The Death Of Michael Heiser

I still don't know a lot about him, and I haven't read any of his books yet, but I listened to his Peeranormal podcast for years. I'm grateful for the work he and his colleagues on that podcast did to address some issues that have been so neglected by so many Christians. He'll be missed.

Mathison reviews The Unseen Realm

Keith Mathison at Ligonier Ministries reviews The Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser.

Heiser's methodology

I'm going to venture some observations about Michael Heiser's methodology in reference to the nephilim. I say "venture" because I'm not deeply read on his position. 

1. In fairness to Heiser, his interpretation of Gen 6 is certainly the mainstream view in OT scholarship. And it's a traditional Jewish interpretation. It might be the dominant Jewish interpretation, although that depends on how representative the Intertestamental literature which survived happens to be. 

2. As I've noted before, while this is the mainstream view in OT scholarship, that's somewhat misleading. Many OT scholars think Gen 6 reflects a mythological outlook. They don't think the Bible is divine revelation. They think it's merely ancient religious literature, on the same level as ancient Near Eastern mythology or Greco-Roman mythology. 

They don't think their interpretation of Gen 6 has to be realistic. But Christians do think our interpretations of Scripture need to be realistic, albeit in the sense of supernatural realism. 

3. I consider the Intertestamental literature on the nephilim to be exegetically worthless. Gen 6:1-4 is very intriguing. Part of what makes it so intriguing is that it's terse and enigmatic. So that fuels pious speculation. An urge to fill in the gaps.

The Enochian literature, and other suchlike, reflects the same mentality as the apocryphal infancy Gospels. And it has the same exegetical value as the apocryphal infancy Gospels. It's just a load of pious nonsense. No reputable scholar would use the apocryphal infancy Gospels to interpret the canonical Gospels. They wouldn't use that later, fanciful material to interpret the canonical Gospels. But the Enochian stuff operates at the same level. Fictional filler. Thriller filler. 

The only way to legitimately justify the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 is either by direct exegesis of Gen 6 or via the NT. If you can do it that way, then you've got a case. But the Enochian stuff isn't suitable background material, any more than the apocryphal infancy Gospels are suitable background material for the canonical Gospels. 

4. Heiser also appeals to linguistic usage in the Intertestamental literature and Dead Sea Scrolls. There he's on firmer ground, as a general principle. NT usage draws from a well of preexisting usage, where words and phrases have established associations and connotations that may carry over into NT usage. But that needs to be isolated from the wholesale usage grand Enochian narratives as a frame of reference. 

What are demons?

Recently I watched a Michael Heiser interview about his new book on demons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv7Yyv887rE&t=240s

I haven't read his book, so that may contains answers to my questions which are left hanging in the air by the interview. In this post I'll just respond to issues raised by the interview. This is less about evaluating the position than clarifying the position by posing questions or considering the implications of the position. 

1. If I understand his position, he classifies demons as nephilic souls. The damned souls of nephilim. The rest of my post will proceed on that assumption. 

2. As a Protestant, I have no antecedent objection to alternative readings that reject traditional interpretations of Biblical passages. 

3. On the face of it, there's nothing heretical about his identification. And it's certainly not liberal. One question is what shifts would his interpretation entail in traditional Christian theology.

4. The NT doesn't really say anything directly about the origin of demons. The fallen angel identification is a default explanation. Fallen angels are obvious candidates. 

5. Does Heiser classify the Nephilim as inhuman? Are they demiangels? Do they have minds that aren't angelic or human but hybrid minds?

If that's the claim, it raises the question of whether it's metaphysically possible for a creature having an angelic mind, mating with a creature having a human mind, to produce an agent having a hybrid mind. That angelic minds and human minds are able to combine to generate a kind of mind that isn't one or the other. 

6. Assuming (5), God is not the Creator of every kind of being. Some creatures have the natural ability to produce new kinds of beings. In traditional Christian theology, God creates each kind, then creatures procreate after their kind. They procreate examples of their kind. New examples of the same kind, not new kinds of beings. That's why it's called reproduction. But on this view, every kind of being doesn't have its origin in divine creativity. On this view, there are second-order creatures. That's a radical principle. 

7. One reason fallen angels are a default identification for fallen angels is that it gives them something to do. After all, they didn't cease to exist. So what have they up to all this time?

8. Apropos (7), what does Heiser think happened to the fallen angels? Are they all in hell (i.e. the realm of the dead)? Or do some of them have access to our world? 

9. On this view, the dark side has three classes of beings: fallen angels, nephilim, and damned humans. How do they interact? Are fallen angels and nephilic souls both active in our world? That's more to sort out. Can we tell which is which in terms of phenomena we encounter on earth (i.e. the realm of the living)?

10. Apropos (9), is the power of witchcraft angelic or nephilic? Does it have its source in fallen angels or nephilim empowering sorcerers and witchdoctors? 

11. Although the NT is very sketchy about the origin of demons, it clearly associates Satan with demons. So on this view, Satan isn't merely the leader of fallen angels, but the leader of nephilic souls as well. But what if Satan is associated with demons because both he and they are fallen angels? 

12. On this view it seems to be the case that nephilim are evil and damned by virtue of their parentage. Evil and damned simply because they are hybrids. Because they were conceived by sexual intercourse between fallen angels and women. Their process of origin makes them evil and dooms them to damnation. They were created evil, though not by God.

Does this mean there's no salvation for a single member of the nephilim? Or does it make allowance for the salvation of some nephilim?

13. On this view, is the fall of angels a single event, or does it happen in phases? There's the fall of Lucifer, followed in Gen 6 by the fall of the other angels. Were the angels in Gen 6 already fallen some time prior to the timeframe of Gen 6, or was that when they fell? In addition, he seems to say the principalities and powers fell during the Tower of Babel timeframe. 

Walking on water

A Facebook exchange I had with Lydia. There are some other participants as well. 

Lydia

I am inclined to think that when Jesus says, “It is I” in Mark 6:50 he is merely trying to calm the disciples’ fears, not to make an “I am” claim to deity.

Hays

While it's true that ego eimi is not a claim of deity in itself, the setting of the claim inevitably evokes and invites parallels with OT statements about Yahweh's control over the sea.

Lydia

My argument would be that it would scare them more for him to make a claim to deity while walking out of the night on the water, whereas it seems that he's trying to make them feel better and calmer by saying it, since they're already terrified. That would fit more with saying, as we would in like circumstances, "It's okay, guys, it's me."

Hays

Lying in the background of Lydia's statement about Synoptic Christology is her legitimate concern that some "evangelical/inerrantist" scholars treat the deific statements of Jesus in John's Gospel as legendary embellishments. The narrator wrote a script which he makes Jesus, like a fictional character recite. And one of Lydia's concerns is the cavalier notion that John's Gospel isn't a pillar of high Christology (Trinity, Incarnation).

Lydia

Right, I do think John is necessary to a full-orbed defense of high Christology, especially if we're focused on what Jesus himself said, not simply how the author portrays him or thinks of him. I don't think John is epistemologically extraneous and that you can get all you want from the Synoptics anyway, etc. OTOH, I hope that I'd be objective enough (hope?) to recognize high Christology in the Synoptics even if this somehow made John less necessary. One example that I actually like that I got from Jonathan McLatchie and was new to me in this past year: Jesus' reference to Psalm 8 in the Temple in Matthew. The leaders suggest that he should rebuke the children for singing Hosanna to him, and he asks them if they are not familiar with the Scripture that says, "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise." This would be at least faintly blasphemous if he were not God, since the one being praised in Psalm 8, the one being addressed in that verse, is Yahweh. So there is something pretty strong in that answer: "I'll see you and raise you five," basically.

Hays

I'd add that there's an intensely practical aspect to this issue. Imagine if the NT was ambiguous about the deity of Christ. Maybe Jesus is God Incarnate or maybe not. The NT witness could be read either way. That would be completely untenable from a religious standpoint. False worship is a huge issue in biblical piety. Are we supposed to worship him as God or not? The NT can't afford to be ambivalent on that question. Believers can't take a noncommittal position. There is no middle ground.

Lydia

Exactly. Thank goodness that we have all the evidence, incl. John. Especially since it's not enough just to say, "Well, that's what Paul thought." I mean, for sure some Arian or Unitarian is going to say Paul just got it wrong and attributed things that Jesus never taught himself. Obvs. that's what the liberal scholars say anyway, which is why they try to dismiss John as non-historical.

I should say that when I look at a verse like that I try to ask myself how it would look to an audience member who was not ill-disposed toward Jesus but who just was not expecting the Incarnation, was not expecting even the Messiah to be God Incarnate. That seems to me a reasonable question, because it seems to me a reasonable position for a devout Jew to be in at the time. I imagine there are some who will disagree with me there, but I think Jesus' own disciples were non-culpably in that situation for a lot of the time while Jesus was on earth. The doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity were new and seemed shocking to them. They may even have tried to interpret some of the things Jesus said in ways that didn't imply such a thing because they thought that was being charitable and that it was his enemies who attributed such claims to him and considered them blasphemy. 

So for that example, my initial reaction is that it is suggestive and can be seen in hindsight to be an allusion to Jesus' deity but that a Jew at the time who heard it for the first time would have been likely to try to find some other way to interpret it. It would be indirect and non-obvious to him. (You'll notice that nobody tries to stone Jesus when he says that and nobody is recorded as expressing shock or dismay, unlike in response to the claims in John or the claim to forgive sins in Mark 2.) Since it's a prophecy he's interpreting, they may have said to themselves that prophecy is often fulfilled in weird ways and is cryptic, that perhaps he's saying that John the Baptist is foretelling some kind of final apocalypse (which John the B's own preaching gave some excuse for thinking), or that the Messiah will be the messenger of Yahweh in an even more direct way than John the B. was. One can say that they should have taken it more literally, but if they thought that doing so would be attributing blasphemy to Jesus himself, then it's understandable if they didn't catch the allusion to his deity.

Hays 

"my initial reaction is that it is suggestive and can be seen in hindsight to be an allusion to Jesus' deity"

i) The retrospective viewpoint is a useful distinction. That said, it's not uncommon for people to believe or entertain something in the abstract, but when it becomes a concrete reality in their lives they're not ready for it. It takes them awhile to make the intellectual and emotional adjustment. Like planting ideas in people's minds. They may not be ready for what you have to say at the time you say it, so there's a delayed effect. In that respect it doesn't have to be something new. They just weren't prepared for it at a practical level. So long as it remains at a safe distance, they don't have to come to terms with it.

ii) In addition, it would be very unnerving, even for Christians, to think they're in the tangible presence of God. Imagine it dawning on the disciples that when they see Jesus face-to-face, they are gazing into the face of God. Even in theophanies, which are a step removed, that was very unnerving.

"The doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity were new and seemed shocking to them."

Depends on what you mean by "new". There are no divine incarnations in the OT. There's no list of messianic prophecies. And there's no single verse which says messiah will be Yahweh Incarnate. What we have are lots of oracles about someone who will fill certain roles. Are these one and the same individual or more than one individual? Might be hard to sort out ahead of time, but easier to recognize in retrospect. There are indications of divine plurality. Indications of a divine messiah. Indications of a dying and rising messiah. But it helps when they coalesce in the person of an actual individual who combines these scattered motifs.

Lydia

The extent and number of indications of divine plurality and indications of a divine messiah are where I would probably disagree with various people, including Jonathan, various of the Triablogue-ers, and Michael Heiser. I have really grave doubts about this extensive Jewish "binitarianism." And even Heiser admits, as far as I've been able to figure out, that even on his theory this supposed "binitarianism" didn't go as far as believing that there would be a man, born of a woman at a particular time and place, who would be Yahweh Incarnate. The "dying and rising messiah" is indicated in Isaiah 53, I agree, and said that in my Phil. Christi paper on messianic death prophecy some years ago. Isaiah 9:6 is an indication of a divine Messiah, I would grant that.

Hays

It's a case of reading the OT through pre-Christian Jewish eyes. For instance, I myself wouldn't appeal to a shift from first-person to third-person discourse by Yahweh as an indication of divine plurality. Yet it's striking that the Rabbis did find that puzzling. There are, however, stronger arguments involving the Angel of the Lord, which also caught the attention of the Rabbis.

Lydia

My argument would be that it would scare them more for him to make a claim to deity while walking out of the night on the water, whereas it seems that he's trying to make them feel better and calmer by saying it, since they're already terrified. That would fit more with saying, as we would in like circumstances, "It's okay, guys, it's me."

Hays

That depends on how narrowly or holistically we view the incident. Jesus may have more than one motive. 

At one level he may be walking on water because it's an efficient mode of transportation.

If, however, he knows that the disciples will witness the miracle, then presumably another motive is to provide them with a dramatic nature miracle. 

But over and above that, if Jesus anticipated (or even arranged) this rendezvous, then the primary purpose isn't to allay their panic but to furnish a stage in which he manifests himself to them as Yahweh.

So do we view the incident as an occasion where Jesus and the disciples just happen to cross paths, or is the whole thing a premeditated setup?

Lydia

Certainly it is premeditated. And certainly he is trying to show them that he is more than a mere man. But his immediate purpose in telling them that it is he, himself, and not to be afraid, is to calm their immediate terror. I would argue that the colloquial meaning of, "It is I" serves better for that purpose than any allusion to the divine Name.

Hays 

A related issue is the intended audience. At one level, his contemporaries are the immediate the audience for what he says and does. But at the same time he also speaks and acts with a view to posterity. Or, to take a different comparison, who's the audience for the binding of Isaac? At one level, Abraham and Isaac. But from a providential standpoint, it's primarily for the benefit of future Jewish and Christian readers.

To take another example, who's the audience for the Bread of Life discourse? At one level, those who were there. But surely Jesus also has posterity in mind.

There are other passages about Yahweh's delivering his people in the Red Sea crossing. While poetic, the refer back to a real event, and poetry is a way of succinctly and memorably celebrating and commemorating that event. 

I don't think the walking on water episodes were ever meant to evoke one particular OT verse. Rather, they were designed (in addition to their practical function) to trigger a range of associations with OT texts and related events. The walking on water episodes aren't a reenactment of the Red Sea crossing, but function to invite comparison. 

Randy angels

1. Gen 6:1-4 is enigmatic, in part because it's so compressed, and in part because it uses a designation ("sons of God") that has no parallel elsewhere in the Pentateuch.

A popular interpretation is that it describes fallen angels mating with women, thereby spawning a race of hybrids. 

2. There are problems with that interpretation. For one thing, even if the "sons of God" are angels, they are never identified as fallen angels. The passage contains no background information concerning a primordial angelic fall. So on the angelic interpretation, there's no narrative assumption that angels mating with women was illicit. That requires a backstory regarding rebellious angels. But that context is missing. 

3. Scholars fall into two basic camps. Some scholars think the text is mythological. They have no problem with mythological interpretations of Scripture because they think Scripture frequently reflects a mythological outlook. They don't think this incident ever happened–or could happen.

4. Moreover, the interpretation offered by critical scholarship isn't angelic but polytheistic. They think the text describes gods siring demigods by mating with women. 

5. Yet other Christians think the angelic interpretation is realistic. But in that event, the angelic identification is equivocal. In order for angels to sire offspring by mating with women, the angels would have to transform into men, with male sexual anatomy and seminal fluid. At least temporally, the angels would cease to be angels, becoming human males at an anatomical, genetic, and chromosomal level. 

But even assuming that angels have that ability, the offspring wouldn't be hybrids or half-breeds but purebred humans. So that fails to explain what made the Nephilim superior to normal human males.  

Michael Heiser on the flood

http://drmsh.com/argue-biblical-text-local-regional-flood-instead-global-flood/

The second Yahweh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sMQa78fY3Y

The whole series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz8J4DTIkEg

Seeing freaky things in mirrors

I'll begin by assessing some comments by Hume, then apply that to a specific case:

Does a man of sense run after every silly tale of witches, or hobgoblins, or fairies, and canvas particularly the evidence? 

Suppose supernatural or occult entities really exist. Suppose hobgoblins and fairies are part of the cultural folklore. That means that if somebody were to experience a supernatural or occult entity, he might automatically classify his experience as a personal encounter with a hobgoblin or fairy because those are the available labels and categories. The fact that hobgoblins and fairies are imaginary doesn't mean that a reported experience using those designations is necessarily or even probably bogus. The folklore may have a elaborate and fanciful backstory about about the origin, nature, and social life of hobgoblins and fairies that's sheer mythology. But if that's the cultural frame of reference for naming types of paranormal, supernatural, or occult experience, then that's the default classification scheme. You need to differentiate the conventional narrative from the underlying experience. 

Mormonism and Michael Heiser

Mormon apologists have tried to make use of Michael Heiser's divine council paradigm to provide exegetical justification for Mormon polytheism. Heiser responded: 

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1461&index=13

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1461&index=15

Blasphemous warrior cultures

Commenting on Gen 6:1-8:

Precisely the same three types of offenses committed by King Lamech are attributed to these figures: (1) Abuse of marriage. They collected in their royal harems "all that they chose" (v2). (2)…They filled the earth with violence (cf. vv5,11). (3) Blasphemous assumption of the name of deity. M. Kline, Genesis: A New Commentary (Hendrickson 2016), 31. 

That's a striking comparison. If the parallel holds, that suggests the Nephilim in Gen 6 are human rather than demonic. They don't spawn demigods. And that would be consistent with the human identity of Nimrod, who's described in terms evocative of that account (Gen 10:8ff.).

However, Kline's comparison needs to be fleshed out a bit. He does that somewhat in his comments on Lamech, in Gen 4:17-24 (p27).

That the Nephilim were polygamous or promiscuous is not explicit, although that's a typical M.O. of ancient pagan rulers (e.g. Gilgamesh). 

The violence motif is something they share in common with Lamech. The theme of blasphemy is more oblique.

On the one hand, Kline is alluding to the fact that God mandated sevenfold retribution for anyone who assaulted Cain, whereas Lamech insolently abrogates that standard and multiplies it exponentially (seventy-seven times) in reference to  his own sacrosanct person. There is a kind of deific hubris in that action. 

By itself, "sons of God" (or sons of gods) may not be blasphemous, but in the pagan-flavored context of Gen 6:1-8, it may well suggest heathen rulers who adopt an idolatrous royal mythology of divine pedigree (kings as demigods).  There are intriguing parallels with the thought-world of the Gilgamesh Epic and the Sumerian King List, reflecting the degenerate attitude of the Nephilim and the warrior culture they inaugurate. 

Kline defends his thesis in more detail in an early article, although his argument hasn't commanded widespread scholarly assent:

http://www.meredithkline.com/files/articles/Divine-Kingship-and-Genesis-6_1-4.pdf

Common knowledge

When we interpret Scripture, or any document from the past, it can be useful to have background information. That's because writers generally leave many things unsaid. They are usually writing to or for an audience that has a common frame of reference, so they don't engage in lots of exposition. Rather, the audience is expected to bring supplementary information to the text.

Problem is, what was common knowledge for readers at a particular place and time may not be common knowledge for a modern reader. So it can be useful to have background knowledge to help a modern reader fill in the gaps. 

That, however, raises the question of what counts as suitable background knowledge. For instance, when is a parallel truly parallel? Without attempting to be exhaustive, I'll briefly mention two controls that I use:

1. The ostensible background information needs to have a foothold in the a text. It is illicit to import an interpretative paradigm wholesale from outside the text. For instance, consider ufological interpretations of Ezekiel's theophanies. That "background" information belongs to a frame of reference that's extraneous to the world of the text. Based on watching Hollywood movies about flying saucers and extraterrestrials. 

2. The ostensible background information needs to have a foothold in reality. On the issue of comparative mythology, for instance, I don't use mythology as a starting-point. Rather, I go behind mythology to ask what experience gave rise to the mythology. How did ancient people experience the natural world? What are the natural properties of snakes, mountains, rivers, and "gardens" that underlie the symbolism? That provides a more reliable transcultural basis for extrapolating from one text to another text.  

To take a stock example, the four seasons are typically used as a metaphor for the human lifecycle. That's due to the relative universality of the seasons. Of course, if you live in equatorial Africa or Latin America, that may not be an accessible metaphor. 

Another example is imagery drawn from human social life to provide theological metaphors. But because these are analogies, they require some modification. For instance, the Bible sometimes depicts heaven as a palace. The Father is the aging king. His youthful Son is the Crown Prince. There's a throne room with angelic courtiers and sentinels.

In real life, the palace guard exists to protect the royal family from hostile intruders. But, of course, God doesn't need anyone to protect him, so the function is reversed: they protect unwary intruders from stumbling into God's presence! 

Snake in the grass

i) One reason we need to be circumspect about using comparative mythology to decode Biblical symbolism is that the same items can have varied significance in world mythology. So there's the risk of sample selection bias. Of superimposing an alien gloss onto the text. 

ii) It's possible that the symbolic import of some natural elements is a cultural universal. But it's hard to make confident generalizations given the vast scope of the topic over time and place. The available evidence is unmanageably large, and even then, that's only scratching the surface. 

iii) Some natural elements, because they have different functions, inevitably give rise to different or divergent symbolic meanings. Take fire. That can be used for heating and cooking. Keeping predators at bay. Purifying ores (metallurgy). But, of course, it can also be destructive. 

Likewise, take water. Too much water may be fatal (drowning). Too little water may be fatal (dying of thirst–or dying of hunger from famine due to drought). 

Water is used for so  many different things. Washing, cooking, drinking, &c. 

That's why scholars disagree on the significance of baptism. It's often thought to represent cleansing. But some scholars think it represents amniotic fluid, while Meredith Kline thought it represents deliverance from death by drowning. 

iv) Fauna, flora, and landscape have symbolic significance in many different cultures. But, of course, different cultures often have different faun, flora, and landscapes. Had Gen 3 been revealed in a culture with different animals, the Tempter might have been named Fox rather than Snake–since the fox is a trickster animal in some folkloric traditions.

v) Moreover, the same natural elements can have variable symbolic significance. For instance, many different symbolic roles and properties are attributed to snakes. 

vi) To take another comparison, consider rivers. I suspect temperate rivers have a generally benign symbolism, but tropical rivers might well have an ambivalent or ominous connotations. For instance, the Nile has hippos and crocodiles. That makes the Nile river hazardous to humans. Likewise, many hidden dangers lurk in the Amazon river, viz., the Piranha, tiger fish, anaconda, electric eel, stingray, Bull shark, black caiman. 

vii) To take another comparison, some mythologies view fabled islands as heaven on earth (e.g. Dilmun, the Isles of the Blessed). Yet an island which appears to be a tropical paradise can be very menacing beneath the balmy surface. The sandy beach main contain deadly cone snails. The waters may contain sharks, stonefish, box jellyfish, &c. The scenic jungle may contain venomous snakes, giant pythons, or poisonous spiders. The island would have very different associations to a native than a passerby. 

vii) By the same token, mythological utopias like Dilmun and the Garden of the Hesperides are both "Edenic" or paradisiacal, yet these gardens for the gods, not humans. 

viii) Now I'd like to quote from a standard reference work to illustrate the diverse ways in which world mythology interprets "Edenic" motifs:

As the center of the world, linking heaven and earth and anchoring the cardinal directions, the mountain often functions as an axis mundi–the centerpost of the world…One of the most important such mountains is Mount Meru, or Sumeru, the mythical mountain that has "centered" the world of the majority of Asians–Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain. "Mountains," L. Jones, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion (Macmillan, 2nd ed., 2005), 9:6212a. 

Mountains are the source not only of nourishing waters but also of rains and lightning. Storm gods are often associated with mountains: Zeus, Rudra/Siva, Baal Hadad of Ugarit, Catiquilla of the Inca, and many more.  

Mountains, the source of the waters of life, are also seen as the abode of the dead…Among the Shoshoni of the Wyoming, for instance, the Teton Mountains were seen primarily as the dangerous place of the dead. The Comanche and Arapaho, who practiced hill burial, held similar beliefs. "Mountains," ibid., 9:6214b. 

Above all, the influence of the desert environment appeared in the way in which, in the West, the garden was seen as an oasis, in stark contrast to the barren wastes outside…Confusingly, there was another more puritanical tradition in which the roles were reversed, and the garden, with its luxury, was condemned as the scene of temptation, while the wilderness was celebrated as the true paradise. "Gardens: An Overview," Ibid. 5:3277a. 

In China and Japan, both the awesome mountains and the streams that issued from them were thought to be possessed by spirits, and they were considered to be alive like plants animals and human beings themselves…To the Buddhist, the garden furnished a lesson on time. The flowers opened and withered within a month. The seasons revolved. But stone decayed on a far longer time scale that turned the present into a moving infinity. The symbolism was as varied and extensible as the clouds that gathered around the mountain peaks. Ibid. 5:3277b.  

The garden contained both friendly and unfriendly spirits. But threatening spirits were not persecuted as they might have been in the West: they were either left undisturbed (for example, by not digging the ground too deeply) or frustrated (as in the case of the demons who traveled in straight lines, who were thwarted through the construction of zigzag bridges). Ibid, 5:3277b.   

Real-life peasants and laborers, on the other hand, with families to feed, know that in temperate latitudes the skills involved in planning and maintaining a subsistence garden are greater than those called for in a recreational or cosmic garden because most of the edible plants are annuals….Things are different in parts of the tropics where three crops may be harvested in a year and the division between extensive fields and intensive gardens breaks down. There, the subsistence garden may assume an idealized form. Ibid. 5:3278b.   

Dilmun [is] a place that is pure, clean, and bright, a land of the living who do not know sickness, violence, or aging…a garden with fruit trees, edible plants, and green meadows. Dilmun is a garden of the gods, not for humans, although one learns that Ziusundra, the Sumerian Noah, as exceptionally admitted to the divine paradise. "Paradise," ibid. 10:6981b. 

Crossing the river at the time of death, as part of the journey to another world, is a common part of the symbolic passage that people have seen as part of one's journey after death. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the hero encounters a boatman who ferries him across the waters of death, as he seeks the source of immortality. The river Styx of Greek mythology is a well-known as the chief river of Hades. 
The dry riverbed of Sainokawara is said to be the destination of dead children. In the Buddhist tradition, nirvana is referred to as the "far shore". "Rivers," Ibid. 11:7862b-63a.  

To Hindus, the Ganges is the archetype of all sacred waters; she is a goddess, Mother Ganga, representative of the life-giving maternal waters of the ancient Vedic hymns…According  to Hindu belief, the Ganges purifies all she touches…Pilgrims go to these places to bathe in the Ganges, to drink her water, to worship the river, and to chant her holy name. Especially in Banaras, many come to cremate their kin, to deposit the ash of the dead in the river, or to perform religious rites for their ancestors. Some come to spend their last days on the banks for the river, to die there and thus to "cross over" the ocean of birth and death….All who come to the Ganges come in the firm belief that bathing in this river, even the mere sight of Mother Ganga, will cleanse them of their sins… "Ganges River," ibid. 5:3274. 

Clearly, it's unreliable to assume that ancient Near Eastern mythology encodes culturally universal intuitions regarding the emblematic significance of a river, mountain, or garden paradise. We can't just default to that frame of reference as the presumptive background material for decoding the symbolism of Eden. 

The celestial bureacracy

I'll comment on this:

http://bnonn.com/are-cherubs-just-palace-guardians/

To draw a division between administrative and defensive functions is not only logically unwarranted, but positively contradicted by the nature of those functions in an ancient Near Eastern context…Even if the former point were not the case, the Bible never sets out an “angelic taxonomy” where cherubs are placed into the single category of palace guards.

i) We can only work with the information at our disposal. The Bible doesn't have a whole lot to say about cherubim/seraphim. I wouldn't call it an argument from silence or ignorance to draw conclusions from the available evidence. Surely that's preferable to beliefs that aren't supported by the evidence.

ii) Moreover, isn't the divine council theory require a taxonomy of distinct angelic roles?

In the divine council in Israelite religion, Yahweh was the supreme authority over a divine bureaucracy that included a second tier of lesser elohim ("sons of God") and a third tier of malakim ('angels'). 

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/HeiserIVPDC.pdf 

The Old Testament seems to distinguish angels—mere messengers—from the sons of God—the royal family; and in doing so it follows Ugarit, which had two tiers of gods: the sons of El, who ruled certain districts and provinces, and a larger group of lesser gods who acted as messengers and warriors. 

http://bnonn.com/what-is-the-kingdom-of-god-2/

Now, however, Bnonn is blending what he previously distinguished. In the quoted paragraph, he differentiates the administrative role of the top-tier angels from the defensive or revelatory role of lower-tier angels. So it looks like the original argument is undergoing ad hoc adjustments when challenged. But in that case, the distinctive assignments in the celestial bureaucracy or hierarchy seem to be arbitrary or interchangeable. 

As for the "counterevidence":

i) Keep in mind that all these representations are anthropomorphic. It's not as if God is literally a white-haired man in royal vestments in a throne room surrounded by sentinels and courtiers. God projects that imagery into the minds of seers. So the question is the significance of the symbolism. I think the point is that God is holy, so that creatures ordinarily need to be shielded from direct contact or the Beatific Vision. The cherumbim/seraphim function as "hazard" signs. If you trespass on sacred space, it's like walking into a radioactive chamber. 

That's a common theme in Scripture. It's not that God needs to be protected. Rather, creatures ordinarily need to be protected from God's incinerating holiness. I never suggested that their role is to protect God from trespassers, but to protect trespassers from God. 

It's a graphic, anthropomorphic way to drive home a point about the relationship between sinners and God. And that's underscored by the literary device of even making the seraphim shield their eyes. In effect, the seraphim need to wear visors. Unfiltered vision of Yahweh is fatal. This is all rather picturesque.

ii) We need to distinguish between cherubic statuary and actual angels or visions thereof.

iii) Some OT theophanies take the form of a portable throne. A mobile, miniature throne-room. In that respect, cherubim/seraphim reprise their role as the outer vanguard to screen unwary eyes from seeing Yahweh directly. That's symbolism. 

iv) I never suggested that angels are distinct from cherubim/seraphim. Rather, "angel" is a generic designation, whereas "cherub" or "seraph" is a specific designation. A special case or distinctive role for some angels. 

Moreover, Heiser and Bnonn are the ones who propose an angelic hierarchy in which top-tier angels have different bureaucratic roles than second-tier angels, and vice versa. 

v) As for Rev 4, that's different from, say, Isa 6, because the saints in heaven are holy in a way that Isaiah (or Moses, Exod 33) is not. They don't need the lead shielding to avoid a fatal dose of divine radiance. 

The depictions are flexible because this is picturesque imagery that varies according to the context. It's not that angels naturally have wings or tetramorphic bodies. 

Shall we gather at the river?

I'll comment on an interesting post by Bnonn:

http://bnonn.com/what-is-the-kingdom-of-god-3/

I believe that to a great extent, Bnonn is channeling Michael Heiser in this series. Bnonn makes some interesting connections with the Book of Job.

Regarding the identity of the Temper in Gen 3, I agree with Bnonn, but I'd like to anticipate an objection. The OT sometimes uses "folk etymologies" or puns. 

Some people might object that "folk etymologies" are incorrect, but that misses the point. It's like saying a pun is incorrect. But the function is to trigger associations. That communicates. The meaning we attribute to word is arbitrary, in the sense that words mean whatever the linguistic community assigns to certain phonemes. The objective is successful communication. 

Now I'd like to comment on Bnonn's position that the Garden of Eden was the meeting place for the divine council. He offers the following corroborative evidence:

1. A garden. Most obviously, the divine council was thought to meet in a garden—which is what Adam was created in.
2. Rivers. In Genesis 2, we learn that Eden was the source of four rivers. If you recall the codewords I listed in the previous installment, this was another common motif for divine council meeting places; in Ugarit, for example, El’s divine council met in a lush garden at the source of two rivers.
3. A holy mountain. This garden meeting-place was also held to be on a holy mountain; and the Bible explicitly names Eden as such [Ezk 28:13-17).

Here I'm afraid I must demur. 

1. Although I think OT scholars like Heiser and John Walton can be useful, I disagree with their liberal use of comparative mythology. I favor realistic interpretations of OT historical narratives. 

2. Apropos (1), what exactly is the divine council? Michael Heiser says: 

The term divine council is used by Hebrew and Semitics scholars to refer to the heavenly host, the pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs of the cosmos. 

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

Unfortunately, that's ambiguous. Is the heavenly host synonymous with angels?

In a previous installment, Bnonn says:

The Old Testament seems to distinguish angels—mere messengers—from the sons of God—the royal family; and in doing so it follows Ugarit, which had two tiers of gods: the sons of El, who ruled certain districts and provinces, and a larger group of lesser gods who acted as messengers and warriors.

So this suggests that the divine council consists of aristocratic angels. 

i) In a pagan context, the "sons of God" would the literal offspring of high gods and goddesses. Divine princes. 

Now, that might be tolerable as mythopoetic picture language, but it can't be more than that in OT monotheism. 

ii) Apropos (i), why would God have a terrestrial meeting place with angels? It's understandable that God appears to Adam and Eve on terra firma. That's because Adam and Eve are earthlings. But surely God doesn't need a physical meeting place to communicate with angels. In the case of Ugaritic mythology, that might well be taken literally, just like Greek mythology locates the dwelling place of most high gods in a palace on the summit of Mt. Olympus. But surely that's not a realistic interpretation of OT historical narration. At best, that would be using human social metaphors which depict God as a king with his retinue of princes and courtiers. 

iii) It's possible that Ezekiel's mountainous depiction of Eden is figurative. That may trade on the Mt. Zion motif. 

However, it's possible or even probable that Eden was actually located in the high country. For one thing, there's a natural link between rivers and mountains inasmuch as mountains are a major source of rivers. The melting snowpack produces mountain streams which swell into rivers. Moreover, Eden is located somewhere in Mesopotamia. Possibly the highlands of Armenia. 

But in that event, Eden isn't associated with a mountain because that's the location of a divine council. Rather, it's based on physical logistics. Mountains and rivers naturally go together. 

iv) Apropos (iii), that, in turn, dovetails with a river and a garden. It's logical that man's ancestral home would be a garden with fruit-trees. That's supplies a natural human foodstuff. Likewise, the garden provides grazing land for livestock (and possibly game animals). So, once again, Eden isn't associated with a garden because that's the location of a divine council. Rather, it's based on provision for human subsistence. 

v) Apropos (iii-iv), that pans into the riverine locale. Humans typically settle near bodies of water–a spring, well, lake, river, ocean. Rivers are especially valuable because humans can do so many things with a river:

• Irrigation for farming

• Fruit trees and garden plots along the moist river banks

• Fishing

• Waste disposal

• Transportation

• Bathing water

• Cooking water

• Drinking water (for humans)

• Watering hole for livestock and game animals

• Driftwood 

So, once more, Eden isn't associated with a river (or rivers)  because that's the location of a divine council. Rather, that's for the benefit of human inhabitants. The implicit rationale is very practical, very down-to-earth. Providing for the physical needs of human creatures. That's of no earthly use to a divine council. Angels don't need a mountain retreat or garden resort to hang out with God. Angels don't need bodies of water to survive and thrive. If you push that, it pushes you into a mythological conception. 

The Unseen Realm

http://jamesbradfordpate.blogspot.com/2017/01/book-write-up-unseen-realm-by-michael-s.html

Sleep paralysis with awareness

http://godawa.com/sleep-paralysis-demons-neuroscience-peeranormal-podcast/

Menes

This post is a sequel to this post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/05/gilgamesh.html

What would the original audience make of Gen 6:1-4? Some scholars think it alludes to heathen myths about gods coming down from the sky to mate with women and produce demigods.

In some Jewish apocrypha, it alludes to the fall of angels. I don't put too much stock in that interpretation because I have no reason to think Intertestamental Jews had the inside track on the meaning of Genesis. 

I think it refers to people like legendary warriors, conquers, and founders of empires, dynasties, and city-states. Nimrod is a case in point (Gen 10:8-11). We don't have enough information to nail down who he was. Proposed identifications include Hammurabi and Sargon of Akkad. But that's a scholarly guess.

Another example is Menes, founder of Egypt, who reputedly united upper and lower Egypt. Whether he's the same man as Narmer, or a composite, is debated. 

Gilgamesh is another notable example. Stories about their fabled exploits may well have been in circulation when Genesis was written. The text might have triggered those associations for the original audience. At the same time, the text takes them down a peg. They are mere mortals. 

Someone might object that Gilgamesh is a counterproductive example. He was a demigod, right? But we need to distinguish between the historical Gilgamesh and the literary Gilgamesh of popular folklore or official mythology. 

Moreover, even the famous epic has some plausible elements. It depicts his interest in monumental architecture and fortifications. He's portrayed as deflowering virgins. And it's quite realistic that a man in his position would, indeed, practice the droit du seigneur.

Quest for the Nephilim

There are both natural and supernatural interpretations of Gen 6:1-4. My preferred interpretation is that it alludes to conquerors and legendary warriors like Nimrod who found empires and dynasties. 

The standard supernatural interpretation views this as miscegenation between fallen angels and women. That, in turn, is sometimes viewed as a domestication of pagan tales about gods siring demigods by women. 

In modern times, we predictably have ufological interpretations of Gen 6:1-4 as well. I suppose that's a natural interpretation, inasmuch as extraterrestrials (if they exist) would be physical creatures. 

Although I've indicated my exegetical preference, suppose we consider a supernatural alternative for the sake of argument. Typically, the competing interpretations involve two kinds of beings: humans and angels. That's in large part because the Bible only explicitly describes the existence of two kinds of rational creatures: humans and angels. 

However, the Bible is not an encyclopedia. It doesn't profess to record everything that exists. Indeed, the Bible is severely selective in what it records. The Bible does have some obscure references that are hard for a modern reader to pin down (e.g. Lev 17:7; Job 4:12-16; Ps 91:5; Isa 13:21; 34:14). It's possible that there are other kinds of rational creatures which Scripture doesn't have occasion to mention. 

In theory, it's possible that a supernatural interpretation of Gen 6:1-4 is true, but it alludes to something other than angels. The angelic interpretation is a forced option based on very restricted conceptual resources, but there may be more to choose from. Again, though, I raise that possibility for the sake of argument

A Resource For Christian Analysis Of The Paranormal

ANNOYED PINOY recently directed my attention to a new podcast on paranormal phenomena that's hosted by Christians.