Against the Gods Quotes

“Polemical theology certainly does not answer every question about the relationship of the Old Testament to ancient Near Eastern literature and life. There is much to that relationship that simply cannot be understood and explained by the use of polemics. At times, however, polemical theology can serve as a solid and reliable interpretive lens by which one can properly see the significance of a parallel. In addition, and of utmost importance, is the truth that the biblical writers often employed polemical theology as an instrument to underscore the uniqueness of the Hebrew worldview in contrast to other ancient Near Eastern conceptions of the universe and how it operates.”
― John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament

“The concept of the polemic perhaps was at work in the biblical usage of the divine epithet “I am that I am.” The God of Israel employed an originally Egyptian term for Re and Pharaoh to demonstrate that they are not sovereign and all-powerful; they do not run the universe. The name “I am that I am” truly and only belongs to the God of the Hebrews. He uniquely is the eternal, sovereign God of the universe!”
― John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament

“The true issue at stake in the exodus account is not the hostilities between Moses and Pharaoh, or between Moses and the Egyptian magicians, or between Israel and Egypt. What is most important is the contest and battle between Yahweh, the God of Israel, and the Egyptian deities, in particular Re and Pharaoh.”
― John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament

“Much of the polemical theology we have witnessed thus far has dealt with the relationship of the stories of the Bible and ancient Near Eastern myth. Accounts of creation and of floods throughout the Fertile Crescent occur within the realms of the gods and by their very nature are fictitious and folkloristic. At the very heart of these myths are concepts such as polytheism and theogony; and, as I have attempted to demonstrate, such theological thought and underpinnings are foreign and antagonistic to the worldview of the Hebrews. The biblical authors are solidly monotheistic and Yahwistic; and there is simply no room for alien, pagan thought in Hebrew religion. Therefore, they often taunt ancient Near Eastern myth in their writings; polemics is one way of belittling and disparaging pagan myth.”
― John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament

“Genesis 1 sits in stark contrast to that dark mythological polytheism. The biblical account has as its chief purpose to glorify the one Creator God who is the sole God of all reality. The water at creation (1:2) is certainly no deity, and it is not God’s foe that needs to be vanquished. It is mere putty in the hands of the Creator. There is no war between Yahweh and the gods of chaos in order to bring about creation. Yahweh is sovereign, and all the elements of creation are at his beck and call. Again, Genesis 1–2 is ardently zealous for monotheism. Not only does this literature not allow the inclusion of other gods; it stridently argues against them with clear polemics.”
― John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament

“In any event, there are many ways to examine and study the relationship between the Bible and other ancient Near Eastern texts. Polemical theology, in my estimation, is one of the more important ones. It helps to highlight the distinctiveness and uniqueness of the Hebrew worldview over against the dominant setting of the rest of the ancient Near East.”
― John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament

“Exodus 7:8–13 relates the story of Moses and Aaron changing their staff into a serpent.8 This activity by the Hebrew leaders is an attack on Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and it strikes at the very heart of Egyptian belief. In the first place, on the front of Pharaoh’s crown was an enraged female serpent/cobra called a uraeus. The Egyptians believed this serpent was energized with divine potency and sovereignty. It was considered the very emblem of Pharaoh’s power; it symbolized his deification and majesty. “When Moses had Aaron fling the rod-snake before Pharaoh, he was directly assaulting that token of Pharaonic sovereignty—the scene was one of polemical taunting. When Aaron’s rod swallowed the staffs of the Egyptian magicians, Pharaonic deity and omnipotence were being denounced and rejected outright. . . . Yahweh alone was in control of the entire episode.” 9”
― John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament