Michael Heiser argues that they did not, taking the view that when the 82nd Psalm says "I have said, Ye are gods" (Elohim) that it is referring to a heavenly Divine Council and not the elders and judges of Israel. Due to Christ's use of the verse in John 10:33-36 where He says "if He called them gods, to whom the Word of God came", most theologians believe this was referring to human judges. Heiser disputes this and argues that Christ is also referring to members of a Divine Counsel here, and that the scene for the 82nd Psalm is in heaven.
I described why I thought he was wrong about the 82nd Psalm in this video (note that the links in the description section of the video point to more articles with more topics and details about where I think he is missing it). A fan of Heiser then challenged me, with good intentions I believe, to listen to Heisers podcast on the question of "Did Israelites View Their Judges as Gods". I had read "The Unseen Realm" and listened to his podcasts before but I decided to listen again on his word and, because, well if you are going to say a fellow has something wrong then the right thing to do is to listen and understand his position thoroughly.
His video is an audio-only monotone near monologue. It is hard to listen to. But I did. While I did learn some more details of his position, and I usually learn things every time I delve into the text, my bottom line hasn't changed much if any on this question. Heiser thinks that there was a group of supernatural beings that were counted as "Elohim" that were also God's sons but that His earthly sons (Israel) were not Elohim. I think God sees us as we shall be, the same basis on which He referred to Gideon as a valiant warrior while he was hiding in a winepress. Like Christ said in John 10, some were elohim (gods) simply on the basis that the Word of God came to them. He knew what it would make out of those who received it in faith. Heiser himself, at 52:50 of that link, describes an elohim as "A being that is part of the supernatural world". That's a fair definition, but I think Abraham, Moses, Elijah and others fit that definition. They were in this world, but they were also a part of the supernatural world.
Heiser starts by talking about Gen. 35:7 and making the point, at great length, that the Elohim here could be the angels Jacob encountered in two earlier events in his life, described for example in Genesis chapter 32. But this argument is not really at issue for me. I am not saying that Angels can't be considered elohim, our disagreement is whether or not spiritual people who receive God's word can also be considered as such.
Two of the verses that he talked about that most take to be places where humans are referred to as Elohim were Exodus 21:6 and 22:8. The word for "judges" is "elohim". Here is 21:6:
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Heiser points out (minute 43) that there was no dispute here for the judges to judge, but this was an important legal agreement, one man is pledging to serve another for life even though the law says he is otherwise to go free after six years or in the year of Jubilee. It is reasonable to suppose that this is the kind of thing that should be brought before judges to insure the statement is not made under duress and that both parties understand the consequences of the contract they are about to enter. There should be no accusation later that this was a forced labor situation, or question whether the master followed the law.
Heiser later notes that the requirement to bring him before the "judges" is "deleted" when this part of the law is cited in Deuteronomy 15. It isn't "deleted", it just isn't mentioned. The passage there mostly deals with being merciful and forgiving debt in a variety of circumstances and this one was just on the list. There is no indication that the requirement in Exodus changed or dropped, it just wasn't mentioned in the shorter run-down in Deuteronomy.
He even (time 49-51) suggests that the "judges" or "elohim" were clay figures often kept in houses to represent one's departed ancestors. He said it was the equivalent of swearing before one's ancestors. Thus Heiser floats the idea that dead people may have been considered elohim, just not live ones. Of course, to God, all souls that are His are alive, that's why He told Moses I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If the dead ancestors of the typical law-abiding Israelite home could be considered "elohim" then how much more a living Moses and the prophets!
The other verse is Ex 22:8
If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.
Because the word judges is linked to plural verbs in these two verses, Heiser goes to some trouble to show that there can be references to the One True God which are linked with plural verbs. While that may be so, I don't lean on the use of plural verbs to make the connection that these are human judges rather than God. I start with what Jesus said in John 10 and work my way back to the context in which these words are used. God did not personally arbitrate these disputes or serve as a legal witness to these agreements, rather human judges serving under the law of Moses did so. They were the elohim, standing in for the ultimate Elohim.
This is very consistent with chapter 18 of Exodus, which Heiser attempts to debunk when he says that the human judges are never referred to as "elohim" within chapter 18. And he is almost right about that. Exodus 18:15 says:
"And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God:"
So if they wanted to ask God something, they asked Moses. I am not saying that they thought Moses was God, but they thought Moses was speaking for God. They thought he was a man with access to the supernatural realm- which fits Heiser's definition of an elohim! And the judges which are discussed later in the chapter are to stand in for Moses even as Moses stands in for the people before God. So when 22:8 says "brought unto the elohim" for them to decide (next verse) it IS consistent with the events of chapter 18. They came to Moses to hear from God and now the people are going to the judges he appointed to hear from God. Even if, as Heiser claims, the verse is about hearing from the One True God, the unrivaled Elohim, that is done through men. Men decide these cases.
Moses had already been made an Elohim by God in Exodus 7:1. I know that most translations insert the word "as" in the verse. It is often rendered "I have made you as God to Pharaoh" but I am going to link to the interlinear so that you can see this is assumed and there is nothing in the actual Hebrew to justify adding the word "as" into the text. Moses was already an elohim on behalf of Yahweh Elohim as regards to Pharoah. He was declaring the Divine Will on earth. In chapter 18 he is acting in the same capacity for the children of Israel. His father-in-law suggests he share that burden, and this is the right thing to do because all of Israel (God's son per Ex 4:22) can also reflect His image and be elohim. Just like daddy.
Look, we are meant to be a royal priesthood and a holy nation. We are even meant to be the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and the very Body and Bride of Christ. How can it be, if an Elohim is simply a being with access to the supernatural realm and not a Deity in the western sense, that spiritual men and women who have been "born of the flesh and of the spirit" in Christ are not also elohim? And God didn't get a new program. His OT one pointed to His NT one. I'm not saying M. Heiser is a bad guy, I'm saying he's wrong about something, and that he can just as easily be right about it.
Look, this stuff is fascinating and all that, but I would rather turn your attention to a higher excellence. Though I don't have a problem with God having a court full of Divine Beings, I don't see them all over the Old Testament. I see Christ all over the Old Testament, and that's what my book is about.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.