- Feb 27, 2016
- 7,319
- 9,223
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
I was asked, by another poster, my opinion on this book; and having finally gotten around to reading it, I have some thoughts:
Firstly, I would just state clearly that I do not understand Hebrew. A lot of his arguments rest squarely on Hebrew readings and tenses that I have no way of verifying. His companion website and extensive referencing, makes it plain that even amongst experts, there is a lot of debate on these points.
To those who have not read the book, it essentially argues that there is an underlying supernatural worldview to the Bible that we have lost. Heiser argues that God rules with a council of lesser divine beings (Elohim as God with elohim as lesser gods - variously called Hagioi or holy ones, watchers, sons of God, etc.). Eden is perceived as God's mountain assembly, His home, where this council met. We were to rule as members of this council from there. One of these elohim, a throne guardian serpent, caused Eve to stumble. He unequivocally connects the Serpent thus to Satan, and explicates the Father of Lies as the originator of the 'broods of vipers', as used by Jesus.
After the fall, some more of these council members became corrupt and engendered the Rephaim in the Genesis passage of the sons of God with the daughters of men. After Babel, God then disinherited humanity and allocated them to others of these elohim, who again became corrupted. God then called Abraham from amongst the people and built Israel as a means to reclaim corrupted humanity as His inheritance, culminating in the Incarnation.
This is for instance why all the "sons of Anak" nations had to be destroyed by Joshua - they bore Rephaim blood, the blood of giants engendered by fallen elohim. A lot of the polemic in antediluvian times are written against Mesopotamian religion in his view, as is the account of Og's iron bed - which has the same dimensions as Marduk's. The OT is essentially the tale of God opposing the rebel elohim, centred on mount Hermon, in Bashan, which has associations with the underworld and death. Most particularly, with Baal, who seems to be a proxy for the Serpent of Eden.
It is an incredible take, and interesting way to read the Bible. It changes the understood context of many passages of the Bible and redeems some odd ones. It even disavows the oft repeated claim that God was only a monolatric deity, instead of absolutely Monotheistic.
A number of points were quite fascinating: The central place of Mount Hermon, where Og rules in Bashan, is interesting in light of Ugaritic Mythology associating it with death. For Christ overcomes death. He also argues Mount Hermon is the mount of Transfiguration instead of Tabor, as it fits the account of being in its foothills just prior in the gospels; and as a statement against death and the fallen powers of the world. It also makes sense of the bulls of Bashan within Psalm 22, that Christ quotes on Calvary.
Another theory is that Armageddon refers not to Meggido, but the Mount of Assembly - based on a different transliteration into Greek from the Hebrew. He thus argues that Armageddon is Jerusalem, God's new Eden, His new Holy mountain. Coupled to this is reading Gog (of Magog) as akin to Og of Bashan, thus being bound to Baal worship and the overthrow of the supernatural entities that rule the world. This is why he says the Antichrist comes from Dan, whose lands are in Bashan.
Also, the LXX readings of Giants, as in Enoch and the Book of Giants, fit his system quite well. A big criticism I have of it, is that it fits it perhaps too well. It has the sleek look of a system that maybe glosses over problems within its interpretive framework.
Another criticism is that he reads Tarshish as being Tartessos in Spain. This is one reading, but other places are also possible, notably Tarsus. Heiser thus argues Pentacost to refer to the 70 nations of Deuteronomy being reclaimed by God, and explaining the discrepancy of most of the known world of Europe being excluded, thereby. I had no idea that Paul was so adamantly trying to reach Spain, as Heiser says, to somehow encompass them in entirety.
Heiser also argues for corporality of YHWH in much of the OT. This he argues for the Angel of YHWH and YHWH being present concurrently, and thus being Jesus and the Father respectively. He connects this to Jewish Binitarianism and while I am sympathetic to looking for signs of the Trinity in the OT, I found this a hard sell. For instance, saying that God opens Jeremiah's mouth by touch by necessity requires corporality, I don't agree with. Metaphor is often still a possibility in many of these passages.
He seems to ignore things like the Documentary Hypothesis that explains some of his variations or 'multiple personages' of YHWH. This is somewhat justified, for if the OT was redacted, the redactor, even if using multiple sources, would have to have had reasoning behind leaving such incongruities in place.
He places a lot of value on what Ugaritic mythology says. This informs his understanding of YHWH's council as mirroring Baal's. He couples the idea of Baal as El's vizier with the Binitarianism of YHWH and the Angel of YHWH. He understands the point of Mount Hermon and Zion; as opposed to what the former means to Ugarit as realm of the dead, and the latter against Baal's mountain of Zephon; by it.
I am wary of Ugarit. It is close, but they aren't the same people. This is like reading Germanic mythology and trying to reconstruct the Greek myths by it. I think it requires a pinch of salt at best. Coupling Binitarianism to El's relationship to Baal, muddies Ahab and Jezebel's opposition to YHWH and His prophets. This seems to me to suggest degree or interpretation, instead of the absolute black and white that they seem to depict in the OT.
I disagree that Azazel of the day of Atonement refers originally to a demon in the chaos of the desert, although he claims it does by Hebrew grammar. For no such name is extent before the Second Temple period for a demonic being, in spite of comparative mythologisers looking hard for one. He glosses over the implication of such thinking, that an offering is brought, a payment for their sin, to someone other than God in such a claim.
Lastly, the continuation between the OT and Second Temple periods is assumed, that a similar worldview reigns. This is perhaps possible, but the trauma of the Exile in Babylonia might have made more of a difference than he assumes. There is also a lack of Hellenistic influence in the NT, which is painted as if no Hellenistai existed or Antiochus never came a knockin'. Paul on the Areopagus may have been thinking from a Jewish context, but Greek influence is palpable - especially in other Jewish writers like Philo. This underlies much Binitarianism that refers to the Logos, after all.
All in all, an interesting book. A lot of what he says I certainly find plausible. I think it worthwhile background to understanding some trouble passages. I would require far more study before I adopt much of it though, as much depends on variant readings, Hebrew grammar and conjecture. Some I disagree with, but I am willing to change my mind if I come accross things that support his readings thereof. I will not put aside centuries of Christian interpretations on these passages, by much more intelligent and better Christians than I, without significantly more research and investigation. It is food for thought though.
Firstly, I would just state clearly that I do not understand Hebrew. A lot of his arguments rest squarely on Hebrew readings and tenses that I have no way of verifying. His companion website and extensive referencing, makes it plain that even amongst experts, there is a lot of debate on these points.
To those who have not read the book, it essentially argues that there is an underlying supernatural worldview to the Bible that we have lost. Heiser argues that God rules with a council of lesser divine beings (Elohim as God with elohim as lesser gods - variously called Hagioi or holy ones, watchers, sons of God, etc.). Eden is perceived as God's mountain assembly, His home, where this council met. We were to rule as members of this council from there. One of these elohim, a throne guardian serpent, caused Eve to stumble. He unequivocally connects the Serpent thus to Satan, and explicates the Father of Lies as the originator of the 'broods of vipers', as used by Jesus.
After the fall, some more of these council members became corrupt and engendered the Rephaim in the Genesis passage of the sons of God with the daughters of men. After Babel, God then disinherited humanity and allocated them to others of these elohim, who again became corrupted. God then called Abraham from amongst the people and built Israel as a means to reclaim corrupted humanity as His inheritance, culminating in the Incarnation.
This is for instance why all the "sons of Anak" nations had to be destroyed by Joshua - they bore Rephaim blood, the blood of giants engendered by fallen elohim. A lot of the polemic in antediluvian times are written against Mesopotamian religion in his view, as is the account of Og's iron bed - which has the same dimensions as Marduk's. The OT is essentially the tale of God opposing the rebel elohim, centred on mount Hermon, in Bashan, which has associations with the underworld and death. Most particularly, with Baal, who seems to be a proxy for the Serpent of Eden.
It is an incredible take, and interesting way to read the Bible. It changes the understood context of many passages of the Bible and redeems some odd ones. It even disavows the oft repeated claim that God was only a monolatric deity, instead of absolutely Monotheistic.
A number of points were quite fascinating: The central place of Mount Hermon, where Og rules in Bashan, is interesting in light of Ugaritic Mythology associating it with death. For Christ overcomes death. He also argues Mount Hermon is the mount of Transfiguration instead of Tabor, as it fits the account of being in its foothills just prior in the gospels; and as a statement against death and the fallen powers of the world. It also makes sense of the bulls of Bashan within Psalm 22, that Christ quotes on Calvary.
Another theory is that Armageddon refers not to Meggido, but the Mount of Assembly - based on a different transliteration into Greek from the Hebrew. He thus argues that Armageddon is Jerusalem, God's new Eden, His new Holy mountain. Coupled to this is reading Gog (of Magog) as akin to Og of Bashan, thus being bound to Baal worship and the overthrow of the supernatural entities that rule the world. This is why he says the Antichrist comes from Dan, whose lands are in Bashan.
Also, the LXX readings of Giants, as in Enoch and the Book of Giants, fit his system quite well. A big criticism I have of it, is that it fits it perhaps too well. It has the sleek look of a system that maybe glosses over problems within its interpretive framework.
Another criticism is that he reads Tarshish as being Tartessos in Spain. This is one reading, but other places are also possible, notably Tarsus. Heiser thus argues Pentacost to refer to the 70 nations of Deuteronomy being reclaimed by God, and explaining the discrepancy of most of the known world of Europe being excluded, thereby. I had no idea that Paul was so adamantly trying to reach Spain, as Heiser says, to somehow encompass them in entirety.
Heiser also argues for corporality of YHWH in much of the OT. This he argues for the Angel of YHWH and YHWH being present concurrently, and thus being Jesus and the Father respectively. He connects this to Jewish Binitarianism and while I am sympathetic to looking for signs of the Trinity in the OT, I found this a hard sell. For instance, saying that God opens Jeremiah's mouth by touch by necessity requires corporality, I don't agree with. Metaphor is often still a possibility in many of these passages.
He seems to ignore things like the Documentary Hypothesis that explains some of his variations or 'multiple personages' of YHWH. This is somewhat justified, for if the OT was redacted, the redactor, even if using multiple sources, would have to have had reasoning behind leaving such incongruities in place.
He places a lot of value on what Ugaritic mythology says. This informs his understanding of YHWH's council as mirroring Baal's. He couples the idea of Baal as El's vizier with the Binitarianism of YHWH and the Angel of YHWH. He understands the point of Mount Hermon and Zion; as opposed to what the former means to Ugarit as realm of the dead, and the latter against Baal's mountain of Zephon; by it.
I am wary of Ugarit. It is close, but they aren't the same people. This is like reading Germanic mythology and trying to reconstruct the Greek myths by it. I think it requires a pinch of salt at best. Coupling Binitarianism to El's relationship to Baal, muddies Ahab and Jezebel's opposition to YHWH and His prophets. This seems to me to suggest degree or interpretation, instead of the absolute black and white that they seem to depict in the OT.
I disagree that Azazel of the day of Atonement refers originally to a demon in the chaos of the desert, although he claims it does by Hebrew grammar. For no such name is extent before the Second Temple period for a demonic being, in spite of comparative mythologisers looking hard for one. He glosses over the implication of such thinking, that an offering is brought, a payment for their sin, to someone other than God in such a claim.
Lastly, the continuation between the OT and Second Temple periods is assumed, that a similar worldview reigns. This is perhaps possible, but the trauma of the Exile in Babylonia might have made more of a difference than he assumes. There is also a lack of Hellenistic influence in the NT, which is painted as if no Hellenistai existed or Antiochus never came a knockin'. Paul on the Areopagus may have been thinking from a Jewish context, but Greek influence is palpable - especially in other Jewish writers like Philo. This underlies much Binitarianism that refers to the Logos, after all.
All in all, an interesting book. A lot of what he says I certainly find plausible. I think it worthwhile background to understanding some trouble passages. I would require far more study before I adopt much of it though, as much depends on variant readings, Hebrew grammar and conjecture. Some I disagree with, but I am willing to change my mind if I come accross things that support his readings thereof. I will not put aside centuries of Christian interpretations on these passages, by much more intelligent and better Christians than I, without significantly more research and investigation. It is food for thought though.
Last edited:
