The Blind Side

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, Luke 24:45 NASB

Opened – Michael Heiser offers some very important insights into the original biblical authors’ perspectives. He helps us realize that we are constantly seduced into thinking that these men (and women) use words in the same way that we do. His refreshing look at Genesis demonstrates that this ancient material does not come from our view of the world. So when Heiser says, “We shouldn’t create connections where the biblical text doesn’t,”[1] I couldn’t agree more. But apparently Heiser is also the victim of making connections where the text doesn’t for in the same chapter he claims that God had to become a man (the incarnation) in order to accomplish His purposes. In other words, he assumes a Trinitarian perspective and reads it back into the text.

We can see this presupposition in his analysis of this verse from Luke. He writes, “Even after the resurrection the disciples had to have their minds supernaturally opened to see a suffering messiah.” But the Greek text does not demand a supernatural methodology. The Greek verb is dianoigo. It can be translated “to explain, to cause to be opened, to interpret, to expound, to open thoroughly.” It is even used of opening the womb. This does not demand anything supernatural. It only requires a very good teacher. Heiser’s view that Jesus is God colors his interpretation of the text in this place and in others. But as he himself says, we shouldn’t make connections where the text doesn’t, and the text simply does not make a direct connection between the Messiah and the ontological status of YHVH. In fact, Heiser points out that the word “Messiah” is used for many other completely human figures. He’s right. So why does he insist that when the term is applied to Yeshua, it must mean that Yeshua is YHVH?

Jonathan Sacks seems to have the same sort of blindness when it comes to reading Paul. Sacks basically adopts the Church’s view of Paul, that is, that Paul converted to Christianity, rejected Torah, claimed Jesus was divine and started what became Christianity. But none of the Pauline text actually says this. This is Paul as interpreted by the Church. If Sacks read what the text actually says, perhaps he would recognize that Paul is just as much an orthodox Jew as he is.

I’m not pointing out these things to criticize Heiser or Sacks. Both are brilliant men. Both add considerably to our understanding of the Bible. But both are also products of their own assumptions. So am I. The only question is this: “How can we know where our blind spots are?” We all have them. And none of us can really see them—unless someone else points them out to us. So be prepared to have someone say, “But don’t you see?” That is apparently what Yeshua did for the disciples. He helped them tear down those old assumptions and find a new paradigm—a new way of seeing.

Who is tearing down your assumptions?

Topical Index: Michael Heiser, Jonathan Sacks, open, dianoigo, Luke 24:45, blind spots

[1] Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm, p. 243.