Michael S. Heiser's Blog, page 55

Does Believing in Plural Deities Make Any Difference?

This is the first post on Naked Bible by my friend Dr. Ronn Johnson. Ronn has extensive teaching experience in biblical studies (PhD, Dallas Seminary) and many years of pastoral experience. To get acquainted with him, listen to this episode of the Naked Bible Podcast. Ronn and others will hopefully be doing regular posting at the Naked Bible blog. I’m going to try and figure out how your comments to this post will get to him, as Ronn’s thoughts are his own. I love listening to him, and I think you will as well.

 

My thanks to Mike for letting me blog here on the Naked Bible. With Mike, one of my favorite topics is plural gods. It was early in 2003, when I was looking for a dissertation topic to finish my PhD at Dallas Seminary, that I took up an invitation from Mike to join him for supper with a friend in Madison. We began talking about Mike’s dissertation topic at the UW-Madison, and his friend made the off-hand remark that the gods of the divine council in Psalm 82 were to be identified with the principalities and powers of Paul. I was fascinated by the idea, and I drove back to Minneapolis that night wondering if that concept would work as a dissertation topic. Surely, I presumed, a fellow evangelical had thought of this, and had produced an academic monograph tying Paul’s powers to the gods of the first commandment. Alas, no one had. My topic was quickly approved, the dissertation was done within the year, and things have never been the same for me. I think I was one of the few lucky ones who actually got to enjoy writing his doctoral dissertation.

(I don’t want to get afield here, but as I wrote that last sentence I recall being brought to tears several times as I wrote the paper. I honestly felt as though I was discovering the Big Story of the Bible for the first time, putting all sorts of biblical pieces together that had long been scattered over my theological yard. I had been teaching in Bible colleges for over a dozen years by this time. Thus the motivation behind my title of this blog.)

A starting point: Like most evangelicals, I have long presumed the western Christian tradition basically had the larger Story right: God must judge sin, Jesus solved that judgment on the cross, and reception of this payment for sin provides entrance to heaven. This was my view from childhood, though I had never really considered any alternative. I do recall being generally uncomfortable when I considered the disconnect between the first three steps of the Romans Road (you’re a sinner, sinners go to hell, Jesus died for this sin-penalty) and the fourth (believe in Jesus and be saved). What did the last point have to do with the first three? Here is where I am again motivated by my title. I have found—speaking only for myself—that the existence of plural deities stands behind a gospel message that solves this disconnect. That’s a gutsy way to say it, but that’s how it has worked for me.

The remainder of this blog will follow through on a point-by-point explanation of how I think the Big Story of the Bible works, beginning with the argument of my dissertation about plural deities. Think of each numbered paragraph as a domino that fell (in my mind, whether immediately or over time) because of the weight of the previous paragraph. There’s plenty here to disagree with, I understand, and I welcome your reaction forthwith. Some issues may seem unrelated to previous ones, but for me everything I write below works as an oiled machine going in one direction. I was going to say well-oiled, but I know that’s not true. There’s plenty to work on.  But here we go:

1) The main point of my dissertation argued that the first commandment was to be taken seriously because the beings called “gods” (Hebrew, elohim; Greek, theoi) are real, personal spirits who desire human worship. They are not necessarily “evil” or “good,” or at least should not be pigeon-holed into that sort of medieval model. That they are powerful is beyond question, and that Yahweh expects them to fulfill a role in human affairs even now is also assumed in Scripture. It is these beings that Paul refers to as “authorities” or “principalities” or “powers” or “rulers.” How they manifest themselves today is left largely undescribed for us, though the Bible is full of stories which offer fascinating possibilities and even probabilities.

2) Idolatry therefore causes God’s ultimate anger in the Bible, replacing the traditional idea that God is punishing mankind for Adam’s guilt. Idolatry is important because the objects of our worship are not invented; we are being seduced by spirits who want to harm us, principally by keeping us away from the worship of Yahweh and Jesus, and secondarily by influencing us toward immoral and hurtful behavior. All talk of sin and punishment in Scripture ultimately works its way through the backstory of idolatry. To be clear (since this is often misunderstood, I have noticed), all idolatry is sin, though not all sin is idolatry. To worship a created deity ahead of Yahweh or Jesus is the most severe transgression available to mankind, and guarantees eternal judgment for those who persist in such a lifestyle. The story of individual human salvation involves the conversion of an individual away from his penchant toward idolatry.

3) Since the word for angel in both testaments is the original word for messenger (mal’ak in Hebrew, angelos in Greek), it follows that there are no angels in the Bible since this is a (potentially) functional term for any spirit or god, including Jesus (Malachi 3:1; Gal. 4:14). In the end, the study of angelology turns into the study of gods and vice-versa. This is generally why looking up the word “angel” in Bible dictionaries is a waste of time. Tradition has assumed that angels can be identified and studied by looking for appearances of angels. Better to think of it this way: any appearance of an angel in the Bible (Nebuchadnezzar looking into the fiery furnace, for example, in Daniel 3:28) is the physical appearance of an elohim, or god (as Nebuchadnezzar admitted in 3:25: “the form of the fourth is lebar elohahin [Aramaic for like that of a god, or god-like]). A god had appeared in the furnace, performing as a messenger-god.

4) Following the same point, we need to re-state what we mean by the word “God” and even saying things like “Jesus is God” since the Hebrew and Greek words for “God/god” are shared by created ruling spirits such as Satan. It comes as a general surprise to most Christians that there is no capitalized word “God” in the Bible. Therefore the traditional doctrines of monotheism and Trinitarianism need to take into account at least the possible existence of created plural deities before saying things like “there is only one God.” Unfortunately, most explanations of a lone God or a three-in-one-God leverage Latin expressions and do not deal with Hebrew and Greek at all. This makes for painful reading in my experience. Latin should really have no bearing on the theology of the Bible.

5) During my dissertation process, it became clear to me why OT salvation was consistently described in terms of faith. As Abraham resisted the temptation to worship his family gods (e.g., Josh. 24:2), and instead committed this worship to Yahweh (he “called upon the name of Yahweh,” Gen. 12:8), he was justified or pronounced proper in the sight of God (Gen. 15:6). Salvation will be less about sin, especially behavioral sins, and more about which god a person chooses to worship. As evidence, the need to abide by the laws of Torah will never be confused with human salvation. Torah-obedience, in short, would become the expected privilege of those who were already found faithful to Yahweh, thus already “saved.”

6) The Hebrew term for faith (aman) is built on the same root word meaning loyalty or fidelity (amuna). Salvation is thus to be identified with moving one’s loyalty from one god to another, described as “believing” (aman) in Yahweh. The same connection is found for the NT words for faith (pistis) and loyalty (pistos). When the Philippian jailer was told to “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” he was being asked to move his spiritual loyalties from his god to Jesus. From the way the story progresses, it appears he made his ultimate confession of which god he worshipped at his baptism. It was common in the ancient Near East to make one’s official “conversion” to another deity very public, since there was no such thing as private religion at that time.

7) Believing Jews in the book of Acts often encouraged gentiles to keep various ethnic aspects of Torah (circumcision, Sabbath, kosher food laws) alongside their belief in Christ. This is not surprising, owing to the treatment of gentiles by famous Israelites in the OT (Joshua, Sampson, David, etc.). Yet Paul warned against the idea that the “works of the law” needed to be mixed with faith for his gentile audiences. Gentiles were meant to join in the messiah-movement on the sole basis of loyalty—a truly astounding concept for the time.

8) The ideas of atonement and sacrifice were not confused with loyalty/salvation in the OT. To be very specific, atonement (kaphar) was a ritualistic means of cleansing for the righteous person (i.e., the Yahweh-loyalist) who wished to approach God in sacrifice or worship. Israelite religion never taught that Yahweh could be satisfied or “paid” through a substitute. This was a pagan practice, in fact, practiced by gentiles who thought that their deities could be influenced by death or blood or the offering of valued possessions. Moving into the NT, Christ’s death will match the OT meaning of atonement: Jesus provided ritualistic cleansing/sanctification for the believer (and especially the gentile who did not have means of atonement!) who still needs to approach the God of Israel in purity (Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 3:18).

9) Moving the concept of OT righteousness (won solely on the grounds of loyalty to Yahweh) into the NT, God now declares a person righteous, or proper, when he places his loyalty in Jesus. There does not need to be any transference of righteousness between God and the one being made righteous, as the Reformed position teaches.

10) While every generation believes that salvation is the ultimately the result of God’s grace, it seems that the narrative of the Book of Acts employs charis (“grace”) to commonly describe God’s favor in allowing the gentile to join the family of Abraham by loyalty alone. This use of “grace” or “favor” would then make sense of verses such as Acts 11:23 (“When they had seen the favor of God” [upon the gentiles through the coming of the Holy Spirit]).

11) Instead of the gospel starting with Luther’s famous problem—people cannot go to heaven when they die because of their sins which have not been paid for—the gospel therefore begins where the OT story of Israel ends in the latter prophets. Here, people are asking that God will show mercy where he has formerly shown judgment, ending in exile: “For a mere moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you; with a little wrath I hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you,’ says the LORD, your redeemer” (Isaiah 54:7-8). What has upset God so greatly, of course, is the idolatry of the individual Israelite, something that David foresaw in his own lifetime (“Who may ascend into the hill of the LORD? Or who may stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, nor sworn deceitfully,” Ps. 24:3-4). The answer to the problem, then, which is the starting point for the NT gospel, is repentance from one’s idolatry and returning to the God of Israel through the person of Jesus. Both Jews and gentiles are under the same obligation to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords and will someday judge the world for its misdirected worship.

12) Speaking of Jesus, the gospels record the good news that Yahweh, through Jesus, has kept his promise of rescuing the world from the authority of the gods of the first commandment. The “gospel” is not about going to heaven, then, as much as it is about which god has the right to rule. Jesus won this right, or visibly secured it, through the temptation account with Satan (Luke 4:6; 10:17-19). This was the straightforward purpose of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings and miracles—to show who was really in control of a world which visibly appeared to be ordered by demons and gods.

13) One of the main stories of the Bible seems to course through the Bible rather quietly: throughout eternity, God appears to be giving to mankind the glory/authority which he has presently given to rebellious spirits. This is due to these spirits’ abuse of authority in our current world, led by Satan, the “prince and power of the air” (Eph. 2:2). Jesus confirmed his authority when he ascended to the right hand of the Father, and will someday share his glory with Christians in the next life. This is the doctrine sometimes referred to as theosis, taken directly from such passages as 2 Peter 1:4.

13) Our present responsibility is to complete the Big Story that began with our forefather Abraham. I am called to simply do what he did (Romans 4:13-25): be loyal to Yahweh, especially in worshipping his loved Son Jesus, the final fulfillment of Abraham’s covenant. All those who do so, whether Jew or Gentile, will share in his coming eternal kingdom.

September 11: Happy Birthday to Jesus

Many readers will know that I believe the actual birthdate of Jesus was Sept 11, 3 BC. This isn’t based on any original research of my own (here’s a short YouTube video of me discussing the date). Rather, it is based on the work of E. L. Martin’s The Star that Astonished the World (which can be read for free). Most academics are unaware of Martin’s research because he wasn’t a member of the biblical studies guild. Others reject it out of hand because of Martin’s involvement with the old Worldwide Church of God. The quality of one’s research, however, doesn’t depend on having a PhD in biblical studies or whether one is doctrinally correct in all areas. I don’t buy Martin’s views on other things, but I find his work on the birth of the messiah persuasive (and it has a long history of endorsement in planetariums).

As noted, most academics have no inkling about Martin’s work or its basis. In briefest terms, Martin considers Rev 12:1-7 to describe the actual celestial events of the birth of the messiah (which birth is part of the context of Rev 12:1-7). Most New Testament scholars don’t consider Rev 12 as astral prophecy. The major voice in that regard is Bruce Malina, a well-known New Testament scholar. Unfortunately, Malina dramatically overstates his case in his book, On the Genre and Message of the Book of Revelation. Malina argues that (basically) the entirety of the book of Revelation is astral prophecy. Scholars like G. K. Beale and David deSilva have rightly pointed out Malina’s near total neglect of the Old Testament context of John’s Revelation. Malina’s work deserves such criticism. But it’s misguided to think that we have to choose between seeing astral prophecy everywhere in Revelation to the neglect of how John uses the Old Testament, and seeing it nowhere. I don’t buy that either-or fallacy.

Martin’s thesis has, of course, been critiqued in some detail. There are problems, but none of them are insurmountable and can be rebutted with good evidence. This reality, along with the comprehensive explanatory power Martin’s work, as well as the date’s remarkable synchronicity with Jewish messianic symbolism and calendar, make Martin’s work persuasive to me. Most of the criticisms of Martin’s work revolve around the fact that it requires a date of 1 BC for the death of Herod the Great, something that flies in the face of the (current) consensus of 4 BC for that event. Critics of a 1 BC death for Herod that I have read seem oblivious to the past and recent work in defense of that date — at least I have found references to that research lacking in their criticisms. A date of 1 BC for Herod’s death is not only possible, but more accurately reflects the data now available.  The two best sources for defending Herod’s death in 1 BC — which, again, seem utterly neglected in criticisms of Martin’s work — are:

1) The difficult to find article by Ormond Edwards, “Herodian Chronology,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly  114 (1982): 29-42. Edwards’s article is a study of Herodian coinage and its implications for dating Herod’s reign, including his death. Edwards’ research shows that the death of Herod the Great was Tishri 1, 3 BC (Martin’s Sept 11) by the civil new year’s calendar, or Nisan 1, 2 BC using the ecclesiastical calendar. Edwards writes in his conclusion:

“It is concluded that Josephus in Jewish War was mistaken in his handling of the calendars of the Herodian period. He dated all the Herods’ reigns from the spring new year, whereas the earlier Herods (excluding Agrippa II) dated their coins from the autumn civil new year’s day preceding accession. The error comes to light only when the data in Josephus is compared with the coin dates.”

2) The more recent article by an expert in biblical chronology, Andrew Steinmann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009) 1-29. The abstract of this article reads:

For about 100 years there has been a consensus among scholars that Herod the Great reigned from 37 to 4 BCE. However, there have been several challenges to this consensus over the past four decades, the most notable being the objection raised by W. E. Filmer. This paper argues that Herod most likely reigned from late 39 BCE to early 1 BCE, and that this reconstruction of his reign can account for all of the surviving historical references to the events of Herod’s reign more logically than the current consensus can. Moreover, the reconstruction of Herod’s reign proposed in this paper accounts for all of the datable evidence relating to Herod’s reign, whereas the current consensus is unable to explain some of the evidence that it dismisses as ancient errors or that it simply ignores.

The above articles are not in the public domain, so I cannot post them. However, I can get copies to interested parties if you subscribe to my email list and the newsletter. This option is only for a limited time. It will start with the next issue (#5) but not continue indefinitely.

There are other issues in Martin’s work that need scrutiny. I’m actually engaged in doing that at present. Having just handed off the manuscript of a new book on 1 Enoch (focused on the importance of the Watchers’ transgression for New Testament theology) that will launch Feb-March 2017, I’m now turning my attention to a partially-written manuscript on astral prophecy. That book will aim to explain what astral prophecy is and isn’t, and expose abuses of it in Christian prophecy talk.

By way of illustrating the abuses, one of the reasons Martin’s work has drawn criticism is because some Christians think that the celestial imagery of Rev 12:1-7 somehow (a) affirms biblical prophecy, or (b) plays a role in future prophecy. The first is simply not true. There was no Old Testament prophecy about the specific astronomical events in Rev 12 signaling the birth of the messiah. The book of Revelation was the last  book of the New Testament. It was written well after the birth of Jesus. Revelation 12:1-7 wasn’t a prediction about celestial events and the messiah. Rather, John is giving us the celestial circumstances handed down to him by unnamed witnesses and (effectively) establishing the birth with significant celestial signs. This isn’t a contrivance on his part because the Sept 11 3 BC date must (and does) work with the rest of the chronology of Jesus’ life produced by the New Testament and other sources.  In regard to future prophecy, there is no verse in the Bible that tells us: (a) that the signs of Jesus’ birth will be mirrored at his second coming, or (b) that the signs of Rev 12:1-7 are the meaning of “the sign of the son of man” mentioned in relation to the second coming (Matt 24:30). Anyone who tells you they can predict the time of the second coming based on a repetition of the celestial events of Rev 12:1-7 should be ignored.

Another abuse comes from folks out there who are using the celestial signs of Rev 12 to predict the rapture and the tribulation are going to happen on Sept 23, 2017. I’m not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I’m going to predict something: This won’t happen. This is a false prophecy. I’m not going to be chummy toward people who abuse Scripture after the fact, like saying certain passages predicted the fall of the twin towers or an American financial collapse, or [fill in the blank with a modern event impacting America]. Sorry, but America isn’t the focus of biblical prophecy. I don’t care what code language they think they’ve figured out (or had channeled to them by special revelation). Ignore these people. Their exegesis is awful (if I were Ezekiel I might use scatological language now, but like I said, I’m not a prophet).

I have many reasons for criticizing modern “prophetic” use of Rev 12:1-7, but I’ll save that for the book. For now I’ll just say that much of what passes for “application” of Rev 12:1-7 misses something very important:  the other celestial signs associated with the birth of Jesus that were present on Sept 11, 3 BC that are not mentioned in Rev 12:1-7 (i.e., there’s a lot more going on in the sky than the items John mentions). Our modern “prophets” don’t seem to be aware of that. But even if they were, see the above — there is nothing in the Bible that says any of this should matter for the second coming.

The bottom line is that if I, or anyone else, tells you they know when the Lord is returning, ignore it. That said, I’m not dumb enough or vain enough (or in the habit of ignoring Matt 24:36) to do that. I’m not going to portray myself as a prophet to dupe you into buying something from me, thinking you’re getting secret information dispensed to me from on high. I just do biblical scholarship and give readers the academic breadcrumb trail. You know the drill if you’ve followed my work for any time. Sure, I’m interested in astral prophecy, but I’m just a biblical scholar. I’m blessed to have an astronomer who has an eye for all this material to provide fodder for consideration and check my own work. Fans of my novel, The Portent, know that person by the name Mantello, as that novel, the sequel to The Facade, weaves astral prophecy into the storyline (which will continue in the third novel). Mantello is not the real name of the astronomer who works with me, nor is he a mute Pakistani teenager, but he is indeed real. I’m meeting with him, Lord willing, in November to talk about the book manuscript. He’s an invaluable resource. Please pray that my time with Mantello is productive.

So, happy birthday Jesus. While only the most callous and inhumane will fail to mourn the loss of so much life on this date in our own memory, let’s not forget the theological significance of the date for the whole world.

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 117 – Ezekiel 8 & 9

The episode is now live.

New Online Encyclopedia for PSI Studies

Dean Radin just recommended (on Twitter) this new (in progress) reference tool: The PSI Encyclopedia. The “Learn More / About” page reads, in part:

‘Psi’ is the modern collective term for the psychic functions of telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. Psi phenomena were studied by Fellows of the Royal Society, among others, in the late seventeenth century, and were noted in the late eighteenth century in relation to hypnosis. In the second half of the nineteenth century, scientists such as Robert Hare, William Crookes and Johann Zöllner began to uncover more evidence in their experiments with séance mediums. Systematic study began in 1882 with the founding in London of the Society for Psychical Research, which, besides investigating the claims of spirit mediums, carried out surveys of ‘spontaneous’ phenomena – experiences of telepathic connections, ghosts, apparitions and poltergeists, precognitive dreams and the like – and conducted the first formal experiments. . . .

The Psi Encyclopedia is being created by the Society for Psychical Research, funded by a bequest, to provide a more informative view of psi research (also referred to as ‘psychical research’ and ‘parapsychology’), one that reflects the findings of experimenters and investigators. The project began in 2014 and at its launch in September 2016 offered some 110 entries written by around thirty authors and experts.  Readers are asked to bear in mind that this is a work in progress, a multi-year project that will see numerous additions, changes and improvements (see below).

Types of entry include:

overview articles about generic topics (eg experimental parapsychology, mediumship research, near-death experiences)
articles that explore aspects of those topics, key researchers, etc.
case studies of key experiments and investigations (children who remembered a past life, poltergeist disturbances, mediumship episodes, etc)
lists (people, events, experiments)

Some case studies include pdf versions of the original research report from which they are drawn, giving readers the opportunity to understand the researchers’ methods and reasoning in greater detail.

Sounds like a good resource. We may even find some peer-reviewed material for the PEERANORMAL podcast.

 

Was Jesus Crucified on a Cross or a Pole? What Does Stauros Mean?

Short answer: Who cares?

Really.  This is poster material for “much ado about nothing.”

I got a recent email about this issue. The controversy is whether the Greek word translated “cross” (stauros) refers to a pole or the object t object that church history has handed down to as as the visual emblem of the crucifixion. The debate combatants don’t deny the crucifixion’s historicity, mind you — it’s about whether church tradition got the shape wrong.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh, I’m back.  Pardon.

I repeat. Who cares? Church tradition has gotten a lot of things wrong. The biblical account has Jesus crucified for the sins of the world on a stauros. If I time traveled and saw it was a pole, that wouldn’t change the event or the biblical record (or its theology).

I think Bill Craig has a nice reply to this one — he got the same question back in 2010.

The FBI, the Science Fiction Writer, and the ET Hypothesis for Flying Saucers

Jason Colavito has written a fascinating post entitled, “Documents Detail the FBI’s Theory That Science Fiction Editor Ray Palmer Helped Create the Flying Saucer Myth.” It’s well worth your time.

No one would deny that, in the mid-20th century, there were many perplexing sightings of UFOs — unidentified flying objects. But many, including me, would say the jury is still way out there that such things were alien. For starters, you need to know if aliens exist before making them the cause of such things. You can’t use one unknown (“are there aliens?”) as evidence for a second unknown (“what’s that weird thing in the sky?”). But very early on the narrative surrounding UFO sightings became about aliens visiting earth.

Colavito has produced research that ties the ETH (Extraterrestrial Hypothesis) to very terrestrial sources — from the FBI’s declassified UFO documents. After giving us the overview of what he discovered, Colavito ends his post this way:

The long and short of it is that the FBI uncovered the secret origins of the first flying saucer flap and discovered that Ray Palmer was orchestrating the creation of a space invasion, and they did nothing with that information, letting the Air Force twist in the wind and letting the myth of space alien invasion grow mostly out of petty bureaucratic power struggles.

Modern Flat Earth Theory Exposed, Part I

Back in February I caused a minor brouhaha (have to love that word) when I blogged, “Christians Who Believe the Earth is Really Flat — Does It Get Any Dumber Than This?” I’m a Christian and biblical scholar who has a grasp of the fact that ancient Israelite cosmology describes a flat earth. But since it’s evident that the Bible was not produced to give us science, it’s logically fallacious to presume we need to believe that the earth is really flat to embrace things that the Bible does in fact ask us to believe. (Here’s a lecture I gave some years ago in church on that topic).

I was quite surprised by the number of angry comments the post generated. It was difficult to believe that people actually believed this today. in my judgment, it deflects people away from considering the gospel message since people will think they must embrace a flat earth to embrace biblical theology. As I noted in my post and my lecture, that’s poor thinking.  It’s also imposing a modern context on an ancient work — the Bible. How that’s a legitimate interpretive strategy I don’t understand. But I digress …

I vowed never to blog on the subject again — and I won’t. But I never promised I wouldn’t ask scientists I know to chime in. Specifically, I asked Stuart Robbins, the host of the PseudoAstronomy podcast, to do an episode on the topic once he returned to podcasting. Stuart assured me he would and, true to his word, he has.  I doubt I can take credit for that, since it’s evident Stuart had fielded such questions before. I’ve recommended Stuart’s podcasts before, as he has an entire series on Nibiru/Planet X myths, the alleged faking of the moon landings, the face on Mars and Cydonia, etc. I’ve also been on his show to discuss Zecharia Sitchin’s flawed work on Nibiru/Planet X. Stuart does a good job of treating even the most ridiculous ideas in a serious manner.

Here’s the first installment of Stuart’s discussion of flat earth science fallacies. I can hardly wait for Part 2.

 

Ancient Egyptian Demonology Project

Those of you interested in demonology will want to be aware of this emerging resource: the ancient Egyptian “demonbase.” The landing page description reads in part:

For the first time, we bring you a sample of supernatural beings—some fully human, some animal hybrids, some objects—to explore! There are three versions of the catalogue and we would be interested to know which you prefer.

Mike Will No Longer Be Appearing on Paul E. Stevenson’s Revolutions Radio Show

Hi everyone.  I just wanted to leave a note for Google’s searchbots about my appearances on Paul E. Stevenson’s Revolutions Radio show. I won’t be appearing on it again. An unfortunate but necessary decision.

This past week I was alerted to the fact (by my kids, no less, and my wife and some of her friends) that my name kept appearing in connection with this show and Jewish conspiracy / anti-Semitic material. Turns out that Paul has had a couple folks on his show promoting Jewish conspiracy stuff. Yours truly of course gets linked with that because I’ve been on the show. It won’t happen again.

So let’s be clear (and write it in the third person so search engines catch it):

Mike Heiser is opposed to anti-Semitism. It’s sin to target anyone as evil-minded because of their ethnicity. It’s wicked to spout conspiracy theories that, at best, apply only to select individuals in government power. It’s akin to blaming Americans for what a handful of politicians do. or blaming all Hispanics for our immigration problem. But given the long, awful history of anti-Semitism in the 20th and 21st centuries, Jewish conspiracy talk is worse. It adds fuel to the fire of anti-Semitism which, like any other targeting of people for ethnicity, is morally wrong. On top of that, it’s contrary to the gospel. How does promoting such “conversation” show the love of Christ of build bridges to people who need Christ? It doesn’t. It makes people glad other people are lost. That really is where so many people take this “discussion.” That’s sin. Where is “my heart’s desire for Israel is that they believe”?

This is all part of the dark side of Christian Middle Earth. It’s part of the answer as to why scholars (and other folks) will simply not traffic in Christian Middle Earth. Imagine the thrill of having your kids, your wife, and your wife’s friends wonder (on social media in some cases) why my name comes up with such bile. Granted, people who know me are going to get what’s going on, but I no doubt will have to field questions from students, employers, pastors, etc. That show hosts think they are doing the work of God by linking people on their shows with this sort of material is very poor thinking. It’s time that Christians who traffic in these areas start using their heads (and maybe their hearts) and take the long look at the effects of their decisions. Maybe Paul doesn’t believe what these guests say about “the Jews.” I have no reason to think Paul is himself anti-Semitic. I don’t think that’s the case. But I have to post something online about all this to make it clear that I don’t want the association with his other guests and their beliefs.

As readers know, I was ambushed once on an anti-Semitic show a few years ago and blogged about it (no link because I don’t desire them to get any traffic). Just two weeks ago I was booked on a show whose host (apparently) appeared on an anti-Semitic, holocaust-denying show. I’ve inquired about why they went on, but have only received a denial that they did the show — and subsequent silence about how the link got on the anti-Semitic website. Hopefully, this host has a good explanation, but I need them to tell me what it is.

So where does this leave me? In a word: disheartened. Another soul-crushing moment courtesy of Christian Middle Earth. It goes in the same drawer as the flat-earthers, the “someone time traveled and changed the Bible” Mandela Effect idiocy, and the Hebrew Roots extremists (i.e., 21st century Judaizers – let’s add the law to the gospel, or just dump Jesus altogether). But given the legacy of misery it has sown, anti-Semitism is worse than all of them.

In practical terms, I will simply be doing fewer interviews. This post will no doubt mean show hosts will never invite me. GOOD. You have my anticipatory thanks. I’ve decided as well to form an anonymous online committee that I will ask to vet speaking requests for me. That email will go out in a day or so. I just need more sets of eyes to vet (okay, use the word “stalk” if you like it) requests I get. I need help managing some time there.

Lastly, if you’re a Christian anti-semite (nice oxymoron — the apostles would love that one), don’t bother posting comments to this post or emailing me to burst a vein in cyberspace, or for a “discussion” of it. What you believe is a waste of my time, and everyone else’s. Ditto for the other items mentioned above. You’ll be blocked and filtered out. I won’t draw traffic to the sites you’ll send me. The purpose of my online presence is not to draw attention to this material. You can get your own blog and post those links.

 

 

—

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 116 – Ezekiel 7

The episode is now live.