Michael Heiser's work on the Divine Council

[RamistThomist]

One example is his stress on the importance of context - which he defines as 2nd Temple extra biblical writings - as essential for understanding Scripture, especially 1 Enoch. I am very leery of that approach to hermeneutics.

It can be taken the wrong way. On the other hand, every single hermeneutics book ever written says you have to know the original sitz im lebel. 2 Temple Judaism has a bad rap because of the mischief from the New Perspective.

As to Enoch, here's my take. At the very least, Jude, and probably Peter, thought they were quoting the ancient Enoch. It just so happens that their quotes match up with the intertestamental text. My understanding is that there was indeed an ancient Enochian tradition that was later codified.

Who would you guys recommend that has put together a biblical theology of "sons of god" or the supernatural battle in the unseen realm from more of a Reformed Perspective?

Doug Van Dorn and Brian Godawa
https://www.amazon.com/Giants-Sons-...preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
https://www.amazon.com/When-Giants-..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KBQS4M4G0FZ1DWMJM5PC
https://www.amazon.com/Unseen-Realm..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=SF4GGZWCHSRMQ9R8THX5

 

[lynnie]

Jim, I read Van Dorn and am 2/3 of the way through Unseen Realm. You will definitely prefer Van Dorn if you get into any conversations and want to recommend a book. Reformed Baptist. But I am enjoying UR and impressed by the Hebrew scholarship on this topic.

I don't think the author intended this reaction of a reader, but there has not been a day when I read a chapter that I didn't think how very very glad I am to wear a head covering at church "because of the angels". That fact has hit home in a way that it never did in all the years I've believed in headcoverings.

So Jacob...are there any Nephilim today? I googled it and read about a 12' giant in Afghanistan cover up, but the site was questionable. And giants today could be pituitary problems. But do you believe this is happening now? ( not that the evil realm even needs to reengage in such activities if God permitted, they seem to be doing just fine inhabiting and influencing ordinary humans into the grossest evils).

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Jim, I read Van Dorn and am 2/3 of the way through Unseen Realm. You will definitely prefer Van Dorn if you get into any conversations and want to recommend a book. Reformed Baptist. But I am enjoying UR and impressed by the Hebrew scholarship on this topic.

I don't think the author intended this reaction of a reader, but there has not been a day when I read a chapter that I didn't think how very very glad I am to wear a head covering at church "because of the angels". That fact has hit home in a way that it never did in all the years I've believed in headcoverings.

So Jacob...are there any Nephilim today? I googled it and read about a 12' giant in Afghanistan cover up, but the site was questionable. And giants today could be pituitary problems. But do you believe this is happening now? ( not that the evil realm even needs to reengage in such activities if God permitted, they seem to be doing just fine inhabiting and influencing ordinary humans into the grossest evils).

This is a topic I have done a lot of research on as I was planning on writing a book on the topic. I'll gather some stuff together as soon as I have time at work. Do you own Jonathan Edward works? He has an interesting write up in volume 2. I am also familiar with the "Afghanistan Giant." I believe that was disclosed by the GenSix crew, Steve Quayle, Tim Alberino, and L. A. Marzuli. They are an interesting bunch. Timothy Alberino has an interesting video series on the "Red haired Giants of America" in the "Alberino Analysis." You can find it on YouTube.

 

[RamistThomist]

So Jacob...are there any Nephilim today? I googled it and read about a 12' giant in Afghanistan cover up, but the site was questionable. And giants today could be pituitary problems. But do you believe this is happening now? ( not that the evil realm even needs to reengage in such activities if God permitted, they seem to be doing just fine inhabiting and influencing ordinary humans into the grossest evils).

I think that giant is real, though it might not have anything to do with Nephilim.

I don't have any evidence today that fallen kosmokratoras are fornicating with human women. With that said, however, transhumanism and genetic splicing is able to achieve the same results as the ancient Nephilim, which the demonic entities involved probably know, so no need to bother with the early reasons.

 

[TheInquirer]

It can be taken the wrong way. On the other hand, every single hermeneutics book ever written says you have to know the original sitz im lebel. 2 Temple Judaism has a bad rap because of the mischief from the New Perspective.

Yes, my reaction was to Heiser using the material and then making some large assumptions about what is going on in the heads of the original authors of Scripture. Understanding what is going on in anyone's heads is tough to do let alone people that lived thousands of years before us.

The Jude quote of 1 Enoch is intriguing and I don't quite know what to do with it yet as far as it reflects on the rest of 1 Enoch. I have read the first 36 chapters of 1 Enoch. They are intriguing but I can't help but think that if they are reliable and accurate and necessary to understand the rest of Scripture, why aren't they in our Bibles?

Do you own Jonathan Edward works? He has an interesting write up in volume 2.

I might on Kindle. I will have to check.

Thanks for all the recommendations, I appreciate it.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Yes, my reaction was to Heiser using the material and then making some large assumptions about what is going on in the heads of the original authors of Scripture. Understanding what is going on in anyone's heads is tough to do let alone people that lived thousands of years before us.

The Jude quote of 1 Enoch is intriguing and I don't quite know what to do with it yet as far as it reflects on the rest of 1 Enoch. I have read the first 36 chapters of 1 Enoch. They are intriguing but I can't help but think that if they are reliable and accurate and necessary to understand the rest of Scripture, why aren't they in our Bibles?



I might on Kindle. I will have to check.

Thanks for all the recommendations, I appreciate it.

I was pretty excited when I came across this while reading Edwards' notes on Genesis six.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/edwards-on-giants.96166/

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Also, Heiser's new book arrived today. I have been looking forward to it's release. It should be an interesting read. As always, I go into his books knowing I won't agree with him on everything. I am surprised he hasn't put out any videos or interviews promoting it as he did his others.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Also, Heiser's new book arrived today. I have been looking forward to it's release. It should be an interesting read. As always, I go into his books knowing I won't agree with him on everything. I am surprised he hasn't put out any videos or interviews promoting it as he did his others.

In anticipation of what was planned:
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/?page_id=37

 

[RamistThomist]

They are intriguing but I can't help but think that if they are reliable and accurate and necessary to understand the rest of Scripture, why aren't they in our Bibles?

There are a lot of true things that are accurate and reliable that don't need to be in Scripture. That's not a sufficient condition for canonicity. It's a necessary condition, but that's all.

 

[RamistThomist]

Regarding the "Two Powers in Heaven." Ecumenists like Miroslav Volf do not like that, as it means that the Jewish and Christian understanding of God is radically different from the self-enclosed monad of Islam. And since Volf is an apologist for Islam, that bothers him.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

In anticipation of what was planned:
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/?page_id=37

I do apologize but I am not following this as a response to my quoted message. Can you please clarify?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I do apologize but I am not following this as a response to my quoted message. Can you please clarify?

I was simply pointing you to earlier videos on the same topic that "promote" what Heiser planned to publish.

 

[RamistThomist]

I was simply pointing you to earlier videos on the same topic that "promote" what Heiser planned to publish.

I also wondered about that, because I was super stoked if he had videos on angels. Sadly, he really didn't (well, nothing outside his larger corpus). He did give a list of underdeveloped topics in biblical studies. He's not necessarily endorsing the conclusions, but only that scholars haven't paid a lot of attention to many of these.

http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/?page_id=153

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

I was simply pointing you to earlier videos on the same topic that "promote" what Heiser planned to publish.

Oh, got you. Thanks for clarifying. I am familiar with the "Two Powers in Heaven." Thanks.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

I also wondered about that, because I was super stoked if he had videos on angels. Sadly, he really didn't (well, nothing outside his larger corpus). He did give a list of underdeveloped topics in biblical studies. He's not necessarily endorsing the conclusions, but only that scholars haven't paid a lot of attention to many of these.

http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/?page_id=153

Yeah. His website was also down at some point yesterday. I was able to get on it around 5:30 in the morning but none of the articles would load. I tried again late last night and there was a server error. Not much on his Twitter besides political "retweets."

 

[RamistThomist]

Yeah. His website was also down at some point yesterday. I was able to get on it around 5:30 in the morning but none of the articles would load. I tried again late last night and there was a server error. Not much on his Twitter besides political "retweets."

I don't think it is down so much as you need to hit refresh on your browswer.

 

[RamistThomist]

Oh, got you. Thanks for clarifying. I am familiar with the "Two Powers in Heaven." Thanks.

Very powerful apologetic against JWs, Muslims, and Miroslav Volf.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Very powerful apologetic against JWs, Muslims, and Miroslav Volf.

I couldn't agree more. I will be incorporating it in my evangelistic methods towards Muslims and my polemic writings against Islam. Have you read Segal's "Two Powers in Heaven?"

 

[RamistThomist]

I couldn't agree more. I will be incorporating it in my evangelistic methods towards Muslims and my polemic writings against Islam. Have you read Segal's "Two Powers in Heaven?"

Not yet, as i thought it was published by Brill. Since it's not, I might get it for Christ-mass.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

An excerpt from Augustin's "City of God" Book xv:

"But the large size of the primitive human body is often proved to the incredulous by the exposure of sepulchres, either through the wear of time or the violence of torrents or some accident, and in which bones of incredible size have been found or have rolled out. I myself, along with some others, saw on the shore at Utica a man’s molar tooth of such a size, that if it were cut down into teeth such as we have, a hundred, I fancy, could have been made out of it. But that, I believe, belonged to some giant. For though the bodies of ordinary men were then larger than ours, the giants surpassed all in stature. And neither in our own age nor any other have there been altogether wanting instances of gigantic stature, though they may be few. The younger Pliny, a most learned man, maintains that the older the world becomes, the smaller will be the bodies of men.800 And he mentions that Homer in his poems often lamented the same decline; and this he does not laugh at as a poetical figment, but in his character of a recorder of natural wonders accepts it as historically true. But, as I said, the bones which are from time to time discovered prove the size of the bodies of the ancients,801 and will do so to future ages, for they are slow to decay. "

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

An excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's poem on the Niagara Falls:

"But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus
first sought this continent — when Christ suffered on the cross — when Moses
led Israel through the Red Sea — nay, even when Adam first came from
the hand of his Maker; then, as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes
of that species of extinct giants whose bones fill the mounds of America have
gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Contemporary with the first race of
men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong and fresh to-day as ten
thousand years ago. "

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

An excerpt from Cotton Mather's "Biblia Americana:"

"The Giants that once Groan’d under the Waters, are now Found under the Earth, and their Dead Bones are Lively Proofs of the Mosaic History"

 

[KGP]

One example is his stress on the importance of context - which he defines as 2nd Temple extra biblical writings - as essential for understanding Scripture, especially 1 Enoch. I am very leery of that approach to hermeneutics.

As you ought to be.
Extra biblical writings are not essential for our understanding of scripture however helpful we may find them when it comes to developing a more robust and precise etymology or in giving depth to certain imagery or illusion.

Confession of sin and needfulness, consecration of heart, willingness to hear and do the will of God, the grace and mercy of God, and the indwelling and illuminating Holy Spirit are the essentials for scriptural understanding.

 

[RamistThomist]

As you ought to be.
Extra biblical writings are not essential for our understanding of scripture however helpful we may find them when it comes to developing a more robust and precise etymology or in giving depth to certain imagery or illusion.

Confession of sin and needfulness, consecration of heart, willingness to hear and do the will of God, the grace and mercy of God, and the indwelling and illuminating Holy Spirit are the essentials for scriptural understanding.

I think you mean "allusion" instead of "illusion." In another thread we talked about to what degree ancient culture was important. You don't need to know ancient culture to be saved. But you do need to know it to know the context in which the Bible was written. That sentence is probably in every Evangelical and Reformed hermeneutics textbook.

Heiser is simply saying when God communicated to ancient man, he did so in the conceptual framework they already had. He didn't use Einsteinian science, Lockean democracy, and the UN Charter of Human Rights.

As to 1 Enoch. Jude and Peter read the book. Heiser is simply saying that it might not be a bad idea to read what those two guys were reading.

 

[KGP]

I think you mean "allusion" instead of "illusion." In another thread we talked about to what degree ancient culture was important. You don't need to know ancient culture to be saved. But you do need to know it to know the context in which the Bible was written. That sentence is probably in every Evangelical and Reformed hermeneutics textbook.

Heiser is simply saying when God communicated to ancient man, he did so in the conceptual framework they already had. He didn't use Einsteinian science, Lockean democracy, and the UN Charter of Human Rights.

As to 1 Enoch. Jude and Peter read the book. Heiser is simply saying that it might not be a bad idea to read what those two guys were reading.

Haha, yes, I certain do mean allusion good catch.

I'll need to go check that thread you mention. I recognize that familiarity with contemporary sources/contexts adds color to the theological outlines and often helps make additional connections, adding layers of information that is helpful and illuminating. However if one claims that ANE or others such contemporary sources are "essential" to understanding the Bible at a fundamental level, or views those sources as the KEY to unlocking the REAL perspective and right understanding of the text; that is where I start to get skeptical quite quickly, I generally see it as a move against the perspicuity of scripture fundamentally and a good way to inject a new and convenient meaning in the place of orthodoxy.

I do not assume that to be the case in this situation mind you; just seen it enough before to commend a cautious stance against similar claims.

 

[RamistThomist]

However if one claims that ANE or others such contemporary sources are "essential" to understanding the Bible at a fundamental level, or views those sources as the KEY to unlocking the REAL perspective and right understanding of the text;

Agreed, but I don't think anyone is saying that. Heiser in his podcasts said if all you can do in Bible study is use Strong's Concordance, that's better than nothing.

 

[RamistThomist]

If you have volume 2 of Bavinck on Reformed Dogmatics, look up the section on angels. While he disagrees with the Nephilim reading of Genesis 6 (he ignores or is unaware of any discussion linking Jude/2 Peter with Genesis 6), the rest of his discussion sounds like Heiser's. With Heiser he notes that the Prince of Persia was a territorial spirit and not the Persian king.

With Heiser he notes that angel is a term of function, not of metaphysics.

 

[a mere housewife]

He may have some things to say that are a good corrective for a modernist mindset, but I'm not inclined to trust the scholarship of people who fudge interpretation of texts I do know about, when they are talking about those I don't.
Heiser:
'Did God select and intend the death of Jesus as a penal substitution, or did he just foreknow what would happen to Jesus on earth (not intending that he die) and then, through raising him from the dead, endorse him as a substitution? It seems to me that God foreknew humanity would suffer the loss of immortality (i.e., Eden would fail and with it, everlasting life with God). God knew this meant that death separated him from the humans he loved and wanted in his family forever.' (http://drmsh.com/random-thoughts-substitutionary-atonement/)

I may not be comfortable with what Scripture says on many topics, but there's no denying its clarity on those topics. On the level of scholarship, this seems equivalent to altering our perception of the gulags.

I'm also unimpressed with a report from someone who is enthusiastic about what he teaches that there was no sacrifice in the Jewish administration for intentional sins and the sacrifices were not about forgiveness. The last verses of Leviticus 5 in the Hebrew Bible, first in chapter 6 in the English Bible, deal with intentional sins. I suppose one could write off the Jewish tradition of interpretation of these verses in the Mishnah, which clearly takes them as intentional, but I'm not sure how you deal with the reality of OT practice (as when David offered a sacrifice after numbering the people). When someone's scholarship in the context of the OT leads him to tell me to remove Christ from how I read the OT sacrifices -- the Bereans wouldn't have cared if he were the apostle Paul, if he were contradicting the clear teaching of the prophets. And it makes me doubt the carefulness of his scholarship with texts other than Scripture. I'd want a second opinion from a scholar who was reliable with texts I knew something about.

 

[RamistThomist]

He may have some things to say that are a good corrective for a modernist mindset, but I'm not inclined to trust the scholarship of people who fudge interpretation of texts I do know about, when they are talking about those I don't.
Heiser:
'Did God select and intend the death of Jesus as a penal substitution, or did he just foreknow what would happen to Jesus on earth (not intending that he die) and then, through raising him from the dead, endorse him as a substitution? It seems to me that God foreknew humanity would suffer the loss of immortality (i.e., Eden would fail and with it, everlasting life with God). God knew this meant that death separated him from the humans he loved and wanted in his family forever.' (http://drmsh.com/random-thoughts-substitutionary-atonement/)

I may not be comfortable with what Scripture says on many topics, but there's no denying its clarity on those topics. On the level of scholarship, this seems equivalent to altering our perception of the gulags.

Whether those criticisms are true or not has no bearing on his specific claims on the Divine council.

he teaches that there was no sacrifice in the Jewish administration for intentional sins and the sacrifices were not about forgiveness.

I'll double check on that, but in his recent talks on Ezekiel 40-48 he acknowledges the guilt-forgiveness-sin aspect. But many sacrifices in Leviticus aren't about that. They are about ritual purity.

When someone's scholarship in the context of the OT leads him to tell me to remove Christ from how I read the OT sacrifices -- the Bereans wouldn't have cared if he were the apostle Paul, if he were contradicting the clear teaching of the prophets.

The Berean angle works both ways: I've been double-checking all this stuff in Hebrew and am now learning Ugaritic and I am seeing that Heiser's thesis works.

I am not boasting, for I have far to go, but I can't remember the last time I did "a devotional" in the English language.

And it makes me doubt the carefulness of his scholarship with texts other than Scripture.

That only works if you can show logical or linguistic fallacies in the texts under discussion.

I'd want a second opinion from a scholar who was reliable with texts I knew something about.

I've listed bibliographies on this page with dozens upon dozens of scholars, many of whom are Evangelical. I don't know what else to say.

 

[a mere housewife]

Jacob, he may be right on the divine council -- I don't know. I was saying that from what I know if him, I wouldn't trust his word for it. I'd check the other resources that handled Scripture more accurately on subjects that are clear to me. I'm glad you've posted other resources!