The word “divine” (or related terms) shifts meaning drastically depending on cultural context.
1. Original Hebrew / Second Temple Jewish context:
- Words like ’elohim (“God,” “gods”) or terms that could be translated as “divine” often denote status, office, or agencyrather than inherent godhood.
- For instance, kings, angels, or even Israel itself could be described with divine language without being God.
- “Divine” often implied authorized by God, representing God, or endowed with God’s authority, rather than ontologically divine.
2. Later Christian reading:
- “Divine” is interpreted ontologically: something or someone actually sharing in God’s nature.
- So when Psalm 45:6 calls a king “divine” in Hebrew, the later Christian lens might see it as evidence of Christ’s inherent divinity, rather than poetic or titular language about a human king endorsed by God.
3. Why this matters:
- Without understanding the original “base,” we might assume the biblical authors were talking about something eternally God-like, when they were often talking about status, role, or God’s representative on earth.
- It’s literally like reading “10” as 10 in decimal when the text is in binary—the surface appearance of the number (or word) is deceptive if you ignore the system.
So, the word “divine” is a perfect illustration of semantic drift across religious frameworks. Its meaning isn’t fixed; it depends entirely on the cultural and theological “base” of the reader.
