Counsel of the Ungodly: Commentary on Psalm 1:1

Counsel of the Ungodly

The Hebrew phrase is בַּעֲצַ֪ת רְשָׁעִ֫ים. The word translated “counsel” is prefixed with the preposition “in” and the definite article, functioning as a feminine noun in construct with the attributive adjective “ungodly,” thereby indicating a genitive relationship.¹⁾E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, Trans. A. E. Cowley (2nd English Ed.) Clarendon Press (Oxford: 1910), p. 417 (§128n). Just as objects may be described by the attribute of holiness (Exodus 29:29, 37; Numbers 5:17; Deuteronomy 23:14), this counsel is characterized by an ungodly quality. The Hebrew word for “counsel” is paralleled with the concept of “advice” (Judges 20:7). As a verb, it first appears in the account of Jethro advising Moses (Exodus 18:19).

The earliest occurrence of the noun is found in Deuteronomy 32:28, where it is used of Israel: “For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them.” In light of this first usage, the possessors of godly counsel appear to be rare, even within Israel itself. The blessed man of Psalm 1 has a singular devotion to “the law of the LORD” (Psalm 1:2). He is not governed by, nor does he synchronize his thinking with, the prevailing ideas of the surrounding world, even when such philosophies represent the dominant consensus among his own people. This reflects the biblical concept of a faithful remnant who follow God (Romans 11:5), while the majority walk the broad road that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13).

The Septuagint translates the term with the Greek word βουλῇ, which explains why Tertullian associated this passage with Joseph of Arimathæa, as discussed previously. βουλῇ may be defined as a “council meeting”²⁾A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Walter Bauer and trans. Wm. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, University of Chicago Press (Chicago, IL: 1979), p. 145 and was used as an equivalent term for the Sanhedrin, the judicial body that rendered judgments and offered counsel. The Mishnah states, “The greater Sanhedrin was made up of one and seventy [judges] and the lesser [Sanhedrin] of three and twenty.”³⁾Sanhedrin 1.6; The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 383 TThe number seventy-one was derived from Numbers 11:16, with Moses included among the seventy elders. The Mishnah further instructs, “The court must not be divisible equally,”⁴⁾Sanhedrin 1.6; The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 383 ensuring that judicial decisions could not result in a stalemate. As Craig Keener notes, “The Sanhedrin included the high priest, who according to tradition could break ties in voting.”⁵⁾Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 3:1-14:28, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2013), Vol. 2, p. 1139

            Psalm 1:1 could therefore be understood as warning against association with a body of wicked men who pervert judgment. More likely, however, the use of βουλῇ here carries the sense of “purpose, counsel”⁶⁾A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Walter Bauer and trans. Wm. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, University of Chicago Press (Chicago, IL: 1979), p. 145 referring to advice that is offered, as in Judges 20:7. In Hebrew wisdom literature, “counsel” frequently appears as a synonym for instruction and advice (Proverbs 1:10; 19:27; 20:18). Likewise, βουλῇ can refer to the “counsels of the hearts” (1 Corinthians 4:5), that is, the plans and intentions of the mind. Clement of Rome employed the term in his prayer for the rulers of the Roman Empire: “Lord direct their counsel according to that which is good and well pleasing in Thy sight[.]”⁷⁾1 Clement 61.2; in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, (edited by Allan Menzies.), Henrickson Publishers (Peabody, Massachusettes: 1896, 2012), Vol. 9, p. 247

A biblical example of ungodly counsel is found in the reign of Ahaziah. Upon becoming king of Judah, he received counsel from his wicked mother Athaliah, who is identified as the daughter of Omri in order to emphasize her pagan heritage (2 Chronicles 22:4). He also followed the counsel of the house of Ahab, which ultimately led to his destruction (2 Chronicles 22:5), illustrating the truth of Psalm 1:6 that the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Both the Hebrew and Greek terms are also used with reference to the counsel of God (Job 38:2; Proverbs 8:14; 21:30; Isaiah 11:2; 14:26; 46:11; Jeremiah 32:19; Acts 20:27; Ephesians 1:11). Unlike human counsel, God’s counsel is immutable (Hebrews 6:17) and cannot be altered by the schemes or deliberations of men. Yet wicked men imagine they can conceal their plans from Him, as though He could be caught unaware (Isaiah 29:15). Psalm 33:10–12 declares blessing upon the nation whose God is the LORD because He frustrates the counsel of the heathen. As noted in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, “Noteworthy here is the overruling power of God as he nullifies and frustrates the plans of men.”⁸⁾Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke) Moody Press (Chicago, IL 1980), Vol. 1, p. 390 Compare also 2 Samuel 17:14, Nehemiah 4:15, 2 Kings 18:20, Isaiah 8:10, and Isaiah 30:1.

The Hebrew term may also denote “the faculty of forming plans, i.e. prudence, wisdom,”⁹⁾Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament Scriptures, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 1957), p. 647 Yet in Psalm 1:1, “counsel” is singular while “ungodly” is plural. This construction may represent either a council of wicked individuals offering advice or the collective mindset of a culture that has embraced ungodly thinking. The emphasis may even suggest an internal problem within the covenant community itself, where the majority have allowed their thinking to be shaped by pagan influences. Similar to Psalm 12, the focus may “point towards the conflict within the people of God and not towards an external enemy.”¹⁰⁾Gert T.M. Prinsloo, “Man’s Word—God’s Word: A Theology of Antithesis in Psalm 12,” Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, (1998) Vol. 110, Issue 3, p. 395

An example of such an internal enemy is found in the account of Joseph and his brothers. They conspired together against him, intending evil, though God ultimately overruled their actions for good (Genesis 50:20). Josephus preserves a tradition in which Reuben pleaded with his brothers not to kill Joseph:

So he entreated them to have a regard to their own consciences, and wisely to consider what mischief would betide them upon the death of so good a child, and their youngest brother; that they would also fear God, who was already both a spectator and a witness of the designs they had against their brother; that he would love them if they abstained from this act, and yielded to repentance and amendment[.]¹¹⁾Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, 2.23; The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian (trans. William Whiston), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1960, 1981), p. 45-46

This episode provides a fitting illustration of Psalm 1:1. The righteous man refuses to participate in the counsel of the ungodly, even when that counsel originates from those closest to him. Rather than conforming to the collective wisdom of fallen humanity, he submits himself to the revealed wisdom of God.

Similarly, the Jewish Sanhedrin took counsel together to put Jesus Christ to death. Yet God’s foreknowledge had already determined this course of events as the means by which salvation would be accomplished (Acts 2:23). Peter explicitly identified the Sanhedrin’s conspiracy against Christ as a fulfillment of Psalm 2:1–2 (Acts 4:25–28), which further supports the connection between Psalm 1 and Psalm 2, especially in light of the early Jewish tradition that regarded these two psalms as a single composition. The Gospels likewise demonstrate that the Pharisees and lawyers rejected “the counsel of God” (Luke 7:30). In contrast, Gamaliel represents a notable example of a righteous voice interrupting the Sanhedrin’s evil intentions, as his advice restrained their desire to kill the apostles (Acts 5:38–39), paralleling Reuben’s intervention on behalf of Joseph. Tertullian’s application of Psalm 1 to Joseph of Arimathaea similarly follows the narrative pattern of a man resisting the corrupt counsel of an internally compromised leadership (Luke 23:51).

Walking in ungodly counsel often results in God giving sinners over to their own desires (Psalm 81:12; Acts 7:42; Romans 1:27–28; 2 Thessalonians 2:11). Those who receive ungodly counsel do so because their desires are already inclined toward ungodliness. Both individuals and nations experience blessings or judgments according to the counsel they choose to follow. Association with wicked men was commonly understood to bring divine displeasure and judgment, as reflected in Job’s accusations against the ungodly (Job 34:7–9) and the wisdom literature (Proverbs 21:16). Ungodly counsel frequently involves plotting against the righteous and laying snares before them (Psalm 81:12–16; 142:3).

Israel was commanded to instruct its children continually in the Law of God, making obedience a collective responsibility across generations. As Brian Russell observes:

For the Torah-centered Israelite, the description of the wicked in v. 1b would have evoked the positive imagery of Deuteronomy 6:7. Thus, by a subtle allusion to Deuteronomy, the psalmist alerts the attentive reader the antithesis of Psalm 1:1b.¹²⁾Brian Russell, “Psalm 1 as an Interpreter of Scripture,” Irish Biblical Studies, 26/4 (2005), p. 175

When Israel repeatedly rejected God’s counsel, the nation was brought low through divine judgment (Psalm 106:43; 107:11–12). Because Israel’s counsel opposed God, He allowed neighboring nations to conspire against them and seek their destruction (Psalm 83:2–8).

Commenting on the ungodly, St. Hilary distinguished them from sinners by identifying them specifically as those who reject the knowledge of God:

There is no doubt then that, as this instance proves, the undutiful (or ungodly) must be distinguished from the sinner. And, indeed, general opinion agrees to call those men ungodly who scorn to search for the knowledge of God, who in their irreverent mind take for granted that there is no Creator of the world, who assert that it arrived at the order and beauty which we see by chance movements, who, in order to deprive their Creator of all power to pass judgment on a life lived rightly or in sin, will have it that man comes into being and passes out of it again by the simple operation of a law of nature.¹³⁾St. Hilary, Homilies on the Psalms (Trans by E. W. Watson and L. Pullan) in Nicene and Post-Nicene Father, second series (ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace), Christian Literature Publishing Co. (Buffalo, NY: 1899), vol. 9, p. 238

Notably, Augustine applied the phrase “the counsel of the ungodly” to the earliest apostate, the devil. He wrote: “as ‘the man of earth did,’ [1 Cor. 15:47] who consented to his wife deceived by the serpent, to the transgressing the commandment of God.”¹⁴⁾Augustine, “Exposition on the Book of Psalms by Saint Augustine Bishop of Hippo;” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (ed. Philip Schaff), WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: reprint 1996), Series 1, Vol. 8, p. 1 According to Augustine’s interpretation, Adam became the first man to receive ungodly counsel. This provides an appropriate theological application to fallen humanity, whose minds have been corrupted by sin (Ephesians 2:3), leaving mankind naturally susceptible to receiving and embracing ungodly counsel.

Numerous examples of evil counsel may be observed throughout Scripture. Balak, king of Moab, sought the services of Balaam in order to curse Israel (Numbers 22–24). Although Balaam was prevented from cursing the nation directly, his greed ultimately led him to advise Balak to send Moabite women into the Israelite camp in order to entice the people into idolatry and fornication (Numbers 25). Josephus records Balaam’s role in these events:

who was sent for by the Midianites to curse the Hebrews, and when he was hindered from doing it by Divine Providence, did still suggest that advice to them, by making use of which our enemies had well nigh corrupted the whole multitude of the Hebrews with their wiles, till some of them were deeply infected with their opinions (Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, 4.157).¹⁵⁾The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian (trans. William Whiston), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1960, 1981), p. 93

Moses likewise declared: “through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord” (Numbers 31:16). As a result, Balaam became a proverbial example of a prophet motivated by greed and corruption (Deuteronomy 23:4; 2 Peter 2:15; Jude 11).

Another example is Doeg the Edomite, who informed King Saul that David had visited the priests at Nob (1 Samuel 22:7–10; 21:1–9). When Saul ordered the execution of the priests, Doeg eagerly carried out the command when no other servant was willing to do so (1 Samuel 22:11–19). David later described Doeg in Psalm 52:

Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully. Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness. Selah. Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue” (Psalm 52:2-4).

In contrast to Doeg, David reflects the characteristics of the blessed man described in Psalm 1, declaring that he is “like a green olive tree in the house of God” (Psalm 52:8). The juxtaposition highlights the fundamental distinction between those who delight in the counsel of the wicked and those whose confidence rests in the Lord.

David’s son Amnon likewise followed ungodly counsel. He received advice from Jonadab and subsequently violated his half-sister Tamar, refusing to heed her warnings and pleas (2 Samuel 13:1–14). Jonadab was not merely Amnon’s friend but also a counselor to King David and David’s nephew (2 Samuel 13:32), making him a cousin to both Amnon and Tamar. His role demonstrates how destructive counsel may arise from within one’s closest familial and political circles.

Ahithophel presents another significant example. During Absalom’s rebellion against his father David, Ahithophel joined the revolt (2 Samuel 15:12). Although his counsel was renowned for its wisdom (2 Samuel 16:23), it was nevertheless employed toward wicked ends. Ahithophel appears to have been the grandfather of Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:3; cf. 23:34), which may explain his recommendation that Absalom publicly defile David’s concubines (2 Samuel 16:20–22). This advice fulfilled the judgment pronounced by the prophet Nathan following David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:1–14).

David himself did not always avoid poor counsel. When Satan provoked him to number Israel, David rejected Joab’s warning and proceeded with the census (2 Samuel 24:1–4; 1 Chronicles 21:1–6). Likewise, Solomon ultimately disregarded the counsel given by David to serve the Lord in obedience to His law (1 Chronicles 28:5–9). By multiplying wives from pagan nations in direct violation of Deuteronomy 17:17 (1 Kings 11:1–8), Solomon introduced idolatrous influences that contributed to the division of the kingdom during the reign of his son.

Rehoboam provides another well-known example. By rejecting the counsel of the elders and instead following the advice of younger men (1 Kings 12:1–13), he effectively sealed the fate of the united monarchy, resulting in the division of the kingdom.

The unnamed prophet whom Josephus identifies as “Jadon,”¹⁶⁾Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, 8.240; The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian (trans. William Whiston), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1960, 1981), p. 185 was likewise deceived by false counsel. After faithfully delivering God’s message, he was persuaded by another prophet who lied to him, an act that ultimately cost him his life (1 Kings 13:11–32).

Jezebel furnishes another illustration of wicked counsel. She orchestrated a false accusation against Naboth, instructing corrupt men to bear false witness so that Naboth would be executed and his vineyard seized for King Ahab (1 Kings 21:5–14). Similarly, Jehoshaphat accepted Ahab’s counsel to join him in battle (1 Kings 22:4), while Ahab himself rejected the warning of the prophet Micaiah, a decision that resulted in his death (1 Kings 22:15–28).

Ahaziah likewise followed the wicked counsel of his mother Athaliah and the advisors who had served his father before him (2 Chronicles 22:2–5). In Ezekiel’s day, corrupt counsel had penetrated even the priesthood. The prophet records that idolatry was being promoted through the counsel of religious leaders themselves (Ezekiel 11:1–2; cf. 8:11), contributing to the nation’s eventual captivity.

More remarkable than the prevalence of wicked counsel are the comparatively few examples of individuals who successfully resisted it. David resisted the temptation to kill Saul when urged to do so by his men in the cave (1 Samuel 24:4). Instead, “David’s heart smote him” (1 Samuel 24:5), and he refused to raise his hand against “the LORD’S anointed” (1 Samuel 24:6–7).

During Absalom’s rebellion, David instructed his military commanders to deal gently with his son (2 Samuel 18:5). When Absalom was later found hanging from a tree, a young soldier refused Joab’s offer of ten shekels of silver to kill him (2 Samuel 18:9–12). This anonymous individual stands as a notable example of one who resisted pressure to act contrary to righteous authority.

Obadiah likewise demonstrated remarkable courage by hiding one hundred prophets of the Lord in caves and providing them with food and water while Jezebel sought to exterminate them (1 Kings 18:4, 13). The Rechabites similarly refused the wine offered to them, remaining faithful to the command of their forefathers (Jeremiah 35:1–10), and were subsequently commended and blessed by God for their obedience (Jeremiah 35:18–19).

The relative scarcity of such examples serves as a cautionary reminder. Scripture contains far more accounts of individuals accepting ungodly counsel than rejecting it, underscoring the necessity of exercising discernment regarding those whose advice we choose to follow.

Within the broader context of the Ancient Near East, the importance of wise counsel was recognized at the highest levels of society. One’s life could be endangered for providing poor advice to a king or crown prince. The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon contain a stern warning against those who would fail in their duty toward the royal heir:

If you do not fight for the crown prince Ashurbanipal, son of your lord Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, if you do not die for him, if you do not seek to do what is good for him, if you act wrongly toward him, do not give him sound advice, lead him on an unsafe course, do not treat him with proper loyalty…¹⁷⁾The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon; in The Ancient Near East: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures (ed. James B. Pritchard), Princeton University Press (Princeton, NJ: 1975), Vol. 2, p. 59

This concern for sound counsel bears a striking resemblance to the events of 2 Samuel 17:14, where the counsel of Hushai prevailed over that of Ahithophel because God had determined to frustrate Absalom’s rebellion. The narrative serves as a fitting illustration of the central principle of Psalm 1: while ungodly counsel may appear persuasive and influential, it ultimately fails before the sovereign purposes of God. The blessed man, therefore, is the one who refuses to walk according to such counsel and instead delights in the law of the Lord.