I would like to thank brothers Leithart and Kou for inviting me to engage in this discussion on the Divine Council. I published the first book-length critique of Heiser’s views in The Unbiblical Realm (2023)[1] and am presently expanding it to address new material, including interacting with Thomas Howe’s recent works[2] and Heiser’s own expanded edition of The Unseen Realm.[3] While I regard many elements of Heiser’s theology as heretical, I acknowledge that Kou’s perspective—though affirming an angelic council—reflects an attempt to remain closer to orthodox bounds and finds some historical precedent within Judaism[4] and Christianity.[5]
Heiser’s Polytheistic Framework
My central objection to Heiser’s theology is his recognition of multiple deities. He speaks of a “pantheon”[6] which he describes as “similar to pantheons of the ancient Near Eastern cultures.”[7] Philo, writing in the first century, frequently labeled such views as polytheistic,[8] a term that aptly characterizes Heiser’s system. Although Heiser rejects the label as anachronistic,[9] the term was in fact employed by Philo—a first-century Jew—to describe pagan theology. Thus, Heiser’s claim that his view represents Second Temple Jewish religion is historically indefensible.[10]
Having read the ancient sources Heiser cites, I have observed that he frequently misrepresents them, sometimes even altering quotations. As I documented in The Unbiblical Realm,[11] and as Dr. Howe has independently confirmed, Heiser’s use of sources is “not honest,”[12] often omitting or modifying key portions,[13] even his own material.[14] In his Ph.D. dissertation, Heiser openly admits to altering citations “to bring out the council vocabulary.”[15] Such manipulation violates scholarly ethics and discredits his theological conclusions.[16]
Syncretism and Pagan Sources
Heiser’s theology reflects a profound syncretism with pagan culture. He explains, “I assume that the Scripture writers were communicating to people intentionally—people that lived in their day and who shared their same worldview. This assumption is in place because I’m sensitive to imposing a foreign worldview on the writers.”[17] Yet, the Bible explicitly forbids Israel from inquiring into the religions of surrounding nations (Deuteronomy 12:29–32; 18:9–10; Leviticus 18:3–4; 2 Kings 17:15; Josephus, Against Apion 2.237). Those who did were to be destroyed (Deuteronomy 13:6–18).[18]
Heiser concedes that “what comes out of the mouth of pagans cannot constitute a sound source of Israelite theology,”[19] yet his methodology depends precisely upon such sources. His definition of elohim derives from the utterance of a witch (1 Samuel 28:13), and his “seventy sons of God” thesis rests on Ugaritic mythology.[20] He cites John Collins’s interpretation of Rabshakeh’s taunt as evidence of national deities[21]—yet Rabshakeh was a pagan whose words are refuted in the same passage by Hezekiah’s confession: “thou art the God, even thou alone” (2 Kings 19:15), and that the Assyrians destroyed the idols of other nations, having “cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods” (2 Kings 19:18). Scripture consistently declares that “the gods of the nations are idols” (1 Chronicles 16:26; Psalm 96:5; Isaiah 44:8; Jeremiah 16:20; Acts 19:26; 1 Corinthians 8:4).
Misreading Isaiah and the Doctrine of God
Heiser claims Isaiah 43:10–12 teaches divine incomparability rather than monotheism.[22] However, in the surrounding chapters (Isaiah 40–48), Jehovah contrasts Himself not with rival gods, but with idols—objects made by the hands of men (Isaiah 40:18-20; 41:22-24, 29; 42:8-9, 17; 43:9-13; 44:6-18; 45:5-6, 14-17, 20-22; 46:1-2, 6-9). To interpret these texts as references to other genuine deities confuses the polemic against idolatry with the pagan worldview it refutes.[23] Furthermore, in Babylon and Assyria “several gods are represented as incomparable[,]”[24] which renders Heiser’s expression of the incomparability of Israel’s God quite meaningless within the broader cultural context of the ANE.
The Textual Issue in Deuteronomy 32
Deuteronomy 32:8 lies at the heart of Heiser’s so-called “Deuteronomy 32 Worldview.” Yet the textual evidence opposes his interpretation. The Samaritan Pentateuch—though differing from the Masoretic Text in over six thousand mostly orthographic details— preserves the reading “the sons of Israel.”[25] The Nablus Scroll’s paleo-Hebrew script and early provenance possibly indicates a textual tradition predating the Babylonian captivity[26] or, during Nehemiah’s ministry,[27] at the latest, the second century B.C.[28] By contrast, the Dead Sea Scroll fragment 4QDeutj, containing “sons of God,” dates to about A.D. 50, making it a later variant.[29]
Even if one accepted the “sons of God” reading, the immediate context of Deuteronomy 32 identifies Israel, not gods or angels, as God’s son (vv. 5, 6, 18, 19, 20). Additional textual witnesses, including the Septuagint[30] and 4QDeutq,[31] affirm this interpretation (v. 43). The chapter’s consistent denial of other gods’ existence (v. 39) refutes any divine council reading.
Interpreting Psalm 82 and Genesis 6
Psalm 82 should be understood as referring to unjust Gentile rulers, not celestial beings. Its chiastic structure, parallelism, and linguistic features align with the judicial context of human magistrates.[32] Similarly, while Genesis 6:1–4 most likely allude to fallen angels,[33] its meaning must not be reinterpreted through Mesopotamian myth.[34] The rabbis defined the word nephilim as those who “hurled (hippilu) the world down, themselves fell (naflu) from the world, and filled the world with abortions (nefilim) through their immorality.”[35] The rabbinic interpretation emphasizes moral and physical corruption rather than divine ancestry, though Heiser’s proposed Aramaic definition remains plausible given the presence of Aramaisms in the Ras Shamra texts.[36] The definition of the term should not rest on etymology alone but on contextual usage, and the Aramaic interpretation aligns with the Septuagint’s rendering, gigantes (‘giants’).[37]
Heiser and the Evolutionary View of Religion
Heiser’s framework mirrors the old “History of Religion School,” which proposed an evolutionary development from polytheism to monotheism.[38] Although he claims to reject that view,[39] what Heiser actually rejects are the chronological claims of liberal scholars regarding when Israel allegedly evolved into a monotheistic worldview.[40] All the arguments Heiser employs for his Divine Council thesis can be found in the literature of skeptics who advocate the evolutionary view of religion.[41] His acceptance of Supplementarianism betrays the same assumption—namely, that Israel’s theology evolved over time.[42] His claim that Israel “adapted” the Ugaritic concept of divine coregency,[43] later expressed in the Jewish “Two Powers” doctrine and ultimately in Christian “high” Christology,[44] rests entirely on this evolutionary presupposition.[45]
This dependence stems from Heiser’s secular academic training, particularly under Michael V. Fox, who argued that believers are too biased to be genuine scholars.[46] Consequently, Heiser’s bibliography is dominated by liberal sources hostile to biblical inerrancy.[47] Wayne Grudem rightly observed, “I think someone needs to say that it is doubtful that liberal theologians have given us any significant insights into the doctrinal teachings of Scripture that are not already to be found in evangelical writers.”[48] It is illogical and unbiblical to adopt theology from skeptic sources.
The Theological Consequences
The issue here is not one of committing a genetic or poisoning-the-well fallacy, but rather that Heiser’s theological presuppositions are fundamentally flawed. Heiser’s dichotomy— between his “supernatural worldview” and an Augustinian “anti-supernatural” tradition—is false.[49] Augustine affirmed a supernatural cosmos, including belief in incubi and succubi.[50] Heiser’s appeal to liberal scholarship, combined with logical inconsistencies and the absence of a coherent theological framework, renders his system epistemically invalid.[51]
Historically, J. Gresham Machen warned that liberalism was an entirely different religion from Christianity.[52] The rise of Neo-Evangelicalism in the mid-twentieth century—with its “repudiation of separatism” and dialogue with liberalism[53]—eventually led to the erosion of inerrancy[54] and even the denial of bodily resurrection among later evangelicals.[55] After decades of compromise, Heiser’s theology represents the culmination of this trajectory: evangelicalism recast in the image of liberal scholarship.[56] Skeptical liberal scholars do not possess the Spirit of God to guide them into truth (John 14:17; 16:13) and therefore cannot discern spiritual matters (1 Corinthians 2:14). God’s Spirit instructs believers (1 John 2:27) and surpasses the false teachers of the world (1 John 4:1–6). Theology founded upon erroneous presuppositions cannot be refined or corrected, for a faulty foundation precludes the possibility of sound development.
Response to Kou’s Modified Divine Council
Kou commendably rejects much of Heiser’s speculation, particularly the three-tiered division of “God, gods, and angels.”[57] Yet by attempting to retain the Divine Council framework, he preserves its flawed foundation. Kou rightly observes that “ANE must not become the controlling lens by which we read the Bible,” but the very notion of a council derives from ANE mythology, making its retention inconsistent with that principle.
Kou identifies sōd (סוֹד) as the “term most used in Scripture to refer to the divine council,” yet its primary meaning is “counsel” not “council.”[58] TWOT defines it as “confidential speech… hence, counsel.”[59] Lexicons such as Gesenius[60] import assumptions of polytheism into their definitions, which should not govern lexicography.[61]
While Kou accurately equates “elohim,” “angels,” and “sons of God,” the term elohim is rarely applied to angels in Scripture (cf. Psalm 8:5). The Dead Sea Scrolls employ numerous synonymous terms such as “godlike,”[62] “godlike beings,”[63] “divine beings,”[64] “divine figures,”[65] “holy ones,”[66] “princes,”[67] “exalted angels,”[68] “holy angels,”[69] “angels,”[70] “chief princes,”[71] “eternal beings,”[72] “eternal spirits,”[73] “eternal councils,”[74] “holy councils,”[75] “Cherubim,”[76] “luminous wheel-beings,”[77] being positioned on “chariots.”[78] The phrase “Sons of El” may refer either to Israelites (Psalm 29:1)[79] or to heavenly beings (Psalm 89:6). However, the predominant biblical use of sonship and Fatherhood terminology denotes God’s relationship with Israel,[80] while references to angels are comparatively rare (Genesis 6:1–4; Job 1:5–6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 89:6–7). This predominate usage of sonship terminology identifying Israel continues consistently in Second Temple literature.[81]
Kou rightly refutes Heiser’s flawed definition of elohim;[82] however, his own proposal of “council member” does not correspond to biblical usage. The term frequently designates idols—entities explicitly identified as “no gods” (Jeremiah 2:11; 16:20; Isaiah 37:19). Scripture affirms that all the gods of the nations are mere idols (1 Chronicles 16:26; Psalm 96:5). To argue that elohim means “council member” is to beg the question.[83] If idols are elohim, are wooden figures members of this council? God Himself declares, “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isaiah 44:8). Consequently, Kou must acknowledge that the text implies God recognizes no other council members.
Kou writes, “if elohim means to be a ruler with standing in the divine council, then it can account for all uses, whether referring to God or angels or human judges. Prophets are members of the divine council, as Heiser and others have noted. They are therefore elohim.”[84] However, this explanation fails to account for all instances of elohim. As previously noted, idols are also designated elohim, though they possess no ruah (spirit) (Jeremiah 51:17; Habakkuk 2:18–20). Jonah 3:3 states, “Nineveh was an exceeding great city.” Here, the word “exceedingly” translates from ֵלאלֹ ִהים (le’elohim). Would Kou, then, suggest that this implies Nineveh was part of the Divine Council or that the Council convened in Nineveh?
A more coherent approach is to interpret elohim within the semantic range of “authority.” Those who serve false gods grant them functional lordship (Jeremiah 25:6; Joshua 24:14– 24).[85] The Hebrew verb ָע ַבד (‘ābad)—‘to serve’—derives from the noun meaning servant or slave, indicating the gods being served. In this sense, even one’s own appetites can become a “god” (Philippians 3:19; Romans 16:18).[86] Rabbinic exegesis reflected this understanding: Elohim was associated with divine judgement, YHWH with mercy.[87]
The Theological Impossibility of a Heavenly Council
Scripture repeatedly asserts that God has no counselors: “Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?” (Isaiah 40:13–14 cf. Job 15:8; 21:22; 40:2; Isaiah 41:28; Romans 11:34). The idea of a deliberative heavenly body undermines divine sovereignty. In ANE myths, councils of gods debated and overruled one another; in one Sumerian tale, Ningal pleaded for Ur’s deliverance, but the council refused.[88] In the Ugaritic narrative, the divine council remains passive when El requests the healing of King Keret, compelling El to act alone and perform the healing through magic.[89] Similarly, in rabbinic lore, an angelic council tried to block King Manasseh’s repentance until God contrived a way to circumvent them.[90] Such narratives portray divine impotence.
The pagan notion of a heavenly council likely mirrors human political structures—kings had councils, so the gods must as well.[91] When Israel lapsed into syncretism, these anthropomorphic concepts seeped into Jewish thought.[92] Yet the biblical God “does according to his will in the army of heaven” (Daniel 4:35). He is not one among many, nor in a council; He is the solitary Sovereign who needs no advisors.
Conclusion
It has be contended that God does not require a council yet chooses to employ one. Nevertheless, Scripture explicitly affirms that “God has no counselors,” thereby negating the existence of any such council to counsel Him. Heiser’s Divine Council thesis is fundamentally flawed, built upon a defective foundation and perpetuating numerous misrepresentations of primary sources. Consequently, little value can be derived from his writings, if any at all. Any attempt to preserve the notion of a Divine Council remains theologically untenable, as it contradicts the very nature of God revealed in Scripture.
Heath Henning is the author of The Unbiblical Realm and is host of the Truthwatchers podcast.
NOTES
1 Heath Henning, The Unbiblical Realm: Refuting the Divine Council of Michael Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 Worldview (East Troy, WI: Truthwatchers Publications, 2023). An expanded edition is forthcoming; all references herein are to the first edition.
2 Thomas Howe, The Unseemly Realm: A Critical Analysis of the Writings of Michael S. Heiser (2024); idem, Reversing Heiser: A Critical Analysis of Michael S. Heiser’s Reversing Hermon (2025).
3 References to The Unseen Realm are to the first edition throughout this article. The new edition has not yet been reviewed by the author.
4 For references to a “heavenly court” in Second Temple and later Rabbinic literature, see 4Q403 Frag. 1, Col. 1.34; 4Q403 Frag. 1, Col. 2.22; 3 Enoch 16:1; 28:8; 30:1–2; Genesis Rabbah 49.2; 51.2; 55.4; Exodus Rabbah 12.4; 15.2; 19.6; Leviticus Rabbah 10.5; 19.6; 24.2; 29.1–2; Numbers Rabbah 3.4; 18.4; 19.3; Deuteronomy Rabbah 2.14; Ruth Rabbah 4.5; Midrash on Psalms 1.12; 4.4; 57.2; 81.6; 119.35; Pesikta Rabbati 10.9; 15.19.
5 See Derek Kidner, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Psalms 73–150 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 296–299. Kidner may be noted as an exception, since most modern evangelicals who affirm the concept of an angelic council have done so under Heiser’s influence, with few holding this position independently.
6 Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 11.
7 Heiser, “The Divine Council and Biblical Theology,” 1; http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DivineCouncilLBD.pdf
8 Philo employs the term πολύθεος in On the Creation 171; On Drunkenness 110; On the Confusion of Tongues 42, 144; On the Migration of Abraham 69; Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? 169; On Flight and Finding 114; On the Change of Names 205; The Decalogue 65; On the Virtues 214, 221; On Rewards and Punishments 162.
9 Heiser, Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2018), 79, n.12.
10 Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 63.
11 I have repeatedly described Heiser as dishonest in handling sources—either misrepresenting texts or claiming to have read works he demonstrably misunderstood or altered. See The Unbiblical Realm, 63, 70, 141, 188, 201, 237, 247, 266, 289, 315; on altered quotations, see 131, 193.
12 Howe similarly documents Heiser’s pattern of misrepresentation, variously describing it as “not honest,” “deceitful,” “disingenuous,” or “misleading.” See The Unseemly Realm, 29, 80, 85, 100, 103, 117, 129, 131, 139 (2x), 140, 142, 143, 148, 149 (2x), 151, 153, 155, 183, 194, 200, 209, 213, 216, 220, 229, 230, 233, 259, 260, 272, 290,295, 296. Idem, Reversing Heiser, 22, 28, 48, 52, 53, 127, 131, 137, 142, 146, 156, 161 (2x), 162, 168, 183, 194, 218, 224, 235, 236, 240, 247, 250. See, Henning, “The Deception of Michael Heiser: Unmasking His Faulty Scholarship,” March 17, 2025; https://truthwatchers.com/the-deception-of-michael- heiser-unmasking-his-faulty-scholarship/ accessed October 24, 2025.
13 Howe, Reversing Heiser, pp. 119, 131, 229, 237, 243, 244.
14 Howe, The Unseemly Realm, 112, n. 2; cf. Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 60–61.
15 Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004, 217, n.786. See also Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2020), 147, n.2, for his erroneous translation of Genesis 3:22.
16 Wayne Booth, Gregory Colomb, Joseph Williams, The Craft of Research (Third Edition), University of Chicago Press (Chicago, IL: 2008), 97-98.
17 Heiser, “Response to Dr. Thomas Howe’s Thoughts on the Unseen Realm,” August 6, 2019; https://drmsh.com/response-dr-thomas-howes-thoughts-unseen-realm/
18 Randall Price with H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology, Zondervan (Grand Rapids, MI: 2017), 181. “The use of foreign elements such as these in Israelite worship led to religious apostasy in the forms of outright idolatry (worship of another god in place of the God of Israel), henotheism (worship of the God of Israel under names of other local deities), and syncretism (mixing the worship of the God of Israel with pagan religious practices). All of these practices violated the Mosaic covenant (Exod 20:4, 23; 34:17; Lev 19:4; 26:1) and invited divine judgement (Deut 4:23-24; 28:15). Ultimately, it was because of this kind of idolatry that the northern kingdom went into Assyrian captivity (2 Kgs 17:7-12, 15-18, 23), and a century later idolatry (the sin of King Manasseh) sent Judah into the Babylonian exile (2 Kgs 24:3; 2 Chr 33:3-9).”
19 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): 240-241.
20 Heiser inconsistently applies Ugaritic material to Psalm 82, despite dating it to the Persian period. See Demons, 144. His similar appeal to Ugaritic sources in interpreting Deuteronomy 32 contradicts his own methodological principles.
21 Heiser, Angels, 16, n. 41.
22 Heiser, “You’ve Seen One Elohim,” 223, 254; idem, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non- Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” 95
23 Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 87-90.
24 Helmer Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974, 1999), 282.
25 Moshe Florentin and Abraham Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch: An English Translation with a Parallel Annotated Hebrew Text, Open Book Publishers (Cambridge, UK: 2024), 880-881.
26 See Bill Cooper, The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis: a study in three parts, Creation Science Movement (England: 2011), 22-24.
27 Josephus, Antiquities 11.306–312.
28 Jospehus, Antiquities 13.254–256; discussed in Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its background in Early Judaism, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, MI: 1985), 129-131.
29 Henning, “Reassessing Deuteronomy 32: The Samaritan Pentateuch as a Textual Witness Against the Divine Council Theology,” (July 28, 2025); https://truthwatchers.com/deut-328-samaritan-pentateuch/. Accessed October 12, 2025.
30 Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX reads: “εὐφράνθητε οὐρανοί ἅμα αὐτῷ καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ.” Translated: “Rejoice, ye heavens, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.”
31 The ESV closely follows the reading of 4QDeutq which reads, “Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and bow down to him all you gods, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will recompense those who hate him, and will atone for the land of his people.” The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (Trans. Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich, HarperCollins Publishers (New York, NY: 1999), 193.
32 Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 305-321. I find no exegetical reason to limit it to Israelite judges.
33 The Unbiblical Realm, 173-201. In this section, all relevant references to the “sons of God” are examined from Apocryphal sources (173–174), Josephus (174–175), Philo (175–177), the Dead Sea Scrolls (178–180), the Pseudepigrapha (180–184), Enochic literature (184–188), and second- and third-century Church Fathers (188–201). The forthcoming expanded edition includes additional material on Gnostic and Rabbinic sources.
34 Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 161-173; contra Heiser, Reversing Hermon: Enoch, The Watchers & The Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ, Defender Publishing (Crane, MO: 2017), 37-52.
35 Genesis Rabbah 26.7. This definition neither rejects the identification of the Nephilim as giants nor denies their origin as the offspring of angels. See Midrash Psalms, 3.4; 73.2; 136.12; Genesis Rabbah, 26.5; 31.12; Deuteronomy Rabbah, 1.24; Pesikta Rabbati, 34.2.
36 Joseph M. Holden, Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, Harvest House Publishers (Eugene, OR: 2013), 72.
37 Rabbinic Hebrew could even use “nefilim” to denote a giant water lizard (Exodus Rabbah 25.28), emphasizing its size. See Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Judaica Press, Inc. (New York, NY: 1971, 1996), 923.
38 For critiques of the evolutionary view of religion, see John N. Oswalt, The Bible Among the Myths (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009); Ronald H. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? (Richardson, TX: Probe Books, 1992). Furthermore, Larry Hurtado, a leading light of the “new history of religion school” refutes the old school views in “New Testament Christology: A Critique of Bousset’s Influence,” TS 40 (1979): 306-317; and, idem, “Wilhelm Bousset’s Kyrios Christos: An Appreciative and Critical Assessment,” Early Christianity 6 (2015): 1-13.
39 Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 29-30.
40 Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” 10. “All the scholarship to date on the divine council has focused on Israel’s religion prior to the sixth century B.C.E., since it is commonly believed that after Israel emerged from exile, the idea of a pantheon of gods headed by Yahweh had been abandoned in favor of an intolerant monotheism.” His dating of Israel’s belief in divine plurality into the Second Temple era stands in contrast to both secular and liberal consensus.
41 See Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Robert Wright, The Evolution of God (New York, NY: Little, Brown and Co., 2009). Robert Wright taught at the University of Pennsylvania where Heiser earned his MA.
42 Heiser rejects the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) but adopts Supplementarianism, which views Scripture as an organically expanded text through successive editors. See Heiser, “Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP), Part 1,” Feb 16, 2012; https://drmsh.com/mosaic-authorship-torah-problems-documentary-hypothesis-jedp- part-1/.
43 Heiser, “Co-regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, 26.2 (2015), 198.
44 Ibid., 206.
45 See Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 247-257.
46 Albert Mohler, “Can Believers Be Scholars? A Strange Debate in the Academy,” accessed October 12, 2025. Additional essays are compiled at
47 Gary Gilley likewise critiques Heiser on this point, observing that “[o]thers, who are at least somewhat supportive of his thesis, are not primarily from the evangelical sphere but are scholars (a term he falls back on repeatedly) from theologically liberal circles.” Gary Gilley, “The Unseen Realm, A Critique,” July 19, 2019; https://tottministries.org/the-unseen-realm-a-critique/) John Walton appears to be one of the few authors Heiser identifies as “a trusted evangelical scholar” (Heiser, Demons, 5, n.2). However, Walton’s own theological positions are often regarded as less conservative within evangelical scholarship.
48 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine, Zondervan (Grand Rapids, MI: 2000), 17.
49 Heiser, The Unseen Realm, pp. 17-18. See, Heiser, Demons, p. 142, n. 30, where he attributes the anti- supernatural worldview to Augustine’s Sethite view. Also, Howe, The Unseemly Realm, pp. 4-7.
50 Augustine, City of God, 15.23.
51 Henning, “Is Michael Heiser’s Worldview Valid?” June 24, 2024; https://truthwatchers.com/is-michael- heisers-worldview-valid/ accessed October 12, 2025.
52 John Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, The Macmillan Company (New York, NY: 1923).
53 Harold J. Ockenga, Foreword in Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, Zondervan (Grand Rapids, MI: 1976, 1978).
54 Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, Zondervan (Grand Rapids, MI: 1976, 1978).
55 Norman Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection, Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nashville, TN: 1989).
56 For Heiser’s denial of inerrancy, see Howe, Reversing Heiser, 228; and for his denial of bodily resurrection, see Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 273–274. Regarding the resurrection, Heiser employs terms such as “theosis,” “glorified,” “made divine,” “deification,” and “resurrected” interchangeably to describe the saints in the eschaton as replacing the rebellious elohim (cf. Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 158–159; idem, Angels, 176–177). Since he defines elohim and other divine beings as “disembodied,” his eschatology implies a disembodied state for the redeemed. Although Heiser affirms a “physical resurrection” (The Unseen Realm, 309–310), he simultaneously asserts that all created things “are made of some form of matter,” including his conception of disembodied elohim (Heiser, “You’ve Seen One Elohim,” 223). Thus, as Geisler cautioned, professing belief in a “physical resurrection” does not necessarily entail belief in a bodily resurrection (Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection, 145).
57 Heiser proposes a four-tiered hierarchy including demons, described as “disembodied spirits of dead Nephilim.” Heiser, Demons, 242.
58 Kou makes similar assertions in “A Biblical Theology of the Divine Council,” 2, where he adopts the inaccurate translation of sōd as “council” in passages such as Jeremiah 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7; and Job 15:8. The term sōd can denote an “assembly” characterized by “confidential speech,” and in that sense may refer to a council, though this is not its predominant meaning. Notably, Psalm 89:7 (v. 8 in Hebrew) employs sōd in reference to an angelic assembly.
59 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980), 619.
60 Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament Scriptures (trans. Sameul Tregelles), Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 1957), 580.
61 Tregelles, in his translation of Gesenius’ Lexicon, adds: “[God’s counsels all proceed from himself; He may communicate them to others, but he does not consult with them]” Gesenius, 580.
62 Numerous references to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice manuscripts are found in 4Q403–4Q405, 11Q17, and related fragments, demonstrating repeated use of synonyms in worship contexts. See catalogued verses: 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 1, 31, 32, 33, 36; Col 2, 26; 4Q405 Frag. 14-15, Col. 1, 3; Frag. 23, Col. 1, 9, 13.
63 4Q400 Col. 1, 2, 4, 20; Col. 2, 9, 17; Frag. 2, 1, 2, 5; 4Q01 Frag 1-2, 5; 4Q402 Frag. 1, 2; Frag. 3-4, 7, 12; Mas1k Frag. 1, 9, 11; 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 1, 2; Col. 2, 5, 6; Frag 19a-d, 4, 5, 6, 7; 4Q405 Frag. 20, Col. 2, 11; Frag. 23, Col. 1, 4, 5, 6, 23; 11Q17 Frag. 5-6, 3, 6.
64 4Q400 Col. 1, 20; Col. 2, 7; Frag. 2, 3; 4Q402, Frag. 3-4, 8, 14; Mas1k Frag. 2, 5; 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 1, 18, 26, 30, 33, 38; Col. 2, 12; 4Q405 Frag. 14-15, Col. 1, 5, 6; Frag 19a-d, 3; 4Q405 Frag. 20, Col. 2, 13; Frag 23. Col. 1, 8.
65 4Q405 Frag. 14-15, Col. 1, 7; Frag. 15, Col. 2, 4; Frag 19a-d, 2.
66 4Q400 Col. 1, 15, 17; Col. 2, 15, 16; 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 1, 31, 40; Col. 2, 14.
67 4Q400 Col. 2, 14; 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 2, 23.
68 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 1, 1, 34; 4Q405 Frag. 14-15, Col. 1, 3.
69 4Q405, Frag. 19a-d, 7; Frag 23, Col. 1, 8.
70 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 2, 23; 11Q17 Frag. 2, 5.
71 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 1, 6, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26.
72 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 1, 22-23.
73 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 1, 35.
74 4Q403 Frag 1. Col. 1, 34.
75 4Q403, Frag 1, Col. 2, 22.
76 4Q405 Frag. 20, Col. 2, 3, 6, 8.
77 4Q405 Frag. 20, Col. 2, 3, 9.
78 4Q405 Frag. 20, Col. 2, 4, 5, 11.
79 See the chiastic structure in Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 125-126; also “Israel as “sons of God;” May 8, 2024; https://truthwatchers.com/israel-sons-of-god/.
80 Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 125-128; also posted at https://truthwatchers.com/israel-sons-of-god/.
81 For further discussion of Second Temple literature, see Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 120–125. Sources include 4 Ezra 1.28-29; Jubilees 1.24; 2.20; 19.29; 3 Maccabees 6.28; Psalms of Solomon 17.27; 18.4; Prayer of Joseph, Frag A, 3; Tobit 13.4-5; 2 Esdras 6:58; Ecclesiasticus 36:12; Esther 16; Wisdom of Solomon 9:4; 12:19-21; 18:12-13; 4Q504 Col. 3.4-5; Philo, On Rewards and Punishments 166.
82 Heiser defines Elohim as a “disembodied spirit being,” contrasting it with embodied humans. See Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 29; Angels, 86–87; and “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1 (2008): 30, n. 63. Henning, The Unbiblical Realm, 92-93.
83 Kou demonstrates a tendency to construct his lexicographical interpretations through the lens of theological bias. Robert Young warned against this methodological flaw in the preface to his Analytical Concordance, stating: “As Cruden’s Definitions, though many of them interesting and good, often express too decidedly his own specific view of religious truth to be satisfactory, the present Work confines the definitions strictly to their literal or idiomatic force; which, after all, will be found to form the best (and indeed the only safe and solid) basis for theological deduction of any kind.” Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody MA: reprint 2008), Excerpts from Prefatory Notes to the First Edition.
84 This statement exposes a fundamental contradiction within Heiser’s system. Heiser writes, “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” (The Unseen Realm, 29). If elohim are, by definition, disembodied beings, how can Heiser consistently identify prophets—who are by nature embodied—as elohim?
85 For the biblical use of “serve” (ʿābad) in reference to God/gods, see Exodus 3:12; 7:16; 9:1; 20:5; 23:25; Deuteronomy 4:19; 5:9; 6:13; 7:16; 8:19; 10:12; Joshua 24:16; 1 Samuel 12:14; 2 Chronicles 33:16; 34:33; Ezekiel 20:39; Daniel 3:17; Matthew 4:10; 6:24; Luke 4:8; 16:13; Romans 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 2 Timothy 1:3; Hebrews 12:28; Revelations 7:15; 22:3.
86 Philippians 3:19 describes those “whose god is their belly,” paralleled in Romans 16:18 where they “serve” the belly, not Christ. The term “serve” (δουλεύουσιν) is the verb form of “slave/servant,” implying devotion to one’s perceived master.
87 Midrash Psalms, 56.3; 101.1; Genesis Rabbah12.15; 20.7; 26.6; 33.3; 73.3; Exodus Rabbah 6.1; Exodus Rabbah 6.2, 3; Leviticus Rabbah 17.4; 29.4; 29.9; Numbers Rabbah 9.18; 16.22; Ecclesiastes Rabbah, 7.7, §2; Pesikta Rabbati, 40.2. This rabbinic premise followed similar thoughts expressed by Philo, see, On Abraham 119-122; On the Life of Moses 2.99; Questions and Answers on Genesis, 1.57.
88 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, 140-169; in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. James B. Pritchard) 3rd Edition, Princeton University Press (Princeton, NJ: 1969), p. 458.
89 Keret Epic, KRT C, v; in ANET, 148.
90 Pesikta De-Rab Kahana, 24.11.
91 Such was the premise suggested by Xenophanes, Fragment B14-B16.
92 Response to Kou’s interpretation in “A Biblical Theology of the Divine Council,” 10-11.