In his most recent (as of 27 Nov 2020) episode of the Dividing Line, James White repeated the time-worn claim that Paul is denying the ontological existence of other gods/lords in 1 Cor 8:4-6 (Paul's Expanded Shema and Important Truths in Handling Scripture). However, in reality, that is not the case. Note the following triad of scholarly witnesses against White's claims:
[W]e should note that
in [1 Cor 8:6] it is possible to see the inclusion of Jesus Christ in the
identity of the God of the Old Testament, but there is no exclusion of the
existence of other beings that might in some sense be considered divine. Paul
takes seriously the existence of those beings, but he is clear that Christ is
far above them in authority, surely more in the category of the one God than of
the lesser powers, demi-gods, so to speak . . . Paul does not question [their]
existence.(George Carraway, Christ is God Over All: Romans 9:5 in the
context of Romans 9-11 [Bloomsbury, 2015], 87, 89 n. 141, comments in
square bracket added for clarification).
. . . Paul’s thought
is in tension, a tension that cannot easily be resolved with ontological
categories. Paul, it can be argued, is breathing the same spirit as Deuteronomy
32. Other gods exist, but in another sense they are “no-gods” and “demons”. It
is only YHWH that is “God”. Paul too wants to express the theme in relational
terms. There are indeed many gods that exist, but for us (ημιν)
there is only one God. The absolute terms are confessional, not ontological.
(Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” [2d
ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013], 95-96)
The second clause in
v 5 transfers what is conceded out of the realm of hypothesis into that of
actuality. The change from εἴπερ εἰσὶν to ὥσπερ εἰσὶν effects the transfer:
'even if there should be—as in fact there are'. This rules out the view that
Paul denies the existence of the gods and recognizes them as forces of evil
only because people wrongly believe in them. He thinks they are really there in
some sense. (Paul Andrew Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians
8.4-6” [Oxford, D. Phil. Diss., 1987], 144-45)
However, allowing for the sake of argument that Paul did split the Shema, per White, such would not allow for the Trinity. If Bauckham et al., are correct, one would have to render the Shema as follows:
Listen, O Israel, Jesus is our Father, Jesus is One.
It is clearly unintelligible and smacks more of modalism than Trinitarianism. The split Shema idea could only work if one is a proponent of the Father and Son being the same person, which would be antithetical to 1 Cor 8:4-6 and a host of other passages when exegeted carefully.
James McGrath, author of The Only True God and John’s Apologetic Christology (both volumes I recommend to interested readers) wrote the following on Bauckham’s thesis:
One question we need to ask ourselves is whether Paul is likely to have made his most substantial points about the nature of Jesus by quoting or alluding to key texts that were slogans of Jewish monotheism, while at the same time supposedly making subtle but significant additions or insertions so as to (in the words of N. T. Wright) “split the Shema” or (in the terminology of Richard Bauckham) “include Jesus within the divine identity.”…Could someone have heard that Paul “split the Shema” in [1Cor 8.4-6]?
I’ve already noted that the widespread knowledge of the Shema in Paul’s time was a loud, unified voice, and that Paul would have needed to shout vociferously were he disagreeing with that dominant voice in some significant way. Yet he does not do so. It seems advisable therefore to assume that Paul’s earliest hearers would have heard him as joining in unison with those voices, perhaps adding a distinctive descant about the Anointed One, but not dissonantly singing a different note or even noticeably out of tune. Paul would have seemed to be building on that already-established foundation rather than challenging it…
In our time, many of us have heard the Shema far less frequently than the Nicene Creed. This cannot but be an influence, even on scholarly interpreters who make an effort to avoid reading our assumptions and contemporary influences into the texts we study…historical study seeks to hear Paul’s voice not as an expression of a Nicene orthodoxy that had not been defined as such in his time, but as a specific voice of his own time in an earlier period (Dunn, New Testament Theology: An Introduction). Paul’s journey may well have been on the same road that eventually led to Nicaea and Chalcedon, but the debates and conflicts of the intervening centuries suggest that the road from Paul to Nicaea was often uphill and frequently rocky, and by no means an instance of a casual linear stroll through flat, familiar terrain…
…it seems overwhelmingly probable that Paul echoes the Shema and other monotheistic passages so as to support his monotheism, rather than to redefine it or transform it into something radically new. (J.F. McGrath, “On Hearing [Rather Than Reading] Intertextual Echoes: Christology and Monotheistic Scriptures in an Oral Context”)
One should compare White's criticisms of LDS theology with respect to 1 Cor 8:4-6 to his rejection of Joseph Smith's understanding of the Divine Council. As White wrote in one of his books:
Every LDS person who embraces these words as true must realize how they sound to the ears of an orthodox Christian. God calling a council of the gods? Concocting a plan to create the world and people it? Such words are so far removed from historical Christian belief that many struggle to react properly to them. (James R. White, Is the Mormon My Brother? Discerning the Differences between Mormonism and Christianity [2d ed.; Birmingham, Ala.: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2008], 73)
One must wonder if 1 Kgs 22:19-23, where God concocts a plan with the divine council, is part of the Bible he uses? I will quote from the 1995 NASB which he is rather fond of:
Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left. "The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that. "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' "The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.' "Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you."
John Peter Lange, in his A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical with Special Reference to Ministers and Students, who himself would agree with White on various issues, not just Trinitarianism, admitted that this council resolved a then-open question:
The only question which still remained open was as to the way in which his fall should be brought about. “Who is able to delude Ahab, so that he may march against Ramoth to his own destruction?”
Furthermore, Yahweh presiding among the “hosts” is evidence in favour of the plurality of the gods concept.
Yahweh Sabaoth
Besides the widespread invectives against the worship of the Baals and of the Asherahs, the frequent use of the term “Yahweh Sabaoth” to designate the head god of Israel and Judah presupposes a panethon (see Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, “Yahweh Zebaoth,” DDD, 923). Yahweh of Hoss led armies (Sabaoth) of heavenly soldiers, since the term “Sabaoth” is found besides references to the divine council:
Who in the clouds ranks like Yahweh? Who among the sons of gods is like Yahweh, a God feared in the council of the council of the holy ones, great and awesome above all that are around him? Yahweh God of hosts, who is as mighty as Yah? (Ps. 89.7-9 [Eng. 6-8])
The heavenly host was the original referent for the pantheon. The Hebrew Bible stresses Yahweh’s primacy, while recognizing the occurrence of other gods. For instance, Micaiah’s vision in 1 Kgs 22.19 depicts Yahweh “sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing beside him to the right and to the left of him.” The presence of these other gods is necessary to uphold Yahweh’s supremacy. Before Yahweh could be conceived of as alone, he first had to be viewed as the greatest. Hence the Hebrew Bible is riddled with polytheistic presuppositions (for instance Gen. 1.26; 3.22; Exod. 15.11; Deut. 32:8-9; Job 1.6; 2.1; Ps. 82; Jer. 23.18 and Zech 14.5).
The sheer quantity of further texts in favor of a native pantheon in the Hebrew Bible precludes a comprehensive presentation. Unproblematic hints that presuppose a heavenly realm populated by several or many deities can be found in the expression “God of gods” (Ps. 136.2-3). Even the expression “our god” in the charter of biblical monotheism, the Shema Israel, admits that other gods exist for other peoples. It insists that Yahweh is Israel’s only god, without negating the existence of other divinities for Israel’s neighbors. The occurrence of other gods is necessary, or the point made in Judg. 11.24 would fail. Addressing the Ammonite king, Jephthah asks: “Should you not possess what your god Chemosh gives you to possess? And should we not be the ones to possess everything that Yahweh our god has conquered for our benefit?” Jephthah’s understanding of monotheism implies that each kingdom venerates its own god. Monotheism in this case applies only to the level of individual kingdoms. As this view is reflected in the non-corrected version of Deut 32.9 [see this blog post], the writer does not present Jephthah as a less than orthodox follower of Mosaic monotheism, though Jephthah belongs to the ambiguous figures of the Book of Judges. This kind of territorial monotheism is deemed normative or at least sufficient to justify Israel’s presence in Canaan. That this kind of territorial monotheism clashes with universal monotheism is not considered problematic. (James S. Anderson, Monotheism and Yahweh’s Appropriation of Baal [Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 617; London: T&T Clark, 2015], 24-25, comment in square brackets added)
Anderson referenced T.N.D. Mettinger’s entry, “Yahweh Zebaoth” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons. S Mettinger wrote the following about the term and how it assumes the ontological existence of other divinities:
. . . it should be noted that the root ṢB’ appears in contexts which draw upon both its royal and its celestial connotations. Like terrestrial kings, the heavenly monarch has a court and council. Among the Heb terms for the divine council we find precisely ṣābā’ (1 Kgs 22:19-23, Pss 103:19-22; 148:1-5; Dan 8:10-13). The fact that the Zebaoth designation occurs in passages in which the divine council plays a role corroborates this association. Ps 89:6-19 is an obvious case. Just as the Davidic king is the highest of the kings on earth (v 28), so Yahweh is the supreme monarch in the divine assembly (vv 6-9) and thus merits the designation Yahweh Zebaoth (v 9). Isa 6, with the Zebaoth designation in vv 3.5, is another example. Yahweh’s question “who will go for us?” (v 8) contains an allusion to the deliberations of the divine council. (Karel Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. Van Her Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible [2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 923).
Other evidences presented by Anderson for the ontological existence of (true) gods include the following:
Greater But Not Alone
When Exodus 18.11 claims that Yahweh is greater than all the gods (מכל יהווה גדול האלהים), it also implies the presence of these other deities besides Yahweh. The same applies to the claim that all gods bow down before Yahweh in Psalms 92.7. While the Hebrew grammar, especially in poetic contexts, cannot be evoked to assert that this statement envisages that the supremacy of Yahweh will be recognized in heaven in the future, Zech. 14.9 clearly understands that “Yahweh will be one” only on the day when “Yahweh will become king over all the earth.” As part of a prophetic oracle, the expression “on that day” (ביום ההוא) looks forward to a future accomplishment and the verb יהיה (he will become) is an unaccomplished form. Therefore, Zechariah 14 supports the view of an evolutionary process in which monotheism gradually evolved towards an understanding of Yahweh as a universalistic monotheism. (Anderson, Monotheism and Yahweh’s Appropriation of Baal, 26)
With respect to Gen 1:26-27, a “divine council” text, Anderson wrote:
Let Us Make!
The plural forms used for Elohim’s creative activity in Genesis 1:26a lean toward the native pantheon approach. Although Elohim is synonymous with Yahweh in the final form of the Hebrew Bible, the phrase, “Let us make” (נעשׂה) humankind in our image” (בצלמנו), according to our likeness (כדמותנו),” originally reflected the divine council or the mythology of the divine couple. Likeness to the divine includes the creation of humankind as a male and a female (verse 27). The divine as being male and female would reflect vestigial Asherah mythology where the consort has not been thoroughly excised from the text. The personification of Lady Wisdom in Prov. 3.13-18 has long been thought to have a connection with Asherah. When the pantheon collapsed, it was necessary to interpret these texts as representing wisdom personified rather than a goddess. This shift in understanding was necessary to be consistent with later monotheism. Nevertheless, a feminine dimension for Yahweh should stand out as a clue that Yahweh has appropriated the domain of his former consort, Asherah. Whether the third person plural suffixes in Genesis 1 signify Asherah in conjunction with God/Yahweh, or denotes the divine council, either way they reflect a plurality of gods. (Ibid., 26-27; for a discussion of this text and other texts [e.g., John 4:24; Acts 7:55-56] and how it relates to the corporeal nature of God, see Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment)
C.J. Labuschagne on the language of "incomparability" in the Old Testament and Literature of Surrounding Cultures and
Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"
