Is There Monotheism in the Bible?

Continued from Triggermanblog 

The Question of Existence

To answer the question, we must go back to McClellan’s initial claim about the Bible and monotheism. 

At about the 16-second mark of the video, McClellan, states that, “…the Bible acknowledges the existence of other gods. From beginning to end they are repeatedly recognized as deities in the Hebrew Bible in Greek and Roman period Jewish literature in the New Testament in early Christian literature.” [3]

But let’s remember that he also defines monotheism later in the same video in terms of identity and, at least in modern conceptualizations, it maintains the notion that, “all other existence is subordinate to and contingent upon God; in other words it requires the doctrine of creation ex nihilo”. The point being, McClellan observes, is that if someone is attempting to read that particular understanding into the Bible then they are begging the question.

Fair enough. I can—at least for the point of the discussion—agree (in spite of how much it absolutely makes me sick) with McClellan that if that is what someone is doing then they are, potentially at least, engaging in some fallacious reasoning.

His concern seems to be that people are attempting to redefine monotheism in an attempt to find it in the Bible but he’s already pointed out a problem that he needs to account for. 

For the BLOGCAST version, also watch on RUMBLE!

Defining MONOTHEISM

Before one can be accused of “redefining”, one needs to provide a meaningful definition, like what is found in the Lexham Bible Dictionary, which defines the term “monotheism” as, “[the] belief in only one God.”[4]

It should be noted that monotheism is often distinguished from other positions such as [5]:

1. Monolatry—worship of one god without exclusion the belief that others may exist
2. Henotheism—worship of one god while recognizing others
3. Polytheism—worship of and belief in multiple gods
4. Pantheism—belief that god is everything and everything is god

That is to say that the chief assertion of monotheism is that, “there is only one divine nature or essence—nothing else exists that is like God or comparable to God. The doctrine of monotheism is therefore intrinsically concerned with the otherness of God. A central aspect of monotheism is the belief that all existence is dependent on God and owes existence to Him”.[6] This definition is unique to Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam.[7]

This is where Dr. White has given people a definition that fits into this scheme by positing that there, “is only one true God.”[8] To this point he adds,

Monotheism. One God, Yahweh. No other gods beside Me. These are basic and fundamental truths…It was truly novel, in the days when polytheism reigned supreme as the religious “consensus” of the world, for anyone to claim that their God was the Creator of all things. But God would not allow His worship to be polluted by the false idea that He was but one God among many true deities.[9]

Indeed, White latches on to a key contention, and yet seems to miss a point that McClellan would attack, even drawing on the words of Scripture itself.

The Language Barrier

One of the problems that is faced, even by those who may be skilled in the original languages, is that one can import their ideas of what the text means into the text and even do so unintentionally.

One can have a dictionary knowledge of the language, but as even English speakers recognize, the dictionary only gives us so much of the meaning of a word not merely in immediate use but in historical use. More importantly, words can drop out of use or be replaced by others. But it is not simply language—in this case translation that is at issue—but also what words meant in their original context, which includes matters of geography, topology, politics, setting, occasion, and matters or genre, can all influence how one understands the text that they are reading.[10] But when it comes to actually dealing with the text itself, it can never mean anything other than what it meant to the original audience.[11]

To that end, we need to be careful not to read later assumptions—whether correct or not— backwards into the biblical text. Instead, we need to develop them from the text.

A Conflict of Visions

In responding to McClellan, whose video was posted as a response in this thread on X, White goes to Jeremiah 10 where the prophet writes a letter of admonition to the exiles from Judea to Babylon. This appeal is fine and good but it fails to start where one should begin: with the foundation of Israelite theology that is laid out in Deuteronomy.

While Dr. White mentions an appeal by LDS and liberal theologians (McClellan is himself a Mormon) to Deuteronomy 32:8-9’s apparent distinction between the Most High or “the Almighty” (El Elyon) and YHWH, but it needs to be asked that if there is such a distinction that can be made and maintained then one must explain why YHWH identifies himself as “the Almighty” in passages such as Exodus 6:3 or is identified as “Most High” in Genesis 14:22. 

Clearly there is an intentional blurring of the two that needs explanation. 

More importantly, there is a clear recognition that YHWH is counted as one among many (Psalm 138:1) yet is distinct, superior, and brings judgment upon those same gods (ie Exodus 12:12, 15:11, 18:11; Psalm, 82).But what is relevant to the discussion here in regard to Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is that there is a textual variant that Dr. White mentions but doesn’t elaborate on.

So, what is the variant in question? 

The variant is found in v8 and involves a disparate reading present in later Hebrew texts that is not present in earlier texts, such as the LXX, and involves a distinction between whether the reading is “sons of Israel” (KJV, CSB, NIV) and “sons of God” (ESV, LEB).[12] How should this difference be resolved?

Nahum Sarna explains the issue this way,

According to the Masoretic text, the last colon in verse 8 reads "in relation [i.c., equal] to Israel's numbers" (le-mispar benei yisrael). This reading implies that God created the same number of nations as there were Israelites. He assigned territories to each nation, but took Israel to be His own people (cf. 7:6; 10:15).44 Since Genesis 10 lists seventy nations, the verse must mean that God created seventy nations, equal to the seventy members of Jacob's (Israel's) family who migrated to Egypt (see Deut. 10:22; Exod. 1:1-5).[13]

He notes that this reading (and interpretation) has a number of difficulties, including an anachronistic reading of Genesis as well as placing an event that isn’t mentioned in the poem not to mention the fact that v9 specifically identifies Israel is uniquely apportioned to God as opposed to someone else, thus making v8’s identification (in the Masoretic text) of the “sons of Israel” nonsensical.[14] He adds that the text can be corrected by reference to the Qumran texts and the LXX as well as reference to some other similar texts thus providing the basis for the alternative and most likely the original reading of “sons of God”.[15] 

What makes establishing the originality of this reading so theologically significant to the discussion? For some, it helps them to establish their belief in a pantheon of gods, which is important given their theological conclusions, which I will not elaborate on here, but also—for the discussion here at least—it provides for McClellan, in theory, a potential basis for his claim that monotheism is not a central claim of the Bible, even though he does not mention it in his video, White does. His mention involves responding to a Mormon theologian on a radio program some time ago, as well as a mention by atheist Dan Barker in a debate, remarking that the argument is usually presented that, by Mormon readings that, “El Elyon has divided the earth and given Israel to a lesser God named Yahweh or Jehovah.”

We’ve noted that the writers of Scripture have already blurred the distinction between different names for Yahweh yet, at the same time have made distinctions between the two. We can even find instances in Scripture where more than one figure, both identified as Yahweh (the LORD) appear in the same scene (eg Genesis 19:24, Exodus 34:5-6). This blurry presentation of God penetrates into the second temple period and raises a number of questions from thoughtful interpreters about how to understand the second one in reference to the first. 

Reading the Old Testament against the cultural backdrop of the ancient world, one cannot help but see similarities—even if they are just superficial—in how God is presented. As Peter Schäfer has noted,

Bible scholars today paint a multifaceted picture of the idea of God in ancient Israel, in which various gods stand side by side and compete with one another. Israel’s own God YHWH** had to assert himself not only against numerous powerful spirits and demons but especially also against the deities of the Ugaritic and Canaanite pantheon, headed by the old god El and his subordinate, the young war god Ba‘al.[16]

What’s important about this is that we never seem to ask what was so alluring about idol worship and why Israel always—at least until the second temple period—seemed to devolve into it, and why (more importantly) portrayals of Yahweh often borrow and depend heavily upon the imagery common to these other religions?

For example, one of the most significant texts used by Christians, and even by Christ himself, to identify himself (Daniel 7) borrows heavily from the Ba’al cycle. Now, there are a few ways that interpreters of various stripes deal with this “borrowing” varying from straight up plagiarism to simple repurposing of commonly available literary images, but the fact that there is overlap has to be recognized and addressed coherently.

A Dismissive Attitude

The reality of these intersections of Israelite theology are—especially among the most conservative and fundamentalist theologians—are either downplayed or outright dismissed out of hand. 

The refusal to either acknowledge or interact with these realities often appears to do more damage than they help, much like ignoring a persistent, painful limp can end in the loss of the limb. 

How Dr. White attempts to respond to Dan McClellan has that air about it. He does this by appealing to Jeremiah’s instructions to the Israelites who are deported to Babylon, which is found in Jeremiah 10.

First, Dr. White is absolutely correct about how the Babylonians are arguing towards the Israelites when he says that they are, “making claims to them about their gods. ‘Hey, our gods defeated your gods, why don’t you listen to us?”

We have to deal with how powerful this argument would be in the context of the ancient world, especially since the survival of a nation (the people as a distinct, identifiable group) was dependent largely upon their identification of and with their patron god.[17] So, when we encounter these arguments then we should be comfortable with the proposition, especially when it intersects with concepts that are nascent in Scripture itself (eg Deuteronomy 32:8-9).

However, we often fail to read biblical texts within these particular cultural understandings, much less within the context of their own contemporaries. There is overlap between Jeremiah and Ezekiel that requires us to look at them together especially since Ezekiel’s commissioning as a prophet seems to parallel what Jeremiah is writing, as well as dealing with a problem faced by Israel: a temptation to turn away from Yahweh (Ezekiel 2).

Real, or Merely Rhetorical

The heart of the issue essentially falls back to McClellan’s contention that statements, such as “I am..and there is not other…” is simply the “rhetoric of incomparability”, something that is found in the literature of the period across the ancient world.

Oh…kay… I guess. 

This rhetorical overlap means what…exactly? That the biblical authors didn’t live under a rock? That they spoke in terms that non-Israelites could understand? 

Exactly what is the harm in recognizing that fact?

Nothing that I can tell, but this brings us to Dr. White’s argument from Jeremiah 10.

Something that I have elaborated upon elsewhere is that idols both are and are not gods. One of the common points of mockery that Jeremiah 10 evidences in its polemic is that idols are manufactured. However, we run the risk of misunderstanding that the fact that these are constructed items that does not mean that they do not have something real standing behind them.

One of the ways that I have described an idol is that it is a device made for interaction between humans and unembodied spirits. I specifically use the term “unembodied” because it recognizes something that is clearly distinct between Yahweh and the other gods that makes some people uncomfortable: God has a body. This is seen in the fact that Yahweh has a house (either tabernacle or temple) that he resides in.[18] In the context of ancient Mediterranean religion, an object of residence—a stele, an idol, a temple (house)—was a recognition of this reality.[19] More importantly we see this pattern invoked, not merely in the direction of the construction of the tabernacle and (later) temple, but in the interactions of everyday people with God.

For example, in Genesis 28:18, after his dream, we are informed that Jacob erects a stone and anoints it. This incident is later referenced by a second theophany and clearly does not dismiss the previous incident’s response. When Israel completes its conquering of Canaan, an altar is established by the tribes on the eastern side of the Jordan and is immediately perceived as a threat by the tribes on the western side of the Jordan (see here). These early (textually speaking) incidents communicate comfort with the ideas of divine presence connected to an object. We can also add to this the idols of Micah, who contracts a Levite to serve as a priest. While the incident is not specifically condemned, the implication of the incident is that it is representative of the depravity of Israel at this point in their history.[20]

The question that needs to be asked is, what is the difference between Yahweh, who is dependent upon certain understandings in order to be understood and is clearly comfortable with those associations, and the idols of the nations that are being mocked in Jeremiah 10?

A scholar, looking at the superficialities, might not see any real difference because they are looking at the superficialities. In fact, this might even be the way that a Babylonian who had just destroyed the temple would see it…until he went into the Holy of Holies and saw no image placed in prominence. He might scratch his head and think that maybe he missed it because we do know that idol worship had permeated into the outer courts, but not to here. If we assume that the ark was still there, he wouldn’t see it as an idol, especially since it would have been crusted with blood. 

He might have thought that is where the image was supposed to go, since the ark was essentially a palanquin, something that he had likely seen the idols of his own people carried around on. 

Jeremiah 10 and the Refutation of Idolatry

One of the most important aspects of idolatry that one needs to remember is that there was (and we might say should be) that there was an understanding that an idol was simultaneously both the god and not the god.[21] An idol, or a stele, or a temple, was understood to be a place where the god could reside and manifest itself.[22]

This understanding we see reflected even in Israelite religion. In Psalm 48:9, the Psalmist writes, “We have thought on your steadfast love, O God, in the midst of your temple. (ESV)”

Psalm 27:4, we have a similar expression, “One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his temple. (ESV)”

The temple is considered to be the location of Yahweh’s presence and is central to Yahweh’s ability and willingness to manifest, something seen in both the appearances at the tabernacle in the wilderness and at the dedication of the temple by Solomon. So while a temple was central to the community and an idol—as the representative image—was central to temple worship, it served as only an interface.

When Jeremiah, speaks of the construction of the image, he’s denigrating the fact that god behind the image has no ability to manifest itself outside of the object. Everything that the prophet says about the object, especially when it is compared to a “scarecrow” (v5) is intended to demonstrate the emptiness of the objects not deny the existence of the spiritual entity the object allows one to interact with.

Yahweh, in contrast, has regularly demonstrated not only the ability to manifest apart from an idol or temple, but also in spite of them.

Negotiables in Monotheism

Dr. White does fall into a trap laid out by McClellan that thoughtful Christians should see and not be willing to fall into: monotheism is dependent upon a belief in creation ex nihilo, creation from nothing.

Not to spend too much time on this, but it suffices to say that if your confidence in the biblical narrative of creation is dependent on a completely reconcilable one-to-one correspondence between a scientific accounting for nature and revelation, then you should, perhaps, lower your standards.

From a philosophical perspective, there is an inherent recognition that there are certain things which can never be accounted for scientifically. In some way, ultimately, there are some things where the relationships between things break down, and the science cannot get behind them or provide a coherent accounting for them. They must be taken on faith.

Scientific laws explain that relationships exist, but they do not explain why those relationships are the way they are. They can explain how something works now, but they can’t explain why the thing works the way it does. Honest approaches to study recognize these gaps and might even acquire accusation of “God of the gaps” reasoning. So be it, it doesn't change the facts, and for the Christian, our God is the God of the facts: everything and anything that exists, exists because of God and nothing exists apart from him (Colossians 1:15-17).

The problem becomes, when we read Scripture, and read it closely, being mindful of any assumptions that we have about the text, we begin to notice things that often conflict with those assumptions. 

For example, Genesis 1:2 speaks of waters that the Spirit of God is hovering over. Two things are presented in contrast to one another: water and spirit. (Where else have we seen that?)

Now, those who take the position of creation ex nihilo, appear to have a question that they need to answer: where did the water come from? This is an important question because it doesn’t say that the water was created. This is an important point due to the fact that if you are going to argue that the creation account of Genesis 1 is describing something that actually happened as a matter of fact—instead of as a conceptual guide—you have a problem because the text doesn’t ever say that the water was created and it’s from the water that the structure of the world begins to arise.[23] And the last time I checked, water wasn’t nothing.

What we do see in Genesis 1’s account of creation is God existing in contrast to something else, something Dr. White points out, but something that he misses, I believe, is that the biblical authors, “were not concerned with the question of where matter ultimately came from. Their appeal to God as creator was designed to enhance His sovereignty, not explain the origin of the universe.” [24] 

Speaking Ill of the Dead

This might seem out of place because it really brings motivation into question, especially with Dr. White’s backhanded dismissal and rather specious claim that the late Dr. Michael Heiser’s materials, which takes into account the inter-testamental material that informs much of the arguments employed by the New Testament and builds on many of the concepts that are established there in regard to the Messiah, “never stood up to examination of the entire canon of Scripture”.[25]

Perhaps Dr. White should have used that little platform called “Google” because—if he had—he would have seen that Dr. Heiser had already responded to Dan McClellan on this very topic FIFTEEN YEARS AGO and demonstrated that many of McClellan’s conclusions were…well… “nonsense”.

The difference between White’s approach (as an apologist) and Heiser’s (as an academic) is that White goes for the theology and Heiser goes for the conclusions based on the evidence presented and argued, which is why Heiser sounds more accommodating and agreeable, which is why Heiser can say in response to McClellan that, “…you just can’t prove a neat evolution from polytheism to monotheism when there is terminological confusion and so much ‘polytheistic’ material in later Jewish periods. The solution is not to bend the data to a prevailing paradigm — it’s to fix the paradigm.” [26]

Conclusion

Throughout this analysis I’ve attempted to point out that Dr. White, as helpful as he has been in demythologizing scholarship in the matters of textual critical research and exegesis, walked into a rake in this instance. It is not that he’s necessarily wrong, or that McClellan is correct, it is that White has oversimplified the picture. At the same time, I recognize that I could simply be engaging in a nitpicking exercise. 

Dr. White wants to hold onto a position that is a piece of deep Christian tradition that perhaps the biblical text doesn’t support (creation ex nihilo). The fact is that many of his conclusions run afoul of the data.

Christianity is a data driven religion, and the Bible is our source of data. The problem that we face is that the Bible was written in a particular context and historical circumstances. Much of fundamentalist scholarship and apologetics often engages in attempt to explain away data rather than accepting it, understanding it, and incorporating it.

I’m not saying that we should simply accept everything or anything that someone with a PhD after their name says, rather we should look carefully at the evidence presented and think through it and see if it aligns with the reality of revelation.

I have learned a great deal from both Dr. White and Dr. Heiser, but this is one of those times where I believe that Dr. White’s response is less than helpful, and often assumes what needs to be proven.

Notes

1. James R. White. Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible's Accuracy, Authority and Authenticity. Bethany House. 2004. p. 85 (ePub)
2. Gordon D. Fee (w/ Stuart Douglas). How To Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, 4th Edition. Zondervan. 2014. p.24 (ePub) emphasis original 
3. Quotations are taken from McClellan’s video transcription created by YouTube. 
4. John Anthony Dunne. “Monotheism”. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press. 2016.
5. Ibid. (Note that “god” is used instead of “God” to distinguish from a class and a particular.)
6. Ibid, emphasis added.
7. Ibid.
8. James R. White. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, Revised Edition. Bethany House. 2019. p.28 (ePub)
9. Ibid, p.39
10. Fee, p.39
11. Ibid, p.44
12. The NLT attempts to give a more neutral, “members of the heavenly court”, at this point. Most English translations at this passage follow the Masoretic text’s reading, thereby patterning their readings after the King James Version.
13. Nahum Sarna. JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy. Jewish Publication Society. p.302
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid, p.302-3
16. Peter Schäfer. Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity, translated by Allison Brown.Princeton University Press. 2020. p.2-3
17. Benjamin Sommers. Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge University Press. 2009. p.13-15
18. Ibid, p.109
19. Ibid, p.28-9
20. Noah M. Marsh. “Idolatry”. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press. 2016.
21. Ibid.
22. Sommers, p.28-30
23. See my discussion “Creation as Creed” Part 1 and Part 2
24. Mangum, Douglas, et al. Genesis 1–11. Logos Bible Software, 2026, p. Ge 1:1–2:3.
25. White’s issue with Heiser appears to stem from Heiser’s rather superficial interactions with Calvinism. Heiser’s comments in the referenced clip can be found here.
26. Heiser had a paper published in BYU’s academic journal responding to Mormons on the question of divine plurality. He specifically addresses the consensus position of evolution from polytheism to monotheism beginning on p.230.