congregation, narrating the heavenly events.
The last section, v. 8, presents the petition of the congregation.
Verse 1 sets the place and event of the Psalm. The Levite speaks to the congregation and
shows that something is happening in the heavenly assembly. God stands in the middle of the
gods to judge. Then in vv. 2-4 Yahweh is the speaker. He addresses the gods in two different
ways. In v. 2, through a rhetorical question, he reproves them with a denunciation of their
actions. Following, vv. 3 and 4 are the admonition of Yahweh making clear what should be their
behavior.
After this first speech of Yahweh, the Levite interrupts the scene in v. 5. The change of
addressee is clear as we see the move from second to third person plural. Furthermore, the
96
Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:55-56.
97
We have identified the addressee as the congregation because we defend in this paper that Ps 82 was
used in the cultic practice. See the Sitz-im-Leben in the Historical and Cultural Analysis below.
98
It is worthy to mention that Zenger takes v. 5 as a lament of the congregation together with v. 8. Hossfeld
and Zenger, Psalms 2, 331-332.
27
indentation that the BHS presents in this verse is quite noteworthy. The Levite addresses the
congregation again just to show that, though the gods were denounced and admonished, they
seem incorrigible, and they deliberately, keep on their evil ways. His last words show that the
behavior of the gods has put into risk the structures of the earth.99 Everyone is threatened, in peril
because of the gods’ actions.
Yahweh continues his utterance against the gods in vv. 6 and 7, divided into two sections.
In the first section (6a) Yahweh declares that once he had spoken about the gods. The change in
subject and addressee is clear again. The subject of the clause is Yahweh himself. Now, from 6b
to 7b, the subjects of the clauses are the gods who receives the sentence of Yahweh condemning
them to die like human beings.
Verse 8 is the petition of the whole congregation to Yahweh, because of the unfolding of
the events. They ask Yahweh to rule the earth since the gods were condemned. The change in
addressee from the gods to Yahweh is evident.
COMPOSITIONAL STRUCTURE OUTLINE
In this step we present a compositional structure which represents the flow of the ideas worked
by the psalmist and the development of the message towards a conclusion. The segmentation
worked out above is our starting point. In fact, the compositional structure proposed here agrees
with the segmentation with only one exception. Instead of segmenting clause 6a from the section
6b-7b, we divided these clauses into their verses. Thus v. 6 forms an unity, and v. 7 another
99
See the Semiotic Analysis below for an explanation of the term “foundations of the earth.”
28
unity. Such change expresses a more logical flow of thought and reveals how the message
develops through each section.
Some scholars have proposed some compositional structures based on different methods.
For example, Samuel Terrien presents the following compositional structure based on strophic
structure:100
I. Exordium: The Council of the Gods (v. 1bc)

II. The indictment of the Gods (vv. 2-4)
III. The Stupidity of the Gods (v. 5)
IV. The Death of the Gods (vv.6-7)
V. Epilogue: Prayer for Peace in the Whole Earth (v.8).101
Similarly, Lowell K. Handy presents the following composition based on meaning and sound of
words:
A Section I Assembly / God rises - špṭ
B Section II Address / gods confronted
C Section III Address / chaos described
B’ Section IV Address / gods confronted
A’ Section V Assembly / God rises - špṭ 102
Such divisions are well understood from what we have seen in the text. However, we believe that
it is possible to present a more explicative arrangement, so that the message of Ps 82 can be
easily understood.
We will present a structure similar to that proposed by Tate in his commentary.103 Thus,
we argue for a chiastic structure of A B C D C’ B’ A’.
100
The strophic structure will be dealt later on this paper.
101
Samuel Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (The Eerdmans Critical
Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 588.
102
Handy, "Sounds, Words and Meanings," 62-63.
103
29
A - God is judging in the divine assembly – vision. (v. 1)
B – Accusation against the gods – a complaint. (v. 2)
C – Call to change their ways – an admonition. (vv. 3-4)
D – The gods are incorrigible – declaration of guilt. (v. 5)
C’ – Formal address to the gods – prelude of the sentence. (v. 6)
B’ – The death of the gods – the sentence. (v. 7)
A’ – A cry for God to judge the earth – a petition. (v.8)
Section A shows the heavenly assembly set to a trial. Yahweh is standing and judging. Section A’
is a petition that Yahweh judges the earth as he has done in heaven. In section B the gods are
accused for judging unjustly which is responded in B’ with the gods condemned to death because
of their evil ways. Section C presents an admonition to the gods, showing how they should
behave. The counterpart C’ is a former address to the gods, where Yahweh, preparing to
pronounce the sentence, proclaims what they are so far. Such affirmation will bring to the
sentence its full meaning. Section D receives emphasis by its position in the chiastic structure.
Such emphasis shows that the gods are incorrigible and that their attitudes are threatening the
structures of the earth. We see here that the intention of the author is to show that, while the gods
exist and while they are ruling, the problem of injustice cannot be resolved. Something must
happen. Thus, the second part of the psalm (C’, B’, A’) gives an answer to that fact, in that the
gods are removed from their position and Yahweh is asked to judge all the earth.
30
The present compositional structure draws attention to the judicial features of the psalm, in the
sense that some components of a trial are presented: the accusation, the declaration of guilt, and
the sentence.
DEFINITION OF THE LITERARY GENRE
The compositional structure of Ps 82 demonstrates a diversity of speech functions such as vision,
complaint, admonition, and petition. This character of the psalm does not fit the established
categories of the form critics.104 Kraus states that “the category of the psalm is disputed.”105
Gunkel relates the psalm to prophetic judgment speeches. Taking Ps 82 as an example, he
affirms that “prophetic judgment speeches do not appear in pure form in the Psalter. Rather they
are mixed with other genres.”106
The major agreement is the identification of prophetic and liturgical elements in Ps 82.
Tate has pointed out the considerable number of descriptions of Ps 82 using the term
“prophetic.”107 S. B. Parker defines the first seven verses as narrative whereas v. 8 closes the text
with a cultic cry, what he argues to be frequent in the Psalter.108 Although he presents some
exegetical elements to defend his point, the similarities with prophetic literature in the text are
104
See the classic work of Gunkel and Begrich, Introduction to Psalms.
105
106
Gunkel and Begrich, Introduction to Psalms, 277.
107
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 332. He lists: prophetic hymn, prophetic liturgy, prophetic tribunal, prophetic
social critique, and prophetic lawsuit.
108
Parker, “The Beginning,” 538-539.
31
more evident than any elements of simple narrative.109 The extensive number of examples given
by Gunkel, comparing prophetic literature to Ps 82, as well as other psalms, confirms the
prophetic nature of the psalm.110 Therefore, identifying vv. 1 to 7 as similar to prophetic
literature and v. 8 evidently as a cultic text, we can then propose Ps 82 as a cultic-prophetic
text.111
STYLISTIC ANALYSIS
Our purpose with the stylistic analysis is to describe the literary techniques and the stylistic
devices used by the author to communicate his message. In order to do so we will apply the
following methods: stichometry, scansion of the meter, identification of types of semantic
parallelism, and delimitation of the strophic structure.
Stichometry and Scansion of the Meter112
See Appendix IV for a chart with the stichometry and scansion of the meter.
We will now present our conclusion on the stichometry and, after that, the scansion of the
meter.
109
Parker, “The Beginning,” 547. See his argumentation (in footnote) against Tsevat’s defense of the
prophetic characteristics of the psalm.
110
Gunkel and Begrich, Introduction to Psalms, 277–281. Notice in particular the number of similarities to
Isaiah.
111
See the exposition of Kraus on this matter. Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 154.
112
As a matter of performing the stichometry and scansion of the poetic lines, we will not consider the
superscript from the Hebrew text.
32
Watson defines stichometry as “the segmenting of a text into verse-lines.”113 The
stichometry evidences not only where in the message the psalmist put emphasis, but also the
careful arrangement of words in order to create an elevated poetic structure.
There are two valuable works on Ps 82 which provides a considerable amount of
information that are functional to perform the stichometry. Prinsloo interprets Ps 82 paying
special attention to morphology, syntax, style and semantic features.114 Handy also presents
important information based on sounds, word play, and the use of words with multiple
meanings.115 Their contribution is very important here as much as in the setting of the strophic
structure.
Comparing the delimitation of clauses, the first aspect to be noticed is that each colon
coincides with a clause. With the exception of v. 8, the poem consists of bicola. As for v. 6, 6a is
a case of anacrusis, which means that 6a is an extra-metrical expression.116 It just introduces the
content of 6b and 6c.
The first bicolon (v. 1) forms a unit by a chiastic structure. In this case, the word ‫אֱֹלהִים‬
is an anacrusis in terms of the chiasm.117 Thus, the pattern verb + object in the first cola, is
reversed with the object + verb in the second. Furthermore, there is also the pattern ‫אֱֹלהִים‬ ‫ֵאל‬
‫אֱֹלהִים‬, suggested by Handy.118
113
Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 14.
114
Prinsloo, "Psalm 82: Once Again," 222.
115
116
Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 110-111.
117
See Prinsloo, "Psalm 82: Once Again," 223. He explains that although it is an anacrusis, ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬is not an
extra metrical word.
118
33
The next verse-line (v. 2) also has a clear parallelism. Both clauses express the same idea,
making an emphatic question. Moreover, 2b states more specifically what was questioned in 2a.
The first question is how long they will judge unjustly, and then 2b explains that to lift up the
face of the wicked is to judge unjustly.
Verses 3 and 4 are composed with the same structure. Not only do they begin with the
sequence verb + ‫דַ ל‬, but each of them ends with a verb. Besides this, there are strong similarities
of terms in these poetic lines.
The next poetic-line is composed of 5a and 5b. Again the structure shows an evident
correlation. Both clauses begin with ‫ ֹלא‬followed by a verb. The “u” sound pattern at the end of
each clause substantiates the unity of the poetic-line.
Clauses 5c and 5d are united by the position of the verbs. In the first colon, the verb is
placed at the end while in the next colon the verb is placed at the beginning.119 Therefore we
have the sequence object + verb / verb + object in these colons.
As we mentioned above, v. 6 begins with an anacrusis (6a), which anticipates the bicola.
Not only the parallelism but also the end rhyme with the “em” sound shows the unity of both
cola.
Verse 7 is the last bicola. The parallelism shows the emphasis in the condemnation of the
gods. The first cola states that they will die like human beings, and the second cola states that
they will fall like any prince. The two verbs are placed at the end of each line and they share a
“u” sound pattern.
119
Prinsloo, "Psalm 82: Once Again," 225. See footnote 30 where he mentions the comment of F. I.
Andersen.
34
Verse 8 is the only tricola in the poem. Such a feature brings emphasis to the conclusion
of the psalm. The first two lines constitute the petition of the congregation, and the third gives an
argument for their plea.
As for the scansion of the meter, it is a debated issue. There is not much agreement about
this analysis in the scholarship. Watson dedicates a chapter120 on meter discussing the existence
of meter in Hebrew poetry.121 Besides the debate on the existence of meter, there is also the
discussion on how to identify and measure it. Some theories of Hebrew meter have been
suggested, such as alternating (stress) meter, word-foot, thought-unit, syllable-counting, and
letter-counting.122 We will apply here the stress-counting method which seems to us the most
consistent theory.123
The meter 3 + 3 is the most frequent in Ps 82, occurring in vv. 1 - 4 and 7. Theodore H.
Robinson affirms that this meter is the most common in Hebrew poetry.124 Kraus125 and Tate126
agree, although Kraus doesn’t mention v. 1 in his counting. Thus, the uniformity of meter is
noticeable in the first half of the psalm (vv. 1-4).
Now, vv. 5, 6, and 8 have peculiar meters. Clauses 5ab are 2 + 2 and clauses 5cd are 2 +
3. Here we concord with Tate partially, as he writes on the meter of v. 5 as “4[2+2]+2+3.”127 The
120
121
Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 91. See his quotation of scholars’ affirmation about the issue.
122
123
124
Theodore H. Robinson, The Poetry of the Old Testament (Studies in Theology Series; London: Gerald
Duckworth & Co., 1969), 32.
125
126
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 328-329.
127
35
same occurs for v. 6. Tate writes “4[2+2]+3,”128 Kraus reads “4+3,”129 and we interpret the meter
as 2+2+3. Finally, in v. 8 we have a 2+2+4, defended by the two scholars above as 4+4.
In the second line of v. 8 it is not possible to make it as 2+2 due to the sense of the text.
On the other hand, our choice for 2+2 instead of 4 in the first part of vv. 5, 6 and 8 is based on
the following reasons: (1) Robinson argues that it is possible to read 4 as 2+2 because, according
to him, it is very rare that a verse-member should contain more than three units;130 (2) the meter
2+2 brings uniformity to the beginning of vv. 5, 6, and 8 and builds a connection between those
verses; (3) and Robinson states about the 2+2 meter: “It’s not uncommon in the Psalms, and its
quick, staccato movement often indicates a high emotional tension, sometimes due to fear or
awe, and sometimes to exuberant happiness.”131 Thus, the meter 2+2 renders to vv. 5, 6, and 8 an
emotional highlight.
As a conclusion of this section, we note that the relationship between vv. 5, 6, and 8
cannot be ignored. Prinsloo has shown already that v. 5 and 8 are well connected by means of
“key concepts.”132 Furthermore, vv. 5, 6, and 8 are related by the expression “all” (‫)כָּל‬.
Therefore, the scansion of the meter has shown that the poet has applied a well organized
structure on the text and that in particular vv. 5 and 8 are emphasized.
128
129
130
Robinson, The Poetry of the Old Testament, 30.
131
Robinson, The Poetry of the Old Testament, 30.
132
36
Types of Parallelism
We can see that parallelism occurs in every verse of Ps 82. The psalmist produced a well
arranged text where there is coherence in the relationship between every sentence. Our attempt
here is to show the types of parallelism applied in the text. By analyzing the text we notice that
synthetic parallelism occurs in a considerable frequency in Ps 82.
Verse 1 parallels the place and the action of God. It can be seen as a correlative word-
pair.133
‫ת־אל‬
֑ ֵ ַ‫אֹל ִ֗הים נִצָּ ֥ב ַבּעֲד‬B God is standing in the divine assembly;
‫שׁפֹּֽט׃‬
ְ ִ ‫ֱֹלהים י‬
֣ ִ ‫בּ ֶ ְ֖ק ֶרב א‬ in the middle of the gods he judges.
The second colon amplifies what is stated in the first. Therefore it is a synthetic parallelism. The
action of God standing is explained in colon 2 in that his action means to perform judgment. The
divine council of colon 1 is more clearly pictured as the gods gathered where God stands in the
middle of them.
Verse 2 also has a parallelism where the second colon specifies the statement of the first
colon.
‫ְטוּ־עוֶל‬
֑ ָ ‫שׁפּ‬ְ ִ‫עַד־ ָמ ַת֥י תּ‬ “How long will you judge unjustly
‫אוּ־סֽלָה׃‬
ֶ ְ‫וּפְנֵ ֥י ְ֝רשָׁ ִ֗עים תִּ שׂ‬ And the face of the wicked, lift up? – Selah
Those cola are not stating two different actions, instead, colon 2 shows how the gods are judging
unjustly, namely, by showing partiality to (lifting the face of) the wicked. Again the poet used a
synthetic parallelism.
133
37
Verses 3 and 4 form a group of synonymous word-pairs where these 4 cola express the
same idea. Verses 3 and 4 use five different words to describe the oppressed and 4 imperatives to
call the gods to change their actions.
‫ְטוּ־דל ְוי ָ֑תוֹם‬

֥ ַ ‫שׁפ‬ ִ Judge the weak and the fatherless;
‫ָע ִנ֖י ו ָ ָ֣רשׁ ַהצְדִּ ֽיקוּ׃‬ to the oppressed and the poor, do justice.
‫ְטוּ־דל ְו ֶאבְי֑ וֹן‬

֥ ַ ‫ַפּלּ‬ Deliver the weak and the needy;
‫ִמ ַיּ֖ד ְרשָׁ ִ ֣עים הַצִּ ֽילוּ׃‬ from the hand of the wicked, rescue.”
Also v. 5 contains a synonymous parallelism. The ideas of knowing and understanding are
paralleled to emphasize the nonsense action of the gods. Also the third colon stands as a
correlative synonymous to the previous cola.
‫ֹל֤ א ָי ֽדְ ֨עוּ׀‬ They don’t know

‫וְֹל֥ א י ָ ִ֗בינוּ‬ and they don’t understand.
‫שׁכָ ֥ה י ִתְ ה ַָלּ֑כוּ‬ ֵ ‫ַבּ ֲח‬ In darkness they walk about
Verse 6 is composed with a synonymous parallelism. The first colon shows Yahweh stating that
the ones being addressed are gods, and the second colon states the same idea but using other
words. Thus, the affirmation that those addressed are gods, is then restated in the second colon
with them called “sons of the Most High.”
‫ֹלהים ַא ֶ ֑תּם‬
֣ ִ ֱ‫\אנִי־ ֭ ָאמ ְַרתִּ י א‬ “I said: You are gods,
‫וּב ְֵנ֖י ֶע ְלי֣וֹן ֻכּלְּכֶ ֽם׃‬ and sons of the Most High are all of you.
In v. 7, the idea of the gods dying, in the first colon, is expressed as “fall” in the second colon.
Thus, here we have another synonymous parallelism.
‫מוּתוּן‬
֑ ְ‫ְאָדם תּ‬ ֣ ָ ‫֭ ָאכֵן כּ‬ But indeed like a human being you will die
‫ְאַחד הַשָּׂ ִ ֣רים תִּ פֹּֽלוּ׃‬
֖ ַ ‫וּכ‬ and like one of the rulers you will fall.”
38
The last parallelism takes place in v. 8. It is a synthetic parallelism where the second line
explains the first. The petition for Yahweh to rise up is explained as to raise up to judge.
‫קוּמה ֭ ֱאֹלהִים‬ ָ֣ Raise up God,

‫שׁפ ָ ְ֣טה ה ָ ָ֑א ֶרץ‬ ָ judge the earth
‫כִּ ֽי־ ַא ָ ֥תּה ֝תִ נְ ַ֗חל ְבּכָל־הַגּוֹ ִי ֽם׃‬ for you possess all the nations.
Strophic Structure
In scholarship it is still a debate whether or not there are strophes or stanzas in Hebrew poetry.
Watson points out that even in the terminology there is not much concordance.134 Nevertheless
Watson suggests some terminologies in order to present the analysis of strophes and stanzas in
Hebrew poetry. Therefore, the first difficulty that we face is the uncertainty on how to divide a
poem into strophes and stanzas.
We can defend that Ps 82 does not have to be divided into stanzas. The first reason to
abandon the attempt of finding stanzas is because the poem has a well structured organization, as
we have seen throughout our analysis. We could say that Ps 82 consists of only one stanza, as
Watson says that “a poem can compromise any number of stanzas, the minimum therefore being
one. And, in a one-stanza poem, the major subdivisions are strophes, not stanzas.”135 The second
reason to decline the division of Ps 82 into stanzas is the fact that there are no clear indicatives to
do so, principally because of the lack of criteria.136
134
135
136
Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 163. See the affirmation of Watson that, for the division of a poem
into stanzas, “there are no hard and fast rules which can be applied. It is, to some extent, a matter of feel.”
39
Now, we propose a division of Ps 82 into strophes based on change of addressee. The
reason for this criteria lays on the fact that we defend in this paper that Ps 82 was used in the
liturgy of Israel. We have already pointed it out in the Definition of the Literary Genre, and it
will be developed in the Historical and Cultural Analysis below. Thus, by dividing the poem into
changes of addressee, the strophic division can be used to delimit the voice of one speaker or
another, as well as the voice of the congregation at the end (v. 8).
Our division into strophes coincides with the one presented by Terrien137 and also the
structure proposed by Handy which is based on sounds, words and meanings.138 Handy’s work,
though not claimed to be a strophic division, supports our distribution of the text into strophes. It
shows that our proposed strophic division finds support in the sound patters presented in the text
as well as in the words order.
Verse 1 is the first strophe (v. 1) where the leading voice of the poem describes the scene
in heaven. The second strophe (vv. 2-4) is the voice of Yahweh speaking at the heavenly
assembly. Then, at the third strophe (v. 5), the leading voice speaks again making an interruption
in the speech of Yahweh in order to narrate the situation so far. The forth strophe (vv. 6-7) brings
back the voice of Yahweh, now putting an end to the chaotic situation described before. The last
strophe (v. 8) introduces the voice of the congregation with a petition to Yahweh.
See Appendix V for the chart with the strophic division.
137
Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure, 586-587.
138
Handy, "Sounds, Words and Meanings," 63.
40
Literary Techniques and Figures of Speech
The psalmist applied a series of literary techniques in order to communicate his message to the
audience. We proceed with a list of these techniques applied in the text.
Repetition
The repetition of words in a text shows unity. It maintains the theme working in the message as
well as the subthemes in the sections of the text. As Prinsloo rightly states after analyzing these
word repetitions: “It is evident… that the psalm forms a cohesive whole and that no part of it can
be viewed in isolation.”139 Handy also states similarly: “Several repeated sounds and words have
been used to interconnect the sections, uniting the psalm as a whole.”140
- The most repeated words in the psalm are ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬and ‫שׁפַט‬

ָ , both occurring 4
times. Along with ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬there are the words ‫אל‬
ֵ and ‫ ֶעלְיוֹן‬that are all
synonymous for divine beings.
The words ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬and ‫שָׁ פַט‬, being placed in the first and the last verses, binds the
whole text as a unit. It also leads to the theme.
- The words ‫שׁעִים‬

ָ ‫ ְר‬, ‫ דַ ל‬and ‫ אָ ֶֽרץ‬occur 2 times each. To ‫ דַ ל‬there are four
synonyms, ‫ י ָתוֹם‬, ‫ענ ִי‬
ָ , ‫ ָרשׁ‬and ‫ ֶאבְיוֹן‬. The repetitions of ‫שׁעִים‬
ָ ‫ ְר‬and ‫ דַ ל‬form
the binding together of vv. 2-4.
- The expression ‫ כָּל‬occurs three times, in vv. 5, 6, and 8. Prinsloo points out that it
forms “the conclusion and climax of the entire psalm.”141
139
140
Handy, "Sounds, Words and Meanings," 51.
141
41
Inclusio
- Verses 1 and 8 form an inclusio with the repetition of ‫שׁפּ ֹט‬

ְ ִ ‫ י‬and ‫אֱֹלהִים‬
embracing the whole psalm. Such a device used by the psalmist strengthens the
unity of the pericope.142
- Verses 2 to 4 also present two inclusio where the occurrence of ‫שׁעִים‬

ָ ‫ ְר‬in 2b and
4b frames another inner inclusio with the occurrence of ‫ דַ ל‬in 3a and 4a.143
- Verses 5 and 8 form another inclusio with the repetition of ‫ כָּל‬and ‫אָרץ‬
ֶ in both
verses.144
Chiasmus
- As we have shown already in the Stichometry, v. 1 contains a chiastic structure
when we take the first occurrence of ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬as an anacrusis.145 Thus, the pattern
verb + object in the first colon, is reversed with the object + verb in the second.
- Verses 3 and 4, as we have already pointed out above, are composed in a chiastic
structure. The first clause of each verse begins with an imperative verb and the
second clause ends with a verb, thus framing the content of the verse.
- Performing a double function, at the same time that we have an inclusio with
‫שׁעִים‬
ָ ‫ ְר‬and ‫דַ ל‬, they also are set in a chiastic structure as :
‫שׁעִים‬
ָ ‫דַ ל ְר‬ ‫שׁעִים דַ ל‬
ָ ‫ְר‬
142
143
144
145
See footnote 116 above.
42
Asyndeton
- The absence of conjunctions is predominant in Ps 82. There are only 3
conjunctions waw which occurs in 5a, 6b and 7b. Also v. 8 is joined by the
conjunction ‫ כִּי‬which is the only one in the poem.
Synecdoche
- The expression “from the hand of the wicked” in 4b is not intended, of course, to
be literally understood. This figure of speech attempts to express that in some way
the wicked oppress the poor, and such an illustrative expression gives a dramatic
nuance to the message of the psalm.
- The expression “And the face of the wicked, lift up,” stating more clearly, “lift up
the face of the wicked,” in 2b is another case of figure of speech. This picture
describes the attitude of showing favoritism.
Metaphor
- We can identify as a metaphor the expression “walk about in darkness” of 5c.
Again the aim of the psalmist is not to have these words understood literally but
as an expression that pictures the seriousness of the hopeless situation of the
senseless gods.
The poet used two expressions that refer to parts of a human body to illustrate the wicked. We
have shown already in synecdoche that “the face of the wicked” and “the hand of the wicked”
are not used literally. Instead, they show that “to lift up the face” means to show favoritism to the
43
wicked, and “the hand of the wicked” means his power over the powerless. Both expressions
using body parts in reference to the wicked form another inclusion in which the content of
clauses 3a-4a are enclosed. Consequently it adds one more device to connect vv. 2 and 4.
SEMANTIC ANALYSIS
The words ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬and ‫ שָׁ פַט‬as we have seen above are repeated 4 times each in the psalm. Not
only their frequency but also their place in the text indicates their importance for the
interpretation of Ps 82. It is important to notice, however, that these words are applied in the text
with different meanings, depending on where they are found.
The first occurrence of ‫אֱ ֹלהִים‬, in 1a, stands for God as the God of Israel, namely
Yahweh, as usual in the Elohistic section of the Psalter.146 This usage repeats in 8b. The other
two occurrences refer to the divine beings, members of the divine assembly, which we have
interpreted as the gods of the nations.147 The term ‫אֹלהִים‬

ֱ can be used for both ideas.148 It is
assumed to be derived, together with the term ‫אל‬
ֵ (also in 1a), from the root ‫אלה‬.149
In verse 6 Yahweh refers to the gods as sons of Elyon (‫עלְיוֹן‬
ֶ ). Elyon is usually translated
as “Most High.”150 This term is used in reference to Yahweh as the supreme God, the creator of
146
See Tate, Psalms 51-100, 329; Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, 230.
147
For example: Exod 20:3; Deut 24:2, 1 Sam 8:8; BDB, “‫אֱֹלהִים‬,” 43-44.
Cyrus H. Gordon, "‫ אלהים‬in Its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges," JBL 54 (1935): 139-144.The
148
remarkable article of Gordon shows that there is no evidence to interpret ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬as judge or ruler, translations
suggested even by the BDB. Such interpretations should be abandoned in face of the arguments presented by
Gordon.
149
TWOT, “‫אלה‬,” #93.
150
BDB, “‫ ֶעלְיוֹן‬,” 751.
44
heaven and earth (Gen 14:18-22). It is a striking fact that Elyon appears only in poetic texts. It
appears 30 times in the Hebrew Bible with 21 occurrences in the Psalter. The first occurrences of
Elyon are in Gn 14. In this passage, Elyon appears four times, always preceded by the term El
(‫אל‬
ֵ ). Two times in Gn 14, El Elyon is referred to as the “Creator of heaven and earth.” Thus,
there is no doubt that El and Elyon are used in reference to Yahweh. Indeed there are also the
occurrences of Yahweh Elyon (‫עלְיוֹן‬

ֶ ‫ )י ְהוָה‬as in Pss 7:18; 47:3; 97:9. In these occurrences
presented, God is depicted as the sovereign God. He is presented as the elevated God above all.
Thus, the definition “Most High” denotes the superiority of Yahweh above everything. It
corroborates the way in which he has been presented in the psalm.
The term ‫שׁפַט‬

ָ in Ps 82 requires a broad understanding of its meaning in order to be fair
to what the psalmist is expressing. Basically ‫שׁפַט‬
ָ is translated as “to judge” or “to govern” but
these translations should not be separated. We cannot separate these meanings into executive and
judiciary usages as if that was the case in the psalmist’s society. Those with authority to govern
were meant to perform justice, to establish justice and to pronounce judgment. 151 Therefore,
although we can identify the difference between “to judge” and “to govern” in the usage of the
Hebrew word, it is necessary in Ps 82 to keep the connection between these meanings in order to
facilitate our understanding of the message. Thus, the first 3 occurrences of ‫שׁפַט‬
ָ in vv. 1, 2, and
3 have a judicial tone since they express promulgations of judgment or the use of righteous
judgment. As for the last occurrence in v. 8 the idea is of God ruling over the earth. In fact the
text itself shows that we cannot classify the word ‫שׁפַט‬

ָ so easily. The gods are being judged
because they rule (‫שׁפַט‬
ָ ) wickedly, they have the authority to govern, and thus, the use of ‫שׁפַט‬
ָ
151
TWOT, “‫שׁפַט‬
ָ ,” #2443.
45
has also to be understood in view of this fact. The same attitude has to be applied in the
interpretation of v. 8. God is not simply called to rule as a governor or a king but, as part of his
duty of supreme leader, he is to perform justice over the earth, thus taking a judicial and an
executive responsibility. The displaced gods were responsible for that, but now God is to take
their place; therefore, he is to govern and establish justice in every nation.
Another important term in Ps 82 is the poor and the oppressed ones mentioned in vv. 3
and 4. There are five Hebrew words applied in the text in reference to the poor. Each word has
its own nuance, but all refer to the same type of people, the poor. ‫ דַּ ל‬can be defined as “having
little wealth and so of a humble condition and low status and vulnerable to oppression (Ex
23:3);”152 ‫“ י ָת ֹום‬an orphan with a dead father and a widowed mother, as a class of persons
helpless and without resource (Dt 10:18);”153 ‫ענ ִי‬

ָ “afflicted, oppressed, poor, i.e., pertaining to
being a lowly, needy state, as a class of persons of low status in a society, usually of persons in
fiscal poverty, implying a lack of resource (Ex 22:24);”154 ‫“ רוּשׁ‬be poor, i.e., be in a state of not
having enough income or means of livelihood for normal essential needs (Pr 10:4+);”155 ‫ֶא ְביוֹן‬
“poor, needy, i.e., pertaining to persons in want (usually physical needs), who must live
sparingly, and so also a class of low-status and little political power (Ex 23:6);”156 These words
render a broad understanding about who is the poor.
152
Swanson, “‫דַּ ל‬,” DBLH 1924, #2.
153
Swanson, “‫י ָת ֹום‬,” DBLH 3846.
154
Swanson, “‫ ָענִי‬,” DBLH 6714, #1.
155
Swanson, “‫רוּשׁ‬,” DBLH 8133, #1.
156
Swanson, “‫ ֶאבְיוֹן‬,” DBLH 36.
46
Dickson works with these terms and defines them as metaphors for powerlessness. To
him, the diversity of terms describes the various aspects of powerlessness.157 Thus, Dickson finds
in the word “powerlessness” a term to hold the range of meanings that the poet inserted in Ps 82.
Dickson concludes his article with the following definition:
Given this background we suggest that the concept powerlessness in Psalm 82 has the
following aspects (perspectives), namely, physical powerlessness (Ps 22:24, 26; 41:1);
psycho-emotional powerlessness (Ps 70:5; 12:5)? socio-economic powerlessness (Ps
49:2; 132:15; 112:9); religious powerlessness (Ps 37:14; 107:10; Harris et al 1990:190)
and military powerlessness (Ps 74:19; 18:27).158
SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS
There are two places mentioned in Ps 82 that are based on the common beliefs of people in the
Ancient Near East. They are the “divine assembly” and the “foundations of the earth.” Both
phrases express ideas that are not common to our contemporaneous worldview. Actually they are
quite contrary to our understanding about God and the structure of the world.
As we have stated, the divine assembly is the source of much debate for the interpretation
of Ps 82. First of all, the very interpretation of the Hebrew expression is a subject of primary
importance. Literally the Hebrew phrase means “assembly of El.” Although the members of this
assembly have been part of the discussion, recently most scholars agree that such an assembly is
a reunion of divine beings where Yahweh is among them.159
157
Dickson, “The Hebrew Terminology,” 1041.
158
Dickson, “The Hebrew Terminology,” 1042.
159
See, for example, Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 329-330.
47
The assembly of the gods, where decisions concerning the order of the heavenly and the
human world are held, was a common belief in the Ancient Near East, attested in many texts of
Israel’s neighbors and in the Hebrew Bible (see 1 Kgs 22:19-24, Job 1:6-2:6, Isa 6:1-13). So, as a
semiotic analysis we can state that in v. 1 the psalmist uses the image of the “divine assembly” to
show where the decisions about the course of the world are held.
As for the “foundations of the earth,” there are two points to be explained: namely, the
meaning of such a phrase in general and the usage in Ps 82. Ancient Israelites believed the earth
to be a flat table sustained by pillars, or foundations.160 Thus, the psalmist is referring to what
sustains the whole habitable world. But actually this understanding does not help much to
interpret v. 5. There is no clear explanation on how the unjust action of the gods could threaten
the structure of the earth. Here we are led to broaden our notion of the structure of the earth. In
the Old Testament the foundation of the world is the orderly status created by God;
consequently, the injustice practiced by the gods threatens the sustainable system of life, as
Kraus states:
In the OT just judgment is the real substructure of the universe-the foundation of the
whole creation (cf. Ps. 96:10). The demonic power plays of the gods call the existence of
the world into question. Chaos threatens to break in (Pss. 11:3; 75:3). If we can
understand “righteousness” to be the scheme of the universe, then the existence of the
world is dependent on righteous judgment.161
Therefore, the use of “foundations of the earth” has to be understood as a literal reality for the
psalmist worldview and in a figurative sense for the application that he makes in the psalm. The
result is of a scene that emphasizes the serious threat that the action of the gods means.
160
Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 35-47.
161
Kraus, Psalm 60-150, 157.
48
In v. 7 paired similes are applied in order to show the gods what is the meaning of the
sentence that Yahweh pronounces over them. They will die “like a human being,” they will fall
“like any prince.” The paired similes bring specificity to the sentence. Even if possible, no one
of the condemned gods could doubt the meaning of “to die” and “to fall.”
HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ANALYSIS
We have already explained that the concept of divine council was a common belief in the
Ancient Near East. In the case of Israel it is possible to identify in the Hebrew Bible different
stages of the relationship between their national God and the other gods. This issue has been the
focus in some debates about the development of monotheism in Israel. The very definition of
monotheism is part of the debate as it raises the question whether monotheism means to believe
that only one god exists or if it just means that only one god is to be worshiped.162 What is
noteworthy in the Hebrew text is the development of monotheism from texts that mention other
gods (Num 33:4; Ps 86:8) to the total rejection of their existence (1 Sam 2:2; Deut 4:39; Ps 96:5).
Thus, the question that arises is when, in this process, Ps 82 was composed? The question turns
to be more interesting as it is possible to take Ps 82 as a milestone in the development of
monotheism, since the text affirms the death of the other gods and the reign of Yahweh alone.
But clearly it is difficult to determine a precise period because, as Kraus points out, Ps 82 “is of
such exceptional character in the Psalter that it could well be impossible to provide
162
Regarding this question the outstanding work of Mark S. Smith has to be consulted, principally chapter
8 where he presents the discussion on defining monotheism. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism.
49
interpretations that are in every respect satisfactory.”163 However, even though it is difficult to
determine a precise period with certainty, there are some plausible suggestions.
The date of the composition of Ps 82 has been suggested to be from quite different
periods, from pre-monarchy164 to the post-exilic period. Most of the scholars argue for the late
period of the monarchy or later.165 Parker defends that the placement of the Psalm fits in a
situation where Israelites in other nations were suffering with injustice and proposes to date the
psalm not before the sixth century B.C.E.166 His arguments are considerably strong. For that
reason we should attempt to interpret the psalm around the historical settings of the sixth century.
The Sitz-im-Leben can be suggested based on two aspects of Ps 82 that we have already
indicated in the Definition of the Literary Genre, namely, the prophetic and the cultic character
of the text. Mowinckel shows convincingly that prophetic psalms had their place in the
established sanctuary worship.167 Speaking on Pss 75 and 82, Mowinckel states: “They are
promises in answer to the prayers of the congregation for the reestablishment of Israel: no doubt
they had a permanent place in the festival cult of somewhat later times (Chap. V. 13).”168 We do
not think that his placement of Ps 82 in the “festival cult” should be followed. Kraus points out
163
Kraus, Psalm 60-150, 155.
164
William L. Holladay, The Psalms Through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993), 22.
165
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 333-334.
166
Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God,” 555-557.
167
Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:53-58.
168
Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:64.
50
that the existence of this specific festival is doubtful.169 However we support the idea that the
place for Ps 82 is in the cultic practice, in the services at the temple.
EXEGESIS OF THE MESSAGE FOR THE PSALMIST AND THE ORIGINAL AUDIENCE
The whole analysis of Ps 82, performed up to this point, granted us sufficient data to interpret its
message. What has to be mentioned first is the uniqueness of Ps 82. The genre, the described
scene, the arrangement of words, the careful organization of the ideas, and the message of this
poem give it an extraordinary character.
Psalm 82 is a prophetic-cultic psalm which, at the very beginning, presents the scenario
of the divine assembly where Yahweh stands to perform judgment (v. 1). The description of the
judgment appears in the voice of Yahweh with a rhetorical question and an admonition (vv. 2-4).
Yahweh’s argument for such judgment is the social injustice happening on earth. But up to this
point in the poem, it is not clear the identity of the ones being charged.
At the middle of the psalm the narrator appears again and inserts a more dramatic nuance
to the text showing the gravity of what is happening. Those responsible for justice on earth are
ignorant and walking in darkness. Thus their misbehavior threatens the social structure of the
world.
The judgment continues as Yahweh addresses again the ones being charged. They are
then, identified; they are the gods, the heavenly beings called “sons of Elyon.” Yahweh
pronounces against them the sentence by which they are condemned to die like human beings.
169
Kraus, Psalm 60-150, 154-155.
51
The congregation that has been so far contemplating the events now participates with a
petition to Yahweh.
Therefore, we believe that the message of the psalmist comes primarily as a claim for the
reign of Yahweh over all the earth. This claim comes from the evidence that the gods have
brought injustice to the world and threatened the social structures. The gods are not acting as
such; therefore they deserve not to rule anymore. Thus, the psalmist aims to bind the human
realm with the heavenly, the social struggles with the religious practice. As a consequence, v. 8
appears as a cry of the community asking Yahweh to perform in the human realm what has been
established already in the heavenly one. The psalmist presents the heavenly reality to the
community (vv. 1-7) and leads them to cry to Yahweh that he may rise and be the righteous
judge of the earth.
We propose the theme of Ps 82 as “The rise of Yahweh, the righteous judge.” Such a
theme makes use of the three main concepts presented in vv. 1 and 8. The first is Yahweh, who is
not named but is understood as the one judging and leading the divine assembly. Second is the
rising of Yahweh as demonstrated in his standing in v. 1 and his rising in v. 8. Third is his
judgment over the gods (v. 1) and the cry that he may judge all the earth (v. 8). Further, we insert
the adjective “righteous” to contrast with the behavior of the unjust gods.
We propose the following outline for the message of Ps 82:

52
Theme: The rise of Yahweh, the righteous judge.
I - The cause of injustice. (2–4)
II - The consequences of injustice, chaos. (5)
III - The condemnation of injustice. (6-7)
IV - Petition for the righteous judge to rise. (1, 8)
CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS
Immediate Context
The supremacy of Yahweh over the earth is a common topic among Ps 82 and the other psalms
around it. In Ps 81, Yahweh states that if his people would listen to him, he would subdue the
enemies (v. 14). Psalm 83 is a cry for deliverance against the enemies, and it ends with a clear
declaration of the sovereignty of Yahweh over all the earth, linking Ps 83 to the end of Ps 82
also. These three psalms acknowledge that Yahweh has the power and the right to judge the
world, to rule the earth. As for why there is still social injustice, threat from enemies or suffering
in the nation of Israel, each psalm presents its particularity on dealing with theodicy. While in Ps
81 Yahweh warns his people not to worship other gods, Ps 82 declares their destruction and
consequently their nullity.

53
Remote Context
Psalm 82 is part of the Asaphite (Pss 50; 73-83) and the Elohistic (42-83) psalm collections.170
The theme of Yahweh sovereignty over the earth is predominant in the Asaphite collection.
Psalm 82171 not only agrees with this theme but actually presents a scene where at the end of it,
Yahweh is acclaimed as the only God and the ruler of the earth. The psalm inside the collection
is remarkable in its bold contribution to appoint Yahweh as the judge over the earth because the
other gods are displaced of their position and Yahweh stands as the one and only true god.
Context of the Psalter
James L. Mays argues that the “organizing center for the theology of the psalms can be found in
the sentence Yhwh malak.”172 In some sense, Kraus, in his Theology of the Psalms goes in the
same direction when he quotes Pss 67:2 and 83:18 as expressions of the theology of the Psalms.
He goes further stating that the “Psalms raises the banner of universal proclamation and
communication.”173 He also points out that the Psalms presents the coming of Yahweh to the
nations, here mentioning Ps 98:2, 9 to make his point.
Agreeing with both scholars we see Ps 82 as a remarkable expression of the theology of
the Psalter. Psalm 82 proclaims Yahweh reigning over the nations. He is called to be the
170
Ackerman, “An Exegetical Study,” 79.
171
John H. Stek, “Psalms,” The NIV Study Bible. (ed. Kenneth Barker; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985),
860.
172
James Luther Mays, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms. (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1994), 13.
173
Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms: A Continental Commentary. (trans. Keith Crim;
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), 16.
54
righteous judge who will remove the chaos from human society, not only in Israel but in all the
earth. He is proclaimed as the only God since the other gods are condemned to death.
Psalm 82 is as much a statement of hope for the poor and the oppressed, as a warning to
the oppressor.174 Therefore, although Ps 82 has its uniqueness as liturgical text, it can be seen as
a claim for the kingship of Yahweh over all the earth, like many psalms.
Canonical Context
The struggles about the foreign gods and social injustice are the main points presented in Ps 82,
and they are part of a whole in the theology of the Old Testament. The worship of other gods had
been condemned since the Exodus (Exod 20:3), and they had always been a threat to the religion
of Israel (Deut 6:14; 7:4; Judg 2:11-13). In Ps 82 the issue of foreign gods is treated showing that
the other gods are promoters of chaos, and they are not gods anymore, because Yahweh has
taken the overall control of the world. The peculiarity of Ps 82 is that it connects the foreign gods
with social injustice, a characteristic found in the prophetic writings as well. Of course, in the
prophets this is not in the same manner of imputing responsibility to the gods for the social
injustice, but attributing to the ones who serve other gods to be wicked and corrupt. Jeremiah in
his “temple sermon” (Jer 7:1-27) is an example of an accusation against those characterized as
wicked and at the same time worshipers of other gods. After all, if the accusation against the
gods is that they favor the wicked, it is implied that the wicked is on the side of those gods. The
religious practice reflects on the social activity.
Psalm 82 is well known by the reference that Jesus makes in John 10:34-36 of v. 6 when
he argues against the Jews who were accusing him of blasphemy. Jesus’ argument was based on
174
Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, 16. See the conclusion of Kraus on his introduction.
55
an interpretation of Ps 82 that was current at that time, which interprets vv. 6 and 7 as referring
to Israel at Sinai being called gods because they have received the word of God (Torah).175
The full accomplishment of the prophetic message of Ps 82 is found in Jesus Christ as he
triumphs over the heavenly authorities and becomes Lord of the visible and invisible powers, as
Paul expresses in Col 1:13-19; 2:15.
EXPOSITION
As we have stated above, Ps 82 is a cultic-prophetic text that proclaims the rise of the righteous
judge, Yahweh. The text presents a vision of the divine council where Yahweh stands in the
middle of the gods and renders judgment against them. The charges are clear: they are promoting
injustice in the world as they favor the wicked. They are the empowering force of those who
oppress the needy, the poor, and the helpless. In vv. 3 and 4, Yahweh calls them to repentance.
They are called to change their ways, and instead of helping the wicked they have to help the
poor, the oppressed; they are called to vindicate and rescue the suffering from the hands of the
wicked. But v. 5 shows that they did not change their ways, and they are completely alienated
from righteousness; they are in darkness. The result of their actions is that the whole social
structure, the foundations of the human organization is in threat because of their attitude.
Therefore Yahweh declares that they are not anymore gods, they fall from their heavenly
position to be mere human beings. The scene pictures the moment when Yahweh dethrones all
the gods and he stands as the sovereign God over all the earth. Then v. 8 appears as the voice of
175
See: James Stokes Ackerman, “The Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John: John
10:34,” HTR 59 (1966): 186-191; Jerome H. Neyrey, “’I said: You are gods’: Psalm 82 and John 10,” JBL 108
(1989): 647-663.
56
the community crying to Yahweh that his authority may be present in the world. As the righteous
judge that performed justice in the heavenly realm he is asked to bring his righteousness to the
world of human beings.
Therefore, we could summarize the message of Ps 82 as a claim for the reign of Yahweh
over all the earth. He reigns because he is righteous and he inherits all the nations. However, the
few lines of Ps 82 make strong and important affirmations that contain great relevance for the
modern reader. Accordingly we will present the message of Ps 82 for the modern reader
defending that: (1) Psalm 82 defines the character of who God is; (2) Psalm 82 argues for a
relationship between what happens in the heavenly and the human realm; (3) Psalm 82
denounces the social injustice performed by established authorities; (4) Psalm 82 motivates the
powerless to cry out to Yahweh.
1 - Psalm 82 defines the character of who God is.
One of the striking aspects of Ps 82 is that it brings a classification of who and what is a
god. The God who stands in the divine assembly to accuse the other members of the
congregation brings his accusation based on the unrighteousness or the gods. The criteria of
righteousness is the decisive fact that differs who is a god and who is not. The gods were claimed
to be the sons of Elyon, however their behavior, their unrighteousness, denied this claim and,
because of this, they are not seen as gods anymore. Thus, in Ps 82, God is contrasted with the
other gods and he is shown as the only and one god because he is the righteous judge, he fights
corruption and defends the powerless.
If someone would ask: Who is God? Psalm 82 would answer that God is the one who is
on the side of the oppressed, who stands in favor of the powerless, and the one who works for
57
justice on earth. God is the one against the powerful oppressor, against those who uses power in
their own behalf and practices abuses against those who cannot defend themselves.
2 - Psalm 82 argues for a relationship between what happens in the heavenly and the
human realm.
Heaven and earth are entwined in Ps 82. The decisions made in one reality reflect in
another. People are being oppressed on earth because of the misbehavior of the gods in heaven.
The gods are condemned in heaven because of what is happening on earth. The heavenly reality
is presented to the congregation on earth so that they may cry out to the one who can change
their situation. The modern human being usually does not consider that what is determinant for
our lives on earth may be dependent of what happens in heaven. Psalm 82 calls the attention of
the modern man and woman to consider it, to look beyond the intellectual facts and reflect on
what may be beyond his/her control. Psalm 82 claims that there is maybe an answer for many
facts that we do not understand and, even the ones we can understand, there may be other
reasons for them to happen. The modern man or woman who believes that the reality is only
what he or she can understand limits their understanding of life. The old and metaphorical text of
Ps 82 invites the modern reader to broaden his or her view and consider the heavenly reality into
their reality.
3 - Psalm 82 denounces the social injustice performed by established authorities.
The oppression described in vv. 2-4 is a denunciation against those who are causing the
disturbing situation in the human community. In this case, Ps 82 is an accusatory text which
criticizes those with authority because, either they are the ones oppressing the powerless, or they
are neglecting their duties of detaining the oppressors. The gods are not the ones who personally
perform oppression; rather they are represented on earth by those who are responsible for justice.
58
Therefore, the judges, the rulers, and the princes are criticized in Ps 82. If there is injustice, those
with authority are responsible for that.
Psalm 82 exposes that Yahweh is against those with authority who neglect justice. It
explains that Yahweh is against any political, economical or religious authority that neglects the
powerless, any authority that, even claiming to be good, only causes oppression in the world.
The denunciation in Ps 82 is a call for the modern man and woman to act in the
democratically organized society in favor of those who lacks justice. Where there is authority
and power, there is the responsibility for action against injustice.
4 - Psalm 82 motivates the powerless to cry out to Yahweh.
Maybe for those being oppressed, all they can do is to look to the spiritual reality of their
lives since not much they can do in the human society. If they are being oppressed, if the basic
rights for a fair living have been taken from them, all they can do is to cry out to Yahweh, the
righteous God, to help them, to judge the earth and bring justice to human society. Prayer is an
exercise of faith that brings hope to the hopeless. It leads the hearts to look up to heaven and look
beyond the chaos that may be reigning in the(ir) world. Verse 8 appears as the voice of the
powerless crying to God to judge the earth because all the nations are his. Here we have a
parallel with the prayer that Jesus taught: “your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it
is in heaven.” Verse 8 is a cry that the reality revealed in vv. 1-7 would come true in human
society; it is a cry for justice, for godliness and for the reign of God among the men to be
established.
God is the righteous judge who overcomes every injustice and every power that try to
stand beside him. He is the righteous judge who condemns the oppressor and delivers the
oppressed; he is the hope for those in suffering. Psalm 82 reveals that God alone can bring justice
59
and security to the world and, those who acknowledge his sovereignty are encouraged to cry to
him and ask his kingdom to come.
In conclusion, Ps 82 presents a scene of how the world functions. It shows that the
heavenly realm determines what happens on earth and pictures two contrasting sides. First we
have the contrast between Yahweh and the gods (vv. 1 and 5) in heaven, and how the heavenly
characters’ act embraces the human reality. Verses 2 to 4 show the contrast between the wicked
and the oppressed. On one side the gods support the wicked and on the other side Yahweh
supports the powerless. Then, after a presentation of why and how there has been chaos in the
world (vv. 1-5), Yahweh makes a resolution and he condemns the gods to fall from heaven (vv. 6
and 7). Finally v. 8 is the realization of the resolution, as the gods are dethroned and Yahweh can
now establish justice in all the earth.176 Rise oh righteous judge and rule over all the earth!
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
We have analyzed Ps 82 through twelve exegetical steps in which the difficulties in interpreting
Ps 82 were exposed, elucidated and debated. Throughout this process the highly organized
composition of Ps 82 could be noticed and explained, resulting in a considerable amount of
information that allowed us to interpret its message.
We have shown that the vision of the divine assembly has its background in Canaanite
mythology and represents the Israelite view of the assembly of the gods where Yahweh is the
176
The explanation in this last paragraph can be presented as follows:
Yahweh X the gods (the heavenly realm) - 1 and 5
The oppressed X the wicked (the human realm) - 2 to 4
The heavenly resolution - 6 and 7
The human realization - 8
60
supreme God. We have shown also that Yahweh is the one judging the gods and condemning
them to death.
As for the genre of the poem, we have demonstrated by the structure of Ps 82 that it
presents a prophetical and cultic character by an alternation between the Levite and the speeches
of Yahweh, and the conclusion with the cry of the congregation.
As for the interpretation that human agents are indirectly condemned with the gods, it
comes as a natural conclusion when we notice that it is unconceivable that the gods would be
literally on earth performing judgment in human society. The fact is that human agents were
responsible for performing justice in the ancient society and, since Ps 82 is condemning those
involved in injustice, the human agents are indirectly condemned. The admonitions in vv. 2-4 to
defend the poor and perform justice for the oppressed are advising that Yahweh is against the
oppressors and those who are with them. Who are the oppressors? May be v. 7 is an answer. The
gods are condemned to die like human beings and to fall like any of the rules. Could we interpret
here that the rules are mentioned in v. 7 as an indirect condemnation of them? We believe that it
is plausible because if any human beings are responsible for justice on earth, they are the rulers.
Therefore we can see not only in vv. 2-4 an indirect condemnation of human authorities but also
in v. 7. Such affirmation has to be left open for further studies on Ps 82.

61
APPENDIX I
DELIMITATION OF CLAUSES
PGN them. stem predicate verse

Superscript ‫ִמז ְ֗מוֹר לְאָ֫ ָס֥ף‬ 1a
ms niphal Participle (vb. adjective) ‫ת־אל‬֑ ֵ ַ‫אֹל ִ֗הים נִצָּ ֥ב ַבּעֲד‬B b
3ms qal YQTL ‫שׁפֹּֽט׃‬ ְ ִ ‫ֱֹלהים י‬֣ ִ ‫בּ ֶ ְ֖ק ֶרב א‬ c
2mp qal YQTL ‫ְטוּ־עוֶל‬
֑ ָ ‫שׁפּ‬ ְ ִ‫עַד־ ָמ ַת֥י תּ‬ 2a
2mp qal YQTL ‫אוּ־סֽלָה׃‬ֶ ְ‫וּפְנֵ ֥י ְ֝רשָׁ ִ֗עים תִּ שׂ‬ b
2mp qal Imperative ‫ְטוּ־דל ְוי ָ֑תוֹם‬ ֥ ַ ‫שׁפ‬ ִ 3a
ms qal Participle (vb. adjective) ‫ָע ִנ֖י ו ָ ָ֣רשׁ‬ b
2mp hiphil Imperative ‫ַהצְדִּ ֽיקוּ׃‬ c
2mp piel Imperative ‫ְטוּ־דל ְו ֶאבְי֑ וֹן‬ ֥ ַ ‫ַפּלּ‬ 4a
2mp hiphil Imperative ‫ִמ ַיּ֖ד ְרשָׁ ִ ֣עים הַצִּ ֽילוּ׃‬ b
3cp qal QTL ‫ֹל֤ א ָי ֽדְ ֨עוּ׀‬ 5a
3mp qal YQTL ‫וְֹל֥ א י ָ ִ֗בינוּ‬ b
3mp hithpael YQTL ‫שׁכָ ֥ה י ִתְ ה ַָלּ֑כוּ‬ ֵ ‫ַבּ ֲח‬ c
3mp niphal YQTL ‫ָל־מוֹסְדֵ י ָא ֶֽרץ׃‬ ֥ ‫֝י ִ ֗מּוֹטוּ כּ‬ d
1cs qal QTL ‫\אנִי־ ֭ ָאמ ְַרתִּ י‬ 6a
Non-verbal ‫ֱֹלהים ַא ֶ ֑תּם‬ ִ֣ ‫א‬ b
Ellipsis ‫וּב ְֵנ֖י ֶע ְלי֣וֹן ֻכּלְּכֶ ֽם׃‬ c
2mp qal YQTL ‫מוּתוּן‬ ֑ ְ‫ְאָדם תּ‬ ֣ ָ ‫֭ ָאכֵן כּ‬ 7a
2mp qal YQTL ‫ְאַחד הַשָּׂ ִ ֣רים תִּ פֹּֽלוּ׃‬ ֖ ַ ‫וּכ‬ b
2ms qal Imperative ‫קוּמה ֭ ֱאֹלהִים‬ ָ֣ 8a
2ms qal Imperative ‫שׁפ ָ ְ֣טה ה ָ ָ֑א ֶרץ‬ ָ b
2ms qal YQTL ‫כִּ ֽי־ ַא ָ ֥תּה ֝תִ נְ ַ֗חל ְבּכָל־הַגּוֹ ִי ֽם׃‬ c
APPENDIX II
Clausal Flow Chart
synd./asynd. v./nv. conj./disj. ind./dep. main./coord./sub. syntactical func. clause verse

asynd. nv ind nominalizing ‫ִמז ְ֗מוֹר לְאָ֫ ָס֥ף‬ 1a
asynd. v ind main declarative ‫ת־אל‬ ֑ ֵ ַ‫אֹל ִ֗הים נִצָּ ֥ב ַבּעֲד‬ b
asynd. v ind coordinate declarative ‫שׁפֹּֽט׃‬ ְ ִ ‫ֱֹלהים י‬ ֣ ִ ‫בּ ֶ ְ֖ק ֶרב א‬ c
asynd. v ind main interrogative ‫ְטוּ־עוֶל‬
֑ ָ ‫שׁפּ‬ ְ ִ‫ עַד־ ָמ ַת֥י תּ‬ 2a
synd. v disj ind coordinate interrogative ‫אוּ־סֽלָה׃‬
ֶ ‫שׂ‬ ְ ִ‫שׁ ִ֗עים תּ‬ ָ ‫וּפְנֵ ֥י ְ֝ר‬ b
asynd. v ind main command ‫ְטוּ־ד֥ל ְוי ָ֑תוֹם‬ ַ ‫שׁפ‬ ִ 3a
asynd. v ind coordinate command ‫ָע ִנ֖י ו ָ ָ֣רשׁ ַהצְדִּ ֽיקוּ׃‬ bc
asynd. v ind coordinate command ‫ְטוּ־ד֥ל ְו ֶאבְי֑ וֹן‬ ַ ‫ַפּלּ‬ 4a
asynd. v ind coordinate command ‫שׁ ִ ֣עים הַצִּ ֽילוּ׃‬ ָ ‫מִ ַיּ֖ד ְר‬ b
asynd. v ind main declarative ‫ֹל֤ א ָי ֽדְ ֨עוּ׀‬ 5a
synd. v disj ind coordinate declarative ‫וְֹל֥ א י ָ ִ֗בינוּ‬ b
asynd. v ind coordinate declarative ‫שׁכָ ֥ה י ִתְ ה ַָלּ֑כוּ‬ ֵ ‫ַבּ ֲח‬ c
asynd. v ind subordinate resultative ‫ָל־מוֹסְדֵ י ָא ֶֽרץ׃‬
֥ ‫ ֝י ִ ֗מּוֹטוּ כּ‬ d
asynd. v ind main declarative ‫@אנִי־ ֭ ָאמ ְַרתִּ י‬ 6a
asynd. nv ind main declarative ‫ֹלהים ַא ֶ ֑תּם‬ ֣ ִ ֱ‫ א‬ b
synd. ellipsis disj ind coordinate declarative ‫וּב ְֵנ֖י ֶע ְלי֣וֹן ֻכּלְּכֶ ֽם׃‬ c
asynd. v ind coordinate declarative ‫מוּתוּן‬ ֑ ְ‫ְאָדם תּ‬ ֣ ָ ‫֭ ָאכֵן כּ‬ 7a
synd. v disj ind coordinate declarative ‫ְאַחד הַשָּׂ ִ ֣רים תִּ פֹּֽלוּ׃‬ ֖ ַ ‫וּכ‬ b
asynd. v ind main command ‫קוּמה ֭ ֱאֹלהִים‬ ָ֣ 8a
asynd. v ind coordinate command ‫שׁפ ָ ְ֣טה ה ָ ָ֑א ֶרץ‬ ָ b
synd. v conj dep subordinate causal ‫ כִּ ֽי־ ַא ָ ֥תּה ֝תִ נְ ַ֗חל ְבּכָל־הַגּוֹ ִי ֽם׃‬ c
62
‫‪63‬‬
‫‪APPENDIX III‬‬
‫‪SEGMENTATION‬‬
‫‪PGN‬‬ ‫‪subj. of ind. clauses‬‬ ‫‪speaker‬‬ ‫‪addressee‬‬ ‫‪clause‬‬ ‫‪v.‬‬

‫‪Superscript‬‬ ‫ִמז ְ֗מוֹר לְאָ֫ ָס֥ף‬ ‫‪1a‬‬
‫‪ms‬‬
‫‪God‬‬ ‫‪Levite‬‬ ‫‪congregation‬‬
‫ת־אל‬
‫‪B‬אֹל ִ֗הים נִצָּ ֥ב ַבּעֲדַ ֵ ֑‬ ‫‪b‬‬
‫‪3ms‬‬ ‫שׁפֹּֽט׃‬
‫ֱֹלהים י ִ ְ‬
‫בּ ֶ ְ֖ק ֶרב א ִ ֣‬ ‫‪c‬‬
‫‪2mp‬‬
‫‪gods‬‬ ‫‪God‬‬ ‫‪gods‬‬
‫ְטוּ־עוֶל‬
‫שׁפּ ָ ֑‬ ‫ עַד־ ָמ ַת֥י תִּ ְ‬ ‫‪2a‬‬
‫‪2mp‬‬ ‫אוּ־סֽלָה׃‬
‫שׂ ֶ‬ ‫שׁ ִ֗עים תִּ ְ‬
‫וּפְנֵ ֥י ְ֝ר ָ‬ ‫‪b‬‬
‫‪2mp‬‬ ‫ְטוּ־ד֥ל ְוי ָ֑תוֹם‬

‫שׁפ ַ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫‪3a‬‬
‫‪2ms‬‬
‫ָע ִנ֖י ו ָ ָ֣רשׁ ַהצְדִּ ֽיקוּ׃‬ ‫‪bc‬‬
‫‪2mp‬‬ ‫ְטוּ־ד֥ל ְו ֶאבְי֑ וֹן‬
‫ַפּלּ ַ‬ ‫‪4a‬‬
‫‪2mp‬‬ ‫שׁ ִ ֣עים הַצִּ ֽילוּ׃‬
‫מִ ַיּ֖ד ְר ָ‬ ‫‪b‬‬
‫‪3cp‬‬ ‫ֹל֤ א ָי ֽדְ ֨עוּ׀‬ ‫‪5a‬‬

‫‪3mp‬‬
‫‪gods‬‬ ‫‪Levite‬‬ ‫‪congregation‬‬
‫וְֹל֥ א י ָ ִ֗בינוּ‬ ‫‪b‬‬
‫‪3mp‬‬ ‫שׁכָ ֥ה י ִתְ ה ַָלּ֑כוּ‬ ‫ַבּ ֲח ֵ‬ ‫‪c‬‬
‫‪3mp‬‬ ‫ָל־מוֹסְדֵ י ָא ֶֽרץ׃‬
‫ ֝י ִ ֗מּוֹטוּ כּ ֥‬ ‫‪d‬‬
‫‪1cs‬‬ ‫‪God‬‬ ‫‪God‬‬ ‫‪gods‬‬ ‫\אנִי־ ֭ ָאמ ְַרתִּ י‬ ‫‪6a‬‬
‫ֱֹלהים ַא ֶ ֑תּם‬ ‫ א ִ֣‬ ‫‪b‬‬

‫וּב ְֵנ֖י ֶע ְלי֣וֹן ֻכּלְּכֶ ֽם׃‬ ‫‪c‬‬
‫‪2mp‬‬ ‫מוּתוּן‬
‫ְאָדם תְּ ֑‬ ‫֭ ָאכֵן כּ ָ ֣‬ ‫‪7a‬‬
‫‪2mp‬‬ ‫ְאַחד הַשָּׂ ִ ֣רים תִּ פֹּֽלוּ׃‬ ‫וּכ ַ ֖‬ ‫‪b‬‬
‫‪2ms‬‬ ‫קוּמה ֭ ֱאֹלהִים‬ ‫ָ֣‬ ‫‪8a‬‬

‫‪2ms‬‬ ‫‪God‬‬ ‫‪congregation‬‬ ‫‪God‬‬ ‫שׁפ ָ ְ֣טה ה ָ ָ֑א ֶרץ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫‪b‬‬
‫‪2ms‬‬ ‫כִּ ֽי־ ַא ָ ֥תּה ֝תִ נְ ַ֗חל ְבּכָל־הַגּוֹ ִי ֽם׃‬ ‫‪c‬‬
64
APPENDIX IV
STICHOMETHY AND SCANSION OF THE METER
translation clause verse meter

֑ ֵ ַ‫אֹל ִ֗הים נִצָּ ֥ב ַבּעֲד‬B 1
3
in the middle of the gods he judges. ‫שׁפֹּֽט׃‬
֣ ִ ‫בּ ֶ ְ֖ק ֶרב א‬ 3
“How long will you judge unjustly ‫ְטוּ־עוֶל‬

֑ ָ ‫שׁפּ‬ְ ִ‫עַד־ ָמ ַת֥י תּ‬ 2
3
And the face of the wicked, lift up? – Selah ‫אוּ־סֽלָה׃‬
ֶ ְ‫וּפְנֵ ֥י ְ֝רשָׁ ִ֗עים תִּ שׂ‬ 3
Judge the weak and the fatherless; ‫ְטוּ־דל ְוי ָ֑תוֹם‬

֥ ַ ‫שׁפ‬ ִ 3
3
to the oppressed and the poor, do justice. ‫ָע ִנ֖י ו ָ ָ֣רשׁ ַהצְדִּ ֽיקוּ׃‬ 3
Deliver the weak and the needy; ‫ְטוּ־דל ְו ֶאבְי֑ וֹן‬

֥ ַ ‫ַפּלּ‬ 4
3
from the hand of the wicked, rescue.” ‫ִמ ַיּ֖ד ְרשָׁ ִ ֣עים הַצִּ ֽילוּ׃‬ 3
They don’t know ‫ֹל֤ א ָי ֽדְ ֨עוּ‬ 5

2
and they don’t understand. ‫וְֹל֥ א י ָ ִ֗בינוּ‬ 2
In darkness they walk about. ‫שׁכָ ֥ה י ִתְ ה ַָלּ֑כוּ‬

ֵ ‫ַבּ ֲח‬ 2
Are shaken all foundations of the earth. ‫ָל־מוֹסְדֵ י ָא ֶֽרץ׃‬
֥ ‫֝י ִ ֗מּוֹטוּ כּ‬ 3
“I said: ‫\אנִי־ ֭ ָאמ ְַרתִּ י‬ 6

2
You are gods, ‫ֱֹלהים ַא ֶ ֑תּם‬ִ֣ ‫א‬ 2
and sons of the Most High are all of you. ‫וּב ְֵנ֖י ֶע ְלי֣וֹן ֻכּלְּכֶ ֽם׃‬ 3
But indeed like a human being you will die ‫מוּתוּן‬

֑ ְ‫ְאָדם תּ‬ ֣ ָ ‫֭ ָאכֵן כּ‬ 7
3
and like one of the rulers you will fall.” ‫ְאַחד הַשָּׂ ִ ֣רים תִּ פֹּֽלוּ׃‬
֖ ַ ‫וּכ‬ 3
Raise up God, ‫קוּמה ֭ ֱאֹלהִים‬ ָ֣ 8

2
judge the earth ‫שׁפ ָ ְ֣טה ה ָ ָ֑א ֶרץ‬ ָ 2
for you possess all the nations. ‫כִּ ֽי־ ַא ָ ֥תּה ֝תִ נְ ַ֗חל ְבּכָל־הַגּוֹ ִי ֽם׃‬ 4
65
APPENDIX V
STROPHIC STRUCTURE
Strophe 1
֑ ֵ ַ‫אֹל ִ֗הים נִצָּ ֥ב ַבּעֲד‬B 1
in the middle of the gods he judges. ‫שׁפֹּֽט׃‬
֣ ִ ‫בּ ֶ ְ֖ק ֶרב א‬
“How long will you judge unjustly ‫ְטוּ־עוֶל‬

֑ ָ ‫שׁפּ‬ ְ ִ‫עַד־ ָמ ַת֥י תּ‬ 2
And the face of the wicked, lift up? – Selah ‫אוּ־סֽלָה׃‬
ֶ ְ‫וּפְנֵ ֥י ְ֝רשָׁ ִ֗עים תִּ שׂ‬
Strophe 2
Judge the weak and the fatherless; ‫ְטוּ־דל ְוי ָ֑תוֹם‬
֥ ַ ‫שׁפ‬ ִ 3
to the oppressed and the poor, do justice. ‫ָע ִנ֖י ו ָ ָ֣רשׁ ַהצְדִּ ֽיקוּ׃‬
Deliver the weak and the needy; ‫ְטוּ־דל ְו ֶאבְי֑ וֹן‬
֥ ַ ‫ַפּלּ‬ 4
from the hand of the wicked, rescue.” ‫ִמ ַיּ֖ד ְרשָׁ ִ ֣עים הַצִּ ֽילוּ׃‬
They don’t know ‫ֹל֤ א ָי ֽדְ ֨עוּ׀‬ 5
Strophe 3
and they don’t understand. ‫וְֹל֥ א י ָ ִ֗בינוּ‬
In darkness they walk about. ‫שׁכָ ֥ה י ִתְ ה ַָלּ֑כוּ‬ ֵ ‫ַבּ ֲח‬
Are shaken all foundations of the earth. ‫ָל־מוֹסְדֵ י ָא ֶֽרץ׃‬
֥ ‫֝י ִ ֗מּוֹטוּ כּ‬
“I said: ‫\אנִי־ ֭ ָאמ ְַרתִּ י‬ 6

You are gods, ‫ֱֹלהים ַא ֶ ֑תּם‬ ִ֣ ‫א‬
Strophe 4 and sons of the Most High are all of you. ‫וּב ְֵנ֖י ֶע ְלי֣וֹן ֻכּלְּכֶ ֽם׃‬
But indeed like a human being you will die ‫מוּתוּן‬
֑ ְ‫ְאָדם תּ‬ ֣ ָ ‫֭ ָאכֵן כּ‬ 7
and like one of the rulers you will fall.” ‫ְאַחד הַשָּׂ ִ ֣רים תִּ פֹּֽלוּ׃‬ ֖ ַ ‫וּכ‬
Raise up God, ‫קוּמה ֭ ֱאֹלהִים‬ ָ֣ 8
Strophe 5 judge the earth ‫שׁפ ָ ְ֣טה ה ָ ָ֑א ֶרץ‬ ָ
for you possess all the nations. ‫כִּ ֽי־ ַא ָ ֥תּה ֝תִ נְ ַ֗חל ְבּכָל־הַגּוֹ ִי ֽם׃‬
66
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackerman, James Stokes. “An Exegetical Study of Psalm 82.” PhD diss., Harvard University,
1966.
Ackerman, James Stokes. “The Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John: John
10:34.” The Harvard Theological Review 59 (1966): 186-191.
Briggs, Charles Augustus, and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Psalms. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1907.
Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol 3. Translated by James Anderson. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948-49.
Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. and ed. Downers Grove, Ill.:
Inter-Varsity, 1994.
Cole, Robert L. The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73-89). Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 2000.
Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms II: 51-100. The Anchor Bible. Vol 17. New York: Doubleday, 1968.
Dickson, C. R. “The Hebrew Terminology for the Poor in Psalm 82.” Hervormde teologiese
studies 51 (1995): 1029-1045.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Psalms, Part 2 and Lamentations. The Forms of the Old Testament
Literature. Vol. XV. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Gesenius, F. W. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Electronic Edition. Edited by E. Kautzsch and S.

A. E. Cowley Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2003.s
Goldingay, John. Psalms. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2007.
Gordon, Cyrus H. "‫ אלהים‬in Its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges." Journal of Biblical
Literature 54 (1935): 139-144.
Gunkel, Hermann and Joachim Begrich. Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious
Lyric of Israel. Translated by James D. Nogalski. USA: Mercer University, 1998.
Handy, Lowell K. "Sounds, Words and Meanings in Psalm 82." Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 47 (1990): 51-66.
67
Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.
Holladay, William L. The Psalms Through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of
Witnesses. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993.
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100.

Hermeneia series. English translation by Linda M. Maloney; edited by Klaus Baltzer.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and
Teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near East Iconography and the
Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy J. Hallett. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Theology of the Psalms: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Keith

Crim. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1-59: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald.

Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 60-150: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald.

Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989.
Lambdin, Thomas O. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Scribner, 1971.
Mays, James Luther. The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1994.
Mays, James Luther. Psalms. Interpretation: a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching.
Louisville: John Knox, 1994.
Miller, Patrick D. Interpreting the Psalms. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Morgenstern, Julian. "The Mythological Background of Psalm 82." Hebrew Union College
Annual 14 (1939): 29-126.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas. 2 vols.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962.
Mullen Jr., E. Theodore. The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early
Hebrew Literature. Harvard Semitic Monographs 24. Edited by Frank Moore Cross, Jr.
California: Scholars, 1980.
Neyrey, Jerome H. “’I said: You are gods’: Psalm 82 and John 10.” Journal of Biblical
68
Literature 108 (1989): 647-663.
O’Callagham, R. T. “A Note on the Canaanite Background of Psalm 82.” Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 15 (1953): 311-314.
Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.
Parker, S. B. “The Beginning of the Reign of God – Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy.” Revue
Biblique 102 (1995): 532-559.
Parry, Donald, and Emanuel Tov, eds. Exegetical Texts. Part 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader.
Leiden: Brill NV, 2004.
Petersen, David L. and Kent Harold Richards. Interpreting Hebrew Poetry. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 1992.
Prinsloo, W. S. "Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?" Biblica 76:2 (1995): 219-228.
Robinson, Theodore H. The Poetry of the Old Testament. Studies in Theology Series. London:
Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1969.
Rummel, Stan ed. Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. 3 vols.
Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1981.
Salters, R. B. “Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
103 (1991): 225-239.
Sarna, Nahum M. Songs of the Heart: An Introduction to the Book of Psalms. New York:
Schocken, 1993.
Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the
Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University, 2001.
Stek, John H. “Psalms,” The NIV Study Bible. Edited by Kenneth Barker. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1985.
Swanson, James A. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old
Testament). 2d, electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 2001.
Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51-100. Word Biblical Commentary 20. Dallas: Word, 2002.
Terrien, Samuel. The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary. The Eerdmans
Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Tsevat, Matitiahu. “God and the Gods in Assembly: an Interpretation of Psalm 82.” Hebrew
69
Union College Annual 41 (1970):123-137.
Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference
Grammar. Electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc, 1997. Print Ed.:
Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.
Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.
Williams, Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. 3d ed. Rev. and exp. by John C. Beckman.
Toronto: University of Toronto, 2007.
Wilson, Gerald Henry. The Editing of the HebrewPsalter. SBL Dissertation Series. Number 76.
Edited by J. J. M. Roberts. California: Scholars, 1985.
Zakovitch, Yair. “Psalm 82 and Biblical Exegesis.” 213-228 in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe
Weinfeld Jubilee Vilune: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and
Post-Biblical Judaism. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz and Shalom M. Paul.
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns 2004.

Psalm 82 - Nielsen Tomazini

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Psalm 82 - Nielsen Tomazini

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR CARL J. BOSMA

DELIMITATION OF THE PERICOPE …………………………………………..………………. 3

TEXTUAL CRITICISM …………………………………………………………………..………. 4

Presentation of the Text Tradition 4

Textual Criticism Proper 5

GRAMMATICAL AND SYNTACTICAL ANALYSIS ………………………………..…..…….19

Delimitation of the Individual Clauses 20

COMPOSITIONAL STRUCTURE OUTLINE …………………………………………...……... 27

DEFINITION OF THE LITERARY GENRE ……………………………………………..…….. 30

Literary Techniques and Figures of Speech 40

SEMANTIC ANALYSIS ..…………………………………………………………………..…….43

SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS …………………………………………………….……………….…… 46

HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ANALYSIS…………………………………………....……. 48

Context of the Psalter 53

APPENDIX I: DELIMITATION OF CLAUSES……………………………...…………………..61

APPENDIX II: CLAUSAL FLOW CHAT………………………………………..…….…………62

APPENDIX III: SEGMENTATION………………………………………..………….…………..63

APPENDIX IV: SCANSION OF THE METER…………………………………….….………... 64

APPENDIX V: STROPHIC STRUCTURE…………………………………….…….………….. 65

BDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs

CPB The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version.

interpreting Ps 82 concerns the meaning of ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬in vv. 1b and 6a.3

There are three main interpretations as to what ‫אֹלהִים‬

Jewish kings or foreign kings?).8

agents are indirectly condemned with the gods.

- delimitation of the pericope;

Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 153-158.

- grammatical and syntactical analysis;

- outline of the compositional structure;

- definition of the literary genre;

- historical and cultural analysis;

DELIMITATION OF THE PERICOPE

step to interpret the text on a solid base.9

Since Ps 82 has a superscription (A psalm of Asaph) and Ps 83 also has a similar

Israel.11 Ps 83 is a communal complaint song,12 a petition to Yahweh against the enemies of

Presentation of the Text Tradition

Textual Criticism Proper

to present any possible variation in order to ensure a consistent interpretation of Ps 82.

Literally ‫ עדת־אל‬means “assembly of El.” But it is probably a formula for “divine

‫ בעדת‬instead of ‫בעדת אל‬.”18 Although Ackerman’s argument has to be considered, there is no

the text itself, but in the interpretation of its meaning.

follow the MT as it is.

It is noteworthy that the LXX in v. 8 has ὅτι σὺ κατακληρονοµήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς

In order to provide a consistent interpretation of Ps 82 we will present a translation as close to

1 A psalm of Asaph. ‫ִמז ְ֗מוֹר לְאָ֫ ָס֥ף‬ 1

Text as well.28 Therefore, there is no convincing argument to replace ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬for ‫י ְהוָה‬.29

(verbal adjective), is rendered by the majority of translations as “stands,”31 we translate here in

special action that he is about to take, presented in vv. 2-7.38

“the great assembly,” taking ‫אל‬

heavily dependent on the interpretation of Ps 82 as a whole. The rendering of “assembly of El”

We do not believe that such interpretation fits in the context of Ps 82.41

for this third position because of the following reasons:

1 – There is no occurrence in the Hebrew Bible where El is attested as a god opposing

The first occurrence of ‫( שָׁ פַט‬from 4 occurrences in our text) is a YQTL (Imperfect)

the divine assembly and he now pronounces judgment.

The second part of v. 2 (‫שׂאוּ‬

The YQTL verb ‫שׁפְּטוּ‬

continues with the question of when their actions will cease.

to the powerless60 in each of them.

declared just. In the same way, since ‫הצִּילוּ‬

gods to deliver the powerless.62

description in v. 5 is broadened with the Hithpael verb ‫הלָּכוּ‬

behavior of the gods described in 5a and 5b.66