Justified True Belief

Mapping the Landscape of Good Reasons for the Truth of Christianity

Christian Evidences

Evidence & Arguments for Christian Theism

Divinity of Christ

Biblical Evidence for High-Christology: Jesus is God

TBD

Old Testament Criticism

Evidence for the Reliability of the OT Bible

Common Objections

Objection Analyses to Christian Theism

World Religions

Critical Analyses of Non-Christian Religions

Philosophical Theology

Analytical Analyses of Christian Systematic Theology

Bibliology

The Doctrine of Scripture

Theology Proper

The Divine Nature and Properties of God

The Trinity

Analysis of God in Three Persons

There Is Exactly One God

(P1) Whatever was made or rules by another's appointment is not God. + Scripture never counts gods by taking a census of spiritual beings. It draws a single line through everything that exists, and the word "God" names which side of that line a thing stands on. (1) Scripture cuts reality in two: the maker and the made. - The Bible's first sentence puts God on one side and everything else on the other: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). - Nehemiah says the same thing as an inventory, and he is careful to leave nothing off it. Heaven and its host, the earth, the seas, "and you preserve all of them" (Nehemiah 9:6). - Paul can name both sides in a single phrase. Idolatry, he says, is worshipping "the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25). Two categories, and no third. - Think of it this way. A carpenter and a chair are not two grades of furniture. Sand it, stain it, set it behind a velvet rope in a museum, and no amount of polish moves it across to the carpenter's side. (2) Israel's prophets ran this test on the neighbors' gods. - Isaiah walks his reader through a workshop. A man plants a tree and the rain feeds it. Years later he cuts it down, burns half of it to warm himself and bake his bread, carves what is left into a figure, and bows to the figure (Isaiah 44:14-17). The test is not subtle. He made it. - Jeremiah puts the standard in one sentence: "The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens" (Jeremiah 10:11). As it happens, that is the only verse in his book written in Aramaic, the international language of the day, as though it had been drafted to be quoted abroad. - Israel's hymns run the same test and reach the same verdict: "All the gods of the peoples are worthless idols, but the LORD made the heavens" (Psalm 96:5). (3) The same test was standard in Jesus' day. - The centuries around Jesus have a name: Second Temple Judaism, after the temple standing in Jerusalem then, the replacement for the one Babylon burned. The period runs from the return from that exile in the sixth century BC to that temple's own destruction by Roman troops in AD 70, about six hundred years. - Across those centuries Jewish writers drew a bright line between God and everything else, and they drew it with two questions. Who made all things? Who rules all things? Whatever else exists, however exalted, stands on the far side. - So the bar for a second God is high and clear. A second God would have to be distinct from God, uncreated, and sovereign in his own right rather than by appointment. Anything less is a creature with a good job. • Ruling by another's appointment means holding an office somebody else handed over and can take back. A deputy carries the sheriff's authority for as long as the sheriff leaves the badge with him, and authority you can be relieved of was never your own. (4) The surrounding gods flunked the test in their own stories. - In the Babylonian creation epic the gods have parents and birthdays. Marduk, who ends up on top, is born generations after the first pair of waters and wins his throne in a fight. - The Greek poet Hesiod has Zeus born to Cronus and Rhea and taking the sky by overthrowing his father, which means there was a time when Zeus did not rule and somebody else did. - A Babylonian would not have argued the point. His gods had origins, he knew it, and his own sacred story is where he learned it. What Israel claimed is that its God has none. Therefore, "God" is not the title of the strongest being in a crowded field, but the name of the one who made the field.

(P2) Everything other than the LORD is made and ruled by him. + That leaves a question of fact rather than a question of definition. Is there anything at all on God's side of that line besides the LORD? (1) Scripture denies a second God in every direction at once. - Where an English Bible prints "the LORD" in capital letters, the Hebrew underneath has God's own personal name, four consonants that Jews came to treat as too holy to say out loud. The name tells you which God is meant, and it says nothing whatever about how many persons that God is. Those are two different counts. - "I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5). Deuteronomy says it twice inside a single chapter: "the LORD is God; there is no other besides him" (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39). - The sweep runs backward and forward through time as well as across space: "before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me" (Isaiah 43:10). - One line carries the whole premise: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24). Alone, and by myself. Ancient kings liked to credit a patron god with the heavy lifting, and this one reports having had no help at all. (2) The exalted figures of Jewish literature sort into two kinds. - Some are creatures of high rank: the archangel Michael, or an ancestor out of Genesis like Enoch, who walks with God and is taken up. High, and made. - Others are not separate figures at all, but God's own: his Word, his Wisdom, his Spirit, his Name, his Glory. Proverbs pictures Wisdom as a woman calling out in the street and pleading with the people going past (Proverbs 1:20-21). The picture is vivid, and she is still God's wisdom rather than God's colleague. • The distinction is one you already use every day. When you say that a man's word is good, you have not introduced a second man into the conversation. His word is his own, and it goes where he sends it. - Neither kind crosses the line, because neither one supplies what a second God would need: something distinct from God, uncreated, and sovereign in its own right. (3) The gods of the divine council are creatures. - Psalm 82 opens on a scene: "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment." The divine council is the heavenly assembly Scripture pictures around God, the way a court surrounds a king. - Then the scene turns. God charges these beings with judging unjustly, with favoring the wicked and failing the fatherless, and he passes sentence on them: "like men you shall die, and fall like any prince" (Psalm 82:7). - A being who can be sentenced is not on God's side of the line. What the psalm gives us is a courtroom, and only one figure in the room is the judge. • It is not a group portrait of a pantheon, meaning the whole set of gods a people worships together, the way Greece had Zeus and Athena and Poseidon with a temple for each. - The Hebrew word behind "gods" here is elohim, and it says what sort of thing is being spoken of rather than how high that thing stands. Scripture uses it of the God of Israel, of the gods of the nations (1 Kings 11:33), of spirits, and once of the ghost of Samuel called up at Endor (1 Samuel 28:13). (4) Every other authority in Scripture holds its power on loan. - Daniel's refrain in the Babylonian court is that "the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will" (Daniel 4:17). The book then demonstrates it on the most powerful man alive. Nebuchadnezzar ends up outdoors eating grass until he says the line himself. - Jesus tells the governor holding his life exactly the same thing: "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above" (John 19:11). - Paul puts the invisible powers on the created list by name, "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities," and adds that all of them "were created through him and for him" (Colossians 1:16). Therefore, every candidate for a second God turns out to be either something God made or something God is.

(C1) Therefore, the LORD alone is God. + Put (P1) and (P2) side by side and there is no room left for a second God. (1) A second God is ruled out. - Anything offered as a second God comes in one of two conditions. Either it was made, which fails the test in (P1), or it holds its authority from someone who handed the office over, which fails the same test. And (P2) says that everything other than the LORD is one or the other. - The premises are the claims an argument is built from, and in deductive reasoning they work like the links of a chain: if every link holds, the conclusion cannot slip out at the bottom. That standard is gentler than it sounds, because a premise does not have to be certain beyond all dispute. It only has to be more plausible than its denial. - Strictly, what (P1) and (P2) deliver is that there is at most one God. That there is at least one is a separate claim with separate evidence, argued from the world rather than from the text: from a universe that began, from a universe that did not have to exist at all, from a moral law nobody remembers writing. • Think of a parking space painted for one car. That the space holds at most one car is one fact about it. That a car is sitting in it right now is a different fact, and you have to walk out and look. - Put the two halves together, at most one and at least one, and the count comes out exact. (2) The count is of Gods, not of persons. - Ask a first-century Jew how many Gods there are and he has the answer ready before you finish the question. Ask him how many persons that one God is and you would get a puzzled look, because nobody in his world was asking. - Those are two different questions, and answering one leaves the other wide open. How many divine beings there are is what (P1) and (P2) settle. How many persons the one God is has its own evidence and its own answer. • A person, in this sense, is someone who can say "I" and be addressed as "you": someone who knows, loves, speaks, and acts. Counting persons is simply not the same operation as counting beings. - So a confession that says "one" is telling you how many Gods there are to worship. It is not telling you how many persons that one God is. (3) Some familiar proposals fall immediately. - Two divine beings, however unequal, are ruled out. A junior God is still a second God, and a second God is one too many. - Three divine beings fall the same way. Three cooperating deities, however unanimous they may be, add up to a pantheon with good manners. What (P1) and (P2) build is a fence rather than a full doctrine of God, and there is exactly one name standing inside it. See also: NT / Cosmological: The Kalam Argument NT / Cosmological: Leibniz' Contingency Argument

(P3) Worship belongs to the LORD alone. + The command is the rule, and Israel's practice is where you can watch the rule being kept. A confession can be tidied up by a later editor, but a habit of worship is much harder to revise, because it is a practice and practices leave marks. (1) Worship is where the first commandment starts. - "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:2-3). Before the laws about killing and theft and false witness, this one. - The reason God gives is possessive rather than philosophical: "my glory I give to no other" (Isaiah 42:8). He does not argue that worshipping others is inefficient or confused. He says the glory is his. (2) No Jewish group of the period worshipped a second figure in its gatherings. - What matters here is not what Jewish writers speculated about in their books but what Jewish congregations actually did when they assembled: the sacrifices, the prayers, the hymns, the calling on a name. All of it went to one. - Where a figure does get exalted in the literature, worship is refused, and sometimes it is refused in the same scene. In Revelation, John falls at the feet of the angel who has been showing him everything, and he gets one of the sharpest lines in the book: "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God" (Revelation 19:10). It happens a second time a few chapters later, as though once had not been enough (Revelation 22:8-9). - Tobit, a Jewish story written well before Christianity, does exactly the same thing. Raphael has traveled with the family and healed the father's eyes, and when they want to thank him he tells them to bless God instead, and explains that he was sent (Tobit 12:16-20). (3) They paid real prices to hold the line. - Pilate had the army's standards carried into Jerusalem by night, the tall poles with the emperor's image on them. A crowd went down to Caesarea and lay in the open around his house for five days. On the sixth he seated himself on the tribunal, ringed them with soldiers, and threatened to cut them down. They bared their necks instead, and Pilate had the standards removed (Josephus, Jewish War 2.169-174). - Honoring the emperor was ordinary civic duty across the empire, and the Jews were formally excused from it. What they offered in its place was a sacrifice twice a day in their own temple for the emperor, and never to him (Against Apion 2.77). - When the emperor Caligula ordered his own statue installed in the temple, the governor of Syria met crowds who told him they would rather be killed, and he stalled the order until Caligula was assassinated in AD 41. (4) Jesus took the same line. - Tempted with the kingdoms of the world, he answers out of Deuteronomy: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve" (Matthew 4:10). - Asked which commandment is first of all, he starts where every Jewish child started, with the confession Israel recited morning and evening, the Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Mark 12:29). Therefore, the line Israel drew in its confession is the line it kept in its worship, under pressure, for centuries.

(P4) The first Christians confessed the one God of Israel. + If any group in that world had a motive to renegotiate the count, it was this one. The count never moved. (1) They state it flatly, in the middle of arguing about something else. - Settling a quarrel about whether it is all right to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols, Paul drops the claim in passing on his way to the real subject: "there is no God but one" (1 Corinthians 8:4). A claim you can use without defending it is a claim your readers already hold. - The same claim anchors his letters wherever unity is at stake: "one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:6), and "there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men" (1 Timothy 2:5). - James can even make a joke of it, with a sting in the tail: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (James 2:19). The confession is settled enough that a letter can rib its readers with it and expect them to laugh. (2) They led with it when they preached to pagans. - In Athens, surrounded by altars and statues, the message opens with the Creator: "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything" (Acts 17:24-25). - Paul can describe the conversion of an entire church in a single clause. They "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Not added the true God to the shelf. Turned from. (3) They paid the same price Israel paid, for the same reason. - Refusing a city's gods was a public act with public consequences. Christians were tried as atheoi, atheists, because they denied the gods everybody else acknowledged. When Polycarp, an elderly bishop, was brought into the stadium at Smyrna in the middle of the second century, the crowd shouted that word at him, and then they burned him. - A pinch of incense would have ended the trial and sent him home. That was the whole test, and he refused it for the reason a Jew would have refused it. (4) The one step they did take, they took inside the count. - Writing to Corinth, a city he describes as full of "many gods and many lords," Paul recites Israel's confession with the Father and Jesus Christ inside it: "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (1 Corinthians 8:6). - Notice the arithmetic he does not do. He never writes two. He takes the confession's own two words, God and Lord, hands one to the Father and one to Jesus, and leaves the number exactly where Israel had it. Therefore, the church did not add a God to Israel's confession but announced the God Israel already had.

(C2) Therefore, there is exactly one God. + One God made everything, one God rules in his own right, and one God may be worshipped. All three descriptions turn out to fit the same one: sole Creator, sole Ruler, sole recipient of worship. (1) Three tests return the same answer. - Who made everything? One did, and everything else stands on the made side of the line (P1, P2). - Who rules in his own right rather than by somebody's appointment? One does, and every other authority in Scripture holds an office that was handed to it and can be taken back (P2). - Who may be worshipped? One, by command and in practice (P3), and the church that came afterward kept the same answer rather than adding to it (P4). - These are not three separate claims that happen to agree with each other. They are one line drawn three different ways, and Scripture reaches for whichever version the situation calls for. - Strictly, all four premises together deliver no more than one God. That there is one at all comes from the arguments named at (C1). (2) Several familiar accounts of God fall outside the fence. - The two-God and three-God proposals are already out (C1). So is a senior God with juniors beneath him. So is a divine committee, and so is any arrangement that shares worship around. - Also outside is any account of Father, Son, and Spirit that ends up counting three beings. Whatever that would be, it would not be the God of Israel's confession. - Inside the fence is where a Christian doctrine of God has to be built, and the people who built it knew that perfectly well. (3) The number of persons is a separate question. - The fence fixes how many Gods there are. It does not fix how many persons the one God is, because a count of beings is not a count of persons (C1). - So the question left standing is the interesting one. Is the one God of Israel Father, Son, and Spirit? That is argued from the New Testament's own evidence, and it is a separate argument. The doctrine of the Trinity makes two claims: that God is one, and that this one God is Father, Son, and Spirit. The first of them is not a Christian innovation at all. It is Israel's confession, carried over without amendment, and any account of God that loosens it has already failed. See also: PT / The Trinity: One God in Three Persons

On biblical monotheism and Second Temple Judaism: Bauckham, Richard. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Craig, William Lane. Systematic Philosophical Theology: On God: Excursus on Natural Theology, On the Trinity, vol. IIb. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2026. Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Heiser, Michael S. "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001). Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Hurtado, Larry W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. 3rd ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. MacDonald, Nathan. Deuteronomy and the Meaning of "Monotheism". Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Tigay, Jeffrey H. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Critic sources engaged: Assmann, Jan. Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Dever, William G. Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Gnuse, Robert K. No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Tuggy, Dale. "Trinity." In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. On the Egyptian material: Hornung, Erik. Akhenaten and the Religion of Light. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Ancient sources: 1 Enoch (the Parables of Enoch) 48:5; 62:9; 71:14. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 15a. Enuma Elish (the Babylonian creation epic). Hesiod, Theogony. Josephus, Against Apion 2.77; Jewish Antiquities 18.55-59, 18.261-309; Jewish War 2.169-174, 2.197. Justin Martyr, First Apology 6. Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed I.50. Martyrdom of Polycarp 3, 9. Philo of Alexandria, Questions and Answers on Genesis 2.62; Who Is the Heir of Divine Things 205-206. Pliny the Younger, Epistles 10.96. Tobit 12:16-20. Biblical citations: Genesis 1:1, 5, 16, 26-27; 2:24; 22:2, 15-18; Exodus 3:2-6; 12:12; 15:11; 20:2-3; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:19-20, 35, 39; 6:4-5; 32:8-9, 12, 39; 1 Samuel 28:13; 1 Kings 8:60; 11:33; 22:19; 2 Kings 19:15; 21:7; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 82:1, 6-7; 89:6-7; 96:5; Proverbs 1:20-21; 8:22-31; Isaiah 42:8; 43:10; 44:14-17, 24; 45:5, 23; Jeremiah 10:11; 44:17-19; Daniel 4:17; Hosea 8:6; Matthew 4:10; 28:18; Mark 12:29; John 1:1; 5:19, 26; 10:34; 17:3; 19:11; 20:28; Acts 7:59; 17:24-25; Romans 1:25; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; 16:22; Ephesians 4:6; Philippians 2:6-7, 9-11; Colossians 1:16; 2:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 1:10; James 2:19; 1 John 5:20; Revelation 5:13; 19:10; 22:8-9.
+ Psalm 82 puts God in a council of other gods, Deuteronomy 32 gives each nation its own divine son, and Exodus asks who is like the LORD among the gods. Israel began as one god among many.
The strongest form of this objection comes from historians of Israelite religion rather than from the internet. Mark S. Smith, among the most careful of them, argues that Israel's faith began inside the Canaanite world of many gods, with Yahweh (the personal name behind "the LORD" in English Bibles) as one figure among them at first, and that the flat denials of any other God arrive only later. That is serious work, and it is not answered by quoting verses louder. 1. The council texts subordinate the council. Grant the comparative evidence first, because it is real. Clay tablets dug up at Ugarit, a Canaanite city on the Syrian coast destroyed around 1200 BC, show the high god El presiding over an assembly of his sons, and Israel's poets use the same furniture: an assembly, a throne, a sentence handed down. - Psalm 82 is usually quoted for its first line and stopped there. Read it to the end and the scene resolves. God indicts these beings for judging unjustly, for favoring the wicked and failing the fatherless, and then he sentences them: "like men you shall die, and fall like any prince" (Psalm 82:7). - A being that can be put on trial and sentenced to die is not on God's side of the line drawn in (P1). What the psalm gives us is a courtroom rather than a group portrait, and only one figure in the room is the judge. - Council members are appointed, judged, and dismissed, and that is authority held on somebody else's say-so rather than in one's own right. - The other council psalm does the same work in a single line. The LORD is "a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him" (Psalm 89:7). Around him. The furniture is Canaanite and the seating is not. 2. The word "gods" is carrying less weight than the objection needs. - Elohim is a kind-word rather than a rank. It covers the God of Israel, the gods of the nations, spirits, and in one strange scene the ghost of Samuel called up at Endor, whom the medium describes as "a god coming up out of the earth" (1 Samuel 28:13). Nobody thinks Samuel was promoted. - So Exodus 15:11, "Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods?", is not a concession that rivals exist in the sense that matters. It is a victory song, sung by people who had just watched the gods of Egypt fail to stop the sea, and the whole point of it is that the contest was not close. - The question is never whether a being gets called elohim. It is whether that being is uncreated, and whether it is sovereign in its own right. 3. The strongest version puts the LORD himself among the sons. Deuteronomy 32:8 has the Most High fixing the nations' boundaries "according to the number of the sons of God," and the manuscripts genuinely differ there. The traditional Hebrew text reads "sons of Israel." A copy from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the ancient Greek translation both read "sons of God," which several modern translations now print and others carry in a footnote. Read one verse further and the objection gets much better than "other gods exist": "but the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage" (Deuteronomy 32:9). Some historians take that as a fossil of an older arrangement, in which El apportions the nations among his sons and Yahweh, one of those sons, draws Israel. Several things stand against it. - On every version of the verse the Most High is the one doing the dividing, and receiving a portion from someone is not a way of being that someone's equal. - Deuteronomy uses "Most High" and "the LORD" for the same God, and the poem will not sit still for the other arrangement. Three verses on: "the LORD alone guided him, no foreign god was with him" (Deuteronomy 32:12). Thirty verses on, that same God says, "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me" (Deuteronomy 32:39). A poem does not seat Yahweh in another god's family and then have him deny that any other god exists. - The same book stages the same scene with the LORD himself doing the dividing. He allots the sun, the moon and the stars to the other peoples and keeps Israel for himself (Deuteronomy 4:19-20), which is the arrangement of 32:8-9 with both titles belonging to one God. - The reconstruction is not finally a reading of Deuteronomy at all. It is a proposal about an older source lying behind Deuteronomy, recovered by taking one verse in a sense the finished book contradicts. That is legitimate historical work, and it is a different activity from saying what the text teaches. What Israel recited, and what the first Christians inherited, was the book. 4. Whether Israel's neighbors had gods was never the question. Scripture nowhere argues that the spiritual world is empty. It argues two things about whatever is in it: that none of it made the heavens, and that none of it may be worshipped. Grant the objector every council member, every son of God, and every allotted power, and the count of Gods in the sense fixed by (P1) has not moved. 5. The dating debate does not change what the first Christians inherited. When Israel's flattest denials were first written down is a live scholarly argument that shows no sign of closing, and the first commandment and Deuteronomy 4:35 carry the same content whichever way it goes. Where the argument ended, though, is not in doubt. By the first century, no Jewish party held that there was more than one God.
+ The flat denials that any other God exists show up only in the exile, in Isaiah 40 through 55. Monotheism is a sixth-century development, not Israel's original faith.
1. The wording really does change. Isaiah 40 through 55 states the one-God claim more flatly and more absolutely than anything earlier in the Old Testament. "I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5) has no rival for bluntness anywhere in Genesis or Judges. An honest reader should notice that, and many scholars date those chapters to the exile, the decades after 586 BC when Babylon burned Jerusalem and marched its people away. Historians usually describe the change as a move from monolatry to monotheism, and both words are worth having. - Monolatry is worshipping one god without saying the others do not exist. A man can be loyal to one country while knowing perfectly well there are others on the map. - Monotheism says there are no others at all. One God, and the rest of the list is empty. - Early Israel had the first, the argument runs, and only the exile produced the second. 2. Sharpening a claim is not inventing it. The claim was already in the older material, and in more than one form. - The first commandment already gives God an exclusive claim on Israel's worship (Exodus 20:2-3). - Deuteronomy 4:35 already says in as many words that there is no other besides him. - Hosea, whom nobody dates to the exile, runs the test in (P1) on Israel's own calf rather than on a foreigner's idol: "a craftsman made it; it is not God" (Hosea 8:6). What the exile added was pressure. A people whose temple had been leveled by the armies of Marduk, Babylon's chief god, who by every appearance had just won, now had to say plainly whether Marduk existed in any sense that mattered. Think of it this way: a family's rule about the pool gate gets stated most precisely on the afternoon after the scare. The precision is new. The rule is not. 3. The word "monotheism" fits these texts loosely. "Monotheism," meaning the belief that only one God exists, is a philosophical term coined in the seventeenth century, and Old Testament scholars have argued that reading Deuteronomy through it distorts the book. Deuteronomy's concern is not a headcount. It is a marriage: "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" (Deuteronomy 6:5). That cuts both ways, and the second way is the one the objection tends to forget. If Deuteronomy is not doing philosophical arithmetic, then it is not evidence for a lower number any more than for a higher one. 4. The conclusion stands even if the developmental account is right. Grant the whole reconstruction, in every detail. The claim in (C2) is about what Scripture teaches taken whole, and about the confession the first Christians inherited and kept. On any dating at all, that confession was in place centuries before the first Christian said anything about Jesus, and it is the one thing they refused to loosen.
+ Second Temple Judaism was full of exalted figures who share God's throne: Wisdom, the Word, the Angel of the LORD, Enoch's Son of Man, and later Metatron. The line was never as bright as the argument needs.
No objection to (P2) is stronger than this one, and it has serious names behind it. Margaret Barker has argued that Israel knew a "second God" alongside the Most High. Daniel Boyarin has argued that belief in a second divine figure was at home within Judaism long before the rabbis ruled it out. The Judaism of those centuries really was crowded with exalted figures, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest. 1. The figures still sort into two kinds. Sort the whole list and it falls into two piles, and it is the texts themselves that do the sorting. - Creatures with high rank: Michael, Gabriel, Enoch, the honored ancestors of Genesis. Whatever their standing, they were made. - God's own: his Word, his Wisdom, his Name, his Glory, his Spirit. That is not a second party at all, any more than a man's promise is a second man. The Angel of the LORD is the interesting middle case, and Christians should not pretend otherwise. In some scenes he speaks as God, in the first person (Genesis 22:15-18; Exodus 3:2-6). Jewish and Christian readers have taken that in different ways for two thousand years, and it is not settled by an appeal to the word "angel," which simply means "messenger." 2. Philo went furthest of anyone and still stopped short. - Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher writing in Egypt while Jesus was alive, is the strongest evidence the objection has. He can call the Logos, which is Greek for God's Word, "the second God." - Then he draws the line himself. The Logos, he says, is neither uncreated as God is nor created as we are, but stands somewhere between the two (Who Is the Heir 205-206). - He never offers the Logos a sacrifice, a prayer, or a hymn, and he never once stops insisting that God is one. The most adventurous Jewish thinker of the period is still standing on the near side of the fence. 3. The Enochic Son of Man is the best exhibit the objection has. In the Parables of Enoch, a Jewish work most scholars place around the turn of the era, a figure called the Son of Man is seated on a throne of glory and the kings of the earth fall down in front of him. Nothing else in the literature comes this close, and the passages deserve to be read closely rather than waved off. - Watch where the honor lands. All who dwell on the earth bow before him, and in the same breath they bless and praise the Lord of Spirits, which is the book's usual name for God (1 Enoch 48:5). - Elsewhere the kings of the earth beg the Son of Man himself for mercy (1 Enoch 62:9). That is the hardest sentence in the book for anyone drawing a bright line, and what it describes is a vision of the last judgment rather than anybody's worship service. - He is chosen, named, and seated by the Lord of Spirits. Being installed is what an appointed servant looks like. - The Parables' last chapter appears to identify him with Enoch himself, a man out of Genesis who was taken up (1 Enoch 71:14). Readers have argued about that ending for a century, and on either result the figure is somebody God appointed. 4. The Metatron story shows the line being drawn, not crossed. The Talmud, the great collection of rabbinic teaching compiled in the centuries after Christ, tells of a rabbi who saw Metatron, the highest of the angels in later Jewish tradition, seated in heaven, and concluded that "perhaps there are two powers in heaven." The story does not end with a shrug. Metatron is given sixty lashes of fire, to establish that he is a servant who happens to be allowed to sit and not a second power (Hagigah 15a). That story was written centuries after the New Testament, and it counts for this conclusion rather than against it. When a figure got close to the line, Jewish tradition noticed and pushed him back. 5. Every figure on the list fails all three tests. Run the three tests from (C2) on every figure the objection names. - Did any of them make all things? No. Every one of them is inside the world God made. - Does any of them rule in his own right instead of by appointment? No. Their standing is given, and what is given can be revoked. - Did any Jewish congregation make one of them a recipient of its worship? No, though this is the answer that needs care. It is not perfectly tidy, and the specialists say so. Amulets, incantation texts, and a few prayers do call on angels by name, and scholars who work on that material disagree among themselves about where honoring a heavenly servant stops and worshipping him starts. What no one has produced is a Jewish community with a second figure in its cult: no sacrifice, no hymn sung when the congregation gathered, no second name called on. The refusals point the same way. An angel stops John twice in Revelation (19:10; 22:8-9), and a letter warns a congregation off the practice by name (Colossians 2:18). People were plainly tempted, which is exactly why the refusals had to be written down, and the refusals are where the standard shows. The literature has exalted servants in abundance and no second God at all.
+ The Hebrew word for God, elohim, is plural, and God says "Let us make man in our image." The grammar itself points to more than one.
1. The plural noun takes a singular verb. Genesis 1:1 pairs a plural-shaped noun with a singular verb: elohim carries the plural ending, and "created" is singular. English does something similar when it says "the news is good" or "mathematics is hard," where a word wearing an s takes a singular verb anyway. Hebrew grammarians have long described elohim as a plural of majesty or of fullness, which is a plural form used for something singular and grand. The tell is what the same word does elsewhere. Chemosh is the elohim of Moab and Milcom the elohim of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:33), one god each, and nobody has ever suggested that Chemosh was three. 2. The Christian version of the plural argument is no better. Christians sometimes run the plural the other way, as though elohim were a coded hint at the Trinity. It is not, and pressing it earns the eye-roll it gets. A doctrine that needed Hebrew grammar to smuggle it in would be in serious trouble, and this one does not need it, so the point should be dropped. 3. No live reading of "let us" yields a second God. What the phrase means is genuinely debated, and the serious options are these. - It may be addressed to the divine council, the created beings of Psalm 82 and 1 Kings 22:19, in which case nothing at all follows about the count of Gods, since the making is still God's. - It may be a plural of deliberation, the way a person talks himself into a job before starting it. - It may, read in the light of later revelation, be plurality within the one God. The next verse decides nothing between them, and it settles the number anyway: "So God created man in his own image" (Genesis 1:27). Singular verb, singular pronoun, one Creator.
+ The first Christians broke the confession as soon as they made it. They prayed to Jesus, and the rabbis condemned exactly this as the heresy of "two powers in heaven."
1. The evidence behind the objection is real. Both halves of it should be stated plainly and without shaving. - Christians did pray to Jesus. Paul closes a letter with an Aramaic prayer so early that it survived untranslated in a Greek letter: marana tha, "our Lord, come" (1 Corinthians 16:22). - Stephen dies calling on him (Acts 7:59). - Pliny, a Roman governor writing to the emperor around AD 112, reports that Christians sang hymns to Christ "as to a god." - Rabbinic sources do identify and condemn a "two powers in heaven" heresy, and some scholars connect it to Christian claims. 2. They kept the count in the same breath. The letters that pray to Christ are the same letters that say "there is no God but one" (1 Corinthians 8:4). If this were two Gods, then it was two Gods held by people who kept insisting in writing that there was one, and insisting it to congregations who would have noticed the contradiction and said so. Some other description of what they were doing is needed. 3. What they refused is the tell. The same movement that prayed to Jesus would not pray to an angel. Revelation is the most vision-saturated book in the New Testament, and it twice refuses angel-worship in the sharpest terms (Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9), while the same warning turns up elsewhere (Colossians 2:18). Yet that same book sings a single song of praise "to him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb" (Revelation 5:13), with no hint anywhere that a second object of worship had just been added to the list. 4. The rabbis' label describes the claim without settling what it was. "Two powers in heaven" is how the rabbis categorized a teaching they rejected, and being rejected is not the same thing as being understood. The Christians described what they were doing differently: not a second God set beside the first, but the one God who turns out to be Father, Son, and Spirit. Which description fits the evidence is the whole question the doctrine of the Trinity exists to answer. 5. The conclusion narrows the question about Jesus to two options. If the first Christians gave Jesus what belongs to God alone, then either they broke the confession they never stopped repeating, or Jesus belongs inside it. Those are the options, and (C2) is what makes them the only two. Choosing between them is the question of who Jesus is, which scholars call Christology, and it is decided by the New Testament's evidence rather than by a count of Gods. See also: PT / The Trinity: One God in Three Persons
+ Granted, there is exactly one God, and Paul names him: "for us there is one God, the Father." Jesus prays to that God and calls him "the only true God," so the one God is the Father alone, not three persons.
The careful version is the unitarian reading defended by the philosopher Dale Tuggy. A unitarian holds that the one God is a single person, the Father, and that Jesus is someone else, however exalted. Throughout the New Testament, the argument runs, "God" means the Father, so the trinitarian, who holds that the one God is Father, Son, and Spirit, has to make that word mean something it never meant. 1. The observation about usage is correct. It costs nothing to grant, so grant it. In both Jewish and Christian writing of the period, "God" usually does refer to the Father, and the New Testament follows that habit far more often than not. Christians have never claimed otherwise. What follows from a habit of reference, though, is a fact about how a word was used, and that is not the same thing as a headcount of divine beings. 2. The sentence quoted does more than the objection lets it do. The confession Paul recites in 1 Corinthians 8:6 has two divine words in it, God and Lord. - In the Greek Bible Paul read, "Lord" was the word that stood in for God's own name, the name Jews would not pronounce out loud. - Paul takes those two words, hands one to the Father and one to Jesus Christ, and never lets the number move off one. Then he says of Jesus, "through whom are all things." A unitarian reads that as an instrument: Jesus is the one through whom the Father made everything, which leaves the making the Father's. Taken by itself that is a fair reading of the preposition, and it should be granted as one. It still has to sit next to two other things. One is what the same sentence does with the confession's two divine words. The other is what New Testament writers say when they put the Son on the maker's side with no "through" at all (Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:10). The question is which side of the line in (P1) the Son stands on, and this one verse does not settle it either way. 3. "Only true God" has to be read alongside the same writer's other sentences. John's Gospel calls the Father "the only true God" (John 17:3). If that phrase were a formula for shutting everybody else out, the book it stands in would be the best place in the world to watch it work. It does not work there. - The same Gospel opens with "the Word was God" (John 1:1). - It reaches its closing confession with a Jewish monotheist looking at Jesus and saying "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28), and the writer reports it without a word of correction. - A phrase has to mean something its own author can live with three chapters later. The first letter attributed to the same hand ends a paragraph about the Son with "he is the true God and eternal life" (1 John 5:20). The nearest name for that "he" to point back to is Jesus Christ, and a long line of commentators reads it of the Son for exactly that reason. Others read it of the Father, the dispute is genuine, and nothing rests on that verse alone. The Gospel's own bookends carry the point without it. 4. The count is not what divides the two sides. The unitarian and the trinitarian agree on (C2). Both hold that there is exactly one God, sole Creator, sole Ruler, sole recipient of worship. The dispute is over who that one God is, and it turns on the New Testament's evidence about the Son and the Spirit rather than on the arithmetic. See also: PT / The Trinity: One God in Three Persons PT / The Trinity: There Are Exactly Three Persons PT / The Trinity: The Holy Spirit Is a Person, and God PT / The Trinity: The Logical Problem of the Trinity PT / The Trinity: Trinity Monotheism
+ The Shema settles it: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one." Israel's oldest confession is the flattest possible denial that there could be persons inside God.
1. The verse answers the question its own century was asking. The Shema is the confession Israel recited morning and evening, and it opens at Deuteronomy 6:4. Read it in its own century. Israel's temptation was never trinitarianism. - It was Baal the storm god, Asherah the mother goddess, and the gods of Egypt and Canaan, whose shrines stood on the next hill over. - "The LORD our God, the LORD is one" plants a flag against that crowd, and a verse cannot rule out an answer to a question nobody in the room was asking. Translators divide over the last words. "The LORD our God, the LORD is one" and "The LORD is our God, the LORD alone" are both defensible renderings, and the second is what the Jewish Publication Society and the New Revised Standard Version print. On either one, the verse is about which God Israel belongs to. 2. The word for "one" is the ordinary numeral. It is echad, plain and unmysterious. One day, one man, one ram. What gets counted is supplied by the noun standing beside it and never by the numeral. Hebrew does have a word for solitary, yachid, used of Isaac as Abraham's only son (Genesis 22:2), and the confession uses the ordinary numeral instead. On its own that settles nothing in either direction, which is exactly the point worth making. The verse counts Gods, and counting is all a numeral does. 3. One popular Christian reading of "one" is a bad argument. "One flesh" for a husband and wife (Genesis 2:24), and "one day" for an evening and a morning (Genesis 1:5), are sometimes offered as coded hints of plurality inside God. They are not, and pressing them that way deserves the reaction it gets. The numeral behaves the same in every one of those verses, and what varies is the noun beside it. 4. The next line shows what the confession is asking for. "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" (Deuteronomy 6:5). That is the sentence the confession exists to introduce. It asks for loyalty, and it reads like a marriage vow rather than a seminar on the inner nature of God, which is why an Israelite could recite it twice a day for a lifetime without ever once considering the question the objection wants it to answer. 5. Those who recited it daily saw no conflict with what they were doing. Jesus quotes it as the first of all the commandments (Mark 12:29). Paul recites it in Corinth and puts the Father and Jesus inside it (1 Corinthians 8:6). Neither one shows the smallest sign of thinking he had broken it, and both were raised reciting it.
+ Egypt got there first. Akhenaten's one-god reform predates Moses, and monotheism is a political move anyway: one empire, one god, one king.
1. The Egyptian episode is real. In the fourteenth century BC, the pharaoh Amenhotep IV renamed himself Akhenaten, promoted the sun disk called the Aten above all the other gods, closed temples, and moved his capital to a brand new city out in the desert. It was a genuine break with Egyptian religion, and it did not survive its author. Within a generation the old priesthoods were back and his name was being chiseled off the monuments. Whether it came before Moses is less obvious than the objection assumes. The two main proposals for the date of the exodus fall on opposite sides of Akhenaten's reign, and scholars have argued between them for a century without agreeing. The order of events is not what the answer turns on anyway. 2. The content is not the same content. - The Aten is visible. It is the sun disk, worshipped as the thing you can see in the sky. Israel's God has no image at all, and the ban on making one is a commandment. - Access to the Aten ran through Akhenaten, who was himself divine and the sun's sole interpreter. Israel's God speaks to a whole nation, including the parts of it that are arguing with him at the time. - Genesis refuses even to name the sun, calling it "—the greater light" (Genesis 1:16), in a chapter that files it among the things God made on the fourth day. That is not a solar religion. It is a demotion of one. 3. Borrowing has to be shown, not assumed. Egyptian material did reach Israel's writers, and the clearest case is worth granting outright. The Great Hymn to the Aten and Psalm 104 share a striking amount, down to the order of their images, and many scholars think the psalm drew on that tradition somehow. Grant it in full. The psalm that borrowed the sunrise praises the God who made the sun. What nobody has shown is dependence on the point actually at issue, which is the claim that there is exactly one God who made all things and shares worship with no one. The serious version of the thesis, Jan Assmann's, is not a claim that Moses copied Akhenaten. It is a claim about cultural memory, about how Europe later remembered Egypt, and that is a different and much more careful argument than the popular one. 4. The politics point the wrong way. One empire with one god is a natural fit for a state religion, and if the confession had been a tool of empire you would expect to find it in the mouths of emperors. Israel's confession was carried mostly by people who had lost their state, and its sharpest formulations come out of exile, where the empire's god belonged to somebody else and the confession was the only thing they still had. 5. Where an idea came from does not tell you whether it is true. Judging a claim by its origin rather than by its evidence has a name: the genetic fallacy. The chemist Kekule said the ring structure of benzene came to him in a daydream of a snake biting its own tail, and the structure is correct anyway. If Israel had borrowed the idea from Egypt outright, the question of whether there is exactly one God would sit exactly where it sat before.
+ Showing that the Bible teaches one God is not showing that one God exists. And everybody is an atheist about Zeus and Thor; the skeptic simply goes one god further.
1. The first half is correct. It is conceded without complaint. An argument from what Scripture teaches establishes what Scripture teaches, and no more than that. Whether any God exists at all is a different question with a different kind of evidence behind it. - The universe began, and a beginning calls for a cause. - The universe did not have to exist at all, so the fact that it does still wants an explanation. - Physics runs on numbers that had to fall inside extraordinarily narrow ranges for life to be possible. - Moral obligation is real, and moral facts are hard to place in a world that is only matter. That work has to be done, and it takes different tools than a reading of Israel's confession. What (C2) establishes is the content and the constraint: what the claim is, and what it rules out. A doctrine has to say what it claims before anyone can weigh whether it is true. 2. The "one god further" line assumes every god-claim is the same kind of claim. Zeus is a being inside the universe. He has a father, a temper, a mountain, and a birth story, and in principle you could have gone up the mountain to look for him. The God at issue in (P1) is whatever accounts for there being a universe at all, and no evidence against a powerful being on a mountain is evidence against that. Think of it this way: a juror who has ruled out nine suspects has not thereby ruled out that anyone did it. Ruling out candidates one at a time is what investigation looks like, and it never reaches the conclusion that nothing happened. 3. The arithmetic in the slogan runs backwards. Monotheism, in the form Israel's texts give it, is not polytheism, the worship of many gods, with the list trimmed down to one. It is a different claim about what kind of thing God is: not the strongest member of a class, but the one who made every member of every class. Subtracting gods from a pantheon never gets you there, and adding one to the pantheon never threatens it. 4. It is still fair to ask why anyone should believe the confession is true. Fair, and worth answering rather than deflecting. The honest division of labor is that the arguments from the world give reason to think there is one Creator, and the arguments from history give reason to trust what this particular tradition reports about him. Neither of those is settled by a count of Gods. See also: NT / Cosmological: The Kalam Argument NT / Teleological: Cosmic Fine-Tuning NT / Moral and Rational: The Moral Argument
+ The criterion is rigged. Define God as the uncreated maker who alone deserves worship and "exactly one" follows from the definition rather than from any evidence.
1. The charge names a real failure mode. Definitions can smuggle conclusions in, and the objection deserves a straight answer rather than a shrug. Someone who says "no true Scotsman would do that" every time a Scotsman does it has learned nothing at all about Scotsmen. He has only redefined a word and congratulated himself. If (P1) were that kind of move, the argument would be worthless. 2. The neighbors' own religions could have passed this test. The test in (P1) is not ours. It is the one Israel's texts use, and the one Second Temple Jews used, and the surrounding cultures could in principle have met it. They did not, and their own literature is why. - Marduk has parents. - Zeus overthrew his father to take the sky. - The gods in Isaiah's workshop were still warm from the carving. A test the neighbors could have passed, and that their own sacred stories record them failing, is not a test written to guarantee the answer. 3. The definition by itself does not deliver the number. Nothing in "uncreated, and sovereign in his own right" says that only one thing can be that. Two uncreated sovereigns is a perfectly sayable proposal, and the criterion alone does not exclude it. What excludes it is (P2), which is a claim of fact about what exists: everything other than the LORD turns out to be made, or to hold whatever authority it has from him. That is the vulnerable point, and it is exactly where the objections that do real damage are aimed: at the council texts, and at the exalted figures of Second Temple literature. 4. Both sides of the historical debate use this test. The scholar arguing that early Israel was polytheistic argues it by claiming that some figure really was an independent god rather than a servant with a title. That is the same test, run in the other direction. A standard both sides reach for when they want to settle the question is not a private definition. 5. Two unlimited beings would collide. There is a reason apart from the texts to expect one God, though the case does not rest on it. Two beings, each of them unlimited in power, would run straight into each other the moment their wills diverged, and whichever one could be overruled was never unlimited to begin with. That line of argument is old, and it is not decisive on its own, which is why (P1) and (P2) carry the weight instead.
+ By this test the Son fails. All authority was given to him (Matthew 28:18), he says he can do nothing of his own accord (John 5:19), and authority held from someone else is exactly the mark of a creature.
1. The texts are real. Nothing on the list needs softening, and the list runs longer than the objection usually makes it. - "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18). - "The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing" (John 5:19). - The Father "has granted the Son also to have life in himself" (John 5:26). - The Father sends and the Son is sent, and at the end God "highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name" (Philippians 2:9). Any answer has to carry all of that without flinching. 2. The test in (P1) sorts creatures from the Creator. Two things disqualify a candidate: being made, and holding an office that whoever gave it can take back. Both are marks of a creature, and the deputy hands in the badge. The New Testament puts the Son on the other side of that line before any authority is handed to anyone. "—all things were created through him and for him" (Colossians 1:16), and the psalm about the Lord who laid the foundations of the earth is quoted with the Son as its addressee (Hebrews 1:10). Whatever "given" means at the end of Matthew, it is not being said about something that was made. 3. The verbs are mission verbs. Sent, given, appointed, raised, exalted. They gather around one stretch of the story, and the passage carrying the strongest of them says what came first: he "was in the form of God," and he emptied himself and took the form of a servant (Philippians 2:6-7). A descent explains the obedience that follows it. What the passage never describes is a creature getting promoted. Watch where the same passage ends, because that is the part the objection tends to leave off. The name bestowed on him is the name above every name, and the knee that bows and the tongue that confesses come straight out of Isaiah 45, the chapter that says there is no other God besides him (Philippians 2:9-11; Isaiah 45:23). Whatever is being handed over in that scene, it is not an office lent to a creature. 4. Whether the Son's being derives from the Father is disputed inside orthodoxy. Christians have argued for centuries about eternal generation, the classical teaching that the Son is begotten of the Father outside of time, not made, receiving the one undivided divine nature rather than a portion of it. Others hold that Scripture does not teach an eternal procession at all, and ground the distinctness of the persons in the persons themselves. The dispute is live, and it is not settled by a count of Gods. What both sides refuse is the thing (P1) tests for. On neither account is the Son made, and on neither does he hold an office that could be withdrawn. The fourth-century church chose its words for exactly this reason: begotten, not made. See also: PT / The Trinity: One God in Three Persons PT / The Trinity: The Divine Processions
+ Archaeology tells a different story. Inscriptions from around 800 BC bless people by "Yahweh and his asherah," and Israelite houses are full of goddess figurines, so the one-God confession was an elite program rather than Israel's religion.
1. The finds are real. They are worth describing exactly rather than in a hurry. - At Kuntillet Ajrud, a desert site in the northeastern Sinai, and at Khirbet el-Qom in the hills west of Hebron, inscriptions from around 800 BC and the decades after bless people by "Yahweh... and his asherah." Yahweh is God's own personal name, the one English Bibles print as "the LORD." - Small clay figurines of a woman, made in Judah in the same centuries, turn up in ordinary houses by the hundreds. What "his asherah" means is contested, and the contest is grammatical rather than theological. Hebrew does not normally hang a possessive on a personal name, so the word may point to the goddess Asherah, or to the wooden cult object that stood for her, or to a shrine. What nobody disputes is that people in Israel and Judah were doing something with a female consort alongside Yahweh, and that they were doing it as Yahweh-worshippers rather than as foreigners. 2. The Bible is the loudest witness to exactly this. The objection offers popular religion as a discovery that embarrasses the text. The text got there first, in detail, and in a fury. - Manasseh set a carved image of Asherah inside the temple itself (2 Kings 21:7). - Women in Jerusalem told Jeremiah to his face that they would go on baking cakes for the queen of heaven, because life had been better when they did (Jeremiah 44:17-19). A book whose prophets say the whole country is doing this is not refuted by the discovery that the whole country was doing it. Both bodies of evidence report the same fight, and they report it from opposite sides of it. 3. What people do and what a text requires are two questions. (P2) and (P3) are claims about what Israel's Scriptures say and demand, and a survey of back rooms cannot settle them either way. A speed limit is not established by clocking traffic, and it is not repealed by finding that most drivers speed. The finds would tell against the confession if they showed it was invented late and then read backward into the story. What they show instead is a rule in force and widely broken, which is the situation the prophets describe on very nearly every page. 4. The confession that came through is the one that carried. Whatever stood on a shelf in a farmhouse in Judah in 750 BC, the writings that were copied, carried into exile, read aloud in synagogues, and inherited by the first Christians are the ones that say there is no other. The ordinary evidence points the same way. Israelite names scratched on seals, on jar handles and on broken pottery run heavily on Yahweh's name, the -yahu ending that closes Hezekiah, Isaiah and Jeremiah in Hebrew. Names built on any other god are rare beside them. Naming a baby is about as popular-level as religion gets. By the first century the argument inside Judaism was over. Nobody recited a figurine twice a day. They recited the Shema.
+ Judaism and Islam confess this same one God and say the Trinity breaks it. A fence built to rule out three divine beings rules out the doctrine it was supposed to protect.
1. The objection stands on the right ground. This is not name-calling. Two traditions that hold this confession as seriously as any Christian does are holding Christians to it, and they are entitled to. - Islam has a name for the sin it alleges: shirk, the associating of partners with God. - The Jewish form of the charge is older, and it has been pressed by philosophers rather than pamphleteers. Maimonides wrote of people who "declare the unity with their lips, and assume plurality in their thoughts," and he named the Christian claim as a case of it (Guide for the Perplexed I.50). Grant the stakes as the objector states them. If the doctrine of the Trinity ends up counting three divine beings, the objection is right and the doctrine is finished. Christians said so first, which is why three cooperating deities has a name, tritheism, and a condemnation attached to it. 2. The charge needs one premise more than it states. Getting from three persons to three Gods takes a further claim: that anything with a mind and a will of its own is a being of its own. Said out loud, it stops sounding like a truism. It is a disputed claim about what makes something one being rather than two, and nothing in (P1), and nothing in the texts behind (P2), supplies it. The evidence anyone has for it is a census of creatures. Everyone you have ever met arrived one mind to a body, and the one case in dispute is the case nobody can walk up to and inspect. So the burdens run both ways here, and both should be stated. A Christian owes an account of how three persons are one being, and Christians have offered several. An objector owes the premise that turns three persons into three Gods. 3. The Christian claim passes all three tests. - Who made all things? One. The New Testament writers put the Son on the maker's side of the line and still never write "two": "one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things" (1 Corinthians 8:6). - Who rules? One reign. Revelation puts a single throne in the room and sings one song to the one seated on it and to the Lamb (Revelation 5:13). - Who is worshipped? One. The earliest Christian prayer runs to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit. That is one act of worship rather than three cults with three altars and three festivals, which is what the ancient world knew a pantheon looked like. 4. The disagreement is about who the one God is. All three traditions say there is exactly one God, sole Creator, sole Ruler, sole recipient of worship. The dispute is not about the number, and it is not helped by treating it as though it were. It is about who that one God turns out to be, and it is settled by the evidence about Jesus and the Spirit. See also: PT / The Trinity: One God in Three Persons PT / The Trinity: Functional and Group Mind Monotheism World Religions / Islam: The Islamic Dilemma

Creation

The Doctrine of Creation

TBD

Anthropology

The Doctrine of Humanity

TBD

Christology

The Doctrine of Christ

TBD

Soteriology

The Doctrine of Salvation

TBD

Ecclesiology

The Doctrine of the Church

TBD

Eschatology

The Doctrine of Last Things

Public Theology

Theological Analyses of Societal Issues

Theology of the Family

Where Faith and Family Intersect

Biographies

Notable Works & Great Quotes from Key Figures
Playlist
Justified True Belief