The Unseen Realm Movie

[mikesw]

This movie presents much of Michael Heiser's ideas. I watched it you tube but the link may be temporary

I am undecided on the treatment of the gods and spirits in the Old Testament. I do like when they start speaking more of Christ Jesus about 40 min in the video where it was mentioned that God tricked the dark spirits into killing Jesus against their best interest. That a deception was done against them. There also are explanations of moments showing Christ's divinity in the Godhead.

 

[JoshebB]

I like Heiser but I find one potentially very serious problem existing in the writings of folks like Heiser, Mackee, and those who've studied Judaism under the guidance of rabbis. that problem is one of Judaization. Christianity is not Judaism. Tanakh is always correct. Judaism is often incorrect. This is made clear throughout the gospels and the epistolary when Jesus and the apostles 1) repudiate Jewish teaching and 2) apply Tanakh correctly as God originally intended. The newer revelation explains the older revelation, not the other way around and Judaism, as a religion or theology, was rarely a revelation at all. That theology got life and death wrong, its own identity wrong, the temple wrong, the monarchy wrong, the Messiah wrong, and more. When Heiser (and the others) attend to that fact they do well. When they suggest Jewish cosmology (in the case of Heiser) or other aspects of Jewish thought is relevant they may err and it becomes important for the Christian to be discerning and measure what they read/hear by scripture, not culture. Simply put.....

Christianity is not Judaism.

Our cosmology, our theology, our Theology, Christology, hamartiology, soteriology, ecclesiology, Pneumatology, etc. is Christian, not Jewish. There is a difference.

 

[civic]

I like Heiser but I find one potentially very serious problem existing in the writings of folks like Heiser, Mackee, and those who've studied Judaism under the guidance of rabbis. that problem is one of Judaization. Christianity is not Judaism. Tanakh is always correct. Judaism is often incorrect. This is made clear throughout the gospels and the epistolary when Jesus and the apostles 1) repudiate Jewish teaching and 2) apply Tanakh correctly as God originally intended. The newer revelation explains the older revelation, not the other way around and Judaism, as a religion or theology, was rarely a revelation at all. That theology got life and death wrong, its own identity wrong, the temple wrong, the monarchy wrong, the Messiah wrong, and more. When Heiser (and the others) attend to that fact they do well. When they suggest Jewish cosmology (in the case of Heiser) or other aspects of Jewish thought is relevant they may err and it becomes important for the Christian to be discerning and measure what they read/hear by scripture, not culture. Simply put.....

Christianity is not Judaism.

Our cosmology, our theology, our Theology, Christology, hamartiology, soteriology, ecclesiology, Pneumatology, etc. is Christian, not Jewish. There is a difference.

I like how you pointed out that the New explains/interprets the Old. Many fail because of this in their theological views. I hate to admit this publicly but I'm much more familiar with the N.T. than I am with the O.T. I spend 80 % or more of my time I the N.T. I always have probably to my own detriment.

I like Beale and Carsons work the commentary of the NT use of the OT. My personal view is how does the NT use and interpret the old. That has always been my focus.

 

[mikesw]

I like Heiser but I find one potentially very serious problem existing in the writings of folks like Heiser, Mackee, and those who've studied Judaism under the guidance of rabbis. that problem is one of Judaization. Christianity is not Judaism. Tanakh is always correct. Judaism is often incorrect. This is made clear throughout the gospels and the epistolary when Jesus and the apostles 1) repudiate Jewish teaching and 2) apply Tanakh correctly as God originally intended. The newer revelation explains the older revelation, not the other way around and Judaism, as a religion or theology, was rarely a revelation at all. That theology got life and death wrong, its own identity wrong, the temple wrong, the monarchy wrong, the Messiah wrong, and more. When Heiser (and the others) attend to that fact they do well. When they suggest Jewish cosmology (in the case of Heiser) or other aspects of Jewish thought is relevant they may err and it becomes important for the Christian to be discerning and measure what they read/hear by scripture, not culture. Simply put.....

Christianity is not Judaism.

Our cosmology, our theology, our Theology, Christology, hamartiology, soteriology, ecclesiology, Pneumatology, etc. is Christian, not Jewish. There is a difference.

Thanks for the info about them studying under the rabbis. A friend really went wild with interest in reading Heiser and there were points that just did not seem to comport with scripture (in a Christian reading).
I find some issues with scholars using various Jewish writings to explain as sources for Paul's ideas. If used, the material has to be read with suspicion based on the NT interpreting the Old. That is important because Jesus came in part due to the wrong views arising in Judaism.

 

[JoshebB]

I like how you pointed out that the New explains/interprets the Old. Many fail because of this in their theological views. I hate to admit this publicly but I'm much more familiar with the N.T. than I am with the O.T. I spend 80 % or more of my time I the N.T. I always have probably to my own detriment.

The chief reasons I have found to read the OT are to understand the history leading up to the NT, the history informing the theology of the Bible (especially its elements of sovereignty, grace, and inherent covenantalism), and the overlapping intersections of Christology, soteriology, and eschatology as it informs our understanding of God.

I like Beale and Carsons work the commentary of the NT use of the OT.

Both are excellent sources (although I have my disagreements with both). Beale's commentary on Revelation is one of the best (top two or three, imo), and Carson's book on common exegetical fallacies is excellent.

My personal view is how does the NT use and interpret the old. That has always been my focus.

I've read only one of Beale and Carson's books on that topic, but it's good. There are also couple of other good books on that subject. One is the Counterpoint series comparative book, "Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament," although it's a bit technical in places. Small book, long read. Any of the books on discontinuity versus continuity are also informative but they're also all biased (Dispensationalists asserting discontinuity and everyone else asserting continuity). Michael Vlach has a book on the subject but it's so Dispensationally biased I do not recommend it.

 

[Jay]

I like this book of his.

I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible
Michael S. Heiser,

The Bible is accessible to everyone, but parts of it can be perplexing. It’s the “weird” and supposedly “boring” parts of the Bible that Dr. Michael S. Heiser addresses in this volume—all in an effort to make the Bible come alive for you again.

For many, Bible study means stilted religion or dull Sunday school classes. After reading this book, you won’t be bored by Bible study. It will explain Bible passages that have always confused you and show you that seemingly insignificant details can be critical—you will never skip a Bible passage again.

Dr. Heiser will connect you to the place and time in which the biblical writers lived and help you understand what these connections mean. He will also help you develop your Bible study abilities.

Tried and tested, the essays in this collection originally appeared in Bible Study Magazine in the sections “Weird, but Important,” “I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible,” and “What They Don’t Tell You in Church.” Many of the essays included are interrelated, and many offer succinct treatments of complex topics. Dr. Heiser has published on most of the topics academically. You can see some of his research at michaelsheiser.com.

Enjoy traveling the ancient trails of the biblical world with Dr. Heiser. May God bless you in your pursuit of Him and in your study of His Word.

 

[JoshebB]

Thanks for the info about them studying under the rabbis. A friend really went wild with interest in reading Heiser and there were points that just did not seem to comport with scripture (in a Christian reading).
I find some issues with scholars using various Jewish writings to explain as sources for Paul's ideas. If used, the material has to be read with suspicion based on the NT interpreting the Old.

Consulting rabbinical/Jewish understanding of their scriptures can be very informative but it always needs to occur with the understanding of their denial of Jesus as Messiah. It's kind of like talking with a JW or LDS about Jesus: the words used are often the same, but they are being used with entirely different meaning and that creates problems of ambiguity and false equivalence. With Judaism words like "messiah," "temple," "law," and "kingdom" have specific meaning. It's always important to ask about definitions of terms so what's being said is understood as spoken, not as heard. Cosmologically speaking (which Heiser often mentions) Judaism had its own astrology and, imo, any implication that astrology is theologically veracious is mistaken. It can inform our reading of the OT, but it's not what we build our theology on.

That is important because Jesus came in part due to the wrong views arising in Judaism.

Yep.

Every time we read Jesus say, "You have heard ________________, but I tell you _______________," he is correcting a misguided thought, doctrine, or practice in the Judaism of his day. Most of what Jesus taught can be found in the OT. What he taught wasn't so much new as it was restored - restored to the original meaning of God's words as God originally intended. Traditionally, the prevailing Judaism was that of the Sadducees so there was no life after death, no resurrection, no God becoming human, no God indwelling the human in any way different than the way He had in the special few prophets. During the intertestamental period the sects of the Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots arose, and Hellenism became an enormous influence on Judaism. Jesus corrected all of that. He spoke of the resurrection, the kingdom, and life after death that was radically different from Judaism and all the surrounding paganisms. Judaism taught misguided views of God's anointed one, salvation, the temple, the king, the kingdom, life on the other side of the grave, and more.

Most of which Heiser doesn't write about so I don't want to get far afield of the op. When Heiser talks/writes about Christian doctrine he's usually very orthodox. He generally makes a clear distinction between "This is what the ancient Jews believed _____________," and "This is orthodox Christianity ________________."

 

[mikesw]

I like how you pointed out that the New explains/interprets the Old. Many fail because of this in their theological views. I hate to admit this publicly but I'm much more familiar with the N.T. than I am with the O.T. I spend 80 % or more of my time I the N.T. I always have probably to my own detriment.

I like Beale and Carsons work the commentary of the NT use of the OT. My personal view is how does the NT use and interpret the old. That has always been my focus.

While I do agree that the NT is important for understanding the OT, especially against general rabbinical views, I see people using their view of the NT to interpret the OT. The OT has its context and still has to have that context intact even when using the NT background. However, exceptions may occur -- at least we might not understand the NT use of the OT fully (in some situations).

 

[Alive2]

I have read Heiser and listened to many of his videos. I have also shared several email exchanges with him.
He was an interesting brother.
His notion of Jesus reversing Hermon is interesting.
Also his interpretation of “ the gates of hell shall not prevail” I agree, it should read, “the gates of hell shall not withstand”.
Gates are a defensive structure. They cannot withstand the Gospel.
I also really liked his discussion on Naaman. He could not stay in Israel, so he asked permission to take the Land with him.
His discussion on the Watchers is fascinating, but I am not sure if it is accurate.

 

[Alive2]

Double post

 

[mikesw]

I have read Heiser and listened to many of his videos. I have also shared several email exchanges with him.
He was an interesting brother.
His notion of Jesus reversing Hermon is interesting.
Also his interpretation of “ the gates of hell shall not prevail” I agree, it should read, “the gates of hell shall not withstand”.
Gates are a defensive structure. They cannot withstand the Gospel.
I also really liked his discussion on Naaman. He could not stay in Israel, so he asked permission to take the Land with him.
His discussion on the Watchers is fascinating, but I am not sure if it is accurate.

I'm not planning on reading his text any time soon since I have other priorities. I still disagree with the fallen angels concept of Satan and with the passages (Isa 14 and Ezekiel on Tyre) being applied to that. I was starting to look at a commentary or two on Ezekiel and would like to look at that in more detail. He does share ideas to consider in some degree. I will be hearing more in our bible study group from a Heiser fan. lol.

 

[Alive2]

I'm not planning on reading his text any time soon since I have other priorities. I still disagree with the fallen angels concept of Satan and with the passages (Isa 14 and Ezekiel on Tyre) being applied to that. I was starting to look at a commentary or two on Ezekiel and would like to look at that in more detail. He does share ideas to consider in some degree. I will be hearing more in our bible study group from a Heiser fan. lol.

The basis of his position is that you cannot understand the OT, without understanding Jewish thought and background.
As Josheb, mentioned, we should look at the OT through the lens of the new.
For the most part, we do not need to be Hebrew scholars to see just how the NT explains the old…especially relative to our Redemption.
My greatest blessing studying the OT, is finding Christ there. In 50 years, it hasn’t gotten old.
Pun intended.

 

[civic]

The basis of his position is that you cannot understand the OT, without understanding Jewish thought and background.
As Josheb, mentioned, we should look at the OT through the lens of the new.
For the most part, we do not need to be Hebrew scholars to see just how the NT explains the old…especially relative to our Redemption.
My greatest blessing studying the OT, is finding Christ there. In 50 years, it hasn’t gotten old.
Pun intended.

Yes since our Lord said it’s all about Him

Luke 24:25-27
25 And He said to them, "O foolish men slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 " Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.


John 5:39-40
39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

Luke 24:44-45
44Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

Jesus said the Holy Spirit will bear witness of HIM

John 15:26
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.


John 16:7-9
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me


John 16:13-14
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Alive2]

Yes since our Lord said it’s all about Him

Amen!

 

[civic]

I added the scriptures as evidence for the septics.

 

[DavidTree]

I like Heiser but I find one potentially very serious problem existing in the writings of folks like Heiser, Mackee, and those who've studied Judaism under the guidance of rabbis. that problem is one of Judaization. Christianity is not Judaism. Tanakh is always correct. Judaism is often incorrect. This is made clear throughout the gospels and the epistolary when Jesus and the apostles 1) repudiate Jewish teaching and 2) apply Tanakh correctly as God originally intended. The newer revelation explains the older revelation, not the other way around and Judaism, as a religion or theology, was rarely a revelation at all. That theology got life and death wrong, its own identity wrong, the temple wrong, the monarchy wrong, the Messiah wrong, and more. When Heiser (and the others) attend to that fact they do well. When they suggest Jewish cosmology (in the case of Heiser) or other aspects of Jewish thought is relevant they may err and it becomes important for the Christian to be discerning and measure what they read/hear by scripture, not culture. Simply put.....

Christianity is not Judaism.

Our cosmology, our theology, our Theology, Christology, hamartiology, soteriology, ecclesiology, Pneumatology, etc. is Christian, not Jewish. There is a difference.

There is no such thing as 'older revelation', unless you are referring to the Pharisees and rabbinical traditions.

Revelation of Elohim Begins in Genesis and continues in the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings such as Esther & Psalms/Proverbs, the Gospel, Acts, the Apostles, Hebrews, James, Jude and Finally Revelation.

What is 'older' is the 'old covenant' = Jeremiah 31:31-34 VALIDATED by the Gospel, the Apostles, Hebrews and Revelation

The New Covenant and MORE is First confirmed in Torah and the Prophets.

That which is First confirms that which is Last.

 

[DavidTree]

Yes since our Lord said it’s all about Him

Luke 24:25-27
25 And He said to them, "O foolish men slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 " Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.


John 5:39-40
39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

Luke 24:44-45
44Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

Jesus said the Holy Spirit will bear witness of HIM

John 15:26
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.


John 16:7-9
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me


John 16:13-14
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Post 16 = It is ALL about the Word that became Flesh and dwelt among us = Immanuel

That which is First confirms that which is Last.

 

[Alive2]

Post 16 = It is ALL about the Word that became Flesh and dwelt among us = Immanuel

That which is First confirms that which is Last.

Yup…this is understood.

 

[DavidTree]

@civic and @Alive2

Allow me to include this as well:
That which is First confirms that which is Last AND that which is Last confirms that which is First

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” - Matt 22:37-40

Bind up the testimony,
Seal the law among my disciples. = Fulfilled on Pentecost and Continuing
And I will wait on the Lord, = Everday/Daily Bread and His Second Coming
Who hides His face from the house of Jacob; = earthbound nation of Israel in darkness
And I will hope in Him. = Yahshuah the MESSIAH
Here am I and the children whom the Lord has given me! = all who believed the Word from Genesis Forward
We are for signs and wonders in Israel = Holy Spirit led Saints
From the Lord of hosts,
Who dwells in Mount Zion. = All revelation comes down from Above = James 1:17
And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God?
Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?
To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Under the New Covenant we have a New Law = the Law of Christ = Love God First & love your neighbor as yourself!
Which is not a New Law but that which was First Spoken by Elohim in the Beginning = Alpha and Omega

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord,
“Who Is and Who Was and Who Is to Come, the Almighty.”

 

[JoshebB]

While I do agree that the NT is important for understanding the OT, especially against general rabbinical views, I see people using their view of the NT to interpret the OT. The OT has its context and still has to have that context intact even when using the NT background. However, exceptions may occur -- at least we might not understand the NT use of the OT fully (in some situations).

Help me out, mike. Are you Dispensationalist? I ask because Dispensationalism holds a view of Old and New that's much different and where there is some diversity with the rest of Christendom there tends to be a lot more shared views than differing views. If you're Dispensationalist then I can post accordingly, and if not then I can make that adjustment. That said, I doubt many here (at least the ones I know from other forums) will dispute the importance of context. It's inescapable and those who think otherwise aren't worth the attempt at discussing it unless they're open to considering a different point of view. Context is one of the most basic exegetical skills. Unblessedly, some hermeneutics bias the exegesis by assuming a context that's doctrinal, not inherent.

The OT is the context for the NT.

But the NT explains that context, and it does so in ways much different than Judaism thinks.


For example (and I'll try to keep this op-relevant): There's a certain section in Christendom (not Jews) who think the mention of the word "Israel" always means the geo-political nation-state Israel but that is not correct. In point of fact, the word "Israel" was first employed in scripture centuries before the geo=political nation-state ever existed. When the whole of scripture is read and its entirety gathered together to consider all that is said about "Israel" it is learned there are at least four definitions of the word. One of them encompasses all the others typologically. So, by the time Paul comes along and writes, "Not all Israel is Israel," that's viewed differently dependent on how one views the whole-scripture definition of the word. It doesn't always help to read the guys with letters after their name. I'm just about finished re-reading the very excellent book, "Three View on Israel and the Church," and only one of the three theologians (supposed experts) bothered to expound on the verse with any substance and NONE of them bothered to even mentioned Romans 11:5 except to make mention in passing of a remnant. How does that happen?

Their contexts are eisegetic, not exegetic. Despite each ThD providing something of an exegesis of the Romans 9-11 text, they all did so with doctrinally informed contextual bias and NOT scripture-informed contextual bias . Not a single one of them provided a whole scripture definition of "Israel," and only two of the three mentioned Jesus is Israel fulfilled. Neither of them gave much of a Christologically informed view of the Romans text. It's still an amazingly informative book. My points are that you're spot on noting the importance of context in understanding the OT and the OT's relationship with the NT, and that observation is not a simple one. Heiser's spent most of his career delving into a very specific aspect of Judaism and teaching about how it informs the OT context. His is just a very thin sliver of context, though.


Most Christians view the chief context of the OT to be the covenant. Dispensationalists will assert the dispensation as preeminent.