A Biblical Critique of Dr Michael Heiser's 'The Unseen Realm'
After posting two videos regarding a biblical understanding of the topic of the Nephilim, and one on the global evidence for these creatures, I was asked by many to comment on the late Dr Michael Heiser’s teaching on what he refers to as the ‘divine counsel’. I am always reluctant to comment where a person is no longer here to address my concerns, but decided to read his book ‘The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible’ to ascertain if his views in this book are biblical and accurate, or a bad case of eisegesis, that is, reading false views onto the Scriptures. As Ron Sutton, a pastor with extensive missionary experience for decades stated about Dr Heiser’s book, “We don’t need a supernatural worldview of the Bible. We need a biblical worldview of the supernatural”.
In this article/video I wish to address several of Dr Heiser’s views from his book which I consider both unbiblical and dangerous. This does not mean that I disagree with everything Dr Heiser taught. In chapter 12 he outlines the biblical view of the Nephilim from Genesis 6 and criticizes the Sethite view. I have always considered the Sethite view pure speculation which denies Scripture and the 45 references to giants. In my research for this video/article, I came across Lutheran Dr Jordon Cooper’s critique of Heiser’s Nephilim views. To the extent to which he remains within the boundaries of Scripture, I will strenuously defend Dr Heiser’s views, and will be posting a video on Cooper’s critique in the near future.
However, after reading Dr Heiser’s book and watching several of his videos, I believe he goes beyond the biblical text and adds his own theories and interpretations in this issue of the divine council, and demons. From his writings and videos, it is obvious that Dr Heiser is very influenced by non-biblical material which he weaves into his interpretations. In as much as non-biblical material supports Scripture, I have no issue with referring to it, however, the Bible is the sole authority and only inspired authority in all issues of interpretation.
In the first chapter of his book Heiser states that:
Psalm 82 became a focal point of my doctoral dissertation, which also examined the nature of Israelite monotheism and how the biblical writers really thought about the unseen spiritual realm.
Knowing that Jesus quoted Psalm 82 in John 10, I hoped that this would be where he began, for surely the interpretation of the Lord Jesus Christ should be where any professing Christian theologian should begin. Sadly, after searching the entire book, Jesus’ interpretation is only mentioned as a footnote in the bibliography of chapter 38 which reads:
Due to space constraints I have excluded discussion of John 10:34–35, where John has Jesus citing Psa 82:6 in defense of his deity. Nearly all modern commentators fail to take the verse in light of the original context of Psa 82, which has the divine council as its focus. They strangely have the elohim of Psa 82:6 as mere humans, which reduces Jesus’ self-defense to saying that he is allowed to call himself the son of God because every other Jew could as well.
This undermines Jesus’ claim to deity in the passage and ignores how the quotation is bookended with two suggestions of his deity: (1) identification with the Father (John 10:30)—who is Lord of the council; and (2) the assertion that the Father is in Jesus (John 10:38). Interpretation of the quotation of Psa 82:6 in John 10 must not ignore the original divine—not human—context of the psalm. That context is part of the power of the quotation—that the Jewish Scriptures bore witness to nonhuman sons of God.
This reminder is the gist of Psa 82:6. Juxtaposed as its quotation is in John 10, between two statements that identify Jesus with the Father, the point of the theology produced by the quotation in context is that Jesus is not only a divine son of God, but superior to all divine sons of God in his identification with the Father, the Lord of the divine council. I have addressed this issue in an academic paper available on the companion website: Michael S. Heiser, “Jesus’ Quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34: A Different View of John’s Theological Strategy” (presented at the Pacific Northwest Regional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA, May 13–15, 2011).
Dr Heiser gives a clear summary of his position, however, I think he misses the Lord’s point entirely. Jesus never mentions the ‘divine council’, therefore He did not consider this council to be the ‘focus’ of the Psalm. Let’s examine briefly what Jesus actually said in John 10. In the context, the Jewish leaders asked Him, ‘if you are the Messiah tell us plainly’. Jesus answered that He did tell them, but they do not believe. The Lord then points to His miraculous works, tells them they are not His sheep and ends with the words ‘I and the Father are one’.
The Jews are about to stone Him and the Lord asks them for which of His works are they going to stone Him and they reply it is for blasphemy ‘because you a mere man, claim to be God’. Jesus reply is as follows. He quotes Psalm 82 to the Pharisees and then asks:
‘If he called them ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came – and Scripture cannot be set aside – what about the one whom the Father has set apart as his very own and sent into the world. Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?(John 10:35-36)
Please note the following.
1. ‘If he called them gods to whom the word of God came’. To whom did the word of God come, to angels of this divine council or human beings? Angels have been used to deliver the word of God, but they are not the ones who received of the word of God, rather that was the nation of Israel. For Jesus, this is the main focus of the Psalm.
2. I disagree with Dr Heiser as it is obvious that Jesus is saying God has called all those who received the word of God his sons, indeed Israel as a nation is referred to as God’s son multiple times. To name a few, in Exodus 4:22 God calls Israel His ‘firstborn son’, in Jeremiah 31:9, that
He is a father to Israel, In Isaiah 43:6 that He will bring His sons and daughters, Israel, from the ends of the earth.
It is also obvious to me that Jesus is making a comparison through His citing the miracles He has performed. In other words He is saying this: If the Father has called all Jews who received the word of God ‘sons’, and I have demonstrated my sonship through miracles, then why do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said I am God’s Son?
3. Furthermore, I do not agree with Dr Heiser’s argument that saying all Israel are God’s sons undermines Jesus stating His divinity. His words ‘what about the one whom the Father has set aside as his very own and sent into the world’ is simply reminding these Pharisees to judge His words on the miracles He has performed as He previously pointed to. It is like saying, ‘if God has called all of Israel His sons, then so much more the One who has shown His sonship through miraculous signs. Rather than undermining His divinity, Jesus is stating, by virtue of His miraculous works, that He is not only a son of God by virtue of being a child of Israel, but the Messiah by virtue of His miraculous signs.
Dr Heiser has stated that his doctoral dissertation is focused on Psalm 82, so we should take a closer look at this Psalm.
1 God resides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the gods. 2 “How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? 3 Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. 4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. 5 The gods know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 I said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’ 7 But you will die like mere mortals’ you will fall like every other ruler. 8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth for all the nations are your inheritance. (Psalm 82)
Please note the following:
1. Verse one is about the divine assembly or divine council. The word elohim is used both of God, the Almighty, and ‘gods’. Throughout the OT angels are often given the title elohim or ‘god’ and there is a strong case to be made that God has allowed nations to be under a form of authority to these beings, albeit they are also in rebellion to Him, as are the people in those nations who worship these gods/fallen angels. I have no argument that these fallen angels are supernatural beings being worshipped as gods by mortal humanity. In this Psalm God is rendering judgment among these gods. So where is this divine judgment taking place and is the judgment only against these fallen angels, or the human rulers who worship them?
To this first question, Dr Heiser argues that the original divine council happens in the earthly garden of Eden, that the serpent is not really Satan or Lucifer, that Satan is not the bad guy in the story of Job, that God set angels over the nations at the Tower of Babel and after this they became corrupt. I will argue that none of this is supported by Scripture, indeed it is easily and clearly refuted. But first, let’s discuss who is being addressed.
I see no evidence in Scripture or this Psalm where God has a sit down with the fallen angels to discuss how they have ‘ruled the nations’. The Psalm never states if this judgment has occurred or will occur in the future.
2. The question is this. Is God addressing these rebellious angels directly, or discussing them with the holy angels in heaven, and is His judgment against angelic rulers or human ones? Perhaps the key is in the words ‘you will die like mere mortals’.
In verses 2-4 God brings His case against them. They defend the unjust and wicked rather than upholding the cause of the fatherless, poor and oppressed. But keep in mind, that it is human rulers who rule these nations on behalf of the gods they follow, and this is made clear in verse 7 that these ‘Sons of the Most High’ will die like mere mortals, will fall like every other ruler. The words ‘die like mere mortals’, could be addressed to those who are not mortals but can be killed, or to human rulers who, like the Pharaohs, Roman emperors and others who considered themselves to be immortal.
Also, Heiser’s argument raises the question of whether or not fallen angels can die like mortals. Is there any biblical evidence that God annihilates angels? We have passages about hell being prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41) and about Satan being tormented forever and ever (Revelation 20:10). We are simply not told in Scripture if a spirit being can be destroyed.
But what about the progeny of fallen angels? Could the Psalmist be referring to the Nephilim who were worshipped as gods prior to the flood as these ‘sons of God’ who will die as mere mortals because they had physical bodies? The Nephilim obviously die in the Great Flood, and many were killed under the command of Moses and Joshua, and of course David with his slingshot killed Goliath who was a descendent of these creatures, as were Goliath’s brothers.
Notice too that verse 4 states that these ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing, they walk about in darkness. It is doubtful that this could be said of the original angels who were created in the presence of God.
So…it is not clear to whom Psalm 82 is addressing, indeed it may well be speaking of God’s judgment of fallen angels who took physical bodies prior to the flood, and of His future judgment of fallen angels. However, there is no way that God is telling fallen angels to defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed, rescue the weak and the needy and deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
Fallen angels and demons are thoroughly evil, therefore these words are directed at human rulers, some of whom may have thought of themselves as immortal. But as we shall see, Dr Heiser believes these were holy angels given authority from God to rule the nations at the Tower of Babel and they later rebelled and became corrupt, an idea which has no basis in biblical truth.
But here I would return to Jesus’ use of Psalm 82. Why would Jesus ask the Pharisees, ‘if He called them gods to whom the word of God came…and…what about the one whom the Father has set apart as his very own and sent into the world’?
Firstly, let’s presume that the Pharisees knew Psalm 82 well. Was Jesus accusing them as rulers of Israel of defending the unjust and wicked, of not defending the fatherless, the weak and the needy, the oppressed and the poor? Was He saying they ‘know nothing, understand nothing and walk in darkness’? If indeed they knew this Psalm, then perhaps the accusations of the Psalm were being directed at them as rulers of Israel, indeed Jesus had accused them of these things on various occasions. Whatever the case, Jesus’ words obviously made them angry as John 10:39 tells us that they tried to seize Him but He escaped their grasp.
Secondly. The word elohim in Psalm 82 could be used of human beings in the sense of being made in God’s image, and in that sense we are ‘God’s offspring’ as Paul quoted a Greek poet in Acts 17:28. Humans were ‘made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor and made rulers over the works of God’s hands’ (Psalm 8:5-6). In this sense we could be called ‘sons of God’, however, as creatures living in rebellion, we are also called ‘children of our father the devil’.
Thirdly, as previously mentioned, Jesus states, ‘If he called them ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came – and Scripture cannot be set aside’. The Lord is obviously speaking of the Scriptures being given to Israel and there is no argument in Scripture to claim that fallen angels were given the Scriptures. The same cannot be said of the Pharisees whom Jesus was addressing.
Fourthy. Yes, human beings were made in God’s image and given authority to rule over the earth on God’s behalf. We were ‘crowned with glory and honor’ and ‘made a little lower than the angels’ (Psalm 8:5-6). Jesus’ point is rather obvious. If God called the first humans ‘gods’ as rulers, and they sinned and became mortals, how much more was He God’s Son because of the miraculous works He had done before them.
In summarizing thus far, I believe Dr Heiser is trying to read into the text his own interpretation which contradicts Jesus’ use of Psalm 82. This interpretation has a flawed foundation regarding the fall of angels and this ‘divine council’ which we will now discuss.
Heiser’s thesis claims that the divine council was present in the earthly Eden. Then, in chapter 14 he states that ‘the seventy nations were placed under the dominion of lesser gods in the wake of God’s judgment of the nations at the Tower of Babel’. He claims that these lesser gods were put in charge and then, ‘became corrupt and are the object of sentencing in Psalm 82.’ In chapter 14 he writes;
God decreed, in the wake of Babel, that the other nations he had forsaken would have other gods besides himself to worship. It is as though God was saying, “If you don’t want to obey me, I’m not interested in being your god—I’ll match you up with some other god.” Psalm 82, where we started our divine council discussion, echoes this decision. That psalm has Yahweh judging other elohim, sons of the Most High, for their corruption in administering the nations. The psalm ends with the psalmist pleading, “Rise up, O God, judge the earth, because you shall inherit all the nations.”(p102, ch 14)
Other than the last sentence, Psalm 82 says no such thing. This is pure eisegesis which claims to know the mind of God and contradicts Jesus’ interpretation of this Psalm. In his book, the overall picture Dr Heiser paints is as follows. God, and a number of lesser gods, angels, were present in Eden, on earth and had a council where they decided to ‘make man in our image’. He rejects this as a form of Trinitarian statement as do other liberal scholars. The question is this: why would God say to angels let us make man in our image, as man is in no way made in the image of any angel but solely in the image of God Himself?
Heiser paints a kind of King Arthur and the knights of the round table portrait. God is king Arthur and the other ‘gods’ all contribute to the decision making process, even Satan, whom he claims is not the villain in the story of Job. There is a dangerous and fundamental error here which utterly contradicts Scripture regarding the fall of Lucifer, and Satan’s character and role in history.
In chapters 5-7 Heiser makes a great deal about the earthly Eden being a garden and a mountain and uses Ezekiel 28 as proof of this. Ezekiel 28 is obviously speaking of a guardian angel who was ‘in Eden, the garden of God (v13) and on the holy mount of God (v14), walking among fiery stones. This angel is described as the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and beauty (12) until wickedness was found in him (v16). This angel became filled with violence and sinned and was driven in disgrace from the mount of God and expelled from among the fiery stones (17). His heart became proud on account of his beauty, so he was thrown to earth (v17).
The very foundation of Heiser’s theory is built on sand. The Eden spoken of in Ezekiel 28 is not the Garden on Earth, but the 3rd heaven. Just as Solomon’s temple was a mere copy of the heavenly temple (Hebrews 9:24), so the earthy Eden was a basic copy of the heavenly Eden. Earth’s Eden was an eternal place, represented by the tree of life, and there was a wall around it. We know this because after they sinned Adam and eve were expelled so that they would not live eternally within its walls, an angel was placed at the gate. One doesn’t need a gate unless there are walls.
Furthermore, Ezekiel 28:17 states categorically that this guardian cherub, which is obviously Lucifer, was ‘thrown down to the earth’.
There is no divine council set up in the earthly Eden. Lucifer had already rebelled and been expelled from heaven for trying to make himself like God (Isaiah 14:14). In this chapter of Isaiah the prophet tells us that this angel has ‘fallen from heaven and been cast down to the earth’ (v12). The Hebrew is literally ‘he-lel’, Lucifer, son of the morning. Both Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 confirm that the fall of Lucifer was prior to the fall of Adam and Eve and Revelation strongly suggests that a 3rd of the angelic beings rebelled with him. The idea that these fallen angels are sitting around with God in the earthly Garden of Eden and discussing the creation of humanity with God is false.
The seriousness of these ideas becomes even more apparent in chapter 8 where he writes:
The satan in Job 1–2 is not a villain. He’s doing the job assigned to him by God. The book of Job does not identify the satan in this scene as the serpent of Genesis 3, the figure known in the New Testament as the devil. The Old Testament never uses the word satan of the serpent figure from Genesis 3. In fact, the word satan is not a proper personal noun in the Old Testament.
The theological implications of this are serious indeed. Not only does he undermine Jesus’ words regarding the nature of Satan, but throws doubt on the story in Eden. So…in the case of Job, Satan is not a villain who wishes to kill Job, but an unfortunate good guy who God uses to torment a man who is faithful to Him? In Job 2:3 God accuses Satan of ‘enticing Him against Job to ruin him without reason’. The story of Job clearly shows Satan’s contempt for the Lord and hatred for Job.
Heiser claims that the word Satan is never a noun or proper name and Jews would not have thought of it as such. Earlier in his book he quotes the Septuagint written at least 300 years before Christ, and perhaps should have checked it concerning Satan as a noun as it is used twice in 1 Kings 11. And what did Jesus have to say about Satan? When the seventy who He’d sent out to preach the gospel returned, they were excited saying, ‘Lord even the demons submit to us in your name’. Jesus replied;
“I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.”(Luke 10:18)
The pre-incarnate Christ, the physical manifestation of the invisible God was there when Satan was expelled from heaven, indeed, He was the One doing the expelling. Not only does the Lord give Him the name Satan, but, then connects Satan and demons to snakes and scorpions as the enemies the disciples have power over in His name.
Again, my criticism of Heiser here is the same as regarding Psalm 82. He seems to purposely throw doubt on Scripture, does not seem to be at all interested in what Jesus had to say on these matters, and when He does bother to mention Jesus, he undermines the Lord’s interpretation. As far as I am concerned, if Jesus claimed that He saw Satan fall from heaven and uses a proper name for him, that’s where the speculation ends.
And what of this claim concerning the Tower of Babel? He claims that ‘God decreed, in the wake of Babel, that the other nations he had forsaken would have other gods besides himself to worship. It is as though God was saying, “If you don’t want to obey me, I’m not interested in being your god—I’ll match you up with some other god.” He also claims that these ‘gods’ then became corrupt and are the subject of judgment in Psalm 82.
This is pure speculation. God did not decree a group of holy angels to go off and be the gods of nations He was no longer interested in, and these ‘gods’ became corrupt. Is this supposed to be the second ‘divine council’, the first being in the earthly Eden and this one at Babel?
There are only holy angels and fallen angels in Scripture. Where in Scripture does it ever state that holy angels were given the status of ‘gods’ over nations the Lord had no interest in at the Tower of Babel and these angels then became corrupt? Nowhere! This is pure fantasy, theologically false, and the foundation of Heiser’s thesis regarding Psalm 82 and the ‘divine council’.
In Summary
Firstly. Dr Heiser made his views very public and those views continue to be available even though he is not here to defend them. Theologians and teachers have an obligation to expose any teaching which may undermine important issues in Scripture.
Secondly. There is an old saying amongst theologians. ‘If it’s new, it probably isn’t true’. Dr Heiser’s views regarding the ‘divine council’ in Eden, the fall and character of Satan, holy angels ruling nations and becoming corrupt after the Tower of Babel, that Satan is not the serpent of Genesis 3 or the villain in Job, are mostly new ideas. But more importantly, these are dangerous ideas which undermine the authority of Scripture, and the teachings of Christ Himself.
Thirdly. My main concern is this: People are fascinated with new theories, ideas and interpretations, usually those who do not bother to search the Scriptures for themselves. But, any theology or idea which puts itself over and above the clear teaching of Jesus Christ must be exposed and rejected. Every theologian, teacher or pastor has but one priority, to focus on Jesus Christ, to be utterly Christ-centered in all that we teach. When we take our eyes off Christ, or relegate His teaching to anything other than first place, we are no longer representing Him, but promoting self. Sadly, I believe Dr Heiser’s views on the divine council divert people away from Christ and onto ideas which have no basis in Scripture.
Steve Copland