See Part 1 Here
After introducing the topic under consideration, and articulating precisely where the disagreement lies, this article explores some fundamental assumptions in the differences between the “other gods” view and those who deny that spiritual beings are real gods. First, we will explore a hermeneutical question. The “other gods” view fails to interpret unclear revelation in light of the clear. Second, we look at some definitions. What is a “god,” and is that different from the definition of an angelic being? Finally, we briefly explain why biblical authors apply the terms elohim and theos to these spiritual beings.
Hermeneutics
Discovering new ideas in the Scriptures always excites a reader. The Christian occasionally receives an epiphany and sees texts as if he has never read them before.[1] However, such readings can also be dangerous, leading one into an erroneous interpretation. Sometimes one “never saw it before” because it was never there before.
To prevent dangerously novel readings, one must apply a hermeneutical rule called the analogia Scripturae, or the analogy of Scripture. This simply means that Scripture interprets Scripture. Scripture is not self-contradictory. Thus, when the reader encounters two texts that appear contradictory, rather than affirming a contradiction, one text becomes a lens through which to see the other.[2] Which lens ought one to choose? The church has articulated the principle that the clear text interprets the unclear one.[3] As the Second London Confession says, “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which are not many, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.”[4] For example, differing conclusions on limited/particular atonement depend on how one weighs certain texts. For the Calvinist, “I lay down my life for my sheep” (John 10:15) provides a clear text that becomes a hermeneutical grid when reading, “. . . who gave himself as a ransom for all. . .” (1 Tim 2:6). The Calvinist knows he needs to explain “all” differently because he does not see a way to explain John 10:15 any differently than as referring to a particular atonement.
In this discussion over whether other gods exist, we all read the same biblical texts. Some texts refer to other beings as “gods” and some texts speak as if only YHWH is God. Which texts take priority over the other? The monotheistic texts are extremely clear. One finds difficulty in interpreting any differently 1 Tim 2:5, “For there is one God. . . .”[5] Those texts which refer to “other gods” demonstrate far more obscurity in their potential interpretations. Therefore, we should use the monotheistic texts as the hermeneutical lens. Unfortunately, if one is determined to take unclear texts and build a theology upon them, the clear affirmations of monotheism can be wrongly explained away. The real burden of this discussion, then, is whether these texts are as clearly monotheistic as people claim. For this reason, this series will spend a great deal of time exegeting Old and New Testament texts, only to later explore the ones that speak of the angels as elohim or theoi.
Much of modern OT scholarship ignores this hermeneutical rule when it comes to monotheism. Critical scholarship denies Israel’s embrace of monotheism from the nation’s inception.[6] In other words, scholars argue that the Hebrew Bible represents a spectrum of understandings—one side of the spectrum claiming “other divine beings exist,” and the other holding to “explicit denial of other divine beings.”[7] Generally the idea is that Israel evolved from a more henotheistic cult to a monotheistic one. These interpreters feel no pressure to see all the OT texts as connected.[8]Saliently, they recognize that some OT texts clearly deny the existence of other gods. For them, this just shows contradictory or evolving theologies. Their method, then, denies the analogia Scripturae.
Ironically, recent evangelical (and Reformed) men who argue for other “gods” make similar arguments as critical scholars. As an example, Lynch claims that “monotheism” in Israel only means that YHWH is the supreme god, and that the doctrine “does not involve by necessity the explicit denial of other deities.”[9] For Donald Gowan, for example, Jeremiah speaks of the “gods” as if he truly believed they existed as gods.[10] Moffitt actually cites Nathan MacDonald approvingly when MacDonald claims that “monotheism” is merely a seventeenth-century term.[11] For many OT scholars, though, the “monotheistic” and “henotheistic” groups of texts simply contradict each other and demonstrate different theologies over Israel’s lifespan. These scholars are correct in two ways. First, they rightly show that certain texts clearly deny that other divine beings exist. Second, they conclude that such a claim cannot coexist with an understanding that other gods exist. Because critical scholars see no problem with an evolving or contradictory set of beliefs in the Hebrew Bible, they do not seek to reconcile the two types of texts. However, as Christians, evangelicals, and Reformed readers who hold to the analogia Scripturae, we must read the Scriptures differently. The unclear set of texts must be read in light of the clear monotheistic ones.
Definitions
Next, we consider some definitions. What is a “god”? Those who propound the “other gods” view repeatedly assert that “the gods are real.” Unfortunately, however, we do not find a clear, detailed definition of such “gods.” Are they simply beings with power? Are they only non-corporeal? What are all the properties these “gods” possess? What is the nature of such a “god”? Again, the debate does not concern the prevalence of spiritual beings in the world, angels and demons. Nor do we question that the Bible sometimes calls certain beings “gods.” The disagreement stems over whether these beings are “real gods.” We must therefore ask, “What is a god? What is an angel?”
God
To speak of a “god” means we speak of a being with a divine nature. Father, Son, and Spirit are each true God because the divine nature subsists in each one. When it comes to God, we can say what God’s essence is not, but we cannot describe fully the essence of God, which can be comprehended only by YHWH himself. Importantly, though, we can say about his essence that it is himself (Exod 3:14).[12] The divine essence or nature is not something that can be distinct from himself. As Thomas puts it, the relationship of YHWH to the divine essence is equivalent to the relation of “life” to “living things.” God is not composed of matter and form. He is not a class of a thing by virtue of having certain properties. Eternally existing of himself, he is “God-ness.” Thomas concludes, “Therefore God is his very Godhead [essence].”[13]
Moreover, since God’s essence is his existence, this identifies him as a necessary rather than contingent being. If he is not contingent, then his “god-ness” (divine nature) does not have a genus. There is no category of “god-ness” outside of the existence of YHWH himself. In other words, we do not say that something of “god-ness” exists in the metaphysical universe, and YHWH happens to fulfill all these criteria of god-ness. Instead, YHWH exists eternally of himself, defining “god-ness” as “I am that I am.” Therefore, to have “god-ness” is to be YHWH. There is no possibility of another being having any part of a genus of “god-ness.” Other beings cannot have a divine nature. Hence Paul says they “by nature [physis] are not gods” (Gal 4:8).[14]
Angels
By “angels” we refer here to all created non-human, spiritual beings in the heavenly realm, whether good or evil.[15] An angel is a created, immaterial, rational, finite, complete spirit.[16] Thus one can describe the “nature” of angels, the essence of what an angel is, as having these properties.
Divine & Angelic Natures
Angels as immaterial beings are created analogues, reflecting their Creator. But we must remember that YHWH says, ‘to whom will you compare me?’ (Isa 40:25). Unlike YHWH, angels are created, finite, and therefore limited in power and knowledge, etc.
To claim that spiritual beings/angels are “real gods” must denote that angels possess a divine nature. But that cannot be if YHWH is his divine nature. Aquinas uses the analogy of Socrates. Some properties of Socrates make him that particular man. One can also class Socrates generically as a man. There cannot be more than one Socrates, but there can be more than one man. However, if Socrates were a man (generically) because of those peculiar properties that make him Socrates (particularly), there could not in that way be more than one man.[17] So, if Socrates is Socrates because he has his potbelly, and he is a man because he has that particular potbelly, no other men can exist. We know that is not true for Socrates and mankind, yet this is the case regarding YHWH. He is the self-existent One, which is what it means to be YHWH. In contrast, the angels do not exist in and of themselves. Anything we say about angels is finite, and the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. How, then, could any divine being be finite? Therefore, no other gods can exist.
Perhaps the reader thinks this is mere “Thomas-talk” and not “God-talk,” that these conclusions derive from man’s reason, not Scripture. We can respond that reason provides a means of theology and can get us to truth, though our reasoning should not lead us to contradict Scripture. Moreover, if the “other gods” view wishes to dismiss “Thomas-talk,” its proponents still face a conundrum. They must still present a positive case, an explanation, for what the divine nature is. If other beings are gods, how do they share in a divine nature? In what ways does that divine nature differ from YHWH’s? In what ways, metaphysically and ontologically, are these spiritual beings gods? While one may dismiss Thomas-talk, one cannot dismiss metaphysics. Above we have sought to present a basic explanation of the divine nature and its distinction from an angelic nature. If one wishes to assert that angels are “real gods,” one must also explain the divine and angelic natures.
Why elohim/theos?
For now, we will assert but not prove why the Scriptures use the terms “elohim” and “theos” in the Old and New Testaments, respectively. Why are the angels (and sometimes men) called gods? What does the term say about them? We deny that these terms mean they are “real gods,” i.e. that they possess a divine nature in any way. As van Mastricht says, “It [the name elohim] applies to the Creator properly, to the creatures analogically: to some indeed in truth, though secondarily; to others only in appearance or mimetically, as in the case of idols.”[18] In short, the term is a description of status. We can include ideas such as power or majesty or authority as part of this status.[19] Van Mastricht argues that, since elohim comes from El, which means might, possibly the term connotes in part the office of one in power or who judges.[20] Commenting on Psalm 8:5, Gill writes, “Sometimes the word ‘Elohim’ is used for civil magistrates, as in Psalms 82:6; because they are in God’s stead, and represent him; and, on account of their majesty, authority, and power, bear some resemblance to him.”[21] This concept should be kept in mind as we proceed through the biblical texts.
Scripture speaks often in analogical language, and even analogical language can be either metaphorical or literal. We call this “improper” predication as opposed to “proper” predication. Just because Scripture predicates something about a thing does not mean the thing is such in an ontologically real way. For example, God’s people more than once are called (predicated) “the sheep of his pasture” (Ps 100:3). Obviously this does not mean the church possesses the nature/essence of sheep. We know this means that in only a few ways an analogy exists between the church and sheep. Yet Scripture does not spell out for us that this is merely a limited likeness. It simply calls us sheep. In the instance of the church as sheep, we understand the use of metaphor. But analogical language can be literal, such as when God is called good (Mark 10:18). God is literally good, but not good in the same way we use the word “good” of creatures. The key to all of this is that all our language about God is analogical.[22] Thus when Scripture calls other beings elohim/theos, we should not conclude that these beings have a divine nature or are “real gods.” We should ask what analogy the writer seeks to communicate. As we have seen, calling these beings “gods” points us to their power or majesty.
In conclusion, we see a reasonable explanation for the use of the term elohim/theos for non-divine beings. Yet, we will see next, the clear texts of Scripture proclaim the real existence of only one divine being.
[1] Michael Heiser explicitly recounts the tale of such an event occurring in his reading about the elohim in Scripture (https://www.logos.com/grow/who-are-elohim/).
[2] Or one may find other texts that make sense of both.
[3] Of course, skeptics could claim a hermeneutical cycle here. On what basis does one determine if a text is clear?
[4] Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677), 1.9.
[5] Εἷς γὰρ θεός
[6] Scholars such as Matthew Lynch and Nathan MacDonald argue that the term “monotheism” is an anachronistic category imposed by seventeenth-century Cambridge Platonists (Matthew J. Lynch, “Monotheism in Ancient Israel,” Pages 340–348 in Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament, eds. Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John H. Walton [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2018], 341).
[7] Lynch, “Monotheism,” 341–342.
[8] Lynch, “Monotheism,” 341, writes, “In other words, widely varying types of monotheistic rhetoric exist in the Old Testament, and they are not all intrinsically connected.”
[9] Lynch, “Monotheism,” 341, 347.
[10] Donald Gowan, Theology of the Prophetic Books (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 104–105, says of Jeremiah, “Like his predecessors since the time of Amos, he [Jeremiah] does not speak of theoretical monotheism, but he is a ‘practical monotheist’; that is, it matters not whether other gods may exist; for Israel, YHWH is the only God.”
[11] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/the-many-faces-of-monotheism. While the term may indeed originate in this time, this does not require that the concept is also of a new origin.
[12] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1.3.
[13] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1.3.
[14] τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς·
[15] Some see different “species” of heavenly beings such as the cherubim, seraphim, watchers, etc. That debate is beyond the purview of the present discussion. Even if we can grant the existence of all these, the term “angels” encapsulates any of these spiritual beings.
[16] Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: The Works of God and the Fall of Man, Vol. 3, trans. Todd M. Rester (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2021), 181, 183. “Complete” means the beings do not require a body to be what they are, as opposed to humanity whose spirit is “ordained” to exist within a body, making it incomplete.
[17] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 11.3.
[18] Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Faith in the Triune God, Vol. 2, trans. Todd M. Rester (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2019), 103.
[19] John Gill, Body of Doctrinal Divinity, 27.1a, writes, “[The title elohim] is used of angels, (Ps. 8:5) they being not only many, but are often messengers of God, of the divine Persons in the Godhead, represent them, and speak in their name. And it is used of civil magistrates, (Ps. 82:6) and so of Moses, as a god to Pharaoh, (Ex. 7:1) as they well may be called, since they are the vicegerents and representatives of the Elohim, the divine Persons, the Triune God . . . .”
[20] Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology, Vol. 2, 107–108. Van Mastricht denies, contra the Socinians, that the term refers only to an office and never to the divine essence. The Socinians held that since Christ and the Spirit are called elohim/theos the term cannot refer to the one divine essence (since they cannot be God) but must refer to a general office.
[21] John Gill, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Psalm 8:5 ad loc.
[22] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. II , trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 110, “Our knowledge of God is always only analogical in character, that is, shaped by analogy to what can be discerned of God in his creatures, having as its object not God in himself in his knowable essence, but God in his revelation . . . . Accordingly, this knowledge is only a finite image, a faint likeness and creaturely impression of the perfect knowledge that God has of himself.”