Gods vs. God: Unmasking the Semantic Showdown in Biblical Monotheism

Etymologies Matter

A recent blog series by pastor Drew Grumbles has begun critiquing Jon Moffitt’s claim (and my own, although he has been more vocal about it in the blogosphere) that spiritual beings like angels and demons are “real gods,” arguing it risks undermining biblical monotheism and Reformed and even more broadly Christian theology. I’m thankful for many of the things pastor Grumbles says in this piece. He is engaging in some of the ideas we have been presenting in writing and on our Reformed Fringe podcast, such as the admission that other entities are in fact called elohim and that there is a heavenly council of beings of some kind, and his tone has been mostly positive in nature. Yet, the purpose of this post is to point out that the critique at least in Part I falls into circular reasoning by presupposing that “god” must mean an uncreated, divine being.

Grumbles never defines “God.” Yet, everything in his article presupposes a definition that "g-o-d" must refer to a set of divine attributes possessed by and therefore identifying only one uncreated entity. Yet the historical meanings of the Hebrew elohim, Greek theos, Latin deus, and English god reveal no issue in calling spiritual beings “gods” when understood correctly. By capitalizing “God” for Yahweh/the Lord, Christians easily distinguish His unique attributes, rendering this debate semantic rather than substantive and theological.

The Hebrew elohim comes from a Semitic root for “power” or “might.” It is used in Scripture for the Lord (Gen 1:1) and other created entities that man was made lower than (Ps 8:5). Without getting into an exegesis of the passage, we find the same word used of both God and other entities in a divine council (Ps 82, ESV, NET). Having power and might is not an attribute Yahweh alone possesses; Yahweh has power and other entities created by him have power. We call this a communicable attribute, because it can be communicated to the creature. What Yahweh possesses which they do not is omnipotence—an incommunicable attribute. There is nothing in the etymology of the term elohim that in and of itself demands omnipotence, either in every occurrence in Scripture or in its etymology. That’s why it can be used (and indeed is, hundreds of times) of God and other created beings, even though we translate it all with the letters g-o-d.

The Greek term theos likely derives from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) dʰéh₁s meaning “sacred” or “shine.” It applies to deities like Zeus, lesser spirits, or the Lord in the Septuagint (Gen 1:1). It is always translated as "g-o-d" into English. There is nothing about shining or being sacred that necessitates only Yahweh can possess those attributes. What distinguishes Yahweh is that He is Light and Holy. These are intrinsic to his indivisible uncreated simple nature. Yet he communicates a kind of lesser-glory and sacredness to some parts of his creation, be it man or temples or angels. Angels are said to shine, for example. Given that theos always translates elohim in the LXX, this is again not a term that describes incommunicable attributes that only one Being may possess, which is why it could be used for both God and other entities that truly exist without compromising God at his essential being.  

The Latin deus, from deywós (“sky”), covers Roman gods and Christian usage for the Lord in the Vulgate. Certainly, when we think of angelic creatures, we understand their relationship to the sky or heavens. That’s where they come from or are said to reside. Therefore, it was a fine term to translate elohim or theos (it does both) as it does not convey any intrinsic incommunicable attributes in its etymology.

Most relevantly to our discussion, the English word god may originate in the Proto-Germanic gudą (“to invoke”). Like the Greek and Latin terms, it originally denoted deities such as before Christian adoption (such as Thor, Odin, Freyja, Eostre, Wralda, and Sunna). On the other hand, it may originate in the PIE word ghu-to, meaning “poured,” as in pouring out a libation. But whether it be invoking or pouring out libations to an entity, surely, God is not the only one that people have performed these actions towards. Obviously, the Bible and a Christian would argue that God is the only one who we should do this for, but nevertheless, this is the reason g-o-d was chosen to translate elohim and theos. Again, and perhaps especially, our English word g-o-d did not etymologically originate in something possessed by only the One True God. It was never an ontological term describing a set of incommunicable attributes. Concluding, from power and authority to sacred roles and shining, none of these terms ever originally referred to an uncreated essence.

"God" as referring to one and only one Being is a modern English definition ascribed to the letters g-o-d that we mitigate and elucidate through the use of capitalization rules. Over time, Christian convention began to capitalize “God” when denoting the God of the Bible and the Lord’s unique, uncreated nature as distinct from lowercase gods. This distinction, rooted in theology, not etymology, clearly and easily clarifies that Yahweh is distinct from the gods on an ontological level. Honestly, this isn’t a hard one. The gods are not God, something you can easily identify in the written text. Everyone knows you don’t call Satan God, even though he is “the god of this world” (2Cor 4:4). You call him a god. Capitalization matters. Notice, we sometimes even put the little indefinite article “a” in front of it for further clarification, just as all orthodox Christians love to point out in the JW’s New World translation of John 1:1. Jesus is not “a” god. He is God.

By ignoring the non-ontological roots of elohim, theos, deus, and god, and presupposing a newer definition that we clearly identify with the capital “G,” well-meaning Christians risk fueling unnecessary division. In some cases—though thankfully not yet in this series of articles—it has become more than a risk, and thus something that I thought I should finally weigh in on in writing. The etymology of "god" seemed like an important place to do it, as it is rarely discussed what these letters actually mean; it is only presupposed.

Recognizing spiritual beings as “gods” in their biblical, functional sense rather than the newer ontological meaning enhances our understanding of the biblical texts and translations without challenging monotheism or feeling the need to philosophize away what it is saying by suggesting things such as nothing other than God is "really" a god. Here’s to hoping that this short blog might inspire people to take the high-road in these discussions, be slow to dismiss (or worse) those who disagree, and quick to listen and truly try to understand what others are saying, presupposing that when they claim something like a confession of faith as their own, that they actually do affirm it. Addendum: Jon gave a response to pastor Grumbles first post here. Doug Van Dorn

Aug 5, 2025