In a previous apologetics series on this blog, I have defended the coherence of the Christian concept of God from a variety of criticisms and attacks. However, even if antichristian skeptics acknowledge that the Christian concept of God is coherent, they will often claim that the God of classical Christian theism is not actually the same God as the God of the Bible. Pointing to certain statements about God in the Old Testament, they argue that the Bible teaches a primitive, superstitious concept of God which simply does not line up with the refined, philosophical theology of the Christian tradition. If this is the case, then this would mean there is serious internal contradiction within historic Christian orthodoxy. But is it the case?
Polytheism vs. Monotheism
Skeptics often argue that the Bible contains a self-contradictory mixture of an early polytheism and a later monotheism. In Hebrew, the word for “God” (elohim) is grammatically plural in form. Additionally, there are multiple passages in the book of Genesis in which God speaks in the first person plural: “Let us make human beings in our image” (1:26), “The human beings have become like us, knowing good and evil” (3:22), “Come, let us go down and confuse the people with different languages” (11:7). Some skeptics argue that these are examples of early Israelite polytheism, which contradicts the monotheism we see taught in later parts of the Bible.
There is no reason, though, to think that the Hebrew word elohim being grammatically plural in form is indicative of polytheism. There are many, many examples of the word elohim being used in the Old Testament in which the meaning is very clearly singular (god or God). This is an example of a “plural of majesty,” in which a singular entity is referred to using a grammatically plural word.
As for the few passages in which God speaks in a first person plural, these may be examples of the “royal we,” a king referring to himself in the first person plural. Or, they may be cases of God speaking to His heavenly angelic court; this would be parallel to the passage in the book of Isaiah in which the LORD asks, “Whom should I send as a messenger to this people? Who will go for us?” while surrounded by His seraphim (Isa 6:8). They are clearly not examples of a group of polytheistic gods speaking, since the context of these passages makes it clear that the speaker is one God, the LORD (3:22, 11:8).
It is true that we do not often see clear and explicit affirmations of metaphysical monotheism in the earlier parts of the Old Testament. The Psalms even sometimes speak of the gods of other nations, affirming that the LORD is greater than all these other gods (Ps 86:8, 95:3, 96:4, 97:7, 135:5, 136:2, 138:1). However, to ask if these psalms teach metaphysical polytheism is to ask the wrong question. These are not metaphysical treatises, but poems making a polemical point about the greatness of the LORD in the face of surrounding pagan religious practices. They are not concerned one way or the other about the metaphysical issue of monotheism vs. polytheism; what they are concerned about is the practical issue of God’s people Israel being solely devoted to the LORD.
It is clear that many early Israelites believed in the existence of gods other than the God of Israel. Otherwise, idolatry would not have been such a problem throughout Israelite history. However, we must make a sharp distinction between what many ancient Israelites believed and what the Bible actually teaches. Early on, God was more focused on getting the Israelites to be fully devoted to Him than He was on having them accept an abstract metaphysical doctrine of monotheism. Later Old Testament passages, though, do contain more frequent, clear, and explicit affirmations of monotheism. This is not a case of the Bible contradicting itself, but of God progressively revealing more truth about Himself over time.
Omnipresence
The Bible often uses anthropomorphic language when talking about God, speaking of His eyes, ears, nose, arms, hands, and feet. Adam and Eve heard God “walking” in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3: 8), and Moses was able to see God’s “back,” but not His “face” (Ex 33:18-23). There are a number of passages in which people see a vision of God, who appears in a human-like form (Gen 18, Ex 24:9-11, Ezek 1). Does this contradict the later teaching of the New Testament that God is an immaterial Spirit (John 4:24) whom no one has ever seen (1 John 4:12)?
The traditional Christian interpretation of this biblical anthropomorphic language about God is that it should be understood metaphorically, not literally. The Old Testament Israelites understood very well that God does not have a literal physical body, that even the highest heavens cannot contain the being of God (1 King 8:27, 2 Chron 2:6). Therefore, the cases of God appearing to people in visions must be understood as merely small glimpses of God’s glory, presented in a way discernible to human eyes. The limitations of human language essentially require using anthropomorphic language to speak of a personal God’s interactions with human beings, and so the Bible often uses this kind of language when speaking about God. But there is no good reason to think that we must interpret all of it literally.
It is sometimes suggested that the claim that human beings are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-28; 9:6) clearly implies that God has a physical form that is the same shape as the human body. However, there is no good reason to interpret this language in a crudely physical fashion. Genesis speaks of human beings being created in the “image of God” in terms of their function as God’s representatives in His creation, not in terms of their physical appearance. The fact that the Old Testament, uniquely among ancient Near Eastern cultures, absolutely forbade depicting God in a physical form clearly undermines the idea that it teaches that God literally has an anthropomorphic physical form.
Omnipotence
According to Genesis 2:2, after God created the world, “He rested from all His work.” Skeptics often point to this verse as teaching that God is not omnipotent, since He got worn out from so much work and had to rest and recuperate. However, in ancient Near Eastern literature, divine “rest” does not refer to a deity taking a nap, but to a deity taking up residence in a temple, while continuing to be actively involved in the world. The creation story of Genesis depicts God ordering the world as a cosmic temple, and then “resting” in this temple as He presides over His created order. This in no way implies that God got worn out and is not omnipotent.
Omniscience
There are numerous examples in the Old Testament of God testing people to see what they will do (Gen 22:12; Deut 13:3; Jer 3:7, 26:3; Ezek 12:3). There are also numerous examples in the Old Testament of God changing His mind about what He said He was going to do in response to the prayers and/or repentance of human beings (Gen 6:6-7; Ex 32:10-14; 1 Sam 15:10-11; Jer 18:7-10; Joel 2:13-14; Amos 7:1-6; Jonah 3:10). Skeptics point to these passages as contradicting the idea that God is unchanging, omniscient, and eternal.
However, there is no good reason to think that these passages prove that God does not know the future. God is eternal, but when He interacts with temporal beings, He must accommodate how He speaks to them to their time-bound existence. When God says He is going to do something, He is saying, “as things now stand, this is what I am going to do.” When the situation changes and God responds by doing something else, He will then tell people that He has changed His mind. This does not mean that God is not eternal and does not know the future; it just means that God has a genuine give and take relationship with time-bound human beings, and speaks to them at each point in time according to the situation they are in at that time.
So, in spite of skeptical arguments to the contrary, there is no good reason to think that the theology of the Bible and the theology of classical Christian theism are fundamentally at odds.