Comments for Two Powers in Heaven http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven Understanding the ancient Israelite context for first century Judaism's binitarian monotheism and the Christian Godhead Mon, 21 May 2012 13:27:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 Comment on Hebrew Syntax and the Second Yahweh by blop2008 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/hebrew-syntax-and-the-second-yahweh/#comment-87 blop2008 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:29:14 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=85#comment-87 Oops...Correction from my previous post: ESH = Fire, ISH = Man I reversed them :-) Oops…Correction from my previous post: ESH = Fire, ISH = Man

I reversed them :-)

]]> Comment on Hebrew Syntax and the Second Yahweh by MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/hebrew-syntax-and-the-second-yahweh/#comment-86 MSH Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:09:38 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=85#comment-86 @blop2008: an interesting note! @blop2008: an interesting note!

]]> Comment on Two Powers in Heaven: An Introduction by When the evidence does not fit the answer, just make stuff up (Trying to figure out what Paul taught) « Vridar http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2008/05/two-powers-in-heaven-an-introduction/#comment-84 When the evidence does not fit the answer, just make stuff up (Trying to figure out what Paul taught) « Vridar Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:01:11 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=6#comment-84 [...] the “two powers in heaven” “heresy” with Metatron being found in the place of God in heaven according to [...] [...] the “two powers in heaven” “heresy” with Metatron being found in the place of God in heaven according to [...]

]]> Comment on Hebrew Syntax and the Second Yahweh by blop2008 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/hebrew-syntax-and-the-second-yahweh/#comment-83 blop2008 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:24:29 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=85#comment-83 Having not commented on this post yet, I've been thinking that this is indeed a good detail to emphasize in the scholarly community. Although the letter BETH usually means "in", many translators have not paid much attention at how to properly carry the meaning of BETH in some passages. Even in modern Hebrew in Israel (which I am currently learning at the same time as biblical hebrew - Im 22, Im still young to do this :-), the BETH must be properly carried over in translation as it doesnt always signify "in" when the subject isn't a location. Take for instance: "Be-Simcha" which means "With pleasure" and obviously not "In pleasure". Maybe not the best example, but get the idea. Anyhow, its very interesting... that the angel of the LORD appeared as a flame of fire makes for sense and is reminiscent to other passages where angels (book of Daniel) and Jesus (Revelation) are seen as glowing light/fire in the OT and NT. Notice for example Ezekiel 8:2: " As I watched, I noticed a form that appeared to be a man. From his waist downward was something like fire, and from his waist upward something like a brightness, like an amber glow." Some translations like the KJV of the above verse have "...appearance of fire". This is because ESH (man) was confused with ISH (Fire) in Hebrew. Who is this man Mike? :-) Having not commented on this post yet, I’ve been thinking that this is indeed a good detail to emphasize in the scholarly community. Although the letter BETH usually means “in”, many translators have not paid much attention at how to properly carry the meaning of BETH in some passages. Even in modern Hebrew in Israel (which I am currently learning at the same time as biblical hebrew - Im 22, Im still young to do this :-), the BETH must be properly carried over in translation as it doesnt always signify “in” when the subject isn’t a location. Take for instance: “Be-Simcha” which means “With pleasure” and obviously not “In pleasure”. Maybe not the best example, but get the idea.

Anyhow, its very interesting… that the angel of the LORD appeared as a flame of fire makes for sense and is reminiscent to other passages where angels (book of Daniel) and Jesus (Revelation) are seen as glowing light/fire in the OT and NT.

Notice for example Ezekiel 8:2: ” As I watched, I noticed a form that appeared to be a man. From his waist downward was something like fire, and from his waist upward something like a brightness, like an amber glow.”

Some translations like the KJV of the above verse have “…appearance of fire”. This is because ESH (man) was confused with ISH (Fire) in Hebrew.

Who is this man Mike? :-)

]]> Comment on Two Deities in Daniel 7 by blop2008 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/two-deities-in-daniel-7/#comment-82 blop2008 Tue, 19 May 2009 23:51:35 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=81#comment-82 Well, I also think that the 24 elders is a composition of 12 tribes and 12 apostles as well due to its description in Revelation and given the thought that I cannot see how else the 24 elders can be parsed. I think this is the "majority" view but I haven't read much articles or commentaries on this subject. So many ANE scholars must agree amongst themselves that when God put Adam in the garden in Eden, it was for him to be part of the council, in connection with the heavenly thrones - So in Heaven, So on Earth..sort of reasoning. Adam was supposed to oversee (as God's image on earth), rule and (judge?) all living creatures. Now, Adam failed, we all failed ultimately, and in the end, the Son of Man will establish his kingdom on earth (if we understand the biblical passages about the ruling King in the kingdom as so) and rule in full justice and glory as Adam was ordain to. I think it makes sense in light of the scriptures, ANE material and Astral-type studies (Astrology in a loose sense). Thanks for the response. Well, I also think that the 24 elders is a composition of 12 tribes and 12 apostles as well due to its description in Revelation and given the thought that I cannot see how else the 24 elders can be parsed. I think this is the “majority” view but I haven’t read much articles or commentaries on this subject. So many ANE scholars must agree amongst themselves that when God put Adam in the garden in Eden, it was for him to be part of the council, in connection with the heavenly thrones - So in Heaven, So on Earth..sort of reasoning. Adam was supposed to oversee (as God’s image on earth), rule and (judge?) all living creatures. Now, Adam failed, we all failed ultimately, and in the end, the Son of Man will establish his kingdom on earth (if we understand the biblical passages about the ruling King in the kingdom as so) and rule in full justice and glory as Adam was ordain to.

I think it makes sense in light of the scriptures, ANE material and Astral-type studies (Astrology in a loose sense). Thanks for the response.

]]> Comment on Two Deities in Daniel 7 by MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/two-deities-in-daniel-7/#comment-81 MSH Tue, 19 May 2009 17:53:56 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=81#comment-81 @blop2008: You may not want to know. I think the 24 elders is a metaphor that is astral in nature, and which points to the divine council (divine beings = stars in the ancient worldview), which is composed of both Jew and Gentile (12 tribes, 12 apostles). In other words, the council is both human and divine (divine non-human beings and divinized human beings) as was the original Edenic intent (the number picks up the Israel+Church idea; the astral nature of the scene picks up the divine component. In my view the 24 elders are an astral phenomena - as are the four living creatures at the throne - note that there are "eyes" in them - "eyes" = a Greco-Roman description of stars - animals with stars in them = constellations). I think Revelation has a lot of the genre called "astral prophecy" in it (the elders merges Daniel and Ezekiel throne room imagery, and Ezekiel is clearly astral -- the four faces on the cherubim = the four cardinal points of the Babylonian zodiac -- I don't think that's accidental). One scholar, B. Malina, has done a lot of work here, but I think he goes overboard with it (to the exclusion of the use of the OT in Revelation). @blop2008: You may not want to know.

I think the 24 elders is a metaphor that is astral in nature, and which points to the divine council (divine beings = stars in the ancient worldview), which is composed of both Jew and Gentile (12 tribes, 12 apostles). In other words, the council is both human and divine (divine non-human beings and divinized human beings) as was the original Edenic intent (the number picks up the Israel+Church idea; the astral nature of the scene picks up the divine component. In my view the 24 elders are an astral phenomena - as are the four living creatures at the throne - note that there are “eyes” in them - “eyes” = a Greco-Roman description of stars - animals with stars in them = constellations). I think Revelation has a lot of the genre called “astral prophecy” in it (the elders merges Daniel and Ezekiel throne room imagery, and Ezekiel is clearly astral — the four faces on the cherubim = the four cardinal points of the Babylonian zodiac — I don’t think that’s accidental). One scholar, B. Malina, has done a lot of work here, but I think he goes overboard with it (to the exclusion of the use of the OT in Revelation).

]]> Comment on Two Deities in Daniel 7 by blop2008 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/two-deities-in-daniel-7/#comment-80 blop2008 Thu, 14 May 2009 13:04:21 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=81#comment-80 Thanks for the clarification Mike. That the sons of God of the council are in the text is what I missed, I thought the saints or holy ones were the people as per Revelation, but really missed the obvious that the holy ones here is the divine council. In Revelation all three (1) God The Father / Jesus (2) the council saints (3) the redeemed people are present in the picture. That's what the text says, It makes perfect sense, and it matches Revelation. Once again thanks for the clarification. At the end of verse 7 when it says to "him", I thought it refered back to the Most High, but then it's a nice little detail to point out that it may indeed (most certainly) refer back to the Son of Man. No Interpolation here; all is coherent. We can see that the people of the Holy Ones is reminiscent - I now think - of the table of nations - 70 Nations (per se) and 70 Sons of God/Council members. Now: This got me thinking about something else and here's a question for you: Who do you think the elders are in Revelation? Thanks for the clarification Mike. That the sons of God of the council are in the text is what I missed, I thought the saints or holy ones were the people as per Revelation, but really missed the obvious that the holy ones here is the divine council. In Revelation all three (1) God The Father / Jesus (2) the council saints (3) the redeemed people are present in the picture. That’s what the text says, It makes perfect sense, and it matches Revelation. Once again thanks for the clarification.

At the end of verse 7 when it says to “him”, I thought it refered back to the Most High, but then it’s a nice little detail to point out that it may indeed (most certainly) refer back to the Son of Man. No Interpolation here; all is coherent. We can see that the people of the Holy Ones is reminiscent - I now think - of the table of nations - 70 Nations (per se) and 70 Sons of God/Council members.

Now:
This got me thinking about something else and here’s a question for you:

Who do you think the elders are in Revelation?

]]> Comment on Two Deities in Daniel 7 by MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/two-deities-in-daniel-7/#comment-79 MSH Wed, 13 May 2009 05:55:08 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=81#comment-79 @blop2008: When it comes to who is reigning, Morgenstern missed something (or chose to ignore it). It is true that in v. 18 the "saints of the most high" receive the kingdom. Does that mean it's an either-or reign? No. In v. 22 the text says again that the saints of the most high are given the "judgment" (implied rule) and that they possess the kingdom. These saints are divine beings - divine council members -- not people -- and the divine council is subordinate to the lord of the council -- in Daniel 7, the ancient of days. The kingdom is shared with people in v. ("people of the saints of the most high"), but then comes what is missed. Verse 27 ends with the comment that [very literal rendering of the Aramaic here]: "all dominions shall render service and hearken to HIM [Aramaic third SINGULAR pronoun]." If we take the singular pronoun here as semantically singular, then we are actually back to the son of man reigning. The full picture would be that the council host and the people loyal to the host of heaven under the Ancient of Days derive their authority from the son of man, to whom the council and the Ancient of Days gave power earlier in the passage. The son of man never relinquishes the reign he is given, nor does he lose it. Anyone paying much attention to the rule of God since Eden (mediated through humans, who are often under ONE quasi-divine figure -- the one on whom the Spirit rests, or who is allowed to enter the theophany-space) would see there is no need for interpolation here. The symbiotic rule of God, his council, and a deity-human king is quite consistent and found in earlier material. All that said, one COULD argue that the singular pronoun can be translated plural ("them"). That is possible since pronouns are notoriously elastic (but would the "them" really exclude the son of man?). @blop2008: When it comes to who is reigning, Morgenstern missed something (or chose to ignore it). It is true that in v. 18 the “saints of the most high” receive the kingdom. Does that mean it’s an either-or reign? No. In v. 22 the text says again that the saints of the most high are given the “judgment” (implied rule) and that they possess the kingdom. These saints are divine beings - divine council members — not people — and the divine council is subordinate to the lord of the council — in Daniel 7, the ancient of days. The kingdom is shared with people in v. (”people of the saints of the most high”), but then comes what is missed. Verse 27 ends with the comment that [very literal rendering of the Aramaic here]: “all dominions shall render service and hearken to HIM [Aramaic third SINGULAR pronoun].” If we take the singular pronoun here as semantically singular, then we are actually back to the son of man reigning. The full picture would be that the council host and the people loyal to the host of heaven under the Ancient of Days derive their authority from the son of man, to whom the council and the Ancient of Days gave power earlier in the passage. The son of man never relinquishes the reign he is given, nor does he lose it. Anyone paying much attention to the rule of God since Eden (mediated through humans, who are often under ONE quasi-divine figure — the one on whom the Spirit rests, or who is allowed to enter the theophany-space) would see there is no need for interpolation here. The symbiotic rule of God, his council, and a deity-human king is quite consistent and found in earlier material.

All that said, one COULD argue that the singular pronoun can be translated plural (”them”). That is possible since pronouns are notoriously elastic (but would the “them” really exclude the son of man?).

]]> Comment on Two Deities in Daniel 7 by blop2008 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/two-deities-in-daniel-7/#comment-77 blop2008 Tue, 12 May 2009 14:41:02 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=81#comment-77 Julian Morgenstern suggested in this 1961 article that vvs 13-14 might be interpolations because the son of man that obtains power, dominion, and kingdom does not match the later vvs where the Ancient of days apparently still reigns as if he did not hand over the power/authority/kingdom to the son of man and that the power/authority/kingdom ultimately goes to the saints. So, if vss 13-14 were interpolated sometime B.C. and if pre-Christ Jewish groups had problems explaining/understanding these "Two Powers" verses (vss 13-14) after the interpolation than, it so happened only because of the interpolation and not because vss 13-14 are orginal. But...as you confirm vss 13-14 are most likely not interpolations and are original; rather, the vision of the Beasts most likely are an interpolation (which now makes far more sense). We know that the Son of Man is Christ as seen in the book of Revelation along with the saints and matches the apparent problems that Julian mentions about vss 13-14 with the rest of Daniel 7. Under the providence of God, Revelation and Daniel matche up together (maybe not every single detail), but pre-Christ Jewish individuals would wonder who this Son of Man is in Daniel 7. Julian Morgenstern suggested in this 1961 article that vvs 13-14 might be interpolations because the son of man that obtains power, dominion, and kingdom does not match the later vvs where the Ancient of days apparently still reigns as if he did not hand over the power/authority/kingdom to the son of man and that the power/authority/kingdom ultimately goes to the saints. So, if vss 13-14 were interpolated sometime B.C. and if pre-Christ Jewish groups had problems explaining/understanding these “Two Powers” verses (vss 13-14) after the interpolation than, it so happened only because of the interpolation and not because vss 13-14 are orginal.

But…as you confirm vss 13-14 are most likely not interpolations and are original; rather, the vision of the Beasts most likely are an interpolation (which now makes far more sense).

We know that the Son of Man is Christ as seen in the book of Revelation along with the saints and matches the apparent problems that Julian mentions about vss 13-14 with the rest of Daniel 7. Under the providence of God, Revelation and Daniel matche up together (maybe not every single detail), but pre-Christ Jewish individuals would wonder who this Son of Man is in Daniel 7.

]]> Comment on Two Deities in Daniel 7 by MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/two-deities-in-daniel-7/#comment-76 MSH Mon, 11 May 2009 17:40:32 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=81#comment-76 @blop2008: Agreed with you on paragraph 2 assertion. I'm unclear on your question in the third paragraph. The way I'm reading it, I don't see why a Jewish (pre-Christ) audience could *only* feel the need to explain away the deity son of man in vv. 13-14 were interpolations (?). I have some detailed textual commentaries on Daniel, and none of them suggest vv. 13-14 might be interpolations (or quote anyone who says so). The most they do is talk about interpolations with respect to the beast visions (cf. LaCocque). @blop2008: Agreed with you on paragraph 2 assertion.

I’m unclear on your question in the third paragraph. The way I’m reading it, I don’t see why a Jewish (pre-Christ) audience could *only* feel the need to explain away the deity son of man in vv. 13-14 were interpolations (?). I have some detailed textual commentaries on Daniel, and none of them suggest vv. 13-14 might be interpolations (or quote anyone who says so). The most they do is talk about interpolations with respect to the beast visions (cf. LaCocque).

]]>