Ancient Origins of Religious Universalism Peter R. Bedford, Union College (A précis, of sorts) It is commonly considered By HeBrew BiBle scholars that monotheism in Ancient Israel—and By ‘monotheism’ I mean the Belief that there is only one God and that other ‘gods’ people worship are in fact figments of human imagination, idols that do not exist— emerged around the middle of the first millennium BCE in the context of Israel’s political subjugation and exile at the hands of successive Near Eastern empires, the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-BaBylonian, and the Achaemenid Persian empires. Imperialism is key here since the political sovereignty of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah was undermined By these empires and with it the royal-state ideology that averred that Yahweh, the god of these kingdoms, was their sovereign lord who superintended their affairs and well-being. The political power of these foreign empires compromised the authority of Yahweh since it very much looked like their gods had greater authority than the god of Israel and Judah and that these imperial gods dictated what would happen to Israel and Judah, their kings and their peoples. One reaction of a suBjugated people to the demonstrated power of successive empires and their chief deities—Assur for Assyria, Marduk for Babylonia, Ahura Mazda for Persia—is simply to recognize that your own god is one among many who serves the Great God of the empire in the heavenly court, and so suBjugated peoples here on earth must serve the Great King of the empire who acts as the imperial god’s vicegerent. The political reality on earth mirrors the political reality in the heavenly/cosmic realm. A polytheistic worldview could accommodate such notions, uncomfortaBle though the notion of the inferiority of your god might be. Ancient Israel had practiced henotheism or monolatry which differed from polytheism in demanding that, for the Israelites at least, only one god Be worshipped. It did not deny the existence of other gods, or even perhaps the legitimacy of other peoples to worship their own gods. The people of Israel, however, must worship only Yahweh, with whom their ancestors estaBlished a covenant—an agreement, or marriage if you like—to be faithful to this deity. Imperialism put great pressure on this covenant since the question of how the authority of foreign gods over Israel could Be denied looms large. Why shouldn’t these foreign, clearly more powerful gods Be worshipped as the deities in control of the fate of Israel and the nations? The ancient Israelites’ promotion of the idea that Yahweh, the god of Israel, is in fact the sole deity, responsible for the affairs of the nations is a form of resistance to the imperial demand that the god of the imperial power Be at least nominally recognized, if not necessarily worshiped, as the sovereign deity among suBjugated peoples. If imperial rule and its religions justification is a form of universalism—a chief deity responsible for the creation of the cosmos who rules over the gods of the peoples and who thus superintends all 1 peoples, uniting them under the political rule of the Great King, yet privileging the people of that god (Be they Assyrian, BaBylonian or Persian, respectively)—then ancient Israel counters with a view that strips out the political element. One god (only), who is creator, who superintends all nations, and who has a special people (Israel), but who rules the nations By means of proxies (= foreign rulers), not by leaders from his own people. Universalism here is not the union of peoples through the formation of a political entity (empire), But the vision of the recognition of the only God achieved through some divine revelation or intervention, or through the promotion of sacred teachings and rituals among Both Israel and the peoples. ‘Conversion’ to this religion is not necessary, only the recognition of the one and only God and thus the repudiation of polytheism and idolatry. Concomitant with that should be the recognition of God’s special people. In one interpretation, just as the empires punished those who would not recognize the sovereignty of the empire and its gods, so the one God will punish, eventually, those who fail to recognize his sovereignty. Early Christianity, with its roots in ancient Judaism and similarly situated in a polytheistic imperial context (Roman), takes up this this tradition from Ancient Israel. It too recognizes its lack of political power as a movement and so articulates an understanding of universalism that seeks the unity of peoples in their recognition of the one, only God, the God of Israel, albeit with a peculiar interpretation—Jesus Christ as messiah/redeemer. Here, however, ‘conversion’ is the sign of the recognition of the one God and the rejection both of other modes of unifying humanity (such as imperialism). In distinction from Judaism, Christianity seeks to dissolve forms of ethnic identity that Judaism retained. Christians Become a ‘third race’, not Jewish and not pagan. Its universalism lies in the claim that this ‘third race’ will dissolve all ethnic and other distinctions, including political and status distinctions, among peoples, uniting them through their common religion. In concert with ancient Judaism, those who refuse to recognize the one God can expect punishment from this divine Lord who can Brook no rebellion to his sovereign rule. In apocalyptic fashion, this punishment will take place at the end of time or in the next life. The contention of the paper is that expressions of universalism in early Judaism and Christianity can Be construed as reflexes of imperial political universalism. 2 .