Define Monotheism

[rameumptom]

At Lehi's Library blog, James discusses an article by Larry Hurtado (Prof of religion at Edinburgh Univ, expert on 1st century Judaism and Christianity). Hurtado explains that Jewish monotheism of the period was very different than the view of monotheism today, and we should be careful about judging others' for their concept of monotheism. You can read James' blog here.

In essence, Hurtado explains that early Jews and Christians, while believing in the one great God, also believed in special agents of God, angels and divine beings, who were often given God's attributes, and even his name. He mentions that some prophets would get confused and begin worshiping the angel (we see this in Revelation 19:1-10), because the being seems to be God. This would include the great Angel Yahweh/Messiah, Enoch as Metatron, etc.

Clearly, the early Jewish/Christian view of God and divinity was very similar to what today's Latter-day Saints believe it is.

[Dr T]

The way I see it is by using the etymology of monotheism: 1660, from Gk. mono-, comb. form of monos "single, alone" + theos "a god" (see Thea). and the other attributes that u reference I do not see as making divine.

[prisonchaplain]

Several times through the Bible prophets did mistake angels for God. The angels were quick to rebuke them though, and explain that they were FELLOW servants--and that only God should be worshipped. So, I'm not so certain that early Jews and Christians were henotheists. Rather, they were simply overwhelmed by the powerful presence of angels, and mistakenly took them for God. The fact that the authors took time to explain the correction the angels offered seems to affirm the monotheism of today's Jews and Christians.

[rameumptom]

You have to also read the ancient Jewish and Christian writings that make such people god-like. Enoch becoming Metatron, being clothed in God's robes, and sitting down on God's throne, where the others then worship him, is a classic example of this, and it is mentioned in the article.

These ancient peoples were monotheists. HOWEVER, their definition of monotheism would differ greatly than that established by many Trinitarians today! And that is the point being made. We can define monotheism in a modern way, or in an ancient way.

[prisonchaplain]

Ram, the actions you describe seem to be of those who strayed from the faith...the type that Scripture describe as "whoring after the gods of Canaan." There is no doubt that there were many Jews who were, in reality, henotheists--or worse. BUT, these were condemned. They were heretics, not the orthodoxy of Jewish faith.

I sought out a Messianic Jewish (Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah) source for added information: Monotheism of the Ancient Hebrews: Evolved, Invented, Stolen or Revealed? - http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/5_5/monotheism/

Edited October 7, 2009 by prisonchaplain
add link

[Moksha]

The Greek Pantheon of Gods should also be considered, with Zeus being the Chief God. Also it seems interesting that Odin, has been call the All Father, with his offspring also being Gods and also served by the angelic looking Valkyries (at least they look angelic when observed in a comic book).

:)

[Justice]

Several times through the Bible prophets did mistake angels for God. The angels were quick to rebuke them though, and explain that they were FELLOW servants--and that only God should be worshipped. So, I'm not so certain that early Jews and Christians were henotheists. Rather, they were simply overwhelmed by the powerful presence of angels, and mistakenly took them for God. The fact that the authors took time to explain the correction the angels offered seems to affirm the monotheism of today's Jews and Christians.

There isn't enough mentioned about Enoch in the Bible to prove your claim.

No doubt, people even bowed to Joseph Smith, which he quickly set them straight. I'm sure what you mentioned here did happen in the Bible. However, that does not mean what Ram described didn't happen also.

I know we get set in our ways and dismiss things quickly that go against how we view things. But, maybe more sources and evidence could be reviewed before making a call for "Final Answer?"

[prisonchaplain]

Justice, you want me to prove that the monotheism of Orthodox Judaism, as practiced in the Old Testament era was non-henotheisitic? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are asking me to prove.

[Traveler]

I believe that monotheism is the acceptance of a singular G-d or person as your G-d and person that you worship; regardless of how many G-ds, g-ds or persons may be or may exist.

For the record - I recognize and worship the G-d and person Jesus Christ as my G-d. I believe this to be the definition of monotheism. I believe that because of the fall - I cannot worship the Father - only Jesus Christ as the mediator. Sometimes in talking to "other" Christians I get the impression that the doctrine of a mediator and the fall is not really understood.

I also see the doctrine of the Trinity as polytheistic in that there are plural (3) persons that are worshiped.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

They are yet we see there is only ONE God therefore-a triune God. :)

[prisonchaplain]

I believe that monotheism is the acceptance of a singular G-d or person as your G-d and person that you worship; regardless of how many G-ds, g-ds or persons may be or may exist.

That's not polytheism. That's henotheism. The belief that we can be loyal to one God, though many exist is, by defnition, not monotheism. Monotheism insists that there is only one true and living God. The "gods" of the Old Testament are false---objects of ridicule--wood, clay, and metal--yet not speaking, not hearing, and certainly not answering.

For the record - I recognize and worship the G-d and person Jesus Christ as my G-d. I believe this to be the definition of monotheism. I believe that because of the fall - I cannot worship the Father - only Jesus Christ as the mediator. Sometimes in talking to "other" Christians I get the impression that the doctrine of a mediator and the fall is not really understood.

I know of very few Christians who believe that they are unworthy to approach the Father, despite having been cleansed by the blood of Jesus. The whole prophetic impact of the curtain in the holy of holies being wrent in two, as Jesus was crucifiied, demonstrated that we are not longer hindered from entering boldly to the throne of grace.

I also see the doctrine of the Trinity as polytheistic in that there are plural (3) persons that are worshiped.

Well, you have good company with Muslims and Orthodox Jews. However, our understanding of one God in three persons is shared almost universally in the Christian community. With all due respect for Jews and Muslims, I like the company I keep better.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

......

I know of very few Christians who believe that they are unworthy to approach the Father, despite having been cleansed by the blood of Jesus. The whole prophetic impact of the curtain in the holy of holies being wrent in two, as Jesus was crucifiied, demonstrated that we are not longer hindered from entering boldly to the throne of grace.

....

Like I said the concept of "mediator" is not understood (or taught and believed) in many Christian circles.

Also if you believe the Bible - in particular 2Cor 4:4 and you do not worship "the g-d of this world" then like me; your belief is henotheism.

The Traveler

[Vort]

Ram points up an interesting, important, and oft-ignored fact: "Monotheism" is not adequately defined.

Here is the basic fact:

God is the way he is.

Period.

So let's invent some words to use to describe God's nature. What shall we use? Tall? Powerful? Beautiful? Aromatic? Whatever we use, it will only be true if it corresponds in some literal sense to how God actually is.

Now, Christianity says that God the Father and God the Son are "one". That is, there is "one God"; in other words, Christians are monotheistic. Whence originated this idea? It is safe to say that the idea of divine unity comes from Christ himself, but the foot-stamping insistence on there being exactly and only One God in every and any sense comes, as near as I can tell, from neoPlatonic rationalism.

There cannot be more than one all-powerful God (goes this line of thinking), because there cannot be multiple all-powerful beings. If there were, then any difference of opinion between them would result in an existentially impossible situation -- one all-powerful God demanding one thing, the other all-powerful God demanding something else. Therefore, if we admit the existence of an all-powerful God, that God can and must of necessity be the only one. If we admit the existence of another God (e.g. a divine, Godly Son), then we must posit a literal unity of physical being.

Actually, neoPlatonism does not demand this physical unity, since it rejects the very idea of physicality as a Godly attribute. But the effect is the same; there can only be One God in any literal sense, even if we want to divide him up into separate subGods. Such division is acceptable if and only if we acknowledge that each subGod is in reality a part or "manifestation" of the One True God.

This is in fact the very problem and dilemma to which Augustine dedicated his life. A lifetime of education in the schools of philosophy and rhetoric left Augustine completely unable to accept the silly, childish Christian philosophies of his mother, things like that God had a body. Only when he decided (when over 30 years of age) that the Bible need not be interpreted literally, and in fact was a "double book", giving literal meaning to the simple-minded and a deeper, philosophical meaning to the more mentally well-endowed like himself, did he see his way to accepting Christianity and redefining its meaning in terms he could stomach. The explication of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the result, for which he is rightly honored to this day as the greatest and most important of theologians. (To be clear: Augustine did not invent the idea of the Trinity; he simply explained it in a manner acceptable to like-minded scholars of his generation.)

But, you see, this is all chatter and nonsense -- "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." God is the way that God is, and not the way So-and-so describes him, however clever we believe So-and-so to be. And unless So-and-so is a prophet authorized by God himself to speak in his place -- and here we note that Augustine never made any such claim, and would indeed have been deeply scandalized by such a pronouncement -- we are under no obligation to accept what So-and-so has to say on the matter.

"Monotheism" was a term coined to describe a belief in contrast to "polytheism", a belief in many gods, all or several of whom demand worship. We may well use the term "monotheism" to describe Christianity in comparison with paganism's multiplicity of gods. However, as the Muslims are only too happy to tell us, Christianity is decidedly not monotheistic when compared with Islam. They will tolerate no teachings about "God's Son" or any other such nonsense. God is One, Alone, Utterly Different from his Creation.

Guess what? It doesn't matter. God is how God is, not how the Muslims (or Christians, or Jews, or Pantheists, or Pagans, or Atheists) describe him to be. If the word "monotheism" does not adequately describe the reality of God, then we have a choice between two alternatives:

• Use another word.
• Redefine "monotheism" to mean what we want it to mean.

Personally, I don't much care which alternative we choose. The only thing I care about is that the dishonest use of "monotheism" as a hammer to bash over the heads of Latter-day Saints is exposed for the lie that it is.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Vort

[prisonchaplain]

Also if you believe the Bible - in particular 2Cor 4:4 and you do not worship "the g-d of this world" then like me; your belief is henotheism.

The Traveler

Traveler...do you really believe that Satan, the angel, is a true and living god? He was/is an angel with presumptions to deity that will never be realized.

[Justice]

Justice, you want me to prove that the monotheism of Orthodox Judaism, as practiced in the Old Testament era was non-henotheisitic? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are asking me to prove.

I didn't ask you to prove anything, I don't think. I mentioned that there is not enough information in the Bible to prove what happened in Enoch's (the OPer example) day. So, once again, the lack of writing or evidence often leads some to believe it did not exist. Just because it was not written does not mean it did not happen. If there is evidence outside the Bible to suggest a certain thing happened in Enoch's day, that is not expressly stated otherwise within the Bible, then we shouldn't close the door too hastily.

That's all I was saying. :)

[rameumptom]

Much of the information we now know about how ancient Hebrews and Christians believed regarding God, etc., is not found in the Bible, but in the other written books of the time. And many of these were considered orthodox beliefs, not just the scandalous beliefs that PC suggests.

It was Origen who taught that Christ was subordinate to the Father. Many believed this way beyond the Nicea Council. It was an orthodox belief until Augustine decidedly quashed it and labeled Origen a heretic, centuries after his death! Eusebius of Caesarea, one of the greatest historians of early Christendom, went to Nicea believing in Origen's teaching of God. These are not heretics, but orthodox members of Christianity we are speaking about.

Even St Augustine stated that "God became man so that man can become God." If that is the case, then are there not more than one god? Yet, we still teach this as monotheism. Yes, technically it IS henotheism, but that is all in how one views the meaning of the term. Technically, Trinitarianism is also a form of polytheism, especially when compared to Islam's view of God. But as the article notes, who are we to say what is and isn't monotheism, or as Vort mentions, God is as God is, regardless of how we attempt to describe him.

This isn't a new thought. In letters between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, Adams once noted that some may claim he wasn't a Christian, simply because he viewed the Trinity differently. "God is Spirit." Fine. But what exactly does that mean? - And that is the $64K question. We are monotheists. Fine. But what exactly does that mean, to us?

[Gatorman]

Monotheistic, henotheistic, aetheistic. I could really care less what words of man are put to my faith. It does not change it. I believe in my Heavenly Father, his Son, my savior, and the Holy Ghost. I have been taught and believed even before being taught it, that they are three distinct beings who serve one purpose. Similar to how 3 men make up the Presidency of the Church. So, 'God', is a Presidency, made up of Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Or, any other way you want to define it. It doesn't change the truth of what I know and it doesn't change what I know.

[prisonchaplain]

We're talking mostly about Judaism here, and whether the OT form was basically monotheistic or henotheistic. Interestingly, Abraham is considered the first "Jew," primarily because he renounced idolatry and dedicated himself to the one all-powerful God.

See: Basic Judaism

I don't deny that Jews throughout history have engaged in henotheism. But such was never the approved religious practice of Torah.

[Traveler]

Traveler...do you really believe that Satan, the angel, is a true and living god? He was/is an angel with presumptions to deity that will never be realized.

Once again let us turn to the Bible to settle if Satan is a g-d or an angel. I produced one that makes referenct to him as a g-d. I would be most interested in one, if there is one, that says he is an angel. BTW that title is not true and living - the title is "g-d of this world". Please keep in mind that I did not write this scripture. All that I did was bring it to your attention. I am most courious to observe what you do with it. My main reason for pointing this out is that just because someone has "g-d" in their title, for what-ever reason, does not mean that they should be worshiped. Thanks

The Traveler

Edited October 9, 2009 by Traveler

[bmy-]

The belief in one supreme being, or one "higher power". It has nothing to do with worship, IMO.

Once again let us turn to the Bible to settle if Satan is a g-d or an angel. I produced one that makes referenct to him as a g-d. I would be most interested in one, if there is one, that says he is an angel. BTW that title is not true and living - the title is "g-d of this world". Please keep in mind that I did not write this scripture. All that I did was bring it to your attention. I am most courious to observe what you do with it. My main reason for pointing this out is that just because someone has "g-d" in their title, for what-ever reason, does not mean that they should be worshiped. Thanks

"But God's anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as his adversary [satan]. Now he was riding on the ass, and his two servants were with him." (Num. 22:21-22)

Edited October 9, 2009 by bmy-

[prisonchaplain]

It's pretty well known that "gods" in the KJV often means powerful beings, even human judges. That Satan was the angel of light, and fell from heaven is equally common knowledge. See attached for a lengthy treatment of this: God and the Angels

I'm truly confused here. Traveler, do you really believe Satan is a god and not an angel, or is there some other point you're trying to make?

[rameumptom]

We're talking mostly about Judaism here, and whether the OT form was basically monotheistic or henotheistic. Interestingly, Abraham is considered the first "Jew," primarily because he renounced idolatry and dedicated himself to the one all-powerful God.

See: Basic Judaism

I don't deny that Jews throughout history have engaged in henotheism. But such was never the approved religious practice of Torah.

The Torah as we now have it came much later than Moses. It was written in the time of King Solomon and afterward, when much of the views were settling down regarding these things.

As it is, the belief of various real Gods still shows up in the Torah and early Prophets. Most of them just insist that Elohim/Yahweh is the premier God of the earth (or of just Israel). In fact, that is one of the key teachings in Ezekiel - that the Lord is not just God of the terrain called Palestine, but is still a powerful God even in the land of Babylon and elsewhere. This was a new and amazing teaching for the Jews, who believed that God would not follow them into the lands of another country.

Job begins chapter one with several of the divine sons of El Elyon going to challenge Yahweh for primacy among the divine.

Their view was that other Gods did exist, but that Elohim/Yahweh was greater than them all. And this was the mainstream belief until the Deuteronomists and Priests added their changes to the Torah in the days of Josiah and afterward.

[rameumptom]

Once again let us turn to the Bible to settle if Satan is a g-d or an angel. I produced one that makes referenct to him as a g-d. I would be most interested in one, if there is one, that says he is an angel. BTW that title is not true and living - the title is "g-d of this world". Please keep in mind that I did not write this scripture. All that I did was bring it to your attention. I am most courious to observe what you do with it. My main reason for pointing this out is that just because someone has "g-d" in their title, for what-ever reason, does not mean that they should be worshiped. Thanks

The Traveler

Satan or Adversary was one of the divine sons of El Elyon/Elohim. Job ch 1 tells us that he and other divine sons went to challenge Yahweh for primacy in the divine council. The way to do that was a challenge where Yahweh would potentially gamble away his land Israel.

[rameumptom]

In another addition to his blog, James quotes extensively from another Hurtado book. One quote is this:

Pg. 36-37: [Quoting from an earlier essay, Hurtado, “First-Century Jewish Monotheism,” 21-11] “ Jews were quite willing to imagine beings who bear the divine name within them and can be referred to by one or more of God’s titles … beings so endowed with divine attributes as to make it difficult to distinguish them descriptively from God, beings who are very direct personal extensions of God’s powers and sovereignty. About this, there is clear evidence. This clothing of servants of God with God’s attributes and even his name will seem “theologically very confusing” if we go looking for a “strict monotheism” of relatively modern distinctions of “ontological status” between God and these figures, and expect such distinctions to be expressed in terms of “attributes and functions.” …The evidence … shows that it is in fact in the area of worship that we find “the decisive criterion” by which Jews maintained the uniqueness of God over against both idols and God’s own deputies.

Here, monotheism is described in terms of who is worshiped, or worthy of being worshiped. In such an instance, Mormons would be equally as monotheistic as any other Christians. Yet the evidence is very clear that Jews did believe in other divine beings, who shared God's attributes, but just were not worshiped as God.

And this would explain the confusion John the Revelator and others had, in seeing a being that was as glorious as God, but refused to be worshiped, as that was to only be reserved for God (see Rev 19:10).

[prisonchaplain]

The Torah as we now have it came much later than Moses. It was written in the time of King Solomon and afterward, when much of the views were settling down regarding these things.

I'm aware of such theories, but they are far from being as conclusive as you suggest here. Many knowledgeable scholars still argue that the Books of Moses are his, and that they were written approximately 1400 BC.

As it is, the belief of various real Gods still shows up in the Torah and early Prophets. Most of them just insist that Elohim/Yahweh is the premier God of the earth (or of just Israel). In fact, that is one of the key teachings in Ezekiel - that the Lord is not just God of the terrain called Palestine, but is still a powerful God even in the land of Babylon and elsewhere. This was a new and amazing teaching for the Jews, who believed that God would not follow them into the lands of another country.

What you call new, I'd call restored. How's that for irony. Yes, the Old Testament is a history of the Jews repeatedly "whoring after the gods of Canaan." Prophets were repeatedly reminding the Hebrews of their foundation, their God. Sometimes the apostasy would last several generations, and the reminder of monotheism may have seemed new. But, your suggestion that Ezekiel invented monotheism--if I'm understanding your statement correctly--is not accurate.

Their view was that other Gods did exist, but that Elohim/Yahweh was greater than them all. And this was the mainstream belief until the Deuteronomists and Priests added their changes to the Torah in the days of Josiah and afterward.

Again, your "mainstream belief" is a description of apostasy. The prophets were not repeatedly inventing monotheism, but calling the Hebrews back to the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Back to the one true God.