The Lds Use Of Psalm 82 And John 10

[David Bokovoy]

The biblical view of the divine council of deities has assumed a fundamental role in biblical scholarship. Textual and archeological discoveries made in recent years carry important implications for the way Bible-believing Christians understand their own theology in relationship to Israelite beliefs.

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:

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.

[e=mc2]

Bokovoy:

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.

Kerry:

I will look into this more when I get home from school tonight (yes, I am finally going after the old Ph.D now, but it'll take me some time!) where the Greek New Testament concept of God's Genus, is that of man's. Does Heiser discuss the New Testament aspect of this at all? Does he understand the theology of Jesus being Yahweh from the Old Testament? I don't have much of Heiser's work yet, but I am intimately familiar with many of the sources he uses, and also with Dr. Peterson's astonishing exposition.

The Greek in the New Testament is also quite strong at showing that the genus of man and gods are the same. That is why I am asking about Dr. Heiser's view. This is going to be a very interesting discussion!

Best,

Kerry

[e=mc2]

As a dovetail support for our theme, concerning biblical scholarship on this Council of the Gods, I believe there will be strong LDS interest in Conrad Lâ??Heureuxâ??s article â??The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim,â? in the Harvard Theological Review, 67 (1974).

Within the parameters of the linguistic data available from Ugarit and the Biblical Hebrew, there are ties with the Council of the Gods which illuminates our own LDS understanding of this Council of the Gods. This is one of the genuinely

powerful archaeological discoveries which support a unique LDS doctrine, at least it was in Joseph Smithâ??s day.

Lâ??Heureux notes that the Ugaritic term in the so-called â??Rephaim Texts,â? namely mrzâ?? occurs in Biblical Hebrew as marzeah. He describes this as â??a cultic guild under the patronage of a god.â?[1] It is a banquet, a â??well-to-do banquetâ? according to Mark S. Smith.[2] It was from the Ugaritic texts discovered in the 1920â??s that we began to learn of this feast called marzeah, which had its host as none other than El, â??the chief god of the pantheon.â?[3] The various gods attended this banquet on the invitation of El. In one of the Ugaritic texts, El is called a rpâ?? which, in the context of the feast, could be the sngular of the Hebrew rpâ??m.

The heavenly marzeah of the gods, is reflected in the earthly marzeah of men, gallant men, even mighty warriors. What we are reading in the â??Rephaim Textsâ? is a reflex in the divine world, and in the heavenly marzeah of El, the participants are called rpâ??m, the same description of them here on earth at this feast of the gods.[4] These rephaim, Lâ??Hereux describes as â??gods,â? since the guests of Elâ??s marzeah include such high gods as Baal-Haddu, Astarte, and Anatâ?¦ hence they are not simply lesser or minor gods as once proposed by Virolleaud and Dussaud.[5] The Ugaritic text labeled as CTA 3 (UT â??nt) iv, 78-79 reads â??lnym, the standard parallel to rpâ??m and occurs in parallel with â??lm, â??the ordinary plural word for gods.â?[6] Now this Hebrew etymology with the Ugaritic suggested to Frank Moore Cross, Jr., the reading of â??the ones of El,â? which is related to the observation of Philo Byblius preserved by Eusebius that the word for â??godsâ?? was related to El just as the Greek Kronioi was related to Kronos (Praeparatio Evangelica I, 10, 20). Philo makes this observation in connection with Eloeim (â??lhm) rather than â??lnym. Since the usual functions of endings such as â??anu and â??iy endings which are combined in â??lnym, however, it is this term not â??lhm which constitutes the precise analogy to the Greek Kronioi.[7]

What this all suggests is striking with what Lâ??Heureux mentions. â??The relationship suggested between rpâ?? [which El is called in the singular] and rpâ??m [the plural for gods], where the lesser divine figures are designated by the plural of an epithet of the chief deity, find a good parallel in the biblical use of the term qadosh. This not only appears as an adjective but also as a substantive referring to the God of Israel as the â??Holy One.â?? He says check out Habakkuk 3:4 [in Hebrew]; Isaiah 40:55 and Job 6:10. Here they are in order.

Habakkuk 3:3

God came from Teman, and the Holy One

from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.

Isaiah 40:25

To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

Job 6:10

Then should I yet have comfort; yea, I would harden myself in sorrow: let him not spare; for I have not concealed the words of the Holy One.

Lâ??Heureux also notes though that the same term is used in the plural to refer to lesser members of the divine assembly, so lets look at these scriptures also.

Zechariah 14:5

And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Job 15:15

Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. [the qere says biqedoshiv - â??in the holy ones of him, or in his holy ones - Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensian text, in Kohlenberger, Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament.]

And he notes most strikingly Psalm 89, where we read of the assembly of the holy ones called qehal qedoshim in verse 6 [in Hebrew] and sod qedoshim in verse 8 [in Hebrew]. Thus we have explicit allusion to the divine assembly which forms the background of the combination qdsh/qdshm as it does for rpâ??/rpâ??m.[8]

Psalm 89:5

And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints

[qehal qedoshim].

Psalm 89:7

God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints

[sod qedoshim], and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.

Rephaim then, either as rpâ?? [singular] or rpâ??m [plural] is a general enough attribute that can b applied to El in the singular, as well as to other gods in the plural. â??On the divine level, the singular is used as an epithet of El, while the plural is used to refer to all the gods who assemble at Elâ??s invitation. On the human level, the rpâ??m of the earth form an aristocratic warrior guild under the patronage of El.â?[9]

In the Bible the Rephaim have two distinct meanings. One is the giants, that race who inhabited the land before the Israelite occupation. The other is the ideas of the shades, i.e., the dead. Lâ??Heureux through his analysis shows the best meaning though is that of the gods.[10]

Interestingly, the root play of this word in Hebrew can have the meaning of â??to heal,â? or â??healer,â? â??one who is in healthy condition.â? Lâ??Heureux notes that â??many overtones are possible, such as â??hale, hearty, robust, vigorousâ?¦â? the healing notion is especially interesting as El is associated in the earlier traditions with childbirth, hence â??the active particle (*qatil), â??healer,â? is always a possibility, since the idea of healing is frequently associated with gods.â?[11] In line with this is, of course, Mark S. Smithâ??s demonstration that â??Yahweh is a healing God, (Genesis 20:17; Numbers 12:13; 2 Kings 20:5, 8; Psalms 107:20).â?[12]

Overall I think his analysis in relation to the council of the Gods in the Bible, though not nearly as complete as other scholarly studies, is remarkable for elucidating this specific instance of the Bible word Rephaim and its meaning, as gods, and those gods specifically associated with the High God, the â??Holy Oneâ? in his Divine Council.

Endnotes

1.Conrad Lâ??Heureux, â??The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim,â? in the Harvard Theological Review, 67 (1974): 266.

2. Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God, Harper and Row Publishers, 1990: 131.

3. Lâ??Heureux, p. 267.

4. Lâ??Heureux, p. 270.

5. Lâ??Heureux, p. 268.

6. Lâ??Heureux, p. 268.

7. Lâ??Heureux, p. 268, note 14.

8. Lâ??Heureux, p. 269. See also Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God, p. 9.

9. Lâ??Heureux, p. 272.

10. Lâ??Heureux, p. 272-274.

11. Lâ??Heureux, p. 269-270, and note 17.

12. Mark S. Smith, Ibid., p. 10.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Kerry,

The Greek in the New Testament is also quite strong at showing that the genus of man and gods are the same. That is why I am asking about Dr. Heiser's view. This is going to be a very interesting discussion!

Thanks for furthering this discussion.

I would argue that Yahweh was unique as the God of gods, but he was not unique in his divinity. As your post suggests, from a biblical perspective, Yahweh even shared this status with humanity.

As Kerry points out, in his discussion concerning the biblical view regarding theomorphic humans, Daniel Peterson draws attention to Paulâ??s New Testament sermon presented in Acts 17:28-29:

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone, graven by art and manâ??s device."

In his essay, Peterson, in part, argues for a biblical connection between God and humanity in Acts 17 based upon the fact that â??the word rendered â??offspringâ?? by the King James translators is the Greek genos, which is cognate with the Latin genus and means â??family,â?? or â??race,â?? or â??kind,â?? or, even, and most especiallyâ?¦ â??descendants of a common ancestorâ??â? (Peterson 542-543).

For Latter-day Saints, human beings are literally the offspring of God and therefore, intrinsically theomorphic. In my opinion, part of the strength of Petersonâ??s essay lies in his recognition that like Latter-day Saints, biblical authors regularly blur the distinction between humanity and the gods (Peterson 509).

Not only does Peterson draw attention to the prophetic interaction with the council as support for his thesis, but Peterson also places considerable emphasis upon the deified dead and the early Christian teaching regarding deification (Peterson 509-528). These observations provide an important distinction from the view advocated by Heiser who, notwithstanding Petersonâ??s evidence, rejects the idea that a genus equation of God and humankind appears in the Bible.

For Heiserâ??s refutation of Petersonâ??s views, Heiser places considerable weight upon his argument that â??the concept of the image of God does not advance the idea that there is a genus equation of God and humankind, or that God was once a manâ? (Heiser 2). On some levels, Hesierâ??s point concerning the word tselem or â??imageâ? in Genesis 1:26-27 is certainly correct. Concerning this controversial term, Marc Zvi Brettler has recently explained:

The word tzelem elsewhere always refers to a physical representation. For example, the Book of Ezekiel uses tzelem when it refers to men sculptured upon the walls, figures of Chaldeans drawn in vermilion (23:14) or when it accuses Israel of fornicating with phallic images (16:17). The word often refers to idols (e.g. Num. 33:52; Ezek. 7:20; Amos 5:26; 2 Chron. 23:17). It always signifies a concrete entity rather than an abstract one. This is not surprising since the Bible (in contrast to most medieval philosophical traditions both Jewish and Christian) often depicts God in corporeal terms?; Marc Z. Brettler, How to Read the Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2005): 43-44.

Genesis 1:26-27 suggests that God contains a physical likeness with humanity, but left on its own, Heiser is correct that the statement does not indicate that biblical authors viewed humans as gods, or that God himself was once a human.

Notwithstanding this fact, many texts from the Bible do however present a theomorphic view of humanity. In reality, Daniel Peterson is precisely correct in stating that â??the Latter-day Saint understanding that humans are of the same genus or species as God is thus clearly biblicalâ? (Peterson 547).

In view of the fact that Jewish interpreters of Psalm 82 such as the community at Qumran continued to accept the Old Testament notion that humanity functioned in essence as an earthly extension of the divine council, critics of the LDS use of Psalm 82 and John 10 face an extremely difficult task.

Humans appear as gods through the story of Eden, deified Israelite kings, council attending prophets, and the religious writings of Second Temple Judaism. Clearly, therefore, in defense of his own claims on divinity, Jesus had plenty of compelling cultural and textual support.

A considerable portion of my response provides evidence for this theomorphic view of humanity.

As a God, Yahweh is not species unique. He belongs to a species that includes humanity.

[clarkgoble]

Similarly, even though Heiser assumes that many Mormons would disagree with his opinion that the Bible presents Yahweh, the God of Israel, as “ontologically unique,” in reality, many Latter-day Saints recognize that this is precisely the case.

To be fair though, one has to unpack what "ontologically unique" means. I don't want to derail the conversation, but that's the sort of thing that is much more philosophically complex than it first appears.

[e=mc2]

Yet another very important, but far too little known discussion of this Council of the Gods is Thorkild Jacobsenâ??s, â??Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia.â? I cannot produce all the diacritical marks or accents above and below and on the letters from Akkadian and Sumerian, so if its critical to see this, one has to access this material for yourself at this point. The process of having judicial courts and merchant assemblies, quays, harbors, emporiums, etc., involved both women and men, young and old, and it reflected the heavenly order. It was a true Democracy where all walks of life, whether rich or poor could and did participate in the karum, the assembly of the merchants, within the context of the whole community of a â??general assembly.â?[1] This was a reflection of the government of heaven where we are informed that â??â?¦the puhrum [from the act puhhurum, â??to assemble,â? produces a puhrum, â??assemblyâ?]. â??The qualification sahir rabi literally means â??small and great,â?? renders the idea of totality, since sahrum and rabium when used of persons usually refer to age rather than to size.â?[2]

The puhrum of the Gods was also open to the Goddesses, where we read in the Gilgamesh Epic (Tablet XI, 116ff) Ishtar reproaches herself for having advocated the flood in the assembly of the gods, and in the Old Babylonian Hymn we hear that: pu-uh-ri-is-su-un e-te-el qa-bu-u-sa su-tu-ur a-na An-nim sar-ri-su-nu ma-la-am as-ba-as-su-nu uz-na-am ne-me-qe-em ha-si-i-sa-am er-se-et, â??In their [the gods] assembly, her word is highly esteemed, is surpassing: she sits among them counting as much (with them) as Amun, their king. She is wise in terms of intelligence, profundity, and knowledge.â?[3]

The technical term Uzuzzu means to â??standâ? that is participate in the assembly and the word yasabu meaning â??to sitâ? also connect with participating in the assemblies. Izza-za ina puhri u-sar-ra-hu ra [ma-an-su], â??he [Nabonidus] stands in the assembly and lauds himself.â?[4] This assembly exists and is documentable â??beyond the border line of history properâ?¦â?[5]

The engagement, reflection, and association of human assemblies as mirroring heavenly ones, makes perfect sense when we consider that the ancient Assyrians and Mesopotamians, Sumerians, Babylonians, etc., â??pictured their gods as human in form, governed by human emotions, and living in the same type of world as did men. In almost every particular the world of the gods is therefore a projection of terrestrial conditionsâ?¦ in the domain of the gods we have a reflection of older forms, of the terrestrial Mesopotamian state as it was in pre-historic times.â?[6]

And the assembly was not exclusive in the realm of the gods either, for we read that it included â??all gods.â? We read En-lil pa-su i-pu-sa-am-mai pu-uh-ri ka-la i-li iz-za-ak-ka-ar, â??Enlil opened his mouth and spoke in the assembly of all the gods.â? Jacobsen notes we are witnessing a â??broad democratic basisâ?¦ nor was participating limited by sex: goddesses as well as gods played an active part in its deliberationsâ?¦ the assembly was usually held in a large court called Ubshuukkinna. As the gods arrived, they met friends and relatives who had similarly come from afar to participate in the assembly, and there was general embracing.â?[7]

Remarkably, An is given the title â??Father of all the gods.â? He properly therefore was given the leadership of the assembly, which also included Enlil, the god of the storm. The gods were greater and lesser [cf. Abraham 3!] the ilu rabiutum can be translated as â??greater gods,â? or even better â??the senior gods.â? What gave their seniority was â??wise counsel, testifying to â??intelligence,â?? â??profundity,â?? â??and knowledgeâ?¦ the ability to make others listen to oneâ??s words.â??â?[8]

Especially valued was the gods abilities to ask questions and find answers to problems. The term situlum meant â??to ask one another.â?? The assembly was the abode of discussions, disagreements, and giving and taking back of authority to other gods and even that of earthly kings.[9]

This is the essence of Jacobsenâ??s interesting analysis of the assembly of the gods. It was a discussion, a debate, with some agreeing and others disagreeing, counseling, and figuring out what is best to do in both realms, that of the gods, and that of we humans. This is the remarkable picture of the Book of Abraham with greater and lesser intelligences living and talking, learning, discussing, accepting, and rejecting the plans of the gods. This is also the essence of the council of the gods reflected in many of the usages found in the Bible.

Endnotes

1. Thorkild Jacobsen, â??Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia,â? Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 2/No. 3 (1943): 161, note 12 for detailed discussion.

2. Jacobsen, p. 161, note 12. A Babylonian proverb presupposes that anyone who happened along and had a mind could â??standâ? meaning to participate in the puhrum (p. 164).

3. Jacobsen, p. 163, note 22.

4. Jacobsen, p. 164, note 24. The assembly appears to be the ultimate political authority where the communities relationship to the king is more in line as being counselors. In the Gilgamesh Epic they are once so explicitly named: is-me-e-ma dGis zi-ki-ir ma-li [ki]-su, â??Gilgamesh listened to the words of his counselors.â? (p. 166, note 44).

5. Jacobsen, p. 165.

6. Jacobsen, p. 167.

7. Jacobsen, p. 167.

8. Jacobsen, p. 168.

9. Jacobsen, p. 168, note 52, 53; p. 169-172.

[e=mc2]

Since I haven't received the Heiser materials as of yet, I have another little ditty to bring out on this amazing council of the Gods.

James R. Dravila wrote a fascinating article on the Mesopotamian King lists, the Atrahasis Epic, the Ras Shamra Flood Story, the Gilgamesh Epic, etc., and showed some interesting ideas about the Council of the Gods which I will just touch on. All of this is not directly to the point of Heiser's materials, but it is essential background to seeing how broad and deep the scholarship has become concerning this now rather famous council.

The Akkadian word sa'ilu refers to a professional diviner and dream interpreter. This priest, and often a priestess was especially associated with the use of mu/assakku incense for libanomancy. It was through dreams or trances that Ziusudra is able to listen in on the divine council and hence receives Enki's warning. (Dravila, "The Flood Hero as King and Priest," in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 54/3 (1995): 203.

He further noted that whether the revelation came to the person via dreams or visions is not specified, but he leaves the impression that it can be both. (p. 206) Now this is very much in line with how the Books of noch share his receiving of his magnificaent prophecies and heavenly knowledge, directly through dreams *and* visions. Origen in the Contra Celsum noted that converts "have been converted to Christianity as if against their will, some sort of spirit having suddenly transformed their minds from a hatred of the doctrine to a readiness to die in its defence, and having appeared to them either in a waking vision or a dream of the night." Both were quite realistic and valid. Instead of being either/or, it was in many instances by both modes. Sozomen in the Ecclesiastical History made note that "As I understand, God made known the place where both these bodies were deposited by a divine vision in a dream to Zebennus, who was then acting as bishop of the church of Eleutheropolis."

That the ancients understood and accepted that there were such things as dream/visions is seen in the Clementine Recognitions where a woman confesses ""Now in order to carry out this plan, I pretended that I had had a dream, in which some deity stood by me in a vision, and told me that I should immediately depart from the city..."

Nibley noted that Lehi also had a dream in which he had a vision in the Book of Mormon. To the ancients these things are not different, but the same mode of revelation. And interestingly, in the dream/visions in many accounts the prophet/dreamer is visiting the council of the Gods!

Dravila noted this on page 212 - "...the unusual ha'-elohim in Genesis 5:22,24 reflects an earlier source in which Enoch entered the assembly of the gods or angels."

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Kerry,

Excellent work! Thanks for continuing this discussion with two great posts.

Dravila is simply citing the arguments given by James C. VanderKam in the book Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington, D.C., 1984), who argues, in part, that the reference to Enoch who â??walked with ha-elohimâ? reflects an earlier source in which Enoch entered the assembly of the gods.

To be fair, in the article, Dravila actually states that â??none of these arguments is particularly compellingâ? (212). While I can agree with some of Dravila's concerns, Iâ??m actually in full harmony with yourâ??s and VandeKamâ??s understanding of this biblical verse as a reference to Enochâ??s participation in the council of the gods.

Regards,

--DB

[Matthew J. Tandy]

A quick touch in. Mike emailed me and let me know he was having some troubles with the login. I am on a borrowed computer until I get mine set up soon, as I just arrived in Orem late Friday night. I will resolve his issue when I am set up. He emailed me a quick quip to post here, as follows:

One person asked if I think Jesus' deity is evident in the OT. My answer is "yes and no" - yes, it is quite clear that there was a second deity figure in the OT who was (I believe) ontologically the same as Yahweh. That "second power" was Yahweh in a form discernible by the human senses, including physical. That does not mean his physical form/flesh was human. That came at the incarnation (the second power becomes a man), at which time he was known as Jesus. The paper that everyone is discussing didn't go into a lot that could be said, especially as things relate to the imaging of God (based on a point of Hebrew grammar and syntax, I think "image" in Gen 1:26 should be understood functionally - as a verb, so to speak, not as a "thing" given to humans). The "genus" word study comments given somewhere in the threads is pretty weak - it assumes a lot, but that's sort of peripheral to the paper. I've written a good bit on subjects related to the paper, some of it touching on NT (I'm working on a non-fiction book on the divine council right now, and will get to my thoughts on the NT as I force myself to write the book - I have about .5 hrs per day to work on anything personal, so it's a sheer act of will at this point, at least for this year; too many extra projects for LOGOS). At any rate, people can see some early drafts of a few things at www.thedivinecouncil.com. There's no real logic as to what's up there - just things I thought people would find interesting, added randomly.

By the way, if anyone wants bibliographic references on certain topics, let me know. I've amassed a 146 page bibliography on the DC (anything that relates to it in OT, NT, 2nd temple, ANE, at least in my judgment). It took me a year (my half hour per day was well spent last year).

Mike

[e=mc2]

Thank you for the update. We shall just have to see how weak the Greek Genus thingy is. I am looking forward to discussing much more as we have time.

Best,

Kerry

[PacMan]

Perhaps I missed it (lots of info to skim), but regardless of what is thought of Psalms 82, how else can it be taken that Jesus used the scripture to refer to the Jews as gods, to justify the allegation of blaspheme being referring to himself as the Son of God? Was Jesus "wresting" the scriptures just to get off the hook? I truly don't understand the counter argument in this context.

PacMan

[e=mc2]

I don't understand it either Pacman. Jesus even said "The scripture CANNOT be broken." And, they never did accuse him of wresting it or twisting, or breaking it, they threatened him because they knew he correctly used it at them.

[PacMan]

Thanks Kerry.

David,

Any thoughts? I'd assume Christ's understanding usurps more authority than any academic, historian, or apologist. Unless He was purposefully twisting the scriptures (which we can assume he did not), doesn't his use of interpretation limit the possibilities? I get the feeling that this is a 'missing the tress because of the forest' situations.

PacMan

[Ron Beron]

Kerry writes,

Yet another very important, but far too little known discussion of this Council of the Gods is Thorkild Jacobsen's, "Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia."

I feel like the little guy running after the big boys and shouting, "Hey! Wait for me!" I just finished reading this and have some questions on it. Other writings have suggested Jacobsen's comments were a bit naive and without substance. I see it simply as the lesser (social conditioning) serving the greater (theology). The other question I have is the use in Isaiah

Isaiah 14:13-15 13 (1 )You said in your heart: "I will scale the heavens; Above the stars of God I will set up my throne; I will take my seat on the

Mount of Assembly

, in the recesses of the North. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will be like the Most High!" 15 Yet down to the nether world you go to the recesses of the pit!

Here it mentions the Mount of Assembly on the mountain of Zaphon which is in Northern Syria near the Turkish border. Apparently Isaiah references this to the Ugaritic worship of Ba'al and the pretensions of the king of Babylon. What got me was the inclusion of this and the concurrent usage of Sumerian worship of their own assembly of gods on a cedar mountain presumably on Mount Sahand near Tabriz in Iran. Most important is the inclusion of the word "pit" which can be read to mean the abyss or in Sumerian ab*zu (a connotation that brings up other parallels). Is it possible to conflate the "Mountain of the Assembly" of Ugarit with that of the Sumerian Mt. Sahand and various other people's and their cosmic mountain?

BTW, David...Have you read Heiser's new update on his book?

[e=mc2]

Thanks to Ron, I now have an enormous amount of more sources on this Council idea that I shal start posting again on. The subject just never ceases to amaze me, and the more I read, the stronger, and more inclusive it appears to me to have been in the Ancient Israelite and Judaic religion. If I could ever quit goofing off on Facebook I shall get here and post some materials. I also will get more on my blog. It is a remarkable subject, with such astounding scholarly analysis that I just boggle when I read the ideas. The Biblical scholars are just phenomenal when it comes to this. Just read T.J. Meeks analysis of William F. Albright's contention for Israelite monotheism, and Meeks simply dismantled Albright with this Council stuff! Wowie! Anyway, I am going to try and bring this thread back to life here shortly.

And yes Ron, we shall analyze Isaiah.......I am not trying to ignore you.