This is a guest series by Dr. Drew Grumbles. See Part 1 Here, Part 2 Here, Part 3a Here, Part 3b Here, Part 4a Here, Part 4b Here, and Part 5a Here.
After seeing just a few of the texts in the New Testament that affirm the numerical singularity of YHWH as God, we now turn to references in the NT which mention “gods.” In at least two places of the NT, other spiritual beings appear to be called “gods” (theos/theoi), 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Hebrews 1:6.
2 Corinthians 4:4
In 2 Cor 4:4, the apostle refers to a being called “the god of this world”[1] who blinds the minds of unbelievers.[2]Though Paul does not explain who this being is, we take it to be Satan. The Lord Jesus speaks of Satan as the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31), therefore we have good reason to conclude that Paul calls Satan the “god of this world.” Does this make Satan a real god?
In one article, Moffitt cites Calvin and gives his reasoning, saying, “I cite these quotes simply to demonstrate that they acknowledge Satan as a god and a living being—not merely an idol or an imaginary figure.”[3] As an aside, Moffitt again presents a false dichotomy—Satan is either imaginary or a god. Nevertheless, Moffitt seems clear in his assertion, “[T]hey acknowledge Satan as a god and a living being.” But does Calvin, for example, acknowledge this? A crucial difference lies between “acknowledging one as a god” and “calling one a god.” For example, a sane man may call his dog a tank. An unstable man acknowledges that his dog is a tank. To be fair, Moffitt earlier states, “Calvin's argument was directed at those who believed that calling Satan a god would undermine Jesus being called God.”[4] Here he addresses the question of “calling Satan a god.” Yet he later seems to assert that Calvin acknowledges Satan as a god.
In the quote of Calvin that Moffitt provides from the commentary on 2 Cor 4:4, Calvin does affirm that Paul refers to Satan as a god. Of this little debate exists. However, other comments left uncited provide clarity as to what Calvin means. In short, Calvin believes that Satan is called “god” because he has some authority in the world.[5] The Reformer writes, “When, therefore, the devil is called the god of the wicked, on the ground of his having dominion over them, and being worshipped by them in the place of God, what tendency has this to detract from the honor of Christ?”[6] He is called theos because he has dominion over the wicked, according to Calvin (cf. Acts 26:18).[7] Calvin later adds that Satan is called god “with an addition,” or qualification. In contrast, only the Lord can be called God without qualification.[8]Calvin then adds another reason why Satan is referred to in this way, writing, “The devil, on the other hand, is called the god of this world, in no other way than as Baal is called the god of those that worship him, or as the dog is called the god of Egypt.”[9] Clearly, here, Calvin simply means that Satan is referred to as a god because some see him as such.
Some of the Puritans also speak this way about Satan as “god.” Goodwin acknowledges that the world saw Satan in this way, writing, “. . . the devil, having had quiet possession of the kingdoms of the world in all ages,—you know he had been worshipped as the god of this world . . . .”[10] Later Goodwin adds, “He hath given place to none, as other princes do; nay, he himself was worshipped in the world, not as king only, but as a god. And therefore, in Rev. xii. it is said that he and his angels were in heaven. Why? Because they were worshipped as gods. . . . But, my brethren, when he ceased to be a god, he still being the prince of this world, that he might imitate God, who hath set up his Son Jesus Christ, he likewise hath set up his son, Antichrist. . . .”[11] In addition, consider Manton’s words, “That all mankind by nature lieth in wickedness, and sin and Satan worketh in them at his pleasure, and therefore Satan is called the prince and god of this world: Eph. vi. 12, ‘Rulers of the darkness of this world.’ He is the prince and ruler of those that live in sin, darkness, ignorance of God, and superstition, and exerciseth a tyranny over them. So he is called the god of this world, 2 Cor. iv. 4, because of his great prevalency here: ‘The prince of the power of the air, that worketh in the children of disobedience,’ Eph. ii. 2.”[12] Finally, notice what John Flavel argues when saying, “Satan, called here (by mimesis) the god of this world; not simply and properly, but because he challenges to himself the honour of a god, rules over a vast empire, and hath multitudes of souls, even the greater part of the world, in subjection and blind obedience to his government.”[13]Flavel denies that Satan is “properly” a god, and instead uses the term “mimesis,” i.e. that Satan mimics God.
Thus, this verse in 2 Corinthians only refers to Satan as a god in an analogical manner—in reference either to the power he exercises or to the homage given to him.
Hebrews 1:6
In a lengthy discourse about the Son’s superiority to angels, the writer of Hebrews quotes a catena of Old Testament references. What exactly he quotes in Heb 1:6 we explore below. The translation of the citation reads, “And let all God’s angels worship him.”[14] The interpreter finds this tex relevant in this discussion because Ps 97:7 uses the word “gods” (elohim) while Deut 32:43 LXX uses “sons of God” (huioi theou). Thus, it appears that what the NT calls angels the OT calls (sons of) God.
Before analyzing the verse and its OT citations, we explore how Moffitt uses this evidence. Moffitt cites Goodwin to make the case that, “. . . they [Reformed theologians in history] acknowledge Satan as a god . . . .”[15] He presents the following citation of Goodwin, “You therefore find that the angels, both good and bad, are called gods . . . you have as clear a place that the good angels are called gods too. . . Ps. 97:7, ‘Worship him, all ye gods’; now look in Heb. 1:6… ‘Let all the angels of God worship him.’ They are gods, and gods because they are chief princes.”[16] Unfortunately, however, what Moffitt removes and replaces with ellipses counters his point. Consider Goodwin’s full words (emphasis in italics), “You therefore find that the angels, both good and bad, are called gods; it is a title you know given to magistrates: . . . But ye have good angels and bad angels called gods as well as magistrates here below, and they are therefore called so because they are rulers.”[17] Here Goodwin is clear, first, that the angels are called gods (as opposed to properly being gods). He adds that magistrates likewise are called gods. Moffitt skips this line because it takes away from his argument that these being called gods are “real gods.” Clearly, magistrates are not real gods. Next, Goodwin explains why angels and magistrates are called gods—“because they are rulers.” The notion of a “god” is tied analogically to authority. Goodwin also makes this clear in a previous sentence of the sermon, “But, in the second place, they are said to be principalities and powers, as amongst themselves, so in respect of their government of the affairs of this world.”[18] The term “god” refers to their government of the world, Goodwin says, just as the Puritans spoke of Satan in 2 Cor 4:4.
With this in mind, an examination of Heb 1:6b is in order. The OT reference provides several challenges.[19] The Greek text is identical to Deut 32:43 LXX, except for one change. Hebrews changes “sons of God” to “angels of God.” Also, importantly, the line is entirely missing in the Masoretic Text (Hebrew), only found in the Old Greek. If the writer quotes Deut 32:43, he quotes the LXX, and one needs an explanation for the change from “sons” to “angels.”[20] On the other hand, Ps 97:7 LXX shares similarity with Heb 1:6 in that both address the “angels.” Yet the Psalm calls them “his angels” while Hebrews says “angels of God.” The meaning remains the same, but the wording is different. Moreover, the MT of Ps 97:7 does not use the typical word for angels but instead says “gods” (elohim). This does not cause too much trouble, as Heb 2:7 also uses “angels” in citing Psalm 8:5 which says elohim. No consternation arises when the NT refers to certain cases of the OT elohim as angels. Another possible option is that the author has in mind the Greek Odes, a liturgical song based on Deuteronomy 32.[21] He possibly uses this liturgical quotation as a known reference point to also get his readers to think about the connection to Psalm 97:7.[22]
The reader faces three basic options, none of which impacts a view of YHWH as the only god. One, the “sons of God” of Deut 32:43 are here called angels in Heb 1:6. Two, the “gods” of Ps 97:7 are called angels. Three, angels (from Ps 97:7 LXX) are called angels! The third one most obviously presents no issue. As to the first two, our next articles will discuss how elohim and sons of elohim are used in the OT in reference to angels. As we have quoted Goodwin already, the author of Hebrews refers to them as such because they have power or rulership. Yet, intriguingly, if the author is quoting the Odes, it shows a specific differentiation between the angels and Christ. This point is more suitable to his purpose. Were the author to quote Ps 97:7 MT or Deut 32:43 LXX, a reader might one wonder if these “gods” were closer to Jesus as God. By intentionally speaking of them as “angels,” the author shows the superiority of Christ.[24] It suffices to say, then, that no matter where the quote originates, Heb 1:6 does not speak at all of the existence of other “real gods” but merely of the subservience of the angels to the Son of God.
Conclusion
In at least a few places the NT clearly affirms monotheism. In light of these clear texts we can interpret other biblical texts that may appear less clear to us. However, even in those texts that mention other “gods,” good sense explanations exist without one resorting to calling these beings actual gods. We have demonstrated that men like Calvin and Goodwin did not take issue with the writers calling these beings gods, because they understood that, in fact, these angels and demons are not gods.
[1] ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος.
[2] In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul has just discussed the veil that lies over the hearts of the Jews who read the Old Covenant. This veil is equivalent to the blindness that keeps unbelievers from seeing Christ’s glory.
[3] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one
[4] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one
[5] Additionally, Thomas Goodwin, Works of Thomas Goodwin, Vol. II (Edinburgh, UK: James Nichol, 1861), 42, says, “All power is of God, and Satan's power is of God, at least by permission. He himself said, Luke iv. 6, that this world was delivered unto him, and therein he spake truth. It was indeed delivered to him,—that is, by God's permission . . . .”
[6] John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, Vol. II, trans. John Pringle (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009),193 (Emphasis mine).
[7] Similarly, Moffitt quotes Goodwin who says that the god of this world “led” the heathen. Moffitt concludes, “[Goodwin] viewed Satan as a spirit capable of bearing the title of god.” Again, Goodwin only means here that Satan is called “god” because he has the power to lead others astray (see footnote 5 above).
[8] Calvin, Corinthians, Vol. II, 194.
[9] Calvin, Corinthians, Vol. II, 194.
[10] Goodwin, Works, Vol. II, 40.
[11] Goodwin, Works, Vol. II, 47.
[12] Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, Vol. XXI (London: Nisbet & Co., 1874), 51–52.
[13] John Flavel, The Whole Works of John Flavel, Vol. II (London, UK: 1820), 453.
[14] καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ
[15] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one. Here Moffitt cites a slightly different quotation of Goodwin from the one mentioned below. Yet Moffitt is using Goodwin’s reference to Heb 1:6 to make his case.
[16] Cited in https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/five-hundred-years-of-the-divine-council-in-christian-reformed-history. Thomas Goodwin, Works of Thomas Goodwin, Vol. I (Edinburgh, UK: James Nichol, 1861), 489. Moffitt incorrectly cites this as part of Volume II.
[17] Goodwin, Works, Vol. I, 489. Emphasis mine.
[18] Goodwin, Works, Vol. I, 489. Emphasis mine.
[19] George Guthrie, “Hebrews,” Pages 919–996 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, Baker), 931, claims, “Here we encounter one of the most interesting and most difficult histories of the quotations in Hebrews.”
[20] According to Guthrie, CNTUOT, 931, the author may be conflating two lines from Deut 32:43 LXX,
καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ and
καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ (“may all the angels of God strengthen themselves”).
[21] Guthrie, CNTUOT. 931; Peter T. O’Brien, Hebrews, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 70; Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Hebrews 1:6: Source and Significance,” BBR 9:1 (1999), 51–64. The Ode is found in Codex Alexandrinus, and its Hebrew Vorlage in a Qumran scroll of Deuteronomy.
[22] In favor of a reference to the Psalm, the context shows many quotations of Psalms in the first two chapters of Hebrews.
[23] הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ־לוֹ כָּל־אֱלֹהִֽים MT, “worship him, all gods!”
[24] Gert J. Steyn, “A Quest for the ‘Vorlage’ of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) Quotations in Hebrews.” Neotestamentica 34:2 (2000), 267.