RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I specifically reject the idea it is equivalent with malachim.
Demons (Michael Heiser)
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
I specifically reject the idea it is equivalent with malachim.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Depends on how the phrase "divine" is glossed.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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".
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
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.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I agree. I just try to be aware of mine and realize it might not match up with the original text.
No one disputes that. I just disputed that every elohimic being was on the creator side, since Scripture says otherwise.
I don't know who your target is, since Heiser never disputed the Creator-creature distinction.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. You moved from English back to Hebrew, as though the English sense were the biblical sense. I understand the difficulties with the word "divine" and agreed that we should probably just use it for the Creator side.
Like Samuel being called an elohim?
let's immediately jump to heresy and avoid charitable reading of lack of clarity.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
Maybe not explicitly. The way he uses the term "divine" is, at best, muddled, at worst, destroys the distinction.
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.
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.
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This statement does nothing to advance the discussion.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In any case, I more or less agree with Heiser. If he is a heretic, so am I
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
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
Puritanboard Clerk
No. I don’t believe that and neither does heiser. He has stated that Yahweh is sui generis
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This wasn’t too hard to find
“Yahweh is in a class by himself”
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”
- Status
