When Jeffrey asked me if I would be willing to speak to the KMC

Young Adults group on the issue of the Divine Council worldview

that stems from Psalm 82, I jumped at the opportunity. You see, this

is something that I have been thinking about for many years now.

And it is only quite recently that I came across the works of Michael

Heiser, the primary scholar who propounds and explains the Divine

Council worldview.

Page 1 of 88
Before I proceed, I should make one thing clear. I do not agree with

Heiser on all points of his take on the Divine Council because I think

he is being somewhat inconsistent while interpreting some

passages. As we proceed, I will indicate where I disagree with him,

which will, hopefully, enable us to think more critically about the

material we are presented with. After all, if the bible is our

scriptures, we dare not approach it in a lax, perfunctory manner.

Page 2 of 88
Addressing the issue of dealing with the text critically, the late Lord

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in a brilliant talk promoting his book Not In

God’s Name, said, “If we don't know how we got here, we will tend to

assume that where we are is obvious. If we assume that where we

are is obvious we are less likely to ask critical questions about it.

The less likely we are to ask critical questions about it, the more

resistant we will be to other people's challenges to it.”

Page 3 of 88
I will be challenging some long held Christian beliefs today. And the

reason I am challenging them is that I have asked some critical

questions about the biblical text that we Christians claim as

authoritative. And the reason I have asked these critical questions is

that I want to know how the doctrines of the Christian Church have

developed for we were not handed these doctrines on a silver

platter, but worked them out with sweat and blood.

Page 4 of 88
So if you hear something that seems strange and off the wall, I urge

you not to do what most Christians do - label the speaker. You know

what I mean. It is easy to say that someone is a liberal and then

dismiss whatever they have to say if we think one needs to be

conservative. Or conversely, it is easy to say someone is conservative

and ignore them if we think one needs to be liberal. But labelling

someone does not disprove their arguments.

Page 5 of 88
So I urge you, no matter what I say, if you find something

objectionable, please ask me about it during the Q&A time we will

have later. Please do not leave with the belief that I do not believe

the central doctrines of the Christian faith for I readily and eagerly

affirm them. What I intend to achieve through my exploration of the

scriptures is a more robust, honest, and consistent understanding of

Jesus and his role in God’s plans for his good creation.

Page 6 of 88
The Nicene Creed, accepted and affirmed by most Christian

traditions, begins with the confessional statement, “We believe in

one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all

things visible and invisible.” The Apostles’ Creed, less widely

accepted and affirmed and in a less verbose manner, begins with the

words, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and

earth.”

Page 7 of 88
When we recite these creeds, what crosses our minds? Or rather,

what did the framers of the creeds intend would cross the minds of

all who recited the creeds? The word ‘one’ common to the first

article of both creeds is most commonly taken to be a statement

about monotheism, the belief that there is only one being who can

rightly be called God.

Page 8 of 88
This was how the framers of the creeds intended the first article to

be understood. In reciting the first article, the believer affirms that

there is only one being who can be called God. In order to affirm this

belief, Christians, starting from the Church fathers, have attempted

to articulate what it is that sets this being apart from others. And for

the most part the terrain explored has been quite predictable.

Page 9 of 88
Adjectives such as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient have

been invoked. Other categories such as immortal, immutable,

impassible, infinite, and invisible have also been used. So regularly

have the words been used to describe the God and Father of Jesus,

that we have forgotten a simple lesson - generalizing from the

particular is a fallacious approach to knowledge. What do I mean?

Page 10 of 88
Consider the example of Job. In the first two chapters of the book,

we are told about a discussion between God and the Adversary

concerning Job. The result of this discussion is that Job loses his

children and most of his possessions. Can we conclude then, that if a

person loses his or her child, it means that there has been a similar

discussion between God and the Adversary about that person?

Page 11 of 88
We can readily see that this is problematic and we would be quick to

indicate the fallacy should anyone make such an argument.

However, we are not as critical when it comes to the word ‘god’.

Since we believe that the God we worship is omnipotent and

omnipresent and omniscient and all those other adjectives we often

use, we conclude that this must be what the word ‘god’ means.

Page 12 of 88
Perhaps I should use a more readily tangible example. We are all

familiar with photocopiers. However, many people use the word

‘Xerox’ when they mean ‘photocopier’. But while every ‘Xerox’

machine could be said to be a photocopier, not all photocopiers are

‘Xerox’ machines because ‘Xerox’ is a brand name. So we must not

assume we know what the word ‘god’ means.

Page 13 of 88
Rather, we must allow the biblical text to guide us. What this means,

as mentioned earlier, is that I will be challenging some long

cherished views within Christian circles. My allegiance is not to this

or that Christian tradition, but to the text that is authoritative for

Christians. This does not mean that I think our history is

inconsequential. Rather, I don’t think any tradition is authoritative.

So please note the following disclaimers.

Page 14 of 88
First, stating that my position goes against a traditional position of

the Church is not an argument against my position. After all, for

many centuries before the Protestant Reformation the Church

believed that salvation was by faith and works. Yet, we discarded

that belief despite its being the then traditional view. Indeed,

Christian history is a story of changing theological landscape as new

perspectives replaced old ones as new understandings arose.

Page 15 of 88
Second, stating that my position contradicts the position taken by

some Church father - Augustine or Aquinas or Luther or Calvin, etc. -

is not an argument against my position. After all Luther and Calvin,

though contemporary and key figures of the Reformation did not

themselves see eye to eye on many things, even going to the extent

of pronouncing curses on each other. Disagreement is a part of our

history and we forget it to our detriment.

Page 16 of 88
Third, stating that my position is only accessible to those who know

the biblical languages and that, therefore, it is difficult to

understand, is not an argument against my position. After all, we are

called to love Yahweh with our minds. Why would that be needed if

it were easy? Anyone who has led you to believe that the scriptures

are easy to understand has led you astray either because they did

not know better or because they themselves were lazy.

Page 17 of 88
Think about it, Jewish scholars for three millennia and Christian

scholars for two have wrestled with these scriptures. They have

loved the text and have dedicated their lives to understanding it.

They have placed themselves under its authority and have been

committed to following it where it led them. Yet, saying that there

are different views in the Church is a gross understatement. So let

us not look for easy solutions, but honest and consistent ones.

Page 18 of 88
Now, I will be speaking again on the 22nd of this month. So I have

divided this topic into two parts. There is an American saying, “One

must not lose sight of the forest for the trees.” That is, one must not

lose the big picture by focusing too much on the details. However,

the details are crucial for, as Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote, “The

meaning of a word is its use.” Without knowing what trees

constitute the forest, one cannot even know the forest.

Page 19 of 88
In other words, we need to look at the details first and then zoom

out and try to understand the big picture. Hence, today we will have

an introduction to the Divine Council worldview by focusing on the

trees, the details, with special reference to the language used in

various biblical texts, leading to a reimagining of monotheism.

Please note that I said reimagining and not rejection for I believe

many of us assert something the scriptures does not.

Page 20 of 88
On the 22nd we will look at the forest and understand what the

Divine Council is and why it was constituted. We will also address

the role the Divine Council plays in God’s purposes and what has

happened to it as a consequence of the roles God gave its members.

We will also address a crucial matter of how God and the Divine

Council relate to Israel and the other nations in the Old Testament

and to the Church and the world in the New Testament.

Page 21 of 88
Our journey into the language begins with the first verse of Psalm

82. Since this is a deep dive, I will be using Hebrew and, when I refer

to a passage in the New Testament, I will use Greek. The first two

words in Hebrew are ‫ִמזְמ ֹור‬ ‫( לְָאסָף‬miz·mō·wr lə·’ā·sāp̄), which just

means “a psalm of Asaph” which your bibles should have as the

superscription. The actual psalm begins after this.

Page 22 of 88
The first line of the psalm is ‫ת־אל‬
֑ ֵ ַ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים נִָּצ ֥ב ַּב עֲד‬ĕlō·hîm, niṣ·ṣāḇ

ba·‘ă·ḏaṯ- ’êl). ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) is the plural form of ‫’( אֱֹלו ַה‬ĕ·lō·w·ha). I

am sure many of us have been taught that ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) means

‘god’. But before we automatically jump to that conclusion, let us

look at the immediate context and continue to the second line of the

psalm, where we read ‫ֱֹלהים י ְִׁשֹּפֽט‬

֣ ִ ‫ְּבק ֶרב א‬
֖ ֶ (bə·qe·reḇ ’ĕ·lō·hîm yiš·pōṭ).

Page 23 of 88
The first word in the second line is ‫ְּבק ֶרב‬
֖ ֶ (bə·qe·reḇ), which is

composed of the preposition ‫( ְּב‬bə) and the noun ‫( ֶ ֖ק ֶרב‬qe·reḇ) and

can be translated as ‘in the midst of’ or ‘among’. Now, if we translate

‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) universally as god, we run into a problem because

verse 1 would then read, “God has taken his place in the divine

council; in the midst of god he holds judgment.”

Page 24 of 88
This is quite obviously absurd because you cannot be in the midst of

one. Hence, the second use of the word ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) in verse 1

has to be rendered as a plural. We will come to how we should

render it, but for now we can see that it must refer to a plurality of

beings, whatever these beings may be. What we have is two

occurrences of the word in a single verse.

Page 25 of 88
However, in the first occurrence, even though ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) is a

plural form, it is associated with the singular verb ‫( נִּצָב‬niṣ·ṣāḇ). So

the same word, in both occurrences appearing in the plural form,

must be translated as a singular in the first occurrence and as a

plural in the second. Right away you can see that translation is not

an easy task. Nor do words have an unequivocal meaning.

Page 26 of 88
That is, just seeing a word and drawing a conclusion about its

meaning is to disrespect the text and to undermine its authority. If

you take away anything from today’s talk, please let it be this. To

respect the text and its authority, we must discipline ourselves to

understand how the author has used the words he used and draw

our conclusions only after we have understood the usage.

Page 27 of 88
But right away, as soon as we open ourselves to the idea that ‫אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬

(’ĕlō·hîm) could be used as a singular and plural, we run into

another problem. If ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) is most often translated as ‘god’

and if it can be used as a plural, does that mean that the bible

teaches there are multiple gods? And if it does, does that not violate

the monotheism of the Jewish and Christian faiths?

Page 28 of 88
Let us address these two questions in reverse order. The word

‘monotheism’ and the associated ideas are quite a recent

development. The word was first used in the 17th century by Henry

More, a neoplatonist English philosopher and rationalist theologian.

However, More understood the biblical concept of god, which he

dubbed as monotheism using categories developed by Plato.

Page 29 of 88
As a result, we have inherited a meaning of the word ‘monotheism’

that has more to do with the denial of a Greek pantheon than

anything that is described in the bible. And as said before, we need

to look at what the text says rather than throw our lot in with any

particular philosophy or philosopher. The text that is said to

describe biblical monotheism is Deuteronomy 6.4.

Page 30 of 88
Deuteronomy 6.4 is the creedal statement of faith called the Shema

and the ESV and NIV translate it as, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our

God, the Lord is one.” The NLT has, “Listen, O Israel! The LORD is our

God, the LORD alone.” The NASB renders it with, “Hear, Israel! The

LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” The KJV uses the words, “Hear, O

Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:” There are two things to be

observed in the translations.

Page 31 of 88
First, the placement of the word ‘is’ varies across the translations.

This is simply because Hebrew does not have a linking verb similar

to the English verb ‘to be’. So the translator has to decide where to

place it. Keep this in mind, wherever you see the verb ‘to be’ in an

English Old Testament. Most likely it was added there by the

translators to help the reader. The KJV indicates this by italicizing

the verb ‘to be’ but modern translations are not as transparent.

Page 32 of 88
Second, the Hebrew word ‫’( א ֶָחֽד‬e·ḥāḏ) is variously translated as ‘one’

or ‘alone’. Why would we have these differences? The word ‫א ֶָחֽד‬

(’e·ḥāḏ), is the usual Hebrew word for the number ‘one’. However,

the variety of ways in which the word is used prevents us from

assuming that it only has numerical equivalence. For example, in

Genesis 2.24, it is used in the phrase ‘one flesh’ where it is quite

evident that wife and husband do not literally become ‘one’.

Page 33 of 88
We do not have the time to delve into the meaning of Genesis 2. But

one thing we can be certain is that ‫’( א ֶָחֽד‬e·ḥāḏ) does not always

mean ‘a unity without distinction’ or ‘a monad without parts’.

Having said that, it is also clear from the context of Deuteronomy

that it does not refer to something that has parts. Deuteronomy

rather focuses on the worship of Yahweh over against the false gods.

Page 34 of 88
Further, the phrase ‘our god’ makes no sense if there is only one

‘god’. Consider an example. I have two daughters. When they use the

word ‘dad’ they are referring to me because in our family there is

only one person who is ‘dad’. However, if they speak with their

friends, they will use ‘my dad’ to refer to me and not just ‘dad’

because their friends also have their own ‘dads’.

Page 35 of 88
In other words, it is only in the context of there being multiple

claimants to a position or title that a descriptor is needed to

differentiate between the claimants. So the phrase ‘our god’ must

have the connotation of ‘not the god of those who do not belong to

Israel.’ But if there are multiple claimants to a position or title, it

raises another issue.

Page 36 of 88
Yahweh is said to be Israel’s god and not the god of other nations.

But the words, “Yahweh is our god” does not preclude the possibility

that Israel could have other gods. That is why the second part of the

Shema states, “Yahweh alone.” The Shema, in other words, is not a

statement of monotheism as opposed to pagan polytheism. Rather, it

is a statement of exclusivity between Yahweh and Israel.

Page 37 of 88
Now I understand that, since most of us are steeped in the belief

that the bible teaches monotheism like that described by More, I

will continue for a bit without using the word ‘god’ since our

understanding of it is prejudiced. The Shema teaches that Yahweh is

Israel’s elohim, not the elohim of the other nations. And conversely

Israel’s elohim is only Yahweh and not any other elohim.

Page 38 of 88
But what do I mean by the phrase ‘other elohim’? Are there other

gods? In order to answer this, we need to look at how the word

‘elohim’ is used in the Old Testament. It is obviously used in

reference to Yahweh. Otherwise, we would not be having this

session. But it is also used to refer to foreign deities as in Judges 5.8

and even as an adjective to mean ‘mighty’ as in Genesis 23.6.

Page 39 of 88
It is used to refer to idols as in Genesis 31.30 and to refer to a

disembodied human spirit in 1 Samuel 28.13. Probably more

surprisingly it is used to refer to human judges as in Exodus 21.6.

But perhaps the most surprising use is in reference to a singular

feminine pagan goddess in 1 Kings 11.33 while still in the plural

masculine form, a use that would give language teachers heartburn.

Page 40 of 88
So far what we have from Psalm 82.1 is, “Elohim has taken his place

in the divine council; in the midst of the Elohim he holds judgment.”

We have seen that the first occurrence of Elohim must have a

singular meaning and must refer to Yahweh. However, the second

must have a plural meaning and there are quite a few contenders. So

how do we decide what it refers to?

Page 41 of 88
A common approach is to look for similar passages and often we are

led to Psalm 89.6-7 where we read, “For who in the skies can be

compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings is like the

Lord, a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and

awesome above all who are around him?” The conclusion is that the

reference here also is to the Divine Council.

Page 42 of 88
After all, it refers to beings in the skies, heavenly beings, and a

council of the holy ones. However, the phrase for ‘heavenly beings’

here is ‫( בְנֵ ֥י ֵאלִים‬ḇ·nê ’ê·lîm), which would normally be translated as

‘sons of God’. Also, the word for ‘holy ones’ is ‫( קְדִֹׁש ֣ ים‬qə·ḏō·šîm),

which has no resonances with Psalm 82.1. Finally, the word for

council is ‫( סֹוד‬sō·wḏ) and not ‫‘( עֲדַ ת‬ă·ḏaṯ) as in Psalm 82.1.

Page 43 of 88
Here I need to make a slight detour to ward off a view common

among those who support the Divine Council worldview. In Genesis

6 we read, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and

daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the

daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any

they chose.”

Page 44 of 88
The common understanding among those who support the Divine

Council worldview is that the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6 are the same

as the ‘sons of God’ in Psalm 89. While Psalm 89 has the phrase ‫בְנֵ ֥י‬

‫( ֵאלִים‬ḇ·nê ’ê·lîm), Genesis 6 has ֙‫( ְבנֵי־הָ ֽאֱֹלהִים‬ḇə·nê- hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm). The

translation in both cases should be ‘sons of God’ and I have no

issues with that.

Page 45 of 88
However, we saw that the same word, ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm), has different

meanings in different passages. It is the immediate context that

should dictate how we should interpret the word or phrase. Using

things from outside the context of the passage, without a firm

justification, is at best special pleading and at worst dishonesty with

the text. With special reference to Genesis 6, I think it is clear that

the context requires the ‘sons of God’ to be humans.

Page 46 of 88
Coming back to our main line of thinking, there is no direct link

between Psalm 82 and Psalm 89. In fact, Psalm 89, because of the

reference to the beings in the skies, seems to more strongly indicate

a divine council. Psalm 82, on the other hand, does not have this

explicit reference to heavenly beings. And since ‘elohim’ can refer to

embodied human judges as well as disembodied spirit beings we

need to dig deeper.

Page 47 of 88
The verses immediately after verse 1 in Psalm 82 would most easily

refer to human judges. The issues of giving justice to the weak and

to maintain the rights and dignity of those who are destitute quite

rightly can be seen as being addressed to human judges who have

been entrusted with the welfare of the people. Of course, it could

also refer to the spiritual powers behind such human judges.

Page 48 of 88
But the determining verses are 6 and 7, where we read, “I said, ‘You

are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men

you shall die, and fall like any prince.’” Here Elohim, treated as a

singular, is addressing the Elohim, treated as a plural. But note what

they are told - ‘like men you shall die’. Thi evidently means that the

elohim being addressed are not humans.

Page 49 of 88
After all, it makes no sense to tell human judges that they will die

like men. They would already know that! It is only the most deluded

humans who think that they will not face death. So if these elohim

are being told that they will die like humans, it must mean that they

are not humans. They must, therefore, be some sort of spiritual

beings who are called elohim and who are being judged.

Page 50 of 88
So what we have as of now is that the word elohim does not

automatically refer to Yahweh. Rather, it can be applied to a wide

variety of beings - both spiritual and corporeal - without any

implication that the being so called has any of the attributes we

traditionally associate with God. In Psalm 82.1, one of the elohim,

addresses the rest of them and passes judgment on them.

Page 51 of 88
Somehow the elohim who takes his place in the divine council and

addresses the others has some authority over the others. If this

were not the case, the elohim who are being addressed could

respond and ask the first to be quiet. But since this does not happen,

it is logical to conclude that the first elohim has some right to

chastise the other elohim.

Page 52 of 88
But what does this make of the Christian doctrine of God? Haven’t

we been told that Christianity is one of three Abrahamic and

monotheistic faiths? Does this divine council mean that we are no

longer monotheists? We need to be careful about how we answer

such questions. Yes or no answers will not do because the

interpretive issues are far more complicated.

Page 53 of 88
Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote, “Philosophy is a battle against the

bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” And we find

that when we are asked such straight questions, we are being

bewitched into accepting some worldview that is inherent in the

question whether we like it or not. You see, today the word

‘monotheism’ is understood as put forth by More.

Page 54 of 88
But, as mentioned earlier, More used Platonic categories to

understand the bible. And these categories just do not work with

the Hebraic text of the Old Testament. But not just the Old

Testament. Let us direct our gaze to a crucial passage in the New

Testament. In his first letter to the church at Corinth, while

addressing the matter of food sacrificed to idols, Paul writes,

Page 55 of 88
“Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an

idol has no real existence, and that there is no God but one. For

although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as

indeed there are many gods and many lords - yet for us there is one

God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist,

and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through

whom we exist.”

Page 56 of 88
If understood through the lenses provided by More, we would take

this to be an affirmation of monotheism as expressed by More. And

most of our bible translations seem to do just this, a matter revealed

by the ubiquitous presence of quotes around the words ‘gods’ and

‘lords’. However, the earliest manuscripts we have do not have any

such formatting symbols.

Page 57 of 88
The quotes seem to indicate that Paul believed that these ‘gods’ and

‘lords’ did not exist. However, this does not make sense of his words

when he writes, “Yet for us there is one God.” We easily skip over the

point Paul is making, so let me repeat. “For us there is one God.”

There are other claimants to the words ‘god’ and ‘lord’ but the

Christian recognizes only one as being deserving of those titles.

Page 58 of 88
The perceptive reader will recognize that Paul is updating the

Shema to account for what had happened in and through Jesus. Just

as Yahweh was to be the elohim only for Israel and Israel was to

worship only Yahweh, so also Paul says that Christians are not to

worship any other Θεὸς (Theos) and are not to recognize any other

Κύριος (Kyrios). He is not making the claim that there are no other

‘gods’ or ‘lords’ which is clear if we don’t prejudicially add quotes.

Page 59 of 88
This has massive implications for how we think of ‘monotheism’. But

more to the point, it has an immense impact on how we understand

the word ‘god’. I think I have made the case that, since elohim has

such a variety of meanings, translating it automatically as ‘god’ is

irresponsible. But, in order to make sense of the text, as in the

Shema, Psalm 82.1,6 and 1 Corinthians 8.6 we still need to use the

word ‘god’.

Page 60 of 88
What this means is that the word ‘god’ does not automatically

denote a category of being of which there is only one, namely

Yahweh. Rather, the word ‘god’ refers to a category of being of which

there are many, Yahweh being one of them. As an analogy, think of a

head of state. Let’s think of Angela Merkel. She is a German citizen

like all the other German citizens. But she has some authority over

all the other German citizens.

Page 61 of 88
Now think of a situation in which the head of state does not begin to

exercise his authority because he has had it always. And think of a

situation where the authority wielded by the head of state is not

relative, but absolute. We have no such situations in the visible

world and so I cannot give you a real life example, as it were. But

with the use of our imaginations we can conceive of what this would

be like.

Page 62 of 88
So we can say that Yahweh belongs to the category known as ‘god’.

And there are other beings who belong to this category. As a

reminder, lest some of us have forgotten, this can refer to spiritual

beings, to human judges, to pagan deities - both male and female,

and also to disembodied human spirits. What could link these

seemingly disparate groups? Let me first explain an approach that

reflects a hermeneutical inconsistency.

Page 63 of 88
Some of those who support the Divine Council worldview refuse to

accept that human judges are ever referred to with the word ‫אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬

(’ĕlō·hîm). Then they claim that ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) refers to any

disembodied being, which they then say is what links all the uses of

the word in the Old Testament. Of course, this seems to be more an

issue of eisegesis, that is, reading into the text, than exegesis, that is,

reading out of the text.

Page 64 of 88
Let me illustrate my point with an example where a prejudicial

understanding of ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) has guided most translations.

Consider Exodus 21.5-6, where the ESV reads, “But if the slave

plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not

go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, 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 forever.”

Page 65 of 88
The word translated as ‘God’ is, of course, ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm). But now

we know that we cannot automatically translate it with the word

‘god’. So in context, what seems to be the correct way to understand

the usage? Remember, this is a situation where a slave refuses to

accept his freedom because his master has been very kind to him. In

such a case, the slave would be forfeiting his freedom forever. In

other words, this is a huge decision.

Page 66 of 88
How could the bible ensure that this provision is not exploited by

ruthless masters who may forcibly pierce their slave’s ear? Would it

be enough for the master to say, “I did it before God” if there were

no witnesses present? Absolutely not! For this provision to make

sense and also to prevent abuse there must be tangible witnesses.

But could the ruthless master just call his equally ruthless friends as

witnesses? Absolutely not!

Page 67 of 88
There had to be tangible people whom everyone trusted who could

verify that the slave was willingly refusing his freedom. In other

words, ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) in this context absolutely has to refer to

human judges. And since I normally criticize the NIV, let me praise

them for actually having the guts here to translate ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm)

against the popular and majority view, and rather go with the word

‘judges’.

Page 68 of 88
To choose rather to use the word ‘God’ in Exodus 21.6 despite the

clear contextual pressure is to bring one’s presuppositions to the

text. Then, of course, we can simply ignore the troublesome

passages and reach our conclusions. You know who this reminds me

of? David Hume, the Scottish Enlightenment Philosopher who

supposedly proved that miracles cannot happen, as claimed

gleefully by his ardent fans like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Page 69 of 88
Of course, none of his fans bother to tell us that Hume reaches his

conclusion by assuming it in his premise. His argument is as follows.

Dead people do not rise from the dead. There are claims that

someone rose from the dead. These claims are false since dead

people do not rise from the dead. Hence, Jesus’ resurrection did not

happen. Given how clumsy the logic is, it is surprising how

pervasive his arguments are among the new Western atheists.

Page 70 of 88
But those who say that ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) cannot refer to embodied

humans proceed as follows. We know that ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) does not

refer to embodied humans. Hence, we will translate ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm)

in Exodus 21.6 and similar passages with the word ‘God’. Now let’s

search our bibles. Hey, there are no passages where ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm)

refers to embodied humans. Hence, ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) cannot refer to

embodied humans. I’m sure you can see the link.

Page 71 of 88
This is what happens when we so desperately want something to be

true that we ignore the immediate context of the passage and bring

in ideas foreign to it that support our presupposed conclusions. I

think I have been faithful to the contexts of the various passages I

have brought in during the discussion so far. However, I still have to

find a consistent link between all the uses of ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and to

that we now turn.

Page 72 of 88
Remember again that ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) is used to refer to Yahweh,

other spiritual beings, human judges, pagan deities and

disembodied human spirits. The only reference to disembodied

human spirits is in the incident where Saul visits the medium at

Endor in 1 Samuel 28. In that episode, Saul asks the medium to

conjure the spirit of the dead Samuel. The medium sees that

Samuel’s spirit responds to Saul’s request and she freaks out.

Page 73 of 88
WHen Saul asks her what she sees, she says, “I see a god coming up

out of the earth.” The word for ‘god’ of course is ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm). But

is this usage in reference to the fact that she saw Samuel’s spirit or

because she saw Samuel? That is, did she use the word ‫אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬

(’ĕlō·hîm) because she saw a disembodied human spirit or because

she saw a human judge? You see, she calls Samuel’s spirit ‫אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬

(’ĕlō·hîm) not because it was his spirit, but because it was him.

Page 74 of 88
So now we have limited the range of usage for ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) to

Yahweh, other spiritual beings, pagan deities and human judges.

What is it that links these groups? In one word ‘authority’. These are

groups consisting of beings who have some degree of authority over

other beings. Yahweh, of course, has absolute authority over

everything and everyone. But the other beings have authority over

some other groups.

Page 75 of 88
So an ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) is just a reference to a being that has

authority, whether it be human judges, pagan deities, spiritual

beings or Yahweh. The focus of the word is on the authority that the

being wields. It has nothing to do with the classic attributes of God

like we see in most systematic theology books. Those books take

their cue from More and his foundations in Platonism and have little

to do with how scripture presents the situation.

Page 76 of 88
Having redefined the word ‘god’ now we have to turn our attention

to the matter of monotheism. If, as we have concluded from our

study of the word ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm), there are many ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm),

then do we conclude that there are many Θεὸς (Theos) and that,

therefore, we are polytheists? Even framing the question in this

manner is problematic for it assumes we know what the words

‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos) mean.

Page 77 of 88
After all, only if we knew what ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos)

mean could we determine whether we believe that there is only one

or if there are more than one. But now we know that ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm)

can refer to multiple types of beings. And in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul

indicates that there are many beings that can be called Θεὸς

(Theos). Hence, both words are multivalent and we must revisit the

issue of monotheism from a different perspective.

Page 78 of 88
The problem with the word ‘monotheism’ arose when More defined

it through Platonist categories. According to Plato’s theory of Ideas,

the world in which we live is not as real as the realm of Ideas. And to

every word we use, there is, in the realm of Ideas, the true Idea of

that word. Hence, when we use the word God, according to Plato,

this means there must be an Idea of God in the realm of Ideas and

we experience only the phenomenon of God in the physical realm.

Page 79 of 88
You can see that, for something to pre-exist in the realm of Ideas, it

must mean that there is some content automatically associated with

the word. This is why we have aimed at describing the word ‘God’

using categories such as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc.

believing that there must be some Idea that underlies the word. If

you have defended the scriptures as teaching ‘timeless truths’ you

will see in it the ghost of Plato continuing to haunt the Church.

Page 80 of 88
Rather, the scriptures teach us that we acquire new knowledge not

by thinking of them like the Greek philosophers, but by

experiencing things. That is why we are commanded not to revere

God, but to love him. And we are invited not to contemplate God, but

to taste and see that Yahweh is good. Indeed, it is because we have

relied on Greek categories that we don’t know how to relate to

Yahweh in fresh and refreshing ways.

Page 81 of 88
So what do we make of it all? What does the bible really teach about

‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos)? Quite frankly, the bible tells us

that there are multiple ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos). But just

because some being is an ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos) it does

not mean that we are to worship that being. Rather, there is one

‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos), namely Yahweh, who alone

should be praised and worshipped by his people.

Page 82 of 88
This ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos) is known and understood

through his interactions with his people within history through

thick and thin. This ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos) is known

through the promises he makes with his people and in and through

his faithfulness to his people. This ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos)

is not an abstract concept who answers to Platonic categories, but a

real and tangible person who is known in relationship with him.

Page 83 of 88
The scriptures can be claimed to teach monotheism if we mean by it

that, though there are many ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos), there

is only one ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos), namely Yahweh, who

has all authority, who can be interacted with anywhere, who can be

approached for wisdom in any situation. Do you see how I have

redefined the Platonic categories of omnipotence, omnipresence

and omniscience in a more Hebraic manner?

Page 84 of 88
We need to do this consistently instead of relying on the timeless

truths to which we have remained captive till now. We need to

reimagine how we view the only ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos)

who deserves to be worshipped as one who is known not through

sterile contemplation by philosophers, but through fertile

engagement by those who use their hearts and souls and minds and

bodies to love him.

Page 85 of 88
But if I have said that this ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) and Θεὸς (Theos) is

known through his interactions with his people, does this mean he

does not have authority over the whole world? And if he is so

intimately involved with his people, what happens to the rest of the

world? For that, you will have to return two weeks from today.

Today, all I have done is looked at some vocabulary and redefined

‘god’ and ‘monotheism’.

Page 86 of 88
I have pointed to a way in which we can understand what it means

to declare that ‫ֱֹלהינּו י ְהוָ ֥ה׀ א ֶָחֽד‬

֖ ֵ ‫( י ְהוָ ֥ה א‬Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hê·nū Yah·weh

’e·ḥāḏ), that is, “Yahweh is your elohim, Yahweh alone.” This is the

foundation upon which we can rightly develop our understanding of

the Divine Council. We will address that matter two weeks from

today, when we try to understand how Yahweh exercises his

authority to execute his plans for his good creation.

Page 87 of 88
Two weeks from today we will ask, “What is the Divine Council?”

“Who are its members?” “What is its purpose?” “How does it relate

to Israel and the Church?” and “How does it fit into Yahweh’s

overarching plans for the good world that he has created?” But for

today, we have done no small thing if we have succeeded in

reimagining ‘god’ and ‘monotheism’.

Page 88 of 88