If you've not read the parts that precede this article, please see the link above and go back.
Recently, The Bible Project started a series on spiritual beings. The third video in the series spoke of The Divine Council, a hypothesis that has been propagated, most notably, by Dr. Michael Heiser. In fact, Heiser was credited as a Script Consultant at the end of the video. It is my position that this theological perspective is not only incorrect, but also an affront to the splendor and glory of God.
Due to the popularity of The Bible Project, and the fact that this video has accumulated over 250,000 views in just a couple of weeks, it seems necessary to offer a biblical response. In this four part series, I will present the key texts involved, the four main interpretive views, the challenges to each view, and my conclusion.
Challenges to the Contemporary Interpretations of Elohim in Psalm 82
John MacArthur/James White view
In this view, "Elohim" in Psalm 82 is interpreted as earthly rulers and judges.
Elohim in each of its forms is found in the Hebrew Old Testament 2,598 times. If the word is used in reference to human judges in Psalm 82, and if the word is used similarly in Exodus 21:6,22:8-9, and Deuteronomy 32:8, it means that there are about five total instances of this usage of the word. Due to the linguistic and syntactical difficulty of these passages, each of them (with the exception of Psalm 82:6) are translated at least once as “God” and at least once as a human office among the modern English translations. These considerations cast doubt on the interpretation that Psalm 82 is absolutely referring to humans.
Elohim in each of its forms is found in the Hebrew Old Testament 2,598 times. If the word is used in reference to human judges in Psalm 82, and if the word is used similarly in Exodus 21:6,22:8-9, and Deuteronomy 32:8, it means that there are about five total instances of this usage of the word. Due to the linguistic and syntactical difficulty of these passages, each of them (with the exception of Psalm 82:6) are translated at least once as “God” and at least once as a human office among the modern English translations. These considerations cast doubt on the interpretation that Psalm 82 is absolutely referring to humans.
Furthermore, the punishment
issued to these beings is to “die like men,” implying that this sentence is
contrary to the natural outcome of their being. If the Elohim in Psalm 82 are
human judges, they would need no special sentence to death as men die – they would
die like men because they were men.
John Piper view
In this view, "Elohim" in Psalm 82 is interpreted as angels.
The interpretation that considers Elohim in Psalm 82 to be angels faces a problem if it understands the term “angels” in its purest sense. Angels (unlike fallen angels, or “demons”) are unable to act “unjustly,” as Psalm 82 describes these Elohim to act. Angels are also unable to die. However, demons are naturally unjust and, as noted above, sentenced to “die like men” in the Second Death.
The interpretation that considers Elohim in Psalm 82 to be angels faces a problem if it understands the term “angels” in its purest sense. Angels (unlike fallen angels, or “demons”) are unable to act “unjustly,” as Psalm 82 describes these Elohim to act. Angels are also unable to die. However, demons are naturally unjust and, as noted above, sentenced to “die like men” in the Second Death.
One concern with regard to
interpreting the Elohim in Psalm 82 as demons is that there is an expectation
from Yahweh for these beings to rule righteously. Scripture does indicate that
demons have been given a measure of reign (cf. Rom 8:38, 2 Cor 4:4, Eph 2:2,6:12, Col 1:16); however, God would never expect these demons to reign
righteously within the dominion they’ve been given.
It is possible to interpret Psalm
82 as the time when a third of the angels fell with Satan (cf. 2 Pet 2:4, Rev12:4). It could be that these Elohim were given rulership as angels and were
expected to judge with righteousness, but then fell with Satan and were
sentenced to death. However, Yahweh seems to indicate an ongoing unrighteous
reign by these rulers through which He has maintained an expectation of
righteousness. God says, “How long will you judge unjustly,” (NASB),
signifying that this had gone on too far and He was once-for-all interceding.
That scenario does not fit into the moment-the-angels-fell narrative.
Finally, this view runs into major issues when it comes to
interpreting Jesus’ words in John 10:34. In no clear way does it seem
sensible that Jesus would use angels as an example in His discourse with the
Pharisees in that context. In their commentary, Keil and Delitzsch address this
view: “An interpretation which, like this, abandons the usage of the language
in order to bring into existence a riddle that it cannot solve, condemns
itself.”[1]
Michael Heiser view
In this view, "Elohim" in Psalm 82 is interpreted as actual divine beings of a greater nature than angels.
The more that the divine council worldview is expounded, the more that the traditional Christian worldview must change. This is why I decided to make public this essay.
The more that the divine council worldview is expounded, the more that the traditional Christian worldview must change. This is why I decided to make public this essay.
Although Dr. Heiser
despises modern theistic classifications,[2]
the divine council worldview is very close to a henotheistic worldview – the
teaching that there are multiple, ontologically equivalent Gods, yet there is
only one whom humans should worship. Henotheism is obviously contrary to
Scripture (cf. Gen 1:1, Deut 6:4, 1 Tim 2:5, etc.). Where the divine council
worldview makes a sharp break with henotheism is at the ontological level,
asserting that Yahweh created other Elohim.[3]
Yahweh’s creation of these beings indicates His ontological superiority;
however, they are still of the same class. This position muddies the water of
God’s transcendence.
Heiser wrote, “In briefest terms,
the statements in the canonical text inform the reader that, for the biblical
writer, Yahweh was an Elohim, but no other Elohim was Yahweh—and never was nor
could
be. This notion allows for the
existence of other Elohim and is more precise than the terms ‘polytheism’ and
‘henotheism.’ It is also more accurate than ‘monotheism,’ though it preserves
the element of that conception that is most important to traditional Judaism
and Christianity: Yahweh’s solitary ‘otherness’ with respect to all that is, in
heaven and in earth.”[4]
That explanation may sound reasonable; however, because Heiser’s
worldview asserts divine plurality, he then must explain texts like Isaiah 43:10 in an unconventional way. God says through the prophet, “Before Me there
was no God (Elohim) formed, and there will be none after Me,” (NASB). Heiser
claims that in this text Yahweh is claiming to be "species unique" among the Elohim
– not that other Elohim are absolutely absent in the universe.[5] He
uses Isaiah 47:8-10 and Zephaniah 2:15 to support his argument. Yet God appeals to His own knowledge and emphatically declares that there is no other divine Elohim (Isaiah 44:8, 45:5-6, 22).
Setting aside the philosophical
implications of defining Elohim in Psalm 82 as other divine beings that exist
alongside Yahweh, there are more fundamental errors to the interpretation.
Heiser’s insistence that Elohim is a term of spatial residence is unsubstantiated
in the Hebrew Old Testament. This definition is convenient and does not
adequately address the usages in Exodus 21:6,22:8-9, and Deuteronomy 32:8.
A.B. Davidson wrote, “The name Elohim is used both for God
and for angels. The angels are Elohim; and as a family or class they are ‘sons
of Elohim.’”[6]
Davidson suggests that the term is not spatial, but rather qualitative. This
widely-held and traditional understanding of the word allows for human judges,
who judge on behalf of Yahweh, and angels themselves to be the beings discussed
in the psalm in question.
Furthermore, the divine council worldview
must answer how divine beings can act sinfully and what their fallen state
entails. It is unclear as to whether or not Heiser views these sinful Elohim as
the equivalent of demons.
LDS view
In this view, "Elohim" in Psalm 82 is typically interpreted as men who become gods based on Jesus' usage of the passage in John 10:31-36.
From a biblical perspective, Mormon theology has several issues in light of a purely biblical worldview. Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson sum up this particular matter by stating:
From a biblical perspective, Mormon theology has several issues in light of a purely biblical worldview. Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson sum up this particular matter by stating:
Mormons, as well as Hindus and New Agers, have used [John 10] to show how people can become gods. This does not make sense for
several reasons. First, the passage is referring to Psalm 82, which speaks
about human judges who would “die like men” (v. 7). Jesus points out that, like
the judges in the Psalm, the judgments of the Jewish leaders were wrong. In
addition, it would make no sense for Jesus to identify the Pharisees — whom He
called “whitewashed tombs” (Mt 23:27) and “of your father the Devil” (John
8:44) — “gods” in the present tense. Finally, the Bible is very clear that the
only God who exists is God Himself, and He knows of no other gods (Is 43:10,
44:6-8). If there are no other gods before or after God, then how can humans
ever progress to become gods? While Christians will indeed be glorified in the
future state, it would not be biblical to call them gods.[7]
[1] Commentary
on the Old Testament, 5:402
[2] See Monotheism,
Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality
in the Hebrew Bible, that Dr. Heiser wrote for Liberty University http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=lts_fac_pubs&sei-
[3] “Michael
Heiser - The Divine Council,” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH7PiDGVcJQ (23:46,
30:37)
[4] Monotheism,
Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality
in the Hebrew Bible, 29
[5] “Michael
Heiser - The Divine Council,” (10:40)
[6]
The Theology of the Old Testament, 293
[7] Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34,
http://www.mrm.org/john-10-34.
Accessed June 13, 2018.
[8] http://www.mrm.org
[8] http://www.mrm.org
[10] https://aomin.org; see https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2009/10/19/die-like-men-a-response-to-dr-michael-heiser/
specifically. Access June 13, 2018.
Your analysis of Heiser's theology is spot on and very accurate. I suspect that Heiser's refusal of classifications plays into dancing around concerns regarding his assertions. While I won't go so far as to say Heiser is a maliciously-intended heretic, I agree that an acceptance of his theological positions would reshape the traditional Christian worldview and open the door for some serious problems.
ReplyDelete