For centuries, the great cathedrals of the West and the ancient synagogues of the East have resonated with a singular, monolithic declaration: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” This is the bedrock of Western monotheism—a belief in a singular, indivisible, transcendent Being who spoke the universe into existence from nothingness.
Yet, beneath the polished surface of this theology, beneath the rhythmic chanting of the Psalms and the solemnity of the Eucharist, lies a linguistic and historical stratum that tells a far more complex, and perhaps more unsettling, story. It is a story found not in the heresies of the fringe, but in the very etymology of the Hebrew Bible. It is the story of the Elohim, the El, the Elyon, and the Malak.
The question is not whether these texts exist—they are printed in every critical edition of the Hebrew Bible—but why the established churches and synagogues have not transparently revealed their implications. Why has the traditional understanding of God remained static, despite overwhelming linguistic evidence suggesting a polytheistic, or at least a hierarchical, origin?
The Linguistic Ghost in the Syntax
The primary text of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Torah or Pentateuch, opens with a linguistic anomaly that any Hebrew student encounters early on, yet the laity rarely hears discussed from the pulpit. Genesis 1:1 introduces Elohim—a plural noun—creating the heavens and the earth. Genesis 2:4 introduces Yahweh Elohim—a compound name that marries the personal, covenantal name (Yahweh) with the plural Elohim.
Traditional apologetics have long explained this away as the “majestic plural,” a grammatical form used to denote excellence or sovereignty. However, critical scholarship has moved beyond this simplistic explanation. The term Elohim is grammatically plural, and its verb forms in Genesis 1 are often plural as well, only later shifting to singular agreement when the text narrows its focus.
Furthermore, the name El—the root of Elohim—is not a unique invention of the Israelites. It is the name of the high god in the Canaanite pantheon, the father of the gods. Elyon means “The Most High.” Adonai means “My Lord.”
To the ancient Canaanite ear, the Israelite god was not a metaphysical singularity existing outside of time and space, but a member of a divine council—a pantheon that eventually became monolatrous (worshipping one god while acknowledging the existence of others) and later strictly monotheistic.
The evidence is not hidden; it is embedded in the grammar of the sacred texts. So why the silence?
The Institutional Barrier: Order Over Truth
The reluctance of established churches and mainstream Judaism to publicly dismantle the traditional monotheistic model is most likely a mechanism of preservation.
The Collapse of Catechism
The theological architecture of Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy, as well as the doctrinal foundations of Rabbinic Judaism, are built upon centuries of precise definition. The Nicene Creed and the Shema are not merely poems; they are the load-bearing walls of the faith. To introduce the nuance that the “One God” is a later theological development of a Canaanite deity named Yahweh, who was once subordinate to El Elyon (as suggested in Deuteronomy 32:8-9), is to risk collapsing the entire structure.
If the biblical text is not a direct, univocal revelation of a singular metaphysical truth, but a record of an evolving human understanding of the divine, then the authority of the institution that interprets it is shaken.
The Complexity of the Divine Council
The Hebrew Bible frequently references the Bene Elohim (Sons of God) and the Malak (the Angel/Messenger). In the traditional view, these are understood as created beings—servants of the singular God. However, a transparent reading of passages like 1 Kings 22:19, Job 1:6, or Psalm 82 reveals a “Divine Council” where Yahweh presides over a pantheon of gods.
In Psalm 82, Yahweh stands in the council of El and judges the other gods for their failure to uphold justice. The text declares, “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High,’ but you shall die like men.”
A transparent revelation of this text suggests that early Israelite religion was henotheistic—acknowledging a hierarchy of divine beings but reserving worship for Yahweh. The Malak were not merely winged messengers but divine entities with agency. Over time, to protect the doctrine of monotheism, these entities were demoted to created angels, and the polytheistic roots were obscured.
The Difference a Clear Understanding Would Make
If the established churches and synagogues were to transparently reveal the linguistic and historical reality of the Elohim, El, and the Divine Council, the implications would be profound, reshaping the spiritual landscape entirely.
From Monologue to Dialogue
The traditional view presents prayer as a monologue directed toward a singular, distant sovereign. A clear understanding of the Divine Council reframes the spiritual experience as a participation in a cosmic hierarchy. The Malak and the Bene Elohim are not just servants but aspects of a pluralistic divine reality. Prayer becomes less about petitioning a solitary king and more about aligning oneself with the order of a complex, interconnected cosmos.
The Demystification of Evil and Suffering
The problem of evil—the question of why a singular, all-good God allows suffering—is the greatest theological hurdle in traditional monotheism. If Yahweh is the sole cause of all things, he is responsible for both the light and the darkness.
However, the older understanding found in the texts suggests a more distributed divine responsibility. In the Book of Job, the “Adversary” (the ha-satan) is a member of the Divine Council, a legal prosecutor operating under Yahweh’s authority, not a rebel in a cosmic war. Understanding this removes the need to attribute evil directly to a benevolent singular God. It introduces nuance: the divine realm operates by laws and councils, and human suffering is often the result of the friction within that cosmic order, not a direct act of malice from a singular deity.
A Shift from Dogma to Experience
If the Bible is viewed not as a perfect, static monologue from a singular God, but as a human record of encounters with the Elohim and the Malak, the focus shifts from doctrinal correctness to experiential truth. The text becomes a witness to the sacred, not a magical incantation.
In this view, the names El, Elyon, and Yahweh are not just labels for one being, but descriptors of different modes of the divine—El as the creator father, Yahweh as the covenantal warrior, Elyon as the transcendent high god. Recognising this allows for a more fluid, less dogmatic spirituality that honours the evolution of human consciousness.
The Silent Sanctuary
The established churches and synagogues remain silent on these matters not because the information is lost, but because it is dangerous to the structure of authority. To admit that the “One God” is a theological construct developed over centuries of Canaanite and Israelite history is to admit that the divine is far more mysterious, plural, and elusive than the creeds allow.
Yet, the texts themselves whisper the truth. In the opening of Genesis, in the councils of Job, and in the poetry of the Psalms, the Elohim still speaks in the plural. The Malak still walks among us. The silence of the institutions is a preservation of order, but the texts themselves are a chaotic, vibrant testament to a God who is not a solitary monolith, but a committee of holiness, a council of light, whose complexity defies the simplicity of the catechism.
To reveal this is to risk the comfort of certainty, but it offers the depth of a truly ancient mystery.
—
Vatican image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=vatican&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&wprov=acrw1_-1&type=image
See also:
Worldwide Temple of Aurora 