In his book, Breaking the Mormon Code, Matthew Paulson wrote:
How did the Church Fathers understand
the phrase “God of gods?” In my search of the earliest references, I found four
early Church Fathers who used this term “God of gods.” These four references
are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. (Matthew A.
Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship
Regarding Classical Christian Theology and the Book of Mormon [Livermore,
Calif.: WingSpan Press, 2006, 2009], 55; see ibid., 55-57 for Paulson’s discussion
of this phrase, arguing it does not mean these “gods” have ontological existence)
For
some odd reason, Paulson ignored Origen of Alexandria (185-254). If one objects
he is not a Church Father, neither is Tertullian who Paulson discusses.
In
his commentary on Romans, Origen affirmed that the “gods” in “God of gods” had ontological
(real) existence. Commenting on the importance of Origen’s commentary on
John, Ronald E. Heine noted that:
In his Commentary on the Gospel of
John we have the greatest exegetical work of the early church. (p. 3) (Ronald
E. Heine, “Introduction,” in Origen, Commentary on the Gospel According to
John Books 1-10 [trans. Ronald E. Heine; The Fathers of the Church 80;
Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1989], 3)
Note
the following:
Book
1:
(212) There are certain gods of whom
God is god, as the prophecies say, “Give thanks to the God of gods,” and “The God
of gods, the Lord has spoken, and has called the earth.” And according to the
gospel, “he is not God of the dead, but of the living.” Those gods, therefore,
of whom God is god, are also living.
(213) The Apostle also acknowledges
this when he writes in his letter to the Corinthians, “Just as there are many
gods and many lords.” He understood the term gods to mean existing beings, in
accordance with the prophetic writings.
(214) There are other beings besides
the gods of whom God is god. Some of these are called “thrones,” others are
said to be “principalities,” and others beside these are called “dominations and
powers.” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel According to John Books 1-10 [trans.
Ronald E. Heine; The Fathers of the Church 80; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University
of America Press, 1989], 76)
Book
2:
The difference between “the God” and “a God”
(12) But since the proposition, “In
the beginning was the Word,” has been placed first, perhaps it indicates some
other; in the same manner, next, “And the Word was with God,” and third, “And
the Word was God,” then, “And the Word was God,” that we might understand the
Word has become God because he is “with God.”
(13) John has used the articles in one
place and omitted them in another very precisely, and not as through he did not
understand the precision of the Greek language. In the case of the Word, he
adds the article “the,” but in the case of the noun “God,” he inserts it in one
place and omits it in another.
(14) For he adds the article when the
noun “God” stands for the uncreated cause of the universe, but he omits it when
the Word is referred to as “God.” And as “the God” and “God” differ in
these places, so, perhaps “the Word” and “Word” differ.
(15) For as the God who is over all is
“the God” and not simply “God,” so the source of reason in each rational
being is “the Word.” That reason which is in each rational being would
not properly have the same designation as the first reason, and be said to be “the
Word.”
(16) Many people who wish to be pious
are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods and, for
this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that
the individual nature of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing
him to be od whom they refer to as “Son” in name at least, or they deny the
divinity of the Son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual
to be different from the Father.
(17) Their problem can be resolved in
this way. We must say to them that at one time God, with the article, is very
God, wherefor also the Savior says in his prayers to the Father, “That they may
know you the only true God.” on the other hand, everything besides the very
God, which is made God by participation in his divinity, would more properly
not be said to be “the God,” but “God.” To be sure, his firstborn of
every creature,” inasmuch as he was the first to be with God and has drawn
divinity into himself, is more honored than the other gods beside him (of whom
God is God as it is said, “The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and he has
called the earth”). It was by his ministry that they became gods, for he drew
from God that they might be deified sharing ungrudgingly also with them
according to his goodness.
18. The God, therefore, is the
true God. The others are gods formed according to him as images of the
prototype. But again, the archetypal image of the many images is the Word
with the God, who was “in the beginning.” By being “with the God”
he always continues to be “God.” But he would not have this if he were not with
God, and he would not remain God if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation
of the depth of the Father.
Use of the words “God” and “Word”
(19) Some, however, have probably
taken offense at what we said when we described the Father as the true God but,
in addition to the true God, said many gods have come into existence by
participation in the God. These people might fear that the glory of the
one who transcends all creation is put on a level with the others who happen to
have the title “god.” Because of this we must set forth this explanation in addition
to the difference which has already been explained in relation to which we
declared that God the Word is the minister of deity to all the other Gods.
. . .
(32) Although we seem to have digressed,
I think that it is relevant that we have made this point so we can see clearly
that there are four orders in relation to the noun “God,” and four in relation to
“Word.” There was “the God” and “God,” then “gods” in two senses. “God
the Word” transcends the higher order of these gods, himself being transcended
by “the God” of the universe. And again there was “the Word,” and
perhaps also “Word,” comparable to “the God” and “God,” and “the words”
in two senses. And as for men, some belong to the Father, being his portions and
similar to these are those whom our discourse just now presented more clearly,
who have previously come to the Savior and have placed everything in him. And
those previously mentioned are third, who suppose the sun, moon, and stars to
be gods and who take their stand on them. But in addition to all these also in
the region below are those who are addicted to idols which are soulless and
dead. (Ibid., 98-99, 102)
Here,
Origen clearly believes that the “gods” in “God of gods” are not idols;
instead, they are beings who have ontological existence. Note also the following from one non-LDS scholar about the Bible's use of "God of gods":
Terminology is difficult since individual scholars employ the terms in a variety of ways. My discussion is designed to be useful, but not necessarily representative of all academic viewpoints. ‘Henotheism’ can be understood to mean belief in ‘my’ god while at the same time not excluding the possibility that ‘your’ god exists as well. In ancient context, this was expressed frequently as belief that ‘my’ god is highest of the gods: god of gods and lord of lords (cf. Deut. 10.17; Ps. 29.1-2, etc). (K.L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction [The Biblical Seminar 83; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 135 n. 8)
Greg Stafford, an Arian and someone who often takes shots against "Mormonism," noted that:
Further reading:
Listing of articles responding to "Breaking the Mormon Code"