This is a guest series by Dr. Drew Grumbles. See Part 1 Here, Part 2 Here, Part 3a Here, and Part 3b Here.
These articles defend the view that only one divine being, one elohim/theos, exists. The argument is relatively simple. If biblical texts claim that only one elohim/theos exists, then we must define an elohim accordingly. We define an elohim not by etymology but by Scripture’s teaching. This term for a “god” cannot refer merely to a spiritual being dwelling in the supernatural realm. We agree with our interlocutors that other spiritual beings exist. We deny that these beings are properly gods. This is because, to repeat, Scripture claims plainly that only one elohim/theos exists. The claim of the Bible is not merely that YHWH is the supreme God or that he has unique attributes among the other “real gods.” The main burden of these articles, then, is to exegete the texts which clearly verify this claim that only one God exists. We have seen how texts in Deuteronomy, 2 Kings, and Jeremiah. Now we explore Isaiah 40–48.
Many Old Testament scholars see Isaiah 40–48 as brazenly monotheistic. In fact, in modern scholarship, numerous writers claim that this portion of Isaiah blatantly contradicts many other texts in the OT. For this reason, some writers even posit a “Deutero-Isaiah,” a different author at a later period who holds to a different theology than “First Isaiah.” Deutero-Isaiah, they say, wrote under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy. We do not purpose here to delve into Isaianic authorship or critical scholarship. We simply note that even non-evangelical scholars see that this portion of Isaiah clearly proclaims monotheism—YHWH’s sole deity. For instance, Benjamin Sommer, a highly-respected scholar, and one who holds many conclusions we disagree with, yet writes, “The Bible’s descriptions of Yhwh’s incomparability, might, and kingship, we have seen, do not necessarily suffice to show that the Bible’s authors and redactors were monotheistic (the example of Isaiah notwithstanding; we must admit the possibility that Isaiah’s perspective is atypical of biblical literature on this point).”[1] Many of the arguments of the “other gods” view follow Sommer’s arguments in the first part of his sentence—that YHWH’s uniqueness does not equate to sole deity. Yet Sommer cannot argue with Isaiah’s monotheism, even if he finds it “atypical.” We previously examined other passages in the OT that claim YHWH as the only God. Since we do not believe Scripture contradicts itself, we are right to see Isaiah as consistent with the whole counsel of God. As we will see, Isaiah proclaims that only one God exists and his name is YHWH.
Have We Misunderstood Isaiah’s Monotheism?
Isaiah 40–48 contains many clear affirmations of monotheism. For example, Isaiah 44:6b says, “I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God [elohim].”[2] A reader might wonder how this verse could be interpreted in any other way besides affirming YHWH’s exclusive divinity. We will first address how the “other gods” view understands these Isaianic claims, and then positively examine the texts themselves. To be clear, Moffitt has not expressed much about his views on Isaiah 40–48. This article will interact with some of the works he has cited to promote the “divine council.”[3] A few texts that Moffitt has mentioned in a recent article follow at least some of the same basic line of argumentation given by the scholars he mentions.[4] We cannot say if Moffitt aligns himself with all the views these men express.
Some who hold to the “other gods” view interpret Isaiah’s words in light of the rest of Isaiah’s book. Gerald McDermott makes clear his view on the other gods. He cites approvingly Ulrich Mauser, who writes, “The Old Testament speaks freely, without any hesitation or embarrassment, about the existence of gods other than the God of Israel. . . . To be sure, the supremacy of Israel’s God over all other gods is everywhere asserted. But the assertion always drives home the dominion of Yahweh over other gods, not the denial of their existence.”[5] For McDermott, Isaiah, too, merely denies the superiority of other gods above YHWH. He goes on, speaking of the uninitiated reader, “A final reason for our inability to see the gods of the Old Testament is the ‘pure’ monotheism that prophets like Isaiah seem to proclaim. . . . The problem with letting such a statement from Isaiah represent mainstream Old Testament belief . . . is that the book of Isaiah itself contains counterevidence.”[6] The supposed counterevidence McDermott marshals is, first, the “council of YHWH” in Isaiah 6. In response, Isaiah 6 hardly provides any clear affirmation of other gods’ existence. Admittedly, the language reveals shared language with 1 Kings 22 when Micaiah sees a vision. However, Isaiah terms these creatures seraphim, not even calling them elohim. He also reports them to be continually crying out in praise, not deliberating with YHWH or giving him counsel. Even the reason for the language of the plural, “Who will go for us?” is highly debated and does little to prove that God consults with his seraphim in this case. One speculates greatly if he claims that this text reveals a divine council. Such uncertain arguments hardly provide sound “counterevidence” for clear monotheism in Isaiah 40–48.
We consider next the primary argument from the “other gods” view in relation to Isaiah’s claims. The thinking goes that the prophet merely uses a rhetorical device, hyperbole. As Boyd puts it, “Old Testament authors do not deny the existence of lesser gods alongside Yahweh . . . . If Isaiah and Jeremiah were categorically denying the existence of other gods, they would be unique in the history of Israel. A better approach is to understand Isaiah and Jeremiah as expressing an exaggerated form of mockery in denying the reality of pagan gods . . . .”[7] According to these proponents, claims like “no other,” “none besides,” and “being nothing” are to be taken as something like taunting.
McDermott, for instance, maintains that we should interpret “monotheistic” texts the same way we interpret Isa 40:17, 23; and 41:12, for the same author wrote each of these texts.[8] In those verses Isaiah proclaims that nations, princes, and armies are “nothing.” Though the prophet claims they are nothing, as Greg Boyd explains, “. . . Isaiah was clearly not denying the existence of these realities.”[9] Isaiah uses rhetoric, the argument goes, to say that these are nothing in comparison to God. We respond to these assertions by acknowledging that, in some sense, Isaiah uses a rhetorical device. Yet a closer look reveals that Isaiah clearly uses metaphorical language in these cases. The nations are “as”[10] nothing and “accounted”[11] nothing (Isa 40:17); princes are “brought to”[12] nothing (Isa 40:23); armies are “as nothing”[13](Isa 41:12). Yet what does Isaiah say about the gods? “Behold, you are nothing . . . .”[14] (Isa 41:24; see also Isa 41:29). Isaiah uses no ki preposition here. Hence, while Isaiah’s language indicates metaphor in reference to nations, princes, and armies, he does not use a metaphor when making claims about the gods. In several of these texts Isaiah does not merely claim that there is none like YHWH (cf. Isa 44:7; Exod 15:11). He goes beyond that assertion to say that there is no other god.
Yet even if we were to grant that Isaiah uses a rhetorical device to draw a comparison between YHWH and other “gods,” a rhetorical device intends to communicate a truth. What truth does Isaiah intend to convey? Isaiah does not mean that nations, princes, and armies do not exist in the real world. We could even agree that Isaiah intends to say they are nothing in comparison to YHWH. Crucially, though, Isaiah intends one more step. He posits one more sense in which these entities are nothing—they are not really gods. Because they are not gods, YHWH can bring them to nothing. Thus, even if we take the text in this latter sense, what applies to the nations, princes, and armies could apply to idols and false gods. Neither nations, princes, armies, idols, nor false gods (demons) are gods. In this sense, they are nothing.
We must next consider the contention that Isaiah uses mere rhetoric regarding a different claim. Beyond the assertion that gods are “nothing,” Isaiah also claims there is none besides YHWH (no God, no YHWH, and no savior besides him).[15]To put it in other words, YHWH says, “I am the only one.” But what is he the only one of? Some argue that such a declaration is a rhetorical device. At times interpreters will point to Isaiah 47:8, 10 for comparison. In Isaiah 47, Babylon uses the same words YHWH does. In her prideful security she says twice, “I am, and there is no other.”[16] Clearly, so the argument goes, Babylon is not the only city in existence. She merely speaks rhetorically of herself as the only city that matters.[17] The problem with comparing this text to the claims of YHWH is that Isaiah presents Babylon as wrong in her proclamation! Babylon’s folly included saying, “I am, and there is no other.” If she is claiming to be independent from God, she is very wrong. If she is claiming to be untouched by other cities, she also errs. Babylon’s problem lies in that her rhetoric does not reflect reality. On the other hand, when YHWH states the same words, they carry weight because they reflect truth. Isaiah gives no indication that YHWH is a fool to make such a claim, but he does make Babylon sound senseless.[18] YHWH claims not only that he is the only self-existent one (Isa 45:6), nor that he is the only savior (Isa 43:11), but that he is the only elohim (Isa 44:6; 45:5). When YHWH speaks, he declares rightly and forthrightly that no other gods exist.[19]
The traditional interpretation of Isaiah has not misunderstood Isaiah’s monotheism. Isaiah’s monotheism, like the rest of Scripture, declares the truth that only one God exists. In the next article, we will look at these texts again to see the way Isaiah buttresses his claim.
[1] Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 165–166. Emphasis mine.
[2] אֲנִי רִאשׁוֹן וַאֲנִי אַחֲרוֹן וּמִבַּלְעָדַי אֵין אֱלֹהִֽים׃
[3] In one article Moffit recommends Gerald McDermott’s work, who in turn cites Gregory Boyd and Ulrich Mauser (https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/five-hundred-years-of-the-divine-council-in-christian-reformed-history). See Gerald R. McDermott, God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights from the Bible and the Early Church (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2007); Gregory A. Boyd, God At War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1997); Ulrich Mauser, “One God Alone: A Pillar of Biblical Theology,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 12: 3 (1991),
[4] Moffitt sees the language of Isaiah as speaking of YHWH’s supremacy, not sole deity. See heading three at https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/no-other-god-comparative-language-in-biblical-theology.
[5] Mauser, “One God Alone,” 259. Mauser later writes, “We have no chance to understand the peculiar position of this incomparable God in the midst of other divine powers unless we become sympathetically aware of the possibilities of polytheism” (Mauser, “One God Alone,” 260).
[6] McDermott, God’s Rivals, 52.
[7] Boyd, God at War, 116.
[8] McDermott, God’s Rivals, 52, does not cite anyone for this part of his argument. However, he seems to take (plagiarize?) his arguments directly from Boyd (Boyd, God at War, 116), who cites Ulrich Mauser’s work.
[9] Boyd, God at War, 116.
[10] כְּאַיִן
[11] נֶחְשְׁבוּ
[12] נּוֹתֵן רוֹזְנִים לְאָיִן
[13] כְאַיִן
[14] אַתֶּם מֵאַיִן
[15] Isaiah 43:11; 44:6–8; 45:5, 6, 14, 18, 21–23; 46:9–11.
[16] אֲנִי וְאַפְסִי עוֹד. Zephaniah 2:15 contains the same words in the “mouth” of Nineveh.
[17] Daniel O. McClellan, “‘You Will Be Like the Gods’: The Conceptualization of Deity in the Hebrew Bible in Cognitive Perspective,” MA Thesis (Trinity Western University, 2013), 104. In a more popular presentation, McClellan posits an analogy to sports trash talk. A Raiders fan might say, “The Broncos are not a real team!” This means the Broncos do not matter to Raiders fans (Daniel O. McClellan, “There is No Monotheism in the Bible,” Minute 2:42–3:00 [March 16, 2025]. Available online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6sD4Mc2-m8). The problem with the analogy is that McClellan must labor to prove that YHWH does not speak of ontological existence of other gods. With the sports analogy, everyone in the audience already knows that the Broncos actually exist, and that is why the taunt has a rhetorical effect. In light of YHWH’s reasons for his sole deity (see below), it appears far more likely that YHWH actually means only he exists as God.
[18] Another fascinating feature in the text is that when Babylon says, “there is no other,” she uses the word אַפְס, a particle that mean non-existence or finality. This term is also used in Isa 40:17 (the nations) and 41:12 (the armies). (Isaiah 40:23 uses אָיִן, contra Mauser, “One God Alone,” 259). Yet in all the aforementioned texts about YHWH in comparison to other gods or saviors, the word אֵין is used, the “particle of non-existence.” Nathan MacDonald analyzes these terms but does not note the difference in the verses used. He appears to consider them complete synonyms. See Nathan MacDonald, “One God or one Lord?: deuteronomy and the meaning of ‘monotheism,’” PhD. Diss. (Durham University, 2001), 104–109. May there be a purpose in Isaiah using the two different terms?
[19] J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1993), 345, “There would be no god if the would-be worshipper had not made it! This is another aspect of the Bible’s exclusivist monotheism: outside the Lord, who reveals himself, there are only the man-invented gods.”