Even the Demons (Part 7b)

In parts six and seven we explore texts which the “other gods” view purports to be clear affirmations of other gods. Having looked at Psalm 82 and the “sons of God” in Job, we now consider texts that speak of YHWH as “God of gods.”

The expression “God of gods” (elohei haelohim) appears four times in the Old Testament (Deut 10:17; Ps 136:2–3; Dan 2:47; 11:36), while other variations like “above all gods” appear elsewhere (Ps 95:3; 97:9).[1] Deut 10:17 says, “For YHWH your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords.”[2] Psalm 136:2–3 says, “Give thanks to the God of gods . . . give thanks to the Lord of lords . . . .”[3] Nebuchadnezzar speaks in Dan 2:47, saying, “Your God, he is God of gods and Lord of kings. . . .”[4] Speaking of a different king, Dan 11:36 states, “And he will aggrandize himself over every god [El] and will speak wondrous things against the God of gods [El elim].”[5] Nebuchadnezzar probably uses the phrase in the literal sense, believing multiple gods exist and that Daniel’s God is supreme. The other texts reflect the biblical authors’ affirmation of YHWH as “God of gods.” Various Old Testament scholars concur that Scripture uses a rhetorical or literary device with this type of language. J. Alec Motyer writes, “The Old Testament can say that the Lord is ‘above all gods’ without for a moment admitting their reality.”[6] Likewise, Block comments on Deut 10:17 especially, “If Moses speaks of YHWH as ‘God of gods,’ he is not thereby assenting to the existence of other gods alongside YHWH; his statement is purely rhetorical.”[7] Elsewhere, he writes, “Biblical authors exploit pagan mythological motifs for rhetorical purposes, either to expose the folly of Israelite syncretism or to declare the supremacy of YHWH. This is the function of epithetic expressions like ‘God of gods’ . . . .”[8] Block demonstrates awareness of pagan ideas, such as a pantheon of gods. The “other gods” view reads the text in light of ANE understanding of a pantheon of gods, but it does not go far enough to see the “exploitation” of the motif. The writers do not simply replace a pagan God (such as El) with YHWH and maintain the existence of lesser, created gods. Instead, biblical writers replace the pantheon with YHWH alone as elohim and angels as his retinue. The phrase “God of gods” exploits the pagan idea to affirm that YHWH is to be worshipped, not false gods. Scholars come this conclusion simply due to the prominence of monotheism in other biblical texts.[9] Because of the verses that say ,“there is no other elohim,” interpreters must see the phrase “God of gods” as a rhetorical device.

Are we justified, though, to consider phrases like “God of gods” as rhetorical devices? On Psalm 97:9, Moffitt argues, “If the gods do not exist, it would be an odd comparison to say that God is greater than nothing.”[10] Writers like him make a similar point regarding the first commandment, saying that if other gods are not real, the command to not have other gods has no teeth.[11] While initially sounding plausible, this explanation of the texts ignores the way language works. When others outside and within Israel treat created things as a god, one can warn others not to do so, without admitting the reality of other gods. In our culture an appropriate analogy could be the prevalence of Santa Claus. Santa Claus (spoiler alert) is not a real being. Yet our culture constantly talks about this “man”! A future civilization excavating 21st century America may conclude that its citizens truly believed in Santa Claus, such was his prevalence in society. Suppose, then, that on Christmas morning a child says, “Look at all the presents Santa brought me!” The parent may respond, “Don’t attribute those gifts to Santa. Santa did not bring you those.” Is the parent, by this statement, admitting the reality of Santa? No, he speaks rhetorically (phenomenologically) because the child acts and speaks as if Santa were real. Likely, in another conversation, the parent has or will explain that Santa does not actually exist. So it goes in the Bible with God. The Bible states that other gods do not exist. Thus, these references to the “gods” (Ps 97:9; Exod 20:3) assume such knowledge. They speak to people who wrongly act like these gods exist. The gods are “delusions of the worshipers’ minds” in the sense of considering them divine beings.[12] The texts give reasons for why the people are foolish to treat these gods as above YHWH, though they do not spell out in those very places that the gods do not exist. Therefore, the phrase “God of gods” functions in the same way as the first commandment. YHWH is the God above all demons or even imaginary figures to which worshipers wrongly ascribe deity.

But would God, the author of truth, use such a rhetorical device? Some may think the Word of God misleads or even deceives by speaking in this way. We should not accuse God of such simply based on rhetorical devices. Frankly, Scripture regularly speaks using literary devices and readers do not take these to be misleading or deceptive. Consider language that previously brought consternation about the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Scripture says, “He sets the earth upon its foundations” (Psalm 104:5) or that the sun rises and sets (Ecc 1:5). Should we take these statements “literalistically”? Could we say that statements about the rising and setting “have no power” unless the sun really rises, rather than the earth rotating on its axis? Should we believe the foundations are “real” because the Bible calls them foundations? We need not come to such conclusions. Intuitively, readers can understand that we observe the sun rising and setting, and so the Scripture speaks in such a way. So it is with the gods. Because the nations surrounding Israel set forth the reality (to them) of other gods, and this theology infiltrated God’s covenant people, Scripture speaks as if they present a legitimate threat that must be avoided.

Another argument from the “other gods” view compares the title “God of gods” to “King of kings.” The logic goes that the latter statement only makes sense if kings are real. God is the true king of actual kings. In the same way God must be the elohim above and over all other actual elohim. A first response is to question the meaning of the word “of.” The word can communicate a superlative degree. In Deut 10:14 “the heaven of heavens” means something like “to the highest heavens.”[13] This construction occurs frequently in Hebrew. For example, the Song of Songs (Shir shirim) means “the best of the best songs.” In Ezra 7:12 Artaxerxes is called “king of kings,” though he is not literally reigning over all other kings. In Ezek 26:7, the mouth of the Lord calls Nebuchadnezzar “king of kings.” The verses mean the ruler is the best or most powerful king. We know, in this case, that the term cannot always be “literal,” since YHWH is the true King of kings (1 Tim 6:15). In other words, Ezek 26:7 and 1 Tim 6:15 cannot make the exact same claim lest they contradict each other. In this sense, “God of gods” could mean “God to the highest degree,” or in the Confession’s language, “most absolute.”[14] Such a usage speaks nothing at all about the existence or non-existence of other divinities. It only claims something about YHWH. Granted, of course, that in these examples, heavens, songs, and kings are real entities. Yet could it be possible that the superlative still works even when the object of comparison does not actually exist?

Perhaps you are familiar with “knock-off products,” like a fake Rolex. Say that a fake Rolex watch is being pawned off as a real Rolex. It has the words “Rolex” on it but was made by a different company in a different factory. Suppose a buyer is convinced the fake is real. A Rolex representative may show him the real watches and say, “This is the best of all the ‘Rolexes’ out there.” He makes an accurate statement because, in reality, that watch is the only real Rolex out there. This could also be the sense in which Scripture speaks of “God of gods” or “above all gods.” He is the best of all the “gods” out there because the others are fake gods. We should add one more consideration. Because YHWH is “most absolute” and infinitely above all else, he cannot even be placed in a category with other “gods.” The analogy of “real watch” and “fake watch” breaks down because the two watches have much in common, being in the same category “watch.” YHWH is not in a category (genus) with any other being. This only underscores how much more YHWH is “God of gods.” These other beings are “gods” not because they have some attributes of a divine nature but because mankind ascribes worship to them.

If all of this sounds like tortuous exegesis, there is another solution that is far simpler. Why is YHWH the God of gods? Because he is the only true God, the only one whose essence is divinity. Mankind worships other beings and objects as gods, considering them gods, but they do not have divine natures. If we limit our language of “gods” to “beings that are worshipped,” YHWH is far above all these beings while being the superlative One. The fact that man worships other beings does not mean these beings are properly gods.

Thus, no matter which of the several senses an interpreter chooses, the phrase “God of gods” does not necessarily imply the true existence of other gods. Legitimate options exist to understand these terms in a different sense. For this reason, we can continue to interpret this phrase in light of the statements which speak of YHWH as the only elohim who exists.



[1] עַל־כָּל־אֱלֹהִֽים

[2] כִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם הוּא אֱלֹהֵי הָֽאֱלֹהִים וַאֲדֹנֵי הָאֲדֹנִים

[3] הוֹדוּ לַאֲדֹנֵי הָאֲדֹנִים . . . הוֹדוּ לֵֽאלֹהֵי הָאֱלֹהִים

[4] אֱלָהֲכוֹן הוּא אֱלָהּ אֱלָהִין וּמָרֵא מַלְכִין

[5] וְיִתְגַּדֵּל עַל־כָּל־אֵל וְעַל אֵל אֵלִים יְדַבֵּר נִפְלָאוֹת

[6] J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah, ad loc Isaiah 41:21

[7] Daniel I. Block, The Gospel According to Moses (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 214–215.

[8] Block, The Gospel According to Moses, 213.

[9] Block, The Gospel According to Moses, 213, says, “Moses’ use of the expression in Deut 10:17, however, should be interpreted in the light of earlier unequivocally monotheistic statements such as those found in 4:32–40.”

[10] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/why-the-gods-are-real-and-why-it-matters-part

[11] 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), 47, “When Yahweh gives his people the Ten Commandments, the first commandment implies the existence of other gods . . . .”

[12] House, Isaiah, Vol. 2, 335.

[13] Block, The Gospel According to Moses, 214, uses this term “superlative degree” as applied to Deut 10:14.

[14] Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677), 2.1.