Loyal or Rebellious? Sons of God in Deuteronomy 32

Michael Heiser’s recovery of the Divine Council Worldview (DCW) has reshaped the way many of us read difficult passages like Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, and Daniel 10.  His basic claim--that God assigned divine beings to the nations after Babel, while choosing Israel for himself--is now widely recognized among biblically-literate readers.  But what was the state of those "gods" when they were assigned their territories initially?  

According to Heiser, these beings were loyal agents of YHWH at the point of assignment.  Their corruption and rebellion came later, as described in Psalm 82.  God delegated authority, and those elohim misused it over time.  Their downfall, in this view, parallels humanity’s own fall.  Heiser says it doesn't make sense that God would "intentionally consign" the people to false gods.  

That, frankly, makes a ton of sense.  But there’s another interpretive path that builds from the same textual evidence yet offers a different angle on God’s wrath and sovereignty:  What if the gods were already rebellious when God handed them the nations?  And further specifically, what if it's not really that God consigned them--but rather that God allowed them to experience the consequences of that which they desired?  

This idea--explored in my latest episode, #127--suggests that Deuteronomy 32 is not merely about delegation, but about divine judgment.  Now, of course, in Heiser’s view, judgment is also part of the delegation because the gods were assigned due to the tower event in Genesis 11.  Heiser describes this as being a judgment because the people then do not have a covenantal relationship with YHWH himself, unlike the family of Israel, who stems from the call of Abraham in the next chapter.  (This is a point I'd absolutely agree upon, though there are a few questions here, including the fact that the nation of Israel doesn’t really encompass the family of Abraham; it’s only one portion of it.  Granted, it’s the portion that receives the land inheritance--but “Israel” is not the same as “Abraham” and it’s Abraham who establishes the new line in Genesis 12.)  

I think the shift of "God consigned them" (as Dr. Heiser was presenting the "yes" view) vs "God gave them over" (as I am presenting the view) changes the options in an important way.  

In contrast to Heiser’s view, with the idea that the gods of the nations are rebellious when they are assigned, YHWH giving the nations over to "other gods" is not a neutral administrative act that might have potentially ended with some of the nations continuing in loyalty, but God’s handing the people over is an early expression of wrath, akin to Romans 1:  God gives people what they want.  The nations wanted other gods, and God allowed it, fully aware that those gods were false, corrupt, or even hostile.  In that sense, wrath is not God’s outburst, but His strategic giving over.  This aligns fully with other descriptions of wrath, as I lay out in discussion about the cup of wrath.  

This also aligns with Genesis 11 being a story of worship and Deuteronomy 32:17, which describes Israel sacrificing to demons, "not gods"--beings YHWH never assigned them.  The gods in question are not benevolent caretakers gone bad, but pretenders already sowing spiritual chaos.  

To be clear:  this view doesn’t contradict the DCW, and it doesn’t prove that Heiser was wrong in his formulation.  Both frameworks affirm:  

• God is supreme over all spiritual beings
• There is a council of divine sons (elohim) involved in cosmic governance
• Wrath and judgment come when these beings (like humans) abandon their charge

The difference is timing and intent.  In Heiser’s model, the assignment is initially good and corrupted later.  In the alternative, the assignment is itself a form of judgment in the same way that we see other methods of judgment, such as the exile--God allowing disordered desire to become its own punishment.  (A punishment meant, ultimately, to restore.)

Why does this matter?  Because it reframes wrath not as divine temper (ala more modern/Reformation-esque ideas), but as a mirror of desire.  When you ask for a god who is not YHWH, you may get one--and the judgment is built in.  

So, were the gods loyal at first?  Or were they rebellious from the start?

Maybe both models can coexist in tension (after all, this can definitely be a both/and kind of situation!).  But if the cup of wrath is what you drink when you get what you asked for…

Then the gods of the nations were never a gift.  They were a warning.

Let me know what you think and where you side on the issue!