Dan McClellan and I are engaging on the topic of monotheism in the Bible. This video is a final response, seeking to flag a few points in case they help onlookers struggling with this topic.
Summary of the Big Picture
Dan’s original claim was that there is no monotheism in the Bible: so that even the apparent assertions of monotheism in Isaiah are rhetoric that the God of Israel is the only God that matters for us, kind of like a Broncos fan will speak of the Denver Broncos over the Raiders. Similarly, Dan argues I Corinthians 8:6 is more likely asserting that one God really matters or there is one God we care about.
So these are the original claims I responded to. And I drew attention to this clause in I Corinthians 8:6:
“For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (I Corinthians 8:5-6).
It doesn’t say there is one God who matters to us. It says there is one God “from whom are all things.”
Other passages also seem to indicate more than simply “one God who matters for us.” For example, Nehemiah 9:6 indicates the Lord created the host of heaven, and they worship him.
“You are the Lord, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you” (Nehemiah 9:6).
Again, this is not a claim that the Denver Broncos can make over the Raiders. The Denver Broncos did not create the Raiders. The Raiders do not worship them.
Egyptian Deities
Dan has some very interesting responses. First, he quoted from a hymn of praise to the Egyptian deity Amun-Ra to show that this kind of rhetoric of incomparability isn’t unique to the Hebrew Bible. You can find other deities in ancient literature well before the Bible who are held to create all things, including other deities. So here for example, are affirmations of Amun-Ra’s role in creating other gods and being worshipped by them.
“The One maker of all things,
Creator and Maker of beings,
From Whose eyes mankind proceeded,
From Whose mouth the Gods were created….
The Gods adore Your Majesty
And They exalt the Glory of Their Creator,
Jubilating before You, Their Begetter” (from the Boulaq Papyrus [1552-1295 BC])
But I at least want to flag for onlookers (many of whom don’t know much about Egyptian deities) to look into this a bit more, and really vet this comparison. Dan claimed this is the “exact same rhetoric” that you find in the Hebrew Bible in other ancient SW Asian literature. But there are differences. For example, Amun-Ra is regarded is self-created. Thus, Amun-Ra came into being. He is not eternal. From what I can tell, this is how he is generally interpreted.
And I would argue that this is different from the Bible, where you have passages depicting the God of Israel as the uncreated, eternal, Creator God: “From everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2).
Ultimately, I think Michael Heiser’s defense of the biblical God as “species unique” is correct. Because eternality demarcates a being as qualitatively unique in a significant way. There is to talk through about this, but hopefully that at least flags this issue for onlookers.
The Term “Monotheism”
Dan is concerned that this word “monotheism” has a particular history related to Henry More, and that way it has functioned as a value term. But at the end of his video, he seems to assert that the only reason someone like myself wants to use that word for the Bible is a kind of dogmatic bias.
But it’s worth observing that the term “monotheism” has been proposed by some Egyptologists to describe some strands of ancient Egyptian religion precisely because of the elevated status of Amun-Re. For example, Richard Wilkinson’s book The Complete Gods and Godesses of Ancient Egypt: “(Amun) came particularly close to being a kind of monotheistic deity” (Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Godesses of Ancient Egypt [W.W. Norton, 2017], 94).
And you can find the term monotheism cropping up in scholarly discussions of Akhenaten (c. 1353–1336 or 1351–1334 BC), a 14th century Pharaoh, because he abolished the traditional Egyptian polytheism and advocated for the worship of one other deity. Some scholars use the term monotheism for this; others monolatry or henotheism.
My point isn’t who is right and wrong in any of this. My point is that if that term is flirted with to describe some understandings of various strands of Egyptian religion, when the supreme deity is not eternal, then this terminology should not be judged as necessarily motivated by dogmatic bias with respect to the biblical religion.
This is an unfair judgment of motive. Granted, there can be bad motives for using a particular term. But we are not beholden to Henry More’s usage of the term. Another possible motive to use the term “monotheism” for certain passages in the Bible is conceptual clarity.
The difference between an eternal being and temporal beings is a significant. If you have one eternal being who created all other temporal beings, this results in a thick, qualitative distinction between the eternal God and all other temporal beings. The ultimate vision of reality it leaves you with is that everything comes from one source. As Paul says: “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things” (I Corinthians 8:6).
For example, consider this thought experiment: suppose for the sake of argument that the God of Israel created the first other “god” in the year 1 million BC. In the year 2 million BC, you have monotheism. Because no other gods yet exist. in the year 3 million BC, you have monotheism. In the year 4 million BC, you have monotheism. Etc.
So hopefully this is enough to show that the term monotheism is not purely the result of dogmatic bias, but rather conceptual clarity. Because you want to highlight how distinct this one Creator is from the other beings he makes.
Development of the Concept of God in the Bible
Another concern Dan raised early on is flattening out the development of the conception of the divine that evolves throughout the Bible. Its fair to say I have not addressed that, but this is a function of the ambitiousness of Dan’s thesis. I am responding to Dan’s claim that there is no monotheism in the bible. It’s just one God “who matters for us.” To oppose that claim, it’s not necessary to fully flesh out the development of the biblical conception of God: it’s just enough to show that in some passages God is not the “only God that matters for us,” but rather is more than that. That is sufficient for the task at hand.
Do Pagan Deities Exist?
The final point I want to flag for further review concerns passages that seem to deny the actual existence of pagan deities. For example, I have referenced II Kings 19:18:
“17 Truly, O Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands 18 and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed.”
Dan seems to be arguing that all that is being affirmed in a passage like II Kings 19 is that the physical idols made of wood and stone are not real, not that the actual deity they represent is not real. So let’s take the final words from his treatment of this, hoping this is a fair representation:
“They were denying real deity to the idol, not to the deity it was supposed to index” (Dan McClellan, “Engaging Gavin Ortlund on monotheism,” 18:00-18:10, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhL86fKYeAc&t=1086s)
In other words: a physical statute of Baal: not real. But Baal himself is real.
And I’ll list three reasons why I am not convinced by this. First, this distinction is not in the text.
“16 Incline your ear, O Lord, and hear; open your eyes, O Lord, and see; and hear the words of Sennacherib, which he has sent to mock the living God. 17 Truly, O Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands 18 and have cast their gods (elohim) into the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed. 19 So now, O Lord our God, save us, please, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O Lord, are God alone” (II Kings 19-16-19)
The text doesn’t say, “the physical idols of the gods were destroyed.” It says, “they cast their gods (elohim) into the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of men’s hand.” The claim seems to be that the gods are the physical idols. That is why they can be destroyed.
And this is contrasted with the living God, as you can see in verse 16. (The opposite of living is of course dead.) And the purpose clause that I also underlined in verse 19 is “that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O Lord, are God alone.” That is a strange purpose clause if indeed there are a bunch of other deities, and he’s not God alone.
It’s the same with II Chronicles 32:19, which didn’t get commented on from Dan. Here we read that:
18 And they shouted it with a loud voice in the language of Judah to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to frighten and terrify them, in order that they might take the city. 19 And they spoke of the God of Jerusalem as they spoke of the gods of the peoples of the earth, which are the work of men’s hands. II Chronicles 32:19
The text doesn’t say, “the physical statues are not gods.” It says the gods are the physical statues.
The second reason I’m skeptical of Dan’s distinction between the idols are not real but the actual gods as real is that this interpretation would make biblical rhetorical virtually meaningless. Consider Psalm 115:
3 Our God is in the heavens;
he does all that he pleases.
4 Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
5 They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but do not see.
6 They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
7 They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throat.
If the text were saying, “the statue of Baal cannot see or act, but Baal himself can,” then the rhetoric would be pathetic. Of course the actual statues cannot walk around. Ancient people knew that.
What makes the biblical claim audacious is that it is speaking about what is represented by the physical idol as well. It looks to me like passages in Scripture condemn making physical idols precisely because the whole activity that is related to them is utterly futile.
That can be seen more clearly in my third reason for disagreement with Dan: that is, biblical narrative. When it comes to I Kings 18, Dan brings up the use of the definite article. I don’t disagree with his point grammatically, but I think this is underdetermined to determine whether from the standpoint of the text, Baal actually exists.
To answer that question, we should consider what happens in the narrative. The prophets of Baal are dancing. They have a long time to call upon his name (morning till noon). They are cutting themselves till the blood gushes out! Yet despite all this, here is what the text says twice: no one heard.
Verse 26: “But there was no voice, and no one answered.”
Verse 29: “there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.”
It doesn’t say, “Baal didn’t answered their prayers.” It says “no one answered; no one paid attention.” The whole point is the emphasize the impotence of Baal.
Dan wants to argue that “what is at stake here is not which God exists but which God has the appropriate type of power for this people in this region” (Dan McClellan, “Engaging Gavin Ortlund on monotheism,” 22:08-22:19, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhL86fKYeAc&t=1086s).
As for the appropriate type of power, as Dan points out, Baal is held to be the storm god. So we don’t have a sea god vs. a storm god. We have two god with competing power of the storm. And in terms of the region, remember that earlier in this very same book, the purpose clause of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple:
“59 Let these words of mine, with which I have pleaded before the Lord, be near to the Lord our God day and night, and may he maintain the cause of his servant and the cause of his people Israel, as each day requires, 60 that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other” (I Kings 8:60).
So it doesn’t seem to be theology of the book of Kings that YHWH had jurisdiction over the storms in this region, whereas Baal did in another. Rather, the God of Israel is the God of all the earth. So you find miracles happening outside of Israel, too (like in I Kings 17, up in Zarephath). This should inform our reading of chapter 18, and the repeated phrase emboldened here:
26 And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. 27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” 28 And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. 29 And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.
What is explicit here is that there is no one out there listening to the prophets of Baal. The contest here between Baal and the God of Israel doesn’t seem like a Broncos vs. the Raiders, because Baal isn’t just the weaker deity.
Are Apologists Biased?
In the comments lot of people saying that because Gavin is an apologist, he is committed to seeing monotheism and has to read it into the text. Now this can happen to any apologist. Apologetics can be a dangerous enterprise. I hope to be the kind of apologist who is willing to adjust and respond to the data, so I always consider comments like this.
But I think these discussions would be better if we reduced the motive judgments. It is perfectly possible to defend something (apologetics) while remaining open-hearted to counter-objections. So far as I can tell, I defend Christianity because I sincerely think it is true.
Responses