The Nephilim conspiracy is closely associated with Michael Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 Worldview (discussed in the previous chapter), which in turn is dependent upon a variant interpretation of Psalms 82:1 and 6. It is probably a good idea to first examine that key passage to see what it actually is saying before venturing into the controversial interpretations of it and the divergent theology ostensibly emerging from it.

Psalms 82:1 &6

“¹God [ ĕlō·hîm ( אֱ‍ֽלֹהִ֗ים ) 430 _[e] ]  takes His position in His assembly; He judges in the midst of the gods [’êl; ( אֵ֑ל ) ] ²How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah ³Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. ⁴Rescue the weak and needy; Save them from the hand of the wicked. ⁵They do not know nor do they understand; They walk around in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken. ⁶ I said, ‘You are gods[430 _[e] ’ĕ·lō·hîm  ( אֱלֹהִ֣ים )], and all of you are sons of the Most High.⁷Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like one of the princes.’⁸Arise, God, judge the earth! For You possess all the nations.”

            There are a variety of definitions of this word ĕlō·hîm, especially with respect to the meaning of the root word. Most sources cite  el as the root, and ĕlō·hîm as a plural form of that root word. The authoritative sources on the Hebrew language give us the following translations for Elohim:

Strong’s Lexicon

“Meaning: gods, the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

Word Origin: Derived from the root אֵל (El), meaning “god” or “power.”

Usage: Elohim is a plural noun that is most commonly used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the one true God, Yahweh, emphasizing His majesty and power. Despite its plural form, it is often used with singular verbs and adjectives when referring to the God of Israel, indicating a plural of majesty or intensity rather than number. Elohim can also refer to gods of other nations, divine beings, or even human judges, depending on the context.

“In some contexts, it may refer to gods in a general sense or to mighty individuals.”

Brown-Driver-Briggs

“אֱלֹהִים…a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power:…’⁸If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges [hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm (הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים) 430 _[e]] to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor’s property.’” (Exodus 22:8)

See Endnote [i] for complete Lexicon entries.

            The one underlying meaning that seems common to them all is the concept of “mighty”, “powerful”, “strong”, which then is a descriptive appellation for a deity, or what we call God. While it is often used in the Bible to refer to the God of Israel, it is also used to refer to other beings that are defined by their power or might, such as angels or human rulers and judges. It does not necessarily designate deities or actual Gods, as in superhuman or superior spirit beings, though they also are included in such an appellation.

            Conservative Orthodox Evangelical Protestant (COEP) Bible scholars and commentators interpret that word “Elohim” in Psalms 82:6 as referring to earthly human rulers and judges, written as it is in the style of poetry – a Psalm.  Liberal theologians, especially those with agendas, such as Michael Heiser, prefer to interpret it as the supernatural spirit beings, or demigods, as comports with the polytheistic beliefs of the pagans, such as the Pantheon of Gods. However, when that verse is kept in context, and accurately interpreted, allowing it to speak for itself, it is clear that only the more natural interpretation of the conservative scholars, down through the ages, makes any sense. It clearly is not about some demigods like Heracles or Hercules, Perseus, or Achilles, who were judging the people unjustly, as Michael Heiser contends, all of which were completely foreign to the Hebrew scripture. Furthermore, as if to leave no doubt, they are being reminded that they will die, as men do – meaning they are mere mortals. They are also being reminded that they are also “sons of God” – not themselves deities, or some breed of “divine beings”, which would be more like angels than mortal men.

            The use of this appellation, Elohim, appears several times in reference to human judges, such as Exodus 22:8-9, and according to many Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:28.

“⁷If someone gives his neighbor money or goods to keep for him and it is stolen from the neighbor’s house, if the thief is caught, then the thief shall pay double. ⁸If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges [’ĕ·lō·hîm,]to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor’s property. ⁹For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any lost thing about which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before the judges[’ĕ·lō·hîm,]; he whom the judges [’ĕ·lō·hîm,] condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.” (Exodus 22:8-9)

            What this means is that the concept of some kind of divine or supernatural beings is not inherent to or even necessarily implied by that Hebrew word, though it can take on that meaning depending upon the context – exactly as the recognized Hebrew scholars inform us (see above, Strong, and Brown, Driver and Briggs). Anyone who tries to ignore this exegetical reality, is trying to deceive. Heiser is one of those who doesn’t ignore this fact but tries to deny it. As required to support his presupposed Deuteronomy 32 Worldview, and related Nephilim-based theological system, he requires that this verse be saying that the thieves and those needing judgments on earthly material matters, are to appear before God, or YAWEH Himself, directly. No human intermediaries, like the Priest, those in positions of authority, including judges, are necessary. If so, why did God set up such a system, and repeatedly command us to be in submission and obedient to them? Such an  interpretation is nonsense, in the light of the rest of scripture (or common sense).  

Heiser’s Interpretations

Heiser writes:

“The idea of elohim ruling the nations under God’s authority is a biblical concept that is described in other passages we’ll explore later. For now, it’s sufficient that you see clearly that the sons of God are divine beings under the authority of the God of Israel.” (Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, Part 2, Chapter 2, p. 27, emphasis added)

“םיהלא [elohim] as a term does not refer to a set of attributes or ontology. So what does it mean? Very simply, all the things called םיהלא in the Hebrew Bible have one thing in common: they all inhabit the non-human realm.” (Evangelical Theological Society Meeting, 2010 Dr. Michael S. Heiser; mheiser@logos.com “What is / are (an) Elohim?” (https://www.thedivinecouncil.com/WhatisareanelohimETS2010.pdf))

“Other Christians … try to argue that the sons of God are human beings—Jews to be specific. Some Jewish readers (who obviously would not be Trinitarian) also favor this view. This ‘human view’ is as flawed as the Trinitarian view.¹ At no point in the Old Testament does the Scripture teach that Jews or Jewish leaders were put in authority over the other nations.” (The Unseen Realm, chap. 4, p.28)

“The biblical writers refer to a half-dozen different entities with the word elohim. By any religious accounting, the attributes of those entities are not equal.

• ​Yahweh, the God of Israel (thousands of times—e.g., Gen 2:4–5; Deut 4:35)
• The members of Yahweh’s council (Psa 82:1, 6)
• ​Gods and goddesses of other nations (Judg 11:24; 1 Kgs 11:33)
• Demons (Hebrew: shedim—Deut 32:17)3
• The deceased Samuel (1 Sam 28:13)
• Angels or the Angel of Yahweh (Gen 35:7)” (The Unseen Realm p 29)

            All of these very flawed manipulations of scripture and logic are based on, or used to support his underlying premise, which is briefly stated as follows:

“The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly – a pantheon – of other gods” (p. 11 Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, 2015, emphasis added).

            Of course, most of us will recognize this “pantheon – of other gods” as being famously Greek Mythology, the religion of the Pagans.

            First, we see that in fact Heiser makes the very mistake that is discussed above, which is driven by his own agenda. When he makes the emphatic statement that “all the things called םיהלא in the Hebrew Bible have one thing in common: they all inhabit the non-human realm”, he is not only mistaken but deceptive. Not only is he refuting the recognized Hebrew scholars and all the other COEP Bible scholars, but he is either ignorant of, or dismissal of the significance of the other passages in which this key word elohim appears, where it is clearly only referring to human judges, or magistrates, or dignitaries, as in the passages cited above, Exodus 22:8-9 in particular. That alone is enough to invalidate Heiser’s whole line of argumentation.

            However, it is far from the only flaw in his exegesis and logic. He makes a statement which is only true if we accept his insertion into the inspired text of the word “nations”.

“At no point in the Old Testament does the Scripture teach that Jews or Jewish leaders were put in authority over the other nations.”

            This is partially true, Psalms 82 does not mention anything about those referred to as the “sons of God” being put in authority over “the nations” – which if it were would probably be a reference to the Gentile nations. However, in that text it is more likely a reference to the rulers and judges over Isreal, as in context the surrounding chapters are primarily to and about Israel. Though the word “nations” does appear later in the text it is not in reference to the previous subject of whoever the sons of God are ruling over, but it is as follows:

“⁸Arise, God, judge the earth! For You possess all the nations.”

            Thus, we have another argument which is not only invalid at best, but again deceptive. And again, given his whole line of reasoning, his whole house of cards collapses once this key interpretation of this key word in this key verse is demonstrated to be flawed, exegetically and logically.

            Heiser’s interpretation is based on his presuppositions, which are the confessed premise of his whole new revised theology and world view, the “Deuteronomy 32 worldview”. That in turn also depends on his interpretation of this passage, Psalms 82:1-6, as well as Genesis 10 – 11, the genealogies of Noah to Abraham as the “table of nations”, and ultimately Genesis 6:1-4 about the infamous “Nephilim”. Both of these other connections require similar exegetical and logic errors and misinterpretations to support his interpretation of this key text, especially this word “elohim” (which involves the logic fallacy of circular reasoning). Those other passages are dealt with in the following chapters.

            With respect to the other passages cited above where the word elohim clearly refers to human judges, such as Exodus 22:8-9, Heiser gives the following rebuttal:

“Taken at face value, there is nothing in Exodus 18 that compels us to understand םיהלא or םיהלאה as semantically plural, something that is essential for the notion that the men appointed in the episode are a convenient explanation for the םיהלא and םיהלאה of both Exod 22:8 and Psa 82. Each occurrence of םיהלא or םיהלאה in this passage can quite readily refer to the singular God of Israel. And the same is true of Exodus 22. There is nothing in either passage that compels a plural translation.  A singular translation referring to God himself makes for a clear reading. Without compelling evidence for a plural translation, the argument that the elders of Israel were םיהלא judges turns to vapor.” (“Should the Plural אלהים of Psalm 82 Be Understood as Men or Divine Beings?” Annual Meeting, Evangelical Theological Society, 2010 Dr. Michael S. Heiser, (https://thedivinecouncil.com/Heiser%20Elohim%20of%20Ps82%20Gods%20or%20Men%20ETS2010.pdf))

            Here we have a classic example of what deceivers do. The critical question is, does the word used in those passages refer to gods, as in supernatural spirit beings, or the one true God, or His appointed judges on this earth. First, Heiser very deceptively conflates two very different uses of this key word Elohim in two different passages, as if they were the same – but clearly, they are not (this is what is known as the “false equivalence logic fallacy”). What he is saying about Exodus 18:13-24 is partially true, the singular is the correct interpretation (the one God), but this is known because the modifying preposition “with you” in verse 19, and the verb “so commands you” appearing in verse 23 are in the singular form, which is how we know the word for God there, Elohim, is singular, not plural.

            Beyond that, aside from conflating two very different uses of the same word, Heiser wants to use the diversionary tactic of magicians, to make the issue about the plurality or singularity of the word used in those passages. Then he argues that since Exodus 22 is the same as Exodus 18 (a fallacy), unless Elohim can be proven semantically to be plural, then it cannot be understood as referring to human judges. And if it isn’t plural human judges, then it can only be the one true God, apparently referring to YAWEH. And if it isn’t about human judges referred to as “elohim” in that passage, then his other contentions about the “elohim” in Psalms 82, and the “elohim” in Deuteronomy 32:8 and his ensuing Deuteronomy 32 Worldview, all have to be correct (the non-sequitur logic fallacy).

            However, even his statement in reference to Exodus 22:8-9 is factually incorrect, and thus very deceptive. That passage reads as follows:

“⁷If someone gives his neighbor money or goods to keep for him and it is stolen from the neighbor’s house, if the thief is caught, then the thief shall pay double. ⁸If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges, to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor’s property. ⁹For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any lost thing about which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before the judges; he whom the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.” (Exodus 22:7-9)

            The first problem with this whole line of argumentation is that the Hebrew scholars and Lexicons tell us that “elohim” is the plural of “el” (as we have seen above). But they also clarify that it isn’t necessarily only referring to a plurality of beings, or persons, though in many cases it is, and that is determined by the context, such as the plurality or singularity of the associated verbs, prepositions, etc.. Note Heiser’s language here:

“there is nothing in the Exodus 18 that compels us to understand םיהלא or םיהלאה as semantically plural …  Each occurrence of םיהלא or םיהלאה in this passage can quite readily refer to the singular God of Israel. And the same is true of Exodus 22. There is nothing in either passage that compels a plural translation.” (emphasis added)

            With respect to his claim that such compelling language or semantics is necessary for it to be taken as plural instead of “the singular God of Israel”, whether or not that is a true statement is irrelevant in this case (the “strawman” fallacy). The fact is that the 9^th verse of Exodus 22 does have the plural form of the verb “condemn” modifying the subject noun Elohim. So, while the reality is that there is nothing in the Exodus 22 passage (unlike the Exodus 18 passage) which requires it to be singular, contrary to Heiser’s argument, the context of that associated verb “condemn” in the 9^th verse does require it to be taken as plural, “gods”.

            Furthermore, it only takes an almost casual familiarity with scripture to know that God appointed human judges to do exactly that, judge, in just such matters as addressed in those passages. In fact, the whole point of the Exodus 18 passage is that Moses needed to appoint other such judges, elohim, to carry out this God ordained function, as he had been doing. Heiser’s alternative interpretation makes no sense – that people having disputes over earthly material matters should all just go directly to God to resolve those matters of justice, no need for all those human judges, rulers and magistrates, also referred to as “elohim”. Such arguments are beneath the scholarship and intellectual ability of such a man as Heiser, which betrays the agenda driven nature of his forced interpretations and lines of argumentation. He knows full well that scripture is replete with instructions requiring men to go to the human authorities over them, the kings, judges and priests, unless he hasn’t read the book of Leviticus for example.

            However, with respect to the connection with Deuteronomy 32, using this text in Psalm 82 to support his interpretation of the 8^th-9^th verses, claiming that the reading there should be “sons of God” as opposed to “sons of Israel”, again his argument is very flawed, a complete non-sequitur (another logic fallacy). Claiming there in Deuteronomy 32 that the text should read “He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God”, instead of “sons of Israel”, even if it were true would not help his case, when we accept the correct interpretation of that key word “elohim”, as explained above. Correctly and honestly interpreted, even the sons of God there would not be anything more than humans, certainly not the Pantheon of gods of the Pagan Greek Mythology as he contends. Its only if we also accept his revisionist and very flawed interpretation of Psalm 82:1 and 6, to have the “sons of God” being actual Gods, non-human “divine beings”, and all the other connected passages, that the latter -Psalms 82 – supports the former, i.e. his interpretation of Deuteronomy 32.

            Furthermore, neither of these texts lead to or provide support for his new system of theology, without his assumed connection with the supposed dividing of the nations, based on his interpretation of Genesis 10, deceptively referred to as “the table of nations”. This is dealt with in the next chapter.

            The following commentary from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, addresses this very forced interpretation:

“Others think that by Elôhîm angels are meant, and hold that the Psalm refers generally to God’s judgement upon unjust judges in heaven and earth; or more particularly to the judgement of the patron-angels of the nations. This view, proposed by Bleek, is adopted by Cheyne, who says, ‘The charge brought against these patron-angels of the nations (see Daniel 10, 12) is that they have (in the persons of their human subordinates) permitted such gross violence and injustice, that the moral bases of the earth are shaken.’ If this view is to be adopted, it is certainly the case that ‘no Psalm makes a stronger demand than this on the historic imagination of the interpreter.’ But (1) as has already been remarked in the note on Psalm 58:1 with reference to a similar interpretation of that Psalm, there is nothing in the context to justify the importation of an idea which belongs to the later development of Jewish theology. (2) The idea that angels can be punished with death is startling, and foreign to the O.T. view of angelic nature. (3) There is not the slightest hint that Psalm 82:2-4 refer to anything but the oppression of men by men. The language, as has been pointed out above, closely resembles that of the Law and the Prophets, and there is no reason for taking it in a non-natural sense.”(Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, “Psalm 82” (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/psalms/82.htm) emphasis added)

Reference to Jesus words in John 10

            Heiser points to Jesus words in John 10 to support his contentions with respect to this key word elohim in Psalm 82:

“³⁴Jesus answered them, ‘Has it not been written in your Law: “I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’’’?

In context Jesus is declaring Himself to be God, and the Jews wanted to stone Him for blasphemy:

 “^30’ I and the Father are one.’ ³¹The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. ³²Jesus replied to them, ‘I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me’³³The Jews answered Him, ‘We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.’ ³⁴Jesus answered them, ‘Has it not been written in your Law: ‘I said, you are gods [Θεός]? ³⁵If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified), ³⁶are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I am the Son of God?”’ ” (John 10:30-36).

            First, it is true that this is a reference to the Psalmist statement in Psalm 82:6. Thus whatever the Psalmist was referring to as elohim, translated “gods”, is what Jesus is referring to as the Greek translation of that Hebrew word, which is Theos (Θεός). Again, we have a word which has more than one meaning, depending on the context (which is always the case when it comes to translation from one language to another). In many if not most cases it is used to refer to the one true God, the Old Testament YAWEH, which is how it is used several times in this passage. However, no one would argue that when Jesus, or the Psalmist said “You are gods (Θεός)”, He meant that they were all that one true God, YAWEH. So, to accurately interpret it we have to look at the context. And since it is a quoted from the Psalm, we have to examine the context of the Hebrew word elohim, in its context in the Psalm. So, whatever we have learned from the examination of that text, in its context, is what also applies to this text in John.

            According to respected Greek authority, Henry Alford we have the following:

“…The Psalm (82) is directed against the injustice and tyranny of judges (not, the Gentile rulers of the world (De Wette), nor, the angels (Bleek)) in Israel. And in the Psalm reference is made by εἶπα to previous places of Scripture where judges are so called, viz. Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:9, Exodus 22:28.”

      Albert Barnes gives the following explanation in his commentary on this verse:

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? Jesus answered them – The answer of Jesus consists of two parts. The first John 10:34-36 shows that they ought not to object to his use of the word God, even if he were no more than a man. … John 10:34. In your law – Psalm 82:6. The word ‘law’ here, is used to include the Old Testament. I said – The Psalmist said, or God said by the Psalmist. Ye are gods – This was said of magistrates on account of the dignity and honor of their office, and it shows that the Hebrew word translated “god,” אלהים ̀elohiym, in that place might be applied to man. Such a use of the word is, however, rare. See instances in Exodus 7:1; Exodus 4:16.”

      The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges gives us a similar explanation:

“I said, Ye are gods] The argument is both à fortiori and ad hominem. In the Scriptures (Psalm 82:6) even unjust rulers are called ‘gods’ on the principle of the theocracy, that rulers are the delegates and representatives of God (comp. Exodus 22:28). If this is admissible without blasphemy, how much more may He call Himself ‘Son of God.’”

            Perhaps the best explanation is given by the Expositor’s Bible Dictionary:

“Our Lord’s reference to Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34-38 is, by the present writer, accepted as authoritatively settling both the meaning and the ground of the remarkable name of “gods” for human judges. It does not need that we should settle the mystery of His emptying Himself, or trace the limits of His human knowledge, in order to be sure that He spoke truth with authority, when He spoke on such a subject as His own Divine nature, and the analogies and contrasts between it and the highest human authorities. His whole argument is worthless, unless the “gods” in the psalm are men. He tells us why that august title is applied to them-namely, because to them “the word of God came.” They were recipients of a Divine word, constituting them in their office; and, in so far as they discharged its duties, their decrees were God’s word ministered by them. That is especially true in a theocratic state such as Israel, where the rulers are, in a direct way, God’s vicegerents, clothed by Him with delegated authority, which they exercise under His control. But it is also true about all who are set in similar positions elsewhere. The office is sacred, whatever its holders are.” (emphasis added)

            According to Thayer’s Lexicon, the word used here, “Θεός”, translated God, can have the following meaning:

“ Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, equivalent to God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges, John 10:34f after Psalm 81:6…” (THAYER’S GREEK LEXICON, Electronic Database.Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc., emphasis added).

               Jesus, as He often does, is using their own religious beliefs and teachings against them, pointing out their inconsistencies and hypocrisy. He asks why they would be wanting to stone Him for calling Himself by that name Θεός, in Hebrew “elohim”, when they know and teach that their own leaders and rulers are called “elohim”, “gods”, as per their own Old Testament scripture. However, He is also clarifying that He is not just claiming to be a god, as the Psalmist was referring to, but one in identity with the true supreme God (YAWEH), and that of course is what they were reacting to.

            However, Michael Heiser attempts to use this verse to substantiate his interpretation of the Psalm 82 passage, and vice versa. Here again we have the logic fallacy known as circular reasoning. He takes what is demonstrated above as a flawed interpretation of the Psalm as his premise for his interpretation of this verse in John 10, and then uses that flawed interpretation of John 10 to argue for his original interpretation of Psalm 82:6 – its also called arguing from one’s premise. Indeed, if the word “elohim” in the Psalm can only be interpreted as supernatural divine spiritual beings, then his interpretation of John 8:34 that the Greek word “Theoi” (Θεοί) has to mean supernatural divine spiritual beings also, and vice versa. But to try to use this as proof for his very flawed interpretation of that key word, which in turn is one of his key proofs for his whole “council of the Gods” and “Deuteronomy 32 Worldview”, is obviously ludicrous, arguing in a circle.

            Again, as is usually the case, especially in the interpretation of the texts to which Heiser appeals to make his case, all it takes is an honest examination of the context to detect the errors in his exegesis and interpretation. According to the text itself the “gods” being referred to are those “to whom the word of God came”:

“³⁵If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came…”

            And again, in context, the word of God about which He is speaking specifically is that Psalm which He is quoting. Who was it that such word of God came to – some supernatural deity, spirit beings in Heiser’s “council of the Gods”? Was it not to David, who wrote that Psalm? Was David not a normal human being, a mortal man? Was he a supernatural deity, like the angels, or Pagan demigods? Or if we take this revelation of the word of God in a more general sense, is what we know as “the word of God” given to those Gods, the supernatural divine realm of nonhuman beings, as claimed by Michael Heiser, or were they the human prophets and writers of inspired scripture – like Moses, or David?

            Implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, Heiser claims to be so much more educated, knowledgeable, informed, and logical in his approach to interpreting scripture (with claims not unlike those of other men such as Joseph Smith), such that all those “traditional” Bible scholars before him are all wrong, somewhat illiterate since they do not know the extrabiblical source material, such as the Pagan Ugaritic texts, and don’t accept the Apocrypha as absolute truth. However, when critically examined, he constantly demonstrates his own very human weaknesses of the flesh. Most of his claims to superiority are premised on his ostensibly vast knowledge with respect to about 98 extrabiblical sources which he cites ubiquitously, including the Pagan sources such as the Ugaritic texts, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and Apocryphal books including the Book of Enoch, and some of the Dead Sea Schroll fragments. Indeed, most Bible scholars down through the ages have had little time for such voluminous material because of their failure to meet the objective criteria for reliable, authoritative inspired scriptural truth. Even today they are considered largely irrelevant at best by conservative scholars and theologians, more misleading than helpful, and their truth claims have been refuted by other scholars also well versed in such subjects, such as Heath Henning. Hennig has gone through Heiser’s writings and shown his lack of objectivity and truthfulness, as well as his very flawed interpretations of both scripture and the extrabiblical source material, in his book The Unbiblical Realm.[1]

Reference to Deuteronomy 32:17 and 1 Corinthians 8 & 10  – “idols”

            In defense of his interpretation of the Psalm 82 passages, in a paragraph entitled “Are the Elohim Real”, Heiser writes:

“Those who want to avoid the clarity of Psalm 82 argue that the gods are only idols. As such, they aren’t real. This argument is flatly contradicted by Scripture. It’s also illogical and shows a misunderstanding of the rationale of idolatry. With respect to Scripture, one need look no further than Deuteronomy 32:17. They [the Israelites] sacrificed to demons [shedim], not God [eloah], to gods [elohim] whom they had not known. The verse explicitly calls the elohim that the Israelites perversely worshiped demons (shedim). This rarely used term (Deut 32:17; Psa 106:37) comes from the Akkadian shedu.⁶ In the ancient Near East, the term shedu was neutral; it could speak of a good or malevolent spirit being. These Akkadian figures were often cast as guardians or protective entities, though the term was also used to describe the life force of a person.⁷ In the context of Deuteronomy 32:17, shedim were elohim—spirit beings guarding foreign territory—who must not be worshiped.⁸ Israel was supposed to worship her own God (here, eloah; cf. Deut 29:25).⁹ One cannot deny the reality of the elohim/shedim in Deuteronomy 32:17 without denying the reality of demons.¹⁰ Scholars disagree over what kind of entity the shedim were. But whatever the correct understanding of shedim might be, they are not pieces of wood or stone.” (“Are the Elohim Real? Unseen Realm, p. 33)

            According to inspired scripture the “idols” were just that:

“²⁸There you will serve gods, the work of human hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear, nor eat nor smell anything.”  (Deut. 4:28)

“¹⁸Truly, LORD, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the countries and their lands, ¹⁹and have thrown their gods into the fire, for they were not gods but only the work of human hands, wood and stone. So they have destroyed them.” (Isa. 37:18-19)

This is repeated many times throughout scripture, as in Deut. 27:15, 28:64, 29:17, 2 kings 19:8, Jer. 2:27. 3:9, Dan. 5:23, and the list goes on. What Paul wrote in one of those passages alluded to by Heiser, 2Corinthians 8 &10, contrary to Heiser’s interpretation of it, actually refutes his whole premise about the “elohim” (Theou in the New Testament) and idols, as always referring to actual divine spirit beings:

“⁴Therefore, concerning the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. ⁵For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, ⁶yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

“¹⁹What do I mean then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? ²⁰No, but I say that things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become partners with demons.” (1 Corinthians 10:19-20)

            Heiser’s interpretation of this is as follows:

“What ancient idol worshippers believed was that the objects they made were inhabited by their gods. This is why they performed ceremonies to “open the mouth” of the statue. The mouth (and nostrils) had to be ritually opened for the spirit of the deity to move in and occupy, a notion inspired by the idea that one needs to breathe to live. The idol first had to be animated with the very real spiritual presence of the deity. Once that was done, the entity was localized for worship and bargaining. This is easily proven from ancient texts. There are accounts, for example, of idols being destroyed. There is no sense of fear in those accounts that the god was dead. Rather, there was only a need to make another idol. Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 10:18–22, alluded to previously, reflects this thinking. Earlier in the letter, he told the Corinthians that an idol had no power and was, in and of itself, nothing (1 Cor 8:4). While Gentiles had other lords and gods, for believers there was only one true God. But in chapter 10, he clarifies that he also knows that sacrifices to idols are actually sacrifices to demons—evil members of the spiritual world”. (Unseen Realm, p. 35, emphasis added)

            First, with respect to his superior vast knowledge of what he refers to as “the ancient texts” (Ugaritic texts for example), which is not in question, his argument is based on what those Pagan idol worshippers believed – their delusions that the idols actually embodied divine spirits, their gods. That is without doubt true, and in fact no one disputes that such was what they believed. But that is a far cry from meaning, or even implying, that such deities, “gods”, were in any sense real, as Heiser contends. Again, the fallacy of false equivalence – that their belief in it is somehow equivalent to the reality of it – as in Heiser’s council of gods (going beyond the heavenly hosts of angels actually taught in scripture). That they were false beliefs in false gods is ubiquitous throughout scripture, and nowhere more explicitly clear than in what Paul wrote to the Corinthians. For Heiser to twist that into what he makes of it is only indicative of his flawed methodology and suggestive of less than the purest of motives, as in just getting to the truth of the matter – though he no doubt believed his motives to be pure.

            However, explicitly, according to Paul “an idol is nothing at all,” (1 Cor. 8:4) as Heiser admits. He then makes the statement that “there is no God but one”. These are very clear and unambiguous statements of fact. He then goes on to address those false gods, of which there are many. He uses an adjective there, the word “legomenoi” (λεγόμενοι), to disambiguate his use of the word “gods” (theoi (θεοὶ)). That word is accurately translated “so-called” (in the NASB and most versions), something Heiser seems to conveniently overlook. Paul is definitely not saying that there are other gods, as in a Pantheon of gods, but just the opposite. Paul’s whole point is that there is only one true God, and what the idol worshippers are worshipping are not really Gods at all. Heiser’s argument, based on his vast knowledge of the Pagan literature, is that the people who worshipped those idols really believed they were gods, or representative of real supernatural entities which they gave names to. But that is a far cry from saying that those idols, or the entities they represented, were real – actual supernatural entities – and that is the whole point. According to Heiser, Paul is making one emphatic statement of truth in 1 Corinthians 8, then refuting that statement 2 chapters later in chapter 10. This again reflects his very low view of scripture, or his inability to reason logically.

            Paul does also say that “things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God” (1Cor. 10:20). To get to the truth we have to find an explanation which includes both statements as factual, not choose one or the other and go with it, as Heiser does. What Paul and all these prophets were saying is that the idols/images, false gods (elohim in some cases) were nothing, just wood and stone. As Elijah demonstrated, they had no power to answer the prayers of their worshippers, or to do anything. However, they are not saying there is no realm of evil spirits, “daimonion”, a word used frequently in the New Testament Greek, “shedim” in the OT Hebrew. Paul is saying that the idols themselves, as they all know (as Christians) are nothing – have no power, etc.. But the worship of them is demonic, such that they become “partners with” said demons – influenced by them, used by them, etc.. This is not the same as saying that Astarte, or Jupiter, Neptune, Mars, Venus or Apollos, etc. were themselves actual divine entities, real “gods”. It is saying that they were the false gods, the objects and product of Satanic lies, vehicles of demonic activity in their lives.

            Heiser’s arguments here sound very convincing, until we examine what he is doing. Again, as we have seen previously with respect to his interpretation of Psalm 82, he inserts a word into the text which he can then refute (called the strawman fallacy). There he inserted the word “the nations”, here he adds the word “for believers” in the statement “there is no God but one”. However, the 4^th verse makes a universally true statement, not qualified or limited by the words “for believers” – there is one God. Then, contrasting that essential doctrinal belief of our monotheistic Christian faith, with the polytheism of the heathen idol worshippers, he does say“yet for us there is only one God”. Heiser prefers to skip the former statement, since it contradicts his interpretation, and his whole worldview, trying to make it look like the later qualified statement is all Paul said there. This is called a “bifurcation fallacy”, as if these two statements weren’t essentially saying the same thing. The real message there is that for us there is only one God because in fact there is only one true God – it’s not just something we believe as Heiser’s flawed logic would have it.  

            However, Heiser’s point is not only confused, but self-contradictory, and also involves the logic fallacy of “false equivalence”. What can be taken from this cross-reference to NT testament words, used to translate the OT elohim, which Heiser rejects, is the very point most Hebrew scholars make about the meaning of that word:

            That the word “elohim” itself can be used to refer to such spiritual entities as demons, is not the issue – indeed it can be and in fact is, as his reference to Deuteronomy 32:17 and 1Corinthians 10:20 demonstrate. However, this again is a case of the logical equivalent of the magicians slight of hand trick. In context, Heiser’s original point is as follows:

“THERE’S NO DOUBT THAT PSALM 82 CAN ROCK YOUR BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW. … First and foremost, you should be aware of some of the ways the clear meaning of Psalm 82 is distorted by interpreters and why it isn’t teaching polytheism. …The end of the psalm makes it evident that the elohim being chastised were given some sort of authority over the nations of the earth [eisegesis], a task at which they failed. This doesn’t fit the Trinity. Other Christians who see the problems with this first idea try to argue that the sons of God are human beings—Jews to be specific. Some Jewish readers (who obviously would not be Trinitarian) also favor this view. This “human view” is as flawed as the Trinitarian view. At no point in the Old Testament does the Scripture teach that Jews or Jewish leaders were put in authority over the other nations.^[2]” ( emphasis added)

            Thus, his point of contention is his interpretation of the word elohim of Psalms 82, – that it can only mean “divine beings”, always only those which are “inhabitants of the spiritual realm”. He contends that this is the only right interpretation of that word (see Heiser’s “Examining the Logic”, Endnote [ii]). Thus, where it appears in the 6^th verse of that 82^nd chapter it cannot refer to human judges or magistrates, as it is normally interpreted, but must refer to his “council of gods”. Hence it substantiates his interpretation of Deuteronomy 32, and his Deuteronomy 32 worldview. In so doing he is also substantiating the reality of existence of the Greek Pantheon of Gods, normally referred to as Greek Mythology (which he does throughout his works). However, as demonstrated in the foregoing discussion about that text, both his exegesis and his logic is very flawed. As most Theologians and Bible scholars down through history, and conservative Bible scholars today interpret it, the “elohim” in that verse only refers to human judges, or magistrates, just as in the case of other passages, such as Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:9 (which he also tries to misconstrue and force to mean God Himself). If he succeeds in fooling the reader with these kinds of manipulations of the wording of scripture, and his very flawed logic, the rest, extending to all the Gnostic and Mormon like theology, will sound believable, reasonable even biblical – kind of a “gnosis”, a secret but superior knowledge which involves the elevation of myths, hence Greek mythology, to the level of mystical truth. It is what Paul warned us about in 1 Timothy, the Gnosticism already emerging in the 1^st century AD (CE).

“³Just as I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, to remain on at Ephesus so that you would instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than advance the plan of God, which is by faith,…” (1 Timothy 1:3-4)

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,”. (1 Timothy 4:1)

            The equivalence fallacy is to maintain, or imply, that Paul’s use of the word “idols” is equivalent to his use of the word “demons”, as in the “idols” (the false gods they worshipped) actually are “demons”, real spiritual entities, the real gods of the Greeks and Romans – not just mythological deities? One might ask, when the Israelites had Aaron create an image of a calf out of their jewelry (Exodus 32:1-6), which they then worshipped, did they actually create a “god”, a deity, a supernatural entity of the spirit realm? Was it demonic in nature, satanically inspired – absolutely. Was there some kind of real being in it, or behind it – only if they were able to create such an entity – which I doubt seriously. If so, what happened to that “elohim” when Moses burned it and ground it to powder (Ex. 32:20), if it was an actual spiritual being, a “deity”, as per Heiser,? Paul actually makes it clear – while the demons and the demonic realm is real, which they are exposing themselves to and welcoming into their own spirits, the actual idols are nothing, just material objects of their making.

            As if to compound the error, Heiser then equates this flawed interpretation to the meaning of the “elohim” in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32, which he argues is then necessary to accurately interpret all the rest of scripture according to his “Deuteronomy 32 worldview”. And now it is morphed into a Nephilim centered worldview and eschatology, mostly based on the extrabiblical, Apocryphal, pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch – the subject of another chapter.

---

[1] This is not meant to be an endorsement of everything Henning writes or believes, but most of his argument in his book are substantial and both biblically and logically sound.

[2] As previously pointed out, this insertion about “the nations” is a classic case of eisegesis – reading into the text something that is not there, which makes it a strawman argument.  The whole passage is about Israel, and Israel’s leaders failures. Contrary to Heiser’s claim, it has nothing to do with the Table of Nations (also a misnomer), or the dispersion of the people at the Tower of Babel.

---

ENDNOTES

[i] Analysis of the Hebrew word according to Hebrew scholars

Psalms 82:1

“¹God takes His position in His assembly; He judges in the midst of the gods.” (82:1 NASB)

                                                                        ’êl;                            ’ĕ·lō·hîm

Interlinear: “God takes His stand in the congregation of the divine”.  Among     the gods      He judges.

of the divine  =    אֵ֑ל   ’êl;     (410 [e])

the gods        =      אֱלֹהִ֣ים    ’ĕ·lō·hîm     430 [e]

El (’êl;)

Strong’s Lexicon:

Definition: God, god, mighty one
Meaning: strength, as adjective, mighty, the Almighty

Word Origin: Derived from a root word meaning “might” or “power.”

“In some contexts, it may refer to gods in a general sense or to mighty individuals.” (Strong’s Lexicon)

Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB)

“applied to men of might and rank, אֵל גוים mighty one of the nations Ezekiel 31:11 (of Nebuchadnezzar; ᵐ5 ἄρχων ἔθνων, איל some MSS. Co); אֵלִים mighty men Job 41:17 (אילים, many MSS. Di); אֵלֵי גִבּוֺרִים mighty heroes Ezekiel 32:21 (אֵילֵי MSS. Co); אֵילֵי הָאֶרֶץ Ezekiel 17:13; 2 Kings 24:15 (Kt אולי); אֵילִים Exodus 15:15 (probably plural of III. אַיִל, q. v.) These readings are uncertain because of an effort to distinguish these forms from the divine name. אֵל גִּבּוֺר mighty hero (as above) or divine hero (as reflecting the divine majesty) Isaiah 9:6.”

In Ezekiel 31:11 “el” refers to Nebuchadnezzar.

The “assembly” (NASB), or “congregation” (Interlinear) is what is referred to as “the gods” (elohim) in that same verse.

According to BDB the same word el can refer to the angels, the false gods of the nations, judges, mighty things in nature, and the one true God of Israel – depending on the context.

Elohim

Strong’s Lexicon

Original Word: אֱלהִים
Definition: God, gods, divine beings, judges
Meaning: gods, the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

Word Origin: Derived from the root אֵל (El), meaning “god” or “power.”

Usage: Elohim is a plural noun that is most commonly used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the one true God, Yahweh, emphasizing His majesty and power. Despite its plural form, it is often used with singular verbs and adjectives when referring to the God of Israel, indicating a plural of majesty or intensity rather than number. Elohim can also refer to gods of other nations, divine beings, or even human judges, depending on the context. (emphasis added)

Brown-Driver-Briggs

אֱלֹהִים₂₅₇₀ noun masculine plural (feminine 1 Kings 11:33; on number of occurrences of אֵל, אֱלוֺהַּ, אֱלֹהִים compare also Nes^{l. c},)

1 plural in number.

a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power: האלהים Exodus 21:6 (Onk ᵑ6, but τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ᵐ5) Exodus 22:7; Exodus 22:8; אלהים

“⁸If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges

[hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm (הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים) 430 _[e] ] to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor’s property.” (Exodus 22:8)

[ii]           Heiser’s  “EXAMINING THE LOGIC.”

“The denial that other elohim exist insults the sincerity of biblical writers and the glory of God. How is it coherent to say that verses extolling the superiority of Yahweh above all elohim (Psa 97:9) are really telling us Yahweh is greater than beings that don’t exist? Where is God’s glory in passages calling other elim to worship Yahweh (Psa 29:1–2) when the writers don’t believe those beings are real? Were the writers inspired to lie or hoodwink us? To give us theological gibberish? To my ear, it mocks God to say, ‘You’re greater than something that doesn’t exist.’ So is my dog. Saying, ‘Among the beings that we all know don’t exist there is none like Yahweh’ is tantamount to comparing Yahweh with Spiderman or SpongeBob SquarePants. This reduces praise to a snicker. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire such nonsense?” (Unseen Realm, p. 34).

            One needs to examine Heiser’s logic articulated here. There does not need to be other actual gods, as in the Pantheon of Gods of Greek mythology, for the one true God to declare His superiority, and the monotheistic belief in His singular Deity to be far superior to all the other false gods the heathen idol worshipers believed in. It is about a belief in that which is real, an absolute reality, versus beliefs in that which is not real, hence referred to not as fellow Gods, but false Gods. Logic is not Heiser’s strong point. His false comparison is absurd. Indeed, those passages to which he makes reference are not comparisons of the Elohim YAWEH, to nothingness, or cartoon characters, nor is that the argument of those with whom he disagrees (another strawman fallacy). It is an implicit comparison to the beliefs of the Pagans and heathens in that which He calls false gods (elohim), the Baals, Ashtoreth (or Astarte), or Zeus, Hermes, etc..  To argue that such declarations of reality are even implicitly substantiation of the reality of those imagined entities as actual spiritual beings in some perverse sense divine beings, “gods”, is just another non-sequitur – it doesn’t follow. His real underlying argument is that because many people believed in those entities as actual gods, they must have actually been real gods. This would be analogous to saying that because some children may actually believe that Spiderman, or SpongeBob SquarePants, or more realistically Santa Claus, is real, they must all actually be real. So much for his examination of the logic. Newsflash, Baal, Zeus, and Hermes did not really exist as gods, or supernatural divine entities – we know this because God’s word clearly tells us this again and again. Heiser, however, knows more than what we can get from God’s word – based on such sources as the Pagan Ugaritic texts. Who knew?