The Sons of God and the Nephilim

[Plowman]

I believe the plural elohim in Genesis 1:26 is the Trinity. To say it's the Divine Council, to me, is almost saying that the Sons of God were co-creators. To his credit, Heiser was adamant that that was NOT what he was saying. He was saying that God was simply including his council in the decision.

Still, I can't get past the phrase, "Let us make..."

Now it is true that God called upon the earth to bring forth the living creatures, and the grass and the herbs and trees. And He called upon the waters to bring forth aquatic life and life that basically lives in the air, like birds.

But He didn't call upon them to "make" them., just bring them forth. Women don't make children, they merely bring them forth.

So I don't think Heiser is correct there. It's not an issue of translation, it's interpretation and reasoning. I can listen to Heiser for hours. He knows the languages. He knows the histories. And he knows the prevalent world views of antiquity. And I think he's faithfully relaying the messages in those manuscripts. But I think he's blind to his own presuppositions in his applications of them.

His views lean heavily on extra-biblical literature, Mesopotamian mythology mostly, and, I think, very heavily on the Book of Enoch. It may be true that the Second Temple Jews regarded the book as a reliable history, but they didn't include it in their canon of Scripture. And I think it's likely that Peter and Jude were familiar with it, as well. And they may very well be quoting it.

But where Heiser sees parallels between Mesopotamian mythology, and the writings of the contemporary Jewish sects, and even in the Scriptures, I think he sees also a cause and effect which isn't there. Genesis 1, for example. Now I don't have the citations, so I'm going from my memory of a good number of his podcasts, but he says Genesis 1 was written as a reaction to an ancient Mesopotamian creation account. In other words, it's not a history or a science, it's just a poke in the eye to the other account. The pagan account, came first, so the Hebrew account is based on it, and is simply saying, "No, it wasn't you, pagan god. It was was Elohim—Yahweh."

Well that's just an arbitrary presupposition. It's true, one came before the other, but why would we be surprised that a fallen being, who witnessed creation, would make the account he gives to his priests much like the true account, yet throw in enough corruption to keep the people deceived and at enmity with the Most High?

There is no compelling reason whatever to think that simply because the corrupt account came first, that the true account isn't anything but factual and true, and isn't merely setting the record straight. God inspired it to give His people the Truth, not to poke the eye of the pagan gods.

Still, I think he makes a good case for the Divine Council view.

​

I'm not sure how your posts pertain to Genesis 6 and 7.
Ham's sin was important enough for God to include it in His Word and tell us what it was according to Leviticus 20:11.

 

[Ekklesian]

​

I'm not sure how your posts pertain to Genesis 6 and 7.
Ham's sin was important enough for God to include it in His Word and tell us what it was according to Leviticus 20:11.

I'm not concerned solely with Gen. 6. My later posts are about Heiser's subject matter in the video in #4. He identifies the Sons of God, as God's heavenly council who rebelled.

Fallen angels, so to speak. That's all it has to do with Gen. 6.

Maybe you could answer the questions that were posed to you by others and clarify what you meant about the "bloodline."

 

[Plowman]

I thought I answered the question about the "bloodline," but apparently I didn't do a very good job.
I wrote a long expose detailing how Noah was righteous and a type of Christ, but decided not to post it because it would hijack this thread.
I guess I will say this again.
There were two bloodlines at the time of the flood. First, Noah, who was righteous because his bloodline came uncorrupted from Adam. Second: Everyone else's bloodline was corrupted by the fallen sons of God who produced children with the daughters of Adam, including his wife, sons, and their spouses.

Noah, as a type of Christ, was chosen to replenish the earth as a pure, undefiled, righteous Son of God. His sons, even though their bloodline was corrupted, were a type of us believers, who were saved from the wrath of God because they are "in him." (in Noah)
Through them, the bloodline of the fallen sons of God would have been destroyed, but since Ham sinned, the bloodline, made unoperative through the righteousness of Noah, was reactivated.
Revelation 12:11 says that they overcome him by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives to death. I'm not going to write on it, but we have to understand how they (or us) can overcome by the blood of the Lamb to understand the marvelous truth of being in His bloodline.

 

[Ransom]

Noah, as a type of Christ, was chosen to replenish the earth as a pure, undefiled, righteous Son of God. His sons, even though their bloodline was corrupted, were a type of us believers, who were saved from the wrath of God because they are "in him." (in Noah)

Which bloodline did Noah's wife belong to, and how do you know this?

 

[Plowman]

Which bloodline did Noah's wife belong to, and how do you know this?

It makes no difference. The point is that only Noah was righteous.

 

[Ransom]

It makes no difference. The point is that only Noah was righteous.

Correct. It makes no difference. He was, what, something like 600 years old? Was he going to have other offspring if only he and his wife went in the ark?

 

[JesusFan]

Heiser avoids the difficulty by accepting the more liberal view of a localized, as opposed to a global, deluge.

he also seems to be denying inspiration and inerrancy, as seems to be equating equivalence to all of those ancients texts

 

[Ekklesian]

he also seems to be denying inspiration and inerrancy, as seems to be equating equivalence to all of those ancients texts

Not equivalence. His views are simply informed by the extrabiblical texts. His views of inspiration are not the mainstream, that is true. But he does view the Scriptural texts as authoritive, regardless of the mode of transmission.

 

[Ekklesian]

For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls present Melchizedek as a divine person. Melchizedek is not presented to us as a divine person in the Scriptures, and neither does Heiser believe that he was a divine person. But the fact that the tradition sees divinity there shows us that it is evident that Mechizedek was a type and shadow of Christ, a fact that was illuminated by Paul in his letter to the Hebrews, who probably saw him as a divine person themselves, or who were being told by the Judaizers that Melchizedek was a son of god, not Jesus.

 

[Ekklesian]

There is a campaign in social media to point out that Jesus was Jew. He was. But His Priesthood is not a Judaic one. Jesus is a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after the order of Aaron or of the Levites. It is a universal Priesthood, not a Judaic one.

Also, Christ was baptized, nullifying circumcision as the initiatory rite into the Covenant.

The law is over. That old covenant is done. The Jews as a race no longer exist. Any attempt to "restore" the law, the temple, the priesthood or the offerings, even the restoral of them to that ancient land, is an act of antichrist.

 

[Plowman]

Correct. It makes no difference. He was, what, something like 600 years old? Was he going to have other offspring if only he and his wife went in the ark?

If that was part of God's plan, they would have had children. Abraham and Sarah were beyond childbearing age when they had Isaac.

 

[sword]

When I first saw this, I read: The Sons of God and Napalm.
I was wondering about the correlation!

I seem to recall in 2 Kings 1 around verses 14 or 15 Elijah looking unto God and saying "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning", but I can't find it. Perhaps in another version.

 

[JesusFan]

Not equivalence. His views are simply informed by the extrabiblical texts. His views of inspiration are not the mainstream, that is true. But he does view the Scriptural texts as authoritive, regardless of the mode of transmission.

Michael Heiser’s theology, largely centered on the "Divine Council" and a supernatural worldview, has faced significant criticism from both conservative evangelical scholars and other theological traditions. While his work is often credited with encouraging deeper study of the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context of the Bible, critics argue that his methods and conclusions sometimes undermine foundational Christian doctrines.
The Gospel Coalition | Australia +4
Key problems identified with Michael Heiser’s theology include:

• Polytheistic Framework and Misinterpretation of Elohim: A central objection is that Heiser’s interpretation of the Divine Council creates a functional polytheism, where "gods" (elohim) are seen as real, created divine beings with authority, rather than representing false idols, as traditional monotheism holds. Heiser argues elohim refers to a place of residence (heavenly realm) rather than a nature, which critics say confuses the creator-creature distinction.
• Misreading of Key Scriptures:
  • Psalm 82: Critics argue that Heiser disregards the immediate and historical context of Psalm 82, which they interpret as referring to unjust human rulers, not celestial beings.
  • Deuteronomy 32:8–9: Heiser’s reliance on textual variations (Qumran, LXX) over the Masoretic text for the "Deuteronomy 32 Worldview" is questioned, with critics claiming it leads to a flawed view of God assigning nations to lesser deities.
• "Syncretism" with Pagan Sources: Critics contend that Heiser interprets the Bible through the lens of Babylonian or Ugaritic pagan mythology, rather than allowing Scripture to interpret itself. This approach is seen as promoting an evolutionary view of religion, where Israelite thought "adapted" pagan concepts rather than being distinctly revealed.
• Undermining the Doctrine of God: Heiser’s portrayal of the "Divine Council" can make the God of Scripture seem reliant on a council for decision-making and subject to risks, which critics argue diminishes the biblical doctrine of God's sovereignty and total omniscience.
• Unorthodox Views on Humanity and Angels: Heiser suggests that human believers will become part of the divine council in the afterlife and, in some interpretations, "divine". Critics raise concerns that this borders on "little gods" heresy or Mormon-like theology.
• "Novelty" over Historical Tradition: Critics argue that because Heiser’s interpretations are often "new" and unprecedented in thousands of years of scholarship, they are likely wrong, favoring an "academic" interpretation over the church's traditional understanding.
• Flawed View of Satan in Job: Heiser’s assertion that ha-satan in Job is merely a title for a member of the divine council, and not the Devil (the adversary), is challenged. Critics argue this separates the Old Testament’s portrayal of evil from the New Testament’s, contrary to the unity of Scripture.
  Reddit +9

Despite these criticisms, some, including Heiser himself, argue that his work is not inherently unorthodox but instead reconstructs the biblical world as it was understood by its original audience. However, the consensus among his critics is that his "unseen realm" focus can divert attention from essential, Christ-centered theology.

 

[Ekklesian]

You're posting someone else's reaction. My responses to Heiser are my own based on what he's written and my own learning. But I'll respond.

Michael Heiser’s theology, largely centered on the "Divine Council" and a supernatural worldview, has faced significant criticism from both conservative evangelical scholars and other theological traditions. While his work is often credited with encouraging deeper study of the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context of the Bible, critics argue that his methods and conclusions sometimes undermine foundational Christian doctrines.
View attachment 8270The Gospel Coalition | Australia +4
Key problems identified with Michael Heiser’s theology include:

• Polytheistic Framework and Misinterpretation of Elohim: A central objection is that Heiser’s interpretation of the Divine Council creates a functional polytheism, where "gods" (elohim) are seen as real, created divine beings with authority, rather than representing false idols, as traditional monotheism holds. Heiser argues elohim refers to a place of residence (heavenly realm) rather than a nature, which critics say confuses the creator-creature distinction.

'Divine', as in 'supernatural'. Didn't you basically assert that the pagan gods were real when you said:

Yes, and just wondering if those fallen angels had anything to do with those myths of 'gods and goddesses" have they been playing round with mankind for very long time?

And...

Could there have been demons who appeared as at times those gods of ancient history? To cultivate mankind worshipping them and not true God?

?

I came to the conclusion that they were real not because of Heiser, whose views I came across just lately, but because of what I've read in the Scriptures, as I've expressed in this thread, and in others.

• Misreading of Key Scriptures:
  • Psalm 82: Critics argue that Heiser disregards the immediate and historical context of Psalm 82, which they interpret as referring to unjust human rulers, not celestial beings.
  • Deuteronomy 32:8–9: Heiser’s reliance on textual variations (Qumran, LXX) over the Masoretic text for the "Deuteronomy 32 Worldview" is questioned, with critics claiming it leads to a flawed view of God assigning nations to lesser deities.

The the Qumran and Septuagint readings seem to make more sense than the Masoretic reading.

When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.​

​

Israel didn't exist when the nations were divided.

But several mainstream translations also prefer the Qumran and Septuagint readings over the Masoretic text in this place.

• "Syncretism" with Pagan Sources: Critics contend that Heiser interprets the Bible through the lens of Babylonian or Ugaritic pagan mythology, rather than allowing Scripture to interpret itself. This approach is seen as promoting an evolutionary view of religion, where Israelite thought "adapted" pagan concepts rather than being distinctly revealed.

His view is heavily informed by extrabiblical sources. That is true. And caution is advised. But then, how did the Pharisees know the names of demons and their heirarchies? Matthew 12:24?

Is our hesitation to see the Nephilim as the offspring of angles and human women suddenly invalid because we're informed by our freshmen biology classes?

• Undermining the Doctrine of God: Heiser’s portrayal of the "Divine Council" can make the God of Scripture seem reliant on a council for decision-making and subject to risks, which critics argue diminishes the biblical doctrine of God's sovereignty and total omniscience.

Anyone who's actually read Heiser, or heard him talk, would know that this is just untrue. He nowhere even suggests such a thing. On the contrary, he anticipates this objection and expends a considerable amount of energy to clarify.

• Unorthodox Views on Humanity and Angels: Heiser suggests that human believers will become part of the divine council in the afterlife and, in some interpretations, "divine". Critics raise concerns that this borders on "little gods" heresy or Mormon-like theology.

Here's where Dispensationalism robs the Gospel of one of it's more critical doctrines. Once you eliminate the special status of the Jews, and see the all Christians as recipients of the promises, then you can see that it is said to believers that we are the sons of God now.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. - 1 John 3:2​

​

We rule and reign with Him. And that's all that's being said when it's said that the divine council is reconstituted.

• "Novelty" over Historical Tradition: Critics argue that because Heiser’s interpretations are often "new" and unprecedented in thousands of years of scholarship, they are likely wrong, favoring an "academic" interpretation over the church's traditional understanding.

It only seems new.

My own observations are that people today, by and large, think that existence here in the earth has been the same from age to age, and it hasn't been. Obviously. There was some significant interaction between "angelic" beings and mankind in the days before the Flood. And before Christ, Satan wasn't bound. And, yes, Satan is sometimes used as a collective title in the Scriptures. Not being bound, the lying wonders performed were unlike anything that has been seen in probably millennia.

But we're told of a time when "he that letteth" will be taken out of the way, and the man of sin, whose coming will be after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders . And we'll see a world more like the world seen by the ancients. And all but the very elect will worship this entity as God. They will abandon their science, Relativity, Quantum mechanics, and atheism and worship this entity as God.

So, I don't think it's new. I think Heiser, despite his errors, has shined a light on mere existence in the earth as it was before the advent of the Gospel.

Despite these criticisms, some, including Heiser himself, argue that his work is not inherently unorthodox ....

As does the Southern Seminary professor in the video in the OP.

 

[JesusFan]

You're posting someone else's reaction. My responses to Heiser are my own based on what he's written and my own learning. But I'll respond.


'Divine', as in 'supernatural'. Didn't you basically assert that the pagan gods were real when you said:


And...


?

I came to the conclusion that they were real not because of Heiser, whose views I came across just lately, but because of what I've read in the Scriptures, as I've expressed in this thread, and in others.


The the Qumran and Septuagint readings seem to make more sense than the Masoretic reading.

When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.​

​

Israel didn't exist when the nations were divided.

But several mainstream translations also prefer the Qumran and Septuagint readings over the Masoretic text in this place.



His view is heavily informed by extrabiblical sources. That is true. And caution is advised. But then, how did the Pharisees know the names of demons and their heirarchies? Matthew 12:24?

Is our hesitation to see the Nephilim as the offspring of angles and human women suddenly invalid because we're informed by our freshmen biology classes?


Anyone who's actually read Heiser, or heard him talk, would know that this is just untrue. He nowhere even suggests such a thing. On the contrary, he anticipates this objection and expends a considerable amount of energy to clarify.


Here's where Dispensationalism robs the Gospel of one of it's more critical doctrines. Once you eliminate the special status of the Jews, and see the all Christians as recipients of the promises, then you can see that it is said to believers that we are the sons of God now.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. - 1 John 3:2​

​

We rule and reign with Him. And that's all that's being said when it's said that the divine council is reconstituted.



It only seems new.

My own observations are that people today, by and large, think that existence here in the earth has been the same from age to age, and it hasn't been. Obviously. There was some significant interaction between "angelic" beings and mankind in the days before the Flood. And before Christ, Satan wasn't bound. And, yes, Satan is sometimes used as a collective title in the Scriptures. Not being bound, the lying wonders performed were unlike anything that has been seen in probably millennia.

But we're told of a time when "he that letteth" will be taken out of the way, and the man of sin, whose coming will be after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders . And we'll see a world more like the world seen by the ancients. And all but the very elect will worship this entity as God. They will abandon their science, Relativity, Quantum mechanics, and atheism and worship this entity as God.

So, I don't think it's new. I think Heiser, despite his errors, has shined a light on mere existence in the earth as it was before the advent of the Gospel.


As does the Southern Seminary professor in the video in the OP.

Very interesting reading here

A Biblical Critique of Dr Michael Heiser's 'The Unseen Realm' | Steve Copland | Author, Pastor, Apologist

In this article I wish to address several of Dr Heiser’s views from his book which I consider both unbiblical and dangerous. This does not mean that I disagree with everything Dr Heiser taught. In chapter 12 he outlines the biblical view of the Nephilim from Genesis 6 and criticizes the Sethite...

stevecopland.com

 

[Ekklesian]

Very interesting reading here

A Biblical Critique of Dr Michael Heiser's 'The Unseen Realm' | Steve Copland | Author, Pastor, Apologist

In this article I wish to address several of Dr Heiser’s views from his book which I consider both unbiblical and dangerous. This does not mean that I disagree with everything Dr Heiser taught. In chapter 12 he outlines the biblical view of the Nephilim from Genesis 6 and criticizes the Sethite...

stevecopland.com

Where Heiser errs he errs. Where he doesn’t err is in his descriptions of the world view of the Second Temple Jews.

If you don’t have the discernment to accept what's useful and reject what's erroneous, then by all means, avoid his lectures and podcasts.

Here are some errors I've spotted that your critics seem to have missed.

He is free will.

He seems to ascribe to the idea that Christ is plan B for Creation, but that is more a product of his noncalvinism than for his view of the Unseen Realm. A lot of Dispies hold to a plan B notion as well.

He sees the Offerings as less for personal sin and more for redeeming the land from the wickedness of the people.

His notion of Imago Dei is questionable, though I think there is a kernel of truth.

And the list goes on.

But forget about Heiser. Maybe deal with my arguments from the Scriptures.

 

[subllibrm]

The anti Christ will be seen as a great peace maker. Or so it is said.

 

[abcaines]

The anti Christ will be seen as a great peace maker. Or so it is said.

Which shouldn't be surprising given that Yasser Arafat was awarded the Noble "Peace" Prize.

 

[illinoisguy]

Gotta watch out for those Nobel Peace Prize winners.

"Saturday Night Live‘s newest cold open skewered President Donald Trump over being gifted a Nobel Peace Prize, capturing Venezuela leader Nicolas Maduro, deploying ICE in Minnesota, and more.

"On the Saturday, January 17 episode of SNL — the first of 2026 after a holiday hiatus — James Austin Johnson once again portrayed the POTUS, this time during a cabinet meeting.

“'I hope everyone had a nice holiday and got what they wanted for Christmas,' Trump said at the podium. 'I got what I wanted: my very own someone else’s Nobel Prize! Which I’ll cherish.'

"He added, 'And in my stocking, I got Maduro — [leader of Venezuela] Nicolas Maduro! We did a reverse Santa on him. We came down the chimney with a bag and took him away.'”