[04/05/19]
As observed in setting down the basics, a sovereign God must necessarily be an exclusive God. There can be but one, for otherwise one would answer to the other, or stand able to counter the will of the other. That would be to say that one or the other is not sovereign, and that in turn would be to say that one or the other was not god. So, then, is this God revealed in Scripture exclusive in His deity? I think we can consider that point established by the very first words of Scripture. “In the beginning God” (Ge 1:1). He is there at the outset, alone at the outset, when all else is chaos and nothingness. That was a point so significant that John effectively reiterates the declaration by way of introducing his gospel. “In the beginning was the Word” (Jn 1:1). But, these things may seem to speak more to the eternality of God than to His exclusivity, so I think I shall save further discussion of these particular passages for that subject.
Instead, let me turn to the occasion of Israel’s preparations to enter the Promised Land. This was now a second generation of Israelites, no longer the same folks who had come out of Egypt, with the exception of three men: Moses, Joshua, and Caleb. Moses knew that he would not be granted to accompany Israel as they crossed the Jordan, for God had told him as much. The consequences of his sin against God by exceeding his authority were severe, but not eternal. But, faithful Moses, in spite of this knowledge, would undertake to ensure that the people he had led did not lose sight of Whose they were. He would see to their future as best he may. So, he appointed Joshua to lead them where he would not be following. And so, he went to great lengths to reiterate the Law which God had imparted to Israel, ensuring that this next generation was not uninformed as to the divine nature of their governance, nor of that divine being’s terms of covenant. Thus we are given the entirety of the book of Deuteronomy as coverage of this event.
In Deuteronomy 4:35, we read the word of Moses to this new generation of Israelites who would enter the land. “To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” He reminds them of the covenantal relationship they have with God, in using His covenant name. In doing so, he also reminds them in no uncertain terms that this God into whose covenant they have been entered is also utterly sovereign over not only themselves, but all the nations. That is a longer story, and not to our point at this juncture. What is to our point is the clear statement of exclusivity. “There is no other besides Him.” Now, to be sure, there were (and still are) a near infinite number of claimants to that title, but God has just put paid to those claims. They can call themselves what they will, but truth is, they are not gods, whatever they are. The LORD is God and there is, nor can there be, any other.
Let me discuss this in negative terms for a moment. If there is shown to be any other, then God is not unanswerably sovereign. That other might theoretically be, but if there is another valid claimant to godhead, then God at the very least has an equal with whom He must contend and consult if He is to see His purposes stand. And what shall happen if these multiple deities cannot come to agreement? Perhaps there is a stalemate of divine proportion, and we may as well join the nihilists in their proclamation that God is dead, for in stalemate, however powerful these multiple beings are, they have become powerless to pursue their will. More likely, one prevails, and the others, however many there may be, must acquiesce to the will of the one who prevailed, thereby demonstrating that claims to the contrary notwithstanding, they are no gods after all.
Now, we have a second test to consider: The test of Truth. If we discover that there are in fact other gods than the LORD, then the LORD is found to be a liar, and the Truth cannot be in Him. That pushes us into the realm of essential characteristics. If God IS Truth, and we find in this god of ours a lie, then this god of ours is not God; is no god at all. That, once more pushes the discussion into subject matter I am not at present seeking to pursue. But, you can see how these things interconnect and depend upon one another.
Let’s look at something from Isaiah now. In this instance (Isa 45), the prophecy concerns king Cyrus of Babylon, which, given the content of the message, seems odd, but then, it demonstrates that God is no regional deity. He is THE deity. As for Cyrus, He says, “I have taken him by the right hand. I have subdued nations before him. I have loosed the loins of kings, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut.” And on, it goes until we reach the reason for this favor. “In order that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who calls your name. For the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name. I have given you a title of honor though you have not known Me” (Isa 45:3b-4). Again, we see the sovereign God in full control. As an unavoidable aside, we also see our own story; we who have been granted redemption. “I have also called you by your name, in order that you may know it is I, the LORD.”
But, I would proceed to the next piece of that declaration to Cyrus, and to Israel as well. “I AM the LORD, and there is no other. Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you though you have not known Me; that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I AM the LORD and there is no other” (Isa 45:5-6). Note the breadth of that claim. It is a declaration of absolute exclusivity, and that declaration encompasses the whole of the world. Indeed, we could as readily say that this declaration encompasses the whole of existence. From the rising to the setting of the sun: That covers in its figure all that is. God is saying that there is no place that is excluded from His claim. Considering the common belief in regional gods at the time, this is highly significant. Certainly, the Babylonians, Cyrus included, had their own gods. They did not worship Yahweh. They had their own creation myths, their own pantheon, and indeed, in some cases had accounted their kings as deities, which also seems to have been a not uncommon occurrence amongst the peoples of that age. And, I must observe, some things never change. Still we find the region of Babylon generally pursuing other gods. Still we find them with leaders who are so bold as to claim divinity for themselves. But, claims are one thing. Realities are quite another.
Let me just observe briefly where this prophecy proceeds, as God makes the case for His exclusive sovereignty to Cyrus. He is, he notes, “The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity” (Isa 45:7). “It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands. I ordained all their host” (Isa 45:12). Then, one more: “Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, the word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance” (Isa 45:22-23).
So, yes, we have a highly significant claim to not only sovereignty, but absolute, exclusive, not shared with any other sovereignty. As concerns kings and rulers? All are in place as He determines. As to the extent of His realm? His realm is everything that is. As to subjection to His rule? In the final analysis, there is, nor can be, any question of it. And that final phrase I quoted is, of course, a matter that bears greatly on the New Testament revelation.
[04/06/19]
As to that New Testament revelation, the message is repeated often. Paul certainly emphasizes the oneness of God and faith alike. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6). Now, it is quite clear that Paul’s attention is on unity here. The emphasis is on the universal. It is a message quite at odds with modern sensibilities, but then, the whole message of the Gospel is in that same boat. But, the point is simply that you don’t get to have one system of belief and I another. You don’t get to have baptism your way, and I’ll have mine. You don’t come to be indwelt by one Holy Spirit and I another. If, in fact, we are in Christ, we are One as He is One. Yes, we see the three Persons of the Trinity here: Spirit, Lord Son, and Father, but observe: One God. We will get to the subject of the Trinity in due course, but here focus on the One. There is One. There is one faith. You are either of it or you’re not. There is one baptism. You are either part of the one church or you are not. For there is one church, in spite of our myriad denominations. But, again, that’s a topic for elsewhere in this exercise.
But, we may as well muddy the waters a bit more. “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time” (1Ti 2:5-6). So, then, is Paul telling us that Jesus is not quite God? By no means. Is he, then, telling us that there are actually two gods? Not possible. What we do see, and I apologize, but again it’s something to consider later, is the two natures of the Christ, who is wholly God and yet wholly man. As being wholly God, He is One God together with the Father and the Spirit. But, as being wholly man, he satisfies the necessary mediatorial role between perfect and holy God and imperfect, sinful man. The controlling factor here is that there is one God. There can be no other.
Now, let us consider the claim Jesus made before the Jewish leaders. “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30). There is absolutely no doubt what that claim intended. Certainly those to whom He spoke did not miss it. They were ready to stone Him, and why? “Because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (Jn 10:33b). We ought to be able to see why they had a problem with this. God was one whom no man could see and live – again, the issue of sinful man contacting holy God. It’s rather like the contact of matter and anti-matter as we used to see it displayed in Star Trek. There’s going to be an explosion, because these two things cannot be held in proximity without one or the other being destroyed. Yet, here is a very visible man, and they have quite apparently not been struck dead by His visit. Ergo, they conclude, how can He be God? He doesn’t fit the description.
But, Jesus at least makes a beginning at explaining the situation. He observes the purpose of His works – something we do well to take to hear as concerns miracles, but for now, leave it as it touches on this specific occasion. He does these works so that they might believe, and that “you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (Jn 10:38). That’s still a bit cryptic, I’ll grant, and not easily accepted. Is He a man possessed? Is that His claim? Certainly not in the sense that we tend to construe the idea of possession. But, it would wait for later for Him to make it a bit plainer. As Jesus prayed what has come to be known as His high priestly prayer, this same subject comes up. His prayer is that they would all be one – that WE would all be one. There’s that unity again. But, observe: “Even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us” (Jn 17:16a); “that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity” (Jn 17:23).
Now, this is a challenge, I admit. It is a challenge because to properly understand the meaning, we must respect the distinctions of meaning. In this, I am focused on that “perfected in unity.” For us, that is a goal, a terminus. It is the state towards which God is bringing us. But, for Him, it is present eternal experience. God is Perfect. In all that He is, He is Perfect. If God is One, He is perfectly One. He IS Unity. That might push the point just a bit too hard, but I don’t think so. His being is the perfect expression of Unity, and that perfect expression of unity is discovered to be expressed in a multiplicity of persons. And now, I am marching well ahead of my subject, but these things are so inseparable, it becomes impossible to discuss the one without addressing the other at least in some degree. The key matter here is that the divinity of Jesus does not alter the equation. God is One. The very real existence of the Holy Spirit, sent of Father and Son to indwell His chosen while we remain in this developmental life does not alter the equation. God is One. So, then, when we read that rather Trinitarian formulation of Paul’s back in Ephesians, the One Spirit, One Mediator and One Father give reference to One God.
This understanding must inform how we consider certain other passages in Scripture which may appear to speak a contrary message. Primary amongst these are those references to the seven Spirits of God in the Revelation. The references come very early, and without explanation. It’s there in the letters to the seven churches. “From Him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne” (Rev 1:4). John, who are they? It comes again. “To the angel of the church in Sardis write: He who has the seven spirits of God, and the seven stars says this…” (Rev 3:1). Yes, but what are we talking about?
Well, perhaps this scene of the heavenly court may shed some light on the matter. “There were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God” (Rev 4:5). The scene also brings us the four living creatures, and the twenty-four elders. But, I observe that none of these are actually on the throne. They are before the throne. They are, as it were, courtiers. Then, we have that final mention, “I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth” (Rev 5:6). Nope. That’s not helping at all. Now, it seems the spirits are of a piece with the Lamb, and He’s not on the throne either. Rather, it seems that He is farther from the throne than the living creatures. But, to the Lamb goes the song. “Worthy art Thou to take the book and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And Thou hast made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth” (Rev 5:9-10). So, it would seem that in some fashion this last is a bit of a coronation scene; the Lamb ascending the throne.
But, what of those spirits? And why is it always capitalized? Are we in fact now saying there are seven Holy Spirits? But, how can there be? There is One Spirit, remember? The best clue I can find is in the cross reference to Isaiah 11:2. “The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD” (Isa 11:2). But then, depending how one counts, there is but the one Spirit of the Lord, which the other clauses describe, or possibly two aspects of that one Spirit – wisdom and knowledge – described in typical Jewish parallelism, or six such aspects. At any rate, I come up short of seven.
The best I can manage to make of this at present is that these are spirits in the lower-case sense, and that they are in some way associated with the seven churches to which John is told to write. Even with that, given the highly symbolic nature of the text, we do well not to suppose John was calling out those seven specific churches and leaving all the rest unmentioned. Likely, these were the prominent churches of Asia Minor at the time, that being the place of John’s greatest involvement. But, seven is a significant number in Jewish symbolism. It is the number of perfection, of completion. As such, we may do well to construe the seven churches as encompassing the whole of the Church through all ages and places. Likewise, the seven lampstands. It is not at all clear that these should be interpreted as somehow depicting God, or the Holy Spirit. Rather, they appear to depict the Church, or perhaps the angels who were assigned oversight of the Church. But, it is not as though God had sent one sort of Holy Spirit to the people of the church in Ephesus, and another to the people of the church in Corinth. That is a perspective that Paul rejects often and wholeheartedly. There is one Church, given one body of doctrine under the inspiration of one Holy Spirit, the Spirit of One God. Whatever it is, then, that John means to convey with these seven spirits, it is not a Holy Spirit divided up and divvied out.
[04/07/19]
There are one or two further passages that I feel the need to address insomuch as they have the appearance of countering this doctrine of God’s exclusivity. One of these, in fact, is brought forward by Jesus Himself in defense of His own claims of godhood. He quotes Psalm 82:6, which reads, “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.’” In context, it is clear that Asaph, the author of that Psalm, is not addressing those we would account as deities by any stretch. He is speaking to the people of Israel generally, and of the people of Israel, generally. “How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked?” (Ps 82:2). “Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like one of the princes” (Ps 82:7). And then, there is the conclusion. “Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is Thou who dost possess all the nations” (Ps 82:8). Observe, then, that the conclusion resolves on God’s exclusive sovereignty.
Now, Jesus does not explore the context of this message at all. He simply brings out that one verse, and why? They have accused Him of blasphemy because He had said, “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30). He is making a claim to that exclusive title of God, and well they know it. Now, notice where He takes the argument. “If he [lowercase – not God, but Asaph] called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (Jn 10:35-36).
Now, we have a few questions to ask of this message, don’t we? We must ask first, whether Jesus is applying ‘to whom the word of God came’ to Asaph as the author, or to the Israelites as hearers. In other words, is He speaking of the one who called them gods, or them who were called gods? That much we should be able to resolve fairly readily. The ‘whom’ is plural. Thus, we conclude that Jesus means those to whom Asaph was addressing himself, which is to say, the whole of God’s people.
But, we need also to ask what His point was in this. Is Jesus endorsing this view that every one of God’s people are in fact gods in their own right? It ought to be unthinkable, at least insofar as the term implies anything approaching deity. If man is god, then god as a concept turns out to be very evil indeed, for man clearly turns out to be very evil indeed, at least when left to his own devices. The history of mankind, even mankind given cause to lay claim to the mantle of Christianity, is not a history of utmost righteousness, goodness, and peace. Rather it is a record of treachery against man and God alike. It is a record of unremitting, unrepentant sinfulness. It is a record of constant turmoil, constant warfare, with occasional, accidental outbreaks of relative peacefulness. But even that peacefulness, if examined, is found not to be truly peaceful at all, but rather just a lessening of hostilities. So, no, Jesus is certainly not ascribing any sort of deity to mankind, and as we saw, Asaph certainly had no such intention.
But, if that’s the case, we have a third question to consider. Why does Jesus even bring this up? If it is not a declaration of the god-ness of all Israel, at a minimum, then what use is it as an argument for His claim of being Son of God? Well, here’s a novel theory. (Actually, I should go back and see what I had to say about this when I was studying that passage, but let me take it as afresh.) I don’t think He intends to defend His claim by this at all. Rather, He is demonstrating that the grounds for their charge are flimsy in the uttermost. “Your own sacred Scriptures (which are indeed utterly sacred) speak of mere men as gods.” Are you going to accuse Asaph of blasphemy for this use of the term? His point, then, is not that this passage from Psalm 82 gives Him license to lay claim to the title of God, but rather that their charges hinge on nothing more than Him having uttered a particular word. In other words, blasphemy is not merely a matter of word, but of action.
And so, He points them to the proper assessment. “If I do not do the works of My Father, don’t believe Me. But, if I do? Even if you don’t believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father truly is in Me, and I truly am in the Father” (Jn 10:37-38). But, they missed it, even as we are likely to do. All they could perceive were the words that offended them so, and as such, they sought to seize Him. But, “He eluded their grasp” (Jn 10:39). My, but isn’t there a weight of meaning in that! Here, God Himself had pointed them to a proper judgment, but they wouldn’t hear it. God eluded their grasp. He was beyond their ken. He had, in fact, long since shut their ears to Truth or, if you find it more palatable, He had left them to their own pursuit of deafness.
What we cannot possibly derive from this passage is any support for the idea that there are in fact a multiplicity of gods in any real sense of the term. We cannot find support for this in Asaph’s words, when he so clearly seeks to rebuke those very ones he has addressed as gods and sons of the Most High. It is, perhaps, an acknowledgement of their physical power, and it is a reminder of their true status, or their true intended status at least; although I’m not at all certain that Israel in that time would have thought of themselves in such terms. But, it is most assuredly not a commendation of any sort, and absolutely not a claim to deity for the Israelites. Likewise, the fact that Jesus brings this verse forth is not a statement of His support for the idea of men, even the most devout of men, as gods in their own right, but rather an observation intended to demonstrate that the mere application of the word god to somebody or something other than God Himself is hardly blasphemy in and of itself. I don’t account it an advisable habit, but it’s not blasphemy. The blasphemy would be in claiming deity IF that claim were in fact unfounded. The devil, then, blasphemes in his claims to an authority and deity not belonging to him. Jesus, being in fact fully God and, as He had proclaimed, one God with the Father, does most assuredly lay claim to deity, but correctly and truly, as His works, being God’s works, sufficiently prove.
Having taken a moment to consider my observations on that passage during my study of the Gospels, I see I took a slightly different tack, and one which also suits the context of both the original Psalm and Jesus’ use of it. That hinges on the sense of gods being used in reference to those set in positions of authority. As the exclusive Sovereign, God is the sole source of authority, and ultimately the sole possessor of authority. But, we recognize that He does delegate from that authority. We read elsewhere that He has delegated full authority over the world to the Son (Mt 28:18), but that is in effect delegating it to Himself. To a much lesser degree, Jesus has delegated of His authority to the Apostles (Lk 10:19) and we might surmise to His disciples generally. But, it is assuredly not the full authority of Christ, and most definitely not such authority as would proclaim one’s divinity.
But, earthly authorities also exercise a delegated power, and remain answerable to God whether they believe themselves so or not. The judges of Israel, certainly, were to exercise that delegated authority, and to do so in such fashion that their works reflected the Father. They were to be God’s representatives and to represent Him well and accurately. They did not. That was the very charge that Asaph pursues. “I said, ‘you are gods.’” Now, I might question whether Asaph means that ‘I’ to represent himself or God speaking, but as he is authoring Scripture in writing this Psalm, I can accept that either way, God is properly represented. As such, it could be taken as indication of that delegating of authority. I said you are gods. I set you there as judges over My people as representing Me. But then, what you have done in your judgments does NOT represent Me. It is a corrupt justice you have dispensed, and therefore you shall be dealt with according to your corruption. You have acted like the heathen nations around you. You shall be treated like the heathen nations around you.
As I observed in my Gospel study, those hearing this passage quoted certainly ought to have had a sense of its setting. If not, they ought to have had sufficient sense to seek it out and understand the original point. Because that original point is potentially quite telling in the present setting. Those of whom Asaph wrote were judges being judged by the Judge. Those to whom Jesus speaks are in much the same position, and the outcome for them would be just as bad. “Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like any one of the princes.” Evil deeds will not earn an eternal rest.
[04/08/19]
As long as I’m considering passages that seem to run counter to my understanding, I may as well return to 1Corinthians 8:4-6. Here, we find Paul addressing a sort of syncretic practice that had arisen amongst the believers in that place, or some among their number at any rate. They had decided that, since they knew that God alone was god, they could go ahead and participate at the feasts over at the old temple, hanging out with their old acquaintances and enjoying the party, without it causing them any issues as to their faith. While there is question as to where Paul is quoting their statements to him and where he is relating his own, it does seem that as he comes to this topic, he is quoting their defense. “We know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one” (1Co 8:4).
Now, already this presents us with some problems, because clearly there are idols in the world. There certainly were at the time. That’s what the feast was all about, after all, was celebrating the idol, Aphrodite in this instance. So, yes, of course there are innumerable idols, some of them clearly so, others more cleverly disguised by our modern sensibilities. Arguably, the ancients were just more honest about it than we are. But, if it’s clearly the case that idols exist, what is the point of this statement? It must be understood to indicate that the idols are vain, empty things, with no real power or authority. In this, the Corinthian position conforms quite nicely with the conclusions of Scripture, as we find in the prophets so often. They’re just dumb bits of stone and wood, which you fashioned with your hands. They are not gods. They have no god-like powers. They cannot, certainly, do anything in response to your prayers and offerings. Face it, they had more to offer you when they were just a bit of wood that could at least be burned to cook your food, or a bit of stone from which you might have added to your house. Now? Utterly worthless.
What is interesting in this passage, though, is that Paul actually seems to counter their belief. “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” (1Co 8:5-6). I say he seems to counter them, for he advises that yes, actually, there are in fact many gods and many lords extent. But, I think we must qualify that statement with what preceded it. “Even if there are so-called gods…” Many beings and many things claim the privileges of deity over us. And in our fallen state, it seems we are forever seeking out other beings and things to which we can offer our devotion. For such a fiercely independent people, we seem awfully anxious to set ourselves under some other power. I suspect it’s simply that we’ve grown to loathe responsibility. Better to be enslaved, so we can blame the master for our troubles, I guess.
So, yes, Paul admits to myriad claimants to the title, the privilege, the authority that comes with godhead. But, he is swift to point out, “For us there is but one God, the Father.” Given the post-modern age we live in, with its aversion to fact, it might actually concern us to hear Paul use this language. For us, this is true, but others might see it differently. Is that his point? Well, certainly, others do see it differently. It’s just that they’re entirely incorrect. Paul is not simply pointing out their shared opinion as to God’s primacy. He is pointing out shared knowledge, perhaps, but not opinion. There is but one God: The Father from whom are all things. We exist for Him. The unstated implication is that we exist solely for Him. He has exclusive claim upon us for He is exclusively God. We have one Lord, Jesus Christ. All that was created was created by Him. We exist through Him, because He made us. Again, this urges an exclusivity of claim upon us. He alone has the right of rule over us. There can be no other claim upon our allegiance. Consider the claims of the Caesars in that era, and the reason Christians were so much in danger of persecution from them. The Caesars demanded to be honored as lords, and even as deities in their own right. They demanded an absolute allegiance, which the Christians rightly recognized they could not give. Even if they had not gone so far as to claim godhead themselves, I don’t think the issue would have changed. Absolute allegiance must be reserved for our absolute Lord. There can be only one.
As Paul develops his argument in that section of the letter to Corinth, he proceeds to observe the repercussions of syncretism. These idols may not be real gods, but they are backed by real demons. The practices associated with their worship are not holy, and yet, by your participation, you bring Jesus Christ into that act. At bare minimum, if your actions cause a brother whose conscience better informs him that this is not right to participate anyway, you have ruined one for whom Christ died. But, considering the practices that so often accompanied idolatrous worship in that age, you were also causing your perfectly holy Lord to become joined with a temple prostitute, for He is in you and you are in Him. How utterly repulsive! How thoroughly irreconcilable an action! How could you? This is what you think of the freedom He purchased for you? This is how you obey your one Lord?
Sadly, since our idols are more abstract in nature for the most part, we fail to see the demonic forces that seek to distract us, seek to take us back from God. Behind the idolatries of status, work, education, wealth, religiosity, entertainment, and pretty much anything else we allow to exceed proper bounds like demons seeking to draw our worship away from God and, via the stuff of life, towards them, however blind we remain to that reality. The same applies to excessive focus on health and healing. The same applies to food and eating. The same applies, over and over and over again because, as Calvin long ago observed, we are nothing if not idol factories. We no sooner smash one in a fit of righteous pique, than we have produced a dozen more. And sadly, we almost never notice what we are doing. Fortunately for us, God does; and in His love for us, He makes it known to us that we may once more repent and know His forgiveness.
Now, as it happens, Table Talk has once more managed to align itself with what I am pursuing, as it so often does. God is wonderful in this way. He sets before our eyes the very things we need in order to see what He is saying. So, this morning’s article touched on the occasion when the Philistines had captured the ark of the covenant and stowed it away alongside their favorite idol, Dagon (1Sa 6). The writer observes that according to their understanding, if they conquered a people, their gods had conquered that people’s gods, and they could therefore acquire said gods and add them to their collection, as it were. They supposed Dagon proven superior because they had defeated the Israelites. But, the Israelites weren’t the point. They had, by and large, entered into a particularly superstitious period themselves, and didn’t understand their God any much more than did the Philistines.
But, in spite of Israel’s unfaithfulness, and in spite of the Philistines’ unbelief, God had a purpose in these unfolding events. He was demonstrating the error of both. The Philistines thought their god had shown his power. But, God showed His, and the idol lay broken on the threshold of the temple, his hands and head severed, as was the custom of conquering kings in demonstrating their victory over the vanquished. Dagon was a vanquished god, for he was no god at all. Only God is god.
This same issue is played out earlier in the contest between Moses and Pharaoh. These two, clearly, are not the main movers and shakers. They are representatives of their respective gods. For Moses, there was God. For Pharaoh, there was the pantheon of Egyptian mythology. In such a contest, the men were little more than pawns. The battle was not one of flesh and blood, but one of spiritual powers in heavenly places, as Paul describes the battle eternal (or near eternal. It will come to an end in God’s time.) God was acting to proclaim in no uncertain terms that the supposed gods of the Egyptians were powerless. Oh, they had their magic; they had their secret knowledge. But, God alone had final say. His is the authority. His is the determination. His is the right to determine the course of Pharaoh’s life, of Pharaoh’s thoughts.
We don’t like to hear this. Many bristle at the idea of God acting so coercively in the life of Pharaoh. God doesn’t seem overly put out by it. “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Ex 10:1). A survey of those chapters in Exodus that cover the plagues upon Egypt demonstrate that this was something of a cooperative effort. Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, but Pharaoh hardened his heart. God acted, but only according to Pharaoh’s preferences. He wasn’t the first, and he certainly wasn’t the last. But, his is a particularly demonstrative case, as God, in demonstrating conclusively that Pharaoh was no god, also demonstrated that none of the gods of Egypt were in fact gods. He alone was and is in control of things, and that control extends worldwide; existence-wide.
I would argue the same defeat of all claimants applies as Paul seeks to reach the philosophers’ club there in Athens. “I see that you are very religious. You have altars to all sorts of gods, even one to ‘an unknown god’. Well, let me introduce you to this God you don’t know. See, HE made the world and everything in it. He is Lord of both heaven and earth. As such, He doesn’t dwell in manmade temples, nor is He in need of anything man could offer, “since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things” (Ac 17:22-25). “For in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, “For we also are His offspring” (Ac 17:28). That last addressed the pursuit of the philosophers head on. That speaks to the questions the philosophers sought to answer. Why are we? How is it that we exist? What caused us to be? Paul has a one word answer for them. God.
We see it as well in Ephesus, where Artemis was not only the god of choice, but a rather lucrative source of income for the locals. They were not terribly happy with the impact Christianity was having on local trade, so they came out for Paul and his compatriots. “You see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all” (Ac 19:26). Now, I would question to what degree those who were complaining actually thought any different. But, business is business, and their trade depended on everybody else believing it, whatever they may have thought. This monotheism was bad for business. But, God is god, and Artemis swiftly fell by the wayside.
Again, I would say, the story plays out on Calvary. There, we could summarize that the whole world order was put on notice. Nothing can stand against the plan and purpose of the exclusive, sovereign purposes of God. All hell had broken loose to stop what He had planned. All hell failed, as it must. All Rome’s power was put to the task. Rome failed, as it must. All the sinful pride of life conspired from Eden right on through to the present to render Gods’ plan null and void. All the sinful pride of life failed, as it must. God alone is god. There can be no other.
