A Reflection on Michael Heiser’s Contributions and Limitations
Michael Heiser became a significant figure among Bible students, gaining widespread recognition through his Naked Bible Podcast and books on the supernatural. An accomplished scholar of Hebrew and other ancient languages, he is noted for his rigorous arguments against theories like ancient aliens, specifically countering the linguistic claims of Zecharia Sitchin’s theories.
Formerly a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, Heiser had just begun a Bible school at Celebration Church in Jacksonville before his passing. His work primarily sought to correct the extremes of either hyper-supernaturalism or its complete denial within the Western Christian context, proposing instead a balanced, “spiritual” framework.
Heiser’s Core Contributions
One of Heiser’s key insights lies in connecting the biblical concept of territorial gods (Genesis 10, Deuteronomy 32) with the Divine Council described in Psalm 82. He interprets “Elohim” as a generic term for spiritual beings, offering a fresh understanding of the phrase “Let us make man in our image,” beyond its typical Trinitarian proof text. This perspective enriches biblical theology but has also been misused to fuel speculative theories, which Heiser sought to correct.
He drew attention to Jesus’ ministry in light of Old Testament contexts, such as Matthew 16, where Jesus and His disciples were at Caesarea Philippi, a region linked to temples and the so-called “gates of hell.” Heiser argued that the “rock” referred to Mount Hermon, a location steeped in ancient lore of divine rebellion (Genesis 6). His interpretation underscores the spiritual conquest of the Messiah, framing it within the cosmic struggle against the powers of darkness.
Strengths and Controversies
Heiser’s work provides a robust biblical framework for missiology, emphasizing the gospel’s power to conquer the nations and their gods. Yet his approach often prioritized academic methodologies over a straightforward reading of scripture. For example, his focus on Second Temple Jewish texts like the Enochian corpus—due to their influence on New Testament writers such as Peter and Jude—led him to elevate these works beyond their peripheral role in biblical tradition.
Furthermore, Heiser’s critical stance toward certain Christian traditions, such as reading Jesus into every verse of the Old Testament, reflects what some might see as academic elitism. His willingness to subordinate a plain reading of scripture to the cultural and historical contexts of the ancient Near East—often shaped by critical methodologies like those of Wellhausen—raised concerns among traditionalists. Heiser sometimes seemed to imply that the biblical authors adopted and adapted pagan cultural frameworks rather than receiving direct divine revelation, a view that can undermine scriptural authority.
Missed Opportunities and Methodological Limits
While Heiser excelled at uncovering biblical patterns and connecting the dots between ancient texts, he often overlooked the continuity of revealed religion preserved within Jewish traditions. His engagement with the “Two Powers in Heaven” concept, popularized by Jewish scholar Alan Segal, provided a compelling case for early Jewish recognition of a divine plurality. However, he failed to fully explore how these insights align with Jewish theological traditions as the “oracle keepers” of God’s word.
Heiser’s skepticism toward certain traditional interpretations—such as the universal flood or Mosaic authorship—aligned him with modern academic assumptions that often dismiss the historicity of scripture. While he acknowledged the divine inspiration of the Bible, his methodology at times reflected a constructivist approach, which views scripture as a compilation of redacted sources written during the post-exilic period. This reliance on academic frameworks may have limited his ability to affirm the theological coherence of the entire biblical narrative.
Broader Implications
Heiser’s work highlights the enduring tension between academic biblical studies and traditional faith perspectives. On one hand, he offered tools for constructing a biblical theology of angels, demons, and the supernatural. On the other, his reliance on critical methodologies left him vulnerable to perpetuating the fragmented perspectives of modern scholarship.
For example, Heiser’s positive review of Patterns of Evidence by Tim Mahoney and David Rohl’s revised Egyptian chronology demonstrates his openness to challenging mainstream academic conclusions. However, his insistence on viewing scripture through the lens of its “original audience” often reduced its universal theological message to a localized, cultural artifact.
Conclusion
Michael Heiser’s contributions to biblical scholarship and the study of the supernatural are profound, offering fresh insights into the spiritual dimensions of scripture. However, his methodological reliance on academic assumptions sometimes limited his appreciation for the unified, revelatory nature of the Bible. By focusing on deconstructing traditional interpretations, he occasionally missed opportunities to engage more deeply with the covenantal and theological coherence of scripture as a whole as he was reacting to a degree against the Reformed Covenantal resurgence and it’s limits.
Nevertheless, Heiser’s work represents a crucial step toward reclaiming the biblical worldview of the supernatural, challenging both secular and hyper-spiritual extremes. His legacy serves as a reminder of the need for a balanced approach that respects both academic inquiry and the enduring authority of revealed religion which many don’t know exists within Judaism, even indirectly confirmed by historical Jesus critics and 2nd Temple experts across the traditions. While his life ended too soon, his contributions continue to inspire deeper engagement with God’s Word and its relevance for the modern world.
