and the : A of World

It was Israel who saw the uniqueness of Yahweh acting in her history (Ex 8:6; 9:14). It was Israel who experienced the difference between Yahweh and the gods (Ex 15:11). It was out of the richness of these experiences that Israel truly knew Yahweh... The polemic throughout the Pentateuch (and the Old Testament prophets) is persuasive evidence for an exclusivistic understanding of Yahweh in a pluralistic environment. Yahweh, instead of the pagan gods, is the sovereign Creator who controls nature, brings fertility, and subdues nations. by Ed Mathews

luralism is a major challenge con- the pagan gods was like Him. He was your did for you in Egypt P fronting contemporary relig- incomparable (Durham 1987:128). In before your very eyes?” (Dt 4:34). ions. The challenge is a serious one. For the Old Testament, several phrases Yahweh was beyond comparison among in the past, when various religions expressed this uniqueness: “there is all divine beings. “There is simply encountered each other, new insights and none, there is nothing, there is no one ... none like Him, none even approaching an .1 expressions of developed These as, like, compared to, on a level with, equality with Him” (Durham developments resulted in either different equal to...” For instance, in comparing 1987:207). He was magnificent in holi- religious formulations or fresh spiri- Himself to other gods, Yahweh said, ness, awesome in splendor, and tual growth. “There is no one like me in all the earth” extraordinary in accomplishment! are reexamining the (Ex 9:14). While blessing Israel just also used rhetorical questions to foundations of their faith, especially their before his death, Moses said, “There is no describe the uniqueness of Israel, i.e., understanding of God, and who He is. one like the God of Jeshurun, who without equal among the nations Did the Israelites borrow their understand- rides on the to help you...(Dt (because Israel’s God was without equal ing of God from their pagan neigh- 33:26). As expressions of uniqueness, among the gods. (Dt 4:7; 5:26; bors? How should a Christian respond to one-of-a kindness, or singularity, these 33:29). It seems clear, then, that a rhetori- the claims of ? comparative phrases also described cal question was a communication These questions are the focus of the ensu- the plagues of hail and locust (Ex device for expressing a deep conviction ing examination of the Pentateuch. 9:18,24;10:14); the despairing cry of (Kessler 1982:8). The anticipated Yahweh in the Pentateuch the Egyptians (Ex 11:6); and the leader- answer to these “who is like” questions ship of Moses (Dt 34:10). It is obvi- was always “none.” When they God revealed himself in the his- ous that, as a particular linguistic form, referred to the Lord, the expected reply tory and culture of ancient Israel. This dis- these comparisons were part of every- was “none but Yahweh” or “Yahweh closure occurred among societies that alone.” believed in a of gods. The simi- day conversation. They had their origin in the idiom of the people (Labuschagne larities between Yahweh and the gods “The Lord is One” are interesting; the differences are con- 1966:15). Only later did Israel apply them The escape from Egypt and subse- victing. What the Lord did in Israel to the incomparability of Yahweh. quent passage through the wilderness “simply never happened elsewhere” (Noth “Who Among the Gods is Like You?” shaped the identity of Israel, an identity 1958:2,3). The central elements of Besides comparative statements, clarified by the demand to “love Yah- biblical faith are unique in that they could the Israelites employed rhetorical ques- weh with all your heart and with all your not have emerged by any natural evo- tions to express uniqueness and singu- and with all your strength” (Dt lutionary process from the pagan world in larity. For example, Moses asked, “What 6:5). The force of this demand rested on which they originated (Wright god is there in or on earth the profound realization and repeated 1968:7; cf. Richardson 1961:71,72). The who can do the deeds and mighty works mention in the Pentateuch that “Yahweh Hebrews realized their was you do?” (Dt 3:24). Again, Moses is your God.” The Shema goes a step different from other religions because inquired, “Has any god ever tried to take further in affirming that “Yahweh is one” their God was different from other gods! for himself one nation out of another or “Yahweh alone” is the God of nation, by testing, by miraculous signs Israel. Though the Hebrew text is ambigu- “There is No One Like the Lord” and wonders, by war, or by great and ous at this point, “ is Yahweh was without equal. None of awesome deeds, like all the things the implicit” in both versions of that grand

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRONTIER MISSIONS, VOL 14:1 JAN.-MARCH 1997 28 Yahweh and the Gods creedal statement (Christensen 1991:145). clusion. Instead, Yahweh was both greater shipped (Ex 2:15-31). While in Midian, If the ambiguity is irresolvable, as than and distinct from the gods of Moses came face to face with El, “the some argue (Miller 1990:99), then the Babylon, Egypt, and Canaan. God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” at the task of interpretation calls for grap- burning bush (Ex 3:6). There the Distinct from the Gods pling with the sense of both translations.2 Lord, who was similar to El, revealed The Israelites lived in a world shaped himself as distinct from El.6 He said Undivided Loyalty of Israel by , by a supposed cosmic his was Yahweh: “I am who I am” The translation “Yahweh is our God, struggle between gods and (Ex 3:14)7 Moses, who had wor- Yahweh alone” anticipates the com- (Glasser1989:37). The faith of Israel shipped El, was given a new understand- mand to love God with undivided devo- resulted from “the direct activity of God” ing–an insight into the distinctiveness tion. It describes the appropriate com- (Wright 1968:15), not from a relig- of Yahweh–to prepare him for confronta- mitment of Israel. Its concern is her ious developmentalism that evolved out tions with Ba’al. loyalty to the God of the covenant, a of polytheism into or out The of Ba’al. refusal to permit her to direct only part of of henotheism into monotheism (Rowley her love to God (Wyschogrod 1950:333-338). Though the Penta- When Israel crossed the Jordan 1984:25). Therefore the Shema, according teuch reflects some borrowing from local and moved into Canaan, defeating the to this rendering, is a radical confes- sources, the elements in are people and taking over the land, the sion that the loyalty of Israel is one, a loy- so radically reconceptualized that the faith Hebrews became bitter enemies of the alty to worship “no other gods” of Israel stood in sharp contrast to the Canaanites, and Yahweh became the except Yahweh—to have “no other gods” polytheistic environment in which it fierce adversary of Ba’al. In spite of dire except Him (Ex 20:3). resided. warnings (Dt 4:5-20; 7:1-6; 8:19,20; 17:1-3; 18:9-13; 30:17,18), some Israe- Undivided Nature of God The God El lites abandoned Yahweh (Jdg 2:10; The father and omnipotent ruler The alternative translation “Yah- 6:7-10; 10:6,7a). Leaders in ancient Israel of the Canaanite gods was El.4 He was weh our God, Yahweh is one” speaks of adopted Ba’al cult practices (cf. 2Ki the integrity and the unity of His pur- older than the sub-. Thus, in 23:4-9 and Jer 32:30-35; Greenfield pose, thus emphasizing His oneness age and power, he surpassed them all. 1987:546). Deliverers drove out the (Moberly 1990:211-215). The Lord After leaving behind the gods of Ur enemy, abolished the cults, and brought was known as “the one who brought Israel (Jos 24:14) and entering Canaan, Abra- the people back to Yahweh. The out of the land of Egypt” (Dt 5:6). ham worshipped El, who was also the rivalry between Yahweh and Ba’al per- When His people made a golden calf, God God of Melchizedek and Abimelech (Ge sisted through out the course of was ready to destroy them (Dt 9:12- 14:18-20;20:1-17; 21:22-24). Like- Israel’s and Judah’s history. The Israelites 14). This threatened destruction made wise, Jacob built an altar and called it “El, 5 misunderstood the distinctiveness of Him appear fickle and inconsistent the God of Israel” (Ge 33:l9, 20). Yahweh, the only God who asked His (Dt 9:28,29). In the end, the integrity of About the time Abraham moved to people to love Him as He had already God prevailed because He kept His Canaan, the Ugaritic texts were writ- loved them (Ex 34:10-14; Christen- covenant with Israel (Dt 7:8,9).3 The ten. They told the myth of Ba’al driving sen1991:15). Shema demanded the same integrity El from the kingship over the Canaan- (or undivided commitment) of Israel ite gods, a myth that began in the north Greater than the Gods and swept steadily south through Pal- toward God (Janzen 1987:291-295). Whenever the Pentateuch men- estine (Kapelrud 1963:40-42). This relig- To confess that “Yahweh is one” was to tioned other gods, it assumed the gods ious revolution was the result of the claim that He was faithful and consis- were real to the pagans. Yet, when coming of the Amorites who brought their tent in purpose and being—undivided in comparing Yahweh with the gods, it por- god Ba’al with them (cf. Ge 15:16 heart and mind and will. trayed Yahweh not only as distinct and Am 2:9,10; Oldenburg 1969:151- from the gods but also greater than the Yahweh and the Gods 163). The myth reflected in religion gods. The prohibitions against idola- Yahweh was unique and incom- what took place in politics–the Amorite try and the expressions of exaltation parable, whole and undivided, a covenant conquest of Canaan.) Ba’al, as an reflect this greatness. God of impeccable integrity. Where agricultural fertility god, did not penetrate did these ascriptions originate? Did Israel the desert regions of Midian in the far Prohibition against idolatry borrow them from local pagan relig- south, where Abraham migrated at the Idols were not to be made or ions and apply them to their God? The beginning of the Amorite occupation worshipped by the Israelites (Ex 20:4,5; evidence does not warrant that con- and where Moses, six centuries later, wor- 34:17; Lev 19:4; 20:1; Dt 29:16-18). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRONTIER MISSIONS Ed Mathews 29

They were merely man made pieces of ments, who spoke to his people in pas- Yahweh and Religious Pluralism detestable, useless, ineffective, dead sionate language, and who demanded The contrast between Yahweh wood and stone (Dt 27:15; 29:17; 32:21). complete commitment and undivided loy- and the gods contributes to an understand- Images could not see, hear, eat or alty. It was Israel who saw the ing and appreciation of the Lord. It smell (Dt 4:28). They disappointed and uniqueness of Yahweh in the plagues, the demonstrates the qualitative difference embarrassed those who trusted in exodus, and the wilderness journey between God and the gods, draws them. Why, then, did Yahweh prohibit (Ex 8:6; 9:14). It was Israel who experi- attention to his singular uniqueness, sets idolatry? The Pentateuch does not enced the difference between Yahweh the parameters for religious pluralism, give a precise answer.8 and provides a basis for In contrast to the Israel linked the uniqueness of responding to the con- gods of Canaan–that were Yahweh as a creedal confession, temporary voices of religious known through idols– tolerance. In view of the Yahweh made Himself that Yahweh was one, an entirely various with known entirely apart different God beyond their divergent beliefs from images (Dt 4:12-18). comparison or imitation. There and practices, what relation- The prohibition against ship does Yahweh have idolatry, therefore, set Israel was none greater! with their gods? Three possi- apart from her pagan bilities10 will be dis- and the gods (Ex 15:11). It was out of the neighbors (Curtis 1985:285). It distin- cussed: “One reflected in the many, One richness of these experiences that guished Israel from her contemporar- reached by the many, and One instead Israel knew Yahweh. There was no need ies and Yahweh from their gods. As the of the many.” sovereign Lord, He had the authority for her to imitate, adopt, or borrow to impose the ban against idols, (Deut. from her pagan neighbors. The polemic One Reflected in the Many 4:1,2). He was the God of gods, the throughout the Pentateuch (and the This position assumes that there is a God not formed or controlled by Old Testament prophets) is persuasive reality at the center of all religions. hands.9 evidence for an exclusivistic under- The different perceptions of that reality in standing of Yahweh in a pluralistic envi- the various religions are true to the Expressions of Exaltation ronment, i.e., Yahweh, instead of the people holding them but, as the pluralists Some scholars suggest that Israel pagan gods, is the sovereign Creator who argue, they cannot be imposed upon adopted her forms of exaltation of Yah- controls nature, brings fertility, and those of other religions (Hick 1977; Smith weh from her pagan neighbors subdues nations. The author is aware that 1981). Therefore, Yahweh cannot be (Wright 1951:4). Since Babylon, Egypt, some religions are nontheistic. In normative (and no god or ideology can be and Israel employed similar state- such cases, the question should be the standard for all religions). Instead, ments of uniqueness for their deities, the reworded: What is the relationship pluralists say, all talk of Yahweh is question of borrowing must be taken between Yahweh and their “ultimate con- “mythological speech about the Real” seriously. Considering the evidence, how- cern” (Tillich 1957:106), Yahweh and (Hick 1989:248). This severs any connec- ever, “it cannot be proved on suffi- “the holy” (Otto 1958:12-19), or the tion between human language and cient grounds that Israel borrowed the “Real”? Each religion–whether theis- divine reality (D’Costa 1991:67). Plural- concept” (Labuschagne 1966:129). It tic or nontheistic–is an attempt to seek ism provides no way for people to seems more plausible to believe that the and respond to that which is consid- speak about God and, should they attempt Israelites formed expressions of exal- ered the One. to do so, no way of knowing if they tation independently from the rich From the very beginning, Israel are speaking about the same God resources of her language. Although linked the uniqueness of Yahweh with her (McGrath 1994:463). Therefore, in the Hebrews probably knew the local idi- salvation from Egypt (Ex 20:2). The accommodating all religions, pluralism oms of incomparability, the idea concept was not borrowed from pagan accommodates none. Truth is relativ- developed in the experience of Israel with minds but began as a creedal confes- ized. The “One reflected in the many” Yahweh as a distinct, unique God, sion–based on the activities of God–that approach creates an impossible remarkably different from pagan deities. Yahweh was one, an entirely different dilemma. It was Israel who experienced God beyond comparison or imitation. Yahweh as a God of integrity, a holy God, One Reached by the Many There was none greater! There was a God of justice, a God of mercy This understanding advocates a utili- none other (Dt 4:39). toward the helpless, who gave command- tarian function for every religion. It

VOL 14:1 JAN.-MARCH 1997 30 Yahweh and the Gods assumes all religions are ladders to help sion in the world. the exception to that rule. El is depicted not as a generic name but their devotees reach the One. The var- The covenant love of Yahweh a specific . “El is a word common ious religions are “traditions of instrumen- also clarifies his incomparability (Dt 7:9; to all Semitic languages. It occurs tality” (Coward 1985:96), all suppos- cf Ex 34:6,7). His nearness to Israel as a common noun (the god, god) and edly leading to the same God or, at least, manifested that love (Dt 4:7), a love no also as the proper name for a par- to the same destiny. Some inclusivists one could question, a nearness no god ticular god. This is clearly demon- believe that the faithful adherent of a non- could equal. Yahweh heard the cry of His strated in the texts from Ugaritic in North Syria (fourteenth century Christian religion is an “anonymous people, He saw their misery, He ago- B.C.)”(Schneider 1986:67, see Christian” (Rahner 1974:73), that God nized over their suffering (Ex 3:7,9). He also Manley 1962:478). will ultimately sum up all things in promised to be with them (Ex 3:12), 5 Genesis depicts no antagonism the , and that, therefore, by what- to be their Immanuel. And He was! between the religious practices of the ever way people come to God, they Because of the experiences of patriarchs and the inhabitants of will be saved (Knitter 1985:143). This is Israel, Moses declared, in speaking of Canaan, an antagonism strongly evi- dent elsewhere in the Pentateuch problematic. People would receive Yahweh, that there was no god (Ex 23:23-25a; Dt 11:8-17; Moberly salvation who do not desire it. They besides him (Dt 32:39). He was not like a 1992:91). Many misread this lack would acquire grace from a God they pagan god, namely, a false “rock,” a of antagonism as an original polythe- do not know, acknowledge, or worship. god who disappeared in times of crisis, a ism which later gave way to mon- otheism. Cf. Rowley 1967:14, 15, and One Instead of the Many “no-god” image, a worthless idol (Dt 32:21, 31,37). There simply was no other Smith 1987. The exclusivist view says there is God (Dt 4:35,39). If Israel took the 6 El and Yahweh were both called “the only one God and only one way to be creator,” “the God of mercy,” and reality of her monotheism seriously, she reconciled to Him. Though people of “the Holy One.” They were both had an authentic witness within pagan other religions may live sincere and authors of social order, teachers of polytheism. If she kept at bay the voices faithful lives, they cannot be saved by righteousness, and champions of wid- of , the temptations ows and orphans. Among the their religions that, at best, are human of religious pluralism, she had an incredi- Canaanite gods, none were like El and attempts to reach God–attempts, perverted ble purpose, a marvelous privilege– Yahweh. Nevertheless, unlike El, by rebellion, to find Him (Kraemer the Lord did not rule over a pantheon for, like Pharaoh, she was the means of 1938). The claims of exclusivism are logi- of gods. He allowed Israel to wor- proclaiming His name “in all the cally possible but present a painful ship no other god except (or besides) earth” (cf Ex 9:16 and I Ki 8:56-60). Is question: Can a merciful God deny salva- Him (Ex 20:3; Clifford 1973:15. that not also our calling, our purpose, See also Weasels 1989:49-51). tion to those who have never heard of our privilege as God’s people today? 7 The meaning of the divine name is Him (Klootwijk 1993:458)? The answer unclear. Many possibilities are sug- to that question depends on under- End Notes gested (Gianotti 1985:40-46). “I 11 standing the God of the Pentateuch. 1 The world religions emerged in and am who I am” may mean “I am the Yahweh was greater than the were shaped in reaction to pluralis- God who is active in whatever sit- tic environments. In every case, the gods. He was incomparable, singularly uation you are called to face” (cf. Dt existing religions were made to 29:1-6; Davidson 1964:27. See unique. There was no other god like question their beliefs and practices also Kim 1989:108-117). him (Ex 9:14;15:11; Dt 3:24; 33:26). (Coward 1985:94,95. See also 8 Several possibilities have been sug- D’Costa 1986 and Martinson 1987). These ascriptions were not philosoph- gested: (a) An image of Yahweh ical deductions or cultural adaptations. 2 Canonical support for the legiti- would not be Yahweh; conse- Israel developed them out of her macy of both translations of the Shema quently, any worship of such an image is found in Mark 12:32: “You are experience with Yahweh. He intervened in would (by definition) be idolatry right in saying that God is one and (Kaufmann 1960:18).(b) An image of her history with redemptive power there is no other but him.” This Yahweh would make the assimila- (Ex 20:2; Dt 4:34; 33:29a). His mighty statement points to both the undivided tion of Canaanite fertility cult practices deliverance was His way of showing nature of Yahweh and the undi- easier (Childs 1974:485,486. See the pagans that He was Yahweh (Ex vided loyalty of Israel. also Milgran 1985:48-55; Ratner and 7:5,17; 8:10), of telling Israel that it 3 A similar scenario is recorded in Zuckermann 1986:15-60). And (c) was Yahweh who rescued her (Ex 6:7; Numbers 14:11-16. an image allowed to control their god; thus prohibiting the use 10:2; 16:6,12).12 These are not self 4 Some will argue that “El is rarely if ever used in the as the proper of idols meant Yahweh did not submit evident truths or humanly devised myths. name of a non-Israelite Canaanite to the whims of human control They are clues to the concern and deity (Cross1974:44). Though that (Albright 1968:171, 172; Miller and compassion of God, to his nature and mis- may be true, the Ugaritic texts are Roberts 1977:9-17). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRONTIER MISSIONS Ed Mathews 31

9 Textual and archaeological evidence Coward, Harold 1985 Pluralism: Chal- weh?” Asia Journal of Theology 3 support the conclusion that from lenge to World Religions. Mary- (1):108-117. the beginning of the occupation of knoll, NY: Orbis. Klootwijk, Eeuwout 1993 “Christian Canaan the prohibition against Curtis, Edward M. 1985 “The Theo- Approaches to Religious Plural- idolatry was for the most part kept by logical Basis for the Prohibition of ism: Diverging Models and Patterns,” Israel. “Figurines of the mother Images in the Old Testament,” Missiology: An International , to be sure, are regularly Journal of the Evangelical Theological Review 21(4):455-468. found in Israelite towns... but... Society 28(3):277-287. Knitter, Paul 1985 No Other Name? A excavations have thus far brought to Davidson, Robert 1964 The Old Testa- Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes light not a single image of Yah- ment. Philadelphia: J. 3. Lippin- Toward the World Religions. weh” (Bright 1981:60). Hebrew pol- cott. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. ytheism was not existent to a sig- nificant degree in Israel until the early D’Costa, Gavin 1986 Theology and Kraemer, Hendrik 1938 The Christian monarchy. The exile came as a Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Message in a Non-Christian World. Other Religions. Oxford: Basil New York: Harper and Row. direct result of such disregard for Yah- weh (Tigay 1986:37-41. Cf. Tay- Blackwell. Labuschagne, C. J. 1966 The Incompara- lor 1988:557-566). —1991 “The New : John bility of Yahweh in the Old Testa- 10 These three possibilities are fre- Hicks and Religious Plurality,” Inter- ment. Leiden: E. J. Brill. quently employed as a framework for national Bulletin of Missionary Manley, G. T. 1962 “ of God.” discussing a theology of world Research 15(2):66-69. In The New Bible Dictionary. J.D. religions, i.e., pluralism, inclusivism, Durham, John 1987 Exodus. Word Douglas, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: and exclusivism respectively (cf. Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Eerdmans. Race 1982; D’Costa 1986; McGrath Word. Martinson, Paul 1987 A Theology of 1994). Gianotti, Charles 1985 “The Meaning of World Religions: Interpreting God, 11 What ultimately will happen to those the Divine Name,” Bibliotheca Self and World in Semitic, India, who do not know Yahweh can be Sacra, January-March, 38-51. and Chinese Thought. Minneapolis: left in the hands of a just, compassion- Glasser, Arthur 1989 “Old Testament Augusburg. ate, forgiving, holy God. Their Contextualization: and Its Mcgrath, Allister 1994 Christian Theol- destiny, like the rescue of Israel, will Environment,” The Word Among ogy: An Introduction. Cambridge, be grounded in His concern for Us, edited by Dean Gilliland. Dallas, MA: Blackwell. everyone (Thomsen 1990). Our con- TX: Word. Milgran, Jacob 1985 “You Shall not cern should not be THEIR judg- Greenfield, Jonas 1987 “The Hebrew Boil a Kid in its Mother's Milk,” Bible ment but OUR faithfulness to His mis- Bible and Canaanite Literature,” Review 1(3):48-55. sion call. The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited Miller, Patrick 1990 Deuteronomy. Inter- 12 The Red Sea event had the same two by Robert Alter and Rank Ker- pretation: A Bible Commentary purposes (Ex 14:4, 18,31). mode. Cambridge, MA:Harvard. for Teaching and Preaching. Louis- References Hick, John 1977 God and the Uni- ville, KY: John Knox. Albright, William Foxwell 1968 Yah- verse of . London: Fount. Miller, P. D. and Roberts, J. J. M. 1977 weh and the Gods of Canaan: A His- —1989 An Interpretation of Relig- The Hand of the Lord. Baltimore: torical Analysis of Two Contrast- ion. London: Macmillan. Johns Hopkins. ing Faiths. Garden City, NY: Janzen, J. Gerald 1987 “On the Most Moberly, R. W. L. 1990 “Yahweh is Doubleday. Important Word in the Shema,” Vestus One: The Translation of the Shema,” Bright, John 1981 A History of Israel. Testamentum 37(3):280-300. Studies in the Pentateuch. J. A. Philadelphia: Westminster. Kapelrud, Arvid 1963 The Ras Shamra Emerton, ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Childs, Brevard 1974 The Book of Exo- Discoveries and the Old Testa- —1992 The Old Testament of the dus, A Critical, Theological Com- ment. G. W. Anderson, trans. Norman, Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives mentary. Philadelphia: Westminster. OK: University of Oklahoma. and Mosaic Yahwism. Minneapo- Christensen, Duane 1991 Deuteron- Kaufmann, Yehezkel 1960 The Religion lis: Fortress. omy 1-11. Word Biblical Commentary. of Israel: From Its Beginning to Noth, Martin 1958 The History of Waco, TX: Word. the Babylonian Exile. Moshe Green- Israel. Stanley Godman, ed. New Clifford, Richard 1973 “The Word of God berg, trans. Chicago: University of York: Harper and Row. in the Ugaritic Epics and in the Chicago. Oldenburg, Ulf 1969 The Conflict Patriarchal Narratives,” The Word in Kessler, Martin 1982 “A Methodolog- Between El and Ba’al in Canaan- the World. Richard Clifford and ical Setting for Rhetorical Criticism,” ite Religion. Leiden: E. J. Brill. George MacRae, eds. Cambridge, MA: Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Bib- Otto, Rudolf 1958 The Idea of the Weston College. lical Literature. David Clines, David Holy. John W. Harvey, trans. New Cross, Frank 1974 Canaanite Myth and Gunn, and Alan Hauser, eds. Shef- York: Oxford. Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: field, England: JSOT. Race, Alan 1982 Christians and Religious Harvard. Kim, Ee Kon 1989 “Who is Yah- Pluralism. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

VOL 14:1 JAN.-MARCH 1997 32 Yahweh and the Gods

Rahner, Karl 1974 Theological Investiga- Towards a World Theology. Philadel- don: SCM. tions. David Bourke, trans. Vol. 5. phia: Westminster. Wyschogrod, Michael 1984 “The London: Darton, Longman, and Todd. Taylor, J. Glen 1988 “The Two Earliest Shema Israel in and the New Ratner, Robert and Zuckermann, Known Representations of Yah- Testament.” In The Roots of Our Bruce 1986 “A Kid in Milk?: New weh.” In Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical Common Faith. Hans Georg Link, ed. Photographs of KTU 1:23, Line and Other Studies in Memory of Geneva: World Council of 14.” Hebrew Union College Annual Peter C. Craige. Lyle Eslinger and Churches. 57:15-60. Glen Taylor, ed. Sheffield, Eng- Richardson, Alan 1961 The Bible in the land:JSOT. Age of Science. London: SCM. Thomsen, Mark 1990 “Confessing Christ Within a World of Relig- Rowley, Harold H. 1950 “The Antiquity Dr. Ed Mathews is a professor in ious Pluralism.” International Bul- of Israelite Monotheism,” The the missions department of Abilene letin of Missionary Research 14 Expository Times 61:333~338. Christian University. He and his (3):115-118. —1967 Worship in Ancient Israel: wife Georgia live in Abilene, Texas. Tigay, Jeffery H. 1986 You Shall Have No Its Form and Meaning. London: Other Gods: Israelite Religion in SPCK. the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. Schneider, J. 1986 “God, Gods, Emma- Atlanta, GA: Scholars. nuel.” In The New International Tillich, Paul 1957 Dynamics of Faith. [This is a reprint from the Evangelical Dictionary of Theol- New York: Harper and Row. Missiological Society Series, Book Num- ogy. Vol 2. Colin Brown, ed. Wessels, Anton 1989 “Biblical Presuppo- ber 2, and the Religions: Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. sitions For and Against Syncre- A Biblical Theology of World Religions, Smith, Mark S. 1987 The Early His- tism.” In Dialogue and . 1995 by Edward Rommen and Harold tory of God: Yahweh and Other Dei- Jerald Gort, et. al., eds. Grand ties in Ancient Israel. San Fran- Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Netland, editors. Reprinted with permis- cisco: Harper and Row. Wright, G. Ernest 1968 The Old Tes- sion.] Smith, Wilfred Cantwell 1981 tament Against Its Environment. Lon-

Half Page ad here by Pioneers

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRONTIER MISSIONS