Thank you to all who responded to my initial essay for your thoughtful contributions and engagement. We’ve had both constructive criticism and some fresh perspectives represented here. I hope this has been a profitable discussion for all who have been following, and I also pray that this can be a springboard for further discussion of the divine council in the broader Christian community.
Response to Alastair Roberts
Alastair Roberts’ caution against undue curiositas is well taken. There can certainly be a temptation for unhealthy preoccupation with the spiritual realm, which leads to unprofitable speculation. We should be careful of such temptation when studying any biblical or theological topic, of course, but perhaps in the realm of the divine council the temptation is even greater. Alastair is right to refer to Deuteronomy 29:29.
The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Secrets belong to God, and it is not our business to delve into what is supposed to be hidden. In fact, this is the very sin that humanity is said to have fallen to in the Enochic readings of Genesis 6. In Watchers, 1 Enoch 8:1–4, Asael and his angels teach humanity the forging of weapons, the making of cosmetics, astrological signs, and mysteries, and the use of magic.
While I don’t put much stock into 1 Enoch’s creative reimagining of the Genesis account,[1] it does illustrate the Deuteronomy 29:29 principle that there are certain things that God does not intend for us to know, and if we insist on delving into those things, some spirit other than God may provide answers to our destruction. That is an encounter with the unseen realm we may rather not have.
So, we may say with the psalmist:
Psalm 131:1
O LORD, my heart is not lifted up;
my eyes are not raised too high;
I do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvelous for me.
Nevertheless, we also are told that:
Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.
There is a second part to the warning in Deuteronomy against coveting God’s secret things, and that is that the things that are revealed “belong to us and to our children forever.” Sometimes God conceals a thing, but he conceals it within his revelation. And these things are for us and our children, that we might have the glory of kings in searching them out. It takes wisdom to discern the difference between what is revealed in a hidden way, and what is intended to remain secret.
The standard must be God’s revelation given to us in Scripture. While we keep to the revealed things, we are on solid ground, but if we search for the answer to secrets in what has not been given to us by God, then we must take great care. When we find ourselves looking for those answers in the traditions of pagan (i.e. demonically influenced) nations, then perhaps we should think twice before bringing those answers into our worldview.
This general attitude will explain my caution in the general use of non-canonical texts alluded to in Peter and Jude. It may help to paint the context and delineate the limits. I believe that especially Jude is engaged in polemic against factions within the church influenced by Jewish Zealots immediately before the Jewish War ending with the destruction of the Temple in AD70.[2] Within this context, Jude leans heavily on literature that his opponents are using to stir up their rebellion.[3] Thus, his use is polemic. This may also explain why Peter, writing to the diaspora rather than the Judean church, is somewhat less sharp with his rhetoric.
On the limits of NT usage, I believe that both Peter and Jude studiously employ only portions of pseudepigrapha that could otherwise be deduced from or are illustrative of what they regard as authentic Scripture. In other words, they make no unique authoritative appeal to non-canonical texts.
Jude’s quotation of 1 Enoch 1:9 is a general statement of God’s judgment, overlapping linguistically and thematically with theophanic passages in Scripture such as Isa 66:15–16, Jer 25:30–31 and Deut 33:2. Even 1 Peter 3:18–22 and 2 Peter 2:4–5 could be derived from meditation upon passages like Gen 6 and Isa 24:21–23. Here Peter’s language is even more striking, as he alludes not so much to Enoch as to Greek mythology, with its “pits” of Tartarus, the holding place of rebellious Titan gods. Certainly, we would not say this suggests we could look to Hesiod as an interpretive lens for Scripture.
Finally, I believe that the Scripture’s use of pseudepigraphic literature is actually subversive of the Enochic agenda. This goes for allusions in the Gospel accounts as well as in the epistles. I’ll need to wait to explore that in more detail. Here I will just say that I don’t think we have to close our eyes to the NT use of pseudepigraphic literature, but I think we need to delineate the limits of how the NT authors used it.
Response to Heath Henning
Heath Henning has issued a full salvo against not only Michael Heiser, but against the claim that the divine council is a biblical idea at all. His article (like his book, The Unbiblical Realm) has copious documentation, which is useful for reference and further study. While I can’t respond to every single argument he’s made in his article, I want to touch on a few key points.
We agree that we want to avoid polytheism. I am not convinced that Heiser was a polytheist in any real sense, but, as I have already noted, I do think his view of elohim could cause confusion. However, we need to account for the apparent tension in the Scripture’s language about “gods” and idols. On the one hand, Israel sacrifices to “demons that were not gods,” we have a divine word that says “besides me there is no God,” (Isa 44:6; 45:5), and yet we also have a divine word to a particular group declaring, “I said, you are gods” (Ps 82:6).[4] Paul warns that an idol is nothing, but demons are real, and if you participate in their table, you have fellowship with them (1 Cor 10:18–21). Clearly we have something more complex happening here—as Alastair cautions, things are not always as neat as we like.
Henning may be correct that elohim refers broadly to greatness and authority. Indeed, Elohim, the Most High God is the one from whom all authority is derived. And yet he shares authority with others, otherwise there would be no other authority or power at all. I think this is suggestive of what we might make of those other than the Creator God whom the Scripture calls elohim. Certainly there can be illegitimate elohim, or those who are called elohim but are not.
A similar puzzle accompanies the idea of the “council” itself. Henning has argued that sōd (סוֹד) refers mainly to “confidential speech” rather than to a body of individuals. He appeals to Isa 40:13–14 to show that there can be no possibility of a heavenly council at all. However, Isaiah does not say no council exists. Rather it says that no counselor has instructed God. God has no need of wisdom outside of himself—he is wisdom and the source of it (Prov 8:12–31).
And yet, we know that God takes counsel with others beside himself. How do we know this? Because Scripture shows us many examples of him doing so. God consults Abraham before destroying Sodom (Gen 18:22–33). Immediately after this, God calls Abraham a prophet, and because of this, if Abraham prays, that he will hear him (Gen 20:7). God allows himself to be dissuaded by Moses when he declares his intent to destroy Israel (Exod 32:9–14). God says that Satan incited him to destroy Job (Job 2:3). God invites various spirits in “the host of heaven” to offer suggestions about how to cause the downfall of King Ahab, and Micaiah the prophet is privy to this discussion (1 Ki 23:19–22). God says he does nothing without first revealing his counsel (or council) to the prophets (Amos 3:7), and evidently the reason he does this is so that the prophet may dissuade him from his stated course of action (Amos 7:1–6). As Isaiah 40:13–14 stresses, God does not require the wisdom of men or angels. Rather, he teaches them wisdom and delights to delegate his authority to them, inviting them to rule with him.
With this background, we can see that sōd (סוֹד) is not merely “confidential speech” or “counsel.” There are numerous places where this meaning will not fit (Gen 49:6; Job 15:8; Ps 111:1; Prov 3:32; Jer 15:17; Ezek 13:9). In many cases, sōd is marked by the proposition b- (בְּ), which usually means “in,” indicating a location. The claim of Jeremiah is not that he hears “confidential speech,” but that he stands in the council (Jer 23:18–22). The sōd is the place where the prophet sees and hears God’s word. Compare this to the edah (עֵדָה) in Psalm 82, in which God likewise stands in the council among elohim.
Finally, on the reading of Deuteronomy 32:8, I do not think we should appeal to something as tenuous as the Abisha (Nablus) Scroll for a reliable text. The Samaritans are famously protective of the scroll, forbidding it to be carefully studied. That is their right, of course. However, from what we do know of that manuscript, there are very good reasons, both epigraphic and historical, to believe the scroll’s composition is very late, perhaps as late as the 14th c. AD.[5] This is not even in the same ballpark as the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st c. AD at the latest).
If the DSS reading, “the sons of God,” is correct, this cannot refer to Israel. The context is the dividing of the “sons of Adam” and the fixing of the borders of the peoples (i.e. the nations in Gen 10). Jacob (Israel), the inheritance of YHWH, is thus set in contrast to the inheritance of the other nations, allotted to the “sons of God.” This agrees with what we see in Daniel 10:13–21, in which angelic figures, called “princes,” are shown to be associated with various nations, like Persia and Greece (Michael is the prince of Daniel’s people, Israel). It is therefore most likely that the “sons of God” in Deut 32:8 refers to the angelic beings placed over those nations.
In short, one does not need to import anything from outside of Scripture to arrive at something like a divine council, whatever you decide to call it. When God’s people gather in the throne room of God bringing their petitions to him, and he hears them and acts, what is that if not a council? Those with the Spirit are “sons of God.” They are heirs with Jesus Christ, the heir of all things (Rom 8:14–17). And in his kingdom, they rule with him.
Response to Luke Stamps
In my response to Henning, I argued that the divine council theme is present in Scripture, even if not by that name, and I agree with Stamps that the church throughout the ages has recognized it, if not by that name.
Stamps has elaborated on my insistence that we read Scripture with the church. This includes not only the church we go to or the church at large, made up of living readers gifted by the Spirit (though it must include them!), but also with the church throughout history.
The Holy Spirit is not only revelator, but also illuminator. If the Spirit has been working in the church from Pentecost to this day, then he certainly has enlightened the generations of the faithful who preceded us. But we ought to learn from the Holy Spirit not only in how he illuminates Scripture to us now, but in how he illuminates Scripture those who have come before us.
Now, this is not to say that prior generations have gotten everything right, or that they understood in Scripture all there was to understand. The Spirit still illuminates, and so there is ground for additional biblical and theological inquiry. We shouldn’t be completely restrained by the interpretations of earlier generations. But we must take them seriously and wrestle with them to see what it was they saw in Scripture. Only then can we respectfully and cautiously deviate from long-held views.
I eagerly anticipate Luke Stamps’ book on angels to see what he makes of the early church connections he’s just touched on here.
Response to Seraphim Hamilton
Seraphim Hamilton’s response is perhaps exactly what I would like further inquiry into the divine council to look like. Deeply Scriptural and attentive to the details of the text and what they tell us beyond the surface level. I agree with Hamilton that the divine council, or what we might call the “heavenly host” theme can be found throughout Scripture. It is pervasive. More than Heiser perhaps thought. It is not hidden in the background, but frequently foregrounded.
While I focused on Hebrews and the participation we have in the council in our New Covenant worship, the character of the heavenly council has always been liturgical. In his brief examination of the call of Isaiah, Hamilton biblically grounds the liturgical character of the heavenly council in Old Testament worship.
Hamilton helpfully focuses on divine and human speech. As he observes, the relationship between the prophet and the council is dialogical. The prophet Isaiah is caught up into the council of YHWH so that he can give an answer, and Abram as a prophet finds himself in conversation with God. This dialogical nature of the council is crucial. It is not that there are two different things—a council and the counsel of YHWH, but rather that to be in counsel with God is to be in his council.
This has deep implications for our place in God’s economy. If we are to respond to God’s goodness, then we too must also be caught up in that council, purged by the Spirit-fire of Pentecost so that we may answer him with our praise and thanksgiving, through the giving of ourselves as living sacrifices, which is our reasonable worship (Rom 12:1-2).
Conclusion
Perhaps the best answer to Alastair’s caution regarding curiositas is found in Hamilton’s response. You do not need to investigate the divine council as if pulling back a veil. That veil is removed every time you gather with the saints to worship God.
When the 70 elders of Israel—a divine council in training, we might say—ascended the holy mountain, they ate and drank a meal with the Lord beneath the lapis lazuli sky (Exod 24:9-11). Yet only Moses was called up to the pinnacle of Sinai, and only with Moses did YHWH speak face to face. Now, God has entered our humanity in his Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus’ disciples conversed face to face with God. They ate and drank with God the Son. At the table of our Lord, you also participate in the body and blood of that same Christ and are knit together with your brothers by his Spirit into one body, the Church. Do you wish to know greater mysteries? There are none that exist.
My approach to the divine council is formed by this truth. That it is not a weird esoteric feature of the Bible that must be divined from reading tablets of Mesopotamia and Ugarit, or pouring through the scrolls of Qumran sectarian literature, but that it is thoroughly biblical, and therefore integral to our Christian life and practice.
Christopher Kou completed the Theopolis Institute intensive course program in 2017. He is currently pursuing an Master of Arts in Biblical Studies at Reformed Theological Seminary. He and his wife, Ellyn, live in Birmingham, AL.
NOTES
[1] I think James Jordan’s “Enoch factor,” so named not for the subject of the Book of Enoch, but after Cain’s son, in which human innovation in Cain’s line precedes Seth’s through the development of technology and arts, fits better with the biblical account (Gen 4:17–22).
[2] In this I am close to Herbert Bateman’s assessment of Jude’s opponents, though I believe his opponents are confessing Christians, while Bateman believes they are simply non-Christian Zealots. Herbert W. Bateman IV, Jude, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 51–80.
[3] This is also the assessment of J. Daryl Charles, “Jude’s Use of Pseudepigraphical Source-Material as Part of a Literary Strategy,” New Testament Studies 37, no. 1 (January 1991): 144.
[4] Note that it is God who says that these are “gods, sons of the Most High”—not Israel or pagan nations. I believe these elohim are not the angelic council, as Heiser thinks, nor Gentile rulers, as Henning does, but the rulers of Israel. For a concise argument in favor of this this, see Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73–89), (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 102–109.
[5] E.g. the Islamicism “on them be the favor of the Lord” in the scroll’s identifying tashqil—the presence of a tashqil itself being an idiosyncrasy of Samaritan scribal culture. Alan D. Crown, “The Abisha Scroll: 3,000 Years Old?” Bible Review. VII.5, (October 1991): 39.