Troublesome Topic: PSALM 8:5 AND HEBREWS 2:7

Hebrews 2:7 quotes Ps 8:4-6 using the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, often referred to  as LXX) as they always did. The LXX uses the word “angelos” to translate the Hebrew Elohim in Ps 8. Michael Heiser says on page 324 of Unseen Realm that “the use of the term angelos increased in the Second Temple period on through the New Testament so that its meaning became more generic… That is, it can be found on occasion outside the context of delivering a message… angelos had become a word deemed appropriate to generally describe a member of the supernatural realm.”

Remember that earlier, Heiser made the assumption that the word “angels” only referred to messengers that deliver messages, making them lower and less powerful than the Elohim of the divine council. Then he turned his assumption into a rule. But when he comes to passages like Heb 2:7 he has to explain why his rule does not work, and his answer is that the use of the word angels had changed over time to become more general so that it included all members of the divine council.

But doesn’t Michael Heiser teach that all the Israelites, from all eras of time, agreed with his worldview because they knew about the divine council, including the ranking system which held angels to be lower in power than the Elohim of the council? Yes, he implies it by using general terms in several places in his book Unseen Realm when describing the acceptance of his view of angels and the spirit world on the part of the people of Israel. For instance, on page 23, where he discusses angels, he indicates that Israelites in general understood things as he does, and on page 24 he says that “the ancient semitic world” understood the hierarchy of the spirit realm in the way that he, Heiser, describes it.  

I think he claims that they changed their definition of “angels” in the New Testament era in order to make things fit his narrative. I don’t see any solid evidence for this change; the only thing I see is that he needs it to be that way because, otherwise, his rule is broken and ceases to be a rule.

There is one other thing he is doing by claiming their view had changed. He is discounting their thinking and calling it wrong without saying so in clear terms. Remember, he already said that the term Elohim in Psalm 8 refers to either the supreme God, or the gods of the council. When he gets to Hebrews 2:7 he has a problem, and he solves it by saying they changed there definition. In other words, he is making the veiled statement that the LXX translation of Psalm 8:5 found in Hebrews 2:7 is wrong. It is wrong because it does not agree with Michael Heiser’s assumption which he turned into a rule.