You’ve Seen OneEloh im, You’ve Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism’ s Use of Psalm 82 Michael S. Heiser F ARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 221–66. 1550-3194 (print), 2156-8049 (online) Heiser discusses Psalm 82 and the interpretations of Elohim that Latter -day Saints and eva ngelicals deriv e from that scriptural passage. Heiser then offers alterna- tive interpretations from his own study. Title Author(s) Reference ISSN Abstract
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Yoursquove Seen One Elohim Yoursquove Seen Them All ACritique of Mormonismrsquos Use of Psalm 82
Michael S Heiser
FARMS Review 191 (2007) 221ndash66
1550-3194 (print) 2156-8049 (online)
Heiser discusses Psalm 82 and the interpretations ofElohim that Latter-day Saints and evangelicals derivefrom that scriptural passage Heiser then offers alterna-tive interpretations from his own study
O ver the course o the last eight years I have read several papers
dealing in one way or another with that eature o Israelite religion
known as the divine council Anyone doing serious research in Israelite
religion is soon conronted with the powerul evidence or a pantheonin the Hebrew Bible983044 It is a dramatic example o the kind o issue with
which evangelical scholars who pursue advanced studies in Hebrew and
Semitics must deal It is also a good example o why some evangelical
colleagues whose scholarship ocuses on areas outside the Hebrew text
such as apologetics or philosophical theology cannot appreciate why
their articulation o an issue related to our area o specialization may
lack explanatory power or coherence I am reminded o Wayne Gru-
demrsquos sobering analysis o several years ago at the Evangelical Teologi-cal Society as to how we textual scholars ofen ail to make the careully
1 For an introduction to the divine council and the sons o God see Gerald Cooke
ldquoTe Sons o (the) God(s)rdquo Zeitschrif uumlr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaf 76 (1964)
22ndash47 E Teodore Mullen Te Assembly o the Gods Te Divine Council in Canaan-ite and Early Hebrew Literature (Missoula M Scholars Press 1980) Mullen ldquoDivine
Assemblyrdquo in Te Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel Freedman (New York Dou-
bleday 1992) 2214ndash17 Simon B Parker ldquoSons o (the) God(s)rdquo in Dictionary o Deities
and Demons in the Bible ed Karel van der oorn Bob Becking and Pieter W van derHorst 2nd extensively rev ed (Leiden Brill 1999) 794ndash800 Parker ldquoCouncil (דוס)rdquo in
Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 204ndash8 Matitiahu sevat ldquoGod and the
Gods in Assembly An Interpretation o Psalm 82rdquo Hebrew Union College Annual 40ndash41
(1969ndash70) 123ndash37 Julian Morgenstern ldquoTe Mythological Background o Psalm 82rdquo
mined data o exegesis accessible to our colleagues to ormulate a coher-
ent theology derived rom the Hebrew and Greek texts not the EnglishBible We too ofen work in isolation rom one another
I bring this up or two reasons First because afer spending
nearly a decade absorbed in study o the divine council I eel more
strongly than ever that there is not a single doctrine that is untouched
by the subject Te reason is simple the divine council is all about the
nature o God his creation and rulership o all that is his heavenly
and earthly amily and the destiny o the earth and the larger cosmos
I think the topic at hand will illustrate just how ar the reach o this
subject extends Second I want to prepare you or the act that I am
going to agree and disagree with both the Latter-day Saint and evan-
gelical positions in this paper Ultimately my ocus is on certain flaws
in the LDS understanding and use o Psalm 82 but that should not be
taken as affirmation o what I know by now are common evangelical
positions on the contents o this psalm
Since I have already written on many o the topics I will touch onin this paper I will direct you to the ull argumentation or certain
points as it appears elsewhere By way o telegraphing my positions I
offer the ollowing summaries
A Position statements on Psalm 82 and the divine council with whichmany evangelicals would probably disagree and with which manyLatter-day Saints would likely agree
1 Te plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 821 and 6 are divine beings not
human judges or humans ulfilling any role
2 Te term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is
Israel believed about God and the members o his council As the text
explicitly says there are other lt ĕlōhicircm
3 Reerences to ldquousrdquo and ldquoourrdquo in passages like Genesis 126 do
not reer to the rinity Te plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are also not
members o the rinity
4 Te denial statements o Isaiah and elsewhere (ldquothere is no
god beside merdquo) do not constitute denials o the existence o other
lt ĕlōhicircm Rather they are statements o Yahwehrsquos incomparability
5 Te God o Israel did at times make himsel known to people
in the Old estament in ways detectable to the human sense includ-ing the corporeal
6 Te Mormon understanding o God is not inherently polytheis-
tic It is polytheistic i Latter-day Saints insist that all lt ĕlōhicircm are species-
equals which depends in part on how they parse the divine council
7 ldquoSpirit beingsrdquo such as the plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are cre-
ated and thereore made o something Invisibility does not mean that
the invisible thing is immaterial All things created were made and
are made o some orm o matter whether we can detect it by our
sense or science or not o deny this would mean that ldquospirit beingsrdquo
are not part o the created order
8 Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 82 in John 10 is no argument or his
deity (or rebuttal to the charge o blasphemy) i it is assumed that Jesus
thought the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were humans
B Position statements on Psalm 82 and the divine council with whichmany Latter-day Saints would probably disagree and with which manyevangelicals would likely agree
1 Te plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are ontologically inerior to
Yahweh Tat is Yahweh the God o Israel was considered ontologi-
cally unique in Israelite thought Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other
lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh
2 Te terms henotheism polytheism and monolatry are inade-quate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members
o his council
3 Yahweh is neither a son o El (Elyon) nor a god distinct rom
El (Elyon) in Israelite religion
4 Te notion o a godhead does not derive rom Hellenistic phi-
losophy Its antecedents are Israelite and Jewish
5 Yahweh was thereore not ldquobirthedrdquo into existence by the
ldquoolden godsrdquo described in Ugaritic texts Yahweh had no parent and
no beginning
6 Corporeal appearances o deity are not evidence that God the
7 Te concept o the image o God does not advance the idea
that there is a genus equation o God and humankind or that God wasonce a man
8 Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 82 in John 10 is not to be interpreted
as though Jesus thought the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were humans and so
it provides no basis or a genus equation o God and humankind
While it would be true in many respects that the position statements
o group A are undamental to arguing against certain Latter-day
Saint ideas addressed in group B my strategy or most o this paper
will be to explain statements rom both groups in tandem through a
series o our topics
opic 1 Psalm 82 Gods or Men (items A1 A3)
Evangelical objections to divine plurality in Psalms usually take
the orm o casting the plural lt ĕlōhicircm o certain passages as humanbeings It is convenient at this point to reerence several verses in
Psalm 82
1 God (lt ĕlōhicircm) stands in the divine council in the midst
o the gods (lt ĕlōhicircm) he passes judgment
6 I said ldquoyou are gods (lt ĕlōhicircm) sons o the Most High all
o yourdquo 7 Tereore you shall die as humans do and you shall
all as one o the princes
A ew observations will suffice Notice that in verse one the first
lt ĕlōhicircm must point to a singular being the God o Israel due to gram-
matical agreement with singular verb orms in the verse (niszligszligab and
yišpōdagger) Te second lt ĕlōhicircm must be plural because o the preposition
that precedes it Appeals to the rinity here are indeensible since the
plural lt ĕlōhicircm are being judged or their corruption in the rest o the2 It is also at times asserted that these lt ĕlōhicircm are only idols For a reutation o
that view see Michael S Heiser ldquoMonotheism Polytheism Monolatry or Henothe-
ism oward an Assessment o Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Biblerdquo Bulletin o BiblicalResearch (orthcoming)
psalm and sentenced to ldquodie like humankindrdquo851972 In verse six the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm o 821 are reerred to once again as lt ĕlōhicircm but are urtheridentified as sons o the God o Israel (the Most High)
Te power o the ldquodivine beingsrdquo interpretation o the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm in this psalm derives rom both internal and external consid-
erations With respect to the ormer i the lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 are
humans why are they sentenced to die ldquolike humansrdquo Tis sounds as
awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark Te point
o verse 6 is that in response to their corruption the lt ĕlōhicircm will be
stripped o their immortality at Godrsquos discretion and die as humans
die Second what is the scriptural basis or the idea that this psalm
has God presiding over a council o humans that governs the nations
o the earth At no time in the Hebrew Bible did Israelrsquos elders ever
have jurisdiction over all the nations o the earth In act other divine
council texts such as Deuteronomy 328ndash9 have the situation exactly
oppositemdashIsrael was separated rom the nations to be Godrsquos personal
possession and the ocus o his ruleLastly and most tellingly Psalm 895ndash8 (Hebrew vv 6ndash9) renders
a human interpretation or the plural lt ĕlōhicircm nonsensical since this
unambiguously parallel text clearly states that the council o the sons
o God is in heaven not on earth
5 Let the heavens praise your wonders O L983151983154983140 your
aithulness in the assembly o the holy ones 6 For who in the
3 Plural language like that ound in Genesis 126 322 117 is most coherently
interpreted as exhortations or statements made by the singular God to his council mem-
bers an interpretive option that is not novel I these passages were the only passages that
evinced divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible and there were no explicit reerences to a
divine council one could perhaps iner the Godhead but this would be reading the New
estament back into the Old
4 Fuller deenses o this view accompanied by bibliographic sources are ound
in Michael S Heiser ldquoDeuteronomy 328 and the Sons o Godrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 158
(JanuaryndashMarch 2001) 52ndash74 Willem S Prinsloo ldquoPsalm 82 Once Again Gods or
Menrdquo Biblica 762 (1995) 219ndash28 and Lowell K Handy ldquoSounds Words and Meaningsin Psalm 82rdquo Journal or the Study o the Old estament 1547 (1990) 51ndash66 Cyrus H
Gordon ldquoםיהל in Its Reputed Meaning o Rulers Judgesrdquo Journal o Biblical Literature54 (1935) 139ndash44
5 Te terms heavens and aithulness in these verses may be best understood
abstractly as ldquoheavenly onesrdquo and ldquoaithul onesrdquo
skies ( intašša˙aq) can be compared to the L983151983154983140 Who among
the sons o God (bi intnecirc lt ēlicircm) is like the L983151983154983140 7 the ear-some God in the council o the holy ones great and awesome
above all who are around him 8 O L983151983154983140 God o hosts who
is as powerul as you are O L983151983154983140 with your aithulness all
around you (Psalm 895ndash8)
Externally it is well known among Semitists and scholars o the
Hebrew Bible that the phrases bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc
hālt ĕlōhicircm have certifiable linguistic counterparts in Ugaritic textsreerring to a council o gods under El and that the meaning o these
phrases in the Hebrew Bible points to divine beings Tose who work
outside the primary texts are ofen unaware o these data and thus ail
to discern their significance
Evangelical scholars have commonly appealed to Exodus 216 and
228ndash9 as proo that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are humans Neither pas-
6 Tere are several general phrases or a council o gods that provide a conceptual
parallel with the Hebrew Bible p∆r lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o El the godsrdquo (Gregorio Del
Olmo Lete and Joaquiacuten Sanmartiacuten ldquo p∆rrdquo in A Dictionary o the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic radition [hereafer DULA ] 2669 Keilalphabetische exte aus Ugarit [here-
afer KU] 14729 111828 11489 p∆r bn lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o the sons o El the godsrdquo
(DULA 2669 KU 14III14) p∆r kkbmmdashldquothe assembly o the starsrdquo (DULA 2670
KU 110I4 the phrase is parallel to bn lt il in the same text see Job 387ndash8) mp∆rt bnlt il mdashldquothe assembly o the godsrdquo (DULA 2566 see KU 1653 c 14025 42 along with
bn lt il in 14033 41 and its reconstruction in parallel lines in the same textmdashlines 7 16
24 1627 112315) O closer linguistic relationship to material in the Hebrew Bible are
gt dt lt ilmmdashldquoassembly o El the godsrdquo (DULA 1152 see KU 115II 7 11) dr lt il mdashldquoassem-
bly (circle) o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 See KU 115III19 1397 116216 18718) dr bnlt il mdashldquoassembly (circle) o the sons o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 14025 33ndash34) dr dtšmmmdashldquoassembly (circle) o those o heavenrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 110I 3 5) drlt il wp∆r bgt lmdashldquothe assembly (circle) o El and the assembly o Baalrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see
KU 1397 16216 18718) Tis list hardly exhausts the parallels between the dwelling
place o El which served as the meeting place o the divine council at Ugarit and the abode
o Yahweh
7 Another attempt to avoid taking Psalm 82 at ace value is to argue that reer-
ences to Moses as lt ĕlōhicircm (Exodus 416 71) Israel as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo (Exodus 423 Hosea111) and Israelites as ldquosons o the living Godrdquo (Hosea 110 [Hebrews 21]) mean that the
lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are human rulers namely the elders o Israel None o these reerences
undoes the act that the council o lt ĕlōhicircm is a heavenly one in Psalms 82 and 89 In act
I have never actually seen any publication objecting to the lt ĕlōhicircm as divine beings that
includes discussion o Psalm 89 A ull answer as to the import and meaning o Moses as
sage is any help or that view actually Exodus 211ndash6 recounts the pro-
cedure undertaken when a slave chooses to stay with his master ratherthan go ree Part o that procedure reads ldquothen his master shall bring
him to lt ĕlōhicircm and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost
And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl and he shall
be his slave oreverrdquo Te word lt ĕlōhicircm here can easily be translated
as a singular (ldquoGodrdquo) and ofen is making an appeal to this text as a
plural tenuous However it seems quite plausible that the final editor
o Deuteronomy thought it might be a plural or deemed that it could
be understood as a plural because in the parallel passage to Exodus
211ndash6 ound in Deuteronomy 1515ndash18 the reerence to bringing the
slave beore lt ĕlōhicircm has been removed A removal only makes sense
i a later editor in the wake o Israelrsquos punishment or ollowing afer
other gods thought that lt ĕlōhicircm might sound theologically inappro-
priate I the word was understood as reerring to plural humans there
would be no such need to remove it O course an original Mosaic
text in Deuteronomy 15 may simply have omitted this detail or someindiscernible reason Tat option o course would lend no weight to
the human lt ĕlōhicircm view since lt ĕlōhicircm can easily be translated as sin-
gular in the passage
Exodus 227ndash9 (Hebrew vv 6ndash8) is also interesting but lends no
credence to the argument that plural lt ĕlōhicircm reers to humans
lt ĕlōhicircm and human beings as Godrsquos children requires a good deal o background discus-
sion related to the divine council Te oundational reason is that in the Israelite worldview
the earthly amily o the Most High was originally intended to dwell where the Most High
and the heavenly council dwelt Hence the explicit and requent overlap between Israelite
and wider Canaanite material with respect to descriptions o Yahwehrsquos abode his council
divine Sonship (in heaven and on earth) and council activity Te bibliography related to
these themes is copious though not synthesized See or example Richard J Clifford TeCosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old estament (Cambridge MA Harvard University
Press 1972) Brendan Byrne ldquoSons o GodrdquomdashldquoSeed o Abrahamrdquo A Study o the Idea othe Sonship o God o All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Rome Biblical
Institute Press 1979) Harald Rieseneld ldquoSons o God and Ecclesia An Intertestamental
Analysisrdquo in Renewing the Judeo-Christian Wellsprings ed Val A McInnes (New YorkCrossroad 1987) 89ndash104 James abor ldquoFirstborn o Many Brothers A Pauline Notion o
Apotheosisrdquo in Society o Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (Atlanta Scholars Press
1984) 295ndash303 Devorah Dimant ldquoMen as Angels Te Sel-Image o the Qumran Com-
munityrdquo in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East ed Adele Berlin (Bethesda MD
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
O ver the course o the last eight years I have read several papers
dealing in one way or another with that eature o Israelite religion
known as the divine council Anyone doing serious research in Israelite
religion is soon conronted with the powerul evidence or a pantheonin the Hebrew Bible983044 It is a dramatic example o the kind o issue with
which evangelical scholars who pursue advanced studies in Hebrew and
Semitics must deal It is also a good example o why some evangelical
colleagues whose scholarship ocuses on areas outside the Hebrew text
such as apologetics or philosophical theology cannot appreciate why
their articulation o an issue related to our area o specialization may
lack explanatory power or coherence I am reminded o Wayne Gru-
demrsquos sobering analysis o several years ago at the Evangelical Teologi-cal Society as to how we textual scholars ofen ail to make the careully
1 For an introduction to the divine council and the sons o God see Gerald Cooke
ldquoTe Sons o (the) God(s)rdquo Zeitschrif uumlr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaf 76 (1964)
22ndash47 E Teodore Mullen Te Assembly o the Gods Te Divine Council in Canaan-ite and Early Hebrew Literature (Missoula M Scholars Press 1980) Mullen ldquoDivine
Assemblyrdquo in Te Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel Freedman (New York Dou-
bleday 1992) 2214ndash17 Simon B Parker ldquoSons o (the) God(s)rdquo in Dictionary o Deities
and Demons in the Bible ed Karel van der oorn Bob Becking and Pieter W van derHorst 2nd extensively rev ed (Leiden Brill 1999) 794ndash800 Parker ldquoCouncil (דוס)rdquo in
Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 204ndash8 Matitiahu sevat ldquoGod and the
Gods in Assembly An Interpretation o Psalm 82rdquo Hebrew Union College Annual 40ndash41
(1969ndash70) 123ndash37 Julian Morgenstern ldquoTe Mythological Background o Psalm 82rdquo
mined data o exegesis accessible to our colleagues to ormulate a coher-
ent theology derived rom the Hebrew and Greek texts not the EnglishBible We too ofen work in isolation rom one another
I bring this up or two reasons First because afer spending
nearly a decade absorbed in study o the divine council I eel more
strongly than ever that there is not a single doctrine that is untouched
by the subject Te reason is simple the divine council is all about the
nature o God his creation and rulership o all that is his heavenly
and earthly amily and the destiny o the earth and the larger cosmos
I think the topic at hand will illustrate just how ar the reach o this
subject extends Second I want to prepare you or the act that I am
going to agree and disagree with both the Latter-day Saint and evan-
gelical positions in this paper Ultimately my ocus is on certain flaws
in the LDS understanding and use o Psalm 82 but that should not be
taken as affirmation o what I know by now are common evangelical
positions on the contents o this psalm
Since I have already written on many o the topics I will touch onin this paper I will direct you to the ull argumentation or certain
points as it appears elsewhere By way o telegraphing my positions I
offer the ollowing summaries
A Position statements on Psalm 82 and the divine council with whichmany evangelicals would probably disagree and with which manyLatter-day Saints would likely agree
1 Te plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 821 and 6 are divine beings not
human judges or humans ulfilling any role
2 Te term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is
Israel believed about God and the members o his council As the text
explicitly says there are other lt ĕlōhicircm
3 Reerences to ldquousrdquo and ldquoourrdquo in passages like Genesis 126 do
not reer to the rinity Te plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are also not
members o the rinity
4 Te denial statements o Isaiah and elsewhere (ldquothere is no
god beside merdquo) do not constitute denials o the existence o other
lt ĕlōhicircm Rather they are statements o Yahwehrsquos incomparability
5 Te God o Israel did at times make himsel known to people
in the Old estament in ways detectable to the human sense includ-ing the corporeal
6 Te Mormon understanding o God is not inherently polytheis-
tic It is polytheistic i Latter-day Saints insist that all lt ĕlōhicircm are species-
equals which depends in part on how they parse the divine council
7 ldquoSpirit beingsrdquo such as the plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are cre-
ated and thereore made o something Invisibility does not mean that
the invisible thing is immaterial All things created were made and
are made o some orm o matter whether we can detect it by our
sense or science or not o deny this would mean that ldquospirit beingsrdquo
are not part o the created order
8 Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 82 in John 10 is no argument or his
deity (or rebuttal to the charge o blasphemy) i it is assumed that Jesus
thought the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were humans
B Position statements on Psalm 82 and the divine council with whichmany Latter-day Saints would probably disagree and with which manyevangelicals would likely agree
1 Te plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are ontologically inerior to
Yahweh Tat is Yahweh the God o Israel was considered ontologi-
cally unique in Israelite thought Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other
lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh
2 Te terms henotheism polytheism and monolatry are inade-quate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members
o his council
3 Yahweh is neither a son o El (Elyon) nor a god distinct rom
El (Elyon) in Israelite religion
4 Te notion o a godhead does not derive rom Hellenistic phi-
losophy Its antecedents are Israelite and Jewish
5 Yahweh was thereore not ldquobirthedrdquo into existence by the
ldquoolden godsrdquo described in Ugaritic texts Yahweh had no parent and
no beginning
6 Corporeal appearances o deity are not evidence that God the
7 Te concept o the image o God does not advance the idea
that there is a genus equation o God and humankind or that God wasonce a man
8 Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 82 in John 10 is not to be interpreted
as though Jesus thought the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were humans and so
it provides no basis or a genus equation o God and humankind
While it would be true in many respects that the position statements
o group A are undamental to arguing against certain Latter-day
Saint ideas addressed in group B my strategy or most o this paper
will be to explain statements rom both groups in tandem through a
series o our topics
opic 1 Psalm 82 Gods or Men (items A1 A3)
Evangelical objections to divine plurality in Psalms usually take
the orm o casting the plural lt ĕlōhicircm o certain passages as humanbeings It is convenient at this point to reerence several verses in
Psalm 82
1 God (lt ĕlōhicircm) stands in the divine council in the midst
o the gods (lt ĕlōhicircm) he passes judgment
6 I said ldquoyou are gods (lt ĕlōhicircm) sons o the Most High all
o yourdquo 7 Tereore you shall die as humans do and you shall
all as one o the princes
A ew observations will suffice Notice that in verse one the first
lt ĕlōhicircm must point to a singular being the God o Israel due to gram-
matical agreement with singular verb orms in the verse (niszligszligab and
yišpōdagger) Te second lt ĕlōhicircm must be plural because o the preposition
that precedes it Appeals to the rinity here are indeensible since the
plural lt ĕlōhicircm are being judged or their corruption in the rest o the2 It is also at times asserted that these lt ĕlōhicircm are only idols For a reutation o
that view see Michael S Heiser ldquoMonotheism Polytheism Monolatry or Henothe-
ism oward an Assessment o Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Biblerdquo Bulletin o BiblicalResearch (orthcoming)
psalm and sentenced to ldquodie like humankindrdquo851972 In verse six the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm o 821 are reerred to once again as lt ĕlōhicircm but are urtheridentified as sons o the God o Israel (the Most High)
Te power o the ldquodivine beingsrdquo interpretation o the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm in this psalm derives rom both internal and external consid-
erations With respect to the ormer i the lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 are
humans why are they sentenced to die ldquolike humansrdquo Tis sounds as
awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark Te point
o verse 6 is that in response to their corruption the lt ĕlōhicircm will be
stripped o their immortality at Godrsquos discretion and die as humans
die Second what is the scriptural basis or the idea that this psalm
has God presiding over a council o humans that governs the nations
o the earth At no time in the Hebrew Bible did Israelrsquos elders ever
have jurisdiction over all the nations o the earth In act other divine
council texts such as Deuteronomy 328ndash9 have the situation exactly
oppositemdashIsrael was separated rom the nations to be Godrsquos personal
possession and the ocus o his ruleLastly and most tellingly Psalm 895ndash8 (Hebrew vv 6ndash9) renders
a human interpretation or the plural lt ĕlōhicircm nonsensical since this
unambiguously parallel text clearly states that the council o the sons
o God is in heaven not on earth
5 Let the heavens praise your wonders O L983151983154983140 your
aithulness in the assembly o the holy ones 6 For who in the
3 Plural language like that ound in Genesis 126 322 117 is most coherently
interpreted as exhortations or statements made by the singular God to his council mem-
bers an interpretive option that is not novel I these passages were the only passages that
evinced divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible and there were no explicit reerences to a
divine council one could perhaps iner the Godhead but this would be reading the New
estament back into the Old
4 Fuller deenses o this view accompanied by bibliographic sources are ound
in Michael S Heiser ldquoDeuteronomy 328 and the Sons o Godrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 158
(JanuaryndashMarch 2001) 52ndash74 Willem S Prinsloo ldquoPsalm 82 Once Again Gods or
Menrdquo Biblica 762 (1995) 219ndash28 and Lowell K Handy ldquoSounds Words and Meaningsin Psalm 82rdquo Journal or the Study o the Old estament 1547 (1990) 51ndash66 Cyrus H
Gordon ldquoםיהל in Its Reputed Meaning o Rulers Judgesrdquo Journal o Biblical Literature54 (1935) 139ndash44
5 Te terms heavens and aithulness in these verses may be best understood
abstractly as ldquoheavenly onesrdquo and ldquoaithul onesrdquo
skies ( intašša˙aq) can be compared to the L983151983154983140 Who among
the sons o God (bi intnecirc lt ēlicircm) is like the L983151983154983140 7 the ear-some God in the council o the holy ones great and awesome
above all who are around him 8 O L983151983154983140 God o hosts who
is as powerul as you are O L983151983154983140 with your aithulness all
around you (Psalm 895ndash8)
Externally it is well known among Semitists and scholars o the
Hebrew Bible that the phrases bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc
hālt ĕlōhicircm have certifiable linguistic counterparts in Ugaritic textsreerring to a council o gods under El and that the meaning o these
phrases in the Hebrew Bible points to divine beings Tose who work
outside the primary texts are ofen unaware o these data and thus ail
to discern their significance
Evangelical scholars have commonly appealed to Exodus 216 and
228ndash9 as proo that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are humans Neither pas-
6 Tere are several general phrases or a council o gods that provide a conceptual
parallel with the Hebrew Bible p∆r lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o El the godsrdquo (Gregorio Del
Olmo Lete and Joaquiacuten Sanmartiacuten ldquo p∆rrdquo in A Dictionary o the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic radition [hereafer DULA ] 2669 Keilalphabetische exte aus Ugarit [here-
afer KU] 14729 111828 11489 p∆r bn lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o the sons o El the godsrdquo
(DULA 2669 KU 14III14) p∆r kkbmmdashldquothe assembly o the starsrdquo (DULA 2670
KU 110I4 the phrase is parallel to bn lt il in the same text see Job 387ndash8) mp∆rt bnlt il mdashldquothe assembly o the godsrdquo (DULA 2566 see KU 1653 c 14025 42 along with
bn lt il in 14033 41 and its reconstruction in parallel lines in the same textmdashlines 7 16
24 1627 112315) O closer linguistic relationship to material in the Hebrew Bible are
gt dt lt ilmmdashldquoassembly o El the godsrdquo (DULA 1152 see KU 115II 7 11) dr lt il mdashldquoassem-
bly (circle) o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 See KU 115III19 1397 116216 18718) dr bnlt il mdashldquoassembly (circle) o the sons o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 14025 33ndash34) dr dtšmmmdashldquoassembly (circle) o those o heavenrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 110I 3 5) drlt il wp∆r bgt lmdashldquothe assembly (circle) o El and the assembly o Baalrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see
KU 1397 16216 18718) Tis list hardly exhausts the parallels between the dwelling
place o El which served as the meeting place o the divine council at Ugarit and the abode
o Yahweh
7 Another attempt to avoid taking Psalm 82 at ace value is to argue that reer-
ences to Moses as lt ĕlōhicircm (Exodus 416 71) Israel as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo (Exodus 423 Hosea111) and Israelites as ldquosons o the living Godrdquo (Hosea 110 [Hebrews 21]) mean that the
lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are human rulers namely the elders o Israel None o these reerences
undoes the act that the council o lt ĕlōhicircm is a heavenly one in Psalms 82 and 89 In act
I have never actually seen any publication objecting to the lt ĕlōhicircm as divine beings that
includes discussion o Psalm 89 A ull answer as to the import and meaning o Moses as
sage is any help or that view actually Exodus 211ndash6 recounts the pro-
cedure undertaken when a slave chooses to stay with his master ratherthan go ree Part o that procedure reads ldquothen his master shall bring
him to lt ĕlōhicircm and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost
And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl and he shall
be his slave oreverrdquo Te word lt ĕlōhicircm here can easily be translated
as a singular (ldquoGodrdquo) and ofen is making an appeal to this text as a
plural tenuous However it seems quite plausible that the final editor
o Deuteronomy thought it might be a plural or deemed that it could
be understood as a plural because in the parallel passage to Exodus
211ndash6 ound in Deuteronomy 1515ndash18 the reerence to bringing the
slave beore lt ĕlōhicircm has been removed A removal only makes sense
i a later editor in the wake o Israelrsquos punishment or ollowing afer
other gods thought that lt ĕlōhicircm might sound theologically inappro-
priate I the word was understood as reerring to plural humans there
would be no such need to remove it O course an original Mosaic
text in Deuteronomy 15 may simply have omitted this detail or someindiscernible reason Tat option o course would lend no weight to
the human lt ĕlōhicircm view since lt ĕlōhicircm can easily be translated as sin-
gular in the passage
Exodus 227ndash9 (Hebrew vv 6ndash8) is also interesting but lends no
credence to the argument that plural lt ĕlōhicircm reers to humans
lt ĕlōhicircm and human beings as Godrsquos children requires a good deal o background discus-
sion related to the divine council Te oundational reason is that in the Israelite worldview
the earthly amily o the Most High was originally intended to dwell where the Most High
and the heavenly council dwelt Hence the explicit and requent overlap between Israelite
and wider Canaanite material with respect to descriptions o Yahwehrsquos abode his council
divine Sonship (in heaven and on earth) and council activity Te bibliography related to
these themes is copious though not synthesized See or example Richard J Clifford TeCosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old estament (Cambridge MA Harvard University
Press 1972) Brendan Byrne ldquoSons o GodrdquomdashldquoSeed o Abrahamrdquo A Study o the Idea othe Sonship o God o All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Rome Biblical
Institute Press 1979) Harald Rieseneld ldquoSons o God and Ecclesia An Intertestamental
Analysisrdquo in Renewing the Judeo-Christian Wellsprings ed Val A McInnes (New YorkCrossroad 1987) 89ndash104 James abor ldquoFirstborn o Many Brothers A Pauline Notion o
Apotheosisrdquo in Society o Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (Atlanta Scholars Press
1984) 295ndash303 Devorah Dimant ldquoMen as Angels Te Sel-Image o the Qumran Com-
munityrdquo in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East ed Adele Berlin (Bethesda MD
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
mined data o exegesis accessible to our colleagues to ormulate a coher-
ent theology derived rom the Hebrew and Greek texts not the EnglishBible We too ofen work in isolation rom one another
I bring this up or two reasons First because afer spending
nearly a decade absorbed in study o the divine council I eel more
strongly than ever that there is not a single doctrine that is untouched
by the subject Te reason is simple the divine council is all about the
nature o God his creation and rulership o all that is his heavenly
and earthly amily and the destiny o the earth and the larger cosmos
I think the topic at hand will illustrate just how ar the reach o this
subject extends Second I want to prepare you or the act that I am
going to agree and disagree with both the Latter-day Saint and evan-
gelical positions in this paper Ultimately my ocus is on certain flaws
in the LDS understanding and use o Psalm 82 but that should not be
taken as affirmation o what I know by now are common evangelical
positions on the contents o this psalm
Since I have already written on many o the topics I will touch onin this paper I will direct you to the ull argumentation or certain
points as it appears elsewhere By way o telegraphing my positions I
offer the ollowing summaries
A Position statements on Psalm 82 and the divine council with whichmany evangelicals would probably disagree and with which manyLatter-day Saints would likely agree
1 Te plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 821 and 6 are divine beings not
human judges or humans ulfilling any role
2 Te term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is
Israel believed about God and the members o his council As the text
explicitly says there are other lt ĕlōhicircm
3 Reerences to ldquousrdquo and ldquoourrdquo in passages like Genesis 126 do
not reer to the rinity Te plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are also not
members o the rinity
4 Te denial statements o Isaiah and elsewhere (ldquothere is no
god beside merdquo) do not constitute denials o the existence o other
lt ĕlōhicircm Rather they are statements o Yahwehrsquos incomparability
5 Te God o Israel did at times make himsel known to people
in the Old estament in ways detectable to the human sense includ-ing the corporeal
6 Te Mormon understanding o God is not inherently polytheis-
tic It is polytheistic i Latter-day Saints insist that all lt ĕlōhicircm are species-
equals which depends in part on how they parse the divine council
7 ldquoSpirit beingsrdquo such as the plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are cre-
ated and thereore made o something Invisibility does not mean that
the invisible thing is immaterial All things created were made and
are made o some orm o matter whether we can detect it by our
sense or science or not o deny this would mean that ldquospirit beingsrdquo
are not part o the created order
8 Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 82 in John 10 is no argument or his
deity (or rebuttal to the charge o blasphemy) i it is assumed that Jesus
thought the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were humans
B Position statements on Psalm 82 and the divine council with whichmany Latter-day Saints would probably disagree and with which manyevangelicals would likely agree
1 Te plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are ontologically inerior to
Yahweh Tat is Yahweh the God o Israel was considered ontologi-
cally unique in Israelite thought Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other
lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh
2 Te terms henotheism polytheism and monolatry are inade-quate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members
o his council
3 Yahweh is neither a son o El (Elyon) nor a god distinct rom
El (Elyon) in Israelite religion
4 Te notion o a godhead does not derive rom Hellenistic phi-
losophy Its antecedents are Israelite and Jewish
5 Yahweh was thereore not ldquobirthedrdquo into existence by the
ldquoolden godsrdquo described in Ugaritic texts Yahweh had no parent and
no beginning
6 Corporeal appearances o deity are not evidence that God the
7 Te concept o the image o God does not advance the idea
that there is a genus equation o God and humankind or that God wasonce a man
8 Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 82 in John 10 is not to be interpreted
as though Jesus thought the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were humans and so
it provides no basis or a genus equation o God and humankind
While it would be true in many respects that the position statements
o group A are undamental to arguing against certain Latter-day
Saint ideas addressed in group B my strategy or most o this paper
will be to explain statements rom both groups in tandem through a
series o our topics
opic 1 Psalm 82 Gods or Men (items A1 A3)
Evangelical objections to divine plurality in Psalms usually take
the orm o casting the plural lt ĕlōhicircm o certain passages as humanbeings It is convenient at this point to reerence several verses in
Psalm 82
1 God (lt ĕlōhicircm) stands in the divine council in the midst
o the gods (lt ĕlōhicircm) he passes judgment
6 I said ldquoyou are gods (lt ĕlōhicircm) sons o the Most High all
o yourdquo 7 Tereore you shall die as humans do and you shall
all as one o the princes
A ew observations will suffice Notice that in verse one the first
lt ĕlōhicircm must point to a singular being the God o Israel due to gram-
matical agreement with singular verb orms in the verse (niszligszligab and
yišpōdagger) Te second lt ĕlōhicircm must be plural because o the preposition
that precedes it Appeals to the rinity here are indeensible since the
plural lt ĕlōhicircm are being judged or their corruption in the rest o the2 It is also at times asserted that these lt ĕlōhicircm are only idols For a reutation o
that view see Michael S Heiser ldquoMonotheism Polytheism Monolatry or Henothe-
ism oward an Assessment o Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Biblerdquo Bulletin o BiblicalResearch (orthcoming)
psalm and sentenced to ldquodie like humankindrdquo851972 In verse six the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm o 821 are reerred to once again as lt ĕlōhicircm but are urtheridentified as sons o the God o Israel (the Most High)
Te power o the ldquodivine beingsrdquo interpretation o the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm in this psalm derives rom both internal and external consid-
erations With respect to the ormer i the lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 are
humans why are they sentenced to die ldquolike humansrdquo Tis sounds as
awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark Te point
o verse 6 is that in response to their corruption the lt ĕlōhicircm will be
stripped o their immortality at Godrsquos discretion and die as humans
die Second what is the scriptural basis or the idea that this psalm
has God presiding over a council o humans that governs the nations
o the earth At no time in the Hebrew Bible did Israelrsquos elders ever
have jurisdiction over all the nations o the earth In act other divine
council texts such as Deuteronomy 328ndash9 have the situation exactly
oppositemdashIsrael was separated rom the nations to be Godrsquos personal
possession and the ocus o his ruleLastly and most tellingly Psalm 895ndash8 (Hebrew vv 6ndash9) renders
a human interpretation or the plural lt ĕlōhicircm nonsensical since this
unambiguously parallel text clearly states that the council o the sons
o God is in heaven not on earth
5 Let the heavens praise your wonders O L983151983154983140 your
aithulness in the assembly o the holy ones 6 For who in the
3 Plural language like that ound in Genesis 126 322 117 is most coherently
interpreted as exhortations or statements made by the singular God to his council mem-
bers an interpretive option that is not novel I these passages were the only passages that
evinced divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible and there were no explicit reerences to a
divine council one could perhaps iner the Godhead but this would be reading the New
estament back into the Old
4 Fuller deenses o this view accompanied by bibliographic sources are ound
in Michael S Heiser ldquoDeuteronomy 328 and the Sons o Godrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 158
(JanuaryndashMarch 2001) 52ndash74 Willem S Prinsloo ldquoPsalm 82 Once Again Gods or
Menrdquo Biblica 762 (1995) 219ndash28 and Lowell K Handy ldquoSounds Words and Meaningsin Psalm 82rdquo Journal or the Study o the Old estament 1547 (1990) 51ndash66 Cyrus H
Gordon ldquoםיהל in Its Reputed Meaning o Rulers Judgesrdquo Journal o Biblical Literature54 (1935) 139ndash44
5 Te terms heavens and aithulness in these verses may be best understood
abstractly as ldquoheavenly onesrdquo and ldquoaithul onesrdquo
skies ( intašša˙aq) can be compared to the L983151983154983140 Who among
the sons o God (bi intnecirc lt ēlicircm) is like the L983151983154983140 7 the ear-some God in the council o the holy ones great and awesome
above all who are around him 8 O L983151983154983140 God o hosts who
is as powerul as you are O L983151983154983140 with your aithulness all
around you (Psalm 895ndash8)
Externally it is well known among Semitists and scholars o the
Hebrew Bible that the phrases bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc
hālt ĕlōhicircm have certifiable linguistic counterparts in Ugaritic textsreerring to a council o gods under El and that the meaning o these
phrases in the Hebrew Bible points to divine beings Tose who work
outside the primary texts are ofen unaware o these data and thus ail
to discern their significance
Evangelical scholars have commonly appealed to Exodus 216 and
228ndash9 as proo that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are humans Neither pas-
6 Tere are several general phrases or a council o gods that provide a conceptual
parallel with the Hebrew Bible p∆r lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o El the godsrdquo (Gregorio Del
Olmo Lete and Joaquiacuten Sanmartiacuten ldquo p∆rrdquo in A Dictionary o the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic radition [hereafer DULA ] 2669 Keilalphabetische exte aus Ugarit [here-
afer KU] 14729 111828 11489 p∆r bn lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o the sons o El the godsrdquo
(DULA 2669 KU 14III14) p∆r kkbmmdashldquothe assembly o the starsrdquo (DULA 2670
KU 110I4 the phrase is parallel to bn lt il in the same text see Job 387ndash8) mp∆rt bnlt il mdashldquothe assembly o the godsrdquo (DULA 2566 see KU 1653 c 14025 42 along with
bn lt il in 14033 41 and its reconstruction in parallel lines in the same textmdashlines 7 16
24 1627 112315) O closer linguistic relationship to material in the Hebrew Bible are
gt dt lt ilmmdashldquoassembly o El the godsrdquo (DULA 1152 see KU 115II 7 11) dr lt il mdashldquoassem-
bly (circle) o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 See KU 115III19 1397 116216 18718) dr bnlt il mdashldquoassembly (circle) o the sons o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 14025 33ndash34) dr dtšmmmdashldquoassembly (circle) o those o heavenrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 110I 3 5) drlt il wp∆r bgt lmdashldquothe assembly (circle) o El and the assembly o Baalrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see
KU 1397 16216 18718) Tis list hardly exhausts the parallels between the dwelling
place o El which served as the meeting place o the divine council at Ugarit and the abode
o Yahweh
7 Another attempt to avoid taking Psalm 82 at ace value is to argue that reer-
ences to Moses as lt ĕlōhicircm (Exodus 416 71) Israel as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo (Exodus 423 Hosea111) and Israelites as ldquosons o the living Godrdquo (Hosea 110 [Hebrews 21]) mean that the
lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are human rulers namely the elders o Israel None o these reerences
undoes the act that the council o lt ĕlōhicircm is a heavenly one in Psalms 82 and 89 In act
I have never actually seen any publication objecting to the lt ĕlōhicircm as divine beings that
includes discussion o Psalm 89 A ull answer as to the import and meaning o Moses as
sage is any help or that view actually Exodus 211ndash6 recounts the pro-
cedure undertaken when a slave chooses to stay with his master ratherthan go ree Part o that procedure reads ldquothen his master shall bring
him to lt ĕlōhicircm and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost
And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl and he shall
be his slave oreverrdquo Te word lt ĕlōhicircm here can easily be translated
as a singular (ldquoGodrdquo) and ofen is making an appeal to this text as a
plural tenuous However it seems quite plausible that the final editor
o Deuteronomy thought it might be a plural or deemed that it could
be understood as a plural because in the parallel passage to Exodus
211ndash6 ound in Deuteronomy 1515ndash18 the reerence to bringing the
slave beore lt ĕlōhicircm has been removed A removal only makes sense
i a later editor in the wake o Israelrsquos punishment or ollowing afer
other gods thought that lt ĕlōhicircm might sound theologically inappro-
priate I the word was understood as reerring to plural humans there
would be no such need to remove it O course an original Mosaic
text in Deuteronomy 15 may simply have omitted this detail or someindiscernible reason Tat option o course would lend no weight to
the human lt ĕlōhicircm view since lt ĕlōhicircm can easily be translated as sin-
gular in the passage
Exodus 227ndash9 (Hebrew vv 6ndash8) is also interesting but lends no
credence to the argument that plural lt ĕlōhicircm reers to humans
lt ĕlōhicircm and human beings as Godrsquos children requires a good deal o background discus-
sion related to the divine council Te oundational reason is that in the Israelite worldview
the earthly amily o the Most High was originally intended to dwell where the Most High
and the heavenly council dwelt Hence the explicit and requent overlap between Israelite
and wider Canaanite material with respect to descriptions o Yahwehrsquos abode his council
divine Sonship (in heaven and on earth) and council activity Te bibliography related to
these themes is copious though not synthesized See or example Richard J Clifford TeCosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old estament (Cambridge MA Harvard University
Press 1972) Brendan Byrne ldquoSons o GodrdquomdashldquoSeed o Abrahamrdquo A Study o the Idea othe Sonship o God o All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Rome Biblical
Institute Press 1979) Harald Rieseneld ldquoSons o God and Ecclesia An Intertestamental
Analysisrdquo in Renewing the Judeo-Christian Wellsprings ed Val A McInnes (New YorkCrossroad 1987) 89ndash104 James abor ldquoFirstborn o Many Brothers A Pauline Notion o
Apotheosisrdquo in Society o Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (Atlanta Scholars Press
1984) 295ndash303 Devorah Dimant ldquoMen as Angels Te Sel-Image o the Qumran Com-
munityrdquo in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East ed Adele Berlin (Bethesda MD
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
5 Te God o Israel did at times make himsel known to people
in the Old estament in ways detectable to the human sense includ-ing the corporeal
6 Te Mormon understanding o God is not inherently polytheis-
tic It is polytheistic i Latter-day Saints insist that all lt ĕlōhicircm are species-
equals which depends in part on how they parse the divine council
7 ldquoSpirit beingsrdquo such as the plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are cre-
ated and thereore made o something Invisibility does not mean that
the invisible thing is immaterial All things created were made and
are made o some orm o matter whether we can detect it by our
sense or science or not o deny this would mean that ldquospirit beingsrdquo
are not part o the created order
8 Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 82 in John 10 is no argument or his
deity (or rebuttal to the charge o blasphemy) i it is assumed that Jesus
thought the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were humans
B Position statements on Psalm 82 and the divine council with whichmany Latter-day Saints would probably disagree and with which manyevangelicals would likely agree
1 Te plural lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are ontologically inerior to
Yahweh Tat is Yahweh the God o Israel was considered ontologi-
cally unique in Israelite thought Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other
lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh
2 Te terms henotheism polytheism and monolatry are inade-quate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members
o his council
3 Yahweh is neither a son o El (Elyon) nor a god distinct rom
El (Elyon) in Israelite religion
4 Te notion o a godhead does not derive rom Hellenistic phi-
losophy Its antecedents are Israelite and Jewish
5 Yahweh was thereore not ldquobirthedrdquo into existence by the
ldquoolden godsrdquo described in Ugaritic texts Yahweh had no parent and
no beginning
6 Corporeal appearances o deity are not evidence that God the
7 Te concept o the image o God does not advance the idea
that there is a genus equation o God and humankind or that God wasonce a man
8 Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 82 in John 10 is not to be interpreted
as though Jesus thought the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were humans and so
it provides no basis or a genus equation o God and humankind
While it would be true in many respects that the position statements
o group A are undamental to arguing against certain Latter-day
Saint ideas addressed in group B my strategy or most o this paper
will be to explain statements rom both groups in tandem through a
series o our topics
opic 1 Psalm 82 Gods or Men (items A1 A3)
Evangelical objections to divine plurality in Psalms usually take
the orm o casting the plural lt ĕlōhicircm o certain passages as humanbeings It is convenient at this point to reerence several verses in
Psalm 82
1 God (lt ĕlōhicircm) stands in the divine council in the midst
o the gods (lt ĕlōhicircm) he passes judgment
6 I said ldquoyou are gods (lt ĕlōhicircm) sons o the Most High all
o yourdquo 7 Tereore you shall die as humans do and you shall
all as one o the princes
A ew observations will suffice Notice that in verse one the first
lt ĕlōhicircm must point to a singular being the God o Israel due to gram-
matical agreement with singular verb orms in the verse (niszligszligab and
yišpōdagger) Te second lt ĕlōhicircm must be plural because o the preposition
that precedes it Appeals to the rinity here are indeensible since the
plural lt ĕlōhicircm are being judged or their corruption in the rest o the2 It is also at times asserted that these lt ĕlōhicircm are only idols For a reutation o
that view see Michael S Heiser ldquoMonotheism Polytheism Monolatry or Henothe-
ism oward an Assessment o Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Biblerdquo Bulletin o BiblicalResearch (orthcoming)
psalm and sentenced to ldquodie like humankindrdquo851972 In verse six the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm o 821 are reerred to once again as lt ĕlōhicircm but are urtheridentified as sons o the God o Israel (the Most High)
Te power o the ldquodivine beingsrdquo interpretation o the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm in this psalm derives rom both internal and external consid-
erations With respect to the ormer i the lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 are
humans why are they sentenced to die ldquolike humansrdquo Tis sounds as
awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark Te point
o verse 6 is that in response to their corruption the lt ĕlōhicircm will be
stripped o their immortality at Godrsquos discretion and die as humans
die Second what is the scriptural basis or the idea that this psalm
has God presiding over a council o humans that governs the nations
o the earth At no time in the Hebrew Bible did Israelrsquos elders ever
have jurisdiction over all the nations o the earth In act other divine
council texts such as Deuteronomy 328ndash9 have the situation exactly
oppositemdashIsrael was separated rom the nations to be Godrsquos personal
possession and the ocus o his ruleLastly and most tellingly Psalm 895ndash8 (Hebrew vv 6ndash9) renders
a human interpretation or the plural lt ĕlōhicircm nonsensical since this
unambiguously parallel text clearly states that the council o the sons
o God is in heaven not on earth
5 Let the heavens praise your wonders O L983151983154983140 your
aithulness in the assembly o the holy ones 6 For who in the
3 Plural language like that ound in Genesis 126 322 117 is most coherently
interpreted as exhortations or statements made by the singular God to his council mem-
bers an interpretive option that is not novel I these passages were the only passages that
evinced divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible and there were no explicit reerences to a
divine council one could perhaps iner the Godhead but this would be reading the New
estament back into the Old
4 Fuller deenses o this view accompanied by bibliographic sources are ound
in Michael S Heiser ldquoDeuteronomy 328 and the Sons o Godrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 158
(JanuaryndashMarch 2001) 52ndash74 Willem S Prinsloo ldquoPsalm 82 Once Again Gods or
Menrdquo Biblica 762 (1995) 219ndash28 and Lowell K Handy ldquoSounds Words and Meaningsin Psalm 82rdquo Journal or the Study o the Old estament 1547 (1990) 51ndash66 Cyrus H
Gordon ldquoםיהל in Its Reputed Meaning o Rulers Judgesrdquo Journal o Biblical Literature54 (1935) 139ndash44
5 Te terms heavens and aithulness in these verses may be best understood
abstractly as ldquoheavenly onesrdquo and ldquoaithul onesrdquo
skies ( intašša˙aq) can be compared to the L983151983154983140 Who among
the sons o God (bi intnecirc lt ēlicircm) is like the L983151983154983140 7 the ear-some God in the council o the holy ones great and awesome
above all who are around him 8 O L983151983154983140 God o hosts who
is as powerul as you are O L983151983154983140 with your aithulness all
around you (Psalm 895ndash8)
Externally it is well known among Semitists and scholars o the
Hebrew Bible that the phrases bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc
hālt ĕlōhicircm have certifiable linguistic counterparts in Ugaritic textsreerring to a council o gods under El and that the meaning o these
phrases in the Hebrew Bible points to divine beings Tose who work
outside the primary texts are ofen unaware o these data and thus ail
to discern their significance
Evangelical scholars have commonly appealed to Exodus 216 and
228ndash9 as proo that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are humans Neither pas-
6 Tere are several general phrases or a council o gods that provide a conceptual
parallel with the Hebrew Bible p∆r lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o El the godsrdquo (Gregorio Del
Olmo Lete and Joaquiacuten Sanmartiacuten ldquo p∆rrdquo in A Dictionary o the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic radition [hereafer DULA ] 2669 Keilalphabetische exte aus Ugarit [here-
afer KU] 14729 111828 11489 p∆r bn lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o the sons o El the godsrdquo
(DULA 2669 KU 14III14) p∆r kkbmmdashldquothe assembly o the starsrdquo (DULA 2670
KU 110I4 the phrase is parallel to bn lt il in the same text see Job 387ndash8) mp∆rt bnlt il mdashldquothe assembly o the godsrdquo (DULA 2566 see KU 1653 c 14025 42 along with
bn lt il in 14033 41 and its reconstruction in parallel lines in the same textmdashlines 7 16
24 1627 112315) O closer linguistic relationship to material in the Hebrew Bible are
gt dt lt ilmmdashldquoassembly o El the godsrdquo (DULA 1152 see KU 115II 7 11) dr lt il mdashldquoassem-
bly (circle) o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 See KU 115III19 1397 116216 18718) dr bnlt il mdashldquoassembly (circle) o the sons o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 14025 33ndash34) dr dtšmmmdashldquoassembly (circle) o those o heavenrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 110I 3 5) drlt il wp∆r bgt lmdashldquothe assembly (circle) o El and the assembly o Baalrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see
KU 1397 16216 18718) Tis list hardly exhausts the parallels between the dwelling
place o El which served as the meeting place o the divine council at Ugarit and the abode
o Yahweh
7 Another attempt to avoid taking Psalm 82 at ace value is to argue that reer-
ences to Moses as lt ĕlōhicircm (Exodus 416 71) Israel as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo (Exodus 423 Hosea111) and Israelites as ldquosons o the living Godrdquo (Hosea 110 [Hebrews 21]) mean that the
lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are human rulers namely the elders o Israel None o these reerences
undoes the act that the council o lt ĕlōhicircm is a heavenly one in Psalms 82 and 89 In act
I have never actually seen any publication objecting to the lt ĕlōhicircm as divine beings that
includes discussion o Psalm 89 A ull answer as to the import and meaning o Moses as
sage is any help or that view actually Exodus 211ndash6 recounts the pro-
cedure undertaken when a slave chooses to stay with his master ratherthan go ree Part o that procedure reads ldquothen his master shall bring
him to lt ĕlōhicircm and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost
And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl and he shall
be his slave oreverrdquo Te word lt ĕlōhicircm here can easily be translated
as a singular (ldquoGodrdquo) and ofen is making an appeal to this text as a
plural tenuous However it seems quite plausible that the final editor
o Deuteronomy thought it might be a plural or deemed that it could
be understood as a plural because in the parallel passage to Exodus
211ndash6 ound in Deuteronomy 1515ndash18 the reerence to bringing the
slave beore lt ĕlōhicircm has been removed A removal only makes sense
i a later editor in the wake o Israelrsquos punishment or ollowing afer
other gods thought that lt ĕlōhicircm might sound theologically inappro-
priate I the word was understood as reerring to plural humans there
would be no such need to remove it O course an original Mosaic
text in Deuteronomy 15 may simply have omitted this detail or someindiscernible reason Tat option o course would lend no weight to
the human lt ĕlōhicircm view since lt ĕlōhicircm can easily be translated as sin-
gular in the passage
Exodus 227ndash9 (Hebrew vv 6ndash8) is also interesting but lends no
credence to the argument that plural lt ĕlōhicircm reers to humans
lt ĕlōhicircm and human beings as Godrsquos children requires a good deal o background discus-
sion related to the divine council Te oundational reason is that in the Israelite worldview
the earthly amily o the Most High was originally intended to dwell where the Most High
and the heavenly council dwelt Hence the explicit and requent overlap between Israelite
and wider Canaanite material with respect to descriptions o Yahwehrsquos abode his council
divine Sonship (in heaven and on earth) and council activity Te bibliography related to
these themes is copious though not synthesized See or example Richard J Clifford TeCosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old estament (Cambridge MA Harvard University
Press 1972) Brendan Byrne ldquoSons o GodrdquomdashldquoSeed o Abrahamrdquo A Study o the Idea othe Sonship o God o All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Rome Biblical
Institute Press 1979) Harald Rieseneld ldquoSons o God and Ecclesia An Intertestamental
Analysisrdquo in Renewing the Judeo-Christian Wellsprings ed Val A McInnes (New YorkCrossroad 1987) 89ndash104 James abor ldquoFirstborn o Many Brothers A Pauline Notion o
Apotheosisrdquo in Society o Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (Atlanta Scholars Press
1984) 295ndash303 Devorah Dimant ldquoMen as Angels Te Sel-Image o the Qumran Com-
munityrdquo in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East ed Adele Berlin (Bethesda MD
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
7 Te concept o the image o God does not advance the idea
that there is a genus equation o God and humankind or that God wasonce a man
8 Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 82 in John 10 is not to be interpreted
as though Jesus thought the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were humans and so
it provides no basis or a genus equation o God and humankind
While it would be true in many respects that the position statements
o group A are undamental to arguing against certain Latter-day
Saint ideas addressed in group B my strategy or most o this paper
will be to explain statements rom both groups in tandem through a
series o our topics
opic 1 Psalm 82 Gods or Men (items A1 A3)
Evangelical objections to divine plurality in Psalms usually take
the orm o casting the plural lt ĕlōhicircm o certain passages as humanbeings It is convenient at this point to reerence several verses in
Psalm 82
1 God (lt ĕlōhicircm) stands in the divine council in the midst
o the gods (lt ĕlōhicircm) he passes judgment
6 I said ldquoyou are gods (lt ĕlōhicircm) sons o the Most High all
o yourdquo 7 Tereore you shall die as humans do and you shall
all as one o the princes
A ew observations will suffice Notice that in verse one the first
lt ĕlōhicircm must point to a singular being the God o Israel due to gram-
matical agreement with singular verb orms in the verse (niszligszligab and
yišpōdagger) Te second lt ĕlōhicircm must be plural because o the preposition
that precedes it Appeals to the rinity here are indeensible since the
plural lt ĕlōhicircm are being judged or their corruption in the rest o the2 It is also at times asserted that these lt ĕlōhicircm are only idols For a reutation o
that view see Michael S Heiser ldquoMonotheism Polytheism Monolatry or Henothe-
ism oward an Assessment o Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Biblerdquo Bulletin o BiblicalResearch (orthcoming)
psalm and sentenced to ldquodie like humankindrdquo851972 In verse six the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm o 821 are reerred to once again as lt ĕlōhicircm but are urtheridentified as sons o the God o Israel (the Most High)
Te power o the ldquodivine beingsrdquo interpretation o the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm in this psalm derives rom both internal and external consid-
erations With respect to the ormer i the lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 are
humans why are they sentenced to die ldquolike humansrdquo Tis sounds as
awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark Te point
o verse 6 is that in response to their corruption the lt ĕlōhicircm will be
stripped o their immortality at Godrsquos discretion and die as humans
die Second what is the scriptural basis or the idea that this psalm
has God presiding over a council o humans that governs the nations
o the earth At no time in the Hebrew Bible did Israelrsquos elders ever
have jurisdiction over all the nations o the earth In act other divine
council texts such as Deuteronomy 328ndash9 have the situation exactly
oppositemdashIsrael was separated rom the nations to be Godrsquos personal
possession and the ocus o his ruleLastly and most tellingly Psalm 895ndash8 (Hebrew vv 6ndash9) renders
a human interpretation or the plural lt ĕlōhicircm nonsensical since this
unambiguously parallel text clearly states that the council o the sons
o God is in heaven not on earth
5 Let the heavens praise your wonders O L983151983154983140 your
aithulness in the assembly o the holy ones 6 For who in the
3 Plural language like that ound in Genesis 126 322 117 is most coherently
interpreted as exhortations or statements made by the singular God to his council mem-
bers an interpretive option that is not novel I these passages were the only passages that
evinced divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible and there were no explicit reerences to a
divine council one could perhaps iner the Godhead but this would be reading the New
estament back into the Old
4 Fuller deenses o this view accompanied by bibliographic sources are ound
in Michael S Heiser ldquoDeuteronomy 328 and the Sons o Godrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 158
(JanuaryndashMarch 2001) 52ndash74 Willem S Prinsloo ldquoPsalm 82 Once Again Gods or
Menrdquo Biblica 762 (1995) 219ndash28 and Lowell K Handy ldquoSounds Words and Meaningsin Psalm 82rdquo Journal or the Study o the Old estament 1547 (1990) 51ndash66 Cyrus H
Gordon ldquoםיהל in Its Reputed Meaning o Rulers Judgesrdquo Journal o Biblical Literature54 (1935) 139ndash44
5 Te terms heavens and aithulness in these verses may be best understood
abstractly as ldquoheavenly onesrdquo and ldquoaithul onesrdquo
skies ( intašša˙aq) can be compared to the L983151983154983140 Who among
the sons o God (bi intnecirc lt ēlicircm) is like the L983151983154983140 7 the ear-some God in the council o the holy ones great and awesome
above all who are around him 8 O L983151983154983140 God o hosts who
is as powerul as you are O L983151983154983140 with your aithulness all
around you (Psalm 895ndash8)
Externally it is well known among Semitists and scholars o the
Hebrew Bible that the phrases bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc
hālt ĕlōhicircm have certifiable linguistic counterparts in Ugaritic textsreerring to a council o gods under El and that the meaning o these
phrases in the Hebrew Bible points to divine beings Tose who work
outside the primary texts are ofen unaware o these data and thus ail
to discern their significance
Evangelical scholars have commonly appealed to Exodus 216 and
228ndash9 as proo that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are humans Neither pas-
6 Tere are several general phrases or a council o gods that provide a conceptual
parallel with the Hebrew Bible p∆r lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o El the godsrdquo (Gregorio Del
Olmo Lete and Joaquiacuten Sanmartiacuten ldquo p∆rrdquo in A Dictionary o the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic radition [hereafer DULA ] 2669 Keilalphabetische exte aus Ugarit [here-
afer KU] 14729 111828 11489 p∆r bn lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o the sons o El the godsrdquo
(DULA 2669 KU 14III14) p∆r kkbmmdashldquothe assembly o the starsrdquo (DULA 2670
KU 110I4 the phrase is parallel to bn lt il in the same text see Job 387ndash8) mp∆rt bnlt il mdashldquothe assembly o the godsrdquo (DULA 2566 see KU 1653 c 14025 42 along with
bn lt il in 14033 41 and its reconstruction in parallel lines in the same textmdashlines 7 16
24 1627 112315) O closer linguistic relationship to material in the Hebrew Bible are
gt dt lt ilmmdashldquoassembly o El the godsrdquo (DULA 1152 see KU 115II 7 11) dr lt il mdashldquoassem-
bly (circle) o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 See KU 115III19 1397 116216 18718) dr bnlt il mdashldquoassembly (circle) o the sons o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 14025 33ndash34) dr dtšmmmdashldquoassembly (circle) o those o heavenrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 110I 3 5) drlt il wp∆r bgt lmdashldquothe assembly (circle) o El and the assembly o Baalrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see
KU 1397 16216 18718) Tis list hardly exhausts the parallels between the dwelling
place o El which served as the meeting place o the divine council at Ugarit and the abode
o Yahweh
7 Another attempt to avoid taking Psalm 82 at ace value is to argue that reer-
ences to Moses as lt ĕlōhicircm (Exodus 416 71) Israel as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo (Exodus 423 Hosea111) and Israelites as ldquosons o the living Godrdquo (Hosea 110 [Hebrews 21]) mean that the
lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are human rulers namely the elders o Israel None o these reerences
undoes the act that the council o lt ĕlōhicircm is a heavenly one in Psalms 82 and 89 In act
I have never actually seen any publication objecting to the lt ĕlōhicircm as divine beings that
includes discussion o Psalm 89 A ull answer as to the import and meaning o Moses as
sage is any help or that view actually Exodus 211ndash6 recounts the pro-
cedure undertaken when a slave chooses to stay with his master ratherthan go ree Part o that procedure reads ldquothen his master shall bring
him to lt ĕlōhicircm and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost
And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl and he shall
be his slave oreverrdquo Te word lt ĕlōhicircm here can easily be translated
as a singular (ldquoGodrdquo) and ofen is making an appeal to this text as a
plural tenuous However it seems quite plausible that the final editor
o Deuteronomy thought it might be a plural or deemed that it could
be understood as a plural because in the parallel passage to Exodus
211ndash6 ound in Deuteronomy 1515ndash18 the reerence to bringing the
slave beore lt ĕlōhicircm has been removed A removal only makes sense
i a later editor in the wake o Israelrsquos punishment or ollowing afer
other gods thought that lt ĕlōhicircm might sound theologically inappro-
priate I the word was understood as reerring to plural humans there
would be no such need to remove it O course an original Mosaic
text in Deuteronomy 15 may simply have omitted this detail or someindiscernible reason Tat option o course would lend no weight to
the human lt ĕlōhicircm view since lt ĕlōhicircm can easily be translated as sin-
gular in the passage
Exodus 227ndash9 (Hebrew vv 6ndash8) is also interesting but lends no
credence to the argument that plural lt ĕlōhicircm reers to humans
lt ĕlōhicircm and human beings as Godrsquos children requires a good deal o background discus-
sion related to the divine council Te oundational reason is that in the Israelite worldview
the earthly amily o the Most High was originally intended to dwell where the Most High
and the heavenly council dwelt Hence the explicit and requent overlap between Israelite
and wider Canaanite material with respect to descriptions o Yahwehrsquos abode his council
divine Sonship (in heaven and on earth) and council activity Te bibliography related to
these themes is copious though not synthesized See or example Richard J Clifford TeCosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old estament (Cambridge MA Harvard University
Press 1972) Brendan Byrne ldquoSons o GodrdquomdashldquoSeed o Abrahamrdquo A Study o the Idea othe Sonship o God o All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Rome Biblical
Institute Press 1979) Harald Rieseneld ldquoSons o God and Ecclesia An Intertestamental
Analysisrdquo in Renewing the Judeo-Christian Wellsprings ed Val A McInnes (New YorkCrossroad 1987) 89ndash104 James abor ldquoFirstborn o Many Brothers A Pauline Notion o
Apotheosisrdquo in Society o Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (Atlanta Scholars Press
1984) 295ndash303 Devorah Dimant ldquoMen as Angels Te Sel-Image o the Qumran Com-
munityrdquo in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East ed Adele Berlin (Bethesda MD
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
psalm and sentenced to ldquodie like humankindrdquo851972 In verse six the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm o 821 are reerred to once again as lt ĕlōhicircm but are urtheridentified as sons o the God o Israel (the Most High)
Te power o the ldquodivine beingsrdquo interpretation o the plural
lt ĕlōhicircm in this psalm derives rom both internal and external consid-
erations With respect to the ormer i the lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 are
humans why are they sentenced to die ldquolike humansrdquo Tis sounds as
awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark Te point
o verse 6 is that in response to their corruption the lt ĕlōhicircm will be
stripped o their immortality at Godrsquos discretion and die as humans
die Second what is the scriptural basis or the idea that this psalm
has God presiding over a council o humans that governs the nations
o the earth At no time in the Hebrew Bible did Israelrsquos elders ever
have jurisdiction over all the nations o the earth In act other divine
council texts such as Deuteronomy 328ndash9 have the situation exactly
oppositemdashIsrael was separated rom the nations to be Godrsquos personal
possession and the ocus o his ruleLastly and most tellingly Psalm 895ndash8 (Hebrew vv 6ndash9) renders
a human interpretation or the plural lt ĕlōhicircm nonsensical since this
unambiguously parallel text clearly states that the council o the sons
o God is in heaven not on earth
5 Let the heavens praise your wonders O L983151983154983140 your
aithulness in the assembly o the holy ones 6 For who in the
3 Plural language like that ound in Genesis 126 322 117 is most coherently
interpreted as exhortations or statements made by the singular God to his council mem-
bers an interpretive option that is not novel I these passages were the only passages that
evinced divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible and there were no explicit reerences to a
divine council one could perhaps iner the Godhead but this would be reading the New
estament back into the Old
4 Fuller deenses o this view accompanied by bibliographic sources are ound
in Michael S Heiser ldquoDeuteronomy 328 and the Sons o Godrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 158
(JanuaryndashMarch 2001) 52ndash74 Willem S Prinsloo ldquoPsalm 82 Once Again Gods or
Menrdquo Biblica 762 (1995) 219ndash28 and Lowell K Handy ldquoSounds Words and Meaningsin Psalm 82rdquo Journal or the Study o the Old estament 1547 (1990) 51ndash66 Cyrus H
Gordon ldquoםיהל in Its Reputed Meaning o Rulers Judgesrdquo Journal o Biblical Literature54 (1935) 139ndash44
5 Te terms heavens and aithulness in these verses may be best understood
abstractly as ldquoheavenly onesrdquo and ldquoaithul onesrdquo
skies ( intašša˙aq) can be compared to the L983151983154983140 Who among
the sons o God (bi intnecirc lt ēlicircm) is like the L983151983154983140 7 the ear-some God in the council o the holy ones great and awesome
above all who are around him 8 O L983151983154983140 God o hosts who
is as powerul as you are O L983151983154983140 with your aithulness all
around you (Psalm 895ndash8)
Externally it is well known among Semitists and scholars o the
Hebrew Bible that the phrases bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc
hālt ĕlōhicircm have certifiable linguistic counterparts in Ugaritic textsreerring to a council o gods under El and that the meaning o these
phrases in the Hebrew Bible points to divine beings Tose who work
outside the primary texts are ofen unaware o these data and thus ail
to discern their significance
Evangelical scholars have commonly appealed to Exodus 216 and
228ndash9 as proo that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are humans Neither pas-
6 Tere are several general phrases or a council o gods that provide a conceptual
parallel with the Hebrew Bible p∆r lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o El the godsrdquo (Gregorio Del
Olmo Lete and Joaquiacuten Sanmartiacuten ldquo p∆rrdquo in A Dictionary o the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic radition [hereafer DULA ] 2669 Keilalphabetische exte aus Ugarit [here-
afer KU] 14729 111828 11489 p∆r bn lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o the sons o El the godsrdquo
(DULA 2669 KU 14III14) p∆r kkbmmdashldquothe assembly o the starsrdquo (DULA 2670
KU 110I4 the phrase is parallel to bn lt il in the same text see Job 387ndash8) mp∆rt bnlt il mdashldquothe assembly o the godsrdquo (DULA 2566 see KU 1653 c 14025 42 along with
bn lt il in 14033 41 and its reconstruction in parallel lines in the same textmdashlines 7 16
24 1627 112315) O closer linguistic relationship to material in the Hebrew Bible are
gt dt lt ilmmdashldquoassembly o El the godsrdquo (DULA 1152 see KU 115II 7 11) dr lt il mdashldquoassem-
bly (circle) o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 See KU 115III19 1397 116216 18718) dr bnlt il mdashldquoassembly (circle) o the sons o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 14025 33ndash34) dr dtšmmmdashldquoassembly (circle) o those o heavenrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 110I 3 5) drlt il wp∆r bgt lmdashldquothe assembly (circle) o El and the assembly o Baalrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see
KU 1397 16216 18718) Tis list hardly exhausts the parallels between the dwelling
place o El which served as the meeting place o the divine council at Ugarit and the abode
o Yahweh
7 Another attempt to avoid taking Psalm 82 at ace value is to argue that reer-
ences to Moses as lt ĕlōhicircm (Exodus 416 71) Israel as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo (Exodus 423 Hosea111) and Israelites as ldquosons o the living Godrdquo (Hosea 110 [Hebrews 21]) mean that the
lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are human rulers namely the elders o Israel None o these reerences
undoes the act that the council o lt ĕlōhicircm is a heavenly one in Psalms 82 and 89 In act
I have never actually seen any publication objecting to the lt ĕlōhicircm as divine beings that
includes discussion o Psalm 89 A ull answer as to the import and meaning o Moses as
sage is any help or that view actually Exodus 211ndash6 recounts the pro-
cedure undertaken when a slave chooses to stay with his master ratherthan go ree Part o that procedure reads ldquothen his master shall bring
him to lt ĕlōhicircm and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost
And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl and he shall
be his slave oreverrdquo Te word lt ĕlōhicircm here can easily be translated
as a singular (ldquoGodrdquo) and ofen is making an appeal to this text as a
plural tenuous However it seems quite plausible that the final editor
o Deuteronomy thought it might be a plural or deemed that it could
be understood as a plural because in the parallel passage to Exodus
211ndash6 ound in Deuteronomy 1515ndash18 the reerence to bringing the
slave beore lt ĕlōhicircm has been removed A removal only makes sense
i a later editor in the wake o Israelrsquos punishment or ollowing afer
other gods thought that lt ĕlōhicircm might sound theologically inappro-
priate I the word was understood as reerring to plural humans there
would be no such need to remove it O course an original Mosaic
text in Deuteronomy 15 may simply have omitted this detail or someindiscernible reason Tat option o course would lend no weight to
the human lt ĕlōhicircm view since lt ĕlōhicircm can easily be translated as sin-
gular in the passage
Exodus 227ndash9 (Hebrew vv 6ndash8) is also interesting but lends no
credence to the argument that plural lt ĕlōhicircm reers to humans
lt ĕlōhicircm and human beings as Godrsquos children requires a good deal o background discus-
sion related to the divine council Te oundational reason is that in the Israelite worldview
the earthly amily o the Most High was originally intended to dwell where the Most High
and the heavenly council dwelt Hence the explicit and requent overlap between Israelite
and wider Canaanite material with respect to descriptions o Yahwehrsquos abode his council
divine Sonship (in heaven and on earth) and council activity Te bibliography related to
these themes is copious though not synthesized See or example Richard J Clifford TeCosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old estament (Cambridge MA Harvard University
Press 1972) Brendan Byrne ldquoSons o GodrdquomdashldquoSeed o Abrahamrdquo A Study o the Idea othe Sonship o God o All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Rome Biblical
Institute Press 1979) Harald Rieseneld ldquoSons o God and Ecclesia An Intertestamental
Analysisrdquo in Renewing the Judeo-Christian Wellsprings ed Val A McInnes (New YorkCrossroad 1987) 89ndash104 James abor ldquoFirstborn o Many Brothers A Pauline Notion o
Apotheosisrdquo in Society o Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (Atlanta Scholars Press
1984) 295ndash303 Devorah Dimant ldquoMen as Angels Te Sel-Image o the Qumran Com-
munityrdquo in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East ed Adele Berlin (Bethesda MD
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
skies ( intašša˙aq) can be compared to the L983151983154983140 Who among
the sons o God (bi intnecirc lt ēlicircm) is like the L983151983154983140 7 the ear-some God in the council o the holy ones great and awesome
above all who are around him 8 O L983151983154983140 God o hosts who
is as powerul as you are O L983151983154983140 with your aithulness all
around you (Psalm 895ndash8)
Externally it is well known among Semitists and scholars o the
Hebrew Bible that the phrases bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc
hālt ĕlōhicircm have certifiable linguistic counterparts in Ugaritic textsreerring to a council o gods under El and that the meaning o these
phrases in the Hebrew Bible points to divine beings Tose who work
outside the primary texts are ofen unaware o these data and thus ail
to discern their significance
Evangelical scholars have commonly appealed to Exodus 216 and
228ndash9 as proo that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are humans Neither pas-
6 Tere are several general phrases or a council o gods that provide a conceptual
parallel with the Hebrew Bible p∆r lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o El the godsrdquo (Gregorio Del
Olmo Lete and Joaquiacuten Sanmartiacuten ldquo p∆rrdquo in A Dictionary o the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic radition [hereafer DULA ] 2669 Keilalphabetische exte aus Ugarit [here-
afer KU] 14729 111828 11489 p∆r bn lt ilmmdashldquothe assembly o the sons o El the godsrdquo
(DULA 2669 KU 14III14) p∆r kkbmmdashldquothe assembly o the starsrdquo (DULA 2670
KU 110I4 the phrase is parallel to bn lt il in the same text see Job 387ndash8) mp∆rt bnlt il mdashldquothe assembly o the godsrdquo (DULA 2566 see KU 1653 c 14025 42 along with
bn lt il in 14033 41 and its reconstruction in parallel lines in the same textmdashlines 7 16
24 1627 112315) O closer linguistic relationship to material in the Hebrew Bible are
gt dt lt ilmmdashldquoassembly o El the godsrdquo (DULA 1152 see KU 115II 7 11) dr lt il mdashldquoassem-
bly (circle) o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 See KU 115III19 1397 116216 18718) dr bnlt il mdashldquoassembly (circle) o the sons o Elrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 14025 33ndash34) dr dtšmmmdashldquoassembly (circle) o those o heavenrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see KU 110I 3 5) drlt il wp∆r bgt lmdashldquothe assembly (circle) o El and the assembly o Baalrdquo (DULA 1279ndash80 see
KU 1397 16216 18718) Tis list hardly exhausts the parallels between the dwelling
place o El which served as the meeting place o the divine council at Ugarit and the abode
o Yahweh
7 Another attempt to avoid taking Psalm 82 at ace value is to argue that reer-
ences to Moses as lt ĕlōhicircm (Exodus 416 71) Israel as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo (Exodus 423 Hosea111) and Israelites as ldquosons o the living Godrdquo (Hosea 110 [Hebrews 21]) mean that the
lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 are human rulers namely the elders o Israel None o these reerences
undoes the act that the council o lt ĕlōhicircm is a heavenly one in Psalms 82 and 89 In act
I have never actually seen any publication objecting to the lt ĕlōhicircm as divine beings that
includes discussion o Psalm 89 A ull answer as to the import and meaning o Moses as
sage is any help or that view actually Exodus 211ndash6 recounts the pro-
cedure undertaken when a slave chooses to stay with his master ratherthan go ree Part o that procedure reads ldquothen his master shall bring
him to lt ĕlōhicircm and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost
And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl and he shall
be his slave oreverrdquo Te word lt ĕlōhicircm here can easily be translated
as a singular (ldquoGodrdquo) and ofen is making an appeal to this text as a
plural tenuous However it seems quite plausible that the final editor
o Deuteronomy thought it might be a plural or deemed that it could
be understood as a plural because in the parallel passage to Exodus
211ndash6 ound in Deuteronomy 1515ndash18 the reerence to bringing the
slave beore lt ĕlōhicircm has been removed A removal only makes sense
i a later editor in the wake o Israelrsquos punishment or ollowing afer
other gods thought that lt ĕlōhicircm might sound theologically inappro-
priate I the word was understood as reerring to plural humans there
would be no such need to remove it O course an original Mosaic
text in Deuteronomy 15 may simply have omitted this detail or someindiscernible reason Tat option o course would lend no weight to
the human lt ĕlōhicircm view since lt ĕlōhicircm can easily be translated as sin-
gular in the passage
Exodus 227ndash9 (Hebrew vv 6ndash8) is also interesting but lends no
credence to the argument that plural lt ĕlōhicircm reers to humans
lt ĕlōhicircm and human beings as Godrsquos children requires a good deal o background discus-
sion related to the divine council Te oundational reason is that in the Israelite worldview
the earthly amily o the Most High was originally intended to dwell where the Most High
and the heavenly council dwelt Hence the explicit and requent overlap between Israelite
and wider Canaanite material with respect to descriptions o Yahwehrsquos abode his council
divine Sonship (in heaven and on earth) and council activity Te bibliography related to
these themes is copious though not synthesized See or example Richard J Clifford TeCosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old estament (Cambridge MA Harvard University
Press 1972) Brendan Byrne ldquoSons o GodrdquomdashldquoSeed o Abrahamrdquo A Study o the Idea othe Sonship o God o All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Rome Biblical
Institute Press 1979) Harald Rieseneld ldquoSons o God and Ecclesia An Intertestamental
Analysisrdquo in Renewing the Judeo-Christian Wellsprings ed Val A McInnes (New YorkCrossroad 1987) 89ndash104 James abor ldquoFirstborn o Many Brothers A Pauline Notion o
Apotheosisrdquo in Society o Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (Atlanta Scholars Press
1984) 295ndash303 Devorah Dimant ldquoMen as Angels Te Sel-Image o the Qumran Com-
munityrdquo in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East ed Adele Berlin (Bethesda MD
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
sage is any help or that view actually Exodus 211ndash6 recounts the pro-
cedure undertaken when a slave chooses to stay with his master ratherthan go ree Part o that procedure reads ldquothen his master shall bring
him to lt ĕlōhicircm and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost
And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl and he shall
be his slave oreverrdquo Te word lt ĕlōhicircm here can easily be translated
as a singular (ldquoGodrdquo) and ofen is making an appeal to this text as a
plural tenuous However it seems quite plausible that the final editor
o Deuteronomy thought it might be a plural or deemed that it could
be understood as a plural because in the parallel passage to Exodus
211ndash6 ound in Deuteronomy 1515ndash18 the reerence to bringing the
slave beore lt ĕlōhicircm has been removed A removal only makes sense
i a later editor in the wake o Israelrsquos punishment or ollowing afer
other gods thought that lt ĕlōhicircm might sound theologically inappro-
priate I the word was understood as reerring to plural humans there
would be no such need to remove it O course an original Mosaic
text in Deuteronomy 15 may simply have omitted this detail or someindiscernible reason Tat option o course would lend no weight to
the human lt ĕlōhicircm view since lt ĕlōhicircm can easily be translated as sin-
gular in the passage
Exodus 227ndash9 (Hebrew vv 6ndash8) is also interesting but lends no
credence to the argument that plural lt ĕlōhicircm reers to humans
lt ĕlōhicircm and human beings as Godrsquos children requires a good deal o background discus-
sion related to the divine council Te oundational reason is that in the Israelite worldview
the earthly amily o the Most High was originally intended to dwell where the Most High
and the heavenly council dwelt Hence the explicit and requent overlap between Israelite
and wider Canaanite material with respect to descriptions o Yahwehrsquos abode his council
divine Sonship (in heaven and on earth) and council activity Te bibliography related to
these themes is copious though not synthesized See or example Richard J Clifford TeCosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old estament (Cambridge MA Harvard University
Press 1972) Brendan Byrne ldquoSons o GodrdquomdashldquoSeed o Abrahamrdquo A Study o the Idea othe Sonship o God o All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Rome Biblical
Institute Press 1979) Harald Rieseneld ldquoSons o God and Ecclesia An Intertestamental
Analysisrdquo in Renewing the Judeo-Christian Wellsprings ed Val A McInnes (New YorkCrossroad 1987) 89ndash104 James abor ldquoFirstborn o Many Brothers A Pauline Notion o
Apotheosisrdquo in Society o Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (Atlanta Scholars Press
1984) 295ndash303 Devorah Dimant ldquoMen as Angels Te Sel-Image o the Qumran Com-
munityrdquo in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East ed Adele Berlin (Bethesda MD
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Both proposals ail on a number o levels With respect to the first
option it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when onersquos theory o acampaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a ldquoproblem pas-
sagerdquo especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing
divine plurality and a divine council ldquomissedrdquo by redactors o cite but
one example there are explicit reerences to gods and a divine council
in Second emple period Jewish literature In the Qumran sectarian
material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences o lt ĕlōhicircmhālt ĕlōhicircm bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm bĕnecirc lt ecirclōhicircm and bĕnecirc hālt ĕlōhicircm in contexts
where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (gt ēƒāhsocircd qāhāl ) utilized in texts o the Hebrew Bible or a divine assem-
bly983044 In act it is apparent that some o these reerences allude to or
draw on canonical material I there was a campaign to allegedly cor-
rect ancient texts and their polytheistic views the postexilic Jewish
community either did not get the message or ignored it
Concerning the second viewpoint that polytheism is being used
rhetorically in Psalm 82 much is made o the last verse in that psalmwhere God is asked to rise up and possess the nations (828) Tis
is interpreted as a new idea o the psalmist to encourage the exilic
communitymdashthat despite exile Yahweh will rise up and take the
nations as his own having sentenced the other gods to death Tis
view ignores preexilic texts such as Psalm 24 and 29 long recognized
as some o the most ancient material in the canon983044 For example
Psalm 291 contains plural imperatives directed at the bĕnecirc lt ēlicircm pointing to a divine council context Verse 10 declares ldquoTe L983151983154983140 sits
enthroned over the flood the L983151983154983140 sits enthroned as king oreverrdquo
In Israelite cosmology the flood upon which Yahweh sat was situated
over the solid dome that covered the round flat earth Since it cannot
Simon B Parker ldquoTe Beginning o the Reign o GodmdashPsalm 82 as Myth and Liturgyrdquo
Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 532ndash59
14 Heiser ldquoTe Divine Councilrdquo 176ndash213
15 Some scholars date the poetry o this psalm to the period between the twelfh andtenth centuries 983138983139983141 See Frank M Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic Essays in theHistory o the Religion o Israel (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1973) 91ndash93
See also David N Freedman ldquoWho Is Like Tee among the Gods Te Religion o Early
Israelrdquo in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor o Frank Moore Cross ed Patrick D
Miller Jr Paul D Hanson and S Dean McBride (Philadelphia Fortress 1987) 317
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
In the earliest Israelite conception according to this view
ather El had a divine son named Jehovah or Yahweh El orElyon (ldquothe Highestrdquo or ldquoMost Highrdquo) and Yahweh were dis-
tinct Indeed the apparent original reading o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 seems to indicate a number o ldquosons o Elrdquo among
whom Yahweh was the most prominent
Gradually it seems El aded into the background as Yah-
weh his preeminent son came to the ore983044
As a son Yahweh was a created being Mormon scholarship finds
evidence or this in the material o Ugarit since El was the ather-
creator o the other gods along with his wie Asherah In act Mor-
mon scholars argue that the biblical El (the Father o Yahweh) was
himsel created on the basis o Ugaritic religion which has El being
athered by still older gods Te rise o Yahweh as preeminent son
is important to Mormon theology since Latter-day Saints hold that
Jesus was the incarnation o Yahweh Evangelicals would say the same
thing but Mormonismrsquos perspective on this is related to a distinction
between EL and Yahweh
In terms o an evaluation o the separateness o El and Yahweh
Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions o
Smith Parker and Barker All is not nearly as tidy as they propose I
have detailed the weaknesses o this idea elsewhere and so I offer only
a ew observations here851972
First the separation o El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
in part depends on the decision to take the kicirc o 329 as adversative
thereby denoting some contrast between Elyon o 328 and Yahweh o
21 Daniel C Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquo Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the
Divine Nature o Humankindrdquo in Te Disciple as Scholar Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor o Richard Lloyd Anderson ed Stephen D Ricks Donald W
Parry and Andrew H Hedges (Provo U FARMS 2000) 492 493 emphasis removed 22 Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489 On the ldquoolden godsrdquo see Cross Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic 40ndash41 Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 641ndash45
23 Michael S Heiser ldquoAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 328ndash9 and
Psalm 82rdquo HIPHIL 3 (2006) available at wwwsee-jnetDeaultaspxtabid=77 (accessed
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
329 (ldquoHowever [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquos portion is his peoplerdquo) Other scholars
however consider the kicirc o 329 to be emphatic ldquo And lo [kicirc ] Yahwehrsquosportion is his peoplerdquo Other scholars accept the adversative use but
do not separate El and Yahweh in the passage Since scholarship on
this construction lacks consensus conclusions based on the adversa-
tive syntactical choice are not secure
Second Ugaritic scholars have noted that the title ldquoMost Highrdquo
(gt lyn or the shorter gt l ) is never used o El in the Ugaritic corpus In
point o act it is Baal a second-tier deity who twice receives this titleas the ruler o the gods LDS scholars who ofen reer to Yahweh as
the second-tier deity under El lt ĕlōhicircm have not accounted or this act
Te point here is to rebut the argument that the mere occurrence o the
term gt elyocircn certainly points to El in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 Due to the
well-established attribution o Baal epithets to Yahweh the title gt elyocircn
could conceivably point directly to Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 It
is also worth recalling that i Smith is correct that Yahweh and El weremerged by the eighth century 983138983139983141 due to the transeral o Asherah
to Yahweh as consort then a Yahweh-El usion had occurred beore
Deuteronomy was composed Hence it would have been possible or
the author o Deuteronomy to have Yahweh as the head o the divine
council Indeed what point would the Deuteronomic author have had
24 Italics are or emphasis For the arguments or an adversative - see James Muiכי
lenburg ldquoTe Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages o the Particleכי
in the Old estamentrdquo
Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 139ndash40 and sevat ldquoGod and the Gods in
Assemblyrdquo 132 n 28
25 Italics are or emphasis See Anton Schoors ldquoTe Particle rdquoכי Old estament Stud-ies 21 (1981) 240ndash53 Jeffrey H igay Te Jewish Publication Society orah CommentaryDeuteronomy Te raditional Hebrew ext with the New JPS ranslation (Philadelphia
Jewish Publication Society 1996) 303 Duane L Christensen Deuteronomy 2110ndash3412
(Nashville Nelson 2002) 791 (n 9a-a) 796
26 Paul Sanders Te Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden Brill 1996) 159ndash60
363ndash74 esp 373
27 Marjo C A Korpel A Rif in the Clouds Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions othe Divine (Muumlnster Ugarit Verlag 1990) 276 Nicholas Wyatt ldquoTe itles o the Uga-
ritic Storm-Godrdquo Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992) 419 Eric E Elnes and Patrick D Miller
ldquoElyonrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 294
28 See KU 116III6 8 Wyatt ldquoUgaritic Storm-Godrdquo 419 Peterson incorrectly has
El as king o the gods (Peterson ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 489)
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
in mind to bring back a Yahweh-El separation that had been rejected
two hundred years priorTird although gt elyocircn is paired with El in the Hebrew Bible as
Eric Elnes and Patrick Miller point out it is most ofen an epithet o
Yahweh Smith and Parker are o course well aware o this but attri-
bute it to ldquolater traditionrdquo contending that in Deuteronomy 328ndash9
the title o Elyon should be associated with El distinct rom Yahweh
Again this would be most curious i Yahweh and El had been used
as early as the eighth century In this regard it is interesting that
other texts as early as the eighth century speak o Yahweh perorm-
ing the same deeds credited to gt elyocircn in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 For
example Isaiah 1013 has Yahweh in control o the boundaries o
the nations8519721048624 It appears that the presupposition o an early Yahweh
and El separation requires the exegete to argue or ldquoa later traditionrdquo
at this point
Fourth separating El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 328ndash9 is
internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and Deuteronomy atlarge Tis assertion is demonstrated by the two preceding verses 6
and 7 Tose two verses attribute no less than five well-recognized El
epithets to Yahweh demonstrating that the redactors who ashioned
Deuteronomy recognized the union o El with Yahweh as one would
expect at this point in Israelrsquos religion851972983044
29 Elnes and Mil ler ldquoElyonrdquo 296
30 Jos Luyten ldquoPrimeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song o Moses (D 32
1ndash43)rdquo in Das Deuteronomium Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaf ed Norbert Lohfink
(Leuven Leuven University Press 1985) 342
31 See Sanders Provenance o Deuteronomy 32 360ndash61 Tese verses clearly con-
tain elements drawn rom ancient descriptions o El and attribute them to Yahweh At
Ugarit El is called lt ab lt adm (ldquoather o mankindrdquo KU 114I37 43) and regr lt il lt abh lt ilmkl dyknnh (ldquoBull El his ather El the king who establishes himrdquo KU 13V35ndash36 14
I4ndash6) Yahweh is described as the ldquoatherrdquo (lt ā inticirckā) who ldquoestablished yourdquo ( yĕ not ōnĕnekā)
Yahweh is also the one who ldquocreatedrdquo Israel (qānekā) in verse six Te root qny denot-
ing El as creator is ound in the Karatepe inscriptionrsquos appeal to lt l qn lt r szlig (ldquoEl creator
o the earthrdquo Herbert Donner and Wolgang Roumlllig Kanaanaumlische und AramaumlischeInschrifen 4th ed Band 1 [Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1979] the text cited is KAI26III18ndash19) At Ugarit the verb occurs in the El epithet qny wlt adn lt ilm (ldquocreator and
lord o the godsrdquo KU 13V9) and Baal calls El qnyn (ldquoour creatorrdquo KU 110III5)
Genesis 1419 22 also attributes this title to El Deuteronomy 327 reerences the yĕmocirctgt ocirclām (ldquoages pastrdquo) and šĕnocirct docircr-wăƒocircr (ldquothe years o many generationsrdquo) which cor-
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Last but not least in importance the idea o Yahweh receiving
Israel as his allotted nation rom his Father El is internally inconsis-tent in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 419ndash20 a passage recognized
by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 328ndash9
the text inorms us that it was Yahweh who ldquoallottedrdquo (˙lq) the nations
to the host o heaven and who ldquotookrdquo (lq ) Israel as his own inheri-
tance (c Deuteronomy 926 29 2925) Neither the verb orms nor
the ideas are passive Israel was not given to Yahweh by El which is
the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy
32 want to ashion In view o the close relationship o Deuteronomy
328ndash9 to Deuteronomy 419ndash20 it is more consistent to have Yahweh
taking Israel or his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord
o the council
In summary the Mormon material I have read on this issue tells
me quite clearly that the matter has not been closely analyzed Latter-
day Saint scholars have too quickly assumed that Smith Parker and
Barker have settled the issue Tey have notbull Presupposition 3 We must use seventeenth-century English vo-
cabulary to define an ancient Semitic worldview
Does the affirmation o the reality o other lt ĕlōhicircm by the canoni-
cal authors disqualiy Israelite religion as monotheistic Are other
terms used in academic discourse or ancient religious pantheons
more appropriate Te short answer to both questions in the view o
this writer is a qualified no Te answer is qualified with respect to therespond respectively to Elrsquos description (gt lm Mitchell Dahood with adeusz Penar
ldquoUgartic-Hebrew Parallel Pairsrdquo in Ras Shamra Parallels Te exts rom Ugarit and theHebrew Bible ed Loren R Fisher F Brent Knutson Donn F Morgan [Rome Pontifica l
Institute 1972] 294ndash95) and title (lt ab šnm ldquoather o yearsrdquo KU 16I36 117VI49)
at Ugarit Since the El epithets o Deuteronomy 326ndash7 are well known to scholars o
Israelite religion those who argue that Yahweh and El are separate deities in Deuteron-
omy 328ndash9 are lef to explain why the redactor o verses 6ndash7 would unite Yahweh and
El and in the next stroke separate them Tose who crafed the text o Deuteronomy
32 would have either expressed diametrical ly oppositional views o Yahwehrsquos status inconsecutive verses or have allowed a presumed original separation o Yahweh and El to
stand in the textmdashwhile adding verses 6ndash7 in which the names describe a single deity It
is difficult to believe that the scribes were this careless unskilled or conused I they
were at all motivated by an intolerant monotheism one would expect this potential
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Within the ldquohigherrdquo term one findsldquospecies-differentiationrdquo
Plants
Animals
(some with nepheš )Humans1048624
(flesh + nepheš )
(Israelite) YHWH-EL983044Sons o God
Demons851972
Human disembodied dead
39 lt Ĕlōhicircm is a ldquoplane o realityrdquo termmdashit denotes a beingrsquos primary or proper (but
not necessarily exclusive) ldquoplace o residencerdquo For example Yahweh is still omnipresentbut is requently spoken o having a throne ldquosomewhererdquo Demons seek bodies to possess
Te sons o God and the lt ĕlōhicircm angels o Genesis 18ndash19 took corporeal orm Tereore
lt ĕlōhicircm may take on flesh and bone but their intrinsic nature does not include either
Humans get to see the other side in ecstatic experiences and the disembodied dead can
be contacted and appear on the earthly plane
40 No human being has any unique quality or attribute that no other human had or
has Hence there is no division o species or species-uniqueness under the broader term
human Tough unique (cloning excepted) DNA does not produce another species only
variation within a species
41 Yahweh is an lt ĕlōhicircm but no other lt ĕlōhicircm are Yahweh Yahweh is hālt ĕlōhicircm 42 ldquoSonsrdquo o the Most High = sons o Yahweh i indeed Yahweh and Elyon are the
same which the text (in my judgment) clearly indicates Tese are o lower ontological
status than Yahweh since they are created Tey also have a lower status in Yahwehrsquos
bureaucracy (c the patriarchal or royal house analogy) Tese ldquosonsrdquo (called so because
o their creation) are lt ĕlōhicircm and some (at least) serve Yahweh as messengers (mal lt ā not icircm)
In this way the three-tiered (some want our) bureaucracy common to divine council
discussion is coherent Lastly these lt ĕlōhicircm may be loyal to Yahweh or allen Te act
that they are rebellious and evil does not remove them rom this reality plane
43 Demons are o lower ontological status than Yahweh since they are created I
demons originated as described in extracanonical literature such as 1 Enoch (and they
might since it appears the biblical material on the Rephaim is analogous with or without
an emendation to nplym in Ezekiel 3227) then they are o lower ontological class than
the ldquosonsrdquo class above since they would have had a human parent
44 Te disembodied dead exist on the ldquospiritual planerdquo (the ldquoother siderdquo) and so are
called lt ĕlōhicircm Tis is quite consistent with the rest o ancient Near Eastern material
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
Latter-day Saints know nothing o an ontological ldquosub-
stancerdquo to ldquodividerdquo we resolutely decline to ldquoconoundrdquo theldquopersonsrdquo We affirm that the Father and the Son are distinct
personages o flesh and bone Te preincarnate Jesus was
revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh o the Hebrew Bible
Elohim o course is plural in orm And sometimes it is
clearly plural in meaning But even when it reers to a single
divine person it implies plurality
First there is only one God because the Father is thesupreme monarch o our universe Tere is no other God to
whom we could switch our allegiance and there never will be
such a being He is ldquothe Eternal God o all other godsrdquo (DampC
12132) Elder Boyd K Packer writes ldquoTe Father is the one true
God Tis thing is certain no one will ever ascend above Him
no one will ever replace Him Nor will anything ever change
the relationship that we His literal offspring have with Him
He is Elohim the Father He is God o Him there is only one
We revere our Father and our God we worship Himrdquo
Second the Father Son and Holy Spirit are so unified in
mind will love and covenant that they can collectively be
called ldquoone Godrdquo (see 2 Nephi 3121 DampC 2028) Elder
Bruce R McConkie explained ldquoMonotheism is the doctrine or
belie that there is but one God I this is properly interpreted
to mean that the Father Son and Holy Ghostmdasheach o whomis a separate and distinct godly personagemdashare one God
meaning one Godhead then true saints are monotheistsrdquo
auspices o the Society o Evangelical Philosophers in conjunction with the joint annual
national meeting o the American Academy o Religion and the Society o Biblical Litera-
ture (the AARSBL) 17 November 2001 Te citation o Paul Owen comes rom ldquoMono-
theism Mormonism and the New estament Witnessrdquo in Te New Mormon Challenge Responding to the Latest Deenses o a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids MI
Zondervan 2002) 278 Underlining is my own 46 Peterson ldquoHistorical Concreteness or Speculative Abstractionrdquo xviindashxviii
47 Citing Boyd K Packer Let Not Your Heart Be roubled (Salt Lake City Bookcraf
1991) 293 emphasis in original
48 Citing Bruce R McConkie ldquoMonotheismrdquo in Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed (Salt
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
56 J David Schloen ldquoTe Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom o Ugarit A
Weberian Analysis o Ancient Near Eastern Societyrdquo (PhD diss Harvard University
1995) J David Schloen Te House o the Father as Fact and Symbol Patrimonialism inUgarit and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 2001)
57 Lowell K Handy Among the Host o Heaven Te Syro-Palestinian Pantheon asBureaucracy (Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1994) Conrad E LrsquoHeureux Rank amongthe Canaanite Gods El Bagt al and the Rephaim (Missoula M Scholars Press 1979)
58 See John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses o Canaan (Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 2000) 13ndash41 91ndash127 and Mark S Smith Te Early History o God Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd ed (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 2002) 19ndash56
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
creator o the heavenly host (see below) i they are idols then Yahweh
is an idol makerI am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible always means real divine
beings when using the vocabulary o the heavenly host While the Old
estament at times has biblical figures reerring to idols as ldquogodsrdquomdash
something inevitable given the behavior o the Gentile nationsmdashit is
not coherent to argue that the Old estament writer always (or even
mostly) meant ldquoidolsrdquo when writing o plural lt ĕlōhicircm or the ldquohost o
heavenrdquo
It is also unwarranted to argue that all the heavenly host terminol-
ogy can only mean the chunks o rock and balls o gas in the cosmos851972
It was commonly believed in the ancient world (Israelites included)
that the heavenly bodies were either animate beings or were inhabited
or controlled by animate beings Hence in scripture there is overlap
with respect to just who or what is reerred to by the terms sun moonstars and heavenly host However an overlap is not an erasure o one
element o the conceptionIt is clear rom the above passages in Deuteronomy that the sun
moon and stars are explicitly reerred to as ldquoother godsrdquo (lt ĕlōhicircmlt ă˙ēricircm) not as idols Tis is also clear rom passages like Job 384ndash7
where the sons o God (bĕnecirc lt ĕlōhicircm) are reerred to as stars (kocirc not ĕ intecirc intōqer ) Te classic divine council passage 1 Kings 22 also utilizes the
heavenly host terminology or what are clearly divine beings
19 And he [Micaiah] said ldquoTereore hear the word othe L983151983154983140 I saw the L983151983154983140 sitting on his throne and all the
host o heaven (szligĕbālt haššāmayim) standing beside him on his
right hand and on his lef 20 and the L983151983154983140 said lsquoWho will
entice Ahab that he may go up and all at Ramoth-gileadrsquo
And one said one thing and another said another 21 Ten a
62 For example 1 Kings 149 Such statements need to be balanced with others such
as 2 Kings 1918 63 Tis is not to suggest that this terminology always points to divine beings
64 Fabrizio Lelli ldquoStarsrdquo in Dictionary o Deities and Demons in the Bible 809ndash15
Ida Zatelli ldquoAstrology and the Worship o the Stars in the Biblerdquo ZAW 103 (1991) 86ndash99
Luis I J Stadelmann Te Hebrew Conception o the World A Philological and LiteraryStudy (Rome Pontifical Institute 1970)
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
spirit (hārucirca ) came orward and stood beore the L983151983154983140 say-
ing lsquoI will entice himrsquo 22 And the L983151983154983140 said to him lsquoBy whatmeansrsquo And he said lsquoI will go out and will be a lying spirit in
the mouth o all his prophetsrsquo And he said lsquoYou are to entice
him and you shall succeed go out and do sorsquo 23 Now there-
ore behold the L983151983154983140 has put a lying spirit in the mouth o all
these your prophets the L983151983154983140 has declared disaster or yourdquo
(1 Kings 2219ndash23 ESV)
Te point here is that Yahweh is not holding council with physical
chunks o stone and balls o gas
All o this is important or noting passages like Nehemiah 96 and
Psalm 1481ndash5
6 You are Yahweh you alone You have made heaven
the heaven o heavens and all their host (kol-szligĕbālt ām) the
earth and all that is upon it the seas and all that is in themand you preserve all o them and the host o heaven (szligĕbālt
haššāmayim) worships you (Nehemiah 96)
1 Praise the L983151983154983140 Praise the L983151983154983140 rom the heavens
praise him in the heights 2 Praise him all his angels
praise him all his hosts (kol-szligĕbālt āw) 3 Praise him sun
and moon praise him all you shining stars (kol-kocirc not ĕ intecirc lt ocircr )
4 Praise him you highest heavens and you waters above theheavens 5 Let them praise the name o the L983151983154983140 For he com-
manded and they were created (Psalm 1481ndash5)
Notice that in Nehemiah 96 Yahweh alone is the creator None o the
other gods have creative power marking Yahweh as distinct Te par-
allelism in Psalm 148 makes clear the conceptual overlap in that it has
the heavenly hostsmdashsun moon and starsmdashworshipping and praisingYahweh their creator
65 Te phrase in the heights has divine council overtones See Norman C Habel
ldquoHe Who Stretches Out the Heavensrdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972) 417ndash18 and
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
51 and Matthew 2334ndash36) He was given bears the Name (John 176ndash
12 Revelation 1912ndash16) and was thought to be the delivering Angel(Jude 5 c Exodus 2320ndash23 Judges 21ndash5) Jesus was also the ldquoCloud
Riderrdquo a deity title description o Baal at Ugarit attributed only to
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible the lone exception being the son o man
in Daniel 7
Such identifications would mean that Jesus is in the Israelite God-
head Second emple Jewish texts abound with speculation as to the
identity o the second power Jewish writers o that time argued or
exalted angels (Michael Gabriel) and certain Old estament figures
(Moses Abraham Adam) in the coregent slot What made Christian-
ity distinct was the claim that the second power had become a human
being vulnerable to death and that this human being had walked
among them in recent days and had suffered crucifixion at the hands
o the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities
All o what we have discussed in this paper to this point was part
o the Jewish thought o the Second emple period as my own dis-
sertation and the copious scholarly literature on these subjects have
established By the time o Jesusrsquos ministry1048624 Jewish writers com-
mitted to monotheism even upon pain o death could accept that
68 Tere is a text-critical issue in Jude 5 Te scholarly inormation on the coregent
linkages to Jesus is copious See or example Charles A Gieschen Angelomorphic Chris-tology Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden Brill 1998) Gieschen ldquoBaptismal Praxis
in the Book o Revelationrdquo wwwiwuedu~religionejcmGieschenhtm (accessed 24
April 2007) Jarl E Fossum Te Image o the Invisible God Essays on the Influence o Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995) Dar-
rell D Hannah Michael and Christ Michael raditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) Ben Witherington III Jesus the Sage TePilgrimage o Wisdom (Minneapolis Augsburg Fortress 1994) Aqila H I Lee From Messiah to Preexistent Son Jesusrsquo Sel-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis o Messianic Psalms (uumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2005) Daniel Boyarin ldquoTe Gospel o the
Memra Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to Johnrdquo Harvard Teological Review943 (2001) 243ndash84
69 See the sources in note 6470 Afer the second century and on into the rabbinic era these ideas became heretical
to Jewish teachers and writers Te ldquostandardizationrdquo o the Masoretic text and rejection
o the LXX occurred at the same time (not coincidentally in my view) See Alan F Segal
wo Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
Brill 1977) Daniel Boyarin ldquowo Powers in Heaven Or the Making o a Heresyrdquo in Te
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
there was a council o lt ĕlōhicircm in Psalm 82 (c the Qumran data) and
that there was a second power in heaven who ldquowas Yahweh but wasnrsquotYahweh the Fatherrdquo Again I am not saying that Judaism had a rin-
ity I am only saying that the necessary concepts and categories were
in place Te idea that the traditional Christian articulation derives
rom Greek philosophy is untrue983044 Te key conceptual elements are
certifiably Israelite
Tis background is important or interpreting the significance o
Jesusrsquos quotation o Psalm 826 in John 1034ndash35 I have never comeacross the view I have o this issue in print and so it seems best to give
the ull context o Jesusrsquos quotation in order to clariy my thoughts
22 And it was at Jerusalem the east o the dedication and
it was winter 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonrsquos
porch 24 Ten came the Jews round about him and said to
him ldquoHow long are you going to make us doubt I you are
the Christ tell us plainlyrdquo 25 Jesus answered them ldquoI toldyou and you believed not the works that I do in my Fatherrsquos
name they bear witness o me 26 But you believe not because
you are not o my sheep as I said to you 27 My sheep hear my
voice and I know them and they ollow me 28 And I give to
them eternal lie and they shall never perish neither shall
anyone pluck them out o my hand 29 My Father who gave
them to me is greater than all and no one is able to pluckIdea o Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor o James L Kugel ed Hindy Najman and
Judith H Newman (Leiden Brill 2004) 331ndash70
71 Interestingly species-uniqueness is the basis or Godrsquos distinction rom the other
gods in later Jewish writers For example 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse o) Enoch (J) 22 affirms
that while other gods are eckless they exist and are temporary ldquoAnd do not turn away
rom the Lord and do not worship vain gods gods who did not create the heaven and
the earth or any other created thing or they will perish and so will those who worship
themrdquo Te same book later has God inorm Enoch that ldquoTere is no adviser and no suc-
cessor to my creation I am sel-eternal and not made by handsrdquo (334) Sibylline Oracles coness that ldquoGod is alone unique and supremerdquo since he is ldquosel-generated [and] unbe-
gottenrdquo Yet in the same text one reads that ldquoi gods beget and yet remain immortal there
would have been more gods born than menrdquo See John J Collins ldquoSibylline Oraclesrdquo in
Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha ed James H Charlesworth (New York Doubleday
1983) 1470ndash71 (the citations are rom ragments 117 21 33)
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
call mysel divinemdashyou guys can do it as well on the basis o Psalm
826rdquo Te problem o course is that this amounts to Jesus saying ldquoyoumere mortals can call yoursel gods so I can toordquo I this is a deense
o his own deity it is a weak one
Although Latter-day Saints agree with me that the lt ĕlōhicircm in
Psalm 826 are in act divine beings they preer the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view or Jesusrsquos use o Psalm 826 Recall that Latter-day Saints argue
that humans are the children o God who is embodied based on their
understanding o the image o God851972 I Jesus is in act not claiming
to be ontologically different than the Jews who were assailing him the
Mormon position is bolstered Tis might strike evangelicals as odd
given Jesusrsquos claim that he and the Father were one (John 1030) but
Latter-day Saints insist that Jesus was claiming to be a god not the
Father citing the absence o the definite article beore θεόν in verse
33 ldquoyou being a man make yoursel Godrdquo (σὺ α νθρωπος ω ν ποιεις
72 With respect to the disconnect between the psalmrsquos original meaning and Jesusrsquos
understanding o it Mormon scholarship rescues Jesus rom being in error by appealing
to material in the Book o Abraham that resolves the tension (see the discussion in Peter-
son ldquolsquoYe Are Godsrsquordquo 541ndash42) Latter-day Saint scholars reason that the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view is supportive o their doctrinal affirmation that humans are lt ĕlōhicircm Tis idea is
based on the Mormon understanding o the image o God and so it would be unair to
say that Mormon theology desperately needs Jesusrsquos endorsement o the human lt ĕlōhicircm
view It certainly helps though
73 Te reasoning is that since we are created in Godrsquos image and likeness that must
mean we are divine like him and he is embodied like us Latter-day Saints seek to draw
support or this understanding rom certain passages that reer to human beings as
lt ĕlōhicircm or as Godrsquos children (or example Moses is spoken o as lt ĕlōhicircm in Exodus 416
71 and the nation o Israel is reerred to as Yahwehrsquos ldquosonrdquo in Exodus 423 Hosea 111)
Te trajectories on which this doctrine is built supposedly bolstered by Barkerrsquos work
are flawed Mormon writer Brant Gardner notes ldquoWhen Margaret Barker describes
the nature o the heavenly council she also notes the key that resolves our problems in
understanding Nephi and the subsequent Nephite theology lsquoTere are those called sons
o El Elyon sons o El or Elohim all clearly heavenly beings and there are those called
sons o Yahweh or the Holy One who are humanrsquordquo (citing Margaret Barker Te Great Angel A Study o Israelrsquos Second God [Louisville KY Westminster John Knox 1992] 5
[4]) Barkerrsquos argument proceeds on the assumption that when the Hebrew Bible reers tosons o an El-derivative deity (El Elyon Elohim) those sons are heavenly beings When
the text speaks o Yahweh or the ldquoHoly Onerdquo having sons those sons are human beings
Barkerrsquos ldquocrucial distinctionrdquo (p 4) is incorrect since she misses Hosea 110 where ldquosons
o the living God (El)rdquo are clearly human beings Te Mormon material I have read has
not caught the error and proceeds to make apologetic points on a flawed assumption
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529
σεαυτὸν θεόν) Tat Jesus was claiming to be a god would be accept-
able or Latter-day Saints since we are all gods by virtue o being cre-ated in Godrsquos image But i Jesus held that the Father had ontological
superiority that is another story
I propose however that the lt ĕlōhicircm o Psalm 82 were not human
and that Jesus was in act asserting his own unique ontological one-
ness with the Father Beore deending that thesis let me first address
the notion that John 1033 has Jesus only claiming to be a god A syn-
tactical search o the Greek New estament reveals that the identicalconstruction ound in John 1033 occurs elsewhere in contexts reer-
ring specifically to God the Father
Te absence o the article thereore does not prove the Mormon
interpretation Te absence o the article may point to indefiniteness
when the subject complement is the lemma θεός (especially when it is
plural) but it can also point to a specific definite entity Building an
interpretation on this argument is a poor strategyReturning now to the quotation the human lt ĕlōhicircm view derives
rom two assumptions brought to the text (1) that it is required by the
impossibility o there being other lt ĕlōhicircm because o Judeo-Christian
monotheism and (2) that the phrase to whom the word o God came
reers to the Jews who received the law at Sinaimdashthat is the Phariseesrsquo
oreathers Tis paper has already dispensed with the first assump-
tion so we will move to the latter
I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to comes to
terms with what is meant by ldquothe word o Godrdquo and who it is that
receives that word in Psalm 826ndash7
74 Te search is accomplished via the Openextorg syntactically tagged Greek New
estament database in the Libronix platorm developed by Logos Bible Sofware Belling-
ham Washington Te search query asks or all clauses where the predicator o the clause
can be any finite verbs except εἰμί where the subject complement is the lexeme θεός with no definite article present Any clause component can intervene between these two
elements Other than John 1033 the ollowing hits are yielded by the query Acts 529