Commenting
on the term “Yahweh Sabaoth” and how it shows belief in the ontological existence
of other deities besides Yahweh, James S. Anderson wrote:
Yahweh
Sabaoth
Besides the widespread invectives against the
worship of the Baals and of the Asherahs, the frequent use of the term “Yahweh
Sabaoth” to designate the head god of Israel and Judah presupposes a pantheon (see
Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, “Yahweh Zebaoth,” DDD,
923). Yahweh of Hoss led armies (Sabaoth)
of heavenly soldiers, since the term “Sabaoth” is found besides references to
the divine council:
Who in the clouds ranks like Yahweh? Who
among the sons of gods is like Yahweh, a God feared in the council of the
council of the holy ones, great and awesome above all that are around him?
Yahweh God of hosts, who is as mighty
as Yah? (Ps. 89.7-9 [Eng. 6-8])
The heavenly host was the original referent
for the pantheon. The Hebrew Bible stresses Yahweh’s primacy, while recognizing
the occurrence of other gods. For instance, Micaiah’s vision in 1 Kgs 22.19
depicts Yahweh “sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing
beside him to the right and to the left of him.” The presence of these other
gods is necessary to uphold Yahweh’s supremacy. Before Yahweh could be
conceived of as alone, he first had to be viewed as the greatest. Hence the
Hebrew Bible is riddled with polytheistic presuppositions (for instance Gen.
1.26; 3.22; Exod. 15.11; Deut. 32:8-9; Job 1.6; 2.1; Ps. 82; Jer. 23.18 and
Zech 14.5).
The sheer quantity of further texts in favor
of a native pantheon in the Hebrew Bible precludes a comprehensive presentation.
Unproblematic hints that presuppose a heavenly realm populated by several or
many deities can be found in the expression “God of gods” (Ps. 136.2-3). Even
the expression “our god” in the charter of biblical monotheism, the Shema Israel, admits that other gods
exist for other peoples. It insists that Yahweh is Israel’s only god, without
negating the existence of other divinities for Israel’s neighbors. The occurrence
of other gods is necessary, or the point made in Judg. 11.24 would fail.
Addressing the Ammonite king, Jephthah asks: “Should you not possess what your
god Chemosh gives you to possess? And should we not be the ones to possess
everything that Yahweh our god has conquered for our benefit?” Jephthah’s
understanding of monotheism implies that each kingdom venerates its own god.
Monotheism in this case applies only to the level of individual kingdoms. As
this view is reflected in the non-corrected version of Deut 32.9 [see
this blog post], the writer does not present Jephthah as a less than
orthodox follower of Mosaic monotheism, though Jephthah belongs to the ambiguous
figures of the Book of Judges. This kind of territorial monotheism is deemed
normative or at least sufficient to justify Israel’s presence in Canaan. That
this kind of territorial monotheism clashes with universal monotheism is not
considered problematic. (James S. Anderson, Monotheism
and Yahweh’s Appropriation of Baal [Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
Studies 617; London: T&T Clark, 2015], 24-25, comment in square brackets
added)
Anderson referenced
T.N.D. Mettinger’s entry, “Yahweh Zebaoth” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons. S Mettinger wrote the following
about the term and how it assumes the ontological existence of other divinities:
. . . it should be noted that the root ṢB’
appears in contexts which draw upon both its royal and its celestial
connotations. Like terrestrial kings, the heavenly monarch has a court and
council. Among the Heb terms for the divine council we find precisely ṣābā’ (1 Kgs 22:19-23, Pss 103:19-22;
148:1-5; Dan 8:10-13). The fact that the Zebaoth designation occurs in passages
in which the divine council plays a role corroborates this association. Ps
89:6-19 is an obvious case. Just as the Davidic king is the highest of the kings
on earth (v 28), so Yahweh is the supreme monarch in the divine assembly (vv
6-9) and thus merits the designation Yahweh Zebaoth (v 9). Isa 6, with the
Zebaoth designation in vv 3.5, is another example. Yahweh’s question “who will
go for us?” (v 8) contains an
allusion to the deliberations of the divine council. (Karel Van Der Toorn, Bob
Becking, and Pieter W. Van Her Horst, eds. Dictionary
of Deities and Demons in the Bible [2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 923).
Other
evidences presented by Anderson include the following:
Greater But
Not Alone
When Exodus 18.11 claims that Yahweh is greater
than all the gods (מכל יהווה גדול האלהים), it also implies the presence of these other deities besides
Yahweh. The same applies to the claim that all gods bow down before Yahweh in
Psalms 92.7. While the Hebrew grammar, especially in poetic contexts, cannot be
evoked to assert that this statement envisages that the supremacy of Yahweh
will be recognized in heaven in the future, Zech. 14.9 clearly understands that
“Yahweh will be one” only on the day when “Yahweh will become king over all
the earth.” As part of a prophetic oracle, the expression “on that day” (ביום ההוא) looks forward to a future accomplishment and
the verb יהיה (he will become) is an unaccomplished
form. Therefore, Zechariah 14 supports the view of an evolutionary process in
which monotheism gradually evolved towards and understanding of Yahweh as a
universalistic monotheism. (Anderson, Monotheism
and Yahweh’s Appropriation of Baal, 26)
With respect
to Gen 1:26-27, a “divine council” text, Anderson wrote:
Let Us Make!
The plural forms used for Elohim’s creative
activity in Genesis 1:26a lean toward the native pantheon approach. Although
Elohim is synonymous with Yahweh in the final form of the Hebrew Bible, the
phrase, “Let us make” (נעשׂה) humankind
in our image” (בצלמנו), according to our likeness (כדמותנו),” originally
reflected the divine council or the mythology of the divine couple. Likeness to
the divine includes the creation of humankind as a male and a female (verse
27). The divine as being male and female would reflect vestigial Asherah mythology
where the consort has not been thoroughly excised from the text. The personification
of Lady Wisdom in Prov. 3.13-18 has long been thought to have a connection with
Asherah. When the pantheon collapsed, it was necessary to interpret these texts
as representing wisdom personified rather than a goddess. This shift in
understanding was necessary to be consistent with later monotheism.
Nevertheless, a feminine dimension for Yahweh should stand out as a clue that
Yahweh has appropriated the domain of his former consort, Asherah. Whether the
third person plural suffixes in Genesis 1 signify Asherah in conjunction with
God/Yahweh, or denotes the divine council, either way they reflect a plurality
of gods. (Ibid., 26-27)
