While I would love to recommend Heiser's works to family and
friends, I cannot do so in good conscience. I know some would benefit from the
conversation and an encounter with the topics he brings up and the Scriptural
data he very effectively utilises. But buried in, around and in-between the
lines are assumptions that can only be described as theologically liberal.
Heiser of course denies this but given that Evangelicals
continue to move the goalposts, he may be reckoned a 'conservative' in today's
Evangelical academic climate... a climate wherein women are increasingly ordained
and feminism is embraced in open defiance of the Scriptures. But even a
generation ago, Heiser would have been questioned and a couple of generations
ago he would be called out and exposed as a theological liberal... one on the conservative end of that spectrum
(perhaps) but no conservative.
Heiser constantly evokes the models and paradigms behind what
has been called Second Temple Judaism. At face value this simply refers to the
period surrounding and following the construction of the Jerusalem temple from
the time of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi up until its destruction in AD70.
Obviously this overlaps with beginnings of Christianity and the discussion of
Second Temple Judaism also includes inquiries regarding the Jewish Diaspora and
Jewish Christianity in the first century.
On a larger level the deliberations surrounding Second Temple
Judaism reflect a series of discussions and assumptions surrounding the milieu
and impression of Hellenistic thought, the formation of the Jewish Scriptures,
concepts of canon, Persian and Mesopotamian influence and the supposed embrace
of apocalyptic ideas. In the mainstream academy's narrative this is the period
in which Ezra and those of his school redacted ancient texts and re-crafted and
tasked others to create what we call the Old Testament. At this time I will
leave out a discussion of the Septuagint and the Apocrypha which (in part) also
belongs to this period. Much could be said in their regard but it's beyond the
scope of this essay.
However I would argue that many of the discussions
surrounding Second Temple Judaism are rooted in theological liberalism and its
assumptions regarding the formation of Scripture. Many believe for example that
a book like Daniel was composed during this period. Rejecting the idea that a 6th
century figure was able to accurately prophesy concerning geopolitical events
which ranged from his own day down to the 2nd century BC and indeed
the coming of Christ are clearly 'supernatural' and thus out of bounds. The
Book of Daniel (it is claimed) was part of an apocalyptic tradition that formed
(again under Persian and Mesopotamian influence) in Israelite circles during
their time in exile and the book was clearly written (we're told) around the 2nd
century BC or perhaps later. Likewise portions of the so-called Deutero (or
Trito) Isaiah were also composed during this Second Temple period. The scholars
argue that Isaiah ben Amoz did not write chapters 40-66. These were later
creations.
These positions which fly in the face of both Old and New
Testament claims and represent a rejection of New Testament narrative and
doctrine are heartily embraced by Heiser. He argues that the Book of Daniel was
never claimed to have been written by Daniel. Indeed, but if 2nd
century authorship were in fact true, then the book's presentation of events as
yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies can be summed up very simply... the book is a fraud
and a pack of lies. The author wasn't just commenting on the Hellenistic era
and its political struggles. Rather the Danielic author was a liar trying to
present the work as if it were written
centuries before and done so under Divine guidance through supernatural
visions. This would all be a lie. Heiser seems to have little problem with
this. But anyone who believes in inspiration and Scriptural authority must
realise such a position is untenable and even heretical.
Other books like Job are often located by scholars in this
Second Temple period, thus once again rendering the tale as mere fable, a
fictitious story purporting to be set in the time of the Patriarchs. While many
believe Job to be one of the oldest books of the Old Testament, scholars like
Heiser believe it to be a creation of Second Temple Judaism. Rather than
understand that Tiamat and other Mesopotamian concepts were the result of
primeval memory and satanic counterfeit, Heiser sees Leviathan, Rahab and other
celestial beings as little more than re-cast borrowings from Mesopotamian and
other exilic influences.
Of course if Heiser and his ilk are wrong, then many of their
paradigms concerning not only ancient culture, prophecy, the general knowledge
of the Patriarchal period concerning issues such as astronomy, the genesis of
apocalyptic literature and indeed their theories of inspiration, canon and
Scripture in general grievously miss the mark. And indeed they do. Job is
indeed one of the oldest books of the Old Testament and while not technically
an apocalyptic work it is nevertheless replete with apocalyptic imagery.
Isaiah, written in the 8th century BC also contains a famous 'Little
Apocalypse'. Ezekiel, Zechariah and of course Daniel also contain what might be
described as apocalyptic sections and elements and these books (if one accepts
the Scriptures as genuine) antedate the formal period that scholars recognise
as the beginning of the Second Temple genre. The Apocalyptic was therefore not
born of the Hellenistic era. That era may have produced more of it, popularised
it and the like but to turn the Bible on its head in order to fit some
harebrained scholar's paradigm... which is likely to change again... is
foolish.
Heiser's interpretation of Deuteronomy 32 is shaky at best. A
discussion regarding the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint is warranted and yet
Heiser hangs an awful lot on his interpretation of the text. That said, the
notion of elohim being given territorial assignments and the questions of
spiritual geography are easily enough developed from passages in Daniel and
elsewhere. The Scriptures hint at much but develop little. The so-called
Apocrypha as well as some of the other extra-Scriptural works that were in the
air (or are directly referenced in Scripture) provide some help but cannot be
reckoned as absolutely authoritative. We're left with many a tantalising maybe,
a plethora of hints at something more, profound and yet unelaborated.
Some further examples....
One cannot help but be uncomfortable observing how Heiser
approaches a passage like Psalm 22. He believes it was not originally messianic
but was in fact re-tasked to that end by later writers. This is not a
Scriptural view of inspiration. He would argue that Psalm 22 is inspired or
perhaps became inspired when it was re-tasked or assigned for other purposes. This
is in keeping with the Second Temple motif that the Jews of the period took
older texts and re-purposed them effectively creating new categories of
doctrine and theology that previously could not have been said to have been
legitimately found in the text of Scripture. Heiser has taken human authorship
to the extreme, to the point of all but trumping the supernatural aspects of
inspiration and canonicity. His view of inspiration can encompass providence
but the Holy Spirit seems to play little part. The question of the Holy Spirit
in Heiser's theology is another question someone ought to raise because I'm not
sure his views are orthodox.
We're told that passages like Revelation 22 are mere
re-taskings of Ugaritic writings. Not even the authorship of the New Testament
is safe from his academic meat grinder. We're left with something we call
Scripture but is in fact the mere writings of men that Providence has assigned
the Church to utilise as a basis for forming a coherent system of doctrine.
That affords a lot of fluidity and as such fits rather snuggly with
Barthianism. It fits with Rome as well but it doesn't fit with either the
testimony of the Early Church, the Scriptural witness from the Middle Ages or
Classic Protestantism. It doesn't even qualify as being Evangelical apart from
the liberalising modification of that category that has taken place over the
past 40 years.
I would also offer a few additional reasons as to why I
cannot recommend Heiser's work. Apart from his academic compromise and
erroneous views of Scripture I find his politically correct gender language to
be tiresome and yet another nod to the strictures of the academy and its
anti-Biblical epistemology and values. Heiser also exhibits what I might call a
typical Evangelical irreverence when it comes to things holy, sometimes
bordering on sacrilege. He like most Evangelicals follows the cultural norms
and thus utterly lacks discretion on certain sensitive topics and thus renders
his works as out of bounds for a father considering reading for his children or
teenagers. And finally as mentioned earlier, his works as well as his audio
recordings are filled with rank and tiresome academic snobbery. I understand
he's proud of his learning and is disdainful of the many voices of would-be
experts that haunt the cyber realm... myself included I'm sure. That said, this
attitude is out of bounds when it comes to the Church. Indeed, a close study of
Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians decimate the very ethos of academia and the
notion that Spiritual wisdom is something that can be acquired through the
tools of scholarship and the syncretising of revelation with fallen man's
epistemology, the world's knowledge, its intuition and inductive exercises.
That said, I still find the book enjoyable and would
recommend it to persons who possess a certain basic knowledge so that they can
separate the wheat from the chaff of which there is a considerable amount.
The Unseen Realm is a book I wanted so badly to be excellent.
It could have been had it been written by someone else. The topic demands
further exploration and I hope there are some out there who are up to the task.
These are topics that I would love to devote myself to but in my case I do not
possess the requisite time. The mundane and my worldly labours consume most of
my hours. It is a source of grief to me but it is seemingly my lot. I sincerely
hope others will pursue these questions in detail.
On that note I can offer a qualified recommendation of Bob
Bolender's audio series on Angelology. He's the pastor of a Bible Church in
Austin, Texas. The series is about a lot more than just angels. His teachings
which antedate Heiser's work touch on many of the topics found in The Unseen Realm and he certainly
possesses a higher view of Scripture than someone like Heiser. Something of a
Fundamentalist, Bolender's commentary sticks close to the Scriptures but often
falls into the error of hyper-literalism or reading the text in a wooden
literalistic fashion. This often leads to what I call category multiplication.
Rather than understand passages as presenting another angle or dose of poetic
elaborative nuance of previous narratives, visions and prophecies he tends to
continually expand fulfillments and integrate these expansions into the
massive, complex and yet contrived Dispensational schema. I am very opposed to
Dispensationalism but I would rather listen to Bolender any day over Heiser. I
can put up with Bolender's theology, his sometimes annoying right-wing quips
and endorsements of hack authors like Rodney Stark and even his tendency to
fall into redundancy. I would rather learn from him as opposed to the fast and
loose way Heiser treats the Scriptures let alone the constant disdain he
expresses for those who aren't as scholarly as he is.
Bolender represents something of the aforementioned theology
that was once prevalent among some of the older Fundamentalists, a theology
that faded away with the rise of Neo-Evangelicalism in the 1950's... an
Evangelicalism that wanted to get along with the academy and was embarrassed by
such overt supernaturalism. The Reformed world has largely followed this
pattern which I find bizarre. All of these folks are apparently embarrassed to
talk about demons and angelic activity but do they think their pagan neighbours
find the Exodus, the miracles of Jesus or the resurrection any less strange?
What about the miracle that is the Bible? Liberal views of the New Testament
text and increasing acquiescence to the academy are also running rampant even
in confessional circles and it's a cause for great concern.
Heiser has in a sense come full circle. He has found a way to
discuss these things and grant them a degree of credibility within the
framework of academic respectability and the almost overwhelming secularism
that shapes its ethos.
Read Kline, listen to Bolender... and read Heiser carefully
with your eyes open. Again, he's stimulating but cannot be trusted. He may have
the imprimatur of the academy but his thinking and foundations are not
Scriptural.
In the meantime I continue to hope and pray that others will
elaborate these topics but build on a more sure foundation.
See also: