Monotheism in ancient Israel

[urloony]

LDS Christians are often accused of defining terms differently than non-LDS Christians and in such cases are often accused of being deceptive. There are many examples of this but one I found interesting is the term Monotheism. Non-LDS Christians will claim Monotheism does not accurately describe the belief system of Latter-Day Saints with regard to the Godhead, and they are right in terms of how Monotheism is defined today. Monotheism, by its modern definition, is the belief that only one God will ever or has ever existed. This is not what Mormons believe. How would ancient Israel have defined the term monotheism?

Dr. Heiser is a Hebrew scholar and academic editor for Logos Bible Software and a Christian. He has written many papers and books on the subject of monotheism in ancient Israel. In a paper titled “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” he explains that ancient Israel while worshiping only one God, Yahweh, did not disregard the fact that other deities existed. Furthermore, the existence of other elohim cannot always be defined as idols or human, but in fact other deities that were as real as Yahweh to the OT authors.

  Quote

Does the affirmation of the reality of other [elohim] by the canonical authors disqualify Israelite religion as monotheistic? Are other terms used in academic discourse for ancient religious pantheons more appropriate? The short answer to both questions, in the view of this writer, is a qualified no. The answer is qualified with respect to the realization that little is solved by applying or refusing to apply a single modern term to Israel’s ancient view of God.

“Monotheism” as a term was coined in the 17th century not as an antonym to “polytheism,” but to “atheism.” A monotheist, then, was a person who believed there was a God, not someone who believed there was only one spiritual entity that could or should be named by the letters GO-D. This understanding of the term has been lost in contemporary discourse, and so it would be pointless to call for its re-introduction.

(Hieser, Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible)

[Hemidakota]

  urloony said:

LDS Christians are often accused of defining terms differently than non-LDS Christians and in such cases are often accused of being deceptive. There are many examples of this but one I found interesting is the term Monotheism. Non-LDS Christians will claim Monotheism does not accurately describe the belief system of Latter-Day Saints with regard to the Godhead, and they are right in terms of how Monotheism is defined today. Monotheism, by its modern definition, is the belief that only one God will ever or has ever existed. This is not what Mormons believe. How would ancient Israel have defined the term monotheism?

Dr. Heiser is a Hebrew scholar and academic editor for Logos Bible Software and a Christian. He has written many papers and books on the subject of monotheism in ancient Israel. In a paper titled “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” he explains that ancient Israel while worshiping only one God, Yahweh, did not disregard the fact that other deities existed. Furthermore, the existence of other elohim cannot always be defined as idols or human, but in fact other deities that were as real as Yahweh to the OT authors.

Urlooney, I always believe the core of the Jewish faith, particularly taught in the Book of Deuteronomy and other earlier OT Prophets, such as Book of Jonah, was monotheism [as I would state it, having a belief in one God].

Looking at both Deuteronomy chapters for the answer, it states;

Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; there is none else. (Deut. 4:39)

Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord; And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (Deut. 6:4, 5)

As I also believe, the rejection of Christianity by current Jews, mainly is the doctrine of Trinity; which seems to overlay and wash away the pure monotheism of Judaism.

LDS church, since the First Vision of the dispensational Prophet Joseph Smith, as revealed the three Gods - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Looking at the First Vision and what Joseph taught, we still differ from Judaism and also from most Christian’s sects today. The church simply does not try to make these Three individuals into One person (trinity). That being stated, the Saints, also believe men may learn, in the long course of eternity, to become perfect as our divine role model – the Father…stated in the scriptures by the Savior, "even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

We simple believe our goal of existment is always Godward, which means, it is for man to realize his full nature as a child of GOD. Having access to the eternality’s, many children of GOD may come to be like their FATHER or Creator. As it told throughout the bible and the our own LDS canonize scriptures, we will truly be sons/daughters of GOD.

What was stated, are the Saints monotheistic in belief? I would state, not really. One may argue within the church, we are more on the line of polytheistic in belief. But I would contend no also. I genuine believe we are theistic. Why? Read the following statement received by Moses when standing before the Godhead (see also 2 Nephi chapter 29);

And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: the heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:32-39)

[urloony]

  Hemidakota said:

Urlooney, I always believe the core of the Jewish faith, particularly taught in the Book of Deuteronomy and other earlier OT Prophets, such as Book of Jonah, was monotheism [as I would state it, having a belief in one God].

Looking at both Deuteronomy chapters for the answer, it states;

Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; there is none else. (Deut. 4:39)

Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord; And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (Deut. 6:4, 5)

As I also believe, the rejection of Christianity by current Jews, mainly is the doctrine of Trinity; which seems to overlay and wash away the pure monotheism of Judaism.

Correct this is the view modern Jews and mainstream Christianity for that matter. What Hieser is suggesting is that that was not the case of ancient Israel. In other words when we read “there is none else” is a reference to comparability not nonexistence.

  Quote

The first issue before us is to determine whether the relevant phrases in Deuteronomy 4 and 32 actually deny the existence of other gods. The parade examples are Deut 4:35, 39 and 32:39. Deuteronomy 4:35 – “You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD, he is the God ( הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים ); besides him there is no other ( ”.(אֵ֥ין ע֖וֹד מִלְבַדּֽוֹ Deuteronomy 4:39 – “Know therefore this day, and lay it to your heart, that Yahweh, he is the God ( הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים ) in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other ( ”.(אֵ֖ין עֽוֹד Deuteronomy 32:29 – “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me ( וְאֵ֥ין אֱלֹהִ֖ים עִמָּדִ֑י ); I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.”

With respect to Deut 4:35, 39, יְהָו֖ה ה֣וּא הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים is a verbless clause with the pronoun emphasizing the subject, but what does it mean that Yahweh is הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים ? Is this a denial of the existence of other gods? How can that be reconciled with the presumption of other gods in these passages (cp. Deut 4:10-20; 32:8-9)?8 It is at least equally probable from a linguistic perspective that the phrase means that Yahweh is superior or incomparable.9 That is, Yahweh is the God par excellence, as Deut 10:17 states: כִּ֚י יְהָו֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם ה֚וּא אֱלֹהֵ֣י הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים (“for the Lord our

God, he is the God of the gods”). If the other gods to whom Yahweh is compared here do not exist in the mind of the writer, where is the praise, and perhaps even the honesty, in the statement? Other passages in the Torah, such as Exod 15:18, beg the same question. When the author wrote “Lord, who is like you among the אלים ?” did he really mean, “Lord who is like you among the imaginary beings that really aren’t there”? When the final redactors, presumably zealous over the new idea of monotheism, allowed Deut 10:17 and Exodus 15:18 to stand, did they simply err, or were they content to put polytheistic language into the mouth of Moses? How does such language accomplish rhetorical persuasion if the audience does not believe that any other deities exist to whom Yahweh may be compared?

(Hieser)http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/MonotheismProblem.pdf

  Hemidakota said:

LDS church, since the First Vision of the dispensational Prophet Joseph Smith, as revealed the three Gods - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Looking at the First Vision and what Joseph taught, we still differ from Judaism and also from most Christian’s sects today. The church simply does not try to make these Three individuals into One person (trinity). That being stated, the Saints, also believe men may learn, in the long course of eternity, to become perfect as our divine role model – the Father…stated in the scriptures by the Savior, "even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

I don’t think that Mormons will ever fit the description of monotheist by either definition. However, what we believe is closer to that of how ancient Israel worshipped Yahweh and recognized him as part of a grand council than mainstream Judaism or Christianity today. The context for this is Psalm 82.

  Hemidakota said:

What was stated, are the Saints monotheistic in belief? I would state, not really. One may argue within the church, we are more on the line of polytheistic in belief. But I would contend no also.

Polytheism certainly promotes negative connotations of Greek and Roman gods, however it is probably the closest. There is an good argument toward Monolatrism to which I tend to lean. Some have suggested Henatheism which is an incorrect assessment in my opinion. Both of these however are forms of Polytheism.

  Hemidakota said:

I genuine believe we are theistic. Why? Read the following statement received by Moses when standing before the Godhead…

Theism may be too general a term for many, but it certainly applies to Latter-Day Saints.

[volgadon]

  Quote

As I also believe, the rejection of Christianity by current Jews, mainly is the doctrine of Trinity; which seems to overlay and wash away the pure monotheism of Judaism.

Said pure monotheism is a later trend.

[Hemidakota]

Thanks for the insight...

[maklelan]

  urloony said:

LDS Christians are often accused of defining terms differently than non-LDS Christians and in such cases are often accused of being deceptive. There are many examples of this but one I found interesting is the term Monotheism. Non-LDS Christians will claim Monotheism does not accurately describe the belief system of Latter-Day Saints with regard to the Godhead, and they are right in terms of how Monotheism is defined today. Monotheism, by its modern definition, is the belief that only one God will ever or has ever existed. This is not what Mormons believe. How would ancient Israel have defined the term monotheism?

Dr. Heiser is a Hebrew scholar and academic editor for Logos Bible Software and a Christian. He has written many papers and books on the subject of monotheism in ancient Israel. In a paper titled “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” he explains that ancient Israel while worshiping only one God, Yahweh, did not disregard the fact that other deities existed. Furthermore, the existence of other elohim cannot always be defined as idols or human, but in fact other deities that were as real as Yahweh to the OT authors.

Heiser's paper can be found here. A few good publications on this question are Peter Hayman, "Monotheism - A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?" Journal of Jewish Studies 42.1. (1991): 1-15; Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2 Reihe, 1; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Robert K Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); Gnuse, "The Emergence of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Recent Scholarship," Religion 29.4 (1999): 315-36; Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

My own personal theory is that the threshold between early Israelite monolatry and what can be called modern monotheism lies at the point at which the other gods of the Israelite worldview were ontologically demoted to the status of angels. While Heiser is correct that the term we use, "monotheism," was developed as an antithesis to atheism, the concept it describes has existed for centuries as a contrast to polytheism. Strictly speaking, however, any religion that includes the belief in any other divine beings, be they angels, demons, cherubs, or whatever, is not monotheistic. The modern concept of monotheism distinguishes itself primarily in its accommodation of multiple divine beings and the assertion that God is somehow unique. I believe that reconciliation took place in the Hellenistic period. I describe this theory in a little more detail here.

[urloony]

  maklelan said:

My own personal theory is that the threshold between early Israelite monolatry and what can be called modern monotheism lies at the point at which the other gods of the Israelite worldview were ontologically demoted to the status of angels. While Heiser is correct that the term we use, "monotheism," was developed as an antithesis to atheism, the concept it describes has existed for centuries as a contrast to polytheism. Strictly speaking, however, any religion that includes the belief in any other divine beings, be they angels, demons, cherubs, or whatever, is not monotheistic. The modern concept of monotheism distinguishes itself primarily in its accommodation of multiple divine beings and the assertion that God is somehow unique. I believe that reconciliation took place in the Hellenistic period. I describe this theory in a little more detail here.

Hey Mak, thanks for commenting. Do you have any insight to Heiser's personal beliefs? I am guessing that he professes traditional Trinitarian Christianity, but I'm wondering if he considers himself monotheistic in terms of the modern definition or by the definition he ascribes to ancient Israel.

He also talks about the "species-uniqueness" of Yahweh, what is your view on that with regard to LDS belief?

[maklelan]

  urloony said:

Hey Mak, thanks for commenting. Do you have any insight to Heiser's personal beliefs? I am guessing that he professes traditional Trinitarian Christianity, but I'm wondering if he considers himself monotheistic in terms of the modern definition or by the definition he ascribes to ancient Israel.

He's an Evangelical, and much of his divine council stuff is put to use in other more devotional publications to argue the second in command in the divine council is the premortal Christ, although not in the "sons of God" sense, but in a hypostasis sense. He talks a lot about the second power in heaven belief (see this book). He rejects the notion that Yhwh and El were originally distinct deities (see here), and he think the divine council didn't really change much between early Israelite religion and Second Temple Judaism, which is the main point that I confront.

  urloony said:

He also talks about the "species-uniqueness" of Yahweh, what is your view on that with regard to LDS belief?

I believe that this "species uniqueness" was the theological innovation of the Hellenistic Era which marked the beginning of the monotheism I described earlier. Heiser thinks it's original, but he has to ignore a lot of text-critical concerns to do that. Originally Yhwh/El was just the most powerful deity, but over time he became ontologically distinct as the view of his relationship to other deities changed.

[Traveler]

The problem is not in understanding doctrine but in understanding covenants. Everyone that lives or exist must live by covenant or law. The covenant or law by which they live establishes the Suzerain and kingdom of their citizenship. It is by our citizenship in G-d’s kingdom that we worship him as the Suzerain of our covenant and law.

Terms and concepts such as Monotheism were not taught in ancient Israel as those that tout such things teach and apply today – even though they reference ancient scripture in effort to support their agenda.

The Bible is not the authorization of law and covenant but rather a guide or call to become a citizen of the kingdom and an ancient record of events concerning that kingdom. Thus in our society there are arguments over the necessity of baptismal covenants by various groups pretending (counterfeiting) the ancient covenants and kingdom.

It is a most serious crime to pretend one is representing G-d when doing so according to their opinion. It is like someone spending money in your bank account based on their opinion on how they think you should spend your money. If you did not authorize them – even if they were spending according to your thinking – you would have issue with their honesty and respect for law and covenant.

In the end it is not really a question of monotheism but a question of covenant and law and if you are involved with the covenants of the Suzerain or an imposter. I also purport that if you do not know the difference between the Suzerain and an imposter – then it really does not matter if you call yourself a Monotheist or not; by whatever definition.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

There can be little question that many of the Jewish people of the Old Testament era were, in fact, polytheists. They often rejected the God of Israel and went whoring after the gods of Canaan. Additionally, given the spiritual climate of that time, it's likely many "moderates," did contend that Yahweh was the bestest and most powerfulest of the gods. Yet, my reading of scripture leads me to believe that God was calling his people to the type of monotheism this string is deeming "later" and "modern."

[urloony]

  Traveler said:

In the end it is not really a question of monotheism but a question of covenant and law and if you are involved with the covenants of the Suzerain or an imposter. I also purport that if you do not know the difference between the Suzerain and an imposter – then it really does not matter if you call yourself a Monotheist or not; by whatever definition.

I would disagree. Covenants are certainly important, but if you do not understand the nature of the being with whom you are covenanting with, the covenant would seem to me to be disingenuous.

  Quote

It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God Himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

History of the Church, 6:303-304

[urloony]

  prisonchaplain said:

There can be little question that many of the Jewish people of the Old Testament era were, in fact, polytheists. They often rejected the God of Israel and went whoring after the gods of Canaan. Additionally, given the spiritual climate of that time, it's likely many "moderates," did contend that Yahweh was the bestest and most powerfulest of the gods. Yet, my reading of scripture leads me to believe that God was calling his people to the type of monotheism this string is deeming "later" and "modern."

I suppose that is the question. What did the OT prophets have in mind regarding the nature of God. The argument that Heiser is making is not that God is unique, as in the only God in existence, but rather He and His power are incomparable to the other gods. It's an argument of incomparability rather than nonexistence.

  Quote

Deuteronomy 4:35 – “You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD, he is the God ( הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים ); besides him there is no other ( ”.(אֵ֥ין ע֖וֹד מִלְבַדּֽוֹ

Deuteronomy 4:39 – “Know therefore this day, and lay it to your heart, that Yahweh, he is the

God ( הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים ) in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other ( ”.(אֵ֖ין עֽוֹד

Deuteronomy 32:29 – “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me ( ין

אֱלֹהִ֖ים עִמָּדִ֑י ); I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver

out of my hand.”

With respect to Deut 4:35, 39, יְהָו֖ה ה֣וּא הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים is a verbless clause with the pronoun

emphasizing the subject, but what does it mean that Yahweh is הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים ? Is this a denial of the

existence of other gods? How can that be reconciled with the presumption of other gods in these passages (cp. Deut 4:10-20; 32:8-9)?8 It is at least equally probable from a linguistic perspective that the phrase means that Yahweh is superior or incomparable. That is, Yahweh is the God par excellence, as Deut 10:17 states: כִּ֚י יְהָו֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם ה֚וּא אֱלֹהֵ֣י הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים (“for the Lord our God, he is the God of the gods”). If the other gods to whom Yahweh is compared here do not exist in the mind of the writer, where is the praise, and perhaps even the honesty, in the statement? Other passages in the Torah, such as Exod 15:18, beg the same question. When the author wrote “Lord, who is like you among the אלים ?” did he really mean, “Lord who is like you among the imaginary beings that really aren’t there”? When the final redactors, presumably zealous over the new idea of monotheism, allowed Deut 10:17 and Exodus 15:18 to stand, did they simply err, or were they content to put polytheistic language into the mouth of Moses? How does such language accomplish rhetorical persuasion if the audience does not believe that any other deities exist to whom Yahweh may be compared?

[Traveler]

  urloony said:

I would disagree. Covenants are certainly important, but if you do not understand the nature of the being with whom you are covenanting with, the covenant would seem to me to be disingenuous.

Sadly you have missed some important points. Many of the parables of Jesus give symbolism directly to understanding “The Kingdom” but because so few today are citizens of a kingdom the symbolism is largely lost.

Jesus addressed directly in his own words and teachings that there would be imposters associated with his Kingdom. He spoke directly as to how his citizens (sheep of his fold) were to identify imposters but mostly in parables – never once did he speak of monotheisms. He spoke of wolves that would pretend to be sheep but who intended to devour and destroy the sheep. One very interesting symbol of imposters is men gathering grapes of thorns and figs of thistles. Without a background in ancient covenants and kingdoms this concept is lost and not understood. Another important symbol of covenants is “eyes that see” and “ears that hear” – again without a background in ancient covenants and kingdoms this is not understood fully and correctly.

Jesus also taught concerning the Good Samaritan that according to the best scripture experts among the Jews of his day – worship a false and tainted G-d and were Polytheists. Jesus was accused of being a Polytheists by the Scribes and Pharisees that called Jesus a Samaritan because Jesus taught that a man could become G-d.

Nephi indicated that those that understood the “traditions” of the Jews that the scriptures are plain and simple but without such understanding many in our day would be “lost” to the plain and precious gems of truth taught in scripture.

The Traveler

Edited June 19, 2010 by Traveler