Is Isaiah 40–55 Really Monotheistic?
TL;DR: In this article, the author argues that besides me there is no god in Second Isaiah 40-55, which is more likely a claim about Yhwh's incomparability and unique power and agency than about his sole existence.
Abstract: Isaiah 40-55 is often understood as a work bearing witness clearly and unambiguously to a “novel,” “consistent” and “extreme” monotheism, the monotheistic biblical work par excellence. Yet the author of this article challenges such claims in light of texts such as Isa 40:1-8 and 40:25-26, which recognize the existence of the heavenly host and the volition (40:25-26) or agency (40:1-8) of its members, and in view of Isa 51:9-11, which alludes clearly to the mythic conflict between Yhwh and the sea dragon as a reality. A statement such as “besides me there is no god” (45:5) must, therefore, be interpreted in light of these texts, which are all too frequently ignored by those who speak of Second Isaiah’s “radical” monotheism. “Besides me there is no god” is more likely a claim about Yhwh’s incomparability and unique power and agency than about his sole existence. If there is anything radical and unprecedented about Isaiah 40-55, it is the poet’s rhetoric, which seems to suggest a new meaning and more restricted use for the word “god” ().Though the host remain a heavenly reality for Second Isaiah, serving Yhwh as they have always done, they are no longer called gods.
Citations
More filters
1 citations
TL;DR: This article showed that although the rabbinic literature frequently polemicizes against perceived deviant theologies, it refrains from explicit expressions of God's unity and distancing all other beings from God's sole sovereignty.
Abstract:
This article furthers our understanding of rabbinic theology through an examination of its characteristic modes of expression. I demonstrate that although the rabbinic literature frequently polemicizes against perceived deviant theologies, it refrains from explicit expressions of God’s unity. This disinclination derives from the target and intent of rabbinic theological polemic. The rabbis’ opponents were not Christian binitarians who believed in multiple divine persons, but what I will refer to as Jewish subordinationists who believed in created divine agents through which God acts in the world. The rabbis were therefore less concerned with the ontological nature of God’s unity than they were with distancing all other beings from God’s sole sovereignty. My work provides additional textual support for the growing scholarly consensus that Jewish proponents of Logos theologies were among the rabbis’ earliest opponents, but it challenges the current convention that interprets these theologies in a primarily Christian binitarian context.