Some liberal scholars think the OT contains residual traces of polytheism. Divergent theologies which the editors and redactors failed to expunge. For instance:
One God or Many Gods?Several key passages in the Old Testament speak of Yahweh alone as God [Isa 44:6-20...Jer 10:1-16]...But...the Old Testament paints a more varied portrait of God..."Among the gods there is none like you, O Lord..." (Ps. 86:8)...[In] Joshua 24:2,1-15 Joshua is exhorting Israel to serve Yahweh alone. To serve him alone means not to serve other gods...The first commandment says not "There are no other gods" but "you shall have no other gods"... The way [that the second commandment] is phrased seems to imply that idols can be real rivals of Yahweh The Israelites of the exodus were... taking their first baby steps toward a knowledge of God... .At this point in the progress of redemption,... the gods of the surrounding nations are treated as real. Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 97-102.
Some Mormon apologists deploy similar arguments. Responding to Enns, Bruce Waltke said:
A more tenable explanation, I suggest, is that the first two commandments, which tacitly assume the existence of other gods, belong to the genre of religious commandments, whereas Moses' statement in Deut 4:39 ("there are no other gods")—not cited by Enns—and the monotheistic prophetic statements that he does cite, pertain to the genre of theological statements. The statements about other gods in the Psalms and inJosh 24, as well as in the first two commandments, pertain—so it seems to me—to the epistemological reality that people fabricate non-existent gods and fatuously worship them (cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6); the theological statements pertain to the ontological reality that other gods do not exist. In other words, the statements about other gods tacitly assume human depravity, not henotheism (i.e., the worship of only one God, while assuming the existence of others).Moreover, Enns's interpretation opens the door both to a liberal definition of progressive revelation and to open theism. According to the liberal definition, "progressive revelation" refers to an evolutionary development of religion wherein earlier revelation is primitive and rudimentary and its teachings about divine reality and morals must be assessed and corrected by later revelation. Schleiermacher (1768-1834), an extreme example, places the OT on the same level as heathenism (Greek and Roman thought): "The Old Testament Scriptures do not . . . share the normative dignity or the inspiration of the New" (Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith [ET of 2d rev. ed. of 1830; ed. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928], section 132). The notion of progressive revelation, when defined in this way, is inconsistent with the doctrine that all Scripture is inspired of God. WTJ 71 (2009): 88-89.
Was the Mormon Kwaku (in the debate with James White and Jeff Durbin) trying to employ John Walton's interpretation of Genesis, (The Lost World of Genesis 1 and other books) in order to somehow say that the worldview of the Hebrews was in reality, Polytheism?
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a good analysis of John Walton's theory of the ANE narrative put over on top of the OT.
Seems the motivation behind all of this is Theistic Evolution and attempts to square modern Darwinian scientific theory with Genesis and the rest of Scripture. (connection to BioLogos, etc.)
https://isgenesishistory.com/gnostic-world-of-john-walton/#_ftn1
I should have written:
ReplyDeleteattempts to square Genesis and the rest of Scripture with modern Darwinian scientific theory. (connection to BioLogos, etc.)
Similar to Bruce Waltke's refutation of Enns, James White cited Psalm 96:5 and Jeremiah chapter 10 as clear texts that refuted the polytheism / ANE worldview of Walton, etc.
ReplyDelete"For all the gods of the peoples are idols,
But the Lord made the heavens."
Psalm 96:5
In total harmony with Deuteronomy 4:39 and 1 Corinthians 8:4-6.
Psalm 96:5 doesn't refute the existence of other gods as Heiser shows, since even Paul admits that behind the idols lies a spiritual presence, namely demons. 1 Corinthians 10:19-21. So you're going to have to go better than parrot the arguments of your idol and try to actually engage the responses made by Heiser and others.
ReplyDeleteSam,
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of Psalm 96:5 (and Psalm 82) was in my own heart and mind, long before I even knew of Dr. White, who, by the way, is not my "idol".
Amazing that you are not learning to get rid of your bombastic and snarky and -always having to throw out an insult- style - you always have to have some kind of level of "in your face" comment that is a bad witness for Jesus Christ. Your whole demeanor exudes an angry spirit. Repent of it. It is amazing that you keep acting bad on line for so long. You are a bad witness.
That said, I will have to review Heiser's "divine council" view for more details. I read it several years ago.
Without reviewing it again, the emphasis, IMO, in Psalm 82 is upon the human judges and rulers of the earth that are arrogant and unjust, and think they are like "gods" because of their arrogance and power and wickedness of doing unjust political and social actions (injustice to the poor and widows, oppressed, etc. verses 2-4) Since the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14) and the king of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:1-19) are also called out for their sins and arrogance, etc., and at the same time, those texts, especially Ezekiel 28, show that the spirit behind the political evils of those real kings was indeed Satan himself, the fallen angel/cherub, who was in the garden of God (Ezekiel 28:13-17), therefore, I have no problem with understanding Psalm 82 as including both human kings and rulers who think they are "gods" (see Ezekiel 28:2 - "because your heart was lifted up and you have said "I am a god" . . . - ". . . yet you are a man and not God, although you make your heart like the heart of God".
So, when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and the leaders of political Israel in John 10, He is accusing them of the same arrogance as the pagan rulers and unjust leaders and showing the contrast between the eternal God who make the heavens and earth (Psalm 96:5; Genesis 1:1) and also rebuking the evil spirit of pride and arrogance that seems to be behind political evils - the powers of darkness, principalities and powers - as in the Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 passages and Daniel 10 ("the prince of Persia" and the "prince of Greece" and warfare with good angels, like Michael the archangel); and that harmonizes with what 1 Cor. 10:19-21 says also.
It seems the emphasis in Psalm 82 is upon the human rulers / leaders/ political leaders / kings, both of Israel and the nations (verse 8) is that those kind of human rulers are so arrogant in their hearts, and they have physical and military power to call servants to do their bidding, etc. - they think they are "gods", but in reality they are not; and they do not even realize that Satan and the powers of darkness are behind them influencing them in their sins and injustice.
I left out reference to Psalm 82:6-7 - which in context seems to be saying that unjust political rulers who have allowed evil spirits to influence and control them, are going to die, just like all human beings will. "sons of the Most High" includes created human beings and created spirit beings, (angels and demons), but the evil humans will die and the demons will be judged. (verse 8)
ReplyDeletePsalm 97:2-20 and 89:14 and 11:3 also show the contrast between the justice of the one true Creator God and His foundation of His just judgement on His throne, vs. the unjust human rules and evil spirits behind them.
sorry, I left out
ReplyDeletetherefore, I have no problem with understanding Psalm 82 as including both human kings and rulers who think they are "gods" (see Ezekiel 28:2 - "because your heart was lifted up and you have said "I am a god" . . . - ". . . yet you are a man and not God, although you make your heart like the heart of God". and also evil spirits who are behind them, influencing them.
includes both evil human unjust rulers and also evil spirits.
John 10:33-39
ReplyDeleteJesus turns the tables on them - it is they are who mere humans who because of their arrogance and injustice, make their hearts like God. (verse 33 - they accuse Jesus of what actually they are doing, like the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:2.
In John 10:34, Jesus is just saying that the law (word of God, including the Psalms) says that God mocks them and "calls them gods" (I said), but in reality they are not "gods", but they are humans who will die. Psalm 82:6-7) and John 10:35-36, Jesus says that word of God is true in that God called them "gods' mockingly, but Jesus is saying that He is the true Son of God, whereas they just think they are "gods", being deluded.
Psalm 82:7 - you will die "like" men and "like" princes, does not necessarily mean a contrast between unhuman spirits and humans, rather is saying "just like all other humans, you will also die" (because you are mere mortal humans, created beings); (while not excluding judgment on evil spirits)
ReplyDeleteand because it seems to include evil spirits (per previous comments above), the dying would include the eternal judgment/perishing against the evil spirits also. (Revelation 20:10-15; Matthew 25 - "go into the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41)
Also, Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees in John 10:33-39 is even more clearly confirmed earlier, when Jesus said that they were of their father, the devil, who was a murderer and father of lies. (John 8:44) - shows they are the unjust human rulers who are being influenced by the evil spirit / evil spirits, just as the unjust political leaders are rebuked in Psalm 82.
ReplyDelete'ben malik',
ReplyDelete'So you're going to have to go better [sic] than parrot the arguments of your idol...'
Are you twelve? Have you no class? Or are you completely comfortable in your self-righteous, smug, adolescent attitude?
I'm embarrassed for you.
Thank you for being embarrassed for me since that means I don't need to be. Much appreciated. And your rant sure didn't sound like it contained any class, humility or maturity. But hey, it must be hard to see with that boulder protruding from your eyeballs [sic]. 😂
Delete'ben malik',
Delete1. Non sequitur. Logic much, 'ben'?
No, 'ben', you really ought, by any objective measure, to be utterly and completely embarrassed by your smug, self-righteous, self-satisfied behaviour towards a brother in Christ.
2. 'Rant'? Are you dense? I merely passed comment on an adolescent portion of your response to a godly brother in Christ. On any definition of the term, my comment was in no way, shape or form a rant. Rationality much, 'ben'?
3. As for 'class, humility or maturity', my comment was not lacking in any of these. On the contrary, in some small measure my comment exhibited all three in calling out your lack in each of these! Are you projecting, 'ben'?
4. Sometimes one is so struct by the ineptitude of their interlocutor that they hesitate in having to point out that their use of something so basic as '[sic]' is utterly out of keeping with the term.
It smacks of an attempt at sarcasm because they have no idea why the term was employed in response to their post. They see it as some sort of slight, when in fact it is standard when one finds an incoherence or synatactical error in that which they quote.
Now I'm beyond embarrassed for you, 'ben'.
Sam Shamoun (Ben Malik) is a bad witness.
DeleteMost Muslims won't debate him anymore because of his constant obnoxious behavior. That seems to bother Sam greatly, because Muslims will continue to debate James White.
Below is where he identifies himself using the "Ben Malik" moniker.
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/09/debate-with-mormon.html?showComment=1535925327521#c3680131721980546311
Ken,
DeleteI've appreciated some of Shamoun's work and much of White's. Having said that, Shamoun is not very significant in the debate in my eyes.
More pertinent is that I find White's stance on Christian apologists focusing on the incoherence of Islam as being 'unfair' since Islam 'is not monolothic' to be utterly incoherent. There are streams of Christianity, right? Is it inconceivable that Christianity can be defined objectively beyond those streams and thus critiqued and found inconsistent and therefore false? Of course not. And White would be the first to agree.
I find that White is too lenient since he is 'in the trenches,' and ends up unwittingly defending 'multiple outlooks' on Islam by Muslims while internally he would insist on defending *one* outlook on Christianity.
Ken,
DeleteI've appreciated some of Shamoun's work and much of White's. Having said that, Shamoun is not very significant in the debate in my eyes.
More pertinent is that I find White's stance on Christian apologists focusing on the incoherence of Islam as being 'unfair' since Islam 'is not monolothic' to be utterly incoherent. There are streams of Christianity, right? Is it inconceivable that Christianity can be defined objectively beyond those streams and thus critiqued and found inconsistent and therefore false? Of course not. And White would be the first to agree.
I find that White is too lenient since he is 'in the trenches,' and ends up unwittingly defending 'multiple outlooks' on Islam by Muslims while internally he would insist on defending *one* outlook on Christianity.
Sam has some good material, when he sticks to Scripture, history, facts, arguments, and analyzing Islamic texts and history. Most of the problems are when he comes into comment boxes, etc. and just starts "flame throwing" and going overboard on insults.
DeleteEven in his radio debate with Robert Spencer on Michael Brown's "Line of Fire", from what I recall, James White agreed with almost everything that Spencer said, except for the contrast between JW's approach of putting the gospel first in priority (before politics or security) vs. Spencer's emphasis on only the political / Jihad / terrorism aspects, especially in a context like the one with Yasir Qadhi.
He (White) agreed that the Muslim Brotherhood movement, etc. was "standard doctrinal Sunni Islam" (since the Caliphate was abolished in 1924).
Personally, I was hoping for another opportunity to ask Yasir Qadhi about the Muslim Brotherhood / Jihad issues (Civilizational Jihad included).
I wrote this at the time wanting more opportunity for him to ask Yasir Qadhi more questions on those issues.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/muslim-christian-dialogue-dr-james-white-and-dr-yasir-qadhi/
Also, see my past interaction with Steve H. here for more details on those issues: (in the comboxes)
Deletehttps://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/07/shilling-islamist-propaganda.html?showComment=1500661898871#c733252005687705278
Ken, let's not talk about bad witness here since we'll have a field day with what a nasty, arrogant and repulsive witness White has become by simply posting all the YouTube videos and articles from a variety of Christians, including his fellow Calvinists and reformed baptists. God willing, I'll address some of your claims regarding psalm 82 in the upcoming week. In the meantime Danny boy can chime in with more of his comments which he thinks are worth sharing due to his over inflated estimate of his own self worth. You guys make a good match. Maybe you, him and White can start up a Christian version of the 3 Stooges.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteben malik9/05/2018 10:12 PM☍
ReplyDeleteMe thinks Danny takes himself too seriously and has a higher view of himself than he should. Note his attempt of trying to be logical. What was that about maturity, humility etc.? Ouch! Them boulders are really starting to hurt!
'ben malik',
Delete'Me thinks Danny takes himself too seriously and has a higher view of himself than he should.'
That's rich coming from 'malik'!
No, 'ben', I have merely expressed my very *low* view of your petulant behaviour towards others. But nice try.
'Note his attempt of [sic] trying to be logical. What was that about maturity, humility etc.? [sic]'
1. I wasn't 'trying to be logical', 'ben', I *was* logical. But above all I was simply critical of your attitude towards Temple.
2. What has being logical to do with lacking in maturity or humility? Are you really this dense, rationally speaking?
Look, 'ben', you are barely coherent here. You are far more interesting when you stick to the topic.
Just so I can understand your view. Are you saying you're open to psalm 82 including Spirit beings as well, so that the Elohim of the council refers to both human and angelic or spiritual rulers?
ReplyDeleteYes, since it seems that evil spirits are behind the wicked arrogant unjust political rulers - as in Isaiah 14 (King of Babylon), Ezekiel 28 (king of Tyre), Daniel 10, and even Luke 4:6 also seems to indicate that, although it seems the primary idea is rebuke to unjust human rulers (both in Israel and among the nations) who are deluded to think and imagine that they are "gods". And that Jesus said to the Pharisees who wanted to kill Him - that they were (influenced by, dominated by) of the devil, their father, who is a liar and murderer from the beginning.
DeleteSince many scholars dispute Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, you're better off going with Isaiah 24:21, and the Daniel passages, along with Revelation 2:12-13, Satan has a throne in Pergamom thereby implying that he operates through the human rulers there whom he has influenced to kill believers like Antipas to worship the emperor as a god.
DeleteAnd since you mentioned Like 4:6 I would add John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11; Ephesians 2:2, 6:12 and 1John 5:19.
DeleteI would further add Revelation 13 since there we clearly see Satan empowering and operating through a human ruler to deceive the world into worshiping that man instead of the true God. This chapter is also interesting in that it provides implicit support for God being a Trinity. If you want to me show how let me know.
Sorry for the incoherent statements since I'm typing fast. I meant to say Satan not only influenced the authorities at Pergamum but we further see his influence in moving the emperors to view themselves as divine beings worthy of worship.
DeleteEzekiel 28:13-17 seems clearly about the spirit of Satan, the fallen cherub, who was in the garden of Eden, who is behind the attitude of the king of Tyre.
Delete“You were in Eden, the garden of God;" (Ezekiel 28:13)
“You were the anointed cherub who covers," Ezekiel 28:14)
- seems clearly about the devil, the serpent, before he became evil, along with the other descriptions of his pride over his wisdom and beauty and fall.
As I wrote earlier:
especially Ezekiel 28, show that the spirit behind the political evils of those real kings was indeed Satan himself, the fallen angel/cherub, who was in the garden of God (Ezekiel 28:13-17), therefore, I have no problem with understanding Psalm 82 as including both human kings and rulers who think they are "gods" (see Ezekiel 28:2 - "because your heart was lifted up and you have said "I am a god" . . . - ". . . yet you are a man and not God, although you make your heart like the heart of God".
Yes, those other verses you have mentioned also apply.
DeleteKen,
ReplyDeleteThese are for you to read:
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Heiser%20Elohim%20of%20Ps82%20Gods%20or%20Men%20ETS2010.pdf
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Heiser%20Psa82inJohn10%20RegSBL2011.pdf
"Is it not written in your law: 'I said, you are gods?' 35
DeleteIf he [God] called
them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36
do you say of
him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme!' because I said, I
am the Son of God? (John 10:34-36)
"Is it not written in your law?" ("your" = the Jewish Pharisees and opponents of Jesus in John 10)
"to whom the word of God came" = Psalm 82 when revealed / written; a Psalm of Asaph.
Jesus is rebuking the injustice and arrogance of the leaders of Israel.
Also, verse 8 points to the whole earth and the nations, so it includes all kinds of unjust and arrogant rulers/ leaders, who delude themselves in thinking they are "gods", because they will die like mortal men, like all other men / humans.
Read Heiser's articles since your comments in respect to John 10 do not address his points and objections.
DeleteI want to emphasize again that the human king of Tyre is being rebuked for thinking / imagining / deluding himself that he is a "god" -
ReplyDeletesee Ezekiel 28:2 - "because your heart was lifted up and you have said "I am a god" . . . - ". . . yet you are a man and not God, although you make your heart like the heart of God".
"yet you are a man"
corresponds to Psalm 82:6-7
nevertheless you will die like men . . . like other princes of the earth"
Your interpretation assumes Satan was an anointed cherub. You need to prove that assertion not assert it.
ReplyDeleteBesides, the Greek version reads differently since it says that the king of tyre was with the anointed cherub. This reading implies that the king is being likened to Adam who was perfect in his initial creation, but fell due to his pride of wanting to be like God, much like the king of tyre wanted to be.
If this is the case then one can argue that, just as the king wasn't literally with the anointed cherub, he wasn't literally an anointed cherub either. Instead, a person can understand from the language of Ezekiel that God is actually mocking the king, using sarcasm to mock the fact of his thinking he was a god when he was nothing more than a maggot.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I like my interpretation better, because it harmonizes with everything else we know about Satan being originally an angel, who fell, and what we know about Genesis is that all was good in the beginning of creation, and that later some angels rebelled and fell. (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6; and Jesus may be alluding to to the fall of Satan in Luke 10:18 (along with His power confronting Satan by the apostles preaching the kingdom of God, healing, and demons being cast out, etc. )
DeleteMy interpretation also fits with Isaiah 14:12-15
Grudem writes: "As Isaiah is describing the judgement of God on the king of Babylon (an earthly, human king), he then comes to a section where he begins to use language that seems too strong to refer to any merely human king." (Systematic Theology, page 413)
This fits with Ezekiel 28 that God starts speaking to the Satanic spirit that is behind the evil political rulers. It fits with Daniel 10 and the "prince of Persia" and "prince of Greece", etc.
Ezekiel 28:13-17 helps explain the fall of the angel who became Satan as no other passage does. It ties the garden of Eden in with the serpent in Genesis 3 and the clear passage of Revelation 12:9 - that the serpent in the garden of Eden was Satan, the dragon, the deceiver of the whole world.
I think to make the whole Ezekiel 28 passage depend on the Lxx translation in verse 14 "with" / (μετα) is a stretch. Plus, given all the other hints that evil rulers/ kings / kingdoms are in the power of the evil one (you yourself provided lots of Scripture - I John 5:19, John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11, etc.
Luke 4:6 is key for me, as Satan is tempting Jesus and says that the kingdoms of the world "have been given to him" - it all fits together much better than Heiser or your interpretation, whatever else it is.
God is mocking the political rulers in both Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, just as Jesus is mocking the Pharisees and Jewish rulers in John 10, who think they are "gods" by their arrogance and injustice, just as God, in Psalm 82 was mocking both the Jewish unjust judges and rulers and the unjust pagan rulers of the world. (verse 8)
that they will die like men" - the "mortal view" (men who think they are "gods" but are not, are unjust judges who will die like humans) - makes more sense, in view of Monotheism, and that evil men and political leaders delude themselves in thinking they are something, like "gods", just as the king of Trye thought in his heart - Ezekiel 28:2, and what the king of Babylon thought "I will . . . ", "I will . . . " etc. - reminds us of Nietzche's "will to power" and Hitler's arrogant efforts at it.
All together, my view, the traditional view (over yours and Heiser's) makes more sense, and over-all harmonizes with all the relevant verses in all the Bible. From what I understand, my view is the more traditional and common and prevalent one in the history of interpretation. Milton certainly saw Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 that way.
That is all I have time for.
Lord willing, I will address all your claims here in due course. For now, I want to respond to the following assertion:
DeleteKEN
I think to make the whole Ezekiel 28 passage depend on the Lxx translation in verse 14 "with" / (μετα) is a stretch. Plus, given all the other hints that evil rulers/ kings / kingdoms are in the power of the evil one (you yourself provided lots of Scripture - I John 5:19, John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11, etc.
ME
You know better than to brush aside the LXX with such a flimsy response, since you know that there are times when the NT cites the Greek version over against the readings found in the later Masoretic textual tradition. I present a list of examples to confirm this point. Instead of quoting the Hebrew or Greek, will be citing various English translations that are based on the Masoretic text type and the Greek version where you can spot the differences among them.
FIRST EXAMPLE
“Out of the mouth of babies and infants, YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED STRENGTH because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger.” Psalm 8:2
“Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings HAS THOU PERFECTED PRAISE, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger.” Greek Version
“and they said to him, ‘Do you hear what these are saying?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Yes; have you never read, “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE”?’” Matthew 21:16
SECOND EXAMPLE
“Yet You have made him a little lower than God (Elohim), And You crown him with glory and majesty!” Psalm 8:5 NASB
“Thou madest him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour;” Greek Version
“You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor,” Hebrews 2:7 ESV
Sidenote. Even if you want to argue that Elohim here refers to the gods, and therefore by extension to angels, this still wouldn’t help your case. Rather, it actually ends up refuting your point for at least two reasons.
First, angels is not a translation of Elohim, but is more of a paraphrase or a dynamic equivalent translation, since the word for angels in Hebrew would be malakim. As such, translating Elohim as angels is more of an interpretation where the translator(s) is/are giving us what he/they think the word means.
Second, this confirms Heiser’s view that the heavenly host are in fact Elohim or gods, and therefore provides further support for his claim that the Elohim of Psalm 82 are the divine council members, not human judges.
Continuing with my response.
DeleteTHIRD EXAMPLE
“In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me AN OPEN EAR. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.” Psalm 40:6-8 ESV
“Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but A BODY hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and [sacrifice] for sin thou didst not require. Then I said, Behold, I come: in the volume of the book it is written concerning me, I desired to do thy will, O my God, and thy law in the midst of mine heart.” Psalm 39:7-9 Greek Version
“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but A BODY have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, “Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.”’ When he said above, ‘You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings’ (these are offered according to the law), then he added, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will.’ He does away with the first in order to establish the second.” Hebrews 10:5-9 ESV
FOURTH EXAMPLE
“All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods!” Psalm 97:7 ESV
“Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels.” Psalm 96:7 Greek Version
“And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God's angels worship him.’” Hebrews 1:6 ESV
Now some actually think that the author is citing the Greek version of Deuteronomy 32:43, a text that I will have more to say about below.
FIFTH EXAMPLE
“Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD, or what man shows him his counsel?” Isaiah 40:13 ESV
“Who has known the MIND of the Lord? and who has been his counsellor, to instruct him?” Greek Version
“For who has known the MIND of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” Romans 11:34 ESV
“‘For who has understood the MIND of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 2:16 ESV
More in the next post.
Here's more.
DeleteAnd here are places where the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm readings found in the Greek Version over against the later Masoretic textual tradition. I first quote the translation that is based on the MT:
“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL.” Deuteronomy 32:8 NASB
“When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number OF THE ANGELS OF GOD.” Greek Version
“When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number OF THE GODS; NRSV
“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.” ESV
“Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land and His people.” Deuteronomy 32:43 NASB
“Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.” Greek Version
“Praise, O heavens, his people, WORSHIP HIM, ALL YOU GODS! For he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will repay those who hate him, and cleanse the land for his people.” NRSV
“Rejoice with him, O heavens; BOW DOWN TO HIM, ALL GODS, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people's land.” ESV
As a sidenote, the reading of Deuteronomy 32:8 that is found in the DSS and LXX is what Heiser and Co. use to prove that Psalm 82 is referring to the divine council, a point which I will return to in a further response to you (Lord willing). Moreover, the fact that the Greek version takes the sons of the most high/gods here to be angels again confirms Heiser’s interpretation that the heavenly council members are in fact identified as Elohim/gods.
So Ken, seeing just how important the Greek version is, and in light of the fact that the DSS testify that this version oftentimes retains a form of the OT text that is much older than the later Masoretic text type, you are going to have to do WAY BETTER than simply brush aside the witness of the Greek version. You are going to have to prove, not merely assert, that the Masoretic reading is correct and that the reading of the Greek version is mistaken. The fact is that it is your response which is a stretch.
With this in mind, we are now back to square one, which means you are now going to have to prove, and not merely beg the question, that Ezekiel 28 is referring to the origin and fall of Satan, as opposed to being nothing more than divine mockery, where God mocks this pagan human ruler for thinking he is a divine being in language that identifies him with the first man Adam, who also fell from favor for wanting to be like God.
Lord willing, I will respond to the rest of your points in the near future.
Good point !
ReplyDeleteYou made a good point about the Lxx being used as inspired text and quoted in the NT; especially the Hebrews 10:5 passage that the word "body" is there - and the whole theology of incarnation is dependent on that word in the Lxx rather than ear. Also, the other passages where the MT has "elohim" and yet the Lxx has "angels".
So, is Heiser saying the "divine council" and "gods" are angels, and/or demons / evil spirits? (like Satan coming with the "sons of God" (angels) as in Job chapters 1-2 ?
What does Heiser mean by "divine beings?
angels?
angels and demons?
gods? (how does that square with Monotheism?)
How does all of that square with Monotheism ?
Psalm 96:5
For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but the Lord made the heavens.
and 1 Corinthians 8:4-6
those 2 texts are clear that the "gods" (pictured and made statues of, wrote myths about, etc.) of the pagan nations are imaginary "gods" that the peoples of the nations created / imagined - from human imagination; and / or also demons behind the idols.
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
So, does Hesier interact with those and other verses?
I have not read him recently; and just answering quickly as I have time from overseas. ( I may not be able to interact anymore or may be able to sporadically.)
As a sidenote, the reading of Deuteronomy 32:8 that is found in the DSS and LXX is what Heiser and Co. use to prove that Psalm 82 is referring to the divine council, . . .
ReplyDeleteWhat does "divine council" mean exactly ? - gods or angels and / demons ?
why does he call them "divine beings" ?
sounds like polytheism and paganism
why not just say "angels" or "angels and demons", like in Job chapters 1-2 when the "sons of God" appear before God Himself.
for clarification -
ReplyDeleteand the whole theology of incarnation (in that Hebrews 10 context) is dependent on that word
I did not mean the whole theology of the incarnations is dependent on that word for the whole NT, but in that context in Hebrews 10 only.
That is one of the main texts I have used for some 35 years in proving the incarnation to Muslims and former Muslims (along with John 1:1, 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) - Hebrews 10:5 shows the Son existed as a Spirit and took on a body.
את without the vowel pointing so one can distinguish which one it is, can be either "you" or "with", depending on context.
ReplyDeletethe fact that the "sons of God" in Job 1-2 and even Heiser's view (if he means just "angels and demons"; and not gods as in polytheism), since Satan appears with the "sons of God" in Job 1-2, still makes it seem like Ezekiel 28 is about Satan himself, that God is describing the spirit of pride that is behind the king of Tyre. In that same way that Jesus rebuked Peter by saying "get thee behind Me, Satan" - the spirit of evil and pride working behind the scenes in and through Peter, etc.
את (with again other different vowel pointing) can also be a definite object marker of the verb.
ReplyDeleteWhat does Heiser mean by "divine beings" ?
ReplyDeleteangels ?
demons ?
angels and demons together?
How does he square that with Hebrews 2:14-16 that says that Christ became flesh (human) and He did not become an angel in the incarnation, so He cannot redeem fallen angels (He does not give help (salvation, redemption) to angels, but only to the descendants of Abraham (true believers, the elect from Jews and Gentiles) ?
How does he square his understanding with the call for executing justice and righteousness on the earth in the rest of the Psalm ? His interpretation is mostly focused on verse 1 - whatever the divine council or assembly of El an Elohim is ? (God and "gods")
Whereas my interpretation includes both human rulers / dictators / political leaders who do injustice and oppression in the world AND the evil spirits behind them that are influencing them. (remember Luke 4:6 - (because the kingdoms and their glory of this world have been committed to me" - like 1 John 5:19 - the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. This explains the spirit behind the king of Babylon in Isaiah and Ezekiel 28 much better than the view that Psalm 82 is only about evil spirits and / or angels.
It also explains much better the context of both John 10 and John 8 - the injustice of the Pharisees and leaders of Israel, and "the word of God came to them" (Israel; Psalm 82 was revealed to Israel - "is it not written in your law?", etc.); and the spirit behind them in John 8 - "you are of your father the devil", "murderer", liar, etc. (they wanted to kill Jesus, etc.) and also comports with Jesus rebuking Peter and saying "get thee behind me Satan", etc. and also fits better with Monotheism. "gods" is a mockery to pride of both Satan, demons, and evil human who think they are "gods" in this life and world. They, the human dictators and unjust rulers, will die like all other humans. And the evil fallen angels will be judged in hell. (Matthew 25; Revelation 20:10-15; etc.)