Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
Do you view reality as including people, the rest of the physical realm, and God? According to Dr. Michael Heiser, you’re leaving out a lot. The authors of the Bible hold that there is also an unseen realm, a realm of deities (Hebrew: elohim). He argues that in the Bible, God is one of many divine beings, although unique among them. And the unique God, Yahweh, presides over a divine council.
In this interview, he discusses his discovery of this aspect of the Old Testament as a graduate student, and discusses many themes from his new book The Unseen Realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible. Dr. Heiser focuses in particular on Psalm 82,
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly…?
I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”
and Deuteronomy 32,
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.
He also explains why the famous line from Genesis 1
“Let us make man in our image and likeness…”
does not support the idea that God is multi-personal, and should not be read as the Father talking to the Son (i.e. to the pre-human Jesus).
He also explains how this worldview illuminates many statements by Paul, such as,
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)
Dr. Heiser touches on many other texts as well, as he does in depth in the book, such as Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2. It’s an illuminating perspective on the meaning (I would say) of biblical monotheism. But in Dr. Heiser’s view, “monotheism,” “polytheism,” and “henotheism” are all ill-suited to describe this worldview. He also discusses the polemical and derivative nature of many passages in the Old Testament, and how this relates to the end-state of believers in Christ.
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)
Links for this episode:
- Dr. Heiser’s home page
- Logos Bible software
- The Unseen Realm (pre-order: released on Sept 1, 2015)
- Gerald McDermott, God’s Rivals: Why has God allowed different religions? Insights from the Bible and the early church (kindle)
- Hebrew words:
- podcast 59 – Dr. Carl Mosser on salvation as deification
- podcast 60 – Dr. Carl Mosser on deification in the Bible
- This episode’s thinking music is “H“ by Kosta T. and Ghofra Z.
I love your podcasts, but I have to jump through hoops to get them downloaded, because they won’t download from iTunes to my mini iPad. Have you been alerted about issues from other listeners? Also, I’ve never been able to download episode 97 with Heiser, even jumping through said hoops.
Thanks for shining a spotlight on blindly followed traditionism.
One quick comment, and one quick question:
My initial response to this view is that it seems quantitatively unparsimonious. It seems unnecessarily complicated to postulate these “caretaker” gods, if these lesser deities are distinct from what we call angels/demons. One of the virtues of any theory is simplicity, by postulating more entities -you increase a theories ontological extravagance.
Exactly what does “ruling over the nations” mean? If all believers are doing the ruling and all the unbelievers and demons burning in hell, what exactly is there to rule over? Sounds like a lot of chiefs and no Indians.
Thanks Dale, I do enjoy these podcasts.
Raymond,
Good points. Heisner’s view does seem unnecessarily complicated. I’ve posted some other comments here showing that Heisner’s main proof-text (Deuteronomy 32:8-9) is taken completely out of context (based upon his exploitation of a textual variant). Unfortunately, this makes his endeavor to connect the “sons of God” with the “inheriting” the Babel nations (Genesis 10-11) from YHWH unwarranted.
Hi Raymond – thanks for the comments. Glad that you’re enjoying the podcasts.
“if these lesser deities are distinct from what we call angels/demons” No, my understanding is that they’re not distinct, in his view.
A lot of chiefs- haha. A good point. I think we must suppose that not every Christian gets the same reward. Collectively, redeemed Christians rule under Christ and God. But I would assume that some just squeak in to the kingdom, while others, who’ve loved, trusted, and sacrificed much, would get a greater reward. So it could well be that only a few redeemed believers literally rule over, serve as some sort of ruler over, a “nation” (people, ethnic group), while others are in their administration, and others play no leadership role.
I don’t know what Dr. Heiser would say – I don’t remember him addressing this in the book – but that’s what I would suggest.
Dale, you might want to also engage the young scholar, Daniel O’McClellan on these issues. He and Michael Heiser have also had extensive dialogue about their respective approaches to the mentioned texts.
Hi Jaco,
Thanks for the tip. Does he have any articles you think I should read? And can you summarize roughly how he disagrees with Dr. Heiser?
Hi Dale,
In an early dialogue Daniel explained his position as follows:
“In most critical reconstructions of early Israelite religion, God and the sons of God occupy two separate tiers of deity, with angels occupying an even lower tier as servant deities. I and others have argued that at some point the lower tiers were all conflated and demoted to that servile angelic status in an effort to simplify and dichotomize the pantheon.It was God and then it was all his angels.”
http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/conflating-angels-and-the-sons-of-god/
Interesting. Plausible, on the face of it. But if even at the earlier stage the “pantheon” were not worshiped as individual deities, I don’t see that it would make much practical difference. To the extant that Hebrews went from polyolatry (with idolatry?) to monolatry (without idolatry) – that would seem to be the really important change. But as I understand monotheism, both could be monotheistic (I don’t define it is implying monolatry).
Does he think that earlier, in mainstream Israelite religion, members of this pantheon (excluding YHWH) were worshiped?
Dale,
I really enjoyed this podcast because it is an interesting subject. I’ve always considered the “divine council” (1 Kings 22:19-21; Job 1:6; Psalms 82:1) interpretation of the implication of the Hebrew plural ALHYM to be the most reasonable explanation of the “our” and “us” in Genesis 1:26.
The two texts I thought were not handled well in this podcast are Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Acts 17:26 (which alludes to Deuteronomy 32). Even though there is a textual issue with whether Deuteronomy 32:8d should be rendered “sons of God” (BN ALHYM) or “sons of Israel” (BN YSRAL), the context of the entire song is about the relationship that God had with “Jacob” (Israelites) and not the heathen nations that came before Abraham (or the divine council).
Thus, it makes more sense to think that the “nations” and “sons of man” in this context are the “nations” and “sons” who are Abraham’s descendants (Genesis 17:5-8; Genesis 35:10-11; Genesis 48:19-20). The contextual evidence is probably the reason that some translators understand Deuteronomy 32:8d to be “sons of Israel.”
There’s also nothing in the Hebrew grammar here that warrants the inclusion of heathen peoples or angelic rulers in this context. Even if “sons of God” (BN ALHYM) is the correct reading of the Deuteronomy 32:8d, the following verse indicates that it is referring to “His people” who are “Jacob” (Israel).
My study Bible says that the Greek has “sons of Israel” and the Hebrew has “sons of God.” So it is a textual choice and an interpretive one. Yahweh’s portion is Israel, and this is contrasted with the portion(s) given to the sons of God. This makes sense. It is interesting that the English translations are heavily split on the reading: http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/32-8.htm NRSV has “according to the number of the gods”. NLT: ” according to the number in his heavenly court” Anyway, the passage easily makes sense read this way. The “Sons of Israel” – when did YHWH deal out the various nations to them?
I hope you don’t mind if I chime in, Dale. Your study Bible doesn’t quite have it right. The Hebrew Masoretic Text of Deut 32:8 has “sons of Israel,” but the Septuagint (the Greek) dates to about 1000 years earlier and reads (according to the majority reading) “angels of God.” Since the Septuagint sometimes replaces the Hebrew “sons of God” with “angels of God,” many scholars concluded the text originally had “sons of God.” This theory was verified when a fragment of Deuteronomy from the Dead Sea Scrolls (around the time of the translation into Greek) was discovered that read “sons of God.” The overwhelming consensus now is that Deut 32:8 originally referenced the “sons of God,” but was changed because scribes at some point grew too uncomfortable with it. However, Jan Joosten, Oxford’s new Regis Chair of Classical Hebrew, has suggested that perhaps the original was “sons of Bull El,” which has a title from the Ugaritic texts that could be very easily confused with “sons of Israel” (the only difference in an ancient manuscript would be a single yod and spacing). He suggests a scribe at some point mistakenly (or intentionally) read “sons of Israel” and transmitted it that way.
My main point of disagreement with Heiser is in the notion of a theological evolution. I argue that YHWH and El were separate deities early in Israel’s existence, but were conflated at the rise of the Israelite state. The other gods of the pantheon were marginalized and neglected until the Greco-Roman period, at which point they were conceptually demoted to angelic status. Heiser argues that YHWH and El were always a single deity and that there was no demotion, but that angels were always considered subordinate deities. He conceptualizes of the word “deity” as locative, or having fundamental reference to a location; a deity is a being that inhabits the spiritual realms. I argue in my second master’s thesis for an entirely different conceptualization of deities. You can read it here:
http://www.twu.ca/library/theses/256182_pdf_246075_57AF479C-6921-11E3-BFD1-EA582E1BA5B1_mcclellan_d.pdf
Dan,
Do you see anything in the context of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 that would require even the consensus reading “sons of God” (Deuteronomy 32:8d) to be referring to anyone other than the Israelites?
It’s understandable that “angels of God” (LXX) might be derived from the likely interpretation of BNY HALHYM in other passages (e.g. Genesis 6:2, Job 38:7), but it seems unwarranted in Deuteronomy. What are your thoughts?
I don’t think there’s any way to read “sons of God” as a reference to Israelites. The phrase occurs a few times in the Hebrew Bible and it is unquestionably in reference to deities in every occurrence (Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). We also have the tradition from the Greco-Roman period of the nations each having a guardian angel. This is a remnant of Deut 32:8 from a time when the gods were reinterpreted as angels. I interpret Deut 32:6-9 as an older fragment from an earlier tradition that has been embedded in the slightly later Deuteronomy 32. This is evidence, among other things, but the description of the verses as what you would hear if you asked the elders of the community.
Dan,
Thanks for the reply. I think something that is being overlooked by those who favor the “sons of God” reading in Deuteronomy 32:8 is that there is plenty of evidence that those who were familiar with the LXX had come to use “sons of God” to refer to human beings (e.g. Matthew 5:3; Romans 8:14).
Moreover, we also find in Hosea 1:10 that “number of the sons of Israel” and “sons of the living God” are used synonymously. Thus, insisting that “sons of God” cannot refer to Isarelites (human beings) on the basis of how it might be referring to angels in a few other remote passages doesn’t seem reasonable.
Regardless of whether one favors “sons of God” or “sons of Israel” as the variant reading (based upon speculative textual critical factors), my concern is primarily with the immediate contextual evidence in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. Would you be able to offer any exegetical evidence from the language in Deuteronomy 32 that favors interpreting “sons of God” as anyone other than the Israelites to whom Moses is offering the song?
Yes, but there’s a detectable evolution toward that reading that takes place well after Deuteronomy 32:8 was composed and translated into Greek. The trouble was related to Genesis 6:2–4. In the Greco-Roman period, the angelic reading replaced the reading that understood the sons of God to be proper gods, but around the turn of the era, the question was raised about the sexual compatibility of angels and humans. It became heretical to suggest that angels could (1) be disobedient, and (2) sire children with human women. This lead to interesting exegetical choices that are discussed in Philip Alexander’s 1972 Journal of Jewish Studies article, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6.” In the end, though, it became popular to interpret these “sons of God” as humans. Both sides of the argument are represented in the New Testament. In John 10:34–36, for instance, Christ appeals to the interpretation of the “sons of the Most High” of Psalm 82 as a reference to the Israelites at Sinai (an innovation of the first century), but 2 Pet 2:4 interprets the “sons of God” of Genesis 6 as angels. The question was still debated when the Septuagint was translated, which is why we have Greek manuscripts that attest to the “sons of God” and “angels of God” readings, but there was no real debate when Deuteronomy 32:8–9 were composed. The sons of God were definitely deities.
Dan,
Thanks. Why would you say that both sides of the “sons of God” argument were represented in the NT if Jesus appealed to Psalms 82? This would be another indication that “sons of God” in Deuteronomy 32:8 probably wasn’t referring to angels (especially if the Psalmist is using “sons of the Most High” to speak of Israel during the time of Sinai).
I agree that Peter and Jude certainly understood Genesis 6:2-4 to be referring to angels (and that makes the best sense of the language in the context of Genesis 6 as well). I also agree that Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 also suggest a “divine council” motif.
I just don’t think Dr. Heisner has any exegesis to support his insistence that “sons of God” in Deuteronomy 32:8d must be referring to angels (in that particular context). Thus, his conclusion that Deuteronomy 32:8-9 conveys the idea that YHWH gave an “inheritance” to foreign nations (and their gods) is implausible. Unfortunately, that is the main proof-text that he uses to try to establish the framework of his “spiritual geography” concept.
I would say that because the “sons of God/Elyon” in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Job were all thought of as references to the same group of beings. The people who thought Psalm 82 was a reference to Israelites most likely thought the same about the other references. At the same time, the people who thought Genesis 6 was a reference to angels probably thought the same about Deuteronomy 32. There’s no good reason to interpret them as distinct categories. Even the book of Daniel reflects an interpretation of Deuteronomy 32 as angels. It references “princes” of the different nations, with the angel Michael as the prince of Israel. This reflects the tradition of guardian angels having stewardship over all the nations of the earth, which is what is represented in Deuteronomy 32. A good article on this angel tradition is Darrel Hannah, “Guardian angels and Angelic Nation Patrons in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity.”
Hi Dan,
Isn’t it reasonable to think that “sons of God” may have had both meanings (depending upon the context of a particular usage)? Why do you think it is necessary to conclude that it must have had an either/or meaning that must apply to every occurrence?
Also, couldn’t the angelic “princes” to which Daniel refers simply be part of the “host of heaven” that carries out the purposes of YHWH on his own behalf (1 Kings 22:19-21; Job 1:6)? Why do you think it is necessary to conclude that those “princes” were gods of other nations or that there is any connection with the “nations” in Deuteronomy 32:8-9.
I do agree with the “divine council” element of Dr. Heiser’s teaching. I just he needs to do more than proof-texting with Deuteronomy 32:8-9. I just don’t see any exegetical warrant for suggesting that “nations” or “inheritance” in Deuteronomy 32:8a must be referring to “Babel nations” or that “sons of …?” in Deuteronomy 32:8d must be referring to angels or a divine counsel.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 makes perfectly good sense if it’s just Moses talking about YHWH giving the nations of Israel the portions of the land as their inheritance.
>Also, couldn’t the angelic “princes” to which Daniel refers simply be part of the “host of heaven” that carries out the purposes of YHWH on his own behalf
Rivers,
I think Heiser would agree with you. These “deities” or angels or princes (over time, names got intermixed) are part of the divine council that disobey God…..hence Psalm 82. These aren’t independent beings outside of God’s domain.
Hanan,
Thanks for the reply. Why do you think Heisner would say that the “princes” in Daniel were “disobedient” members of the host of heaven?
For example, in 1 Kings 22:19-21 and Job 1:6, the evidence suggests that God commissioned obedient angels (a “lying spirit” and a “satan”) to carry out out His own intentions on the earth.
Hi Rivers,
I was taught by Mike Heiser from 2008-2012 and I went through his dissertation and papers (among dozens of other scholars). Daniel McClellan might have slight disagreements with Mike, but his responses are reasonable and fair. However, you responded to Raymond NAVARRO with “Good points,” thereby agreeing with his straw-man arguments. The fact is that you both have misunderstood Heiser’s arguments from Deut 32 and 4 (not just 32). Also, Heiser’s view is solidly reconfirmed by some critical commentaries and other OT/Semitic scholars–it’s not his own, personal view. It doesnt help for you to misunderstand his actually arguments and then argue against his view based on that misunderstanding. I’ve had my own slight disagreements with Heiser on other matters, but not to this point, and certainly not like Raymond NAVARRO’s sophistry.
Hi Brian,
The critical problem with Heisner’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (even if “sons of God” is taken to be the correct variant in 32:8d) is that there is nothing in the context of Deuteronomy 32 that warrants his idea that these “sons of God” are “angels” or that God gave any “inheritance” to “Babel nations” in 32:8a.
If you can offer any exegetical (contextual) evidence that Deuteronomy 32:8-9 requires Heisner’s “Babel nations” interpretation, please put it forward. The meaning of “sons of God” should be determined by the context (and not by a selective appeal to other remote passages or the opinion of certain scholars).
The evidence shows that terms like “sons of God” and “sons of the living God” (Hosea 1:10) and “sons of the Most High” (Psalms 82:6) were not used exclusively of the heavenly beings. They are used for ordinary human beings in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. Thus, there must be substantial inter-textual evidence derived from the context of Dueteronomy 32 that warrants that “sons of God” must refer to angels in that text.
Hi Rivers,
This is not the place to exchange highly charged technicalities. Please follow-up with me by email: blop2008@gmail.com
Also, by the way, please get his last name right: It’s “Heiser”, not “Heisner”. You’re probably just mistyping it like people mistype my name as Brain instead of Brian, but be more careful, you’ve typed it too many times that way.
Hi Brian,
There’s no need for us to correspond privately. I’m familiar Heiser’s theory and am just pointing out where it is critically flawed (as far as Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is concerned). I haven’t seen him (or any of his followers) offer any exegetical response to the issues noted here. That is my concern. 🙂
Rivers,
I doubt that you are familiar with his work. You show unfamiliarity and you persist on misrepresenting his arguments. Let me ask you some questions to follow-up on this issue since you refuse to exchange by email (which would be far more feasible since we could paste texts and attach documents).
You say you are familiar, but then, if you really are familiar:
(1) Why do you keep bringing up the text critical issue (textual criticism) as his *sole basis* for concluding that the sons of God in Deut 32.8-9 are the divine beings of the Divine Council? Why do you say there’s nothing in the (con)text of Deut 32 (and 4) for this point of view of divine beings assigned to the nation of Gen 10-11? Which paper from Heiser did you read that make you say this?
(2) What do you make of Deut 4 *and* 32, then? I know you’ve given us a glimpse your comments above, but please reclarify before I respond.
You said that “The meaning of “sons of God” should be determined by the context (and not by a selective appeal to other remote passages or the opinion of certain scholars). Textual variants are not sufficient to determine interpretations.”
We know this. Mike knows this very well. This shows you have misread or misinterpretated something about his work and the work of others that reach similar conclusions. This is straw-man.
Immediate context and book context is one thing to consider in biblical studies, but then you have backdrop/background which must be taken into consideration. The backdrop of Deut 4 and 32 makes most sense in light of the Divine Council’s sons of God based on other pre-exilic/post-exilic and canonical and non-canonical literature–*but these are not the primary arguments, they are secondary once the exegetical, textual, linguistical analysis has been done within Deut*.
Also, you are misusing Hosea 1:10 and Psalm 82 to say that the sons of [the living] God could refer to humans in the Bible. I think you are confusing later interpreations within the judeo-chrisitan literature and mixing it with the actual view of the authors of Hosea and Psalm. Lastly, I assure you that we know very well that “Thus, there must be substantial inter-textual evidence derived from the context of Deuteronomy 32 that warrants that “sons of God” should refer to angels in that particular passage.” This is layed out in his papers about Deut. I wonder if you even read them carefully, or if you even read them at all. The textual variant between DSS, LXX, and MT shows us that the interpretations that best explains the rise of the variant itself has to do with the context of Deut 4/32 and its implications about other deities, which is a similar phenomenon happening with Psalm 82 and John 10 when Jesus quotes John 10. You’re view has little explanotary power and doesnt work. The evidence leads towards the divine council. It’s not true that Mike Heiser concludes his view primarily based on the textual variant itself in isolation of context and backdrop.
Brian,
Thanks for the reply. Here’s a brief response following the order of your comments:
1. Heiser simply argues that because “sons of God” is his preferred textual variant reading of Deuteronomy 32:8d, and that “sons of God” (supposedly) always refers to heavenly beings, therefore Dueternomy 32:8-9 must be speaking of a “divine council.” Unfortunately, there are a number fallacies inherent in this line of argumentation.
2. The entire context of Deuteronomy 32 is about the “nations” that composed the peoples of “Jacob.” There is no exegetical reason to introduce “Babel nations” or a “divine council.” Israel was a “multitude of nations” from the very beginning (Genesis 35:10-11) and YHVH gave those nations the “inheritance” of the land promised to Abraham (Exodus 32:13).
3. Even if Heiser understands that “context” is important, he hasn’t established his interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 from contextual considerations. Rather, he simply appeals to a preferred textual variant (“sons of God”) and then claims it “always means heavenly beings” (not accurate), and then arbitrarily interprets “nations” in 32:8a as the people of Genesis 10-11. This is not doing sound exegesis. Many scholars with good intentions make the same kinds of mistakes.
4. I disagree with your comments about “backdrop/background” because that is presumptive, at best. We can only speculate about any influence that other semitic dialects or “other ANE cultures” might have had upon the ancient Hebrew religion. From a logical standpoint, we should always assume that a writer can be understood on his own terms. The language in both Deuteronomy 4 and Deuteronomy 32 makes perfectly good sense if it applies only to the people of Israel to whom Moses is writing the book.
5. As I noted earlier, even if “sons of God” is the preferred textual variant, it’s evident that “sons of God” and “sons of the living God” (Hosea 1:10) and “sons of the Most High” (Psalms 82:6) was a concept used to speak of ordinary human beings (based upon the context). It doesn’t have to mean “heavenly beings” in the Deuteronomy 32:8-9.
Thus, when Deuteronomy 32:7-9 mentions these “sons of God” (32:8d) along with “generations” (32:7) and “your father” (32:7) and “your elders” (32:7) and “nations” (32:8a) and “sons of Adam” (32:8b) and “peoples” (32:8c) and “His people” (32:9a) and “Jacob” (32:9b), there is overwhelming evidence that it is speaking of the Israelites as “sons of God” in this particular context. This may be why “sons of Israel” became an accurate variant reading in some sources.
I hope this helps you to see that I’m not picking on Heiser. I do appreciate his helpful commentary on many other biblical texts. 🙂
Rivers,
This is a bit disappointing and not at all persuasive. You misread and misunderstood him (and other qualified scholars whom he quotes). All of your five points are out of line with the texts and show misunderstanding.
This is not the place for me to correct all your misreadings.
First step, read his published papers on the matter and then ask the right questions and critique the actual data. Take your time, there’s no rush, then we’ll talk:
Does Deuteronomy 32:17 Assume or Deny the
Reality of Other Gods? (2008):
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325&context=lts_fac_pubs
Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God (2001):
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1278&context=lts_fac_pubs
Hi Brian,
I’ve already done the research. I appreciate that you are a fan of Heiser’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 for different reasons. As Paul said, “each one should be convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5).
I like a lot of other information that Dr. Heiser has put forward and will continue to consider his opinions. I think he has a lot of good things to say too.
Oh well Rivers, we cannot help you then. Those are, still, not Mike Heiser’s views. You remain straw-man, misrepresenting others and then arguing against that misrepresentation and you accuse them of errors that they’re not making when in fact you make them yourself in your own comments here (your 5 points). Romans 14.5 has absolutely nothing to do with biblical theology or interpretation, Paul says this about Church praxis in light of the OT Scriptures and Jesus’ fulfilled of it and how Christians should behave based on that new light in Christ. I dont think he would have said that about biblical theology, in which elsewhere he corrects churches about incorrect teachings going around.
So Long,
Brian.
Rivers,
I am trying to understand the context through your eyes. How can God have separated the nations according to the Sons of Israel when there was no Israel at the time of the despertion? Also, within your context, how does the continuation of that verse makes sense: “But God’s inheritance is Jacob”. The implication seems clear: The nations are the inheritance of other Council Members, but Jacob is the inheritance of God. One verse follows the other perfectly. Under your context, the subsequent verse of God inheriting Jacob does not follow the verse right before, since under your context there is no inheritance to speak of. So why would God respond with a “…but Jacob is mine”?
Also how does your context help with Deut 4? Seeing it through Heiser’s eyes, they are perfectly complimentary if Deut 32 is speaking of the divine council. Deut 4 is talking about the allocation of the nations to the “legions of the heaven”
So even if you say both instances make perfectly good sense if it is talking about Israel, I would like you to explain how?
Hanan
I appreciate that. Both Deuteronomy 32:8 and Deuteronomy 32:9 can simply be saying the same things.
In other words, Deuteronomy 32:8 describes the fact that God intended the Promised Land to be inherited by the “nations” of Israel (Genesis 35:10-11) and then divided between them (Joshua 14:1-5) according to the “boundaries” established by God (Numbers 34:1-12). What follows in Deuteronomy 32:9 is just Moses reiterating that “Jacob” (i.e. all the nations of Israel together) were God’s own people.
It isn’t necessary to conclude that this language should be taken to infer that there was another inheritance taken by memebers of a separate “divine council.” I can understand why Dr. Heiser is tempted to read it that way, but none of the vocabulary in the passage requires it.
Heiser would need to prove that “nations” (32:8a) and “sons of …?” (32:8d) must be referring to someone other than the Israelites (since all of the language can easily be shown to apply naturally to the Israelites throughout the rest of the Hebrew scriptures).
God did give an “inheritance” to the “nations” of Israel and the land was “divided” according to their “number” (12). That is all that is needed to explain what is found in the context of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 which was a song give to “all Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:1).
If you start with Genesis, you see some of the Bnei Elohim (princes, later angels) procreated and were responsible for the giants.
Than you have psalms 82 which deals with God punishing some of them for not judging righteously.
If Michael is a prince to Israel fighting another kingdom along with their prince, it goes to say that, that other prince is fighting against God.
Hanan,
That isn’t necessarily the case. For example, there’s no indication in Job 1:6 that the “satan” was opposed to God. Rather, he was challenging the righteousness of Job against YHVH and the other members of the heavenly host. Thus, God permitted the “satan” to text his theory.
Thus, even if Michael represents Israel (specifically), it could be that the “princes” who oppose him are other members of the heavenly host (of YHVH) who are testing the resolve of Michael’s purpose as the defender of that nation.
Sure.
I did not imply to mean that all the heavenly council rebelled, but that the text is strongly implying some did, or not doing their job properly based on the relevant sources. Satan in Job was obviously not rebelling, but the other verses are talking about a group of them that are going against the divine will.
Hi Hanan,
Yes, I would agree that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 were probably heavenly beings who “sinned.” This seems to be the way Peter and Jude understood the story (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6).
Happily, if you’re right about Jesus’s assumption there (and I think you are), his argument still works. (The adjusted premise 5 is still true.) 🙂 https://trinities.org/blog/jesuss-argument-in-john-10/
“when the gods were reinterpreted as angels”
What’s the big reinterpretation, in your view. A god is a powerful spirit. A (lower) god may be presupposed to be a member of the divine council. “Angel” is a messenger. But that’s just a job that one of those lesser gods may do. Is there some change here in fundamental category, I mean, in the conception of what kind of being we’re dealing with?
I wrote a paper about that reinterpretation a while ago that can be found here:
https://www.academia.edu/383531/What_is_Deity_in_LXX_Deuteronomy
I would interpret “A god is a powerful spirit” as a contemporary understanding of deity. I don’t think it’s evident from the text. That’s a longer discussion, though, and I go through it in my thesis.
Interesting. I intend to read that paper linked. Thanks.
Dale,
I think you would appreciate my comments to this thread here:
http://drmsh.com/2015/06/28/naked-bible-podcast-epiosde-55-interview-with-dr-ronn-johnson/
I asked Ronn a question about the difficulty of calling the divine council “gods” because it carries so much modern biases.
You can scroll down to where I bring it to his attention [Under my name, July 1, 2015]
Yes, interesting comments. In my view (argued in a forthcoming paper) we should use “god” for the kind of deity proposed by monotheistic religions and “deity” as a more inclusive term for any powerful spirit, roughly like elohim is used in the OT. (In the paper I say more about defining this wider concept of deity.) So on this scheme, every god is a deity (by definition) but not vice-versa.
Hi Dan – of course, you are always welcome to chime in!
I misspoke, reversing what my study Bible said. Greek has: sons of God (I see this too in my modern translation of the LXX (“divine sons”) – I’m not sure why you’re saying “angels”) and the Hebrew has “sons of Israel.” Yeah, I would think this is a classic case where you prefer the Greek because it is older, and because it is easy to see how scruples would cause scribes to change the words here.
Why would a Hebrew refer to God as “Bull El”? Is there any instance of this in the OT? I would think they’d be allergic to that, as assigning God a title like that would seem to go hand in hand with using an idol for God.
“argue that YHWH and El were separate deities early in Israel’s existence”
Are you persuaded by Margaret Barker in this regard?
About the pantheon – Dr. Heiser has no problem with a pantheon in the sense of YHWH’s council – which makes them all subordinate to YHWH. But I think that you mean a pantheon in the sense of a bunch of other gods, and not necessarily all beneath YHWH, at least some of whom were worshiped in addition to YHWH. Is that right? So you think the later writings just lie about, cover up the earlier polyolatry, false asserting the monolatry went back at least to the time of Moses?
“the word “deity” as locative”
Yeah, I think he meant really as putting one in a certain class of beings, rather than in a literal place – but I’m not sure.
Thanks for the link to your thesis. I hope to check that out when I can find the time. I’m certainly interested in what the Hebrew Bible says or assumes about gods.
Thanks for the response, Dale. There are variants in the Greek manuscripts of LXX, and a couple early ones do read ???? ????, “sons of God.” The majority reading, however, is explicitly ??????? ????, “angels of God.” The Hebrew of the Masoretic tradition has “sons of Israel,” but that’s a pretty late tradition. 4QDeut-j is a Hebrew manuscript from the Qumran community that has ??? ?????, “sons of God.” Thus we have two texts from around the turn of the era that witness to “sons of God” (the Septuagint makes the alteration to “angels of God” a few different times).
“Bull El” as a title is never found in the Hebrew Bible, but references to God as a bull are not infrequent, especially if we read ???? ????? as “Bull of Israel” rather than “Mighty One” of Israel. This all fits well within the Canaanite conceptualization of deities as bulls. I wrote about this in chapter 3 of the thesis to which I linked earlier.
I am not persuaded by much at all from Margaret Barker. That position is my own, but it is shared by a number of specialists in early Israelite religion. The thesis above discusses that at length, too.
You are right that my position is that YHWH was just one of many deities within the pantheon prior to the conflation of YHWH and El. This is promoted by Mark Smith as well in God in Translation. An indication that YHWH did not reign supreme is the experience of the Israelite/Judahite coalition in 2 Kings 3 that was promised victory over Moab, but retreated in the heat of battle after the Moabite king offers a human sacrifice to the Moabite deity (Chemosh). The text says immediately after the offering that a “great fury” came against Israel and they retreated (the terminology is the same as that used to refer to Sennacherib’s retreat after the angel killed hundreds of thousands). The phrase “great fury” is a reference to divine fury, and there’s really only one rational interpretation of the retreat: the sacrifice worked and the Moabite deity chased off YHWH’s army.
I don’t think later authors lied about the earlier texts, though, I think they just interpreted them according to the contemporary ideologies and made changes where they thought that meaning wasn’t clear enough or was wrong. The inviolability of the text wasn’t really a problem until around the turn of the era. I don’t think early scribes were that restricted in the way they transmitted the text.
Dale,
There are significant contextual problems with Heisner’s idea that “portions” were given by YHWH to “gods” of other nations (before Israel existed). For example, the “nations” in Deuteronomy 32:8a follow from Israel’s “generations” and “fathers” and “elders” mentioned in the previous verse (Deuteronomy 32:7). Israel was a “multitude of nations” after God called Abraham (Genesis 35:10-11). Thus, there is no reason to take “nations” (GOYM) to refer to the pre-Abrahamic people described in Genesis 10-11.
Another consideration here is that, since Jacob (Israel) became “a multitude of nations” (Genesis 35:10-11) by the time of Moses (Deuteronomy 32), it makes perfectly good sense that Moses would use “nations” (Dueteronomy 32:8a) and “Jacob” (Deuteronomy 32:9b) to refer to the same people (i.e. Israel). As such, there is no need to think that the “inheritance” in Deuteronomy 32:8a is anything different than the “portion” and “inheritance” in Deuteronomy 32:9.
Pingback: Mike Interviewed on the Trinities Podcast about the Unseen Realm | Very Top Secret Information
Comments are closed.