Who was Michael Heiser, and what did he teach? The following quote is taken from Wikipedia (Heiser’s personal website and bio were unavailable when this article was written, perhaps permanently … http://www.drmsh.com).

Michael Steven Heiser (February 14, 1963 – February 20, 2023) was an American Old Testament scholar and Christian author with training in ancient history, Semitic languages, and the Hebrew Bible from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His expertise and work focused on the nature of the spiritual realm in the Bible and about spiritual matters more generally, and he wrote more than ten books on these subjects since 2010. (Wikipedia)

Over the last decade, Heiser has proved to be a polarizing theologian – some warned against his heretical views on “henotheism” and “polytheism” – others hailed him as a modern day reformer in the world of spiritual warfare. In my opinion, the truth is found in neither of these extremes, but somewhere in the middle.

My initial exposure to Heiser was around 2014. One of the administrative assistants at Immanuel knew the topic of my PhD dissertation and thought I would enjoy The Unseen Realm. She was right. In fact, as I read The Unseen Realm, I found myself wishing that I had been able to interact with Heiser’s work when I wrote my dissertation.

I attended The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. I graduated with my MDiv in 2006 and my PhD in 2010. My PhD supervisor was Chuck Lawless, an expert in the field of spiritual warfare. My dissertation was on Paul’s view of the “principalities and powers” and how the church in North America should respond (or not respond).

I’ve listened to all kinds of podcast hosts offer their hot takes on Heiser. I’ve read the published critiques and praises of Heiser, both in digital format, in printed works, and on social media. I’ve been part of “small groups” that read and discussed Heiser’s writing and now infamous “divine council worldview.” What follows are “five friendly critiques” and “five cautious commendations” of Michael S. Heiser.

Five Friendly Critiques

1. Heiser’s suggestion that we can read the Bible without “bias” is naive. We all approach the Bible with worldview assumptions. Yes, we ought to be aware of those assumptions. Yes, we ought to try and understand the worldview assumptions of the ancient Hebrews and the first century Jews. Yes, worldview bias prevents many people from seeing what the Bible says. However, there is no place of unbiased neutrality that allows the modern reader to interpret the Bible “purely” without the bias that plagues all other scholars.
2. Heiser’s acceptance of the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) worldview as determinative for interpreting the biblical text reveals his own “bias.” Of course, modern day readers of the Bible ought to work hard to understand the worldview assumptions of the ANE, but that doesn’t mean every belief from the ANE ought to be incorporated into our interpretation of the Bible. The ANE worldview is no more determinative than an Enlightenment worldview or a postmodern worldview when it comes to deciding what is true and real.
3. Heiser’s arguments often fail to land. At times, it feels like he’s endlessly chasing rabbits and writing in circles. Often, it seems as if Heiser confuses the ideas of “correlation” and “causation.” Yes, it’s good to point out similarities between the Bible and other ancient documents. Of course, it can be helpful to understand how ancient languages worked, and non-biblical sources can aid in this understanding. Still, there are many places where Heiser seems to present an idea as possible without showing why it is true or necessary.
4. Heiser’s discussion of spiritual beings as “imagers” or “image bearers” has no biblical basis. Heiser is right to talk about the reality of spiritual beings, the agency of spiritual beings, and even the “personhood” of spiritual beings (angels and demons and “elohim” and gods are not simply abstract forces – they are personal creatures). Still, the Bible does not speak of spiritual beings as “imagers” in the way that human beings are said to be created in the “image of God.” Heiser extrapolates this rather than exegeting it.
5. Heiser’s hatred for reformed soteriology has little connection to his “divine council worldview.” Heiser would disagree with this, of course. In his mind, the “freedom” that exists in both the spiritual and earthly realms is essential to how God works in the world. Nevertheless, one can hold to total depravity and a reformed view of soteriology and accept the basic framework of Heiser’s “divine council worldview.” These really are two areas of theology that are quite easy to keep separate and distinct.

Five Cautious Commendations

1. Heiser isright when he talks about the Old Testament usage of the word “elohim.” The word can function as the name (or as a title) for the one, true “God.” In English, that would be “elohim” with a capital E. Heiser is also right to point out that “elohim” is a plural word that can refer to “gods” – and he rightly argues that while the idols of the nations have no real substance, the gods of the nations do have real existence. Thus, “elohim” can refer to a “category” of spiritual beings – all of which are created by the one, true God, Yahweh. Heiser is not the only theologian to make this argument!
2. Heiser is right when he emphasizes the existence of a “divine council” of “gods.” No, Heiser is not a polytheist or a henotheist. Those accusations are made by people who have not grasped how the Old Testament uses the word “elohim.” Heiser is a monotheist – he believes in one, true, Creator God who has eternally existed as Father, Son, and Spirit. He is also right to speak of God’s “divine council” – a group of created “elohim” who serve under God and at his command. Some are loyal, and others are in rebellion. Heiser is not the only theologian to talk about the divine council!
3. Heiser is right to point out that many modern day evangelicals only believe in spiritual beings “in theory.” That is, if asked whether or not they believe in the unseen realm, most evangelicals would say “yes.” And yet, this belief has little impact on our everyday lives. When the Bible speaks to the realities of the “unseen realm,” we tend to be quick to explain the supernatural away in favor of a more naturalistic hermeneutic. We have largely fallen for the “materialist” error CS Lewis warned about. Heiser is not the only theologian to talk about our tendency to disbelieve in the unseen realm!
4. Heiser is right to insist that understanding the “divine council” and the “unseen realm” will help you read your Bible rightly. To be fair, Heiser has a tendency to overplay this card. He tends to make it sound like only those who understand the “divine council” can make sense of Scripture. This is surely not the case. Many scholars and countless “lay Christians” have read the Bible, discerned the gospel, and served Jesus without having a solid grasp of the “divine council.” Still, understanding these topics will help you make sense of the Bible. Heiser is not the only theologian to argue this point!
5. Heiser is right to consider what other ANE texts say about spiritual beings and the spiritual realm. This doesn’t mean the ancient Hebrews believed everything their pagan neighbors believed. Divine revelation from the one, true God was the basis for the ancient Hebrew worldview, not the beliefs of Hittites and Philistines and Babylonians. Still, the words used by God in speaking to his covenant people were words taken out of a cultural and linguistic context. Understanding what the ancients believed can help one make sense of what the Bible says. Heiser is not the only theologian to encourage this kind of study!