Argh. Bumped the Enter key while I was still working out the edit reason :-(.

Oh... that's actually resolvable. Great.

@curiousdannii I recently finished skimming this book which illustrates perfectly how my interest lies in the consciousness of NT authors, and the book argues how they are heavily influenced by the supernatural reading of the OT mediated by 2nd Temple Jewish writers who in turn continued the worldview of Babylon-exile era Biblical writers themselves.

Thus understanding Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern literature is paramount in correct reading of the OT, which in turn inherited by NT authors. Dr. Michael Heiser is such scholar, and his research focuses on a few neglected concepts that turned out to be KEY. He remains orthodox but necessarily will upset systematic theologians starting from Augustine (!) so his conclusions (if proven) will truly be groundbreaking. Have you read any of his books?

Some reviews: here, here, and here.

@GratefulDisciple I haven't no. What makes it so controversial?

@curiousdannii And about "in our image", he argued that "in" doesn't capture the Hebrew preposition correctly. He concluded: "... Humankind was created as God’s image. If we think of imaging as a verb or function, that translation makes sense. We are created to image God, to be his imagers. It is what we are by definition. The image is not an ability we have, but a status. We are God’s representatives on earth. To be human is to image God...."

The basic thesis of the book is that exegesis should drive theology, not the other way around. When informed by the worldview and polemic motive of writing OT and when his theory makes more sense as a result while staying faithful to Hebrew grammar, contemporary metaphors, and how an OT book informs another (that's why his genre is Biblical Theology), systematic theology has to change. That's the controversy.

But his resulting Biblical theology stays orthodox (i.e. still Trinitarian), although we can no longer associate "Let us make" in Gen 1:26 only to Jesus and the Holy Ghost. This is just one small example. He notices too many interpretation forces theology into "smoothing out" interpretation that at the end produce meanings that are out of sync with the original authors.

I highly recommend the book, if only to make his interpretation a sparring partner to check whether one's theology is faithful to what the Bible says, especially if one is coming from a sola scriptura perspective.

@GratefulDisciple That's not all that noteworthy in my circles I guess. Sounds like some overlap with John Walton

@GratefulDisciple That was never a systematic theology thing IMO. As to the meaning of being made in/as God's image, there's always been such a diversity of thoughts about that.

I did a intensive class with Walton last year. I really like his approach, but think he needs to apply his principles to his own conclusions more ;)

Exegesis should definitely drive theology, the tricky thing is coming to exegetical consensus

@curiousdannii You're right. Looking at John Walton's books some overlap indeed. Is this book a good one to start?

@curiousdannii Yes, Michael Heiser did spend time to pull together many threads into a coherent "system", the central idea being the divine council, two Yahwehs, sons of God behind nations who Christ is redeeming, etc.