McLaren’s Theory Regarding Elohim & Theos is a Complete Joke

In the opening chapters of Brian McLaren’s new book A New Kind of Christianity he posits one of the lamest and flimsiest liberal arguments I’ve encoutered to date as to why Christians need to abandon the historic/traditional understanding of the Bible and create a 'new kind of Christianity'. McLaren’s contention is that today’s Christians are guilty of looking backward at Jesus through a Greco-Roman narrative lens that misconstrues and distorts the true nature of God and the gospel message itself. Said McLaren:

I believe the Christian religion in the West, as it habitually read the Bible backwards through the lenses of later Christians, largely lost track of the frontward story line of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and so on, within which Jesus had emerged. It unwittingly traded its true heritage through Jesus from Judaism for an alien heritage drawn from Greek Philosophy and Roman Politics...

Now the god of this Greco-Roman version of the Biblical story bears a strange similarity in many ways to Zeus (Jupiter for the Romans), but we will name him Theos. The Greco-Roman god Theos, I suggest, is a far different deity from the Jewish Elohim of Genesis 1, or LORD referring ot the unspeakable name of the Creator of Genesis 2 and 12, not to mention the Abba to whom Jesus prayed. As a good — no, make that perfect — Platonic god, Theos loves spirit, state, and being and hates matter, story and becoming, since, once again, the latter involve change, and the only way to change or move from perfection is downward in decay. In fact, as soon as something drops out of the state of perfection, Theos is posessed by a pure and irresistible urge to destory it (or make it suffer).

So, having created a perfect world, now Theos is perfectly furious because it has been spoiled and is now decaying. It has fallen from its high table of perfection and is shattered on the floor...

Theos stands above, holding his thunderbolts ready to strike, ready to melt the whole damned think down to primal lava, ready to purge all that is imperfect...Every time we use terms like "the Fall" and "original sin," I believe, many of us are unknowingly importing more or less of this package of Greco-Roman, non-Jewish, and therefore nonbiblical concepts like a smuggler bringing foreign currency in the biblical economy or tourists introducing invasive species in the biblical ecosystem. (McLaren, pp. 41-43)

So, in McLaren’s view the ‘god’ that Christians have been worshiping for nearly two millenia isn’t the loving and benevolent fatherly and kind Biblical god ‘Elohim’ but instead is the false and bad tempered wrathful Greco-Roman god ‘Theos’.

McLaren’s theory is almost too stupid to warrant a scholarly response. And his caricature and straw man mischaracterization of the God worshipped and believed in by historic Christianity through McLaren's 'theos' character is nothing more than intentional dishonesty on his part. But, sadly in today’s Biblically-Illiterate church it is crucial that an easily understood scholarly refutation be given to this and many more of McLaren’s laughable postulations.

Genesis 6

The simplest rebuttal to McLaren’s claim is found in the Hebrew text of Genesis 6. In that chapter both of the Hebrew names for God that McLaren writes favorably of are used, YHWH and Elohim. Let’s look at the relevant verses of this chapter and see what impact they have on McLaren’s theory. Each time God is mentioned in the verses below I will provide the Hebrew name written in the Masoretic text rather than an the English translation.

Genesis 6:5   YHWH (יְהוָ֔ה) saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And YHWH (יְהוָ֔ה) was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So YHWH (יְהוָ֔ה) said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of YHWH (יְהוָ֔ה).

6:11  Now the earth was corrupt in Elohim’s (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. 13 And Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. ...17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.

This one section of the book of Genesis levels a broadside against McLaren’s theory and blows it out of the water (notice the intentional pirate lingo).

First, in Genesis 6 The God Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) claims that the thoughts of man's heart were only "evil continually". This is a verse in favor of the historic Christian doctrines of the fall and original sin. (Another clear statement from God regarding man's fallen and sinful nature is found two chapters ahead in Genesis 8:21. In that verse God says this about mankind "the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”) Furthermore, we learn from Genesis 6 that Elohim's (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) heart is greived because of mankinds inborn inclination to evil and Elohim's (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) solution is to punish mankind and 'blot out man' from the earth through a flood. In other words, the minkind's sin problem described in Genesis 6 sounds similar to the so-called "foreign Greco-Roman narrative" that McLaren claims was smuggled into Christianity. Furthermore the solution to the problem offered by Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) sounds similar to the solution that the false platonic god 'Theos' would call for. How can that even be possible IF these ideas of mankind's fall into sin and God's wrath are 'foreign to the text' as McLaren claims in his book? Answer: These doctrines are not foreign to the Biblical text at all! McLaren is engaging in deception.

What's even more embarrassing for Mclaren's 'theory' is the simple historical fact that Genesis 6 was written LONG LONG LONG before the rise of the Greco-Roman civilizations and cultures and is chronologically cut off from ANY Hellenistic or Roman influences. Fact is, Genesis was recorded by Moses somewhere between 1446 and 1406 BC. While Alexander the Great on the other hand, wasn’t even born until 356 BC. So Genesis predates any Greco-Roman influences by 1100 years. To claim that a Greco-Roman meta-narrative had any influence upon this text would be like claiming that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln had a profound political influence on Charlemagne who lived from 742 A.D. to 814 A.D.

So what's really going on here?

Any unbiased reader of Genesis can easily see that the Hebrew text, written long before the rise of the Greco-Roman world teaches that humanity was created by God and enjoyed a face to face relationship with God prior to disobeying God by eating the fruit that God commanded our first parents not to eat. The result of Adam and Eve's rebellion resulted not only in a cursed creation but also a catastrophic alteration and marring of mankind's nature that made it so that the intention of man's heart was "only evil continually" and "evil from his youth". Furthermore, God has the moral and judicial right to punish all of mankind for their evil.

McLaren is doing nothing more than cherry picking the passages of the Bible that he likes and suppressing the ones he doesn't like in order to craft his own 'god'. The 'god' McLaren has constructed has some of the attributes of the God who has revealed Himself in the scriptures. But, those other attributes of God that McLaren has deemed to be "undesirable" have been omitted and suppressed. Fact is, Brian McLaren's 'god' is an idol and a false deity. SHE was deceitfully constructed from a highly redacted use of the Bible. But, its not hard to spot the Biblical passages that McLaren is trying to cover up and suppress. Genesis 6 is one of many that I could bring up.

Comments

[Michael]

Excellent! Insects flee after being exposed by the lifting of a rock; so too, McLaren's theory runs to the hills when exposed to truth.

[Jonathan]

Well, McLaren's is just another example of a made-up "God without wrath who brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

[Paul L.]

When you said McLaren makes "one of the lamest and flimsiest liberal arguments" you really were not exaggerating! When I read the excerpt from McLaren, I wondered how anyone who has actually read the Bible for himself can believe such drivel. McLaren's argument is not a refutation of the Fall--it's a symptom of it.

The other thing that struck me is that McLaren said the Greco-Roman god hates "story." Wasn't the Greco-Roman religion mostly just mythology, ie. story? I may be mistaken, but I don't think there was ever a systematic theology written for the Greco-Roman religion. It looks like McLaren may be mixing up Greek myths about god and Greek philosophy about god (esp. Plato's), which strike me as being quite different. I'm not expert on these matters, but it would seem to me that the gods of Greek myth are neither perfect or unchanging (and don't hate story!) whereas the god of Platonic philosophy probably wouldn't be hurling thunderbolts to earth.

By the way, the only reason McLaren dumps on the Greco-Roman religion is because it is dead. If practitioners of that "faith tradition" were alive today, McLaren would no doubt be "dialoging" with them and declaring that their path to god is valid.

[Sylvia]

I didn't realize how much respect I still had for Brian McLaren until I lost the rest of it.

[Manager]

Actually he is kind of correct. The doctrine most Christians today follow is from Paul, as he developed his OWN doctrine and claimed to have his own visions. The disciples of Jesus and their followers didn't trust Paul and went other ways, including Jesus' family. Paul tried to ride the middle between Judaism, Christianity, and Paganism. The followers of Paul and Peter became Orthodox Christians and even alot of them practiced martyrism because they believed that is what Jesus taught. Paul was questioned by Jerusalem Church twice and the 2nd time got refuge from Rome as a citizen. Later to stop the fighting Rome adopted Paul's doctrine as state religion and it became the RCC....the Bible compiled around it. Peter had already died and alot of his followers followed Paul. Alot of the Gospels used by other Christians were refused and only ones approved at the 3rd Council were used...So the Christians now are just sects from the separation from the RCC later on and changed around some of the doctrine they used.

The other Christians that followed Jesus disagreed with this doctrine. So who was right? Paul who never met Jesus, and had HIS OWN visions that sometimes disagreed with Jesus....or the Christians who wouldn't follow Paul, who followed disciples who actually knew Jesus?

[Walker Willis]

I also present this passage from Acts 15:

12And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 "'After this I will return,and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.'

19Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

James AGREES with Paul and the whole Jerusalem council supports what He was teaching.

[Walker Willis]

Also I think the "second time" of Paul having a run in with the Jerusalem church is this incident from Acts 21:
27When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."

This is Paul being arrested by Jewish leaders, not the Jewish church (i.e. he was arrested by Jews that did not believe Christ to be Lord and Savior).

This wedge between Jesus and Paul that so many try to fabricate simply does not hold water.

[Dorian Jones]

Manager.
1)Paul saw Jesus face to face- Acts 9:3-6
2)The disciples trusted Paul,and Paul was a part of the ministry in Jerusalem- Acts 9:26-28
3)The Apostle Peter considered Paul's Letters to be Scriptures and regarded Paul as a beloved brother.-2 Peter 3:15-16
4)The Lord sent the disciple Ananias to Paul,who God said was a Chosen vessel to bear His name to the Gentiles.- Acts 9:11-16

You really should stop reading emergent garbage, and stick to the BIBLE

[Joseph A Nagy Jr]

I don't see how any of Paul's teachings contradicted (or disagreed) with Jesus. I'd be interested in hearing more from Manager on this subject.

[Jim W]

Manager-what are you smoking? You didn't say one word that agreed with the Biblical record. Try actually reading the Bible and see if you still believe the hogwash you wrote.

[Jonathan]

Manager, you seem quite the conspiracy theorist. However, Paul did not hijack the gospel; your theory does not comport with Bible historicity. According to the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, Paul was confirmed in his conversion and in his doctrine, having spent much time with the Apostles and the church in Jerusalem after his conversion.

The writer concludes about Paul's conversion that, "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied." (Acts 9:31 ESV.) The church didn't have peace because they agreed to disagree with Paul's different gospel; rather, the church now had a real partner in the gospel in Paul, thanks to Christ.

[s2kMATTers]

oh and manager, if you are going to gratuitously use the wordS "alot", please use them a lot more accurately in the future. Its one thing to reinvent the Bible as you plainly did, its another to fail with the simple language of English.

[Ryan Gill]

Bravo, Chris!

[cynthia curran]

According to Church historian Eusebius getting rid of paul's writings is nothing new. The Helkesaites rejected a lot of the bible and all of Paul's writings. McLaren a typical anabapists and blames like most anabapists on the influence of the Roman Empire for anything wrong with christianty. Also, Rick Warren endoresed this guy in an introdution to his book. Another reason to reject Warren as well.

[Akira Kurosawa]

The saddest thing about McLaren's book is that he has obviously bought the historical revisionist story of the Bible. It reads something like this...

The Bible was written by men who twisted Jesus words of gumdrops, rainbows and unicorns that would save all people. The men who wrote the Bible were just mean and made Christianity mean, so that they could cement their political power.

The problem with this story is that it is not supported by anything anywhere and is mainly based on scholarly (and I use the term loosely) conjecture and misinterpretation of facts. Most modern historians agree with McLaren by ignoring a landslide of evidence that refutes their claims.

But remember, for those guys, it's not about truth, it's about "control what a person thinks about the past, and you can control what they think in the present..."

[Ray Hulett]

Akira said,

"But remember, for those guys, it's not about truth, it's about 'control what a person thinks about the past, and you can control what they think in the present...'"

It's sadly true and ironic. People think they are being "set free" when they're really being shackled to damning lies.

Their blood will be on McClaren's head and on the heads of those like him should the people they steal from the truth die in their sins.

Lord, have mercy.

-Ray

[Rob Willmann]

The whole idea that McLaren has of a Greco-Roman "god" is not new. The emergent church has been leveling this accusation at us Christians for a while, but it simply isn't true.

Doug Pagitt has the same problem. He consistently says that biblical Christians are "Platonic dualists."

Actually, I thought Francis Schaeffer addressed this issue years ago when he wrote about the need for a biblical worldview and seeing the "true truth" that exists in God the Son, Jesus Christ.

[James]

McLaren is on to something.

If the evangelicals' "God" is the actual God, that God cannot be worshiped and cannot be loved, because that God displays the kind of characteristics that we would find nothing short of revolting in another human being.

If someone both (a) claimed to love his or her children, and (b) would willingly condemn his or her children to eternal suffering simply for not knowing that person's proper name, we would find that to be an absurd statement. Love is incompatible with the evangelicals' "God."

If the evangelicals' capricious, petty thug of a "God" is the "God" that's out there, then there is no reason other than abject fear of the alternative consequences to worship that "God," and no reason whatsoever to love that "God." Such a "God" could not be reasonably described as moral, perfect, loving, or holy - just powerful and feckless. I want no part of any "God" that meets that description.

[James J. Fire]

Extremely good articles here, I am hooked!
I would VERY much like to link this to my blog as posted below under email address, but also my other blog The RED PILL Consortium (www.theredpillconsortium.blogspot.com; there is another web site that I write for, but as I co-author that site with another, I will have to confirm with her before we can post a link there).
Regarding the previous article re: political religion and 'red-ness' its interesting to note that in Germany under their NAtional ZocIalism (NAZI) they had a national, political religion under which all other religions would be absorbed to the point of being unrecognizable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
Today we see an amalgamization of the infamous tripod - globalist poltics, religion and economy. Socialism has NEVER befriended Christianity, the Bible or the Person of Jesus Christ as it DEMANDS to be the Ultimate Authority, bar none! Christians must WAKE UP and prepare spiritually for what's coming. We must regain biblical literacy, and even more so: an intimate, growing, vital relationship on a daily walk, with the LORD Jesus Christ. May God bless, encourage, empower and inspire us all to love Him wholly w/o any reservations~!