Category

Bible

Category

In a recent article, Arjun Walia documents how modern and historical “elites” use black magic rituals to conjure up entities for more power.

Good Research, ‘Secret’ Conclusions

Walia states the problem well.

Looking into various subjects, from MK ultra and other forms of mind control, to the information coming from whistleblowers/insiders, the use of ceremonial magic for perverse reasons by the elite is really not that far-fetched. Although scary to contemplate, it does happen. Those who we consider our leaders, those in positions of great power, those behind the global corporatocracy we see today and the propaganda we’re all subject to, could all be guided by ‘spirits’ from places we have yet to learn about. And as a result, the massive manipulation of humanity could be guided by these ‘demonic’ entities.

Then comes to ‘Secret’ conclusions.

The main takeaway from this article should be that our connection to spirit is strong, and there are those that dwell in other worlds that can assist us, but not for our own material desires that stem from human greed, ego, and ignorance. If your heart is pure and intentions are good, if you would like to use manifestation for the goodwill of the whole, then you need not fear talking to and acknowledging this realm.

This is consistent with “The Secret” where the law of attraction puts a universal energy source at the disposal of the magician. The results of magic rituals, we’re told, are determined solely by the thoughts and intentions of the magician.

An Unexplained Leap

Walia’s conclusions also make an unexplained leap from the rituals upon which they’re derived.

Hall, and most of the historical figures he cites as having been influenced (Socrates, Napoleon, Faust), were interacting with individual spirit entities each with unique characteristics. And yet, in Walia’s conclusions about them, the personal demons of the magicians somehow become a collective “it” rather than a personalized “they.” In contrast, the invocations in “The Complete Book of Magic Science” always call upon “the invisible inhabitants of the elements” using a specific name.

For Walia, the unseen realm does have duality: it has both good and evil demons. But that’s where his distinctions end. Unlike the rituals performed by the elites of his subject, he makes no distinctions about what or who is being contacted.

Protected by their purity, we’re told, the white magician is safe to draw upon the collective energy of an amorphous host of demons functioning like the “Force” in star wars. If one has the pure intentions of Yoda, only the good demons respond, and vice versa for Darth Vader.

Cosmic Powers Over This Present Darkness

Though Walia makes no biblical references, his “elite 
 those in positions of great power, those behind the global corporatocracy” are called cosmocrats in Ephesians 6:12.1

“Cosmocrat” is anglicized from the greek ÎșÎżÏƒÎŒÎżÎșÏÎŹÏ„ÎżÏÎ±Ï‚ or kosmokratoras. They are the “world influence of any influential, governing authority over the inhabited world understood in terms of physical control; including both human and preternatural authorities.”2

The entities (“those that dwell in other worlds”) being called on for guidance and power are the preternatural counterparts of the cosmocrats: “the rulers 
 the authorities 
 the cosmic powers over this present darkness.1 These terms have one thing in common: they are all terms of geographic dominion.3

Their Beliefs, Not Yours

If all of this seems far-fetched, esoteric, or inapplicable to real life, take it up with the elites in Walia’s article. It’s their actions and beliefs that are of concern. One need not prove the existence of the unseen realm to discuss the behaviors of those declaring that they seek power from it.

If the invisible entities the elites are calling on for power don’t exist then what’s all the fuss about? Again, the “fuss” is about the actions and beliefs of those in earthly positions of power. If a psychopath threatens, “I’ve been commanded by Satan to kill you” the immediate problem is his belief in Satan, not yours.

Ceremonial Magic

What is ceremonial magic? The works of multiple scholars, from Plato to Manly P. Hall and further down the line, suggest it is essentially the use of rituals and techniques to invoke and control “spirits” or lifeforms that could be existing within other dimensions or worlds. For example, according to Hall, “a magician, enveloped in sanctified vestments and carrying a wand inscribed with hieroglyphic figures, could by the power vested in certain words and symbols control the invisible inhabitants of the elements and of the astral world. While the elaborate ceremonial magic of antiquity was not necessarily evil, there arose from its perversion several false schools of sorcery, or black magic.”

The essence of magic is bypassing God or Godly means to do something. The worst of all forms is to involve the lower-g gods forbidden in the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me.”4 Ancient Israelites would have understood such a god to be “a supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.”2

Plato Was Right

Yet if we examine the works of Plato, we see he specifically condemns, both in the Laws and in the Republic, the idea that “gods” can be influenced by the performance of certain rituals — called “necromancy” or “magical attack.” He believed those who try to control the spirit world should be penalized.

The Bible is clear that lower-g gods exist5, and that they are not to be tangled with.6 Plato’s belief was consistent with these prohibitions.

For the Jew, and later the Christian, it has always been “black” to communicate with elohim other than Yahweh. All magic, in this sense, is black.

Socrates was Almost Good Enough?

Socrates, about whom Plato wrote much, also spoke of an entity that guided him. It was never given a name, but references to it ranged from daemon to daimon. Socrates believed this entity was a gift, and manifested itself in the form of the voice within, something we all possess. His communication with this entity was actually used as one of the charges against him when he was put to death. Socrates believed it to be a link between mortal man and God.

Socrates seems to be an exception when it comes to using these concepts for perverse reasons, and, as Hall points out, he provided evidence that “the intellectual and moral status of the magician has much to do with the type of elemental he is capable of invoking. But even the daemon of Socrates deserted the philosopher when the sentence of death was passed.”

If Socrates’ intellectual and moral status were not enough what made Hall believe the average man would be safe in practicing “white” magic?

Good men are capable of invoking evil spirits. The question is not whether they are able, but whether they are willing.

The ‘Guided’ First Whistleblower

He (Socrates) was put to death for “corrupting the youth” and spreading “false” information amongst the people, but looking back, he seems to be a figure more like our modern day revolutionaries than a malevolent influence, put to death for exposing the aristocracy’s secrets and encouraging people to question the true nature of reality, to question the doctrine that had been provided to the masses by those in power.

In Socrates lifetime the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Pentateuch) were assembled, and the term “Torah” first used to refer to them. What better time to start “exposing the aristocracy’s secrets and encouraging people to question the true nature of reality” then in parallel with the 66 books of the Bible that would soon encourage the entire world to do exactly that?!

Who’s in Control?

In the Faustian bargain, the recipient becomes at the disposal of the devil after fame and fortune are delivered. Indeed, people seem more likely to become at the mercy of these things than harness them for the good of humanity.

For Hall, the “invisible inhabitants of the elements” are put under the control of the magician who’s used just the right combination of symbols, cloths, words, and ceremony to conjure them. Why would Hall presume that such inhabitants are controllable?

Once conjured, rather than “control the invisible inhabitants” the magician more likely must cede control to them; presumably a problem worse than being only guided.

Who’s More Powerful?

Those seeking more power from “invisible inhabitants of the elements” already have earthly power. Wouldn’t those who could provide more be more powerful than the seeker; the grantor superior to the grantee?

Phenomena like these appear in various cultures during different time periods all throughout human history, so what makes us think these practices have stopped today?”

Indeed, these occult practices have been occurring since at least the time of Moses (1500-1300 B.C.). They were proscribed in the Old Testament, and yet, have continued throughout human history. Their prevalence, today, is such that one can hardly process the news without an understanding of their implications.

Before finishing this commentary on Walia’s article, I discovered it was published in 2016 under a different title: “Ceremonial Magic & Sorcery: How an Ancient Art Became Perverted by the ‘Global Elite’”.
I don’t think the elite have perverted an ancient art; they’ve merely resumed the practice of one corrupted from its inception.

Though I disagree with Walia’s conclusions, I recommend his article for the awareness it brings to these practices. The cosmocrats are real, and so are the entities they’re calling upon for guidance and power.


  1. “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Eph 6:12). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society. ↩
  2. Sean Boisen, Mark Keaton, Jeremy Thompson, and David Witthoff. Bible Sense Lexicon: Dataset Documentation. Lexham Press: Faithlife Corp. 2017 (DB version 2017-08-15T17:40:39Z) ↩
  3. “rulers” (archonton or archon), “principalities” (arche), “powers”/“authorities” (exousia), “powers” (dynamis), “dominions”/“lords” (kyrios), “thrones” (thronos), “world rulers” (kosmokrator). These lemmas have something in common—they were used both in the New Testament and other Greek literature to denote geographical domain authority. Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, loc. 6093. Kindle Edition ↩
  4. The first commandment. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ex 20:3). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society. ↩
  5. “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah”, The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ps 82:1–2). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society. ↩
  6. “There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. (Dt 18:10–12, see also Leviticus 19:26, Lev 19:31; Lev 20:6, Lev 20:27) The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society. ↩

I’ve been mesmerized and confused by “prosperity gospel” (PG) sermons for decades. Twenty years before the phrase came into use to describe them, I wondered about the supposedly direct relationship between the Gospel and prosperity so boldly proclaimed by PG preachers.

Though most of PG’s heyday, I had not yet mined the depths of the Biblical text. I was unarmed and unable to refute or affirm the Biblical references placed at the bottom of the screen during these sermons. Did they prove the relationship between the Bible and prosperity, or did they merely proof-text long enough to separate believers from their tithe?

“Blessed” provides history about, but no answers to such questions. It leaves the Bible unopened, provides the facts, and risks only tentative opinions on the so-called prosperity Gospel. The book is no more and no less than “A History of the American Prosperity Gospel.” The history comes in a series of newswire-like reports on the preachers, events, and relationships associated with this Pentecostal offshoot “movement.”

The Bible is Unopened

The Bible remains unopened in the author’s historical exploration. Except for quoting a preachers use of a Biblical verse, there is no exegesis or comment on some PG tenet or another.

Just the Facts

If you read a string of newswire reports about the Viet Nam war, you might form opinions about it. However, except for the editorial choices of which stories to cover and which to leave unreported, newswire services are not (or shouldn’t be) in the business of providing opinions. Likewise, except for a few tentative views at the end of the book, neither does “Blessed” offer those of the author on her subject.

The Deification of the American Dream

The exception to the opinion-less nature of “Blessed” comes at the end of the book when the author comments that the prosperity gospel is “the deification of the American dream.”

The point is offered and then only partially made by the author. Counterpoint questions such as, “But, didn’t the advances that made the dream possible stem naturally from a new nation adhering, however briefly, to Judeo-Christian principles and values?” are not posed or answered.

A Paradox for the Reader to Untangle

If there’s any truth at the heart of the prosperity gospel, it will have something in common with all great truths: paradox. That discovery might begin with questions neither asked nor answered in “Blessed”:

  • What is the relationship, if any, between the Gospel and human prosperity?
  • How could salvation of the lost have nothing, whatsoever, to do with human flourishing?

Every believer with a heartbeat might have an opinion on such questions. But, what is the truth contained in the Biblical text? What might a believer seeking the whole counsel of God, conclude? Have some, or all, of these prosperity gospel preachers been fleecing the sheep or does the fulfillment of one or more of the missions of Jesus Christ involve prosperity and believers?

“Blessed” neither poses nor answers, such questions. For those interested in forming their own opinion, however, the history documented in the book provides an informed place to start.

I wanted to get more out of “Blessed” by sharpening my thoughts and confronting any scriptural tensions between prosperity and the Gospel. But the book is subtitled as history, so the fault is mine for bringing those expectations to it. Perhaps the author will build on this book and dive into the heart of the matter (the paradox?) in a future work.

Scholars theorize that the word-for-word similarities between Matthew, Luke, and Mark are too great to be coincidental. A possible lost fourth document (named ‘Q’) might explain the similarities if it were:

  1. Written in Greek.
  2. Written before Matthew and Luke (and possibly Mark.)
  3. Circulating about the time the Synoptic Gospels were composed (i.e., between 65 and 95 AD).
  4. Consistent with the sayings of Jesus as put forth in the Synoptic Gospels.

An entire scholarship industry has cropped up to find, reconstruct, or explain Q. The International Q project put together scores of scholars to sift through the similarities and differences between Matthew and Luke to establish the wording and order of this possible common source (which they believe to be ~4500 words.) The project has produced 12 volumes, so far, with 19 more in the works. When finished, the series will be 11,000 pages and cost ~$2700.

But, what if the solution were much simpler than most scholars currently suspect?

Matthew Conflator Hypothesis (MCH)

Alan Garrow put forth the MCH in a paper presented at King’s College which is summarized in five brief videos on his website. Alan observes that “Streeter made two logical mistakes, often repeated in subsequent discussion. When these errors are corrected, however, Streeter’s ‘other’ solution emerges: the Matthew Conflator Hypothesis (MCH)” 
 From which “a very different understanding of ‘Q’ emerges … and with it the possibility that examples may, after all, be extant.”

The Didache is Q?

“This video shows the remarkable correlation between Didache 1.2-5a and the places where Matthew deviates from the text of Luke. This suggests that Matthew conflated the Luke and Didache 1.2-5a together. This means, in short, that both Luke and Matthew made direct use of this group of sayings in the Didache … and so an extant instance of ‘Q’ is identified.”

“This is a conclusion with far-reaching implications for the study of the Gospels and Christian origins.”

This is the advanced version of the Story of the Bible Logos Layout demonstrated in a previous video. We’re going to pick up where that video left off adding pictures and enhancing the ability to navigate story elements with automatic sync.

SOTB Advanced Frame

The Bible does not always unfold in chronologically which makes it hard to grasp the story from reading in the sequence of the canon. Unfortunately, the “find box” in the event navigator is limited making it easy to get lost and hard to reorient yourself when you do. The remedy for this is the logos explorer.

Use Logos Explorer for Reorientation

With the Explorer set to the same linkset as your Bible, you’ll have three options to reorient and get back in sync with the story: through the event navigator, the explorer, or from your Bible.

Additional Benefits

There are two added benefits of having the explorer in this layout:

  1. The “Media” tab in the explorer automatically finds all the pictures in your library related to the passage you’re reading (though I recommend keeping the “media” tab closed until you want to find more images, so it doesn’t search continually while the narration moves from verse to verse.)
  2. The notations in the event navigator are hot-linked to open in the Factbook.

This advanced story layout is the centerpiece of my morning routine. I highly recommend this layout for writers or anyone looking to reach a deeper understanding of the narrative structures of the Bible.

One of my favorite ways to read the Bible is to listen to it being read aloud. By listening, instead of reading, I can more easily focus on the story the words are intended to convey. If that seems child-like it’s because it is. It’s also the most demanding and thrilling “reading” I’ve ever done. And, if sophisticated describes “the degree of complexity or that which appeals to those with worldy knowledge or experience” then, yeah, it’s that too.

I would argue that books are the “new kid on the block” for human communication. People have been telling each other stories since there was a second pair of ears to hear them. And the first person to exist probably told stories to themself! How long after storytelling did books come about? Nobody knows. But there’s is no doubt about which came first.

Wired for Story

People are wired for story; we think in pictures and learn from narrative. Want to explain something beyond words? Show a picture or paint one with the words you thought the idea was beyond. Want to impart lasting knowledge? Tell stories about those pictures.

It should come as no surprise, then, that God’s word came to us first by voice, and then in story. For all its many uses in describing the relationships between abstract entities, math is most certainly not the first language of God.

Introducing Basic Story Layout

This is more than enough to introduce a favorite morning ritual: listening to the Bible while focusing on the story. It’s the first part of my morning routine and great for writers or anyone looking to reach a deeper understanding of the narrative structures of the Bible. I use it to keep story, characters, and plot elements (and their relationships to other stories) at the forefront of my reading/listening.

Wisdom, prayer, songs, and stories within stories telling the Big Story. That’s what the Bible is. And yet, there’s more to the Big Story than what’s on the page.

Once absorbed, story becomes the raw material from which we build and live our own. And our story becomes part of HIStory, not in canon, but as Paul filled up what was lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

Like it or Not: Narrative is Your Premise

The most important decisions I’ve ever made were deciding what stories were true enough to build my life on. Disagree? Yeah, sure, tell me a story about it. Wherever you may be on that journey, perhaps this morning ritual and layout may be of assistance.

 

 

Want to quote a Bible verse without leaving your word processor using one keyboard shortcut?

Quoting the Bible with Keyboard Shortcut

Mark Ward describes two ways to do it.

Yes, it works from within Scrivener, too!

An excerpt from the article The Elohim: What (or Who) Are They? by Michael S. Heiser.

The biblical use of elohim is not hard to understand once we know that it isn’t about attributes. What all the figures on the list have in common is that they are inhabitants of the spiritual world. In that realm there is hierarchy.

For example, Yahweh possesses superior attributes with respect to all elohim. But God’s attributes aren’t what makes him an elohim, since inferior beings are members of that same group. The Old Testament writers understood that Yahweh was an elohim—but no other elohim was Yahweh. He was species-unique among all residents of the spiritual world.

This is not to say that an elohim could not interact with the human world. The Bible makes it clear that divine beings can (and did) assume physical human form, and even corporeal flesh, for interaction with people, but that is not their normal estate. Spiritual beings are “spirits” (1 Kgs. 22:19–22; John 4:24; Heb. 1:14; Rev. 1:4). In like manner, humans can be transported to the divine realm (e.g., Isa. 6), but that is not our normal plane of existence. As I explained earlier, the word elohim is a “place of residence” term. It has nothing to do with a specific set of attributes.

July 14, 2017 by Frank Viola

Countless books pass through my hands each year. Evangelical publishers send me their neaw titles routinely. Once in a while, I will interview the authors. Most of the time I don’t.

Recently, however, I came across a book where I actually found fresh content that was significantly helpful to my own thinking. Given how much I’ve read over the years, this rarely happens. Most Christian books today simply repeat what others have already written.

Here’s the story.

While doing my research on my upcoming book on the kingdom of God (due to release Summer 2018), I began reading everything I could find on the world system (which is one of the primary enemies of God’s kingdom). This led me to take a fresh look at what Scripture calls the “principalities and powers.”

In exploring the “principalities and powers” in the world of biblical scholarship, I came across Michael Heiser’s book The Unseen Realm.

While reading the book, Heiser and I began an email dialogue that delved deeper into the themes of his book and my specific area of interest. I then followed that dialogue up with the following interview for this blog. Below you can read Heiser’s answers to my interview questions regarding the content of his book The Unseen Realm. (Our own private dialogue isn’t reflected in this interview.)

The most important contribution of The Unseen Realm in my own thinking is Heiser’s treatment of cosmic geography. His work on this subject colored in many gaps that I never observed or considered before, particularly the detailed parallels between Pentecost and Babel as well as God’s relationship to the nations of the world in biblical history.

I can’t say this about most authors today, but I owe a debt to Heiser for showing me aspects of the principalities and powers that I’ve never seen before nor read in any other scholar, theologian, or commentator.

For this reason, I cite Heiser quite a bit in several chapters of my upcoming book on the kingdom.

Here’s the interview.

Enjoy!

Instead of asking, “what is your book about,” I’m going to ask the question that’s behind that question. And that unspoken question is, “how are readers going to benefit from reading your book?”

Michael S. Heiser: Several ways. First, if reviews and interactions I’ve had with readers over the last year are any indication, _Unseen Realm _trains readers to contextualize their Bible. We think “reading the Bible in context” means thinking about the handful of verses before and after the verses we’re looking at on the page. That isn’t the case. While that’s important, context is so much wider than a handful of verses.

What I mean by context is worldview—having the ancient Israelite or first-century Jew in your head as you read. How would an ancient Israelite or first-century Jew read the Bible—what would they be thinking in terms of its meaning? The truth is that if we put one of those people into a small group Bible study and asked them what they thought about a given passage meant, their answer would be quite a bit different in many cases than anything the average Christian would think. They belonged to the world that produced the Bible, which is the context the Bible needs to be understood by.

Our contexts are foreign. They derive from church tradition that is thousands of years removed from the people who wrote Scripture and the audience to whom those people wrote. _Unseen Realm _demands people read the text of Scripture—particularly in regard to supernaturalism—the way ancient people would have read it. Second, it exposes people in the church to high scholarship—peer-reviewed material produced by biblical scholars—but in readable, normal language used by non-specialists.

It’s important for people in the Church to realize that the way they talk and think about the Bible isn’t the way Bible scholars talk and think about it—and I’m including “Bible-believing” scholars there. There is a wide gap between the work of biblical scholars, whose business it is to read the text of the Bible in its own worldview context, and what you hear in church.

Scholarship aimed at truly understanding what the biblical writers meant often does not filter down into the church and through the pulpit to folks who show up on Sunday. I think that’s just wrong, but scholars rarely make any effort to decipher their own scholarly work for people outside the ivory tower. _Unseen Realm _deliberately does that. Though readers might think that things in the book are novel since they never heard them in church or read them in a creed, every paragraph is the result of peer-reviewed scholarship. People need to know what they’re missing.

Over the years, I’ve met some Christians who deny the reality of the demonic/satanic world. They believe that the cosmology of Jesus and Paul was archaic. Mental illnesses were ascribed to “demons.” And “Satan” and “principalities and powers” were metaphors for personal and structural evil, etc. What would you say to such people in order to convince them that the spiritual worldview of Jesus and Paul does in fact reflect reality, even in the 21st century?

Michael S. Heiser: Well, the first thing I’d say is that their worldview isn’t the worldview of Jesus, Paul, or any of the biblical writers and characters. And if you don’t have the worldview of the people who produced the Bible (under inspiration no less), you can’t understand what they were trying to communicate in many respects. Biblical people weren’t modern people. That’s self-evident no matter how much we try to deny it. We doubt the supernatural because we’ve either been taught to deny it (thinking—wrongly—that it’s incompatible with science) or because we just want to be comfortable.

We impose our modern worldview on the Bible to make it conform to our intellectual happy place. But we deceive ourselves into thinking this works or is legitimate. We fail to realize that the supernatural things we want to avoid are no more supernatural (or “weird”) than the things that define the Christian faith. What’s so “normal” about the virgin birth, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the hypostatic union of the incarnation (Jesus was 100% God and 100% man)?

Why don’t we “de-mythologize” those things in our Bible while we earnestly try to deny supernaturalist interpretations of other parts of the Bible? It’s a hopelessly inconsistent and self-focused approach to say part of what the Bible says about the supernatural spiritual world are fine but other aspects of its portrayal of that same non-human world are too strange and in need of being explained away.

What is the difference between a cherub and a seraph in Scripture? They appear to be different from their biblical descriptions (number of wings, faces, etc.).

Michael S. Heiser: There’s no difference conceptually. Both terms are job descriptions of a divine being whose role it was to protect sacred space from defilement—to guard the presence of God. The terms and the descriptions are not anatomy lessons—spirit beings are not embodied by definition. Rather, the descriptions in the visions of the prophets serve as metaphors for describing a role. They are basically job descriptions.

The terms are drawn from ancient Near Eastern iconography (Mesopotamian and Egypt, respectively). They utilize the imagery these civilizations used to describe divine beings who guarded the presence of gods or god-kings. We know that because we have the iconography (sculptures, paintings) in their appropriate context. The Babylonian context for Ezekiel’s cherubim is obvious from the first chapter. Most Bible readers don’t realize, though, why (historically) Israelites living during the eras of Ahaz, Uzziah, Hezekiah, and Isaiah would have recognized Egyptian motifs. There was a lot of royal interaction with Egypt then.

What does it mean, exactly, that Satan (the devil) is “the ruler of the dead?” And where can we find this in Scripture? Related: What does it mean that Satan once had “the power of death” — Hebrews 2:14 — implying that he doesn’t have it anymore. 

Michael S. Heiser: The idea comes from several trajectories. On one hand, you have verses like Heb 2:14 (“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself [Jesus] likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil”).

The point isn’t that Satan pulls a lever somewhere and someone dies. The idea is that all humans will die—we are not immortal—because of the transgression of the Eden that the serpent instigated. He was cast down to the underworld, the realm of the dead (I discuss the terms and motifs behind that at length in Unseen Realm), which is where all humans are destined to go and remain because of the Eden tragedy. God’s plan of salvation was designed to remove humans from the realm of the dead. Humanity followed the serpent in rebellion, and so his domain is where humanity goes.

But our destiny can be different because of God’s plan. On the other hand, there are theological ideas running in the background that produce the same idea. In Canaanite religion, for example, Baal was lord of the Underworld. He was called baÊżal zebul. Sound familiar? In Ugaritic it means “prince Baal,” but by the time of the New Testament it became a descriptive title for Satan. Baal, of course, was the major deity-rival to the God of Israel. He was the lead adversary to Yahweh in Israelite religious context. What people thought about Baal informed the way they thought about the Devil later on.

Regarding the origin of the devil (“Satan” as the NT calls him), in your view, specifically when, why, _and how _did he fall?

Michael S. Heiser: I believe that all Scripture tells us is that the being the New Testament calls Satan (and which it associates with the serpent in Eden) fell when he engaged Eve to steer her out of God’s will. Eve’s existence, purpose, and destiny were of no concern to the serpent figure (which I don’t believe was a mere animal—he was a divine being in rebellion against God). Fiddling with what God told her was above his pay grade; i.e., contrary to the supreme authority, which was God. We are not told he rebelled earlier than this. We have only this initial act of rebellion. Some folks appeal to the notion that he rebelled before the creation of humanity and took a third of God’s angels with him, but there is no passage in Scripture that teaches that. In fact the only place you find the “third of the angels” talk is in the last book of the Bible—Revelation 12.

But in that passage, the war in heaven is explicitly associated with the birth / first coming of the messiah, which is considerably after creation (and the Fall). As far as why he rebelled, we aren’t told specifically. But why would an otherwise intelligent being (like you and me) overstep authority? Several reasons come to mind, like self-interest and arrogance. Since there are a number of (Hebrew) inter-textual relationships between Genesis 3 and Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, and since those prophetic chapters use the tale of a divine rebel filled with hubris to malign the kings of Babylon and Tyre, respectively, I’d say we’re on safe ground to presume that self-interest and hubris are at the core of the rebellion.

The divine rebel story behind Isaiah 14:12-15 has the villain wanting to be like the Most High and above the stars of God (a term drawn directly out of Canaanite material for the divine council / heavenly host), it’s clear the villain wanted to be the highest authority in the supernatural world. He was a usurper propelled by his own arrogance.

How does your view fit in with Ezekiel 28:14, which some believe is a reference to the devil before he fell. However, assuming that interpretation is correct, he is called “an anointed cherub.” How does that fit into the idea that the devil was once a member of the Divine Council, which some believe? 

Michael S. Heiser: I believe the “anointed cherub” phrase in this verse points to a divine rebel, not Adam as many biblical scholars want to suggest. There are many reasons for this, some of which are very technical. Readers of _Unseen Realm _will get the overview, but if they really want the details, they should read through the companion website to the book, moreunseenrealm.com (click the tab for Chapter 11).

Since the Old Testament doesn’t use terms like “devil” and never applies the term “satan” to the serpent (in any passage), this question requires more unpacking than an interview can provide (i.e., it’s best to just read the book where I can take two chapters to go through it). But I’ll try and compress a few thoughts.

On one level, by definition every divine being loyal to God is a member of the divine council, presuming “council” is understood as the collective body of heavenly beings who serve God. There are of course tiers of authority in the council, but the idea can be collective as well. So, prior to his rebellion, the being that came to Eve and caused her to sin and that later became the known as the devil was a member of God’s council, broadly defined, merely because he was a spirit being. But since we have no prior history of him before Genesis 3, we can’t say much beyond that. (The serpent of Genesis 3 is not the satan figure of Job 1-2 because of a certain rule of Hebrew grammar [again, you have to read the book], so Job 1-2 isn’t much help there).

Some scholars want to restrict the term “divine council” to the “sons of God” tier, presuming them to be the only decision makers, but this understanding doesn’t reflect the variability of the terms and ideas found in ancient texts parallel to the Hebrew Bible from which the council metaphor is drawn in many instances. The analogy of human government in civilizations that had a conception of a divine council makes that point clear. Not all members of a king’s “government” would be directly involved in decision making. There are layers of advisors who have input. But these governments had service staff or “lesser bureaucrats” who were nevertheless part of the king’s administration.

Perhaps a modern analogy of government in the United States will help make the point. We can speak of the federal legislature, by which we mean that branch of government responsible for passing laws. The term “Congress” is a synonym. However, our Congress has two parts: the Senate and the House. Decision-making members of these two bodies, and hence the Congress, are elected. The House and Senate both have service staff (e.g., “guardian officers” like the Sergeant at Arms). Though they have no decision-making power, they are nevertheless part of “Congress” in certain contexts where that term is used.

For example, saying “Congress was in session” does not mean that all service staff were given the day off. “Congress” can therefore refer to only those elected officials who make laws, or can refer to the entire bureaucratic apparatus of the federal legislature. As we will see in this discussion, the heavenly bureaucracy (council) is layered and its members serve God in different but related ways.

Rebellion against God results in being cast out of his service. God doesn’t run the affairs of the spiritual world or our world with rebels on his payroll. They are cast to the Underworld (in the case of the Eden rebel), or a special place in the Underworld (e.g., the offenders of Genesis 6:1-4, who are, to quote Peter and Jude, “kept in chains of gloomy darkness” or “sent to Tartarus”). There are more divine rebels than that in the Bible, but hopefully that scratches the surface enough.

In the book, you argue persuasively that Deuteronomy 32:8 and Psalm 82 are speaking about God assigning heavenly beings to oversee each nation in the world (after Babel). How do you envision an unfallen heavenly being specifically carrying out the tasks listed in Psalm 82? Namely, _defending the just, defending the weak and the fatherless; upholding the cause of the poor and the oppressed. _This was God’s role for them before they rebelled, but how do you envision them doing this work exactly?

Michael S. Heiser: He would do what God would do. God’s standards for justice are revealed in his moral laws, in how he tries to get humans (his imagers) to relate to each other, and in true worship. Biblical theologians encapsulate all that in the concept of “order” (the opposite of which is “chaos”).

Ruling the way God wants you to rule means fostering the ordered relationships he desires, not because he is a killjoy, but because that order maximizes human happiness and love for God. Part of that is worshipping only the true God and no other. Psalm 82’s diatribe against the fallen gods is directly linked to justice because, in the biblical worldview, failing at just living produces chaos on earth—and it’s the job of superior beings to make sure that doesn’t happen. Instead, the picture we get in Psalm 82 runs from neglect that causes chaos to stirring the pot of chaos, thereby making the lives of people miserable.

Satan is called “the prince of the power of the air” in Ephesians 2. What do you think that means exactly?

Michael S. Heiser: On one hand, “air” is part of the vocabulary for the spiritual world—the world which humans do not inhabit, but which divine beings do inhabit. But “air” was also a descriptor for the heavens below the firmament in Israelite cosmology—still distinguishable from God’s abode, which was above the firmament (Isa 40:22; Job 22:13; cp. Gen 1:7 to Psa 29:10). The “air” metaphor allowed people to think of the spiritual world in terms of (a) not being the realm of humans, and (b) still beneath the presence of God, or the place where God lives.

That meant Satan wasn’t in God’s presence or in control of God’s domain. Angels could be sent into the world to assist humans and would of course be opposed by those spiritual beings in control of earth’s “air space” so to speak. Ultimately, the spiritual world has no measurable parameters, or latitude and longitude (the celestial sphere is no help locating it!). Human writers have to use the language of “place” to describe something place-less (in terms of what we, as embodied beings, can understand). For that reason, it isn’t always a neat picture.

Throughout Ephesians, the phrase “heavenly places” is used in a positive sense. God’s people are seated with Christ in heavenly places (Eph. 2). All spiritual blessings reside in Christ in heavenly places (Eph. 1). However, also in Ephesians, we are told that evil principalities and powers operate in heavenly places (Eph. 6). In your view, what are the “heavenly places” in Ephesians and how can both evil spirits and Christians occupy them at the same time?

Read the Rest (~4,500 words) of the Interview of Michael Heiser by Frank Viola

The following post is by Dr. Dale Brueggemann, Contributing Editor at Faithlife Corporation. 

Christ in the OT

Do we know for certain that Jesus can be found in the OT? In our efforts to “read backward,” are we finding Christ where perhaps he should not be found? Or do we have license as Spirit-led interpreters of Scripture to allegorize as we see fit, and as it benefits our listeners?

In this post, I’m going to address these questions by discussing the biblical mandate for a method of interpretation called “Christotelic” hermeneutics. Look with me first at the evidence from the NT directing the church to engage in Christ-centered exegesis of the OT.

How Paul and Jesus Interpreted Scripture

Paul aimed to “preach the gospel,” to “preach Christ” (Rom 15:20; 1 Cor 1:17, 23; 2 Cor 2:12; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15). But he directed Timothy to “preach the word” (2 Tim 3:16; 4:2), which meant the OT. For the early church, that meant preaching the gospel of Christ from the OT.

On the Emmaus road, Jesus modeled an approach to expositing the OT Christologically: “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27).

Jesus’ key statement was this: “everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44, italics added).

Two questions come to mind: 1) did the church continue to follow Jesus’ example? and 2) what example did they follow, if we don’t have the actual transcript of his exposition to the unnamed disciples?

I’m going to show you how the church historically attempted to follow Jesus method of interpretation, and argue for one in particular as especially valuable today.

Christotelic Hermeneutics in the Church

Historically, the church has employed three methods to discern “everything written about [Jesus] in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Read the Full Article

By Mark Ward, Jr

Should pastors and other Bible teachers bother to learn Greek and Hebrew? You can use Greek and Hebrew without having to memorize a single paradigm, let alone 3,000 vocab words, so why torture yourself?

I’ll give you ten reasons studying the original languages is worth the pain, five this week and five next.

1. Because they increase interpretive accuracy.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a medical doctor by training. He had no formal theological education. Yet he went on to become one of the twentieth century’s most influential preachers—and a proponent of studying the Greek and Hebrew. He said that the languages

. . . are of great value for the sake of accuracy; no more, that is all. They cannot guarantee accuracy but they promote it. (Preaching and Preachers, 127–128)

Lloyd-Jones knew that some preachers would be tempted to treat a sanctuary like a linguistics classroom, and he discouraged that. But he also understood the interpretive power of Greek and Hebrew study. This pulpit master, in his classic work on preaching, goes on to rigorously subsume the value of the original languages to the end goal of conveying the biblical message to people. And it’s key that, in his view, they only “promote”—not “guarantee”—hermeneutical and homiletical accuracy.

I have heard comparatively untutored preachers teach Scripture accurately to groups that included numerous biblical studies PhDs. I have also heard the opposite; I have sometimes thought to myself, “Does this guy have any idea who he’s talking to?” (Indeed, the phrase “the gall!” has only ever come to my mind while listening to preachers.) If you are a Greek/Hebrew novice, by dabbling into something you don’t know, you may very well limit the effectiveness of your ministry to the educated by unwitting inaccuracies.

2. Because they make contextual connections which are necessarily obscured by translation.

There’s an apparently awkward break in the chain of Jesus’ reasoning in English translations of John 15:1–4. See if you can catch it:

I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

One of these sentences doesn’t at first seem to flow very well with what comes before and after it. Why does he break out of his vine and fruit talk to mention, “Already you are clean”? That “already” implies some contrast with uncleanness—but he was just talking about pruning, not cleaning. And after his reference to cleaning, he goes back to talking about the main topic of the paragraph, namely branches and vines.

This is a perfect example of the kind of thing that knowing Greek can do for you. The word translated “clean” and the word translated “prunes” in the previous sentence are from the same Greek root (ÎșÎ±ÎžÎ±ÏÎżÏ‚). Jesus isn’t awkwardly lurching; he’s making a bit of a pun that’s hard to put into English. You can’t make these sorts of connections (the sorts that are necessarily obscured by translation) without knowing the original languages.

3. Because they rule out some interpretations.

Knowing original languages is more often helpful for ruling out bad interpretations than anointing true ones. Consider Psalm 14:1.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. (ESV)

In the English Bible translation I grew up with, the KJV, the words “There is” are italicized, meaning that they were supplied by the translators and not present in the original Hebrew. That’s true.

So I have heard numerous people say over the years that, supposedly, the italics indicate that the original Hebrew reads, “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘No, God!’” (I particularly remember hearing this from a clever roommate in college, who won the smarter-than-thou award for that day.)

But once I learned Hebrew I discovered that there’s a significant problem with this argument: the Hebrew word translated “no” doesn’t mean “no,” as in the opposite of “yes.” It means “non-existence of.” The fool described in Psalm 14:1 is denying God’s existence, not saying “No” to God.

Knowing Hebrew didn’t give me the right interpretation of this verse; that was something I already knew from my English translation(s). It just enabled me to decisively rule out the urban legend interpretation.

… For reasons 4 through 9 please follow the direct links, below.

5 Reasons Studying the Original Languages Is Worth the Pain

5 More Reasons Bible Teachers Should Learn Greek & Hebrew