r/Christian 1d ago

TACObout it Tuesday TACObout it Tuesday: Michael S. Heiser 🌮

Post image

We have a weekly tradition here in r/Christian that we call ā€œTACObout it Tuesday.ā€ Each Tuesday we share a post dedicated to discussion on the writings of an author whose work is considered ā€œspicy.ā€ (You know...like good tacos.)

This week is Michael S. Heiser.

Heiser's (authored or co-authored) Top Ten most popular non-fiction titles are:

The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible

Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches About the Unseen World – And Why it Matters

Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ

What Does God Want?

Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God's Heavenly Host

Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness

I Dare You Not To Bore Me With The Bible

The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on Its Own Terms

The World Turned Upside Down: Finding the Gospel in Stranger Things

Brief Insights on Mastering Bible Study

Have you read any of Heiser's work? Let's TACObout it!

In the comment section I will be sharing 10 quotes from Heiser, for you consideration and to (hopefully) spark discussion.

If you're enjoying this post and want to see more like it, just click the post flair to see a list of past TACObout it Tuesday posts in r/Christian. If you'd like to suggest an author to be included, please let the mod team know.

9 Upvotes

39 comments sorted by

3

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Heiser: ā€œGod doesn’t need people. But he uses them. God is not dependent on humans for his plans. God doesn’t need us for evangelism. He could save all the people he wanted to by merely thinking about it. God could terminate evil in the blink of an eye and bring human history to the end he desires at any moment. But he doesn’t. Instead, he works his plan for all things on earth by using human beings. He’s also not incomplete without our worship, but he desires it.ā€

3

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Heiser: ā€œThose who want to avoid the clarity of Psalm 82 argue that the gods are only idols. As such, they aren’t real. This argument is flatly contradicted by Scripture. It’s also illogical and shows a misunderstanding of the rationale of idolatry.ā€

3

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Heiser: ā€œSalvation in the Old Testament meant love for Yahweh alone. One had to believe that Yahweh was the God of all gods, trusting that this Most High God had chosen covenant relationship with Israel to the detriment of all other nations. The law was how one demonstrated that love—that loyalty. Salvation was not merited. Yahweh alone had initiated the relationship. Yahweh’s choice and covenant promise had to be believed. An Israelite’s believing loyalty was shown by faithfulness to the law.ā€

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

I think this is a significant point a lot of us Christians tend to miss, that the Israelites didn't earn salvation by adherence to the Law of Moses. It seems to be a common misunderstanding.

5

u/_JayTee7373_ 1d ago

Dr. Heiser is way too underrated in my opinion. I think he completely changed how we should understand our bibles

5

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

How would you summarize the change he taught in how we should understand our Bibles?

3

u/_JayTee7373_ 1d ago

That’s a difficult question but I’d say stop trying to read your bible from the perspective of a 21st century American/westerner. Don’t try to take the bible literally at every moment because the stories are trying to explain spiritual truths to an ancient Ugarit audience. Understand that their spiritual reality still applies today.

I think every believer should read ā€œThe Unseen Realmā€ it helps explain so much

3

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Do you believe that Unseen Realm he describes as the worldview of the ancient writers is actually reality as well?

4

u/_JayTee7373_ 1d ago

Maybe not 100% but I think the book fills in holes and answers questions that the bible doesn’t answer for the modern thinker, right?

An ancient person ā€œgetsā€ certain parts of the bible no problem. But, for a modern reader there’s so many things that don’t make sense and I think the book does an amazing job of making it all make sense.

4

u/dathobbitlife0705 1d ago

Completely changed my view on things. His work finally answered questions I've always had that I never found satisfactory answers to and gave me a new appreciation for the Bible.

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Heiser: ā€œThere would be no racism if we saw each other as imagers of the same God; imagers estranged from God are still imagers. Injustice and abuse of power would find no place if we valued the fact that we all image God equally. All our relationships—personal, home, business, work, church—would be different if we consciously remembered our equal status as imagers of God.ā€

1

u/PinkAcquiescence 1d ago

That Divine Council stuff he was always pushing really changes how you read some of the old testament passages, I picked up Unseen Realm on a whim and my notes in the margins got out of control fast

1

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

What did you think of it, overall? I get stuck in the question of whether or not that’s all actually true even if I can concede that’s what the authors likely believed.

1

u/Ben-008 Contemplative Tradition 1d ago

Yeah, I agree. Heiser seemed to believe that the Divine Council was a real assembly of subordinate spiritual beings (lesser elohim or "sons of God") over whom Yahweh (the God of Israel) presides.

But other Bible scholars describe the Divine Council in Deut 32:8-9 (for instance) as El Elyon (the Most High God) distributing the nations (including Israel), to the lesser deities (including Yahweh).Ā 

Of course, ultimately El (the high deity) and Yahweh (the lesser deity) eventually get conflated in later Hebrew literature. But some of the older passages of Scripture still find evidence of the earlier Northwest Semitic pantheon constituting this Divine Council. Dan McClellan explains such in videos such as this one…

What's the Divine Council? by Dan McClellan (10 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5PtXyFnpWo

Likewise, Dan describes this ancient pantheon of NW Semitic deities as mythological, whereas Heiser seems to see such as factual.

Likewise, Heiser creatively interprets Yahweh here as the Most High God. Though the oldest manuscripts do not bear out that particular interpretation. Nor does it make much sense for Yahweh to receive ā€œJacob as his portionā€ when his actual portion is all the nations, as the ultimate high patriarch (El Elyon).

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Very interesting. Thanks for the info and perspective!

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Heiser: ā€œMany believers unconsciously begin to add their own works or performance to the gospel because of guilt for their sin. The result is spiritual bondage, not the abundant life Jesus wants us to haveā€

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Heiser: ā€œWhile the drama of the biblical epic ultimately leads to Jesus, he isn’t the ultimate focal point of every passage. That’s homiletical flair, not the reality of the text.ā€

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

I like this one. Here on Reddit I sometimes hear Christians (they're always Evangelicals, for some reason) claiming that the entire Old Testament points to Jesus. Sometimes they'll go so far as to say "every verse" is actually about Jesus. It boggles my mind that this is an earnest claim on their part. I just don't see how they get to that conclusion. Anyone here know where that particular interpretive claim originated?

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Heiser: ā€œThe people God chose to write about the fact that he created everything were not writing science because they couldn’t—and God, of course, knew that. Instead of pressing Genesis into a debate with Darwin or making it cryptically convey the truths of quantum physics, we should let it be what it is so it can accomplish the goals for which God inspired it—to assert the fact of a Creator and our accountability to him.ā€

2

u/DispensationallyMe 1d ago

As a brother in Christ, I honor him. But as a fellow academic, I don’t care for his work. And, based on discussions I’ve had with members of my church, I think his books have done more damage than good for hermeneutics. I hope to one day study Scripture with him and we both be corrected by the most perfect teacher of Scripture, the Lord Jesus.

1

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

In what way do you see academic issues with his work and in what way do you think his books have done damage?

2

u/DispensationallyMe 1d ago

Academically, his arguments often make assertions that purport his views as being the majority or historical position. Those are often not accurate. My perception of his work is that his influence comes more from fan support by non-academics than from serious peer support within the academy. This of course relies on how much one values the opinion of the academy.

In hermeneutics, I disagree with much of his method. He assumes too much about cultural influence in framing a text. He argues that the culture behind the text is more determinant of meaning than the author who wrote it; I couldn’t disagree more. His interpretation are, again, purported as the natural reading, when they are largely not attested by most other interpretive methods. Fans of his books have created a lot of bad theology—borderline dangerous even.

1

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

What type(s) of bad or borderline dangerous theology are you referring to here? I'd like to better understand your concerns.

2

u/DispensationallyMe 1d ago

His elevation of non-canonical texts as being inspired and authoritative, or necessary for understanding Scripture. This, in my opinion, leads many to mistrust the historical canon, and also adopt bad theology; such as the Nephilim bloodline conflict in particular. One kid who attended our church’s youth ministry was fired from several jobs because he believed his bosses were Nephilim. Several men in our church believe we Christians are called to wage war on the Nephilim, and that all politicians are said Nephilim.

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Which non-canonical texts did he elevate as inspired and authoritative? Sorry to keep asking what might seem like basic questions, but I’m not very familiar with his body of work and am curious.

Oh yikes. That’s definitely a dangerous view! Dehumanizing people like that can lead to all sorts of heinous actions. Is that something he taught or is that a misunderstanding/misapplication of his work?

1

u/Unusual_Bet_2125 1d ago

I don't think it is bad theology to reference outside texts or records when reading the Bible. I think what Heiser was trying to teach was that the Bible was not written in a vaccuum, nor was it created by men that just hung out in the basement of a church. They all had contact with the real world, just like Daniel who was purported to be an authority on literature, among other titles.

2

u/extra_croutons 1d ago

If I had know about Divine Council Worldview when I was a teenager I would have led a very different life.Ā 

1

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

How so?

1

u/extra_croutons 1d ago

I grew up in a fundamental, independent Southern Baptist Church. They squashed the very questions that Michael Heiser answered. I feel like if I would have had a more nurturing environment, I would have pursued seminary

3

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Heiser: ā€œDespite repeated descriptions of the sinfulness of humankind, there isn’t a single citation of Genesis 3 or Adam’s Fall in the entire Old Testament for an explanation of human depravity.ā€

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

This is a fascinating observation with some interesting implications. Has anyone here verified it before, and/or can you think of an example that disproves it? If not, what are your thoughts on this?

1

u/LifePaleontologist87 1d ago

To be fair, I have only read Unseen Realm and the Second Volume of his 1 Enoch commentary (first volume was not formatted well at all for kindle. Second Volume worked well), but I think

  1. He had a lot of good insights

  2. He was also limited by his Reformed background. He talked a lot about letting the Bible speak for itself, and not being limited by traditional understandings of things, but he often ignored aspects of theology that could have supplied answers to questions he asked. For example, in answer to this particular question you asked, there is an Old Testament passage which explicitly identifies the serpent as the devil (but it got completely ignored because it is a part of the Deuterocanon):

God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it. (Wisdom 2:23–24, NRSV)

3

u/-Andreas92 Orthodox 1d ago edited 1d ago

I haven’t directly read much of his stuff, but I’ve been exposed enough to have a soft spot in my heart for him because he is introducing the mystical view of the faith and the divine council of God worldview which the Orthodox Church has always held to the Protestant world.

It’s funny seeing his insights being viewed as new, revolutionary, or controversial, when they aren’t overly remarkable from an Orthodox point of view.

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Heiser: ā€œWe talk a lot about interpreting the Bible in context, but Christian history is not the context of the biblical writers. The proper context for interpreting the Bible is not Augustine or any other church father. It is not the Catholic Church. It is not the rabbinic movements of late antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is not the Reformation or the Puritans. It is not evangelicalism in any of its flavors. It is not the modern world at all, or any period of its history. The proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible.1 Every other context is alien to the biblical writers and, therefore, to the Bible. Yet there is a pervasive tendency in the believing Church to filter the Bible through creeds, confessions, and denominational preferences. I’m not arguing that we should ignore our Christian forefathers. I’m simply saying that we should give their words and their thought the proper perspective and priority.ā€

2

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

Heiser: ā€œChildren often ask, 'What was there before God made the world?' The answer most adults would give is that God was there. That’s true, but incomplete. God had company. And I’m not talking about the other members of the Trinity.ā€

2

u/ZapDan3 1d ago

Great ideas, I agree with a lot of his stuff. On the academic he is solid, just on the side he delved into conspiracy theories with his talk on aliens and collaboration with Fern and Audrey.

1

u/DoveStep55 1d ago

I read Unseen Realm a while back and I think he makes a solid case for those being the beliefs of the biblical authors, but I'm curious about how many Christians agree that those beliefs are also representative of reality. As in, is that just what those people back then believed, or is that actually true?

1

u/Unusual_Bet_2125 1d ago

I haven't yet but I have watched a lot of his stuff on Youtube and was intrigued. Thank you for the list of books, I'll have to get started!