This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 38, number 6 (2015).
For further information or to support the Christian Research Journal please click here.
When you support the Journal, you join the team and help provide the resources at equip.org that minister to people worldwide. These resources include our ever-growing database of over 2,000 articles, as well as our free Postmodern Realities podcast.
Another way you can support our online articles is by leaving us a tip. A tip is just a small amount, like $3, $5, or $10, which is the cost of a latte, lunch out, or coffee drink. To leave a tip, click here
Polytheism has been suppressed and then presumed dead in the modern world. This book challenges that by giving polytheism (belief in many gods and/or goddesses) its day in court. Author Page duBois is Distinguished Professor of Classics and Comparative Literature at the University of California, San Diego. She maintains that monotheism has been wrongly taken as the triumphant version of religion, thus marginalizing polytheism. This work is somewhat related to a book I read many years ago called The New Polytheism: Rebirth of the Gods and Goddesses, by David LeRoy Miller (Harper and Row, 1974; Spring Publications, rev. 1981). Serious books on this topic are difficult to find, but duBois has written one. Her special area of expertise, interest, and affection is Greek polytheism, but she addresses polytheism of many kinds, including that found in Hinduism and forms of contemporary paganism.
Experience, Not Evidence. Before going further, we should consider the author’s assumptions. First, she fails to take seriously the objective evidence for monotheism over against polytheism. Phenomenology, comparative religion, and history are her concerns. Thus, her argument is that polytheism is an ongoing experience for millions of people through history. As such, we should pay more attention to it and not default to monotheism as the higher or better version of religion. We may even find polytheism in unlikely places, such as the Bible.
Second, the author does not assume that polytheism is true. Rather, she wants to rehabilitate a respect for this neglected or slandered kind of religion because she finds it interesting and needing defense as a legitimate form of human religiosity.
Third, the book ends up arguing against monotheism, claiming that it has persecuted polytheism and should not consider itself the preferred religion. Thus the mission of the book is to raise polytheism’s status to that of monotheism—or above.
Polytheism deserves serious study, and this book is a scholarly contribution in that field. Moreover, polytheism may have been misrepresented or underrepresented in academic and popular writing. However, the ultimate question for any religion is whether or not its beliefs are true and can be supported by compelling evidence. Scholars of comparative religion usually avoid this or simply assume that atheism is true. DuBois mentions some Christian apologists’ work against polytheism but does not engage their actual arguments. Nor does she consider contemporary philosophical defenses of monotheism by scholars such as Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig. Nonetheless, ample evidence can be marshalled for Christian monotheism and, thus, against polytheism.
It can be established that the universe began to exist a finite time ago and in a highly fine-tuned constellation of contingent factors needed to make life possible. Only a supremely powerful agent with vast knowledge can explain this creation and design. There is no reason to posit more than one being contributing to the universe. We need not to multiply explanatory factors unnecessarily. Since the laws of nature are constant and universal, it is more logical to posit one infinite creator and designer as their author than to appeal to several finite deities. And if there were many gods responsible for the universe, then their existence would need to be explained by something beyond them, thus forbidding any final explanation. On the contrary, theism provides a compelling and metaphysically complete explanation for the cosmos. The case, in fact, gets better as physics learns more about cosmic fine-tuning and biology learns more about the inner workings of the cell.
The conclusion is that the philosophical case for polytheism is weak to nonexistent, however much it has influenced humans. One could grant that the pluralism in modern societies is a kind of functional polytheism, since many religions and many concepts of God are tolerated. However, few religions in America today teach that there are multiple deities. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods, but only one God for earthlings to worship. Thus, it is more henotheism (favoring one God above others) than a polytheism that fails to exalt one god among others.
Polytheism in the Bible. What of the author’s remark that the Bible itself teaches polytheism? She goes for the jugular by claiming that the first book of Scripture, Genesis, teaches polytheism. Genesis 3 says, “And the LORD God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever’” (v. 22, NIV). The creation narrative to this point has referred to God in the singular, with the exception of Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.’” The writer is not confused, nor is God. There is no committee of gods, no struggles between them, no inconsistency. Commentators note that the plural references may refer to a plural of majesty or the royal we. The reference to the plural in 3:22 is more likely about “the heavenly court,” as found in Psalm 89:5–6:
The heavens praise your wonders, LORD,
your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones.
For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD?
Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?
In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared;
he is more awesome than all who surround him.
Who is like you, LORD God Almighty?
You, LORD, are mighty, and your faithfulness surrounds you.
(cf. Isa. 6:8)
The Psalmist sharply distinguishes the incomparable God and “the heavenly beings,” yet they are part of His “assembly.” This may be what Genesis 3:22 is referring to. It is unlikely that Genesis 1:26 indicates the heavenly assembly of angels, since humans are not made in the image of angels, but of God (see also Gen. 9:6).
These Genesis plural references might presage the doctrine of the Trinity: one God in three persons. This is suggested by the reference to “the Spirit of God” in Genesis 1:2, which may refer to
the Holy Spirit. However we understand these texts, it is uncharitable and unreasonable to suppose that Genesis 1–3 is a polytheistic account of the creation or some odd amalgamation of monotheism and polytheism. Further, if the text were even remotely polytheistic, why would it be included by the Jews in the rest of the Torah, which is fiercely monotheistic? Consider the first two of The Ten Commandments:
And God spoke all these words:
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the
land of slavery.
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything
in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters
below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.(Exod. 20:1–4; cf. Ps. 115:1–8)
The Bible repeatedly affirms that there is one God (Deut. 6:4) but many false gods, who are represented by idols. God challenges these gods in Isaiah:
“Present your case,” says the LORD.
“Set forth your arguments,” says Jacob’s King.
“Tell us, you idols,
what is going to happenTell us what the former things were,
so that we may consider them
and know their final outcome.
Or declare to us the things to come,
tell us what the future holds,
so we may know that you are gods.(Isa. 41:21–23; cf. 24–29)
The biblical position could not be more straightforward, although a secular scholar trying to find new things in an ancient religion may think otherwise. But that is what duBois does with monotheistic religions in general in her chapter, “Polytheisms within Monotheisms.” On the claim that the Bible contains elements of polytheism, one should consult Richard Hess’s work, Israelite Religions (Baker Academic, 2007).
Polytheistic Psychology. DuBois also argues against the claim that religious consciousness began with animism, developed into polytheism, and culminated in monotheism. On this view, polytheism is a primitive and undeveloped form of religion, which represents man’s first and fumbling attempts to capture the transcendent. Whether or not these religious scholars believe that monotheism is true, most of them take theism to be more sophisticated and noble than polytheism, with its riot of many gods and goddesses.
DuBois demurs, arguing that polytheism is a rich account of our place in the world. Rather than a unified God over all, the gods divide up the labor and make themselves available to the
diverse concerns of complicated human beings. This, for duBois, is just as psychologically satisfying as monotheism; so there is no need to place it lower in the hierarchy of religion. Although duBois does not mention him, this chimes in with the thought of James Hillman, who championed a “polytheistic psychology” that “obliges consciousness to circulate among a field of powers. Each god has its due as each complex deserves its respect in its own right….Polytheistic psychology can give sacred differentiation to our psychic turmoil.”1 Calling psychic turmoil “sacred” does nothing to bring real peace or meaning. Further, there is much more to testing religious claims than appealing to psychology. One must consult the facts of science, history, and logic.
DuBois does not seriously address the case for original monotheism. The Bible, of course, teaches this, claiming that because of sin, mortals exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped the creation rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:18–32). This claim is also confirmed through historical investigation. The leading defender of this claim was Catholic linguist Wilhelm Schmidt (1868–1954), whose twelve-volume Der Ursprung der Gottesidee (1912–1954) argued that monotheism was the original form of religion. The case is synthesized by Schmidt in one volume called Primitive Revelation (B. Herder, 1939) and has been further developed by philosopher Winfried Corduan’s work, In the Beginning God: A Fresh Look at the Case for Original Monotheism (B and H Academic, 2013).
Professor duBois has contributed an academic and interesting account of polytheism’s varied elements. What she has not done is give us any evidence that polytheism is either true or helpful to fallen human beings.
—Douglas Groothuis
At the time of this writing (2015) Douglas Groothuis, PhD, was Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary, where he headed the apologetics and ethics program. As of 2024, he is the Distinguished University Research Professor of Apologetics and Christian Worldview at Cornerstone University. He is the author of Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. (IVP Academic, 2022) and Beyond the Wager: The Christian Brilliance of Blaise Pascal (IVP Academic, 2024).
Notes:
- James Hillman, “Many Gods, Many Persons,” in The Essential James Hillman: A Blue Fire, ed. Thomas Moore (London: Routledge, 1990), 40–41.
