Iamblichus and Michael Heiser: Neo-Platonism in Christian Disguise

Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 Worldview

To introduce Heiser’s thought, it is useful to summarize his well-known articulation of the so-called “Deuteronomy 32 worldview.” Heiser wrote:

The aftermath of the Babel incident shows that Yahweh expected that council beings use their own free decisionmaking capacity. In Deuteronomy 4:19-20 and 32:8-9, Yahweh divided and assigned the nations to lesser gods (Heiser, “Sons of God”). Yahweh delegated authority—He rejected the nations as His own people and took Israel as His portion. While Yahweh is ultimately sovereign, He does not unilaterally govern the other nations. He leaves that to subordinates, who should rule according to His will. When they don’t, they are judged. This is precisely the point of Psa 82, where Yahweh judges the gods of his council who are responsible for corrupt rule over the nations of the earth.¹⁾Michael Heiser, The Divine Council and Biblical Theology,” p. 4; http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DivineCouncilLBD.pdf

According to this interpretation, the dispersion of the nations at Babel entailed God’s decree that subordinate “gods” would rule over the Gentile nations, while Yahweh reserved Israel as His own portion.

Iamblichus on the Distribution of Divine Powers

A remarkably similar position appears in the teaching of Iamblichus, the fourth-century A.D. Neo-Platonist. He wrote:

 God is the initiator of these things, he who is called “the god who presides over sacrifices,” and there is a great multitude of gods and angels in attendance upon him. Also, to each race upon the earth he has allotted a general supervisor, and a particular one for each holy place … one should make an accurate study of all the entities that surround us, those that inhabit the universe, the gods, angels and daemons assigned to the various nations, and to present one’s sacrifice to all in a manner agreeable to them in all cases; for only in this way will our ritual practice come to be worthy of the gods who preside over it.²⁾Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 5.236-237; Iamblichus, On the Mysteries (Trans. Ema C. Clarke, John M. Dillon, and Jackson P. Hershbell), Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta, GA: 2003), p. 273

This system, however, is not original to Iamblichus. As a Neo-Platonist, he sought to interpret the philosophy of Plato (fifth century B.C.). Plato himself had written:

 Cronos was aware of the fact that no human being (as we have explained) is capable of having irresponsible control of all human affairs without becoming filled with pride and injustice; so, pondering this fact, he then appointed as kings and rulers for our cities, not men, but beings of a race that was nobler and more divine, namely, daemons. He acted just as we now do in the case of sheep and herds of tame animals: we do not set oxen as rulers over oxen, or goats over goats, but we, who are of a nobler race, ourselves rule over them. In like manner the God, in his love for humanity, set over us at that time the nobler race of daemons…³⁾Plato, Laws, 713cd. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 10 & 11 translated by R.G. Bury. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1967 & 1968. Accessible at: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0166

It is important to note that in Platonism the term daimon did not correspond exactly to the biblical category of “demons.” Rather, a daimon was generally conceived as a neutral or benevolent intermediary between the gods and humanity.

The Table of Nations: Seventy or Seventy-Two?

Heiser correlates Genesis 10 (the “table of nations”) with the Ugaritic myth of El’s seventy sons:

This is precisely the number [70] of the sons of El in the divine council at Ugarit.⁴⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 114, fn. 7.

Heiser thus assumes that the biblical “sons of God” correspond to El’s sons in Ugaritic mythology, each of whom was allotted to rule over one of the seventy Gentile nations.

Yet the Septuagint version of Genesis 10 actually enumerates seventy-two names, not seventy. Among Greek-speaking Jews and Christians, the figure of seventy-two Gentile nations became common. Intriguingly, Iamblichus makes reference to precisely this number within his astrological framework:

Then, distinguishing the heaven into parts, dividing it into either two sections or four or twelve or thirty-six, or the double of that [36×2=72], or in whatever other way, they assign to these sections authorities greater or lesser in number, and again they place above them one deity who holds sway over them.⁵⁾Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 8.264; Iamblichus, On the Mysteries (Trans. Ema C. Clarke, John M. Dillon, and Jackson P. Hershbell), Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta, GA: 2003), p. 313.

Here Iamblichus describes the zodiacal division of the heavens into four quarters, twelve signs, thirty-six decans, and finally seventy-two divinities—each placed under the rule of a single demiurgic deity.

Distinctions Between Gods, Angels, and Daemons

Heiser argued in his dissertation that angels never govern territory:

At no time in Ugaritic literature or the Hebrew Bible are the מלאכים [angels] said to govern territory, nor are they ever referred to in royal terms.⁶⁾Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004, p. 58.

By this reasoning, Heiser distinguished “gods” from “angels” on the basis of function. Angels were messengers; gods were rulers of nations.

Iamblichus articulated a similar distinction:

[Evil daemons] are in no case assigned an administrative role, nor are they set over against the good on a footing of equality.⁷⁾Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 4.282; Iamblichus, On the Mysteries (Trans. Ema C. Clarke, John M. Dillon, and Jackson P. Hershbell), Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta, GA: 2003), p. 339.

By “the good,” Iamblichus referred to the gods, whom he considered without vice or passions, as opposed to daemons who lacked administrative capacity.

The Disembodied Nature of the Gods

For Heiser, the key distinction of the elohim lies in their disembodied existence. He wrote:

In briefest terms, an אֱלֹהִים is a being whose proper ‘habitation’ was considered the ‘spirit world,’ and whose primary existence was a disembodied one.⁸⁾Michael Heiser, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18.1 (2008), p. 30, fn. 63.

And again in The Unseen Realm:

Humans are also not by nature disembodied. The word elohim is a ‘place of residence’ term. Our home is the world of embodiment; elohim by nature inhabit the spiritual world.⁹⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 29.

Iamblichus made a nearly identical assertion:

[M]atter is opposed to the gods and the body is seen as the prison from which souls are freed.¹⁰⁾Gregory Shaw, theurgy and the Soul: The Neo Platonism of Iamblichus (Second Edition), Angelico Press/Sophia Perennis (Kettering, OH: 2014), p. 44.

Both, therefore, define “gods” as beings whose essential nature is disembodied, while the embodied state belongs to humans.

Heiser, Elohim, and the Witch of Endor

Michael Heiser’s interpretation of the account of Saul and the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28) illustrates the foundation of his broader theological framework. Heiser notes that the medium described Samuel as Elohim ascending, and from this he argues that Elohim denotes disembodiment, since Samuel’s soul is referred to as such.

This interpretation parallels Iamblichus’ philosophical hierarchy of spiritual beings. For Iamblichus, the soul was considered the lowest of divine beings because of its contact with a physical body. He defined the genus of the gods as “incorporeal,” asserting that the gods have “aetherial bodies,” daimons “aerial ones,” and souls “earthly bodies.” He further distinguished between cosmic and hypercosmic deities, remarking:

Let us, therefore posit once again that, among the gods, some are material, other immaterial.¹¹⁾Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 5.217; Iamblichus, On the Mysteries (Trans. Ema C. Clarke, John M. Dillon, and Jackson P. Hershbell), Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta, GA: 2003), p. 249.

Though this classification may appear contradictory, it provides a useful framework for comparison. Heiser likewise wrote:

‘Spirit beings,’ such as the plural ĕlōhîm of Psalm 82, are created and therefore made of something. Invisibility does not mean that the invisible thing is immaterial. All things created were made, and are made, of some form of matter, whether we can detect it by our sense or science or not. To deny this would mean that ‘spirit beings’ are not part of the created order.¹²⁾Michael S. Heiser, “You’ve Seen One Elohim, You’ve Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism’s Use of Psalm 82,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989-2011, Vol. 19, No. 1, (2007), p. 223.

Thus, in both Iamblichus and Heiser, the concept emerges that disembodied beings are nevertheless material in some sense. In Iamblichus, the Greek word hylē (“matter”) could signify concrete objects such as wood or stone, but also abstract realities such as fragrance, music, or revelatory visions. Both systems therefore construct a hierarchy of spiritual entities, though Iamblichus’ is notably more elaborate.

Hierarchies of the Divine

Iamblichus’ hierarchy consisted of gods, archangels, angels, daimons, heroes, archons, and human souls—all of which were described as divine. Gregory Shaw observes:

Iamblichus placed human souls near the bottom of the psychic hierarchy and maintained that their actions revealed their ontological rank.¹³⁾Gregory Shaw, theurgy and the Soul: The Neo Platonism of Iamblichus (Second Edition), Angelico Press/Sophia Perennis (Kettering, OH: 2014), p. 81.

Heiser’s system parallels this construction. He distinguished between God, gods, angels, demons, and souls, all of which he described with divine terminology on the basis of their disembodiment. Like Iamblichus, Heiser ranked these beings according to their actions. Regarding angels, Heiser wrote:

As we noted earlier in our study in the Old Testament ‘angel’ is a functional, not an ontological, term. It is in effect a job description.¹⁴⁾Michael S. Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2020), p. 241.

In his doctoral dissertation, he proposed:

Third, I propose that the category of archangel is synonymous with the categories “Watcher,” “blessed ones” (Greek, μακαρες), “archon,” “principality,” and “dominion.” All the beings designated in these ways exercise earthly geographical sovereignty, a function that coincides with the sons of God in Deut 32:8-9 and the gods / sons of the Most High in Psalm 82.¹⁵⁾Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004, p. 216.

Thus, Heiser defined angels by their function as messengers, while gods were ranked higher, possessing geographical dominions. This closely resembles Iamblichus’ distinction:

Gods and daimons were also distinguished by their dominions.¹⁶⁾Gregory Shaw, theurgy and the Soul: The Neo Platonism of Iamblichus (Second Edition), Angelico Press/Sophia Perennis (Kettering, OH: 2014), p. 158.

Angels and Daimons

Iamblichus held that daimons served as mediators between the gods and men, following the Platonic tradition. This placement mirrors Heiser’s categorization of angels as messengers serving the gods within the divine council. Heiser described the Ugaritic pantheon in similar terms:

The ml’km [Hebrew for “angels”] were present in council because they rendered service to the high god and the other gods who ranked above them, but the ruling council was composed entirely of El and his spouse and offspring.¹⁷⁾Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004, p. 45.

For Iamblichus, daimons frequently functioned punitively, mediating divine punishment to mankind. He distinguished between good and evil daimons, a distinction echoed in Heiser’s theology of demons. Whereas gods in Heiser’s framework are disembodied, demons are also disembodied but are closely tied to the material world, identified as the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim destroyed in the Flood.

Heiser explained:

Nevertheless, demons are consistently cast as disembodied spirits of dead Nephilim and their giant clan descendants. Those spirits are the offspring of the angels that sinned before the flood, so the demons cannot be those fallen angels.¹⁸⁾Michael S. Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2020), p. 242.

The Problem of Evil: Daimons and Watchers

For Heiser, demons are the principal cause of sin’s spread across the earth. He argued:

Yes, the entrance of sin into God’s good world occurred in Eden, but the unanimous testimony of Second Temple Judaism is that the Watchers are to blame for the proliferation of evil on the earth.¹⁹⁾Michael S. Heiser, Reversing Hermon: Enoch, The Watchers & The Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ, Defender Publishing (Crane, MO:2017), p. 3.

Iamblichus also framed daimons as personifications of matter that exerted a downward pull on the soul. Gregory Shaw summarizes:

Daimons were the personified powers of matter, entities whose centrifugal influence on souls was encountered and turned around in theurgic rituals. Iamblichus, therefore, allowed for a functional dualism within his monism. In the imagery of theurgic rites he pitted spiritual gods against material daimons, but as the soul was gradually freed from the bonds of generation it began to participate in the fundamental unity of the cosmos.²⁰⁾Gregory Shaw, theurgy and the Soul: The Neo Platonism of Iamblichus (Second Edition), Angelico Press/Sophia Perennis (Kettering, OH: 2014), p. 45.

While Iamblichus sought liberation from daimons through theurgy, Heiser located deliverance in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. As Heiser explained:

All who embrace the gospel and become members of the kingdom of Jesus will overcome death in their union with him…. The Spirit of God residing in believers, sent after the ascension of Jesus, blunts the human depravity proliferation by the transgression of the sons of God before the flood.²¹⁾Michael S. Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2020), p. 262.

Deification in Iamblichus and Heiser

Heiser’s soteriology frequently employs language of deification. He argued:

[T]he end result is not that glorified believers become angels. Rather, we are fully grafted into the glorious family council of God. Our ‘already’ status in that regard becomes full reality at death. We join the heavenly children of God in a blended divine family and actually outrank angels in the new global Eden.²²⁾Michael S. Heiser, Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2018), p. 177.

Heiser further explained:

Our inheritance of the nations with Jesus at the end of days (Rev 3:21) is in a glorified, resurrected—divine—state.²³⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 159.

Similarly, he asserted:

The corrupt divine sons of God of Deuteronomy 32:8 would be displaced by new divine sons of God—glorified believers.²⁴⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 160.

In this schema, men are deified to replace the rebellious gods in the council, inheriting their authority over nations and outranking angels. This stands in tension with orthodox Christian teaching of bodily resurrection, for Heiser’s emphasis falls on transformation into a disembodied divine state.

Iamblichus also advanced a doctrine of deification through theurgy. By invoking the gods, the theurgist was assimilated to the Demiurge. M. David Litwa—frequently cited by Heiser—expressed deification as:

assimilation with Chirst, a divine being[.]²⁵⁾David Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. (Berlin, Germany: 2012), p. 13

Litwa added that to become divine:

[T]hey need to strip away or transform what makes them ‘un-divine’ (i.e., the mortal, earthly body with its passions and evil deeds).²⁶⁾David Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. (Berlin, Germany: 2012), p. 4

Thus, when Heiser wrote, “All who embrace the gospel and become members of the kingdom of Jesus will overcome death in their union with him [Christ]” (Demons, 262), he echoed the same pattern of salvation-as-assimilation that characterizes Platonic and theurgical deification.

Neo-Gnosticism Revived

The convergence of Heiser’s theology with Platonic categories raises pressing questions about its source. As noted, Gnosticism historically arose from the synthesis of Platonist presuppositions with allegorical interpretations of Scripture. Heiser’s system reflects this same blending. His insistence that the Bible is encoded in cryptic language requiring esoteric interpretation mirrors the Gnostic hermeneutic.

Thus, Heiser’s theology bears the marks of a modernized, evangelical Gnosticism—what may rightly be termed neo-Gnosticism. By recasting salvation as deification, reclassifying spiritual beings in Platonic hierarchies, and interpreting biblical texts through an esoteric framework, Heiser stands closer to Iamblichus than to the apostles.