John Mark Hicks

Don’t trust in rulers; they are but dust. Trust in the God of Jacob who is our help and hope. Follower the way of the Lord which seeks justice, heals the sick, liberates the oppressed, cares for the stranger, widow, and orphan, and feeds the hungry. The way of the wicked does not pay attention to such matters. Whom do we trust? Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss the meaning and significance of Psalm 146.

AI Summary

Exploring Psalm 146 Themes

John and Bobby discussed Psalm 146, focusing on its structure and themes. They noted the series of participles in the psalm and the contrast between the Lord’s actions and the wicked’s ways. They also touched on the psalm’s connection to Psalms 1 and 2. John mentioned they were approaching the end of the Psalter and introduced the final Hallel, or great doxology. They prepared to record their weekly podcast, “Derek,” which meditates on the way of God through the Psalms.

The Final Hallelujah Psalms

John and Bobby discussed the structure and significance of the final five Psalms, which form a doxological crescendo in the Psalter. They highlighted how these Psalms, each ending with “Hallelujah,” reflect a journey of praise despite life’s challenges, culminating in Psalm 150’s call for all creation to praise God. Bobby emphasized the Psalter’s invitation for God’s people to lead creation in worship, while John noted the familiarity of Psalm 148, often set to music in worship contexts.

Trusting God Over Human Leaders

John and Bobby discussed Psalm 146, focusing on its themes of trusting in God rather than human leaders. They explored how the psalm highlights the temporary nature of human rulers and encourages reliance on God, who provides justice, care, and support for the oppressed and vulnerable. They noted that the psalm sets a tone of praise for God’s attributes and actions, contrasting with the failings of human leaders.

Communal Praise and Covenant God

John and Bobby discussed the meaning and context of a psalm that emphasizes communal praise of God, particularly focusing on the Tetragrammaton, “Yahweh,” as the covenant God of Israel. They explored how the psalm calls individuals to offer their lives in praise, interpreting “in life” as an expression of the intensity and fullness of praise rather than its duration. They noted that these psalms were intended for communal worship, likely led by a leader in the temple, and highlighted the communal aspect of praise, which makes life meaningful and worth living.

Trust in God, Not Leaders

John and Bobby discussed Psalm 146, focusing on verses 3-4, which caution against trusting human leaders like princes and kings, as they are mortal and cannot provide ultimate salvation. They highlighted that these leaders ultimately return to the earth, drawing a parallel to Genesis 3, emphasizing the temporary nature of human rule. Bobby noted that despite the historical failures of leaders, God remains the ultimate source of help and hope, as seen in the series of participles describing God’s attributes in verses 6-9. John and Bobby concluded that while humans are self-interested, God’s faithfulness and creation of the heavens and earth provide a solid foundation for trust and hope in God alone.

God as Creator and Liberator

Bobby and John discussed the nature of God as the Creator and Liberator, drawing parallels between the creation story in Genesis and the Exodus narrative. They highlighted how God’s role as the Creator of heaven and earth is linked to His justice for the oppressed, using the same Hebrew word for “create” in both contexts. Bobby emphasized that God’s love and care extend to all, regardless of religious affiliation, and that Israel’s experience reflects God’s concern for the marginalized. They also noted the similarity between the actions described in Psalm 146 and Jesus’ ministry, suggesting a connection between Jesus and the attributes of God as described in the psalm.

Righteousness and Advocacy in Worship

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 146, focusing on the contrast between the righteous and the wicked. They explored how the righteous imitate God by caring for the oppressed and marginalized, while the wicked pursue power and self-interest. John emphasized that followers of Jesus are called to be co-rulers with him, advocating for the poor and oppressed. They concluded that true worship involves making a public declaration of allegiance to God rather than earthly powers.

Post #3 Carthage, North Africa, in 197 CE. Tertullian describes a gathering of believers in Jesus for his Roman audience.

“We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, for the delay of the final consummation.” (Oramus etiam pro imperatoribus, pro ministris eorum et potestatibus, pro statu saeculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora finis.). From Apology, 39:2.

Tertullian previously characterized the assembly as a gathering of prayer warriors who besiege or surround God with their supplications. It is a communal “force”—an act of violent love (see Part 2). The congregation gathers to pray to God.

These prayers include the following.

1. The community prays for their political rulers. Tertullian himself was from the upper governing class, though now part of a persecuted minority. Nevertheless, he prays for the rulers of the empire. But for what does he pray?
   
2. The community prays for stability and peace. Literally, believers pray for the “state of the [current] age,” and they pray for the “quiet of things.” The latter reminds us of 1 Timothy 2:2, and the former reflects the desired state of the empire. The empire is filled with oppressive rule, chaotic shifts, and suppression of Christians. Tertullian himself became a Christian after watching martyrs die in the arena.
   
3. The community prays for the delay of the end. This is a rather unusual request. Paul prays for the Lord to come (1 Corinthians 16:22, maranatha). Paul’s prayer appears to have been part of the liturgy of some early assemblies. Yet, Tertullian pictures his assembly as praying for delay. Given its context, perhaps Tertullian seeks time for repentance and a larger ingathering of people, especially since Christianity is growing at the end of the second century and the beginning of the third. The tension, however, is thick: a yearning for the Lord to return but also a desire for others to know God before the Lord returns. Perhaps that is a healthy tension in which to live.

Jesus-followers gathered to pray for the rulers of this world, the peace and stability of the world, and for the delay of the Messiah’s return.  For his Roman audience, this information reshapes their suspicions. Christians did not gather to plot violence against the empire but to pray for its peace and stability, including its rulers.

For a blog on this text, click this link.

The church in Philadelphia may be small and without any cultural power, but the Messiah has unlocked a door into the kingdom of God where they become pillars in the temple of God in the New Jerusalem wearing the name of God. Though small and culturally unimportant, their patient endurance of trials means they are the continuation of the people of God in the present. They are authentic Israelites because the Messiah has opened the door for them.

AI SUMMARY John discussed the Revelation 3:7-13 passage, focusing on the church in Philadelphia. He explained that Philadelphia was a small but loyal city that had been rebuilt by the emperor and received special status. Jesus commended the church for their faithfulness despite their lack of power and promised them protection and a place in the New Jerusalem. John emphasized that this passage should not be used to antagonize Jewish people, but rather to highlight the inclusive nature of God’s love for both Jews and Gentiles who follow Jesus. He also clarified that the “hour of trial” mentioned in verse 10 refers to the protection of believers through persecution, rather than a future tribulation period.

Post #2. Carthage, North Africa, in 197 CE. Tertullian describes a gathering of believers in Jesus for his Roman audience.

“We meet together as a gathering and congregation, marshalling our troops to surround God with prayerful supplications. This force is pleasing to God” (Coimus in coetum et congregationem, ut ad deum quasi manu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes. Haec vis deo grata est.) From Apology, 39:2.

Several points are important for conceptualizing this ancient assembly of Jesus-followers.

• He uses two different words to describe this gathering—both have the semantic range of assembly. The first refers to a coming together as a group of some sort (including military ones). The second refers to an association or gathered community. These overlapping terms highlight the importance of assembly for followers of Jesus.

• The purpose of the assembly is to approach God as a community in prayer. The verb envisions surrounding or encircling God with prayers and supplications. Given the military overtones of some of the language, we might—as some translators do—use the language of “besieging” God with our prayers. We surround God like an army surrounds the objective. The assembled people of God are engaged in a military operation, as it were, to wrestle with God through prayer. It is a communal act rather than individual one.

• These prayers are themselves pleasing to God. Tertullian describes these prayers as “vis,” which means force or power. This redefines violence, force, or power. These ancient Christians did not engage in imperial militarism but encircled God with prayers for peace and stability (as the rest of the paragraph makes clear). This is the “violence of love” (Romero entitled one of his books) expressed through prayer.

Tertullian characterizes the assembly as primarily a function of prayer. He urges believers to see themselves as a community that encircles God with a fervor and persistence, and this mimics a violent military operation. The people of God come together to pray. It is the violence of loving prayer instead of political or military violence.

Carthage, North Africa, in 197 CE. Tertullian describes a gathering of believers in Jesus for his Roman audience.

“We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope” (Corpus sumus de conscientia religionis et disciplinae unitate et spei foedere). From Apology, 39:1.

Romans often used corpus (body) for voluntary associations like trade guilds and religious gatherings. Early Christianity was often regarded a superstitious association or faction (factionis in 39:1). Tertullian identifies the nature of Christian meetings for his audience. Christians are a body or society of people arising from three elements:

1. They have a common religious profession, which in Carthage (as represented by Tertullian) is the Rule of Faith that professes faith in God the Creator, the incarnate Son, and the poured out Holy Spirit who fills the body of Christ. They share, essentially, a commitment to what would be minimally stated as the “Apostles’ Creed.” In their meetings they confess their faith in God’s work.

2. They are united by a common discipline. Tertullian uses a Latin phrase that conjures up images of military discipline and training. The Christian body is a discipled (trained) community that shares common moral commitments, and these include practices in their meetings that formed disciples in that community. He describes some of these practices in the paragraph.

3. They live together in the hope of salvation, both present and future. He probably means they are a covenanted (foedere) community that lives in hope. In other words, they are bound together with a joyful expectation of God’s saving work, and they celebrate this and give thanks for it in their meetings.

Christians gather as a community with a particular profession of faith, disciplined ethics for life and formative practices, and a fervent and grateful hope for the future.

*****

I posted this quote from Tertullian on Facebook several days ago.

Tertulian (d. 220), a lay member of the church in Carthage, North Africa, describes the weekly assembly in his defense of the Christian Faith (Apology, 39).

“We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This strong exertion God delights in. We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, for the delay of the final consummation. We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more stedfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits.”

Psalm 144 prays for God’s rescue and salvation. The prayer depends on God’s steadfast love and past redemptive acts (Sinai and Exodus) for the victory of God’s king over the nations ruled by lies and evil. This is a prayer warrior Psalm that asks God to defeat the enemies of God’s kingdom. The Davidic king is blessed because God has made a covenant of steadfast love with him and through him with the people. God reigns and will reign forever through the Messiah, the son of David, who has conquered death and will rule the nations (as both Psalm 2 and Revelation 12:5; 19:15).

AI Summary

The conversation is an in-depth discussion of Psalm 144, focusing on its post-exilic context, Davidic covenant themes, and the transformation of the king’s role as a humble representative who receives grace and love (Hesed) from God, which in turn benefits the people.

Exploring Psalm 144’s Themes

John and Bobby discussed Psalm 144, noting its position as the last royal psalm in the Psalter and part of a series of eight Davidic psalms. They explored the psalm’s themes, including divine action and the king’s relationship with God, and highlighted its role in the Psalter’s progression toward climactic praise in the Hallelujah Psalms. John and Bobby agreed to focus on the psalm’s message of unity and completion as they prepared to record their weekly Psalmcast.

Divine Faithfulness in Psalm 89

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 89, focusing on its themes of divine faithfulness and the Davidic covenant. They explored how the psalm reflects on God’s enduring promise to David and his people, even in times of exile and absence of a Davidic king. John highlighted the psalm’s movement from individual to communal prayer and the concept of God’s steadfast love (chesed) as a source of hope and joy. They also noted the psalm’s emphasis on God’s faithfulness to David, which extends to caring for the people, and concluded that the ultimate blessing comes from having Yahweh as their God.

Exploring Psalm 144’s Themes

John and Bobby discussed Psalm 144, focusing on its themes of divine deliverance and the Davidic king. They explored the psalm’s opening blessing, which emphasizes God’s role as the actor in redemption. Bobby explained why some translations omit the word “chesed” (steadfast love) in favor of “rock,” citing reasons related to context and conformity to other biblical texts. They also touched on the psalm’s allusions to the covenant on Mount Sinai and the king’s plea for deliverance.

Interpreting Psalm 89’s ‘Hesed

Bobby and John discussed the translation and interpretation of Psalm 89, focusing on the meaning of “Hesed” and its significance in the context of God’s faithfulness and commitment to the Davidic king and Israel. They agreed that the correct reading should be “the peoples” rather than “my people,” as it aligns with the theme of God’s intervention against the nations and aligns with other ancient translations. John noted that monarchies had misused this psalm to justify suppressing rebellions, but they concluded that the correct interpretation emphasizes the king’s dependence on God’s power and commitment.

Divine Grace in Psalm 144

John and Bobby discussed the theme of humility in Psalm 144, emphasizing that God’s covenant with Israel and David is based on His divine grace rather than Israel’s worth or strength. They explored how the psalm reflects on the transient nature of human life and the Israelites’ humble recognition of their dependence on God’s mercy (Hesed). Bobby highlighted the psalm’s petitions for God to renew His covenant and intervene with a theophany, drawing parallels to the Exodus and Sinai events, where God’s presence and deliverance were manifest. They concluded that the psalmist’s request for God to split the heavens and rescue the people reflects a desire for a renewed Exodus, symbolizing God’s continued protection and covenant faithfulness.

Divine Intervention in Psalm 144

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 144, focusing on its themes of divine intervention, salvation, and the Davidic covenant. They explored how the psalm reflects the Hebrew Bible’s understanding of God’s deliverance of His people, using Exodus as a paradigm. They emphasized that the psalm should not be interpreted through a nationalist lens but rather as a prayer for God’s faithful people seeking the Messiah’s victory over evil forces. John highlighted that the psalm’s reference to “training hands for war” is about prayerfully asking God to intervene, not about physical combat.

Interpreting Psalm 143’s Covenant Hope

John and Bobby agreed that the psalm anticipates a renewed world where God’s covenant people experience shalom, with blessings including strong sons, lovely daughters, and prosperity. They also explored how this psalm connects to Christian theology, particularly Paul’s teachings on the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s covenant through Jesus, the Davidic king.

AI Summary

Sardis: A City of Resilience

John discussed the historical context and significance of the city of Sardis, focusing on its geographical location, ancient map placement, and the devastating earthquake of 17 AD that heavily affected the city. He explained that Sardis was rebuilt with imperial funding from Emperor Trajan after the earthquake, and highlighted the city’s strategic importance due to its citadel, which was never conquered until it fell in 1402. John also mentioned that the lower city was uninhabited by the 7th or 8th century, and the citadel disappeared after 1402, leaving no trace of the city today.

Religious Competition in Roman Sardis

John discussed the rebuilding of Sardis after an earthquake, including the construction of a temple to Trajan and the presence of an Artemis temple. He highlighted the multi-religious character of Roman cities in Asia Minor, noting the competition between different faiths and the pressure this created. John also mentioned the shift in the Roman Empire’s religious policies, with Christianity becoming the state religion under Theodosius.

Roman Engineering and Jewish Synagogues

John discussed the advanced engineering achievements of the Romans, including their use of concrete and the enduring structures like bridges and aqueducts. He highlighted the sophistication of Roman baths, which accommodated large numbers of people and had separate times for men and women. John also talked about the Jewish community in Sardis, mentioning a decree by the Roman governor Lucius Antonius that sanctioned their right to handle internal disputes within their synagogue rather than in Roman courts, reflecting a practice similar to what Paul advised in 1 Corinthians 6. John concluded by describing a third-century synagogue in Sardis, noting its size and the presence of Torah shrines used to store sacred scrolls.

Largest Synagogue Discovery in Sardis

John discussed the discovery of the largest synagogue ever found in Sardis, which indicates a significant Jewish community that likely thrived due to safety and freedom from persecution. He explained the synagogue’s layout, including the Torah shrine, the table where the scroll was read, and the presence of a Roman eagle, which may have been repurposed. John also described the nearby gymnasium, a public gathering place, and noted that the synagogue was built in a central social area, emphasizing the community’s openness and integration into public life.

Sardis Church’s Spiritual Awakening

John discussed the spiritual condition of the church in Sardis, as described in Revelation 3:1-6. He noted that despite having a reputation for being alive, the church was actually dead due to incomplete works and a lack of spiritual engagement. John identified five imperatives given to the church to address this state: wake up, strengthen what remains, remember, repent, and obey. He emphasized the importance of these commands in helping the church regain its spiritual vitality and avoid being blotted out of the Book of Life.

Church’s Warning of Complacency

John discussed the condition of the church in Sardis, describing it as complacent and potentially in danger of being “blotted out” of the Book of Life if it does not repent and obey. He suggested that the church may have started vigorous but over time became accommodative to the culture around them, possibly due to tensions with Judaism or a desire to stay connected. John highlighted the presence of a few “alive” members who have not been soiled by their surroundings, promising them to walk with Jesus dressed in white. The internal problem of the church, rather than external threats, was emphasized, with a call for repentance and renewal.

Revelation’s Symbolism of Honor and Fellowship

John discussed the symbolism of white robes in Revelation, suggesting they represent citizenship and honor in the kingdom of God, drawing from both Old Testament and Greco-Roman cultural references. He explored the concept of “walking with God” as a symbol of fellowship and relationship, contrasting it with the notion of worthiness, which he interpreted as both a recognition of faithfulness and a call to live up to the gospel. John emphasized that this opportunity for honor and cleansing is available to both the living and the dead church if they overcome, highlighting the themes of victory and overcoming in Revelation.

Perseverance and Faith in Ministry

John delivered a sermon about the importance of perseverance in faith, emphasizing that faith must remain strong to remain in the Book of Life. He discussed how following Jesus provides a powerful advocate and a sense of belonging despite cultural pressures. The sermon concluded with a message for dead churches to remember their origins, repent, and renew their focus on the Kingdom of God, encouraging them to wake up and strengthen what remains.

PDF Version available here.

I graduated from Freed-Hardeman University in 1977, and I remember well the discussions of “Crossroads” and the beginnings of a discipling ministry that grew into the Boston Movement and then the International Churches of Christ. I began full time teaching in higher education among Churches of Christ in 1982 and am now in my thirty-ninth year, including the last twenty years at Lipscomb University. The history of the International Churches of Christ and my own vocation have spanned the same years. Yet, our paths have only occasionally crossed, though I have known some from our years together at Freed-Hardeman, others because they were students in classes or encounters at various events, and several through social media friendships.

My knowledge of the ministry of the International Churches of Christ is sporadic rather than systematic, though I have read Stanback’s Into All Nations: A History of the International Churches of Christ as well as reading several books by leaders within the movement. Consequently, I hope you will forgive any errors that arise out of my ignorance or lack of understanding.  But my task is not to reflect on your theological interests and development but upon my own.

Studying and teaching the Bible, historical theology, and systematic theology in both the church and the University for almost forty years, I have traveled my own theological journey with significant twists and turns. Through personal tragedies and theological controversies, I navigated a faith journey that I did not expect or desire when I graduated from Freed-Hardeman. I am grateful for this opportunity to process this with you in this forum.

The most basic definition of theology is “faith seeking understanding.” Believers begin with a basic first-order sense of allegiance to Jesus whom the Father sent in the flesh through the power of the Spirit for our sake. This personal, core commitment is faith, allegiance, or trust in what God has done for us through Jesus in the Spirit. When this faith seeks deeper understanding or yearns to fully perform the drama of God’s redemptive story, believers pursue a deeper theological interest to grasp the breath, depth, and height of God’s love. As I reflected on my own personal theological journey in the context of Churches of Christ, I have identified five areas where development in my understanding has impacted my theological commitments. These areas are:  (1) Doxology; (2) Hermeneutics; (3) Pneumatic Unity; (4) Sacraments; and (5) Discipleship.

For the purposes of this paper and conference, I will not seek to defend my development as much as explain it and identify what promise it has for our future performance of the biblical drama and future communion among Christ-followers.

Doxology

By “doxology” I mean the praise or worship of the transcendent God whose thoughts and ways are beyond my understanding. This contains two major concerns. First, it affirms the transcendence of God which means that our thoughts about God always fall short of the fullness of God. This entails a significant dose of epistemological humility as we recognize that we not God and God is God.  Second, it means our theological statements about God are fundamentally doxological, that is, they are statements of praise that do not fully comprehend God though they communicate the reality of God to sufficiently perform the drama. We approach God through the lenses of awe and wonder rather than primarily through the lenses of intellectual comprehension and philosophical coherence. Third, worship fuels mission. Filled with the wonder of God and basking in the grace of God’s good gifts, we embrace our mission as participants in the mission of God.

            For example, the Psalms, as we might expect, ooze the doxological commitments of their authors and illustrate a doxological approach to theology. For example, Psalm 62 arises out of the experience of a believer traumatized by assaults, whether physical, spiritual, or emotional (62:3-4). Despite this trauma, the Psalmist calls the people to trust God at all times and pour out their hearts because God is a refuge for believers (62:8). The ground or basis for this exhortation, despite the circumstances, are two affirmations about God in 62:11-12. The Psalmist confesses:

                        Once God has spoken;

                                    twice I have heard this:

                        that power belongs to God,

                                    and steadfast love belongs to you, O Lord.

Believers are empowered by a sense of God’s identity, which arises out of worship, especially through communal liturgy. This worship is a response to God’s story or God’s acts in history which not only ground the worship of Israel but evoke it. The Psalmist has heard the story. The assemblies of Israel rehearsed the story of God’s gracious work, for example, in the Exodus where God demonstrated divine power and steadfast love. It is not so much the rational evaluation of God’s work or a philosophical assessment of God’s deeds but the rehearsal of God’s history with Israel in liturgy or worship that yielded this confidence. Israel’s experience of God in the Exodus grounded their worship, and their worship fueled their participation in the mission of God.

The origins of Churches of Christ, and the beginnings of my own faith as part of that tradition, were fundamentally shaped by rationality. In particular, we embraced (1) an objective reading of the Bible, (2) rational discourse about God, and (3) the impulse to fit God’s work within the confines of a rational box. I subjected my Bible, and consequently my God, to critical intellectual analysis while all the while trusting in the truth of the object of my study, which trust has never wavered. I even completed a graduate degree in philosophy as well as one in theology to help with this pursuit.

I am certainly not opposed to philosophical inquiry, but it needs a heavy dose of humility. Reason cannot drive mission; it will burn out. Reason cannot exhaust God; it is too finite. Reason cannot explain all the mysteries of the faith; it does not have access. Actually, reason confesses the mystery. Of course, I have not rejected reason. I am reasoning with you in the present moment. But I have flipped the priority.

It seems that human rationality often presumes that it can describe or even prescribe the limits of what is possible for God. This rationalistic approach assumes a realist understanding of the attributes of God which believes those attributes can be truly known, processed, and delimited by human rationality. 

The doxological approach eschews philosophical abstraction and exalts liturgical contemplation. The church is, first and foremost, a worshipping community which images God’s character in our relationships.  Worship calls us to be like the one whom we worship, and we worship the revealed God rather than the God of speculation.  Rational understandings of God which constrain God are replaced with the praise of the God who is known through Scripture, experienced in life’s situations, and encountered in corporate worship.  Instead of rationalistic and metaphysical grids, we seek God in a worship encounter and praise his attributes rather than trying to plummet he depth of their logical relations.

            Consequently, our preaching and teaching about God should not be consumed with scholastic “problem-solving” but with praise, worship, and confession.  It is the encounter with the living God through Scripture, worship, and life that has a meaningful impact on Christian lives.  This means that the believer is worshipful, trusting, and confident through the trials and joys of life. 

I am much more comfortable with mystery now than I was previously. I don’t have to figure everything out. When it comes to some of the deep questions of our faith, such as the problem of evil, I am willing to plead ignorance and embrace a skeptical theism which essentially says my brain is too small to understand the work of God. I do not expect reason to satisfy all my questions. Worship, rather than the achievements of the human intellect, secures comfort and drives mission.

Hermeneutics

As faith seeks understanding, we do want to understand God. This search, however, is not through philosophical abstraction but through living within the narrative of the Biblical drama, the story of God. Our understanding of God is forged and shaped by our engagement with the history of God’s work in the biblical narrative from creation to new creation. Consequently, how we read the Bible is of supreme importance. How we read the Bible will determine what the Bible means for us, how we understand what God requires of us, how we “do church,” and how we pursue God’s mission in the present.

Hermeneutics is the process by which we discern what is required, forbidden, optional, or expedient. Sometimes we think it is as simple as reading the Bible and doing what it says. For example, if the Bible says “X,” then we do “X.” But, actually, everyone introduces a middle step into this process. We recognize this middle step because we do not practice everything the Bible teaches. We make distinctions so that we do not simply reproduce ancient culture in the present, and we make distinctions about what is essential and what is optional. We make contextual judgments about dispensations, cultural settings, meaning of words, contexts, and many other factors. Hermeneutics is the middle step between the text and our practice of the text. Everyone has a middle step.

Growing up in Churches of Christ, I practiced a hermeneutic that sought an implicit blueprint for the work and worship of the church in Acts and the Epistles. We sought this blueprint through a filter of distinctions between generic and specific commands, an understanding of how a specified command excludes its coordinates, how the lack of implicit or explicit authorization forbids practices, and how to distinguish between expediency and prohibition when Scripture is silent in addition to many other rules for how the Bible authorizes. Consequently, I shifted through the commands, examples, and inferences within the New Testament to deduce a blueprint. That blueprint became the standard of faithfulness and the mark of the true church.  And if everyone agreed upon and practiced the blueprint, we would be united! Finding and practicing the blueprint because the foundation of both my assurance (“was I in the right church?”) and unity among believers (if we agreed on the blueprint’s details).

The inadequacies of this approach as well as its subjectivity (every conclusion and most steps along the way were inferences) created doubts. As distinctions accumulated and inferences abounded, I began to realize the blueprint was more the product of human rationalization than it was explicit in God’s story. It did not appear on the surface of the text, and if it was in the text, its pieces were scattered across a wide field. As I read Scripture, this is not how the apostolic witness called people to gospel obedience. They did not read Scripture or write Scripture with a blueprint lens. Something different was going on.

The problem, it seems to me, is the location of the pattern. The pattern is not found in an implied blueprint in Acts and the Epistles. Paul does not call people to obedience based on a blueprint located in the practices of the church. Instead, he calls them to obedience based on the pattern manifested in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus. We conform to this pattern. We obey the gospel, which is the story of Jesus, rather than a blueprint we have inferred from the text but is not explicitly there.

Hermeneutics always involves inferences, whether one pursues a blueprint hermeneutic or a theological one. We cannot escape them; every application is an inference. But here is the significant point: the pattern is not an inference. On the contrary, it is the story in which we live. It is the narrative air we breathe. The pattern of God’s work through Christ in the power of the Spirit is clear, objective, and formative. It is the story told in Scripture; it is an explicit pattern.

We will find unity when we confess the same pattern, and the shame of divisions among Churches of Christ is that we already confess the same pattern.  Our pattern is God in Jesus through the Spirit, or our pattern is Jesus. Here we are united, and our hermeneutics (whether blueprint or theological) must not undermine that unity but discern ways to faithfully embody it. 

The Unity of the Spirit

Unity is the “unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3). It is created and empowered by the Spirit who is the creative power of God that breathes life into both the present age and the age to come. The Spirit is the one by whom we commune with each other and with God.

Briefly, I offer five modes of visible unity that give expression to the underlying unity of the Spirit among believers. These five practices not only exhibit the unity of the Spirit but are also means by which the Spirit dynamically works among believers for both unity. The Spirit acts through them to manifest the unity that the Spirit has already achieved. At the same time, these practices are also transformative as they move us not only into a deeper experience of that unity but also function to transform us as exhibits of that unity.

1. Confession. We confess Jesus is Lord by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). Paul provides the ground of this point: “No one is able to say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3). This is an orienting, centering confession. The confession arises out of the Spirit’s work, operates within the life of the Spirit, and lives in the community of faith because we have all drunk of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). This confession is, however, made in a context, that is,  the divine drama, which is summarized in numerous places in Scripture (e.g., Acts 10:34-43). It shapes the confession of the lordship of Jesus and locates believers in the flow of the history of God’s people. We confess the Father as creator, Jesus as the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit as the communion of believers. Theologically, we acknowledge that whoever confesses “Jesus is Lord” does so “in the Spirit.” We may embrace the unity of believers through this confession because it is the result of the Spirit’s enabling presence.

2. Transformation. We are sanctified by the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8). We all know the saying of Jesus, “by their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:16). Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit who indwells, empowers, and gifts us for new life in Christ. Theologically, transformation is the goal of God’s agenda. Transformation is an effect of communion. God transforms us by the presence of the indwelling Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is evidence of our union with God. The fruit of the Spirit is the life of the Spirit already present in us. We may embrace the unity of believers through this shared, Spirit-empowered sanctification.

3. Liturgy. We worship in the Spirit (John 4:24; Philippians 3:3). The foundation of liturgy is the work of the Spirit. Our liturgical acts—not necessarily our precise liturgical forms—are deeply rooted in the work of the Spirit. Assembly, as communal praise and worship, is mediated by the Spirit. We worship the Father through the Son in the Spirit. Assembly, as an eschatological, transforming, and sacramental encounter with God, happens in the Spirit; it is a pneumatic event. This is what gives significance and meaning to assembly, and it is also the root of the unity we experience through assembly as the whole church—throughout time and space—is gathered before the throne of the Father in the Spirit. To recognize that (1) the Spirit is the means by whom we commune with and experience God, (2) this means is not dependent upon perfectionistic obedience to specified forms, and (3) the Spirit is not limited by such forms. This enables us to affirm the presence of the Spirit among those communities who do not share the forms that we think are most biblical. In the Spirit we embrace the unity of fellow worshippers through our eschatological and sacramental encounter with God in assembly.

4. Practicing the Kingdom of God. We minister in the power of the Spirit (Luke 4:18-19). The Spirit anointed Jesus, led him into the wilderness, and empowered him for ministry in Luke 3-4. This is the ministry of the kingdom of God in which Jesus practices the kingdom by heralding the good news of the kingdom, exercising authority over the principalities and powers, and healing brokenness. Jesus is sent, and he sends disciples. This is the missional ministry into which disciples are called. This praxis is an expression of the life of the Spirit within the community, and the community of Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, continues the teaching and doing of Jesus, that is, they continue to practice the kingdom of God. When disciples practice the kingdom of God, the Spirit is present. Where the Spirit is present, Jesus is present. This is a missional ecumenism. In the Spirit, we embrace the unity of believers through shared ministry, that is, shared participation in the proclamation and practice of the good news of the kingdom of God, which is the mission of God.

5. Spiritual Formation Practices. We pray in the Spirit (Jude 20). Disciples, united in prayer, are united in the Spirit. The practice of prayer (as well as other disciplines) is rooted in the work of the Spirit. The Spirit is present to listen and speak in these moments. When a community practices them together, or each member of a community practices them in their own walk with God, the Spirit works to unite us through shared experiences and shared communion. In the Spirit, we may embrace the unity of believers through the shared experience and communion in prayer.

Through the practice of these gifts, the Spirit mediates a proleptic experience of our eschatological unity, a unity that is already but also, in some sense, not yet. Together, we confess Jesus is Lord; together, we seek transformation; together, we participate in the eschatological assembly; together, we practice the kingdom of God; and together, we pray in the Spirit. That is, at least in part, the unity of the Spirit.

Sacraments

Sacrament names the mystery of God’s action through the external means of water, wine, bread, and communal assemblies as we experience the story of God in specific moments. Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and assemblies are dramatic rehearsals of the story through which God renews communion and empowers transformation. By faith, the community participates in this story and rehearses that story together as the church shares the sacramental reality together through water initiation, bread/wine nourishment, and gathering in the power of the Spirit.

These gospel ordinances have ordinarily been construed something like this. Baptism is the means of grace for justification through participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Lord’s Supper is the means of grace for sanctification through remembrance of the death of Jesus and communion with the living Christ. The Lord’s Day or the weekly assembly is the means of grace for communal worship through celebration of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. In this sense, they are not mere gospel ordinances that merely bear witness to the gospel, but they are also sacramental means through which believers experience the grace of the gospel in the Spirit. In other words, these gospel symbols mediate the presence of Christ to his community. They are more than signs; they are participatory symbols through which God acts.

They are not substitutes for discipleship or transformation but rather moments of encounter with God through which we are moved along the path of discipleship toward entire sanctification. This kind of sacramentalism is not popular. Evangelicals and the positivistic hermeneutic typical in Churches of Christ have something in common—they ultimately disconnect the sacraments from discipleship and empty all sacramental imagination from these ordinances. Baptism becomes either a mere sign or a test of loyalty. The Lord’s Supper becomes an anthropocentric form of individualistic piety. Assembly becomes either the ongoing public test of faithfulness (part of the definition of a “faithful Christian”) which degenerates into a legalism or fundamentally a horizontal occasion for mutual encouragement which is susceptible to pragmatic consumerist ideology.

These sacramental moments mark our journey with God and the church of God. Baptism is a means of grace through which we encounter the saving act of God in Christ through his death and resurrection. We participate in the gospel and are renewed by the Spirit through our burial and resurrection with Christ. The Lord’s Supper is a means by which we experience the presence of the living Christ and enjoy a renewal of future hope. Indeed, we experience that future anew every time we eat and drink at the Lord’s table. It is an authentic communion with God through Christ in the power of the Spirit. Assemblies, wherever and whenever a community of Jesus’ disciples gather to seek God’s face (e.g., to pray), are moments when we draw near to the Father and Jesus in their eschatological glory by the Spirit. These assemblies participate in the eschatological assembly as the Spirit ushers us into the heavenly Jerusalem where we share the future with all the saints gathered around the world and spread throughout time. Assembly, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are moments of communion, transformation, participation, and encounter.

This yields at least three significant points. First, the sacraments are authentic encounters with God. The sacraments are not bare or nude signs but means of divine action. They are divine gifts through which we may experience God as God comes to us in grace and mercy. God is not absent from the creation and only dwelling in the “spirituality” of our consciousness, but God is present through the creation as the Spirit existentially and communally unites us with Christ through water, through bread and wine, and through gathering.

Second, the sacraments serve our faith as moments of assurance which our feeble hearts can grasp through materiality. God’s promise is connected to the signs. Faith assures us that Jesus is ours as surely as are bodies are washed, our lips sip wine, and the people of God are gathered. The sacraments are means of assurance for disciples of Jesus.

Third, the sacraments are communal experiences of God. As God created community and redeems a community, so the divine presence comes to us in community as well. Baptism, Lord’s Supper, and assemblies are shared experiences through which God is present to bind us together. We were baptized into one body, we eat the one body of Christ together, and we are the body of Christ in assembly united with the church triumphant as well as militant.

Discipleship

One of my favorite quotes from James A. Harding, the co-founder of Lipscomb University and the namesake of Harding University, is a comment on the practice of protracted meetings. “I have observed,” he wrote, “that those speakers as a rule secure the greatest number of accessions who dwell most upon escaping hell and getting into heaven, and least upon the importance of leading lives of absolute consecration to the Lord; in other words their converts are much more anxious to be saved than they are to follow Christ.”[1]

Discipleship, an obedient following of Jesus, has always been a central value of Churches of Christ. Unfortunately, sometimes this was reduced to particular ecclesial forms or minimized in other ways or even, perhaps, located in a particular practice or outcome. Thus, while obedient discipleship remained important, it was often expressed in some authoritarian attitudes about church attendance, obedience to elders, and/or communal submission.

When “Crossroads” began highlighting discipleship as a primary way of envisioning the Christian life, this drew on the resources of the tradition as well as contemporary movements within Protestant Christianity. I remember how grateful I was for that emphasis, and I was thrilled by the potential of that renewal, though many of my contemporaries did not share my enthusiasm.

I have always thought that the separation of Churches of Christ and the Boston Movement was lamentable. Churches of Christ, rather than embracing and pursuing the value of discipleship and disciple-making, began to fear the language of discipleship and discipling, and we lost, in general, our commitment to following Jesus through making others fishers of people. Though the International Churches of Christ have experienced their own struggles with understanding and practicing discipleship and disciple-making, it is time for Churches of Christ to learn from our brothers and sisters in the International Churches of Christ. I am grateful that now there are strong movements within Churches of Christ for the renewal of discipleship and disciple-making, and I hope our two traditions might find some spaces like this to enrich each other, particularly regarding a theology of discipleship.

 “Follow me,” Jesus says. Discipleship means imitating Jesus by entering into his life. We follow Jesus into the water and are baptized. We follow Jesus into the wilderness and seek solitude with God. We follow Jesus into intimacy with others and seek out friends with whom we can reveal our true selves. We follow Jesus to the tables of both the righteous and the sinner. We follow Jesus by taking up his mission in the world. We follow Jesus by apprenticing others just as he apprenticed his own disciples. Follow Jesus means participating in the mission of Jesus from baptism to the table, from heralding the good news to liberating the oppressed, and from solitude in the wilderness to discipling others.

The mission of Jesus depends on apprenticing others, discipling others in the faith. We do not become disciples of Jesus in solitude or alone. We become disciples through community and apprenticeship. Others took us under their wings. They taught us, modeled life for us, invited us to walk with them, and mentored us. The call to discipleship—the invitation to participate in the life of God through Jesus—involves discipling others. Following Jesus entails inviting others to follow him as well.

Ultimately, the kingdom is about discipleship–following Jesus–rather than a self-interested notion of “getting to heaven.”  Christianity is about participating in the coming of heaven to earth rather than inheriting of a mansion in the sky.

Conclusion

I hope you are able to see a fundamental trajectory in my presentation. It is a movement from the wonder and awe of God’s presence to participation in the mission of God. We begin with doxology, and this fuels mission. Moreover, doxology invites us into the drama of God’s story. We enter this story through the reading of Scripture, and we rehearse in our assemblies and proclaim in our words, sacraments, and ministries. We seek to embody the story of  God, and this is empowered by the presence of the Spirit who unites us, transforms us, and gifts us for the mission.

The church, moved by doxological praise and understanding God’s story, experiences the communion of God’s life through its sacraments and mission because of the work of the Spirit. Through this common practice, together we are apprenticed into the story of God as disciples of Jesus.

---

[1] James A. Harding, “About Protracted Meetings,” Gospel Advocate 27, no. 37 (14 September 1887) 588.

Since I am sometimes asked to offer an opinion about the “Deuteronomy 32 Worldview” (or “The Divine Council Worldview”) unpacked by Dr. Heiser in his book The Unseen Realm, I thought I would reflect on his perspective in a blog post. This will save me some time when responding to inquirers.  Though this is far too brief given the voluminous material available, this is my first attempt to say something in print about his work.

Before I unpack my understanding of Heiser’s worldview, I caution the reader that I am no expert regarding his work. I have read a couple of his books, watched dozens of videos (out of hundreds), read some of his blogs, and listened to dozens of podcasts by him, interviews with him, and podcasters supporting him (as well as a few critiques). However, there is more that I have not seen, read, or listened to than I have. Consequently, I may totally misunderstand him, or he may have explained something somewhere about which I am ignorant. What I say, then, is tentative and needs further exploration or explanation. I certainly do not have any final word about his “worldview”—far from it; this blog is only a beginning probe, undertaken by a beginner in all things Heiser. So, I am sure I have misunderstood or misnamed some elements. I invite correction so that I might not only be fair to our late brother but also to learn from him.[1]

A Summary of Heiser’s “Worldview”

Heiser’s book is a narrative unfolding of the story of God from creation to new creation in the light of the fundamental conflict between rebellious elohim (gods, heavenly beings) with their servants (human rebels) and Yahweh whose loyal servants follow the Most High El (God, Yahweh). Heiser styles it the “Deuteronomy 32 Worldview” (or “Divine Council Worldview”) because Deuteronomy 32:8-9 provides a touchstone for seeing the cosmos through a particular lens. While the Hebrew noun elohim may refer to Yahweh (and most often does), it can also refer to heavenly spiritual beings (thus, “gods” or perhaps a variety of “angels”). Yahweh is an elohim (a heavenly, spiritual being) but no other elohim is Yahweh because Yahweh is the Most-High El. These heavenly beings are not the creator nor are they comparable to Yahweh.  They are radically and ontologically different. Though called “gods” (elohim), they are not supreme and are themselves creatures (they are not eternal but created like what we typically think about angels). In essence, elohim may, at times, refer to any being who is spirit (ruach, in contrast to body) and resides in the heavens (a spiritual location). But Yahweh alone is eternal and sovereign. Heiser is a monotheist, not a polytheist since the elohim are created beings whom Yahweh gifted with residence in the heavenlies.

Yahweh created a family to partner with Yahweh (who is the Triune Creator) in shepherding and ruling the creation. This family has both unseen divine (“sons of God”) members—including the divine council—and a visible human family (Adam was also a “son of God”). Both lived together in Eden. Yahweh intended Eden to eventually fill the earth where both the divine and human members of God’s family would live together in harmony. The “sons of God” (the divine council) were present at creation. Consequently, they had greater knowledge than the human family (Adam and Eve). For example, they already had a knowledge of “good and evil” that Adam and Eve did not have (Genesis 3:22). The members of both the divine and human families, however, possessed free will and were capable of loyalty (partnering with God) or rebellion (seeking autonomy).

Creation experienced a detour. The story in Genesis 3-11 proceeds with a succession of rebellions. Coaxed by one of Yahweh’s elohim who was jealous of humanity, Adam and Eve rebelled. This resulted in the exclusion of the couple from Eden as well as the casting down of the rebel el (god) as lord of the underworld (or death). Another rebellion came in the form of “sons of God” (Yahweh’s elohim) copulating with the “daughters of men” (human beings), which produced the Nephilim (e.g., giants or a warrior race), though not all the “sons of God” rebelled (as is evident from Job 1). Another rebellion came in the form of human hubris to erect an idolatrous sanctuary at Babel.

At this moment, Yahweh decided to choose a nation as the means by which the promised seed (cf. Genesis 3:15) would redeem the world. Yahweh chose Israel and covenanted with them as God’s firstborn son among the nations. But Yahweh divided the other seventy nations of Genesis 10 among the elohim to rule, according to Heiser’s reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. These elohim, whether already rebellious or they later became rebellious (Heiser’s view), enslaved the nations to evil and fomented conflict between Israel (Yahweh’s covenant people) and the nations (whom the elohim ruled). These elohim did not rule justly and the Psalmist called upon Yahweh to judge the earth that was ruled by these elohim in unrighteousness (Psalm 82). The history of Israel is a history of this conflict as the rebel elohim and the enslaved nations sought to destroy Israel or to enslave Israel by bringing them under their rule.

Yahweh sent the unique (monogenes), fully divine and uncreated Son of God to redeem Israel and the nations from the rule of these elohim. This one of a kind Son of God is Yahweh incarnate; Yahweh in the flesh. The work of Jesus as the Messiah was to suffer death as our substitute and break the chains of the elohim by his resurrection. The ministry of Jesus reversed the curse, liberated Israel and the nations, and dealt with the guilt and power of sin. In the incarnation of the Logos and the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2 Yahweh is revealed as a triune Godhead (or Trinity): Father, Son, and Spirit. Heiser argues there are strong indications of this Godhead in the Hebrew Scriptures as well. The three persons are equally divine, uncreated, and ontologically superior to the created elohim. This triune Godhead is the one God of Israel, Yahweh, the Creator of all that exists and the Eternal Sovereign of the cosmos.

The story of Israel continues through the church as Israel and the nations give their allegiance to Yahweh as Father, Son, and Spirit. The people of God align themselves with Yahweh through baptism (a loyalty oath), gather in communities loyal to Yahweh and dedicated to each other, and proclaim the message of Yahweh’s victory over the rebel elohim. Ultimately, when the Messiah, the Davidic Son of Man, returns to finally destroy the rebellious nations and defeat the rebellious elohim (as in Revelation 19:11-21), Yahweh will rule the new heaven and new earth and fill it with righteousness and peace. This is what Yahweh intended from the beginning, starting with Eden (Revelation 21-22). Eden is restored in a glorified state because of the victory of Jesus over the powers and principalities.

Affirmation

I share a lot of common ground with Heiser regarding the narrative plot of Scripture, and I would affirm the following points in agreement with him (and this is not an exhaustive list).

• Yahweh alone, as three persons in the Godhead, is the creator of the cosmos and ontologically different from everything else that exists.
• The divine council has a function in the biblical narrative; it may be referenced by the plural elohim as in Psalm 82 or the “sons of God” as in Job 1. They are heavenly partners with God in the unseen realm.
• The “serpent” in Eden is a created being who is a member of the heavenly (divine) council. He rebelled against Yahweh by seeking to undermine the divine project and wrest control of the world through deceiving humanity. He is not, however, “the satan” of Job 1-2 (the adversary or accuser; hasatan in Hebrew). That heavenly being, as one of the sons of God, is a prosecutor within the divine council for Yahweh’s interests in the world.
• The conflict between Israel and the nations is rooted in the conflict between Yahweh and the rebellious elohim. This conflict continues in the present. Paul names them as the “principalities and powers,” and Revelation identifies these powers as the Dragon who rules through his beasts.
• The work of the incarnate Yahweh who is Jesus, the Messianic Son of David and Son of Man, includes and highlights a Christus Victor theology of atonement (though not the only atonement metaphor used in the New Testament). The Messiah defeats the powers and ultimately destroys the rebellious elohim.
• The work of these heavenly beings (the elohim as a whole) is to serve Yahweh and humanity, and ultimately humanity will be enthroned with the Davidic King, Jesus the Messiah, to reign over the heavenlies. [For Heiser, humans will sit in the divine council and replace the rebellious elohim who were part of the council.]
• Heiser emphasizes a strong sense of continuity between the story of God in the Hebrew Scriptures and the story of God in the New Testament, between Israel and the church (one people of God from Abraham into the eternal future), and between the origin (Eden) and the goal (new Eden). It is important to see the writers of the New Testament as living within and elaborating on the “worldview” of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is one story.

Questions/Concerns

First, while I see the enslavement of the nations to rebellious elohim as part of the story, I am not as certain about the identification of 70 council members imaged by the 70 elders of Israel (Exodus 24:1-11). These council members rule over the 70 nations derived from the Tower of Babel story in conjunction with Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (using the variant reading of Qumran and the LXX). While Heiser’s interpretation is credible, I don’t think it is necessary. Nor is it necessary to say that every nation has its own real deity or every nation has been assigned a god (one of the elohim); a guardian god to whom Yahweh has delegated the right to rule and judge. One can read the “prince of Persia” and “prince of Greece” in Daniel 10 in this light, though not necessarily. It may be a metaphor; it is uncertain. Moreover, I am not convinced, though I am not totally dissuaded either, that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1 are heavenly beings (e.g, the elohim). Succinctly, I am not so sure we can extrapolate a “worldview” from Heiser’s reading of Genesis and Deuteronomy. I think it is too ambiguous and uncertain to formulate a worldview that shapes all other readings of Scripture. It is important to affirm, however, that Yahweh uses rebellious elohim to rule and judge the nations, though without Yahweh giving up Yahweh’s own sovereignty (note: Heiser does not say Yahweh gives up ultimate sovereignty; quite the contrary). Perhaps that is a sufficiently grounded “worldview” that enables a healthy reading of the conflict between Yahweh and the rebellious elohim in the history of Israel and among the nations. While the heavenly beings were intended to partner with God in the unseen realm and humanity was intended to represent God in the visible realm, the rebellion of some of the elohim led humanity into its own rebellion.

Second, another question concerns the language of “sons of God” in the New Testament (e.g., Galatians 3:26, “you are all sons of God…”). I understand Heiser’s inaugurated eschatology (already sons in one sense, but not yet sons in another sense), but I am a bit disturbed by Heiser’s conclusion (as I understand it). Essentially, does he believe deceased saints (all of them?) will join the divine council and replace the deposed rebellious elohim such that these saints are now themselves elohim?  I readily affirm that the redeemed “sons of God” will share in the inheritance of Jesus the Messiah, but not as those who sit in the divine council as elohim (heavenly spiritual beings) but as resurrected and glorified humans. In other words, they are still part of the human council (family) but not part of the divine council (elohim; family). They sit with the crowned and enthroned Messiah, the Son of David, as co-rulers over the cosmos. They sit as human royalty, not as divine elohim. And yet, due to the exaltation of the Messiah, redeemed humanity will sit in judgment upon the rebellious elohim and exercise authority over them. They are “sons of God” by adoption; they are part of the human family of God, just as Adam himself was a “son of God” in the beginning.

Third, while I am willing to see the narrative as a conflict between Yahweh and the rebellious elohim (some originally part of the divine council as sons of God), I fear Heiser’s reading of the whole narrative is so colored by this lens that he sometimes (perhaps often) sees more than is actually there in the text. For example, while listening to his podcast series on Hebrews, I thought some of his interpretations were problematic (e.g., his understanding of ecclesia [assembly] in Hebrews). He seems to see the divine council in texts that are neither explicitly nor readily amenable to such an understanding. So, my caution is that while the divine council perspective has legitimacy, let us be careful that we don’t read it into texts where it is not present or necessary for understanding what the text is doing. In other words, the language of “worldview” may justify framing texts under this rubric when they are not, in fact, expressing that rubric. Perhaps it is best to simply affirm the reality of the divine council rather than making it a “worldview.”  Then again, perhaps I am making too much of the use of the word “worldview.”

Fourth, while I appreciate the intent to read the Hebrew Scriptures within their ancient near eastern context (and I affirm that goal) as well as to hear the writers of the New Testament in the context of a Hebraic worldview (including their use of Second Temple texts), I find it problematic to read the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of the 1 Enoch (and other apocalyptic texts such that we assume the same meaning between them and the New Testament). I recognize 1 Enoch was a popular Jewish text and is referenced in Jude (also alluded to in 2 Peter). At the same time, I don’t think it is methodologically helpful to read the New Testament as an expression of the worldview present in 1 Enoch or to hear Genesis 6:1-4 in that context (which is a distant interpretation of that text).  For example, the “watchers” appear only in Daniel 4:10, 14, and 20 in the Jewish Scriptures but they are main actors in 1 Enoch. Some interpreters have given that function a huge role in their understanding of the elohim in the Hebrew Bible. I think that is methodologically problematic.

Fifth, a significant hermeneutical question is whether the use of Ancient Near Eastern cultural contexts, language, and imagery is appropriated or affirmed by the writers of the Hebrew Bible. By appropriation I mean that perhaps this language is not always seeking to assert a reality but rather to deconstruct a Mesopotamian or Egyptian myth. I don’t deny the reality of the elohim or a divine council. At the same time, I do think sometimes (perhaps often) the biblical writers appropriate a nation’s cultural mythology and names for gods rather than assert their reality. But that is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis rather than through a philosophical principle that automatically excludes the reality of the elohim (such as happens in naturalism).

Sixth, I invite us all to some hermeneutical humility. It seems to me that advocates of the “Divine  Council Worldview” are much more certain about their perspective than the evidence permits. Or, perhaps another way of saying this is that while Heiser’s reading of Genesis 1-3, 6, 11, Deuteronomy 32:8-9, and Psalm 82 is credible, it is not certain. I think it is difficult to build a “worldview” from such controverted texts. At the same time, I must assume a humble position to listen and learn as I am sure that I have missed some important features of the biblical drama. Indeed, I have learned much from Heiser, even though the “worldview” language is a bit disconcerting to me.

Seventh, this point is not a criticism but an acknowledgement. Heiser’s “worldview” is a systematic construct (a function of systematic theology). While he rightly points to features of his worldview in the text as a function of biblical theology, his presentation of this worldview as a coherent systematization of the biblical data is a constructive act, that is, he produces a system with working parts based on his reading of the whole Bible. That is not necessarily a bad thing; we all do it to one extent or another. Yet, systems tend to see themselves where they do not actually appear in the text, and they have a tendency to unwittingly reform the data to fit the system. This is a danger for all systems, and we all share that danger with our own systems (yes, we all have one). In such cases, the system forms the meaning of the text rather than permitting the text to speak for itself and on its own terms (and the latter is something Heiser rightly insists upon). I am quite confident that Heiser does not want the system to dictate biblical interpretation and counsels us to avoid such practices. Nevertheless, it happens to all of us, and it is a caution for any who seek to sustain a constructed “worldview” that is not itself explicitly systematized in the text itself.

Conclusion

I never met Dr. Heiser, but I know some who knew him and even studied with him. I have no doubt he was a careful and humble scholar. I honor his work, and I appreciate his insights. They have helped me deepen my knowledge and understanding of God’s story in Scripture. In fact, if I were to revise my theodrama book Around the Bible in 80 Days: The Story of God from Creation to New Creation, I would include some of his insights and emphasize some aspects more than I did. I have learned from him.

At the same time, we must all practice a radical humility in envisioning the unseen heavenly realm and interpreting Scripture’s unveiling of that realm. There is, as we all know, so much we don’t know and don’t understand. For that reason, I tend to focus my attention on God’s actions in history and our human responses rather than on what the elohim are doing or have done in unseen ways and in unseen regions. It is a theodrama (which Heiser would not deny, of course); it is about God’s acts. I realize the elohim interact with and participate in the theodrama in relation to humanity (they are both humanity’s servants and adversaries, depending on their allegiances in the conflict), and yet I think their workings are not as clear or revealed as some think. We can disagree about that as brothers and sisters. I sure Dr. Heiser would welcome gracious disagreement as well. 

This is why I would not elevate my thinking about the heavenly beings (elohim, angels, watchers, etc.) into a “worldview,” though they do have a function in the theodrama itself.  Perhaps this is what Dr. Heiser means, and he has certainly contributed to understanding the theodrama in many ways. I am grateful for that.

May Heiser rest from his labors! Peace to all.

---

[1] I thank Stan Wilson for reviewing my piece before its publication (though not in this final form), and his comments were very helpful. Stan was a close friend of Heiser, and he wrote his dissertation exploring a topic suggested by Heiser with Heiser as an outside reader. Stan made several suggestions which I have incorporated, but—of course—I am responsible for the final form of this piece. Any mistakes are mine.

Paul quotes Psalm 143:2 twice (Romans 3:20 and Galatians 2:16). He stresses there is no one justified before God on their own righteousness.

Psalm 143 is traditionally known as the last of the seven penitential Psalms in the Psalter.

Video linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXO00ERPLU

Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss its meaning and significance, and they offer a slightly different perspective. The Psalm is not about repentance but an appeal to God’s faithful love and righteous goodness to create a heart dedicated to following God’s way. The Psalmist finds confidence, in the midst of distress, to trust in God’s covenant faithfulness.

AI summary:

Understanding Psalm 143’s Themes

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 143, one of the seven penitential Psalms, and its context within the Book of Psalms. Bobby explained the literary structure of the Psalter, highlighting its journey from lament to praise and David’s role as a priest-king leading worship. They explored the themes of God’s righteousness, human flaws, and the need for divine guidance and teaching. John and Bobby agreed that the Psalm emphasizes dependence on God’s grace and mercy, rather than human righteousness, for spiritual growth and fulfillment of God’s mission.

Exploring Psalm 143’s Themes

John and Bobby discussed Psalm 143, focusing on its themes of faithfulness, righteousness, and divine rescue. They agreed that the psalm reflects a plea for God’s intervention rather than a penitential prayer, emphasizing the speaker’s need for God’s protection and deliverance from external threats. Bobby highlighted the psalm’s connection to the Exodus narrative and its broader application to the people of God facing persecution. They also explored how the psalm’s themes resonate with Paul’s teachings on divine faithfulness in Romans and Galatians.

Faithfulness and Covenant in Psalm 103

John and Bobby discussed the themes of divine faithfulness, human unworthiness, and the nature of the covenant in Psalm 103. They explored how the psalmist pleads for God’s mercy, not based on personal righteousness but on God’s steadfast love and past faithfulness. Bobby highlighted the contrast between the law and the covenant, emphasizing that justification comes through God’s faithfulness rather than human performance. They also connected the psalm’s themes to broader biblical narratives, including creation, the Exodus, and the Sabbath, underscoring the psalmist’s reliance on God’s past deeds for hope and courage.

Exploring Psalm 77’s Themes

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 77, focusing on its themes of distress, waiting on God, and the need for divine intervention. They explored how the psalm reflects David’s experience during the Absalom rebellion, highlighting the internal struggle of being attacked by one’s own family. John noted the psalm’s structure, including the use of verbs like “meditate” and “think,” and its division by the word “Selah.” They emphasized the psalmist’s cry for God’s quick response and the sense of urgency in times of spiritual and physical distress.

Exploring Psalm 143’s Themes

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 143, focusing on its themes of spiritual struggle, the need for God’s guidance and strength, and the concept of God’s faithfulness and righteousness. They explored how the psalm reflects on the human condition, the role of the Spirit in creation and redemption, and the importance of God’s reputation and glory. Bobby highlighted the psalm’s connection to the broader biblical narrative, including the Exodus and the need for God’s intervention and renewal. They concluded by emphasizing the relevance of the psalm’s message for contemporary believers, who also seek God’s guidance, strength, and faithfulness in their lives.