So, what is that whole story about the “sons of God” having relations with the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6:1-4? This rather weird passage which has puzzled many readers for centuries actually holds a clue which unlocks the meaning of a number of New Testament passages which also confuse readers today. After a brief mention of Enoch who “walked with God” in Genesis 5:21-24, the next chapter begins like this (ESV translation):
When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
In short, Genesis 6:-14 is about the “sin of the Watchers.” After Enoch was taken away (Genesis 5:24), the “sons of God” were divine beings which came down to procreate the Nephilim with the “daughters of men.” This act wreaked havoc upon God’s created world, prompting the Flood of Noah. In addition to what Christians know about the sin of Adam and Eve, it was this divine rebellion in Genesis 6 that informed Jews of the Second Temple period as to the source of sin and evil in the world, as most clearly described in the Book of Enoch, a popular Jewish text written between the Old and New Testament eras.
So argues Michael Heiser in Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ. Readers of the late Dr. Michael Heiser’s landmark work, The Unseen Realm, will appreciate Reversing Hermon as a follow-up to The Unseen Realm, which lays out the scholarly case for the theology of the Divine Council, a theme which has been known by scholars but which rarely gets communicated to the average Christian on a Sunday morning.
When I first heard of Michael Heiser and his ideas, I was quite skeptical. It took me awhile to warm up to him, and still to this day, there are a few things he taught of which I am not convinced, including a few ideas presented in Reversing Hermon. But after reading through Reversing Hermon now, I am convinced that Dr. Heiser has left the church a valuable contribution to help normal, everyday believers better understand the Bible. The worst part about the book is probably the subtitle “the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ,” which comes across as click-bait and sensationalist. But a careful read of Reversing Hermon is anything but that!
Reversing Hermon: : Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ, by Dr. Michael S. Heiser, continues with the ideas first outline in his groundbreaking The Unseen Realm. I recommend reading Reversing Hermon, but I also recommend reading The Unseen Realm before Reversing Hermon.
It has been a year since the death of Dr. Michael Heiser (February 20, 2023), a highly-skilled and respected Old Testament BIble scholar, who had a keen ability to take difficult concepts and put them on the “bottom shelf” for serious students of the Bible, who want more depth in their understanding of Scripture. Many people view the Bible as being incomprehensible and confusing, but the late Michael Heiser was committed to “making the Bible weird again,” in an effort to show that the Bible has some unique things to say to 21st century sophisticated Westerners. However, much of the unfamiliarity concerning the Divine Council and the rest of Dr. Michael Heiser’s teaching has not been without controversy.
The Influence of the Book of Enoch on the New Testament
Much of the unfamiliarity has to do with the influence of Jewish apocryphal literature during the Second Temple period, primarily the Book of Enoch, which does not appear in most Bibles. This explains why you typically do not hear about this in church. While not considered to be part of Scripture for the vast majority of Christians, several apocryphal works, such as the Book of Enoch in particular, serve as the rough first century equivalent of bible “commentaries,” articulating how many Jews, including the Jewish Christians who wrote much of the New Testament, thought about how to interpret the Old Testament.
Some people have a negative view of the Book of Enoch, thinking of it as some esoteric work of literature, which might lead people away from the message of the Bible. Others actually DO believe the Book of Enoch to be part of some gnostic, secret tradition, which was “cancelled” and blacklisted by the historically orthodox church, in an attempt to hide the “truth.” None of this has any connection to reality. As to the contrary, the Book of Enoch makes sense of a lot of what we read in our New Testament.
Nevertheless, it might be worth briefly exploring why such negative criticism regarding the Book of Enoch has been registered, among the historically orthodox, believing side of the discussion. For example, Eric J. Bargerhuff, author of Why is That In the Bible?, in his otherwise largely helpful book, tells us that Genesis 6:1-4 is one of the perplexing passages of the Bible, partly due to its brevity and lack of detail. No argument there! But who then were the “sons of God” who made wives out of the “daughters of men?”
Like many others, Bargerhuff dismisses the “supernatural” view of these “sons of God” as some sort of rebellious divine beings for several reasons (Bargerhuff, p. 79ff) :
- If these “sons of God” were some kind of “demons,” it seems hardly fitting for them to be called “sons of God.”
- If these “sons of God” were angels, were not angels always supposed to be doing God’s will?
- According to Jesus, the angels do not marry and are not given in marriage (Matthew 22:30)
Bargerhuff nevertheless admits that it is difficult to know who these “sons of God” really were, but he leans towards the view popularized by Saint Augustine, the great African church father of the Latin-speaking West of the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Augustine believed that the “sons of God” of Genesis 6:1-4 were descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve.
Protestant Reformers, like Luther and Calvin, followed Augustine on this interpretation. The Book of Enoch had no place in Augustine’s thought as being in any way relevant here. But it should be acknowledged that the Book of Enoch was written in Greek, a language which Augustine himself admittedly was not proficient in. Furthermore, we have little evidence to suggest that Saint Augustine, who is otherwise one of the greatest heroes of the Christian faith, had much knowledge of what Jews of the Second Temple period, the setting for Jesus’ life and ministry, actually thought apart from what today we would typically consider to be the Old Testament and/or the so-called “Apocrypha” (books like Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, etc.).
However, Michael Heiser notes that these reasons for Bargerhuff’s rejection of the “supernatural” view of the “sons of God” are misguided. First, the identity of “demons” is misplaced in Bargerhuff’s first reason, since the “sons of God” were not demons themselves. Rather, it is the Dead Sea Scrolls which tell us that “demons” are the disembodied spirits of the divine-human offspring from Genesis 6:1–4, not the “sons of God” themselves. Secondly, the point of Genesis 6:1-4 is that these angelic beings were in rebellion, which explains why they were not doing God’s will. Thirdly, Jesus is not saying that angels never marry in Matthew 22:30. Michael Heiser comments:
“The text does not say angels cannot have sexual intercourse; it says they don’t. The reason ought to be obvious. The context for the statement is the resurrection, which refers either broadly to the afterlife or, more precisely, to the final, renewed global Eden. The point is clear in either option. In the spiritual world, the realm of divine beings, there is no need for procreation. Procreation is a necessity for perpetuating the human population. Life in the perfected Edenic world also does not require maintaining the human species by having children—everyone has an immortal resurrection body. Consequently, there is no need for sex in the resurrection, just as there is no need for it in the nonhuman spiritual realm. Genesis 6 doesn’t have the spiritual realm or the final Edenic world as its context. The analogy breaks down completely. The passage in Matthew is therefore useless as a commentary on Genesis 6:1–4.”1
Michael Heiser’s Reversing Hermon succeeds in connecting the dots between what we find in the New Testament with the Old Testament, through this interpretive tradition in Second Temple Judaism, relying upon material like the Book of Enoch. Reversing Hermon leans somewhat in a more academic direction, which might discourage some readers, particularly those who only read Michael Heiser’s book Supernatural, which is the less academic, more easily accessible version of The Unseen Realm. (See the Veracity review for The Unseen Realm). But for more curious students of the Bible, Reversing Hermon has some real gems that you would not want to miss.
In God’s Divine Council, there is the one True God, Yahweh, who has created other divine beings who sit within this council, with whom we largely encounter in the Bible as angels. Nevertheless, the great angelic rebellion in Genesis 6:1-4 sets the stage for a better understanding of numerous puzzling texts in the New Testament. Perhaps another view of Genesis 6:1-4 might very well be correct. But the advantage of Dr. Michael Heiser’s thesis is the sheer explanatory power it brings to several perplexing passages we read in the New Testament.2
Where does this whole story in Genesis 6:1-4 come from? It would not be accurate to say that the biblical author “borrowed” the Genesis 6:1-4 material from some pagan source. Rather, what we are dealing with is a shared tradition of material common in the world of the Ancient Near East, which included the Israelites. Most significantly, the Mesopotamian interpretation of this story regards these “sons of God” as being parallel to the Apkallu, certain divine beings in the Mesopotmaian religious tradition, who came into the world to better the world, transmitting divine knowledge to humanity.
In contrast, as told to us in Genesis 6:1-4, the biblical story operates as a polemic against this Mesopotamian worldview. Instead of making the world a better place, the “sons of God” only made things far worse, exacerbating the problems introduced by Adam and Eve’s rebellion.
Though not part of our Bible today, at least for the vast majority of Christians, the Book of Enoch picks up on this theme, and tells the story of the “Watchers,” a term for “angels” drawn from Daniel 4:13,17,23. Enoch goes into greater detail about this divine rebellion which is only briefly summarized in Genesis 6:1-4. Lest anyone think it out of place to somehow link the Book of Enoch with the Bible, Heiser carefully argues that both Peter and Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch, in their respective New Testament letters.
Michael Heiser’s Insights on How Enoch Illuminates Difficult Passages in the New Testament
Why is Enoch so important? Well, you may be like me, in that I have a great appreciation for verse-by-verse exposition of the Scriptures. It really bothers me when some preachers skip over parts of Bible that tend to puzzle me. It bothered Dr. Michael Heiser, too, and so when he began to learn about the world of the Ancient Near East and Second Temple Judaism in his PhD studies, he felt compelled that there must some kind of way to communicate these ideas to your average Christian church-goer, who longed for a deeper dive into understanding the Bible, without getting completely overwhelmed. This burden gave birth to the best selling book, The Unseen Realm, and this book, Reversing Hermon, as a follow-up.
Heiser argues that the coming of the Messiah, as referenced in the book’s subtitle, “The Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ,” is meant to reverse the sin of Watchers and the evil impact it had on humanity. Here are just some of the insights that the “sin of the Watchers,” as discussed in the Book of Enoch, and subsequently God’s solution in the coming of the Messiah, give us in gaining a better understanding of the New Testament, according to Michael Heiser. They can be summarized first before offering a critique:
The Birth of Jesus: Romans 10:18 tells us that the word of Christ’s first coming has been made known to the whole world. But how does the word get communicated to everyone? Revelation 12:1-7 telegraphs a message through an astronomical event to announce the coming of the Messiah for all to see, thus connecting the sin of the Watchers with the coming of the Messiah to undo the damage done by the Watchers. According to Heiser, drawing from Earnest L. Martin’s book The Star That Astonished the World, calculations of this astronomical event show that it occurred on September 11, 3 B.C.E., which would have aligned with the birth of Jesus. September 11, 3 B.C.E. was also the beginning of the Jewish New Year.
This first day of Tishri, the first month of the Jewish calendar, was traditionally known in Jewish thought to be the birthday of Noah. Essentially, Noah and Jesus share the same birthday. Noah figures well here in that it was the flood of Noah which first sought to resolve the problem of the sin of the Watchers, but as Genesis tells us, this sin problem was not wholly eradicated by the flood, to put it mildly. Instead, Revelation 12 is associating Jesus, the Messiah, with being the new Noah, who comes to reverse the sin of the Watchers once and for all.
Who then was the woman described in Revelation 12:1-7 who gives birth to the child, who is widely agreed to be Jesus the Messiah? Not Mary, but rather the woman is symbolic for Israel, in that it was Israel who gave birth to the Messiah who entered the world intent on saving the world. What then was the “star” that guided the Magi to visit Jesus? It was the planet Jupiter as it made its motions through the night sky across the constellations, guiding the Magi on their visit approximately a year after Christ’s birth (there is a lot more to unpack with Revelation 12, so see the videos linked in the footnotes).3
The Genealogy of Jesus: The inclusion of the four women in Jesus’ genealogy, Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Rahab were meant to connect the coming of the Messiah with the sin of the Watchers. The inclusion of these four women are notable in that none of the more famous women of the Old Testament: Sarah, Rebekah or Rachel, are mentioned. Heiser highlights the research of Amy E. Richter to show how the Book of Enoch associates the sin of the Watchers with these women who were connected in some way with sexual transgression, seduction, and warfare, that would lead to the reversal of that sin of the Watchers through the coming of the Messiah.
Upon this Rock?: Matthew 16:13-20 talks about Jesus announcing that the “gates of hell” will not prevail against the church, from a sermon given by Jesus while on Mount Hermon. However, unlike both the Protestant and Roman Catholic standard views of this passage, the Enochian view of this contested passage suggests an act of spiritual warfare, meant to reverse the sin of the Watchers. Roman Catholics argue that the “rock” upon which the church shall be built is the papal office of Rome, through Peter. Protestants argue that this rock is the apostolic message of the church.
Not so, according to Heiser. Rather, the “rock” is the actual place of Caesarea Philippi, at the foot of Mount Hermon, where in the Old Testament was known to be a center of Baal worship, dating back before the days of Canaan. This rock in Jesus day was associated with the worship of the pagan god, Pan. In other words, this passage is about announcing that Jesus Himself will prevail against other gods and demonic powers associated with this place at Mount Hermon. It has nothing to do with who should be pope or no pope at all! Contrary to tradition which locates the event of the Transfiguration at Mount Tabor, Heiser further makes the argument that the Transfiguration of Jesus, revealing also Elijah and Moses to Peter,James and John, took place at Mount Hermon, thus showing that the dark evil powers bent on challenging God have now been put on notice.4
As an addendum to this argument, Heiser shows that Paul in Ephesians 4:8-10 is recalling Psalm 68:18. Ephesians 4:8-10 is one of those passages which has boggled my mind for years. What in the world is Paul talking about?
Therefore it [Psalm 68:18] says,
“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”
(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Following the ESV translation above of Ephesians 4:9, Heiser argues that Paul is not talking about the liberation of captives, but rather about the conquest of captives, namely the evil powers associated with Mount Hermon (known also as Bashan in the Old Testament). The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) translation is more explicit on verse 9: “he took the captives captive.”
What had always puzzled me about this passage is that it is a prelude to Christ giving gifts to the church; like apostles, prophets, evangelists, etc. to equip the saints (Ephesians 4:11-12). What is in Paul’s mind here? Heiser argues that in making his conquest of these captives, these demonic powers, Christ is taking “booty” from these defeated demonic powers, transforming them, and then giving these “gifts” to the church for the work of Christian ministry. Heiser admits that the meaning of “descended into the lower regions” is not entirely clear, but it could either mean Christ’s descent to the dead to preach to the “spirits in prison” (discussed more below), as possibly suggested in the Apostles Creed, or something like Christ’s “descent” to empower the church with these gifts at Pentecost (Heiser, Reversing Hermon, p. 118-120).
Human Depravity According to Paul: Galatians 3:19 addresses the question of why the Law was given, in which Paul’s answer is a response to the “transgressions,” which is plural. For Heiser, the plural sense of transgressions shows that the sin of Adam and Eve was not the only transgression that Paul had in mind. It would have also included the sin of the Watcher in Genesis 6:1-4. Furthermore in particular, Heiser argues that Galatians 3:19 teaches that the Law of Moses was not given to produce transgressions but rather to restrain evil .5
Head Coverings: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 might be one of the weirdest passages in the Bible. Multiple interpretations about Paul’s teaching concerning head coverings for women exist. But Heiser’s suggestion that the importance for women to wear head coverings is an act of spiritual warfare, intent on discouraging another rebellion of divine beings (on account of the angels, in 1 Corinthians 11:10), is weird in and of itself. Yet the correlation between 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and what the Book of Enoch says about the sin of the Watchers is difficult to ignore.6
Baptism and the Spirits in Prison: 1 Peter 3:14-22 is a perplexing passage often used as a proof text for the doctrine of “baptismal regeneration,” as in Peter’s phrasing of “baptism saves” (verse 21). Furthermore, there are many explanations given regarding Christ’s preaching to the “spirits in prison” (verse 19). But the mention of Noah’s flood again ties together the sin of Watchers with the coming of Christ, in a consistent coherent manner, grounded in the thought world of Second Temple Judaism.7
The Antichrist: Heiser contends that ancient Jews understood the Antichrist theme as being associated with the sin of the Watchers. In other words, it was not just Christian authors as we find in the letters of John who write of the Antichrist. Second Temple Jews prior to the New Testament also had such ideas in mind.
The Book of Revelation, the Abyss, and the Lake of Fire: Heiser sees strong connections between the Book of Enoch and the unlocking of the Abyss in Revelation 9:1-10, which describes the release of the Watchers. The “lake of fire” (Revelation 20:10) is directly tied into what is read from the Book of Enoch. Perhaps there is also a link to the theme of the 144,000 as well.8
The late Michael Heiser. Semitic languages and Old Testament scholar.
Engaging Michael Heiser: A Critique
Not everyone will find every insight Michael Heiser brings out convincing. As to pinning down the birth of Jesus to September 11, 3 B.C.E., the biggest obstacle is the standard date for the death of Herod, which according to Josephus was 4 B.C.E. There are enough variables at play where Herod’s death could be as late as 1 B.C.E., but the traditional calculations for Jesus’ birth do place it on or near December 25. However, few scholars today find the traditional calculations to be compelling.
Heiser’s analysis which identifies the “star” of Bethlehem as Jupiter is a more plausible solution, as some of the other proposals, like a supernovae or some other exceedingly bright light located just over Bethlehem would have been surely recorded by pagan sources. Sources outside of the New Testament are completely silent about the matter, which raises the probability of Jupiter being the “star” of Bethlehem, which would have been less spectacular while still matching the New Testament’s testimony with greater precision.
Apologists over the years have wrestled with the question of how the whole “star” of Bethlehem worked, stumbling over the embarrassing fact that no one else in the first century, aside from Matthew (in Matthew 2) records some spectacular astronomical event. Heiser’s solution may or may not be correct, but the advantage of his proposal is that it is an historically verifiable astronomical occurrence, without resorting to some supposedly miraculous feature not even required by the text of Scripture.
Heiser’s chapter on the genealogy of Jesus, and the four women mentioned in it, is perhaps the weakest for me, in trying to convince the reader as to how Enoch and the sin of the Watchers are connected. Heiser is normally a very careful and persuasive scholar, but in this chapter the marshaling of the evidence, which was still quite interesting, just seemed a bit of a stretch.
The idea that the rock upon which Jesus will build his church is at Mount Hermon is partly dependent on the idea that the Transfiguration happened at Mount Hermon, and not Mount Tabor, as many Christians know from tradition. Yet the New Testament is silent on the matter. So, we really do not know exactly the location of where the Transfiguration took place, but if Heiser is correct, it makes for a coherent narrative regarding how the Messiah’s mission was tied to spiritual warfare in Jesus’ earthly ministry. Part of the appeal of Heiser’s thesis is that it moves the conversation about the “rock,” and its association with Peter, beyond the role of the papacy, an issue which continues to divide Roman Catholics and other Christians today, and brings it back to the Second Temple context which emphasized spiritual warfare.
It is still a lot to think about, but it is really the tie-in to Ephesians 4:8-10, which quotes Psalm 68:18, that stands out for me as making a lot of sense. For Psalm 68:15-17 references “Mount Bashan,” which is associated with Mount Hermon. Many scholars suggest that Psalm 68 more generally is about the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, which would include Mount Hermon (Mount Bashan), where captives were taken off towards Syria. If Paul in Ephesians is trying to link this significant Old Testament military event to the work of Jesus as the Messiah, it would make sense that Mount Hermon has something to do with spiritual warfare against the demonic powers.
Heiser’s discussion about Galatians 3:19, regarding Paul’s view of human depravity, is very, very illuminating. While most Christians associate the sin of Adam and Eve with the primary text for explaining the origin of evil, this does not fit as well with either modern Judaism, or the Judaism of the Second Temple period. Heiser states:
Consider the Old Testament. Despite repeated descriptions of the sinfulness of humankind, there isn’t a single citation of Genesis 3 or Adam’s Fall in the entire Old Testament for an explanation of human depravity. (Heiser, Reversing Hermon, p. 141).
So while Paul clearly has the sin of Adam in mind in a passage like Romans 5, it makes sense for Paul to draw upon the sin of the Watchers idea, grounded in the Book of Enoch, as yet another contributing factor for human depravity in Galatians. Interestingly, Heiser argues that the theology of human depravity derived from the sin of the Watchers demonstrates that the Mosaic Law was added to restrain evil, evil which has resulted from both the sin of Adam and the sin of the Watchers.
This is different from the common Christian understanding that Galatians 3:19 is about the Law producing transgressions in the experience of an individual: that is, exposing particular sinful acts that an individual commits or omits. In another way, the typical traditional way of reading Galatians 3:19 does not make sense as referring to individual sins committed/omitted by people today, because the “transgressions” mentioned in Galatians 3:19 happen before the coming of Christ, not after the coming of Christ:
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. (Galatians 3:19 ESV)
One can still argue that the Law of Moses continues to play some kind of role with respect to sins you and I commit/omit today, but it would appear that in Galatians 3:19, this is not Paul’s primary point.
This is not something that contemporary scholars just figured out. We actually see this idea articulated most strongly by church fathers, such as Irenaeus. Irenaeus does write about the fall of Adam. But he also writes about the role of Satan and angels in bringing about humanity’s sinful condition. What is perhaps unique about the case which Heiser presents is that it links these early church ideas to the text of Galatians 3:19.
Knowing this idea for more than one transgression bringing about the downfall of humanity, the disobedience of Adam as well as the sin of the Watchers, helps to makes better sense what we read in 1 Peter 3:14-22, a very difficult passage about Christ’s atoning death for sins, Christ’s resurrection, Christ preaching to the “spirits in prison,” and the idea of “baptism saves.” At first, it might seem like a somewhat random collection of themes, but it is the mention of Noah and the flood which ties everything together, as found in the Book of Enoch.
In Enoch, the fallen angels of Genesis 6:1-4 are described as being “in prison,” where they are condemned by God as they await their final judgment (Heiser, p. 167). After Christ’s death, Christ goes to preach to those condemned angelic spirits in prison to announce that their doom has been sealed. In other words, Christ declares victory over the evil powers which were bent on undermining God’s authority and corrupting God’s creation of humanity. The great flood of Noah then functions as a type which anticipates a future prophetic fulfillment of that type, as ultimately revealed in the work of Christ on the cross, and experienced in the lives of believers through baptism.
The flood was originally meant to eradicate the sin of Watchers in Genesis 6:1-4, but with limited success. Only a few, Noah’s family, were saved through the water. God had a more permanent solution in mind through the coming of the Messiah, which has a more universal impact on humanity. Baptism does not save apart from faith, but it does correspond to a “pledge of a clear conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21). This pledge is a kind of loyalty oath, where the Christian has confidence that God has indeed defeated the evil powers of sin and death through the coming of the Messiah.
To put it slightly differently, what God started to do with the flood of Noah, a great “baptism” meant to wipe out the evil which resulted from the sin of the Watchers, God finishes with the coming of Jesus as the Messiah, who through his baptism finishes the job in defeating the powers of darkness, particularly through Christ’s death and resurrection. Baptism is therefore an act of spiritual warfare, whereby the one who is baptized is declaring his allegiance to the Messiah who defeats the evil powers. It is in this sense that “baptism saves.”
While Michael Heiser does not go into this in-depth, the twin aspect of both the sin of Adam and Eve and the sin of the Watchers, helps to better appreciate the breadth of Christ’s atoning work on the cross. A long running debate for centuries find a solution here, between those who uphold the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement; that is, Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins, and those who hold to more of a “Christus Victor” approach; that is, Christ died to conquer the evil powers associated with sin and death, delivering humanity from death, and leading to eternal life. Instead of an either/or approach to atonement, we have a both/and approach to Christ’s atoning work. While not wholly mutually exclusive, the penal substitutionary work of Christ deals primarily with the sin of Adam and Eve, whereas Christ’s victory over the evil powers deals primarily with the rebellion of the fallen angels in Genesis 6:1-4. Both aspects of Christ’s work on the cross, penal substitution AND victory over the evil powers are at play. To split the two up as being at odds with one another is a false dichotomy.
The chapter on the Antichrist was probably the second weakest chapter in Reversing Hermon. While Heiser ties in a lot of themes from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the concept of Antichrist, it just did not connect as well as other chapters of the book.
The fascinating connections between the Second Temple Enoch tradition and what we find in the Book of Revelation are pretty undeniable. The fallen Watchers described in the Book of Enoch are eventually released from their prison until the day of judgment, which corresponds to the unlocking of the Abyss in Revelation 9.
As a young Christian during my college years, I was told that the imagery of “breastplates of iron” and the “thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle” (Revelation 9:9-10) was symbolic of the heavy-duty mechanized tanks to be used in a World War Three type of battle in the final days. Back then, such a battle probably involved the Soviet Union. Today, who knows what that might mean. But Heiser convincingly shows that this passage has more to do with God’s judgments against the rebellious Watchers than anything like that. As far as the identity of Gog and Magog goes, the popular speculation that ties these figures from Ezekiel 38 and Revelation 20:8 to “Russia”, are pretty well dismantled if Heiser is correct.
In Enoch, the Watchers which were bound in the Abyss and then released are ultimately thrown into the “lake of fire.” This is hard to miss as being connected to the “lake of fire” in Revelation 19:20, 20:10, and 21:8. While it may seem somehow “cool” to try to associate modern end-times scenarios with what we hear from the daily news, the ancient context of the Book of Enoch tells us that there is more going on here than what a lot of so-called “prophecy experts” like to say on cable television and certain YouTube channels. 9
Contrary to what many Christians are told, Heiser also argues that “Armageddon” is not a reference to the plains of Meggido straddled between Galilee and Mount Carmel. Rather, the confusion about the identity of “Armageddon” (Revelation 16:16) results from a difference in how the term works in Hebrew versus Greek. While the Armageddon/Meggido connection makes sense in Greek, in Hebrew the meaning is very different. In Hebrew, “Armageddon” is a reference to “the mount of the assembly,” associated with Jerusalem where the Temple is. In other words, “That mountain is Zion—Jerusalem. Armageddon is a battle for God’s dominion over Jerusalem at Jerusalem ” (Heiser, p. 384, footnote # 285).
Since Yahweh’s Divine Council is associated with where the council meets, in Jerusalem, it makes sense to say that the great battle is a battle involving members of Yahweh’s Divine Council, symbolic of a great cosmic battle in the supernatural realm, which corresponds better to the narrative of the sin of the Watchers, as opposed to some future “End Times” scenario involving human armies on the plains of Meggido, an idea traditionally drawn from a reading of Zechariah 12:11.
Jerusalem is in a mountainous area. As the Greek “Armageddon” is essentially a transliteration of the Hebrew term for “mount of the assembly,” this creates a serious problem for the popular reading of this word. Meggido is not a mountain. I have visited Meggido and to try to find some natural geographic feature resembling a mountain is a real stretch. It took me a few times to read through the force of Dr. Heiser’s argument, as it is a bit technical, but now it is difficult to unsee it: “Meggido” can not mean a reference to Armageddon.10
By the far, the most interesting and completely weird connection that Michael Heiser brings out regarding Enoch and the New Testament is the whole teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 about the purpose of head coverings. I was skeptical at first, but once I saw all of the pieces fall into place, I can never look at that passage the same way as I had done before.
God took Enoch (Genesis 5:24). From Figures de la Bible, Gerald Hoet and others, 1728.
A Biblical Case for a Large Local Flood of Noah
As someone very interested in the creation debate; that is, young versus old earth creation, and how evolution does or does not play a role in creation, one additional benefit of Reversing Hermon is the argument that the great flood of Noah was not global, but rather was a large local flood event. A global flood view still has some evidence in its favor, but a local flood Reversing Hermon makes the argument for a local flood based purely from Scripture, without any appeal to science. Though I am sure that not even this will convince Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis, Heiser provides substantial arguments that the notion of a local flood, as opposed to the global flood, makes infinitely greater sense based on what is presented in Scripture.
Dr. Heiser’s primary concern is that if Noah’s flood was a global event which is partly aimed at wiping out the descendants of the Watchers, the Nephilim, which some say are known as “giants” in the Bible, how come there appear to be “giants” who survive the great flood, such as Goliath whom David faces, centuries after the flood? However, if the flood was a large local flood instead, it would explain how at least some of the Nephilim were able to survive the flood catastrophe. This does not necessarily mean that Goliath was one of the Nephilim, but perhaps “giants” like Goliath were descended from the Nephilim, which still suggests survival from the flood apart from Noah’s clan. Here are just some of the arguments from Scripture Michael Heiser points out that are in favor of a local flood (Heiser, p. 321, footnote #38):
The phrases in the Flood narrative that suggest a global event occur a number of times in the Hebrew Bible where their context cannot be global or include all people on the planet. For example, the phrase “the whole earth” (kol ʾerets) occurs in passages that clearly speak of localized geography (e.g., Gen. 13:9; 41:57; Lev. 25:9, 24; Judg. 6:37; 1 Sam. 13:3; 2 Sam. 24:8). In such cases, “whole land” or “all the people in the area” are better understandings
Gen. 9:19 clearly informs us that “the whole earth” was populated by the sons of Noah. Gen. 10 (see 10:1) gives us the list of the nations spawned by the sons of Noah—all of which are located in the regions of the ancient Near East, the Mediterranean, and the Aegean. The biblical writers knew nothing of nations in another hemisphere (the Americas) or places like India, China, or Australia.
The phrase “all humankind” (kol ʾadam) used in Gen. 7:21 also appears in contexts that cannot speak to all humans everywhere (e.g., Jer. 32:20; Psa. 64:9 can only refer to people who had seen what God had done, not people on the other side of the world). Lastly, Psa. 104:9 appears to forbid a global flood, since it has God promising to never cover the earth with water as had been the case at creation.
The irony is that after reading Reversing Hermon I felt more strongly that the whole current interest in a global flood, in Young Earth Creationist circles, is driven more by a desire to try to debunk a scientific theory of evolution than it is in the careful exegesis of Scripture. Second Temple Jews who were trying to figure out the fate of the Nephilim were doing so not because they had Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory in mind, for that would have been wildly anachronistic. Instead, they were trying to wrestle with the meaning of the Enochian story passed down to them from the Hebrew Bible.
Furthermore, Michael Heiser has not really intended to make a scientific case in Reversing Hermon anyway, as biblical scholarship was his field and not science. Rather, his main point has been to argue that both the global and local flood interpretations are biblically defensible and coherent positions, without trying to land definitively on one position or the other, though the local flood interpretation makes better sense over all.
Nevertheless, in reading Reversing Hermon, I realized that many (though not all) Young Earth Creationists are ideologically committed to their view of a global flood, which makes it difficult for them to consider the biblical evidence for a local flood. It is very difficult for some to let the Bible just be the Bible, allowing Scripture to speak for itself, in its ancient context. Young Earth Creationists are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, and yet while I can not rule out a global flood conclusively, those who advocate for that interpretation have their work cut out for them to try to explain away the several texts which testify instead to a local flood interpretation.11
The Benefit of Reading Reversing Hermon, Among Heiser’s Other Work
About 8 years ago, I wrote a blog post about Genesis 6:1-4 stating that “No one really knows for sure what Genesis 6:1-4 is all about” and that the Enochian view of divine beings having sexual relations with the daughters of men was an improbable way of reading the passage. I wrote: “The main problem with this view is that such a fantastic claim regarding angels marrying human women is out of step with the rest of the biblical narrative.” But that was before I took seriously the evidence we have in support of the Enochian view, when becoming familiar with the work of the late Dr. Michael Heiser.
Dr. Heiser ultimately proposes that the problem of human existence is not rooted in merely one issue; that is, the consequences of the original sin of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. It is about three issues all together. The second issue is about the sin of the Watcher in Genesis 6:1-4, the focus of Reversing Hermon. The third issue is not developed much in Reversing Hermon (see The Unseen Realm book for more on that), but it concerns the disinheritance of the nations in Genesis 11. In Genesis 11, the people disobeyed God and for their punishment were divided into nations, which were then subject to the authority of a different “sons of God,” divine beings who were not to be worshipped, but who were intended to be part of God’s Divine Council. Nevertheless, some of these divine beings fell and became worshipped by these different nations. Heiser’s position is that the coming of the Messiah is about reversing the consequences of all three of these issues, and not just the one tragedy involving Adam and Eve and the serpent.
There are still those who are going to be wary of Michael Heiser’s efforts to bring Second Temple Judaism scholarship, and particularly the Book of Enoch, to bear on how we read the New Testament. I get that sense of hesitancy as an evangelical Protestant who upholds the doctrine of sola scriptura: the Bible and the Bible alone as our ultimate source of authority. But when you have early church fathers making implicit and even explicit reference to Enoch, and even more convincingly the New Testament itself with Jude 14-15 directly quoting from the Book of Enoch, it makes it really difficult to ignore the evidence. So, to all the naysayers who would either have us stay as far away as possible from the Book of Enoch, or those who think the Book of Enoch is some kind 0f secret book of gnostic wisdom, you should consider reading Michael Heiser’s Reversing Hermon as an antidote to both kinds of thinking.
As I hopefully make clear in my engagement with Heiser’s thesis, I am not fully convinced that every connection Heiser makes between the New Testament and Enoch is really there. Furthermore, drawing in the disinheritance of the nations in Genesis 11 is not as strong as Heiser’s argument regarding Genesis 6:1-4 and the sin of the Watchers. But on the whole, I now see that Dr. Heiser has been indeed on the right track, and that the work of other scholars that Heiser cites confirms that this is not just some off-the-wall reading of Scripture. The contribution of Enoch has greater explanatory power than other alternative ways for reading Genesis 6:1-4.
A Recommendation for Michael Heiser’s Reversing Hermon
To summarize: I would highly suggest that readers of Dr. Michael Heiser read The Unseen Realm first before diving into Reversing Hermon. Reversing Hermon acts as an extended appendix to the superior The Unseen Realm. Reversing Hermon is best suited for someone who has read The Unseen Realm, but who has not totally bought into the influence of Enoch and the importance of the sin of the Watchers interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4. Dr. Heiser steers clear of the error of ignoring the Book of Enoch on the one side, verses staying very much away from misguided esoteric readings of Enoch on the other, which tend towards various kinds of secretive and sensationalist Gnosticism.
What I appreciate the most about Reversing Hermon is that much of what is discussed in the book is not original to Michael Heiser. Rather it is based on several decades of peer-reviewed biblical scholarship. Heiser succeeds in making the insights gained from the Book of Enoch, with that book’s focused attention on the sin of the Watchers, accessible to the average Christian. Heiser is convinced that this interest among biblical scholars today into the Book of Enoch‘s place in the world of Second Temple Judaism gives greater clarity and understanding to how we can best interpret the Bible. While I am not totally on-board with every argument that Dr. Heiser presents, his methodology of trying to ground the interpretation of the Bible in the New Testament era within the context of the Ancient Near East and Second Temple Judaism is compelling enough to rethink some well-meaning, popular, and yet ultimately misguided ways of reading the Bible, as well as providing clarity for certain passages which have mystified students of the Bible.
Losing such a brilliant and captivating scholar as Michael Heiser to cancer last year has been a big blow to Bible geeks everywhere, but at least we have Mike’s books, other writings, and teaching videos available to stir a new generation of interest into the text of Scripture. I will probably have to read The Unseen Realm again, just to figure out what I missed the first time through!! My next goal in digging deep into the Second Temple Jewish context for the New Testament, as Michael Heiser presents it, is to read his book on Demons, one of the last books Heiser wrote before he died in 2023. Let us see if I can get to it before the end of 2024!
The main website for Dr. Heiser’s blog is still available on the Internet. The audio archive, with written transcripts, of the Naked Bible Podcast are available online. Follow-up commentary for Heiser’s The Unseen Realm, on a chapter by chapter basis, are available at the More Unseen Realm website. Another prominent scholar whose work with Enoch echoes a lot of what Michael Heiser taught in Father Stephen De Young, an Eastern Orthodox presbyter and author who co-hosts a podcast, Lord of Spirits, which comes highly recommended to me.
Notes:
1. See Michael Heiser, Reversing Hermon, p. 27-28, referenced from other book reviews. For the details on where demons come from, see Heiser, Reversing Hermon, p. 113. Specifically, this article by Heiser references the Dead Sea Scroll manuscript which explains that demons are the disembodied spirits from the offspring of the dead Nephilim , see 11QapocPsa[=11Q11], Col V:6. However, a growing number of scholars are moving away from the Sethite view, popularized by Augustine, and reaffirmed by those like Bargerhuff. See this article at The Gospel Coalition website by William F. Cook, a New Testament scholar at the Southern Theological Seminary. Notice that Cook (mostly) agrees with Michael Heiner’s perspective, but what is most interesting is the Cook makes no appeal to evidence outside of the Bible to make his case: his case is based purely on Scriptural passages. Note also how Heiser refutes Cook’s reference to Matthew 22:30, which is offered as a counter-argument to Heiser’s position. ↩
2. See Veracity review of David Bentley Hart’s Tradition and Apocalypse. Hart has heterodox leanings, but he recognizes that Augustine’s departure away from the contribution of the Book of Enoch went against the grain of earlier church fathers. A key element in understand Dr. Heiser’s perspective is to understanding that there are three great rebellions in the Bible, for which humanity needed to be rescued from by the Messiah, not just one (Adam’s sin in the Garden). The two other rebellions are (1) the cosmic fall of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4, and the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. While not addressed that much in Reversing Hermon, Dr. Heiser goes into more depth into the Tower of Babel episode in the second of the next two videos: .↩
3. The irony of this that Dr. Heiser points out is that Revelation 12:1-7 is commonly associated with the fall of Satan, that many say happened before Creation. But a better way to frame the possible connection of Revelation 12:9 (following Revelation 12:1-7) with the opening chapters of Genesis is to ask if the serpent in Genesis 3 is more than a snake (see the last video in list of videos below). ↩
4. Michael Heiser argues that the location of where Jesus speaks about the “the rock” and the “gates of hell,” at Mount Hermon, is highly significant. ↩
5. See Michael Heiner’s teachings about the “transgressions” in Galatains 3:19 ↩
6. See Veracity blog series on head coverings. ↩
7. Dr. Michael Heiser is not impressed when pastors skip 1 Peter 3:14-22, as described in the first video below. The second video offers a summary of Heiser’s teaching that I found helpful. A more in-depth exegesis of 1 Peter 3:14-22 can be heard from a clip from Dr. Heiser’s Naked Bible Podcast in the third video: ↩
8. Heiser on the “Lake of Fire” ↩
9. Other book reviews engage Dr. Heiser on these topics. ↩
10. For audiobook listeners, here is a link to the footnotes which are not read on the audiobook version of Reversing Hermon. Michael Heiser’s several video channels are actively monitored and updated on YouTube, including his Naked Bible Podcast archive. Here are a few videos which address Dr. Heiser’s views on Armageddon. ↩
11. Gavin Ortlund makes use of Michael Heiser’s material to defend a local flood interpretation of Genesis 7-9. Oddly, a number of critics of Ortlund’s position, and by implication, Heiser’s view as well, dismisses the local flood interpretation as “heretical,” despite the actual evidence from the text of Scripture to the contrary. ↩
Veracity 
What do you think?