0
As Latter-day Saints, we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Dr. Michael Heiser for his important contributions in furthering this important discussion. Even in his critique of the LDS use of Psalm 82 and John 10, Dr. Heiser raises important issues worthy of careful consideration.
Ultimately, no matter which way interpreters may fall regarding the details surrounding these texts, clearly the Latter-day Saint position regarding humanity and the divine council of deities is much more biblical-like than many have supposed.
To date, the most exhaustive study of the biblical view of the divine council by a Latter-day Saint remains Daniel C. Petersonâ??s, â??â??Ye Are Godsâ??: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind.â?
Originally published in the book, The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, Petersonâ??s essay provides an impressive analysis concerning LDS theology and Jesusâ?? use of Psalm 82 in the Gospel of John.
For Peterson, the Latter-day Saint doctrine regarding the divine nature of humanity provides a strong interpretive crux for understanding Jesusâ?? use of the council text: â??God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgmentâ? (Psalm 82:1; NRSV).
Recently, however, Petersonâ??s essay has drawn the attention of Michael Heiser, an evangelical Bible scholar who specializes in the Israelite view concerning the divine council.
In his critique, Heiser took exception to the LDS use of Psalm 82, particularly as reflected in Daniel Petersonâ??s analysis. As a specialist in biblical council imagery, Heiser assumed the responsibility to correct what he perceived as â??certain flaws in the Mormon understanding and use of Psalm 82â? (Heiser 1).
As expected, Heiserâ??s essay raises several important issues worthy of careful consideration.
HEISERâ??S SIX-TEEN POINTS
In the beginning of his analysis, Heiser provides a list of sixteen points outlining his position regarding Psalm 82 and the divine council. Hesier divides these views into eight points with which many evangelicals would disagree, but concerning which â??many Mormons would likely agree,â? followed by eight points â??with which many Mormons would probably disagree, and with which many evangelicals would likely agreeâ? (2).
Heiserâ??s perspectives regarding Psalm 82 are clearly sound. They include such issues as the inadequacy of the term â??monotheismâ? as a reference to Israelite theology and the biblical use of the word elohim as a literal reference to gods rather than human judges. While Heiser is certainly correct in suggesting that his first eight views would prove problematic for many evangelicals, but not for most Mormons, Heiserâ??s list of eight statements on Psalm 82 that Heiser assumes many Latter-day Saints would disagree with suggests a basic lack of exposure to LDS thought.
Heiser is clearly well versed in biblical studies. His work has contributed important insights towards a scholarly view of the essential role assumed by the divine council in Old Testament theology. But Dr. Heiser is not a Latter-day Saint, and should not be held responsible for his failure to have entirely absorbed LDS thought.
In his critique, Heiser does not consider the fact that most Latter-day Saints, including Dr. Peterson, do not believe that the biblical view of the council precisely mirrors what Latter-day Saints accept through modern revelation. Joseph Smithâ??s revelations proclaim our day as the dispensation of the fullness of times â??according to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world wasâ? (D&C 121:32).
For Latter-day Saints, this final dispensation represents the time decreed by God and his council in which â??those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fullness of timesâ? (D&C 128:18). Therefore, many Latter-day Saint scholars fully acknowledge that LDS theology concerning the council does not precisely mirror the perspectives manifested in the Bible.
That having been said, most Latter-day Saints certainly accept the view advocated by Daniel Peterson that the biblical perspectives of the heavenly council of deities is in far greater harmony with LDS belief than with any other Christian tradition. Recognizing that the Bible is inspired of God, even though it may or may not on occasion present true doctrine, allows Latter-day Saints to comfortably engage the views put forth by biblical scholars such as Dr. Hesier, even when those observations prove threatening to our evangelical counterparts.
If certain biblical authors, for example, did in fact believe, as Heiser seems to correctly suggest that Yahweh was â??not birthed into existence by the â??olden godsâ?? described in Ugaritic texts,â? Latter-day Saints would have no problem accepting the observation as a biblical view. Similarly, even though Heiser assumes that many Mormons would disagree with his opinion that the Bible presents Yahweh, the God of Israel, as â??ontologically unique,â? in reality, many Latter-day Saints recognize that this is precisely the case.
YAHWEH AS A BEING SPECIES UNIQUE
Certainly, Hesier is justified in suggesting that the gods of the divine council appear inferior to Israelâ??s deity. Hesier uses this correct observation, however, to build an argument that Israelâ??s God was therefore somehow â??species unique.â?
In his discussion concerning the biblical evidence for Yahweh being â??species unique,â? Heiser bases his interpretation along five points of evidence: (1) Yahweh is said to be the creator of all other members of the heavenly host. (2) Yahweh was considered pre-existent to all gods. (3) Yahweh has the power to strip the other elohim of their immortality. (4) Yahweh alone is referred to in the Bible as ha-elohim. (5) The other gods are commanded to worship Yahweh.
Though each of Hesierâ??s five points of evidence do, in fact, appear in the Bible, contrary to Hesierâ??s suggestion, none of these observationsâ??though sound insights, establish Yahweh as being â??species unique.â? In the Bible, Yahweh is the God of gods, but the biblical gods were still biblical gods. As Paul Sanders has explained, according to the Deuteronomic vision, â??the â??Sons of Godâ?? [described in Deuteronomy 32:8] are relatively independent; they have their own dominions, like YHWH;â? Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1996): 370.
Notwithstanding his acceptance of the importance of the divine council of deities in biblical theology, Dr. Hesierâ??s critique suffers, in part, through his determined effort to define Israelâ??s deity as a â??being species unique.â? Heiser is correct in drawing attention to the fact that biblical authors viewed their deity as exceptional.
â??For the LORD your God is God of gods,â? proclaims Deuteronomy 10:17, â??and Lord of lords.â? Unfortunately, however, in identifying Yahweh a â??being species unique,â? Hesier tries too hard to force the biblical view of deities into a picture that remains somewhat consistent with radical monotheism.
In contrast to Hesierâ??s suggestion, the creative act in and of itself does not set the creator apart as an exclusive species. The same point is also correct for the issue Heiser raises concerning primogeniture. In other words, a man, for instance, may exist before both his children and his siblings, and though preeminence may render the person â??uniqueâ? on some levels, prior existence would not, in this or in any other case, render a being as â??species unique.â?
When all is said and done, the biblical gods, like Yahweh himself, were still biblical gods.
In addition, contrary to Hesierâ??s assertion, simply because Elohim possesses the power to strip the other deities of their immortality in Psalm 82, does not indicate that these gods are of a different species than Elohim. According to the Psalmistâ??s view, Elohim is simply more powerful than the other gods. Drawing upon analogies from the ancient Near East illustrates the problematic nature of Heiserâ??s claim.
In the Babylonian story Enuma Elish, for instance, the primordial mother goddess Tiamat created the god Qingu as chief deity over Tiamatâ??s military forces. As a result of his actions taken against the divine council, the deities of the assembly â??bound and held [Qingu] before Ea, [and] they imposed the punishment on him and shed his blood.â?
The fact that in Enuma Elish, the council could strip Qingu of his immortality did not mean that the god Qingu was somehow of a lesser divine species. Near Eastern traditions often place considerable emphasis upon the dying god motif. In no sense are these dying gods howeverâ??even when resurrectedâ??somehow depicted as a lesser species.
Also contrary to Dr. Hesierâ??s suggestion, the punishment meted out to usurpers in Near Eastern council stories never indicates that the criminals derived from some sort of exceptional species. The story of Athtar from ancient Canaan, for instance, presents the tradition of Athtarâ??s descent to the underworld following the deityâ??s ascension to the throne of Baal.
The details involved in Athtarâ??s story contain important thematic elements depicted in ancient Near Eastern stories of cosmic revolt. Athtar seems to share some semblance with Baalâ??s mortal enemy Mot or â??Deathâ? into whom Baal himself descends, hence, Hugh Page rightfully notes that Athtarâ??s descent to the underworld â??implies that on some level Athtar has placed himself in proximity to or relationship with the only god that Baal proves incapable of defeatingâ?; Hugh Rowland Page Jr., The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of itâ??s Reflexes in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1996): 92.
Athtarâ??s assumption of the throne of Baal, followed by his descent to the underworld, indicates that this portion of the Baal cycle from ancient Canaan fits the general category of the cosmic revolt genre witnessed in texts such as Abraham 3 and Psalm 82.
The fact that Athtar, the Strong, experienced a type of death via catabais or â??spiritual descentâ? does not suggest that Athtar was a â??being species uniqueâ? from the other deities, anymore than Inaana or Ishtar, the Mesopotamian goddesses who experienced a type of death, were of a different species than the gods Ea, Enlil, Marduk, etc.
Still, in his efforts to present Yahweh as a being species unique, Dr. Heiser correctly draws attention to the other gods of the council who are commanded to worship Yahweh. In his analysis, Heiser focuses upon the call given to the gods in Psalm 29:1-2: â??Ascribe to Yahweh, O sons of God; ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength; ascribe to Yahweh the glory of his name; worship Yahweh in the splendor of holiness!â?
While Heiserâ??s observations certainly illustrate that biblical authorsâ?? viewed their deity as unique, i.e. exceptional, throughout Near East tradition, lesser gods regularly appear in a position in which they offer praise, service, devotion, etc. to the higher gods of the council.
As Richard J. Clifford has explained concerning the Phoenician view of the assembly â??as elsewhere in the ancient Near East, the assemblies are pictured as subordinate to individual gods, although the assemblyâ??s consent seems necessary for important decisionsâ?; Richard J. Clifford, â??Phoenician Religion,â? Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 27 (1999): 57
Simply because ancient textsâ??including the Bibleâ?? depict the members of the assemblies as â??subordinate to individual gods,â? in no way implies that the higher deities somehow belonged to a separate species.
Ancient Near Eastern texts such as Mursiliâ??s Hymn and Prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376.A) establishes the fact that Near Eastern people believed that gods of the same species paid homage to higher deities in a way comparable to the biblical view:
Quote
You, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, are honored goddess. Your name is honored among names, and your divinity is honored among gods. Furthermore, among the gods you are the most honored and the greatest. There is no other god more honored or greater than you. You are the lord (sic) of just judgment. You control the kingship of heaven and earth; as cited in Itmar Singer, Hittite Prayers (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002): 51.
Holding the position â??most honoredâ? among the gods did not establish Arinna as species unique. Arinna was simply the god before whom, from the authorâ??s perspective, the other gods would regularly â??fall down before;â? Ibid.
For the ancients, the Near Eastern view of the divine court clearly reflected earthly reality. Therefore, just as the high king before whom other humans paid homage was still a human being, so the god to whom other deities paid homage was still a god, matching in species. For biblical authors, Yahweh stood at the head of the hierarchy in Israelite thought.
Yahweh was unique as the God of gods, but he was not unique in his divinity.
Edited by David Bokovoy, 25 January 2007 - 08:59 AM.
