Last year I was quietly removed from the “DIVINE COUNCIL WORLDVIEW – Bible Discussion Group” on Facebook. The reason? I was “disingenuous.”

The real issue?

I had written a book (The Unseen Throne) that respectfully but directly challenges Michael Heiser’s reading of Psalm 82, Deuteronomy 32, and the nature of Yahweh’s council. I was not denying supernatural beings or a heavenly assembly. I was arguing that Scripture presents it as a courtroom where Yahweh alone decrees, not a deliberative co-ruling body.

Fast-forward to a week or so ago.

Someone in that same group posted my recent Substack article (“The Courtroom of Yahweh Is Not an Ancient Near Eastern Divine Council”). The reactions poured in. Since I am no longer in the group, a friend thought I might be interested in what they say about me and my book when I'm not in the room.

What I saw was a textbook case of how online theology communities often respond to disagreement.

This is not the only article I have written on the topic, by the way. In fact, I have published three or four others here on Substack, diving deeper into specific texts and assumptions. Across all of them, I have seen engagement in the comments. One article has over 70 comments. Yet, what I keep finding is that people are so entrenched in their understanding that they read it and interpret it in a way that it just does not say. Like when Michael Heiser says that in First Kings 22, Yahweh invites deliberation, when he never does that. And so people really seem to not understand the significance of the nuance. What follows is a look at the responses and what it reveals about disagreement in these spaces.

1. The Easy Dismissals: “Self-Published,” “Calvinist,” “Out of His Depth”

Several comments never engaged the actual arguments. Instead:

“Just another reformed Calvinist that doesn’t want to change.”
“I mean its a self published book that is going against an avalanche of scholarship.”
“Yet another critic out of their depth.”

These are classic genetic fallacies.

They attack the source instead of the substance. I am not hiding my background: one semester of Bible college, no ANE doctorate, self-published through my own small press. But credentials do not determine truth. The screenshots show no one quoted my actual exegesis of Job 1–2, 1 Kings 22, or Psalm 89. They simply assumed anyone questioning Heiser’s deliberative council must be a rigid Calvinist trying to protect absolute sovereignty. Truth be told, that never even entered my mind, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my position on the nature, function or structure of Yahweh's courtroom.

I remember someone in this group before I was removed told me verbatim, "Your position cannot be right because Michael Heiser would have known about it, and he didn't hold it." That was a real comment to me. Talk about a serious appeal to authority and personality worship.

2. The Substantive Pushback (and Where It Falls Short)

A few comments did try to engage. The strongest came from Carey Griffel (group admin) and Randy Henson. They argued that my view makes the council “not actually function like a council” and that I fail to see the “cumulative case” connecting Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, and Daniel 10.

Carey wrote:

“That author is taking a very hardline Calvinistic definition of ‘sovereignty,’ saying that God has a council, but it doesn’t actually function like a council… The DCW is held by many in the reformed/Calvinistic tradition.”

Randy summarized Heiser’s position well:

“Yahweh is utterly unique… His claim is that Scripture describes a real heavenly administration of created spiritual beings who participate in God’s rule under His authority.”

I appreciate the clarity. But here is the core problem: their “cumulative case” assumes the very connections I argue lack textual warrant. First, Deuteronomy 32 (or any text, for that matter!) never says the sons of God rebelled and became the gods judged in Psalm 82. Daniel 10 never says the Prince of Persia was ever a faithful son of God given moral and judicial authority to rule over the nations in an act of judgment at Babel the way the DCW interpretation of Psalm 82 requires.

These links are theological scaffolding, not exegetical conclusions.

In fact, at a more fundamental level, they have failed to even demonstrate from the Scripture the nature and structure of Yahweh's assembly as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Nowhere in Scripture do we see lesser elohim proposing alternatives, voting, or negotiating with Yahweh the way human councils or ANE divine assemblies do. What we consistently see is Yahweh decreeing, and subordinates reporting, accusing, or executing. This is exactly what a courtroom looks like, not a co-ruling Senate.

They simply do what every other proponent of this position does, and that is, they assume they are of you to be true, and then go hunting for prooftexts that they can string together, without biblical warrant or exegetical foundation, in order to prove it. For example, yes, Daniel 10 reveals there is such a thing as organized, territorial spiritual opposition to Yahweh. But this does not prove (or even support!) the broader idea that faithful sons of God later fell or were given moral and judicial oversight over the nations after Yahweh forsook them.

3. Repeating the Party Line: Assumptions Without Demonstration

Many commenters simply repeated the same party lines, filled to the brim with assumptions they failed to demonstrate from the text.

For example, Zach Althoff said I do not seem to understand Daniel 7:

“How did we get to the point where spiritual beings are aligned with oppressive empires and then judged? Whether they rebelled ‘once’ or were in rebellion or a period, they have some kind of AUTHORITY and are being overthrown. They are not just servants and messengers.”

He then adds on Job 1-2:

“There is a conversation, and a deliberation. The way violence unfolds against Job is down to ha Satan’s choices, albeit with permission from YHWH.”

This does not even represent what I believe. And it seems obvious he has not studied the text, what I say about it, or what commentators note about the functionary role of Satan in this passage. Job 1-2 is not a deliberation; it is an accusation in a courtroom setting, with Yahweh issuing the decree. There is no co-ruling or negotiation. And Satan does not function as a spiritual adversary.

Then Carlos Niño Fernandez claimed my position is simply that the other beings are “servants” and nothing else:

“Basically disagreeing with the role of other beings, that other beings in the other world are just ‘servants’ and nothing else. This I believe is one major bone of contention against the DCW.”

Well, I go through every single traditional divine council text in the Hebrew Bible and show that there are attendants and worshipers and witnesses and functionaries like Satan, and those who appear before him to report, and then there are those who carry out his will. You can call them servants, but what else would you call them? And where is there a single example of some kind of co-ruling? Additionally, how are we to understand even the spiritual beings that are present in 1 Kings 22? Is this the supposed Divine Council? Is this a body of fallen spiritual rulers by this time who have lost their immortality and have been stripped, and yet they are simply coming to present themselves before Yahweh? Or is this another group? Again, I outline this in detail both in the article and the book, and they never actually deal with the arguments.

Gary Davis said:

“This is not what Michael was trying to say.”

Yet I quoted Michael Heiser throughout the book. I did not misrepresent him. I spent hundreds of hours reading, listening, looking at transcripts, and quoted him in full and accurately. I did this fairly and consistently presenting his views, often in his own words.

One of the things I heard repeatedly when I was in the group, and see echoed in these comments, is that I really “do not understand” the position that I am trying to critique.

Michael Hohman claimed that what I was not able to do was show how everything fits together:

“The strength of Mike’s view is the cumulative case… Dempsey’s argument is an interpretation of Psalm 82, but it struggles to explain how Psalm 82, Deuteronomy 32, Daniel 10, and the New Testament references to spiritual rulers all connect… So Dempsey remains pretty myopic in his argument without building any substantive truth around it.”

That is simply not true. I argued that the Bible presents a consistent narrative of organized hierarchical spiritual opposition to Yahweh. I also argued that the prince of Persia and Greece, etc., were territorial spiritual opposition. I have no problem with that. I say so in articles and in my book. However, what the Bible never even intimates is that this hierarchy or spiritual opposition used to be the faithful administration of Yahweh, who were stripped of their immortality in judgment.

4. A Council That Does Not Council Is Not a Council?

One slogan kept popping up in the comments, and a lot of people got behind it as if it carried deep insight: “A council that doesn’t council is not a council” (Dave Chesser, echoed by others like Zeal Stoker). It is catchy, sure. But let us really break it down. Is this a profound critique, or just a play on English words that misses the Hebrew Bible’s nuances?

A deep dive on the key Hebrew terms for “council” in the Bible reveals that the slogan cuts against English word choice more than the actual Hebrew. Scripture’s terms for divine assemblies do not always imply deliberation; they often describe a royal court where Yahweh alone rules, with subordinates witnessing, reporting, or executing.

Main Hebrew Terms:

Sôd (סוֹד): Means “confidential counsel/secret plan/intimate circle” (e.g., Amos 3:7: Yahweh reveals His sôd to prophets). It is the word for a deliberative council. But in divine scenes (Jer 23:18-22), prophets “stand in the sôd” to hear Yahweh’s word, not advise Him. It is revelation downward, not mutual planning.
ʿĒdāh (עֵדָה): “Assembly/congregation” (Ps 82:1 as ʿēdat-ʾēl). Often judicial (Num 27:17), emphasizing gathered witnesses/judges under a leader. It fits a courtroom, not a senate.
Qāhāl (קָהָל): “Summoned assembly” (Ps 89:5-7 as qĕhal qĕdōšīm). Public/proclamatory (Deut 31:30), with praise or ratification. Again, affirmation of decrees, not co-creation.

In the Divine Council Texts:

Psalm 82 uses ʿēdāh, not sôd. Yahweh “stands” to judge alone amid the assembly. No deliberation; it is a royal court scene.
Other passages (1 Kgs 22, Job 1-2) show no co-ruling: Spirits volunteer for Yahweh’s set plan; Satan accuses as a functionary. Commentators (e.g., Clines on Job) note Satan’s role as prosecutor in a court, not advisor.
The Bible consistently subverts ANE deliberative councils (Ugaritic gods debating) to affirm Yahweh’s absolute sovereignty. Like ancient kings with absolute power, surrounded by attendants who execute, not negotiate.

This slogan may sound clever, but it assumes “council” must mean “joint deliberation.” In Hebrew, divine assemblies (ʿēdāh/qāhāl/sôd) function as royal courts: Yahweh decrees; others witness/report/execute. That is exactly my book’s position. A council that does not co-counsel is still a council, just not the deliberative kind Heiser envisions.

5. The Irony: “Heiser Would Not Have Replied”

CK Reeder wrote:

“I do not think Heiser would have replied to this guy at all. He is just a dude with a blog and a self-published book. Heiser was pretty discriminating about responding to critics… responding to critics is usually a waste of time unless the critic has raised important points, or is intellectually influential, or has a large audience…”

That comment perfectly illustrates the dynamic. When the author is not “around,” critique is easy. When the author is (or was) in the group, suddenly the response shifts to gatekeeping: “You are not important enough to engage.”

I was removed last year for the same reason. I asked questions that challenged the consensus. The group did not want dialogue; it wanted reinforcement.

What This Actually Reveals

This is not unique to the Divine Council community. It is a pattern across many online theology spaces:

Disagreement is reframed as infiltration or bad faith.
Substantive critique is met with appeals to the founder’s authority rather than the text.
When the critic has no academic pedigree, the response defaults to credentials instead of exegesis.

I still embrace much of the supernatural worldview Heiser recovered. I believe in real spiritual beings, a heavenly assembly, and cosmic geography. I just do not believe the biblical texts present that assembly as a deliberative, co-ruling body. Yahweh’s council is a courtroom. And that reading requires no ANE smuggling and no theological bucket labeled “mirroring.”

If you disagree, I am happy to talk. I am not here to tear down Heiser. I am here to test ideas against the text. That is all I have ever done.

What do you think happens when the author actually shows up in the comments? Have you seen similar dynamics in other groups?