A General Assessment of Dr. Michael Heiser’s Unseen Realm
Since I am sometimes asked to offer an opinion about the “Deuteronomy 32 Worldview” (or “The Divine Council Worldview”) unpacked by Dr. Heiser in his book The Unseen Realm, I thought I would reflect on his perspective in a blog post. This will save me some time when responding to inquirers. Though this is far too brief given the voluminous material available, this is my first attempt to say something in print about his work.
Before I unpack my understanding of Heiser’s worldview, I caution the reader that I am no expert regarding his work. I have read a couple of his books, watched dozens of videos (out of hundreds), read some of his blogs, and listened to dozens of podcasts by him, interviews with him, and podcasters supporting him (as well as a few critiques). However, there is more that I have not seen, read, or listened to than I have. Consequently, I may totally misunderstand him, or he may have explained something somewhere about which I am ignorant. What I say, then, is tentative and needs further exploration or explanation. I certainly do not have any final word about his “worldview”—far from it; this blog is only a beginning probe, undertaken by a beginner in all things Heiser. So, I am sure I have misunderstood or misnamed some elements. I invite correction so that I might not only be fair to our late brother but also to learn from him.[1]
A Summary of Heiser’s “Worldview”
Heiser’s book is a narrative unfolding of the story of God from creation to new creation in the light of the fundamental conflict between rebellious elohim (gods, heavenly beings) with their servants (human rebels) and Yahweh whose loyal servants follow the Most High El (God, Yahweh). Heiser styles it the “Deuteronomy 32 Worldview” (or “Divine Council Worldview”) because Deuteronomy 32:8-9 provides a touchstone for seeing the cosmos through a particular lens. While the Hebrew noun elohim may refer to Yahweh (and most often does), it can also refer to heavenly spiritual beings (thus, “gods” or perhaps a variety of “angels”). Yahweh is an elohim (a heavenly, spiritual being) but no other elohim is Yahweh because Yahweh is the Most-High El. These heavenly beings are not the creator nor are they comparable to Yahweh. They are radically and ontologically different. Though called “gods” (elohim), they are not supreme and are themselves creatures (they are not eternal but created like what we typically think about angels). In essence, elohim may, at times, refer to any being who is spirit (ruach, in contrast to body) and resides in the heavens (a spiritual location). But Yahweh alone is eternal and sovereign. Heiser is a monotheist, not a polytheist since the elohim are created beings whom Yahweh gifted with residence in the heavenlies.
Yahweh created a family to partner with Yahweh (who is the Triune Creator) in shepherding and ruling the creation. This family has both unseen divine (“sons of God”) members—including the divine council—and a visible human family (Adam was also a “son of God”). Both lived together in Eden. Yahweh intended Eden to eventually fill the earth where both the divine and human members of God’s family would live together in harmony. The “sons of God” (the divine council) were present at creation. Consequently, they had greater knowledge than the human family (Adam and Eve). For example, they already had a knowledge of “good and evil” that Adam and Eve did not have (Genesis 3:22). The members of both the divine and human families, however, possessed free will and were capable of loyalty (partnering with God) or rebellion (seeking autonomy).
Creation experienced a detour. The story in Genesis 3-11 proceeds with a succession of rebellions. Coaxed by one of Yahweh’s elohim who was jealous of humanity, Adam and Eve rebelled. This resulted in the exclusion of the couple from Eden as well as the casting down of the rebel el (god) as lord of the underworld (or death). Another rebellion came in the form of “sons of God” (Yahweh’s elohim) copulating with the “daughters of men” (human beings), which produced the Nephilim (e.g., giants or a warrior race), though not all the “sons of God” rebelled (as is evident from Job 1). Another rebellion came in the form of human hubris to erect an idolatrous sanctuary at Babel.
At this moment, Yahweh decided to choose a nation as the means by which the promised seed (cf. Genesis 3:15) would redeem the world. Yahweh chose Israel and covenanted with them as God’s firstborn son among the nations. But Yahweh divided the other seventy nations of Genesis 10 among the elohim to rule, according to Heiser’s reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. These elohim, whether already rebellious or they later became rebellious (Heiser’s view), enslaved the nations to evil and fomented conflict between Israel (Yahweh’s covenant people) and the nations (whom the elohim ruled). These elohim did not rule justly and the Psalmist called upon Yahweh to judge the earth that was ruled by these elohim in unrighteousness (Psalm 82). The history of Israel is a history of this conflict as the rebel elohim and the enslaved nations sought to destroy Israel or to enslave Israel by bringing them under their rule.
Yahweh sent the unique (monogenes), fully divine and uncreated Son of God to redeem Israel and the nations from the rule of these elohim. This one of a kind Son of God is Yahweh incarnate; Yahweh in the flesh. The work of Jesus as the Messiah was to suffer death as our substitute and break the chains of the elohim by his resurrection. The ministry of Jesus reversed the curse, liberated Israel and the nations, and dealt with the guilt and power of sin. In the incarnation of the Logos and the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2 Yahweh is revealed as a triune Godhead (or Trinity): Father, Son, and Spirit. Heiser argues there are strong indications of this Godhead in the Hebrew Scriptures as well. The three persons are equally divine, uncreated, and ontologically superior to the created elohim. This triune Godhead is the one God of Israel, Yahweh, the Creator of all that exists and the Eternal Sovereign of the cosmos.
The story of Israel continues through the church as Israel and the nations give their allegiance to Yahweh as Father, Son, and Spirit. The people of God align themselves with Yahweh through baptism (a loyalty oath), gather in communities loyal to Yahweh and dedicated to each other, and proclaim the message of Yahweh’s victory over the rebel elohim. Ultimately, when the Messiah, the Davidic Son of Man, returns to finally destroy the rebellious nations and defeat the rebellious elohim (as in Revelation 19:11-21), Yahweh will rule the new heaven and new earth and fill it with righteousness and peace. This is what Yahweh intended from the beginning, starting with Eden (Revelation 21-22). Eden is restored in a glorified state because of the victory of Jesus over the powers and principalities.
Affirmation
I share a lot of common ground with Heiser regarding the narrative plot of Scripture, and I would affirm the following points in agreement with him (and this is not an exhaustive list).
- Yahweh alone, as three persons in the Godhead, is the creator of the cosmos and ontologically different from everything else that exists.
- The divine council has a function in the biblical narrative; it may be referenced by the plural elohim as in Psalm 82 or the “sons of God” as in Job 1. They are heavenly partners with God in the unseen realm.
- The “serpent” in Eden is a created being who is a member of the heavenly (divine) council. He rebelled against Yahweh by seeking to undermine the divine project and wrest control of the world through deceiving humanity. He is not, however, “the satan” of Job 1-2 (the adversary or accuser; hasatan in Hebrew). That heavenly being, as one of the sons of God, is a prosecutor within the divine council for Yahweh’s interests in the world.
- The conflict between Israel and the nations is rooted in the conflict between Yahweh and the rebellious elohim. This conflict continues in the present. Paul names them as the “principalities and powers,” and Revelation identifies these powers as the Dragon who rules through his beasts.
- The work of the incarnate Yahweh who is Jesus, the Messianic Son of David and Son of Man, includes and highlights a Christus Victor theology of atonement (though not the only atonement metaphor used in the New Testament). The Messiah defeats the powers and ultimately destroys the rebellious elohim.
- The work of these heavenly beings (the elohim as a whole) is to serve Yahweh and humanity, and ultimately humanity will be enthroned with the Davidic King, Jesus the Messiah, to reign over the heavenlies. [For Heiser, humans will sit in the divine council and replace the rebellious elohim who were part of the council.]
- Heiser emphasizes a strong sense of continuity between the story of God in the Hebrew Scriptures and the story of God in the New Testament, between Israel and the church (one people of God from Abraham into the eternal future), and between the origin (Eden) and the goal (new Eden). It is important to see the writers of the New Testament as living within and elaborating on the “worldview” of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is one story.
Questions/Concerns
First, while I see the enslavement of the nations to rebellious elohim as part of the story, I am not as certain about the identification of 70 council members imaged by the 70 elders of Israel (Exodus 24:1-11). These council members rule over the 70 nations derived from the Tower of Babel story in conjunction with Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (using the variant reading of Qumran and the LXX). While Heiser’s interpretation is credible, I don’t think it is necessary. Nor is it necessary to say that every nation has its own real deity or every nation has been assigned a god (one of the elohim); a guardian god to whom Yahweh has delegated the right to rule and judge. One can read the “prince of Persia” and “prince of Greece” in Daniel 10 in this light, though not necessarily. It may be a metaphor; it is uncertain. Moreover, I am not convinced, though I am not totally dissuaded either, that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1 are heavenly beings (e.g, the elohim). Succinctly, I am not so sure we can extrapolate a “worldview” from Heiser’s reading of Genesis and Deuteronomy. I think it is too ambiguous and uncertain to formulate a worldview that shapes all other readings of Scripture. It is important to affirm, however, that Yahweh uses rebellious elohim to rule and judge the nations, though without Yahweh giving up Yahweh’s own sovereignty (note: Heiser does not say Yahweh gives up ultimate sovereignty; quite the contrary). Perhaps that is a sufficiently grounded “worldview” that enables a healthy reading of the conflict between Yahweh and the rebellious elohim in the history of Israel and among the nations. While the heavenly beings were intended to partner with God in the unseen realm and humanity was intended to represent God in the visible realm, the rebellion of some of the elohim led humanity into its own rebellion.
Second, another question concerns the language of “sons of God” in the New Testament (e.g., Galatians 3:26, “you are all sons of God…”). I understand Heiser’s inaugurated eschatology (already sons in one sense, but not yet sons in another sense), but I am a bit disturbed by Heiser’s conclusion (as I understand it). Essentially, does he believe deceased saints (all of them?) will join the divine council and replace the deposed rebellious elohim such that these saints are now themselves elohim? I readily affirm that the redeemed “sons of God” will share in the inheritance of Jesus the Messiah, but not as those who sit in the divine council as elohim (heavenly spiritual beings) but as resurrected and glorified humans. In other words, they are still part of the human council (family) but not part of the divine council (elohim; family). They sit with the crowned and enthroned Messiah, the Son of David, as co-rulers over the cosmos. They sit as human royalty, not as divine elohim. And yet, due to the exaltation of the Messiah, redeemed humanity will sit in judgment upon the rebellious elohim and exercise authority over them. They are “sons of God” by adoption; they are part of the human family of God, just as Adam himself was a “son of God” in the beginning.
Third, while I am willing to see the narrative as a conflict between Yahweh and the rebellious elohim (some originally part of the divine council as sons of God), I fear Heiser’s reading of the whole narrative is so colored by this lens that he sometimes (perhaps often) sees more than is actually there in the text. For example, while listening to his podcast series on Hebrews, I thought some of his interpretations were problematic (e.g., his understanding of ecclesia [assembly] in Hebrews). He seems to see the divine council in texts that are neither explicitly nor readily amenable to such an understanding. So, my caution is that while the divine council perspective has legitimacy, let us be careful that we don’t read it into texts where it is not present or necessary for understanding what the text is doing. In other words, the language of “worldview” may justify framing texts under this rubric when they are not, in fact, expressing that rubric. Perhaps it is best to simply affirm the reality of the divine council rather than making it a “worldview.” Then again, perhaps I am making too much of the use of the word “worldview.”
Fourth, while I appreciate the intent to read the Hebrew Scriptures within their ancient near eastern context (and I affirm that goal) as well as to hear the writers of the New Testament in the context of a Hebraic worldview (including their use of Second Temple texts), I find it problematic to read the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of the 1 Enoch (and other apocalyptic texts such that we assume the same meaning between them and the New Testament). I recognize 1 Enoch was a popular Jewish text and is referenced in Jude (also alluded to in 2 Peter). At the same time, I don’t think it is methodologically helpful to read the New Testament as an expression of the worldview present in 1 Enoch or to hear Genesis 6:1-4 in that context (which is a distant interpretation of that text). For example, the “watchers” appear only in Daniel 4:10, 14, and 20 in the Jewish Scriptures but they are main actors in 1 Enoch. Some interpreters have given that function a huge role in their understanding of the elohim in the Hebrew Bible. I think that is methodologically problematic.
Fifth, a significant hermeneutical question is whether the use of Ancient Near Eastern cultural contexts, language, and imagery is appropriated or affirmed by the writers of the Hebrew Bible. By appropriation I mean that perhaps this language is not always seeking to assert a reality but rather to deconstruct a Mesopotamian or Egyptian myth. I don’t deny the reality of the elohim or a divine council. At the same time, I do think sometimes (perhaps often) the biblical writers appropriate a nation’s cultural mythology and names for gods rather than assert their reality. But that is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis rather than through a philosophical principle that automatically excludes the reality of the elohim (such as happens in naturalism).
Sixth, I invite us all to some hermeneutical humility. It seems to me that advocates of the “Divine Council Worldview” are much more certain about their perspective than the evidence permits. Or, perhaps another way of saying this is that while Heiser’s reading of Genesis 1-3, 6, 11, Deuteronomy 32:8-9, and Psalm 82 is credible, it is not certain. I think it is difficult to build a “worldview” from such controverted texts. At the same time, I must assume a humble position to listen and learn as I am sure that I have missed some important features of the biblical drama. Indeed, I have learned much from Heiser, even though the “worldview” language is a bit disconcerting to me.
Seventh, this point is not a criticism but an acknowledgement. Heiser’s “worldview” is a systematic construct (a function of systematic theology). While he rightly points to features of his worldview in the text as a function of biblical theology, his presentation of this worldview as a coherent systematization of the biblical data is a constructive act, that is, he produces a system with working parts based on his reading of the whole Bible. That is not necessarily a bad thing; we all do it to one extent or another. Yet, systems tend to see themselves where they do not actually appear in the text, and they have a tendency to unwittingly reform the data to fit the system. This is a danger for all systems, and we all share that danger with our own systems (yes, we all have one). In such cases, the system forms the meaning of the text rather than permitting the text to speak for itself and on its own terms (and the latter is something Heiser rightly insists upon). I am quite confident that Heiser does not want the system to dictate biblical interpretation and counsels us to avoid such practices. Nevertheless, it happens to all of us, and it is a caution for any who seek to sustain a constructed “worldview” that is not itself explicitly systematized in the text itself.
Conclusion
I never met Dr. Heiser, but I know some who knew him and even studied with him. I have no doubt he was a careful and humble scholar. I honor his work, and I appreciate his insights. They have helped me deepen my knowledge and understanding of God’s story in Scripture. In fact, if I were to revise my theodrama book Around the Bible in 80 Days: The Story of God from Creation to New Creation, I would include some of his insights and emphasize some aspects more than I did. I have learned from him.
At the same time, we must all practice a radical humility in envisioning the unseen heavenly realm and interpreting Scripture’s unveiling of that realm. There is, as we all know, so much we don’t know and don’t understand. For that reason, I tend to focus my attention on God’s actions in history and our human responses rather than on what the elohim are doing or have done in unseen ways and in unseen regions. It is a theodrama (which Heiser would not deny, of course); it is about God’s acts. I realize the elohim interact with and participate in the theodrama in relation to humanity (they are both humanity’s servants and adversaries, depending on their allegiances in the conflict), and yet I think their workings are not as clear or revealed as some think. We can disagree about that as brothers and sisters. I sure Dr. Heiser would welcome gracious disagreement as well.
This is why I would not elevate my thinking about the heavenly beings (elohim, angels, watchers, etc.) into a “worldview,” though they do have a function in the theodrama itself. Perhaps this is what Dr. Heiser means, and he has certainly contributed to understanding the theodrama in many ways. I am grateful for that.
May Heiser rest from his labors! Peace to all.
[1] I thank Stan Wilson for reviewing my piece before its publication (though not in this final form), and his comments were very helpful. Stan was a close friend of Heiser, and he wrote his dissertation exploring a topic suggested by Heiser with Heiser as an outside reader. Stan made several suggestions which I have incorporated, but—of course—I am responsible for the final form of this piece. Any mistakes are mine.