Heiser and the Council of Fallen Angels.
Special Thanks to Gwen Frangs to use a portion of her work.
Michael
Heiser's low-key speaking style is deceptive for the "evangelist"
of the Divine Council of Gods. The softness of his persona and
apparent non-confrontational manner cannot be taken as mildness or
shyness in pushing a Church denying heresy. He clearly sees himself
as smarter and more informed than the centuries of Church fathers and
more inspired than the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.
He is
recycling what we Orthodox call "theologoumenon," which is
individual opinion and speculation on matters that are not doctrinal,
and making it dogma.
Now he might object and say, "I'm
offering no dogma; that is not my job or intent," and such
protestation would be in vain. Here is why. A solascriptura heretic
has no choice but to suggest and teach dogma when he teaches aspects
of scripture because his individual interpretation of scripture is
the only dogma he can hold. This always sets the Solascriptura
teacher on a collision path with the Church, or it leads the same
teacher to the Church. I've witnessed both cases.
Theologoumenon
means simply something that has been theorized. The problem for the
Solascriptura teacher, who cannot speak canonically, who has no basis
for understanding dogma except his own opinion, even if he references
another's opinion as a foundation, ultimately there can be no
canonical consensus, so that for him, merely speaking the theory
teaches the doctrine.
On the other hand when someone who is
Orthodox speculates about understanding of scriptures that do no
damage to “The Faith, Once and For All Delivered Unto the Saints.”
His interpretation and opinion cannot be confused with dogma. Why?
Because he respects canonical authority.
One orthodox friend
stated it this way, “Heiser reads scripture in a vacuum, using only
other scripture and modern archeology/linguistics to help. The funny
thing is that his findings very often are in accord with the Orthodox
beliefs (the exceptions are what he writes in the Unseen Realm).”
A
Heterodox layman wrote: “None of what he says is incompatible with
Orthodoxy, and I know of at least one Orthodox person that supports
his ideas.” We will quickly see this statement is false.
Another
person seemed to think that Heiser's speculations from the 21st
century would be superior to the Church Fathers because he has
advantage of “Dead Sea Scrolls” and masses of literature from the
Pagan Ugaritic “tribes” from which Abram was called to separate
himself and his family. While paying lip-service to the idea of
Abram calling, testing and the creation of the Hebrew people, Heiser
places the pantheon of fallen angels, the pagans religious worshiped
as God, as the lense through which all old testament text must be
viewed. He calls this “a second temple perspective.” And
apparently his “second temple perspective” is greater than the
Pharisee Saul of Tarsus, who lived and taught in the actual time of
the second temple, was dramatically converted, was called by the Holy
Spirit to be “an apostle out of time” the last apostle, in fact.
What was it that this rabbi (Paul the Apostle) missed about the
second temple perspective? Not much and he specifically warned
against make dogma of Second Temple mythology, which is exactly what
Heiser is doing.
A Protestant writer named, goes to the core
of Heiser's promotion of the Divine Council, as his singular theme
and that it is a clear false teaching.
“A Deeper look into
the pseudo monotheism of Michael Heiser
Elohim as the divine Council
Heiser inserts the words, divine council whenever possible, even when there is no rhyme or reason to do so. He has made this doctrine his own mission in life, to convince the church of what he thinks none of us understand, from the Scriptures.
“Ugaritic mythology plainly states that the head of its pantheon, El (who, like the God of the Bible, is also referred to as El Elyon, the "Most High") fathered seventy sons ( p.54 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA)
But was el, elohim part of a pantheon according to the Hebrews (Torah) or Canaanites (Ugarit)?
“The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly – a pantheon – of other gods ” (p. 11 Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible).
Was he part of a pantheon according to the Hebrews (Torah) or Canaanites (Ugarit)?
Remember, the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament!
Mr. He iseris obsessed with this unbiblical concept of a pantheon of other gods and inserts them as either the main topic or the sub-topic throughout his writings. That is why many see him as The spokesman for the divine council, the Mormon Church is certainly happy, even if he does not agree with some of their points.
Heiser asks, “ Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8-9 and Psalm 82 ?”(specifically this writing from logos software and numerous other books)
He continues by telling us of this divine council in nearly all his writings. In “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God” the divine council is mentioned 50 times. “Divine Council” is mentioned 22 times. “Divine Council,” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, it is mentioned well over 50 times. 13 times in “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 32:8-9 and Psalm 82?” “Does Deuteronomy 32.17 Assume or Deny the Reality of other Gods?” it is mentioned 3 times. “Old Testament Godhead Language,” Faithlife Study Bible” mentioned 5 times. “Co-regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism,” mentioned 32 times. Mentioned 20 times in “Does Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible Demonstrate an Evolution from Polytheism to Monotheism in Israelite Religion?” “The Unseen Realm” mentioned 65 times. In his book “The divine council in late canonical and non-canonical second temple Jewish literature,” it is mentioned over 410 times.
Biblically, to be divine means you have the same nature of deity (YHWH), of God Himself.
It becomes apparent to those who think biblically that these gods (divine beings) of whom Heiser claims are Elohim and that are a separate ‘species’ called sons of God, are not divine gods at all, but are only called gods by men who believe them to be. Those who think in the light of biblical context, see in reality that these so-called gods are always called false gods by the one and only true God of Israel.
Again Jer. 10:10-11 “But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. … Thus you shall say to them: " The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens .”
God is telling Jeremiah that only he is God, These imaginary gods will perish, every one of them, none will be rescued (Heiser says in the end, when we are transformed we will join their council of gods). This passage along with many others; affirm that God is saying that there are ‘no other gods!’ The qualification is stated in Deut. 4:39: “ that the LORD (YHWH) Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.”
Which in the following he admits, “Simply stated, these passages assert that there is no other Deity besides Yahweh. He is the only true God; all the other elohim have contingent existence and power, were created, and are not omnipotent or omniscient.” (Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God, p.69)
The problem here is that Heiser yet again contradicts himself, because now the same Elohim he calls deity ( a word not often used by him in his writings) says there are no other gods!
He will not submit to the overwhelming amount of biblical scripture that disproves, refutes and exposes the fallacy of his divine council fairytale. Which is bringing great confusion to Gods Word.
What does God have to say about all of this?
YHWH, says there are no others besides Him as the TRUE Elohim. Therefore, when Elohim is used for other gods, it is being used to say that they are not true gods, they are simply false gods created by men to be gods. Heiser is wrong that God created other gods, The Bible loudly proclaims that there is only one true God, and we are to believe what is written.
Regardless of what Heiser says about men not worshipping or serving these gods, the True God who describes Himself in Deut. 6:4 states in v.14 “Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples that are round about you; for YHWH your Elohim in the midst of you is a jealous God” (Deut.11:28; 13:3; Jer.25:6). God in the role of Israel’s husband warned Israel not to become as an adulterous wife playing with the other gods of the nations.
Heiser is using pagan writings, the enemies of Israel to interpret the Hebrew Scripture which is not only backwards but also is convoluted. He is reimagining and changing biblical history. What Heiser wants us to believe is not true and does not stand up to the biblical record, that not only claims to be ‘the truth, but has proven itself to be the truth.
We read, Israel worshiped gods they knew not Jer.19:3, so if El and Elohim are names found in pagan writings, they would not be the same God as the God of Israel, even if El nor Elohim are stated.
All polytheistic gods are false gods, the God of Israel stands alone, He alone is the one and only true Elohim, YHWH.
We read, Israel worshiped gods they knew not Jer.19:3, so if called El and Elohim are names found in pagan writings they would not be the same God as Israel in any way.
Israel was not to worship or serve the gods of any of the nations, furthermore, the customs of these cultures were forbidden for Israel to practice. God even said, “ You shall not make mention of the name of their gods” (Josh. 23:7). Lest they begin to think further on them and become attracted, for the nations surrounding them were seductive and had great influence.
Through Paul, the New Testament made this clear to the Gentiles, saying Gal. 4:8-9 “ when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God.”
In other words, these are not gods by nature, but yet they were called gods by the people and nations. Then Paul says, “but now that ye have come to know God.”
How? By studying their ancient pagan religious teachings about other gods in order to understand the Bible? NO! of course not, but rather by the truth of God’s Word itself, that teaches us about God, how to know God, and how to rightly live and serve the only true and living God of Israel.
YHWH Elohim instructs in Deut. 4:1-2 “ Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you “ You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it , that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you .”
Heiser proposes, “Israel derived their understanding of the Godhead from their version of the divine council, or pantheon (i.e., God and His heavenly host), and the binitarian (two persons) language used for Yahweh and other figures that the OT writers identify so closely with Yahweh that they are inseparable, yet distinct.” (Michael S. Heiser, “Old Testament Godhead Language,” Faithlife Study Bible)
Israel did not get their understanding of God from a divine council of gods, through a pagan culture, a teaching that is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures? Again Deut 6:4 was Israels religious anthem. This passage uses the Hebrew word for one, which is the Hebrew word echad. In the Old Testament this word is used as a compound one, not a strict numeral one. We find this definition from the very beginning in Gn. 1:5 the combination of evening and morning is a unit, echad, is one day.”
The following is stated by Heiser in many different books, in many different ways,
“ The closest parallel to Israel’s (and therefore the OT‘s) conception of the assembly of the heavenly host under the authority of Yahweh is the divine council of Ugarit.” … “ Orthodox Yahwism replaced the co-regent slot that Baal occupied with a sort of binitarian Godhead, in which Yahweh occupied both slots. The OT in fact describes Yahweh with titles and abilities that Canaanite literature attributes to both El and Baal. Israelites thus fused El and Baal in their worship of Yahweh—a literary and theological strategy that asserted Yahweh’s superiority over the two main divine authority figures in wider Canaanite religion .” (Old Testament Godhead Language, Michael Heiser)
Did they need to do this? Yahweh does not find His origin in the Canaanites religion. Nor did Israel take the pagan gods and make Yahweh out of them. Facts are facts! Yahweh had nothing to do with Baal. Baal is all about idolatry and human sacrifice. The Biblical monotheism brought to Moses, Moses learned from Yahweh Himself, directly, it was God Himself, giving revelation to man.
The Canaanites are mentioned over 55 times in Scripture, not to mention all the other nations that were idolaters. Even hundreds of years later we read in Ezra 9:1-2 “ When these things were done, the leaders came to me, saying, "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, with respect to the abominations of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.”
Israel was always in danger of myths, traditions, and the ways of other cultures becoming an influence into their way of life that was to be strictly under God. So why then, is Mr. Heiser leading the church back to very same things God told Israel to separate from, myths of the Canaanites and others? Israel was warned consistently of the Canaanites whom God was taking their land away from because of their abominations.
The criteria for consistency is when you make a statement that is true, you continually say that truth. But if you then proceed to bring error into the same statement, the error itself will eventually override the truth that was in your original statement.
In view of that, I would say that Heiser is either confused or that he is intentionally using the truth to validate his error.
He claims that by learning about paganisms view of their gods, that he has learned about the Hebrews more fully, accurately. This is how he learned and formulated his view of the Scripture, which in reality goes against everything Gods Word says. Very few things Heiser concludes concerning this matter is based purely on biblical truth and is rather, more a denial of the truth of God’s Word.
Heiser’s position is that the better or even correct understanding of the biblical text is only dependent upon these extra-biblical writings. Unless we read the biblical text in the light of the non-biblical writings, we will not come to an accurate understanding and meaning of its words; that is what he wants us to believe. He wants us to believe that the Bible promotes true gods as in Polytheism, he wants us to believe there is more than one God. But this one is greater than the other gods.
He states “Yahweh is described in the Hebrew Bible by means of titles and abilities that both El and Baal have in Canaanite literature—these two were conceptually fused in Yahweh . This literary and theological device shows Yahweh superior to the two main divine authority figures in wider Canaanite religion. ” (Michael S. Heiser, “Divine Council,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary)
Even if one were to concede that Hebrew is a possible derivative of or a parallel language of Ugarit, it doesn’t mean that Israel who spoke a similar language transferred what the pagans believed about their god[s] into something that the Hebrews synthesized to be from their God.
Heiser, who is supposed to be a scholar takes a Hebrew inferior position, But the Bible speaks of direct revelation given by God directly to Moses and others after him, revealing who He is, and had it written of how he wants mankind to live according to His Word. Moses was given the 10 commandments; and 603 other commands. Even though we find some similarity from centuries prior on certain topics, it is because of the moral code that God built within mankind, as we were made in Gods image. For example Gods law states, not to murder. This does not mean, that this was taken from another culture.
Approaching
this as strictly an academic exercise, one might come to this
erroneous conclusion, but to believe Gods Word is a revelation of
Himself through the writers that He chose for each time period,
including up to and through the New Testament revelation; one could
never on his own, entertain the philosophical beliefs that Heiser has
come to believe in these areas without denying Scripture as a
revelation from God.”
+++
Now this Protestant writer with
much wisdom uses scripture to point out what is obvious to anyone
familiar with scripture and how that interpretation of scripture
applied to the long standing beliefs of the Church, which is the
closet she can come to speaking canonically, that is speaking
according to the teachings of the Apostolic Ancient Orthodox Church.
When it comes to the Christian faith, the Church teaches, and has
consistently taught the same revelation of healing salvation from the
cross of Christ to this very moment. Even the pre-hebrew believer,
Job, looked forward to the revelation of the Son of God, saying, “Job
19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall
stand at the latter day upon the earth:
Job
19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in
my flesh shall I see God:” Saint Paul, with his “second temple
mindset” echoed Job saying, “I know whom I have believed, and am
persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto
him against that day.” What does this say of the validity of the
great and wonderful “Divine Council” of fallen angels posing as
Gods to the pagans. Neither the gentile Job, nor the Apostle Paul
spoke in the plural. “I know those in whom I have believed and
plan to join them.” This is literally the lunacy of Heiser's grand
construction.
Heiser's false teaching has led him to attack
the Church and her sacraments, the meaning and function of Christ
Greatest gift to the “megas ecclesia” the Eucharist, and the
efficacy of Baptism and more. In fact, when confronted with his
false teaching about both, I want you to hear in his own voice the
mighty lie he told, and anachronistic fantasy in which he had to
engage to reject the Church's teaching.
How could the Church be “post biblical”? In the real world, outside of Heiser's fantasy, it was the Church that received and taught the Gospel, it was the Apostles of the Church who were given authority to guide her. And the very creation of the Church was witnessed by Jesus on the Cross, in his WORDS, as I related in my video, “The Our Father.” He stated prophetically that he was being tormented by men of the Second Temple Mindset, who he called “the Synagogue of the wicked one” and that in him would be created the Ecclesia, and the Megas Ecclesia, with “patria” (families) in all the “ethnos” (nations.) Instead of finding and learning the church's teaching, Heiser is seen to be one more protestant solascriptura heretic, trying to reinvent the wheel according to his own understanding and interpretations.
Truth
Embracing Absolute Truth
In an age when many people think truth is relative, the knowledge that there is such a thing as absolute truth, is comforting. The freedom that comes with the knowledge that we are able to embrace teachings that are a continuation of an unbroken line dating back to Apostolic times, is liberating. As Orthodox Christians, we are not faced with the troubling task of interpreting the scriptures anew, or deciding moral and dogmatic teachings for ourselves, or trying to make our faith relevant for this age. Rather, we can immerse ourselves in the knowledge that we have embraced the Mind of the Ancient Universal Church.
We haven't had to reinvent the Faith, because we have aligned ourselves with the Church that is both ancient, and relevant for the modern seeker. We know the Church's teachings are not based on the finite mind, or the imagination of our own fallen nature, but the eternal truths that have endured from ancient times.
It is comforting to know the Church has remained true to her inheritance for some two thousand years. It is liberating to know ancient Christian dogmas, ways of worship, and moral teachings, are guiding our lives, just as they have for two thousand years.
Truth is not relative, but is absolute. There is no greater freedom than to be able to receive, as our own, the transcending truth that has made saints, from ancient times. There is no greater freedom than being able to embrace the absolute truth that has transcended time, space, culture, and race. No greater joy than to be counted as belonging to Christ, and having joined ourselves to the very Church He founded.
Love in Christ,
Abbot
Tryphon
+++
Alive in Christ
Dead to the World, but Alive in Christ
We cannot give Christ to others unless we have welcomed Him into the central place in our own heart. We must know and love Christ, personally, before others can see Him in us. When we are willing to sacrifice self for the sake of Christ, and live according to the Gospels, we will become living temples of the Most High, and the whole world will be changed.
The Gospel of Christ is imparted by word and example, and the love of Christ shines forth by our witness. We love and please God by following the commandments, and proclaiming the Good News, is our vocation.
We are not called to minimal holiness, but to a full expression of holiness, and are empowered for this transformed life by the action of the Holy Spirit. God's sanctifying Grace is not merely the absence of evil or sin, but the presence of Divine Love in the soul.
We are called to holiness, for the Scriptures say, “Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).” We were created by God to share in His Divinity, and we will never be completely happy until we have died to self, and been made alive in Christ.
With love in Christ,
Abbot
Tryphon
+++
Saint Paul the Apostle speaking to the
Bishop Timothy, said, “ As I besought thee to abide still at
Ephesus, . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no
other doctrine,
1Ti
1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which
minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:
He
also told him to “refuse profane and old wives' fables, and
exercise thyself unto godliness”
He also admonished him
saying: “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus
Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and
his kingdom;
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2Ti
4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the
work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
And to
the Bishop Titus he said, “For a bishop must be blameless, as the
steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no
striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Tit 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Tit 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Tit 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
Tit 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Tit 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Tit
1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men,
that turn from the truth.
And the Apostle Peter
admonished saying, “ For we have not followed cunningly
devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe
1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we
were with him in the holy mount.
+++
When Jesus took
Peter, James and John to the top of Mount Tabor, and revealed his
glory, “his face shining as the sun, and his cloths white as the
light.” Did Heiser's grand Divine Council show up, or was it the
Glorified Moses and Elijah?
With all of Heiser's references
to the Book of Enoch, he seemed to have missed a major teaching from
that book where God stated to Enoch that his prayers for the fallen
angels was in vain, that no grace or mercy would be extended to them.
Yet, isn't Heiser's entire thesis about “reversing Hermon”?
Isn't it about the restoration of the Divine Council?
It begs the question what exactly is the Divine Council? The Divine Council is real, scriptural and a knowledge held by Christians from the beginning. So what is it? It is not a council of fallen angels, and already that council of fallen angels has been deposed.
So what is the Divine Council? Is there a true Divine Council and a counterfeit?
Location:Psa 89:12 The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name.
"The mountain on which Yahweh dwells in the Hebrew scriptures is known
as ‘the mountain of assembly’ because it is not only his dwelling but
also the place at which the divine council convenes. It is the place at
which he is enthroned among the Cherubim, the Seraphim, the sons of
God, and the rest of the angelic hosts. This dwelling and the meeting
place of the council were depicted in the Ancient Near East as taking
place in tents. The tabernacle built by Moses was seen to be an earthly
copy of the heavenly sanctuary into which he entered atop Mt. Sinai
(Acts 7:38-44; Heb 8:5). In addition to the uncreated glory of Christ
which shines forth, Moses and Elijah, two humans
who have joined the divine council, appear and take counsel with Christ
on the mountain (Matt 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31).
Here is the counterfeit:
The name ‘Hermon’ for this mountain lacks its original
resonance in English, in which it sounds like the much later derived
name ‘Herman.’ It comes, however, from the Hebrew word ‘herem,’ the
same root as the Arabic word ‘haraam.’ This word group means ‘banned,’
‘forbidden,’ or ‘accursed.’ Located in Galilee, in the north, Mt.
Hermon is known to have been a center for pagan worship for as long as
the area has been inhabited by humans. It was considered to be the
sacred mountain on which the council of the gods dwelt, presided over
for much of the history of its usage by Baal.
Tabor and Hermon - The Whole Counsel Blog
In
the celebration of the Feast of the Transfiguration in the Orthodox
Church, much attention is paid to the revelation of Christ’s glory as
uncreated light. This is fitting, as this element of the event and of
the feast became critically important to later doctrinal disputes within
the East and ultimately between East and West. There are, however,
other important elements of the event and feast relating to the
revelation of Jesus as not only Christ but as God which may be all too
quickly passed over as a result of this emphasis. Certain liturgical
elements of the feast and of scriptures telling of the event give clues
to these other elements if they are followed through attentively.
One of these is the repeated quotation of Psalm 89:12 (88:12 in Greek translation), “Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name.” At first glance, this could be written off as just the utilization of a Psalm verse which happens to mention Tabor, the traditional site of the Transfiguration. It might then be noted, however, that the Synoptic Gospels never identify the mountain upon which the Transfiguration takes place, despite the strong and ancient tradition of its location. In fact, the placement of the event in the Synoptic Gospels rather implies a different location. St. Peter refers to this location as simply “the holy mountain” (2 Pet 1:18), connecting it to the larger tradition of the mountain which is God’s home, ‘har moad’ or ‘the mountain of assembly.’
The mountain on which Yahweh dwells in the Hebrew scriptures is known as ‘the mountain of assembly’ because it is not only his dwelling but also the place at which the divine council convenes. It is the place at which he is enthroned among the Cherubim, the Seraphim, the sons of God, and the rest of the angelic hosts. This dwelling and the meeting place of the council were depicted in the Ancient Near East as taking place in tents. The tabernacle built by Moses was seen to be an earthly copy of the heavenly sanctuary into which he entered atop Mt. Sinai (Acts 7:38-44; Heb 8:5). In addition to the uncreated glory of Christ which shines forth, Moses and Elijah, two humans who have joined the divine council, appear and take counsel with Christ on the mountain (Matt 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31). It is this understanding that triggers St. Peter’s suggestion that tents be built for Christ and for Moses and for Elijah. That statement is also, however, a misunderstanding of the relationship between Christ’s identity, which St. Peter understands, and the work he is about to do, which as yet St. Peter does not, much as he misunderstood the need of the Messiah to die and rise again in the immediately preceding episode. Even in his later ministry, however, St. Peter understood this experience to be parallel to that of Moses, initiating he and his fellow apostles in a prophetic ministry (2 Pet 1:19-21).
While no location is given for the mountain in the Synoptic description of the event of the Transfiguration, St. Mark places this event immediately after St. Peter’s confession of Christ which takes place in the district of Caesarea Philippi. Ss. Matthew and Luke also follow this order. Mt. Tabor is not in this district. This might seem to cause a problem unless one understands the fourfold Gospel tradition. Eusebius of Caesarea, with regard to this question, cites Papias as saying that St. Mark set down the teaching of St. Peter regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but not in order (Ecc. Hist. 3.39.15). It is for this reason that traditionally, in liturgical and other matters, the Orthodox Church has followed St. John’s three-year chronology of the Lord’s ministry as normative. Aside from the overall arc from Christ’s birth and baptism to his death and resurrection, the Synoptic Gospels arrange Christ’s teaching and the acts of his ministry in a theological way to connect particular teachings with particular events, bring certain pieces of teaching together or connect various events to each other. The Gospels, St. John’s included, are not attempting to present photographs or newsreel accounts of Christ’s ministry. Rather, they are painting portraits of Christ with differing emphases and theological points being made.
By describing this event immediately after St. Peter’s confession near Caesarea Philippi and not naming Mt. Tabor, St. Mark implies a connection between this event and the mountain in that region, Mt. Hermon. The name ‘Hermon’ for this mountain lacks its original resonance in English, in which it sounds like the much later derived name ‘Herman.’ It comes, however, from the Hebrew word ‘herem,’ the same root as the Arabic word ‘haraam.’ This word group means ‘banned,’ ‘forbidden,’ or ‘accursed.’ Located in Galilee, in the north, Mt. Hermon is known to have been a center for pagan worship for as long as the area has been inhabited by humans. It was considered to be the sacred mountain on which the council of the gods dwelt, presided over for much of the history of its usage by Baal. First Enoch 6 posits that the wickedness of this place goes back even farther, to before the flood, and posits this as the location where the rebel angelic beings who corrupted mankind and produced the giant clans descended and swore their oath to destroy the works of Yahweh.
The earliest references to the god who dwelt on this mountain, from which flowed the spring which forms a tributary of the Jordan river, are to Baal-Gad or Baal-Hermon. Connected with these Baal traditions, in addition to him and the council of gods dwelling atop the mountain, the cave from which the spring flowed was believed to be a gateway to Sheol, the underworld, which Baal was also thought to rule. After the conquest of Alexander the Great, the cave and its surroundings were rededicated as Panias, a place of worship to the god Pan and the water nymphs. Over time, the temple to Pan became a major religious attraction. Herod the Great expanded the temple at his own expense and his son Philip the Tetrarch built Caesarea Philippi there as his capital in 3 BC. It is known to this day by the Arabic name Banias. It is also worth noting that Christ’s response to St. Peter’s confession, regarding the gates of Hades being unable to prevail against the church, is spoken within view of this cave and temple complex (Matt 16:18).
By the literary technique here employed, the Synoptic Gospels bring together Tabor and Hermon in a subtle way, thereby directing us to Psalm 89 (88). The Orthodox Church’s liturgical use of this Psalm is based on following this interpretive trajectory. This Psalm moves through three phases which interpret the event of the Transfiguration. It begins by praising Yahweh as being greater than all other beings worshipped as gods, far above the rest of his heavenly council (v. 5-8). It continues by directly ascribing to Yahweh traditional language surrounding Baal. It is Yahweh who has defeated and subdued Yam, the chaotic seas (v. 8). He is said to have crushed Rahav, a primordial chaos monster (v. 10) and both the heavens and the underworld are said to belong to him (v. 11). It is in this context, that Baal is a mere pretender and Yahweh is God Most High, that it is said that both Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in his name, Yahweh (v. 12).
The Psalm then turns to speak of the covenant with David which would produce the Messiah. It on one hand clearly speaks of David himself and his literal physical descendants (v. 19-20, 29-34). Within the same context, however, it also uses divine terminology to identify this Messianic figure as the Divine Son (v. 26). It speaks of him being seated upon an eternal throne (v. 29, 36-37; compare Dan 7:9-14). To further reinforce this divine enthronement imagery, it is said that the Messiah’s hand will be set on the sea (Yam) and his right hand on the rivers (Naharim), the two enemies defeated by Baal before his enthronement by his father El. As in Daniel, this Psalm sees El and Baal as pretenders to the true throne of Yahweh the Most High God and the Divine Son who is also Yahweh, and who will be enthroned following his own victory. This Psalm, among other texts, was understood in a vast swathe of Second Temple Jewish literature to indicate that the Son of Man, the second person of Yahweh, is also the Messiah, the son of David.
The final portion of Psalm 89 (88) describes a radical inversion of expectations, however. Rather than describing the victory which will be won by the Messiah leading to his enthronement forever, it instead described the crushing defeat, humiliation, and death of the Messiah (v. 38-51). Rather than the language of one chosen and exalted by Yahweh, all of the language of the Psalm reflects one who is under a curse and defeated. This defeat, however, is not the end of the story. The Psalm in its entirety returns from the end to the very beginning (v. 1-4), with the hopeful cry that the Messiah will be vindicated from this death and shame. It is after this seeming defeat that the Messiah emerges victorious and comes to sit upon the divine throne as the faithful witness in heaven (v. 37; Rev 1:5).
Within the event of the Transfiguration, therefore, Christ reveals
not only his identity but his destiny. The Spirit had already revealed
to St. Peter and he had confessed Jesus as Messiah. He had failed to
understand, however, that the Messiah must suffer and die and only then
enter into his glory. On the mountain, Christ is revealed to be the
incarnate God the Son, the true Son of God, over against all false gods
and rebellious sons in the spiritual realm. Through Psalm 89 (88) it
can be seen that this identity also means that Jesus Christ will suffer
and die and so it anticipates his crucifixion. It is also the moment at
which Christ throws down the gauntlet to his enemies in the spiritual
world, even as he prepares to go to Jerusalem to challenge the human
authorities. As the Psalm prophecies, those enemies will mistakenly
think that they have won a great victory (v. 42-45, 50-51), only to face
utter destruction themselves (Col 2:15).
This is the church where Michael Heiser runs their "ministry training program" and apparently where he attends "worship services." It is a mega-church business called "Celebration Church" in Jacksonville, Florida.
XXX
Celebration Church releases investigation into founding pastor accused of fraud
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Celebration Church of Jacksonville released a report on Sunday about the investigation into the questionable financial practices of former pastor and founder Stovall Weems and his wife Kerri Weems.
The church board of trustees authorized an investigation into allegations against the Weems’ in January 2022. Stovall and Kerri were suspended from the church and later Stovall resigned.
PREVIOUS STORY: Pastor resigns amid lawsuit with Celebration Church
The investigation included an analysis of thousands of pages of documents and over 20 interviews with current and former church members, referred to as witnesses in the report.
The report states Stovall was frequently described as a narcissist by witnesses. They say he belittled and humiliated them and both Stovall and Kerri demanded others to serve them.
The report goes on to say that Stovall had frequent unfinished “big ideas” and when employees presented issues with the plans he would remove them from the decision-making process, calling them “dream killers.”
Stovall and Kerri also lived a lavish lifestyle, according to the report. This includes taking private charter flights to exotic vacations and having private assistants for every demand, which accounted for 10% of the church’s total revenue, the report says.
In February 2021, Weems Group, managed by Stovall, purchased a home for $855,000. Four months later, The Weems Group sold it to the church for $1,286,863.30 which is 50% more than the Weems Group had paid.
This increased the church’s debt by $1,300,000, according to the report.
In April 2021 the church was approved for a PPP Loan in the amount of $1,106,400 for permitted expenditures such as maintaining payroll.
The report states that Stovall made the decision to transfer the funds to the account of Honey Lake Farms, one of the entities he owned, as well as the church’s Missions account. In addition, he directed $500,000 of the PPP loan to be invested into TurnCoin.
None of these decisions were permitted expenditures, the report confirmed. The church’s debt was increased by more than $1 million as a result.
The church accused Stovall of fraudulent mischaracterization and cancellation of Honey Lake Farms’ debt. In August 2021, Stovall sought out a loan from the First Citizens Bank on behalf of Honey Lake Farms.
In order to increase the likelihood of the loan’s approval, Stovall manipulated Honey Lake Farms’ financial statements and directed accountants to write off the church’s debt. This was done without authorization from the board, the report states.
STORY: ‘We’re all shaken up by it’: Businesses and patrons concerned after shooting erupts on streets
There was also alleged misappropriation of church funds under the Weems’ leadership. AWKNG, one of the entities that Stovall owned, received $29,486.75 in church donations designated for mission trips.
After AWKNG shut down it refused to transfer the funds to the church.
Stovall also directed the church to switch from PNC Bank to First Citizens Bank without regard to possible consequences. The move resulted in a decrease in the church’s credit card limit and later the church’s credit line was revoked, leaving the church to rely on cash-only.
The report says Weems owes nearly $3.4 million dollars in misappropriated funds. Weems filed a lawsuit against the church earlier this year. In it, he claimed financial misconduct by a member of the church’s board of trustees.
Action News Jax has reached out to Stovall Weems for a statement and we are waiting to hear back.
Read the full report of the investigation of Celebration Church of Jacksonville below:
Courtesy Cox Media Group
XXX
Comments
Post a Comment