The episode is now live.
In this episode I chat with Dr. Ronn Johnson, a long-time friend of mine and fellow divine council enthusiast. We’ve known each other since the early 1980s. Ronn has a PhD in Bible Exposition (Old and New Testament) from Dallas Theological Seminary. His dissertation focused on how the Deuteronomy 32 worldview of the gods of the nations influenced Paul’s thinking about principalities and powers. Ronn is the author of the small group leader’s guide for Mike’s book Supernatural.
I plan to periodically interview several friends and fellow researchers who track on the divine council worldview and its implications for biblical theology. Readers and listeners need to know who they are. This is all part of some plans for the future.
I remember reading Dr Johnsons paper in the memra course and it was the only paper i could share with my Minister, as it connected the principalities with the gods, for some reason because it was starting off with Paul and the new testament it made it easier for me to get someone to see the correlation with the divine council in the OT. I still use this paper as my first port of call for introducing someone to this topic, i have found this paper resonates especially well with people of the reformed background, dont ask me why.
Interesting – the point about beginning with Paul. Scary to think we can’t start in the OT, but it’s so misunderstood or ignored that maybe that makes sense.
BTW, Ronn’s paper for this year’s conference got approved. I’m just hoping it’s not the same time as mine (I had one about using Greek and Hebrew for sermons approved).
And I hope you will share it on the blog too 🙂
Do you have the title of that paper, Nobunaga? I’d like to look it up.
Hi Jacob Dr Heiser posted the pdf link to the paper in this comment section in reply to Larry Bob.
Ah, OK, I thought you were referring to another paper besides the dissertation. Thanks!
My heart was burning as I listened to this, with several wisdoms. When we go to present the Divine Council teaching to people, we may think it wise to just stick with that , at first,until that is totally recieved, and then move on only when people start pondering the things related to it. Another wisdom,I put in the form of a question. –What is it about the Divine Council teaching that is so attractive ?–Descernment tells me, that what the reasons are,are exactly the same reasons we think multi-person discussions are so awesome and enjoyable. Like todays Podcast setting, the intimate,interactive, Divine Council truth setting, that you just Know ,is Gods way ! A group of beings,interacting WITH EACH OTHER (which is what I hate about the three or four people only, pulpit sharing , or celebrity thing) no INTERaction, but in The Divine Council truth, there is an equity, and an interactive building up, synchronizing, discussing wisdoms,checking each other ,worshiping together, loving one another. And so I descern also, to present it to people in a Divine Council like SETTING,would be one heads up on this. In fact, this is the very type setting where I was able to to present it very easily, a serious mens group meeting on Tuesday morning at my church. We did a living illustration of it.—– In other words, I descern that, it is the Divine Council ITSELF ,that is what people are seeking.
We’ll find out; I’m just glad the management at Lexham was smart enough to insist on two books at the start (one for newbies – the trade book, Supernatural). Granted, that may still be too much if the reader is on a diet of Joel Osteen or the umpteenth rehearsal of John 3:16. But we’ll see.
John 3:16
John gives us the Gospel in verses 16-21. There we have been several hundred thousand words written about these verses, but I think they stand quite nicely by themselves.
We get to vs:16-21 via vs:1-15.
Jesus and Nicodemus. The tension and gifted knowledge in that conversation should set everyone’s heart and head on fire. I think “Supernatural” and “The Unseen Realm” will certainly help set the table for all of John 3. (I’m not sure how to even begin to address vs11,12&13.)
So.
I can’t make Osteen, et al stand up on their hind legs and bark; but they ‘darn’ sure better sit up and sniff the air.
Best.
This was an excellent and very encouraging discussion. I was particularly delighted to hear your conversations about the implications of the Divine Council Worldview on the Gospel and on the biblical vs contemporary Evangelical views on what it means to turn from idols. Thanks to Dr. Johnson for taking the time to join you. I look forward to more of his input as well as future interviews with others.
I guess I must be one of those rare 4 or 5 for whom this just clicks. Sadly, I’m the only one in my peer group who has any interest in this line of thought, and as a 58 year old female I’m probably a real oddball. I’m hoping that the new book Supernatural will be something I can share to help rectify that problem.
Thanks very much for all your hard work.
Diane
I hope so — and bless you for being an oddball.
OK, ITS 4 AM. I’ve been laying awake since 2:30 AM casting my anxieties, due the spiritual warfare in my sphere of influence, on Him who loves me and cares for me. You know, our adopted dad. The only dad who really can whip everyone’s dad. LOL. but I’m totally serious.
Anyway, as I was praying, I began to loose focus because my flesh is weak. So I changed tactics and decided to listen to something wholesome and good so I listened to your last podcast.
BOOM! you finally asked a question I could answer. Why do some people get it?
Well, I’m a 49 year old disciple and my eighty year old mother, she gets it too. I’m not so sure that many of the younger crowd who like it, “get it” yet. But at least they are finally hearing the gospel preached in a way that brings the book to life, as it should. However, to those of us who are poor in spirit, even in the age where “God has been quantified “Denominized”, labeled and put in a box, we still get it. We have no other light other than the Word of God. And, in spite of the “Broad road theology” that’s been so prevalent since the 19th and 20th centuries, that has permeated christian culture, His blessings remain new every morning. Even with all of its dead end rabbit trails full of legalistic and cheap grace ballast, we still find plenty of life in the WORD. Despite millenia of spin the Satan has used on the Word of God, it hasn’t diminished our hunger for the truth. For as the scriptures says “I will teach every man and write my words on their hearts”.The holy Spirit has always have always revealed these themes and ideas in the bible and we believed them to be true. Yet we could not connect them from a scholarly perspective but just treasured and proclaimed them by faith, and we remained comforted by our fear of the Lord.
Thanks be to God, true disciples such as yourselves, have broken through the “tare” filled theological ranks and have exposed this deception. The crafty ones have tried to keep hidden from the public for ages.This teaching is the worst nightmare of the post modern delusion.
None the less, the most simple answer as to why we get it is this: WE believe every Word of God is flawless and a shield to those who take refuge. We believe the fantastic things of the bible as well as the commands. We just really…BELIEVE it.
That is why we put our faith in Him in the first place. When Gods word is opened, Hebrews 4:12 takes place. We retain it and produce a crop. We want no other seed though we constantly have it scattered upon our hearts. We are not godless like our culture. Jesus is our life. We are… disciples.
Yet, not to sound to pious, I want to say that Gods people are being sifted and purified in different ways all over the world. In many cases much worse. Few have “resisted sin to the point of shedding their own blood”.
Thank you for remaining in Him and following Yahweh. Letting HIM guide, train and use your talents and abilities to unmask “the facade” if you will. I believe God is disciplining and shepherding His children and even those who don’t “get it” now, will, when the time is right.
I pray for you Mike. I hate to say it but your probably on Mastema’s top ten Most wanted list, in the US and western Europe at least. I pray for your protection and faithfulness. That you will continue to rid yourself of idols and remain free from the love of money. That your scholarly work won’t impede in the slightest the making disciples wherever you go. Keep loving Gods people and your enemies.
David
wow – thanks for that. It’s great when folks like you and your mom just “surface” in and from churches. It’s gratifying to throw content YOUR way and not to those who wouldn’t care. We’ll see where it all goes. I believe it’s why God’s grace awakened me when I was sixteen and jolted me back in grad school, so I’d do it no matter what. We’ll see what trouble it causes. Sometimes God just calls us to misbehave. 🙂
His book on the principalities and powers does not seem to be available anymore. Is it still available online. I’d like to buy one.
it’s not a published book – it’s his dissertation. You can download it here:
https://drmsh.com/Johnson DISS The OT Background for Pauls Principalities and Powers.pdf
Give it time – it’s 13 MB (PDF).
Thank you, Dr. Heiser. I was able to download it though I had to insert %20 in the spaces between the words for the link to work.
I appreciate your sharing such scholarly work.
That’s a first – never heard that anyone had to tinker with the link.
Evangelicals are much too busy sharpening pitchforks and lighting torches. Castle Dawkins must be stormed!
When they realize it’s a very old castle and no one’s home…
Well, you can cut the disappointment with a knife.
Ignoring , at your peril, the entire OT I still don’t know how people can blithely skip over Ephesians 6. Best I get is, “Oh that wacky guy Paul is just kidding”.
Classic magician’s trick. Misdirection.
Use something shiney.
Who’s this Lucifer dude anyway?
Thank/Best
In my opinion, the reason some people get it, and some people don’t (and I am speaking strictly from personal experience), is perhaps loaded terms and concepts. For example, the use of the word “gods” (as you once said on a youtube video) is a loaded word that people falsely subscribe attributes. When I hear the word “gods” I think of Zeus and his entourage on Mt. Olympus. Or I think of Anu discussing issues with other deities. There is a scent of polytheism that sparks in people’s heads. Perhaps the word “gods” should be retired due to what people think of it. If you simply say God has other divine entities in his entourage, it doesn’t sound as bad to people.
Second, I am personally am still struggling with the truth claims and trying to separate it from the ANE baggage. Or better YET, are the truth claims of the gospels TIED to the baggage?How do we know which is which? I would love to know Ronn Johnson’s opinion on that as well. Since you are not too busy (LOL) I am sure you remember this paragraph you sent me:
When I talk about “worldview baggage,” I am referring to the incidental means by which truth is transmitted, not the truth that gets transmitted. An example from today …. suppose (as I have done in the past) that I use a clip from a movie like Thor, or Spiderman, to articulate a theological truth. Only the truth being proposed is true. The means is not — there is no superhero out there called Spiderman, and movies are fake. In my view, who cares? We use things like movie scenes all the time to talk about truth, but they’re not real. If I had to use one to talk to a child who might think the movie is real the truth is transmitted — and in that case (which to me is an analogy of the necessity of divine condescension when speaking to humans) the truth is still proposed successfully.
How does this tie into an issue you wrote on UnFiltered Fridays which is Biblical Authority?
I’ll ask Ronn what he thinks. Not sure where he’s at on the inspiration/authority issue these days.
I’ll ask him.
Thank you, but don’t be so shy. Feel free to give your thoughts as well 🙂
Here’s Ronn’s reply:
>>
Here would be my from-the-hip response to your blogger’s question:
It is good to admit that there is plenty of baggage with the ancient biblical worldview, as with our own modern worldview. As I understand your concern, it is What is the baggage that can be left behind when it comes to the Bible’s presentation of idolatry and plural gods, and what is the real—the truth that is being communicated? That’s a fair question, one which most people struggle with at some point if they are willing to trudge through all the material on gods and spirits laid out in the Bible. See if this works for you—it is literally how I worked my way through the question:
1. Either a) the creator made spiritual beings or b) he did not. If I go with the former, as most evangelicals do, the next question is “what are these being called in the Bible?”
2. In its original languages, the Bible has several titles for what seem to be spiritual beings: ruachim, elohim, bene elohim, qedoshim, malakim, satan, theoi, pneuma, angeloi, daimonia, etc. (The list is quite extensive, and requires stepping away from the English language during the entire process.)
3. Here comes the worldview question, at least implied: Which titles denote real spiritual beings, which ones denote non-real beings, and why?
I submit that if a person has actually come to this third question, they are cornered; the biblical text triangulates from term to term almost seamlessly, so that (for example) we can prove that an elohim is a ruach which is a malakim, etc. in the mind of the writer. The usual statement I hear is “I believe in angels, but I disbelieve in gods,” meaning they want a worldview that allows for one (“angels are normal”) but not the other (“gods are weird”) even when the text equates the one with the other. As you implied, the problem is the English word god. We’ve got to invent another term, I’m convinced.
I realize this is a limited answer to your question about worldviews, but it’s a start, dealing with the most common argument against the existence of plural gods. Let me know what you’re thinking next.
Ronn
>>
Ronn, (and Mike)
Thank you so much for taking time to reply.
I’m glad you agree with me regarding the term “gods.” As much as we wish to use it, I feel it only serves against what you are trying to teach.
Regarding old world baggage, let me offer you something more specific. The similarities between Deut 32 and the Ugartic take of the same concept lead us to conclude that they did not each develop independently. The Israelites at some point took the idea for their own theological purposes. But…..at some point, the Israelites – in Egypt – did not yet encounter Ugartic culture. Meaning, that theology of separating the nations according to Bnei Elohim did not yet develop (for the Israelites). So does that mean Deut: 32 is old world baggage? But the problem with saying it is, is that Deut 32 is fundamental to the whole edific.
So it’s not the old world baggage question is more fundamental in what they do as opposed to who they are.
thanks
I sent it on. The latest Q of course presumes (incorrectly) that the Israelites had to encounter Ugaritic material to believe what they believed. Parallels don’t mean dependence. Post-Egypt (Mosaic and post-Mosaic era) is when these texts (Deut 32:8-9; Gen 11) were written, so the content isn’t “old world” if by that you mean pre-exodus.
I sent it on. The latest Q of course presumes (incorrectly) that the Israelites had to encounter Ugaritic material to believe what they believed. Parallels don’t mean dependence. It likely means cross-fertilization of ideas or competing theologies (e.g., the Israelites and Egyptians both practiced circumcision — must we assume one got the idea from the other? What about other cultures who do it?). Religious ideas can be competing vs. dependent.
Post-Egypt (Mosaic and post-Mosaic era) is when these texts (Deut 32:8-9; Gen 11) were written, so the content isn’t “old world” if by that you mean pre-exodus.
>(e.g., the Israelites and Egyptians both practiced circumcision — must we assume one got the idea from the other?
Well not the practice itself….but certainly the belief (or theology) behind the practice would cause us to make some very obvious assumptions. So if Egyptians too had a theology behind the practice, that taught that they circumscribe due to a covenant made and an eternal mark of that covenant, than we would be forced to question whether the Israelites (in their years of Egyptian servitude) got he practice and the theology from them.
>Parallels don’t mean dependence
I totally understand, but it is hard for me to play this out in my mind. Here we have a Canaanite culture that is clearly older than the Israelites. Their belief system is older. Their culture is older. So when you see such an overlap it is hard not to come to a conclusion that the Israelite belief (specifically Deut 32) isn’t dependent on Ugaritic. If that is the case, than we simply go back to the question you just forwarded to Ronn (i.e., how could a particular part of the theology that is the edifice of the whole theology, have been taken from the Ugaritic? At some point in time and space, the Israelites did not know of them….so what was their theology like before meeting the Ugaritics? What would Moses have taught them (if anything)about the Unseen Realm theology given he never entered the land and presumingly never met the Ugaritics??)
>Post-Egypt (Mosaic and post-Mosaic era) is when these texts (Deut 32:8-9Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Gen 11) were written, so the content isn’t “old world” if by that you mean pre-exodus.
Not sure what you mean by that. I was just saying that since the Israelites at some point had not encountered the Ugaritics, than at some point they did not have that belief system yet. And so if they didn’t how do you make sense of the “Unseen Realm” theology minus that important edifice of Deut 32?
Again, I am presuming dependence, which seems to be the only logical conclusion given which source material is older here (i.e the Ugaritics). I agree cross fertilization occurs, but someone has to start off that process first.
I think you’re agreeing with my point on the circumcision thing (that Israel’s thinking about it was their own). Egyptians didn’t have a theology about circumcision being part of a covenant with one of their gods.
It’s a misnomer to say that Canaanite culture (Ugarit) was a lot older than Israelite. You are confusing when texts were written vs. culture, which is a common mistake. We tend to think a culture was only present at the point people started writing about it. The reality is that religious ideas frequently precede when those ideas make it into writing. It’s kind of a chicken and egg problem. My guess is that you had both go on — but that in turn begs the question of WHY any borrowing. Just to offer a scenario. A learned priest reads through / hears some content of the Baal Cycle about divine kingship. On one hand, he could add some element of his “theology lessons” to Israelites to make sure they don’t assign some power to Baal they shouldn’t … or, a scribe who comes across the same material might find some idea therein useful for expressing some point of theology about Yahweh in a non-polemic way. My point is that “borrowing” can have varied motivations — and for the orthodox Israelite, always came with a filter.
On Moses, again, the Canaanite ideas about El for example, didn’t begin with “Ugarit Press, Inc.” — and people from Canaan weren’t held prisoner there — people traveled and met each other (as always). Some of them could have been scribes and intellectuals who exchanged ideas (perhaps even written material). You’re painting too static a picture. Moses didn’t have to be in Canaan for items that wound up in the Torah that had connections to Canaanite religious thinking to be present there.
Your last paragraph is really misguided. Israelites had no belief system until they ran into someone from Ugarit? What about the patriarchs? Why would we conclude any people are a religious blank slate until they meet another people group? It seems totally unreasonable.
>Your last paragraph is really misguided. Israelites had no belief system until they ran into someone from Ugarit?
No of course they did. I did not mean that they did not have their own beliefs. I was only talking specifically about the belief about the bnei elohim inheriting the other nations.
>A learned priest reads through / hears some content of the Baal Cycle about divine kingship. On one hand, he could add some element of his “theology…….
Yes, this is my point exactly. That in fact there was quite likely, a point that there WAS an Israelite theology minus what this priest may have heard. So let’s say this priest heard something about a baal cycle, or a scribe heard something about bnei elohim inheriting the nations, we would have to discern that Israelites lived without these borrowed beliefs to their theology at some given point. And here my point comes in which I asked Ronn: What WAS that all encompassing Israelite theology that they learned from Moses/Sinai?
>You’re painting too static a picture.
I agree. Real life is not static, but I am simply having a hard time grasping how Moses (from Egypt) and a bunch of slaves (from Egypt) would be able to acquire certain “borrowed” beliefs from a people they haven’t met yet.
Perhaps the issue of Bnei Elohim inheriting nations is a first Temple belief that eventually was included into the Torah? Is that possible? What do you think? If so, my question once again sticks. If that belief (what you call the Deut 32 worldview) is so critical, what was Israelite theology before first temple? Was it incomplete?
So to put it another way, does the Deut 32 worldview require there to have been a meeting between Israel and Ugarit?
That’s an interesting question. Given that I don’t assign all of Deuteronomy to Moses (which most scholars don’t), your “problem” about Moses encountering Ugarit isn’t a concern for me. But what makes it interesting is that, on one hand, you don’t need it — you can have a theology of a high god vs. all the others. But given the content of vv. 6-7, where there are pretty clear El allusions found at Ugarit that are attributed to Yahweh (to make the writer’s point that El and Yahweh, for orthodox Israelite theology, are not separate deities), those verses apparently presuppose exposure to Ugaritic material.
Excursus: This relates to my gripe with the mainstream view. Most would agree with Mark Smith (as one example) that there are clear indications that the biblical writers did not distinguish Yahweh and El after the 8th century. But then they turn around and need Deuteronomy 32 to be a much later “innovation” to justify the idea that Psalm 82 still has them separate. It’s utterly incoherent in my judgment. Quite unnecessary (unless you are married to an evolutionary view of monotheism — then your system needs that incoherent idea).
Back to the question … In my case, I not agree that Yahweh and El were not distinct in Deut 32; the writers are telegraphing the opposite idea. The question is, could Israelites have made such an equation earlier? The sub question to that one is “do you need to actually have encountered Ugaritic material to make that equation? My answer to the first is “yes”. My answer to the second is “no – you can still have made that equation without the encounter, though the encounter makes the path more transparent.” Why do I say the encounter wasn’t necessary? If we assume an ORAL tradition for the Israelites before, during, and after bondage — prior to and during Moses’ time — Exod 3:1-4 and Exod 6:3 (assuming that event was real and was passed down orally before it made it into writing) makes this fusion explicit. “Before you knew me as El-whatever; but my name is Yahweh.” Even if Moses didn’t write Exodus, you still have that tradition. SInce El was the *generic* name for deity all over Canaan and Midian, one didn’t have to get it from Ugarit by reading a tablet. SO, the patriarchs and their ancestors worship “El”. But during the Mosaic period, they learn via Moses’ encounter that this same deity now wants to go by Yahweh (the meaning of the divine name is factor here – Yahweh = “he who causes [X} to be” – a reference to the “new creation” of Israel as a nation – see https://drmsh.com/the-naked-bible/yhwh/ for a discussion of this name).
So, in short, you can still get El = Yahweh via oral tradition (with or without Mosaic inscripturation of that tradition) without a specific encounter with Ugaritic tablets. Deut 32:6-7 could have been written sometime after Moses’ era, post-8th century, inscripturating the idea *in that passage* in ways that draw on Ugaritic. But you don’t need Ugaritic behind Exodus 3 and 6.
Oh dear God! Where are the booooooooooks!?!?!?!?
LOL
Thoroughly enjoyed the podcast. Your history and genuine friendship with Dr Ronn Johnson added much warmth to the discussion.
In all your teachings, I am not left with a clear picture of what the Old Testament “gods of the nations” are up to in our present age. Were they defeated at the cross, and demoted somehow? Are they the principalities Paul speaks of? Dr Johnson hinted at the latter. Somehow, I don’t think you would line up with George Otis Jr or Dutch Sheets on the issue of territorial spirits. That said, I have no idea what you DO believe. Being so devoted to the text, you do not tend to speculate.
And here is a real can of worms: With “gods of the nations” in mind, what do you think of churches that have a patriotic service planned this weekend? Members pledging allegiance to the American flag as part of worship, singing the national anthem and God Bless America instead of hymns and praise songs.
At the minimum, it is rendering to Caesar what belongs to Jesus. I’m beginning to wonder if it compares to Ezekiel 8. Is there possibly an elohim breathing in all this praise and adoration?
Short answer: yes – they are the principalities (and other Pauline terms). No idea who George Otis, Jr and Dutch Sheets are, so I can’t comment.
Love of country isn’t idolatry. Presuming one’s country is the new Israel or the kingdom of God is idolatry.
Otis and Sheets are well known in charismatic circles. Google “territorial spirits” if interested in seeing how some interpret principalities.
There has been a blurring in some parts of our culture of “God and Country”. To love one’s country is not the same thing as believing our country has a unique, and special relationship with God compared to all other nations. A recent stat I read said 53% of evangelicals believe this.
I would also consider the Manifest Destiny of 19th century America to being close to your take on idolatry. The sanitized word used in Washington regarding the natives was “extermination”. Just a bit of pest control. I can’t help but think the concept of Israel taking the land of Canaan was used to justify conquering the continent.
I’m not tagging spiritual entities to misguided and out of balance love for country. I’m just trying to understand where powers and principalities might be residing. The Third Reich seems like a modern example for all kinds of reasons.
Digging around online, and Territorial Spirits was introduced to charismatic/kingdom now theology by C. Peter Wagner. Wagner got it from an essay by F.F. Bruce called “Paul and the Powers That Be.” I read through a couple pages of the essay, and it lays out Divine Council teaching using Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, the book of Job, etc. Nice to know someone as respected and known as F.F. Bruce could be considered and adherent to this teaching.
Sadly, C. Peter Wagner and George Otis have taken the concept to unbiblical use, inventing spiritual mapping and naming the principalities by name as spiritual warfare tools.
As you kind of own Divine Council material, I recommend you check into how it is already being used and misused.
Thanks for that. I will try and get up to speed on that. The real stuff leaks into NT material occasionally. Bruce was an alert NT scholar. Many others are not.
The third Reich does indeed provide parallels to such idolatry, even to manifest destiny (though that movement lacked a clear messiah figure). To really understand the Nazi ideology (faith/religion) I recommend the scholarly book by David Redles, Hitler’s Millennial Reich: Apocalyptic Belief and the Search for Salvation. It has great explanatory power for why Hitler and the inner circle thought what they thought and did what they did.
Some thoughts I had after listening to your podcast.
I think the reason many of us who get the divine council/Deutro 32 worldview is not because we are intellectually gifted or under supernatural guidance.
Rather, we are prepared by Providence and life circumstances to question and examine what others are content to leave alone. Whatever things have shaped our journey of faith, we share a common desire to look beyond superficial answers of Christian convenience to the heart of the matter.
A restless discontent with the Christian status quo leads us, prompts us, and moves us to be open to new ideas like the Divine Council. By no means Athenian, we are on a quest to know the Unknown God, the One who can give us some semblance of order in the chaos of post-modern North American church life.
Other observations:
1) It seems that many Early Church Fathers threw out the ANE baby when they tossed the Judaizer’s bath water. The second century was not a good time for the crucial doctrine of a Yahweh led divine council; but it likely was helpful for shaping thoughts on infant baptism.
2) An Evangelical bias in Biblical Studies that favours Greek language over Hebrew language studies based on the notion of the ‘finished work of Christ’. That is the idea that the Cross and Resurrection of Christ have completed all the Law and the Prophets had to offer. No need for ANE texts when there are Greek manuscripts written and endorsed by the Apostles.
3) IMHO, the doctrine explaining the Godhead, as formulated by the Early Church Fathers, had far greater weight placed on abstract and Platonic philosophical underpinnings than was necessary or beneficial. Their writings reflect a lack of consideration for Hebrew traditions and other ANE sources that speak of concrete notions of deity among us.
If thinkers like yourself and Dr Johnson were involved in those formative years of the second century, I think things would have been a lot different with respect to the development of Christian theology. This may be tantamount to heresy in some Evangelical circles, but frankly I don’t care anymore. The North American Church is sick, anemic, starving and sorely lacking in the Truth and Reality of Him whom we serve.
At least you have the courage and guts to examine why.
If God is in this revelation and restoration of Divine Council/Deutro 32, and I fully believe that He is, then the post-modern Church is in for the kind of shaking that Luther’s reforms introduced.
I think you and Dr Johnson are on the spear tip of bringing the Church back to the truth about who Yahweh is and how we relate to His concil.
Any thoughts on whether you would be able to join with the learned fellows from The Dead Sea Scrolls Institute for a podcast or two in the foreseeable future? I understand you all have very busy lives; but it would certainly be a treat to hear the back an forth, give and take of a round table discussion on a podcast or two on 2nd Temple Literature.
FYI, Dutch Sheets is a teacher in the Charismatic/Neo-Pentacostal movement who believes in modern day prophets. He has published a book on intercessory prayer, among other things.
I think you’re tracking on something important with this line:
“Rather, we are prepared by Providence and life circumstances to question and examine what others are content to leave alone. Whatever things have shaped our journey of faith, we share a common desire to look beyond superficial answers of Christian convenience to the heart of the matter.”
I have long thought about how I was providentially prepared in “small” ways. I won’t psychologize myself here, but I can see providential circumstances producing what I joke is my super power — apathy. I really don’t care if people approve of what I do or not. I know why God saved me through Christ and that’s all the approval and direction I need. It’s why I wasn’t allowed to quit along the way. Trust me, I wanted to on several occasions. Working FT through grad school for 15 years in some of the nation’s more difficult semitics programs can get discouraging. Being unemployable for the pastorate was also discouraging (I skipped the MDiv). Applying for teaching jobs with ten years experience and 15 courses under my belt and high evaluations from students — and getting one interview — was crushing. But the result is I don’t owe anyone my soul or my brain. I know who is and isn’t my master. Pure providence. And that’s just the tip of that iceberg. I’m free to go where the text takes me, caring only about what it can sustain in its own context. After all the hardship, it’s totally liberating. I’d do the same things I’m doing now (but with less time to devote to them) if I were driving a truck or cleaning floors. If I were doing what I wanted to do FT nothing would change except greater output. I’ve had a taste of that over the last couple years due to the commitment and foresight of my employer, Logos. They deserve thanks and appreciation (and patronage) for believing in what I do.
“After all the hardship, it’s totally liberating.”
So true, Mike. Much of my personal tragedies and frustrations have served as a veritable compost heap for immense spiritual growth.
Yesterday, I was discussing Divine Council concepts with my 8 year old twins, using their grasp of Jedi Council Lego guys as a spring board to discuss how God has His Council members.
They really think Satan is a Sith Lord; and Jesus is a Jedi Master. I shared with them that Jesus is our Master and that we are His padawan learners.
I think a part of the dissemination process for the Deutro 32 worldview could be providing material for younger children or teens. It may be the form of a comic book, an illustrated children’s book or a graphic novel format. Doubtless there are fine illustrators and artists who could help create a solid text driven visual curriculum.
“I think you’re tracking on something important with this line:
‘Rather, we are prepared by Providence and life circumstances to question and examine what others are content to leave alone. Whatever things have shaped our journey of faith, we share a common desire to look beyond superficial answers of Christian convenience to the heart of the matter.'”
***************
Yes… Before I even read Robbie’s comment I was formulating my own thoughts along those lines–on Providence, life’s circumstances and being carried about by every wind of doctrine:
After being raised in a family that attended a Methodist church (a believing mother and an unbelieving but compliant father), an experience that did not engender belief in me, I began my journey of belief in God and faith in Christ in the summer of 1973 shortly before my 16th birthday after attending a couple of Bible study meetings centered on Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth while visiting relatives far from home. When I returned home I had no direction as to a church to attend (and no real liberty to search) so I attached myself to the YL group at my high school and drifted about there until just after graduation when a friend from school invited me to attend his church, a grace-oriented Traditional Dispensational group (Scofield, Ryrie, Stam, etc.). One of the main features of their theological framework is their belief that the Church/Body of Christ wasn’t formed until at or after Paul’s conversion. I settled in there, but discovered that even in that congregation there were differing ideas as to the exact point at which the Church began: Acts 9, Acts 13, Acts 28… I “tried on” each view in succession and ultimately became very involved with the Acts 28 subgroup (E. W. Bullinger, C. H. Welch, etc.).
During this period I was introduced (via Christian radio) to the “provocative,” out-of-the-box thinking of Chuck Missler and his ministry partner Lambert Dolphin. Missler particularly caught my attention when he made reference to Bullinger in his briefing package called Signs in the Heavens, which relied heavily on Bullinger’s Witness in the Stars.
For several years I remained loosely committed to the Acts 28 position, but began to develop an eclectic approach to Bible study, though my exposure to Reformed/Covenant Theology (RT) was very limited (Francis Schaeffer, Arthur Custance, etc.)–and what exposure I had I couldn’t name.
In my mid-to-late thirties life circumstances lead me into the realm of Classical Dispensationalism (Darby, Chafer, R. A. Huebner, Miles Stanford); in particular, a narrow slice of that group spearheaded by the late Miles Stanford who dubbed his position Pauline Dispensationalism. This group holds to an Acts 2 beginning of the Church, but is utterly committed to a strict distinction/separation between Israel and the Church whom they identify as God’s Earthly People and his Heavenly People, respectively.
Also during that time, thanks to the dawn of the internet, I was finally really exposed to the world of RT (the Enemy) and the mutual disdain between adherents of the two systems. (Progressive Dispensationalism also came into view at this time, but it was taboo in my world–a slippery slope to Covenantalism–so I didn’t dive in too deeply.)
By the time I was in my mid-forties I was becoming fed up with the discord and apparently-irreconcilable differences between DT and RT, however, whereas many folks who become disillusioned with one system quickly latch on to another, I was not so inclined and began to entertain the thought that the only way to find God’s unifying “TOE” was to be untethered from any system and let the Word of God speak on its own. But, where to begin? Sigh…
As an example of the many questions that plagued my mind, my eyes were opened to the multiple scriptures that seem to plainly say that the Church inherits the blessings promised to Abraham in Christ–a view rejected by most Dispensationalists. (Warning: don’t try to point this out to a Pauline Dispensationalist. Let me tell you, it will cause a short circuit.) There were other questions too, many that put RT in the spotlight. I’m an equal-opportunity questioner.
By the time December 2005 rolled around I was providentially primed when one evening I tuned in to Coast to Coast AM and heard George Noory interviewing some guy named Mike Heiser about the DaVinci Code and other interesting topics–I was hooked. Not long after that I was signing up for Dr. Heiser’s newsletter and access to the Divine Council files.
I say I was primed, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t go through several months of adjustment and some trepidation about the consequences of embracing these ideas. I was already a lone wolf among my theological peers (primarily my husband who remains firmly committed to his Pauline Dispensational view), and this was bound to make it worse. At this point I really don’t fit into any theological box; I’m not truly Dispensational, or Reformed, or Charismatic, or Cessationist, or Calvinist, or Arminian, or any named category I can think of. I’m simply dependent upon my Lord, Jesus Christ, by his Word and his Spirit to learn what he would have me know of Him.
I’m thankful that he has raised up men such as yourself to make this material accessible to us non-scholarly learners. I also pray for you, that the Lord would keep your path straight and free of obstacles, keep your mind clear and your thinking sound, give you strength to press on, and bless you with the comfort of an intimate nearness to Him.
P.S., Dr. Heiser, It is not necessarily my expectation that you post this comment, though you may (in whole or in part) if you think it would be helpful. Because you and Dr. Johnson expressed curiosity about how people come to embrace the Divine Council Worldview, I thought there would be no better time than now to share these thoughts that have been weighing on my soul for a long time. Either way, assuming you read this far, thanks for hearing me out.
Read the whole thing and appreciated it. Familiar and yet fascinating. Both Ronn and I appreciate the prayer sentiments as well. Best line: “I’m simply dependent upon my Lord, Jesus Christ, by his Word and his Spirit to learn what he would have me know of Him.” Thanks!
I have the missing pages in PDF if anyone would like to have them. They fit seamlessly into the dissertation with only fn.12 being duplicated. This could not be removed without upsetting the following footnotes for that chapter.
I will happily email them free. Contact me
john5.dunn@btinternet.com
and I will send them on.
Thanks – forgot about those!