I finally got around to reading "The Unseen Realm" by Michael Heiser. I was prepared to like it. I don't have a problem with the idea that God has a court of royal attendants. I also believe there is an unseen realm, one that is more real than the one in which we live. We are the shadow, and the realm which is unseen to us is the eternal substance into which we will pass once the test of this life is over. That is the classic orthodox Christian position, but one which is almost incomprehensible to American Evangelicals today because business-model churches make it "all about us" and how to do well in this life. But that's another article.
Unfortunately, I did not care for the book. He makes a couple of gigantic interpretative blunders to start out and uses them to springboard into all kinds of theology that really isn't in the bible. I have already addressed some of the problems with his view of the two main "go to" scriptures that he uses: The 82nd Psalm and Deuteronomy 32. He goes back to those scriptures for so much of his foundation that if he has them wrong it is very doubtful that he has the rest of it right. In the case of Deuteronomy 32, I focused on his claim that there was a "disinheriting of the nations" after Babel. But the other part of his view of things comes from his view of "Elohim".
The word "Elohim" in scripture is used to describe God, but is also used to describe false gods. In Gen. 23:6 Abraham is described as a "Mighty Prince" by the inhabitants of the land. The word for "Mighty" is "Elohim". Some translations that acknowledge that "Elohim" should be translated "God" or "gods" put it as "a prince of God" but the Hebrew doesn't have any preposition there. It just describes Abraham as a "chief Elohim". That's the way Hebrew is, all thoughts in a sentence segment are grouped together and we have to figure out from context whether a preposition works in there. Here, I think it doesn't because elsewhere, when someone is prince of a place, it means they have authority over that place. Further, the men talking to Abraham were in his larger culture but not necessarily monotheists. If the "of" is assumed it should read "Prince of gods" (or Divine Beings), which implies that Abraham is among them.
In Exodus 7:1 it says that God has made Moses Elohim to Pharaoh. Some people also like to used Exodus 4:6 where Moses is "as Elohim" to Aaron, but the Hebrew there has a different form so that it can be more fairly translated "as God" or "like God". In Exodus 22:8, when people are to be brought before the "judges" in Israel who are to judge according to the Law of Moses, the word for judges is "Elohim". The judges of Israel were "Elohim" when they were administering God's law.
In First Samuel 26, when Saul persuades the Witch at Endor to communicate with the deceased prophet she describes him, without rebuke from Samuel, as an Elohim, often translated as "a Divine Being". And this I think is a good translation of "Elohim".
God is an "Elohim", the ultimate Elohim. The arch-Angel Michael is also an Elohim, a Divine Being. And so is Abraham, and Samuel, and any ruler who is supposed to be operating and exercising authority on behalf of God. Besides the fact that the term was applied to Abraham while he was alive, those who argue against the term being applied to humans on the grounds that Saul was dead when it was applied to him don't see things as God sees them. Jesus explained that God said "I AM" the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because He knows they are still alive. God calls what is not as though it were because He sees the end of things, not just what we see trapped in our space in time.
This is the other half of what Heiser is missing in the 82nd Psalm. Those who exercise authority on behalf of God and carry out His Word in the earth meet the criteria of Divine Beings. If they do well, and fulfill their destiny, they become that indeed.
The rulers of Israel were meant to do this. They were to carry His word to the nations and be an example for the rest to look up to. This fits very well with the context of Deuteronomy 28, the first half of the chapter, where God describes the blessings they would get if they hearkened to His word. And it describes very well the situation at the end of revelations when "the nations" bring their glory into the gates of Jerusalem. Israel did a terrible job of being God's "example nation" set on high for the others to follow. This is what Psalm 82 is complaining about.
Some dismiss the idea that the Elohim referenced here are men (in spite of what Jesus said about the passage) because it says "you will die like men". As far as the "like men" reference goes, I can be and sometimes is translated "as men". It isn't ever translated "like men even though you are not". IOW God is telling them that even though He has pronounced them gods, they will not fulfill their destiny. Further, if you are going to take that tack, it must be noted that when it says they will fall like "princes" that word is the same word used in the book of Daniel of Michael and the "prince" of Persia. So whoever this group is, they are like men in a sense and like the supernatural princes in another. So then the message is, by not fulfilling their destiny they will get the worst of both realms. As men, they will die, as Elohim, they will fall.
Heiser runs right past the truth at the start of Chapter 28 in The Unseen Realm when he notes that it was common for Ancient Near East civilizations to believe that the Kingship was a divine institution and that therefore kings were considered to be descended from the gods. IOW, they were "sons of the gods", and therefore part god themselves. One of his footnotes from page 103 is very interesting in that it says that Gilgamesh was considered "2/3rds god through his mother and 1/3 human through his father". In addition, he was considered a "Nephilim" who had pre-flood knowledge. This fits far better with the Christ-Centered model's view of early Genesis than the take Hesier proposes.
The rulers of nations were considered "Elohim" in the Ancient Near East. For someone who insists we understand scripture in the context that the audience of the day would have understood it, Heiser has a real reluctance to accept that some humans were considered Divine Beings. Israel was supposed to be, if they obeyed God, above all other nations. They were supposed to be "a royal priesthood and a holy nation." They were supposed to be a light to the gentiles. Psalms 82 is where they are rebuked for their failures. If it has anything to do with other nations, then it applies to their earthly rulers who ruled with some divine mandate. There may be a "Divine Council" of supernatural beings, but the 82nd Psalm isn't a reference to them. I base this on the way Christ spoke to the passage. And my link above on Deuteronomy 32 dispenses with the idea that these were assigned to rule the "disinherited" nations after babel.
Humans therefore, could be "Elohim" when serving as the representative of the Type Elohim in heaven. It meant a "Divine Being" who exercised authority on behalf of God (or the gods for the pagans). It could apply to humans, both before and after their life on this earth ended. And this is who it is talking about in the 82nd Psalm. Next I should talk about "the sons of God", but that's enough for now.
Tom Ragsdale points out re Gen 23 that the "of" is assumed by many translators, so that it should be "Prince OF Elohim" in the same way a passage in Numbers is translate "Prince OF Midian" even though it also just says "Prince Midian" in Hebrew. Maybe it isn't that "the of is assumed" so much as the Hebrews grouped all the thoughts between the ' marks together. So then Numbers 25:18 saying ' prince Midian ' between those marks combined the words into once concept which could fairly be expressed "Prince of Midian" or "Midianite Prince". Ezekiel 21:26 then has four terms grouped together in one segment, 'defiled wicked prince Israel' and so it could be "of Israel" or "defiled, wicked Israelite prince".
ReplyDeleteYour first example is an exception to this pattern. "Ha" as a pre-fix can mean "the" or "of" so n'shia ha-ertez could be "Prince of the land".
All that said, the example in Genesis 23 is different than the other instances because of what the word "n'shia" means. In all those other cases, they are an n'shia OF the named territory because they rule within it. They have authority over it. If "n'shia Elohim" means "Prince of God" like "n'shia Midian" means "Prince of Midian" then is it saying that Abraham has authority or rule over God? Of course not! We change the meaning around in our heads anyway, even if we try to keep the word pattern the same. Somehow a Chief of Midian has authority over Midian but a Chief of Elohim is a servant of God!
So whether the "of" is implied or all the Hebrew words between the ' marks are meant to be combined into a single concept, it doesn't make sense to say that Abraham was the chief of God in the same way that a chief of Midian is in relation to Midian. Rather, in a world where men can be Divine Beings when operatives of the Supreme Divinity, Abraham was chief even among these. If you want to translated the combined concept "Prince OF Elohim" because of these other verses then doesn't consistency demand he be a "Prince of Elohim" in the same way that one is a "Prince of Midian", that is, esteemed in the ranks of the Elohim even as a Prince of Midian would be among the Midianites?
I would add that those speaking in Genesis 23 were probably not monotheists therefore their use of Elohim should be, if one desires to express the thought with a preposition be translated "Prince of Gods".
ReplyDelete