Chapter 3: Time and Space
Section E: History and Nature
Part 3: Functional Cosmology versus Visual Cosmology
It has been a common assumption that Hebrew cosmology can be interpreted visually. You can find lots of drawings, and they are all wrong. Just as Hebrews never offered a visual of anything else, their concept of cosmology was also non-visual. Any other understanding is reading things back into the Hebrew Scriptures.
For example, there are numerous passages indicating that the Hebrews understood that rain came from clouds, often blowing in off the sea. They also believed that in every case, rain came from the hand of God — references to “windows of Heaven”. That image often refers to any kind of blessing, not just rain. If the Hebrews clearly understand at least some of the mechanics of actual water drops falling from sea clouds, it is patently silly to read their poetic symbolism literally.
Boman notes we cannot guess how much astronomy the Hebrews borrowed from Babylon, but there are too many times and places when the Hebrews also borrowed their cosmological imagery and astrology to express their own confidence in Jehovah. (Boman seems unaware of the idea that Hebrews mocked other religions by recasting their symbols.) But in most Semitic writings, they simply don’t bother to differentiate between symbolism and more literal science. In Babylon, there was no distinction between astronomy and astrology; the physical facts always carried a religious meaning. The Hebrews were no different in their outlook.
The Greeks would see history as part of their study of nature; it was all a matter of sensory observations and making sense of it. The Hebrews reversed that: nature was part of their sense of history. Moral function is everything. God made the world as a place to put man. Boman still stumbles over his precious JEPD theory in trying to explain the development of Hebrew thinking, insisting that there are two creation accounts in Genesis from widely different eras. However, he does note that if you stop trying to read the two creation accounts visually and start thinking about them functionally, they fit together nicely.
Of course, the Hebrew word often translated “heaven” is actually “sky”. It is symbolism quite intentionally. Boman notes that any mention of “heaven” as God’s residence doesn’t mean eternity. Heaven is also subject to removal when this world has run its course. I have said before that “heaven” refers to a temporary accommodation where God camps out as long as this world exists. It’s not here, but it’s also not Eternity proper.
Then again, when you read that God will dwell among His people, it’s a moral proximity, not physical, much the same as when we read that He is in the Temple. Most common attempts by church scholars to portray a visual cosmology of the Bible are actually an injection of something like Medieval cosmology. It’s not particularly Greek and certainly not Hebrew.
I would say that even Heiser’s image of Hebrew cosmology is a mistake.
“Heaven is also subject to removal when this world has run its course.”
The Matthew verse about heaven and earth passing away comes to mind.
There’s that one verse in Isaiah that mentions the “circle” of the earth, that I’ve read as evidence that the ANE Hebrews knew the Earth was round. I have my reservations about that idea, because I don’t think they knew one way or another, or even bothered with the question. Assuming they did think the earth was round(ish), mentioning a “circle” was probably symbolic, as in, it’s the stage or arena (with boundaries) where human activity took place, or some such.
Agreed. Most of what we have been taught as important considerations about our existence were not countered in the Bible, but simply not considered at all. The Hebrews honestly didn’t care, didn’t wonder about such things. They were consumed with moral questions.