Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
The personal name of God is different from all of his descriptive titles. Dr. Gruber clarifies the Hebrew word “elohim” used to talk about the spiritual world. Are we too distant from the original Hebrew text to understand the significance of the personal name of God?
Take Dr. Gruber’s course online at Israel Bible Center at https://israelbiblecenter.com/courses/name-of-god/
Find out how you can get this and many other courses with one small monthly subscription: https://israelbiblecenter.com
Stay connected with IBC on Facebook @IsraelBibleCenter or Twitter @IsraelStudy
Anonymous
Yaweh is the personal name. But He is referenced by many names in Scripture.
Anonymous
https://read.lsbible.org/?q=yahweh
Anonymous
That depends on if you are referring to one of His character traits.
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess this was actually posted and asked in reference to HEISER using dual YHWH in his explanation of El Eleon which we’ve discussed here with Link Hudson Philip Williams Ricky Grimsley and others https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/?s=heiser
Anonymous
Troy Day what’s your problem with heiser again?
Anonymous
Ricky Grimsley you are kidding right? Do I need to repost it every single time Heiser pops up?
FIRST OFF Heiser is not the author of neither of all these notions combined in his 2004 dissertation (“The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” [Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004]
While he was writing it Alan Segal produced in 2002 the TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism
And James McGrath and Jerry Truex ‘TWO POWERS’ AND EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM (JBS 2004 – a killer 30pg work)
Heiser’s views came much later obviously in attempt to interact with the prior publications The careful reader should first note the extra Biblical references to early rabbinicalism, gnosticism and in the extra step Heiser took into
Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature (which is a major deviation in restoring the lost writ of the first temple tradition)
Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E but the truth of the fact is that it is considered heretical in Jewish Orthodoxy and it always has. Heiser built on that notion toying with Persian dualism still unable to discern any coherent religious framework within Orthodoxy
Heiser proceeded on the said notion to bridge the gap between Segal and the Hebrew Bible. The said Gap could not be bridged via the Bible alone so he used a secular and very dualistic Canaanite religious context to suggest
1. An “original model” for the two powers – basic dualism opposing Biblical monotheism
2. role of the vice-regent of the divine council
3. a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) – which will be later taken by Gnostics, Paulikians, Bogomils and other early Christian heresies
4. the elohim of the OT then was not God the Father but any false deity that was worshipped including Baal and false-god demons
5. Finally a second Yahweh introduced by Heiser as the OT Jesus was both sovereign and vice regent in the head of the divine council (claimed in his later work on Rev. 12 if I remember correctly).
Having laid a foundation that monotheism is compatible with divine plurality, which is not Biblical
Heiser turned to argue for plurality within Yahweh Himself in the The Jewish Trinity via Logos Mobile Ed course while the common thread tying these texts together is their attempts to identify the “second Yahweh”.
The ESSENCE and the FACT is the Heiser is simply NOT Biblical AS Link Hudson finally admitted yesterday after so many years Heisers work was purely secular @ Madison-WI Uni. Hence he used purely seculars sources NOT Biblical ones to construct a framework that is neither Biblical or theology proper. It may sound like a nice work in foreign religions but certainly NOT the BIBLE
The dividing of divine titles of GOD in Exodus by an unknown group was considered a heresy by Jews in the first and second centuries C.E. A sense of unity may also be read in the text of LXX Exod 19:21-24. When θεὸς was speaking in vv. 21-22, he spoke about the titles θεὸς, κύριος ὁ θεὸς, and κύριος in third person. Rabbi Idi of the third century argued against a contemporary belief that saw two divine figures in Exod 24:1Without naming the heresy, he describes a passage conducive to the ‘two powers’ heresy (Ex. 24:1). In that scripture, God orders Moses and the elders to ascend to the Lord. Since the text says, ‘Come up to YHWH’ and not ‘Come up to me,’ the heretic states that two deities are present.
The tetragrammaton [YHWH] would then be the name of a second deity, a conclusion further supported by the lack of an explicit subject for the verb ‘said’ in the Massoretic Text”
(Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 68 – While Segal produced the theory as a notion widely rejected by Jeiwsh Orthodoxy as heretical, Heiser took it and run with it looking for any proof possible. Such was not in the BIBLE at all so he reached widely in what he called Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature – his bibliography shows but parts of it)
https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/divine-council-of-el-elyon-second-yhwh-and-elohims-gods/
Anonymous
Troy Day so you’re saying he is lying? Or he’s just a heretic?
Anonymous
Ricky Grimsley OK here we go again
I am saying his work includes many secular, occult and pagan sources we should not consider BIBLICAL truth
Would you consider this lying or heresy?
Anonymous
Troy Day well the Bible quotes books we don’t have, pagan authors and non canonical books too last time I checked.
Anonymous
Ricky Grimsley and the BIBLE tells you they are dualism YHWH deities you show bow to and worship? Yeah I dont think so – you are either NOT reading what I posted or lack the theological prep. to understand
mix and matching BIBLE verse to prove your point is ONE thing
mix and matching world religions to replace El Ellion is about as beast-religion as it gets
Anonymous
Troy Day I think your just making too much out of this. It’s not dualism to admit that the destruction of sodom story has two Yahweh figure in it. And also the exodus. Yeah maybe the people that wrote the Bible and the Jews didn’t understand everything. Maybe they did? Heiser spends all his time learning and lecturing. What are we doing?
Anonymous
Ricky Grimsley NOT @ all When you get virtually ALL pre-Semitic religions and mix them in a pot you most certainly do not get BIBLE out of it and should not ENFORCE those beliefs on the BIBLE BTW Why not read my comments from the other day here and respond to them? https://www.facebook.com/groups/pentecostaltheologygroup/posts/5869312003123766/
Anonymous
Troy Day give us a quote where Heiser said the “Elohim was not God the Father” ir words to that effect. Back up your accusation.
Anyone who has studied about the names of God in the Bible and most who have completed a semester of Hebrew would know that ‘elohim’ is translated ‘gods’ in some contexts in reference to pagan deities, but is repeatedly used to refer to the God of Israel.
Anonymous
Link Hudson read his dissertation FIRST and I will be happy to give you any quote from the dissertation you dont understand You come to this topic again unprepared
Anonymous
Link Hudson maybe troy only knows Greek and Hebrew.
Anonymous
Ricky Grimsley you 2 ladds were not even born when I began studying Habrit, Chaldaic and Aramaic @ Tubingen 🙂 and I’d be the first one admitting NOT knowing any of them… But my many years of doing theology proper has trained me to know non-Biblical dualism when I see one
Anonymous
Troy Day ‘Orthodox Judaism’ grew oit of one little branch of Judaism, reconstructed around the synagogue. It was formed by Hillel Pharisees. Before that the one falsely called ‘rabbi’ was not a position in the synagogue. Most Jews were not Pharisees. The Talmud was not the basic book of Judaism. We do not know the extent to which the average Jew followed the stuff in the Talmud and it could have depended on how successful they could be at getting their oral Torah based idea pushed through the Sanhedrin.
If the Talmud opposes an idea that does not mean all Jews believed that in the first century. If.the Talmud promites an idea the Talmud may reject the idea also since it lists different, sometimes conflicting ideas.
‘Orthodox Christianity’ does not have the same idea of Godhead as ‘Orthodox Judaism’… which is a descendant of one sub-branch of the legal cult that was around in the first century. But other Jews may have held to views more aligned with Christianity. Another example can be seen in theology professors have students read first century Jewish commentator Philo’s writings on the Logos.
Anonymous
Link Hudson I responded to this the other day under the Heiser post you commented on. I have responded to such quotes as early as ETS conference in 1998 in Orlando when WHITE made heiser look funny as a respondent. Heiser at that time didnt even have a dissertation or was working on it and his views were widely rejected by scholarly circles in the US and abroad. Hence, as you finally noted yesterday not seminary would have him defend it so he went secular
Anonymous
Name(s) of God ONE in many.
Anonymous
Rasiah Thomas nice you have a picture now like Isara Mo
Anonymous
Troy Day There is no picture at all, and everything is in spirit. Amen!
Anonymous
Robert Cox got a nice picture too in the Spirit
Anonymous
Troy Day
Ypu thought i was a ghost?..even ghosts have faces lol
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey Link Hudson Ricky Grimsley keeping the MAIN problem As the MAIN problem
Much of Dr. Heiser’s argument with respect to the text relies on a higher critical framework that is repulsive to the traditional evangelical scholar. This makes interacting with Dr. Heiser difficult from the standpoint of finding any common ground upon which to premise discussions. I am not sure, for example whether the second part of this post (the other Old Testament references to human rulers as elohim) would have any particular significance for Dr. Heiser, because I’m not sure that Dr. Heiser would necessarily hold that the Scriptures have been providentially preserved for us, such that we might look for this prior statement of God in Scripture.
On the other hand, Dr. Heiser should be willing to accept the lexical grounds on which the first of the two points (i.e. the grammatical question of the expression “die like a man”) is premised. I do not know whether Dr. Heiser will read this discussion, but – if he does – I would be very curious as to how he would seek to continue his argument that “die as humans do” (translation used by Heiser) is something that clearly distinguishes these elohim from humans.
Dr. Heiser’s comment that “This sounds as awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark,” seems to fail to appreciate the very different negative consequences of dying as opposed to growing up (unless one is Peter Pan) or barking. A better comparison would be the comparison in the Proverbs:
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Cautioning the fool that he will return to his folly or a dog to his vomit is not an empty statement devoid of negative connotation. Indeed, the apostle Peter refers us to this very proverb:
2 Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Even so, contrary to Dr. Heiser’s suggestion that “The point of verse 6 is that, in response to their corruption, the [elohim] will be stripped of their immortality at God’s discretion and die as humans die,” the point is that these judges should be aware of their mortality and the impending judgment of God. They should repent of their ways in order, at a minimum, to seek to avoid the punishment they deserve for their injustice. Dr. Heiser’s attempted explanation might seem to work if the text only mentioned dying like a man, but it also mentions falling (a synonym for dying) like one of the princes. The concept emphasized by the parallel is not a stripping of immortality, but a reminder of existing mortality: every man and every prince will die and face judgment, these unjust judges being no exception.
I’ll conclude with a similar warning from another Psalm:
Psalm 2:10-12
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.