Dr. Heiser and Heath Henning: A Layman’s Response to Heath Henning’s (TruthWatchers.com) accusation that Dr. Michael S. Heiser is a polytheistic, neo-gnostic, gnostic, marcionistic, pagan heretic
By David E. Mullis, B.S. (Biology), M.A. (Biblical Studies), J.D. (Lawyer), LL.M (Taxation); All biblical quotes are English Standard Version (ESV) unless otherwise noted.
INTRODUCTION
Dr. Heiser and Heath Henning: On November 12, 2020, Heath Henning of TruthWatchers.com published the first of a 6 part article entitled, “Michael Heiser’s Gnostic Heresy (Part 1). Dr. Heiser linked this article on his website, www.drmsh.com, and posted a very brief rebuttal basically stating that Mr. Henning’s Part 1 article was frivolous and contrary to Dr. Heiser’s clearly stated positions in his writings.
In Part 2, Mr. Henning took offense that Dr. Heiser would not engage him on his accusations and stated: “I…now need to respond to his indignant reply of my earlier post. First, it cannot be called a reply, as he did not even comment on anything I wrote. My article was focused on criticizing his hermeneutic method as the foundation of his false teachings, but he only expressed mockery and sarcasm (he even called me “illiterate”) as if he should not be classified as a Gnostic and polytheist.”
Since Dr. Heiser refused to address Mr. Henning’s frivolous arguments, I decided I would like to address this article and show why the article is completely biased and unfair and lacks proper hermeneutic principles itself. While Mr. Henning takes offense at being called “illiterate,” Mr. Henning spends his next 5 parts to the article attempting to demonstrate that he is not illiterate. However, in doing so and in attempting to “criticize his (Dr. Heiser’s) hermeneutic method as the foundation of his false teachings,” Mr. Henning violates or ignores all commonly accepted basic hermeneutic methods and common law rules of construction.
Mr. Henning’s articles are laden with numerous terms he leaves undefined, which he then in unsupported conclusory fashion applies to Dr. Heiser and his theological beliefs (e.g., Polytheism, Gnosticism, Neo-gnosticism, Marcionism, Paganism and Heresy). Each of these terms are very complex in meaning and can mean different things. Mr. Henning not only does not define these terms or examine their application to the current issue, but he then crosses a line and labels Dr. Heiser and his beliefs all of these things without justification.
JUDGE NOT LEST YOU BE JUDGED
This, by the way, is a big deal in my opinion. The Scriptures are very clear that we are not to judge lest we be judged. All of the writers involved in this controversy are in my opinion, born again believers. They are brothers in Christ. There is no justification in Mr. Henning’s accusations against Dr. Heiser. We will discuss this further below.
Scripture calls for a balancing act between not judging others and avoiding those who deviate from the doctrine of Jesus and the first century apostles.
On one hand, Romans 2:1-3 says: “Therefore, you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
On the other hand Romans:16:17 says 17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[f] and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
This “doctrine that you have been taught” is the doctrine set forth by Jesus and the first century apostles in what has come to be recognized as New Testament Canon (27 books) based upon the accepted Old Testament Canon (39 books). The various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in the original Hebrew and Greek languages are the best evidence and the only true primary sources. All other writings and opinions (past, present and future) are secondary evidence, whether they are contemporaneous writings, opinions or church doctrines on what the manuscripts mean. And of those other writings, opinions and church doctrines, the weight of their evidentiary value varies.
Historical and church traditions are not primary sources. They are secondary sources. It is probable that very learned people in the past come to conclusions, some of which are correct and some are incorrect. If someone interpreted something wrong in the past, and almost everyone else agreed with it and it becomes tradition, that does not mean it is not subject to challenge in interpretation upon consideration of the primary source and additional argument. Keep in mind, Jesus condemned the traditions of men and said, ” “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!” Mark 7:9.
I say that to say this. There has to be a balance between these two concepts. On one hand we must respectfully challenge for accuracy all teachings and compare them to the doctrines contained in the Scriptural Canon (Holy Bible). On the other hand, we are to avoid those who seek their own personal gain, and in the quest, sow another gospel that preys on the naïve. And as stated in I Peter 3: 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Unlike Dr. Heiser, Mr. Henning’s article fails at any attempt to strike this balance. It joins the plethora of other so-called apologists who believe somehow the Scriptures give them the right to attack other professing believers over their doctrines. I read the Scriptures to instruct us to preach the true Gospel message, be ready to defend our preaching, and to avoid those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that we have been taught.
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE HERMENEUTICS
At this point, Mr. Henning introduces the term “Hermeneutics,” which he fails to define. In short, Hermeneutics simply means commonly accepted methods of interpretation. Biblical hermeneutics would be those commonly accepted methods of bible interpretation.
Mr. Henning claims to challenge Dr. Heiser’s hermeneutics, but in doing so, he ignores basic hermeneutic principles and creates his own principles including his first principle through his criticism of Dr. Heiser as follows: “First, he [Dr. Heiser] interprets Scripture in light of pagan literature to interject polytheism into the Bible.” Second, Mr. Henning creates another principle of hermeneutics saying “Heiser has a bad hermeneutical methodology because he has a bad hermeneutic philosophy.” These are not commonly accepted principles of biblical hermeneutics, but rather are invented by Mr. Henning to challenge Dr. Heiser. Although, we all agree incorporating polytheistic worship into the Scripture is forbidden, Dr. Heiser certainly does not do that as will be shown below.
Some actual fundamental principles of modern biblical hermeneutics that I have compiled from various sources on the internet are as follows: (1) Identify the type of literature, (2) identify the author and the audience, (3) identify the intent of the author rather than the bias of the reader, (4) identify the mindset of the original audience considering the social, political and religious environment of the audience, (5) Identify the context of the passage, (6) identify the plain and obvious meaning of the passage paying close attention to the language and words used, (7) the simplest meaning is probably correct, (8) interpret the bible literally but be sensitive to figurative language, (9) extract meaning out of the passage rather than reading bias into the passage, and (10) the passage interpretation must be consistent with all scriptural canon.
In other words, text and context are king. The interpreter must first examine the scriptural text and attempt to define the intent of the author to the original audience and then apply it forward.
Another hermeneutical principle is the meaning of words must be defined or the possibilities of analogy narrowed consistent with the context. A word really has no meaning apart from context. The interpreter must start with the information given in the Scriptures and must not deviate from it. However, the interpreter can certainly investigate non-canonical writings to see if a consistent interpretation can be ascertained from such writings. To do so is not an adoption of pagan religious beliefs. Rather, it is an indication of the mindset of the audience to which the writing is directed.
In legal terms, I can offer a statement in court of an individual who is not present to inquire as to its application to a certain situation and it may draw an objection of Hearsay. But I can overcome this objection if I can show that the statement is not offered to prove the truth of the statement, but rather to show the state of mind of the speaker. Dr. Heiser may cite pagan literature to show state of mind of the author and audience but not for the purpose of infiltrating the Scriptural Canon with pagan mythology. It is offered to show the possible state of mind of the author and the audience.
The methodology Dr. Heiser uses is right in line with this key principle of modern biblical hermeneutics, i.e., Investigate the intent of the original author to the original audience before applying it forward. Whether Dr. Heiser’s interpretation is correct or not, he certainly is applying fundamental principles of biblical hermeneutics in his approach and analysis.
SEMANTICAL WORD GAMES
Mr. Henning’s unwarranted attack on Dr. Heiser is nothing more than an unfounded and illogical semantical word game and serves no practical purpose in the furtherance of the Kingdom of God. It is written in a very arrogant tone and accuses Dr. Heiser of being a polytheist, gnostic, neo-gnostic, Marcionistic, pagan heretic. The sin of which Mr. Henning accuses Dr. Heiser is that Dr. Heiser prefers to rely on the express language of the primary source and the contemporaneous mindset of the original audience and the contemporaneous religious environment of the nations rather than church traditions to say that YHWH is one and is the creator of all else. But the LORD (YHWH) does rule with his creation. He does have a divine council over which YHWH presides and calls to order to judge the gods who are ruling unjustly over the various nations. This is the supernatural realm that Dr. Heiser teaches.
Mr. Henning finds this theology offensive. I presume his motive is sincere in that he may feel he is defending God’s honor by insisting there is only one God and calling anything else God other than God dishonors God. But this is where the semantical word game begins. Let us take a closer look at the semantics.
Why does the Bible refer to God as both YHWH and Elohim?
First, the covenant name for the Supreme Being, whose attributes exceed all else, is YHWH (“Yahweh or Jehovah”). YHWH basically means “I AM”. Deuteronomy 6:4 says: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord (YHWH) our God (Elohim), the Lord (YHWH) is one.” As this verse shows, the second relevant term is the Hebrew term “Elohim”, which is typically translated “God” (singular) or “gods” (plural).
In explaining his theology concerning the supernatural world, Dr. Heiser leads us to Psalm 82. Psalm 82:1 says: “God (Elohim) has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods (Elohim) he holds judgment.” This is the common translation of the passage from the primary sources. Mr. Henning does not appear to dispute this translation. Rather, Mr. Henning disputes the interpretation of this passage. In other words, he contends the passage means something other than what it expressly states.
For some reason, Mr. Henning believes that the express term “gods” cannot mean supernatural gods created by YHWH. He insists the text must be redefined to call them angels, and if not angels then “gods” should be redefined to human kings and rulers.
But let us look at Psalm 82:1 and consider the express language of the text. “God (Elohim) has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods (Elohim) he holds judgment.” From the express language of this passage, Dr. Heiser concludes that both God and his supernatural created living beings are all called “Elohim,” and some of the Elohim have acted wickedly and Chief Elohim is passing judgment upon them.
This is what the express language and context of Psalm 82:6-7 says: I said, “You are gods (Elohim), sons of the Most-High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” This text clearly identifies the gods as created by the Most-High and while they hold the position of immortal living beings, they will die like mere mortals for their sin and rebellion.
Mr. Henning rejects the plain meaning
Mr. Henning, however, rejects the plain meaning of this text and insists that this passage refers to earthly human kings and rulers or to angels. The problem is nowhere in the text is there any reference to human kings or rulers or to angels. To arrive at his conclusion, Mr. Henning spends an enormous effort quoting early church fathers and commentators to justify his rejection of the express language of the text and his insistence that the express words mean something else.
Mr. Henning seems not to understand that a word actually has no meaning except in context. He painstakingly searches through the Scriptures looking for any other time the word “Elohim” is used in reference to something other than supernatural beings and searches through various secondary sources to justify his redefining of the term Elohim in Psalm 82 to mean something other than what the context actually says.
Mr. Henning ignores key hermeneutical principles
Some key hermeneutical principles Mr. Henning ignores in making his arguments concerning the term “Elohim,” are (1) determine the actual intent of the author as it relates to the original audience’s understanding of the terminology and its meaning. (2) extract the meaning from the actual text and not read the bias of the researcher into the text, and (3) the actual text and its simplest meaning is usually the correct meaning.
In contrast, Dr. Heiser’s doctrinal analysis follows perfectly along key hermeneutical principles contrary to Mr. Hennings accusation that Dr. Heiser has a flawed hermeneutic. Because Dr. Heiser considers the contemporary culture, religion and writings of godly and pagan nations in search of the understanding of the original audience to aid in determining the actual intent of the author pursuant to a key principle of modern hermeneutics, Mr. Henning declares Dr. Heiser’s theology to be pagan. Mr. Henning ignores this key principle of interpretation himself and basically declares that if one references pagan writings in a search to define and understand terms in the Bible, that person’s theology is therefore pagan. It is a guilt by association argument, and a bad one at that.
Guilt by Association
What Mr. Henning fails to understand is that the writings in the Pentateuch were passed down orally from God, through Adam, through Noah, through the Tower of Babel where it became incorporated in most religious writings in similar but different manners in this dispersion. Moses, however, through divine revelation, wrote the true and complete account from the beginning. Just because what is in the Pentateuch is also found in pagan literature does not make the follower of the Pentateuch a pagan as it also does not make a pagan a follower of the Pentateuch.
Yet this is the logic employed by Mr. Henning on at least two occasions. First, Mr. Henning argues that because Dr. Heiser considers similar passages in pagan writings in determining the intent of the author in Psalm 82, his theology is pagan. Second, Mr. Henning argues that because Dr. Heiser takes the express Hebrew text and the English translation to say God and his heavenly host are all Elohim (gods), but there is only one YHWH, who is supreme and made all of the other Elohim, his theology is therefore polytheistic. Both of these are unjustified guilt by association conclusions made by Mr. Henning.
Ambiguities
Next, Mr. Henning criticizes Dr. Heiser’s hermeneutics because he focuses on ambiguous texts and asserts that a principle of hermeneutics is not to focus on ambiguous texts. I disagree this is a principle of hermeneutics, but rather if Scriptural interpretation results in an ambiguity, then the duty is on the interpreter to decipher a consistent interpretation that does not violate clearly established theological doctrine and keeps the canon unified in message.
So, let’s dig into the term “ambiguous”, which is another term introduced by Mr. Henning that he fails to define in violation of the principles of hermeneutics. Ambiguity refers to the existence or more than one plausible interpretation of the meaning of a statement. In general contract law, a contract is made when two or more enter into a agreement where an offer is made which is accepted and the contract is supported by consideration (e.g., pay money or agree to perform some act).
Of course, disputes arise out of contracts when conflicts arise. The Courts then must apply rules of contract construction such as “terms have common meaning unless defined” and “an ambiguity must be contained in the four corners of the document”. Only when an ambiguity occurs within the four corners of the document will the Court allow testimony of what the parties said to determine the intent of the parties and the true meaning of that ambiguity.
Psalm 82 is clear within its four corners and there is no ambiguity. Elohim calls an assembly in the midst of the Elohim. Not only is there no ambiguity, the Scriptures expressly state this. The only other search that remains in reference to Bible interpretation is whether this express statement contradicts any other doctrine clearly established within the Canon (from a primary source point of view rather than a historical doctrine point of view). If it does, then an ambiguity exists and it must be reconciled rather than ignored.
In Psalm 82, Elohim is the Supreme Elohim presiding over the assembly of elohim. Supreme Elohim is passing judgment upon the other Elohim because they have defended the unjust and shown partiality to the wicked. They appear to be non-human spirit beings ruling over the various nations and have been judged for their wickedness in so ruling. These wicked supernatural beings are judged to die like mere mortals.
We see an example of a non-human prince of the Persian kingdom resisting the messenger of God sent to Daniel in response to his prayers and having to call upon Chief Prince Michael to free him from being detained by the king of Persia. Daniel 10:10-14. While one can argue this represents an earthly king, the context clearly shows a messenger of God (an angel if you will) dispatched in response to Daniel’s prayers, who was detained for 21 days by the “prince of the Persian kingdom” until “Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me…” It stands to reason that messengers sent by God come with God’s authority and are not detained by earthly kings. Rather, this context clears depicts a messenger of God being resisted by a supernatural being (prince) and then being aided by a superior supernatural being (a chief prince).
Daniel 10: 10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.
12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.” This is clearly a spiritual being dispatched in response to Daniel’s prayer, who touched Daniel sending Daniel to his hands and knees, but as with all messengers from God, the messenger had Daniel stand up and listen to the words from God carefully.
A similar theme is present in Ephesians 6 concerning the purpose of putting on the full armor of God is to stand against the devil’s schemes. See Ephesians 6:10-20.
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people. 19 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should. Ephesians 6:10-20.
And let’s not forget Genesis 1-3 where God is having conversation. Dr. Heiser logically argues there is no logical reason for God to have communication with Himself. It is at least consistent with God communicating within his assembly.
In Genesis 1: 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Genesis 3:22 – 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
In Job 1:6 – 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came among them.
Job 2:1 – 2 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord
Job 38:4-7 – “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
So, it appears there is no ambiguity in the meaning of the express language of Psalm 82 and it is consistent within the Canon. So far, the main arguments against the express language of the actual text of Psalm 82 are historical traditional interpretations from various religious camps. Mr. Henning appears to be true to his independent fundamental Baptist traditions. And it is from this point of view that he declares express Hebrew language of Scripture to be ambiguous and uses his traditions in an attempt to redefine that express language.
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSORY COMPLEX TERMS INTRODUCED WITHOUT DEFINITION BUT APPLIED TO DR. HEISER
Polytheism
It is at this point that Mr. Henning makes his first biased theological blunder. He introduces the term “polytheism” but nowhere does he define it. He applies it as if polytheism means there is only One God and the contention there is more than one God means you are a polytheist.
However, a review of the various meanings of polytheism shows the most common definition of polytheism as it relates to religious thought is a belief there is a pantheon of gods who are all equal holders of deity and typically are in conflict with each other over turf wars in a struggle for pre-eminence. In contrast, there is only one God worthy of worship, and that is YHWH, Elohim of Israel.
Dr. Heiser clearly establishes he believes YHWH is the only truly unique One God and there is no other like Him in attributes and that he created all of the other gods. He disavows belief in any pantheon of equal gods of which YHWH is one. Dr. Heiser’s position, based on the limited time I have been exposed to his message, is that the Hebrew term Elohim describes a term of residence rather than attributes and typically means a disembodied spirit (i.e., supernatural non-humans, the spirit world) and when it is used, which is often, it is either singular to represent YHWH and plural to represent supernatural living beings created by YHWH. In other words, “God” and “gods.”
There is no way to conclude a theology is polytheistic that believes YHWH is One, is supreme over all creation, is the only one worthy of worship, and that He created all things including supernatural living beings who throughout Scripture are called gods, sons of God, hosts of heaven, heavenly host, cherubim, seraphim, living beings, 24 elders, angels and saints. But that is exactly what Mr. Henning has done in his articles. Mr. Henning feels justified in making this conclusion based upon a semantic word game he plays with the English words “God” and “gods.”
He argues that if you believe there is more than one “god,” you are a polytheist. He does not even discuss the difference between YHWH and Elohim. These terms are not interchangeable. YHWH is the covenant name of God to Israel through whom Jesus was born. YHWH is one and unique above all creation. In fact, YHWH, our Elohim, YHWH is one (Deuteronomy 6:4).
Dr. Heiser believes the use of the Hebrew word “Elohim” represents a residence. In other words, God and all of his created non-human living beings who reside in the non-physical spiritual world are called Elohim. Also, he contends that God convenes a divine counsel and communicates with them per Psalm 82, I Kings 22:19-23, Job 1.2 and 38:4-7, and Revelation 4-5.
All of these contentions have plausible support through out Scripture. Consider the Saints in the resurrection receive a glorified body (1 Corinthians 15:42-53) and are joint heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17) and will judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:2-3). Also consider the passages dealing with Cherubim (Ezekiel 10), Seraphim (Isaiah 6), the four living creatures, the 24 elders, myriads of angels and the saints of the Throne Room in Revelation 4 and 5. In Job 1:6 we learn that “6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord (YHWH), and Satan also came among them.” Likewise, in Job 2:1, “Again there was a day when the sons of God (Elohim) came to present themselves before the Lord (YHWH), and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord.”
The Cherubim with wheels within wheels are the foundation of the Throne of God in Ezekiel 10, they guard entrance into the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3, and God had two golden cherubim surrounding the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant.
The Seraphim are seen hovering over the Throne of God, perhaps as guardians of the Throne, in Isaiah 6:1-6. The four living creatures in Revelation 4 are around the Throne of God on each side.
Although these could all be descriptions of the same things, these are three different events in which Cherubim are described supporting the Throne. The Seraphim are over the Throne. The four living creatures are around the throne. The Cherubim, the Seraphim and the four living creatures appear to be closest to God in some type of hierarchal position followed by the Twenty-Four Elders, the angels and the saints.
So, why does Dr. Heiser believe the term Elohim is a term of residence and not a term of attributes? This believe arises out of the Hebrew use of the term “Elohim” in Psalm 82. Psalm 82:1 says “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:” In Hebrew, this says, “Elohim has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of Elohim he holds judgment.” Elohim’s most common translations are “God” (singular) or “gods” (plural) depending upon context.
In Psalm 82:1, the context is clear. Chief Elohim (“God”) convenes the divine council to judge within the Elohim (“gods”) for judging unjustly and for showing partiality to the wicked. In declaring this judgment, God said, “You are gods (Elohim), sons of the Most-High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” Psalm 82:5 ESV
This Scripture clearly delineates between Elohim and men. The Elohim in this text are spiritual beings, but they shall die like men. The Elohim are spiritual beings in this context.
Mr. Henning on the other hand bases his arguments not on the translation of Elohim into English, but rather on the interpretation of the meaning of the translation. In other words, the translation is clear. Elohim convenes the divine counsel to pass judgment on certain of the Elohim. Mr. Henning goes through a very painful process of attempting to interpret “gods” to mean “angels” or “human kings and rulers” when the text clearly says “gods.” As we will see below, the Bible does have specific terms for angels and rulers.
The foundation of his bias and basis for his insistence is that if you take the Hebrew Scripture in Psalm 82 literally that somehow you are a polytheist. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. And, I will demonstrate the flaws in Mr. Henning’s arguments that Dr. Heiser is a polytheistic, neo-gnostic, gnostic, marcionistic, pagan heretic.
The Hebrew in Psalm 82:1 clearly states “God {Elohim) presides in the great (divine) assembly: he renders judgment among the gods (Elohim). Dr. Heiser’s conclusion that YHWH is Elohim (God) who created and is superior to the sons of Elohim (Sons of God) is not polytheism. Again, Mr. Henning is playing semantical word games by ignoring the use of the Hebrew term Elohim and focusing on the English terms God and gods to declare that Dr. Heiser is a polytheist. Apparently, according to Mr. Henning, if Dr. Heiser were to ignore the express language of 82:1 and call the gods, angels or human rulers, all would be well.
Paganism
This is where Mr. Henning makes his next major blunder in logical argument. He concludes that Dr. Heiser imposes a pagan worldview on the Biblical authors and declares “the Bible itself commanded the Israelites to not enquire into the theology of their pagan neighbors” (Deuteronomy 12:29-32).
However, Mr. Henning cites a Scripture that does not say what he purports it to say. The same is true for all of his laundry list of Scripture cites that he lists. Mr. Henning contends Deuteronomy 12:29-32 forbids enquiry into the theology of Israel’s pagan neighbors.
What Deuteronomy actually says is God has destroyed the nations for Israel so do not study (inquire) after their religious practices to adopt and practice them. So what is prohibited is not the inquiry into pagan practices. What is prohibited is inquiring into pagan beliefs and practices for the purpose of adopting such beliefs and practices and worshiping YHWH in their way.
Deuteronomy 12:29-31 states, 29 The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, 30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” 31 You must not worship the Lord (YHWH) your God (your Elohim) in their way, because in worshiping their gods (Elohim), they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord (YHWH) hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods (Elohim).
This is a fundamental mistake by Mr. Henning. He distorts the Scripture in making his doctrine. The text says be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same. Mr. Henning says “the Bible itself commanded the Israelites to not enquire into the theology of their pagan neighbors.” This is similar to Eve adding “neither shall you touch it” to God’s prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Mr. Henning effectively adds “neither shall you read or even touch pagan literature.”
Mr. Henning claims Dr. Heiser’s hermeneutics (a term he fails to define) fail by interpreting “Scripture in light of pagan literature to interject polytheism into the Bible.” This simply is not true. Dr. Heiser examines the Hebrew text of Psalm 82 and then examines the context of the Scripture and the audience, which includes an examination of terms as understood by that generation. This leads Dr. Heiser to examine the pagan literatures to see what the Biblical author may have in mind when using certain terms. At no time does Dr. Heiser adopt pagan practices in his theology and worship of God.
Mr. Henning lost much credibility when he misquoted Deuteronomy 12 to say it was forbidden to even inquire about paganism in examining the original intent of the Biblical writers. He also placed numerous other citations for the same proposition. The problem is I looked them all up and all of them were against the Israelites learning pagan practices for the purposes of worshipping YHWH in this manner.
Nowhere does it prohibit reading pagan literature for the purpose of understanding the social environment of the audience. This reminds me of a particular case in which the opposing counsel would cite particular law cases to support a position he was taking. But every time we examined the cites, the cases did not say what he said they said. This is a major blunder for someone who purports to cast judgment on a fellow believer.
Gnosticism and Marcionism
Mr. Henning introduces the extremely complex term of Gnosticism, again without any definition, and with a summary declaration that Dr. Heiser’s teachings are gnostic; hence his title “Dr. Heiser’s Gnostic Heresy”. I would think if one is to characterize someone’s beliefs as Gnostic heresy, the first step would be to define Gnosticism, which Mr. Henning does not do and then apply those concepts to Dr. Heiser’s teaching, which he cannot do since he has not properly defined the fundamentals of gnostic belief.
A little research shows there is no set standard of gnostic beliefs. The basic tenant of Gnosticism is the elevation of knowledge (gnosis) as the means of salvation. Gnosticism as known by the church began in the 1st century A.D. and plagued the church during the 2nd century and was a constant challenge to the Early Church Fathers who addressed it frequently in their writings.
The most general belief of a gnostic is that a supreme hidden God exists as does a malevolent lesser God who created the material universe. Gnostics considered material existence flawed or evil, and held the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the hidden divinity, attained via mystical or esoteric insight. Many Gnostic texts deal not in concepts of sin and repentance, but with illusion and enlightenment.[3] …In the Gnostic Christian tradition, Christ is seen as a divine being which has taken human form in order to lead humanity back to recognition of its own divine nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism.
Dr. Heiser on the other hand believes YHWH created all things and is Supreme. He believes YHWH is One. He believes the only way to salvation is through the death, resurrection and the atoning blood of Jesus who was fully God and fully man. Although Dr. Heiser does contend man was created to be an image of God, he does not contend we are gods in our mortal state or that we become gods except as may be granted through Jesus Christ in the resurrection.
Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say about gnosticism: Another frequently encountered theme is that there is a special class or race of humans that is descended from the transcendent realm and is destined to achieve salvation and to return to its spiritual origins. Salvation is understood as a revelation that reawakens knowledge (gnosis) of the race’s divine identity; in contrast, the traditional Christian emphasis is on redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. https://www.britannica.com/topic/gnosticism
None of these basic tenants of Gnosticism exist in Dr. Heiser’s writings and teachings that I have found. As Mr. Henning noted, Dr. Heiser directed Mr. Henning to his discussion of Gnosticism in which Dr. Heiser identifies and rejects gnostic teachings. Mr. Henning criticizes Dr. Heiser for directing him to his teaching on Gnosticism but does not indicate he actually looked it up and did not attempt to refute anything Dr. Heiser said in that teaching.
Mr. Henning attributes the belief in a council of gods to Gnosticism and Marcionism. This is simply not true because it comes from actual Bible passages. Some gnostics and some marcionists may have used similar concepts, but the concept of a council of gods arises out of Scripture and not from these religious sects.
For the record, Miriam Webster defines Marcionism as follows: the doctrinal system of a sect of the second and third centuries a.d. accepting some parts of the New Testament but denying Christ’s corporality and humanity and condemning the Creator God of the Old Testament.
Dr. Heiser’s interpretation of Psalm 82 is consistent with the express Hebrew text. Nowhere does Dr. Heiser adopt, support or defend the basic gnostic and marcionistic beliefs.
This is where Mr. Henning makes another flawed guilt by association argument. The argument is as follows: Because this notion of a council of gods can be found in Gnosticism and Marcionism, any interpretation that Psalm 82 is referencing a council of gods is therefore, gnostic or marcionist. Mr. Henning does not seem to understand that when making a comparison, one must limit the points of comparison to avoid mere speculation, and before declaring a doctrinal belief to be heresy, one must fully define the doctrinal beliefs that are the object of comparison and explain how they are similar or different at their core beliefs.
Mr. Henning fails to define the intricacies of gnostic belief or make any logical connection between basic gnostic principles and Dr. Heiser’s doctrinal beliefs that would justify Mr. Henning to declare Dr. Heiser’s doctrine to be gnostic. The same goes for Marcionism.
Scripture Twisting by Mr. Henning
In his attempt to redefine Elohim to mean earthly rulers and judges or as angels, Mr. Henning challenges Dr. Heiser’s definition of Elohim starting with Brown-Drivers-Briggs Lexicon’s definition of Elohim as “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power; …Ex 21:6… b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels…c. angels, sons of God…”
From this cite, Mr. Henning states “Notably, BDB offers “human” judges or rulers as the first definition.” However, nowhere in the definition quoted by Mr. Henning does BDB state “human” judges or rulers. Mr. Henning simply adds the word “human” to the definition.
The BDB does add a reference cite including Exodus 21:6, which is the only cite Mr. Henning includes in his quote. So, let’s take a closer look at Exodus 21:5-6, which says: “ 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God (Elohim), and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.”
In other words, the master brings the slave offered freedom before God as an oath to become a lifetime slave after which the master bores his ear through with an awl. Nowhere does this passage say the slave should be brought before a human judge. Also, Mr. Henning does not seem to understand that a dictionary merely provides meanings based upon contextual uses of a term. Just because a dictionary lists several meanings, does not mean one can choose which one is correct apart from the contextual usage of the term.
Mr. Henning’s logic goes like this. Because definition a. from BDB lists rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power, that definitively means Elohim must mean “human” rulers or judges. He ignores that Elohim also can mean “divine ones, superhuman beings and angels.” But even assuming definition a. is the correct contextual usage for our passages, nothing about this definition indicates whether these rulers or judges are human or superhuman. Mr. Henning adds the term “human” to judges or rulers. BDB adds no such term. This definition could easily describe supernatural beings set up in the Kingdom of God as principalities and powers.
In response to Mr. Henning’s insistence that Elohim means human judges or rulers, consider that Exodus 21:6 follows immediately after YHWH gives the Ten Commandments and the Israelites are refusing to approach God on the Mountain even though God has invited them to come so he can communicate with them directly because they fear they will die on the Mountain. So, we go from God giving the Ten Commandments to God giving civil law. At the point of Exodus 21:6 there is no reference to human judges and rulers. There are no judges or rulers referenced except for God in Exodus 21:6.
However, in Exodus 21:22, there is a clear reference to judges other than God and it clearly states that if a pregnant woman is hit during a dispute between men, but her child is born unharmed, the one who hit her shall be fined as imposed by a judge (Shaphat). So, within the same passage as Exodus 21:6 at 21:22, there is a specific term for judge and it is Shaphat and not Elohim.
Likewise, In Exodus 22:28, there is a distinction between “Elohim” and “ruler” (Nasi). This passage says “You shall not revile (qalal) God (Elohim), nor curse (arar) a ruler (Nasi) of your people.” Qalal (revile) basically means to revile, abate or despise. Revile generally means to reproach angrily and abusively, scold, rebuking in irritation, or a scurrilous, abusive attack prompted by anger or hatred. Abate means generally to cause to diminish or become less. Despise means to feel contempt. Arar (curse) means to curse bitterly. Nasi (rulers) means king, ruler, governor, etc.
So again, within the same general passage, the term “Nasi” for ruler appears and is distinguished from Elohim. Literally, Exodus 22:28 expressly states, you shall not revile Elohim (God) nor bitterly curse a Nasi (ruler) of your people. In other words, if Moses wanted to refer to human judges and rulers, he would have used Shaphat (judges) and Nasi (rulers) rather than Elohim (God) which he also used in the same passage.
While we are looking at Exodus, let’s consider the passages in Exodus that make reference to an “Angel.” The Hebrew term for “angel” in Exodus is “malak.” In Exodus 3:2 the angel (malak) of the LORD (YHWH) appeared before Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush. In Exodus 14:19, the angel (malak) of God (Elohim) who was going before the host of Israel moved and went behind them.
In Exodus 23:20, “Behold I send an angel (malak) before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared…When my angel (malak) goes before you and brings you to the Ammonites, etc. you shall not bow down to their gods (Elohim) nor serve them. In Exodus 32:34, “Behold, my angel (Malak) shall go before you. In Exodus 33:2, “I will send an angel (Malak) before you and I will drive out the Canaanites, Amorites, etc.”
So, in Exodus alone, there is a clear delineation between Elohim (God), elohim (gods), shaphat (judges), nasi (rulers), and malak (angels). Moses had no problem distinguishing between these terms. He used them all in appropriate settings within the same passages. Moses was not confused. Mr. Henning appears to be confused.
Mr. Henning contends Elohim must mean human judges or rulers or angels. Moses could have easily said that, but he does not. However, Mr. Henning says that. Moses does not flippantly use the term Elohim. He knows when to use the term Elohim as opposed to when to use terms like shaphat (judges), nasi (rulers) and malak (angels). Mr. Henning contends Moses really meant shaphat, nasi or malak when he used the term Elohim. This makes no sense to me and reminds me of the time a lawyer argued to the Court that the word “and” should be interpreted as “or.”
Did Hezekiah consider the gods of other nations to be no gods but rather idols?
Concerning Hezekiah, king of Judah, in Isaiah 37:20, Mr. Henning states, “Hezekiah considered the gods of other nations ‘no gods, but the work of mans hands, wood and stone (Isaiah 37:20).” He cites this verse to say there is no such thing as other gods and then he equates gods to idols. He considers them to be synonymous, but they are not. This is clear from a closer look at the actual context of this statement.
In Isaiah 36 and 37, we find the context of Isaiah 37:20. In Isaiah 36, Sennacherib, King of Assyria, was attacking and laying waste to the fortified cities of Samaria and Judah. He sent a messenger to Hezekiah, king of Judah, in Jerusalem with a demand for King Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to surrender (Isaiah 36).
Isaiah 36: 13 Then the Rabshakeh stood and called out in a loud voice in the language of Judah: “Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria! 14 Thus says the king: ‘Do not let Hezekiah deceive you, for he will not be able to deliver you. 15 Do not let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord (YHWH) by saying, “The Lord (YHWH) will surely deliver us. This city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.” 16 Do not listen to Hezekiah. For thus says the king of Assyria: Make your peace with me[b] and come out to me. Then each one of you will eat of his own vine, and each one of his own fig tree, and each one of you will drink the water of his own cistern, 17 until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and wine, a land of bread and vineyards.
18 Beware lest Hezekiah mislead you by saying, “The Lord (YHWH) deliver us.” Has any of the gods (Elohim) of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? 19 Where are the gods (Elohim) Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods (Elohim) of Sepharvaim? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? 20 Who among all the gods (Elohim) of these lands have delivered their lands out of my hand, that the Lord (YHWH) should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?’” Isaiah 36:13-20).
In Isaiah 37, 5 When the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah, 6 Isaiah said to them, “Say to your master, ‘Thus says the Lord (YHWH): Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the young men of the king of Assyria have reviled me. 7 Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land, and I will make him fall by the sword in his own land.’” Isaiah37:5-7.
Isaiah37: 9b: Sennacherib sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying, 10 “Thus shall you speak to Hezekiah king of Judah: ‘Do not let your God (Elohim) in whom you trust deceive you by promising that Jerusalem will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. Isaiah 37:9b-10.
14 Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it; and Hezekiah went up to the house of the Lord (YHWH), and spread it before the Lord (YHWH). 15 And Hezekiah prayed to the Lord (YHWH): 16 “O Lord (YHWH) of hosts, God (Elohim) of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God (the Elohim), you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. 17 Incline your ear, O Lord YHWH) and hear; open your eyes, O Lord (YHWH), and see; and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which he has sent to mock the living God (Elohim). 18 Truly, O Lord (YHWH), the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the nations and their lands, 19 and have cast their gods (Elohim) into the fire. For they were no gods (Elohim) but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. Therefore, they were destroyed. 20 So now, O Lord (YHWH) our God (Elohim), save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are the Lord (YHWH).”
In this passage, Sennacherib defeated other nations and their gods (elohim) were unable to save them evidenced by Sennacherib’s burning of their wood and stone idols. He is now declaring to Judah that YHWH is unable to save them. He is reviling YHWH comparing him to the gods (Elohim) of the nations and declaring YHWH is unable to save them.
Hezekiah in his plea for help from YHWH against the king of Assyria acknowledges that while Sennacherib boasts of defeating the gods (Elohim) of the nations, what he actually destroyed were not gods (elohim) but rather mere idols made by man of wood and stone. Then he pleads “So Now , O LORD (YHWH) our God (Elohim), save Judah so that all the kingdoms of earth may know that he alone is LORD (YHWH). In other words, the gods (Elohim) of the nations were unable to stop Sennacherib, but YHWH certainly can. This passage in no way declares idols and gods (Elohim) to be synonymous. Hezekiah notes that while Sennacherib has defeated nations, claims to have destroyed their gods, and declares YHWH is unable to save Judah, he in fact has only destroyed the idols of the nations and certainly cannot defeat or destroy YHWH, who is Judah’s Elohim. Thus, this passage does not equate gods and idols, it actually draws a distinction between the two.
WHAT IS THIS REALLY ABOUT?
First, let me define the real issue at stake here. Dr. Heiser argues the Scriptures clearly state that in the supernatural world, there are disembodied living spirits, that are all created by YHWH and exist in some sort of hierarchy under the Lordship of YHWH. They are known as elohim, gods, sons of God, hosts of heaven, etc. He also argues that per the Scriptures, God communicates with a divine council of gods (elohim) regarding mankind and passes judgment on the gods (elohim) for their wicked rule. It is at this point that Mr. Henning declares that Dr. Heiser is a polytheist and a pagan for believing there is more than One God.
While I can appreciate Mr. Henning’s devotion to defending that God is one, that issue is not in dispute here and the parties are in agreement. This leaves me wondering what the fuss is all about.
Mr. Henning never states why it matters whether celestial beings are called angels, gods, sons of God (Rom. 8:14, 19, Job 1:6 and 2:1, Gen. 6:2-4, Job 38:7, Galatians 3:26, Matthew 5:9), or Children of God (John 1:12; Philippians 2:15; Rom. 8:16), or “Heavenly Host” (Luke 2:8-13), or Host of Heaven (Nehemiah 9:6, Jer. 33:22, 1 Kings 22:19; Acts 7:35-43; 2 Kings 21:3; 2 Kings 23:5), or Spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12), Cherubim (Ezekiel 10, Gen. 3), Seraphim (Is. 6:1-8), Archangels (Revelation 12:7, Luke 1:19), Four Living Creatures (Revelation 4:6-9, 5:6-14, 6:1-8, 14:3, 15:7, 19:4; Ez. 1 and Ez. 10, Is. 6:1-3)
Therefore, the only controversy is whether we should name the host of heaven as Elohim, gods, sons of God, the heavenly host, angels, Archangels, Seraphim, Cherubim, living creatures, or demons. Does it really matter? We all agree they are disembodied living spirits that exist in the supernatural, unless Mr. Henning insists the supernatural world does not exist, which would directly contradict the Scriptures.
Does it really matter whether it is an assembly of Elohim or if it is an assembly gods or an assembly of sons of God, or an assembly of angels, etc.?
The Scriptures are clear that supernatural living spirits exist and some have rebelled against God. Some are already judged while others will be judged in the end. In the resurrection at the end of time, we will receive a glorified spiritual body and will be joint heirs with Christ who sits at the right hand of the Father. We will be equal with all other righteous disembodied spirits (angels or Elohim if you wish). We will reign with Christ and we will judge unrighteous Elohim (angels, if you wish).
What is my real rub with Mr. Henning’s articles?
So-called Apologists who specialize in attacking beliefs of other Christians
So, what is my real rub with Mr. Henning’s article? My real rub is with the plethora of wannabe websites and/or youtube.com theologians that try to make a name for themselves by criticizing and demonizing fellow Christian believers.
Believe it or not, God does not call them to fight within the Church over doctrine. The call of God is clear, go into the nations, preaching the Gospel of Christ, making disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, to be ready to defend your beliefs when called upon to do so and to avoid those who abandon the doctrines of Jesus and the first century apostles.
If there is a call for internet theologians, it should be directed at clear workings of evil in the world and community such as violent crime, human trafficking, abortion, those seeking a one world government, total domination and power, and those seeking to destroy our right to religious freedom. They should also focus on evangelistic outreach, feeding and clothing the poor, taking care of the orphans and widows, visiting those in prison, and unifying and edifying the body of Christ.
What the internet theologians must understand is the Gospel and grace are not only free, salvation is simple and ready for the masses who are not versed in church or bible doctrine. It is available to the poor, the infirmed, and the uneducated, as well as the fit and educated.
So, what is required to receive salvation through Jesus Christ? God has made salvation very easy and not subject to the corrupt doctrines of the organized church. Romans 10: 5-10 tells us how to be saved: 6 But the righteousness based on faith says… “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
It is very simple. There is no requirement that anyone needs to fully understand Bible doctrine to be saved. Once saved (justified), however, the believer should be renewing his or her mind by the reading of the word (sanctification).
I say that to say this. It is one thing to compare doctrinal teaching to the Scriptural canon in search of the true meaning of Scripture. It is another to demonize and label fellow believers because of their doctrinal differences, especially when it is done without substantive evidence and in a biased manner. For this reason, I believe Romans 2:1-3 is right on point.
Romans 2:1-3, “Therefore, you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
Romans:16:17-18 – 17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[f] and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.
In my opinion, Mr. Henning, while I am sure he has good intentions, casts judgments upon Dr. Heiser that are neither reasonable nor justified. Furthermore, they do not appear to be in defense to a challenge to his own beliefs and statements, but rather as an orchestrated attack on a fellow believer without justification.
While I am sure Mr. Henning will say that Romans 16:17-18 should be a warning to Dr. Heiser, in my opinion, Mr. Henning should pay very close attention. Mr. Henning comes across not as a true theologian who is willing to discuss and examine opposing views. Rather, he comes across as very arrogant, snarky and dogmatic, but he does not back it up with substance. He ignores the basic principles of hermeneutics using terms of art without any context or definition and then categorically applies them to Dr. Heiser. He painfully reads his bias into Psalm 82 and Exodus 21 to redefine elohim to suit his bias.
Mr. Henning accuses Dr. Heiser of having a bad hermeneutic philosophy and therefore, a bad hermeneutic method. However, Dr. Heiser follows all fundamental principles of hermeneutics, while Mr. Henning makes up his own principles of hermeneutics and fails to follow the fundamental principles like ascertaining the true intent of the original author to the original audience and extracting doctrine from the Scripture rather than reading bias into the Scripture.
Mr. Henning reads bias into the Scriptural texts. He adds words that do not exist in the text to twist the Scripture as he did in Deuteronomy 12:29-32 by saying it prohibits inquiry into pagan religions and as he did by adding human judges and rulers or angels to the meaning of Elohim in Exodus 21 and Psalm 82.
He ignores the fact that Moses in the same passage in Exodus uses specific Hebrew words of Elohim (God or gods), Shaphat (judges), Nasi (rulers) and Malak (angels). Yet, Mr. Henning insists that Elohim should be interpreted to mean human judges or rulers or angels or even idols, which is a read into the Scripture rather than an extraction out of the Scripture.
Mr. Henning never fully states Dr. Heiser’s doctrinal beliefs
Mr. Henning never fully states Dr. Heiser’s statement of doctrinal belief, which is necessary for an analysis of whether Dr. Heiser’s doctrinal beliefs are in line with orthodox Christianity or are in line with polytheism, paganism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, and heresy. Mr. Henning then introduces these terms without definition, does not identify specific points of belief that would classify his doctrines as gnostic, pagan, polytheistic or heresy on these matters, does not academically discuss the merits and faults of a complete statement of belief, but instead summarily labels Dr. Heiser’s beliefs to be polytheistic, gnostic, pagan and heresy.
More Guilt by Association Accusations by Mr. Henning
Mr. Henning first attacks Dr. Hauser by stating that his degree is from a liberal secular University. Therefore, again, guilt by association. I have always said, it’s not the university that makes one successful, but rather the individual. I have known very average people come out of very prestigious universities and I have seen incredibly brilliant people come out of no name universities.
Let’s take a look at Dr. Heiser’s resume. Here is a link to his Curriculum Vitae: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Cumulative-Resume-2021.pdf As you will see, it goes on for 12 pages. While Dr. Heiser’s interpretations of the Bible may or may not be right on any given text, he certainly has a very enviable resume, and clearly has the experience and training as a significant theologian. On the other hand, I could not find information concerning Mr. Henning’s formal training although he does give his testimony on his website. Mr. Henning professes to read Hebrew.
Primary Sources vs. Secondary Sources
While Dr. Heiser bases his interpretations on primary evidence, Mr. Henning appears to base his interpretations on secondary sources and traditions for his philosophical world view. He demonizes any other philosophical world view.
Bible manuscripts and accepted canon are primary sources. Contemporaneous evidence of culture and audience of the original scriptural writings are secondary sources but can have significant probative value from an evidentiary point of view. Scriptures typically apply to the original audience directly and to the future indirectly, or said another way, the original is a type and the future is an anti-type. Scriptures tend to be fulfilled physically/spiritually first and then again physically/spiritually later.
Church and Doctrinal History
The problem with treating doctrinal history as primary evidence is that corruption tends to creep in when the Church doctrine controls over the Word of God. If we are to use the traditions of men, at what point does one start the traditional timeline? Jesus and the Disciples? The first century New Testament writers? The second century early church fathers? The third and fourth century Councils? The Roman and Byzantine Churches? The Protestant Reformation? The Great Awakening?
Why can it be wrong to examine church and doctrinal traditions? Jesus spoke against the traditions of men. They tend to lead to corruption of the truth as we find in the various churches today. While one should not discard a tradition solely because it is a tradition, one should not keep a tradition solely because it is a tradition. The existing bible manuscripts are the best and primary evidence followed by the printed Holy Bible. Where tradition contradicts the express language of the Scripture, the traditions of the church must be reconsidered.
So, in other words, like Paul said in Romans 2:1-3, For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.
Conclusion
I can understand why Dr. Heiser refused to engage Mr. Henning on this matter. It was not worth his effort. It was best just to avoid him. Dr. Heiser has been very ill but has managed to keep speaking and serving on behalf of the Kingdom of God. The last thing he needs is to be distracted from the Lord’s calling to defend himself against a fellow believer who is unjustifiably attacking him and his beliefs and causing division within the saints.
I would suggest that Mr. Henning quit flyspecking fellow believers and turn his attention to an unsaved world and the real enemy of God and the Church. If you have not figured out there is a current end times battle with the beasts and anti-Christ waging across the globe and now throughout the United States, then you do not really understand the battle we are in. Without saying we are in the actual end of times, a quick look at what is happening in the world today has the appearance of a dragon that has been released from his chains and allowed one final attempt to deceive the nations.
With vile perversions running rampant in society today, the church must stand up for righteousness and the salvation of souls. Let me say one final opinion of the significance of theology. As they say in basketball, you can play with all the enthusiasm of a real player but in the end it is about the buckets scored. In the Kingdom of God, it is all about the salvations. Theology is important to keep the Church from becoming corrupt, but salvation is for the masses rather than the self -appointed elites. His yoke is easy and His burden is light. It is for the poor, the uneducated, the sick, the meek, the imprisoned. They are not required to understand theology. God judges the heart of individuals not the perfection of their understanding of doctrine.
Mr. Henning needs to apologize to Dr. Heiser and stop demonizing fellow believers for their doctrinal differences.