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

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.

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?

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].

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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 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....'

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