Stoicheia vs. Elohim: Unraveling Misread Proof-Texts in the Monotheism Debate

One of the several suggested meanings of "Stoicheia" (Gal 4:8): Earth, Water, Air, Fire

Two verses often arise as a common objection to the idea that other gods are properly called gods. In my first two posts, I dealt with how the etymology of four terms for God describe communicable attributes and then explained how the Bible has more than one definition of the idea of “g-o-d.” In this post, I will explain why the two verses discussed here are not sound objections to other gods being properly called gods.

The first verse is Galatians 4:8, “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.” On the surface, it looks as if nothing is properly called “g-o-d” except for God. Only God is God by his nature. But this verse necessitates actual exegesis before coming to that conclusion. It is not a sound argument to presuppose the desired meaning.

First of all, I have no bone to pick with the translation  of the ESV here. Paul is indeed saying that something is by nature not properly designated as “gods.” But what? We need to ask, what are “those” that are by nature not gods? To find the answer, we must keep reading. Vs. 9 adds, “But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?” The ESV calls them “weak and worthless elementary principles of the world.” To what does this refer? To everything the OT identifies as elohim—be they the gods of the nations, angels, demons, or even the dead Samuel? No.

The word used here is stoicheia. As we will see, it is vital that we understand that there is not just one kind of created entity in the spiritual realm. Rather, there is a “host” of heaven. The word derives from the Greek root stich- (στίχ-), meaning “row” or “rank,” related to stoichos (row or line, as in soldiers' formation).^[1] In other words, like so many other words used of entities in the spiritual realm such as god, angel (messenger), devil (slanderer), satan (accuser), cherubim (guardian), and so on, it is a word describing function, not essence or being.

As the DDD entry for stoicheia explains, the word could encompass several possibilities in its use in the ancient world. 1. impersonal cosmic principles, such as the basic constituents of the universe (earth, water, air, fire; Plato, Empedocles); 2. philosophical concepts akin to natural laws, as Greek thinkers like Heraclitus and Empedocles defined them, often linked to ritual observances like calendrical cycles (Gal 4:10); 3. impersonal ritualistic systems, particularly Jewish or pagan calendars, which Paul perhaps identifies in vs. 10; 4. semi-personal cosmic powers, such as astrological forces or zodiacal spirits revered in Hellenistic religion (Diogenes Laertius, Testament of Solomon 8:2-4); or 5. personal divine beings, such as fallen angels, star deities, or national gods akin to the beney-elohim who rule nations in the Old Testament (Deut 32:8-9; Ps 82:1, 6).

Scholars have no firm conclusions on which is meant in Galatians. If impersonal, stoicheia lack the attributes (power, sacredness, heavenly origin) that might otherwise qualify for them to be considered gods on a communicable-attribute definition. Thus, they are not gods by nature, exactly as the text reads. But that certainly doesn’t mean that other entities aren’t gods—only that the stoicheia aren’t. If personal, they may be gods in the lesser, created sense, subordinate to the LORD (Deut 10:17), having all the attributes of created gods, but still distinct from the true God (1 Cor 8:6). If this is the case, then it could be argued that “by nature are not gods” has in mind the definition of the One True God, although I think the plural “gods” here makes this less likely. On this account, one would have thought Paul would have said “by nature are not God.” Either way, each view aligns with the biblical affirmation of God’s unique divinity (Isa 44:6) while allowing for the reality of lesser spiritual entities that are properly called gods.

That takes me to the second passage. 1Cor 8:4 says, “Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one." Going back to the previous article, if we say that "God" here means the Creator with all of his divine attributes that he alone is, then this is true, there is only one God. This is almost certainly what Paul means. However, he hasn't finished his discussion; it has only just begun.

The Apostle continues, “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.” This is the ESV translation. Notice a couple of things. First, it says “so-called gods.” Curiously, the KJV reads merely that they are “called gods…” “So-called” is an interpretation of the translator not necessarily inherent to the original text. Second, note the quotes around “gods” and “lords.” We might refer to these as scare-quotes. They are not original and are meant to scare you into buying into the interpretation that these entities are only “so-called.” They aren’t really gods. They are only (quote) “gods” (end-quote).

Now compare this to something like Young’s Literal Translation, “Even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth—as there are gods many and lords many.” This much more literal translation affirms that there are entities called gods, and then affirms that they are real by not supplying the scare-quotes. These are very different ideas. So which is correct?

First of all, it needs to be pointed out that the participle legomenoi (“so-called”) comes from the extremely common lemma legō and simply means “being called” or “named.” It is neutral, indicating that certain entities are designated as gods by someone (e.g., pagans, Scripture). There is no inherent grammatical marker in the term that explicitly conveys “so-called” (i.e., falsely or allegedly called). The verb itself does not carry a pejorative or skeptical connotation; it describes the act of naming without judgment. “So-called” is an interpretive addition, inferred from context.

So what is that context and is this interpretation justifiable? On one hand, you have Paul immediately affirming that there are other gods and other lords. So that would seem to negate them being “so-called.” Enter the scare quotes. As soon as you add those, suddenly they are no longer really gods. But this becomes a circular argument very quickly: “gods” are quoted because they’re “so-called,” and “so-called” because quoted, all driven by a presupposition that gods are unreal. This is not allowing the text to speak for itself.

But there is one more place in the immediate context where someone might justifiably come to the conclusion that the gods are not real. This is vs. 4. “We know that ‘an idol has no real existence.’” Now, even here, the ESV supplies quotation marks. I’m neutral on that here, as it doesn’t really do anything to the meaning other than shift the origin of the idea from Paul to the Corinthians. But either way, someone is teaching that idols have no real existence. So if one conflates idols with gods, as if they are one and the same, then it is easy to see why someone would translate vs. 5 like the ESV does.

The problem is, technically speaking, idols are not gods. They are houses for the gods to dwell in or be localized in a particular place. That’s for another blog post. For here, it should be enough to simply quote the end of Paul’s lengthy argument in 1Cor 10:19-20. He picks back up his comment from 8:4 that he digressed on for a couple of chapters by asking, “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?” But then he concludes, “I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.” Demons are real entities that were housed inside of the idols! So of course Paul would say in 8:4 that “idols are nothing.” Houses have no living existence. But gods do. And when understood properly, neither 1Cor 8:5 nor Gal 4:8 is saying anything contrary to basic classical Christian theism. There is only one God and no one else is him. But there are other gods and they are by their creature nature actually gods—not God—but gods, created entities that nevertheless share communicable attributes with their Creator. Galatians and Corinthians do not contain proof-texts that there are no other entities called gods. In fact, they actually proclaim the exact opposite: the stoicheia are not gods as other beings are and there are in fact other beings that are called gods, indeed, there are many of them.

^[1] On the etymology and meanings below, see L. J. Alderink, “Stoicheia,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 815–818. Doug Van Dorn Aug 11, 2025