# Demons (Michael Heiser)



## RamistThomist

Heiser, Michael. Demons. Lexham Press.

I’ve been preparing this review for about 4 years. True, Heiser’s book has only been out around a year or so, but I knew he would write this book and I wanted to be ready. He does not disappoint. It is the only book of its kind. There are evangelical texts analyzing what the Bible teaches on demons, but they either repeat cliches or only engage with a surface level reading of the text. Unger’s is good, but he doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. Clinton Arnold’s work is fantastic, but only focused on the New Testament. Heiser’s is one of the first that deal with the best of critical scholarship, yet from an evangelical standpoint. 

Demons and the Dead

Early OT language about the demonic overlaps with terms used for the realm of the dead. The key concept is that of the Rephaim. The Rephaim could be giants or shades of the dead (1 Chr. 20:4; Isa. 26:14; Job 26:5). At least at death they are seen as “supernatural residents of the underworld” (Heiser, loc. Cit. 345). They were part of the giant clans specifically targeted by Moses and Joshua (Deut. 3:11, 13; Josh. 12:4; 13:12). They are linked to the Anakim (Deut. 2:10-11). The Anakim, as you no doubt remember, descended from the Nephilim (Num. 13:33; Gen. 6:4).

Heiser later does linguistic analyses on “Spirits,” the ob, obot, oberim; “those who have passed over.” While there are locations such as Oboth and Abarim in the Transjordan, a tantalizing clue is given in Ezekiel 39:11, The Valley of the Travellers.” archaeology has shown the remains of megalithic minutes referring to the dead and the underworld.

Knowing one: Deut. 18:9-14 condemns sorcery, which is no surprise. One practice would have been “utilizing the services of so’el ob we-yiddeoni” (440). Lev. 19:31 links these knowing ones with the spirits of the oboth (side point: the KJV is actually a better translation on this one).

Azazel. One reason Azazel simply can’t be the goat offered in Leviticus 16 is that a goat is offered for Yahweh and another for Azazel. Leviticus 17 gives a bit more information, as it mentions “goat demons.” The key point is not that a sacrifice is being offered to a goat demon. Rather, the sins of Israel are being banished outside of the holy realm.

Original Rebel

This is largely a recap from his earlier works dealing with the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel. He acknowledges that the passages originally address a human king. The point, though, is that the prophet’s speech draws upon elements of a primeval rebellion. Yes, he is talking to the king of Tyre/Babylon, but no one seriously believes the king of Tyre was in the garden of Eden at the beginning of time.

Some say it refers neither to angel nor king, but to Adam in the garden. There are some weaknesses to that approach. For one, Adam doesn’t appear anywhere in the texts. Further, as Heiser notes, we would have to presume “things about Adam that are not in the Genesis episode of the fall” (loc. 1497). Nor do we have any evidence that Adam ever served in the divine council or fancied himself a god.

As to the figure being thrown down to “earth,” Heiser notes places where eretz can mean the underworld (Jonah 2:6) “where ancient warrior-kings await their comrades in death” (Ezek. 32.21, 24-3o). The divine rebel was sent to the realm of the dead, the underworld.

Satan in Second Temple Judaism

Interestingly enough, Azazel in 1 Enoch functions as the Satan figure. The OT really didn’t make an overt identification between the Serpent and Satan. The Serpent was seen as God’s arch-enemy, but as satan was more of a common noun, few made the connection. This connection, however, is clearly seen by the time of the NT writers.

On the other hand, Azazel could function as the leader of the Watchers (Gen. 6:1-4; 1 En. 8:1). On the other hand, Azazel is the tenth fallen angel listed, so he probably isn’t the leader.

While the name Belial never refers to a personal being in the OT, it clearly does in the NT. How would NT writers and readers have made the connection? They did so by means of the intertestamental worldview (Martyr. Is. 2.4; 4.2, etc). By the time of the NT Belial is more or less the same as “Satan.”

Demons in Second Temple Judaism

This chapter summarizes largely technical concepts and reception of texts like 1 Enoch in the intertestamental period. The one new point that I noticed was his reference to the 3rd century African bishop Commodianus (ch. 3) who linked “the disembodied existence of the giants after their death” to the existence of demons. Does the Bible, though, say this? Not directly, but it does give a hint that any early reader would have seen. The Rephaim lived in the underworld and were the spirits of warrior-kings.

Third Divine Rebellion: Chaos in the Nations

As in his earlier works, he links the Tower of Babel incident with the “Deuteronomy 32 worldview.” I won’t repeat the arguments here. One question that always comes up with his take on Psalm 82 is “when” did this happen? When did God decide to judge the corrupt elohim? The Bible doesn’t directly say.

Cosmic Geography

Deut. 32:9 says Israel is Yahweh’s portion and “his allotted heritage.” With reference to Azazel, deserts are often thought to be the realm of demons (something the early church echoed). When David has to leave Israel, he says he has been “driven away from the inheritance of Yahweh” (1 Sam. 26:19).

Daniel 10:13, 20 gives the clearest, if briefest reference to cosmic geography.

The Devil and His Angels

If the Hebrew term shaitan was ambiguous, the Greek term Satanos is not. It clearly refers to the arch-rebel. It is interesting, however, that “Beelzebub,” the god of Ekron (2 Kgs 1:2-3) is now identified with Satanos. On the other hand, the lemma ba’al in the name could refer back to a more generic Hebrew reading, meaning prince on high, referring to Satan’s leadership.

It is not arbitrary that the devil tempts Jesus in the wilderness, as that is the home of Azazel and Lillith.

What is a demon?

One problem is that we think we already know what this term means. The fact that we don’t connect biblical dots and that we get our theology from post-Catholic pop culture only makes it worse. This lets Jungian gnostics and others reinterpret demon as “dark psyche” within all of us. And if you get your theology from pop culture, it’s hard to argue with them.

A demon is an evil spirit (Matt. 8:31). It’s also called “an unclean spirit.” Note that it is not called a fallen angel. Unclean spirit is far more precise and calls the reader back to how “clean/unclean” functioned in a biblical worldview. Something is unclean when it is an unnatural mixture and/or was in contact with dead corpses (hint: Nephilim).

The Ruling Powers

Paul’s language of “rulers, principalities, powers, dominions, thrones, world rulers” echoes the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. These are geographical terms. While they sometimes denote physical rulers, Ephesians 6:12, linking them to heavenly places, makes that impossible here.

Application

Heiser correctly notes that a Christian can’t be “possessed” by a demon. He also points out that possession is the wrong word, in any case. He also rebuts the Peter Wagner school of Strategic Level Warfare Ministry. Wagner correctly notes that the bible speaks of cosmic geography. The problem is that the NT authors never seem interested in casting out lieutenant demons before getting to the generals.

I agree with Heiser that the NT never lists exorcism as a weapon to use; the fact of the matter is that the NT does use it. But in any case, neither Heiser nor I would sanction the bizarre types of exorcism seen in Roman Catholic culture. The best antidote to demonic activity is simply spiritual hygiene.

Some Criticisms

While the book is easily the best of its kind, it does run into a few difficulties. There is a lot of repetition in this book, both from his earlier works and from within this work. Some of that can’t be helped. He assumes--with reason--that not all readers will have been familiar with his earlier works. That said, if you have read his earlier works then you more or less know the arguments relating to Enoch, apkallu, and the like. 

That’s not to say there is no new material in the book. There is, and it is good.

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## greenbaggins

I hope this book is better than his atrocious book _The Unseen Realm_.

Reactions: Like 1 | Wow 1


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> I hope this book is better than his atrocious book _The Unseen Realm_.



Unseen Realm changed my life. I'm actually trying to write a novel based off of some events in Unseen Realm. To get to the point of your statement, there is a lot of repetition but some new material.


----------



## arapahoepark

greenbaggins said:


> I hope this book is better than his atrocious book _The Unseen Realm_.


A critical review complementing Jacob's perhaps?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

arapahoepark said:


> A critical review complementing Jacob's perhaps?



I'd be interested. There are weak points in Unseen Realm, and by weak I mean underdeveloped.


----------



## greenbaggins

In the _Unseen Realm_, his methodology is highly flawed (especially when it comes to the intersection of exegesis and ST), and his single-minded determination to pursue novelty and thumb his nose at the church of all ages leads him into what I believe is heretical territory, positing divine beings that are not angels, yet not God, but are "gods." This leads, in effect, to henotheism. He is highly dismissive of any older interpretations of "gods" as angels or humans, despite good evidence that such interpretations make good sense.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> In the _Unseen Realm_, his methodology is highly flawed (especially when it comes to the intersection of exegesis and ST), and his single-minded determination to pursue novelty and thumb his nose at the church of all ages leads him into what I believe is heretical territory, positing divine beings that are not angels, yet not God, but are "gods." This leads, in effect, to henotheism. He is highly dismissive of any older interpretations of "gods" as angels or humans, despite good evidence that such interpretations make good sense.



Angels is a functional term, not an ontological one. The beney ha-elohim do not function as messengers, so why call them that? Cherubim don't function as messengers, so why call them that? And he is very clear on what he means by elohim. And he has already refuted the charge of henotheism. In fact, he was one of the first to respond to Mark Smith who said the HEbrews held to a henotheistic worldview.

Henotheism asserts a religious community began with many gods and slowly absorbed them into one. That's almost the opposite of what Heiser believes (since he holds to creation ex nihilo). And to read post-Enlightenment concepts into elohim risks a lexical fallacy.



https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1276&context=lts_fac_pubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dheiser%2520monotheism%2520henotheism%2520monolatry%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCkQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.liberty.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1276%2526context%253Dlts_fac_pubs%26ei%3DoGmpUoWzJ4ntoAS3sIDICQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFjD5WeiK2fiYz5jbaIya6N2LxRkg%26sig2%3DcpvEcPhzhmNeWQ6DkbIfiQ%26bvm%3Dbv.57967247%2Cd.cGU#search=%22heiser%20monotheism%20henotheism%20monolatry%22

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson

My biggest concern about some of the ideas expressed in Jacob's reviews of Heiser's corpus and others is that they appear at times not to do justice to Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 8:4,
"we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."
It appears to be a theme in these reviews that idols and pagan deities are seen, not as "nothing in the world", but as real spiritual entities. I just don't see the Scriptures teaching that the gods of the nations are to be thought of as another other than mere phantasies, or blocks of wood or stone. I don't believe that when Paul said eating meat sacrificed to idols is fellowship with demons, he meant for us to understand that the pagan god is a real demon, rather than that pagan practices are taught by demons, a charge which he levels against heretics and idolaters elsewhere (1 Tim. 4).


----------



## RamistThomist

Charles Johnson said:


> My biggest concern about some of the ideas expressed in Jacob's reviews of Heiser's corpus and others is that they appear at times not to do justice to Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 8:4,
> "we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."
> It appears to be a theme in these reviews that idols and pagan deities are seen, not as "nothing in the world", but as real spiritual entities. I just don't see the Scriptures teaching that the gods of the nations are to be thought of as another other than mere phantasies, or blocks of wood or stone. I don't believe that when Paul said eating meat sacrificed to idols is fellowship with demons, he meant for us to understand that the pagan god is a real demon, rather than that pagan practices are taught by demons, a charge which he levels against heretics and idolaters elsewhere (1 Tim. 4).



An idol is nothing. Heiser agrees. In the same passage Paul warns against participating in such acts, which is odd if it's just nothing. 

No one is saying Zeus exists. (Apollyon, for what it's worth, does exist.) 

>>> rather than that pagan practices are taught by demons, a charge which he levels against heretics and idolaters elsewhere (1 Tim. 4).>>>>

That's Heiser's point (and a large part of 1 Enoch). Calling them "demons" is fine if one is just speaking broadly. That's not actually how the Bible uses the terminology in the original languages.


----------



## Charles Johnson

BayouHuguenot said:


> An idol is nothing. Heiser agrees. In the same passage Paul warns against participating in such acts, which is odd if it's just nothing.
> 
> No one is saying Zeus exists. (Apollyon, for what it's worth, does exist.)


I recall you mentioning in one post the possibility that a demon inhabits an idol, and that pagans were not under the impression that an idol merely represents their god. I don't know if that reflects your own beliefs, but I hardly see how an idol could be called nothing in the world if there's a spiritual being inhabiting each one of them. Paul warns against participating in idolatry because idolatry is sin. Worshipping anyone besides the true God is sin regardless of the quantity of demons involved in the ceremony, and even the believer who does not intend the adoration of an idol by his eating the meat sacrificed to it sins in scandalizing his neighbor who genuinely believes in the idol, or entertains superstitions concerning it.


----------



## RamistThomist

Charles Johnson said:


> I recall you mentioning in one post the possibility that a demon inhabits an idol, and that pagans were not under the impression that an idol merely represents their god. I don't know if that reflects your own beliefs, but I hardly see how an idol could be called nothing in the world if there's a spiritual being inhabiting each one of them. Paul warns against participating in idolatry because idolatry is sin. Worshipping anyone besides the true God is sin regardless of the quantity of demons involved in the ceremony, and even the believer who does not intend the adoration of an idol by his eating the meat sacrificed to it sins in scandalizing his neighbor who genuinely believes in the idol, or entertains superstitions concerning it.



I don't disagree. As to the demon inhabiting an idol, I sort of remember saying that. It's basically how everyone in the ancient world viewed an idol. No one seriously thought that the clay figure he just made actually made the world. 

Perhaps "inhabiting" is the wrong word, since demons seek physical bodies, it wouldn't make much sense for him to inhabit a stone figure (and by demons we mean simply unclean spirits, nothing more; fallen angels are in a different taxonomy).

I think there are "demonically charged" items (e.g., a book by Aleister Crowley and Ouija boards), but I don't think demons live in them. So yes, I would probably revise my statement. I agree with the rest of what you wrote.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> In the _Unseen Realm_, his methodology is highly flawed (especially when it comes to the intersection of exegesis and ST), and his single-minded determination to pursue novelty and thumb his nose at the church of all ages leads him into what I believe is heretical territory, positing divine beings that are not angels, yet not God, but are "gods." This leads, in effect, to henotheism. He is highly dismissive of any older interpretations of "gods" as angels or humans, despite good evidence that such interpretations make good sense.



A friend of mine sent me one of his lectures, which I listened to, and one thing I noted was precisely the type of biblicism that Lane mentions. When someone gets off on such a bad footing, serious problems will likely emerge with their conclusions.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> A friend of mine sent me one of his lectures, which I listened to, and one thing I noted was precisely the type of biblicism that Lane mentions. When someone gets off on such a bad footing, serious problems will likely emerge with their conclusions.



That can be a legitimate criticism. I grant that much. I don't think the other criticisms hold water (or they have already been addressed by Heiser in print).


----------



## JM

I get the impression Heiser secretly believes in Ancient Aliens. jk...kinda


----------



## ZackF

JM said:


> I get the impression Heiser secretly believes in Ancient Aliens. jk...kinda


What about the ones flying around now? Didn’t you see that footage?


----------



## JM

ZackF said:


> What about the ones flying around now? Didn’t you see that footage?


I did and the footage that Tucker played on his program a year or so ago.


----------



## lynnie

If Jesus referred to casting out demons as "the children's bread", why would Heiser be against exorcism in some cases? And if "possessed" is the wrong word ( won't argue), what is the correct term for a child of the covenant tormented by such beings?


----------



## Taylor

lynnie said:


> And if "possessed" is the wrong word ( won't argue), what is the correct term for a child of the covenant tormented by such beings?


I don’t know about a term for a covenant child, but a better term for the co Constance in general is “demonized” rather than “possessed.”


----------



## JM

Taylor said:


> I don’t know about a term for a covenant child, but a better term for the co Constance in general is “demonized” rather than “possessed.”


Do you listen to Remnant Radio the charismatic podcast/YouTube channel? They touched on this recently and rely on Heiser and Jack Deere's work.


----------



## Taylor

JM said:


> Do you listen to Remnant Radio the charismatic podcast/YouTube channel? They touched on this recently and rely on Heiser and Jack Deere's work.


No, I got it from Greek class in seminary.


----------



## JM

Taylor said:


> No, I got it from Greek class in seminary.


lol


----------



## RamistThomist

Heiser is actually the world’s leading critic of ancient aliens and Zechariah Sitchen

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Demonize is the proper translation

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

JM said:


> lol


I really did. Haha. I wasn’t trying to sound pompous or anything. I just remember our professor discoursing on this very topic and word.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JM

Taylor said:


> I really did. Haha. I wasn’t trying to sound pompous or anything. I just remember our professor discoursing on this very topic and word.


I don't doubt it. I realized my post was poorly worded.


----------



## toledomudhen

greenbaggins said:


> In the _Unseen Realm_, his methodology is highly flawed (especially when it comes to the intersection of exegesis and ST), and his single-minded determination to pursue novelty and thumb his nose at the church of all ages leads him into what I believe is heretical territory, positing divine beings that are not angels, yet not God, but are "gods." This leads, in effect, to henotheism. He is highly dismissive of any older interpretations of "gods" as angels or humans, despite good evidence that such interpretations make good sense.


My issue with Heiser is his insistence that we have somehow gone 2,000 years without good theology. Reminds me of a restorationist movement. I can see how believers would be fascinated with his ideas, and I've heard more than one say that he changed their whole outlook on scripture. But the more you listen to him the deeper in the weeds you go to get away from what is truly important.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

I don't see Heiser saying that. He isn't saying everyone is wrong until he got here. He is simply saying that reading the text in the original language and being attentive to the thought patterns of the ancient world is a good thing. I know guys that don't read the text in the original language and simply copy/paste large sections of Matthew Henry or Poole or whoever and never really think through the issue.

In any case, Heiser is clear that he isn't inventing this stuff. Its common knowledge in the literature, which I've documented here.








A working ANE bibliography


This is largely drawn from Heiser’s More Unseen Realm site. I tried to delete multiples of the same copy, but I probably missed a few. Cecelia Grave, “The Etymology of Northwest Semitic sapan…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com


----------



## greenbaggins

BayouHuguenot said:


> Angels is a functional term, not an ontological one. The beney ha-elohim do not function as messengers, so why call them that? Cherubim don't function as messengers, so why call them that? And he is very clear on what he means by elohim. And he has already refuted the charge of henotheism. In fact, he was one of the first to respond to Mark Smith who said the HEbrews held to a henotheistic worldview.
> 
> Henotheism asserts a religious community began with many gods and slowly absorbed them into one. That's almost the opposite of what Heiser believes (since he holds to creation ex nihilo). And to read post-Enlightenment concepts into elohim risks a lexical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1276&context=lts_fac_pubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dheiser%2520monotheism%2520henotheism%2520monolatry%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCkQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.liberty.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1276%2526context%253Dlts_fac_pubs%26ei%3DoGmpUoWzJ4ntoAS3sIDICQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFjD5WeiK2fiYz5jbaIya6N2LxRkg%26sig2%3DcpvEcPhzhmNeWQ6DkbIfiQ%26bvm%3Dbv.57967247%2Cd.cGU#search=%22heiser%20monotheism%20henotheism%20monolatry%22



Firstly, you are answering at least one point I did not bring up, which is the phrase _beney ha-elohim_. It is highly doubtful that the phrase can be understood as an equivalent for all instances of _malachim_, as it is only used five times in the Hebrew Bible (once without the definite article, and four times with). The Bible defines angels as ministers (Hebrews 1:13-14). The term "angels" in that context refers to all non-human beings who have dealings with God and humans, as the scope of 1:13 is quite clear on this point, and is quite clearly an ontological term, NOT a functional one. I never claimed that angels should be understood primarily as "messengers." That they can is quite clear from the example of Gabriel. 

Heiser clearly puts the Elohim (understood as plural) on the divine side (see pp. 11, 24, 25, and especially 32 of _Unseen Realm_). On page 32, Heiser makes "Elohim" a larger category in which God and the plural Elohim both belong. If they are created beings, then Heiser has violated the Creator-creature distinction. If they are not created beings, then he advocates henotheism, however much he may say otherwise in the article you referenced. Either way, Heiser is heretical here. 

While you seem to acknowledge that Heiser can be critiqued on the basis of his rejection of Christian tradition and its readings of Scripture, you do not seem to acknowledge how much it skews his perspective. Heiser is a completely unreliable guide to these issues, though there are points here and there which are cogent.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## arapahoepark

greenbaggins said:


> Firstly, you are answering at least one point I did not bring up, which is the phrase _beney ha-elohim_. It is highly doubtful that the phrase can be understood as an equivalent for all instances of _malachim_, as it is only used five times in the Hebrew Bible (once without the definite article, and four times with). The Bible defines angels as ministers (Hebrews 1:13-14). The term "angels" in that context refers to all non-human beings who have dealings with God and humans, as the scope of 1:13 is quite clear on this point, and is quite clearly an ontological term, NOT a functional one. I never claimed that angels should be understood primarily as "messengers." That they can is quite clear from the example of Gabriel.
> 
> Heiser clearly puts the Elohim (understood as plural) on the divine side (see pp. 11, 24, 25, and especially 32 of _Unseen Realm_). On page 32, Heiser makes "Elohim" a larger category in which God and the plural Elohim both belong. If they are created beings, then Heiser has violated the Creator-creature distinction. If they are not created beings, then he advocates henotheism, however much he may say otherwise in the article you referenced. Either way, Heiser is heretical here.
> 
> While you seem to acknowledge that Heiser can be critiqued on the basis of his rejection of Christian tradition and its readings of Scripture, you do not seem to acknowledge how much it skews his perspective. Heiser is a completely unreliable guide to these issues, though there are points here and there which are cogent.


Just a little push back. I haven't read a ton of Heiser. A few things he has posted on his blog I disagree with strongly. He certainly is Biblicist in more ways than one. However, isn't he just using sloppy language with the term divine? What little I know is that he seems to be saying that he believes the term Elohim can have more than one reference, God himself, or otherwise.
I don't have much of stake in Heiser's view. I think the traditional view is more coherent.


----------



## greenbaggins

arapahoepark said:


> Just a little push back. I haven't read a ton of Heiser. A few things he has posted on his blog I disagree with strongly. He certainly is Biblicist in more ways than one. However, isn't he just using sloppy language with the term divine? What little I know is that he saying that he believes the term Elohim can have more than one reference, God himself, or otherwise.
> I don't have much of stake in Heiser's view. I think the traditional view is more coherent.


The term Elohim can indeed have multiple references, as Psalm 82 itself proves. But using the term "divine" without defining it, and then paraphrasing Psalm 82 by saying "The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly-a pantheon-of other gods" (11) doesn't exactly inspire confidence, to put it bluntly.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> It is highly doubtful that the phrase can be understood as an equivalent for all instances of _malachim_, as it is only used five times in the Hebrew Bible



I specifically reject the idea it is equivalent with malachim.


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> the divine side



Depends on how the phrase "divine" is glossed.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> 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).


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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).



The problem is that you are conflating two ideas. On the one hand you seem to suggest elohim = divine, and then reason from the fact that there can be a range of meanings for "elohim" to the conclusion that there is the same range of meanings for "divine".

Most of us will concede that the Hebrew "elohim" has semantic range which would allow it to be variously translated into English (it doesn't just mean God in every use) - that's a translational point. 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.

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".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> 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".



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. 


Scottish Presbyterian said:


> 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 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.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.



I disagree that later dogmatic formulations should have no effect on how we read earlier texts. We all read with a grid. It is not as though it is possible to take off that grid when we read anything. The question is not whether we read the Bible with a grid, but whether it is a good grid or a bad one. 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. The NT itself reads the OT with a grid in John 1:1. Jesus, as pre-incarnate God, was present in Genesis 1, creating. 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. Is Genesis saying that? Well, yes and no. In the context of the whole canon, it is saying that, even if Moses might or might not have understood it. Now, you might reply that you aren't talking about NT dogmatic readings, but post-Medieval dogmatic understandings. Fair enough. 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. It is plain that Heiser wants to be provocative (another quality that is not a plus when it comes to theology). He says these things without qualification in places where he would need to qualify it to prevent misunderstanding. But he either can't or won't because he is abysmal at ST. He lacks the will or power to make the kinds of distinctions necessary. That alone makes him an unreliable guide in these kinds of things.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> 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.



I agree. I just try to be aware of mine and realize it might not match up with the original text.


greenbaggins said:


> 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.



No one disputes that. I just disputed that every elohimic being was on the creator side, since Scripture says otherwise.


greenbaggins said:


> 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.



I don't know who your target is, since Heiser never disputed the Creator-creature distinction.


greenbaggins said:


> 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.



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.


greenbaggins said:


> He is using the term "divine" of beings that are not on the Creator side of the divide



Like Samuel being called an elohim?


greenbaggins said:


> This is heresy. Now, it is possible that the issue is lack of clarity.



let's immediately jump to heresy and avoid charitable reading of lack of clarity.


----------



## greenbaggins

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.



That is not the point of why I brought it up. I agree, and everyone here does, as far as I can see, that the term "elohim" is used of beings on the creature side. The Creator-creature distinction is biblical. How the terms "divine" and "elohim" relate to that distinction is the key point. 



BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't know who your target is, since Heiser never disputed the Creator-creature distinction.



Maybe not explicitly. The way he uses the term "divine" is, at best, muddled, at worst, destroys the distinction. 



BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.



I was talking about Heiser's use of the term "divine" at this particular juncture of the argument, NOT his use of the Hebrew. So your objection is wide of the mark. 



BayouHuguenot said:


> Like Samuel being called an elohim?



I don't know why you brought this up. You are the one who is now moving from English to Hebrew, assuming that "elohim" and "divine" are synonymous. My statement is "He is using the term '_divine_' (not _elohim_) of beings that are not on the Creator side of the divide." I would not use Samuel as an instance of what Heiser is doing, because Samuel being called an "elohim" is NOT an instance of Heiser using the term "divine" to refer to creatures. Heiser uses the term "divine" to talk about angelic beings. You seem to think that the term "angel" is not sufficient to describe all the creaturely spiritual beings in heaven. The NT begs to differ on this point. 



BayouHuguenot said:


> let's immediately jump to heresy and avoid charitable reading of lack of clarity.



Heresy is just as heretical, whether it is fallen into accidentally or on purpose. The difference has to do with whether the person is being vicious about it or not. I do not presume to judge on this question, although his hatred of ST seems pretty vicious to me.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> although his hatred of ST seems pretty vicious to me.


This statement does nothing to advance the discussion.


----------



## RamistThomist

In any case, I more or less agree with Heiser. If he is a heretic, so am I


----------



## greenbaggins

Jacob, 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.


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> Jacob, 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.


No. I don’t believe that and neither does heiser. He has stated that Yahweh is sui generis


----------



## greenbaggins

Jacob, he has not, to my knowledge, stated that Yahweh is sui generis in being divine. He calls the elohim divine, and then fudges on their actual characteristics. To put it mildly, this is not conducive to clarity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

This wasn’t too hard to find








Ch11 - MORE UNSEEN REALM


Titles: Trouble in Paradise Like the Most High? Chapters 10 and 11 are grouped together on this site since the two chapters jointly deal with the same subject matter: the serpent figure, the Edenic rebellion, and the relationship of Genesis 3 to Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14:12-15. Bibliography...



www.moreunseenrealm.com





“Yahweh is in a class by himself”


----------

