An Evaluation of Heiser's Divine Council Theology
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 січ 2022
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Patreon: / justandsinner
On this podcast, I discuss the views of Michael Heiser and his theology of the divine council. I discuss areas where I think he is wrong in his methodology.
I've listened to Heiser for a while and read Unseen Realm, and I think you may have oversimplified some of his views. His argument is not to support a henotheistic view of multiple gods as we would typically talk about gods, but rather to make clear that elohim is a generic word for spiritual beings, and to demonstrate that all of those elohim which are created beings, have jobs. Some of those jobs are higher than others in that some are tasked with some level of responsibility for non-israelites (Ps 82, Daniel). His argument that monotheistic Jews at the time of Jesus would have had a worldview that shows that the gods of the nations are, at best, demons, or non-existent idols, and that part of Jesus's mission on earth was to defeat those powers. His arguments do utilize extra-biblical material in support, but only to demonstrate the impact that the literature of that time, even uninspired literature, on the average literate person of the time. Heiser is monotheistic and thoroughly trinitarian.
I do agree with you that he does take a different hermeneutical approach, and expressly disregards much of the later works of the church fathers (past the second temple period) or the rabbinical literature as particularly useful tools in interpreting these old testament texts. He starts with second temple literature over and above later church fathers. I think an effective challenge to his view of "sons of God" must be more substantial than with arguments that seem to primarily originate hundreds of years after the New Testament is written. Church fathers after Augustine assuming natural meaning of that phrase just suggest to me that people started to lose some of the ancient context which would have helped them to clarify a non-salvation-related doctrine. And we've seen with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls more literature, predating most of the writings of the church fathers that was lost at some point to the general stream of understanding. In my opinion, some questions are best answered by referencing the Church Fathers and others are not. Questions around the spiritual worldview of the Ancient Near Easter people in general, or Jews in particular don't seem a great question to ask primarily gentile writers hundreds or thousands of years after those texts are written. I'm not saying they can't or don't have faithful interpretations of the Old Testament, but I'm saying that not all of their interpretations are well informed. Frankly, many of our interpretations are works in progress.
Your argument on John 10, while I've heard similar, seems to undercut the strength of Jesus's defense of his deity. You are making an assumption that "to whom the word of God came" refers to the people who received scripture, rather than the recipients of Gods' chastising words within Psalm 82 itself. And that interpretation makes Jesus seem to be saying "Why do you have a problem with me calling myself the Son of God when God has called men gods before? Calling a man a god really isn't a big deal, even the scriptures do it!" If you understand "to whom the word of God came" to be the Watchers/Archangels/Higher-authority-spiritual beings on the divine council the argument becomes "If God called lesser spiritual beings "gods", why would you say that the very Son of God, who is higher than all creatures is blaspheming when he tells you who he is truly is?" The latter interpretation reveals Jesus to be claiming to be above all created things, even equal to God himself. The former makes him just another guy using big words just like other spiritual leaders. The latter argument is Jesus demonstrating that yes, there are many spiritual beings, and yes there is one God, to whom all creatures are subservient in their various roles in heaven and in earth, and Jesus is above them all (equal to that one God).
Anyway, I enjoy your work and Heiser's. Both of you are doing a great job educating the church. Heiser's propensity toward "revealing lost information" is not, I don't think, him trying to be sensational, as much as him revealing that the state of theology around these particular issues has been woefully under-informed by the literature of the time of the Bible, and a good amount of that literature has been newly uncovered in the last hundred or so years. It is not Luther's, Calvin's, Augustine's, or anyone's fault if they didn't have access literature that would have been familiar to the writers of the New or Old Testaments. Ultimately God preserves what is essential to the doctrines of Salvation, and we can be confident in the word of God, but not everything will be equally clear at all times to all people.
P.S. Heiser often talks about the benefit of using NT to interpret the OT on his podcast. He shares some of his views on that in his intro to Revelation.
"elohim" is not just used for spiritual beings in the Bible but also for men. Heiser defines words so that they support his off-the-cuff views, plus he bases it all on difficult or obscure passages and textual variants. Many of Heiser's iideas are from liberal scholars.
Living men?
@@TheExastrologer elohim is only used for a man once, Samuel, and in the context of his spirit raised from Sheol. Elohim refers to spiritual persons, which God is, but he is unique as the "Most High". Never, in any context, is the term used to refer to embodied people.
Wow.. you said a mouthfuls... thank you for that ❤
Heiser and I used to email back and forth before he got his PhD. I shared archeological pictures with him that show the council of 12 chiseled in stone.
He took it from there.
Heiser literally says his work is not unique to him, he didn't come up with or discover any of this work. He only says that he didn't read psalm 82 with this mind set.
Thank you for saying this. I don’t know why the comments are criticizing him for not coming up with “anything new”, like its a bad thing.
Haters will be haters. I personally didn’t like his personality but I’m not one to hate the messenger and ignore the message. This guy isn’t an expert in any of this and need to learn to stay quiet about things he doesn’t know. Don’t challenge. Learn it and then make videos debunking what was Michael says.
@@bht96because he himself admitted in earlier interviews and lectures that he had done most of his research in old Catholic monasteries and universities but later on left that out completely. During one of his interviews/podcast I said so the host started to argue with me and I said but he told you that is where he did his research go back and listen to the podcast. Not just that but the majority of bible translations listed in the front of his book (exception kjv) are all mainly "catholic" translations. The divine council is literally painted or depicted in the majority of Catholic churches including the Sistine chapel. He literally took what was already previously written and made it simple for others to understand but many evangelicals who read his work and adore him dont know the teachings especially the divine council have long been a part of the catholic theology and they love criticizing the catholic church.
@@COGmercyYou seem to be claiming that the divine council is a mainstream, old, Catholic position, even depicted at most churches. Can you give any examples, references, etc. that one can look up to back that up?
I grew up Catholic and I definitely never heard or saw it. The closest thing to it, that I think you're conflating with the different "divine council of little gods" is the heavenly court of angels and saints. There is a similar supernatural celestial assembly aspect sure, but if you've listen to or read what the ideas are around this divine council it is very different in key ways.
Now that is NOT to say some Christians who may have been Catholic, Orthodox, or anything else may have written about this at various points, but unless you provide actual sources that unequivocally show Heiser's version of a "divine council" as being Catholic canon, I must assume this claim of yours (that I've seen on more than one video so felt compelled to engage) to be wrongly conflating different ideas.
I'd definitely be interested in sources enlightening me on this though.
@@COGmercyWell, I suppose that since the catholic church had a strangle hold pretty much everything written about Christianity, including the Bible, I would think that would be a good place to start researching into scriptures and related texts. I have heard that some of the Catholic libraries are excellent, and have material you can't get anywhere else.
Dr. Cooper does a fairly good job summarizing Dr. Heiser's approach to the Bible, and makes a thoughtful critique that Heiser sometimes needlessly rejects certain traditional approaches to systematic theology. However, to say that Dr. Heiser thinks that he has discovered something "new" in Scripture, with some "secret" hermeneutic, does not line up well with what Heiser actually says. Heiser admits that he is simply following the path of evangelical scholarship, over the past few decades, particularly since the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery. Nothing he is teaching is something that he himself has come up with, as it all reflects peer-reviewed scholarship. Furthermore, to cast the Ancient Near East mindset as some new "magisterium," that Heiser wants to foist upon us, is a peculiar claim. Why would we not want to benefit from the ancient Israelite perspective? True, we know more now about the Ancient Near East than the patristics, like Augustine, ever did, but is this not a good thing?
Sssshhhhh
#facts
"and they shall turn unto Jewish Fables" - they will heap up to themselves teachers. In the epistle to the Thessalonians 2 Paul speaks about the "falling away" and other epistles saying "not enduring sound doctrine" and turning unto "Jewish fables" (2nd Temple Judaism such as Enoch, or Rabbinical writings, etc...) and heaping up to themselves teachers to scratch their ears (New Perspective on Paul makes this appeal to the 2nd Temple literature (the Jewish fables) to deny that Paul was teaching justification by faith alone or that he was refuting a "works based righteousness" by claiming that 2nd temple Judaism shows that Jews (Jewish fables) didn't actually have a belief in works based righteousness, but rather "covenantal nomism", that is essentially the Catholic belief in maintaining or keeping your salvation by works and staying in the "covenant community" by works and obedience to the law. If you read NT Wright or James Dunn they pour through these extra-biblical "witnesses" or "teachers" that will help them to reject the biblical doctrines of Christianity handed down to us by Jesus and the Apostles (Scratching their itching ears). NT Wright even denies that God is a vengeful wrathful God. This is very much the case with ANE as well, and is a literal turning unto "fables" in order to make the claim the the OT god is actually like Wotan, or Baal, or some "Storm god" like the pagans. But ANE does not actually tell us anything that the Scriptures don't already tells us in the KJV!
I've heard Dr Heiser do that very thing: act as if his ANE perspective is some kind of superior hermeneutic and look down his nose at even well educated and accomplished men who have no need of his approval. He misrepresents at least reformed doctrine (at least total depravity). I believe it is a dangerous thing, to do anything but derive our beliefs from the text. To adopt a confession or anything else as a lens by which we interpret Scripture- as a higher authority than Scripture is fatal spiritually. And it shows in Heiser's work and attitude toward others. I have no problem with breaking the 11th commandment in this case. I will obey God rather than men.
@@YeshuaKingMessiahhow can you call yourself a "Yeshua King Messiah" and put a despicable link like that on this comment board? I figured falsely that it was something to do with the subject. Last time I break my rule of carefulness. PEOPLE DO NOT CLICK ON #FACTS!
Dr Cooper, I almost went up report YeshuaKingMessiahs link on comments #facts but I don't want to hurt your channel. Can you remove the link or something. Idk. It's not anything close to good- just evil.
Great video, but what you said around the 13:00 mark, regarding Heiser’s view of demons, isn’t actually correct. He believes that demons aren’t “fallen angels” like what we commonly hear in churches today. Rather, he claims demons are the “disembodied spirits” of the Nephilim from Gen 6. The Nephilim, according to his view, are basically hybrid angel humans. They are the offspring of the disobedient angels who had sex with women prior to the flood.
Something that must be kept in mind, especially those who do apologetics:
Heretical and heterodox groups like Mormons will use Michael Heiser's work to try to prove their doctrine of "eternal progression"*, but this is going far beyond even what Heiser's research demonstrates. Yahweh is still completely unique, uncreated, and there is none like Yahweh in Heiser's divine council scheme.
I'm a former LDS myself who has been to the LDS temple.
*"Eternal progression" is the historical LDS/Mormon belief that God the Father is a man with a glorified physical body as Jesus has, that he started as a mortal man who progressed through stages and achieved godhood along with his wife (or wives) who serve as Heavenly Mother(s) to the spirit bodies of Jesus, Satan, the demons, angels, and humans, who are all literal spirit brothers and sisters. By this same fashion, all humans can become "gods" just as God the Father and God the Mother(s) are now by obedience to the LDS "laws and ordinances of the gospel", including their secret temple ceremonies based on Freemasonry rituals.
Heiser himself actually critiqued their use of his materials in a paper that can be found online, search Heiser’s name and “you’ve seen one elohim you’ve seen em all”
I don't really see how they could when the central premise is that the way we define "G-O-D" is incorrect and that the word elohim simply refers to being a spirit being. There's nothing inherently unique about being a spirit. Only YHWH possesses ontological uniqueness as Creator.
divine council is a bridge to help us communicate and convert animist nations. Obviously we need to be careful with all missionary work.
Dr. Cooper,
I happen to like Dr. Heiser, I think he is a great Old Testament scholar. That said, I think he get’s into trouble when he leaves his area of expertise.
I like that Heiser is not afraid to challenge tradition and he, more than any I know, is willing to just let the text speak. Being Lutheran, I find it very irritating when other Lutherans (who claim to let the text speak for itself) leave the plain reading of scripture, only to take up a liberal view, that strips the text of anything too spiritual. I think Heiser’s Divine council view makes the most sense, and has the greatest explanatory power. Also, it does the least amount of damage to the text. In my experience, the majority of those who disagree, do so out of uncomfortableness, and they almost always have no background in Old Testament studies.
You are a fine scholar, but by your own admission, you have no training in near eastern language, Ugaritic etc. Therefore, you seem to be just picking scholars who put forward views more palatable to you. So again, we have one scholar leaving his area of expertise to criticize another in his own playground. I think you should read a little more Dr. Cooper, and ask yourself, does my fidelity lay with scripture, or a tradition I was handed?
Does your fidelity lay with Scripture or Ugaritic texts?
@@poweredbychrist2879 "lie" (no pun intended) is the present tense; "lay" is past tense of "lie". I'm referring to the intransitive verb "to lie", not the transitive verb "to lay." The relevant homonym--the two senses of "to lie"--is a distinct issue.
@@Robb3348 I'm just copying the wording from the original post. Your correction should probably actually be addressed to him/her.
@@poweredbychrist2879 okay I'll just let that particular sleeping dog lie.
@DeusEstPrimus Lutheran here too - I agree with you - Cooper does not give concrete examples and he should in rebuttal to Heiser actually illustrate where Heiser mis-spoke. I have not read and heard Heiser's work but looking at his Psalm 82 analysis - Heiser was trying to be fair w the actual text. Although at first blush like Cooper I got taken about as if he was saying something no one has ever discovered. But that might be true to his experience. The issue is this - did Heiser exegeted say Psalm 82 soundly - I believe Cooper had no arguement presented why Heiser was wrong. I saw none. On my part I'd say if one looks at the passage in Aramaic - it says this - God stands in the assembly of the Angels and among the Angels he will judge. That is a lot clearer to me.
I'm certainly biased towards Hesier's view (and would dispute many of Dr. Cooper's ancillary assertions), but, having listened to the entirety of this video, I think the fundamental thesis is sound: Heiser's approach is, in many ways, contrary to conventional Scholastic hermeneutics. Indeed, below is an extended quote from "The Unseen Realm" which, I think, supplements the thesis of this video using Hesier's own words by outlining the critical methodological difference between semitists and confessional systematic theologians.
But, I think the major mistake that Heiser's critics make is putting him in conversation with systematic theologians. He just isn't addressing the same questions as Turretin, Calvin, etc (sorry, letting my Reformed colors show) and insofar as he does, I usually filter that out (see for example his treatment of Original Sin). Read him instead as a foil for, say, Mark S. Smith, and you can see how he is providing an orthodox account of the ANE data that, admittedly, most systematic theologians don't engage with.
Here's Hesier in his own words:
"We’ve been trained to think that the history of Christianity is the true context of the Bible. We talk a lot about interpreting the Bible in context, but Christian history is not the context of the biblical writers. The proper context for interpreting the Bible is not Augustine or any other church father. It is not the Catholic Church. It is not the rabbinic movements of late antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is not the Reformation or the Puritans. It is not evangelicalism in any of its flavors. It is not the modern world at all, or any period of its history . The proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers-the context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien to the biblical writers and, therefore, to the Bible. Yet there is a pervasive tendency in the believing Church to filter the Bible through creeds, confessions, and denominational preferences. I’m not arguing that we should ignore our Christian forefathers. I’m simply saying that we should give their words and their thought the proper perspective and priority. Creeds serve a useful purpose. They distill important, albeit carefully selected, theological ideas. But they are not inspired. They are no substitute for the biblical text. The biblical text was produced by men who lived in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean between the second millennium BC and the first century AD. To understand how biblical writers thought, we need to tap into the intellectual output of that world. A vast amount of that material is available to us, thanks to modern technology. As our understanding of the worldview of the biblical writers grows, so does our understanding of what they intended to say-and the mosaic of their thinking takes shape in our minds."
Heiser, Michael S.. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (p. 16). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.
I think a lot of the hate has to do with the fact that confessional protestants are wedded to 16th-17th century theology, which is largely indebted to scholasticism.
They also do not easily entertain the notion that the early fathers could be wrong about much at all. If they didn't see it, it can't be there, so they think.
I think (after reading several of his books and listening 99% of his podcast) that Heiser is primarily targeting generally generically evangelical and Reformed views in that statement, as he interacts with Medieval Scholastics, Orthodox, Roman, and Lutheran material very very little.
The problem I have with what Heiser said here from what you posted is this, "They distill important, albeit carefully selected, theological ideas. But they are not inspired." As Christians, shouldn't we believe that the writings of the Early Church Fathers so long as they do not contradict the bible are to be led or guided by God? They may not be inspired the same way the New Testament authors were when they wrote their Gospels and Epistles but they sure had to be guided by God. If not are we going to endorse the Great Apostasy like the Mormons and other heretical groups? Isn't that contradictory to Matthew 16:19?
@@junkim5853 It is a fact of history that by the 5th century, most of the Fathers were eaten up with Platonism.
I don't suggest that this constitutes an apostasy. I think every generation is more or less affected by the zeitgiest of their times.
@@junkim5853 All 7 (9) Councils were absolutely inspired be the Holy Spirit the same as in Acts at the Council of Jerusalem. The same Spirit that breathed the Scriptures leads the Church in all truth and the gated of hell shall not prevail against Her.
Your hermeneutic is form the presupposed accuracy of reformed theology. Heiser's hermeneutic begins from the viewpoint of the original readers. The starting point matters. And if you would have actually listened to Heiser, you would have heard him say repeatedly that this wasn't knew information. He actually refutes the idea that he has something "new".
he's a Lutheran....
He’s not reformed.
he's not Reformed, he's lutheran
Nonsense.
The first part of Hebrew emphasizes how Jesus is higher than other heavenly beings. It is possible also--as you admitted in the video--that when Jesus cited Psalm 82 in John 10, He was referring to His rank within the divine council. In both of these passages, the context is arguably the heavenly realm, not earthly.
What I'm saying is that the NT lens does not contradict Heiser's handling of Psalm 82.
I think the rabbis to whom Jesus was speaking understood perfectly what Jesus meant. Is there any place in the New Testament where Jesus said something which calmed the Pharisees?
Correct!
@gandahutagalung Cooper I think was not being fair w Heiser here on Psalm 82 and John 10 (or lack of mentioned by Heiser of it - but what if Heiser has already taken it to account but not mentioned?), and I have no dog in this race - I don't think Heiser's thesis is novel -
I’ve been following Dr. Heiser for over 10 years now, in his fiction, websites, podcasts, UA-cam videos and books. While I don’t agree with everything he says, and I think he has some hobbyhorses he likes to ride, I do appreciate this refreshing aspect of his work: namely, that he dares to deal with the supernatural background of the Bible in both a scholarly and popularizing way that hitherto was unknown in Evangelical circles. I believe him when he says that he’s mostly bringing to light what peripheral OT scholarship has been dealing with for quite some time now, because I’ve recently noticed that other biblical scholars have been inspired to do the same kind of thing that he’s doing - for example, Eastern Orthodoxy’s Fr. Stephen De Young.
He fills a void that is missing in most churches. And he provides the perspective that the authors of the Bible lived in a much different culture and had a different world view. Appreciate your comment.
Which explains a lot because the EOC has been a heretical church full of idolatry for like 1500 years. They have lost the straight path and don't know what they are doing and where is leading them to. Is more like a gnostic church nowdays.
The unseen realm is pure fiction, if you like science-fiction, then it definitely is your thing.
I’m not sure how, if Heiser holds that the other gods were created by YHWH and are absolutely dependent on YHWH, his argument is different from classic angelology, to be honest. It just seems semantic, to my mind
It is the same. Ancient Faith Radio (EO) hold relatively similar views on the "Divine Council" and "Nephilim" etc and argue that the Eastern Fathers held this idea whereas Augustine broke the chain. I don't buy their major premise, but the fact that they tie the Angelology of Psuedo-Dionysus to the Divine Council idea, it makes a lot of sense, Heiser isn't getting this out of nowhere.
The central premise is rooted in the cosmology of the ancient Near East and what those who worshipped YHWH believed. The term "elohim" simply refers to a member of the disembodied spirit world-a spirit being. That's it. We use the same idea when refer to YHWH as spirit, we just recognize no other spirit is like YHWH. This isn't a complicated concept. YHWH alone is the Creator. The concept of the Divine Council is simply God's heavenly host are a part of His Divine Government. We already believe this, we just tend to use incorrect terminology based on particular denominations and their way of ascribing terms.
*To some degree* Lutherans and classical Protestants have rejected the Pseudo-Dionysus/Aquinas theory of Angelic Hierarchies as being "too speculative"... it is possible that the (inherently Protestant) suspicion of certain seemingly esoteric notions within the ancient church are unfairly applied to any idea of a complex angelology.
I will at the very least say that angelology/demonology (in any form) is a weak area within the reformation traditions.
Exactly! He talks like all Christians in all times have never believed in the angelic host.
As a fan of both of you guys, I found this to be a really respectful video! Learned a ton, and really like what you said.
Dr. Cooper -
Thanks for your engagement of Heiser's work. While I follow a lot of the materials that Heiser has produced, I enjoy hearing good engagement from a variety of sources.
A few thoughts:
1) I think you fairly represented his main thesis of the Divine Council/Deuteronomy 32 worldview. As Zachary Lawson points out in the comments, you might have been clearer that Heiser does clearly hold to an ontological difference between YHWH (the creator; the elohim of elohim) and the lesser elohim (spiritual creatures).
2) From your perspective, I think the methodological question is very interesting. Again, as Zachary also brought up, is this an apples versus oranges (systematic versus biblical theology)? With a more diachronic approach (a la biblical theology), would we not hermeneutically place more emphasis on the authorial intent? You mention several times "how do we determine biblical doctrine;" what if the question is "how do we determine the flow of biblical narrative?"
3) Something, Heiser does well is draw the "doctrines" of the Old Testament forward to the New Testament. So, for instance, his connections to an understanding of the "Two Powers in heaven" helped me see the Trinity organically in the Old Testament as opposed to having to resort to some "sensus plenior" of Genesis 1:26.
4) What are the hermeneutical guardrails of a "sensus plenior" if that is our primary hermeneutical lens? What then is the relationship between authorial intent and some sort of divine intent? This has been a subject of debate in homiletical circles regarding using a Christocentric hermeneutic (Kaiser, Goldsworthy, Greidanus, etc.)
These are just some questions I hope you'll address moving forward. Thank you again for your ministry and praying that it would continue to prosper!
Excellent contribution :)
I think Heiser uses Deuteronomy 32 more than Psalm 82.
Also, I'm not sure if Heiser frames this as "new" in the sense of Christendom. I think it's new to modern Christianity. He would say that his view is more historical.
Dr. Heiser does not claim to have a secret knowledge, and he does not say people are trying to hide things. He has done plenty of research, and he is not the only one to come to these conclusions. He is not re-inventing the wheel, he is not the only one who has these views. And he is upfront about this, he says he is not the first person to discover this stuff.
He has literally said churches are hiding this.
If you want to see REAL FIREWORKS, put a bunch of James White fans and a bunch of Michael Heiser fans in a room together and shout "John 10's use of Psalm 82!"
LOL!!!!!!!!!
I would really like to see someone figure out how to integrate Michael Heiser's theories with the medieval view that C. S. Lewis talked about in The Discarded Image
I need to read that! I love CS.
Duet 32:8 God sets the nations according to the number of the---the LXX has Angels of God and a fragment from Qumran has Sons of God. In Dan 10:13 Michael had to help the angel with the Prince of Persia. Paul stated we fight against principalities and rulers in high places. These are the very supernatural beings you are trying to debunk. What is your answer to this since there was no Israel as it is translated in the MT at that time?
Sorry. Ya lost me with this:
20:55 _"When your unique take is dependent upon a textual variant that may or may not be what was originally written in the text, that's not grounds for a doctrine. It's not grounds for, especially, such a key doctrine, and for your entire hermeneutical approach."_
So Heiser's hermeneutic derives from his interpretation of Genesis 6. What?
The argument is both factually incorrect and incoherent. 1. Heiser's methodology is exegesis rooted in the ancient near eastern cultural milieu. Specifically, it's what he calls the "Deuteronomy 32 worldview." 2. Methodology is logically prior to exegesis.
I am guessing what Cooper means here is that Heiser's interpretation is based on a few specific manuscripts that are at variance with the rest of the canon. Similar to the reason some scholars argue that the longer ending of Mark is uninspired; some early manuscripts include it, others don't.
he wasn't kidding when he said Heisers fans are rabid 😂😂
Why is it "wild" to take the bible at its word when it says God divided the nations up and took his portion?
@@ChristianRescue
One doesn't have to buy the book. The seminars based on his books are available for free on youtube. Only if you are one who wants more info you can buy the book(s) that took him 15 years to write.
I'm still listening to Isaiah when God says, "There is no other. I take it like it says."
"At its word" LOL
You have to determine the meaning of the word. Words dont have inherent meaning. They are symbols used by a writer to convey an idea. If you dont know the idea behind the word symbol they are using, you dont know. This is what is meant by using clearer passages to interpret the obscure. These are very obscure and theres not just one way of explaining them.
Heiser's interpretation of Genesis 6 is not necessarily based on Gen 6. It's actually based on ancient Mesopotamian beliefs about the flood story. Genesis 6 is a rebuttal of what was believed to have caused the flood. To think that Heiser's beliefs on Genesis 6 is based primarily on Genesis 6 is to misunderstand Heiser. On the issue of Elohim, he clearly teaches that the other elohim are created.
I am so glad you make the point that one should not derive a doctrine from an obscure or difficult passage or from a textual variant. Excellent points and presentation, thank you.
There, It's settled.
Once Dr. Heiser recovers from cancer,
Dr. Cooper can host him on his program.
It would be a good series.
😔
@@Particularly_John_Gill
I know 💔
Too bad this interaction was not able to take place. RIP Michael Heiser
At 14 minutes, I had to cash out. First time viewer, love the tie! I'm reading Unseen Realm for the second time because I couldn't digest it all. But I did comprehend that his descriptions of demons and your descriptions of what you think he says are demons are two different things. Demons per Heisner are the disembodied spirits of the dead human/God hybrids from Genesis 6 and also afterwards. They can't gain access to the divine council. You're equating demons with angelic powers? Heisner says no such thing. (Unless I missed it) I'll be back if I find out I'm wrong. But I can't give you an hour of my life explaining where his doctrine is wrong when you've misread The Unseen Realm.
I made it 22 seconds. Good on you for getting that far. This comment section is hilarious to read.
I was waiting for your comment; thank you.
I enjoyed your respectful and healthy critique of Heiser. I respect the both of you as great teachers.
Dear dr. Cooper, as a confessional lutheran from northern scandinavia, I appreciate your philosofical take on the different scolastics and their methodology. I read Gerhards Sacred meditations in the 1990's and was glad to see a father of our lutheran tradition that wasn't excomunicated because of his receptionism v.s. consecrationism on the Lords supper of the earlier fathers like Martin Chemnitz and others. However I'm still as a musician doing Weinachtsoratorium by J.S. Bach intrested in christians writing about Martin Luther and more less known sides of his theology, such as his angelology. I found a paper by a roman writer Christopher J. Samuel who deals with Luthers sermons of that subject. Would you consider doing a podcast adressing his thesis: “HEAVENLY THEOLOGIANS”: THE PLACE OF ANGELS IN THE THEOLOGY OF MARTIN LUTHER. Thanks in advance from a LCMS-joined lutheran from Sweden
I think u left our some very important ideas
I think it’s more broad than this
Yesyesyes
Dr. Cooper, early in your discussion you seemed to premiss systematic theology as sourced from data other than the Old Testament (OT). Is that accurate? Dr. Heiser has stated in one of his recordings that his approach is biblical theology. At numerous times Dr. Heiser clarifies that his view of OT theism is not pantheism, but is monotheism, with a divine counsel, correct? Did Dr. Heiser not say that the sweeping away of the angels in heaven was at the time of and associated with the birth of Christ? Also, are the demonic realm comprised of rouge watchers or devils and disembodied Nephilim spirits, off-spring of the watchers mating with human woman (Gen. 6) the demons? Before hearing your analysis, does this approach not explain who the nations are in the great commission or the origin of peoples at Pentecost? It certainly opened my eyes to understanding the new testament. Did you mention that Dr. Heiser's PhD is in Semitic languages as such are used in the OT? I do not see Dr. Heiser creating a new doctrine, but rather fleshing out some helpful ideas in the OT and NT. I do not see where Dr. Heiser is saying he has secret knowledge. In fact he says that nothing he is proclaiming is new, but rather he is gathering information together. He says this where HE discovered this. As I hear your analysis, your hermeneutical approaches differ. Dr.Hesier offers a different perspective. Psalm 82, John 10, ESV, NKJ, Hebrew. Recall that Heiser had his aha moment when he read Psalm 82 in the original or near original Hebrew. In that context, did Yahweh call men gods? Deut 32:8-9 do you fail to note that the sons of Jacob had yet to be born? Its good to work through these things. THANKS for your efforts.
Dear Dr. Cooper, in your video you speak about hermeneutics quite a bit. Do you have any recommendations (maybe even a video about it yourself) that deal with biblical hermeneutics in a broader introductory way? I struggle with responding to challenges by "higher critics" about the Bible being God's Word. I was given the argument of circularity (the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says about itself to be God's Word) and I find it difficult to argue against that. Could you offer a response to that or point me in the direction of an answer? Thank you.
You brought up my number one complaint with Unseen Realm, the way he presented his view as a new discovery. But, he actually says in many other places that he has said nothing in Unseen Realm that isn’t commonly said among scholars, he just hasn’t seen many people bring that to a popular audience.
1. the way he presented his view as a new discovery
2. he actually says in many other places that he has said nothing in Unseen Realm that isn’t commonly said among scholars
Pick one lol
@@ConciseCabbage exactly, and I think his presenting it both ways is confusing. I personally feel the main problem was rather than just presenting the data, he tried to appeal to a particular audience. Perhaps he thought if he just presented it as based on scholarship the average evangelical wouldn’t listen? His appeal at the beginning was done in a fashion I have heard many use, having grown up myself in sort of biblicist evangelical family.
He presents how it was new to him, and not a new idea.
@@philipsutherin4518commission.
Exactly. He was not surprised by what others knew or didn't know; he was surprised that after so many years as a Biblical student, even a grad student and then a professor, that he himself had never heard nor read Psalm 82 the way he did when his friend told him that he, Heiser, needed to read it in the Hebrew language.
Thanks Dr Cooper for your critique.
I’m not theologian but I must say at first I was very fascinated by all things divine council as I’d never heard anything like it. I listened to hours of content.
The problems I have with Dr Heiser with the hours and hours of content I’ve listened to on his naked Bible podcast and numerous interviews I’ve watched with him on UA-cam.
I’m no theologian nor am I a scholar but the more I listened the more I got these impressions from him;
- he was saying nothing new as his ideas weren’t from him he didn’t think this up (despite not ever hearing anything like he was saying)
- Man’s autonomy is very important to him but not only man’s autonomy but the autonomy of the all beings in the divine council.
- the early reformers had it all wrong and you cannot interpret the Old Testament using the a redemptive historical, gospel-centric, Christological hermeneutic (as the New Testament Apostles did)
- unless a believer is familiar with a Ugaritic historical context we have near no chance of understanding the Old Testament and need Dr Heiser’s assistance.
- you can’t make comment against Dr Heiser’s hermeneutical discoveries (which he didn’t think up) unless your a scholar as well endowed as him.
- his books have five star ratings on Amazon and prove he is very popular
- the Bible on its own isn’t enough.
As I’m just an unlearned idiot that can’t dare make comment against the prowess of Dr Heiser I decided to stop listening to him for the following reasons;
- I almost never heard about Jesus Christ and His accomplishments in His life, death and resurrection (the gospel).
- I heard a lot about Dr Heiser and his credentials over and over and over (I never heard RC Sproul tell us his credentials when he spoke)
- Gods Sovereignty seems to be negligible against the autonomy of created beings.
- I’m not sure he’s a adherent to sola scriptura. I don’t get the impression that the Bible is enough for Dr Heiser.
- he has more in common with a pagan he spoke to than with most Christians he speaks to because this pagan understood things that the church doesn’t teach (he gloated about this in an interview I heard probably the last straw for me).
Thank you for confirming my own reaction. Take to the extreme I came away feeling like I was dealing with a flavor of Gnosticism.
Out of curiosity, are you a Calvinist?
@@sorenpx Yes, I am Reformed, of the Dutch variety
@@sorenpx Hello, nice to meet you. It’s difficult to answer your question without knowing what you mean when you say “Calvinist”. I say that because I’ve seen and heard so many people try to explain “Calvinism” and they have no idea or what they think Calvinism is isn’t the same or even close as what I believe.
So I’m not a huge fan of the label Calvinist to be honest.
I don’t call myself a “Calvinist” as I don’t follow Calvin but I do follow Christ because I trust in all He accomplished for me in His life, death and resurrection.
I do believe that the doctrines of grace are scriptural especially since the New Testament writers taught us as much when interpreting scripture for us using their hermeneutic.
@@andrewhambling I would say the premiere question would be: Do you believe that each human being has a free and fair chance at salvation or did God choose some for salvation and leave the rest for damnation?
I have my problems with some of Heiser’s work, but in the first 20 minutes here it really sounds like you’re saying that he presents the Old Testament as henotheistic, which is just not true as far as I have read.
I think the problems in Heiser’s works can be traced to his high reliance on Ancient Near Eastern context, to the point of almost dismissing inspiration. This is an infallible work of the Holy Spirit. It isn’t the Epic of Gilgamesh or whatever. Where I find his work useful is recovering the supernatural worldview I think even most of our Christian forbears had. It’s not some crazed new theory to believe the pagan gods are perversions of spiritual beings (or perhaps just rebellious). In that aspect, I think Heiser sells his thesis short in going too far with it.
Recall that Heiser believes that the Divine Council and all lesser gods were created by El Elyon the most high, Yahweh.
Some good discussion on methodology, though it seems like you favor tradition as hermeneutic too much while Heiser favors it not enough.
Many other thoughts, but I'll just stick to Deut 32 for now.
Deuteronomy 32:8 originally read בני אלהים as a reference to divine beings, a fact not *much* disputed in the literature (see Carmel McCarthy, *The Tiqqune Sopherim: And the Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament*, 211-14): “When the Most High [עֶלְיוֹן] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind [בְּנֵי אָדָם], he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [בני אלהים]” (ESV). MT here has בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (sons of Israel), whereas 4QDeutj (followed by ESV) reads בני אלהים (sons of God). Another DSS text, 4QDeutq reads בני אל (sons of God/El) but the text is broken off after the lamed and likely read בני אלהים (sons of God/Elohim) given 4QDeutj (not that it makes a large difference either way -- see Arie van der. Kooij, “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut **32:43**,” in *Studies in Deuteronomy*, 93-94 n. 2.)
. LXX reads ἀγγέλων θεοῦ (angels of God)here (ἄγγελοί and ἄγγελοι [τοῦ] θεοῦ are the typical renderings of these phrases in the LXX). The textual evidence, the theological motivation as well as the logic of the text make this point hardly arguable (Daniel I. Block, *The Gods of the Nations: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology* 29-32.
), for Israel did not exist (nor even Abraham) when God set the borders for mankind (described in Gen 10-11), nor does it make sense for mankind to be divided “according to the sons of Israel,” despite attempts to make sense of it. The very next verse informs 32:8 of its meaning: “But the LORD’S portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage [נַחֲלָתוֹ cf. the cognate verb in v. 8 בְּהַנְחֵל]” (Deut 32:9 ESV).
What is more, it is apparent that other theological changes to the MT occurred in an attempt to make sense of this change (Gen 46:20, 21, 22, 27; Exod 1:5 -- see Carmel McCarthy, *Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Deuteronomy*, 140-141*). Once one understands the reading as בני אלהים (sons of God) this is a clear reference to divine beings (hence the theological change of the MT), see vv. 9-12. For the concept of Israel as God’s inheritance and being allotted to God rather than other divine beings (like the nations were), see Deut 4:19-20; 29:26 (and Psalm 82 if you take it that way).
Relevant to your discussion of the end of the chapter, there was a similar change in Deut 32:43, though much more complicated (Arie van der. Kooij, “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut 32:43,” in *Studies in Deuteronomy* 92-100.). There was certainly a reference to divine beings there somehow, which the MT omits. DSS (4QDeutq) reads אלהים (heavenly beings), LXX has υἱοὶ θεοῦ (sons of God) but also another line that reads ἄγγελοι θεοῦ (angels of God). Hebrews 1:6 quotes this verse from the LXX but uses the verb of the first line (προσκυνησάτωσαν -- worship), and the noun phrase of the second line (πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ -- all the angels of God). So even Hebrews attests to the originality of these lines that have been pulled form the MT. So right after God says there are no elohim besides him, he calls on the elohim to worship and rejoice in him. Other texts make this point clear as well: other heavenly beings do exist, the Hebrew Bible often calls them elohim or sons of elohim, but they are to be distinguished from the one and only supreme God, Yahweh.
In the end, there really isnt any big shift in ones ST here on this point. You just have to get over the fact that the Hebrews called divine beings elohim -- because it is a category that means "divine beings" not "deity" as we think of it. Though I guess it would be a shift to talk about other nations being allotted to angles/divine beings who later rebelled. But hey man, if that's where the Bible leads us, that's where we should go. And that is certainly what God originally said in Deut 32:8.
And as I briefly alluded to with some of those cross-references, the concept of God and his allotment being Israel is a huge theme. This is not just found in some obscure texts. This gets at the heart of election and covenant, and ties into the post flood account of the Table of Nations and Babel, which leads right into the guy that God chose -- Abram. It connects too to God rescuing his people in the Exodus. This is the biblical storyline. Even if you discount the use of Deut 32 because of a textual variant (which is not good methodology when the original reading is pretty settled), there is Deut 4:19 and 20 that teaches the same thing: "And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day." It is clear that hosts of heaven refers to foreign gods -- see 2 Kings 17:16: "They forsook all the commands of the Lord their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal." (see also Isa 14:13 for stars as foreign deities). See also Deut 29:26. The texts are clear.
@@ryankaufman3590 nice one man. Im copying down all these verses as bible notes
Question being asked for information (not for attack)-and I appreciate/agree with your comment that elevates the early Church Fathers, and their merit of preserving doctrine given all of the gnostic, etc. influences that threatened these/our core doctrine early in the church’s history-my question is, shouldn’t we give credence to the historical records from these early church fathers (and others) that show passages like “sons of God” in Genesis 6 WERE interpreted as super-natural beings? My general rule and methodology is that older is more reliable (there are always exceptions to this general rule of course, but I would trust a church doctrine more from 100 A.D. than from 600 A.D. for example). The supernatural of Genesis 6 was the official position during the second temple period all the way until ~400 A.D. when Augustine (and his contemporaries) changed that official church position to Genesis 6 NOT being super-natural (due to church members becoming too obsessed with angels and angel-worship). As the archeological technology has become improved over the past 100 years (and discoveries have been made like Qumran, Ugarit, etc.), I thought the prevalent view amongst Old Testament systematic theologians and other tangentially-related disciplines was a return back to the earliest church fathers on this topic in light of those new sources and pieces of reliable information. If I have made an error in any statement above, can you cite/source your evidence to the contrary (and/or let me know if you want me to cite/source a specific statement that I’ve made)-I’m legitimately interested in correcting my interpretation on this if I’m in error, or if I’m referencing an unreliable source.
You're doing well! Press on to Orthodoxy and join the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ at Pentecost.
Good criticisms Dr. Cooper.
I agree with some of Heiser's ideas but wouldn't call myself a fanboy, he has major problems.
I _tend_ to agree with his reading of Genesis 6 (Nephilim), but even John Kleinig has made reference in his work on Leviticus to leaning in that direction, so that's not unique.
And I agree with the Supernatural interpretation of the "Divine Council" -- but even Augustine mentions that the pagan gods are fallen angels.
That's it. I agree with him on two conclusions. I agree with you that his METHODOLOGY is deeply flawed, which is more foundational.
He's kinda like NT Wright, some really great insights, but way off as a general rule in terms of his grasp of the historic Christian tradition. And not incidentally, they both interpret the New Testament in light of the Old rather than vice versa.
I think another major reason people take issues with his divine council view is the terminology heiser uses.
If he just called the elohim of the nations "patron angels" or something insted of "gods" (because not even he believes these beings should be worshipped) people wouldnt be so off put from the start.
@@vincenzapesci3944 well "theosis" kinda indicates that we become gods but not God
Athanasius' axiom was originally that "God became man so that men might become 'gods'." That's all I mean, it has to do with Platonic emanation and stuff but can be easily misunderstood as Mormon apotheosis or even paganism.
I get the concern and if one _is_ to use the language of "gods" (plural, as Psalm 82 does) then qualifications are necessary -- "god" must not be understood as a necessarily worship-category, etc.
@@vincenzapesci3944 I think that’s kind of the point, though. The Bible uses the term “elohim” for these beings, not “malakim” nor “angelos”. So, being uncomfortable with calling them “gods” is discomfort with the biblical text - not Heiser.
I think Heiser does good of brining to light things that are already there in the Bible. But it’s like he says, he’s not claiming to reveal this for the first time. It’s just something that got lost in time. But as far as church traditions, and things of that nature he never claims to be teaching on that. I think he simply enjoys studying things/ideas that may be overlooked. He also stated that his reason for sharing everything he has rediscovered, is not to change anybody’s minds, but to have them visualize through an ancient view.
All together though, may God bless you! I love discussions of this nature and the respect that can be upheld through disagreement by Dr. Cooper.
Thank you for your evaluation of Heiser's work. I have several books by Heiser, find him to be interesting, but am cautious with his some of his theological and biblical conclusions.
I’ve been waiting a long time for someone learned to address this. Thank you for tackling it. What he says seems to make sense but I keep thinking how can he be right and everyone else wrong. Thank you.
It's quite normal that deep diggers know more than average.
People in general are on average quite shallow and uninterested and choose to stick to the mainstream consensus.
Ask Martin Luther. Wasn’t his theology at odds with “most learned” experts of his day? A majority view on anything doesn’t make it right. It makes it hard to think anything else.
Consensus is the enemy of new research.
Not everyone else is wrong; Heiser's book The Unseen Realm is based "entirely" on peer reviewed sources. It didn't take just a few years for Dr Heiser to write that book; it took 15 years, and he expected some cost would come from it.
I'm a huge fan of Heiser. He's opened my eyes to a lot of things. My favorite is he says to put on your Israelite head when you read the Bible. Makes a huge difference.
I appreciate your commentary. I'm not trying to critique or argue. But I would like to know your interpretation of some of the other passages that Dr. Heiser discussed.
1 Kings 22:22
Job 38
Then, maybe expound on verses like 1 Corinthians 8:5 please. I'm very interested to hear other explanations on this topic.
Excellent analysis and very helpful. Thank you for your ministry.
I believe his treatment of Plasm 82, Duet 32 and Gen 6 to be correct but I do see him shoehorning devine council into verses where it doesn't belong. Like in his Revelation podcast series where he says the angels of the 7 churches are in fact spiritual beings, but it's more likely a reference to men (in the role of a messenger).
He isn't shoehorning it. That's actually the Eastern Orthodox tradition. If you dig deeper, they'd say that every city has its angel. And even that if you and I form a community, it will have its own angel. It's akin to panpsychism, though not the same.
@@atanas-nikolov now that would be the same problem Cooper has here where tradition is the hermeneutic.
@@rocketmanshawn It always is. Nobody comes to the text with a clean slate. You inherit traditions, consciously or not.
Thank you for this fair critique of Heiser's work. I'm sure he would have interesting responses to it. As a Reformed Baptist who has taken the Unseen Realm class from Heiser and appreciated many of his conclusions, I concluded that his Biblical scholarship is excellent but he is not much of a systematic theologian. His deep scepticism of confessions is also apparent. I think he needs to be taken seriously by contemporary Reformed theologians. His work is very interesting and helpful.
I disagree with your statement that he should be taken seriously by Reformed theologians when he takes a non reformed approach to creeds that Reformed folk would hold as a statements of faith. He did this on his podcast. I’ve tried listening to Dr Heiser but I didn’t hear much about Christ in any of the hours of content I’ve listened to.
He would just accuse Cooper of being a naturalist. Heiser can't defend his work without admiting to ahistocial interpretation.
@@andrewhambling ??? he always talks about Christ. just a quick glance at any of his youtube content. what?
@@jaaaaysselam3372 Hello brother, greetings from Melbourne, Australia 🇦🇺.
I’m not being disingenuous when I say this but I have watched and listened to many hours of his content especially a lot of the early naked Bible podcast episodes and Christ is frustratingly absent from most of what I listened to. Ultimately this was the reason I started to question his motive which I feel was brought about what I call the over indulgence of ontological autonomy. I might be wrong and I’m just an idiot with a Bible and haven’t had any formal theological learning of any kind but I did get the feeling he is trying to make a valid case for man’s autonomy or even more so the autonomy of the created being or Elohim as he defines it.
The problem that I find with this type of biblical hermeneutic or any hermeneutic that doesn’t have Jesus Christ as it’s foundation is that this type of hermeneutic is fundamentally built on sand and in Dr Heiser’s case probably the same sand he discovered all the Uguric texts he needs to justify his method of interpretation.
He keeps telling the listeners that nothing he says is new and has always been taught by the church (but it hasn’t) but the unfortunate aspect of his particular hermeneutical understanding is contrary to what Christ tells us what the scriptures are actually about and it’s all about Jesus Christ. Which is exactly the same hermeneutic the writers of the New Testament used.
So the question I had constantly when I was listening to him ramble on and on about how he teaches nothing new and how he has more in common with pagans he’s talked to than with most Christians (his testimony on a UA-cam interview I watched), was the question, what does this have to do with Jesus Christ and all His accomplishments?
I have not received a valid response from anything I’ve seen or heard from him as yet.
In my opinion his hermeneutic diminishes the sovereignty of God and blurs the Creator creature distinction.
@@andrewhambling I don't doubt that you feel that way, but I've never seen him driving anyone away from Christ. His most recent series on the NBP are all about the messiah in the old testament. So I was shocked that you said that. Not to mention the hours of youtube content relating to Jesus.
Unseen realms speaks of Jesus as the 2nd power in heaven in second temple literature. The Messiah is the one who is coming on the clouds in Daniel and the reason why the Caiaphas tore his clothes when Jesus said he was the one who would be coming on the clouds. Jesus is the Angel of Yahweh within the first few sections of Unseen Realm already. I get you've sifted through a lot of early material. Maybe you just never got to that part yet. Everything he talks about has something to do with Jesus Christ and what he accomplishes. Jesus takes the keys of Hades. Jesus defeated the powers of evil. Jesus can cast out demons, which isn't something that everyone could do prior to his time and since there was a belief that David or Solomon could cast out demons, it really casts a light on his messiah-ship.
These are one of the FIRST things I learned from heiser. I'm sad you missed that.
Hello, Jordan. I firstly want to say, I have been following your stuff for a while and even though being Messianic, I am still greatly enriched by your videos and explanations of Lutheran theology. Also I don't agree with Heiser's interpretation on everything (especially the "Let Us Make")... but I do for sure agree with his interpretation of both Psalm 82 and John 10. The specific reason I agree with his interpretation of John 10 is that if you are correct that Christ was basically saying to the Jewish leaders, "look here, the Old Testament calls men gods so it's no problem for me to be the Son of God" that is diminishing His actual Deity.
As I mentioned previously, I am Messianic, and sadly Messianic Judaism is absolutely plagued with actual Arianism, JW type Arianism, and a bit of Unitarianism (even into many organization's leadership). Me and several other friends try to do apologetics against Arianism and Unitarianism, and especially for the Unitarians, this use of John 10 plays right into their usual "kabbalistic language" explanation of how Christ can be called "God" without actually being God Himself because, they say, "everything is God, because everything has a spark of the divine".
Look up kabbalistic or hasidic explanations of the Deuteronomic phrase "ein od milvado" to see the usual Unitarian Messianic (mis)interpretive framework that they import onto the New Testament.
So an explanation that has Christ elevating His actual Deity, in my mind, has to be the correct one.
Actually Cooper without realizing itm is that Heiser's Psalm 82 interpretation seemed to agree with the Lord's use of Psalm 82 in John 10.
It would be good if you could put interactive content while you are speaking (for example powerpoints, diagrams, pictures), you would gain much more audience and concentration from them (especially young people), though I appreciate the review of Heiser works from a conversative point of view.
I have done that some in the past. It's mostly a matter of having the time to put it together.
I wonder if Heiser knew how many mormons point to the divine council as reasoning for Mormonism to be true
To clarify, Heiser wasn't really creating his own understanding of things, he was attempting to harmonize the consensus view of mainstream biblical studies scholarship with his evangelicalism. Evangelicalism is a bit siloed from the larger biblical studies community. His understanding of what elohim means and divine multiplicity in the Bible is the consensus view within biblical studies outside of evangelicalism.
I appreciate your comments and cautions about Michael Heiser. His work has helped the church become more aware of the spirit realm which is useful but I think he may have been influenced overmuch by ancient, pagan, non-biblical texts in his interpretations. I have never been completely comfortable listening to him because I have sensed some kind of hidden undercurrent in his talks which is troubling and hard to identify. (1 Cor. 12:10 "..to another discerning of spirits").
I think your point about interpreting the OT through the lens of the NT is hugely important.
However, a couple of points.
You downplay the "textual variant" in Deut 32 too much. It isn't just the Dead Sea Scrolls. The DSS reading is also reflected in the Septuagint, which reads "angels of God."
Obviously, both of these readings predate the Incarnation and far predate the Masoretic Text. They also make more sense of the passage than "sons of Israel." So it seems pretty clear that "sons of God" is the original reading.
I don't think it is "very doubtful," as you say. And we don't throw out any text that has textual variants when we develop our doctrine.
Secondly, to say that the gods of the nations are demons is not to say that these demons exactly match the description given to them by the pagans. And to say they don't exactly match that description does not mean those pagan gods don't exist. All it needs to mean is that pagan worship is influenced by demons, and these demons accept worship as those gods.
It is not unreasonable to read "there is no god beside me" as "there is no god on my level." Or, put another way, "Who is like me among the gods?" (A question posed rhetorically by the psalmists as well.)
There is no god beside Yahweh, and we can see this because HE is the one who kills and makes alive.
Thanks for your critique. It’s always good to hear different people's thoughts. However, in your description, I think it’s misleading to suggest that Heiser is not using Jesus as a primary lens to view the scripture. He gives many examples of how the life of Jesus was at the centre of the Bible. Heiser is also pragmatic in saying that not every verse in the Bible is primarily about Jesus, and I agree with him. What about the menstrual cycle laws derived from the Mosaic law? It’s a big stretch to say that that law is about Jesus.
Thanks for your respectful presentation of what you disagree in Heisers teaching. He never presents it as a “secret” knowledge, he constantly explains that he’s not the only one who discusses Ps 82:1 in this way & actually presents the material from many of those people. That’s your perception based on a minute sample of his teachings. He never states OT scripture is just a natural religious development. He also never states Judaism began as a polytheistic religion.
Our traditions are artificial filters based on a mans or groups interpretation. His approach of reading thru the eyes of the original audience.
Reading the OT thru the lens of Jesus is a man made tradition. Yes having Jesus in mind is important & any exclusion of Jesus is a poor study method. Everything Heiser teaches points to Jesus & he consistently says this thruout his teachings. He doesn’t exclude the supernatural framework for reading scripture, he actually uses that framework in a much deeper way than most traditions.
Please show me where God says the OT must ALWAYS be read thru the lens of Jesus? You can’t because it doesn’t exist & you don’t want to admit this statement is a man made tradition. You say the church & then include every tradition since Christ as the church. His church is the early church writers as well as the ancient scripture writers.
In his critique of church history contributors he doesn’t throw out all their teachings, usually just in relation to his DCW viewpoint.
Unlike Heiser, you’re never able to present a specific scripture that you believe he interprets falsely, you just say he’s used bad methodology. The reason so many people follow his teaching is because he does go into the scriptures meaning in the original language, how others saw it & how tradition sees it & does all this in detail. Unfortunately, you don’t do this which is why your argument has no weight.
It is a ridiculous proposition to say that because there is a textual variant, we can't use a passage for theology. Say goodbye to using the NT for theology. Truly. There are more variants across Greek NT MSS than there are words in the NT -- something like 3 or 4x in fact.
In truth, this does not mean the origianl reading cannot be discerned, and does not mean we throw out a passage for theology.
Since the Masoretic text is around a thousand years newer than the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint text, I believe it's not as accurate and reliable as the latter two.
I'm a postmil Calvinist and I agree with Heiser on most of it. His arguments against predestination are dubious. I'm uncertain if Heiser is correct on The Satan in Job being a different character from NT Satan. it is possible they are different beings. However, revelation seems to lump them together, and Satan in the NT is several times referred to "accuser of the brothers," which to me implies that Satan at one point had the "job" of being a prosecutor type character. I don't have a full opinion on the matter.
I hope in future videos you address the pseudepigraphal book of Enoch, cited by Jude, which seems to have been reflective of the views of the NT writers and unequivocally supports the divine beings view of the Sons of God in Genesis 6.
You might find this treatment of Jude’s citation helpful. The conclusions are located at 40:20. Basically, Jude may have only been citing a tradition, not Enoch, but, in any case his use of the quote was to refute the importance of angelic authority. ua-cam.com/video/_2J0j3RcBMQ/v-deo.html
Micheal Heiser attempts to use the same key on every door!
Hebrew language scholar interpreting Hebrew text?
Heiser's theory is a joke if we apply to the Indian context.
1)There are 330 million gods in Hinduism. Did YHWH create all of them based on his logic?
2)If each god has a gentile "nation" appointed by God based on Dt 32, are there 330 million Hindu/Indian nations, each one ruled by a god/goddess? In the reverse logic, the number of pagan nations (same as number of gods/elohim) should be equal to the number of the children of Israel. If so, when in the past or present Israel had 330+million population?
3) Did the holy God YHWH of OT create those horrendous gods like Kali and Shiva?
4)If the elohim/gods received the word of God, where are those scriptures given to Krishna, Rama etc? Or Is Mr Heiser saying that the Hindu scriptures were given by YHWH?
5) Many nations disappeared from the face of the earth. What happens to the "appointed" elohim then, do they too vanish ?
Perhaps Heiser was only thinking about European elohim when he cooked up his divine council nonsense. If true, that's really racist to ignore the Hindu gods LOL.
Divine council heresy is just another attack on the Holy Trinity
I asked the hive mind (Naked Bible Facebook) this same question from a Chinese folk religion perspective. The consensus seemed to be that he wasn't talking about folk paganism. Not much help.
@@Mygoalwogel Exactly. It is a cult. Prophet Heiser (PBUH) shall not be questioned!
His cowardice to say anything about John 10:34-36 is unbelievable. Its as if that passage doesnt exist.
His peculiar methodology is also laughable:
"Look, while sitting in a church, suddenly I got a revelation about Ps 82 (All cult leaders say this!). Its a divine council. Only I am right. Everyone else is reading in their own meanings to Ps 82, such as judges, kings etc. They are all wrong. Now watch how I READ IN my darling divine council theory into every passage from Gen 1:1 to Rev 22:21! And he shamelessly does exactly that
Excellent, Demons worshipped as gods doesn't mean God created them as gods
I think it means this:
Ephesians 6:12
KJV
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Dr Cooper! I am so impressed. I haven't done any homework on you. I am usually very careful about who i learn from and such. But so far i am really interested in yoyr videos. You are very respectful and ept at apologetics. Kerp ip the faith.
Ha! I never clicked on a video faster. Seatbelts on. Popcorn ready.😀
Hahaha, me too.
@@cindyterrell9227 - 😄
I have a radically different view of scripture inerrancy and divine inspiration, but I believe the view, which he often states isn't his individual revelation but a shared collection of ideas from scholar's who came before him. However his divine council theology fits very well with the whole of scripture. Some, if not most of the "unseen realm" or spiritual worldview can be deduced without scholarship. Thousands of hours of study, and basic reading is my only credential, and I can accept as likely, the majority of his view of the the spiritual world. The confusion in so much of scripture, and with this understanding almost all of these big issues are no longer issues. And the harmony of all of it after this understanding is enough for me to be open to the possibility. And knowing scripture well and finding no refutation... Having read all of this before many times, but only troubled by it the first time (Psalm 82) and much more. It's not really a "new" or "exclusive" revelation that "only he has" it's just something we give up searching for because where do you start? Also it's oddly tabu, Despite strong spiritual curiosity and Biblically it's encouraged. If there is nothing supernatural in the bible then I'm very deceived. And all of the excitement the apostles promise and tell us is what should encourage us to persevere under trial, is really not that exciting... Why is it in our hearts to want to know more about heaven and it's government? If you take the supernatural passages out of their supernatural context eventually you take the fullness of Gods glory and put a lampshade on it. But only for your own eyes. Don't humanize God. He is not like us. Hiesers view of doctrine's are not mine. Also I view the bible actually more supernaturally inspired than him. But I am grateful to him for not trying to humanize God with passages that my spirit or mind can't accept as anything but clearly supernatural. I don't know my exact views but agree with more of his divine council worldview than I disagree with. It seems it was common knowledge then but not now.
I appreciated your thoughts on Heiser especially pointing out that the Bible is a supernatural book therefore the NT interprets the OT and Jesus as the key.
Do you have some thought on how Paul's passage about head coverings for women interprets the OT?
This is a very helpful evaluation. Thank you. Dane
Thanks very much for taking on these texts. I've struggled with these and how to understand them.
I've been leaning more towards the "divine council" interpretations over the years, the NABRE bible also commentary takes this interpretation of Psalm 82, Deutoronomy 32:8, and Job 1:6. However I think this might be too rooted in Rabbinical tradition, which in terms may be too-closely intertwined with the Cannanite tradition of the "sons of El." The John 10 reference is pretty difficult to reconcile though. I'm not sure. But I definitely believe Genesis 6 to be speaking of divine beings, although I'm aware the LCMS argues otherwise
Rabbinical tradition and following actually tried to suppress many of the interpretations that favored there being multiple elohim or sons of elohim, since that makes for awkward theological implications. See my comment here on Deut 32 -- the MT actually changed quite a lot in Deut 32 and elsewhere, all to try to avoid awkward implications. We can still see the fingerprints of these textual changes in what is called the Tiqqune soferim.
To address the interpretation of Deuteronomy 32, it's important to note two key points. Firstly, the Dead Sea Scrolls reference "sons of God" rather than "sons of Israel." This is significant because the term "Israel" did not yet apply to a nation at the time the nations were purportedly divided, which only comes into play later in biblical history. Secondly, according to scholar Michael Heiser, there's a clear distinction in the spiritual hierarchy between "sons of God" and demons. Heiser argues that demons are actually the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim, presenting a challenge to traditional church interpretations.
In his book, The Unseen Realm, Heiser explores the concept of a divine council of Elohim, with God at the helm, a viewpoint he refers to as the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. It appears that Cooper, in his critique, may have misrepresented Heiser’s positions on demons, monotheism, and other aspects. If Cooper aims to provide a robust critique, it would be prudent for him to revisit The Unseen Realm. Doing so would enable him to correct any misinterpretations and present a more accurate and insightful analysis. This approach would not only enhance the credibility of his arguments but also contribute constructively to the discourse surrounding Heiser's work.
Heiser himself points out that his ideas are not novel but are grounded in scholarly research, contrary to any claims that these are his original thoughts. This underscores another aspect where Cooper's interpretation may have misrepresented Heiser's work. A thorough re-reading of Heiser’s book could lead to a more accurate and fruitful discussion on these theological issues.
have you seen Esoterica channel~#~who and what is God ??? and what your opinion of Jehovah`s Witnesses
I highly recommend the podcast Lord of Spirits, it's an Eastern Orthodox podcast handling the same subject matter that Heiser does, but couched within Christian tradition and with more nuance, and not approached as much in a vacuum as it seems Heiser does sometimes.
How is he in a vacuum?
@@artemusbowdler7508 I mainly mean that he is not functioning within the framework of historical Christian interpretation. Like the video says, he seems to think he's found something "new" when there is a rope these things he studies have played in traditions in the past. The priests in the podcast are functioning inside Eastern Orthodox tradition, so they are tethered to more than one or two ideas of inspiration.
@@paroikos7032 Heiser has never said he's "found something new". He's always saying "this isn't original Mike never had an original thought this goes back".
Lords of Spirits is great, but I don't think it has the same depth as Heiser's stuff. I loved Fr De Young's books though
@@Christian_Maoist. Heiser found something old that many scholars have ignored or dismissed.
Great response. I wonder sometimes how much I believe Dr. Heiser and how much he just sounds convincing, respectfully. Which leads me to oversimplify my personal approach. Doxology/doctrine leads to so many systematic separations that I find it hard to value a metholodical approach, while simultaneously acknowledging the value of said approach.
Did Jesus actually say in John 10 that men are called gods or some translation made they are men?
It depends on which translation you used...
One time I called into question Heiser’s lack of Christocentric interpretation of a passage and he came after me saying that we shouldn’t interpret the OT through a Christological perspective. He seemed to be arguing for a Christotelic approach instead of a Christocentric. I tried to push him on both as necessary but he was adamant that a Christocentric approach was unnecessary.
Respectfully Dr. Cooper, you misrepresent what Dr. Heiser says about his teaching. He states up front that his teaching is not based on some secret and that they do not originate from him. You make it sound as if he is a gnostic. He clearly states that everything he stands on has been published elsewhere. He grounds his understanding on the text (in the original languages) and the academic and historical publications that have preceded him.
Heiser does mention that when the nations were divided up amongst the sons of God, many consider that to refer to Israel, but Israel didn't exist at that time. Mike also never says that the they are demons, but that the demons (unclean bastard spirits) were the offspring of the elohim that mated with the daughters of men. Worshiping either is considered to be wrong, but supposedly the people of the nations did recognize they were under the control of these errant elohim, and they then mistakenly worshipped them. 🙏✝️🙏
Ephesians 6:12
King James Version
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
I have recently discovered and have been taken back and blown away by the coherance and detail of his view. Because of this, I have been on a hunt for any viewpoints that oppose what Heiser is asserting, because I dont want to fall prey to what my "itching ears want to hear."
When I found your videos, I was excited and hopeful to find someone with an argument with merit. Unfortunately, after listening to you continue on for 20 minutes until you came to your first point, I knew it would be more of the same.
The most blatant offense you made (I hope as a fellow believer it wasn't made disingenuously) was after attempting to paint the viewpoint he highlights, you fail to mention that it was the original HEBREW in which the torah was written that blew him away, not the GREEK septuigent (aka the NKJV you read from), which conviently translates the phrase "in His divine counsel" to mighty men or whatever you said.
There is a lot more I could say, but I just really hope anyone who watches this video just goes and watches Dr. Heiser's teachings with a sober mind. Test what he says against scripture. It's a Biblical perspective that has been lost through tradition. It changes nothing of the Gospel message (except maybe make it even more impactful - Hebrews 2:16) but helps understand the overall Biblical metanarrative, which in turn, helps our apologetics. It's not a "new" or "special" revelation.
Lastly, the irony is not lost on me that a man from the LUTHERAN denomination doesn't believe that a member of the church can help people see the Bible from a proper perspective, aside from what the church tradition esposes; dude should be a Catholic.
I read Heiser's Unseen Realm and then read Henning's The Unbiblical Realm, refuting the divine counsel of Michael Heiser's Dueteeronomy 32 world view. It is an excellent refutation.
You made some really good points. I still think he is well worth reading to and listening to on his podcast. I’ve learned a lot. He is pretty out there sometimes, but at least he backs it up with data. Even so, he’s human and no one has all the answers. I just want to encourage people to read him. He is a legit scholar who is fascinating to listen to. Just don’t throw the baby out with the bath water with him. Sorry he’s no longer with us. He was a great guy.
Stopping two thirds through the video to make a comment before I forget it. I have gone through a lot of Dr. Heiser's materials, and now I am looking for opposing points of view just for balance. So far, I only found people who have taken Dr. Heiser out of context and conveyed things he did not say. I think you are making an effort to be fair, and you make an interesting point. This is something I thought about too.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Early church fathers viewed this as a Trinity scripture and the next verse confirms it
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Notice it does not say God created man in the image of Elohim. If Heiser is right, then that would mean that we are also created in part in the angel's image or as he would say "a lesser Elohim image". Not only do I disagree with Dr. Heiser on this, it is important to note that he does not believe that Moses wrote this portion of scripture. I have listened to a lot of his podcasts and watched videos on his site outside of UA-cam. He thinks that portions of Genesis were actually written in Babylon during the exile. He believes that the first 12 chapters of Genesis were added later. I personally reject this theory. He also leans toward the belief that Daniel was written about two centuries before Christ. Some of the secular views of when and how scripture was written are off, and a lot of the secular views on archeology are also way off.
Let's face it. These secular people have agendas. That being said, I will say that I like Dr. Heiser and he has great communication skills. I find some of his theories intriguing, especially the Divine council views. However, I don't agree with him on everything.
Dr. Cooper, with all do respect, I really think u should study his work a bit more before doing a critique on his work, I'm 15 min in and u have misrepresented his work multiple times. I'm not sure u fully understand and should read more of his work before critiquing.
Question. The early fathers whom interpreted psalm 82, Gen. 6, and Deuteronomy 32 in the context that lines up with Heiser’s view, based on your argument would cause the fathers such as Luther, Augustine and so on to reinterpret such passage in a more naturalist view. Is your argument that through time the revelation through Spirit work to such fathers over time of textual interpretation that lead to an increased naturalistic view somehow more correct? And if so what lead you to that conclusion?
And secondly how would you interpret 1 Corinthians 11:10, 2 Peter 2:4-10, and Jude 6-7, apart from the supernatural worldview Heiser is (re)presenting?
Why should pantheism->monotheism be a "natural development"?
For all that is worthy, it is a healthy thing that someone critique Heiser's teachings. No one is inerrant.
As one who does "lean" toward the supernaturalist interpretation of Genesis 6, it is telling that the vast majority of proponents of that view are Dispensationalists.. Not sure if there's a correlation.
Also, on that note, a strict Historical-Grammatical method (as is common in Pre-mil Disp) has a hard time allowing for Typology -- as the only immediate meaning is original authorial intent. That's an issue. Luther does come close to this in his "rejection of allegory (and the four-fold sense of Scripture)", that might be an interesting topic to get into given how essential typological reading was for Luther.
Heiser has a great series of lectures on eschatology and he really points out flaws in the dispen, rapture kinda argument from pure Bible one the greatest talks I’ve seen on putting the end times views to the measure of Scripture.
I enjoyed this video. I will likely watch again. I enjoy Heiser's work. I see a similar train of thought in the work from the Bible Project and BEMA. is this just the way things are going now? One thing you said which really stuck with me, and is something I have wrestled with in the past, is the methodology of interpreting scripture, particularly in the weight that is placed on the NT interpretation of the OT. The authors of the NT are doing their own thing with it, guided by the Holy Spirit, but OT scripture was meant to do something for the original readers of the text prior to Jesus' coming, so we still need to find that meaning for the most robust understanding. It all requires more thought and study from myself. I appreciate the video, and hope to see more.
The Bible Project are influenced by Heiser, and he is an advisor there.
In all my research and study, I now hold to the idea that Demons are, in fact, the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim. Demons are not fallen Angels.
Ephesians 6:12
K J V
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Fallen elohim; not demons here?
Heiser didn’t work through the lens of a denomination.
That alone draws a huge line for me.
>>Heiser didn’t work through the lens of a denomination
I think you misrepresent Mr. Haiser theological points.
Right from the start Dr. Cooper I must agree with your criticism Of Heiser’s use of Genesis 1:26 as not Trinitarian. That has always bothered me about what he is saying. I think his ego has caused him to cross that line. But nonetheless I have been quite interested in Heiser’s work generally. Please do more Dr. Cooper! I want to know your concerns.
I like Heiser, and he is pulling that from Job, with Angels being witness to material creation. However, I also disagree with him on that verse. I would say I generally agree with Heiser often but not when he specifically contradicts a well established statement on the Trinity from the church fathers or Lutheran confessions.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness - Agreed.
@Logica Redux, I’m not sure what you mean by “his ego caused him to cross that line” but that interpretation is hardly original to Heiser. If you pick up any standard annotated academic Bible published in the past century, you’ll almost certainly see the divine council interpretation in the footnotes for Gen 1.26a. For example, my 1977 edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible says: The plural “us, our” (3.22; 11.7; Is. 6.8) probably refers to the divine beings who compose God’s heavenly court (1Kg. 22.19; Job 1.6).
(Not saying Heiser is correct, just that this non-Trinitarian interpretation of Gen 1.26a is fairly mundane).
@@ZacharyTLawson that’s true. Heiser also is quick to point out in Genesis 1:26 that only God does the work, although this particular detail is probably why the church fathers stuck with the trinitarian interpretation.
@@ZacharyTLawson - Very well. I withdraw the comment. I still believe it is Trinitarian. If the statement “Let us make man in our image” was spoken to any other being beside the Godhead, then it means we are not fully created in God’s image.
Dr. Cooper offers an excellent critique in an excellent spirit. I appreciate his commentary greatly. We look to the scriptures for answers and edification. Dr. Heiser's work creates a lot of questions
and offers us explanations as truth, that the Holy Spirit chose not to give us. Not good. Unfortunately, I believe Dr. Heiser has become yet another contemporary Theologian, who has fallen into the trap of needing to say something new.
Merry (11th day of) Christmas and a happy new year from Thessalonica, Dr Cooper! With respect to Deut. 32:8, it 's not just the Dead Sea Scrolls. The LXX has "κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων Θεοῦ" [according to the number of the angels of God]. So we have at least two traditions with extant manuscripts, both of which predate the Leningrad Codex (upon which the KJV and other post-Reformation vernacular translations were based) by about 1200 years and the (post-Masoretic-recension) Vulgate ("juxta numerum filiorum Israël") by about 600 years. This is probably what has swayed the editors of several modern English translations (NEB, REB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET Bible). I dare say, in this particular case the Masoretic rendering has become the variant reading. (I am eagerly awaiting your video on the filioque controversy..)
Yes. And not just that, but there are many other reasons why we should favor the "sons of God" reading here. The maxim in textual criticism is "what reading best explains the existence of the other readings." It is quite an obvious change to go from "sons of God" to "sons of Israel" -- it is clearly a theologically motivated change. This is supported by the external evidence (LXX, DSS), as well as the fact that there were other changes to the MT in other portions of the Torah to account for this changed reading (see my comment above). On the flipside, how could the reading "sons of Isreal" give rise to "sons of God"? Why would there be such a change to a more theologically difficult reading? This (and still more reasons) is why it is more or less settled among Bible scholars (evangelical, RC, critical, etc) that "sons of God" is the original reading. The demonstrably weaker position that "sons of Israel" is the original reading is held only by those (following in the footsteps of the Masoretes themeselves) who find this verse troubling to incorporate into their theological system.
He’s just scratched the surface of Heiser’s work. Jesus is throughout the OT. Angel of the Lord
Word of the Lord
I don't see "according to the number of angels of God" in the dead sea scrolls if Deuteronomy. This is what I found.
4Q45 PaleoDeuteronomyr, Location: Qumran Cave 4
Deut 32:8
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the children of men,
he set the bounds of the peoples
according to the number of the children of Israel.
@@mrhickswife there was no Israel at the time of Babel. Abraham hadn’t even been introduced yet.
@@Wisebury does God not know all things? Did God not know when He divided up the nations that He would set up and call out Israel?
Dr. Cooper - my vote is you were thorough and thoughtful in your evaluation of Heiser's divine council theology. I am one who has been troubled by Heiser's methodology, as are many other respected Biblical scholars who are as highly credentialed as Dr. Heiser, actually a good bit more. I have to "harness" my prejudice against Dr. Heiser as I am repelled by his own "self-fascination" with his credentials. That's my personal flaw. Nonetheless - you allowed much grace, but courageously stood your ground when it came to the methods upon which Heiser relied for his theology. Heiser has a desperately loyal following - almost like a cult. Sad, since Dr. Heiser has contributed much good work to the body of Christ. But, no one should put him on a pedastal of all that he said is perfect and without flaw. Heiser is a man, not a god.
Okay, I'm not a scholar, but I've heard Dr Heiser a lot in about 4 years and not once have I ever been repelled by his list of credentials nor ever thought of him as arrogant in any way; actually the opposite; I thought him humble. Every time he is before a new audience, it's appropriate to hear of his credentials. Are you repelled by the credentials of your doctor which you see every time you visit the doctor? I don't get how one could be so distracted from the actual message.
It seems that, contrary to my expectation of a systematic critique of Heiser's framework for lay people finding the full meaning in the totality of scripture (as God's story to us) the one objection repeated is scholarly methodology. As a Lutheran, it hearkens back to the objections Martin Luther met from the church fathers regarding his break with tradition & established doctrine. I daresay, this is the same scenario that Yahusha was confronted by in the Pharisees. Isn't reformation & repentance a continual thing? Or where does it end and when? The second objection is Heiser's perceived positioning of himself as the sole person in possession of a discovery - again, where does this come from? Heiser has continuosly maintained that his work is not original at all and is derivative from a bigger pool of works by others. But even if he was the singular inspired individual, should it bother us that much? Isn't this kind of like the very premise of scripture; the election of a single individual by God evokes a negative reaction in the divine family and results in rebelion? I agree we should be sceptical at first. But we should be more alive to the deeper motivations at work deep in our hearts. Is it rebelion against the work of the Holy spirit in defence of the traditions & creeds of our fathers & our cultures?
I agree with Jordan on Jesus' use of Psalm 82. He does seem to be interpreting the "sons of God" in that passage as human beings, but I definitely think there's room for Heiser's view. However, on the "image of God", I think Jordan overestimates just how often this phrase is even used. He claims we are told many times that we're made in that image, and not the image of "angels", but there are relatively few texts in the OT and NT that even mention it. I don't see how it is even problematic if we're made in the image of the elohim more generally, as the lesser elohim or "sons of God" would also be made in the image of the Father. This is implied by "our image" - i.e., the Father and the elohim all share the image. It is implied just by the usage of Father/Son language. In this case, and some others that Jordan mentions, it seems he is preferring not divine intent, over authorial intent, but the patristic interpretations over a more contextually likely authorial intent.
@Thoska Brah how does "let us make men" likely refer to the Trinity. Jordan as a theologian simply defers to tradition here.
Just tell me: were the Pharisees calmed and relieved after Jesus clarified that passage?
11:34 mark. Absolutely untrue. I have listened to dozens if not hundreds of hours of Heiser’s podcasts and lectures. Your first point in this video bypasses the deep explanation from the Hebrew language that elohim is an ontological term of what something is. It is very easy to use a Bible software program to find every use of this word in Scripture and while the overwhelming use is referring to Yahweh, it is used of disembodied people, demons, and angels. I only bring up this point because Heiser goes through great lengths to articulate his view that the writers of the Hebrew Bible WERE monotheistic.
I think Heiser was open-minded to doubt the way he was taught. People have a tendency to look right past information right I front of them for the sake of tradition or cognitive consistency or whatever. I think Heiser's take is legit. It isn't weird, it's just not what we are used to, so it seems so.
I agree with you on a lot of things, but I do think the Nephilim were the children of fallen angels and women.
I use Scribd and Libby to read most of my books. I also listen to a lot of audiobooks. 😅
Dr Cooper, thank you for the careful, respectful and scholarly way you interact with Heiser's work. Your criticism is very much in line with the thoughts I've had on his methodology. Though I couldn't articulate it as well as you do.
Our pre-commitments make a massive difference in the way we handle the text, something that isn't always talked about enough. Interestingly, I've been listening to series of lectures about the history of biblical interpretation and the professor makes the point that an over emphasis on either the human author, or the divine author leads to imbalances. Which I would sum up as the problem of Heiser's work. He so overemphasizes the human author as to make the prophetic nature of the text irrelevant. Case in point is His handling of gen 2.
Exactly! He overemphasized the human element, along with the ANE and Mesopotamia and 2nd temple Judaism beliefs over the Holy Spirit. Whatever the 2nd temple Judaism believed prevented them from recognizing the Savior.
I think you did a good job in your evaluation. Good hermeneutics is to let the clearer passages interpret the less clear ones not visa versa. Having said that I fully expect to see Heiser in Heaven someday. I wish that you could have had a face to face conversation with other him but that is not possible now.
I think this definitely misrepresents what Heiser says. He did not say the Old Testament is polytheistic, in fact he takes long time to explain that polytheism does not cover that world view. The "doctrine based on a couple of selected verses" accusation seems unfair, too. I can't see how we can say the decision about death of Ahab scene can be dismissed. That is a very vivid example of the divine council at work, yes YHWH seems to consult other members of the council and make decision with their involvement. Also, the divine and earthly "sons of God" principle is present in various places in the Bible.
Actually, Michael states many times in his lectures that what he's saying "isn't new" and did not originate with him. He also never says there is a pantheon of gods, he says it "looked like a pantheon" in Psalm 82. You have many other misstatements, such as he's using "obscure verses" to base everything on. Perhaps you need to listen to the man's lectures?
54:24 that is one HECK of a Freudian slip. Because the Masoretic text *isn’t* what underlies the NT at all, in fact it is the Septuagint, which itself says ‘Sons of God’.
I enjoyed you video and you are an excellent communicator. Your objections are clearly stated. My understanding is the Protestants rejected Catholic tradition (its view of the leading of the spirit) in favor of the text. You seem to say here that Heiser should accept Lutheran teadition instead of the text. I guess the question is does the NT passage contradict Heiser? If not, then no reason to doubt Heiser based on someone else's tradition.
Not in anyway trying to downplay Heiser as a heretic or anything even close...he was a scholar and brother... but I'd like to point out that this is definitely nothing new, Joseph Smith interpreted Psalm 82 in an extremely similar way, and drew a whole lot of crazy conclusions based off of that.