DIVINE ASSEMBLY

[SeamusDelion]

DIVINE ASSEMBLY. Common to the mythopoeic world of the ANE was the idea of a council or assembly of the gods that met to determine the fates of the cosmos. Depictions of such divine gatherings are found in the religious and mythological literatures of Mesopotamia, Ugarit, Phoenicia, and Israel. Though the concept of a “synod” of the gods was present in Egyptian mythology, it seems to have played little active role in Egyptian religion. While there is much to suggest that in Mesopotamia and Canaan this heavenly assembly reflects a developed political reality within the human realm, in the literatures of these cultures the council of the gods is presented as a standard part of the organization of the divine realm which constituted the major decision-making body in the divine world to which all the members of the pantheon were subject.
Within the biblical materials, the concept of an assembly of divine beings is found throughout the OT as an expression of Yahweh’s power and authority. Yahweh is frequently depicted as enthroned over an assembly of divine beings who serve to dispense his decrees and messages. It is this mythological setting that provides the background, in part, for the development of the angelic hierarchy that occurs during the intertestamental period. This concept of divine authority and power also supplies the conceptual background for understanding the idea of prophetic authority within the Hebrew texts.

A. Terminology
1. Extrabiblical
2. Biblical
B. Members of the Assembly
1. Mesopotamia
2. Ugarit
3. Israel
C. The Messenger of the Council
D. Hebrew Depictions of the Assembly
E. Development of Specialized Functions

A. Terminology
Despite the common mythological depictions of the assembly of the gods, the terminology used to describe this concept is rather diverse.
1. Extrabiblical. In the Mesopotamian materials, the standard term used for the assembly is puḫru—the assembly of the gods is most commonly designated as puḫur ilāni. Among the various terms used to designate the assembly in the Ugaritic materials is the analogous phrase pḫrʾilm. While it remains disputed whether ʾilm in this and analogous phrases in Ugaritic is to be read as the plural, “gods,” or as the singular, “El” (+ enclitic m), it is apparent that it is one designation for the assembly of the gods in the Ugaritic texts (UT 17.7 [KTU 1.47.29]; Ug V.9.I.9 [RS 24.643; KTU 1.148]). In UT 51.III.14 (KTU 1.4) the phrase pḫr bn ʾilm designates the assembly of the gods while mpḫrt bn ʾll is frequent in the liturgical texts (UT 107.3 [KTU 1.65]; UT 2.17, 34 [KTU 1.40; see also lines 8, 25]). To this should be compared the 10th-century B.C.E. Phoenician reference to “the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos” (mpḥrt ʾl gbl qdšm; KAI 4.4–5). In the most detailed Ugaritic description of the assembly (UT 137.14, 15, 16–17, 20, 31 [KTU 1.2]), the compound expression “gathered assembly” (pḫr mʿd) is employed. Elsewhere in the Ugaritic texts the most common designation for the assembly is dr ʾil/dr bn ʾil, “the assembly of El/the assembly of the sons of El” (UT 107.2 [KTU 1.65]; UT 2.17, 25–26, 34 [KTU 1.40; see also line 8]; UT 1.7 [KTU 1.39]; UT 3.16 [KTU 1.41]; RS 18.56, 17–18 [KTU 1.87]; UT 128.III.19 [KTU 1.15]). In the Keret text the phrase ʿdt ʾilm is also used to connote the assembly of the gods (UT 128.II.7, 11 [KTU 1.15]).
2. Biblical. The terminology used in Hebrew to denote the assembly is also diverse. Biblical Hebrew, while not using the term puḫru/pḫr to designate the assembly, does employ the terms ʿedâ, “assemblage” (Ps 82:1) and dôr, lit. “generation” (Amos 8:14; see also Pss 14:5; 49:20; 73:15; 84:11; 95:10; 112:2; Isa 53:8; Jer 2:31, 7:29; Prov 30:11–14; compare dr in KAI 26.III.19; 27.12), both of which are used of the council in Ugaritic materials. Additionally, Isa 14:13 employs the phrase har môʿēd, “mount of assembly” (cf. Ug pḫr mʿd), and qĕhal qĕdōšı̂m, “assembly of the holy ones” (Ps 89:6). The term sôd also occurs in the biblical materials as a designation for the council (Ps 89:8; Jer 23:18; 23:22; Job 15:8). Neither qāhāl nor sôd is attested in Ugaritic as a term designating the assembly of the gods.

B. Members of the Assembly
More significant for an understanding of the role and function of the divine assembly in the literature and religion of the ANE is the variety of terms used to designate the members of the assembly.
1. Mesopotamia. The membership of the heavenly council is most clearly discernible in the Mesopotamian literature. There the membership of the council is composed of all the major gods and goddesses of the land. Most important among these gods are two special groups, the fifty ilū rabiūtu, “the great/senior gods,” and the seven gods called ilū šīmāti, “the gods of the fates,” or the mušimmū šīmāti, “the determiners of the fates.” The depictions of the council proceedings in Mesopotamian materials, most especially in the Enūma Eliš, reveal that the council met under the presidency of the high god Anu and that after a banquet and discussion of the issues, the fates were determined and pronounced. The executor of the will of the council was the storm god Enlil.
In the Canaanite and Hebrew literatures depicting the assembly of the gods, the individual natures of the constituent members of the assembly are not nearly so clear as they are in the Mesopotamian accounts. In both the Canaanite and Hebrew assemblies, the identities of the gods, apart from the high god, remain somewhat obscure.
2. Ugarit. In the assembly of the gods, as depicted in the Ugaritic materials, the members of the assembly are noted as ʾilm, “gods,” a fact that is conveyed by the designation of the assembly as pḫr (bn) ʾilm, mpḫrt bn ʾil, and dr bn ʾil. There are, however, some more specific indications of the membership in the Canaanite assembly. In the Keret epic (UT 126.V.1–28 [KTU 1.16]), El sits at the head of the assembly and four times addresses the gods, called either ʾilm, “gods,” or bny, “my sons,” asking who will heal the ailing Keret. UT 128.II.2–7 (KTU 1.15) presents El, Baal, Yarih (Moon), Kothar-wa-Hasis, Raḥmayyu (ʾAṯirat[?]), Reshep, and the ʿdt ʾilm, “the assembly of the gods,” as gathering to consider Keret’s request for progeny. Though broken, the text seems to give the names of some of the major deities and the leading members of the assembly, and then lists the assembly itself, as though the latter had been hypostatized and could represent a grouping of minor deities. This hypostatization of the council is confirmed by the appearance of the council in the pantheon lists and sacrificial tariffs from Ugarit. The Ugaritic pantheon list (UT 17.7 [KTU 1.47.29]) includes the pḫr ʾilm among the deities of Ugarit; the corresponding Akkadian list (Ug V.18.28 [RS 20.24]) reads dpu-ḫur ilāniM, “the council of the gods.” In addition to this grouping of deities occurs the notice of pḫr bʿl, the “assembly of Baal,” that might be equivalent to the “helper gods of Baal” (ʾil tʿḏr bʿl/ilānuM til-la-at dadad [UT 17.4 (KTU 1.47.26)/Ug V. 18.25 (RS 20.24)]). The connection of the two assemblages in the texts (dr ʾil wpḫr bʿl; UT 1.7 [KTU 1.39]; UT 3.16 [KTU 1.41]; RS 18.56.17–18 [KTU 1.87]) suggests that these might be interpreted as collective “summary” statements for those deities not designated specifically in the lists. The dedication of sacrifices to this hypostatized council (dr bn ʾil//mpḫrt bn ʾil, UT 2.17, 33–34 [KTU 1.40 (see also lines 7–8, 42)] or pḫr ʾilm, Ug V.9.9[RS 24.643; KTU 1.148]) indicates that it was regarded as an object of veneration, a view that is confirmed by the Phoenician references to the council that show that as late as the 6th century B.C.E., the divine assembly was still invoked as an active part of the Canaanite pantheon (KAI 4.3–5; 9.B.5–6; 26.III.18–19; 27:11–12). The Ugaritic materials reveal a concept of the council that may be summarized as follows: the major and minor deities of the pantheon met in assembly under the leadership of El to make those decisions concerning the cosmos that fell within the purview of the gods. Most specifically, the issues of kingship, temple, and progeny concern the council. Apart from the fact that the members of the assembly are noted as gods or sons of El and are often the recipients of sacrifices, there seems to be little or no development of the individual roles or functions as presented in the Ugaritic texts.
3. Israel. An analogous situation is encountered in the Hebrew materials. Though there are numerous references to the divine beings that constitute the members of the heavenly court, there is little or no development of individual figures or functions in the early Hebrew materials. In Pss 29:1, 89:7, the members of the Hebrew council are called bĕnê ʾēlı̂m, “sons of gods/gods” (or possibly “sons of El,” reading ʾēl-m; cf. Ug bn ʾilm). Likewise, Deut 32:8 may contain the reading bĕnê ʾĕlōhı̂m (cf. LXX, 4QDt), a reference that would be analogous to the bĕnê hāʾĕlōhı̂m, “the sons of god,” contained in Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6, 2:1. See also SONS OF GOD. In Ps 82:6, the deities of the assembly are called “sons of the Most High/Elyon” (bĕnê ʿelyôn), while the inclusive nature of the membership in the assembly is reflected by the reference to kōl ʾĕlōhı̂m, “all the gods,” in Ps 97:7. A more general designation of the members of Yahweh’s court is qĕdōšı̂m, “holy ones” (Deut 33:2–3; Job 5:1, 15:15[Q]; Pss 16:3; 89:6, 8; Zech 14:5; Prov 9:10; 30:3), or the collective meaning of qōdeš (Exod 15:11; Pss 77:14; 93:5; cf. Ug bn qdš). Despite the tendency of interpreters to view the Hebrew materials from a monotheistic viewpoint, it is apparent that the biblical materials themselves envisioned Yahweh surrounded by his heavenly court, the lesser deities who made up the divine entourage.
Given the warrior character of Yahweh presented in the early Hebrew materials, it is possible to ascertain one function of these divine beings who accompanied the high god. Though the precise meaning and etymology of the phrase remain debated, it is possible to interpret the ṣĕbāʾôt, “host, army,” of the phrase YHWH ṣĕbāʾôt as a reference to the military retinue that fought alongside the high god. Whatever character is assigned to these divine beings, two matters are made clear from those texts that are concerned with the incomparability of Yahweh (cf. Deut 3:24; 10:17; 1 Kgs 8:23; Jer 10:6; Pss 86:8, 95:3; 96:4[=1 Chr 16:25]; 97:7; 135:5; 136:2; etc.): such comparisons presume the setting of the council (cf. Ps 89:6–9), and the members of that council are presumed to be clearly inferior to Yahweh. Despite this inferior status, these beings constituted the “host of heaven” (ṣĕbāʾ haššāmayı̄m, cf. Isa 40:26; Ps 148:3), the worship of whom was forbidden in Hebrew tradition (Deut 4:19; 17:3; cf Jer 8:2, etc.). As illustrated by the parallelism of the kôkĕbê bōqer and kōl bĕnê ʾĕlōhı̂m (“the morning stars”//“all the sons of god”; Job 38:7), the heavenly bodies could be envisioned as part of the divine entourage who participated in the wars of Yahweh (cf. Josh 5:13–15; 10:12b–13a; Judg 5:20; Ps 148:2–3). In addition to the function of serving as part of the divine retinue, the beings served to praise and adore Yahweh in his court (Pss 29:1; 148:2–3)

 

[SeamusDelion]

C. The Messenger of the Council
Since the major function of the council of the gods was to make and enforce decrees concerning the operation of the cosmos, an important role played by certain members of the assembly was that of messenger of the council. In the Canaanite materials from Ugarit, the major gods are depicted as dispatching messengers (called mlʾk, tʿdt, ǵlm; cf. Hebrew malʾāk, tĕʿûdâ, ʿelem) who deliver their addresses in a highly stylized, formulaic manner (tḥm//hwt). In the Hebrew Bible, the phrase malʾak YHWH, “the messenger of Yahweh” (Exod 3:2; Num 22:31; Judg 13:13, 15, 16, 2 Sam 24:16–17; Zech 3:1; etc.; see also the malʾăkê ʾĕlōhı̂m of Gen 32:2–3), is used to denote those divine beings who serve as envoys of Yahweh and who deliver his decrees. Often confirming their divine commission is the notice that they are “sent” (šlḥ) by Yahweh from his council (Gen 24:7, 40; Exod 23:20; Num 20:16; compare Judg 13:8).
This concept of messenger forms a major aspect of the conceptual background of Hebrew prophecy wherein the prophet is viewed as the messenger of Yahweh (cf. Hag 1:13; Mal 3:1). Such texts as Jer 23:18 (cf. v 22) and Amos 3:7 reveal the council background presumed by the concept of prophecy (see also Job 15:8). As the messengers of the Ugaritic council delivered their messages via set formulas, the pronouncements of the Hebrew prophets were also characterized by certain formulaic expressions, the most common of which was “thus says Yahweh” (kōh ʾāmar YHWH), a phrase frequently paralleled by the formula “the word of Yahweh” (dĕbar YHWH). The prophetic reception of the divine message, i.e., the commissioning of the messenger, is conveyed at least in part via the common expression “the word of Yahweh was to PN” (wayhı̂ dĕbar YHWH ʾel-PN) and then delivered with the imperatives characteristic of prophetic addresses (cf. 1 Kgs 12:22–24; 13:20–22; 2 Sam 7:4–5; Jer 21:11–12; Ezek 28:1–2; etc.).

D. Hebrew Depictions of the Assembly
The role of the divine assembly as a conceptual part of the background of Hebrew prophecy is clearly displayed in two descriptions of prophetic involvement in the heavenly council. In 1 Kgs 22:19–23 (cf. 2 Chr 18:18–22), Micaiah ben Imiah oversees the heavenly decision regarding the fate of Ahab. Isaiah 6 depicts a situation in which the prophet himself takes on the role of the messenger of the assembly and the message of the prophet is thus commissioned by Yahweh. The mythological depiction here illustrates this important aspect of the conceptual background of prophetic authority.
Not all depictions of the assembly pertain to prophecy. Ps 82:1–8 presents a picture of judgment in the divine realm. Yahweh is presented as speaking in the ʿădat ʾēl, “the assembly of El … in the midst of the gods” (bĕqereb ʾĕlōhı̂m), called also “sons of the Most High/Elyôn” (bĕnê ʿelyôn), and condemns them to death because of their failure to dispense justice properly.
A further association between the concepts of the assembly and the divine decree is found in the epic traditions concerning the “Tent of Meeting” (ʾōhel môʿēd—cf. Exod 33:7–11; Num 11:16–29; 12:4–10, etc.). In Hebrew traditions the ʾōhel môʿēd, an earthly representation of the heavenly abode of the deity, served as an oracle tent where Yahweh appeared directly to his people (Exod 25:22; 29:42–43; 30:36; 40:34–38; Num 9:15–23). These traditions are consistent with the ANE concept of the council meeting at the shrine of the high god. In mythological terms, this shrine was located on the mountain dwelling of the deity. In the Canaanite materials, this was the cosmic abode of El, ǵr ll, “Mount L-1” (UT 137.14, 20 [KTU 1.2]), called also ḫršn (UT ʿnt pl. ix:III.22 [KTU 1.1]), located at the confluence of the rivers of the deep (UT 51.IV.20–24 [KTU 1.4]; UT 129.4–5 [KTU 1.2.III]; UT ʿnt.V.13–16 [KTU 1.3.V.5–7]; UT 49.4–6 [KTU 1.6.I.32–34]; etc.). In the biblical materials, the assembly is depicted as meeting on the “mount of assembly” (har môʿēd, Isa 14:13, cf. Ezek 28:14, 16). With the establishment of Jerusalem as the central cultic site, such traditions were applied to Mt. Zion, the dwelling place of Yahweh (Pss 48; 46; Isa 2:2–4; Mic 4:1–3), the place of the decree of Yahweh and the issuance of the Law (Isa 2:3; Mic 4:3), the site of life-giving waters (Isa 33:20–22; Ezek 47:1–12; Joel 4:18; Zech 14:8; 1 Enoch 26:1–2).
The depictions of the council contained in Job 1:6–12 and 2:1–7 and Zech 3:1–7 reveal the beginnings of the development of a specialized figure, the śāṭān/Satan, “the adversary.” In Job 1:6–12 and 2:1–7, the śāṭān is presented as one of the bĕne hāʾĕlōhı̂m who assembled before Yahweh on the appointed day (hayyôm). In the story, he serves to test Job’s faithfulness, but remains throughout under the direct control of Yahweh. In Zech 3:1–7, this figure stands to accuse the high priest Joshua but is rebuked by Yahweh; this figure, though developing a specialized function and role in the conceptions of the assembly, remained, at least until the time of Zechariah, a member of the assembly under the control of Yahweh.

E. Development of Specialized Functions
Despite the general tendency for the members of the council to remain in the background, the development of some specialized functions and figures, such as those of the Satan, are apparent, especially toward the intertestamental period. The collection of divine beings constituting the assembly provided a basis for the development of an elaborate angelology wherein there were specific ranks and hierarchies of divine beings (Dan 8:16; 9:21; 10:13, 21; 12:1; Tob 12:15; 1 Enoch 81:5; 87:2–3; 88:1; 90:21–22; 2 Esdr 5:20; etc.). The figure of the Satan begins to appear as a distinct figure (Jub. 49:2; CD 4:13; 5:18; 8:2; 1QS 1.18, 23–24; etc.), and the concept of “hostile” angels also becomes evident (1 Enoch 40:7; 53:3; 61:1; 69:4, 6, etc.). A partial background for this development may be found in those biblical texts that reflect stories regarding human and/or divine rebelliousness in varying forms (Gen 6:1–4; Isa 14:12–15; Ezek 28:1–19; Job 4:17–18).
At the same time, heavenly figures are seen as intercessors on behalf of humans (Dan 6:23; 10:13, 21; 1 Enoch 15:2; Tob 12:15; etc.), a role that is assigned to a member of the heavenly court in Job (9:33–35; 16:19–21; 19:25; 33:23–24). In the Ugaritic epics, the role of intercessor is played by the god Baal, who intercedes before the high god El on behalf of the earthly king (UT 128.II.11–16 [KTU 1.15]; UT 2 Aqht I.16–27 [KTU 1.17]). Additionally, these figures serve as protectors of the righteous (Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1; 2 Macc 11:6; 1 Enoch 20:5; Jub. 35:17; 1QH 5:21–22; etc.) and as the heavenly army of the end time (Zech 14:3–5; 1QH 3.35–36; 10.34–35; 1QM 15.14). The NT materials add nothing new to the picture already developed. Such passages as Luke 1:11–20 and 2:8–14 show that the messenger function remained a primary aspect of these divine beings, though throughout they remain subjugated to the power and will of God

 

[com7fy8]

And therefore what? How does this apply to how you live as a Christian?

 

[SeamusDelion]

And therefore what? How does this apply to how you live as a Christian?

Why does it have to "apply to how I live as a christian?"

I study Gods word because ALL scripture is given for inspiration and edification. - How does that apply to how YOU live as a christian?

Also, If you have nothing nice to say or just want to debate, please go somewhere else.

 

[com7fy8]

Why does it have to "apply to how I live as a christian?"

I am interested in if and how it applies in your life and worldview. I am not demanding or dictating that you answer, just asking. And you put this in "Controversial Christian Theology"; so . . . what are you presenting which you consider to be controversial . . . which would be a concern because of how it can effect our Christian walk?

How does it apply to me, you ask?

I see how in Christ's church we do have hierarchy . . . including of our Apostle Paul who appointed Timothy and Titus to ordain pastors. So, there is organization, with Jesus as the Head of the church. This is controversial > people can't stand the possibility of there being hierarchy in Christ's church.

And Hebrews 13:17 says to obey whoever God has in authority, who is caring for God's people; having leaders to obey is controversial, indeed. If God trusts someone to care for His people, I see it is not hard to understand that God wants us also to trust this person . . . whoever is approved and qualified. Of course, this therefore means the qualified ones (1 Timothy 3:1-10) leading by example >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

And this is our example . . . so we follow our leaders' example by leading by example

There is hierarchy of Biblical example, then, I would say, in God's way of ruling.

And I notice how Jesus was very personal, sharing in the garden with the ones He was preparing to lead. So, I see how our Heavenly Father has leaders personally sharing with ones they care for and somehow guide.

And we can see this, in how Paul and Silvanus and Timothy related with the Thessalonians >

"just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children" (in 1 Thessalonians 2:7)

"we exhorted, and comforted, and charged every one of you, as a father does his own children" (in 1 Thessalonians 2:11)

But I don't see such personal and tenderly caring relating by mythological gods being claimed.

Plus . . . our Heavenly Father desires to Himself personally rule each of us "in our hearts" < very personally, indeed >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

So, our God of Christianity is not only about telling people what to do, from a distance.

 

[Rachel20]

It's intriguing subject, Michael Heiser has some good videos about it on youtube. I've always thought the divine council was the one meant by Christ in Matthew 5:22