The ancient Israelites were originally polytheistic. According to Mark S. Smith, author of The Early History of Israel, the ancient Israelites worshiped deities such as Baal and Asherah, and El who was eventually absorbed by Yahweh. The biblical narrative traces the shifting attitudes about God and the development from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism. Prophetic revelation, political leadership and rule, political change and unification, battle and warfare, and spread of literacy and development of writing all contributed to the development of what is now called “monotheism.”
Mark Smith argues the early Hebrew religion was syncretistic, combining the worship of Yahweh with the worship of local deities. The different religious practices gradually converged into one religious practice centered on Yahweh. “The stage of convergence can be dated only along very broad lines, but it would appear to have belonged to the earliest stages of Israelite literature, which would suggest a date beginning ca. 1100. This process of convergence continued down through the monarchy until the powers and imagery of Baal were fully assimilated by Yahweh, and it anticipates the later development of monolatry” (Smith 146).
According to Mark Smith, the god Yahweh originally appeared as a son of Elohim. But the relationship between Elohim and Yahweh is not an easily defined one because of the continuous morphology of how their names are used in the bible. Genesis refers to “God” or “Elohim,” and later books of the bible refer to “the Lord,” or “Yahweh”. Yahweh and Elohim are never opposed against each other, and, with the unbroken flow of the bible from naming god as “Elohim” to “Yahweh,” they even seem to be the same God, only called by a different name. Yet, “Deuteronomy 32:8-9 casts Yahweh in the role of one of the sons of El, here called ‘elyônn:”
When the Most High (‘elyônn) gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated humanity,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of divine beings.
For Yahweh’s portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage. (Smith 7)
More confusingly still, the word “El” later evolved to be a generic word for God, as shown by Joshua 22:22, which says “‘el ‘elohîm yhwh” [God of gods is Yahweh] (Smith 8). Perhaps Genesis, with the use of the name Elohim, is referring to God in general, as “the god,” or “a god.” If this is the case, this reference is later made more specific by the use of the name Yahweh. This specific naming of a certain god is an important individual development in the overall development of monolatry.
In the Bible, the instruction for monolatrous worship comes first from God and only later from prophets, priests, or kings. In Exodus 20, God addresses the Moses directly:
12 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me (Exodus 20:1-5).
God’s words, while not denying the existence of other gods, deny Israelites the right to worship other gods. The phrase “I am the Lord thy God” implies the existence of other gods. Contrastingly, the phrase “I am the Lord the God,” would mean Yahweh is the only god. By this phrase “I am the Lord thy God,” along with “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” the God of Exodus requires monolatrous worship but does not demand monotheism. It is also worth noting that, in this address to Moses, Yahweh stipulates that the Israelites must not worship likenesses of anything, not only of things in heaven, but also on Earth. This may have been a warning against the worship of kings and political leaders, as the Israelites later ask Samuel to crown a king over them. One of the later kings, David, becomes venerated like a human god. In Exodus 23, Yahweh’s discourse on monolatry continues: “My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. 24 Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. 25 Worship the LORD your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, 26 and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span” (Exodus 23).
Moses is key in the development of monolatry because he delivers these words of Yahweh to the people. More directly, however, Moses contributes to the discourse of monolatry in his own words, not just by relaying the words of Yahweh. In Exodus 15, Moses exalts the Lord (Yahweh) above other Gods:
1 Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord: “I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider he has thrown into the sea. 11 ‘Who among the gods is like you, O LORD ? Who is like you- majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? 12 You stretched out your right hand and the earth swallowed them. 13 In your unfailing love you will lead the people you have redeemed. In your strength you will guide them to your holy dwelling. 14 The nations will hear and tremble; anguish will grip the people of Philistia. 15 The chiefs of Edom will be terrified, the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling, the people of Canaan will melt away; 16 terror and dread will fall upon them. By the power of your arm they will be as still as a stone- until your people pass by, O LORD , until the people you bought pass by. 17 You will bring them in and plant them on the mountain of your inheritance- the place, O LORD , you made for your dwelling, the sanctuary, O Lord, your hands established. 18 The LORD will reign for ever and ever.
Apart from the actual monolatrous content of his discourses, Moses is key in the development of monolatry by the role he takes on as he delivers these discourses to the Israelites. The singularity of divine leadership became visible in Moses, a single representative of Yahweh on Earth. Moses’ leadership sets up the precedent of a single human leader acting as a representative of Yahweh, a manifestation of Yahweh’s power, and shepherd of the people, leading them to monolatrous worship. The precedent is shown to be of importance as Samuel, Saul, David, Elijah, and others before and after them lead, rule, and prophesize, unifying the nation of Israel and standardizing its religious practices. In this way, the Israelites were led towards monolatry and eventually to monotheism.
Following Moses’ death and the Israelite’s delivery to the Promised Land, Israel is led and protected by the “judges,” Deborah, Gideon, Abimelech, and Samson, among other minor judges. The thirteen cycles of the judges period consist of the people repeatedly being unfaithful to Yahweh, then being oppressed by other nations, and finally turning to Yahweh for help, who in turn delivered a judge to save them. The biblical period of the judges ends with civil war among the Israelites (Domínguez). Obviously, Israel was not unified in politics or in faith during the time of the Judges. Nor were the Israelites steadfastly monolatrous, in spite of the judges’ advocacy of monolatrous faith. As an example of this advocating, Deborah speaks of Yahweh in the context of monolatry. She says “Hear, O kings; give ear, O princes; to the Lord I will sing, I will make melody to the Lord, the God of Israel” (Judges 5:3-4). The key element of this passage that makes it a monolatrous discourse is the naming of the Lord as “the God of Israel.” It is key that the “Lord” (Yahweh) is not named as “a God of Israel,” instead occupying a place of single-most importance.
From the time of Moses through the period of the judges, the monolatrous relationship between the Israelites and their god is one of dependence and obligation. For delivering the Israelites out of bondage in Israel, “the Lord,” in turn, calls for the Israelites to worship, respect, and obey him and objects to the Israelite’s disobedience: “7 When the Israelites cried to the Lord on account of the Midianites, 8 the Lord sent a prophet to the Israelites; and he said to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I led you up from Egypt, and brought you out of the house of slavery; 9 and I delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians, and from the hand of all who oppressed you, and drove them out before you, and gave you their land; 10 and I said to you, “I am the Lord your God; you shall not pay reverence to the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you live.’ But you have not given heed to my voice” (Judges 6:7-10). This passage sets up the relationship of obligation between Yahweh and the Israelites: the Israelites depend on their God to protect and care for them, and God requires the Israelites to show due respect and obedience to him. This theme of obligation is expressed again in the relations between Samuel and God, Saul and God, and David and God. The formalization of this relationship of obligation is described in 2 Kings 11:17: “And Jehoiada [the high priest] made a covenant between Yahweh and the king and people, that they should be Yahweh’s people; and also between the king and the people.”
Walter Eichrodt specified the Israelite’s belief as belief in a “covenant-God.” Belief in a covenant-God is necessarily monolatrous in form, but also necessarily temporary, because of the historical basis of the belief (even though Walter Eichrodt states that the Israelites’ belief in their god was constant and long-lived due to the written contracts in the form of law codes such as the ten commandments). I argue that the Israelites’ belief was fundamentally temporary and historical until the development of monotheism. Monotheistic belief is necessarily in a global, immortal, and ahistorical god.
“In Eichrodt’s Theology of the Old Testament the organizing principle is the covenant between God and Israel. If we ask what kind of God the ancient Iraelites believed in, Eichrodt’s answer is that they believed in a covenant-God: that is, a God who had chosen them from among all the nations and entered into a binding agreement with them, which had the character of a contract. God promised to keep his side of the bargain, to continue the blessings which he had begun in his act of choice—a choice which Israel owed purely to his grace, and had done nothing to deserve; whilist Israel, for its part, was under an obligation to maintain the contract by loyalty to God, exclusive worship of him, and obedience to his commands. These commands were summarized in law-codes (especially short digests such as the Ten Commandments), and also communicated from time to time through accredited prophets. It is this basic covenant-pattern which explains the common flavour of very large tracts of the Old Testament ; and it was the Israelites’ common conviction that God was as such a pattern portrays him that kept the tribes united through their long history, and enabled them (alone among the nations of the ancient Near East) to live on as a religious community even after their national independence had been lost” (Rogerson 97).
An example of a covenant-God relationship is the relationship between Eli and Yahweh. Eli transgressed the rules and definitions of this covenant. For this, Eli received rebuke from Yahweh. 1 Samuel 29:30 indicates what Yahweh expects from in covenantal relationship with priests or Israelites:
And a man of God came to Eli and said to him, ‘Thus says the Lord! Did I not reveal myself to your father’s house when they were in Egypt, slaves to Pharaoh’s house? And did I not choose him from all the tribes of Israel as a priest for me, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to carry an ephod before Me? And I gave to your father’s house all the Israelites’ burnt offerings. Why do you trample on My sacrifice and My offering which I have commanded, and you honor your sons more than Me, to batten upon the first portion of each offering of Israel My people? Therefore, says the Lord God of Israel, I indeed said ‘Your house and your father’s house shall walk before Me forever,’ but now, says the Lord, forbid I should do it! For those who honor Me will I honor, and my spurners shall be dishonored. (Alter 14)
Here it is worth making a side-note about the use of the word “reveal” in “Did I not reveal myself to your father’s house when they were in Egypt, slaves to Pharaoh’s house?” “Reveal,” in this context, means god made himself known to the people. It is implied, then, that God had been secretly present above the Israelites, possibly watching over and protecting them for a long time. But it is only after God revealed himself that a covenant can be established between the people and their god.
The relationship between Yahweh and the people gradually changes from being contained by a covenant, as in the style of a contract between people, and into a stronger and less temporary form of worship based on spiritual faith. The development of this new approach to worshiping necessarily coincides with the development of monotheism. The unsteady nature of the covenant-God and the covenant-God’s relations with the Israelites is most pronounced in the books of the judges. From the conclusion of Judges on is the story of the covenant-God worship eventually developing into monotheism.
The period of Judges concludes with the advent of Samuel. Samuel, prophet and judge, unified Israel, and founded the kingdom, which proved crucially important in the development of monolatry for the same reason Moses’ leadership was important: a single national leader became identified with God and reminded the Israelites of the singularity of Yahweh’s power. Like Moses, Samuel also consciously and directly spoke for development of monolatry. He continually reminded the Israelites to worship only Yahweh: “3 Then Samuel said to all the house of Israel, ‘If you are returning to the Lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Astartes from among you. Direct your heart to the Lord, and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.’ 4 So Israel put away the Baals and the Astartes, and they served the Lord only” (1 Samuel 7:3-4).
Samuel says “If you are returning to the Lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Astartes from among you.” The idea that Israel did indeed return to Yahweh with all their hearts is only implied and not specified. Samuel’s instruction is for people to put away foreign gods if (and only if) they are returning to the Lord with all their hearts. Because the Israelites appear to comply with Samuel’s instruction (“So Israel… served the Lord only”), it is implied, then, that people served the Lord with substantial commitment.
Samuel’s mother, Hannah, presents a monolatrous argument in 1 Samuel 2:2. Therefore, it can be inferred that Samuel came into the monolatrous belief system of his mother by birth. Hannah says, “There is no one holy like the Lord, for there’s no one beside you, and there is no bastion like our God. Do not go on talking high and mighty— arrogance slips from your mouth— for all-knowing is the Lord, and His is the measure of actions” (Alter 10).
Hannah’s verse, representative of monolatrous worship, even seems nearly representative of monotheistic worship. The statement “There is no one holy like the Lord, for there’s no one beside you, and there is no bastion like our God,” while not totally denying the possibility of other gods existing, does deny almost all possible importance other gods could have, for within its context they are less powerful, possibly subservient, and even, less “holy.” That other gods are less “holy” means they are less divine, in essence, not as god-like.
Another example of the covenantal relationship between Yahweh and the Israelites is Samuel’s instruction and advice to the Israelites with regard to enthroning a king over them. The people persist in their request for a king and are eventually granted this request. But Samuel warns the Israelites not to let a king come between them and God:
“And the Lord sent Jerubaal and Bedan and Jephthah and Samuel, and He rescued you from the hand of your enemies all around, and you dwelled in safety. And you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites had come against you and you said to me, ‘No! A king shall reign over us,’ though the Lord your God was your king. And now, here is the king you have chosen, for whom you have asked, and here the Lord has put over you a king. If you fear the Lord and serve Him and heed His voice and rebel not against the Lord’s words, the hand of the Lord will be against you and against your king to destroy you” [1 Samuel 12:11-15] (Alter 67).
In advising the Israelites as he does in 1 Samuel 12:11-15, Samuel is exemplifying the roles leaders, priests, and prophets play in encouraging the monolatrous worship of Yahweh among the people. Unexpectedly, however, while the kingships do affect the Israelites in the way Samuel warns, the kingships also serve to usher in a more solid monolatrous worship of Yahweh.
The close relation between God and the monarchs Saul and David seems to have helped establish a more solidified relationship directly between the people and God. Saul and David often functioned as representatives of Yahweh to the people. For example, Israel’s victories in battles were declared as owed to Yahweh. When Saul reigns victorious in battle by a lucky chance, he is not credited for the success of battle as much as is Yahweh: the final summation given of the battle of Israelites against Philistines in 1 Samuel 14 is “And the Lord delivered Israel that day” (Alter 80). Through the leaders Saul and David, Yahweh’s power became visible to the Israelites and their defeated enemies. Saul and David spoke to the people of Israel for God, as Samuel the priest had before them. In this way, they served as the representatives of God on Earth. As mentioned earlier, though, their representation of God was not confined just to speech – it was most powerful in action.
Mark Smith wrote about the importance key role the monarchies and the centralization of government played in establishing monolatry and monotheism: “The innovative centralization of national worship was also part of the process leading to monotheistic Yahwism, as it encouraged a single national deity and discouraged local manifestations of a deity” (Smith 148). One important way the centralization of government helped establish monotheism by keeping the deities protected and enshrined in the capitol of the kingdom.
Yahwist monolatry was developed further by the esteem produced for Yahweh when he was compared or pitted against other deities. According to Smith, “Divine power became international in scope, thereby promoting an early form of monolatrous faith. In a variety of ways, the Elija-Elisha cycles communicate the scope of Yahweh’s power against other deities.”
The most blatant communication of Yahweh’s power against other deities, what even amounts to a competition between Yahweh and those other deities, is in 1 Kings 18:20-40. Ahab gathers the prophets and all the Israelites, who are worshipping deities other than Yahweh. To persuade the Israelites to follow Yahweh, the prophet Elijah designs a kind of competition among deities to determine which deity is the most authentic. His proposes: “23Let two bulls be given to us; let them choose one bull for themselves, cut it in pieces, and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it; I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. 24Then you call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the Lord; the god who answers by fire is indeed God.” Elijah constructed an alter and for the bull. For a more impressive and therefore persuasive spectacle, he ordered for the alter and meat to be doused with water. Then Elijah announced: ‘O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your bidding. 37Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.’ 38Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering, the wood, the stones, and the dust, and even licked up the water that was in the trench. 39When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, “The Lord indeed is God; the Lord indeed is God.”
In another powerful spectacle of Yahweh’s power, this one entering the field of international relations, Elijah is represented as sitting at the top of the hill in 2 Kings 1:9. The warriors and messengers of a Samarian army challenge him. He threatens that Yahweh will consume them in fire, and Yahweh does, proving his authenticity and greater power. Elijah is an instrument and engineer of Yahweh’s power on Earth. His role, along with the roles played by Moses, Deborah, Samuel, Saul, David, and others, was necessary for the development of monolatry in the bible.
In the Old Testament books mentioned in this essay, it seems that the most profound factor influencing the development of monolatry was the development of centralized government and unified society under the leadership of one man representing God. This pattern has given rise to a concluding question: Is this pattern repeated with the leader Jesus Christ, the ultimate representative of god – a physical embodiment of God himself on Earth? Is Christ essential to the eventual development of monotheism, like the prophets and kings of the Old Testament were essential to the development of monolatry?
Works cited:
Alter, Robert. The David Story. New York: W.W. Norton, 1999.
Domínguez, J. “Judges or Liberators Quick Survey” Bible Commentary Book by Book. Accessed 18 May 2003. Available http://biblia.com/bible/judges.htm.
Rogerson, John. Beginning Old Testament Study. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982.
Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990.