Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? Part 6: It’s Not About the Evidence

On By Tyler BoydIn Uncategorized

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
Part 1: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination
Part 2: Why the Alternative Theories Fail
Part 3: The Earliest Christian Source
Part 4: The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection
Part 5: The Transformation of the Disciples

The historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is much stronger than many assume. We possess multiple sources that are both early and rooted in eyewitness testimony, plus we have evidence that the resurrection was already a foundational teaching of Christianity long prior to the writing of these sources. These claims were publicly proclaimed in Jerusalem, while many of the named witnesses were still alive and available to be consulted.

The enemies of Christianity were unable to produce a body, and did not deny that the tomb was empty. Instead, they attempted to make counterarguments to explain how the tomb was empty (cf. Matthew 28:13-15). The fact that they felt compelled to explain the empty tomb concedes the central truth that the tomb which once held Jesus’ body was now empty.

Meanwhile, the earliest Christians faced persecution and in many cases death, yet the threats to their lives did not deter them. Long-held Jewish ideas about one single general resurrection at the end of time were suddenly transformed into the belief that the resurrection would begin with one man in the middle of history. New theology about a crucified Messiah suddenly sprang onto the scene of history and spread like wildfire. Something caused this to happen.

The four gospel accounts, all written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, all agree on the central facts of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, the discovery of the empty tomb, and the numerous post-resurrection appearances. At the same time, they retain all the uniqueness you would expect of genuine independent witnesses. They quite clearly do not read like collusion.

If this much evidence existed for any other historical event – that is, any historical event that does not challenge our core identity and philosophical assumptions about the world – almost every historian would affirm it without hesitation. And this brings us back to the point made at the beginning of this series. The primary reason many reject the resurrection is not the lack of historical evidence.

The real reason many people reject the resurrection is their allegiance to a different worldview that is built on presupposed assumptions about the nature of reality. If one begins with a firm commitment to the idea that supernatural miracles cannot occur, that a dead man cannot rise from the dead under any circumstances, then the resurrection must be false. And if this is the case, some alternative explanation of the data is required, no matter how much that theory struggles to make sense of the data.

You may conclude that the Roman soldiers failed to fully execute Jesus, or that the disciples stole the body and fabricated the story, or that they were sincerely mistaken, or that a grand legend rapidly developed and was adopted by numerous people all throughout the Roman Empire. But each of those alternatives carries serious difficulties of their own. Ultimately these alternative theories must be maintained in spite of the historical evidence, and not because of it.

But what if that allegiance were to change? What if someone’s core identity were to shift, away from the secularism and materialism that is so prevalent in the world, and to turn toward a group of people who have sworn their allegiance to the one who gave up everything because of his love for others? What if they were to begin to walk in the way of mercy, grace, and love that was demonstrated on the cross? What if they were to place their hope in the one who defeated death itself? If someone were to change their core identity, and begin to think of the world through the lens of Christianity, they would find that the historical evidence all makes perfect sense.

No question in life is more important than this one. The resurrection is the foundational claim of Christianity. If the resurrection is false, then Christianity is false. But if Jesus truly rose from the dead, then He is exactly who the Christians recognize him to be. He is the Lord and Messiah, the Son of God in the flesh. His authority over the world is real, and His teachings matter. If the resurrection is true, then death has been defeated.

Everything hinges on this one question: Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Do not brush the question aside. Examine the evidence carefully. Set aside presuppositions and weigh it honestly. If the resurrection is true, then the only reasonable response is to reconsider where your allegiance belongs.

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? Part 5: The Transformation of the Disciples

On By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection

Part 1: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination
Part 2: Why the Alternative Theories Fail
Part 3: The Earliest Christian Source
Part 4: The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection

Perhaps the most difficult fact for a skeptic to explain is the transformation of Jesus’ disciples.

Before the crucifixion, Jesus’ followers were not a bunch of brave visionaries poised to launch a new religious movement. They had their own questions about Jesus’ teachings, and their own hesitations with his methods. At the time of the crucifixion, they were frightened. After Jesus died, they went into hiding. Their Messiah had been publicly executed and defeated by the Romans in the most public and humiliating way imaginable. With his death, all their hopes appeared to have died as well.

And yet, on that Sunday, everything changed.

The same group that had fled for fear began preaching openly and boldly in public, in the very city where Jesus had just recently been executed and buried. They were bold, confident, joyful, and willing to suffer. Many were even willing to die for their testimony, and some of them did. This kind of sudden transformation is not what you see in normal emotional recovery from grief. Something convinced them that Jesus had truly risen from the dead.

Even more striking is how suddenly and radically their theology changed.

Prior to AD 30, Jews held a variety of beliefs about resurrection. Some groups, such as the Sadducees, rejected it entirely. Most, however, believed that there would one day be a general resurrection of the dead at the end of history, in a single event when the righteous would be vindicated.

But one belief that was completely absent from all Jewish literature was the idea that the resurrection would happen in two stages, beginning with one individual in the middle of history, all by himself.

Even more importantly, no one believed that the Jewish Messiah would rise from the dead after being crucified. A “crucified Messiah” was a contradiction in terms. If your chosen Messiah was killed by the Romans, you either abandoned the movement or found a replacement Messiah. What you would not do is invent a story about him rising from the dead. No one would believe it.

Yet suddenly, these never-imagined-before ideas appeared and began to spread like wildfire. Numerous people began proclaiming that the Jewish Messiah had been publicly executed by the Romans, but then God raised him from the dead. The resurrection, which was previously only a peripheral and occasionally debated concept among the Jews, was suddenly thrust to the forefront. Something drastic happened.

This sudden and widespread shift, in both demeanor and theology, demands some sort of explanation. Somehow the historian must explain why the Christians suddenly modified and developed the long-held Jewish assumptions about the resurrection. Where did these ideas come from? And why did they show up so suddenly, especially in the face of persecution and death?

So what was it? What was that “something”?

Whatever the explanation, it must account for the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, the multiple independent witnesses, and the sudden rise of Christianity itself in the particular form it took. Any theory that fails to adequately explain all of these falls short.

If we ask the earliest Christians what changed, their answer was clear, consistent, and it explains all of these developments with ease. They believed this because Jesus rose from the dead. The resurrection easily explains the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the sudden development in theology. No alternative naturalistic theory does.

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? Part 4: The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection

On By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
Part 1: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination
Part 2: Why the Alternative Theories Fail
Part 3: The Earliest Christian Source

Those who reject the Bible as a divinely inspired and authoritative source are often quick to dismiss the value of the gospel accounts entirely. They are frequently thought of as little more than legendary embellishments, or propaganda material designed to promote the Christian faith rather than genuinely preserve history.

But for the sake of argument, let us set aside any questions of divine inspiration, and treat the gospels simply as ancient historical documents. Even if we examine the gospels on this basis alone, there are compelling reasons to take their accounts of the resurrection as a trustworthy historical witness.

Multiple Independent Witnesses

In history, as in a court of law, the strength of a case increases with the number of independent witnesses. If we assume the witnesses in question are not wholly dependent on one another’s stories, then the more witnesses we have who agree about the facts regarding an event, the more confident we can be that we are dealing with real events rather than a made-up story or an embellished legend.

Even if Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15 were the only evidence we possessed of the resurrection, it would already demand serious consideration (see Part 3). But when it comes to the resurrection, we have much more.

In addition to Paul’s early account, we also have the resurrection narratives found in the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Not only were these accounts also written relatively early (no more than 40 or 50 years after the resurrection), but they were also independently written accounts.

To be sure, many scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have argued that Matthew and Luke made use of Mark as a source. Others have suggested that all three drew from one or more similar sources as a way to explain the similarities between these three books. This may or may not be the case. But what is important to realize is that even if the authors of these books were aware of the other gospel accounts, all three of them reported about the resurrection in their own unique way, including their own special details that were not mentioned in the other gospels.

If these authors were simply rehashing a singular resurrection story from an earlier source, we would expect their accounts to match closely in the precise details they preserve, and yet they don’t – not at all.

For example, Matthew reports that Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” visited the tomb. Mark adds Salome to the group. Luke includes Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, Joanna, and “other women.”

Matthew mentions only one angel who speaks to the women outside the tomb. Mark describes what he refers to as a young man dressed in white. Luke reports that two angels were present.

Matthew alone includes unique elements such as the earthquake and the guards at the tomb. Luke alone records the appearance of Jesus on the road to Emmaus.

Here’s why this is so important: Even if these authors were aware of one another’s works, their accounts remain strikingly independent of one another. This fact alone makes their accounts all the more compelling, especially when it comes to the central claims that they all share in common. Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all agree that Jesus was buried, the tomb was found empty, and Jesus appeared alive to various disciples at various times and places.

Do the Gospel Accounts Contradict Each Other?

Ironically, the very differences that support the independent nature of the gospel accounts are often used to dismiss them completely. Some argue that these variations are actually contradictions, and since these gospel accounts contradict one another, their story must be made up.

For example, some have observed that Matthew says the women arrived at the tomb “toward the dawn” and found the tomb sealed until an earthquake occurred (Matthew 28:1-2). Mark says that the women arrived “when the sun had risen” and what they found was that the stone had already been rolled away (Mark 16:2-4). Others point to the differences in the number of angels present, or the number of women mentioned as supposed contradictions in these accounts.

First, whenever skeptics make these claims, my initial thought is simply that they have not done thorough research. The fact of the matter is, these alleged contradictions have been addressed repeatedly throughout history. It takes little more than a Google search to find just how easily these supposed contradictions can be resolved. For instance, Matthew never explicitly states that the tomb was still sealed when the women arrived. And to try to make a sharp distinction between “toward the dawn” and early sunrise, and then to portray these differences between these descriptions as a major contradiction is simply unwarranted.

In similar fashion, while the number of angels mentioned differs from gospel to gospel, no author ever speaks exclusively, or denies the existence of other angels. Nor does any author claim to provide an exhaustive list of either the angels or women who were present. The accounts do differ in numerous places, but they do not contradict.

These are exactly the kind of differences we would expect to encounter if there were multiple witnesses to the resurrection, and each of the witnesses saw the same event from different perspectives. Whenever I hear skeptics call the gospel accounts into question because of their differences, it makes me wonder: what would these same skeptics be saying if the gospel accounts did in fact match up precisely with one another in every single detail mentioned. Would these same skeptics not be the first to argue that their uniformity suggests evidence of collusion, and that the gospel accounts should be dismissed for that very reason?

The most important thing to realize about the gospels is what they reveal about themselves. They are, to a significant degree, independent accounts. And that independence makes what they agree on all the more credible.

Each account affirms the tomb was empty. Each affirms that Jesus appeared alive after his burial. And all of this aligns perfectly with Paul’s account of the resurrection he had written a few years prior.

It’s not just one resurrection account that must be explained away. It’s five. And as argued previously, it is difficult to believe that even one of those accounts would have been accepted and preserved by people who knew the resurrection was false. It is even more difficult to believe that five distinct versions would have been.

Incidental Details

Another feature of the gospel accounts that strongly supports their authenticity has to do with the style in which they were written, namely, the presence of numerous incidental details that in themselves do nothing to advance the theological points they were trying to emphasize.

For example, John tells us that he arrived at the tomb before Peter because he outran him. He says he stooped down to look inside. He noticed the linen garment lying there. He then adds the face cloth was not lying with the other clothes in the tomb, but was folded up in a place by itself. Finally, he tells us that Peter arrived after him and that Peter went all the way into the tomb (John 20:4-8).

These are the kinds of incidental details you would expect to find in the account of someone who is pulling from their own personal memory of the events.

Conclusion

When the historical case for the resurrection is examined, the five independently written accounts of the resurrection work together to form a formidable piece of evidence. We are not dealing with a single late legend, or a carefully planned and harmonized narrative. We are dealing with multiple, largely independent accounts that agree on the central claims, while differing on the secondary details, yet without any contradictions.

The differences between these accounts do not weaken their credibility. They strengthen it. When taken together with Paul’s early account in 1 Corinthians 15, the gospels form one of the most strongly attested events in all of ancient history.

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? Part 2: Why the Alternative Theories Fail

On By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection1 Comment

Read Part 1 Here: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination

Among those who deny the resurrection, various naturalistic theories have been proposed. Most of these theories fall into one of four main categories.

  1. Jesus did not really die. Perhaps he fainted or fell into a coma, which left him to appear dead, but he later revived in the tomb and escaped.
  2. The disciples stole the body and knowingly fabricated the resurrection story.
  3. The disciples hallucinated. Driven by grief, they experienced something that made them sincerely believe that Jesus had risen, though they were mistaken.
  4. The resurrection story is simply a myth or legend that developed over time.

Initially, these theories may sound plausible, or at least plausible enough to avoid investigating if a real resurrection occurred. But when these alternative theories are examined even briefly, their plausibility quickly fades away. It’s also worth noting that these theories often contradict each other. Some require the disciples to be deliberate liars, while others require them to be sincere yet mistaken.

Ultimately, an explanation is only as good as its ability to account for all the facts. So for example, if a theory explains the empty tomb, but does not explain the resurrection appearances, it does not suffice. If a theory explains the resurrection appearances, but doesn’t explain how Roman soldiers, who were professional executioners, could allow a body to be buried before ensuring it was fully dead, or cannot explain how the stone could be rolled away from a closely guarded tomb, it would not suffice. Whatever explanation we accept, we must look for the theory that best explains all the evidence in the case.

Could the Disciples Have Fabricated the Story?

To begin with, we must ask: could a large group of people fabricate a story they all knew was false?

It’s difficult enough for a few individuals to maintain a lie about recent events. But could hundreds,? Across multiple cities? Is it plausible that they could successfully coordinate such a large-scale deception without being found out? Without one single dissenter confessing to the grand scheme? Are we really to believe that there would not have been at least a handful of grounded individuals who would have resisted this fabrication as a foolish plan?

But what if it wasn’t a grandly designed scheme, but rather a legend that slowly grew and developed over time? That doesn’t help us escape the difficult questions either. Are we really to believe that every disciple would adopt the embellished version of the story as genuine, even though it contradicted their own memories? Is it really plausible that no one (including the opponents of the Christian movement) would point out that the resurrection message was a newly invented development? That not a single person would mention that Christians had only recently begun telling this story, or that it conflicted with what they had previously believed?

What’s even more challenging is that the entire early Christian movement continued to proclaim the resurrection story even in the face of persecution and death. Can we really believe that not a single person would cave under this kind of pressure and expose the falsehood?

It doesn’t take long to spot the serious flaws in the suggestion that the Christians knowingly spread a deception. This suggestion introduces more problems than it solves. If the resurrection is to be rejected in favor of a naturalistic explanation, it is far more believable to argue that the vast majority of early Christians genuinely believed the resurrection was true, but were all deceived or confused. For the sake of argument then, could it be that they were sincere, but mistaken? Could it be that they themselves had been deceived?

Could the Disciples Have Been Sincere but Mistaken?

At first glance, this explanation may sound more plausible than the idea of a deliberate deception. Perhaps the disciples truly believed Jesus had risen. Perhaps some had experienced some grief-driven hallucinations, visions, or other physiological experiences rather than actually witnessing a resurrection. And perhaps the sincerity of these “witnesses” was enough to convince others that a resurrection had actually occurred, ultimately leading to a sincere yet mistaken movement of belief based upon this confusion.

Yet this theory also quickly falls upon careful reflection. Hallucinations are private experiences. They do not occur to groups of people at the same time. Yet the resurrection accounts describe Jesus appearing repeatedly to multiple individuals at once, and sometimes even to large groups.

Nor does the hallucination theory explain the empty tomb. Even if some disciples experienced hallucinations, hallucinations do not remove bodies from graves. Even if we accept the hallucination theory to explain some of the resurrection appearances, this theory must be supplemented by additional theories in order for it to explain all of the facts.

Why Didn’t the Opponents Shut it Down?

Even if we were accept one of that either the disciples knowingly fabricated a lie, or were themselves deceived, we are still left with an additional question. If the resurrection was false, why didn’t the early opponents of Christianity expose it?

The resurrection message did not spread in private. Christians did not claim that Jesus had risen in some distant land, among unknown people, or in an isolated setting, where the claim itself could not be investigated. They publicly proclaimed that the tomb was empty. They claimed that he had appeared to hundreds of individuals at one time. And they made these claims in the very city where Jesus was crucified, during a time when these events were still in recent memory.

These claims were made while eyewitnesses were still alive. The resurrection accounts also involved well known public figures, such as Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest. They publicly tied their story to a precise burial location of Jesus, the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin.

If the resurrection was false, it would have been easy to disprove. If any of the facts surrounding the story were not accurate, witnesses would have spotted this. If Jesus was not really buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, someone with this knowledge of where he was really buried would have spoken up.

The opponents of Christianity would have easily demolished the early Christian movement by simply producing a body. If they could have done so, they surely would have. Yet no body was ever produced. Nor did the critics disprove even the basic details of the resurrection accounts.

Even if we were to find a way to explain why the resurrection was proclaimed by Jesus’s disciples, we would also have to explain why the early opponents of Christianity failed to expose it. If the claims were falsifiable, they would have been exposed.

The Deepest Problem with the Alternative Theories

Yet even these are not the deepest problem facing the alternative explanations for the resurrection. The biggest reason why these theories fail is this: There is very strong evidence for the resurrection, and none of these theories actually make sense of that evidence.

In the next articles in this series, we will be turning to this evidence, building a positive case for the resurrection. This case will draw from three main areas:

  • Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, which is the earliest known source of the resurrection procuration
  • The four Gospel accounts
  • Observations about the shape and theology of early Christianity

When this evidence is examined without foregone conclusions about what is and isn’t possible, it makes a remarkably strong case for the resurrection. These are not the only pieces of evidence for the resurrection, but they are, in my opinion, the strongest.

Once these are examined, building a positive case for the resurrection, the central issue with the alternative theories should become clear – because none of the alternative theories offer a more compelling explanation of the facts.

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? Part 1: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination

On By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection2 Comments

Few claims in history as are bold and seemingly unbelievable as the Christian proclamation that Jesus of Nazareth rose bodily from the dead. From the earliest days of Christianity, this claim has met resistance, skepticism, and dismissal. Yet much of that resistance has less to do with the historical evidence itself and more to do with assumptions about what can and cannot happen in the world.

In other words, the resurrection is frequently ruled out in advance. Not because the evidence is weak or incoherent, but because resurrection is considered impossible. Once that conclusion is reached, the question of Jesus’s resurrection is effectively dismissed before examination begins.

History or Philosophy – Which Comes First?

But history is not the place to begin with philosophical questions about what can or cannot happen. To study history is to ask what actually occurred. History weighs sources, eyewitness testimonies, examines motives, and traces consequences. It first examines evidence, and then draws conclusions about what happened, not the other way around.

If we begin with the assumption that reality is purely materialistic, only consisting of matter, energy, and blind natural processes, then the resurrection must either be proved as possible from a scientific perspective in order to even be considered as a possibility. Since true resurrection is universally understood to be scientifically impossible, the materialist will always require some alternative theory for Jesus’ supposed resurrection, no matter how strained or speculative that explanation may be.

But what happens when we first allow the evidence to speak for itself, and then force our philosophical assumptions to wrestle with the conclusions? Perhaps, if the evidence for the resurrection is strong enough, it must be reconsidered whether reality really is as purely materialistic as many have assumed. In this sense, the resurrection is a claim that serves to challenge even the deepest held assumptions about the world.

And yet for many, the resurrection is rarely examined as closely as it deserves. Instead of engaging the historical case directly, they often settle for any number of alternative theories, many of which are only briefly encountered and quickly accepted without critical examination.

Perhaps Jesus did not really die. Maybe the disciples hallucinated. Maybe the body was stolen, the tomb misidentified, or the story was reshaped over time by Jesus’s grieving disciples who simply could not accept the loss of their friend and supposed Messiah. Perhaps the resurrection is a legend or a myth that slowly evolved among the earliest Christians.

All kinds of variations on these theories exist. And on the surface, many of them sound somewhat plausible, or at least more plausible than the idea that a dead man literally rose again. As a result, many find even the mere existence of these theories as enough reason to avoid further investigation.

The question, however, is not whether these theories sound believable, but whether they actually account for the historical data once that data is examined closely.

The Enormous Implications of the Resurrection

But consider for a moment what the implications would be if Jesus really did rise from the dead. They are enormous.

First, the resurrection would mean that something, or Someone, from outside the materialistic world has acted upon this world. To be clear, Christians do not believe in the resurrection because they think resurrections are scientifically repeatable events within a purely natural system. Rather they have accepted that there must be more to reality, largely because of the resurrection.

Yet the implications do not stop with proving the supernatural. The resurrection also forces us to wrestle with the question of why. Why Jesus of Nazareth? Why this man, in this place, at that moment in history? What does the resurrection imply about His life, His teachings, and the claims He made about Himself?

It is the resurrection, more than anything else, that stamps Jesus as unique. If He rose from the dead, this gives tremendous credence to His words and claims about the world. It can even be said that His words carry divine authority. His words matter. His promises are trustworthy.

And if Jesus rose from the dead, suddenly the story of His ascension into heaven carries new weight. In other words, we must wrestle with His exaltation to a place of highest authority – authority that stands higher than any earthly governing power the world has ever known. If Jesus rose, then He is Lord. And if He is Lord, then His call to repentance and loyalty is not optional, and every human should seriously consider giving him their allegiance.

More than anything else, the resurrection stands at the very center of Christianity. If the resurrection is false, Christianity collapses. The apostles were either deceived or deceptive, the cross was a tragic failure, and the Christian faith is a empty of any value. But if the resurrection is true, then everything changes.

A Question That Cannot Be Dismissed

When the strength of the historical evidence is considered alongside the magnitude of the implications, one conclusion becomes unavoidable: the resurrection claim deserves serious and careful examination.

When that examination is actually undertaken, and the evidence is weighed rather than dismissed, something very interesting happens. All the popular theories begin to quickly unravel, because they quite simply do not offer reasonable explanations for the evidence. They do not make reasonable historical sense. But the claim of the resurrection of Jesus Christ remains standing as one arguably the most challenging and impactful event in all of human history, confirmed my numerous pieces of compelling evidence.

The reason I’m writing this series is simply lay out what, in my opinion, are the strongest pieces of evidence for the resurrection. All I ask is that you consider it carefully. If after looking at the evidence for yourself, you decided the resurrection is not a compelling explanation for what occurred, you’re welcome to draw that conclusion. But the question of whether or not the resurrection is history cannot be ignored. And for that reason, I hope you will take the time to read this series, and think carefully.

How Should Christians Use the Imprecatory Psalms?

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence

What Are the Imprecatory Psalms?

Anyone who spends time in the Psalms will eventually encounter prayers that feel incredibly harsh. In fact, some of them feel so intense they may, at least at first glance, seem almost unchristian. For instance, consider Psalm 35:

Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me;
Fight against those who fight against me!…
Draw the spear and javelin
against my pursuers!

Psalm 35:1-2

Or Psalm 58:

O God, break the teeth in their mouths;
tear out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD!

Psalm 58:6

These are examples of what scholars call the imprecatory psalms. To simply say that they call on God to destroy the wicked may be an understatement. Some of them can be extremely harsh, such as Psalm 109, which even calls for his enemies’ children to “wander about and beg, seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!” And Psalm 137 contains one of the most brutal images in the whole Bible:

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!

Psalm 137:9

Interpretations of these psalms vary widely. Some attempt to quietly sideline these prayers as embarrassing relics of a more violent pre-Christian era. Others lean on these psalms to justify their own harshness, hostility, or even hatred toward those whom they deem deserving.

But faithful Christians should not simply look for whatever interpretation fits their personal or political agenda. Instead, we must allow Scripture to shape our understanding, even when it challenges our assumptions.

Common Interpretive Errors to Avoid

To begin, a few popular interpretations of these psalms need to be ruled out. While some of these positions seem to have some explanatory power, they ultimately introduce more problems than they solve.

1. Denying the Unity of Scripture

Scripture must be read as a unified whole. Because God is the ultimate author of all inspired Scripture, we must not accept any interpretation that plainly contradicts other Scriptures.  If an apparent contradiction is found, it is not allowable to say “the author of this passage was mistaken” or “God really did not mean what this passage says.” Instead, we must seek for the understanding that harmonizes all of Scripture. In fact, this basic error is one that lies beneath nearly every other interpretive error.

2. Using the Psalms to Justify Personal Vengeance

One example of how interpreters deny the unity of Scripture is by treating the imprecatory psalms as God-given permission to hate or take vengeance on enemies. Every now and then you will hear someone point to the imprecatory psalms as giving license to pronounce judgment or even hate some of their enemies.

Yet the New Testament speaks with clarity and consistency about how Christians should think about and treat their enemies. They are commanded to love them (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35; 1 John 3:16), bless them (Luke 6:28, Romans 12:14), forgive them (Luke 6:37, 11:4, 23:34), do good to them (Luke 6:27, 34-35), refuse retaliation (Matthew 5:38-39), and overcome their evil with good (Romans 12:17-21). Any interpretation of the imprecatory psalms that directly clashes with these teachings must be rejected. The psalms may express an appeal to God for justice, but they never authorize personal vengeance or hatred.

3. Treating the Old Testament as Morally Inferior

Another error is to treat the Old Testament as a morally inferior stage of revelation. While it is true that God’s character is most perfectly revealed in Christ (cf. John 14:9; Colossians. 1:15; Hebrews 1:1-3), the psalms remain fully inspired Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). Jesus never rejected any part of the Old Testament Scriptures. He fulfilled them (Matthew 5:17) and corrected their misuse (Matthew 5:38-41), but he never dismissed them.

In fact, Jesus Himself quoted from imprecatory psalms (e.g., Psalm 69:9). Peter even makes it a point to emphasize that as Jesus hung on the cross, he “continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23). Hebrews describes him offering up prayers “with loud cries and tears” for salvation (Hebrews 5:7). In Christ, we not only see love for enemies, but we also see a heartfelt appeal to God for judgment.  In other words, Jesus himself embodied the ethic we see expressed in the imprecatory psalms.

4. Treating Imprecation and Enemy-Love as Competing Options

A more subtle, yet dangerous, example of how Scripture is sometimes pitted against Scripture is when imprecation and enemy-love are treated as two conflicting approaches, and we must exercise wise discernment to determine which ethic is most appropriate for the moment. On the surface, this interpretation may appear to uphold the validity of both enemy-love and imprecation. But it quietly assumes a contradiction between Scriptures that does not exist.

Arguably the most challenging thing the New Testament says about how Christians should treat their enemies is what it doesn’t say. That is, when it comes to loving enemies, there is not a single exception clause. There is no verse I can quote that says “Love your enemies, except for the really nasty ones that threaten your family” or “do good to your enemies, except for those who are genuinely wicked to the core” or “bless your enemies, except for those who are at enmity with God himself.” It’s always just “love them” period. “Overcome their evil with good,” period.

It’s not as if the imprecatory psalms didn’t exist when Jesus and his apostles made these commandments. These commands to love our enemies were given with full knowledge of these psalms. Yet their existence never served to soften, qualify, or limit Christ’s call to love our enemies. Nowhere does the New Testament teach us to distinguish between those enemies we are to love, and those we are to hate.

The imprecatory psalms do not teach a separate ethic from what was taught by Christ. Nor do they permit Christians to set aside the enemy-love commands in those times when we think it would be wiser to follow the Psalms. Rather, they must be understood in a way that fully coheres with the unqualified commands of Christ and His apostles.

How Imprecatory Prayers Help Us Love Our Enemies

The imprecatory psalms and the gospel work together to teach one united ethic. We love our enemies by entrusting judgment to God. Imprecatory prayers are not opposed to love. They are an essential part of how love becomes possible in a world filled with real evil.

Romans 12:14-21 illustrates this clearly. Not only are we commanded to bless those who persecute us, to refuse vengeance, and to overcome evil with good, but we are told why this is so important. “For it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). We love our enemies precisely because vengeance belongs to God alone.

Love for enemies is not grounded in a denial of justice, but in confidence that God will execute it rightly. For this reason, praying for God’s justice allows us to cooperate with His work rather than trying to compete with it.

The imprecatory psalms give us the language to face evil honestly without being consumed by bitterness and desires for personal retaliation. They acknowledge the seriousness of evil, and the desperate need for judgment, but they entrust that judgment to God. By praying the imprecatory psalms, we are freed from the impossible and destructive task of carrying the burden of justice for ourselves.

The Psalms assume that grief, frustration, and the longing for justice are real. These feelings and desires are not sinful. Sometimes the faithful response is to cry out “How long, O LORD?” (Psalm 13:1). When we are hurt, it is important to “pour out your heart before him” because “God is a refuge for us” (Psalm 62:8).

Faith includes casting our burdens on the Lord, trusting that he will sustain us (Psalm 55:22). Prayers like “Arise, O LORD! Confront him, subdue him!” (Psalm 17:13) are a practical way to do this very thing. Rather than seeking personal vengeance, these prayers surrender justice entirely into God’s hands. Such prayers should not be rebuked, ignored, or apologized for. They are part of the faithful response to evil and oppression.

We can, without hesitation, follow Jesus’s example, who Himself prayed in this way. He quoted from Psalm 22, Psalm 69, and Psalm 110, all of which include lament, judgment, and trust in God’s ultimate victory over evil. The early Christians saw these psalms as central to understanding His ongoing reign and final judgment over his enemies (Acts 2:24-25; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12-13).  

Jesus loved his enemies because he “continued entrusting Himself to Him who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:23). The imprecatory psalms remind us that God’s justice is both real and good. We can count on him.

Conclusion

Evil is serious. The need for justice is real. The desire for justice is not sinful. But vengeance belongs to God alone. Christians are commanded to love their enemies, and prayer – not violence or retaliation – is how we do that.

The Bible does not present us with a choice between a soft, enemy-loving ethic, and a harsh, judgment-loving ethic. It consistently gives us the Christian ethic – one that embraces both love and justice through the cross, where Jesus bore the judgment his enemies deserved, and taught us to trust in the Father who judges justly.  

How Does Satan Rule America?

On By Tyler BoydIn Uncategorized

See also:
The Principalities and Powers: The Invisible Rulers We Need To See
Are the Other “gods” of the Bible Real?
Do False Gods Still Rule the Nations?

In the book of Job, the adversarial spiritual being known as “Satan” tells the Lord that he has been “walking to and fro on the earth” (Job 1:7). Later, Scripture speaks even more plainly as Peter warns that “your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Together, these passages teach two important truths. First, Satan is indeed active in the world. But second, he is not omnipresent. Unlike God, who fills heaven and earth, Satan is a created being – limited in power, space, and knowledge.

He cannot be everywhere at once, nor can he focus personally on every individual at all times. So if Satan is neither all-powerful nor omnipresent, how is his influence so widespread?

Scripture gives us the answer: he works through deception and manipulation, operating indirectly through both heavenly powers and earthly rulers.

Satan’s Delegated Powers

The Bible reveals that Satan rules through a network of subservient spiritual beings who carry out his will. Jesus refers to “the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), and Revelation 12:9 says that “his angels were cast out with him.” These angels are real spiritual entities, operating under his command.

Satan also works through the rulers of the kingdoms of men. In Luke 4:5-7, he offered Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world,” declaring:

To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, worship me, it will all be yours.

That statement reveals that the nations of the world are, to a large degree, under Satan’s sway. When men reject God’s rule, they inevitably come under Satan’s. This is precisely why God warned Israel about seeking a human king.

And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Obey the voice of this people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.”

1 Samuel 8:7

Every earthly government that operates apart from God’s law is part of this same pattern of rebellion. This is why Paul wrote:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 6:12

Observe that Paul does not say our battle is simply against Satan himself, but against rulers and authorities – lesser powers, both spiritual and earthly, who derive their authority from him.

From Babel onward, every attempt by man to unite and govern themselves apart from God has been viewed in Scripture as rebellion. Each successive empire that flowed from Babel – Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Rome – follows that same pattern. Revelation 13:4 makes it clear that the “beast,” representing this kind of human government, receives “his power, throne, and authority” directly from “the dragon,” that is, from Satan.

And they worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?”

For this reason, we must learn to view earthly government itself as evidence of Satan’s ongoing rule in the world.

How This Pattern Appears in America

The United States of America is not exempt from this biblical pattern. The same spiritual forces that ruled over Babylon, Persia, and Rome still operate behind the scenes in modern nations.

Scripture teaches that the nations are not merely political realities, but spiritual ones as well. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 describes how, when God divided the nations, He “set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God,” indicating that each nation came under the oversight of its own spiritual being. Daniel 10 pulls back the curtain even further, showing us how the actions of earthly rulers reflect unseen interactions among heavenly “princes.” While Christians may differ on some of the interpretive details of these passages, what remains clear is that the nations operate under the influence of spiritual beings which stand in tension with God’s reign.

While these texts establish the reality of corrupt spiritual influences over the nations, we can also see this reality reflected in the symbols these cultures adopt for themselves. With this in mind, it’s worth noting how much of America’s national imagery draws straight from paganism. For instance, it is well known that the “D.C.” in “Washington D.C.” stands for the District of Columbia. But who is “Columbia”? Most people have never given it a second thought. Columbia was a mythical being created as a feminine personification of the spirit of America – often portrayed as a robed woman bearing a torch. The Statue of Liberty, in fact, was modeled after this image of Columbia.

Interestingly, the function of Columbia as the “spirit of America” closely resembles that of national deities in the ancient world. The Greeks personified their ideals in Athena, and the Romans embodied the power and destiny in the goddess Roma. In a similar way, Columbia was created to symbolize America’s ideals of enlightenment, liberty, and independence.

To be clear, this does not mean that Columbia is necessarily a literal goddess. We cannot identify her with any specific “principality or power” named in Scripture. Much like it would be impossible to prove that Athena and Roma accurately represent the actual spiritual rulers mentioned in Scripture, neither do we know any specific details about the actual spiritual entity that represents America. The image of Columbia can be easily explained as having arisen out of the Enlightenment-era admiration for Greek and Roman art and architecture. Scripture gives no detailed knowledge of the specific spiritual beings associated with modern nations, and it would be speculation to claim otherwise.

The existence of pagan symbols does not itself prove America’s corrupt spiritual allegiance; Scripture already does that. But the symbols arise from a culture’s imagination and reflect how a nation understands itself. In that sense, America’s pagan imagery mirrors what Scripture describes more broadly: every nation possesses a kind of spiritual “personality,” that is shaped by unseen powers that influence its values, priorities, and direction.  

So while we cannot know the specific identities or characteristics of the spiritual beings who stand behind the nations, we can know what the Bible plainly teaches – that the nations of the world are ruled by spiritual powers that exist in rebellion to God.  

The Rule of Satan

Here is what we know for certain from Scripture:

  • Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4).
  • He exercises his rule indirectly through spiritual and earthly principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12).
  • These powers exercise regional dominion, ruling over specific nations (Daniel 10:13, 20).

Just as the Sidonians had Ashtoreth, Moab had Chemosh, and Ammon had Molech (1 Kings 11:5-7), so too each modern nation operates under some spiritual power that mirrors what we see happening on earth.

When we see national symbols that mirror pagan forms, we should therefore take notice. The District of Columbia, the Washington Monument shaped like an Egyptian obelisk (a symbol of the sun god Ra), the Capitol city adorned with statues of Mars, the Lincoln Memorial modeled after a Greek temple – these are not insignificant. Even if their creators saw them as mere works of art, they are still pagan in origin and should remind every Christian of the deeper reality Scripture describes: America, like every other earthly nation, is under the rule of Satan and his principalities and powers.

For this reason, it should not surprise us that America is marked by constant warfare, widespread violence and division, deceptive and destructive economic policies, and the slaughter of millions of innocent children through abortion. These are the natural fruits of a kingdom ruled by Satan – the one who “comes only to steal and kill and destroy” (John 10:10). He steals through inflation and taxation, kills through war and violence, and destroys through corruption of truth and life itself.

The Christian Response

First, Christians must recognize that “the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one” (1 John 5:19). Satan works through both the earthly and spiritual rulers of the nations, deceiving them and spreading his lies. Revelation 13:14 and 20:3, 8 describe him as “the deceiver of the nations.”

Therefore, earthly governments – no matter how moral or democratic they may appear – remain part of the same system that rejects Christ’s kingship.

If these things are true – and Scripture insists they are – then uncomfortable questions inevitably follow. Christians must not confuse patriotism with faithfulness to Christ, or loyalty to a nation with allegiance to the kingdom of God.

How can any Christian pledge allegiance to a kingdom ruled by powers in rebellion against Christ? Why would a follower of Jesus devote his life to the service of a government that refuses His kingship? And how would a disciple of the Prince of Peace take up arms in defense of a nation whose authority arises from rejection of God’s rule?

For the time being, Satan continues to deceive the nations. Yet his rule is neither absolute nor enduring. Because of the gospel, his defeat is certain. “Then comes the end,” Paul writes, “when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power” (1 Corinthians 15:24).

Christ alone possesses “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). Therefore, the hope of every Christian must never be tethered to the doomed authorities of this world, but anchored in “the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ” (Revelation 11:15).

Every nation bears the marks of spiritual rebellion, but only one kingdom stands eternal – the kingdom of Christ. America, like all the nations in history, will rise and fall. Its monuments will eventually crumble. But the throne of Christ will never be shaken.

Our task as Christians is not to try to reform the Satanic kingdoms of this world into slightly more Christian versions of themselves, but to bear witness to a greater kingdom – to “proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Our allegiance belongs to Christ alone.

Do False Gods Still Rule the Nations?

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Spiritual Warfare

For many Christians today, the phrase “false gods” immediately brings to mind imaginary deities – empty carvings of wood and stone. These are seen as the inventions of primitive cultures and products of human superstition and ignorance.

As the previous two articles in this series have demonstrated, these false gods are not mere human inventions, but real spiritual beings. Scripture continually presents them as powerful entities who exert genuine influence over regions, nations, and rulers.

While the Bible affirms again and again that there is only one true God, the LORD, the Creator and Sovereign over all, it does not deny the existence of other spiritual beings – some of whom have been falsely worshipped as gods. These beings are real, but they are created beings, and far beneath the LORD in power and glory. You can read those two articles here:

The Regional “gods” in the Old Testament

The story of King Solomon provides a clear example of where the Bible refers to these “gods.” Scripture tells us that Solomon loved many foreign women – Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women. His decision to marry many of these foreign women was a direct violation of the LORD’s command:

You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.

1 Kings 11:2

And sure enough, Solomon’s heart was turned:

When Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites… Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrificed to their gods.

1 Kings 11:5; 7-8

Observe a few important things here:

  • Each of these gods is specifically named – Ashtoreth, Milcom, Chemosh, Molech.
  • The text never mocks these gods as imaginary or fictional
  • Each of the gods mentioned is associated with specific nations and regions

The picture presented by this biblical text – a picture of different spiritual beings attributed to different people groups – is not simply a reference to an ancient pagan worldview. It reflects a reality described in the Bible itself.

In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses describes how the LORD divided the nations of the world.

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
But the LORD’s portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9

This passage tells us that the Most High assigned the nations under the authority of various sons of God. Throughout the Old Testament, the phrase “sons of God” consistently refers to spiritual beings or angels (Job 1:6; Psalm 29:1). Thus, the text teaches that God allotted authority over specific nations to specific spiritual beings, while reserving Israel as His own possession.

But just like the nations themselves rebelled against the LORD, so also did these “sons of God.” That’s why Psalm 82 describes the LORD standing in judgment over these corrupt divine rulers.

God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked…
You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, like men you shall die
and fall like any prince.”
Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all nations.”

Psalm 82:1-2; 6-8

Spiritual Rulers in the Book of Daniel

The book of Daniel offers one of the clearest pictures of these heavenly rulers. When Daniel prays for understanding, an angelic messenger is delayed in delivering God’s answer:

The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me.

Daniel 10:13

Here the “prince of Persia” is clearly not a human ruler. It is a powerful spiritual being whose actions influence and are mirrored by the Persian empire. The angel Michael is described as “one of the chief princes,” – a heavenly counterpart fighting on behalf of Israel.

If we were to read the book of Daniel in the Septuagint – a Greek translation of the Old Testament used at the time of Christ and the apostles – we would see that both Michael and the Prince of Persia are described by the Greek word “archon,” meaning “ruler” or “authority.” This is significant, because this is the very word Paul later uses to describe the spiritual rulers and authorities that govern the present age of darkness.

  • “It is not a wisdom of this age or of the archon of this age, who are doomed to pass away” – 1 Corinthians 2:6
  • “The archon of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience” – Ephesians 2:2
  • “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the archon, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness.” – Ephesians 6:12

Paul was carrying forward the same worldview described in Deuteronomy 32 and Daniel 10. These regional spiritual “arche” are real, and their influence is reflected in the rise and fall of earthly nations.

The “God of This World”

Jesus Himself used similar language when describing the devil. Three times in John’s account of the gospel, He calls Satan “the ruler (archon) of this world.”

  • “Now the archon of this world will be cast out” – John 12:31
  • “The archon of the world is coming” – John 14:30
  • “The archon of this world is judged” – John 16:11

During His temptation in the wilderness, Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and claimed:

To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.

Luke 4:6

It is noteworthy that Jesus never disputes Satan’s claim, but rather Luke presents this offer as a legitimate temptation. The implication is that Satan truly holds authority in this present world – authority that has been claimed by him through the rebellion of mankind.

The “god” of all Nations

This same idea appears all throughout the New Testament. Paul calls Satan “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:2).

He is also identified as “the god of this age” who blinds the minds of unbelievers:

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:4

John likewise declares:

The whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

1 John 5:19

It would take some impressive hermeneutical gymnastics to avoid the clear conclusion: according to Scripture, Satan is the chief spiritual ruler of this present world system. Beneath him operate a host of rebellious spirits, sometimes referred to as his angels (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:7-9), and other times referred to as principalities and powers (Ephesians 1:20-21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 2:15). These are real, personal, heavenly beings who exercise real regional and cultural influence. Although these beings are destined for destruction (1 Corinthians 15:24), Scripture teaches that they do rule in this present age of darkness (1 Corinthians 2:6; Ephesians 2:2; 6:12).

If that is true, then it is not only ancient nations like Egypt, Moab, Canaan, Babylon, and Rome that were under such dominion. It means that every earthly nation today lies within his sphere of influence.

It means that:

  • Satan is the god of Russia.
  • Satan is the god of Japan.
  • Satan is the god of Nigeria.
  • Satan is the god of North Korea.
  • Satan is the god of the United States.

This worldview is not flattering to any earthly nation, but it is biblical. It reminds us that no worldly power, no matter how noble it may appear, is neutral. Every kingdom of man ultimately belongs to this present fallen order.

The Christian Response

If the nations of this world lie under the dominion of false gods, then Christians must be careful not to confuse patriotism with faithfulness to Christ.

We are citizens of another Kingdom – one not ruled by the god of this age, but by the Sovereign Lord of all creation. Therefore, as Revelation 18:4 declares,

Come out of her, my people,
lest you take part in her sins,
lest you share in her plagues.

Behind every throne stands a spiritual power, but above them all stands the LORD Most High, and His anointed King, Jesus – who is the Lord of lords and King of kings. His Kingdom cannot be shaken. The gods of the nations are real, but they are fallen and doomed for destruction. The LORD alone is God, and His Kingdom alone will stand forever.

Are the Other “gods” of the Bible Real?

On By Tyler BoydIn Spiritual Warfare

Many Christians grow up hearing that the other “gods” in the Bible are nothing more than carved idols or imaginary inventions. After all, the Bible insists in no uncertain terms that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

And yet, the inspired text often speaks of these other “gods” in ways that sound far more real than imaginary. For example, in the book of Psalms, the LORD is praised as being superior above all other “gods.” Psalm 95:3 declares: “The LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods,” and Psalm 97:9 states, “You are exalted far above all gods.” Psalm 29:1 even claims that the one God deserves worship from the other “elohim.” Even in the New Testament, in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, when Paul addresses the question of eating food offered to idols, he admitted that “indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’” (1 Corinthians 8:5) before clarifying that for Christians there is only one God (1 Corinthians 8:6).

So what do we make of this? Is God just accommodating ancient superstitions? Is He really praised for being greater than things that do not exist? How would such a claim bring honor to the LORD? If these “gods” were purely imaginary, then such praise would be trivial – like saying the Almighty is stronger than a fictional comic-book hero. To say that God is greater than an imaginary being would be an empty comparison, like claiming that the sun shines brighter than a shadow. The glory of God is not seen in contrast to what is unreal, but in His supremacy over all that truly exists.

Or could it be that Scripture is revealing something true about the spiritual world? Are these “other gods” genuine spiritual beings? Or are they simply the products of ancient imaginations? To answer this, we first need to examine the Bible’s own vocabulary for identifying these other gods.

The Hebrew Word Elohim

The English word “God” is a decent translation of the Hebrew word elohim, but it is not a perfect one. In English, the word “God” usually carries one of two meanings.

  1. (capitalized) The one true supreme being, the Creator of the universe
  2. (uncapitalized) A pretend deity, the gods from ancient mythology

But the Hebrew word elohim has a broader range of meaning.

1. Elohim as the Creator

Similar to the English word God, the Hebrew word is sometimes used to refer to the one true Creator of the universe. The very first verse of Scripture says “In the beginning, elohim created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Over and over again, Israel’s God is identified as elohim (Exodus 3:6; Deuteronomy 4:35; Psalm 100:3). When used in this way, the text always sets Him apart as unique, sovereign, and incomparable (Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 86:10).

2. Elohim as the gods of the nations

Also similar to the English word God, the Hebrew word is sometimes used to refer to the false gods of the nations. The Ten Commandments forbids Israel from having any “other elohim” before the LORD (Exodus 20:3). Deuteronomy observed that the surrounding nations “served their elohim” (Deuteronomy 29:26). It can be observed that the word elohim functions as both singular and plural, so determining whether it refers to “God” or false “gods” requires examination of the context.

3. Elohim as other spiritual beings

This is where it gets interesting. Elohim can also refer to other spiritual beings we normally wouldn’t call “gods” in English.

Psalm 8:5 says that mankind was created “a little lower than the elohim.” Translations of this verse vary. ESV translates elohim here as “heavenly beings.” KJV and NIV translate it as “angels.” The Greek Septuagint, used by Jesus and the apostles, chose “angels,” a rendering confirmed by inspiration in Hebrews 2:6-8. Regardless of how we translate it, it is clear that mankind was created a little lower than real spiritual beings.

Psalm 82 describes God as presiding in a divine council:

God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

Psalm 82:1

Again, God is described as holding judgment in a council of real spiritual beings.

In 1 Samuel 28:13, when Saul consults the witch of En-dor, she reports: “I see a god coming up out of the earth.” Again, she did indeed see a real spiritual being coming up out of the earth – the deceased human Samuel.

In short, elohim is not a title restricted to the Supreme Creator. It is a more general word for inhabitants of the spiritual realm, many of which are indeed very real. There is certainly a sense in which the LORD is the one true Elohim, but the Bible also recognizes the existence of other real spiritual beings, which Scripture refers to as elohim.

So when we ask, “Are the other gods in the Bible real?” the answer depends on what we mean by “gods.” If by “gods” we mean spiritual beings in a general sense, then yes – the Bible teaches that other “gods” are real.

There is Only One LORD

But while the Bible acknowledges the reality of other spiritual beings, it never endorses what people today refer to as polytheism. The God of Israel is utterly unique, set apart from all others.

Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?

Exodus 15:11

For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as yours?

Deuteronomy 3:24

There is none like you among the gods, O Lord.

Psalm 86:8

For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.

Psalm 95:3

For you, O LORD, are most high over all the earth; you are exalted above all gods.

Psalm 97:9

No, these passages are not comparing God to imaginary beings like Captain America or Spider-man. These passages proclaim that the LORD is supreme above all real spiritual beings.

The LORD is unique in His power (Jeremiah 32:17, 27; Psalm 115:3) and is the Creator of all others (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 148:1-5). As Nehemiah 9:6 plainly states, “You are the LORD, you alone.”

Just because the Bible says that there are other elohim, it quite plainly denies polytheism. It continually exalts the one incomparable God above all other spiritual beings.

Why Call Them “False Gods”?

If other elohim exist, why does Scripture so often label them as “false gods” (2 Chronicles 13:9; Isaiah 44:9-20)?

Because their claims to deity are false.

  • They are not equal to the LORD
  • They did not create heaven and earth
  • Their power is incomparable to the LORD’s
  • They cannot save, redeem, or give life

Compared to the LORD, they are “nothing” (Isaiah 41:24). Not because they don’t exist, but because their claims are empty.

Think of it this way: If I were to point out a con artist, and ask you “Is that con artist real?” how would you respond? Of course the con artist is real, in the sense the con artist is an actual person. But is the character the con artist pretends to be real? And are the stories the con artist tells real? Of course not! In the same way, these “other gods” in the Bible are real spiritual beings, but their claims to supremacy and their calls for worship and allegiance are lies.

Deuteronomy 32:17 clarifies that when Israel sacrificed to other “gods,” they were really sacrificing to demons.

They sacrificed to demons that were no gods,
to gods they had never known,
to new gods that had come recently,
whom your fathers had never dreaded.

Paul makes the same point in 1 Corinthians 10:19-20: pagan sacrifices are not meaningless gestures to imaginary idols – they are participation with demons.

What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to gods. I do not want you to be participants with demons.

Likewise, Galatians 4:8 says that Gentiles were enslaved to “those that by nature are not gods.” They were real beings – beings who were capable of enslaving – but not true gods.

So, Are the Other Gods Real?

Yes and no.

Yes, if by “real” we mean actual spiritual beings who exist behind the veil of the unseen spiritual realm.

No, if by “real” we mean equal rivals to the Creator.

The Bible affirms the reality of a spiritual world filled with many spiritual beings, beings which at times are referred to as elohim. But the Bible never compromises the uniqueness of the LORD God.

We do not live in a world with one God who actually exists and countless imaginary ones. We live in a world where the one true God reigns supreme over a host of other real, but lesser, spiritual beings.

And in such a world, the call remains the same:

Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Deuteronomy 6:4