At the blog The Time Has Been Shortened, interviews with Dr. Nathan MacDonald and Dr. Michael S. Heiser.
I read most of MacDonald’s Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’. I found it helpful, but had some fundamental disagreements with it. Those another time.
The two have very different views of the OT and the issue of monotheism. To oversimplfy, MacDonald thinks that for a long time, Jews were polytheistic, then they became monotheists of a sort and changed older polytheistic OT texts to fit their new views. In contrast, Heiser thinks that all along they believed YHWH to be unique, although many could be called “elohim.” This is a very interesting disagreement, but I won’t join the fray here.
Just a couple of comments.
Yes, monotheism is the belief that there there exists exactly one god. This sounds silly to say, but this has been denied repeatedly as of late.
Contra MacDonald’s first answer in the interview, the only real unclarity in this is what counts as a god, i.e. the concept of godhood.
The important issue here is the idea of monotheism, not the word “monotheism.” Yes, it is a fairly recent term, but I would argue, a helpful one – at least, once we make clear what is meant by the term “god.”
Heiser says,
I don’t care for the modern definition as someone who accepts the Judeo-Christian canon.
Eh… how would accepting the authority of the Bible tell you that “monotheism” is or is not a helpful term? What matters, I think, would be theoretical considerations like classification and explanation. The question is: can the term earn its keep?
Heiser again,
The biblical writers used the term elohim to refer to half a dozen figures or entities in the unseen spiritual world (Yahweh, the elohim of Yahweh’s council, “demons” [Deut 32:17], the disembodied human dead [1 Sam 28:13], and angels [at least I’d argue for that on the basis of the plural verb in Gen 35:7 and its referent point]). The fact that they do that should tell us loudly and clearly that that they did not associate the term elohim with a specific set of attributes.
Oh, to the contrary – attributes implied would be: selfhood, being normally invisible, being powerful, being interested in what various humans are doing. What he means to say, is that “god” for the ancient Hebrews was not a kind-term, not assumed to refer to whatever has some metaphysical essence. That is correct, and I think the point applies far beyond ancient Hebrews and the term elohim.
We do that reflexively as moderns—we use “g-o-d” thinking of the singular being we know as the God of the Bible.
No, this is a different point than the previous, but again, he’s right. The point could be put thusly: we use “God” as a name or title for the God of Abraham (etc.).
Elohim is what I like to call a “place of residence” term. It doesn’t tell me what a thing is in terms of attributes; it tells me the proper domain of a thing. All elohim are members of the unseen spiritual world, their place of residence.
I don’t think that’s part of the meaning of “god,” but rather an image or assumption that may accompany it… But again, by his own words, it does imply that the bearer has certain attributes – what he means to say is that it doesn’t attribute any essence to the bearer, or assume that any being to whom the term applies has an certain essence (roughly, defining features).
He does believe monotheism, and that monotheism is assumed in all parts of the Bible. It’s just that they would deny that there was only one elohim, even while holding that one of those elohim was unique.
Good question, Katie. The fact is, I don’t know. But I do have an opinion, for what it’s worth.
On another thread (on generation and time) I concluded that Jesus was/is fully divine. No one has yet challenged that conclusion.
To those observations I would add that:
– It is the Father’s will that all shall honor the Son just as they honor the Father (John 5:23).
– In Revelation 5:13 we see every creature doing exactly that: honoring both the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb – at the same time, in the same place, with the same words. There is no indication that one was honored above the other.
From all this I gather that I when I honor the Son, I am also honoring the Father. I am free to worship GOD and his Son together, at whatever level I am able to comprehend what worship really is. I don’t need to worry about protocol. “Equal honor” is what the Father has decreed.
Christ himself, on the other hand, will always delight to do the will of the Lord his GOD.
I don’t need to worry about that, either. I just need to follow his example.
Hi Katie
Just as there are so many types of “God/god” so there are different forms of ‘worship’
The Greek word normally used for worship is ‘ Proskueno’
This is derived from two words
-‘pros’ – meaning towards and
-‘kyneo’-meaning ‘to kiss”
As you will note from Strongs Concordance (ref 4352) it means-
-to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior
-to fall down or prostrate onesself
-to adore on ones knees
-to do obesience
-to bow down or kneeling before
-to give praise and thanks
In his post resurrection state , the one supreme God has elevated Christ ‘above the angels’ -‘let all angels worship him”
And of course , not everyone being worshipped is good -we have the Beast being worshipped in Revelation 13v8.
Best Wishes
John
To what degree is it proper/acceptable to worship a “God” who is not, to use your terminology, GOD? (Of course I am thinking of Christ here.)
One more thing, Katie. The word “God” in John 20:21 is preceded by the definite article. Jesus is the son of the GOD.
So the word GOD refers to a person – a self, to use Dale’s word. This has to mean the only true GOD, the Father (John 17:3).
So the clues are there.
I’m with you all the way, Katie. It is true that GOD/God/god/god/god can be understood in many ways. But I also think that the context will USUALLY give us a fairly good clue as to what is meant.
In this case, I think the last verse in the chapter tells us how the author understood Thomas’s exclamation. Thomas was acknowledging the risen Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God. It was his resurrection that proved him to be truly the Son of God, with power (Romans 1:4).
That depends on what x and y are. I might say that Bob is the son of Ann, so Bob is not Ann (true). But I could also say that Bob is the son of a human, so Bob is not a human (false). Without a concrete understanding of the term “God,” it’s hard to say which case applies.
Katie
Yes, these are deep matters –but I,m sure that you’ll agree that if one says that X is son of Y, then the one
thing that one can be sure of ,is that X IS NOT Y. ?
Blessings
John
Marge, I follow you. But I wonder what the author was thinking if your interpretation is correct. Seems like “God” is bound to be misunderstood by general readership.
John, I don’t have any particular opinion at the moment. I’m not convinced that the title “Son of God” has any particular relevance to Christ’s nature, if that’s what you were implying. I agree that the passage frames the mission of Christ, and that information is way more important than our metaphysical musings.
Katie
You quote/say
‘In the case of both Christ and what I call ‘gods’ there is always a limitation of some kind.
“What do you then do with Thomas’s “My Lord and my God”? ‘ John 20 v 28)
So what do YOU do with John 20 v 31
“But all these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, THE SON OF GOD, and that through this belief you may have life in his name” ?
Surely that ‘frames’ Christs mission and limits the debate by acknowledging his status.?
Best Wishes
John
Thank you, Katie. That is exactly what I mean. Jesus is Thomas’s God. He is also MY God. He is “our great God and Saviour” (Titus 2:13). In fact, he is (potentially) the God of the entire universe, because his GOD will put everything under his feet (see 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, but notice the last verse).
The sphere of Christ’s authority is limited (though only by one), because it is delegated. He is subject to the one who gave him his authority. No one else.
Only GOD, the Father, who is subject to no one, is ever called “God” (with no modifier to limit the meaning). At least, that has been my observation.
Fair enough. Paul may have been speaking metaphorically in Philippians 3:19. Or maybe in allowing our natural appetites to control us we are worshipping ourselves.
It’s a complex subject. When the Israelites made a molten calf and said, “This is your elohim,” they were obviously thinking of a self, because they credited it with bringing them up out of the land of Egypt (Nehemiah 9:18). Apparently they just wanted a visible “god” to represent GOD, since Moses (their god) seemed to have deserted them.
Judges 8:33 is a bit harder. I don’t think the writer was speaking metaphorically when he accused Israel of forgetting Yahweh their elohim and making baal-berith (an idol) their elohim instead.
But surely the Israelites must have thought that el-bereth was (or represented) a “self”. Otherwise, their action makes no sense whatsoever.
Come to think of it, it makes no sense anyway.
Okay. I’m convinced. A god has to be a self – whether real or imagined.
“in the case of both Jesus and what I call the “gods,” there is ALWAYS a limitation of some kind.”
What do you do with Thomas’s “My Lord and my God”?
In a sense, yes. But when we’re trying to analyze the concept of a god (and the concept of a GOD or God) we have to stick to literal cases. If I’m a glutton, then metaphorically, my stomach is my god. But no one thinks that is literally so.
Compare: if you’re trying to define what an army is, you set aside metaphorical talk of, e.g. the army of Elvis fans.
I understand what you are saying. Certainly YHWH is often spoken of as “my God,” or “the God of Israel,” etc. He can be acknowledged as the GOD of any limited sphere, without excluding any other sphere.
My point is that when there are NO limitations, the word ALWAYS refers to the Father. The word “God,” by itself, never refers to anyone but the Creator of the heavens and the earth.
On the other hand, in the case of both Jesus and what I call the “gods,” there is ALWAYS a limitation of some kind.
I like your description of a unique, supreme GOD, based on Isaiah. That, I firmly believe, describes the GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ (a clause with a modifier that does not exclude anything).
Trouble is, it takes a lot of words to cover the whole topic. Maybe your next post on the subject will do that.
One thing, though. I think we can make a god of anything, animate or inanimate. Not necessarily a “self”.
I still look forward to the last instalment of your evolution of thought re the trinity.
It is important, I think, that the word is ambiguous.
I don’t understand the point about limitations – e.g. Jesus calls the Father “my God” – there’s a possessive adjective in that phrase – is that a limitation on the term “God”? I suspect there’s no simple, mechanical way to differentiate the various uses of “god” or “elohim” etc…
In some forthcoming work, which I’ll post on some time, God willing, in the next several months, I argue that the common concept of a god is: greater-than-a-normal-human self which (in some sense) ought to be honored (by someone).
The one true God would satisfy this concept. But so would the deities of polytheism, not to mention some of the villains on Star Trek, deified emperors, angels, demons, Daoist immortals, Sith Lords, heavenly Buddhas, devas, asuras, and so on.
There’s a stricter concept of a God on which there is just one being who does or can satisfy it, which I find for the first time clearly laid out in Isaiah. Something like: perfect god, unique, provident, creator of all else. Call this a God. A God has to be a god. But if there is a God, he, being the absolute source and all-provident ruler, ought to be honored like nothing else. So it sort of makes the lesser, looser god-concept religiously irrelevant. Worshiping some mythical deity would be foolish, and ungrateful, given who God is. In both a prudential and an ethical sense, he must be uniquely honored by all, for all are in his domain.
Have to run for now – thanks for the good comments, as always. Will post more on monotheism some time this winter, I hope.
I forgot about the “gods” of John 10:34-35. They were legitimate gods, having been given the Word of GOD to administer as his representatives.
And then there is Luke 16:13. The word “god” is not used, but there is certainly the implication that wealth can be deified: “You cannot serve both GOD and wealth.”
The context makes clear that wealth can serve as an instrument for good, in the hands of a faithful steward. But when the servant becomes the master, GOD has been usurped. Wealth has become the god.
That makes at least seven ways in which the word god can be understood. But GOD is still one. Which – I will assume – is the meaning of monotheism.
I have read this post a couple of times, and find it tantalizing. It has made me look again at some past studies on the word “god” (OT elohim, NT theos), and I hope someone is interested in pursuing the subject.
For one thing, “god” is a common noun – a title used of anyone/anything that has preeminence in some sphere. In the NT, theos is used in at least five different spheres, all of which have a parallel use in the OT. For example:
1. There are men whose god (ho theos) is their belly (Philippians 3:19).
2. There are man-made gods, like the golden calf (Acts 7:40).
3. Satan is the god of the unbelieving world (2 Corinthians 4:4).
4. Christ is the [predestined] God of all creation (Heb. 1:8; Rev. 3:14). He is [will be] the God of everything and everyone – except the one who anointed him King and gave him his authority. To him, Jesus himself is subject (1 Corinthians 15:17).
5. But usually “ho theos” refers to GOD, the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the only one whose sphere of control is unlimited. He is subject to no one. He calls no one “my God”. He is supreme over all.
I have concluded that when the word “theos” or “elohim” is used without limitation, it always refers to the only true GOD.
In every other case, there are limitations of some kind. (That statement can be refuted by one counterexample.)
I would like to go on with this subject, referring to the Father as GOD, to his anointed king as God, and to all others as god. Is that a reasonable way to differentiate?
Marg
Just to add to your quotation above “Is it not written in your scriptures ‘ye are gods'”
… “if it calls them god to whom the word of god came”
Which is why priests and prophets are called ‘god’
There are a number of chapters in Johns’ Gospel where the crowds shought to stone Christ…but never did.
My Hebrew friends tell me that there is only one ‘stoneable’ offense – and that is blasphemy.
The Pharisees had been thoroughly insulted by things Christ said – he called them
-serpents
-born of fornication
-children of Satan
among other things!.
Inmsults are NOT a stoning offense and would have resulted in the perpetrators being charged with murder.
The use of the words “I AM” in several places, is not remarkable.
The Greek words used are ‘ego eimi’ -and they mean “I am” or “I am he”
Many scholars believe that with these words Christ was declaring his Messiahship.
The words “ego eimi’ are found in other scriptures to describe people who were most certainly NOT divine
(i)John 9 v9
(ii)Acts 10v21
are good examples.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the argument actually penetrated the consciences of the rulers. They had already condemned him and tried to stone him (v. 31), without a trial.
But now, angry as they were, they did not try to stone him again. Instead, “They wanted to arrest him then …” (v 32, JB).
It seems they were determined now to give him the semblance of a trial. He eluded them this time; but when his hour came, they got their wish.
Jesus comes out remarkably coherent when you take him seriously enough to carefully follow his arguments. Who would’ve thought? 😉
Oops. Bad formatting. Sorry. The second quote is simply – Is it not written in your Law, “I said, ‘You are gods’”?
The rest is not a quotation.
Well put. And the meaning of “gods” in John 10:34-36 is understood from the context, beginning at v. 22. It takes the form of a dialogue.
The Jews ask, “Are you the Christ?” He has already told them the answer, and his WORKS are evidence that he is telling the truth. But they accuse him of blasphemy because he called God his “Father”. His answer is,
I find Deut 32:43 as found in a fragment from Cave 4 of Qumran interesting.
First the MT:
Rejoice, you nations, with his people,
for he will avenge the blood of his servants;
he will take vengeance on his enemies
LXX:
Rejoice, O heavens, with him,
and let all the angels of God worship him.
Rejoice, O nations with his people
and let all the sons of God declare him mighty.
For he shall avenge the blood of his sons,
and shall take revenge on, and pay justice to, his enemies
and shall reward them that hate him.
The medium-length Hebrew Qumran version constitutes a kind of halfway station between these two previous variants.
4Q44, fr. 5ii:
Rejoice, O heavens, with him,
and all you gods, worship him.
For he shall avenge the blood of his sons,
and shall take revenge on his enemies
and shall reward them that hate him.
Peace.
Hi Helez
If you use a search-engine to analyse the Bible , the words “God”, ‘gods’ or “Theos” frequently refer to persons of lower status than Christ.
“Theos’ can mean anything from Judges, Magistrates- to the one God of Israel – and even pagan deities.
IIn the Dead Sea Scrolls we find the same pattern – e.g. in (11 Q 13 2:9-11: 21-25 )’theos’ is used to refer to the prophets
Best Wishes
John
Yes, Jesus in the gospels is most surely a monotheist. Those verses present no problem for this view. His argument in the passage you cite is about language, not the number of gods. His point is that it is OK that he be called the Son of God, if even a lesser human can be called a “god.” One can be a monotheist, and apply the word “god” to beings other than God.
Dave, just curious: do you view Jesus as a monotheist, considering his statement in John 10:34-36?
Thanks.
Comments are closed.