all other beings exist only from him, through him, and to him. Hence, this attribute teaches God’s
absolute oneness and uniqueness, his exclusive numerical oneness, in distinction from his
simplicity, which denotes his inner or qualitative oneness. Scripture continually and emphatically
proclaims this attribute and maintains it over against all polytheism. All agree that this is true of
the New Testament and the later writings of the Old Testament. Many critics believe, however,
that monotheism does not yet occur in the earlier parts of the Old Testament, and that especially
as a result of the witness and activity of the prophets, it gradually developed from the earlier
polytheism that was generally dominant also in Israel. But against this view so many objections
are being raised that its untenability is becoming increasingly more apparent. It is clear that the
prophets were not at all conscious of bringing to their people a new religion in the form of an
ethical monotheism. On the contrary, they view themselves as standing on the same foundation
as the people of Israel, the foundation of yhwh’s election and covenant. They regard idolatry as
apostasy, infidelity, and a breach of the covenant, and call the people back to the religion of yhwh,
which they have willfully forsaken.
Furthermore, no one can tell us what Israel’s actual religion was before the ethical monotheism of
the prophets gained acceptance. Critics speak of animism, fetishism, totemism, ancestor worship,
and polydaemonism, and are especially at a loss when it comes to the character of yhwh.
According to one, he was a fire god akin to Molech; according to another, he was a storm god from
Mt. Sinai; according to a third, a tribal deity who had already acquired certain ethical traits. And
with respect to his origin, there is an even broader array of answers. Canaan and Phoenicia, Arabia
and Syria, Babylon and Egypt have all had their turn as being the answer. However, quite apart
from these divergent beliefs concerning Israel’s earlier religious state, if under the influence of the
prophets, polytheism developed into ethical monotheism, the manner in which this occurred
should certainly be made somewhat clear. At this point, however, a new difficulty presents itself.
The evolutionistic viewpoint, which underlies the position of the critics, naturally precludes the
idea that ethical monotheism made its appearance as something entirely new, as an invention of
the prophets. The principle at work here demands that the ethical monotheism of the prophets
must have existed, at least in a primitive form, long before the time of the prophets.
So now the critics face a dilemma: They can refrain from providing further explanation [as to the
rise of ethical monotheism], continue to be stumped by the sudden appearance of ethical
monotheism in the writings of the prophets, hide behind the currently popular notion of “the
mystery of personality,” and join Wellhausen in saying: “Even if we were able to trace the
development of Israel’s religion more accurately, this would fundamentally explain very little.
Why, for example, did not Chemosh of the Moabites become the God of righteousness and the
Creator of heaven and earth? No one can give a satisfactory answer to that question.”94 In fact,
the promise and prospect of a satisfactory answer had been repeatedly held out as a result of the
new critical method. Many others, accordingly, regarding this position unacceptable, resorted to
the second alternative: they are prepared to concede that monotheism existed long before the
prophets—in the time of Abraham and in the case of Moses. They explain this in light of the
