in Uncategorized 1,166 Words

Craig Carter on the Meaning of Biblical Monotheism

Source: Craig A. Carter. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism (pp. 179, 181-183).

Throughout the Bible, we see a range of terms, which are hard to systematize, used to refer to a variety of spiritual entities who exercise various kinds of functions, including carrying out commissions, delivering messages, fighting as part of the heavenly army, governing aspects of creation, and ruling in various ways. Biblical monotheism does not deny the existence of these beings, and they all are called ʾĕlōhîm throughout the Old Testament.

Interestingly, Christian theology has typically used the term “angel” as an umbrella term for all of these entities that exist in the spiritual realm, both fallen and unfallen beings. The fallen angels usually tend to be called “demons,” which again functions as a broad category. But the terminology of the Hebrew Bible does not correspond to this use of the words “angel” and “demon.” In Hebrew, the word “demons” (šēdîm) is not used frequently and is not used of all fallen spiritual entities. It is, however, sometimes used when a particularly pejorative meaning is intended (e.g., Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37). But the pagan deities behind the idols used to represent them in paganism are often just referred to as ʾĕlōhîm rather than šēdîm, which could indicate that while all šēdîm are fallen ʾĕlōhîm, not all fallen ʾĕlōhîm are šēdîm. And we have already seen that Paul uses a variety of terms for ruling spiritual entities besides the term “angel,” a word he also knows and uses (2 Cor. 11:14; Gal. 1:8; 4:14). Some or all of the ruling entities to which Paul refers are fallen; that is, they are in rebellion against God and threats to us. If Paul were to write in Hebrew, he would undoubtedly call them ʾĕlōhîm, following Old Testament precedent…

What does biblical monotheism mean? I offer the following definition as a starting point.

Transcendent monotheism: This is the view that God is the transcendent Creator of all things. We see this view in the Bible, beginning in the Old Testament and continuing in the New Testament. It is also the view of the Nicene fathers and the trinitarian classical theism of the Great Tradition. This view is compatible with the existence of many levels and kinds of spiritual beings in addition to the LORD; what they all have in common is that they were all created by the transcendent Creator God, who is Yahweh, the God of Israel.

So that we can be as clear as possible about what is and is not being said here, let me offer some related definitions.

Pantheistic monotheism without polytheism: This is the view that there is only one God and this God is identical with the totality of all that exists. It can also be termed “philosophical monotheism.” We see this view in the writings of Baruch Spinoza.

Pantheistic monotheism with polytheism: This is the view that God is identical with all things but that certain forces of nature may be personified and regarded as gods. We see this view in Hinduism. We also see Augustine in The City of God criticizing some of the Platonist philosophers of his day for taking this position, as evidenced by their willingness to participate in the polytheistic paganism of their day, even though they professed a philosophical monotheism.

Polytheism: This is a view found in many areas of the world, in which there are many gods and even sometimes a “high god,” but all reality is not identified with God in an abstract manner. However, in many mythological cultures, such as the ancient Near Eastern ones surrounding Israel, the human, nature, and the divine all connect and interact with each other, which brings them close to pantheistic monotheism with polytheism.

Theistic personalism: This is the view that God is a person like us but different in degree. Many of the attributes of classical theism may be assigned to this type of God, but usually not simplicity, immutability, or impassibility. This view is like polytheism, but instead of a pantheon of gods, only one “high” God is worshiped, and only this one God is thought to exist. This view has made great inroads in modernity among evangelicals today.

Theistic mutualism: This is the view that God and the world coexist in a two-way relationship in which each affects the other for good or ill. This view is a type of post-Christian, neopaganism that is not the same as ancient mythological worldviews, but it shares one key point in common with them that makes it more like mythology than the biblical doctrine of God—namely, the rejection of transcendence. The soft version of this view, in which God sovereignly allows creation to cause change in him although he is not forced to do so, is increasingly popular among evangelical theologians, including conservative Reformed ones.

Elective monolatry: This is the view that there are many gods but that only one God is to be worshiped by our group. This is often held by polytheists who believe that their people or tribe should worship a certain god but that other tribes or nations should worship their own gods. This view was common in the Roman Empire of the New Testament period. It is really a subset of polytheism and not as close to ethical monolatry as the terminology might suggest.

Ethical monolatry: This is the view that there are many gods, but only one God is to be worshiped by anyone. This is the view of the Old Testament writings and of the Jews of the New Testament period. They held it to be morally wrong for anyone to worship any god but Yahweh, which of course made them seem extreme and arrogant to polytheists of all kinds. This view may be held without an accompanying belief in transcendent monotheism, but in that case, it lacks any solid theoretical foundation and can appear arbitrary.

In order to understand Isaiah 41–48 properly, we must see that ethical monolatry is compatible with transcendent monotheism, because pagan religions worship ʾĕlōhîm who are not Yahweh and are not worthy of worship. In fact, transcendent monotheism provides an ontological basis for ethical monolatry. While it is true that ethical monolatry is incompatible with scientific materialism, so is transcendent monotheism. Isaiah’s belief in a transcendent Creator rules out the possibility of any sort of pantheism, panentheism, theistic personalism, or theistic mutualism, because all of these doctrines view the divine as part of the cosmos rather than before and above the cosmos. It does not, however, rule out belief in many kinds of ʾĕlōhîm in addition to Yahweh.

Isaiah 41–48 teaches that only Yahweh is to be worshiped, not because Yahweh is the only ʾĕlōhîm that exists, but rather because Yahweh is the only ʾĕlōhîm who is worthy of worship. As the transcendent Creator, he is unique, and only the transcendent Creator should be worshiped.