The Divine Council Worldview - Reimagining Authority

In an oft repeated saying, Lord Acton declared, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.” Critiquing this blanket statement, the American journalist,
Robert Caro, concluded, “What I believe is always true about power is that power always
reveals.” I think that Caro has understood something that the scriptures have been
telling us for millennia now, but which we Christians have assiduously refused to accept.

Two weeks back, we began our exploration of the Divine Council worldview. What we
managed to cover in that session might seem to be very little. We only managed to
reimagine what we mean by the words ‘god’ and ‘monotheism’. We saw that the Hebrew
word ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm) is used in a variety of ways in the Old Testament. It can refer to
Yahweh, to spiritual beings, to pagan deities and to human judges. Hence, we must be
careful with our translations.

We saw that, since the bible seems to refer to different categories as ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm), and
since Paul also indicates that there are multiple entities that can rightly be designated
with the word Θεὸς (Theos), using the word ‘monotheism’ to describe the Christian faith
is problematic because there are others who use the word ‘god’ in English to mean
something quite different from what it would mean in a monotheistic context.

Today, we continue our study of the Divine Council worldview. And whereas last time we
dealt with the details of various words, today we will zoom out and discuss the big
picture. And whereas last time we began with the first verse of Psalm 82, today we will
begin with the last verse, which reads, ‫קּומה ֭ ֱאֹלהִים ָׁש פ ָ ְ֣טה ה ָ ָ֑א ֶרץ ִּכ ֽי־אַָּת ֥ה ֝תִ נְ ַ֗חל ְּב כָל־הַּגֹו ִי ֽם‬
֣ ָ (qū·māh
’ĕ·lō·hîm šā·p̄ə·ṭāh hā·’ā·reṣ; kî- ’at·tāh ṯin·ḥal, bə·ḵāl hag·gō·w·yim).

The ESV renders it as, “Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!”
And right away, we should be thinking that this is a strange thing to say to God. God will
inherit all the nations? What does that mean? Does he not already possess the nations?
And if he were to inherit the nations, from whom would he inherit them? These are
pertinent questions and ones that we must wrestle with if we hope to understand what
the Psalmist is claiming.

For that we turn to Deuteronomy 32.8-9. Moses is in the middle of his final speech in
Deuteronomy and, to help the Israelites, he gives them a way of understanding their

Page 1 of 21
relationship to the other nations. He says, “When the Most High gave the nations their
inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God. But the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob
his allotted heritage.”

If any of you is reading along in your bible, you may find a slight discrepancy in the text
toward the end. If you have the NIV or KJV or NASB you may read the phrase ‘sons of
Israel’ instead of ‘sons of God’ at the end of verse 8. This is because there are differences
in various sources. The Masoretic text, compiled between the 7th and 10th centuries AD,
and which forms the basis of the Hebrew text of our Old Testament, has the words ‫ְּבנֵ ֥י‬
‫ְִׂשראֵ ֽל׃‬
ָ ‫( י‬bə·nê yiś·rā·’êl).

That is, the Masoretic text supports the translation ‘sons of Israel’ and therefore the NIV,
KJV, NASB, etc. However, the Greek Septuagint, from the 3rd century BC, and therefore,
pre-dating the Masoretic text by a millennium, has the words, ἀγγέλων θεοῦ (angelon
theou). Translated into English this would read ‘angels of God.’ There is absolutely no
way to get either from ‘angels of God’ to ‘sons of Israel’ or the other way around.

Hence, most early translations just went with the Masoretic text and translated the last
part of verse 8 as ‘sons of Israel.’ However, the manuscript DSS 4QDt, one of the Dead
Sea scrolls, found in the 4th cave at Qumran, and dating to earlier than the destruction of
Jerusalem in AD 70, has the reading ‫( ְּבנֵ ֥י אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬bə·nê ’ĕlō·hîm), which would translate to
‘sons of God’ as in the ESV. So which one was the original reading?

If we compare the three readings, ‘sons of God’, ‘sons of Israel’ and ‘angels of God’ it is
easy to see how both ‘sons of Israel’ and ‘angels of God’ derived from ‘sons of God’ since
both required just one change to be made. This is the simplest explanation and,
according to the principle of Occam's Razor, should be the one that we should adopt.
What this means is that Deuteronomy 32.8 refers to a group of beings called ‘sons of
God’.

But who are these ‘sons of God’ and what was their original vocation? In most places in
the Old Testament, the phrase ‘sons of God’ refers to some group of non-physical
entities. One notable exception, as mentioned last time, is in Genesis 6, where the

Page 2 of 21
context seems to require that we understand ‘sons of God’ in that passage as referring to
human rulers. But for the most part ‘sons of God’ refers to some group of non-physical
entities.

This is also clear from Deuteronomy 32 where the contrast is drawn between the ‘sons
of God’ who are apportioned the nations and Yahweh, whose portion is said to be Israel.
We can draw two very important conclusions from this. First, we are talking about real
people groups and not political nations. This is simply because the setting of
Deuteronomy is prior to the formation of Israel as a nation.

Otherwise, we would have to conclude that, when Israel was not a nation, Israel was not
Yahweh’s inheritance. We can clearly see that from the perspective of Judaism and
Christianity, this view is absurd. Yahweh’s covenant with Israel is not dependent on their
being a nation. This is crucial and is something the Israelites understood only after they
were taken into exile and something Christians forgot when we began to have an
individualistic focus.

Second, ‘sons of God’ in Deuteronomy 32 cannot refer to human rulers because the
number of human rulers keeps changing as nations wage war against each other
resulting in fewer nations through assimilation or conquest or more nations through
separation or secession. For the matter of the inheritance to each people group to make
sense, the number of ‘sons of God’ needs to be constant, which would imply that they are
not human rulers.

If the ‘sons of God’ in Deuteronomy 32 does not refer to human rulers, then it must refer
to non-physical beings. Now, the study of non-physical beings has taken a back seat in
Evangelical circles. There was a time when Christian scholars debated such inane
matters as the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. Yes. I’m not
joking. We were so bored that we needed to inspire our thinking with madness.

But the complete ignoring of the non-physical realm is not the answer either. From the
Enlightenment on, we have left the study of the non-physical realm to people on the
fringes of the church. As a result we have a very stunted understanding of the
non-physical realm, thinking it only consists of angels and demons, the good guys and

Page 3 of 21
the bad guys, without recognizing that the bible itself uses a larger vocabulary to
describe these beings.

For example, in Genesis 3, we read about the Cherubs. And they are described in such a
manner that should make us rethink what we commonly mean by cherub or cherubic. In
Isaiah 6 we read about Seraphs, who seem to be quite distinct from the Cherubs. In
Daniel 4 we are told about a category known as the Watchers and in chapter 10 about
the prince of Persia and are also introduced to Michael, who is called Chief Prince, even
though he is clearly not human.

Then in Job we read about the ‘sons of God’ and are told about an office bearer known as
‘the Accuser’ or ‘the Adversary’, a figure that seems to show up again in Zechariah 3,
though now in a more adversarial role than in Job. With such a wide range of words to
describe different categories of non-physical beings it is really sad that we have
devolved this into simplistic categories of angels and demons, which prevents us from
understanding the biblical text.

Before we attempt to understand what the Divine Council is made of, let us look at
different passages that clearly indicate the presence of such a Council. Our journey
begins with Daniel 7 where Daniel is given a vision of different beasts. In the middle of
that vision we read, “As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his
seat.” The vision clearly indicates that there were multiple thrones and that the Ancient
of Days sits on one of them.

But the passage in Daniel does not give us an exact count of the number of thrones. But
we could get that if we looked at Revelation 4, where we read, “Surrounding the throne
were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders.” So there
seems to be twenty-five thrones in all, one for Yahweh and twenty-four for the elders.
But let us not rush to identify the elders or it may prejudice our understanding of other
passages.

We next look at Isaiah 6. This is the prophet’s famous vision in the Temple shortly after
King Uzziah died. There he hears the words, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for
us?” We rarely pause to think of the disjunction between the two personal pronouns in

Page 4 of 21
the verse. In the first instance it is singular ‘I’ while in the second it is plural ‘us’. Yahweh
asks, “Whom shall I send?” indicating that there is one sender.

But he also asks, “Who will go for us?” implying that whoever is sent would represent
more than one. The common Christian way of understanding this is to think of the plural
as a reference to the Trinity. However, if there is a Council surrounding Yahweh, then we
need not understand the disjunction in pronouns as a reference to a Christian doctrine.
After all, we need to discipline ourselves to understand the text as the Ancient Israelites
would have done so.

We encounter a similar instance of disjunction in Genesis 1 where in verse 26 God

declares, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” while in verse 27 we read,
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and
female he created them.” In verse 26 God announces the intention of making humans in
‘our image’ while in verse 27 we are told that God created humans in ‘his image’.

Once again, the common Christian understanding is to see this as a reference to the
Trinity. And once again, we must discipline ourselves and not read into the text
something that is not necessary to understand it. If, as so many other passages indicate,
there seems to be a Council around Yahweh, then we do not need to invoke the Christian
doctrine of the Godhead to account for the various plural personal pronouns we find all
over the place.

But what is the purpose of this Council? And how does it function? In order to think of
how it might function, consider an example. Let’s say that, after this COVID pandemic
ends, my family decides to have dinner at a restaurant. I may ask for restaurant
suggestions from my wife or my daughters. And we may make a decision collectively.
But in the end, it will perhaps be just I who will actually drive the car. And I will
probably foot the bill.

So you can see that, even though there is a collective decision making process, there is
one person who is finally responsible for some parts of the action that follows. I could
very well tell the story as follows: “Then Deepak said, ‘Where should we go to eat? And

Page 5 of 21
at which restaurant should we buy our dinner?’ And after much discussion I drove to the
chosen restaurant where, after we had our dinner, I paid the bill.”

If anyone narrated a story in this manner, we would have absolutely no difficulty

understanding what was being said. We would not fault the person for constantly
switching between singular and plural personal pronouns. Somehow such an easy
approach to understanding the text is obscured by the traditional Christian belief in one
God and interestingly enough in our belief in a Triune God. Monotheistic trinitarianism
has proved to obscure the text.

But if God can rightfully declare, “Let us create man in our image” and the pronoun ‘our’
does not refer to the Trinity, then does that mean that there are other beings who are in
the image of God? And as soon as we ask that question, we need to ask what it means to
be created ‘in the image of God’. Of course, as soon as we ask that, we need to ask, “Is
that really how the text in Genesis 1 should be translated?”

The text in Genesis 1 reads, “‫מּותנּו‬

֑ ֵ ְ‫ָאד֛ם ְּב ַצל ֵ ְ֖מנּו ִּכד‬
ָ ‫( נַ ֽעֲֶׂש ֥ ה‬na·‘ă·śeh ’ā·ḏām bə·ṣal·mê·nū
kiḏ·mū·ṯê·nū)” The English phrase ‘in our image’ is problematic since, if we are honest,
we really don’t know how to make sense of it grammatically. And that is because the
small preposition ‘in’ has multiple meanings. Consider the sentence, “In a day’s time, I
will write in prose in ink in a book while in my pajamas in time to meet a deadline.”

Six occurrences of the word ‘in’ and all six with different meanings. Let me repeat the
sentence so you can catch the nuances: “In a day’s time, I will write in prose in ink in a
book while in my pajamas in time to meet a deadline.” And this is just a small subset of
the different ways the word ‘in’ can be used. So while translating the preposition ‫( ְּב‬bə)
with the word ‘in’ is lexically correct, it tells us precious little about how the word is
used.

For that we will need to look carefully at the context. But let us first consider some ways
of interpreting the ‘image of God’ that arise from reading into the text. Some claim that it
is our intellect, emotions and free will that constitute the image of God. What then do we
say of someone who has a low intellect or who is suffering some brain degeneracy that

Page 6 of 21
prevents them from expressing and experiencing emotions? Are they not in the image of
God?

Others have claimed that it is our ability to think rationally that constitutes the image of
God. Does that mean that someone who has lost the ability to think rationally is not the
image of God? Seven years ago I had a risky brain surgery and it was very likely that I
would have emerged in a vegetative state. By God’s grace I did not. But had I emerged in
a vegetative state would that have meant that I was no longer the image of God?

Still others think that it is our ability to have an aesthetic sense that is the image of God.
Does that mean a blind person or deaf person is deficient in some way because that
person cannot have a visual or auditory aesthetic? Still others say that it is our ability to
plan for the future that is the image of God. Does that mean someone with dementia that
affects the ability to think into the future is not the image of God?

And still others claim that it is our moral sense that constitutes the image of God. Does
this mean that a criminal is no longer the image of God and has forfeited that while
committing the crime? And even others claim that it is our ability to maintain
relationships that constitutes the image of God. Does this mean that someone with
Asperger’s syndrome is not the image of God? Each of these approaches is based on
some trait that most humans possess.

But as soon as we realize that most humans possess these traits it means that some
don’t. And as soon as we exclude some humans from being the image of God, we allow
ourselves to think of them as less than human and justify all sorts of atrocities. That’s
what happened when the Hutus called the Tutsis ‘inyenzis’ or cockroaches. That’s what
happened when Christians called the Jews ‘God killers’.

So you see it is not a small matter to correctly understand what the image of God is. And
you should be able to see that none of the interpretations I have mentioned earlier have
anything to do with what is in the text of Genesis. In fact, it seems that these views have
gone out of their way to ignore and obscure the meaning that is so clear in the text that I
believe it is yet another example of what happened when humans ate the forbidden
fruit.

Page 7 of 21
So let us see what the text says. Genesis 1.26 says, “Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of
the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing
that creeps on the earth.” Dominion is what designates humans as the image of God. We
are constituted to be the image of God by virtue of our vocation to exercise authority.

Here a word of caution is in order. The word ‘dominion’ may make some of us think of
‘domineering’ or ‘dominating’. And while they all stem from the same word, the word
‘dominion’ simply means ‘rule’ or ‘authority’ and says nothing about the manner in
which the authority or rule is expressed and exercised. That must come, as usual, from
the context of the text and not from any preconceived ideas that we may have.

So just because someone abused their authority does not mean that the vocation to
exercise authority has been revoked. As Paul says in Romans 11.29, “For the gifts and
the calling of God are irrevocable.” Just because we refuse to exercise our vocation
appropriately and have abdicated our rule does not mean that God has accepted our
abdication. Rather, whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, all humans
are the image of God because they are human.

In other words, to be human is to be the image of God. So I would translate the

preposition ‫( ְּב‬bə) not with ‘in’ but with ‘as’ or ‘to be’. In that case Genesis 1.26 would
read, “Let us make man as our image” or “Let us make man to be our image.” Now an
image is only a representation of reality. Consider my driver’s license picture and a
picture taken at my wedding with my wife. Both of these pictures will allow you to
recognize me.

However, my driver’s license picture will not tell you if I am married and my wedding
picture will not tell you if I am qualified to drive. This is because both images were made
to serve different purposes and they cannot function outside that purpose. So when we
look at the text in Genesis 1 it is clear that the nature of the image is that of exercising
dominion over the physical realm for God specifically mentions the flora and fauna that
flourish on the earth.

Page 8 of 21
Let me restate what we have concluded so we can use that to move ahead. Looking
carefully at the text of Genesis 1, we have concluded that the image of God is not some
trait that humans possess but a vocation given by God to humans by virtue of making
them human. That is, the image of God is what it means to be human. And the aspect
involved in being God’s image is that of dominion. We are to exercise dominion over the
physical realm.

But this automatically raises the question, “Then what about the non-physical realm?”
Now, being a Mathematics teacher, I am wary of making hasty generalizations. I have a
sample of one - the physical realm and we have concluded something on the basis of the
text of Genesis 1. I would rather not draw conclusions about the non-physical realm
from what we have concluded about the physical realm.

So let us turn to 1 Kings 22. This is the story of when Jehoshaphat was going to partner
with Ahab to fight Syria. Jehoshaphat goes to Israel and he and Ahab seek advice from
the prophets of the Northern kingdom. All of them with one voice tell Ahab to go ahead
and launch an attack against Syria. Jehoshaphat is not convinced and asks Ahab if there
was any prophet of Yahweh around there. Ahab says there is but that he did not like this
prophet.

You see, Micaiah ben Imlach, the prophet of Yahweh, knowing Ahab’s wicked ways,
never prophesied any good things for Ahab and so Ahab developed a hatred for Micaiah.
When Micaiah comes to them, he initially, but sarcastically, agrees with what Ahab’s
prophets had said. Noting that Micaiah was been sarcastic, Ahab orders Micaiah to tell
them exactly what Yahweh had told him. So Micaiah proceeds,

“I saw Yahweh sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on
his right hand and on his left; and Yahweh said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up
and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a
spirit came forward and stood before Yahweh, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And Yahweh
said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the
mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go
out and do so.’”

Page 9 of 21
Again, in this passage, we are introduced to the Divine Council. And here we actually see
it in action. Yahweh is in the midst of his council members. He declares that it is time for
Ahab to pay for his misdeeds and asks for suggestions from his council members. Note
that Yahweh does not ask them to decide if Ahab is to be punished. He has already made
that decision. Rather, he asks his council members to suggest methods by which they
could entice Ahab.

Then we read, “And one said one thing, and another said another.” There is a heated
discussion, with different members of the council proposing different plans. And finally,
one of the council members says that he will lie to Ahab through Ahab’s prophets. And
Yahweh approves of this plan of action and declares that the plan would succeed. So
here we can see that Yahweh has invited participation from his council members.

And the participation is an exercise of authority. Yahweh has expressed a desire to

delegate the authority of enticing Ahab to one of his trusted lieutenants. Note that the
decision to punish Ahab is solely Yahweh’s. None of his council members participate in
that decision. And this is simply because justice demands knowledge of the full picture
and only Yahweh has the full picture. It would have been unjust to invite the council
members to make that decision.

But the council members are making a decision about how Ahab would be convinced to
wage war against Syria. And the one whose plan Yahweh approves of is then given the
authority to implement that plan. Does this mean that Yahweh needs the council to
implement his will? Does this mean that he needs humans to enable the physical world
to flourish? Absolutely not. Yahweh could do all of this all by himself.

However, when he made the non-physical creatures and the physical creatures, he
designated among them some who would wield authority on his behalf. The members of
the Divine Council do that in the non-physical realm while we humans do it in the
physical realm. For some reason, and we will get to it shortly, Yahweh finds pleasure and
joy in working through his creatures, those whom he has tasked with exercising
authority on his behalf.

Page 10 of 21
So when we read in Genesis 1.26, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” this
is just Yahweh speaking to his non-physical Divine Council members and telling them
that his plan was to create physical creatures - humans - who would be tasked with
exercising authority on his behalf. We don’t need to think that this is a hint about the
Trinity. Nor do we need to think that this would call into question Yahweh’s absolute
sovereignty over all of creation.

So we now understand that the Divine Council comprises those non-physical beings who
exercise authority that Yahweh has delegated to them. But who are these beings? We
have seen that the classification of non-physical beings into angels and demons is
simplistic since there are many other categories that the scriptures mention. In fact, the
word angel in Hebrew is ‫( ַמלְָאך‬malak) and in Greek is άγγελος (angelos) both of which
mean ‘messenger’.

In other words, an angel is actually just a messenger. They are important, for sure, but
they are not the ones with authority, but ones with a message. So who are the
non-physical beings who form the Divine Council? In Psalm 82.1 they are called ‫אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬
(’ĕlō·hîm) and in Psalm 82.6 they are called ‫( ב ְֵנ֖י ֶע ְליֹ֣ון‬ḇə·nê ‘el·yō·wn), translated as ‘sons
of the Most High’. In Psalm 89.6 they are called ‫( בְנֵ ֥י ֵאלִים‬ḇ·nê ’ê·lîm), translated as ‘sons
of God’ or ‘might’.

In Revelation 4, those around the throne are called πρεσβύτερος (presbúteros),

translated as ‘elders’. Our second last passage is Daniel 4, where the decision about
Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment is said to be by decree of the ‫ִירין‬
ִ ‫( ע‬î·rîn), translated as
‘watchers’, and referred to as ‫( קַּדִ יׁשִין‬qad·dî·šîn) or ‘holy ones’ in the next clause. The
entire chapter is in Aramaic and so both ‫ִירין‬
ִ ‫( ע‬î·rîn) and ‫( קַּדִ יׁשִין‬qad·dî·šîn) are Aramaic
words.

Before we look at the last passage, let us recount the different ways in which the Divine
Council is referred to. We have ‫’( אֽ‍ֱֹל ִ֗הים‬ĕlō·hîm), ‫( ב ְֵנ֖י ֶע ְליֹ֣ון‬ḇə·nê ‘el·yō·wn), ‫( בְנֵ ֥י ֵאלִים‬ḇ·nê
’ê·lîm), πρεσβύτερος (presbúteros), ‫ִירין‬
ִ ‫( ע‬î·rîn), and ‫( קַּדִ יׁשִין‬qad·dî·šîn). That is elohim,
sons of the Most High, sons of God or sons of might, elders, watchers and holy ones. The
sheer breadth of ways of describing this group is mind boggling.

Page 11 of 21
But one thing we can conclude is that all of these are titles. They designate something
about the group. But if you recall from two weeks back, we should not assume that there
is a Platonic realm of ideas and that, when we use a word, the primary referent is in the
realm of ideas. That is, for example, there is no idea of ‘sons of the Most High’ of which
the Divine Council members are just one expression in the realm of the temporal.

So we don’t really have any information of what kind of non-physical beings constitute
the Divine Council. We could use any of the above terms, but we should recognize that
the terms do not denote any traits inherent in these beings, but rather, as in the rest of
the Old Testament, indicate the status of these beings and the task they have been given
by God. Of course, this means we have to ask ourselves, “What is the task given to the
Divine Council?”

And so we come to the last passage in Deuteronomy 32.8-9 which reads, “When the
Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the
borders of the peoples, according to the number of the sons of God. But Yahweh’s
portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.” Remember from last time that there is
a variant reading where some later texts read ‘sons of Israel’ instead of ‘sons of God’ at
the end of verse 8.

Deuteronomy 32 seems to indicate that there was a time when Yahweh divided mankind
into nations. Here another reminder is in order, namely that the word ‘nations’ does not
refer to political groups such as we know today but to people groups. Deuteronomy 32
indicates that Yahweh divided humanity into groups according to the number of the
sons of God. If we read Genesis 10 we will see that seventy nations are mentioned there,
excluding Israel.

This explains the variant reading because in Genesis 46.27 we read that the household
of Jacob numbered seventy people. However, why this should be relevant to the division
of mankind is inexplicable. So what Deuteronomy 32 tells us is that Yahweh divided
humanity into groups or nations keeping in mind the number of the sons of God.
Presumably there were and are seventy sons of God and so God divided humanity into
seventy one groups.

Page 12 of 21
But Deuteronomy also tells us that Yahweh kept Israel as his own heritage. How do we
understand what is being described here? And what is the reason and purpose behind
it? Genesis 10, 11 and 12 are linked closely. In Genesis 10 we are given the names of the
nations recognized in the Old Testament. Then in Genesis 11 we are told what provided
the impetus for this division. And in Genesis 12 we are told about Yahweh’s plan in light
of Genesis 11.

Briefly, in Genesis 11, rejecting God’s command to spread through the earth, humans
decide to gather at the plains of Shinar. Their plan is to make a name for themselves by
building a ziggurat reaching to heaven. From Genesis 10.8-11, it seems that the narrative
intends us to take this to have happened under the rule of Nimrod. Whatever he did,
Nimrod managed to get people to create an aphorism about himself - “like Nimrod, a
mighty hunter before Yahweh.”

In other words, Nimrod is the archetypal person who attempts to make a name for
themselves. The Tower of Babel, a ziggurat reaching into the skies, touching the heavens
and so paving a way either for the gods to descend to earth or for humans to storm the
heavens, was supposed to be a monument to themselves and primarily Nimrod. It has
been so all through human history that rulers have attempted to make a name for
themselves.

Rulers have engaged in massive building projects in an attempt to leave behind

something that people would remember them by. They have renamed structures and
even cities after themselves in an attempt to go down in history. The practice continues
to this day wherever a leader has sycophantic followers. And whenever we start treating
someone as larger than life, the ghost of Babel will raise its head to haunt us.

To the contrary, in Genesis 12, Yahweh calls a nomad with this promise, “Go from your
country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I
will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that
you will be a blessing.” Whereas Nimrod and the people at Babel wanted to make a name
for themselves, Yahweh tells Abram that he would make Abram’s name great.

Page 13 of 21
Whereas Nimrod and the people at Babel thought of making structures to preserve their
name in perpetuity, Yahweh tells Abram that he will be remembered by people because
he and his descendants after him would be a source of blessing for all the nations.
Whereas Nimrod and the people of Babel sought to be remembered for all the
possessions they had, Yahweh tells Abram that he would be remembered for the
blessings that he shared.

Why have I made this detour into Genesis 10-12? Following the judgment of the flood,
God reissued his original commission to humans to be fruitful and to multiply and to
spread throughout the earth. They were to willingly spread through the earth, sharing in
its bounty and experiencing the generous beneficence of God. However, humans rejected
this and chose to form groups with high population densities, finally forming city states.

And what arises automatically from high population densities? First, disease, from the
fact that bacteria and viruses do not have to travel too far to infect another person, a
phenomenon that has affected the whole world for a year and a half now. Second,
scarcity, leading to competition for resources like groceries and vaccines today. Third,
violence, from the struggle between those who compete for the now scarce but essential
resources for life.

We who live in urban centers during this pandemic have experienced this dark side of
high population densities for some months now. But even in normal times things are not
quite rosy. In his groundbreaking book Guns, Germs and Steel Jared Diamond writes,
“Once food can be stockpiled, a political elite can gain control of food produced by
others, assert the right of taxation, escape the need to feed itself, and engage full-time in
political activities.”

The decision to live in close quarters with each other in cities with high population
densities, brings with it many problems we deal with on a day to day basis but which we
have grown accustomed to and which we think are simply the way things ought to be.
But, as David Hume, in one of his more honest moments, argued, we should not
conclude anything about how things ought to be from the way we find things are.

Page 14 of 21
So what has happened? According to some who support the divine council worldview,
Genesis 10-12 narrates the event referred to in Deuteronomy 32. According to them,
when humans rejected God’s command to spread through the world and to be fruitful
and multiply, God punished them by confusing the languages of the people and
dispersing them throughout the world. In doing this, he divided humanity into seventy
one groups.

One group, the people of Israel, he kept to himself, while the other seventy, listed in
Genesis 10, he assigned to different members of his Divine Council, called ‘sons of God’
in Deuteronomy 32.8. According to these interpreters, this group called ‘sons of God’ is
the same group as mentioned in Genesis 6 as ‘sons of God’, who are actually fallen
non-physical beings. These interpreters, based on the first book of Enoch, identify these
‘sons of God’ with the ‘Watchers’.

According to the book of Enoch, the Watchers are the members of the Divine Council,
who at some point in human history prior to the flood, took on human form and had
sexual intercourse with human women, giving rise to the group called the ‘Nephilim’.
According to these interpreters, when God punished the human race after Babel, he
assigned the non-Israelite nations to these Watchers, who are judged in Psalm 82.

I do not buy this interpretation for one bit. But before I proceed to discuss why I reject
this view of the link between Genesis 10-12, Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82, let us
assume the view is true and ask a simple question, “What does this tell us about the
nature and character of God and how he administers this world?” To answer that, let us
set the stage carefully with a timeline because it is crucial we understand the sequence
of events.

Please note that I am now not going to be outlining the view I hold, but the view of some
who support the Divine Council worldview. I will let you know when I begin my own
view. So let us begin. At some time before the flood, the Watchers notice human women
and find them attractive. They then proceed to violate some of the human women and
produce the unnatural offspring known as Nephilim who were present at the time of
Noah and later as well.

Page 15 of 21
However, despite the judgment of the flood, humans continue to rebel, leading up to the
great disobedience at Babel. God judges the humans at Babel, confuses their languages,
splits them into seventy one people groups and disperses them throughout the world.
God then assigns the seventy nations to the Watchers. But since the Watchers are fallen,
they entice humans into sin and violence, which is why human societies are so prone to
sinful and violent behavior.

I have finished describing the predominant view among those who support the Divine
Council worldview. Let me present my critique. Now, it is important to observe that we
are never told that the Watchers ever repented of having violated the human women.
Even though 1 Enoch devotes a lot of space discussing the Watchers, there is not the
slightest hint that the Watchers ever repented. So what do we make of God assigning the
other nations to them?

I am going to use a stark example so that we can see clearly. It is as though God took a
group of unrepentant pedophiles and made them Principals of the schools of the region.
Remember that the Watchers are those who violated human women. Yet, according to
this view, God placed the Watchers over the other nations where half the population
constitutes those whom these Watchers violated, an absolutely bizarre policy decision if
ever there was one.

You can see why I reject this view. It presents a God who is unconcerned about the
wellbeing of women, and who intentionally places them in danger by assigning their
predators to govern them. It is a bizarre view of God - a view of a God who is so unjust
that he willingly and willfully placed the perpetrators of a crime in a position of
authority over their victims. It is such a disgusting view that I cannot believe any
Christian could hold it.

But those who support this view think they have biblical support. To justify their
reliance on 1 Enoch, they say that 2 Peter and Jude refer to the casting of these fallen
Watchers into Tartarus, an idea that appears in 1 Enoch. They say that this means that
Peter and Jude accept that this is exactly what happened to the Watchers. I have multiple

Page 16 of 21
objections to this conclusion. But let us, for a moment, assume that the conclusion is
correct.

Even if Peter and Jude’s reference to 1 Enoch indicates that the Watchers are bound in
Tartarus, it does not follow that the Watchers were given dominion over the nations in
Genesis 10-12 and Deuteronomy 32. That is a fallacious argument with no basis in the
biblical text because there is absolutely no link between Genesis 10-12 and
Deuteronomy 32 on the one hand and 1 Enoch on the other.

In fact, there is a logical problem with viewing the Watchers as the beings who are
assigned to the other nations. Simply put, if the fallen Watchers are being held captive in
Tartarus, then how can they exercise dominion over the nations? And if God’s plan was
that the other nations should be governed by the Watchers while he focused on Israel,
then what were the other nations doing after the Watchers rebelled and were
imprisoned?

But more problematic is the assumption that, just because Peter and Jude allude to an
episode from 1 Enoch, they must be accepting the view of the book lock, stock and
barrel or even that they must be accepting that the event must have happened exactly as
in 1 Enoch. Those who have heard me preach will know that I use examples from movies
and novels. And I quote from atheists and Muslims and Jews and Hindus.

But that does not mean I accept everything that the sources I quote from claim. It’s just
that at certain points, I find some examples are helpful to illuminate a point I am
making. So if I quote Yoda from Star Wars it would be quite foolish to conclude that I
truly believe that a long time ago in a galaxy far far away some events happened that are
depicted in the Star Wars movie series. We need to allow biblical authors to use
examples just as we do.

Otherwise, from Jude’s quote from the Assumption of Moses, we would have to conclude
that Jude believed everything that is contained in that book. And from Acts 17 we would
have to say that Paul accepted everything that the Greek poet Aratus wrote because Paul
quotes from him when he says, “In him we live and move and have our being.” Anyone

Page 17 of 21
who is used to giving illustrative examples in their speech or writing will refuse to make
such conclusions.

Moreover, while 1 Enoch may give us the background material necessary to understand
2 Peter and Jude, we must be careful when using the book. There is a reason why neither
the Jewish rabbis nor the early Christian church considered the book inspired. Two
current Christian traditions, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Eritrean
Orthodox Tewahedo Church, accept the book of Enoch as canonical.

However, it is crucial to observe that their canonical book of Enoch differs from the
Greek text of 1 Enoch that supporters of the Watchers view of the Divine Council use
precisely in that the canonical book of Enoch does not contain the speculation about the
Watchers and the linking of them with what happened in Genesis 6. Without this
speculation, the book of 1 Enoch does not contain any problematic ideas.

So what do I think is happening in Genesis 10-12, Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82? So

here is my view. Following the flood, God tells Noah, “I will never again curse the ground
because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever
again strike down every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

But despite his forbearance, humans remain wicked. And so God unveils a different
approach. Rather than focusing on all of humanity, he would focus on one people - Israel.
But the rest of humanity was his creation too. He had to ensure they would be taken care
of. So he assigned members of his Divine Council to guide and govern the other nations.
They were supposed to steer the other nations in ways of justice and righteousness and
truth.

However, because the council members are creatures, they do not possess all wisdom.
And because they are creatures, their perspective is limited and they end up making
mistakes here and there. As a result of their mistakes, justice is compromised and
injustice spreads. Please note that God has not placed rebellious non-physical beings on
his council to govern other nations. That would be blatantly unjust.

Page 18 of 21
Rather, because he planned to work closely with one people group - the Israelites - he
delegated the task of guidance and governance of the other nations to his council
members. Why did he do it like this? Well, the God revealed in our scriptures is a God
who loves to share power and authority. Unlike most human rulers, he does not
centralize power, but decentralizes and distributes it. But why does he do this?

Remember the quote from Robert Caro at the beginning? “What I believe is always true
about power is that power always reveals.” Power reveals what is in our hearts. The
greater authority we have to exert over others, the more we are tempted to abuse that
authority. And note that it will not necessarily be because we want to subjugate others.
Rather, we may end up justifying all sorts of evil policies in the name of the greater good.

Consider what Jared Diamond says about the Fertile Crescent in his book Guns, Germs
and Steel: “The Fertile Crescent and eastern Mediterranean societies had the misfortune
to arise in an ecologically fragile environment. They committed ecological suicide by
destroying their own resource base.” The idea of forming a sedentary, agrarian society
seemed to be one steeped in wisdom, but that has resulted in barren wastelands over
the millennia.

So we are now in a position to summarize what the Divine Council worldview is. The
bible presents a Supreme Being, Yahweh, who does not hoard authority and power, but
who willingly shares his authority and power with his creatures. Yahweh created
everything that is visible and everything that is invisible. In the visible realm he created
the universe we can study with our senses, from the largest galaxy to the tiniest
quantum particle.

He created all life, both botanical and zoological. He created this universe with
incomprehensible diversity. And in order to govern it, he created humans to be agents of
his good governance over all that is visible. In like manner, he created everything in the
invisible realm. And there too he made an invisible realm with unimaginable diversity.
And in order to govern it, he created beings that formed his Divine Council, and to whom
he gave authority.

Page 19 of 21
But Yahweh always wanted the visible and invisible realms to interlock because only
then could he have a full fledged relationship with his visible creation. And so he
assigned the members of his Divine Council to also have governing roles to play in the
visible realm. In this way, the two parts of his creation - visible and invisible - are held
together by the members of his Divine Council. The Divine Council members are not
fallen spiritual beings.

Rather, they are beings who, like us, are limited and fallible and, therefore, prone to
making mistakes and errors of judgment. And so Yahweh calls them to account, just as
he calls us to account when we make missteps. In short, the Divine Council is the
equivalent concept to the Image of God in the invisible realm. Both the Divine Council
and the Image of God are biblical concepts that tell us something about two kinds of
beings - non-physical and physical.

These are beings to whom Yahweh has delegated some of his authority because of his
deep desire to share power and authority. In other words, the Divine Council, like the
Image of God, is the bible’s way of inviting us to embark on the difficult task of
reimagining authority. But the way the bible does it and the message we need to take
from the idea of the Divine Council runs against what the wisdom of our age would have
us believe.

Sir Francis Bacon, first gave us the common saying, “Knowledge itself is power.”
However, while Bacon most likely was talking about the fact that knowledge does not
diminish when shared and therefore its power lies in its being shared, today it has a
different meaning. For example, it is claimed that “Knowledge is power means that a
person has education and a complete control on his life by using that knowledge.”
Complete control over one’s life?

That takes us back to Genesis 3, where humans reached out in vain for something they
desperately need - the ability to decide how to act or in the words of scripture “the
knowledge of good and evil.” We have accumulated knowledge at an unprecedented rate
over the past couple of centuries and exponentially so in the last few decades. Yet the
last century was the one that saw the most bloodshed caused by well educated people.

Page 20 of 21
And the Divine Council and Image of God stand as a warning to us that, unless we
temper and guide our knowledge with divine wisdom, we will only use our knowledge
to exercise power over others, to dominate them and to shed their blood in the pursuit
of what seems best to us and for us. For if anything can be said that we humans badly
need, it is for God to use the ideas of the Divine Council and the Image of God to enable
us to reimagine authority.

Page 21 of 21