HENOTHEISM IN CHRISTIANITY

Some of the world's dominating religions have evolved from polytheism to monotheism.

The various gods of the Vedas finally become the triple deity of Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva, with sectarian trinities present in the devotion of Krishna, Shiva, and the Hindu Goddess. However, it is evident that this premise is not as black and white as it seems, as researchers have now observed a regression in the originally monotheistic Zoroastrianism's return to polytheism. One of the phases of transition from polytheism to monotheism is called "henotheism," which refers to a scenario in which there are many gods but one God reigns supreme.

The last editors of the Hebrew canon had been ardent monotheists, yet traces of the pre-Mosaic religion's polytheistic foundation may still be found.

Divine titles such as 'El Bet' el (Gen. 31:13; 35:7); 'El 'Olam (Gen. 21:33); and 'El Ro'i (Gen. 16:13); 'El 'Elyon (Gen. 14:18); and 'El Saddai (Gen. 17:1); were all originally separate gods worshipped by the early Hebrews, but after Moses they had all been interpreted as one God who we know as Yaweh (Alt, 1967).  According to Bruce Vawter, a Catholic scholar, none of the various English translations are true to the original Hebrew in Genesis 31:13, which simply says "I am the god Bethel" ('El Bet'el), a member of the Canaanite pantheon amongst the others (Vawter: 1997). The original meaning is thus significantly different from the popular interpretation: this god at Bethel is not a universal Lord who appeared at Bethel, but rather one of many gods - a local deity of the specific region.

The reciprocal vows of Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:51) refers to two distinct gods. This passage clearly shows the influence of later editors. It was pagan for Israel's ancestor and one of his relatives to swear by two different gods, so this language had to be changed (van Rad, 1961).  In Judges 11:24, Jepthah acknowledges the deity Chemosh's power, at least for the Ammonites in their own region.

The idea that Yahweh only revealed himself to Moses and that no one worshiped Yahweh but the Hebrews is also becoming more fragile. Several academics have discovered evidence of people worshiping Yaweh in pre-Mosaic eastern societies. Some Ebla academics believe that the tablets from the third millennium B.C.E. speak of a god named "Ya," who is tied to Yaweh.  And actually, the first commandment does not deny the existence of other gods, but rather forbids Israelites from worshipping or acknowledging them. In Deuteronomy 32.8, we see proof of this because we read Yaweh divvying nations up according to the number of sons of god.

“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.”

The RSV agrees with the Septuagint text, which is backed up by the copy of Deuteronomy found amongst the dead sea scrolls in cave 4 at Qumran.

Some ninth century Masoretic texts replaces "sons of God" with "sons of Israel," which some modern English versions follow. It looks like the Masoretes altered the text to wipe it clean of any hints of polytheism. "Sons of Israel" makes no sense in Deut. 32:8. The people of Israel were Yahweh's division while the sons of God were the divine beings or angels authorized by God to rule over the nations. Their existence is not denied; but they are subservient to Yaweh. "The poet, drawing on Canaanite mythology, identifies Yahweh with the pre-Davidic god “Elyon." Because Deut. 32:8 has been interpreted as a very old passage, scholars theorize that in the beginning Yahweh was not the head of the gods, but simply one of the "sons of God" in the sense of b‘n‘ 'Elyon. In Deut. 32:8 Yahweh seems to be different from “Elyon”, because of the definite third person reference, which gives the impression that Yahweh like the sons of God received his division from “Elyon." (Cooke, 1964).

Theodore C. Vriezen explains the advantage of henotheism: "This idea of beings surrounding God by no means detracts from the uniqueness of God; on the contrary, these divine beings rather emphasize his uniqueness; he is the God of gods, their God, too; and they praise his holiness. Far from clashing with monotheism, this conception lays the greatest stress on the majesty of Yahweh. Yahweh is a unique God, but he is not alone." (Vriezen, 1962). Supporting Vriezen's point is the fact that the other deities are never named, except for perhaps the case of Satan in Job.

This divine pluralism is also visible in the Hebrew term for god, “Elohîm”, which is a plural version of “Eloah”, which is a form of 'El, the universal Semitic word for God. Some scholars claim that ”Elohîm” in regard to Yahweh is just a grammatical plurality. For those scholars, “Elohîm” is an abstract plural with a solitary meaning for them. A grammatical construct like that would define the Almighty's majesty. William Brownlee of Claremont demonstrated the radical extent of the use of this "plural of majesty" in his study of the "Great Isaiah Scroll" at Qumran: even Yahweh's quiver (Is. 49:2) and a single hand are in the plural (Brownlee, 1964).

However, Hebrew grammarian Gensenius noted a significant exemption. The majestic plural is not relevant when 'elohim is referred to pronominally, as in "let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26) (Kautzsch, 1909). Furthermore, in neighboring sections, the writers use singular verbs for the deity; so, the use of the plural at 1:26 must be for a good purpose. In Canaanite parallels, the head deity addresses his divine assembly in the first person plural. This verse clearly depicts a henotheistic situation in which Yahweh consults with minor deities surrounding him.

The use of 'elohîm as divine entities distinct from Yahweh (e.g., Gen. 6, Ps. 82) shows decisively that this divine pluralism is not only grammatical. The fact that Yahweh is called 'El 'elim (God of gods, Dan. 11:36) or the use of the definite article ha 'elohîm (the God) for Yahweh, or b'n' 'elohîm (the sons of God) for the other gods (Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) demonstrates henotheism. Cooke says: "These are not'sons' of Yahweh in a filial sense... the'sons of (the) God(s)' are those who are from the realm of the gods, who partake in divinity." According to Gensenius, b'n' 'elohîm "means not sons of god(s), but beings of the class of 'elohîm of 'elim...."

Some Christian writers have interpreted 'elohîm's ontological pluralism as definitive proof of the Trinity. This viewpoint is supported by Genesis 18, in which three strange visitors appear to Abraham. (Gaster, 1969). But I believe that instead of imposing a Christian viewpoint brought out two millennia later, the hermeneutic and ideal method would be to look at it it within the context of ancient Near Eastern religions - this is exactly what Theodore Gaster did, and he determined that the story shares fundamental similarities with the polytheistic folklore trope of hospitality being rewarded. "The classic parallel is the tale, told by Ovid and Hyginus, of how Jupiter, Neptune, and Mercury (i.e., three visitors, as in the biblical narrative), came in disguise to Hyrieus, a childless peasant of Tanagra, and in exchange for his hospitality, granted him the boon of a son." (Weber, 1952). This legend dates back at least to Pindar (518-438 B.C.E.).

According to Max Weber, the theological foundation of Genesis 18 is most likely polytheistic: "The grammatical forms in Abraham's address to the divine epiphany of the three men would seem to make it probable that the singular of the address did not preclude the possibility of polytheistic conceptions."

At least four considerations undermine the trinitarian hypothesis: (1) the triunity of Yahweh is clearly compromised when two of the divine beings leave for Sodom (18:22), and Yahweh and Abraham are left behind determining the fate of the Sodomites; (2) it is clear that the divine variety is more than three, if the other 'elohîm are the deities of the other nations; (3) even if there were only three gods, this is clearly tritheism and not just one deity with three different personas and (4) the personas of the Trinity are definitely not percieved as a divine council with God the Father as the head.

Could the Elohim be angels?

The fact that the two supernatural beings that go to Sodom are referred to as "angels" has caused traditional commentators to deny the suggested polytheism by stating that these beings were not actual gods, but angels who were created. Albright, Weber, Gaster, Speiser, and others reject this interpretation. The Bible distinguishes between an angel (Heb. malakh; Gk., aggelos) and a god ('elohîm; theos). Revelation 19:10 and 22:8,9 state unequivocally that angels are merely servants and not gods to be worshiped.

The 'elohîm are not created angels because they have always been with Yahweh and are active in creation (Gen. 1:26; Job 38:7).

Brownlee admits that there is no mention of angel creation, but he does note out that yahweh saba'ot does mean "Creator of [heavenly] armies." However, it is obvious, particularly in Job, that the Lord's host (=army) is made up of astral deities rather than angels. However, the word "creator" implies that the entities have been created, removing an important divine attribute (at least in philosophical theology).

In Vedic hedonism, the minor gods are also also spoken of as created beings. In Job, Satan is one of the inferior gods, a son of God, and is referred to elsewhere (Is. 14:12) as the "Day Star" (helal) and "son of Dawn" (shahar), both included in the Canaanite pantheon. According to scholar Marvin H. Pope, "these are lesser members of the ancient pagan pantheon who are retained in later monotheistic theology as angels."

The interchange of God and angels in the Hebrew Scriptures reflects an early understanding of angels prior to the introduction of Persian angelology during and after the Babylonian captivity. To early Hebrews, a heavenly figure served as a temporary disguise for Yahweh. "Angels" served as intermediaries between Yahweh and mankind (Dahood, 1996). As a result, the "angel" that appears to Hagar (Gen. 16:7), the "angels" at the Oaks of Mamre and Sodom, the "angel" that wrestled with Jacob, and the "angel" that was "commander of the army of the Lord" (Jos. 5:14) are all divine incarnations of either Yahweh or one of the lower deities.

This early Hebrew angelology hypothesis also rules out the idea that the "men" who appear as Yahweh foretell the Incarnation in any way. There is no explicit concept of a man-God or a sustained doctrine of the Incarnation in the Hebrew Scriptures, with the exception of Is. 9:6, which many interpret as "divinity in might". The concept of the man-God was most likely inspired by Greco-Roman state cults and Hellenistic mystery religions. The concept is not only strange, but also blasphemous to the Hebrew psyche.

Nonprophetic writings such as the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Job include more remains of ancient Judaism's original polytheistic background. Psalm 82 is an important scripture when considering evidence of Hebrew henotheism.

1 God has taken his place in the divine council;    

in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

2 “How long will you judge unjustly    

and show partiality to the wicked? Selah

3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;    

maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.

4 Rescue the weak and the needy;    

deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding,    

they walk about in darkness;    

all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 I say, “You are gods,    

sons of the Most High, all of you;

7 nevertheless, you shall die like men,    

and fall like any prince.”

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;    

for to thee belong all the nations!

Traditional interpretations of this psalm have held that the 'elohîm (the gods) are actually judges rather than divine creatures. However, if the 'adat'el (the divine council, the congregation of the mighty) is an assembly of kings, the term 'elohîm is meaningless. According to some Ugaritic researchers, the phrase 'adat'el is definitely derived from the Ugaritic 'dt il, which is the "council of El" of Canaanite mythology. According to others, Psalm 82 is another Canaanite hymn that has been Yahwinized, and as a result, the text, like other Psalms borrowed from Ugarit, is distorted and confusing.

It cannot be denied that the primary meaning of 'elohîm is "gods," and that only through a considerable stretch of the imagination and very tricky and questionable hermeneutics can other meanings be given to it. The main issue with these latter interpretations is that 'elohîm is never used in this manner in any other passage. In 1 Samuel 28:13, the "spirit" of the deceased Samuel is referred to as a 'elohîm, but the word god there means a being from another [spiritual] world." Some interpret the 'elohîm in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8 to be "judges," but competent Catholic academics believe that these passages also reflect an ancient polytheistic strain.

Another common objection to the Elohim being gods is that Yaweh sentences them to die like men, so how could they be gods? But the mostly likely understanding is that the translation is wrong. To die like men, does not mean to die a man’s death but rather to die like (the Hebrew verb) temutun mortals, only highlighting the fact that they are not.

To conclude

Traditional monotheism did not appear in Hebrew scriptures until the start of the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century, and proof of monotheism before then is likely the product of editing at a later stage.

We've seen how subsequent scribes didn't hesitate to modify passages (Deut. 32:8; Gen. 31:53) with clear polytheistic undertones. It is worth noting that the monotheistic passages in Isaiah (45:21, 22; 46:90) occur after Cyrus the Great is designated the Lord's Messiah, or "anointed one," in 45:1. Cyrus was a Zoroastrian who worshipped the single, ultimate God Ahura Mazda. Many scholars argue that Zoroastrianism was the world's first really monotheistic religion, and that Hebrew religion was strongly influenced by the fact that the new state of Israel was a minor province within a vast Persian empire.

---

• ALT, A. 1967. Essays on Old Testament history and religion, Doubleday, p. 10 – 11.
  

• VAWTER, B. 1977. On Genesis: A new reading, p. 313 – 4
  

• VAN RAD, O, 1961. Genesis: A Commentary, Philadelphia: Westminster, p. 308
  

• COOKE, G, 1964. "The Sons of (the) God(s)," Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, p. 33.
  

• VRIEZEN, T, 1962. An Outline of Old Testament Theology, p. 180.
  

• BROWNLEE, W,The Meaning of the Qumram Scrolls for the Bible, pp. 170-172.
  

• KAUTZSCH, E, 1909, Gensenius' Hebrew Grammar, p. 399.
  

• GASTER, 1969, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament Vol. I, p. 156.
  

• Weber, M, 1952, Ancient Judaism p. 152.
  

• DAHOOD, M. 1966. The Anchor bible. Psalms III, p. 12