Esther J. Hamori, God’s Monsters: Vengeful Spirits, Deadly Angels, Hybrid Creatures, and Divine Hitmen of the Bible (Broadleaf Books, 2023), 207.
God has a tumultuous relationship with the sea monster. In a number of texts they fight to the death (God wins), though s we’ll see, that’s not all there is to their complicated dynamic. This cosmic showdown of god versus sea monster has roots deep beneath the biblical texts. Among the colorful variety of ancient Southwest Asian traditions of gods battling sea monsters is even a Canaanite myth in which the god Baal kills the monstrous sea serpent Litan, whose name and description are echoed in the Bible. The sea monster is God’s most ancient foe, and the reader roots for God to kill it.
The Amateur Exegete 
Hi Ben, I would like to know how you interpret 1 Corinthians 8:6.
LikeLike
I think Paul is explaining to the Corinthians that eating food offered to idols is okay since the gods to whom this food was sacrificed are nothing in comparison with the god of Israel. There may be many gods and lords but for those who follow the messiah there is but one God (“the Father”), the source of all things, and one lord, Jesus Christ, the agent by which all things came to be.
LikeLike
Do you think it’s possible that Paul included Jesus in the Shema?
LikeLike
I find that interpretation very unlikely.
LikeLike
Why?
LikeLike
I just don’t think that Paul’s predominantly (if not exclusively) gentile audience would have gotten that reference. Additionally, I’m not sure reading it in such a way that it includes Jesus in the Shema makes any sense in the point Paul is trying to make or what we know about Paul’s understanding of God from other places in his extant writings.
Paul acknowledges the existence of many gods and lords but for followers of the Jewish messiah – those who have abandoned their gods to worship exclusively the god of Israel – there is one God and one lord.
LikeLike
But if the audience was predominantly Gentile, then didn’t they know what a Messiah was?
LikeLike
They would have been familiar enough with the idea of anointing (which is, after all, what “Christ” refers to) and from there it would be simple to explain what that meant in reference to the Jewish god.
LikeLike
I understand your concern about the Gentile audience and the theological coherence of Paul’s writings. It’s certainly not a simple issue. Still, I think there are strong textual and historical reasons to believe that Paul is indeed echoing the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
1. Even among Gentile communities, many Christians were familiar with the Septuagint and with Jewish monotheism. Paul often quotes the Scriptures, even in letters addressed to Gentiles, which suggests he expected some level of familiarity.
2. The theme of the chapter is idolatry—and the Shema is the central confession of Jewish monotheism. In this context, it’s natural for Paul to draw on that formula to reaffirm the exclusivity of God.
3. The structure “one God… and one Lord” seems deliberately modeled on the Shema (“YHWH our God, YHWH is one”), standing in contrast to the “many gods and many lords” of the pagan world.
For this reason, it seems coherent to understand that Paul is including Jesus within the identity of the one God—not as a duplication of deities, but as an expression, in the language of his time, of the divine unity between the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Given the length of the discussion on Mark from the other “comment thread”, I figured I’d write my next reply below this blog post so that we don’t have to keep scrolling down a list of ever-increasing comments.
Anyway, pardon the long post(s) below but my intent is to give a respectful (and thorough) critique:
1.. Regarding the list of individuals that you mentioned above in support of the “rhetorical reading” of Mark 10:18, I wanted to offer the following after looking up some bios of them online (since there weren’t any references included in your post to the works in question). Because almost none were listed with their first names, I provide the most likely candidates based on the quotes if I could not identify any author with certainty:
Keeping in mind that appeals to authority must be used cautiously in conjunction with other forms of evidence (since obviously even credentialed individuals can be mistaken about things), this is not a good appeal to “the experts” for a few reasons:
The list of individuals consists almost exclusively of Protestant writers belonging to or writing works for denominations known for promoting the inerrancy of scripture and is unlikely to represent the consensus view of critical Bible scholarship; it is not of much use for establishing any particular reading as “correct.” In the quotes above, there were no substantial textual, linguistic, or arguments using other passages from Mark (typical of Bible criticism) which makes it seem that they were just picking a reading to fit their religious or personal preconceptions.
LikeLike
(Continued)
Also, of the plethora of Bible scholars who have lived through history, this is a very tiny sample. Never mind that you didn’t provide helpful information for verifying the quotations above such as the names of the particular works or even full names to make it easy to find the authors.
To strengthen your appeal to scholarship, you’d have to find a more numerous sample (more than a few people) of individuals from modern “mainstream” Bible Studies in addition to the list above. Including multiple references (with page numbers for quotes) to books or articles by individuals who don’t have an agenda of promoting “inerrancy” or who identify with religious movements other than evangelicalism would be preferrable. (This is in part to establish this interpretation as “authoritative” and not just a possibility given to oppose the more straightforward reading. Referring to one or two people really only suggests a possible interpretation in conjunction with supplemental arguments rather than settling a question of “consensus.”)
Consider citing present-day New Testament scholars considered to be part of the modern “mainstream”; it doesn’t even have to be one already mentioned in these discussions like Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, and Alan Kirk. Others examples include Dale Allison, Richard Bauckham, Adela Yarbro Collins, Eric Eve, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Mark Goodacre, Luke Timothy Johnson, Michael Kok, Jennifer Knust, Amy Jill-Levine, Pheme Perkins, Gerd Theissen, David Trobisch, and L. Michael White.
There are also prominent past scholars of the 20th Century like the following: Marcus Borg, Raymond E. Brown, Rudolf Bultmann, Maurice Casey, Reginald H. Fuller, Michael Goulder, Robert M. Grant, Ernst Käsemann, Burton L. Mack, John P. Meier, Bruce M. Metzger, E. P. Sanders, Adolf von Harnack, and Géza Vermes.
In terms of commentaries, does your suggested interpretation have support in more critical Bible commentary volumes such as those in the Anchor Yale Bible, International Critical Commentary, or Hermenia series? Examples of single volumes commentaries that would work include Harper’s Bible Commentary and The Oxford Bible Commentary that include contributions from scholars of multiple denominations. The footnote you referenced from the unidentified “HSB” could be compared with critical study Bibles like The Oxford Annotated Bible or Harper-Colins Study Bible.
LikeLike
(Continued)
Given that the “rhetorical reading” of the passage is apparently based on the need to reconcile the Gospel of Mark with other books of the New Testament as well as upholding an inerrant view of Scripture, I do not think the case for Mark’s hinting at the divinity of Jesus is stronger than the more straightforward understanding of Jesus’ words.
2. In regard to the alterations made by Matthew you wrote that its author was modifying the verse “to prevent it from being understood as a denial of Jesus’ divinity” and that the redaction “confirms” the “original intention” of Mark’s author. This is not really consistent with critical Bible scholarship, which would insist that the authors might disagree with one another and that Matthew could be better understood as altering the passage in Mark because he did not approve of certain theological implications. Claiming that the use of one author’s words by another is proof of the former’s original intent can only be based on the presupposition that they will never contradict one another or hold differing viewpoints. Studying the redactions of Matthew allows us to better understand his gospel rather than Mark’s.
(Why did the former modify the question posed by the rich man in the passage in addition to Jesus’ response? This goes beyond the “solution” of simply removing the phrase “No one is good except God alone.” If Matthew had simply removed a few words, this would be an act of omission rather that outright correction.)
3. Based on the comments written (and correct me if I’m wrong), I take it that you subscribe to some form of “biblical inerrancy.” I once held that view but consider the following analogy:
There are several editions available of the works of Ancient Greek Authors. If you found an anthology of Greek philosophy, you would likely read selections from Plato and Aristotle. Now if in one of Plato’s dialogues you found a mention of “the forms,” your best bet for understanding what the term meant to him (without the use of some sort of modern commentary or dictionary) would be to look at another one of his passages containing the same phrase or to research the historical context. While comparing and contrasting Plato and Aristotle would be helpful for appreciating their philosophies, Aristotle could not be taken as “the authority” on his predecessor Plato or as having the same beliefs. Even in the case of referring to commentaries or guides to the works of each philosopher, a number of divergent readings would be presented for select passages. Now if you were somehow to come across a commentary written by a Platonist or Neo-Platonist who held that Plato could never err or who “put their own words into Plato’s mouth”, you would probably want to consult a different authority.
LikeLike
(Continued)
Keep in mind that no New Testament writer had any sort of “27-book canon” in mind and that critical studies involve prioritizing individual works rather than seeing them in light of decisions made by later councils or early theologians as to which should be included in some sort of “holy” compilation. We need to be cautious when using the testimony of any given Church Father (especially those who compiled canonical lists) to interpret the gospels or other biblical books.
Between two competing “assumptions,” one being that the authors of the Bible could harbor disagreements between one another or even contradict what they wrote earlier (like other writers) and the other claiming that all apparent contradictions (whether between books or within a single book) in Scripture are really illusory, the first is definitely in line with critical scholarship (since it requires that theological presumptions be set aside when dealing with determining the intentions of any author.) The second assumption is really just equivalent to question-begging like “Scripture is inerrant because it is inerrant because some believers have said so or because we must let select authors speak for the others because some say so.”
I think we would agree that outside of scripture, if presented with a set of statements that appear contradictory or individuals with disagreements, the “burden of proof” is on anyone who would claim that they are really in agreement (i.e. if something appears to be a discrepancy, it is.) Applying this principle to individual passages and authors of the Bible is crucial to critical biblical scholarship.
LikeLike
(Continued)
4. On the question of Mark 15:34, I admit that my discussion belongs to philosophy and theology (as do your statements that “Jesus assumed humanity to such a degree that omniscience was not implied” and “no one can comprehend the experience of an incarnate God.”) This was kind of a side debate to show some theological issues each reading creates. Since typical Christian doctrine maintains that Jesus was one of the three beings of the Godhead, (and God is all-knowing), he must have been omniscient from the beginning like God the Father. To be born a human prone to ignorance like everyone else, means either Jesus agreed to relinquish at least certain types of knowledge, the Father took it away, or the Holy Spirit performed the act. If a person had been placed into a contraption that wiped their memories, either they chose to do this themselves or someone did it to them. So, someone would have been responsible for what could be considered an “intellectual evil.” If God knows everything, then for the divine Christ to engage in willful forgetting is in effect “brainwashing.”
However, deciding what the Gospel of Mark must mean based on the desire to reconcile it with the other Gospels or with Trinitarianism is already “beyond the boundaries of critical biblical study.” If the simple explanation for why Mark does not have hints of Trinitarianism is that it was not a doctrine that existed during his time, then how can it be assumed he would have been in agreement with Matthew had he been aware of the latter’s work or that it was his intent for their views to be “reconciled?” Isn’t the straightforward reading that Mark’s human Jesus does not really see himself as divine actually a sound critical interpretation?
Finally, statements to the effect that the behavior of Jesus or his attributes cannot be held up to scrutiny because we could not imagine what being a God-man is like seem unfalsifiable. To use a parallel example, if someone were to try to justify the wild abduction of Europa by Zeus in Greek myth, they could just claim that Zeus had to take on the attributes of a bull and that no one could begin to know “what’s it like” to become divinely-incarnate livestock.
LikeLike
But couldn’t Gentile believers who attended synagogues or knew Greek have been familiar with the LXX?
LikeLike
Absolutely, especially if they were God-fearers prior to their coming to follow Christ.
LikeLike
I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade or discussion, but claiming that in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 Paul is affirming Jesus’s equality with God in a new version of the Shema is problematic for a few reasons:
a. Consider the use of the conjunction “and” in verses 5 and 6 of the passage (taken from the Revised Standard Version with my italics):
1 Corinthians 8:4-6: “Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that ‘an idol has no real existence,’ and that ‘there is no God but one.’ “For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth– as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’ – yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
The use of “and” is best understood to distinguish between two different categories: “gods” and “lords.” This seems to be similar to how we would typically understand an emcee introducing a performance with the words “ladies and gentlemen.” Since this formulation seems to parallel Paul’s identification of “the Father” as “one God” and “Jesus Christ” as “one Lord,” it can be taken to mean that Jesus is not at the same level of divinity as God the Father. Thus, being a “god” is differentiated from being a “lord” in 1 Corinthians 8:5.
b. If does not follow that by establishing 1 Corinthians 8:4 contains a quote from Deuteronomy 4:35 or Deuteronomy 6:4, there is proof that Paul intended to “upgrade” the Shema or that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is covertly Trinitarian.
Given that Paul frequently quotes the Old Testament in various situations without broad doctrinal intentions (he is generally writing only in the context of addressing particular churches and situations), it is questionable that he intended any verse following a Hebrew Bible quote to be doctrinal in the sense that a Church Father would.
In Romans 15:21, for example, he quotes Isaiah 52:15: “but as it is written, ‘They shall see who have never been told of him, and they shall understand who have never heard of him.’
The immediate context is Paul’s explanation to the congregation in Rome that he strove to preach his gospel to areas where no other Christian has but now it seems as if he has exhausted his current possibilities for evangelization to the unlearned. So, he would like to travel to Rome as a “slingshot” for going further west to Roman-controlled Spain.
LikeLike
(Continued from Above Post)
The following is the use of this Old Testament quote in this context:
Romans 15: 18-24: “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyr’icum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation, but as it is written, ‘They shall see who have never been told of him, and they shall understand who have never heard of him.’ This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you. But now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions, and since I have longed for many years to come to you, I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little.”
It would be unreasonable to assume that Paul actually intended Isaiah to be read in some new light as being a direct prophecy of his Christian missionary efforts rather than being an example of his interpretative practice of using existing scriptures to persuade others of his agenda. (Also, as far as critical scholarship is concerned, Paul is not the authority on what the writers of a prophetic book of the Hebrew Bible originally meant.)
3. English translations of the phrase “The LORD” in the Old Testament are actually renderings of “YHWH.” Paul wrote his epistles in Koine Greek, so the Greek translated as “God” in 1 Corinthians 8:4 in the quote from Deuteronomy is “theos” while the Greek equivalent of “lord” used in the passage to describe Jesus is “kyrios.” (I don’t claim to have any sort of background in Ancient Greek but online Bibles have interlinear tools to display the root word or phrase being translated.) The word used to describe pagan “gods” in verse 5 is a form of “theos” while the word used to denote “lords” is “kyrios.” So there doesn’t appear to any way of reading Jesus as the equal of the Father or as a “god” in the verse.
4. In the last paragraph, you wrote “it seems coherent to understand that Paul is including Jesus within the identity of the one God— in the language of his time…”
What does “seems coherent to understand…” mean?
Respectfully, my understanding of what your last paragraph is saying is something along the lines of “It makes sense to interpret Paul as claiming that Jesus is God just like the Father even though he wasn’t capable of doing so clearly or in terms we would understand.”
Isn’t this imposing the (Orthodox) Trinitarian perspective of the Father and Son as being equally divine persons on a passage that does not likely show any knowledge of it?
Claiming that Paul must have meant something related to a “high Christology” in contrast to the easier reading because his writings must be inerrant and in harmony with later church authorities goes against critical scholarship. Can you provide evidence that the notion “Paul included Jesus in the Shema” is widely held by scholars?
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment — it raised some important points for reflection. I have a few questions to better understand your perspective:
I would really like to better understand your perspective, especially regarding the relationship between the Father and the Lord Jesus in the monotheistic context of 1 Corinthians 8.
LikeLike
I was wondering — how do you personally qualify whether an interpretation of a passage is imposing the doctrine of the Trinity onto the text, rather than drawing out what the text itself might be suggesting?
LikeLike
Thank you for your careful comment on this passage! I would like to ask a few questions to better understand your perspective and see how you interpret the internal logic of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 8:4–6.
Would you agree that Paul’s discussion here begins with the issue of idols and worship practices?
If so, when he mentions “many gods and many lords,” wouldn’t it make sense to see these terms as referring to objects of pagan devotion, rather than two completely distinct categories (divine vs. human)?
If these “lords” receive acts of devotion and reverence that should belong only to God, couldn’t we say that they are functionally divine, even if they are not truly gods?
Following that logic, wouldn’t “many gods and many lords” form a single class — the idols that rival the one true God?
If that is the case, why does Paul place Jesus alongside God?
Wouldn’t that contrast suggest that Jesus is being distinguished from the false lords and associated with the true God within the same framework of devotion?
LikeLike