Instead, he connects territorial gods from Gen 10, Deut. 32, as presented as a Divine Council of the 'Sons of God' (Elohim) from Psalm 82 which is perhaps the role of God’s oracle keepers and their mission of a religion. Elohim is thus a generic term for spiritual beings, “so let us make man in our image,” He posits more than just a trinitarian proof text which may help open our mind, yet such data fuels many outlandish theories, but Heiser thinks he corrects the record. Rather he misses ‘The Cultivated Olive Tree’ though ‘so-called’ Jewish academics whom he places above the possibility that a congruent and correct revelational stream may be found in their religion.
Granted, his interpretations provide a biblical basis for missiology that conquers the nations and their gods with the gospel of Jesus Christ. For example, In the NT Matt. 16, he posits an exciting take on Jesus and his disciples at Caesarea Philippi, where he identifies the 'gates of hell' with the area's temples and claims the 'rock' as Mt. Hermon. Peter is not the first Pope upon whom the church will be built, and perhaps Jesus is not the rock, just the geography, yet still affirming the spiritual conquest of the Messiah because of the significance of the Mountain in ancient lore. Here, the watchers from Gen. 6 originated at the cultic center of Baal in the Tanakh, where hybrid giants mated with the daughters of Cain. But the Nephalim were already there, as Genesis states. In my understanding, the ‘Sons of God’ are righteous believers touched by the 2nd Adam through a godly lineage that populated the earth with the daughters of men (or Cain) in the midst of growing evil. The Bible reveals what the Lord requires from and for humankind. Still, Heiser takes a more literal reading and dives deep into the Enochian Corpus claiming its validity because certain NT books quote from it like in 1 Peter and Jude.
Granted, his interpretations provide a biblical basis for missiology that conquers the nations and their gods with the gospel of Jesus Christ. For example, In the NT Matt. 16, he posits an exciting take on Jesus and his disciples at Caesarea Philippi, where he identifies the 'gates of hell' with the area's temples and claims the 'rock' as Mt. Hermon. Peter is not the first Pope upon whom the church will be built, and perhaps Jesus is not the rock, just the geography, yet still affirming the spiritual conquest of the Messiah because of the significance of the Mountain in ancient lore. Here, the watchers from Gen. 6 originated at the cultic center of Baal in the Tanakh, where hybrid giants mated with the daughters of Cain. But the Nephalim were already there, as Genesis states. In my understanding, the ‘Sons of God’ are righteous believers touched by the 2nd Adam through a godly lineage that populated the earth with the daughters of men (or Cain) in the midst of growing evil. The Bible reveals what the Lord requires from and for humankind. Still, Heiser takes a more literal reading and dives deep into the Enochian Corpus claiming its validity because certain NT books quote from it like in 1 Peter and Jude.
My concerns with Heiser stem from his 'peer-reviewed' scholarly approach, which assumes and interacts with the assumptions of modernity concerning the writing of the Tanakh as late exilic literature and a limited knowledge of Jewish Halakah. Thus, controversial 2nd temple Jewish positions, plus the symbolic poetic over a historical narrative dichotomy by forcing an old or older earth position (that may be true) which misses the significance of the Hebrew Calendar which the Bishop Ussher canonized, Heiser also mythologizes the flood as local which also may be true, sorry Ken Ham. But he seems to imply the Hebrews were absorbing the pre-eminence of Ancient Near Eastern cultures for their template to communicate and proclaim. This is the Christian academy today, yet let us not take those cultures so seriously over the spiritual meaning conveyed which has stood the test of time.
The Tetragrammton (ineffable name) as better than the gods of the pagans emerges, yet within the paradigm of the German Higher Critics. True, something plausible but secondary or vice versa, as evidenced by the oral tradition for a Hebrew religion. Something Abraham recovered and brought unto the nations through the consistent revelation of the Derekh Haretz or the Sheva Mitzvot a.k.a. The Noahide Laws. Rather such supernatural affirmations are what scholars take in constructivist progression for the emergence of monotheism, such a methodology diminishes a simple reading of scripture merged with Heiser’s spiritual world. He claims the scriptures come from many sources in a redacted form written around 400-200 BC. Thus, 'the paper trail,' as authority. Certain proper conclusions remain, yet the methodology has its dead ends and logical progressions that show Christian Apologetics has ‘painted itself into a corner.’
All pointing to how Heiser was tentative about Moses the prophet scribe but does not deny his historical place, perhaps as myth or an archtype. His positive review of the film Patterns of Evidence by Tim Mahoney presents David Rohl’s corrective Egyptian chronology. Still, he subordinates a plain reading of scripture to the original cultural signifiers and its intended message for an original audience, namely exilic or post-exile Israel. Even going so far as to say that we should not look for Jesus in every verse or page of the Tanakh, which is typical of academic snobbery.
All pointing to how Heiser was tentative about Moses the prophet scribe but does not deny his historical place, perhaps as myth or an archtype. His positive review of the film Patterns of Evidence by Tim Mahoney presents David Rohl’s corrective Egyptian chronology. Still, he subordinates a plain reading of scripture to the original cultural signifiers and its intended message for an original audience, namely exilic or post-exile Israel. Even going so far as to say that we should not look for Jesus in every verse or page of the Tanakh, which is typical of academic snobbery.
If Jesus is the revelation of God in a NT sense, what about the eternal Son in an OT sense? The Messiah is Judaism as Savior! To strip us out of our theological baggage, however useful this is or not, thus going back to the ‘naked bible.’ Inductive methodology without tradition, fitting well with today's eclectic sensibilities. Heiser weighed specific data, not the whole record and his methods gave the academy too much authority and tools for perpetuating the Wellhausen (German Higher Critic) approach to religious development, and again ultimately misleading.
Nevertheless, the truth of angels and demons is staring us in the face. Heiser provides the textual to build a biblical theology but lacks respect for revealed religion and traditions that trust the idolatry of the academics. This is evident in how he presents the “Two Powers in Heaven” research of a Jewish academic like Alan Segal over having even tried to understand a revelational approach of Judaism as the oracle keepers of the Lord and instead concerned Trinitarian evidence.
Many who called out such thinking in the contorversial dialogs of the Babylonian Talmud which may help us all get back to properly understanding the Angel of the Lord or Yeshua Sar Haphanim, (the prince of the presence) and the ‘Sin of Acher’ or Kitzuts Neti’ot; as true religious Jews of the 1st century understood ‘The Two Powers’ merged with the Enochian Corpus which Heiser over estimates; textual remnants in non Pauline New Testaments texts such as Peter and Jude uncover the Apostle to the Gentiles sanction to jettison such ‘traditions of men’ (Titus 1:7) as The Enochian Corpus simply was a version of a ‘sacred human seed doctrine’ which is the problem with the Zoharists and virtually all of ‘rabbinical’ Judaism today today. This leads into another area where church fathers had limited understanding. I surmise the authority of James the Just as the holder of the Netzar (root of David) dynasty and Notzrim (anti-nomian ethnic jews of many a pervious era) who fueled early gnostic error, provided a conflation that we are still unraveling through the modern historical Jesus and Paul pursuit. Therefore indirectly affirming our need to read religious Jews over just academics who do provide valid data, yet is up to us to reconstruct a Jesus Christ affriming narrative. Heiser would have benefitted from reading a researcher like Harvey Falk’s Jesus the Pharisee, to help his methodology.
The Messiah present as the ‘Spirit hovered over the waters’ begins the triune Lord of creation. Thus through providence we have the ‘OT scriptures’ Heiser accurately sees as ‘a summary’ and not the development theory of the Wellhausen conclusion, thus his methodological vulnerability and why Heiser was retecint in expounding the authoritative ‘mishnaic’ NT texts to lead us to salvation and godly living, because of the overtly prophetic (Political Zionistic) direction that manifests in Christianity over the victory of the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world.
Sadly the majority of Christians and virtually all Jews miss these incarnations or theophanies (Spirit & Lamb et al) today that aid the holiness of God as recorded in scripture. A partial hardening rests upon all of us, yet Heiser actually strove to combat this, arriving early for his reward. There is still so much to uncover and learn!
