Thoughts on Heiser's views of demons, divine council, etc?

[presidente]

Michael Heiser wrote a book entitled _The Unseen Realm_. He takes some views from Old Testament scholarship and looks at them through the lens of an evangelical with some particular emphases of his own. I am familiar with his ideas from some of his videos rather than the book.

Heiser believes that the nations were divided 'according to the number of the sons of God' in Deuteronomy 32. He has a paper arguing that the Hebrew most likely said that originally, which is more along the lines of the Septuagint... instead of 'the sons of Israel.' His understanding is that the nations were entrusted to the sons of God after the events of the tower of Babel, with the 'table of nations' in that passage being divided among these sons of God.

Heiser's theory goes like this-- that there were beings many people loosely call 'angels'-- though he sees that as a particular role not a type of entity--referred to as 'sons of God' in Job and Genesis 6. Some or all of these beings are members of a divine council. The head of the divine council was the Angel of the Lord, a preincarnate manifestation of Christ. He has a paper on the idea of the 'second Yahweh' belief of some second-temple-period Jews, that the angel of the Lord in the burning bush was a manifestation of Yahweh. It is one way to interpret the language in this and other passages.

In Psalms 82, the 'ye are gods' passage, Heiser interprets the passage to refer to sons of God, members of the divine council, and takes the passage to be directed at them, as opposed to human judges.

So the idea is that God delivered up the other nations to the sons of God after Babel and chose Abraham and the nation of Israel as his inheritance. Then, after these beings were not just with the populations they were entrusted with, in Psalm 82, we see that the LORD told them that he would inherit the nations and decreed judgment on them. The promise to Abraham was that all nations of the world would be blessed through him. The New Testament calls him the heir of the world. So the idea is that the nations are now promised to the Messiah-- '...ask of me and I will make the nations thine inheritance.' So now, God will inherit the nations, which He does through Christ. The are joint heirs with Christ.

My understanding is that Heiser considers these sons of God or elim or members of the divine council to be the 'principalities and powers' that war against the church.

It is an interesting perspective since John 1 says that to them that believe, the Word gives power to become the sons of God. If we are unseating the previous administration of 'sons of God', I could see how they might be displeased.

Heiser also draws from Canaanite literature from the perspective that israelites reading these passages would have understood them through the cultural lens of the day. In Ugaritic pagan religion, El was the head of the pantheon, but he had a deputy, Baal, who served under him, and there were 70 sons of Baal. This kind of stuff is a bit uncomfortable for me, and was studying Old Testament in a religion department in a state university. We have to be careful with that sort of thing. Also, Ugarit dig materials were written many centuries before most of what we read in the Bible was written.

Heiser has some views about what 'Satan' means that differ a bit from traditional interpretations. Some people who read Heiser seem not only interested in these peculiarities, but it seems that for some of them, the idea that there are actual spiritual entities behind idols and what people worship as gods is a very surprising nothing. I think he is gaining popularity with evangelicals whose churches just ignore traditional teachings on demonology. But I would like to focus on the 'sons of God' ideas that he has and Psalm 82 in this thread. What do you think of his interpretation of that passage?

 

[Dino246]

I have listened to many hours of his "The Naked Bible" podcast series, and I'm halfway through reading The Unseen Realm. So far, I find his ideas to be biblically sound, credible, coherent, and holding significant explanatory power.

Regarding the "sons of God" in Psalm 82 specifically, it's redundant to say to a bunch of human judges, "You shall die like men." However, if God is actually talking to nonhuman entities who have rebelled against Him, it is a powerful statement of condemnation.

 

[KingdomBrat]

According to what can be discovered by reading the Tanakh, there are 7 [seven] specific Divine Councils.

To the non trinitarian Hebrews, I've been personally told by a Rabbi that to this day, the Jews believe Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: is God discussing the Creation of mankind with "members" to 1 of His 7 Councils during [Creation].

 

[Nehemiah6]

My understanding is that Heiser considers these sons of God or elim or members of the divine council to be the 'principalities and powers' that war against the church.

I am not familiar with Heiser, but he is either confused or promoting spiritual confusion. The "divine council" consists of the Father, the Son (or the Word), and the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:7). Angelic beings are quite separate, and "the Angel of the LORD" is a specific designation for the pre-incarnate Christ.

 

[oyster67]

I can't find any of this "Heiser Hooplah" in my Bible. Sounds like strange corn to me. Reminds me of the Scofield shananigan.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Michael Heiser wrote a book entitled _The Unseen Realm_. He takes some views from Old Testament scholarship and looks at them through the lens of an evangelical with some particular emphases of his own. I am familiar with his ideas from some of his videos rather than the book.

Heiser believes that the nations were divided 'according to the number of the sons of God' in Deuteronomy 32. He has a paper arguing that the Hebrew most likely said that originally, which is more along the lines of the Septuagint... instead of 'the sons of Israel.' His understanding is that the nations were entrusted to the sons of God after the events of the tower of Babel, with the 'table of nations' in that passage being divided among these sons of God.

Heiser's theory goes like this-- that there were beings many people loosely call 'angels'-- though he sees that as a particular role not a type of entity--referred to as 'sons of God' in Job and Genesis 6. Some or all of these beings are members of a divine council. The head of the divine council was the Angel of the Lord, a preincarnate manifestation of Christ. He has a paper on the idea of the 'second Yahweh' belief of some second-temple-period Jews, that the angel of the Lord in the burning bush was a manifestation of Yahweh. It is one way to interpret the language in this and other passages.

In Psalms 82, the 'ye are gods' passage, Heiser interprets the passage to refer to sons of God, members of the divine council, and takes the passage to be directed at them, as opposed to human judges.

So the idea is that God delivered up the other nations to the sons of God after Babel and chose Abraham and the nation of Israel as his inheritance. Then, after these beings were not just with the populations they were entrusted with, in Psalm 82, we see that the LORD told them that he would inherit the nations and decreed judgment on them. The promise to Abraham was that all nations of the world would be blessed through him. The New Testament calls him the heir of the world. So the idea is that the nations are now promised to the Messiah-- '...ask of me and I will make the nations thine inheritance.' So now, God will inherit the nations, which He does through Christ. The are joint heirs with Christ.

My understanding is that Heiser considers these sons of God or elim or members of the divine council to be the 'principalities and powers' that war against the church.

It is an interesting perspective since John 1 says that to them that believe, the Word gives power to become the sons of God. If we are unseating the previous administration of 'sons of God', I could see how they might be displeased.

Heiser also draws from Canaanite literature from the perspective that israelites reading these passages would have understood them through the cultural lens of the day. In Ugaritic pagan religion, El was the head of the pantheon, but he had a deputy, Baal, who served under him, and there were 70 sons of Baal. This kind of stuff is a bit uncomfortable for me, and was studying Old Testament in a religion department in a state university. We have to be careful with that sort of thing. Also, Ugarit dig materials were written many centuries before most of what we read in the Bible was written.

Heiser has some views about what 'Satan' means that differ a bit from traditional interpretations. Some people who read Heiser seem not only interested in these peculiarities, but it seems that for some of them, the idea that there are actual spiritual entities behind idols and what people worship as gods is a very surprising nothing. I think he is gaining popularity with evangelicals whose churches just ignore traditional teachings on demonology. But I would like to focus on the 'sons of God' ideas that he has and Psalm 82 in this thread. What do you think of his interpretation of that passage?

this was really
An interesting read thanks for taking the time to post
It’s good to start with the context and text of the single verse

“God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭82:1-8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

and then look for topical similarities or quotes of those berses in the nt , to
Possibly gain a bit more insight or see in a bit more light

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”
‭‭John‬ ‭10:34-36‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The sons of God are Men , he made us like him in the beginning made us to live with him in his presence and not die .

then he gave man one command “ do
Not eat this fruit or you will die “ we are the fruit and death passed upon us as a whole mankind was not created to die , we caused it by transgressing the commandment “ Thou shalt not or you will surely die “ once you transgress that command Gods word guarantees your death.

“ I have called ye gods but ye shall die like men “

the gospel promises to reconcile
Mankind back to the beginning when we were created to live forever , before they chose death for mankind

“ God is frustrated because mans state is like this

ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

because mankind’s judgement is so terrible and the world sonderkenednin understanding everything is out of order in the earth

We sin and die because we will not hear Gods word , “ those to whom the word of God came “ he called them gods

 

[Pilgrimshope]

“Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭82:8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

this would be the solution and a reference to the messiah notice the big G it’s the difference in God and those made in the image of God his children

Christ is God in the flesh , it’s a reference to him coming manifest as the son which is because of the doctrine here of “inheritance “ the children inherit , the Son inherits all things , and by heaven includes the children who come to God through his judgements

“arise o God judge the earth “

“Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭51:4‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son psalm 2)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5:22, 24‬ ‭

Men lost judgement because we followed satans lies instead lf
gods truth since the beginning . Gods will was that we lived but we rejected his word that warned us and death came as a result of the commandment

 

[presidente]

According to what can be discovered by reading the Tanakh, there are 7 [seven] specific Divine Councils.

To the non trinitarian Hebrews, I've been personally told by a Rabbi that to this day, the Jews believe Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: is God discussing the Creation of mankind with "members" to 1 of His 7 Councils during [Creation].

When I was in college, a Jewish classmate told me 'Where there are four Jews, there are five opinions." Another Jewish person corrected me when I repeated that and said the saying is, "Where there are two Jews, there are three opinions." I think the fact that she disagreed illustrated the point.

My guess is that it would be inaccurate to say that all Jews agreed with that interpretation of that verse. This site shows that there are multiple opinions within Judaism. https://www.aish.com/atr/Let-Us-Make-Man.html


I did hear that idea in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible class in college.

 

[presidente]

I have listened to many hours of his "The Naked Bible" podcast series, and I'm halfway through reading The Unseen Realm. So far, I find his ideas to be biblically sound, credible, coherent, and holding significant explanatory power.

Regarding the "sons of God" in Psalm 82 specifically, it's redundant to say to a bunch of human judges, "You shall die like men." However, if God is actually talking to nonhuman entities who have rebelled against Him, it is a powerful statement of condemnation.

It does not seem explicit in the Bible that the 'sons of God' were ruling over the 70 nations that emerged after the events at Babel. This seems to be fill-in-the-blank guesswork. The version of Deuteronomy 32 that Heiser argues for does not quite say that, though one might infer it. The reliance on pagan and intertestamental writings is a little bit of a concern for me. On the other hand, the theory does fit together well with some of the themes in the Old and New Testaments. Heiser's teaching on the work of pre-incarnate Christ in the Old Testament is also interesting and draws on some ancient ideas in Judaism that some in the early church held to also.

 

[Dino246]

It does not seem explicit in the Bible that the 'sons of God' were ruling over the 70 nations that emerged after the events at Babel. This seems to be fill-in-the-blank guesswork. The version of Deuteronomy 32 that Heiser argues for does not quite say that, though one might infer it. The reliance on pagan and intertestamental writings is a little bit of a concern for me. On the other hand, the theory does fit together well with some of the themes in the Old and New Testaments. Heiser's teaching on the work of pre-incarnate Christ in the Old Testament is also interesting and draws on some ancient ideas in Judaism that some in the early church held to also.

Heiser makes a valid point in favour of "the sons of God" in Deuteronomy 32, rather than "the sons of Israel": the sons of Israel did not exist when the nations were divided at Babel. Israel didn't even exist, so "the sons of Israel" would be anachronistic. An ancient writer would have no reason to infer that a much later reality informs an earlier situation.

I wouldn't agree that Heiser "relies" on non-biblical writings; rather, as a Semitics scholar, he is allowing non-biblical literature to provide contextual clues that inform our understanding of Scripture.

 

[presidente]

Heiser makes a valid point in favour of "the sons of God" in Deuteronomy 32, rather than "the sons of Israel": the sons of Israel did not exist when the nations were divided at Babel. Israel didn't even exist, so "the sons of Israel" would be anachronistic. An ancient writer would have no reason to infer that a much later reality informs an earlier situation.

I wouldn't agree that Heiser "relies" on non-biblical writings; rather, as a Semitics scholar, he is allowing non-biblical literature to provide contextual clues that inform our understanding of Scripture.

Dividing according to the number of the angels and giving rulership are two different things, aren't they. I do not recall a linguistic argument from Heiser that they are the same in the treatment of the passage.

Also, I know of no passage which indicates that these beings were worshipped. Maybe 'Satan' if we take the 'God of this world' passage in the New Testament and assume that the Satan of Job was one of the 'sons of God' when he appeared before God with them. But I get the impression that Heiser thinks this spirit was a Satan, an opposed, like other references to the word like the angel that opposed Job or 'the angel of the Lord' who afflicted Jerusalem after the census.

In Deuteronomy 32 the Israelite are warned about worshiping newcomer territorial spirits, shedim', that their fathers did not know.

One question is how did or do these angelic type beings influence nations to judge them. If they were the national gods that might influence through pagan priests having experiences or through pagan prophets. If the shedim are the national gods of the heathen, would they be the ones doing such things and leading people into idolatry? And do the angelic beings lead the demons. Is their influence more subtle than that?

There is not much of a case in Heiser's view, as I understand it, for a hierarchy of the evil realm with one Devil in charge in the OT, though the NT says Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. That is not an outright contradiction.

Heiser might take issue with using 'angels' to describe the beings in Deuteronomy 32 rather than 'sons of God's but I was going with the LXX.

 

[KingdomBrat]

When I was in college, a Jewish classmate told me 'Where there are four Jews, there are five opinions." Another Jewish person corrected me when I repeated that and said the saying is, "Where there are two Jews, there are three opinions." I think the fact that she disagreed illustrated the point.

My guess is that it would be inaccurate to say that all Jews agreed with that interpretation of that verse. This site shows that there are multiple opinions within Judaism. https://www.aish.com/atr/Let-Us-Make-Man.html


I did hear that idea in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible class in college.

The [Verse] is found in a Collection they claim from God.

A personal opinion of a Jew and their opinion has nothing to do with how they defined Elohim. They use Exodus Burning Bush when Yahweh [Yeshua] [I AM] [Elohim} spoke to Moses. They use the correct Hebrew word for Elohim in a [SINGULAR] meaning.

Elohim, singular Eloah, (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. ... When referring to Yahweh, elohim very often is accompanied by the article ha-, to mean, in combination, “the God,” and sometimes with a further identification Elohim ḥayyim, meaning “the living God.”

Elohim | Hebrew god | Britannica

 

[Dino246]

Dividing according to the number of the angels and giving rulership are two different things, aren't they. I do not recall a linguistic argument from Heiser that they are the same in the treatment of the passage.

Also, I know of no passage which indicates that these beings were worshipped. Maybe 'Satan' if we take the 'God of this world' passage in the New Testament and assume that the Satan of Job was one of the 'sons of God' when he appeared before God with them. But I get the impression that Heiser thinks this spirit was a Satan, an opposed, like other references to the word like the angel that opposed Job or 'the angel of the Lord' who afflicted Jerusalem after the census.

In Deuteronomy 32 the Israelite are warned about worshiping newcomer territorial spirits, shedim', that their fathers did not know.

One question is how did or do these angelic type beings influence nations to judge them. If they were the national gods that might influence through pagan priests having experiences or through pagan prophets. If the shedim are the national gods of the heathen, would they be the ones doing such things and leading people into idolatry? And do the angelic beings lead the demons. Is their influence more subtle than that?

There is not much of a case in Heiser's view, as I understand it, for a hierarchy of the evil realm with one Devil in charge in the OT, though the NT says Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. That is not an outright contradiction.

Heiser might take issue with using 'angels' to describe the beings in Deuteronomy 32 rather than 'sons of God's but I was going with the LXX.

I'll just address one point for the moment: Heiser carefully distinguishes "sons of God" from "angels". He is not claiming that God divided the nations according to the number of "angels".

As you admitted in your OP, you have not read Heiser's book. I would encourage you to do so. Otherwise, you run the risk of misrepresenting his ideas. If you're going to disagree publicly with him, at least have the integrity to ensure you are disagreeing with what he actually believes, not with a misunderstanding or caricature thereof.

 

[Dino246]

I am not familiar with Heiser, but he is either confused or promoting spiritual confusion. The "divine council" consists of the Father, the Son (or the Word), and the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:7). Angelic beings are quite separate, and "the Angel of the LORD" is a specific designation for the pre-incarnate Christ.

Heiser is neither confused nor promoting spiritual confusion. Since you take the time to investigate other matters related to Scripture, kindly take the time to understand what Heiser is actually saying, instead of dismissing or slandering him based on hearsay.

 

[presidente]

The [Verse] is found in a Collection they claim from God.

A personal opinion of a Jew and their opinion has nothing to do with how they defined Elohim. They use Exodus Burning Bush when Yahweh [Yeshua] [I AM] [Elohim} spoke to Moses. They use the correct Hebrew word for Elohim in a [SINGULAR] meaning.

Elohim, singular Eloah, (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. ... When referring to Yahweh, elohim very often is accompanied by the article ha-, to mean, in combination, “the God,” and sometimes with a further identification Elohim ḥayyim, meaning “the living God.”

Elohim | Hebrew god | Britannica

The website suggests three audiences that Jews have argued that God was speaking to. I was referring to religious opinions though the saying applies more broadly than that.

 

[presidente]

I'll just address one point for the moment: Heiser carefully distinguishes "sons of God" from "angels". He is not claiming that God divided the nations according to the number of "angels".

I was going with the LXX wording on that. As I recall, Heiser's wording for that passage is reconstructed.

As you admitted in your OP, you have not read Heiser's book. I would encourage you to do so. Otherwise, you run the risk of misrepresenting his ideas. If you're going to disagree publicly with him, at least have the integrity to ensure you are disagreeing with what he actually believes, not with a misunderstanding or caricature thereof.

I have seen a number of his video presentations on this topic and I have read a couple of his scholarly papers. I haven't read that book. I think he has more than one out on the topic. If you haven't seen the videos I have seen or read the papers that I read, could you run the risk of misrepresenting him.

I pointed out that Heiser does not call 'sons of God' angels seeing angel as more of a task-role that such a being might be assigned to. The LXX and New Testament seems to use the Greek from which we derive angel for a certain type of entity, though. For example, 'made him a little lower than the angels....'

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

When I was in college, a Jewish classmate told me 'Where there are four Jews, there are five opinions." Another Jewish person corrected me when I repeated that and said the saying is, "Where there are two Jews, there are three opinions." I think the fact that she disagreed illustrated the point.

My guess is that it would be inaccurate to say that all Jews agreed with that interpretation of that verse. This site shows that there are multiple opinions within Judaism. https://www.aish.com/atr/Let-Us-Make-Man.html


I did hear that idea in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible class in college.

I've heard it like this: " 3 Jews, 10 opinions"
It's one of the many things that makes me first laugh then reflect-
Are we as Christians any doing better than Jews?

Just look at how we argue.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I was going with the LXX wording on that. As I recall, Heiser's wording for that passage is reconstructed.



I have seen a number of his video presentations on this topic and I have read a couple of his scholarly papers. I haven't read that book. I think he has more than one out on the topic. If you haven't seen the videos I have seen or read the papers that I read, could you run the risk of misrepresenting him.

I pointed out that Heiser does not call 'sons of God' angels seeing angel as more of a task-role that such a being might be assigned to. The LXX and New Testament seems to use the Greek from which we derive angel for a certain type of entity, though. For example, 'made him a little lower than the angels....'

Has he touched on the territorial princes mentioned in Daniel 10 at all?
Michael, The prince of Persia & The Prince of Greece.

 

[Magenta]

The head of the divine council was the Angel of the Lord, a preincarnate manifestation of Christ.

My understanding is that Heiser considers these sons of God or elim or members of
the divine council to be the 'principalities and powers' that war against the church.

Christ wars against His church? That doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify

 

[Dino246]

Christ wars against His church? That doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify

In a nutshell, the entities later called "principalities and powers" are the entities that were formerly part of God's divine council, rebelled against God and continue to war against His people and His purposes.