In my last post (see Pt. 16) I shared Peter Enns’ juxtaposition of the biblical creation narrative with the Enuma Elish. In this post we return to his book The Evolution of Adam for his discussion on monolatry. For Enns this is the important theological, polemical point being made that we need to recognize.
Enns observes that we know that the Israelites were “…not consistently monotheistic, which is the belief that only one god exists. Rather, the Israelites were monolatrous, at least throughout portions of their history, meaning they worshiped only one God, Yahweh, but without denying the existence of other gods. (The Greek word for worship is latreuō, hence monolatry.)” (Kindle Locations 1176-1178)
The question of the Book of Exodus is not whether YHWH is a humanitarian liberator of slaves. Enns writes, “Rather, Yahweh is laying claim on his own people, that they might serve him rather than Pharaoh and the Egyptian gods.” (Kindle Location 1183) This means, “…the question throughout Exodus is, ‘Whom will Israel ʿavad: god-Pharaoh as slaves or God-Yahweh as worshipers?'” (Kindle Locations 1189-1190). Or put another way:
“The exodus story is about Israel’s God—the God of first a wandering and then an enslaved people—who marches into the territory of the superpower of the day and effortlessly defeats their gods and their king. Exodus is a story of monolatry, not monotheism. To miss this is to miss the theological depth of Exodus.” (Kindle Locations 1201-1204)
The first and second commandments are about loyalty and fidelity to Israel’s God, not a denial that there are other gods. Enns reminds us that several psalms reflect this idea, 82.6; 95.2; 96.4; 97.9; 135.5; and 136.2. He acknowledges:
“The Old Testament is not uniformly monolatrous (e.g., see Deut. 4:39; Isa. 44:6–20; Jer. 10:1–16), but that does not affect the point I am making.”
Enns continues,
“Genesis 1 reflects the same argument we find in Exodus and the Psalms: Yahweh alone is worthy of worship, and none of the other gods can compare to him. This is a radical claim that would have spoken volumes to a small, beleaguered nation surrounded by polytheism. Yahweh spoke and things fell into place quickly and effortlessly. Even the sun and moon—deities in the ancient world—are impersonal objects fixed in the heavens by God’s command not until day 4. The placement of the stars, thought to be keys to revealing the will of the gods, is almost an afterthought.” (Kindle Locations 1226-1232)
This is the point of Genesis and the creation narrative. It is not about science for Enns. It is about the theological message that YHWH is over creation, not the gods.
I will continue my reflections on Enns’ views of the biblical flood stories as juxtaposed with other flood stories and their impact on how we read Genesis in my next post, but for now I direct you to the comments if you have any thoughts on monolatry, monotheism, and how this impacts our reading of Genesis. Also, I would like to direct reader’s attention to Michael Heiser’s recent blog post, “Genesis 1-3 at Face Value–Is It Compatible with Recent Genome Research.” It is quite thought provoking!
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian said “Rather, the Israelites were monolatrous, at least throughout portions of their history, meaning they worshipped only one God, Yahweh, but without denying the existence of other gods.”
Strictly speaking it’s not completely true to say that ancient Israelites were monolatrous. They did not worship only one God tolerating others. Ancient Israel frequently worshipped others too. They worshipped Asherah feminine goddess of the Canaanite pantheon [I Kings 15:13][II Kings 21:7][II Chronicles 15:6] and Molech (Moloch) the Egyptian bull God Ammon [1 Kings 11:7]. It was Molech they were worshipping when Moses received the commandments [Ezo 32:4], and the worship of these ‘gods’ that resulted in Israel and Judah being expelled from the land god promised Abraham.
[Lev 18:21] says “You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD” yet Judah continued to worship Molech up until God sent Babylon [Jer 32:25] including human sacrifice [Jer 32:35]. (see also [Lev 20:2-5][2 Kings 23:10].
The worship of Asherah was apparently a feminist religion (according to the archaeological record) so it cannot even be claimed that ancient Israel was entirely patriarchal until at least Babylon at which point the worship of Asherah and Molech ceased.
Enn should observer that Israel and Judah were not monotheistic at all until they were punished by Babylon and Assyria at which point those who were worshipping other gods were cut off. It was through God’s use of Babylon and Assyria that brought consistent monotheism to Israel and Judah.
Just like your last post, for Enns to conclude Exodus was a story of monolatry, not monotheism, this draws into question his exegetical skill and purpose:
Clealry [Exodus 22:20] is a absolute call to monotheism since worship of others god’s resulted in destruction: “Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the LORD alone, shall be devoted to destruction.”
It is true that Israel was often unfaithful as seen in their worship of other gods (Enns doesn’t deny this). I’m not sure why you criticize Enns by using Ex. 22.20 though. Monolatry = fidelity to one god though acknowledging the existence of others. Monotheism = acknowledgment of only one god. The very mention of “any god” in Ex. 22.20 does not exclude their existence. This is what Enns is saying.
Brian said “Monolatry = fidelity to one god though acknowledging the existence of others”
The Hebrews weren’t simply acknowledging the existence of others in Exodus and they weren’t exercising fidelity to only one. That understates it (and why I was critical).
Rather, as a people they were actively worshipping a pantheon of ‘gods’ (which included Yehweh), all the while steeped in controversy leading to full fledged, no-holds-barred, contest over which, if any of their gods, were real. This is something more than monolatry, which down plays the magnitude and urgency of the issue. Some Hebrews may have been tolerant of other ‘gods’ but that view is not the view reflected in ‘Exodus’.
The very mention of ‘any god’ in [Exo 22:20] is done with the greatest parody, and reflects not a monolatrous view, but a monothesitic one. (To try to re-represent Exodus by replacing it monotheistic undertones with mere monolatry, is something akin to caricaturing Jesus as a nice guy with admirable ethics – but it misses the point of the book.)
Again, Enns does not deny that Israel failed to be faithful to YHWH alone. All he is saying is that this was part of the aim of these passages, like Deut. 6.4. It was a call to do so and when Israel was behaving rightly this is what was expected.
It’s very misleading to suggest that the Hebrew Bible is not consistently monotheistic but rather monolatrous. Technically, the Hebrew Bible does recognize the existence of other “gods;” however, the deity ascribed to these beings is more functional in nature than ontological and is derived from an authority over the nations given to them by Yahweh (Deut 32:8; Dan 10:13, 20), who is himself the “God of gods” (Deut 10:17; Psalm 136:1-2) and will one day punish the lesser gods for their misrule of the nations (Psalm 82:1, 6-7; Isa 24:21). In other words, not only would the deity of these other gods not satisfy the more ontological conception of deity commonplace in Western society but also from the perspective of the Hebrew Bible their deity is both derived from Yahweh and inferior in every way to that of Yahweh. So, I would ask Enns and anyone else who suggests that the Hebrew Bible is not consistently monotheistic if a monotheism by any other name smells just as sweet.
On the other hand, if all Enns is saying is that the ancient Hebrews themselves were not consistently monotheistic then that’s hardly saying much given what the biblical record has to say about Israel’s idolatrous tendencies and their “whoring” after other gods.
resident
Enns doesn’t mislead in this regard. Rather, he rejects the idea you propose. He doesn’t think these “gods” are merely “functional.” He thinks the ancient Israelites believed they existed.
Brian I’m not attributing such a denial to Enns.
I’m questing whether it is true, the Israelites were monolatrous – by questioning whether they worshipped only one God while acknowledging the existence of others (the very definition of monolatry). If the Israelites worshipped many gods (including the one that would ultimately become the object of their monotheism) they were not monolatrists, they were polytheists (each person worship that god that suited him best).
When we look at Exodus, what do we see? We see a monotheistic perspective (likely a religious leader) confronting the acceptance of polytheism. What does it matter?
It matters because Exodus is an outgrowth of Genesis, which, as you’ve been showing, is something more than a mere creation myth. Genesis lays out the distinction that creature and creator are distinct, but it does more. Genesis establishes that our Creator, by virtue of the fact he is our creator, is worthy of our worship (which is at the heart of monotheism).
As Genesis transitions into Exodus, notice how it carries forward the portrayal of this Creator God? Just as in Genesis, it portrays him in such a way we can how we were created in his image Exodus shows how He was personally present with his people:
In Genesis the Creator was present in the garden [Gen 3:8], and walked with Enoch [Gen 5:22].
[Exo 4:31] “.. the Lord had visited the people of Israel and that he had seen their affliction, they bowed their heads and worshipped”.
[Exp 33:11] “Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.”
Genesis confronts the question ‘Who or what is worthy to be worshipped and why?’
Exodus confronts the question ‘How does this relate to all other objects of worship?’ (which only works if we recognize the monotheistic presupposition of it’s author. If we shift perspective to the Hebrews being confronted in the book, we still see (historical) polytheists, not monolatrists.
I would also add that this same theological trend of chalking monotheism up to monolatry is being done in the archaeology world. Look that that link I posted above about the archaeological rediscovery of Israel’s Asherah worship. Archaeologists seem unaware that monotheism is the result of Israel’s punishment by Yahweh, not a hallmark of their relationship to Him, and so use archaeological evidence such as the re-discovery of Asherah in Hebrew worship to undermine the idea Yahweh foged a special relationship with His people. Yes they worshipped other gods, but that got them into trouble and ultimately we have historical evidence Yahweh is a jealous God.
I don’t doubt Enns is a smart guy, and I wouldn’t attribute to him something so obviously false as the idea Hebrews were strictly monotheistic, but I am saying his representation of the Hebrews is false if he holds they were monolatrists rather than polytheists because it understates the degree to which they were worshipping other gods or the degree to which is was unacceptable to the author of Exodus.
resident
In portraying Enns’ view, Brian seems to differentiate between the habits of the people and the perspective of the author of Exodus. (I’m not sure if he’s getting this from Enns or not). I’ve tried to be sensitive to that insight above.
Brian,
I acknowledge this in my second sentence, “Technically, the Hebrew Bible does recognize the existence of other “gods.” What I am insisting is only functional is the kind of deity that these other gods possess and don’t deny the fact that the Hebrew Bible sees them as beings that actually exist in the heavens. Rather, it is my contention that Enns is possibly misleading his readers by suggesting that the Hebrew Bible conflates the deity of these other beings with that of Yahweh.
Enns seems to be addressing the perspective of biblical authors, not so much whether Israel was successful at serving one God. Even the Scriptures show they were not.
I hope I didn’t come across as saying Enns is doing that. He doesn’t.
Fair enough, my bad then. 🙂
No worries, I want to make sure I am being fair to Enns’ views when I write these blog posts, that’s all.
The OT text seems to state there are other “gods”. What you can’t seem to find in the OT is what does that mean, what is an “elohim/god” when it is not contextually Yahweh? Psalm 82 is a good example of such a passage.
Do these gods have potential like Yahweh? Not at all, they are at His discretion always, “there is none comparable to you, Yahweh”.
I don’t see this as monolatry because I think that means you accept there are other “gods” with potential to become the “El Elyon” at some point as pagan religions held and IMO, the ancient orthodox Jew would puke if someone suggested Yahweh might lose to part of His creation ever. The “gods” needed the potential to be THE GOD, or the term “elohims/gods” is just a word defining some spirit creature, no threat to their creator.
Somewhere, I think Paul stated the gods of the OT were demons.