Tag Archive: Polytheism



20Out in the open wisdom calls aloud, she raises her voice in the public square. 21On top of the wall she cries out, at the city gate she makes her speech. 22How long will you who are simple love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?23Repent at my rebuke! Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings.” —Proverbs 1:20-23

 photo wisdom_zpseb73adf9.jpg
There are many things that set the Holy Bible apart from other books of antiquity. One simply is how people respond to it. Out of all books of antiquity it is unique in that almost every world view attempts to come to the Holy Bible, have it validate their belief system, or, on the other hand, they attempt to use it against itself to disprove it’s authenticity. These arguments run the gamut from being absurd and silly, to requiring extensive study by believers to provide an adequate answer against the charges. This charge, in particular, has surprised me for a couple reasons. First, due to its absurdity, and because I have heard it more than once. One would be most inclined to think the more absurd a charge is the rarer it becomes. Yet, there are those examples where there are shallow and boundless absurdities which we hear time and time again. This is one such charge.
 photo 383_zpsac971fa1.gifThe charge regarding Proverbs is that it denotes and thus “proves” a kind of polytheism. Polytheism is simply the belief in many gods, appropriately from the Greek’s, who had their own mythology concerning many gods and demi gods, “Polys” meaning “many.” At any rate, it has been argued that wisdom, which is personified more than once in Proverbs, is indeed reference to another god rather than an attribute of God. I find this to be quite an odd argument because of the fact that personification of concepts within forms of writing is such a prevalent instrument. From pop lit to the archaic, personification has been used in everything from these abstract concepts, like wisdom, to nature and animal forms. This being the case, to jump to such a literal conclusion is quite silly. Yet, here it is.

To somewhat prove the case that this isn’t a separate god speaking, but rather the one and true God, we only need to look at the gender of this personification. Wisdom is regarded as a female, while God is almost always depicted as male, when we take into account the personal pronouns which reference God Himself. This is nothing against the female gender mind you, quite the contrary, but what it does symbolize is God’s role when we come to him for salvation. He provides for us and we, the church, are His bride. The irony of this view, made even more ironic because it is argued from the point of view of feminists, is that if one is to hold that the female gender is derogatory in symbolism, and that we, that is all human kind, are referred to in a the female gender, it requires a derogatory view of the self if one is remain in complete coherence with that view.

What we have here is not a literal personification, but rather an abstract personification of one of the attributes of God. Verse 23 says:

“Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings.”

To, “pour out,” is a not uncommon phrase in Scripture which is attributed to God, for God holds the cup of wisdom and pours it out to anyone who repents. Thus, the wisdom spoke of here is not a deity, but a part of God, not apart. There are a couple other curiosities to this verse which speak of and to wisdom. One of these I believe to be so profound that I have not grasped the real gravity of it. Thus, if there are any out there with insight, I would appreciate further clarification in the comments section immediately below this post.

It is interesting, but wisdom is said of speaking in four locations. This is the profoundness of which I speak. These are, out in the open, in the public square, on the top of the wall, and at the city gate. Instead of the Scripture saying, “Wisdom cries out…,” it gives us these four specific locales. Why? Though I do not claim to understand the full significance, and I have an inkling there is more, I think there are a few things we can safely and scripturally determine to be the case here. “Out in the open,” may refer to the fact that even outside men, independent of them, this Godly wisdom exists. “In the public square,” can signify that among men God’s wisdom calls to us.

“At the city gate,” I believe may need some clarification. Unlike contemporary cities, cities of antiquity were often surrounded by a wall and often had one or several gates that led into or out of the city. These gates were closed at times at certain hours and most definitely when the city was under siege. When someone was said to be at the gates, it is equivalent to saying, “Someone is at the door.” Meaning that one was or is on the other side. Thus, when wisdom calls out from the city gate, she is not crying out from inside, but from outside! This is symbolic of the human heart who has erected walls or strongholds against the wisdom of God, and God Himself. Despite this wisdom still cries out. “She” cannot be silenced.
 photo atthegates_zps04295a45.jpg“On top of the wall,” is a metaphor for this wisdom being loftier than man’s wisdom. Though it can be among men, it is greater than man and his own knowledge, reason or logic. As I had said before, the polytheistic argument is used other places in Proverbs. This includes Proverbs chapter 9. Here, in Verse 3, the lofty metaphor is repeated once more.

“She (wisdom) has sent out her servants, and she calls from the highest point of the city.” —Proverbs 3:9

Saint Thomas Aquinas quotes it another way:

“Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower.” —Proverbs 3:9

 photo STA_zpse3ec512e.jpg
Aquinas himself uses the verse to attempt to prove that the Sacred Doctrine is more noble than other sciences, but does liken the metaphor to its transcending nature:

“Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others whether speculative or practical.” —Saint Thomas Aquinas

It is interesting to note that chapter 9 holds a lot of similarities to chapter 1. However, what we can gather from all this is that there is this transcending nature to wisdom and not only that but, there is also the apparent meaning that wisdom is everywhere, though not all men choose to recognize or hear it. This is utmost importance do to it being repeated. As we continue in chapter 1 this becomes more apparent.

“How long will you who are simple love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mocking and fools hate knowledge.” —Proverbs 1:22

It is quite fascinating that we are able to define what we are simply on what we love or hate. That’s worth repeating. We define what we are simply on what we love or hate. If we love to mock we become mockers. If we hate knowledge we become fools, and if we love our simple carnal ways, we become exactly that. This extends to even truth in general, of which God is a part. Those who love truth will see it, while those who hate the truth will avoid it altogether. Yet, truth and wisdom call out to us from their lofty positions to change our ways. To hate mockery, the carnal, and to love knowledge. All this so we might become respectful, spiritual and wise.


“. . . and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.” -Romans 1:23

 


I have looked at a few different translations of this and it has only served to add to the wisdom behind the verse. This is one of the reasons I encourage people to read different versions, for by doing so, the mere wording alone may bring another important lesson to the forefront of your mind that the Lord wants you to focus on.

When I first read this verse, I can’t help but see the theory of evolution being addressed somewhere in here. In addition to evolution, I further see many of the polytheistic religions represented as well. When we look though history upon places like Egypt, or even the religions of Central America we find illustrations of their gods. These are included in their sculpture, paintings and carvings. These echoes from the past show their earthly kings as well as their deities.

 


When we look upon these examples, the gods are shown to be humanoid in their basic shape, with attributes of animals interlaced within the human form. The wording in Romans 1:23 to me is so precise in almost addressing is very thing that I find it rather awe inspiring. Indeed, many peoples of the past and even today worship gods whose being is an aggregate of both human form and a whole bestiary of assorted creatures. The, what must be, perfection of god represented by the corruptible nature of man and beast.

Concerning the evolution theory, we see that this is man’s new god and the transfiguration from some organism from the primordial soup into modern man, the supposed steps of evolution of form, are shown to progress through many different supposed species, though the fossil record has not one of these. Even recent accounts of a missing link being discovered have been extremely premature and led to the embarrassment of several individuals in the scientific community.

 


When we examine this verse we find a clear juxtaposition between the incorruptible God and corruptible man. The image of a mortal, with mortal understanding and imperfections, as a god, along with other gods at that, can only lead to such a contradiction that if it were true than chances are we would cease to exist altogether.

 


God needs to be perfect, and immortal, for if He were otherwise, existing outside of time, time, that edifice He created under Him, as well as all His creation, would fall apart in an instant and we would not be.

I once had the opportunity to talk to a coworker some years back who was a neo-pagan. Though they call themselves neo-pagans, neo meaning “new,” there is actually nothing new about it. Indeed it’s been around for thousands of years.

 


Anyway, this gentleman was devout, even had a shrine, and despite knowing I was a follower of Christ, wrote runes all over my truck, but intended no malice from it and hence I let it go and did not raise issue. For some reason, and despite his initial ridicule of Christianity (though it should be mentioned it wasn’t nearly as vicious as I have encountered), God opened his heart to respect me for some reason. It was in mutual respect that we began to discuss how the scriptures came to be, including in the canon, and the validity of the Word itself.

 


I respected him because he was truthful and honest concerning his own beliefs and we had conversations, which supposedly don’t happen, that is respectful discourse between two opposing schools of thought concerning religion. I have no idea what became of him, but I pray the Lord used our discussions to some higher purpose that he may be saved.

At any rate I reasoned with him concerning his numerous imperfect gods, four of them total, which included the likes of Esther and Odin. He had informed me that each controlled a season, and I made the argument that such polytheism could only reach an absurdity like the one brought up earlier. I half jesting asked him if it was like the other three gods took a vacation while one was in power, and to my surprise, he said there was nothing untrue about my statement, that indeed all other three took some sort of divine recreational break. It was due to this degree of truthfulness and honesty that I came to respect him, though not his gods.

 


Truth is the immortal and incorruptible God is a necessary condition for our existence. The polytheism we hear about, read about, or are confronted with, is so logically improbable and contradictory it makes reading the Greek mythology and the like almost laughable. Yet, people being led astray by such beliefs is not a laughing matter. Rather it is tragic and it is of the utmost importance that we not succumb to these ideas and work on, in a respectful manner, to denounce any such belief. This too is the reason the Trinity must be, for if there were three gods, each of their own will, we will eventually reach some sort of battle between them, in which the destruction of creation would be immediate.

%d bloggers like this: