Because the NT has less to say about angels than the OT and intertestamental Jewish literature, Heiser’s treatment of the subject is briefer (pp. 116-62), and if I were to have a general criticism of these two chapters, it would be that the NT resources, specifically commentaries, he refers to are in various cases dated. Still, there is much interesting and good discussion here as elsewhere in this book. One of the initial points Michael makes on p. 116 is... Read more

Picture courtesy of Mr. Weiss and the Red Sox Even God must be for the Red Sox today— look at that rainbow over Fenway! Best Sox team maybe ever. 119 wins, including 7 and 1 on the road in the playoffs against the Yankees, Houston the world champs, and the Dodgers… Read more

One of the major differences between angels and humans, as Heiser rightly points out, is that the former are deathless, and therefore they have no need to propagate their species by marriage. (p. 88). This is doubtless why Jesus says that in the Kingdom we will neither marry nor be given in marriage for we will be like the angels. This is not about become neuters or sexless beings, it’s about becoming deathless ones instead of mortals, and by implication... Read more

One of the very most helpful parts of Michael Heiser’s recent book is his charts on the use of language applied to angels. See pp. 76-81. This is excellent summarizing of the Hebrew terminology. One of the things one learns along the way of course, is that the NT writers relied much more heavily on the Greek OT (LXX and Old Greek) than on the Hebrew for their discussions of angels. As Heiser rightly notes: “NT writers quote the OT... Read more

Angels are not just private messengers, they are also public testifiers. Michael Heiser rightly points to the plurals in Is. 40.1-2– where the exhortation to comfort– is addressed to members of the divine council to go and comfort God’s people (p. 41). Jer. 23.16-22 is interesting because it refers to real earthly prophets standing in the divine council and listening to the discussion and then going and proclaiming God’s Word. Angels may do this… but so may human prophets. Why... Read more

Our next port of call is Ps. 104.4, where we hear of ‘ruah’ in the plural (‘spirits’– probably not to be translated winds here) and also ‘malakim’– messengers, plural. The later speaks more to a major function of these beings, the former to their very nature. Here these angels are also called God’s ministers. Ps. 103 is rightly compared to Ps. 104 on these scores (pp. 5-7). While the word ‘samayim’, which occurs over 400 times in the OT regularly... Read more

The bulk, and real strength of this book is its review of all the main passages about angels in the OT and NT. This transpires between pp. 1-162 with copious notes. Disclaimer alert! This book does not discuss the Devil or demonology, it sticks with the good angels. I suspect his next book will be dealing with the Nefarious One and his minions. For now, I recommend reading Graham Twelftree on demons as they occur in the NT. Here we... Read more

Let us start with the Introduction to Michael’s book, and focus on one major claim that undergirds much else. Michael takes Gen. 1.26 to mean: 1) that God his consulting his heavenly council (its not a discussion in the Trinity. There wouldn’t need to be a discussion between omniscient persons), and this is not just a plural of majesty. So far so good. I think the evidence definitely supports this conclusion; 2) this means that human beings are created in... Read more

Reading a Michael Heiser book is like eating marzipan— its rich, and requires only digesting small bites at a time. Some of the things I appreciate most about his books are: 1) his notes are rich with detail for those who want to pursue matters further; 2) he brings in ANE detail in a way many scholars cannot do; 3) he writes in a way that laity and clergy can benefit from such a study without being overwhelmed. I’m not... Read more

We now have the fourth making of a film based on the premise we find in A Star is Born— and doing such a thing is exceedingly difficult because the comparisons are inevitable. The first iteration of this film had a different name and emerged in the 1930s with Janet Gaynor. The second iteration in the 50s should have had more success— Judy Garland was an absolute star in the film and was robbed of a Oscar. The third attempt... Read more