Last Sunday I gave a talk at church on Jesus as co-creator. Specifically, the discussion focused on the embodied “Word” idea and “Wisdom” in the Old Testament. Here it is:
Michael Heiser December 6, 2009 from Grace Church Bellingham on Vimeo.
Where Did the NT Writers Get the Idea of Jesus as Co-Creator?
This is awesome! It’s nice to see the professor in his element. I do pray we see more of these as they become available; great presentation.
@Jonnathan Molina: The next two Sunday nights (only two more of these in the series) are: (1) Why did Jews find the worship Jesus as God acceptable in their monotheistic framework? It will be an overview of the “two powers / two Yahwehs” doctrine in the OT; and (2) Did Matthew Misinterpret Isaiah 7:14?
The series is focused on Jesus and the OT.
Hi Michael,
A long time reader of your material here….though I’ve never commented or got in touch with you.
Firstly, I want to thank you for sharing so freely what you have been taught by the Holy Spirit. There are those of us who are not in a position to pay and so it’s soo deeply appreciated that I can find some of the studies/information you’ve made available (i.e. the Divine Council, etc.).
This particular teaching is m-e-a-t-y! And YAY that you have given a talk on it – but also shared it here:)! I still haven’t totally got my head around it – but I am listening and praying the Holy Spirit will help me understand what I consider to be a mysterious Truth embedded in His Word (the Scriptures, I mean;)).
I hope you will follow up with more on this topic….
Yaweh bless and keep you brother.
Lisa
Am watching this as we now, about 20 minutes in. I laughed out loud for joy at the top of my lungs when you read Wisdom of Solomon 7:26. Wow. Echoes of Paul: “for he is the image of the invisible God”. Least I think thats where your going. Freaking amazing!
Good stuff the only other source related to this of yours is and old gravely audio on the two powers theme.
Much needed also especially at this time of year when all the detractors come out to take pot shots at the New Testament writers, saying such things as the Deity of Christ was made up hundreds of years after the He walked the Earth, With this very valuable information we can see it runs right through the Old Testament into the New !
When John explains the Word in the first chapter, now it has so much more impact and depth given the Jewishness of the thought, it must have blown those early Jewish followers away ! that is a tremendous statement and opening by John/(Holy Spirit)….Wow mind blowing
Much needed info i hope you are kept busy by this it is so valuable.
Excellent video… I look forward to more.
Do you see that Scripture ever suggests that there was a time that God was not 3/1. Not implying that the attributes of the Word and the Holy Spirit were absent – just that they were not separate before the creation of the earth.
Just wondering if that would fit into the context of Prov 8.
Thank you again.
@Lisa: thanks; I’ve really been thinking (and actually making some preparations) to do more video and podcasting.
@Jeremy: yep
@Nobunaga: thanks – more is planned. I was a bit surprised about your comment in the first sentence. I really don’t keep track or notice what’s available to people and what isn’t. I need to move into more video and podcasting (free) for this stuff.
@Dean: I don’t believe there was a time when the son or spirit was not. Your note on whether they were “present but separate” is worth consideration, though it requires a rationale for the godhead persons being “distinct but not separate” – not sure if that can be demonstrated as coherent or not.
Yeah the remarks were aimed at at the other posters to let them know there is other material out there to listen too, i suggested to you in the past that you have a section for audio and videos but i know how busy you must be.
here is the link for the audio i was talking about
The Visible and Invisible God
http://www.logos.com/media/lecture/heiser/LectureSeries-Heiser.html
i hope it doesnt detract from any upcoming video, but as i say it is very valuable information to the Church.
Just listened to the older video again it has been re-vamped and has visuals now. Excellent.
you distinguish from modalisim with the two powers but i cant help thinking the visible God seems to turn up in different forms ? i.e The Name, The Word, The Angel of the Lord and even possibly the Arm of the Lord is this modalisim within the second Power/God ?
Also would it be safe to say every time the is anthropomorphic language it is Christology ?
@Nobunaga: modalism really doesn’t work when both the visible and invisible Yahweh are simultaneously present. On your last question, I wouldn’t say “every” but I would say “most”.
I agree that is doesnt work with the visible and invisible Yahweh are present, but does the visible Yahweh choose different modes to communicate i.e angel or human and with the different titles such as “The Word” and “The Name”
just thinking out loud, i’m not disagreeing with a triune God head i’m just trying to get to grips with the different manifestations of the Visible Yahweh which i see as Christology. Perhaps the next video will explain ?
I like how casually it’s presumed Paul wrote Hebrews.
This was great – can’t wait for the next one.
Thank you professor Heiser! I have been greatly enriched from being a student your class OBST591 —also this site has been very informative. Thank you!
@Ingemar:
you’re welcome!
@Nobunaga: The next session will be on the two powers issue – an overview. I think the range of the ways Yahweh chose to be manifest to the human senses is in part a “problem” of human vocabulary.
Mike,
Thanks for responding!
This video is labelled ‘Class 2″….is there a ‘Class 1″ video here on your site? If so, I’d like to watch it and then listen to the one on this page again.
I hope you’re able, somehow, to make more video or podcast teachings available.
Yaweh bless you brother.
Lisa
Agh – just found the other video….on vimeo…..please disregard my question in my last comment!
@Lisa: The first one lacks the audio quality of the second. Number three will happen Sunday night, Lord willing.
@Nobunaga: Video number 3 will likely be on the virgin birth, not the 2 powers. I’ve had to shift the topic to get it in before Christmas.
Col 1: 13 – 18.
In Vs 16, where does it explicitly read that Him refers to Yeshua? It is an assumption, not explicit fact. 2nd: If indeed it is meant to be Christ represented here – it does not state that creation was Co-created, but rather that by Christ alone, for if not – would it not read “For WITH Him all things were created….” ?
To state something as fact which is not clear, is to be as irresponsible as Sitchin… not that I’m a Sitchinite by any means – especially given the fact that “Scripture” has been tainted over the years (see works of Bart D. Ehrman, etc)
Here is the passage. This isn’t rocket science.
12 ?giving thanks? to the Father [there’s the first character in the discussion], who [refers to God, since we have not have another character introduced — yet] has qualified you? [plural in Greek – refers to the addressees of the letter, the Colossians] to share in ?the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He ?[God, for reasons stated above] has delivered us [Paul includes himself with the plural church members above] from ?the domain of darkness and transferred us to ?the kingdom of ?his beloved Son [here we have another character introduced – the Son], 14 ?in whom [in the Son – the near reference of the noun “Son”] we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 ?He [this *must* be Jesus, since you cannot have God being the image of the invisible God – think about the absurdity of that] is the image of ?the invisible God, ?the firstborn [Jesus, not God] of all creation. 16 For by? him all things were created, ?in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether ?thrones or ?dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things were created ?through him and for him.
v. 1 is your issue – is it referring to Christ or God? You say God, ruling out Christ as co-creator. But did you look at Paul’s other letters (same guy that wrote this letter)? No, you didn’t. Let’s try 1 Cor 8:6 – “6 yet ?for us there is one God, the Father, ?from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and ?one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and ?through whom we exist.” No ambiguity there – so throw out Colossians 1 if you don’t like it. The same point is made in 1 Cor 8. Your argument was very careless.
And I can see that you are completely unaware of the scholarly criticisms of Ehrman. Spend some time in some journal databases. Better, spend some time in the Greek New Testament. High Christology is not based on text-critical issues. Ehrman is completely unaware of the OT precedents for Godhead talk, he never even considers Targumic thinking (behind John 1:1 – with the MEMRA), and Paul’s use of OT Yahweh texts of Jesus aren’t about manuscript differences. Ehrman is a fundamentalist atheist, that’s all — with all it’s black and white thinking.
Hello, Michael! Your work regarding the Divine Council and the OT precedents for NT Trinitarian theology has helped me a lot in clearing out a lot of things in my mind and developing a stronger doctrinal system.
There is a very interesting passage in John 10 where Jesus is asserting His deity. I’ve thought a lot about it and I’ve read one of your writings regarding this passage and I’ve crafted a possible interpretation which I’ll put out here and ask you to tell me what you think about it. I’ll quote the text first:
” 30[Jesus said] I and the Father are one. 31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me? 33The Jews answered Him, For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God. 34Jesus answered them, Has it not been written in your Law, I SAID, YOU ARE GODS? 35If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? 37If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. 39Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp. ”
My intepretation goes something like this (I’ll paraphrase and simplify the text as much as possible so I can express my view clearly):
(Jesus said:)
– I and YHWH the Father are one.
(Jews prepare to stone Jesus for blasphemy)
– Why do you want to stone me?
– Because you are a man and you claim to be God.
– It is not impossible for someone (other than the Father) to be called “God”. Look at these guys (the gods of the Council from Psalm 82). If even they are called “gods” than how much more will I (the One who the Father has sanctified and sent, YHWH the Son Himself) be called God. How can you blame me for calling myself “God” since I am so much greater than these guys (the Psalm 82 gods) and yet they are still called “gods”. Believe my works so that you understand that I am YHWH.
(Jews try to seize Jesus for blasphemy but he gets away)
So, what do you think?
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/John10Psa82excerpt.pdf
Yes, I’ve read that. Do you think Jesus might have been re-interpreting Psalm 82 to point to men being called “gods” (because Christians are now “sons of God” – 1 John 3:1-2). I mean do you think He could have been using a sort of alegorical interpretation, antetype interpretation, the gods of the Council being taken as an antetype of men’s future adoption into God’s family (like when God said “Out of Egypt I have called My Son” in Hosea, meaning Israel, but then intepreted by Matthew as an antetype of Jesus and His sojourn in Egypt)?
Also I wanted to ask what does God’s name YHWH mean exactly? (I’ve heard that it is etymologically related to “I AM” and that it is a 3rd personal form of “I AM” or that it is a combination of “was, is, will be”)
no, in the sense that, on the heels of being equated with the Father, the reference to Psalm 82 means he is lord of the council with the Father — another claim to oneness. The “divine sonship” language does relate to divine sonship language in the NT, but not because of or by means of, this passage. Good catch, there, too.
I got it. And what does God’s name YHWH exactly mean?
This is a subject of some controversy. What is known for sure is that it comes from “hayah” (“to be, exist”). Since when God reveals the name in Exod 3 he uses first person (a self-reference), it comes out “I AM” (‘ehyeh in Hebrew – Qal stem, 1st person singular imperfect of hayah). To refer *to* God the third person must be used. In the same Hebrew stem, that would be “yihyeh” (“I will be”). Note that there is no “w” here – but that is not a problem, since in ancient semitic y/w were interchangeable in the verb hayah / hawah. “Yihyeh” cannot be the correct form or pronunciation, though, since the abbreviated form of the name (“Yah”) is found in a number of places in the Hebrew Bible, as well as attached to or part of names as “yah”. So, “yah” is certain for the first part of the name. Going with hayah as the root, we get “yahw/yeh” — but here’s the controversy. That form = Hiphil 3rd person singular from hayah and means “he who causes to be”. It’s a perfectly good form, which to me makes perfectly good sense in the context of Exodus 3 (God is causing Israel to exist or become a nation, delivering them from Egypt). The problem is that this form (Hiphil hayah, 3rd person) occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible OR in any ancient semitic text at all. It has no parallel. So there you go.
Thanks. So, do you think this is the correct form (“He who causes to be”) or is it still a matter of speculation?
I like it, though I acknowledge the lack of parallels. I don’t know why we need a parallel for everything.
Also, some NT writers attributed OT texts about Yahweh to Jesus. Do you think this can be used to prove the Early Church believed that Jesus was (is and will be) Yahweh?
I’m talking about quotations like:
Romans 10:11-14 (Joel 2:32),
Matthew 3:3 (Isaiah 40:3-5),
Ephesians 4:7-10 (Psalm 68:18-19)
Hebrews 1:8-12 (Psalm 102:24-27)
Ephesians 5:14 (Isaiah 60:1)
1 Peter 2:7-8 (Isaiah 8:13-14)
sure – this is one approach. There is a whole monograph on this by a guy named David Capes. Paul substituting Jesus language for Yahweh language of the OT.
I just read part of his book; he also has a pretty nice blog about Pauline theology. Can you suggest some other approaches (proving the Early Church believed Jesus is YHWH)?
Larry Hurtado has several books in this regard (see Amazon). Some are detailed academic works. His “One Lord, One God” is sort of a distillation of his main points. Larry and I are friends, though we do not agree on all the details. I recommend his books to anyone interested in “Jewish binitarian monotheism.”
Thanks. Did the Israelites consider the Second Power to be YHWH in the Second Temple Period and before? Because you and Larry Hurtado have shown some texts where it seems some Ancient Jews considered the Second Power to be Enoch, Moses, Malchizedek, etc
Also I wanted to ask you what kind of influence do you think Philo might have had on Christianity – it seems a lot of people (usually non-Christians) hold that Philo had a great influence on Christianity (in my opinion, Philo and Christians drew on the same OT and Intertestimental material instead)
And one more thing – do you think Malchizedek was a theophany in Genesis or an ante-type? Because the author of Hebrews kind of states that he’s an ante-type of Jesus but then there are some things he says that might be interpreted as a theophany of Jesus (Hebrews 7:8 and Hebrews 7:3).
There are nearly two dozen options (opinions) in Jewish literature from the second temple period about the second power. It was a period when such speculation flourished. Philo’s thoughts were of course one stream. I would not say Philo had no influence, but I think his influence is exaggerated. The matter of the “Word” is one example. You don’t need Philo to explain or understand John 1:1-3 for example. The word in anthropomorphic form (and even embodied) is seen in the Old Testament (cf. Jer. 1:1-10; 1 Samuel 3, etc.). At any rate, Philo is one of many trying to articulate how there can be a second Yahweh and yet come out with monotheism. I do not think Melchizedek was a theophany; I think the point of those references in the NT is related to binitarianism, though.
I noticed something very interesting in the Bible that has to do with the Angel of YHWH and Jesus. It’s not as powerful as the verses you’ve shown but I think it still kind of supports this idea. It has to do with the Angel not revealing His name.
1. Genesis 32 When Jacob wrestles with the “man” who is later revealed to be the Angel and God, Jacob asks the Angel of HIs name. “Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?”
2. Judges 13 The Angel appears to Manoah and his wife. “And Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?” And the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?”
3. Revelation 19 The Vision of Christ in heaven, riding a white horse. “Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. ”
What do you think?
Since the name of Jesus was, well, Jesus (!), and its clear who’s on the horse, most scholars believe that the name “written on his thigh” is YHWH, the tetragrammaton. THAT is the name that is lord of lords and king of kings in OT theology. I would agree.
I meant to ask you if you think these verses can be said to relate or identify Jesus, the Rider on the Clouds, with the Angel of the Lord (as other verses do, like Jude 1:5, 1 Cor 10:4 and perhaps 1 Cor 10:9)
Also, I have a question regading Daniel 7. In Dan 7:13-14 the Son of man appears and is given eternal authority. Then, when the vision is interpreted, it is said that the saints of the Highest One possess the kingdom. You’ve shown that at the end of the chapter it is stated that “all dominions will serve and obey Him” which again leads to the Son of man. So, is the Son of man the Highest One?
Not that I know Aramaic (just looked at an interlinear) but it seems there are two different words in Daniel 7 usually translated as “Most High”; the NASB translates one as “Most High” (Illay) and the other one as “Highest One” (Elyon) for distinction. See Daniel 7:25 (also another possible distinction is Daniel 7:22). So do you think there is a real distinction in the chapter regarding these titles? In other words, can we say the Most High is the Ancient of Days, while the Highest One (from “the saints of the Highest One”) is the Son of man?
yes – they are all part of the binitarian mindset in Jewish theology prior to the New Testament.
THANK YOU MIKE!
And, glad to see you’ve realized how NEEDED you’re simplest info, (which, to us clods of clay, is MONUMENTAL info), is, and what a TREMENDOUS blessing it is, and makes us much more capable in our witnessing. Look forward to MORE of these vids!
Please be assured that there are MANY MORE hungry sheep out here, that thrive on what the Lord gives you to share! God BLESS you bro, we’re keeping you in prayer! Just keep feeding the flock! (Heb.5:14 — Matt.24:45 – 47)
thanks; good reminder for me, since I often feel like a man without a theological country (which isn’t bad on a personal level, but it does make me question my usefulness).
Mike, I just read your exchanges with Ilia. In the last one, (I believe it was), you mention that you don’t think Paul’s reference to Melchizedek was referencing a Theophany, but rather binitarianism.
In the Genesis “blessing” incident to which Paul refers, [Gen.14: 17 – 20], Melchizedek is CLEARLY in physical form, as he is stated to be “the KING of Yeru Salem – the City of Peace.
And, Paul’s description is CLEARLY, [7:1] referring to a visible and physical being. (“sovereign” of a physical city; “high priest” of “the MOST HIGH Elohim”); {no challenge intended, BTW, I’m just surprised).
Maybe I need to re-read your “Two Powers” material?
But, from my earliest reading of these passages, (both OT & NT), I always got a referral to Abraham’s encounter with The LORD in Gen.18, [ver.17 & 19]…I’ve always understood these two encounters with “THE LORD”, to be physical manifestations of Jesus, the WORD…AGENT…not…Yahwey…the FATHER. Can you help me here?.
if it’s physical (and it is) that isn’t inconsistent with binitarianism. I’m not denying he’s physical. The issue is that I don’t see anything in Gen 14 that leads me to believe Melchizedek was the embodied Yahweh.
You asked where in the creation story is there a reference to a co-creator. That is easy. It is the ‘et’ (aleph-tav) of Gen 1:1. That is the WORD by which and through which all things were created. Of course that word would be Alpha-Omega if put in Greek terms.
B’rashyt (in beginning) bara (created) Elohyim (YHVH) et (aleph-tav, pointer to the action of the verb) hashamayim (the heavens) vet (and ‘aleph-tav’) haerats (the earth).
‘et’, the aleph-tav is the co-creator, the Word (alph-omega) through which all things were created.
The aleph-taw stuff is pure bunk — er, paleobabble. It’s the direct object marker, as anyone who has studied Hebrew knows (and the kicker is that the same aleph-taw is in “pagan” languages and texts, too).
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2009/04/great-moments-in-pulpit-paleobabble/
Proverbs 8: Wisdom as “her.” Thank you Thank you Thank you… I memorized Prov 8 many years ago. Not sure why I chose it. And I mulled over it & ruminated. So much in it that raised so many questions in it. You’ve FINALLY put some of those issues to rest. Need to listen to it further, more closely…
Second, Mr. Heiser, can you comment on C.S. Lewis’ use of mythological characters and occult practices in his books? I believe I understand children, and how easily influenced they often are by introductions to practices such as Lewis places in his texts. Meaning, me, personally, I find Lewis “not right, sound…” with respect to belief in Christ. Can you comment?
I think Lewis was a Christian. Like all theologians, some of what he says I love, other stuff I don’t embrace. Lewis was by training a medievalist. He saw fantasy as a way to piggy back theology to the masses. He’s always clear about good and evil. Real life has good and evil characters. The biblical stories have good and evil characters. Lewis’ fiction (and Tolkien for that matter, though his work is far less theologically overt than Lewis) has good and evil characters. I don’t know how you’d tell a story about good without evil.