• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Henotheism

No*s

Captain Obvious
Yesterday I got into a discussion on the issue of God and gods, monotheism and henotheism. I got quite the strong response, but alas, it was not a debate thread, so I couldn't throw down the gauntlet, so to speak. Here, though, I can.

Monotheism is the belief in one God. Henotheism is the belief in one God Who made other spiritual authorities and powers. "Mono-" means "alone" or "one" in the prefix, more "one." "Heno-" simply means "one. I would argue that henotheism is a subset of monotheism which includes Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Henotheism may also be used to denote the worship of one god among many equal gods (I will not argue that way of doing it; God is supreme and alone in all His criteria, but I have no doubt someone will lol).

Very simply put, we believe in angels at the very least, and most likely demons as well. We may define them differently, but all these spiritual beings were created by God to be authorities and powers. If they didn't derive their authority and power from God, then we have a problem. We must either become polytheists or deny their existance (even in the cases of demons, it is a perverted authority given them originally by God).

I tend to use "monotheist" to refer both to a strict monotheist who denies all of these and a henotheist. Every Christian, Jewish, or Muslim person/group I've spoken with believes in these entities. They are, therefore, henotheists one and all.

For Christians (and in the OT, Jews), there are Scripture quotations that not only refer to these beings, but where the Scripture actually calls them gods or strongly hints at it.

Given a former handle of one of our posters, the first good example I can give is that of Deut. 32.8: "When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the children of men, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of God's angels." (LXX & DSS; the MT has it changed to "sons of Israel"). The older reading (and stronger reading textually) has God setting up spiritual authorities over the nations.

That understanding of Deut. 32.8 works quite nicely with Daniel's comments on the archangel warring with the "prince of Persia," that is the "god" over Persia, in Dan. 10.12-13. This "prince" had power over Persia, and obviously he was placed there. For the Christian, he has perverted the role given him by God, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a powerful, spiritual being in control of a territory, such as we find in the old polytheistic religions (remember, each pagan god covered a certain realm, and well, I would argue this reflects the division here). This is furthered by the LXX reading of Psalm 96.5 where it says that "All the gods of the nations are demons." Satan is called the "god of this world" by the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 4.4).

If I can add to these blatant biblical statements where angelic beings (or even men) are called "gods" in the Scripture, then Ihave a case for Jews and Christians (well, both if I can do so with the Old Testament). Most blatantly, Judges 11.24 recognizes the "authority" of a pagan deity over his people (remember, Christ did not dispute the Adversary's authority when tempted).

In Psalm 82, God sits among and judges among "gods." Jesus uses this psalm to defend His own claims to divinity in Jn 10.34ff (which provides support for the Orthodox doctrine of theosis). Compare this with God's title as the "God of gods" in Daniel 11.36. How can God be the God of gods outside a henotheistic concept where both men and angels are called "gods" by their connection to God? It is not possible.

Even Scripture's admonition "You shall have no other gods before Me" in Exodus 20.3 presupposes the existance of other deities. There are other beings that are requesting worship, but Israel is to worship God alone. As a rather conservative Christian, I identify these forces as malevolent, but the text most certainly presupposes their existance. The injunction makes absolutely no sense outside of that understanding.

I remember some other passages, such as one where God appoints these beings over stars and things, but I cannot remember its address or even exact wording. In fact, go through the Pentateuch and notice how often "god" and "angel" are used together. It's amazing how often they are used in conjunction. It's even more amazing how often the Hebrew word underlying "angel" or the like is elohim, "god."

These realities directly affect Jews and Christians beyond the mere acknowledgement of angels as spiritual authorities. They also have a direct impact on Islam, because Islam claims to be in continuity with Judaism and Christianity. What affects our early history also affects Islamic history.

There are a few ways to analyze these. We can do as I have done, which preserves the monotheism. We can also simply claim Judaism, and by extension Christianity, evolved from polytheism rather than revelation. Likewise, we must take pasages like Gen. 1.26 as God taking counsel among similar beings, whether this is trinitarian, the angels, or polytheistic, but we may not have an absolutely strict monotheistic view here.

The Abrahamic faiths must be henotheistic or there will be none.

*ducks for cover* :D
 

Darkdale

World Leader Pretend
lol All the Abrahamic Faiths ever needed were wealth, guns, and governments; but I can see how a more developed theology could help. Personally, if you want to look at a nearly perfected theology, look at the catholic church. They've got everything.
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
No*s said:
The Abrahamic faiths must be henotheistic or there will be none.

*ducks for cover* :D
Is there room for two where you plan to hide? I agree with everything you've said.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Squirt said:
Is there room for two where you plan to hide? I agree with everything you've said.

*quickly gestures toward the inoccuous-looking rock* There! :p
 

evearael

Well-Known Member
Well, if all it takes for a religion to be henotheist is divinely granted authority, then, I agree, look no further to Genesis 1:26: "And God said, "Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness. They shall rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animal, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." However, beside the obvious "Our image" and "Our likeness" which some consider to be God taking council with angels, look to the portion that says "They shall rule," they being humans. Thus, God granted humans authority and in doing so fulfulls your requirement for henotheism.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
evearael said:
Well, if all it takes for a religion to be henotheist is divinely granted authority, then, I agree, look no further to Genesis 1:26: "And God said, "Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness. They shall rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animal, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." However, beside the obvious "Our image" and "Our likeness" which some consider to be God taking council with angels, look to the portion that says "They shall rule," they being humans. Thus, God granted humans authority and in doing so fulfulls your requirement for henotheism.

In a sense, yes. Only, though, in the sense that humans are "little gods," so to speak. Even then, though, it is skirting the field a little. Henotheism, like monotheism, specifically aims at spiritual beings outside of man. If it were just us and God, then we have a strict monotheism. It is the belief in things like angels that makes it henotheism (with the OT being more overt than just "angels," as I documented).
 

evearael

Well-Known Member
All the definitions, Merrium-Webster, etc., that I looked up required belief in other gods. As far as angels and demons go, they are not gods. Including the requirement of the heirarchical relationship between God and other divine being created by God is problematic because of the inherent heirarchy in the judeo-christian theologies, regardless of whether they are divine or mundane. Where do you choose to draw the line? Do you say a religion is henotheistic because there is a belief in unprovable beings of any sort? What about saints in the Catholic Church or the Christian Messiah? Surely these strattle the lines between human and divine. Also, if you are concerned at all about scientific proof, there is no proof of most figures in the bible even existing, as these are matters of faith, not science.
I am working up a verse by verse commentary, but I'll have to get back to you since my infant daughter isn't asleep yet :). Cool post though!
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
evearael said:
All the definitions, Merrium-Webster, etc., that I looked up required belief in other gods. As far as angels and demons go, they are not gods. Including the requirement of the heirarchical relationship between God and other divine being created by God is problematic because of the inherent heirarchy in the judeo-christian theologies, regardless of whether they are divine or mundane. Where do you choose to draw the line? Do you say a religion is henotheistic because there is a belief in unprovable beings of any sort? What about saints in the Catholic Church or the Christian Messiah? Surely these strattle the lines between human and divine. Also, if you are concerned at all about scientific proof, there is no proof of most figures in the bible even existing, as these are matters of faith, not science.
I am working up a verse by verse commentary, but I'll have to get back to you since my infant daughter isn't asleep yet :). Cool post though!

I believe I outlined in the first post where the Bible calls or treats other beings as gods. They may not be the same thing as God almighty, and thus undeserving of the worship given Him, but yes, they are called gods. The definition of Webster's dictionary doesn't disagree with me either. "God" doesn't necessarily entail an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity. Ask any of the pagans on here who believe in literal gods if they see their gods in that fashion, and there will be an emphatic "no."

If, however, we include the definition of "gods" that allows for their deities, then angels and demons certainly fit. As I said, simply the existance of these deities is sufficient to warrant the title "henotheism." I forgot who it was that said it on the board (Joannicus, I think), but when asked "What god should I worship," he responded "Should you not worship the God that made the gods?"

In reference to your question, this inherent hierarchy is exactly what I'm arguing is evidence of henotheism. I draw the line at mundane man, because that's something definitions of theism almost always exclude (well, except a few). The hierarchy is proof of what I say. The Christian Messiah, in traditional Christianity, is God Himself. The Christian salvation, tying to the saints, is best expressed by the early Church's maxim: "God became man so that men might become God" (that particular variant quoted from St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation). The saints, thus, are included in the hierarchy, and being less than God would not be the recipient of God's worship.

Christianity from its earliest days insisted that men would become participents in the nature of God itself (2 Pet. 1.3-4). We have quotes like what I outlined above. The Christians wrote hymns to the saints as gods and goddesses, but within their boundries. This causes no problems for the Christian worldview. Orthodoxy actively embraces the language in parts of its services, and Roman Catholicism is not averse to it.

I look forward to your verse-by-verse commentary (if it's intended for the post). I will say, however, you need not worry about being the most scientific. I think you'll find taht I wasn't too scientific, and I'm just as apt to quote a 1500 year-old mystic as I am the latest scholarship (at times more apt).
 

evearael

Well-Known Member
Actually, a quite good reference is found in Deuteronomy 4:19 "...and lest you raise your eyes to the heaven and you see the sun, and the moon, and the stars--the entire legion of heaven--and you be drawn astray and bow to them and worship them, which HaShem, your God has apportioned to all the peoples under the entire heaven!" In short, it is acceptable for other peoples to worship God's creations, from the provable moon and stars, to the divine legions, but is not acceptable to worship the handiwork of man. This tends to favor your argument, but I thought I would post it regardless :).
The bottom line is: if you decide on a liberal interpretation of what it is to be a god, you are right.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
evearael said:
Actually, a quite good reference is found in Deuteronomy 4:19 "...and lest you raise your eyes to the heaven and you see the sun, and the moon, and the stars--the entire legion of heaven--and you be drawn astray and bow to them and worship them, which HaShem, your God has apportioned to all the peoples under the entire heaven!" In short, it is acceptable for other peoples to worship God's creations, from the provable moon and stars, to the divine legions, but is not acceptable to worship the handiwork of man. This tends to favor your argument, but I thought I would post it regardless :).
The bottom line is: if you decide on a liberal interpretation of what it is to be a god, you are right.

Yeah, that is a good one lol. I think that you'll find that I'm not too liberal with my definitions, if by liberal you mean "change it." I'm about the polar opposite lol. If by "liberal," you mean "free." It seems to be the only tenable defination. The Scripture, Fathers, and whatnot talk about "gods" as actual entities and as statues both. We speak of "pagan gods," and I for one am quite certain that gods outside of Christianity can, and do, act. Suffice it to say that I've seen too much.

Given that, I don't think I could actually hold another definition. If I were to say "only the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God," then I would be using the word more strictly than the texts I address. This remains the only alternative after that.

It was a fun discussion :).
 
henotheism-the beilef in one god without denying the existance of others. Various references of this are shown in the OT: One: Genises 1.27: we shall create humans in OUR image. Implying that there are MORE THAN ONE super-being.
 

ChrisP

Veteran Member
Wouldn't most Wiccans then be henotheists? A lot that I've met believe in the one source and the pantheon beneath it.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
No*s,

I don't think that you are recognizing the shift in Judaism from its earlier henotheism (Job) to its rigorous monotheism (Ezra) which occured in Babylon and afterwards. When the texts were written is very important... I don't think that you are going to find any henotheistic writings during the second temple period - including angels as part of the angelic court of Job in this time period would be anachronistic. We have to recognize shifts in theology in Judaism, and Christianity is birthed from rigorous monotheism, and we know that Islam's monotheism is a reaction to the Trinity doctrine.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
ChrisP said:
stick with henotheist.. .I don't think you'll like "hedonist" being a minister and all

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:hedonism
Then you haven't heard of Rev. John Piper's work Desiring God. John Piper is a famous Calvinist minister who claims to be a Christian hedonist.

Here is his very cheesy defense of using the term "Christian hedonist"
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/hedonism.html

I saw an underclassman reading about Piper's Christian hedonism a few years ago and made fun of him relentlessly. It's another example of Christians twisting the meaning of words. That irritates the hell out of me...:banghead3 Oh well, more canon fodder for angellous...

EDIT: From wiki's article "hedonism"

"Christian Hedonism is a term coined in the early 1980s for a theological movement originally promoted by a single pastor by the name Dr. John Piper in his book, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. The tenets of this philosophy are that humans were created by (the Christian) God with the priority purpose of lavishly enjoying God through knowing, worshipping, and serving Him. This philosophy recommends pursuing one's own happiness in God as the ultimate in human fulfillment. Similar to the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure is regarded as something long-term and found not in indulgence but in a life devoted to God. Serious questions have been raised within the Christian community as to whether Christian Hedonism displaces "love God" with "enjoy God" as the greatest and foremost commandment. It would seem that if you were to love something truly, then you must truly enjoy it. Thus, Christian Hedonism is exemplified in relation to Jesus Christ, who justifies God in loving a rebellious creation by providing the sacrifice of Himself as the payment allowing God to love us, and us to love Him, forever. It could be summed up in this statement: "God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him"."

:bow: Thou shalt not neglect the sacred wiki. :bow:
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
No*s this makes perfect sense to me, though being Wiccan that may illicit a "duh" from others. I have long pointed out that Christianity has a Pantheon just as well as most other religions do. Comparable to Greek, Egyptian, Celtic, and more. Each recognizes and has stories and legends of Parent firgures which brought forth and lead over other "sub-gods". Be it that you call them gods and goddesses, angels, or what-have-you, they are there. Also, you always have a balance...Mother/Father, "God"/ "Satan", Sun(day)/Moon(night), each is represented in most religions. Therefore, that would make the arguement that most every religion is in fact henotheistic wouldn't it?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
No*s said:
Henotheism is the belief in one God Who made other spiritual authorities and powers. "Mono-" means "alone" or "one" in the prefix, more "one." "Heno-" simply means "one. ... Henotheism may also be used to denote the worship of one god among many equal gods (I will not argue that way of doing it; God is supreme and alone in all His criteria, but I have no doubt someone will lol).
Yes, but only because that is, in fact, the proper definition of henotheism. So, for example ...
In religion and philosophy, henotheism is a term coined by Max Müller, meaning devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of other gods. It is derived from the Greek heis theos, "one god". According to Müller, it is "monotheism in principle and a polytheism in fact". Variations on the term have been inclusive monotheism and monarchial polytheism, designed to differentiate differing forms of the phenomenon. Related terms are monolatrism and kathenotheism, which are typically understood as sub-types of henotheism. The latter term is an extension of "henotheism", from kath heno theon – "one god at a time". Henotheism is similar but less exclusive than monolatry because a monolator worships only one god, while the henotheist may worship any within the pantheon, depending on circumstances. In some belief systems, the choice of the supreme deity within a henotheistic framework may be determined by cultural, geographical, or political reasons. [Wikipedia]​
Defining it the way you do is little more than self-serving apologetics.
 
Top