Many Gods In Bible

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

You wrote:

Rob, you don't have to take offense every time I rib you about something. It certainly seems a dodge to me, whether it's because you don't want the tangent, you don't have the time, or you're not comfortable with the topic. You didn't directly address it, which to me qualifies as a dodge. There's no need to be overly sensitive.

I don't consider showing that your post failed to address the question raised in the opening post -- a fact you at first denied but have now had to admit -- a dodge.

You wrote:

I did not give you a definition of gods, I merely listed some gods that Evangelicals are generally reluctant to acknowledge as such. The definition of "gods" goes well beyond that. Chemosh, for instance, is a Moabite deity whose power is unquestionably acknowledged by the author of 2 Kings, but who is not an angel, demon, or anything else on my list. Asherah and Baal are not angels, demons, etc., either, but they were unquestionably acknowledged by authoritative Israelite religious voices as gods.

Your statement, to which I was responding, was that "Any religious tradition that accepts the existence of angels, demons, cherubim, etc., accepts the existence of numerous gods." I showed that this statement amounts to nothing more than a semantic quibble (that's for Bill Hamblin!). Now you are complaining that evangelicals don't accept other gods besides angels, demons, and cherubim. So what, if your sole point was that there are other beings that the Bible calls "gods" besides Yahweh?

Evangelicals have an easily identified category for such gods as Chemosh, Asherah, and Baal. You may not think of them as demonic beings, but we do. We would say that to the extent that there are real supernatural beings involved in the pagan worship of such deities, those supernatural beings are demons. We have statements in both the Old and New Testaments in support of our position. "They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not feared" (Deut. 32:17). Paul echoes Deuteronomy when he says, "The things that the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God" (1 Cor. 10:20).

"They mingled with the nations

and learned to do as they did.

They served their idols,

which became a snare to them.

They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons;

they poured out innocent blood,

the blood of their sons and daughters,

whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan;

and the land was polluted with blood." (Ps. 106:35-38)

You had written:

The notion that they’re not “gods” in the same sense that God is God actually supports my point.

In response, I said:

"Furthermore, we maintain that these beings are not 'gods' in the same sense that God is God."

You now say:

And here you rest your case on a bit of semantic smoke and mirrors. You capitalize the predication "God"in your final clause as well as the subject, which is a rather sneaky way to use "God" as a proper noun in both places rather than a generic one in the predication.

Come on, Dan. All I'm doing is echoing your words back to you. It's your own "semantic smoke and mirrors"!

You wrote:

If you accept that the word "god" is a designation not exclusive to Yhwh (which you explicitly do), and you are just capitalizing the predication out of respect, then the sense in which Yhwh is a deity can be no different from the sense in which any other deity is a deity. There is no special sense in which God is a "god." There is a special sense in which the Israelite deity God is the Israelite deity God, but that sense is no different from the sense in which I am me, or are you. Yhwh can be stronger than other deities, or smarter, or older, but that does not bear on the sense in which he qualifies as a deity. It only has to do with his unique attributes within the category that have nothing to do with qualification for membership. A deity is a deity is a deity, unless you can point to some special semantic sense of the Hebrew word אלהים in reference to Yhwh alone (you cannot).

Are you only interested in arguing semantics, or is there a theological point here?

You wrote:

Because to do so is to undermine the common Evangelical understanding of monotheism. There are some who try to manipulate the definition to allow for other deities (such as Paul Owen's attempt in The New Mormon Challenge), but that flagrantly contradicts the concept as understood within Judeo-Christianity from the very invention of the word down to today. What Owen and others are describing is actually just a brand of henotheism. If you really want to see a semantic circus, watch someone try to insist that it's not monolatry, but is actually monotheism as it was always understood.

A semantic circus appears to be your desired outcome. On the definition of monotheism, I had written:

"Likewise, what evangelicals mean by monotheism is not that Almighty God is the only supernatural being or spiritual entity, which would entail a denial of the existence of angels and demons, but that Almighty God is and always will be the sole creator, sustainer, and ruler over all other things."

You quoted only the first part of that sentence (up through "entity") and then claimed:

Actually that's what the word has always been used by evangelicals to mean.

That's false, and frankly, Dan, you know it's false. Evangelicals believe in the existence of numerous supernatural beings. You can't get around this simple fact by cutting up my sentence into pieces. You also can't get around this fact by citing one of our own reference works, as you did next:

For instance, the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology defines monotheism the following way:

The belief that there is only one God. Related terms are polytheism (the belief that there are many gods), henotheism (belief in one supreme god, though not necessarily to the exclusion of belief in other lesser gods), monolatry (worship of only one god, though not necessarily denying that other gods exist), and atheism (denying or disbelieving in the existence of any gods at all).

I don't see anything in the above definition that excludes the existence of other supernatural beings, such as angels and demons. Regarding that definition, you say:

Nothing about sole sovereignty or creation. By this definition, you're promoting henotheism. I would say the author here uses "God" in the proper noun sense, but his distinction from henotheism obviously precludes that. It appears to me he's capitalizing the predication out of some kind of sense of honor or respect.

Again, your issue here is strictly semantic, as far as I can tell. The author clearly is not denying the existence of angels or demons. He is not denying the existence of other supernatural beings. As I read the paragraph you quoted in the context of the rest of the entry, henotheism is being understood as the belief that there are many gods to be revered or served but one that is supreme over all the others. Monolatry is understood here as the practice of worshiping only one god even though there are many gods that other people may legitimately worship. Thus a devotee of Vishnu, who worships only Vishnu while not criticizing the worship of other gods, is practicing monolatry. The orthodox and evangelical position is that of all the supernatural beings that exist, only one is the proper object of religious devotion (worship, reverence, religious fear, sacrifice, etc.) because he alone is the creator and sovereign ruler over all things.

You wrote:

I don't think I could find an Evangelical theological dictionary or publication of any kind that actually promotes the notion that many gods exist, and that monotheism only refers to Yhwh's creation of and sovereignty over all things. That idea is generally only found in publications by individual apologists who are Evangelical and are trying to align their devotional terminology with critical scholarship.

Again, I agree that evangelicals generally don't refer to supernatural beings other than Yahweh as "gods." But that is a semantic issue, not a theological one. Monotheism does not refer "only" to Yahweh's creation and sovereign rule over all things, but to his unique status as the only proper object of prayer, worship, and other forms of religious devotion due to his being the sole creator and sovereign ruler over all things.

You wrote:

Your view also certainly doesn't square with the common Evangelical interpretation of Deutero-Isaiah, unless, of course, you are siding with me and Michael Heiser in arguing that none of Isaiah actually denies the existence of other gods, but is just rhetoric aimed at marginalizing them. Is this the case? If so, it would unquestionably put you in the clear minority when it comes to Evangelical readings.

You're still stuck on the semantic issue. No evangelical interprets Isaiah to mean that Yahweh is the only supernatural being in existence.

You wrote:

Now you're channeling Owen, but monotheism has never been about God's relationship to creation. It's always been about his unique existence independent of creation.

You are mistaken in thinking I'm getting any of this from Owen. If there is an evangelical scholar who has helped me nuance my explanation of monotheism it is Richard Bauckham. As for what you say here, monotheism has always been about both God's unique transcendence and independence vis-a-vis creation and God's unique relationship to creation.

You wrote:

If it were merely semantic then there wouldn't be so many people out there shrieking and howling about Isa 43:10. If we're just using different words to describe the same concept, then the vast, vast majority of Evangelicals quite fundamentally and seriously misunderstand and misrepresent that concept.

"Shrieking and howling"? More uncivil discourse, Dan. I don't appreciate this characterization of evangelicals.

As you know full well, evangelicals do not cite Isaiah 43:10 to discount the existence of supernatural beings such as angels, demons, or cherubim. They cite Isaiah 43:10 to discount such doctrines as the existence of a Heavenly Grandfather ("before me there was no god formed") or the future exaltation of saved human beings to the status of Gods that can rule over their own worlds ("and there will be none after me").

You wrote:

I disagree quite emphatically. It seems to me that you're the one trying to use semantics as a smoke screen while Evangelicalism makes its escape.

I believe I have responded adequately to this criticism.

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Rob,

Do you agree that the NT authors and early Christians believed that the pagan gods were ontologically real entities?

Can you show me anywhere in the OT that gods are called angels?

Do you agree that bene elohim in Hebrew means "children of god" and is a generic plural for both male and female?

Thanks

Edited October 10, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Your questions appear below, followed by my answers.

Do you agree that the NT authors and early Christians believed that the pagan gods were ontologically real entities?

Some did, yes. I don't think we have enough information to generalize as to what all of them believed.

Can you show me anywhere in the OT that gods are called angels?

No.

Do you agree that bene elohim in Hebrew means "children of god" and is a generic plural for both male and female?

It could, but not in Genesis 6:2 or 6:4. In my humble opinion, I think we can risk political incorrectness and rule out that any of the "children of God" who were attracted to the "daughters of men" were female.

[Bill Hamblin]

Some did, yes. I don't think we have enough information to generalize as to what all of them believed.

Interesting that the Bible doesn't provide enough information to answer this question (hence it is not sufficient), and that there were theological disputes among biblical writers (hence the Bible is not univocal).

At any rate, if that is true, then obviously the claims that Yahweh is the "only elohim" can't mean he is the only god-being, since there are other beings in the OT called elohim in addition to Yahweh.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

No.

So why do you insist on unbiblically calling the Hebrew elohim angels?

[Bill Hamblin]

It could, but not in Genesis 6:2 or 6:4. In my humble opinion, I think we can risk political incorrectness and rule out that any of the "children of God" who were attracted to the "daughters of men" were female.

I didn't say the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were females. Simply that in the Hebrew world view there were female elohim.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Interesting that the Bible doesn't provide enough information to answer this question (hence it is not sufficient), and that there were theological disputes among biblical writers (hence the Bible is not univocal).

Who said anything about theological disputes among biblical writers? Not I. You made your question too broad and vague by making it about what all of the NT authors and all other "early Christians" thought. I answered that question, and you are trying to convert my answer into a comment on a narrower and more precise question (what the biblical writers taught).

You wrote:

At any rate, if that is true, then obviously the claims that Yahweh is the "only elohim" can't mean he is the only god-being, since there are other beings in the OT called elohim in addition to Yahweh.

I've already addressed this semantic quibbling (an appropriate characterization in this context) in my responses to maklelan. No one here is arguing that the OT never refers to other beings as elohim.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

So why do you insist on unbiblically calling the Hebrew elohim angels?

First, I don't insist on any such thing. Second, there is nothing wrong with using different words than the Bible if what one is expressing agrees in substance with what the Bible says.

As I documented in my reply to maklelan, Moses, the author of Psalm 106, and Paul call the elohim of the nations "demons." Is that okay with you?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I didn't say the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were females. Simply that in the Hebrew world view there were female elohim.

You asked me if I agreed (with you, presumably) that bene elohim was a generic expression meaning "children of god" and that it included males and females. I pointed out that it could have such a meaning but does not in Genesis 6. Do you or do you not agree with my answer?

Please cite for me a text from the Hebrew Bible in which the text affirms the existence of female elohim. I'm looking for a reference where the Hebrew Bible is actually teaching or endorsing this idea, not for an argument that this was part of some "Hebrew world view."

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

First, I don't insist on any such thing. Second, there is nothing wrong with using different words than the Bible if what one is expressing agrees in substance with what the Bible says.

As I documented in my reply to maklelan, Moses, the author of Psalm 106, and Paul call the elohim of the nations "demons." Is that okay with you?

Why would it not be okay with me? The point is that the Greek daemons (a different concept than our demons) are real beings, who are gods/elohim. That's the standard biblical view. The issue here is the biblical presumption that the gods of the nations are real beings, and are elohim.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

You asked me if I agreed (with you, presumably) that bene elohim was a generic expression meaning "children of god" and that it included males and females. I pointed out that it could have such a meaning but does not in Genesis 6. Do you or do you not agree with my answer?

Please cite for me a text from the Hebrew Bible in which the text affirms the existence of female elohim. I'm looking for a reference where the Hebrew Bible is actually teaching or endorsing this idea, not for an argument that this was part of some "Hebrew world view."

All the Asherah passages, Asthoreth (1 Kgs. 11:15, 33), queen of heaven (Jer. 7:18, 44:17-19, 25).

Ashtoreth is specifically said to be an elohim.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

You asked me if I agreed (with you, presumably) that bene elohim was a generic expression meaning "children of god" and that it included males and females. I pointed out that it could have such a meaning but does not in Genesis 6. Do you or do you not agree with my answer?

Yes, in the case of Gen. 6. That's obvious. But it is not the only use of bene elohim.

I said bene X in Hebrew means "son/daughters" of X. It is generic. Thus, bene Yisra'el does not mean "sons of Israel" but descendants or children of Israel. Everyone is included, both male and female. Thus, in the standard grammatical use of Hebrew, bene elohim means descendants/children of elohim/God/gods, not just sons.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

All the Asherah passages, Asthoreth (1 Kgs. 11:15, 33), queen of heaven (Jer. 7:18, 44:17-19, 25).

Ashtoreth is specifically said to be an elohim.

Several of the "Asherah passages" speak of the Asherah being cut down and even burned. How do human beings cut down and burn a goddess?

In 1 Kings 11:5, 33, is the author endorsing the belief that Ashtoreth was an elohim, or merely reporting this belief? Notice that 1 Kings calls Ashtoreth "the god [elohim] of the Sidonians."

Do you believe in Asherah/Ashtoreth as a real goddess or goddesses?

[Freedom]

There are a two possibilities for these apparent conflicts of doctrine.

1) The record is an accurate portrayal of the intent of the reader. This means that their understanding was wrong, much the same way as some of the non-cannonized writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others are off base. Thus, they were not really intended as binding scripture and would have looked quite different had they been through the editing process that Mormon completed with the Book of Mormon. The other possibility is that they were actually correct and our understanding of God is perhaps not as clear as we think

2) The record is not an accurate portrayal of the intent of the reader and has become corrupted so we are reading way too much into the text.

My personal opinion is that many of the books, such as Kings and Proverbs, were never intended to be scripture but were written either for historical reference or to document oral traditions and teachings. They would therefore be burdened with the cultural and linguistic influences of the time. In LDS doctrine, we acknowledge that there are other gods, but it is not spoken of in our scriptures. I don't even think any New Testament books, other then Revelation, were divinely commissioned and were simply the writings of early church teachers who were attempting to put on paper what they recalled.

This matter is perhaps off topic, but relates to the matter of trying to find mormon or evangelical doctrine in places that may not be reliable sources.

[Bill Hamblin]

Several of the "Asherah passages" speak of the Asherah being cut down and even burned. How do human beings cut down and burn a goddess?

In 1 Kings 11:5, 33, is the author endorsing the belief that Ashtoreth was an elohim, or merely reporting this belief? Notice that 1 Kings calls Ashtoreth "the god [elohim] of the Sidonians."

Do you believe in Asherah/Ashtoreth as a real goddess or goddesses?

Come on Rob, this is ancient Near Eastern religion 101. Cult images of gods were called gods. Asherah is a goddess whose cult image was either a tree or a wooden poll (or, probably, both), and thus, when the cult image was cut down, the goddess Asherah was cut down.

You asked for references to female elohim. I gave them to you. There is no reason to believe that the Israelites didn't believe that Asherah, Ashtoreth and the Queen of Heaven were not elohim/goddesses. That's why they called them that.

What I believe about Asherah and Ashtoreth is irrelevant. The Israelites clearly believed the other elohim were real beings, and that Asherah and Ashtoreth, etc. were elohim. There is no reason to object to this historical Israelite belief except that it doesn't fit your Evangelical theology.

Dever, W. Did God Have a Wife? (Eerdmans, 2008)

Hadley, J. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (Cambridge, 2000)

Olyan, Saul. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBL 1988)

Becking, B. et. al. Only One God?: Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah (Sheffield, 2001)

Wiggins, S. A Reassessment of Asherah, (2007)

[maklelan]

maklelan,

You wrote:

I don't consider showing that your post failed to address the question raised in the opening post -- a fact you at first denied but have now had to admit -- a dodge.

I didn't call your interpretation a dodge, I called your refusal to address a clearly on-topic and important concern simply because it didn't perfectly align with your interpretation of the OP's statement a dodge. I did not admit I failed to address anything, as well. The OP clarified a quite unclear and grammatically clumsy statement after I invited them to do so.

You wrote:

Your statement, to which I was responding, was that "Any religious tradition that accepts the existence of angels, demons, cherubim, etc., accepts the existence of numerous gods." I showed that this statement amounts to nothing more than a semantic quibble (that's for Bill Hamblin!).

No, you simply asserted that it was a semantic quibble. Of course, one can only object to a semantic quibble by quibbling about semantics. The semantics are quite important, as your lengthy semantic quibbles below make rather clear. If you acknowledge that there are other gods, and that the angels and demons are gods, then you stand at odds with the absolutely overwhelming majority of your religious tradition. Going back to page 61 of the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, we read, "we need not infer from this usage [Ps 82:1], as do some apologists, that the angels are lesser deities."

Similarly, James White barks a ludicrous semantic quibble at me when he states, "An angel may be called a 'divine being' in the sense of 'a being of supernatural origin or character,' but that does not mean the angel is a god!" Let us go back to pages 55-56 of his book, The Forgotten Trinity: "The Scriptures do not teach that there exists a whole host of intermediate beings that can truly be called 'gods.' That is gnosticism."

An Evangelical named David A. Jones wrote on page 37 in his book Angels: A History, "Angels are not little gods. This is an important point about angels. It is what distinguishes belief in angels from polytheism, which has a pantheon of gods with Zeus or Jupiter as the 'top god'. Angels belong to religions that have only one God, but where God has spiritual servants, messengers, courtiers, or soldiers."

The Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church says the following: "Angels are not gods. They are God's creation and serve His holy and perfect will. The good angels are said to be 'ministering spirits,' sent by God to serve us, His people."

A Liturgical Press book by Michael Patella called Angels and Demons: A Christian Primer of the Spiritual World states on page 9, "Angels are not gods; they are the Lord's messengers who appear in dreams or in human form at select places and times."

On page 10 of OUP's Angels: A Very Short Introduction, we read, "In common with Christianity and Judaism, Islam emphasizes that angels are not gods but are servants of God who were created by God."

The Apologetics Index states, "Angels are not gods. Angels are not minor deities like the ones in Greek mythology. Such a view of angels would amount to polytheism--belief in many gods."

I could point to dozens and dozens of other online and print publications, whether academic, devotional, or personal, that emphatically state that angels are not gods, and that the notion that they are violates monotheism and amounts to gross polytheism. I would hesitate to call such an issue "a semantic quibble."

Now you are complaining that evangelicals don't accept other gods besides angels, demons, and cherubim. So what, if your sole point was that there are other beings that the Bible calls "gods" besides Yahweh?

Evangelicals have an easily identified category for such gods as Chemosh, Asherah, and Baal. You may not think of them as demonic beings, but we do. We would say that to the extent that there are real supernatural beings involved in the pagan worship of such deities, those supernatural beings are demons. We have statements in both the Old and New Testaments in support of our position. "They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not feared" (Deut. 32:17). Paul echoes Deuteronomy when he says, "The things that the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God" (1 Cor. 10:20).

So you acknowledge that demons are gods, and all Evangelicals do the same? That doesn't sound right. This seems more like a semantic quibble intended to consolidate all possible gods into the "angels or demons" category in order to make my earlier comment sound like a comprehensive definition of the word "god." In order to test my theory, would you mind pointing to, oh, say, five different Evangelical scholars who have acknowledged in print that demons are gods?

You had written:

In response, I said:

"Furthermore, we maintain that these beings are not 'gods' in the same sense that God is God."

You now say:

Come on, Dan. All I'm doing is echoing your words back to you. It's your own "semantic smoke and mirrors"!

And my words were just a quotation of a ludicrous notion that Evangelicals seem to think means something to this discussion. This time I dug a little deeper into the problem than in my original quotation.

You wrote:

Are you only interested in arguing semantics, or is there a theological point here?

Yes. The point is that "not god in the same sense that God is God," whether one uses "God" generically or in the proper noun sense, undermines the entire endeavor. It basically says "well, we're not monotheists, but we're henotheists." Either they are gods or they are not gods. There is no evidence for, or significance to, the notion that God is a deity in some special way that all other deities are not. It's a cop out. It's just a line that Evangelicals are used to because it seems to work for people who don't know any better.

You wrote:

A semantic circus appears to be your desired outcome. On the definition of monotheism, I had written:

"Likewise, what evangelicals mean by monotheism is not that Almighty God is the only supernatural being or spiritual entity, which would entail a denial of the existence of angels and demons, but that Almighty God is and always will be the sole creator, sustainer, and ruler over all other things."

You quoted only the first part of that sentence (up through "entity") and then claimed:

That's false, and frankly, Dan, you know it's false. Evangelicals believe in the existence of numerous supernatural beings.

And as James White has so emphatically shown, that does not mean there are numerous gods. If you want me to believe you are sincerely acknowledging there are other gods, but that there's something special about your belief that doesn't undermine monotheism, then you've gotta stop hiding from the word "god" behind more vague and semantically broad words like "supernatural being" or "spiritual entity." It just seems to me that you're camped out on the edges of those semantic fields, far from the overlapping notion of a "god." Additionally, the definition you provide is a rather modern revision of the longstanding notion that monotheism means there exists only one divine being. That definition has developed from apologists seeking to reconcile, to some degree, critical scholarship with their ideologies. Changing the definitions, or semantically quibbling, has become the most effective way for those apologists to achieve the desired goal of academically justifying their ideologies.

You can't get around this simple fact by cutting up my sentence into pieces. You also can't get around this fact by citing one of our own reference works, as you did next:

I don't see anything in the above definition that excludes the existence of other supernatural beings, such as angels and demons.

That's because you've got your apologists lenses on. See my quote from above for confirmation of my reading. Here it is again if you're don't want to scroll up:

we need not infer from this usage [Ps 82:1], as do some apologists, that the angels are lesser deities.

Regarding that definition, you say:

Again, your issue here is strictly semantic, as far as I can tell.

No, it's a concern with the proper way to interpret the author's statement, and the quote I shared twice already rather confirms my interpretation. According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, you are promoting henotheism.

Continued . . .

Edited October 10, 2012 by maklelan

[maklelan]

The author clearly is not denying the existence of angels or demons. He is not denying the existence of other supernatural beings. As I read the paragraph you quoted in the context of the rest of the entry, henotheism is being understood as the belief that there are many gods to be revered or served but one that is supreme over all the others.

No, that would be monolatry. The text is quite explicit in identifying henotheism as "belief in one supreme god," not "worship of one supreme god."

Monolatry is understood here as the practice of worshiping only one god even though there are many gods that other people may legitimately worship.

No, the text nowhere indicates that. It is quite explicit in its definition: "worship of only one god, though not necessarily denying that other gods exist." You're trying to read in your own definitions, but neither of these words are used consistently enough to have real firm definitions to begin with. They mean whatever an author defines them to mean. Here the author provides a definition. You are not authorized to add to it.

Thus a devotee of Vishnu, who worships only Vishnu while not criticizing the worship of other gods, is practicing monolatry. The orthodox and evangelical position is that of all the supernatural beings that exist, only one is the proper object of religious devotion (worship, reverence, religious fear, sacrifice, etc.) because he alone is the creator and sovereign ruler over all things.

That's not the way the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology explains it. Where is the position as you explain it spelled out authoritatively? It conflicts quite directly with the position as I've had it explained to me by numerous other Evangelicals.

You wrote:

Again, I agree that evangelicals generally don't refer to supernatural beings other than Yahweh as "gods." But that is a semantic issue, not a theological one.

No, it's a theological one because they are reluctant to use that terminology precisely because of their theology. The vast majority outright reject the notion that other supernatural beings are gods at all. Ask Mike Heiser what kind of responses he gets when he explains exactly what you're trying to explain to other Evangelicals.

Monotheism does not refer "only" to Yahweh's creation and sovereign rule over all things, but to his unique status as the only proper object of prayer, worship, and other forms of religious devotion due to his being the sole creator and sovereign ruler over all things.

I can point you to literally hundreds of publications from the last two or three centuries that define monotheism unequivocally as the belief that only one deity exists. There is no qualifying, nor is there any elaboration. This is not because the details were simply understood by everyone. If they were, the basic definition would not be needed at all. The qualifications that you're describing have only been introduced since around the early to mid-twentieth century, around the time textual and archaeological discoveries supplementing mainline Protestant scholarship made it absolutely clear that other gods were acknowledged to have existed by the biblical authors. Rather than discard monotheism, conservative scholars decided to just redefine it so that they could acknowledge other gods, as was unthinkable previously, but still call themselves monotheists. You want to be concerned about semantics, that's the great semantic crime. Yours is an entirely new definition of monotheism, and it rather flagrantly ignores the entire history of the word and its usage. It hasn't trickled down to the commoners, which is why the vast majority of non-academic Evangelicals would find your views heretical.

You wrote:

You're still stuck on the semantic issue. No evangelical interprets Isaiah to mean that Yahweh is the only supernatural being in existence.

You're equivocating. There are plenty of Evangelicals who interpret Isaiah to mean that Yhwh is the only god in existence. Matt Slick insists "the bBible alone presents God as the only God in existence, the Supreme Being who is a Trinity." Here's more from Slick:

he Bible tells us that there is only one God in all existence (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). However, it also mentions "other gods." For example there is Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kings 17:31), Asherah (1 Kings 18:19), Baal (Judges 3:7), Chemosh (Num. 21:29), Dagon (1 Sam. 5:2), Molech (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5), etc. The Bible is not contradicting itself. When the Bible speaks of other gods it is speaking of false gods that have no true existence.

The early Oxford scholar Rev. Charles Fox Burney called Israel's early history monolatrous because, "Yahwe was thought of, not as the only Divine Being in existence, but as the only Divine Being with whom Israel as a nation had any concern."

A 2005 Fortress Press book entitled Constructive Theology (written by ordained ministers) tells us on page 23, "Whereas previously Yahweh had been imagined to be the national god of Israel exerting his power locally within a larger context of national deities, Israel's god came to be viewed as the only deity in existence (see the Book of Isaiah, beginning with chapter 44).

Then we can go to page 49 of A God of Many Understandings? The Gospel and Theology of Religions (): "The question of whether the Israelites believed that their covenant Lord was the only deity in existence (monotheism) or whether they were to worship only their Lord while granting some sort of existence to the gods of the other nations (henotheism) is the subject of some debate."

You wrote:

You are mistaken in thinking I'm getting any of this from Owen.

It sounds quite a bit like Owen, but I acknowledge that he's drawing his info from others, mainly Bauckham and Hurtado.

If there is an evangelical scholar who has helped me nuance my explanation of monotheism it is Richard Bauckham. As for what you say here, monotheism has always been about both God's unique transcendence and independence vis-a-vis creation and God's unique relationship to creation.

You wrote:

"Shrieking and howling"? More uncivil discourse, Dan. I don't appreciate this characterization of evangelicals.

Have you seen the people at CARM try to shout me down with Isa 43:1? If you don't appreciate that characterization, go tell Matt Slick to put a muzzle on his people. Did you know I'm not banned there, but they've altered my account so I'm the only person who can read my posts? They've also erased all my previous posts. On Facebook they banned me from commenting and erased all my posts, then publicly told people who were asking that they didn't do a thing to my account or my posts. You want Evangelicals to be better represented then you find a way to get CARM to go away.

As you know full well, evangelicals do not cite Isaiah 43:10 to discount the existence of supernatural beings such as angels, demons, or cherubim.

Right, because the vast majority do not acknowledge those beings as gods.

They cite Isaiah 43:10 to discount such doctrines as the existence of a Heavenly Grandfather ("before me there was no god formed") or the future exaltation of saved human beings to the status of Gods that can rule over their own worlds ("and there will be none after me").

No, it's cited far, far more widely than just in discussions with Latter-day Saints.

You wrote:

I believe I have responded adequately to this criticism.

And I believe I've responded adequately to your claims.

[Darren10]

I've discussed this in numerous places. See here, for instance. I published a rather lengthy discussion on CARM, but they've managed to find a way to permanently ban me without banning me. They made it so my posts and threads only show up if one is logged into my own account. I'm the only one who can read them, so if I link to my thread, you won't see it even though I'm not listed as banned. Instead, I'll just post it here:

LOL. They were much more upfront with me. I got banned for life on only my second day there. I was banned for proselytizing on their website. I guess it was not appropriate to testify of the divinity of the Book of Mormon after one poster said science has proven that it is nothing more than a bunch of fairy tales. Oh well. It's their site, they make the calls.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Come on Rob, this is ancient Near Eastern religion 101. Cult images of gods were called gods. Asherah is a goddess whose cult image was either a tree or a wooden poll (or, probably, both), and thus, when the cult image was cut down, the goddess Asherah was cut down.

Hmm. I have decided that you and maklelan are right. The Hebrew Bible did affirm the existence of gods (=cult images of gods). They came in male (cult image) and female (cult image) varieties. They were ontologically real (cult images).

You wrote:

You asked for references to female elohim. I gave them to you. There is no reason to believe that the Israelites didn't believe that Asherah, Ashtoreth and the Queen of Heaven were not elohim/goddesses. That's why they called them that.

There's no reason to believe that the Israelites didn't believe that Ashe, Asht, and Q were not elohim.... I think you've got one too many negations in there somewhere.

You wrote:

What I believe about Asherah and Ashtoreth is irrelevant.

I stand corrected. The only person's beliefs that are subject to question here are mine. Got it.

The Israelites clearly believed the other elohim were real beings, and that Asherah and Ashtoreth, etc. were elohim. There is no reason to object to this historical Israelite belief except that it doesn't fit your Evangelical theology.

Not at all. My evangelical theology has no problem integrating into it the idea that ancient Israelites historically held to some very wrong-headed beliefs. Besides, I've taken ancient Near Eastern religion 101 and have come around to your way of thinking. Asherah and Ashtoreth were regarded as real elohim (=real cult images).

[Bill Hamblin]

Hmm. I have decided that you and maklelan are right. The Hebrew Bible did affirm the existence of gods (=cult images of gods). They came in male (cult image) and female (cult image) varieties. They were ontologically real (cult images).

You wrote:

There's no reason to believe that the Israelites didn't believe that Ashe, Asht, and Q were not elohim.... I think you've got one too many negations in there somewhere.

You wrote:

I stand corrected. The only person's beliefs that are subject to question here are mine. Got it.

Not at all. My evangelical theology has no problem integrating into it the idea that ancient Israelites historically held to some very wrong-headed beliefs. Besides, I've taken ancient Near Eastern religion 101 and have come around to your way of thinking. Asherah and Ashtoreth were regarded as real elohim (=real cult images).

Now you're just being quibblingly silly--again.

1- A cult image was an elohim because the god it represented was ontologically real, not because the cult image existed. You've got it exactly backwards.

2- There is every reason to believe the Israelites believed that Asherah and Ashtoreth were elohim. That's what they call them! You are the one imagining that the Israelites would call something an elohim when they thought it wasn't an elohim.

3- No, what is important is not your personal belief, nor my personal belief, but what the biblical text says about Israelite belief.

4- How can a text containing "very wrong-headed beliefs" be inerrant? This is just nutty.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

I didn't call your interpretation a dodge, I called your refusal to address a clearly on-topic and important concern simply because it didn't perfectly align with your interpretation of the OP's statement a dodge. I did not admit I failed to address anything, as well. The OP clarified a quite unclear and grammatically clumsy statement after I invited them to do so.

You failed to address the question that the opening post asked, as the author himself made clear. I didn't accuse you then of dodging his question, but I do now, because you still haven't addressed his question as he meant it even after he clarified it for you. I, on the other hand, have addressed your claim that the use of elohim for other beings besides Yahweh conflicts with evangelical theology.

You wrote:

No, you simply asserted that it was a semantic quibble.

"Simply asserted" entails that no argument or reason was given. That is not the case. I have reasons for that conclusion.

You wrote:

Of course, one can only object to a semantic quibble by quibbling about semantics. The semantics are quite important, as your lengthy semantic quibbles below make rather clear.

Oh no. You've contracted Hamblinitis. Hopefully it's just a mild case and you'll pull through somehow.

Dan, perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word quibble. It is not necessary to quibble in order to object to a semantic quibble. To quibble means to pose an objection that is slight or trivial. Pointing out that someone's argument is quibbling is not itself quibbling.

You wrote:

If you acknowledge that there are other gods, and that the angels and demons are gods, then you stand at odds with the absolutely overwhelming majority of your religious tradition. Going back to page 61 of the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, we read, "we need not infer from this usage [Ps 82:1], as do some apologists, that the angels are lesser deities."

Similarly, James White barks a ludicrous semantic quibble at me when he states, "An angel may be called a 'divine being' in the sense of 'a being of supernatural origin or character,' but that does not mean the angel is a god!" Let us go back to pages 55-56 of his book, The Forgotten Trinity: "The Scriptures do not teach that there exists a whole host of intermediate beings that can truly be called 'gods.' That is gnosticism."

An Evangelical named David A. Jones wrote on page 37 in his book Angels: A History, "Angels are not little gods. This is an important point about angels. It is what distinguishes belief in angels from polytheism, which has a pantheon of gods with Zeus or Jupiter as the 'top god'. Angels belong to religions that have only one God, but where God has spiritual servants, messengers, courtiers, or soldiers."

The Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church says the following: "Angels are not gods. They are God's creation and serve His holy and perfect will. The good angels are said to be 'ministering spirits,' sent by God to serve us, His people."

A Liturgical Press book by Michael Patella called Angels and Demons: A Christian Primer of the Spiritual World states on page 9, "Angels are not gods; they are the Lord's messengers who appear in dreams or in human form at select places and times."

On page 10 of OUP's Angels: A Very Short Introduction, we read, "In common with Christianity and Judaism, Islam emphasizes that angels are not gods but are servants of God who were created by God."

The Apologetics Index states, "Angels are not gods. Angels are not minor deities like the ones in Greek mythology. Such a view of angels would amount to polytheism--belief in many gods."

I could point to dozens and dozens of other online and print publications, whether academic, devotional, or personal, that emphatically state that angels are not gods, and that the notion that they are violates monotheism and amounts to gross polytheism. I would hesitate to call such an issue "a semantic quibble."

You are making two questionable assumptions in your critique of evangelical theology. (1) You are assuming that the word gods has one and only one meaning, so that if someone asserts that angels are not gods (for example), using the term gods in a particular sense, then there can be no sense in which angels are gods. (2) Behind your argument lies the assumption that the modern English word gods and the ancient Hebrew word elohim are coterminous in meaning. That is, if an ancient Hebrew writing 2500 or 3000 years ago refers to various supernatural beings as elohim, you assume that this means the same thing as a modern English writing referring to various supernatural beings as "gods." These assumptions need to be supported, not merely taken for granted. They are not self-evidently true. After all, the meanings of words change over time even within the same language, words have different meanings at the same time, and words taken from one language into another language often end up with somewhat different meanings. So a modern evangelical American Christian who says that angels are not gods is not necessarily contradicting an ancient Hebrew writer who uses the term elohim in reference to supernatural entities created by Yahweh.

I asked if you had a theological point to make. You replied:

Yes. The point is that "not god in the same sense that God is God," whether one uses "God" generically or in the proper noun sense, undermines the entire endeavor. It basically says "well, we're not monotheists, but we're henotheists." Either they are gods or they are not gods. There is no evidence for, or significance to, the notion that God is a deity in some special way that all other deities are not. It's a cop out. It's just a line that Evangelicals are used to because it seems to work for people who don't know any better.

I'm sorry, but I'm missing the big theological point. Your point seems to be that if evangelicals acknowledge the existence of beings that the OT calls elohim then they should not call themselves monotheists. How is that anything more than a semantic point? Likewise, you wrote:

No, it's a theological one because they are reluctant to use that terminology precisely because of their theology. The vast majority outright reject the notion that other supernatural beings are gods at all. Ask Mike Heiser what kind of responses he gets when he explains exactly what you're trying to explain to other Evangelicals.

This is still a purely semantic issue. Heiser is not arguing that categories supernatural beings exist other than ones acknowledged by other evangelicals. He is not arguing that evangelicals need to change their theological beliefs about angels, demons, or other supernatural beings. He is simply arguing the lexical point that the OT uses the word elohim in reference to supernatural beings. A lexical point is a semantic point. When evangelicals reject the notion that other supernatural beings are "gods," they are not rejecting some theological truth about them that Heiser says is taught in the OT.

You wrote:

Yours is an entirely new definition of monotheism, and it rather flagrantly ignores the entire history of the word and its usage. It hasn't trickled down to the commoners, which is why the vast majority of non-academic Evangelicals would find your views heretical.

That's funny. I've taught non-academic evangelicals at conferences and in church settings for over 30 years and I've never once had anyone claim that my definition of monotheism was heretical. And it isn't as if I haven't talked on the subject. I do a lot of teaching on the doctrine of God and specifically on the Trinity.

I stated that no evangelical thinks or claims that Isaiah 43:10 denies the existence of other supernatural beings. You replied:

You're equivocating. There are plenty of Evangelicals who interpret Isaiah to mean that Yhwh is the only god in existence. Matt Slick insists "the Bible alone presents God as the only God in existence, the Supreme Being who is a Trinity."

No, I am not equivocating. Rather, you are simply ignoring my point. In your quotation here, Matt didn't say that God is the only supernatural being, or that no other beings can in some context be called elohim. He said that God is the only God in existence. And I agree with him. God is the only God. In this context God (big "G") has a more limited semantic field than the Hebrew elohim. Again, Matt is not claiming that God is the only supernatural being!

Edited October 13, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I was being facetious. Sorry the humor was lost on you.

I didn't say that the Hebrew Bible taught wrong-headed beliefs. I said that some ancient Hebrews had wrong-headed beliefs. The Hebrew Bible tells me so, and I believe it.

Now you're just being quibblingly silly--again.

1- A cult image was an elohim because the god it represented was ontologically real, not because the cult image existed. You've got it exactly backwards.

2- There is every reason to believe the Israelites believed that Asherah and Ashtoreth were elohim. That's what they call them! You are the one imagining that the Israelites would call something an elohim when they thought it wasn't an elohim.

3- No, what is important is not your personal belief, nor my personal belief, but what the biblical text says about Israelite belief.

4- How can a text containing "very wrong-headed beliefs" be inerrant? This is just nutty.

[Bill Hamblin]

When the Israelites made the golden calf, what did they say: "these are your gods, O Israel." (Ex. 32:4)

The image was the god. That doesn't mean there was no god beyond the image.

See Ex. 20:23, 32:31; Dt. 28:36; 1 Kgs 12:28; Dan 5:4, 23.

So when the pole/tree was called Asherah it didn't mean Asherah was not a real goddess. Right?

[maklelan]

Not at all. My evangelical theology has no problem integrating into it the idea that ancient Israelites historically held to some very wrong-headed beliefs. Besides, I've taken ancient Near Eastern religion 101 and have come around to your way of thinking. Asherah and Ashtoreth were regarded as real elohim (=real cult images).

Elohim does not mean "cult image," it means "god/s," and cult images, properly vivified, were conceived of as ontological deities. They were self-propelled divine agents who could bless, protect, and reveal. For further discussion, see Barbara N. Porter, "Blessings from a Crown, Offerings to a Drum: Were There Non-Anthropomorphic Deities in Ancient Mesopotamia? in What is a God?, Spencer Allen, "The Splintered Divine: A Study of Ishtar, Baal and Yahweh Divine Names and Divine Multiplicity in the Ancient Near East" (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2011); Christopher Walker and Michael ****, "The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mis pi Ritual," in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East; Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Divine Agency and Astralization of the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism; Michael Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World, 31–36.

[Bill Hamblin]

Elohim does not mean "cult image," it means "god/s," and cult images, properly vivified, were conceived of as ontological deities. They were self-propelled divine agents who could bless, protect, and reveal. For further discussion, see Barbara N. Porter, "Blessings from a Crown, Offerings to a Drum: Were There Non-Anthropomorphic Deities in Ancient Mesopotamia? in What is a God?, Spencer Allen, "The Splintered Divine: A Study of Ishtar, Baal and Yahweh Divine Names and Divine Multiplicity in the Ancient Near East" (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2011); Christopher Walker and Michael ****, "The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mis pi Ritual," in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East; Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Divine Agency and Astralization of the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism; Michael Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World, 31–36.

Exactly.