The Reality of the gods, an Argument - Episode 058

Carey Griffel: [00:00:00] Welcome to Genesis Marks the Spot, where we raid the ivory tower of biblical theology without ransacking our faith. My name is Carey Griffel, and today I decided I would get into a very deep question. And that question is, why do I think the gods of the nations are real? What kind of argument can be made for the reality of the other gods?

Now, I've touched on answers to this question before, but I think there is something to be said for really tackling it head on and going through a lot of arguments and thoughts surrounding the idea. In places that I hang out in, this question gets brought up quite frequently, and it really is a fair question. And I think it deserves a [00:01:00] deep and thoughtful answer.

Now, before I get into this, I want to give some acknowledgement to the other side. Can you read the Bible effectively and faithfully and not believe in the reality of the other gods? I think, yes, you can. Basically, at the root of this is our epistemology. What do we use as foundations for truth? And how do we wrap those foundations of truth into our own worldview and perspective? We can criticize other people all we want about their foundations of truth, but in the end, people can choose what their foundations of truth are and how they use those foundations.

So one way I have seen that incorporated into Scripture in a way that maintains its applicability to us and authority over us is that the understanding of the other gods of the nations was an accommodation that God made for the time. Similar to how God [00:02:00] accommodated himself to the ancient perspectives of science and things like that.

The argument goes that if we don't have to accept the Bible's perspective on science, things like anatomy and cosmology, then maybe we should also not expect it to be truthful in relationship to how it's prescribing the reality of the unseen realm.

My argument is that those two things are not the same thing. I think that we should expect God to accommodate himself to a lesser view of things like science. But the reality of the gods, I think that is actually wrapped up in the purpose and intent of what's going on in scripture itself. And in particular, what's going on with the work of Jesus. My main argument is that the reality of the gods is a necessity because of the work of the Messiah.

But I also want to take this conversation and talk about those places in the Old [00:03:00] Testament, as well as the New Testament, which seem to be suggesting the unreality of the gods. Because if the Bible itself is saying that they aren't real, well then our point is, is moot. There's no reason to even talk about it.

But I don't think that's what the Bible says. There are, however, some places that people can point to where it looks like that's what the Bible is saying. So, I'm going to be talking about those. I'm also going to be addressing the general worldview and perspective of people in the context of the biblical time.

To be honest, a lot of times we have a very simplified view of what that looks like. And really, a lot of this So much of this boils down to what your worldview is. And there's so much that you can say about that. You have different perspectives today, and different perspectives in the ancient world. And some of those kind of [00:04:00] parallel and line up with each other, and some of those don't.

Regarding the more modern idea, for example, of the idea that Adam wasn't necessarily a single historical figure or historical at all in the sense that Genesis presents him as, of course, a lot of people think that that's not a high view of Scripture. I make the argument that you can still have a high view of Scripture while suggesting that Adam may not have been historical.

But this is another point that should be addressed in this question. Because If the text is accommodating to people's understanding about Adam, then why shouldn't it also be accommodating to the thought or the belief of the reality of the gods? In other words, if Adam isn't real, then why would the gods be real?

The implication here is that in order to be consistent, if you're not going to believe in Adam, then you might as well not believe in the gods either. [00:05:00] I don't think that's a necessary conclusion. And we'll get to that point later, I think. But first, I want to briefly talk about how God and the supernatural realm are portrayed in the Bible.

Or really, actually, what I'm getting at is how scholars and modern people talk about it. Of course, we are all familiar with the term monotheism. And for many of us, that's what we want the Bible to be describing, right? We want the Bible to show a reality where it is just God and no other gods. We often think of monotheism as being the opposite of polytheism, but the term monotheism wasn't coined until the 17th century. It was about 1660 when Harry Moore coined the term, and he didn't really do it as an alternative to polytheism, but he did it in response to atheism, which we could argue was a kind of new idea at the time. [00:06:00] I'll talk about that more here in a second.

Other terms we hear about are polytheism, which is just a general belief in a plurality of gods. The term polytheism isn't really very particular as to hierarchy or assigning proper worship. Two other terms that we will see are henotheism and monolatry. Henotheism is the earlier term. It came about in about 1860 or so. Henotheism is basically the idea that there are many gods. But each social group has a particular god that they worship.

So from the perspective of that social group, the other gods are just not important. They don't really matter. But the other gods can legitimately be worshipped from the perspective of those other social groups. Of course, many scholars suggest that this is the situation that we see in the Bible. I would disagree with that because Henotheism makes no distinction between a creator [00:07:00] god and lesser created deities. The Bible is clear that even though other gods exist, they were created by Yahweh God.

Monolatry is the fourth option that I will mention, and this is the exclusive worship of one god, similar to henotheism, but the difference here is that the worship of other gods is denied to be acceptable. Julius Wellhausen of documentary hypothesis. ,J E D P, fame, is said to have made this term popular. I don't think he invented it, but he suggests that this is what we see in the Bible. But again, I would say that this isn't going far enough to describe what we see in the Bible.

It's been suggested that if we just kind of tweak some of these ideas, then they'll be accurate, and I would kind of agree with that. The other day in the Facebook group, Gordon mentioned the term Monarchal Henotheism. That [00:08:00] seems to be a pretty good option, but we just need to get everybody to use it, is the problem, right? It's always the problem. Scholars want to have their own ideas. If they didn't come up with it, they don't want to use the term. We just need somebody to get in there and make it happen.

At any rate, I think it's really hard to deny that the Bible does present the other gods as being real entities. And again, there are some places that we can dig into in the Bible to see if this really is what they're saying, or if at least some of the authors were like, no, you guys are wrong, they don't actually exist.

Now, if there are places in the Bible that outright say and claim that other gods don't exist, then there's a couple of things to do with that. One of those options, of course, is just to say that the Bible doesn't teach the reality of the gods, and if you say that it does, then you are [00:09:00] mistaken, because it doesn't. I think that's a really tough claim to make. And I will show you why.

Another option is to suggest that there really was a development of understanding that we have going on in the Bible and in Israel's history. And by that I mean that at some point in time they went from understanding the nature of God and the unseen realm in a certain way that did include the nature of real gods And they came to understand the idea that God was in fact a monotheistic God and that the reality of any other gods anywhere else is a fiction.

But, of course, that idea, it smacks of a certain type of progressive or liberal scholarship. You can get around that by saying that there is progressive revelation and that, you know, maybe God just didn't reveal everything in the past, and he had to do it slowly over time. [00:10:00] And, I mean, that might be fair enough. It is possible that the writer of Isaiah, for instance, or at least parts of Isaiah, really flat out did not believe in the existence of other deities, but that other earlier authors did believe in those deities. And maybe it just took God a little while to get people on that train of thought, right? Maybe this was part of progressive revelation.

But I would say that there is an actual, legitimate, consistent way to view all of these things together. In relation to the idea that there is a diversity of views in the Old Testament, I want to read a quote from a book called The World of the New Testament. Which says whatever the complex history of those texts and the origins of monotheism in Israel, ancient Jews lacked any sense of this religious development. They understood all of their sacred scriptures [00:11:00] as an account of the activities of the one God, his relationship to his people and his instructions for how to behave. They consequently sought to understand the diversity of ancient witnesses to Israel's God as a coherent revelation. End quote.

And of course, just like ancient Jews, Christians see scripture as a cohesive whole, and there is a legitimate way to see all of this wrapped up together into one idea.

But let's do a thought experiment for a moment. Let's take the idea that they didn't believe in the other gods, and that they were what we might call strict monotheists. I want to consider this idea because, effectively, that makes them atheists of a sort. We tend to think of an atheist as somebody who denies the existence of God full stop, right? Like, there's no ultimate god, there's no creator. There's no [00:12:00] lesser gods, there's no gods of any type. That's usually our definition of what an atheist is.

But, you know, early Christians were called atheists because they didn't worship other deities. So, if the writers of the Bible were strict monotheists and they denied the existence of other gods, that would make them atheists of a sort. And the reason this matters is because we need to know if that was even a thing back in the day.

If you look at the historical record in all of the writings of ancient people, it's almost overwhelming the number of people who just take for granted the fact that the unseen realm exists, that gods actually exist, and that they do things. So it would have been massively strange for the Israelites To say that there were no other gods, that there was no reality behind these other gods.

[00:13:00] That would have been a massive cultural disconnect. And of course there were cultural disconnects between the people of God, the people of Israel, and the other nations, right? Nobody's denying that the Israelites could have been very unique, but let's face it. What we see in scripture is that they were very embedded into their culture.

So for them to be effectively atheistic, at least regarding the other gods, that would be a very, very strange cultural thing. And I don't think that we quite appreciate how strange that is. We come from a culture where many, many people claim to be atheists, where many people claim that there is no God, that there is no spiritual realm. So, to us, the claim is kind of par for the course. However, if atheism was more of a thing than most people seem to see, then [00:14:00] this makes it slightly more likely that we would have Israelites who would be atheistic. And again, keep in mind that I'm using that term in a general type of a way. Denying the reality of the other gods makes you an atheist in that sense. Basically, I'm saying that the term itself doesn't have to be pejorative. It doesn't have to be negative.

So here's the thing. I say that the Bible is not a science book, but in a sense, for the ancient person, it kind of was, because ancient science was just different than our science. It doesn't match up with our science. But they had an idea that there was a reality of heaven and a reality of earth, and that those things mirrored each other. And so just from that perspective, it would be very strange for a biblical author to deny the existence of other gods. Like, it would be natural for Israel's enemies to be under the headship [00:15:00] or oversight of rebellious deities. Nations who were working against Israel were nations whose gods were working against Israel's god.

Because of the way they thought about cosmology and the structure of the cosmos, This was a perfectly normal and expected view. Now, is it possible that they could break from their traditional and cultural idea of this mirroring of heaven and earth? And perhaps they had a different type of cosmology. Perhaps they thought about the way the cosmos worked in a different way than the other nations around them thought. And that is, of course, possible. But then they would need other answers as to why things happened.

So, our question becomes, then, were there other ideas for how the cosmos worked? Did other people have ways of explaining [00:16:00] things around them that didn't resort to the idea of the mirroring of heaven and earth? This question is a difficult one, and I don't think we can give too definite of an answer. I mean, we shouldn't be too dogmatic about it because we just don't have enough records from the time. We don't have enough writings from your average person. Most of the writings we have are for purposes of royalty and priesthood and economics. And so to say exactly what your average person really and truly thought, I don't think we can really do that to some extent.

We can, however, talk about some types of historical atheism, or we might say classical atheism, because we want to look very far back, not at the way we describe atheism, but we want to see how atheism would manifest in a culture like that, [00:17:00] in a culture that was very steeped in this kind of scientific perspective.

There is a book called Battling the Gods, Atheism in the Ancient World. It's by Tom Whitmarsh. It's not really a book I would recommend, because I think he over claims and over states his case, and he's not careful enough in describing what atheism is. He wants to make the point that atheism is common to all of humanity, and that we've always had atheism. And to some degree, I think we have to kind of agree with that. Because surely, we've always had people who have doubted what the traditional narrative is, right? We're always gonna have people who are gonna buck the system. People who are gonna say, Yeah, your explanation really isn't good enough for me.

And if that's what an atheist is, then sure, we've always had atheists. We've [00:18:00] always had people who try and come up with alternative explanations for things. The best and early instances of atheism that we see in history arise from the Greek culture, particularly when the Greeks started having a lot of different types of philosophy that were trying to explain the world in different ways.

So you have Democritus of the 4th and 5th century BC. He formulated an atomic theory of the universe. This isn't like our modern atomic theory. But you can certainly make the claim that he was an early materialist. Now, he really didn't deny the reality of the other gods, but he certainly bucked the normal system, and he was trying to describe the world in a way that didn't need the gods.

After him came philosophers like Epicurus and Lucretius, neither of which denied the reality of the gods, but certainly tried to explain things [00:19:00] in a way that didn't need their help so much. We can also talk about Socrates. Either he doubted the existence of the gods as a whole, or he didn't believe in a particular city's gods. So that's definitely a type of atheism.

So it seems like there's kind of a chain reaction here. We have a list of other Greeks who, they didn't deny the existence of the gods, but some of them started to wonder and claim that the gods weren't actually involved in the running of the world. So, classical atheism, we might say, it's not necessarily a denial of the divine being in general, but sometimes there was a denial of a divine being in particular, or the denial of divine beings in running the world. So, these are kind of really early deists, we might say.

Our word atheist does come from the Greek term atheos, So, it's a [00:20:00] word that they used, but they used it to refer to someone who basically had a belief in the gods that differed from the mainstream in some way. The Epicureans, for instance, said that they did believe in the gods, but the gods didn't actually hear any of your prayers, and they didn't exercise providence over the earth.

So it is possible that the Israelites had some sort of thinking along these lines going on, but I would say it's not very likely. Here's the thing, ideas are contagious. That means that we really should expect the Israelites to have very similar ideas to the people around them, right? And again, we're talking about Revelation, so sure, they could have new ideas simply because of Revelation, but we would need to see that in Revelation.

And again, maybe that is what we see. Maybe we do see a change from an idea that's a [00:21:00] little more henotheistic to one that is monotheistic. But this doesn't happen in a vacuum. Like I said, even if we disagree with how the Bible presents its science of the day, it still had that science. It still had explanations for why the world was the way it was.

The reason that some of the atheists of the day could say that the gods didn't have a part in the running of the world was because they had an alternative explanation. They were developing materialistic ideas and concepts of the universe. The Israelites didn't have materialistic options for their running of the universe. And we need to take that into account, because all of this is wrapped up in that. So it makes perfect sense in the ancient world if there is this explanation for why the world is the way it is, and that explanation is it's because of the gods. Well some people are [00:22:00] naturally going to doubt that, they're going to question it, because they're going to look around the world and they're going to say, This is really random, and it's chaotic, it's uncontrollable. Why don't we see the gods running this in an organized way, if they're supposed to be so great and organized themselves? So I think in the sense of people doubting, that had to have been the case. I think that is just natural to human existence.

But no one likes having no answers for things. So in a culture that didn't, or couldn't see a way to look at things materialistically, The answer would not, or almost could not be the non existence of deities.

Yes, you could have deism, but not actual atheism the way that we think of it today. Atheism presupposes other or alternative explanations available to the running of the cosmos. It just does. Now, couldn't that alternative [00:23:00] explanation be that only one God existed? That there is a monotheistic God and that's the reason?

Yes, it could, but here's the rub. Yahweh was for his own people, so do we just presume that the other nations had nothing? That God really didn't care about them? The idea that God is for a particular people fits much better within the whole framework of the Ancient Near East where there are territorial spirits, it just works better as a whole system. It makes sense and it answers the questions that people naturally have about the world.

There is one other thing that we can talk about that's really interesting in relation to the ancient idea of atheism and how people were trying to parse and understand their world. This is kind of tangential to the topic of the existence of the gods. But it connects very directly. And this is the question of [00:24:00] the provenance of myths or mythology. Just so we know what we're all talking about, when I'm talking about mythology, I'm talking about stories of the origins of the gods, or demigods, right? So we're not talking about false stories, but origin stories of divine beings.

Once again, we're going back to the philosophy and ideas of the Greeks. In the 6th century BC, Zeophanes wrote that myths are fiction to inculcate moral truth. So he outright said these aren't true stories, they're just stories to teach about morality. Theogenes and Empedocles, who wrote 100 to 200 years later, said that myths were allegorical expressions of a physical truth. Aristotle said that they existed so that people would respect legal and social institutions.

And then [00:25:00] there was Euhemerus of around 300 BC. He suggested that myths were a reimagined rendering of history. And he claims to have seen proof of this. He went on a journey towards India. And when he returned, he said that he found a temple to Zeus. And this temple had a column, and on the column were written the births and deaths of many of the gods. So he took that to mean that myth was history, but that the gods were actually men who had been deified after they died. So myths were rooted in history, but really they were what we might call legends.

Later on, some of the early church fathers actually took this idea and applied it to paganism as a whole, and saying, Their ideas are historical, but they are just history that has turned into legend over time. And some people [00:26:00] accuse Paul of believing in euhemerism. For instance, in Galatians 4. 8, he writes, , when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.

Now, you might have a translation like the New Living Translation that says here that you were slaves to so called gods that do not even exist. But that's really not what the Greek says, and most other translations will translate it like the ESV did that I just read. But some will see this passage as being evidence of euhemerism, or the idea that Paul is distinguishing between beings that really exist, and beings that are given that status by humans.

You can see how this kind of sounds like what we're talking about with euhemerism. But really, Paul is not saying anything different than what the Old Testament is saying. Basically, just because gods exist, that doesn't mean they [00:27:00] are ontologically the same as Yahweh God. They're not the creator. They don't have his power. They don't have his unique attributes. They aren't uncreated. You see, all of those things show that by nature they are not the same as God. Because they're not. That doesn't mean that they're made up, or that they're figments of imagination. It's fairly simple and straightforward to understand that even though the gods of the nations exist, that doesn't mean that they are the same as yahweh God, because they're not, and no one in the Bible ever says that they are. So nothing in this verse in Galatians goes against the idea that the gods of the nations are real. So, in other words, it can't be a proof text for that.

Alright, so let's go ahead and talk about this context of how the Bible speaks of the other gods. Does it [00:28:00] really provide a basis for believing in their reality? And again, it's an absolutely fair question, because there are passages that if you just look at that passage, it looks like it's denying the reality of other deities. So let's actually have a look at those and see what we find.

There are several places we can go to, but the most obvious and direct are found in Isaiah. Isaiah chapters 40 through 48 talk a lot about idolatry. Let's go smack dab into the middle of this, to Isaiah 44 verses six through eight. In the ESV. It says, thus says the Lord, the king of Israel and his redeemer, the Lord of hosts. I am the first and I am the last. Besides me, there is no God. Who is like me. Let him proclaim it. [00:29:00] Let him declare and set before me since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come and what will happen. Fear not nor be afraid, have I not told you from old and declared it and you are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? There is no rock. I know. Not any end quote.

Okay, so this is a passage that I see brought out quite frequently in the discussion of the reality of the gods. Right here, in Isaiah 44, it says, Besides me there is no God. That seems fairly straightforward, right? It says right there, in plain English, There is no God besides Yahweh. And this isn't the only place in Isaiah that says this.

Let's look at Isaiah 43. From the second half of verse 10 through verse 13, it says, Quote, Before [00:30:00] me no God was formed, Nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no Savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange God among you. And you are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and I am God. Also, henceforth, I am He. There is none who can deliver from my hand. I work, and who can turn it back? End quote.

Okay, so once again, Before me no god was formed, Nor shall there be any after me. So that seems to say that before God existed there was no other god that was made, nor shall any gods be made after God.

Alright, but this isn't all! This reminds me of the Princess Bride in the Battle of the Wits, where Vicini says, Wait till I get [00:31:00] going! There's just example after example in these chapters in Isaiah that seem to suggest that the gods are not real.

Isaiah 41, verses 22 through 24 say, quote, Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome, or declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods. Do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing. An abomination is he who chooses you.

In the same chapter, in verses 28 and 29, it says, But when I look, there is no one. Among these there is no counselor who, when I ask, gives an answer. [00:32:00] Behold, they are all a delusion. Their works are nothing. Their metal images are empty wind. End quote.

In Isaiah chapter 40, verses 18 through 19, it says, To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness compare with him? An idol. A craftsman casts it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold, and casts for it silver chains. In verses 25 and 26 of chapter 40, it says, To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? Says the holy one. Lift up your eyes and see who created these. He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, end quote.

Okay, we're gonna be coming back to verse 26 that says that he who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name. I want to point something specific [00:33:00] about how that's describing these things, but before I do, we're gonna reach back into Isaiah even further past Isaiah 40. Into Isaiah 37, in verses 18 and 19, it says, truly, oh Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the nations and their lands and have cast their gods into the fire for they were no gods, but the work of men's, hands, wood, and stone, therefore, they were destroyed. End quote.

Okay, so this is a lot of evidence we have against the idea that gods exist. And to prove that it's not just Isaiah who does this, we have a verse in Deuteronomy 32, verse 21, and it says, They have made me jealous with what is no God. They have provoked me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are no people. I will [00:34:00] provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. End quote.

So even in the Torah, we have verses that suggest gods aren't real, you guys. They're not real. They're no gods. It seems fairly straightforward, right? How can we argue against this? It's very plain. It's very obvious. There are no gods. But here I am sitting here right now telling you that they really did believe in the reality of the gods, and I don't think we have to resort to an idea that there was a progression of understanding.

I think that there is a cohesive way of seeing how all of these authors were looking at it. And I think that same cohesiveness extends to the New Testament. But we've really got to dig into these "no god" statements. Why are they here? What do they mean?

The simple answer is that, [00:35:00] number one, these are polemic texts. Number two, they use hyperbole and really strong language. And number three When they say that there are no gods, they mean that in a particular way. Just like when Paul in Galatians says that they are by nature not God. It's the same exact thing. It's saying the same thing. It's just hard to see that in English.

And when we have the tendency to pull one verse out of the whole narrative and say, Look, I found my proof text! Well, we're kind of doing damage to the text by doing that. But I really don't want you to just take my word for it. I want to show you how that is. So we're really going to dig into these passages and look at their contexts.

Now a really easy way to just kind of gloss over the whole thing and say, look, it really is about [00:36:00] comparative language rather than talking about ontological reality. We have Isaiah 47 verse 8. Now, the context of this passage is talking about Babylon. It's describing Babylon in terms of like a human. And verse 8 says, Now therefore, hear this, you lover of pleasures, who sit securely, who say in your heart, I am, and there is no one besides me, end quote.

Well, that's the same language. There is no one besides me. Are we really to believe that there are no other cities other than Babylon? No, this language is to say that Babylon is the greatest, that no other city compares to Babylon. It's not about the ontological existence or non existence of other cities.

Similarly, we have a passage in Zephaniah, chapter 2, verse 15. It [00:37:00] uses the exact same language about Nineveh. It says, I am, and there is no one else. This is the language that Isaiah is using in reference to the other gods. Just like in Deuteronomy 4, verse 35, it says, There is no other besides him, speaking of the Lord God. So this is the language of comparison. This is hyperbole to say just how much greater something is other than something else. The point isn't about existence at all.

However, I've seen this brought out to people, and it doesn't seem convincing to them still. Some people really want to hold on to the idea that these passages in Isaiah are about the non existence of other deities. But I will actually say that you don't even have to go to the point that this is about superlative language in order to make the point that these passages aren't talking [00:38:00] about the reality of other gods. But rather, these passages are a polemic, and a polemic that makes a lot of sense in the context of where Israel is at the time, because they are in exile.

They are under dominion of another nation. They are in a situation where everyone around them is worshipping idols, worshipping other gods. And they're in a situation where probably many of the people are wondering about God. They're wondering why God isn't delivering them. Why does God seem absent in this situation?

That's the big question on everyone's minds. And in the logic of the time, because Babylon had conquered the Israelite people, the Babylonian people were probably saying, yeah, our God is better than yours because we conquered you. If that wasn't true, then your God would have saved you.

So the Israelites are in this [00:39:00] situation where they're hearing all of this kind of information and propaganda from people around them. And so it is absolutely paramount that God's prophet needs to come in and dispel all of those rumors. So, these passages are to be read as something that should be very convincing for the people of Israel.

And, here is another thing that can be true. These two things can be true at the same time. Both that idols, these statues, the physical representations before the people, it can be true that those idols are non entities, and it can remain true that the gods are still real entities.

Both of those things can be true. The idols can be non entities, and the gods can still be real entities. And overwhelmingly, what these chapters in Isaiah are talking about are idols. They're talking about the [00:40:00] actual crafting of idols, pointing out the fact that craftsmen actually make these, because at the time, people who worshipped idols, they had a tendency to pretend like they weren't actually made by humans. Like, oh, look, this god was suddenly born right here in front of us. No, we didn't make that thing. And Isaiah's pointing out, yeah, you did make it. You took down a tree. With half of the tree, you made an idol. With the other half of the tree, you warmed your house with it. What kind of sense does that make?

And really, it doesn't make any kind of sense. But that doesn't disprove the existence of spiritual beings. It also doesn't disprove the idea that the gods, the lesser gods, the created beings who other people worship as God, it doesn't disprove that they could utilize humanity's belief in idols, but that doesn't make the [00:41:00] idol just magically work in the way that people might think or want them to work.

Because the idea was that the idol housed the god, and in a sense, the people were trapping the god. They were localizing him. They were housing the God so that the God could interact with humanity. That was their idea. That was the logic of idolatry. And the idea was that there was some sort of thing that could happen, a transaction that could happen between the people and the gods in relationship to the way that the people treated the idol.

What I'm saying is that the idol can be used by the god if the god chooses to use it, but that doesn't imbue the idol itself with these magical properties. The idol remains just a block of wood. It doesn't actually have magic or power attached to it particularly. This is really what Paul is talking about [00:42:00] in 1 Corinthians when he references this whole practice of idolatry. And in particular, he's talking about eating the meat that is offered to these idols. And it's the same exact context that we have going on in Isaiah. The same thing is happening. The same type of logic applies.

The problem is, in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, it doesn't sound like that's what Paul is saying. And let me just go ahead and read this. In verses 4 through 6, it says, Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol has no real existence, there Paul is actually quoting Isaiah 41, and that there is no god but one. For although there may be so called gods in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist. [00:43:00] And one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we exist, end quote.

So Paul is quoting Isaiah, where he says an idol has no real existence. So it sounds like Paul is saying, the gods aren't real, you guys, so don't worry about eating the meat that's sacrificed to them, because they're not real, it's not actually doing anything, nothing is happening here, because the gods aren't real.

That's how a lot of people read 1 Corinthians chapter 8, and it's easy to latch onto this English phrase, the so called gods, as if they're not really gods, they're just called that. But again, this isn't actually about ontological, physical, spiritual, whatever, existence.

The phrase, the so called gods, that just means that people call these things gods. Paul is just using this as a statement of fact. Yeah, those [00:44:00] idols, people call those gods, but they're not actually like God. And, again, this is the same thing we have in the Old Testament. We can use the terminology of God, or false god, or spiritual being. Whatever word we're using, we're not trying to compare those beings with the Creator God.

Because they're not the same. They're just not. No one in the Bible is saying that they are the same. They're not. It's just really easy to get this conflated in our heads because we're using the same word here. And so when we hear the word God, even when we hear the word false god, we're thinking of God Himself, the Creator, and all of the attributes and all of the things that go along with who God is.

But that's not how we should be reading this word when it's in our Bibles and it's the lowercase g o d. The problem with saying that Paul is trying to say that they don't exist is you gotta keep reading to [00:45:00] one Corinthians chapter 10, and in one Corinthians chapter 10 verses 19 to 20, he's still talking about the same thing and he says, quote, what do I imply then that food offered to idols is anything or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice. They offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.

So here we have Paul saying, yeah, they are real. They are spiritual entities and people are offering food to these entities. And once again, our English translations are going to trip us up here because we read the word demons, and we think of demons as being a very lower class kind of Evil entity, right?

We think of demons as Satan's minions, not the gods [00:46:00] of the nations. So, aha, we say, Paul isn't talking about the gods of the nations at all. Well, hold up here. The word demon here is the Greek word daimonion. And this word is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint. It's used for the sons of God and the gods of the nations.

Now, in the New Testament, this word is also used for general spirit entities that harm people. And, of course, the gods of the nations and the spirit entities that harm individual people, those have two different origin stories. So, what the heck, we say?

Well, the thing is, in Greek, daimon refers to any divine being, good or bad. It doesn't have to be an evil one. Of course, our English word, demon, is a bad guy. And the gods of the nations, those are bad guys too. But we need to keep in mind that the word that Paul is [00:47:00] using here is more akin to the general term Elohim than it is to the term demon. So Paul could use the term to refer to the gods of the nations.

I mean, think about it. He wouldn't want to call them gods like the pagans do because that has particular associations. He was making a particular distinction between them and the Creator. The God who actually deserves our worship. So that's why he says so called gods. That's what people call them. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

In 1 Corinthians 10, I think it's pretty well established that Paul is talking about a reality here. A reality that everyone around him accepts. And he is saying that the food that is offered to the idols It's not going to harm you, it's not going to actually be this magical thing that you're now worshipping the other god. You actually have to do that [00:48:00] intentionally. You have to choose to do that.

Okay, so let's turn back into Isaiah again, because even if you can kind of agree and follow me here with Paul, the question still remains, what about the writer of Isaiah? What does he actually believe and what is he saying? And again, it's all about context.

So, we're going to go into some of these chapters in Isaiah, and we're going to read them. And we're going to ask ourselves, what is the point of what is being said here? What is being communicated? We can't just pull a verse out and say it means something. We need to look at the whole thing and say, this is what it's talking about.

So, let's go ahead and start in Isaiah chapter 40, verse 1. It says, Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her, that her warfare is ended, that her [00:49:00] iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord's hand double for all her sins. A voice cries in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low. The uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. For the mouth of the Lord has spoken. A voice says, Cry! And I said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all its beauty is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the Lord blows on it. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers, The flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

Okay, so, gonna stop here for just a second. [00:50:00] What we have going on in these passages is a proclaimant of hope. The people should be trusting in God because their iniquity is pardoned. There's this idea that God is going to come on a highway as a rescuer. It also calls people grass as compared to what God is.

Getting back into Isaiah 40 in verse nine, it says, go on up to a high mountain Oz Zion. Harold of Good news. Lift up your voice with strength. O Jerusalem, Harold of good news. Lift it up. Fear not say to the cities of Judah, behold your God. Behold the Lord God comes with might, and his arm rules for him. Behold, his reward is with him. and his recompense before him. He will tend his flock like a shepherd. He will gather the lambs in his arms. He will carry them in his bosom and gently lead those that are with young. Who [00:51:00] has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance. Who has measured the spirit of the Lord. Or what man shows him his counsel? Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket. They are accounted as the dust on the scales. Behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust. Lebanon would not suffice for fuel, nor are its beasts enough for a burnt offering. All the nations are as nothing before him. They are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness. To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness compare with him? An idol? A [00:52:00] craftsman casts it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold, and casts for it silver chains. He who is too impoverished for an offering chooses wood that will not rot. He seeks out a skillful craftsman to set up an idol that will not move. Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in, who brings princes to nothing, and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. End quote.

We're going to end here, because I think you can already see what I'm getting at here. In verse 17, it says, All the nations are as nothing before him, they are counted by him as less than nothing and emptiness. Then it talks about the [00:53:00] idol. It talks about princes who are nothing, and rulers of the earth who are emptiness.

None of this language is denying the reality of nations, or princes, or rulers of the earth. Or Gods. To whom then will you liken God that that's the point here? Why are you guys comparing these idols that are just wood? They really actually don't have any power. Why are you comparing those to God?

If we continue on to verse 25 and 26 of chapter 40, it says, to whom then will you compare me? That I should be like him, says the holy one. Lift up your eyes on high and see who created these. He, who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name. By the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power, not one is missing. End quote.

This verse is parallel to Psalm [00:54:00] 147, verses 4 and 5. And that says, He determines the number of stars. He gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power. His understanding is beyond measure. End quote.

But in Isaiah, they are called hosts. Well, what is it? Are they hosts, or are they stars? Well, the answer is yes, they are both. When you look up at the sky and you see all the stars, the ancient person would be connecting those to the gods. Now, whether or not they actually thought that the gods were up there shining and twinkling above the sky, I don't think we really necessarily have to say that every ancient person Or even, in general, the ancient people thought that the twinkling little lights up there were actual, literal, physical gods.

It doesn't really matter. The point is that they are very associated with the gods. So when God is talking about [00:55:00] stars, and he's talking about the heavenly host, it's the same kind of idea. Those ideas are wrapped up in the mind of the ancient person. So, here we have, just like the talk about the idols, God isn't even as compared to the stars.

All of this, it's all about comparative language. It's all about declaring the greatness of God. And we could say that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for God to be compared to something that doesn't exist. We need to remember where the people are. They are in Babylon. They are in exile. They are surrounded by people who are worshiping idols and it would be really easy for them to be convinced that those Babylonians, they are more powerful and their idols and their gods are more powerful. Isaiah is making the point very strongly that nothing that they see around them can compare even remotely to the God of [00:56:00] Israel.

And then we should ask ourselves, what is the point of a god? What are they supposed to do? Well, a god is supposed to deliver their people who are in trouble, right? In Isaiah 36, verses 14 through 20, well, I won't read all of that, but you can go there in Isaiah 36, 14 to 20, and you can see the occurrences of the word deliver there.

Verses 19 and 20, it says, where are the gods? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who among the gods of these lands have delivered their lands out of my hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand? End quote.

So if you weren't a god who could deliver, then you weren't much of a god. But that doesn't mean you didn't exist. It just means that you weren't God himself. Because it is the God of Israel. It is the actual [00:57:00] creator, sovereign God, who delivers. No other god can actually do that. No other god can deliver their people from Yahweh. But Yahweh can deliver his people from those other gods.

That's the point here. That's what makes Yahweh the true god, and all of the false gods, well, false gods. It's not about existence versus non existence. It's about power. If we had more time, we could turn to the incident at Mount Carmel. You know, the battle of the gods there with Yahweh on one side and Baal on the other side?

Well, no matter what the prophets of Baal did, they couldn't get Baal to act. However, all Elijah had to do was pray to God, and whoosh, there we have it. This is another story that people point to in order to suggest that Baal isn't real. Again, it's not about reality. It is about [00:58:00] authority and power, and who has the upper hand? Well, obviously, it's the creator of the universe that has the upper hand over all of the beings that he created.

All right, I may be belaboring my point here, but I did want to turn to Isaiah 44 and look at that context, simply because this is one of those passages that has the most power behind the argument that the Bible says that there's no gods.

So, Isaiah 44 says, quote, But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen. Thus says the Lord who made you, who formed you from the womb, and will help you. Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen. For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground. I will pour my spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.

They shall spring up [00:59:00] among the grass, like willows by flowing streams. This one will say, I am the Lord's. Another will call on the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, the Lord's, and name himself by the name of Israel. Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts.

I am the first, and I am the last. Besides me there is no God, who is like me. Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me. Since I appointed an ancient people, let them declare what is to come and what will happen. Fear not, nor be afraid. Have I not told you from old and declared it? And you are my witnesses. Is there a god besides me? There is no rock. I know not any.

Then the chapter goes into an expose of idolatry. In verse 9 it says, All who fashion idols are nothing. And the things they delight in [01:00:00] do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know that they may be put to shame. Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing?

Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth, they shall be terrified. They shall be put to shame together, end quote.

Okay, it goes on and talks more about idols, right? And their crafting, and there's a deliberate conflation of the idol and the idol maker. The idol is nothing, and all who fashion idols are nothing. Well, the idol makers actually existed, right? But they didn't have power. They weren't actually doing anything that they were claiming to do.

The chapter begins with talking about Jacob. Israel, and so it's really focusing in on the fact that God chose this people. Besides me, there is no [01:01:00] God. Again, this is so strongly and so obviously comparative language. If you want to go all the way and say that the author of this genuinely did believe that there were no other gods in existence, well. Okay, but you'll have to say that this author is not the author of the earlier chapters of Isaiah.

In Isaiah 24, verses 21 and 22, it says, On that day the Lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven, and the kings of the earth on the earth. They will be gathered together as prisoners in a pit, they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished.

Well, okay, so this isn't talking about idols, or is it? Remember Hebrew parallelism and remember the idea that the heavens and the earth are reflected [01:02:00] like a mirror? The Lord's gonna punish the host of the heaven in heaven. and the kings of the earth on the earth. This isn't just listing two areas that God's gonna punish. The fact that these are in parallel means that the host of heaven and the kings of the earth, they're mirroring each other. They're kind of the same thing. The kings exist, the host of heaven exist, both of them exist, and both of them are doing similar things. So both of them are going to be punished because both of them are doing the thing that requires the punishment. This is just another instance of the mirroring of heaven and earth.

The fact that the gods of the nations and the kings , who were under their rule, they're seen as the same thing. They're doing the same job. They're connected. And they're both real. This is how the cosmos worked. Basically, what Isaiah is doing here is using the [01:03:00] strongest language possible to give this reflection of who Yahweh is and who the gods of the nations are.

And the issue of worshiping Yahweh and other gods alongside Him, that was a real problem, too. In Isaiah 7, we have Ahaz. Who says, oh, I refuse to put the Lord to the test. That suggests he has faith in Yahweh, right? Well, we could say that he's just maybe lying, because in 2 Kings 16, and in 2 Chronicles 28, he is very definitely worshipping other gods.

So maybe he's just sounding really good. But really, for pagans of the day, they weren't really tied to their gods. They could worship this god, they could worship that god. It didn't really matter, you just worshipped whatever you wanted and you could worship multiple gods. Yahweh in the Old Testament is unique and a bit strange amongst the gods of the nations. [01:04:00] Well, because he's not really a god of the nations, but beyond that, he is a jealous god. He wants all of the worship. And Ahaz isn't giving him all of the worship, but it seems like he's probably giving him some worship. Like this token effort of We'll appease Yahweh just in case He's going to deliver us. We'll appease these gods over here just in case they will deliver us. The whole situation was about hedging your bets and doing the best you could to get what you needed out of whatever god you could. But the Bible in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, it's unanimous in saying that's not how you can worship God. God requires our soul loyalty.

So, anyway, when we look at Isaiah 24 21, and we compare that with Isaiah 44, 6 through 8, the whole book of Isaiah, at least, acknowledges the host of heaven having power and influence over the kings, [01:05:00] so the polemic against the other gods and against idols must be read in this light.

It's not overall too different from how we have God instituting the sacrificial system in one place in the Bible, And in other places, God says, I didn't ask for sacrifice. Well, we have to look at both of those things in light of each other. They're not contradictions. The prophets are trying to tell the people you guys have it wrong and this is the way you have to do it right. And the prophets use exceptionally strong language all over the place, all the time.

Alright, so in any case, I think it's obvious here what we have. I think that we have to say that what the Bible is saying is that these gods are real. Just as God is interacting with his people in the Old Testament, we see the gods of the nations also interacting. But there's some major [01:06:00] differences. The gods of the nations are powerless, whereas nobody can say that about Israel's god.

Before we can end here, though, I need to talk about two things at least. Number one is, what about the idea that this is just an accommodation to the culture of the time? That really, the gods aren't real. God was just accepting their understanding of how things were in order to do his thing.

And I also want to discuss the parallel of the reality of the gods versus the reality of Adam as an individual man. Like, if we can say that Adam is not necessarily historical, then maybe the gods aren't necessarily historical either.

Here's the thing with Adam, though. He doesn't really have to be a single historical person. We do, however, need the beginning of humankind. Remember, Adam can be used to reference humanity in general as well. [01:07:00] And guess what? We're all here. Hello! So we exist. Therefore, humanity began. Therefore, there is a reality behind Adam.

So Adam can be the archetypical beginning of humanity. There was a real beginning of humanity that he is referencing. So if we want to make the claim that this is parallel to the gods of the nations, Well, we have to say that what's going on with the gods of the nations, there's also some sort of reality that's behind it.

And the only thing we can really say is that there really are gods. That's the only thing we really have a hook to hang on. Anything else would be pure speculation or getting into Gnostic thought and we don't want to go there. And also, the only way we're going to understand anything about the Unseen Realm is by Revelation.

Like, is it possible that people made all of this up and God's just [01:08:00] using that? Well, maybe, but again, there has to be something there. There's got to be. Because, just like Adam is a archetype of humanity, there's got to be some reality that's going on here. The Bible is not in the business of just making stuff up. It's just not. Even if something isn't quite historical or scientific in the way that we want it to be, what's in the Bible is absolutely describing a reality. That's how we Christians read it. That's how we're supposed to understand it. That's how we're supposed to take all of these stories in. So if we're just kind of waving our hand and saying, Yeah, that's just a made up fiction.

I think we're treading dangerous waters there. I don't think anything in the Bible is saying anything of the sort. Even if something, again, is not exactly historical, scientific in [01:09:00] the way that we today describe those things. Remember, we're talking about our perspective here. There's still a deep reality that these things are referencing.

And I think we need to take that as really real, particularly because all of this does touch on the work of the Messiah. If it didn't, then we could maybe say, Oh, that's kind of just an idea that they had and it doesn't really matter. Let's say that the ancient person did believe in a flat earth. Well, Christ didn't come to save the flat earth. He didn't come because there was a flat earth and to change it, or to do anything about the flat earth. But he did come in relation to all of these things that are going on. This is part of the work of the Messiah. And because the way that we should be reading and understanding scripture, And the reason we should take it as authoritative for our lives and as truthful is because of the Messiah.

This is [01:10:00] the reason why the Bible is truth. It doesn't matter whether or not we find archaeological evidence backing any of the stories up. None of that functionally matters. What matters is that Christ came, is that we have a Messiah, we have a Savior who came and did certain things for us. Those are the things that historically have to have happened because those are the things that the Bible is all about.

We have to have had a creation, so we're not just kind of in some matrix situation here. There is a real creation, there is real purpose to that creation, there is an actual Messiah who came. In response to what's happening in creation. And so everything that we see in the work of the Messiah, we need to be taking those things as some sort of reality.

And the New Testament is quite clear in talking about the powers and the principalities that [01:11:00] have been disarmed. Satan and the gods of the nations and the demons, they're not just made up. They're not just part of some fictional story here. They are part of the work of the Messiah. Like, I don't see how we can pinpoint anything more essential to the Bible's narrative.

I'm not trying to discount or downplay the seriousness of our sin and all of its consequences, but that's not the only reason Jesus came. Jesus came for multifaceted reasons, and for every reason that he came, those are something that we should pick out of scripture and say, This is absolutely essential to our reality and framework of existence.

Nothing can be more essential than that. And so, because all of these things tie into that, that's my number one actual reason for thinking that the gods of the nations are real. We could even look at historical evidence of this [01:12:00] in our day. For instance, you can talk to missionaries who go out and who have experiences that are best explained by the fact that there are territorial spirits. And again, these things have been disarmed by Christ, but they're still fighting. They're still trying to get a toehold and to have an effect in the world. And they do. I think that if you don't see that, then you're kind of blinded by our modern Western world.

It's kind of scary to go from a materialistic idea, because this is how we've been raised. This is what we're supposed to believe in, that this world is very materialistic. And it exists physically, and the spiritual realm is kind of more vague and should just all be about God, right? This kind of idea gets hammered into us by our modern culture. And we don't even realize it. And I've seen many, many stories from people who have been impacted by the reality of this [01:13:00] information that there is a real spiritual reality and a battle that's going on. Many people have seen this and have evidence of it in their lives.

Alright, I will get off my little hobby horse here, but I really think that overall, this is what the picture is painting, and this is how we should be looking at things and taking it seriously. Nothing else. No other experience or explanation seems to make any sense compared to this.

All right, well, I told you that I was going to try and dive deep into this and really look at it from different angles and dig into scriptures as to how we're looking at this. So I hope you found that informative. I hope for those of you who have had questions about it, that this kind of helped clarify some of those things.

None of this stuff is original to me. None of this stuff is things that I'm making up. You can find all of this elsewhere. It's just in bits and pieces. So I wanted to kind of [01:14:00] collate it all together and present it as this cohesive picture. Because this is such a big question for a lot of people.

So I hope you enjoyed this episode. I hope for some of you at least that it was very helpful and enlightening. I appreciate all of you who share my episodes and who tell people about this podcast. Thank you especially to my Patreon and PayPal supporters. For pretty much every episode I do, I buy resources and there's also a whole lot that goes on behind the scenes of trying to keep this podcast up.

So thank you all for donating and for giving me support in all of the various ways that you do. If anyone has any questions, you can reach me through Facebook or you can reach me through my website at GenesisMarksTheSpot. com. That is also a place where you can leave reviews, by the way. But, that is it for now, and I hope you all have a blessed week, [01:15:00] and we will see you later.