Concept

OT Polytheism Objection

Intro

"The Old Testament isn't really monotheistic. Early Israel was polytheistic, and the Bible preserves the fingerprints of that. The word for God, elohim, is plural. Psalm 82 talks to other gods. Deuteronomy 32 makes Yahweh a son of a higher god." This is the standard line in academic religious studies and from popular atheist speakers like Bart Ehrman and Robert Wright.

It sounds devastating. It is not.

The Hebrew word elohim is grammatically plural but is used with singular verbs hundreds of times when it refers to the God of Israel. "In the beginning God created" uses elohim with the singular verb bara. The same word also refers to angels, to human judges, and to false gods. Context picks out the meaning. A plural form does not mean multiple deities any more than English "scissors" or "news" do.

The divine council passages (Psalm 82, Deut 32:8-9, Job 1-2) are real, but they do not picture rival gods. They picture spiritual beings (angels, sons of God) under Yahweh's authority. Yahweh judges them; they answer to Him; He is incomparable. That is the consistent picture across the Old Testament, even in the so-called fossil texts.

There is a true thing in the background, though. Many historical Israelites were polytheists in practice. The prophets thunder against it on every page. Inscriptions like Kuntillet Ajrud confirm popular folk-religion mixed Yahweh with Asherah. But that is the situation the prophets condemn, not the theology of the text. The Bible's relentless attack on idolatry is evidence that ordinary Israelites kept slipping into polytheism, not that the Bible endorses it.

Quick reply: "Yes, many Israelites worshiped other gods. The Bible spends 1,000 pages condemning them for it. That is the opposite of endorsing polytheism."

In full

The atheist / academic-religious-studies objection that the Old Testament itself is polytheistic, that early Israelite religion was a polytheistic system that gradually evolved into monotheism, and that the surviving Hebrew Bible preserves textual fossils of this polytheistic origin (the plural noun elohim; the "divine council" passages of Psalm 82, Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Job 1-2; the henotheistic-sounding texts of Exod 15:11; the comparative-religion evidence of Israelite Asherah-worship from inscriptions). The objection is the standard academic-atheism / progressive-religious-studies position derived from late-19th-c. Wellhausen-source-criticism + 20th-c. Albright / Mark Smith / Wm Dever comparative-religion archaeology. Common deployments: Bart Ehrman in popular-atheist debates; Robert Wright (The Evolution of God 2009); the Religious Tolerance / RationalWiki / evilbible.com progressive-religious-skepticism cluster.

The objection's typical shape

The atheist deployment runs roughly:

The Hebrew word elohim is morphologically plural (-im ending), suggesting an originally polytheistic "the gods" reading.
Psalm 82 explicitly addresses other deities ("God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers / elohim"), suggesting a divine-council framework with multiple gods.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (especially in the LXX + Dead Sea Scrolls reading: "according to the number of the sons of God") suggests YHWH was originally one of multiple national-territorial deities, the son of a higher god Elyon.
Job 1-2 features a divine-council scene with the bene ha-elohim ("sons of God") gathering before YHWH, clear divine-council framework.
Exodus 15:11 ("Who is like You among the gods, O LORD") is prima facie henotheistic, assumes other gods exist.
Archaeological evidence (Kuntillet Ajrud + Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions, ~9th-8th c. BC) preserves "YHWH and his Asherah" inscriptions, suggesting consort-goddess worship in pre-exilic Israelite religion.
The OT's relentless polemic against idolatry (especially in Deut + the prophets) is itself evidence that POLYTHEISM was widespread among historical Israelites, you don't polemicize against what doesn't happen.
Therefore: monotheism is a LATE development in Israelite religion (post-exilic, 6th-5th c. BC); the early biblical texts preserve polytheistic strata; Christianity's "OT monotheism" claim is historically false.

The argument has rhetorical force because it appeals to (a) real textual data (elohim IS morphologically plural; Psalm 82 IS a divine-council scene), (b) real archaeological data (Asherah inscriptions ARE genuine), and (c) real comparative-religion data (Israelite religion DID exist within an ANE polytheistic context).

Why the objection is rhetorically strong

Steel-manned: the OT does contain divine-council language (Ps 82, Deut 32:8-9, Job 1-2, 1 Kings 22:19, Isa 6, Ps 89:5-7); the elohim vocabulary IS morphologically plural; Israelite religion DID develop within a polytheistic ANE context.
The objection has academic-credentialed sources: Mark S. Smith (The Origins of Biblical Monotheism 2001, non-confessional Catholic OT scholar), William Dever (Did God Have a Wife? 2005, archaeologist), Israel Knohl (The Sanctuary of Silence 1995, Jewish biblical-studies). Many of these scholars are not anti-Christian polemicists; they are academic specialists whose work the atheist deployment selectively quarries.
The "evolution from polytheism to monotheism" framework is the dominant academic-OT-studies narrative of the 20th-c. mainline; only conservative-evangelical scholarship has substantively challenged it.
Many Christians give bad answers ("the plural is a 'majestic plural' / pluralis majestatis") that don't engage the broader academic case.

The actual rebuttal

1. The elohim morphology is NOT decisive evidence for polytheism

The standard atheist-popular argument that elohim-being-plural-proves-polytheism is the weakest prong of the academic case. Hebrew scholars across the spectrum reject it:

Elohim is morphologically plural but regularly takes singular verbs when referring to the God of Israel (Gen 1:1 bara elohim, "God created", singular verb with plural noun is the standard biblical construction). This grammatical pattern is incompatible with a literal-multiple-gods reading.
Hebrew uses "plurals of intensification" / pluralis intensitatis / "plurals of majesty" for various concepts (water mayim, life chayyim, face panim) without polytheistic implication.
Even academic-OT scholars who hold the polytheistic-evolution thesis (Mark Smith, William Dever, etc.) do NOT primarily argue from elohim morphology, they argue from divine-council passages + archaeological evidence + comparative-religion. The popular-atheist elohim-pluralism is a strawman of even the academic case.
The Christian theological-typological reading: the plural-form-with-singular-verb construction is consistent with Trinitarian-prefiguration (one God, plural-internal-relations), the patristic-medieval reading of elohim as anticipating Trinity (Augustine De Trinitate; Aquinas ST I q.32-33).

2. The divine-council passages are CONSISTENT with strict monotheism

Michael Heiser's The Unseen Realm (Lexham 2015) and Angels: What the Bible Really Says about God's Heavenly Host (2018) develop the contemporary academic-evangelical reading: the divine-council passages depict a hierarchy of created spiritual beings (the bene ha-elohim, "sons of God"; angelic-spiritual-rulers) under the SUPREME deity YHWH, NOT multiple equal gods. This framework:

Preserves strict monotheism: only YHWH is the supreme uncreated Creator-God; the bene ha-elohim are created beings, however exalted
Takes the divine-council passages seriously as describing real spiritual reality, not as polytheistic-residue
Aligns with NT angelology: the NT continues the angel-spiritual-being framework (Heb 1-2; Eph 6:12; 1 Pet 1:12) without compromising monotheism
Heiser's reading is increasingly accepted in mainstream OT scholarship, including by some non-evangelical scholars (e.g., John Walton acknowledges the framework)

Psalm 82's "elohim" addressed by God most plausibly refers to subordinate spiritual beings (the bene ha-elohim of the divine-council framework) being judged for failing in their delegated-rulership tasks, NOT to peer-gods-of-YHWH. The psalm explicitly subordinates them: "like men you will die, and like one of the rulers you will fall" (v. 7), gods don't die; these elohim will die because they are CREATED beings under judgment from the supreme YHWH.

Job 1-2's divine-council scene depicts ha-Satan (the "accuser", definite article + adversarial-role function, not yet the proper-name "Satan" of later Jewish-and-Christian tradition) appearing before YHWH along with the bene ha-elohim, again CONSISTENT with monotheism + created-spiritual-beings framework.

3. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the comparative-monotheistic reading

The Deuteronomy 32:8-9 textual variant question (does the LXX/DSS "sons of God" reading support polytheism?) has a substantial scholarly literature. Multiple defensible readings:

Heiser's reading: YHWH-as-supreme-deity allotted nations to subordinate bene ha-elohim (created spiritual rulers) but kept Israel for Himself (v. 9, "the LORD's portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance"). This is divine-rulership-delegation, not multiple-gods-as-peers. The framework appears across the ANE divine-council tradition but is reframed in monotheistic-supremacy terms.
Sanders / Block conservative reading (Daniel I. Block NICOT Deuteronomy; James Sanders Torah and Canon): the "sons of God" reading is consistent with the Masoretic "sons of Israel" via the same theological substance, God's allotment-of-nations, God's keeping of Israel.
Even the polytheistic-residue reading, on Heiser's framework, does not establish polytheism as Israelite normative-theology; it shows the OT engaged the ANE divine-council framework while subordinating it to YHWH-supremacy.

4. Exodus 15:11 ("Who is like You among the gods") and rhetorical-monotheism

The popular-atheist reading of "who is like You among the gods, O LORD" (Exod 15:11) as henotheistic has weak philological support. The verse is in the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1-18), a victory poem celebrating YHWH's defeat of Pharaoh and the Egyptian army. The "gods" reference plausibly:

Refers to Egyptian deities rhetorically, comparing YHWH's incomparable greatness to the IMPOTENT pagan gods Egyptians worshipped (a polemical-monotheistic move, NOT a concession of their existence)
Functions as rhetorical-superlative ("there is none like You", common Hebrew rhetorical construction)
Compatible with the Mosaic-monotheism context (Decalogue's first commandment, Deut 6:4 Shema)

Multiple OT contexts use similar rhetorical-monotheism language without compromising monotheism: Ps 86:8, Ps 96:4, Jer 10:6-7, etc. The pattern is consistent with polemical-engagement-with-pagan-religion, not henotheism.

5. Archaeological evidence: Kuntillet Ajrud + Khirbet el-Qom

The ~9th-8th c. BC inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom mention "YHWH and his Asherah", popular atheist reading: Israelites worshipped YHWH alongside a consort-goddess. Multiple Christian-scholarly responses:

The inscriptions document POPULAR-RELIGIOUS DEVIATION from the Mosaic-Deuteronomic norm, NOT the normative-canonical theology. The OT itself REPEATEDLY criticizes Asherah-worship (Deut 16:21; Judges 6:25-30; 2 Kings 23:6-7), exactly because it was a recurring problem the prophets had to address.
The inscriptions thus CONFIRM rather than refute the OT's own self-presentation: Israelites were polytheism-prone; the OT's polemical thrust against this is consistent with the historical pattern.
The "YHWH's Asherah" might also refer to the cultic object (the asherah-pole, a wooden cult-symbol) rather than a deity, Hebrew lexicography is ambiguous; both readings are scholarly-defensible (Mark Smith treats this in The Early History of God 1990/2002).
Even granting the consort-goddess reading at the popular-religious level, the canonical-theological tradition that became authoritative scripture is monotheistic; popular-religious deviation doesn't establish polytheism as the OT's theology.

6. The OT's anti-idolatry polemic CONFIRMS rather than refutes monotheism

The atheist argument that "the OT polemicizes against idolatry, therefore Israelites were polytheists" is dialectically backwards:

The polemic CONFIRMS that POPULAR Israelite religion was polytheism-prone, that's why the polemic exists
The polemic ESTABLISHES monotheism AS THE NORMATIVE-CANONICAL POSITION, the prophets argue FOR monotheism; the polemic IS the monotheistic-witness
The DISTINCTION between popular-deviating practice and normative-canonical theology is critical; the OT records BOTH and consistently judges popular polytheism by monotheistic standards

This is structurally analogous to how Marxist polemic against capitalism CONFIRMS that capitalism was widespread in the polemicist's context, but doesn't make Marxism a capitalist ideology. The OT's polemic-against-idolatry is the very thing that makes its monotheism evident.

7. The trajectory-toward-radical-monotheism is itself the argument

Mark Smith (Origins of Biblical Monotheism 2001), even from his non-confessional academic standpoint, documents that Hebrew monotheism is anomalous in the ANE landscape, a major theological-development requiring explanation, not a smooth-derivation from polytheistic predecessors. Smith's framework: pre-exilic Israelite religion was henotheistic / monolatrous (worship YHWH alone, but acknowledge other gods exist); exilic-post-exilic Israelite religion developed full philosophical-theological monotheism (only YHWH exists; other "gods" don't exist as genuine deities).

The Christian-theological response: even granting Smith's developmental framework, the OT canonical witness preserves the FULL trajectory, with the monotheistic conclusion as the canonical theological position. Christianity's claim is not that EVERY Israelite throughout history was a perfect philosophical-monotheist; it's that the OT canonical witness, the divinely-inspired Scripture, TEACHES monotheism. The trajectory toward radical-monotheism is itself remarkable and requires explanation; the divine-revelatory-providential explanation fits the data well.

Apologetic deployment

When opponents deploy the OT-polytheism objection:

Diagnose the strawman when they argue from elohim-pluralism alone
Engage the divine-council passages with Heiser's framework (created spiritual beings under YHWH-supremacy; not peer-gods)
Distinguish popular-religious deviation from normative-canonical theology (the Asherah-inscriptions show what Israelites SOMETIMES did; the OT shows what canonical-theology TAUGHT)
Note the OT's own polemical thrust as evidence FOR the monotheistic-normative-position
Engage with Mark Smith's academic framework if the opponent is academically-credentialed; concede the trajectory while defending the monotheistic-conclusion as the canonical-theological position
Pair with the broader Christian theological reading: the OT's monotheistic trajectory finds its NT culmination in Trinitarian monotheism (one God in three Persons; not multiple gods, but plural-internal-relations within the one divine essence)

Christian thinkers: Michael Heiser (The Unseen Realm 2015; Angels 2018; Demons 2020); John Walton (Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the OT 2006); John Currid (Against the Gods 2013); Daniel I. Block (NICOT Deuteronomy; NICOT Judges Ruth); Kenneth Kitchen (On the Reliability of the Old Testament 2003); Bruce Waltke (An OT Theology 2007); Christopher Wright (The Mission of God 2006); Iain Provan (Convenient Myths 2013).
Patristic anchors: Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.7-8, anti-Marcionite defense of OT-monotheism continuity); Athanasius (Contra Gentes, extensive treatment of Hebrew monotheism vs pagan polytheism); Augustine (De Civ. Dei 8-10, extensive comparative-religion engagement with Greco-Roman polytheism + defense of biblical monotheism); Aquinas (ST I q.11, divine unicity).
Reformation: Calvin (Inst. 1.10-11, extensive treatment of the unity-of-God doctrine; engages comparative-religion).
Modern Catholic: Dei Verbum §15 (Vatican II 1965), explicit affirmation of OT-NT continuity in monotheism.
Modern academic: Mark S. Smith (The Origins of Biblical Monotheism 2001, non-confessional; documented polytheism-to-monotheism trajectory while acknowledging the trajectory's anomaly); William Dever (Did God Have a Wife? 2005); Israel Knohl (The Sanctuary of Silence 1995).

Connection to broader apologetic context

The OT-polytheism objection is part of the broader academic-skeptical-historicism cluster (Genesis ANE Myth Borrowing Objection, Bible Contradictions Objection, JEDP-source-criticism, late-dating-Pentateuch, etc.). The Christian response strategy is consistent across the cluster:

Engage the academic literature seriously (don't dismiss with popular-evangelical responses)
Distinguish what the academic data DEMANDS from what the atheist DEPLOYMENT requires
Show the developmental-trajectory frameworks, even where granted, don't establish the atheist conclusion (monotheism-is-late ≠ monotheism-is-false)
Pair with the broader Christian theological reading (Trinitarian monotheism as the NT-developed full position)

For the Trinitarian framework specifically (which the polytheism-objection sometimes targets directly): Christianity's Trinitarian-monotheism is one-God-in-three-Persons, NOT three gods. The patristic-Conciliar formulations (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Chalcedon 451) explicitly address and refute the tritheist-misreading. (See Trinity + Trinity vs Oneness vs Modalism vs Arianism.)