to be derived not from אל, but from איל, which properly means 'ram,' then 'leader,' 'prince.'" By this explanation, especially the passage Ezek. xxxii. 21, which had formerly been appealed to in support of the translation "strong hero," is set aside; for the אלי גבּורים of that passage are "rams of heroes." Rationalistic interpreters now differ in their attempts at getting rid of the troublesome fact. _Hitzig_ says, "Strong God"--he erroneously views גבּור, which always means "hero," as an adjective--"the future deliverer is called by the oriental not strictly separating the Divine and human, and He is called so by way of exaggeration, in so far as He possesses divine qualities." A like opinion is expressed by _Knobel_: "Strong God the Messiah is called, because in the wars with the Gentiles He will prove himself as a hero equipped with divine strength." The expression proves a divine nature as little as when in Ps. lxxxii. 1-6, comp. John x. 34, 35, kings are, in general, called אלהים, "gods, _Like_ God, to be compared to Him, a worthy representative of Him, and hence, likewise, called God." It is true that there is one אל גבּור only, and that, according to chap. x. 21, the Messiah cannot be אל גבּור beside the Most High God, excepting _by partaking in his nature_. Such a participation in the nature, not His being merely filled with the power of [Pg 89] God, is absolutely required to explain the expression. It is true that in the Law of Moses all those who have to command or to judge, all those to whom, for some reason or other, respect or reverence is due, are consecrated as the representatives of God on earth; _e.g._, a court of justice is of God, and he who appears before it appears before God. But the name _Elohim_ is there given _in general only to the judicial court_, which represents God--to the _office_, not to the single individuals who are invested with it. In Ps. lxxxii. 1, the name _Elohim_ in the expression: "He judgeth among the gods" is given to the single, judging individual; comp. also ver. 6; but this passage forms an isolated exception. To explain, from it, the passage before us is inadmissible, even from chap. x. 21, where אל גבּור stands in its fullest sense. It must not be overlooked that that passage in Ps. lxxxii. belongs to higher poetry; that the author himself there mitigates in ver. 6, in the parallel member, the strength of the expression: "I have said ye are _Elohim_, and sons of the Most High ye all;" and, finally, that there _Elohim_ is used as the most vague and general name of God, while here _El_, a personal name, is used. _Hendewerk_, _Ewald_, and others, finally, explain "_God's hero_," _i.e._, "a divine hero, who, like an invincible God, fights and conquers." But in opposition to this view, it has been remarked by _Meier_ that then necessarily the words ought to run, גבור אל. It is farther obvious that by this explanation the גבור אל here is, in a manner not to be admitted, disconnected and