Is the Creedal Trinitarian Dogma Taught in the Bible?

D. Lawrence Barksdale

I have a cousin, by marriage, who is an Evangelical Christian. He's a good man.

I can tell his heart is in the right place, and he seems to sincerely love the Lord. I
really like him. ☺
Recently, he started a thread on Facebook that raised some questions about
Mormonism, and how it compared with he termed "Christianity." My wife nudged
me and told me I might want to take a look, which I did. I posted a couple of
short posts about the subject, and before I knew it, quite a firestorm had
developed.
When it became fairly apparent that this wasn’t going to be just another
opportunity to use a flamethrower on a hapless, helpless Mormon, my
cousin-in-law (is that such a thing?) invited a friend of his, who had a Master's
Degree in "Christian Apologetics," to come set this poor, deceived Mormon
"straight." Anyone who knows me, knows how much I enjoy the efforts of my
Evangelical friends to save my immortal soul. :) It warms the cockles of my
heart. ☺
The discussion that developed quickly centered around Theology, or the
Doctrines concerning the Nature of God. The premise was that Mormons could
not be "true" Christians because they worshipped the "wrong Jesus," which
translated means, "Mormons don't accept the Trinitarian dogma as defined by the
early Creeds, so they can’t possibly be Historic or Traditional Christians" To
which I politely replied, “No, we are not ‘Historic or Traditional Christians,’ and no,
we don't accept the Creedal Trinitarian dogma, and for one very simple reason...
1) it's factually erroneous, 2) It’s patently pagan in origin, and 3) it's patently
unBiblical.” And the game was afoot.
The friend of my cousin who engaged me I’ll call "Fred." Fred seemed a bright
enough fellow, and I could tell he was trying very hard to be as respectful as he
felt a Mormon deserved. I'll leave it at that. :) The premise of his assertion is
that the Creedal Trinitarian dogma is, indeed, taught in the Bible, and is the de
facto theological standard in “Historic Christianity” to determine who is, and isn’t,
a Christian.
During the course of our exchange, I mentioned the rather inconvenient fact that
the only word in Koine Greek (the language of the vast majority of the NT) that
describes “consubstantiation” ("one in actual substance or being"), the word
homoousios, was not found in the Bible. Fred promptly ignored my revelation,
and posted instead what he referred to as the "Three Pillars of Trinitarianism,"
which he believes "proves" that the Creedal Trinitarian dogmas are, in fact,
Biblical in origin.
His pillars are as follows:
1. There is only one God.
2. God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct persons, who
can communicate, etc.
3. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
The conclusion is, of course, that there are three persons who are one God.
Since Mormons would not have any problem with “Pillars” 2 & 3, and since the
whole foundation of tying Creedal Trinitarianism into the Bible rests solely on
Pillar #1, that is what I intend to focus on to see if Fred, is in fact, correct.
The foundational premise to Fred’s argument is that Pillar #1 establishes that
there are no other divine beings beside God in the universe. He alone is unique.
No other interpretation of this would support Creedal Trinitarianism. So get
comfy, follow along, take notes, and let's see where this thing takes us, shall
we? :)
Does The Bible Teach That There Is Only One God In The Universe?
This is not just one pillar, to be fair to Fred's position... it is really 2 3/4 of the 3
pillars... but we can't divide objects that way in real life, so we'll keep it at the first
pillar. :) Why is it so important? Simple. Because it forms the very foundation
for the assumptions Fred makes about the other two pillars being supportive of
the Trinitarian dogma. This pillar is the underlying bedrock for all three... and the
implications are enormous. If this “pillar” is false, then the whole house of cards
comes crashing down.
To "prove" this pillar and establish its validity, Fred presented 28 passages from
the Bible, which he claimed prove irrefutably that there is, indeed only one God
"by nature" in the universe.
Fred used that term a lot in presenting his position... “by nature”… even though it
is never used in the Bible to refer to God. It's used in reference to idols
(comparing them to God), Gentiles, Jews, Olive trees, humans in general. Never
to God. The word "nature" in Koine Greek us phusis, which has a variety of
meanings depending on the context in which it is used, but the most applicable
here is;
"the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs
from others."
One of the basic tenets of Evangelical theology is that there is a vast gulf
between God and man… that God is God “by nature” and man is not… and can
never be. Completely different species.
Which raises some very interesting questions, if one looks at this issue logically.
If there is only one God, "by nature," meaning “the sum of His innate properties
and powers by which [He] differs from sinful man,” then why does Peter teach us
that the ultimate goal of following Christ is to "become partakers of the divine
nature"? (2 Pet 1:4) If we can never become what God is, how can we “partake”
of God’s nature?
Contrary to what our Evangelical brothers and sisters insist, the Bible teaches
that this "nature," this “divine nature” or “divinity,” is not a separate plane of
existence from which man is forever barred, and which renders our species
separate and distinct from God... but is actually something obtainable
ourselves… a reality that most Evangelicals find “inconvenient,” and so they
usually ignore it.
The word for "partakers" in Greek is enlightening.. it is koinonos, which means "a
partner, sharer, in anything" (Strong's 2844). It appears evident that we will not
simply bask in the "divine nature," but will actually be His "partner" in it, and will
"share" it with Him, as the Bible indicates in numerous other passages. (see, for
instance, Rom 8:16,17; Gal 4:6,7; 1 John 3:2)
This certainly begs the question. If we can become like God, partake of the
divine nature, and share in His glory as a "joint-heir" with Christ of all the Father
has (Rom 8:17), doesn't that, by definition, put a serious crack in the premise of
Pillar #1? The short answer, of course, is “Yes.” But there’s much, much more.
But wait… didn’t Fred provide some Biblical support for his “Pillars”? Oh, yeah.
He did. Let’s take a look.
For the sake of tidiness, I will divide these passages into the following three
categories, and will address them within that context.
The categories will be 1) Deutero-Isaiah, 2) Other Old Testament, and 3) New
Testament.

The Deutero-Isaiah Passages

1. Deuteronomy 4:35,39 — Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest
know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him… Know
therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God
in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

2. Deuteronomy 6:4 — Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD.

3. Deureronomy32:39 — See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god

with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any
that can deliver out of my hand.

4. Isaiah 37:16,20 — O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between

the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of
the earth: thou has made heaven and earth… Now therefore, O LORD our
God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know
that thou art the LORD, even thou only.

5. Isaiah43:10,11 — Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant

whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand
that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be
after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.

6. Isaiah44:6,8 — Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer
the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is
no God. Fear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time,
and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside
me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

7. Isaiah 45:21 — Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel
together: who hath declared this from ancient time: who hath told it from
 that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a
just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.

8. Isaiah 46:9 — For I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there
is none like me.
Trinitarians understand the phrase "there is none else" to mean that "the LORD"
is the ONLY God or divine being in the universe. Sounds pretty convincing,
right? I mean… these passages are pretty straightforward.
Not so fast. The reality is that the phrase "there is none else" simply didn't mean
that there are no other divine beings in the universe.

“Comparatives” v. “Declaratives”
Passages that seem to declare that there is "one" of something can be grouped
or categorized into one of two types... comparatives on one hand, and
declaratives on another.
A "comparative" oneness, for instance, is telling the reader to ONLY pay attention
to that one thing... and gives us an idea of how much “relative” attention we
should give it.
A "declarative" oneness, on the other hand, speaks to the actual ontological
oneness of that thing… in other words, it speaks of the “number” of something.
In these passages, the reality is that “there is none else” is a comparative phrase
used in the OT that compares the divinity of YHWH with the idols (earthly gods)
the Israelites were prone to worship. Both Moses and Isaiah used this phrase.
Moses prophesied that after the Israelites crossed the Jordan, "… ye shall serve
gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor
eat, nor smell." (v. 28)
He prophesied of their utter destruction and scattering because of this. He called
to their remembrance their previous idolatry in the "Golden Calf Incident." He
reminds them that YHWH is the Lord, and that "there is none else."
On one hand, there were a pantheon of earthly “gods” or idols the Israelites
wanted to worship. On the other was Jehovah, or YHWH.
Rather than speaking of the number of God, these passages speak of the reality
of the true godhood and divinity of YHWH v. the idolatrous "gods" the Israelites
often sought out to worship. The writer is comparing the two, and is saying, in
effect, "Your [idol] gods are nothing."
How do we know this? Aren’t we overlaying the Biblical record with uniquely
Mormon understanding?
How do we know that this is not a “declarative” that’s really telling us that there is
only one God in the entire universe? Great question.

How Do We Know For Sure What These Passages Mean?

In order to understand the intended meaning of the author of any Biblical book,
we have to employ a principle called "hermeneutics," which is a set of rules and
standards governing the proper interpretation of scripture.
Basically, the principles of proper hermeneutics state that in order to arrive at the
most probable [correct] meaning of a passage of scripture, we must examine
how the author of that passage used words and phrases when writing about the
same subject in other places and in other contexts. If the author were speaking
of the NUMBER of God, for instance, which is what Fred (and almost all
Evangelical Christians that I know) here is positing, then each and EVERY usage
of that phrase should refer to the NUMBER of whatever is being spoken of in
order to be consistent (and accurate). Simply pulling one passage out and
claiming that it means something different than the way that author used that
word of phrase in other places would not be good “hermeneutics.” That practice,
of pulling passages out of context, and ignoring the author’s use of the words and
phrases that it contains in other places is called “cherry-picking.”

Can’t We Just Trust The Bible To “Interpret Itself”?

This comes up a lot when speaking to Evangelical Christians. The truth is that
we have to rely on principles, practices, and standards like Hermeneutics
because none of the original manuscripts for any book of the Bible exist!
The only surviving manuscripts are actually manuscript copies dating to
hundreds, if not thousands, of years later. Many of those copies underwent
many, many changes over the years, both intentional and unintentional, from
scribes and later redactors (editors).
Contrary to popular belief, the Bible simply did not fall directly from the pen of
Almighty God. It was written by fallible human beings… men who were moved
upon by the Holy Spirit to write of their experiences with the divine.
As we study the Biblical texts and attempt to determine what the author most
likely meant, we rely on certain manuscripts which are accepted by the majority
of scholars… they are the manuscripts from which our Bibles are translated. In
this case, for instance, of the King James Version, the Old Testament is based on
a Greek translation of a manuscript called the “LXX.” For the most part, this
manuscript is accurate. At least we thought so.
Discoveries come along sometimes, however, that shed great light on what
apparently has happened to certain manuscripts...such as when earlier versions
of some manuscripts are discovered and examined side-by-side with later
sources. This is the case with the LXX.
A (much) earlier version of some Old Testament books, such as Deuteronomy
and Isaiah, were found in the caves of Qumran as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Dating to far earlier dates than the LXX (or Septuagint), we can see how
accurate our version is by examining this DSS Deuteronomic manuscript.
As scholars have done so, it has became very apparent that later redactors
actually changed many of the passages in Deuteronomy to bring it more in line
with their own beliefs. These redactors lived thousands of years after these
books were first written… and over that long period of time, many of the Israelite
beliefs “shifted.” This is such a case.
When the Deuteronomic books were written, the Israelites believed that there
was a “High God,” El Elyon, who presided over a council of other deities. Over
the vast span of time between the writing of much of the Old Testament and the
later redactors, the beliefs of the Israelites became more monotheistic (belief in
only one God), mainly because of the influence of the pagan Egyptians.
The redactors subsequently went back through the ancient scriptures and
changed many statements that alluded to multiple divine beings to instead refer
to only one God. How do we know this? Easy. By comparing the Qumran Dead
Sea Scrolls manuscripts with the LXX. They do not match. It is obvious that
there have been many changes.
But How Could These Passages Be Interpreted To Mean That There Are
Other Gods?
The basic problem here is a faulty understanding of the idiom "there is none
beside me," and "beside me there is no God." “But,” you demand, “How can this
mean anything other than what Fred claims???” Let me see if I can explain this
with a modern-day parable.
The Parable of the Drill Sergeant
A new batch of recruits arrives at Basic Training, excited at the prospect of
adventure in serving their country. As their bus pulls up, however, they come
face to face with a very sobering, very different reality. Anyone who’s been in the
military will probably be nodding their head right about now.
Standing just outside the bus, these new recruits find a very angry, very strict
(and very loud) "law-giver" and "rule-maker" whose job it is to transform them
from a group of lazy, comfortable, unskilled, complacent, undisciplined individuals
into obedient, polished, disciplined, and skilled soldiers.
This "law-giver" becomes known to them simply as their "Drill Sergeant." As in,
"Yes, Drill Sergeant!" "No, Drill Sergeant!"
To focus them properly and to interject the appropriate amount of respect (and
fear), the Drill Sergeant barks at them, and in no uncertain terms lets them know
that he is the ONLY one they are to listen to or take orders from until they
graduate.
The recruits are told to obey his orders and instructions with precision. They are
warned that there will be severe consequences if they do not do so.
The recruits are told that worldly distractions, status, prestige, money, etc. mean
nothing there, and they are not to focus or dwell on them. If they do, they will
incur the wrath of the Drill Sergeant. He is the ONLY person they are to pay
attention to or concentrate on.
When I went through Basic Training a million years ago, my Drill Sergeant
underscored this point rather forcefully when he looked me straight in the eye as
I came off that bus and said, "Son, for the next 16 weeks, I am God, and you will
have no other Gods before me. DO YOU READ ME???"
I remember being in formation weeks after that when one distracted recruit
happened to be glancing around instead of looking straight ahead at the Drill
Sergeant.
I'll never forget the wrath that erupted from that 5'0" tall, campaign hat-wearing
Tazmanian Devil. "Is there someone else here more interesting to you than I
am? Is there some other Drill Sergeant somewhere that you're listening to?
Where? I don't see them! Are they standing over there? I don't see any. I'm the
only one you should be listening to, Private. I'm your Drill Sergeant. There's no
other Drill Sergeant here but me!!!"
I understood his meaning quite clearly. Crystal clear, as a matter of fact. I
needed to pay attention to what he had to teach me, and not to anyone, or
anything else. I needed to trust in him as the expert in all things military... and
not anyone else or any other source or authority. Not to my peers, not to other
officers on the base, just him. That made it very simple for all of us.
Now. If we interpret this parable in the context of the idolatrous Israelites and
embrace the interpretation that Evangelical Christians have placed upon these
passages, then we must accept that the Drill Sergeant was apparently telling us
that he was the ONLY Drill Sergeant in existence anywhere... on that base,
throughout the entire Army, in the entire country, or the world or the universe, for
that matter. And we would look at that interpretation and chuckle or roll our
eyes... knowing that such an interpretation is patently absurd and unmerited by
the context of the Drill Sergeant's statements.
The reality was that he was demanding that we focus our complete and total
concentration on him, and no one else... knowing that jobs, sports, hobbies,
girlfriends, cars, and all kinds of other distractions had been in our lives up to that
point... but no more. He was certainly not telling us that he was the only Drill
Sergeant in existence.
An excellent example from the Bible illustrating this principle is found in Deut 6:4;
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD.”
The key to understanding what sense the author was speaking when he said
"The LORD thy God is one Lord," is found in the very next verse: "And thou shalt
love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
might." (Deut 6:5)
It is a continuation of the thought in 6:4... far from speaking of the number of
God, the continuation of the "The LORD thy God is one Lord" is a commandment
to place Him first... to "Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy might"… to place Him in a position of prominence or
greatness over the "gods" mentioned earlier in the Deuteronomic text.
It does not declare that there are no other divine beings. Again, how do we know
this? Easy Peasy. The author of Deuteronomy itself proves this point when
making an interesting declaration just 4 chapters later!
This passage, in Chapter 10, (conspicuously absent from the Trinitarians list
about the number of God, BTW) is Deut 10:17, which reads:
“For the Lord your God is GOD OF GODS, and LORD OF LORDS, a great
God.” (Deut 10:17)
This is a fascinating passage to examine, especially in light of the passages that
Fred brought up. It gives us precise insight into the author's intended meaning...
remember our discussion about hermenteutics, i.e. examining what the same
author said about the same subject in different places?
Here Moses compares the Lord GOD to other "GODS" and "LORDS." But what
could he have possibly meant? Wasn’t he talking about idols?
We have seen how the Biblical authors (or more probably, the later redactors)
refer to idols, earthly judges or rulers sometimes as "gods."
But here's the interesting thing... while occasionally these “idols” or “judges” is
referred to as a “god,” never does Moses refer to idols, earthly judges or rulers as
"Lords." Ever.
And nowhere else in scripture does Moses use this term "GOD OF GODS, and
LORD OF LORDS." This is the only instance... and notice the very NEXT thing
he says, "A GREAT God."
The word "Great" here is from the Hebrew gadowl (Strong's 01419), which is
translated in the KJV in other passages as "High," "Elder," "Eldest," and "Older."
This, of course, begs the question as to whether Moses was comparing YHWH
with the legion of idols the Israelites had been warned against bowing down to, or
if there could be another meaning… a meaning that “fits” perfectly in the
message of the rest of the Bible? Could Moses have been referring to a “council
of Gods,” which was overseen by The Most High God, El Elyon?
Deut 32:8,9 and the Sons of God
The answer to the foregoing question is answered by Moses himself in chapter
32 of the same book.
“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to
the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's portion is his people;
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.” (Deut 32:8,9 KJV, emphasis mine)
Note the phrase, “Children of Israel,” which is how the KJV currently reads. This
is an example of what I was talking about when I mentioned that sometimes the
discovery of older texts than what our current scriptures are based on sometimes
gives us insight into passages that have been changed. This is one of them.
Our version of the Old Testament is a translation from the Septuagint, a Greek
translation of the LXX manuscript of the Old Testament.
Older manuscripts of the Deuteronomy text have since been discovered, most
notably in the caves at Qumran as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). That
version of Deuteronomy differs from the LXX in this very important passage;
“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to
the number of the sons of God. For the LORD's portion is his people;
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.” (Deut 32:8,9, emphasis mine)
Obviously, later redactors went through the Deuteronomic text and changed this
passage to “cover up” this rather “inconvenient” reading.
But who were the Sons of God? What was Moses referring to? Let’s take a look
at what modern (non-LDS) Old Testament scholars have to say.
Non-LDS scholars have written extensively on this passage. For example, Peter
Hayman wrote;
"The Hebrew Bible [Masoretic Text] is quite clear on the fact that these
figures [angels, archangels, cherubim, seraphim, Satan, Azazel, etc.]
belong to the class of divine beings, members of the ‘host of heaven.’
 “Yahweh belongs to this class of beings, but is distinguished from them by
his kingship over the heavenly host. However, he is not different from
them in kind.

“This reflects the probable origin of Yahweh as one member of the

heavenly host, namely the national god of the Israelite people, who
became king of the gods when he was identified with El Elyon, the head of
the Canaanite pantheon. This identification of Yahweh with El is the
essential theme of the Hebrew Bible.

“But Yahweh in Old Testament times had many rivals who are explicitly
named in ways which make quite clear that these other gods were
believed to exist. He also, at least in popular belief, had a female
consort...

“The Masoretic Text has removed the reference here to the gods or the
angels and substituted ‘the sons of Israel’, while in verse 9 it identifies
Yahweh with Elyon whereas the LXX presupposes a different Hebrew text.

“As [Biblical scholar] Lemche puts it, ‘the Hebrew text identifies the “Most
High” (El Elyon) with Yahweh, while the Greek version apparently ranges
Yahweh among the *sons* of the Most High, that is, treats him as a
member of the pantheon of gods who are subordinate to the supreme
God, El Elyon’." (Monotheism: A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?, Peter
Hayman, Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991), p. 5-6 (1-15))

Old Testament scholar Benjamin D. Sommer writes;

"Preexilic texts from the Hebrew Bible, according to these scholars, are
not genuinely monotheistic; the first monotheistic text in the Hebrew Bible
is the block of material beginning in Isaiah 40, which was composed
during the Babylonian exile. Some scholars recognize the existence of a
small minority of monotheists or protomonotheists late in the preexilic
period, but stress that the vast majority of ancient Israelites were
polytheists before the exile.4 Another group of scholars, however, argue
that the exclusive worship of Yhwh as the only true deity was widespread
in ancient Israel well before the exile, perhaps even well before the rise of
the monarchy."

He continues:

"A narrow, common-sense definition of monotheism is the belief that one

God exists and that no deities exist other than this one God. If we adopt
this definition, we must conclude that the Hebrew Bible is not a
monotheistic work, because it acknowledges the existence of many
heavenly creatures in addition to Yhwh. Biblical texts refer to these
creatures variously as “angels” (!ykalm – a few randomly chosen
examples of the term include Numbers 20.16, 2 Samuel 24.16, 1 Kings
13.18, Zechariah 1.11–12, Psalm 78.49, Job 33.23), “gods” (!yhla – e.g.,
Psalm 82.6, 86.8; !yhla ynb / !yla ynb – Genesis 6.2; Psalm 29.1, 89.7;
Job 1.6),6 and (collectively) “the council of holy ones” (!yvwdq dws /
!ycwdq lhq – Psalm 89.6,8). Several biblical texts portray Yhwh as
surrounded by heavenly beings who attend Him or await His orders (e.g.,
1 Kings 22.19–22, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, Zechariah 3, Job 1.6; a similar
picture is assumed in Psalm 29 and Isaiah 40.1–2). We may ask, however,
how useful this narrow definition really is. After all, Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam all exhibit a belief in angels, beings who reside in heaven and
who do not normally die. In the case of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity,
we can also note a belief in saints residing in heaven, (i.e., humans who
died without any long-term effect on their continued existence and
activity); similar beliefs are attested, albeit in a less formalized way in
Judaism and Islam (especially in its Shiite and Sufi forms). Many Jews,
Christians, and Muslims believe that prayer can be directed to these
beings with realistic hope of the prayer’s efficacy.

“An especially clear example appears in rabbinic literature: The rabbis

regard the worship of the angel Michael as a forbidden form of worship (b.
H. ullin 40a, b. Abodah Zarah 42b, t. H. ullin 2:6 [=2:18 in the
Zuckermandel edition]). As the talmudic scholar Jose Faur points out
regarding this passage, the rabbis “considered" Michael a benevolent
angel who interceded with God on behalf of Israel. His existence was not
in dispute, yet worship of him was considered idolatry.”

“The rabbis, who are usually considered to be monotheistic,

acknowledged the existence of this heavenly being other than Yhwh and
were concerned only that Jews should not worship him. In short, the
narrow definition of monotheism is too narrow: If we use it, then the
religion of the Hebrew Bible is not monotheistic; but then neither are
Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, with the exception of a few highly
philosophical forms of these religions that are historically late and have
attracted few adherents."

"It is also possible to define monotheism more broadly: as the belief that
there exists one Supreme Being in the universe, whose will is sovereign
over all other beings. These other beings may include some who live in
heaven and who are in the normal course of events immortal; but they are
unalterably subservient to the one supreme being, except insofar as that
being voluntarily relinquishes a measure of control by granting other
beings free will. It is thus appropriate to term the “Supreme Being the one
God and the other heavenly beings gods or angels.
 “In this definition, it is not the number of divine beings that matters to
monotheism but the relations among them. A theology in which no one
deity has ultimate power over all aspects of the world is polytheistic (even
if that theology knows of only one deity); so too a theology in which people
pray to multiple deities because of a belief that multiple deities have their
own power to effect change. A theology in which people pray only to one
God in whom all power ultimately resides is monotheistic; so is a theology
in which people pray to various heavenly beings to intercede on their
behalf with the one God in whom all power ultimately resides." ("The
Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel" - Benjamin D. Sommer,
The Jewish Theological Society of America - Cambridge University Press)
Scholar Paul Sanders’ “The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32” discusses these
issues at length:
“We have seen that [Deut. 32:8–9] must go back to an old myth
concerning the primordial divisions of territories among the gods... One of
the clearest parallels of Deut. 32:8–9 in the Hebrew Bible can be found in
Deut. 4:19–20, where Moses tells that YHWH once allotted (‫ ;חלק‬cf.
29:25) “the host of heaven” (‫ )צבא הׁשמים‬to the peoples (‫ )עמים‬but kept the
people of Israel as a ‫ נחלה‬for himself. It is absolutely clear that the gods
besides YHWH are meant by this heavenly host.” – (Paul Sanders, “The
Provenance of Deuteronomy 32,” Brill, 1996, pp.363–364)
“The terminological correspondences with the Ugaritic religious literature
are stronger in the case of Deut. 32:8–9. The expression ‫ בני אלהים‬has a
clear counterpart in Ugaritic... The expression ‫ בני אלהים‬is also found in
Job 38:7 and in a slightly different form also in Gen. 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1
(‫ ;)בני אלהים‬Ps. 29:1; 89:7 (‫)בני אלהים‬. It always stands unequivocally for
divine beings.” – ibid, p.365
“Contrary to 4:19–20, the original text of 32:8–9 must have been offensive
to later generations. The text was adapted in the Masoretic and Samaritan
traditions.” – ibid, p. 366
“In Deut. 32:8 the ‫ בני אלהים‬are relatively independent. They have their
own dominions, like YWHW. Psalm 82 also presupposes the existence of
gods besides YWHW. In 82:6 these gods are called ‫“ בני עליון‬sons of
Elyon”, which is reminiscent of ‫ עליון‬and ‫ בני אלהים‬in Deut. 32:8. YWHW
acts as a complainant in the divine council (‫)עדת אל‬.” – ibid, p. 370
“Scholars now generally assume that the [Masoretic Text reading of Deut.
32] is the result of adaptation of the older reading for theological reasons.
Later generations would have deemed the concept expressed in these
verses unacceptable.” – ibid, p. 157
“As in other passages, the expression ‫ בני אלהים‬is a designation for divine
beings. In Ugaritic the expression bn ‘il(m) “sons of Ilu” also designates
deities. This expression is undoubtedly in the background of its
counterpart in the Hebrew Bible.” – ibid, p. 157
 “Both in v. 8b and 43a the fragments from Qumran contain references to
gods beside YHWH whereas such references are not found in the MT and
the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the latter versions the absence of these
references would seem to be due to deliberate elimination.” – ibid, p. 250
“In the older version of Deut. 32:8–9 the existence of gods besides YWHW
is taken for granted... Verse 12 and verse 39 say that there is no god
“with” YHWH. These affirmations relate to his activity: YHWH is the only
god who acts on behalf of Israel. In that respect there is no other god with
him. Other gods may exist, but for Israel they are worthless and so is their
veneration... [T]he designations ‫ לא אלה‬and ‫ לא אל‬deny the significance of
these gods rather than their existence.” – ibid, p. 427
“Though the conceptual background of the passage may be archaic the
message of the passage is completely in line with the “monotheistic”
affirmations in the song: other gods may exist–––in fact they do–––but for
Israel the only significant god is YHWH. He is even the highest god (‫)עליון‬
and the other gods (‫ )בני אלהים‬are subordinate to him.” – ibid, p. 427
“Even in the late passage 2 Chron. 14:10 and 2 Chron. 20:6 the statement
‫“ אין עמך‬there is none with you” does not have an ontological character. It
only stresses that no god but YHWH is ready to help his people. The older
reading of verse 43a definitely does not contradict this idea. Here the gods
are summoned to praise YHWH exactly because of the fact that this god is
ready to avenge the blood of his children. So it is my contention that the
son’s descriptions of the relationship between YHWH and the gods are not
contradictory. They do not suggest the existence of earlier and later layers
in the text. The passages discussed here all share the same
presupposition: YHWH is Israel’s god and Israel may not worship different
gods. Other gods do exist and they are powerless but apparently the
poet(s) did not aim at elaborating a view with regard to the extent of their
power. What was important to them is that the other gods pale into
insignificance when compared with YHWH.” – ibid, p. 428

But What About the Other Passages?

We’ve spoken at some length about the Deuteronomic text, but what about the
other passages? Don’t they “prove” that there is only one god in the universe?
The short answer, again, is simply “No.”
Let’s look at what non-LDS Biblical scholars, in particular, Old Testament
scholars, have to say.

"Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided
over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The
reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern
convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1;
89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen.
14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in
the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that
 the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A
post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s
seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible
reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby
God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of
pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of
the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7." - Jewish
Study Bible, Second edition, p.419
It goes on to say,
"Many modern readers regard the Shema as an assertion of monotheism,
a view that is anachronistic. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it
served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole
Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a quantitative argument (about the
number of deities) but a qualitative one, about the nature of the
relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly, the original force of
the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to demand that Israel
show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH--but not thereby to deny the
existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective as
the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the
worship of other gods, presupposes their existence." – (The Jewish Study
Bible [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361)
"The Shema (Deut 6:4–9) is a central theological text in Deut (See the
topic on Shema). The syntax of the verbless sentence is disputed, but
analogy with other uses of “the Lord our God” in Deut suggests that the
traditional syntax should be retained (“The Lord our God, the Lord [is]
One”). “One” is not a title or name of God, but an adjective of quality
(DCH, 1:180). The correlation between the two halves of the sentence and
the following verses suggests that this is not so much an abstract
monotheism as a claim to Israel’s total obedience and the exclusion of any
other (cf. 5:7). The immediate context does not suggest that it is directed
against polytheism or different ideas of Yahweh found in local cults (cf. the
heterodox portrait of “Yahweh and his Asherah” at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud). Nor is
this idea used to support the deut. program of the centralization of
worship. However, in the broader context of Deut and the OT it can imply
unity, uniqueness, and monotheism. There is some overlap with the idea
of Yahweh “alone” (cf. 2 Kgs 19:19; ‫)לְַּבּדֹו‬. Israel shares in God’s
uniqueness (2 Sam 7:23), and Israel’s eschatological hope looks to the
realization of Yahweh being one and his name one (Zech 14:9), when all
powers that have claimed divinity will be renounced or absorbed into the
one true God." – (VanGemeren, W. (Ed.). (1997). New international
dictionary of Old Testament theology & exegesis (Vol. 1, p. 350). Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan)

Regarding Gen 3:5,22, we find the following in the NET Bible;

 13 tn Or perhaps "like God, knowing." It is unclear how the plural participle
translated "knowing" is functioning. On the one hand, ‫‌י ֹדְ עֵ י‬‎‫(‏‬yode'e) could
be taken as a substantival participle functioning as a predicative adjective
in the sentence. In this case one might translate: "You will be, like God
himself, knowers of good and evil." On the other hand, it could be taken as
an attributive adjective modifying ‫‌אֱ ֹלהִ ים‬‎‫'(‏‬elohim). In this case ‫‌אֱ ֹלהִ ים‬‎‫‏‬has to
be taken as a numerical plural referring to "gods," "divine beings," for if the
one true God were the intended referent, a singular form of the participle
would almost certainly appear as a modifier. Following this line of
interpretation, one could translate, "You will be like divine beings who
know good and evil." The following context may favor this translation, for
in Gen 3:22 God says to an unidentified group, "Look, the man has
become like one of us, knowing good and evil." It is probable that God is
addressing his heavenly court (see the note on the word "make" in Gen
1:26), the members of which can be called "gods" or "divine beings" from
the ancient Israelite perspective. (We know some of these beings as
messengers or "angels.") An examination of parallel constructions shows
that a predicative understanding ("you will be, like God himself, knowers of
good and evil," cf. NIV, NRSV) is possible, but rare (see Gen 27:23, where
"hairy" is predicative, complementing the verb "to be"). The statistical
evidence strongly suggests that the participle is attributive, modifying
"divine beings" (see Psa 31:12; Isa 1:30; Isa 13:14; Isa 16:2; Isa 29:5; Isa
58:11; Jer 14:9; Jer 20:9; Jer 23:9; Jer 31:12; Jer 48:41; Jer 49:22; Hos
7:11; Amo 4:11). In all of these texts, where a comparative clause and
accompanying adjective/participle follow a copulative ("to be") verb, the
adjective/participle is attributive after the noun in the comparative clause."
- NET Bible footnote, Genesis 3:5 & 22
Daniel O. McClellan at Trinity Wesleyan University responded to Peter Hayman’s
paper with his own, “Monotheism: Still a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?”
“The modern academic consensus.. operates with a distinct definition of
monotheism, which it views as the rejection of the existence of other
deities. Deutero-Isaiah is highlighted by many as that notion’s pioneering
author. The following statements, among others are commonly marshaled
in support of the conclusion: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall
there be any after me.’ (Isa 43:10); ‘I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no God.” (Isa 44:6).
Since the mid-twentieth century, however, a number of scholars have
expressed doubts about reading these statements as strict denials of the
existence of other deities. This same rhetoric appears in various contexts
unrelated to the gods. See, for instance, Isa 40:17: ‘All the nations are as
nothing before him; they are accounted by him as less than nothing and
emptiness.’ YHWH renders the princes as ‘nothing’ in Isa 40:23. In Isa
41:11 those who are angry with Israel will be “as nothing,” and in v. 12
those who war against Israel will be “nothing at all.” All who make idols in
Isa 44:0 are “emptiness.” In Isa 47:8 and 10 the author as the personified
 Babylon imagine in her heart, “I am, and there is no other.” The author is
unlikely to be portraying Babylon as imagining herself to be the only city in
existence, rather the only city of relevance within her purview. She is all
that matters for her constituents. Similary, YHWH is made to assert his
exclusive relationship with Israel. McDonald concludes, “[this passage]
functions not as a claim of the non-existence of other deities, but that
YHWY is the only God for Israel.” (MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the
Meaning of Monotheism, 84).” (Daniel O. McClellan, Monotheism – Still a
Misused Word in Jewish Studies?, 6-7, emphasis mine)

Regarding Genesis 35:7

"There the gods had revealed themselves to him] The pl. vb. together with
the use of the art. suggests that the sentence preserves a more
polytheistic version of the Bethel-legend than 28:12,—one in which the
‘angels of God’ were spoken of as simply ‫ " אֱ ֹלהִ ים‬- John Skinner, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis [New York: Scribner, 1910], 424.
Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker writes, in her introduction to a paper she
published in 1993, The Risen Lord: Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith of
Heaven,"
"The real Introduction to The Risen Lord; The Jesus of History as the
Christ of Faith is my earlier book The Great Angel; A Study of Israel’s
Second God, which showed that the religion of the first temple had not
been monotheism. Yahweh, the LORD, had been the second God, the
guardian angel and patron deity of Israel, the Son of El Elyon. Once the
Deuteronomists [later redactors] had introduced monotheism into the life,
and more importantly, into the records, of the people of Judah, Yahweh
and El Elyon were no longer distinct. The older beliefs, however, did not
disappear and the evidence of Philo confirms that this second deity was
still known in the period of Christian origins. Many of his titles were taken
over by the early church to describe Jesus. The earliest Christian beliefs
must have been rooted in those of the first temple (hence the title of my
first book; The Older Testament), and when Jesus was proclaimed as the
LORD, the Son of God, the original Palestinian church used imagery
derived from the temple cult (as I showed in my book On Earth as it is in
Heaven)."
New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado, Ph.D. underscored this in his work What
Do We Mean by 'First-Century Jewish Monotheism'?
"Jewish monotheism can be taken as constituting a distinctive version of
the commonly-attested belief structure described... as involving a 'High
God' who presides over other deities." (Larry W. Hurtado, Ph.D., What Do We
Mean by 'First-Century Jewish Monotheism'?, in Lovering, E.H., Jr., ed., Society of
Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar Papers, (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 348-368.)
Scholar Mark Johnston also reiterates this point:
"Notice that the honorific description elohay elohim, the God of all the
gods, is an expression not so much of Jewish monotheism, the belief in
 one God, but of what scholars call Jewish "Henotheism": the belief that
there is a god preeminent among the gods. This is indeed how Yahweh
seems to be depicted in Psalm 82 and at Deutonomy 32:8-9 and
elsewhere.
"In Psalm 82, Yahweh is described as calling together the heavenly
council of the lessor gods (elohim) that he has placed over the Gentiles.
'He presides in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds
judgment.' (Ps 82)" (Mark Johnston, Saving God: Religion After Idolatry,
pg. 11)
By the way, this book, Saving God: Religion After Idolatry, was the Winner of the
2010 Award for Excellence in Religion: Constructive-Reflective Studies,
American Academy of Religion.

The International Old Testament Commentary sheds some interesting light on

Psalm 82 as well:

"Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very
unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology,
meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist.
Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for
them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the
world. This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place
where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world. This
council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would
be a familiar image to ancient Israelites. A multitude of texts demonstrate
this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition,
many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after
other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to
move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . .
Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have
lost their immortality, hence their god status. This ability for the Go of
Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council.
The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also
demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but
sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the
values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly
council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s
faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also
broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are
rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the
declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not
only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others
bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17.
See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. The Gilgamesh
Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will
 make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth."
- Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner,
The Book of Psalms [New International Old Testament Commentary;
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 641, 642, 680
Other scholars, such as Jon D. Levenson (the Albert A. List Professor of Jewish
Studies at Harvard University) further affirms the reality of Jewish Henotheism in
his book Creation and the Persistence of Evil, and again in Sinai & Zion: An Entry
into the Jewish Bible. You can also see this quite clearly in Mark Smith's The
Early History of God (Harper & Row, 1990) and The Triumph of Elohim, ed. Diana
V. Edelman (Eerdmans, 1995). Even more recent is David Penchansky's Twilight
of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible (Westminster John Knox, 2005).
April DeConick (the Isla Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Biblical Studies
at Rice University) said;
"Early Judaism and Christianity were not monotheistic religions, but were
at best monalotrous (=worshiped one god but allowed for the existence of
other gods)." (Early Jewish and Christian Polytheism?, The Forbidden
Gospels blog, Oct 15, 2008)
Consider this from Biblical scholar Nicholas F. Gier, Ph.D:
"The popular notion that Moses was the original monotheist is a thesis that
has very little support... In his insistence on the worship of Yahweh alone,
Moses was a henotheist, i.e., he believed that Yahweh was the greatest
among the gods, the king of gods." (Nicholas F. Gier, "Hebrew
Henotheism")
He goes on to say,
"Contrary to popular understanding, the First Commandment, 'You shall
have no other gods before me,' does not deny the existence of other
deities. In his commentary on Deuteronomy Anthony Phillips maintains
that 'there is here no thought of monotheism. The commandment does not
seek to repudiate the existence of other gods, but to prevent Israel from
having anything to do with them." The ontological status of other gods
besides Yahweh can be explicitly seen in Deut. 32:8, where we find
Yahweh setting the boundaries of nations according to the 'number of the
sons of God.' The RSV follows the Septuagint text, which has been
reinforced by the copy of Deuteronomy found among the Dead Sea
Scrolls in Cave 4 at Qumran." (ibid)
This list of quotes from prominent Biblical scholars could go on ad nauseum, as
this is not a new concept... so I'll have to allow the small portion that I presented
to suffice.
One of my favorites, however, is from Jerome, where he appeals to Psalm 82 to
discuss the fallen angel, Lucifer;

"Lucifer fell, Lucifer who used to rise at dawn; and he who was bred up in
a paradise of delight had the well-earned sentence passed upon him,
“Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest
among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord.” For he had
 said in his heart, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God,” and “I will
be like the Most High.”Wherefore God says every day to the angels, as
they descend the ladder that Jacob saw in his dream, “I have said ye are
Gods and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like
men and fall like one of the princes.” The devil fell first, and since “God
standeth in the congregation of the Gods and judgeth among the Gods,”
the apostle writes to those who are ceasing to be Gods—“Whereas there
is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal and walk as men?” -
Jerome, Letter XXII to Eustochium, 4
Were the Jews Strict Monotheists?
The Jews, for a long period of time, were thought to be unwaveringly
Monotheistic in their theology. As more research is done, however, evidence has
emerged which challenges that position and sheds new light on what they really
believed. Perhaps by exploring some of the findings of modern Bible Scholars
who are on the front lines of this critical research, we can learn more about these
chosen people.

Let's start out with Peter Hayman, which we previously cited:

"The pattern of Jewish beliefs about God remains monarchistic

throughout. God is king of a heavenly court consisting of many other
powerful beings, not always under his control. For most Jews, God is the
sole object of worship, but he is not the only divine being. In particular,
there is always a prominent number two in the hierarchy to whom Israel in
particular relates. This pattern is inherited from biblical times. The
attempt of the compilers of the Hebrew Bible to merge YHWH and Elyon
never really succeeded." (ibid., p. 15)

Note how Hayman identifies Yahweh (who Christ identified with) as being in the
pantheon of gods under El Elyon...

How about Old Testament scholar Otto Eissfeldt?

"But beyond this the Old Testament contains also a few unequivocal
proofs that during the course of Israelite Jewish religious history there was
a period when El or ‘Elyon, who is identical with him, was an authority
acknowledged by, and accordingly superior to, Yahweh. Two of these may
be quoted. To begin with, Deut. 32:8-9, i.e. the Song of Moses, says that
at the time when ‘Elyon allotted their possessions to the peoples, divided
men up, and determined the territories of the nations according to the
number of the gods, Yahweh received Israel as his share. ‘Elyon,
therefore, appears at the head of the gods deciding according to his own
judgment the apportioning of the people to them and hence takes
precedence over Yahweh." (El and Yahweh, Otto Eissfeldt, Journal of
Semitic Studies 1 (1956), p. 29 (25-37))
In relation to Ps. 82, and in conclusion to this section, Eissfeldt says:

"Like the author of the Song of Moses, he recognizes El as the highest

god, in accordance with cosmological and mythological tradition, but his
practical religion is concerned only with Yahweh, who, although meanwhile
still considered subordinate to El, is in fact already the authoritative power,
and will soon take El’s place also in the theoretical Weltbild (world view) of
the Israelite or Jewish religion." (ibid., p. 30)

The pattern that seems to be emerging here is that Yahweh, the one God of the
Old Testament, is subordinate to El, the “Only True God” of the New Testament…

How about James C. VanderKam (the John A. O'Brien Professor of Hebrew

Scriptures at Notre Dame University), a recognized expert on the Dead Sea
Scrolls?

"A second illustration is found in Deut. 32:8, where the Masoretic Text
reads: When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided
humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the
number of the sons of Israel. (NRSV, modified at the end) For the italicized
words, most Greek manuscripts have “angels of God” and a few read
“sons of God”.

4QDeut-j preserves the reading “sons of God.” Here, the reading in the
Masoretic Text (“the sons of Israel”) may represent a theologically
motivated change from an earlier phrase: the reading “sons of God” refers
in this context to divine beings, whom the uninformed reader might
consider lesser gods -- a thought precariously close to polytheism. As
recent translators have recognized, the reading of the Septaguint, now
supported by a Qumram copy of Deuteronomy, is more likely to be
original, since it is easier to explain why someone might change “sons of
God” (a theologically suspect phrase) to “sons of Israel” than it would be to
account for the reverse." (The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, James C.
VanderKam, Eerdmans 1994, p.127-128)

VanderKam, it should be noted, does not necessarily agree with this reading, but
does admit it is the most likely. He is cited merely to show that there was an
attempt to hide this belief.

Now, let's go to Margaret Barker:

[following a cite from J.D.G. Dunn] "This comprehensive treatment does

not, however, distinguish between the two different words for God, and
therefore ignores a crucial distinction. There are those called the sons of
 El Elyon, sons of El or Elohim, all clearly heavenly beings, and there are
those called sons of Yahweh or the Holy One who are human. This
distinction is important for at least two reasons; Yahweh was one of the
sons of El Elyon; and Jesus in the Gospels was described as a Son of El
Elyon, God Most High. In other words he was described as a heavenly
being...Jesus is not called the son of Yahweh nor the son of the Lord, but
he is called Lord." (The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God,
Margaret Barker, Westminster/John Knox 1992, p. 4-5)

Continuing down the page to the discussion of Deuteronomy 32:

"The problem [with Deut.] lies in the difference between the Hebrew and
the Greek versions. The MT does not mention sons of God, but has sons
of Israel instead. The Qumram Hebrew has sons of God (sons of ‘el) and
the Greek has angels of God. This text shows two things: that there was
some reason for altering sons of God to sons of Israel, or vice versa (the
Qumram reading suggests that the earlier Hebrew had read ‘sons of
God’); and that the sons of God were the patron deities of the various
nations. Elyon the High God had allocated the nations to the various sons
of God; one of these sons was Yahweh to whom Israel had been allocated
(Deut. 32:9). This fossil incorporated into Deuteronomy is thought to be
one of its oldest components; how such a ‘polytheistic’ piece came to be
included in Deuteronomy, with its emphasis on monotheism, is a question
we cannot answer, although it is possible to guess why ‘polytheism’ was
removed from the later Hebrew text, as we shall see." (ibid., p.5-6)

Finally, in a recent chat on the Mormons on America Online in the Christianity

Online Forum, Dr. Richard C. Mouw, president of the Fuller Theological Seminary
in Pasadena, CA, was asked a question by anti-LDS author James C. White,
who claimed to have narrowed down the issue to monotheim vs. polytheism in
his latest book.

Mouw replied:

"I don't see it in exactly those terms. Most OT scholars see the early
stages of OT thought as henotheistic, i.e., the view that there are many
Gods but that Jehovah is the supreme deity before whom we should place
no other. Similarly Paul in Colossians seems to suggest that there are
many powers, but we should not placate them, because everything holds
together in Jesus Christ. I think the important thing is that we acknowledge
that only the God and father of Jesus Christ is worthy of our worship and
obedience." (CO discussion on 12-13-97)
But What About the “God of Gods” Statements? What do they mean?
Was this type of language used in other places in the Bible? In other words, was
this an isolated statement, or was it a common theme, enough this specific
phrase is only found here?
The answer may surprise you. Take a look at the following passages:
“The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he
shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD, (save us
not this day,)” (Joshua 22:22)
This passage is interesting because the context is clearly not speaking of idols…
or of idol worship. There is no comparison going on between YHWH and the idol
“gods” being worshipped by the audience, indeed, the audience being addressed
was righteous and obedient to the Lord. Why then compare YHWH with idol
“gods” as Fred would have us believe? It makes no logical sense here.
“O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. O
give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks
to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.” (Psalm 136:1-3)
The Psalmist here is giving praise to God using the same language as Moses.
There is no discussion of idols occurring in this passage, and no comparatives
between YHWH and idols made of man’s hands. It is a passage of praise.
Again, nowhere in the OT are idols referred to as “Lords”… which certainly begs
the question as to what they meant if they weren’t speaking of idols. Either
Moses and David had the same peculiar habit of using words illogically… or they
both shared in a knowledge that was subsequently lost.
It should be noted that in some passages, even this phrase “God of gods,” is
occasionally used comparatively, to compare the standing of YHWH against that
of idols, as we can see with Daniel:

“The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God
of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest
reveal this secret.” (Dan 2:47)

“The king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify
himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of
gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is
determined shall be done.” (Dan 11:36)
The hermeneutical error lies with insisting that all usages of that phrase are
comparative… some are clearly not, as we have shown.

The Other Old Testament Passages

The passages that Fred presents are as follows:
1. 2 Samuel 7:22 — Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is
none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that
we have heard with our ears.
 This is another excellent example of where hermeneutics sheds
considerable light on author’s intent. Remember that the main thing that
we are attempting to determine here is whether the author used “There is
no other,” in the comparative, or the declarative sense.
Consider what the writer of 2 Samuel said in 1 Samuel, using the same
language:
“And the priest said , The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou
slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind
the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here.
And David said , There is none like that; give it me.” (1 Sam 21:9,
emphasis added)
In order to accept the statement in 2 Samuel that “there is none like thee,”
we must accept that when the author of 1 Samuel said “there is none like
that,” he was trying to imply NOT that there was no sword like Goliath’s,
but that there were no other swords in all of existence. Obviously, this is
not what the author meant, since he refers to “swords” over 37 times in 1
& 2 Samuel.

2. 1 Kings 8:60 — That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD
is God, and that there is none else.
This is yet another example of the “comparative” usage of “none else” in
the OT. We have seen how, in Deut, Isaiah, and 1 and 2 Samuel, how the
authors employed the statement “none else” in each and every instance.
All were comparative… none were declarative.
3. 2 Kings 5:15 — And he returned to the man of God, he and all his
company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I
know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; now therefore, I
pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.
Pay particular attention in this passage to the phrase “there is no God in
all the earth, but in Israel.” Far from being a declarative statement that
there no other divine beings in the universe, this statement states the
obvious, in a comparative manner. “in all the earth,” there is no God
except “in Israel.” The meaning is very clear, that the God of Israel is the
only God to which Israel shall worship and acknowledge.
4. 2 Kings 19:15 — And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O
LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the
God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made
heaven and earth.
See above. Same principle. This is not a declarative of the number of
God… only that the God of Israel is the ONLY God with which Israel is to
have anything to do with.
5. Nehemiah 9:6 — Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou has made
heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things
that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them
all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
 The Nehemiah passage is also very interesting… pay close attention
here… “Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou has made heaven, the
heaven of heavens, with all their host,” Who are these “host(s)”? The
term “heaven of heavens” is mentioned at least 5 times in the Old
Testament.
Henry Morris, Ph.D. writes;
“Presumably, the "heaven of heavens" is where God now has His
heavenly throne and to which, after His resurrection, Christ "ascended up
far above all heavens" (Eph 4:10) to be seated at the right hand of the
Father. It is beyond all the stars and galaxies and presumably has no end.
It may be synonymous with the third heaven” (Henry Morris, Ph.D. “The
Heaven of Heavens,” Institute of Creation Research)

This passage is also a passage of praise, a “comparative,” comparing the

greatness of the one who created “the heaven of heavens, with all their
host” to the idols of man’s hands.
6. 1 Chronicles 17:20 — O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there
any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

7. Psalm 18:31 — For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save
our God?

8. Psalm 86:10 — For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art
God alone.

9. Hosea 13:4 — Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and
thou shalt know no god but me; for there is no savior beside me.

10. Joel 2:27 — And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I
am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be
ashamed.

11. Zechariah 14:9 — And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that
day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.
When reading through these passages, keeping in mind the things we learned
about the Deutero-Isaiah texts, it becomes very easy to see what the writers of
these books were saying. None of them speaks, in context, of the “number” of
God. All of them, in context, speak of the “comparative” place of YHWH among
the Israelite idols.

The New Testament Passages

1. Mark 12:29-34 — And Jesus answered him, The first of all the
commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And
 thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first
commandment. And the second is like, namely this, thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than
these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth:
for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with
all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with
all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole
burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered
discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.
And no man after that durst ask him any question.

2. John 17:3 — And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

3. Romans 3:30 — Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision
by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

4. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 — As concerning therefore the eating of those things

that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in
the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be
that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods
many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of
whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by him.

5. Galatians 3:20 — Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is

one.

6. Ephesians 4:6 — One God and Father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in you all.

7. 1 Timothy 1:17 — Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only
wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

8. 1 Timothy 2:5 — For there is one God, and one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus.

9. James 2:19 — Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the
devils also believe, and tremble.

10. Mark 12:29-34 —And Jesus answered him, The first of all the
commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And
thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first
 commandment. And the second is like, namely this, thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than
these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth:
for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with
all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with
all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole
burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered
discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.
And no man after that durst ask him any question.
This is not Jesus teaching this but a scribe. This also is the only account
that has the "one God" statement. Neither of the other two accounts has it.
All of the accounts also differ from one another. The word "God" isn't even
in the standard Greek texts and must be implied. But, notice something
else. Jesus only says in the Marcan account that the scribe is not far from
the kingdom of God and Jesus does not say that the scribe is exactly right.
The foundation of this is shaky at best.

11. John 17:3 — And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Notice that this passage actually separates Jesus from being part of the
"only true God." It mentions the "the only true God" and Jesus Christ,
whom this only true God sends.

12. Romans 3:30 — Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision
by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

The meaning of the Greek passage in context is not addressing the unity
of God by nature but rather means to the effect of: "Since it is the same
God who shall justify both circumcised and uncircumcised by faith."

The entire passage and preceding two verses should be translated: "For
we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the
Law (of Moses). Is he the God of the Jews alone? Is he not also the (God
of) the Gentiles? Yes, (he is God) also of the Gentiles, since it is the same
God who shall justify both circumcision and uncircumcision by faith." It is
not addressing the unity of God in any case, but is addressing the fact that
God is not only the God of the Jews but of both Jew and Gentile, being the
same God who is justifying both peoples.

13. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 — As concerning therefore the eating of those things

that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in
the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be
that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods
many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of
 whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by him.

The "one God" is identified as the Father, not the Son. The structure of the
Greek sentence shows that two numerically distinct personages are
spoken of here. The Father is the "one God" from whom came everything,
and Jesus Christ, numerically distinct from this one God, is Lord, through
whom everything came to be.

14. Galatians 3:20 — Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is
one.

Applies to the Father only because a mediator is spoken of here. Does not
address the unity of Father and Son.

15. Ephesians 4:6 — One God and Father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in you all.

This passage identifies the Father as the one God. This in no way
supports the concept of the Trinity.

16. 1 Timothy 1:17 — Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only
wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The text is late and a sizable number of scholars declare the work a
forgery. Even if we accepted it as valid, it still does not address the unity of
Father and Son. See discussion of John 17:3 to be reminded of the nature
of One God statements in the passage.

17. 1 Timothy 2:5 — For there is one God, and one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Notice that there is "one God" and then there is a mediator between this
one God and man. The mediator is not the God here because a mediator
stands between two persons, in this case being God and man. This
passage in no way says that Jesus and the Father are one God.

18. James 2:19 — Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the
devils also believe, and tremble.

The manuscripts differ as to word order. Koine Greek also uses the Greek
word for "one" as a kind of indefinite article, roughly meaning 'a' as in "a
God." (I do not have access to the standard grammars on my shelves at
the moment, so cannot give you a source for this right now). The first
phrase in this passage could well be translated as "Thou believest that
 there is a God" depending upon word order. Which manuscript family is
right? And, does it really address the unity of God? Such a reading can be
forced onto it but at the expense of what sense of the meaning? It is just
as likely, if not more likely, making reference to the Father alone as in
other passages of this nature.

So, where did Trinitarianism COME From?

"The synthesis of Christianity with Platonic philosophy was further incorporated in the
trinitarian formulas that appeared by the end of the 3rd century.

"The Greek philosophical theology" was "developed during the Trinitarian controversies
over the relationships among the persons of the Godhead."[1] Some assert that this
incorporation was well known during the 3rd century, because the allegation of
borrowing was raised by some disputants when the Nicene doctrine was being formalized
and adopted by the bishops.

"For example, in the 4th century, Marcellus of Ancyra, who taught the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit were one person (hypostasis), said in his On the Holy Church:

"Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of
God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in
the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three
hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to
have filched this from HERMES AND PLATO."[2]

Summary
Evangelical blogger, Ben Stanhope writes, "Traditionally evangelicals counter the
reconstruction described above by doing their best to demythologize the texts in the Bible
which affirm the existence of multiple gods. They assure us: “Those aren’t gods. Those
are human rulers that the OT calls gods!” Evangelicals are losing the debate and we
deserve to. Exegetically, the evangelical response has been as elegant as a shaved gorilla.
In short, I believe it’s driven by 17th century terminology which is detached from the
ANE material.”[3]

[1] A. Hilary Armstrong, Henry J. Blumenthal, Platonism. Encyclopædia Britannica.

Retrieved May 13, 2008

[2] Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text,
Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51,
Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95
[3] Ben Stanhope,
http://benstanhope.blogspot.ie/2013/07/the-gods-of-deut-328-israelite-pantheon_6.html