Yahweh as "species-unique"

[Sargon]

Michael Heiser, an Evangelical scholar of the ancient near east, has published a number of great papers on the subject the divine council in the Old Testament. His website can be found here: www.thedivinecouncil.com

As most of you are aware, Michael Heiser wrote an essay which was published in the FARMS Review of books in which he critiqued Daniel Peterson's and other LDS scholar's analysis of Psalm 82, and divine council themes in general. The essay was followed by a response from LDS graduate student David Bokovoy, followed by a very short response by Heiser. The exchange made waves here at the message board and has been a standard read on this topic ever since (I know many of you are fully aware of all of this history).

One of Heiser's main points of contention is that while the Old Testament does indeed speak of a council of gods, Yahweh is "species-unique", meaning he is not the same fundamental species as the other gods. Heiser recognizes that the "gods" of Psalm 82 and elsewhere are not mortal humans but are in fact divine beings, but he continues to insist that they are intrinsically inferior to Yahweh as a result of their not being of the same "species".

Heiser bases this conclusion on the following themes which are quite uncontroversially found in the Old Testament:

(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

In his response to Heiser, Bokovoy calls upon a number of ancient near eastern traditions that allegedly describe other gods in their respective councils in similar terms, but which do not suggest or imply that those gods are "species-unique". Furthermore, from a modern perspective all of those five points made by Heiser are completely compatible with LDS thought. We find no reason to believe that Yahweh is "species-unique" because we interpret all of those five points as being the result of Yahweh's greater power, holiness, and righteousness, not as a result of being "species-unique". In other words, Yahweh is further along the spectrum of human/god existence, but is still on the same spectrum.

I think that Heiser pinpoints a crucial problem when he writes:

A true highlight of Bokovoy's response (as found in the last paragraph of pages 284â??85) clarifies that a fundamental difference between my understanding of Yahweh's ontological uniqueness and the LDS position he articulates has to do with our difference of opinion on creation ex nihilo and a dualistic versus monistic view of creation. I hold to dualism with respect to the creationâ??a strict distinction between the Creator and everything else that is.

Because Heiser sees Yahweh as creating the other gods ex nihilo, Heiser necessarily views Yahweh as being on the Creator side of the Creator/Creature gap in Judaeo-Christian tradition. LDS reject that gap, and insist instead that the creation of the gods is accomplished by organizing pre-existent material. Under that assumption LDS are not required to envision Yahweh as "species-unique".

In my view (which commands no authority whatsoever), Yahweh is depicted as superior than the other gods by virtue of his strength in battle. Yahweh is a warrior god, and he presides over the divine council as a king presides over his army. The Hebrew writers simply don't seem interested in describing Yahweh as metaphysically or "species" unique. Instead, their attention seems to be focused on the fact that Yahweh is a stronger warrior, a mightier king, and a wiser and older god than the rest.

Thoughts?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Agreed. I think Heiser states more than evidence demands especially regarding creatio ex nihilo.

[Joseph Antley]

I don't think there's any way to glean with certainty whether Yahweh was "species-unique" from the OT. Both sides are arguing using a pre-existing religious bias.

Obviously, because of my own religious bias, I agree with Bokovoy.

[The_Monk]

I don't think there's any way to glean with certainty whether Yahweh was "species-unique" from the OT. Both sides are arguing using a pre-existing religious bias.

Obviously, because of my own religious bias, I agree with Bokovoy.

Heiser is the one arguing for something new here, and it's difficult for me not to see that as being theology-driven

"Yahweh belongs to this class of beings, but is distinguished from them by his kingship over the heavenly host. However, he is not different from them in kind."- Peter Hayman, "Monotheism- A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?" Journal of Jewish Studies, Spring 1991, p. 5.

I'm sure he's aware of this source, and disagrees with it. I cite it to show that he's the one reading in something new here. I doubt Israelites would have grasped the "species unique" argument.

[Sargon]

Heiser is the one arguing for something new here, and it's difficult for me not to see that as being theology-driven

By his own admission, Heiser's view is strongly influenced by his stance on creation ex nihilo. That such a view of creation was held by ancient Israel is quite improbable.

[e=mc2]

By his own admission, Heiser's view is strongly influenced by his stance on creation ex nihilo. That such a view of creation was held by ancient Israel is quite improbable.

As I explore the Hebrew and the Greek I find this as well. They simply were not this sophisticated to grasp the intellectual aspects of Creation ex nihilo. This is not to disparage the ancient Israelites either. I shall be doing a paper on this, although adding nothing new, just re-exploring the Greek and Hebrew of it on my BYP Blog. Perhaps next month. I have book reviews to video this weekend. Also my little one pager ward bulletin.

[Sargon]

As I explore the Hebrew and the Greek I find this as well. They simply were not this sophisticated to grasp the intellectual aspects of Creation ex nihilo. This is not to disparage the ancient Israelites either. I shall be doing a paper on this, although adding nothing new, just re-exploring the Greek and Hebrew of it on my BYP Blog. Perhaps next month. I have book reviews to video this weekend. Also my little one pager ward bulletin.

Thanks Kerry.

By the way, I read your short pdf about BoM evidences you made for your ward. I thought it was very neat, but I worry that little Sis. Johnson from the Relief Society won't understand a word of it!

[mfbukowski]

deleted- error

[BCSpace]

I would have thought that since Theosis is the only method the Bible mentions as to how Gods are made, the only reasonable conclusion is that 'men are Gods and Gods are men'.

[mfbukowski]

I would have thought that since Theosis is the only method the Bible mentions as to how Gods are made, the only reasonable conclusion is that 'men are Gods and Gods are men'.

Was this a reply to my delete? I said that perhaps gods are a new species in the sense of an evolutionary step, but I didn't like the way I worded it. I would not rule out your position, but it just makes sense to me that if we evolved from simpler forms, there must be step(s) after us too. And we certainly know of beings like us, but more "advanced", so why not postulate further evolution into gods?

[mfbukowski]

Reflecting on it, maybe I am wrong since single beings do not become examples of "more advanced" species. Yet Paul talks about different types of flesh- of animals and birds and then compares these differences to telestial terrestrial and celestial bodies. Is he saying that the differences between those different types of flesh and the resurrected body types are "similar" differences?

[BCSpace]

I would have thought that since Theosis is the only method the Bible mentions as to how Gods are made, the only reasonable conclusion is that 'men are Gods and Gods are men'.

Was this a reply to my delete?

No, I didn't see it.

I said that perhaps gods are a new species in the sense of an evolutionary step, but I didn't like the way I worded it. I would not rule out your position, but it just makes sense to me that if we evolved from simpler forms, there must be step(s) after us too. And we certainly know of beings like us, but more "advanced", so why not postulate further evolution into gods?

I see it more as a metamorphasis than an evolution. We still are created in His image.

[mfbukowski]

I see it more as a metamorphasis than an evolution. We still are created in His image.

I don't have a problem with this view-- but yet the bodies would be different - would we need heart and lungs for example? Just speculating obviously.

[maklelan]

As I explore the Hebrew and the Greek I find this as well. They simply were not this sophisticated to grasp the intellectual aspects of Creation ex nihilo. This is not to disparage the ancient Israelites either. I shall be doing a paper on this, although adding nothing new, just re-exploring the Greek and Hebrew of it on my BYP Blog. Perhaps next month. I have book reviews to video this weekend. Also my little one pager ward bulletin.

I don't know about not sophisticated enough, but it just wasn't an element in the ancient Near East's creation matrix. The idea wasn't developed period until the second century CE as part of overcompensating anti-Greek polemics. The Israelites accidentally stumble across the nomenclature in some places, which is what gives creatio ex nihilo any legs at all. For instance, in Proverbs 8:24 it says, in reference to wisdom, "Before there were depths, I was brought into being." This seems to be a reference to Gen 1:2, and through that interpretive framework, it seems to say there was a period when the depths (pre-existent chaotic matter) did not exist. Creatio ex nihilo! We have to keep in mind the author's rhetorical goals here, though, and this poem is quite clearly a polemic against the standard creation myth of the ancient Near East (it;s structured to mimic them). Tehomot (depths) is cognate with Tiamat, the chaos monster of the Enuma Elish who catalyzes creation. Proverbs 8:24 isn't saying "I preceded pre-existent matter," it's saying, "I preceded the gods of Babylon." The correlation with creatio ex nihilo is accidental and wouldn't even have registered in any of their minds.

[BCSpace]

I don't have a problem with this view-- but yet the bodies would be different - would we need heart and lungs for example? Just speculating obviously.

Sure. But we don't gradually, by passing on genes, get to this point. It happens instantaneously to each individual who meets the requirements.

[Sargon]

I would have thought that since Theosis is the only method the Bible mentions as to how Gods are made, the only reasonable conclusion is that 'men are Gods and Gods are men'.

I really don't know if the Hebrew writers imagined Yahweh as being a man. I find is possible, but I just don't know. They certainly described him in ways that one might describe an earthly king, with plenty of anthropomorphic theophanies to boot. While mortals are certainly involved in the divine council in several places, it remains unclear to me whether or not the gods were really seen as being human.

It'd be neat to learn more about that. Did the ancient Greeks and Romans view their gods as being human, or as being human-like? That might be a parallel.

[maklelan]

I really don't know if the Hebrew writers imagined Yahweh as being a man. I find is possible, but I just don't know. They certainly described him in ways that one might describe an earthly king, with plenty of anthropomorphic theophanies to boot. While mortals are certainly involved in the divine council in several places, it remains unclear to me whether or not the gods were really seen as being human.

It'd be neat to learn more about that. Did the ancient Greeks and Romans view their gods as being human, or as being human-like? That might be a parallel.

There's a great book that just came out that discusses the use of the Hebrew word ish (man) in references to yhwh. It's called When Gods Were Men. In ancient Greece and Rome theosis and euhemerism were not uncommon. Generals and kings who were particularly valiant were thought to have been deified, while the main pantheon was generally thought to be nowhere near humanity.

[The_Monk]

I really don't know if the Hebrew writers imagined Yahweh as being a man. I find is possible, but I just don't know. They certainly described him in ways that one might describe an earthly king, with plenty of anthropomorphic theophanies to boot. While mortals are certainly involved in the divine council in several places, it remains unclear to me whether or not the gods were really seen as being human.

It'd be neat to learn more about that. Did the ancient Greeks and Romans view their gods as being human, or as being human-like? That might be a parallel.

Check out James Kugel's The God of Old. I can't seem to find my notes from it.

[e=mc2]

Thanks Kerry.

By the way, I read your short pdf about BoM evidences you made for your ward. I thought it was very neat, but I worry that little Sis. Johnson from the Relief Society won't understand a word of it!

What really has stunned me, and stunned me real proper, was that little sister Johnson in Relief Society came right up to me after Priesthood Meeting, grabbed my jacket by the arm and looked me right in the eye and told me that it was wonderful that I was sharing this kind of stuff on the Book of Mormon and she is looking forward to reading the next one next week! (it wasn't literaly sister Johnson, but I had that kind of reaction by several folks, so now I am rather stuck with doing it, which is FUN!)

[Sargon]

What really has stunned me, and stunned me real proper, was that little sister Johnson in Relief Society came right up to me after Priesthood Meeting, grabbed my jacket by the arm and looked me right in the eye and told me that it was wonderful that I was sharing this kind of stuff on the Book of Mormon and she is looking forward to reading the next one next week! (it wasn't literaly sister Johnson, but I had that kind of reaction by several folks, so now I am rather stuck with doing it, which is FUN!)

Well that is awesome! I guess I underestimated Sis. Johnson!Maybe one day when I'm grey haired and people already think I'm a little nuts, I'll try to do what you are doing in your ward.

Well, poo. I had hoped a discussion about Yahweh's "species uniqueness" would've been more interesting. I guess there just isn't much to say.

[Zemah]

Could you please provide the biblical references that justifies Heiserâ??s uncontroversial conclusions regarding the following two of the five themes?

(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.

Zemah

[BCSpace]

I would have thought that since Theosis is the only method the Bible mentions as to how Gods are made, the only reasonable conclusion is that 'men are Gods and Gods are men'.

I really don't know if the Hebrew writers imagined Yahweh as being a man. I find is possible, but I just don't know. They certainly described him in ways that one might describe an earthly king, with plenty of anthropomorphic theophanies to boot. While mortals are certainly involved in the divine council in several places, it remains unclear to me whether or not the gods were really seen as being human.

I think they were so viewed. Among others, check out Ezekiel 1:26-28.

It'd be neat to learn more about that. Did the ancient Greeks and Romans view their gods as being human, or as being human-like? That might be a parallel.

The more I read about it, the more I think Greek mythology is the Biblical tale told by apostates and nonbelievers who celebrated the victory of the serpent (Athena, Zeus/Adam) worshipping Hercules over the sons of Noah (Shem and his descendents) and viewed the preFlood Yahweh worshipping people (Centaurs, Giants) with fear. The same story but with a different twist on what went right and what went wrong.

[Ron Beron]

I really don't know if the Hebrew writers imagined Yahweh as being a man. I find is possible, but I just don't know. They certainly described him in ways that one might describe an earthly king, with plenty of anthropomorphic theophanies to boot. While mortals are certainly involved in the divine council in several places, it remains unclear to me whether or not the gods were really seen as being human.

It'd be neat to learn more about that. Did the ancient Greeks and Romans view their gods as being human, or as being human-like? That might be a parallel.

Great subject, Sargon. If we are to look only at the examples given by other Mesopotamian and Semitic cultures we can see that they saw the gods as men and women. Super-men and women to be sure, but still men and women. While our view of God is that He is wholly omnipotent, etc., the pantheon of Mesopotamian gods were not immortal, but could and did die. As to the Greek gods and goddesses they were not considered human but super-human. Even part human deities such as Achilles and Herakles became, at their deaths fully divine and immortal.

There is also a neat little Jewish belief that upon the death of any person then they too would become godlike.

[Zemah]

I think they were so viewed. Among others, check out Ezekiel 1:26-28.

The more I read about it, the more I think Greek mythology is the Biblical tale told by apostates and nonbelievers who celebrated the victory of the serpent (Athena, Zeus/Adam) worshipping Hercules over the sons of Noah (Shem and his descendents) and viewed the preFlood Yahweh worshipping people (Centaurs, Giants) with fear. The same story but with a different twist on what went right and what went wrong.

Well you have to remember the proximity of Greece to both Jacobâ??s home around Jerusalem and later his descendants trapped in Egypt. Greece is a short boat trip east or north respectively. And I donâ??t doubt for a minute that the descendants of Joseph, then the governor of the region and a very powerful individual close to the Pharaoh, had the wherewithal to travel and colonize and bring their understanding of God to the inhabitants of Greece. Even apostates maintain some truth and knowledge; it is just wrongfully applied.

Zemah

[BCSpace]

Well you have to remember the proximity of Greece to both Jacobâ??s home around Jerusalem and later his descendants trapped in Egypt. Greece is a short boat trip east or north respectively. And I donâ??t doubt for a minute that the descendants of Joseph, then the governor of the region and a very powerful individual close to the Pharaoh, had the wherewithal to travel and colonize and bring their understanding of God to the inhabitants of Greece. Even apostates maintain some truth and knowledge; it is just wrongfully applied.

Yep. These people are only a few generations removed from Noah, his sons, and their wives.