Depends on how the phrase "divine" is glossed.
Jacob, I don't think it does. Words have meaning and you cannot simply employ words which mean one thing and import a new meaning, then reject the charge of heresy by saying it turns on the meaning of the word that the author had in his mind.
If that was valid then we could not possibly call out, for example, the various Christological heresies, as their proponents could simply be making orthodox statements using words with a different gloss to that with which everyone else uses them. Language doesn't work like that, and if it did nobody could communicate anything to anyone else by words with any coherence.
I'm not doing that. We important later dogmatic readings into the word "divine." People in the ancient world used it to refer to a being of the spirit realm (for example, Samuel is called an elohim at Endor, but no one thinks Samuel was an omniscient deity).
I'm not importing my new meaning. I'm simply going to the languages and the thought-patterns in which the Bible was written.
But if someone doesn't like that, fine. My larger point is that not every super-human entity can be reduced to angel (and if you want to talk about reading later meanings into a word, then angel is a prime example).
In English when we use "divine" ontologically we are referring to God and not to a creature. If otherwise, when you refer to Christ's divine nature, we cannot know whether you mean that in the way trinitarians do, or if you basically agree with JWs that Jesus is "a God, but not God".
It does not follow that we can use "divine" in English in exactly the same way - it does have semantic range too, but not an identical range.
I get what you are saying, and I probably concede that "divine" can't be rescued from dogmatic interpretations today. My point is that ancient man didn't think of "eternal nature of the Trinity" when he heard "divine" or "elohim." That's all I am saying.
I grant that. My point is that would not have been the understanding of ancient man. I try not to even call these beings "elohim" (though the Bible does). I am simply urging we not read post-medieval dogmatic understandings back into an ancient eastern text.
ALL of us read with post-Medieval grids on, especially those who say they don't want to, or think they can take off their grid.
John firmly puts Jesus on the Creator side of the Creator-creature distinction. So was the Holy Spirit also present. Creation is a Trinitarian act.
But what, specifically, is post-Medieval about our objections that doesn't fit the biblical text's meaning? We are trying to maintain the Creator-creature distinction, an eminently biblical distinction, in terms of meaning, even though the Bible doesn't use terms like that.
In English, one of the main ways we do that is to reserve the term "divine" for the Creator side of that divide. Heiser doesn't do that. Therefore, he is not holding to the biblical sense.
He is using the term "divine" of beings that are not on the Creator side of the divide
This is heresy. Now, it is possible that the issue is lack of clarity.
I agree. I just try to be aware of mine and realize it might not match up with the original text.
No one disputes that. I just disputed that every elohimic being was on the creator side, since Scripture says otherwise.
I don't know who your target is, since Heiser never disputed the Creator-creature distinction.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. You moved from English back to Hebrew, as though the English sense were the biblical sense. I understand the difficulties with the word "divine" and agreed that we should probably just use it for the Creator side.
Like Samuel being called an elohim?
let's immediately jump to heresy and avoid charitable reading of lack of clarity.
No. I don’t believe that and neither does heiser. He has stated that Yahweh is sui generisJacob, do you believe that beings who are not God are yet on the Creator side of the Creator-creature distinction? I am not getting the impression that you believe that. In which case, I am not sure you actually agree with Heiser on the point in question.