Dr. Michael Heiser has generated a good amount of interest in evangelical circles over his “divine council” theory and related OT-hermeneutical positions. I find some of Heiser’s positions and insights intriguing. Some of them, however, don’t at all seem half as ‘new and innovative’ as it seems he thinks they are; and some of his views are kind of goofy and rather problematic at best.
Jordan Cooper has offered three podcast episodes dealing with Heiser from a confessional Lutheran position. I would commend his critique of Heiser. It’s head-on, but fair and measured.
An Evaluation of Heiser’s Divine Council Theology
A Critique of Heiser’s Interpretation of the Nephilim
An Alternative to Heiser’s Divine Council Theology
And a postscript. One feature of Heiser I find especially unsettling is his gripe with ‘confessional encumbrances’ on biblical interpretation. His supposed ‘Naked Bible,’ however, belies a biblicism that merely operates on an unwritten confession. And a part of that unwritten confession appears to be ANE custom and practice. In the end, such biblicism tends to make a guru (oracle?) of the academic, fosters another magisterium, and paves the way for rationalism. Friends, nothing is new under the sun. Listen to Heiser, but listen to him with a good helping of caution.
West Port Experiment 
Whew! I listened to the first lecture, so far!
I tend to think this is partly a matter that Deuteronomy 29:29 addresses…folks are so fascinated by things which will endanger them. I am not arguing against good scholarship however!
I think the Holy Ghost in the apostle Paul made a very good answer:
“Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him…”
This seems pretty clear to me…I, for one, am glad I have not gotten mixed up with Heisler. From some of the comments below the lecture it appears that the man is making bank on his unique theories which is off-putting…I am not against a man making a living, but not to the detriment and confusion of the unwary. James 3:17-18 is a good measuring rod.
Thank you, westportexperiment, for your cautionary postscript! So wise.
And Susan, for your fitting citation from the Scriptures; I am in hearty agreement with your concluding paragraph.