I don’t recall for sure, but I think we’re getting into the sections where Michael Heiser is willing to get off-topic for the sake of… what? Building a straw man? Oh, I guess it would be good to explain what a strawman fallacy is. In certain circles, debate is allowed where two or more answers to a question are considered. Ideally, each side would present their preference and would also present the concepts of the opponent fairly. It is actually quite common, though, for someone to present a distorted version of the opposition, rather than an honest version. This makes it easy for them to defeat the incorrect argument of their opponent, and then try to claim victory over the debate before anyone has noticed what happened. They couldn’t defeat the opponent so they set up a strawman that they could knock over, hence the name of the fallacy.
Michael Heiser has certain theological preferences that do not make the major points of his books any more or less compelling. However, these are points that he holds closely enough to present them as necessary to his thesis. And like so many others have before him, he presents a distorted view of the opponent of his preferences. Normally I would just roll my eyes and push through the chapter, understanding his bias. No big deal. Everybody has presuppositions. But my wife is reading his books, and she does not have as firm an understanding of theological minutiae as I do. Not to brag, but I have nearly twenty years of experience in this area, and I have learned how to chew the meat and spit out the bones. When Heiser sets up his straw man and then defeats it easily, that creates unnecessary work for me in the biblical instruction of my family. The discipleship of my wife is my job, not his. I’m OK with her reading his books, but a scholar like him ought to be more careful when presenting views that describe his opponents or views that describe the opposition to his opponents.
In this chapter, Heiser refers to the dangers of free will in the hands of imperfect beings. I agree to an extent. Free will is what allows both humans and elohim to make choices that are contrary to the will of God. Heiser does add that free will is part of what makes us made in the image of God, but the kind of free will he is describing is a libertine free will that the Bible does not present as a valid category. The libertine view grants far too much autonomy to humanity! Are we free to act? Yes. We are free in the same way that a fish in a fishbowl is free to swim wherever it wishes. There are boundaries and limitations to our free will. Within those boundaries, there are consequences to our actions.
Heiser says that without free will, concepts like love and self-sacrifice die, and if you don’t have his definition of free will, you are nothing more than a robot following a program and a script. Your love isn’t real. These are arguments I have heard ad nauseam over the years. They are tired old cliches that are used to argue against Calvinism, and frankly, they only work against those new to the discussion or those who already agreed with the Pelagianist viewpoints. I only see these points used when arguing against the sovereignty of God, so to see them in a book that is intended to serve as an introduction to the unseen forces that are revealed in the Bible is offputting. I expect better from a scholar of Michael Heiser’s pedigree.
So this is the chapter that discusses the cosmic treason that took place at a certain point in time. When were the non-divine elohim created? I’m not sure the answer to that, but I do have some thoughts. I believe that “In the beginning” there was only the Trinity. There was only God. God had community and was not lacking in any way. God created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1) and then set to ordering the chaos and filling this creation. I believe it was likely on Day 4 that the Divine Council and the angels were created, with humans being created on Day 6.
Some time passed, the Bible doesn’t say how much time this was, and then Satan approached Eve in Genesis 3. Sometime between Day 4 and then was when Satan rebelled, seeking to claim a role higher than his creator. Was this done from Satan’s free will? Yes. Did this happen outside the ultimate will of God? No. The actions of others, including sinful actions, do not usurp God’s sovereignty. And yet, God is not evil nor is He the author of evil. God is active in using the evil of others toward His desired outcome. How does this work? My human brain can’t wrap around it. Neither can yours.
Genesis 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
In the closing chapter of Genesis, Joseph is speaking to the same brothers who had sold him into slavery, then lied to their father that a wild animal had torn him up and eaten him. What they did was a great evil. But Joseph correctly states that God didn’t just take this evil and turn it toward a good outcome. It is stated here that God meant it for good. God intended for Joseph to be taken to Egypt so that many people would not die. And this is the method that God used to get him there. And through all of this, God is not responsible for the evil of Joseph’s brothers.
Accepting and believing things that are beyond my ability to diagram is part of my acceptance that God’s ways are higher than my ways. His thoughts are higher than my thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9) I am honest enough to agree that I likely do define the concepts of theological opponents inadequately. I have my blind spots and I want to be correct in my thinking. But I do seek to remain humble, especially when discussing controversial topics when God’s word hasn’t been revealed clearly. At least not clearly enough to be emphatic about it.
It is not humility to be emphatic where God has allowed mystery to remain.
It is arrogant to feign mystery where God has been emphatic.
I am not accusing Heiser of either error. I am asking the reader to read through the eyes of a Berean, both in this book and in my blog. Search the scriptures in community with others to see if these things are true.
Me
