Upon accepting the Bible as the true, inspired word of God, what becomes one of the most important things to recognize is the true identity of God.  Some say that he is a Trinity, others that he is one that reveals himself through different revelations, and others that God is simply God, the Father and the Almighty.   

Discussing this subject requires that one first understand the word “God” and how it is used within Scripture.  Acquiring such an understanding demands that several questions be answered:  Is there only one God?  Can the title of "god" also be applied to others?  If so, who?  What does the title actually mean? 

The Bible was penned primarily in Hebrew and Greek.  These languages each have a word that is translated by the English word god.  When many read this word in the Bible they err in assuming a limited meaning that did not exist in Biblical times. Carl Mosser explains: “Moderns are often unaware that Θέος [God] had a much broader semantic range than is allowed for G/god in contemporary Western European languages.“[1]   

In Biblical times the words translated "god" was applied to the Almighty, false idols and even numerous others.  The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary states: “GODS (Heb. elohim).  This term for deity is used in a threefold connotation in the O[ld]T[estament]: (1) In a singular sense of the one true God in a plural of majesty and excellence.  It is construed with a singular verb or adjective (Gen. 1:1; 2 Kings 19:4, 16; Pss. 7:10; 57:3; 78:56) but with a plural verb only in certain phrases… (3) Of judges or prophets as ‘to whom the word of God came’ (John 10:35; Ps. 82:6), and whom God consequently dignified with authority to bear His own name (Ex. 21:6, see marg.; 22:8; ‘judges’)…”[2] 

In examining Scripture, numerous examples can be found to demonstrate that the Bible properly refers to others as gods.   The Septuagint tells us that Moses was a god to Pharaoh, (Ex. 7:1 LXX) and he was certainly not a false god.  Further, we find that the judges of Israel are at times termed to be gods in Scripture. (Psa. 82:6) On this text The Bible Knowledge Commentary states: “The psalmist envisioned God presiding over an assembly of judges. The word gods (’ělōhîm) is used here for authorities in Israel (cf. 45:6; Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9). Some have thought this refers to angels (e.g., the Syriac trans.) in God’s heavenly court. However, the remainder of the psalm clarifies that these are God’s representatives who are in authority on earth.”[3]  Keil and Delitzsch further note: “Everywhere among men, but here pre-eminently, those in authority are God's delegates and the bearers of His image, and therefore as His representatives are also themselves called elohim, ‘gods’.”[4]  

In the case of Psalm 82:6, some have argued that this text presents some type of irony or sarcasm, where the judges were not given the title of gods in a positive sense.  Keil and Delitzsch long ago refuted this notion, stating: “The idea that the appellation elohim, which they have given to themselves, is only sarcastically given back to them in Psa 82:1 (Ewald, Olshausen), is refuted by Psa 82:6, according to which they are really elohim by the grace of God.”[5]  This is evident by the  their being "gods" and also "sons of the most high" in parallel within 82:6, for there is no way in which they could be God's sons in a negative sense.

Indeed, numerous scholars, even Trinitarian, have confessed this application. An exposition of this truth is seen in the words of Bible commentator John Gill.  He explains: “Here called Elohim, gods, because they were God's vicegerents, and represented him, and acted under his power and authority; and who at this present were Moses, and those that judged the people under him, and afterwards the seventy elders, and all such who in succeeding times were judges in Israel, and bore the office of civil magistrates.”[6] 

What though of others?  Indeed humans can be called gods in the sense of divine appointment, but what of angels?  A verse  debated on this issue is Psalm 8:5, where the text reads elohim, which can be translated either gods or God.  The translators of the Septuagint understood the text to be a reference to angels, themselves providing such a rendering, thereby giving weight to translating the Hebrew text as gods.  This view is also reinforced by the author of Hebrews, himself quoting the text with the reading “angels.” (Heb. 2:7)   

Examining the text in question, we can solidify this position, noting that throughout this Psalm the author is directly addressing God, making use of pronouns.  Were he simply making reference to God creating man a little lower than himself, another pronoun would have found itself much more suiting that elohim.  Yet this pronoun is absent and elohim is used, indicating that elohim is a reference to ones other than the one being addressed.  Other texts provide similar meaning, such as where the angels are referenced to as gods in Psalm 97:7.  Here the Hebrew text reads "gods" while the LXX explains it to be referring to "angels."

Within early Jewish writings  we also find references to others as gods.  A significant reference is observed within the Dead Sea Scrolls: “And exalt his exaltation to the heights, gods of the august divinities, and the divinity of his glory above all the august heights. For he is God of the gods … Sing with joy those of you enjoying his knowledge, with rejoicing among the wonderful gods … Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the main vault of the heights … The spirits of the holy of the holy ones, the living gods, the spirits of everlasting holiness.”[7]

The application of the title “god” to others is seen to be appropriate in certain circumstances.  One must be careful in this though, for the only time such circumstances seem to allow themselves are when one is appointed to such a position by God, typically seen by the authority they carry to exercise or in the role they are seen to function.  For one to be a god that is not false one must be made such a god by God Almighty.

No Other Gods?
In view of the conclusion just made, what of the texts that speak of there being no other gods besides the Almighty?  Are we creating a contradiction?  Or is it simply more valid to look at the context of such statements to consider who they  are in reference to? 

Of the verses prominently noted to deny the existence of other gods, by far the most common would be Isaiah 43:10.   This text reads, “Before Me there was no God formed; nor shall any be after Me.”  The point of this text is not whether or not  other gods exist, but it is stressing God's eternal existence.  There was no time when God was not and there is no time to come where he will not exist, so there is no such thing as a "before him" or "after him."  God is eternal and this is all that can be derived from the text.

Within Isaiah several other passages are mentioned, but the key understanding to these passages is the context.  When he is speaking of the non-existence of these other gods, is he speaking of the angels, the judges of Israel or something else?  These passages find Jehovah contrasting himself with the gods of the nations.  These gods are made of various physical materials that men use to form them.  

Isaiah 40:19 The craftsman pours out the casted image, the smelter spreads it with gold; and he casts the chains of silver. 20 He too poor for that offering chooses a tree that will not rot; he seeks a skilled artisan for him, to prepare a carved image that will not be shaken.[8] 

This same line of thought continues, where God focuses his attention on these as man-made creations, not ones that are properly identified as gods.  While God strengthens his people, idol makers are the ones that must actually strengthen their own gods! 

Isaiah 41:7 So the carver strengthens the refiner; and he smoothing with the hammer, him who struck the anvil, saying of the soldering, It is good. And he made it strong with nails; it will not totter. 

We come to learn that those who hold idols as their gods and come to realize the truth will be ashamed of their former course; they will realize that all of their activities that centered around these gods were in vain. 

Isaiah 42:17 they are turned back; they are ashamed with shame, those trusting in the carved image, who say to cast images, You are our gods. 

Following chapter 43 we find that the context of idols continues.  Chapter 44:9-20 continues this line of thought, well establishing the context of gods as being those man-made idols, not those divinely appointed and exercising authority granted by God Almighty.  These idol makers are forming their gods out of various materials, but in fact they are not gods at all.  They are merely statues with absolutely no power behind them, and thus they are not gods at all.   

Isaiah 41:29 Look, all of them are nothing, their accomplishments are nonexistent; their metal images lack any real substance.[9] 

That the point of there being no gods (Isa. 44:6) excludes those given divine authority to act as such is evident by the context, where the role of savior is discussed.  We note that God also claims there to be no savior other than himself. (Isa. 43:11)  We accept this statement as true, but we must also accept it relative to the context of God in contrast to the idols, with God being the absolute source of all salvation.   

Looking to the Bible, one cannot neglect that others are also rightfully given the title of savior.  Specifically we take note of Ehud, where he was termed a savior.   

Judges 3:15 And the sons of Israel cried to Jehovah, even Jehovah raised up a savior to them, Ehud the son of Gera, a son of the Benjamite, a man with his right hand impeded. And the sons of Israel sent a present by his hand to Eglon the king of Moab. 

The key to this text is that it is appropriate for Ehud to be called a savior, but he is such because God placed him within that position.  The same is true for those who are called gods.  No one can be a god in and of himself to any, but one must receive something from God in order to be one.  They function as gods just as Ehud served the function of being a savior.   

What though of other texts that make similar statements to those found in 44:6 and other places?  One such example is Jeremiah 10:11, where we read: “The gods who have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens.”  One cannot overlook that the context of this text is also the idols. 

Jeremiah 10:3 For the ordinances of the people are vanity. For one cuts a tree out of the forest with the axe, the work of the hands of the craftsman. 4 They adorn it with silver and with gold; they make them strong with nails and hammers, so that it will not wobble. 5 They are like a rounded post, and they cannot speak; carrying they must be carried, because they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil nor good; it is not with them.

Noteworthy is that even if one were to ignore the context of the gods that were being discussed, that one would find that the context does exclude the angels, where it is specifically limited to destroying those on “the earth” and “from under these heavens”, not those in heaven.   

Finally, let us look at two texts which state that we are to have “no gods before [God],” Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7.  As noted by both Brown, Driver and Briggs and The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, the word here translated as “before” carries with it the sense of opposition.  In other words, it would convey the thought of the idol gods of the nations who God are opposed to, not those who receiving the title by divine selection.   

The One and Only True God
Scripture commonly speaks of there being one God and by this some have argued that there can be none who receive the title in a lesser sense.  The apostle Paul provided for us several statements expressing the fact that there is God, such as the following. 

1 Timothy 2:5 For God is one, also there is one Mediator of God and of men, the Man Christ Jesus,  

We must ask what the 1^st century author meant when he spoke of an individual being the one to fill that role.  Did he exclude others from filling that role in a any sense, or did he understand this to mean that the one in question was filling that role in the ultimate sense with others doing so in a less absolute sense? 

Using Scripture, we have come to conclude the latter as being true, where the “one God” would be God in the highest sense of the word.  This conclusion is brought from there not only being others who are rightfully called gods, but more importantly we conclude this from an example of a parallel expression. 

Looking to John chapter eight we find that Jesus and the Jews are in very heavy discussion.  Accusations are going back and forth, obviously with those made by Jesus being true.  In responding to one such accusation we find the Jews state what follows.

John 8:41 You do the works of your father. They said to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have one father, God.

Would it be correct to conclude that the Jews had God as their Father in an exclusive sense, where none would be their Father in any way at all?  Or is it more natural to take this to mean that he is their Father in the highest sense of the word?   Looking back a few verses we can come to only one conclusion. 

John 8:39 They answered and said to Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. 

Abraham was also their Father, but the point is that he was not such in the same sense as God. So too ones can be called gods and yet not be false gods or the one God.  They serve a function where the title becomes appropriate for them, and yet they are not gods in the absolute sense of the Almighty. 

What though of Jesus’ reference to the only true God? (Joh. 17:3)  If he is the only one that is true, would it not make all others false?  Not necessarily.  The key to this issue is having an understanding of the Greek word here translated as true, αληθινος.  As explained by The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, “the opposite is not necessarily false”.[10]  This point is well-attested to with several New Testament texts.  

Consider the example presented by the author of Hebrews.  Within chapter 9 verse 24 he speaks of Jesus entering heaven, not the holy of holies.  He explains that this is not “the true things” but simply a type of them. 

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ did not enter into the Holy of Holies made by hands, types of the true things, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf, 

Would the Holy of Holies in the physical temple, not having been “the true things,” be considered false?  It certainly would not, but as a type of them, the physical Holy of Holies in the temple on Earth is based upon what is in heaven, which is the archetype or prototype.  The one built upon the earth was an image of the one in heaven, much like Jesus is the image of God. (Col. 1:15)

Another example is found when Jesus is spoken of as being “the true light.” (Joh. 1:9)  As such, it would be an erroneous to argue that all lights other than “the true light” were false lights.  Indeed, Christians are spoken of as being “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14,16) and they are not false lights, but lights based upon the archetypal human light, Jesus Christ. 

Origen, a native speaker of Koine Greek within the early church, was apparently aware of this point in his commentary on the phrase “the true God”.  Speaking on this, he noted: “The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.”[11]     

Marvin Vincent's comments prove to be some of the most insightful. He states: "A different word, αηληθής, also rendered true, occurs at iii. 33; v. 31; vii. 13, and elsewhere. The difference is that αηληθής signifies true, as contrasted with false; while αηληθινός [the word used to speak of God as "the only true God"] signifies what is real, perfect, and substantial, as contrasted with what is fanciful, shadowy, counterfeit, or merely symbolic. Thus God is αηληθής (John iii. 33) in that He cannot lie. He is αηληθινός (1Thess. i. 9), as distinguished from idols. In Heb. viii. 2, the heavenly tabernacle is called αηληθινή, as distinguished from the Mosaic tabernacle, which was a figure of the heavenly reality (Heb. ix.24). Thus the expression true light denotes the realization of the original divine idea of the Light - the archetypal Light, as contrasted with all imperfect manifestations: 'the Light which fulfilled all that had been promised by the preparatory, partial, even fictitious lights which had existed in the world before.'"[12] 

Even the idols, though truly false gods, were based upon the archetypal God Jehovah.  They are modeled after in him that they are assigned by the nations functions that belong to the true God.  It is not that they truly carried out these functions, but it was only claimed by the worshippers of these that they did. 

Conclusion
It is clearly seen that texts must always be kept within context.  The expressions used must be understood within the mindset of the author's contemporaries.  Attempting to import a modern view into the language of the day can result in serious exegetical error. 

Considering these texts we note that there is one true God in the ultimate sense, where ones can be called gods in a proper sense, though only when granted such a position by the Almighty.  When we examine texts that deny the existence of other gods, it is essential to keep these texts in context in order to determine which gods are being discussed, and as we have here seen, the context consistently consists of the false, idol gods.