Is Michael Heiser’s Worldview Valid?

I have extensively examined Michael Heiser’s theological framework, which he refers to as the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. My work on this subject includes a published book, a series of podcasts, numerous articles, and several interviews. However, one aspect I have not yet explored is the criteria that define a valid worldview. In this discussion, I will adopt a new approach to critiquing Michael Heiser’s theological system by addressing what constitutes a valid worldview.

In the book, Christian Apologetics,¹⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022). Douglas Groothuis discusses the concept of a worldview and the epistemological methods for assessing its validity. He provides 8 criteria for logically testing a worldview to determine whether it is valid.

First, let us define what a worldview is. A worldview can be described as the framework through which an individual perceives, understands, and interprets the world. It encompasses the assumptions or presuppositions about reality that one holds in order to make sense of life. An often-used analogy is that of wearing colored glasses: if your glasses have an orange tint, it will affect how you see the world.

To assess Michael Heiser’s worldview, it is essential to first provide a brief outline of his perspective, which he terms the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. This nomenclature is based on his interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8, where he argues that the phrase “sons of God,” based on the reading from the Dead Sea Scrolls, refers to actual, albeit inferior deities.²⁾See Heath Henning, “Michale Heiser’s Gnostic Heresy: Ploytheism (Part 2)” December 7, 2020; https://truthwatchers.com/michael-heisers-gnostic-heresy-part-2/ According to Heiser, these gods are subordinate to Jehovah but ontologically superior to angels, thereby distinguishing them from angels.³⁾See Heath Henning, “Michale Heiser’s Gnostic Heresy: gods or angels? (Part 4); December 27, 2020; https://truthwatchers.com/michael-hiesrs-gnostic-heresy-gods-or-angels-part-4/ It is important to note that many conservative evangelicals have misunderstood Heiser’s position, often interpreting his reference to “sons of God” as angels.

Michael Heiser’s worldview posits that when the world’s population was divided following the overthrow of the Tower of Babel, Jehovah assigned 70 of these gods to rule over and be worshipped by the 70 nations that emerged from the dispersion at Babel. Jehovah retained Israel for Himself, acting as their exclusive deity.⁴⁾For a thorough exploration Heiser’s teachings see Heath Henning, The Unbiblical Realm: Refuting the Divine Council of Michale Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 Worldivew, Truthwatcher Publishing (East Troy, WI: 2023), pp. 17-24 Central to Heiser’s worldview is the concept of territorial gods as geographical rulers. In his book Demons, Heiser characterizes his worldview as “the notion of geographical rivalry between deities—the concept behind the Deuteronomy 32 worldview.”⁵⁾Michael Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2020), p. 241

Heiser frequently illustrates in his writings that he interprets the Bible through the lens of this presupposed worldview. He openly acknowledges employing “selective hermeneutics” to derive his worldview from the biblical text, essentially imposing his interpretation onto the Scripture.

Groothuis states, “The major worldviews that have vied for acceptance throughout history are monotheism, deism, dualism, polytheism, pantheism, and naturalism.”⁶⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), p. 43 Limiting ourselves to this list, though it could certainly be expanded, if we are to classify Heiser’s worldview, it would fall under polytheism. Heiser prefers not to use the term polytheism and instead uses the term “divine plurality,” which refers to a plurality of divine beings. However, his term is synonymous with polytheism.

Heiser is emphatic in his rejection of the term monotheism. In an article t he writes on  “Monotheism as it is currently understood means that no other gods exist. This term is inadequate for describing Israelite religion, but suggesting it be done away with would no doubt cause considerable consternation among certain parts of the academic community, not to mention the interested laity.”⁷⁾Michael Heiser, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” Bulliten for Biblical Research, 18.1 (2008), pp. 28-29 Therefore, according to the options provided by Groothuis, Heiser’s belief system does not align with monotheism. Instead, he believes in the existence of many gods, which he refers to as a divine plurality. Consequently, his worldview is more accurately described as polytheistic.

Groothuis’s  first criterion asserts that a worldview should adequately explain phenomena it purports to address. Specifically, a worldview must address significant existential concerns such as meaning, morality, and mortality.⁸⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), p. 45 In my assessment, Heiser’s worldview successfully meets this criterion by offering comprehensive explanations on these fundamental issues. Groothuis further stipulates that a worldview should avoid relying on appeals to inexplicable mysteries. For instance, naturalism, which posits the mystery of abiogenesis among other challenges related to the origin of life and the cosmos, fails this criterion. While I may diverge from Heiser’s interpretations regarding the meaning of life, morality, and mortality (inclusive of the afterlife in a theistic context), it is noteworthy that Heiser provides coherent explanations for these aspects within his worldview.

Groothuis delineates the second criterion as “internal logical consistency.”⁹⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), p. 46 He posits that while a worldview may exhibit internal coherence, this alone does not guarantee its alignment with objective reality. Conversely, internal inconsistency decisively indicates the falsehood of a worldview. Several aspects of Heiser’s worldview notably fall short of meeting this criterion. Indeed, his worldview contains numerous inconsistencies, which raise questions about its coherence.

I will refrain from exhaustively listing inconsistencies at this juncture, as there are additional criteria requiring discussion. However, one notable inconsistency pertains to Heiser’s definition of the term “god,” specifically the Hebrew word Elohim, which denotes “god” or “gods.” In an article, he asserts, “In briefest terms, an Elohim is a being whose proper ‘habitation’ was considered the ‘spirit world,’ and whose primary existence was a disembodied one.”¹⁰⁾Michael Heiser, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” Bulliten for Biblical Research, 18.1 (2008), pp.p. 30, fn. 63 Similarly, in his widely-read book The Unseen Realm, he states, “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 realm.”¹¹⁾Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 29

here is much to discuss regarding this definition, but our focus remains on evaluating the internal consistency of Heiser’s worldview. Most significantly, his theological framework encounters heretical implications when applied to the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the incarnation. According to Heiser, if Christ is incarnate, then Christ could not be God while physically present on earth. This dilemma forces Heiser to either endorse a heretical form of Kenotic theory, suggesting Christ temporarily relinquished divinity during the incarnation, or to entertain elements of the Gnostic doctrine of Docetism, which posits Christ’s divine nature precluded him from assuming genuine physical flesh, presenting instead a phantom-like appearance. Consequently, we are compelled to either dismiss Heiser as adhering to Kenotic or Gnostic heresy, or acknowledge the invalidation of his worldview due to this profound internal inconsistency.

The third criterion discussed by Groothuis, pertains to the evaluation of a worldview’s “coherence or cohesiveness.”¹²⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), pp. 46-47 This criterion differs from internal consistency in that it assesses whether concepts within the worldview are meaningfully interconnected rather than merely internally consistent. Groothuis illustrates this with J.R.R. Tolkien’s mythological world in “The Lord of the Rings,” which, while cohesive and coherent, does not inherently validate its truthfulness. The key takeaway is that a worldview should not comprise a disparate collection of unrelated facts. Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 worldview would satisfy this criterion akin to Tolkien’s imagined world. However, while Heiser’s worldview maintains coherence, its supporting evidence lacks this coherence, a point that transitions into subsequent criteria.

The fourth criterion, according to Groothuis, is “factual adequacy,” addressing the historical and empirical dimensions of life.¹³⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), p. 47 This criterion poses challenges for Heiser’s worldview. Heiser posits a worldview where 70 gods govern the Gentile nations, which does not align with historical accuracy. In contrast, historical records, such as Paul’s encounters in Athens where he observed multiple gods worshipped in one city due to excessive superstition, contradict Heiser’s assertion of one god per nation. Additionally, Jeremiah 11:13 references numerous gods corresponding to the number of cities and streets in Judah and Jerusalem, contrasting with Heiser’s depiction of 70 ruling gods. Thus, Heiser’s framework fails the criterion of factual adequacy by diverging from historically verifiable accounts.

This issue is acknowledged by Heiser himself. In his book Demons, he writes, “this frequent question relates to two issues: (1) Can we identify specific deities with specific nations today? (2) If the nation allotted to the sons of God at Babel were seventy in number, per Genesis 10, and there are more than seventy nations of earth, how do we relate this point of biblical theology to the larger world?”¹⁴⁾Michael Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2020), p. 264 Heiser’s response to this question is notably ambiguous and does not directly address the core inquiry. He asserts “that fact does not overturn a worldview framework with the intention of totality.”¹⁵⁾Michael Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2020), p. 264 Essentially, Heiser admits his inability to provide a definitive answer to the question while maintaining that this inability does not invalidate his worldview. Groothuis argues that this inability to correspond with empirical reality is a crucial test for evaluating the soundness of a worldview. I concur with Groothuis and the epistemological perspective of correspondence theory, which posits that our understanding should align with observable reality.

The fifth criterion, termed “Existential viability,” is expounded as the ability to be affirmed without “philosophical hypocrisy.”¹⁶⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), p. 48 Groothuis defines “philosophical hypocrisy” as something “requires a person to engage in perpetual doublethink in order to live according to his or her worldview.” ¹⁷⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), p. 48 This criterion also presents challenges for Heiser’s framework. Returning to the definition of Elohim as disembodied beings, Heiser himself acknowledges instances where the Bible applies the term Elohim to men, contrary to his assertion that Elohim cannot be embodied. This discrepancy illustrates the philosophical hypocrisy or doublethink identified by Groothuis.

In his book The Unseen Realm, Heiser engages in a form of doublespeak regarding his definition of Elohim. He acknowledges that Moses is referred to as “God/a god [Elohim]” to Pharaoh and to Moses’ brother Aaron (Exodus 4:16-17).¹⁸⁾Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 280, fn. 8 He further asserts, “As a leader through whom flowed divine power, he would naturally come to be seen by the Israelites as a quasi-divine figure, though he was just a man.”¹⁹⁾Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), pp. 245-246 Heiser claims to present an understanding of the ancient cultural context, asserting that in such contexts, a man could be viewed as a divine figure. This historical fact is well-established. However, this issue reveals philosophical hypocrisy within Heiser’s framework due to his inaccurate definition of Elohim. Moreover, it underscores another instance where his worldview diverges from empirical reality as known to us.

Groothuis introduces the sixth criterion, termed “intellectual and cultural fecundity.”²⁰⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), p. 48 He defines this as the ability of a worldview to inspire cultural and intellectual discovery, creativity, and productivity. According to Groothuis, a worldview that accurately reflects reality should motivate its adherents to engage with and master that reality with confidence and vigor. Personally, I do not consider this a reliable test for evaluating a worldview, as it leans toward a pragmatic assessment. Historical examples such as Muslims, Marxists, Nazis, and, historically speaking, Crusading Catholics were all energized by confidence in their worldviews, yet this does not validate the accuracy of those worldviews. Furthermore, many adherents of true worldviews may not exhibit energetic engagement due to various personal reasons such as laziness or shyness. Despite my reservations, according to Groothuis’s criteria, Heiser’s worldview theoretically meets this test. There exists a significant group of hyper-charismatics who have embraced Heiser’s theology fervently. However, as seen with past worldviews like Nazism, Marxism, Islam, medieval Catholicism, and modern dominionist theology, fervent adherence can potentially lead to significant and negative consequences in the future.

Groothuis introduces the seventh criterion, emphasizing that “radical ad hoc readjustment”²¹⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), p. 49 serves as a significant negative indicator when evaluating worldviews. This criterion bears some correlation with internal inconsistency and philosophical hypocrisy, as it pertains to worldviews altering core perspectives to evade criticism. Heiser has modified grammar in biblical passages to align with his worldview and has occasionally altered quotations. Furthermore, he has adjusted the cultural contexts purportedly underlying his interpretations; for instance, highlighting the Ugaritic context to interpret Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32, despite his own textual criticisms placing these texts post-Babylonian captivity, necessitating a Mesopotamian context. Additionally, Heiser employs the Mesopotamian backdrop to interpret Genesis 6 in light of the Apkallu tradition.

In his book Demons, Heiser asserts, “The literature and religion of ancient Ugarit lacked a divine rebellion story comparable to Genesis 6:1-4.”²²⁾Michael Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2020), p. 12 Consequently, he turns to Mesopotamian myths of the Apkallu. However, the Apkallu myths do not furnish compelling evidence for a divine rebellion story either. Moreover, the reconstruction of an Apkallu myth has never existed within a single culture or time period in history. It has been pieced together by modern scholars from fragmented traditions dispersed across various ancient cultures, spanning centuries, and manifesting in myriad variant myths lacking consistency in literary genres or concepts.²³⁾For a thorough rebuttal of the Apkallu myths, see Heath Henning, The Unbiblical Realm: Refuting the Divine Council of Michale Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 Worldivew, Truthwatcher Publishing (East Troy, WI: 2023), pp. 161-173

Additionally, Heiser notes, “Second Temple Jewish writers had a literary relationship to Babylonian material, not Ugaritic texts, because of the exile in Babylon.”²⁴⁾Michael Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2020), p. 144 By interpreting Genesis 6 through the lens of these Apkallu myths, Heiser situates the composition of Genesis during the Second Temple period, post-Babylonian captivity, thereby rejecting Mosaic authorship of Genesis and the Ugaritic backdrop foundational to his entire worldview. His assertion that Genesis 6, Deuteronomy 32, and Psalm 82 were composed under Babylonian literary influence also undermines his worldview of 70 deities governing the Gentile nations, which hinges on interpreting these passages through a Ugaritic lens. This discrepancy exposes internal inconsistency, philosophical hypocrisy, and represents a radical ad hoc adjustment within his worldview.

The final criterion Groothuis presents for testing a worldview, number 8, states: “all things being equal, simpler explanations are preferable to unnecessarily complex ones.”²⁵⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), p. 50 Heiser’s worldview stands accused of unnecessary complexity, lacking consistency and coherence due to its intricate nature. In another section discussing the Intelligent Design movement, Groothuis remarks that “Design is not explained by polytheism because the multiplication of finite deities violates the principle that we should not multiply explanatory entities unnecessarily (criterion 8), and because polytheism lacks independent philosophical support.”²⁶⁾Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith (Second Edition), Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 2022), p. 326 Heiser’s concept of divine plurality thus fails to meet this criterion. In contrast, the traditional Biblical worldview presents a simpler alternative to Heiser’s intricate Deuteronomy 32 worldview.

Based on Groothuis’s criteria for evaluating worldviews, Heiser passes only 3 out of the 8 criteria and fails 5. Consequently, there are substantial grounds to reject Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 worldview and instead uphold the traditional Biblical worldview, which has withstood the test of time and numerous challenges from opposing perspectives.