I did an interview today (1.5 hrs) with Josh Peck, host of The Sharpening. The focus was on The Facade and The Portent, but there are some personal details in the interview as well. It’s posted on YouTube but is audio only.
Mike Heiser On The Sharpening with Josh Peck
To quote you, if they have wacky ways of putting stuff and their world view is so different from ours (does worldview include theology?) how do we, as moderns separate truth (theology) from fiction?
Also, I just thought of this fascinating hypothetical (at least, I think it’s fascinating): What if the bible was not given to the ancients but instead it was given today. How would the Bible been conveyed differently, but in keeping with the spirit of the overall theology? What would stay in and would would come out?
I think the propositions would have been the same (what God wanted humans to know about himself, themselves, the divine purpose, salvation, etc.) but the channels (how those ideas get expressed) would be quite different. For example, you have to wonder if there would have been “Israelites” – and if God would have chosen a people as a living object lesson for various things. The language of communication (whatever language) would have had the voice of modernity. When talking about creation or any created thing (e.g., angels) perhaps we’d get the language of quantum materiality.
It’s good science fiction turf!
Dr.MSH,
Regarding this concept that we are moderns, and that the reformers were moderns compared to the biblical writers, and that biblical interpretation has little to do with church history, etc. etc……Is it possible, then, that a true christian today could take the position that some or all of the bible was not literal, never really happened, but is more of a metaphor to be applied to an individual’s life? Or what about that person dismissing Genesis as largely metaphorical, particularly the creation account (6 days of, the serpent, the tree), the flood and the ark, abraham, etc.?
Being pre-modern would, in most instances, rule out any sort of “it wasn’t real” approach. Exceptions would (possibly) be things like known symbols (i.e., Leviathan). But the reality is that ancient people were not all of one mind. We can’t say “ancients ALL thought XYZ about XYZ.” But they weren’t predisposed to reject the reality of divine acts in their own world. That would actually be a modern response. Where literalism goes wrong is that the literalism fails to view anything symbolically. The ancient could/would do both — they weren’t mutually exclusive. Symbolic didn’t mean “not real” (it really means “more than real” – it transcends what we’d expect in our embodied experience / senses).
Well, this was certainly beneficial–Even though I have read through all your writings, I hadn’t caught the idea of “imagers” in trying to understand what Angels are in relation to God. I mean that, Angels, are God sending forth Images of Himself. The idea of it ties together so clearly with what happens when we dream. We , (or God in us, send forth Images in our dreams, and also in waking life)and there we have it, our created universe.—–Another thing I wish to comment on, is, what you said towards the end there about– “Because we have not read the bible for what it is, that has unfortunately WORKED ITSELF OUT in various ways” —that is not an exact quote but -Can you comment on some very specific examples of this? The one I think of the most is, –How we THEN,(because we don’t have the heart and take the time to get the real deal) mix ideas from the world into our thinking. I mean , if you study scripture, you find that God puts a great deal of emphasis, on the importance of PURITY! NO MIXING! That is a very STATED, requirement of God, in scripture. Just ONE example of this, is the verse” The fool has said in his heart ‘There is no God, CORRUPT (not pure) are they”
The “working out” has to do with both denominational biases, misunderstandings of passages, and the defense of ideas (e.g., what I call a goofy “paranormal view of inspiration”) that are indefensible against what’s actually found in the text.
I enjoyed hearing your testimony, Mike. I am encouraged especially by the outcome with your parents after years of perseverance. I’m sure a lot of us can relate.
You articulated something that has been bugging me for a long time but couldn’t put it together. Two things that seemed polar opposite problems to me really stemmed from the same source: the modern worldview. A big stumbling block for me in hearing/understanding the gospel was the insistence that I accept at face value the supernatural events in the Bible while simultaneously accepting that none of this applies to the “modern” world. In the same breath I was asked to believe the “scientific” proof of a young earth allegedly described in the Bible and ought to reject the scientific evidence that the earth is really old and evolution can actually be shown to happen in the laboratory. On the other hand my professors in college asserted the supernatural does not exist, and in the same breath proved to me that the material world is anything but what it seems on the surface, especially at the subatomic level. Yet, according to them, the only level-headed conclusion to draw about reality is to reject anything beyond our senses, especially the God of the Bible. From what you discussed about the modern worldview problem, it occurred to me the “fundamentalist” Christian preacher and the atheist scientist are pushing the same agenda. Very strange. I was very angry at both for a long time.
I’m inclined to agree. Both the rigid literalist and the atheist scientist seem fundamentalistic to me. I think it’s partly due to the militancy as well – an unwillingness to consider any alternative idea.
I first want to say the information you present is wonderful and the background complete with links and coherent arguments are well. You are clearly far mor educated in the historical understanding than I am, but the one thing I find you working hard to do, as others do, is shoe horn in the concept of the trinity. I read your arguments regarding the Elohim which I find help clarify/refine my own understanding and make good sense as we try to discern the larger picture. I do get puzzled though when you reach the gods part for the discussion where Jesus claims to be one with God, I see the same blatant attempt as I have seen from others to try and show Jesus claiming equality with God. (Equality with God is not something that can be grasped- that is what satan tried to do) Jesus merely states that he and the Father are one! (And you take it to mean exactly what the Pharisees first reaction meant that to mean – the hint here is that if Jesus meant it to be taken that way he wouldn’t have went on to clarify his statement). The question here is one in what, I believe that Jesus is merely saying that his will (words and behavior etc..) are that of God ( one in the sense that he is completely submissive and subservient to God – ie complete innocence and perfect servant leading to perfect sacrifice- not that he is God).
I also think it is interesting that there was offshoot sect from the Judaism that tried to go – binatarian with regards to the nature of God – that split off approx 200 BCE – but wasn’t declared heresy until 200 CE when it became a problem – hardly a support for the trinity rather merely shows satan was working hard to confuse people even before our saviour arrived. That the Jews didn’t immediately declare that point of view heresy and start massacres is a testament to their patience/tolerance until the problem had to be dealt with.(kinda reminds me patience shown by God to his people in the bible throughout the Old Testament. Clear contrast to how Catholicism handled the reformation).
I bring this up not because I want you to agree with me, but because I want you to provide an argument for me to believe in the trinity. I would love to believe in this trinity thing, as I was raised, that makes no sense and no one seems to actually be able to explain with any coherent sense. I am confident that my current understanding of scripture does not provide room for other entities equal to the Father and that, evidenced by your sound reasoning and desire for honest understanding do not allow you to either.
Yours Truly,
Jared
The Godhead is much bigger than statements (“I and the father are one”). The whole idea is much more complex and nuanced. I don’t base it on proof-texting such verses. The variety of ways Jesus and God are interchanged in the text (an example) is much more significant. That takes more than a sentence to look at. So that’s a good place to start — read some good material on how NT writers insert Jesus into OT passages and therefore exchange him with God (without removing God in other passages). I don’t know if you read Greek or Hebrew, but if you do, Capes’ book “Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology” is a good place to start. Jesus and God are cast as interchangeable. That is theologically telling. Then there are trajectories on why the incarnation of Yahweh was essential for the plan of salvation (i.e., no human could ever completely or unerringly fulfill the terms of something like the Davidic covenant — or the Sinai covenant for that matter). The fulfiller had to be God (sinless) but yet also be man.
Again, none of this is really about citing a verse or two. It’s far more sweeping than that.
I also think you’re mis-defining equality with the satan trajectory. The NT uses this language of Jesus for one thing (Phil 2). What the serpent figure (called Satan in the NT) was seeking was to *displace* the Most High. It was a rebellion. That isn’t at all what trinitarian language (inside or outside the Bible) is suggesting.
No idea where you’re getting a 200 BC binitarian sect from (what sect are you thinking of?). Judaism didn’t reject the idea of a godhead, either. It rejected the notion that the person they had just crucified was the second power. Those aren’t the same things (related, but not mutually interchangeable). The reasons seem obvious (it would require not only admission of wickedness, but also conversion). The fact that many Jews did convert and embrace an incarnate Yahweh tells us (again pretty clearly) that a godhead wasn’t in principle a problem. The offense was the cross.
Shalom Dr. Heiser,
Are you shomer Torah Proverbs 28:9 ?
You seem to understand Hebrew thought forms and in that sense, I’m assuming (and rightly so) are in process of “crossing over”? Have you made that wild and wet journey of coming out of the wilderness/Egypt/Babylon and becoming a Hebrew? Again are you shomer Torah or are you still lighting your own fires Isaiah 50:10,11+51:1,2,3? Are at least Acts 15:15-21 worthy ?
I’m a Jewish follower of the Rabbi and take what He spoke in John 4:22 (Hosea 11:12,Zechariah 8:23,Jeremiah 6:16,Matthew 11:29,Romans 11:15 ect.) as just a plain fact. He is wonderfully concise as usual, when He says to the Samaritan women (et al. Gentiles),
You worship what you know not : we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Which means the whole of salvation, the song of Moshe/Torah/everyday salvation and the song of the Lamb/ the Torah made Flesh/ Eternal Salvation.
My brothers, sisters and mothers are those who do the will/torah/pleasure of my Abba who is in heaven. Matthew 5:19 ?
Torah Ahava, Nic and Keren Isa.54:17