Introduction<\/p>\n
Introducing the Speaker<\/p>\n
I am Dr. Mike Heiser, your instructor for this course. I want to tell you a little bit about myself before we launch into it. I have a PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin. I also have a master\u2019s degree from that same institution in the same field. Prior to going to Wisconsin, I earned another master\u2019s degree in ancient history from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. My major fields were ancient Israel and ancient Egypt.
\nI\u2019ve been out of the classroom for an extended time, now\u2014my other duties involve writing and editing\u2014but I have a lot of classroom experience. I\u2019ve taught roughly 15 or 16 years on the undergraduate level in the classroom, and I also do a lot of online teaching. I hope that you\u2019re going to enjoy this course. I think you\u2019ll find it fascinating.<\/p>\n
Introducing the Course<\/p>\n
Purposes of the Course<\/p>\n
Our course is entitled \u201cThe Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead.\u201d I want to talk about the purpose of the course briefly.<\/p>\n
Jewish Evangelism<\/p>\n
One purpose is Jewish evangelism. This is a course that is going to help you speak to Jewish friends\u2014Jewish people\u2014about believing in Jesus. A lot of Jewish people feel that they really can\u2019t do this because believing in Jesus would somehow compromise their monotheism. Again, the main creed of Judaism is Deut 6:4, the Shema: \u201cThe Lord our God is one.\u201d And so, it\u2019s a stumbling block for Jewish people to accept the idea of Jesus as Savior and as God Incarnate because of their monotheism.<\/p>\n
Biblical Continuity<\/p>\n
There is also the issue of biblical continuity. You will notice a lot in this course that really reinforces the idea that the two Testaments relate to each other and are really inextricably linked across the board. We will be looking at some concepts that might be familiar in the NT that actually show up in the OT, so it will be useful for that.<\/p>\n
Apologetics<\/p>\n
There is also apologetics\u2014and really this is two areas: Apologetics in terms of other religions. We will be covering a few things here that will help you really talk about your faith and discuss certain topics as it relates to belief in Jesus and who Jesus was\u2014the traditional view of Jesus as deity incarnate, as God Incarnate. Some religions don\u2019t believe that, and so we will hit a few points that will help that discussion. And then the second area of apologetics is academic skepticism. There are, for instance, claims among many scholars that the idea that Jesus was God or that there was a Godhead, that that idea is in conflict with the OT and is very new, is very late; it is a latecomer to theology. So we will be talking about some points that will help you deal with those issues as well.<\/p>\n
Approach of the Course<\/p>\n
Our approach, as we go through and try to accomplish those purposes, is going to be a series of questions. So, what you will see is I\u2019ll be going through questions and then, as I bring up each question, will be showing you some things, doing some things with the text that will help answer that question. So, just be prepared for that format as we work through the course.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Evangelism HIBD
\nWhat Is Apologetics? ASB:RQSASF<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Overcoming the Obstacles to Evangelism MOE
\nThe Crisis of Truth and Word GRA<\/p>\n
UNIT 1
\nHow Do I Respond to a Jewish Objection to the Christian Trinity?<\/p>\n
1. The Core Beliefs of Judaism
\n2. Accessing and Using Hebrew Dictionaries
\n3. The First Problem with Understanding Monotheism
\n4. Comparing English Translations with the Text Comparison Tool
\n5. The Second Problem with Understanding Monotheism
\n6. Searching English Bibles for the Words of Christ
\n7. Understanding Elohim and the Implications for the Godhead<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 1
\nThe Core Beliefs of Judaism<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Explain the meaning of the declaration \u201cThe Lord our God is one\u201d (Deut 6:4)
\n\u2022 Articulate the difference between the conventional definition of monotheism (i.e., only one \u201cgod\u201d exists) and Dr. Heiser\u2019s definition
\n\u2022 Recall the biblical evidence for the concept of divine plurality in the OT<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
The first question that we want to entertain is this one: \u201cI have tried to talk to my Jewish friend about believing in Jesus, but she says that she can\u2019t because Judaism only accepts one God, not a Trinity. So what does a person say when they hear that?\u201d<\/p>\n
Monotheism and the Shema<\/p>\n
Well, there are two things that we need to talk about with respect to that question. One is monotheism. What does that term actually mean when it comes to the OT and its theology? We have sort of been mentally trained to think that monotheism means that only one God exists, as opposed to one God being completely and utterly and exhaustively incomparable. We need to take this issue by the horns and deal with it according to what the OT writers actually say. The second is the Shema itself. Now, the Shema is sort of the creed of Judaism\u2014Deut 6:4, \u201cThe Lord our God is one.\u201d We need to take a closer look at that as well when we try to come up with an answer for our friend, who is really wondering if she can believe in Jesus because she is a monotheistic Jew.<\/p>\n
The Four Common Hebrew Words for God<\/p>\n
Now, I want to start by sort of giving us all a monotheistic test. Are we really monotheists? And I have a point to doing this, and I will explain what that is. But I want to just sort of jump into some things that we see in the biblical text and then ask you a couple questions. You\u2019ll notice, on the left-hand side, that we have some common terms for God. elohim is one of them, roughly 2700 times or so. El is another that is very commonly used for God. Then, of course, we have the divine name. The Y-H-W-H there is Yahweh, as we would pronounce it. And then eloah is another word that is used for God, often found in the book of Job. These are all common terms for God\u2014capital G-O-D.<\/p>\n
Elohim Can Refer to Several Beings in the OLD Testament<\/p>\n
I want to focus on elohim, though. You will notice that elohim, according to this list, actually is used of a number of different entities in the OT by the biblical writer. Elohim certainly is used of the God of Israel. It is also used, though, of the gods of the nations, and in 1 Kgs 11:33 we have some specific deities mentioned, like Chemosh or Ashtaroth. They are called elohim. The gods of Yahweh\u2019s host, His heavenly host or His council\u2014this divine council idea is something we are going to hit in Psalm 82\u2014those elohim are real. Then we go to Deut 32:17; we have elohim used of demons. In Hebrew, that word is siddim. The siddim are called elohim in that verse. The deceased human dead in 1 Sam 28\u2014this is the account when Saul goes to the medium at Endor and asks her to conjure up Samuel\u2014when Samuel appears, he is called an elohim in that passage. And lastly, we have angels. Now, this depends on how you take a few passages. What we are going to see is that one particular angel is also referred to as elohim, along with the God of Israel. So, you get a number of different entities that are actually called elohim in the OT.<\/p>\n
Two Test Questions for Monotheism<\/p>\n
Now, here\u2019s our monotheism test. First question: Is there more than one elohim that is real or that exists? Well, you know, you sort of have to affirm that because of that list we just saw\u2014the spirit of the human dead, angels, demons, those sorts of things. We\u2019re not going to deny that those things are real. So there are multiple elohim. There is divine plurality.
\nAnd that brings us to our second question: Are you a monotheist then? Now, it\u2019s sort of a trick question because you can feel the tension right away. If you went into this thinking that monotheism was that only one god\u2014one elohim\u2014exists, and we see from the biblical text that that isn\u2019t the case, it\u2019s sort of a trick question to get you and your Jewish friend to thinking about what does the biblical text actually say about what goes on in the unseen world and who is there? Divine plurality is actually a first step toward helping your Jewish friend realize that the Shema may not mean that only one god exists, and that\u2019s a stepping stone toward getting her to think about Jesus as God as well.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Monotheism BEB
\nMonotheism LBD
\nThe Shema BEB
\nDeuteronomy 6:4\u20135 NAC:D<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Monotheism ECV13
\nThe Shema ISBER<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Monotheism Topic Guide
\nThe Shema Topic Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 2
\nAccessing and Using Hebrew Dictionaries<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Access Hebrew words and dictionaries from English Bibles and the Bible Word Study tool
\n\u2022 Make use of various Hebrew dictionaries<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Dr. Heiser referred to several Hebrew words that are translated \u201cGod\u201d in English Bible translations. He also noted that one particular Hebrew word for God, elohim, could refer to several different beings. In this video, I want to show you how you can use Logos to discover the Hebrew words behind your English Bible translation, and how to discover the meaning of those Hebrew words with a Hebrew dictionary.<\/p>\n
Accessing a Bible from the Command Bar<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s take a look at 1 Kings 11:33, where the Lord declares that the Israelites have worshiped other gods. Now I\u2019m here at the Home page, but what I\u2019m about to do, you can do no matter what items you may have open.
\nA quick way of opening a Bible to a particular passage is to click in the Command bar and type in the abbreviation of the Bible, such as \u201cNASB95\u201d for the New American Standard Bible [1995 Update]. Then type the word \u201cto,\u201d followed by the reference \u201c1 ki 11:33.\u201d (You\u2019ll notice that for speed, I abbreviated the book name, and I also left out the punctuation, but Logos still understood what I meant.) When I press Enter, Logos will open the NASB to 1 Kings 11:33.<\/p>\n
Accessing Hebrew Words from an English Bible Translation<\/p>\n
Of course, the text of the NASB is in English, but we\u2019re looking for the Hebrew words. You can see the Hebrew words by viewing what\u2019s called the interlinear ribbon, by clicking this button. In Logos, many English Bibles\u2014but not all\u2014have interlinear ribbons like this, so if you don\u2019t see this button, you\u2019ll need to switch to a different Bible version.
\nNow I\u2019ll select the word \u201cgod\u201d in this verse. You\u2019ll see that the word I selected is highlighted in the ribbon, too. There [are] lots of useful rows in the ribbon, but we\u2019re going to be concentrating on three of the rows in this video.
\nThis row labeled \u201cMSS\u201d stands for Manuscript Surface. This [row displays] the actual Hebrew word you would find in the Hebrew Bible, the OT, that was translated as \u2018the god of\u2019 in the NASB.
\nThe next line, \u201cMSS Trl,\u201d is Manuscript Surface Transliteration. Transliteration simply means that you\u2019ve taken the letters of one language and put them into the equivalent sounding letters of another language. So the Hebrew word elohim is spelled in English letters: \u201ce-l-o-h-i-m.\u201d
\nFinally, \u201cLemma\u201d refers to the form of the Hebrew word you would find in a dictionary.
\nSo now you can click on any word in an English Bible and see what Hebrew word is behind the English translation.<\/p>\n
Accessing the Bible Word Study Guide from an English Translation<\/p>\n
You can even access the Hebrew word without needing to turn on the ribbon. Just right-click on the word you want to study, and you can see that the information from the interlinear ribbon is displayed on the right-hand side of the menu. What\u2019s great about the right-click menu is that when you choose any item on the right-hand side of the menu, you get a list of actions you can perform on the left-hand side.
\nIf you remember, I said that \u201clemma\u201d refers to the dictionary form of a word, so that\u2019s what we need to click on in the right-hand side of the menu if we\u2019re going to look up this word in a dictionary. Once you\u2019ve clicked on it, scroll down to the bottom of the left-hand side, and you\u2019ll see that there are five different Hebrew dictionaries listed. Just click on one of those dictionaries, and you\u2019ll get straight to the dictionary entry. You can change the order in which the dictionaries appear, using Library Prioritization, so don\u2019t worry if the dictionaries you see are slightly different [from] the ones displayed here.
\nIn fact, there are more than five Hebrew dictionaries in Logos, so let me show you how to find the other dictionaries, and explain which dictionaries are the best to use. To do so, we\u2019re going to use the Bible Word Study guide.<\/p>\n
Accessing Dictionaries from the Bible Word Study Guide<\/p>\n
When you\u2019re using Logos, if you ever want to find out as much as you can about a word in the Bible, you should go to the Bible Word Study, because that tells you everything you might want to know about any Bible word, including a list of all the dictionaries that have an article about that word. You can see that we can access it right here from the right-click menu.
\nOnce we choose the Bible Word Study, a report is generated with information about the word elohim. You can look through the rest of the guide when you have more time, but for the moment we\u2019re going to be concentrating on this first section of the Bible Word Study, which is also called \u201cLemma.\u201d
\nAs you can see when I click \u201cmore,\u201d it contains links to every Hebrew dictionary in your library that has an article on this word. Let\u2019s click on a few of the most important and see how they differ.
\nThe first two dictionaries listed here, HAL and BDB, are the most detailed of all. As you can see, they\u2019re full of cross references to journal articles and [to] other ancient texts. They\u2019re best if you\u2019ve studied Hebrew in seminary and are doing a really in-depth study, but you wouldn\u2019t use them just to get a quick definition.
\nIf that definition is what you want, then Strong\u2019s Concise Dictionary [CDWGTHB], here at the bottom, is probably the easiest to understand at a glance. You can see that elohim can mean \u201cgods in the ordinary sense,\u201d but it\u2019s especially used \u201cof the supreme God.\u201d It\u2019s also \u201coccasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates,\u201d and sometimes to speak of angels.<\/p>\n
Using the Dictionary of Biblical Languages: Hebrew<\/p>\n
If you want more information than is in Strong\u2019s, but not as much as HALOT or BDB, then a good intermediate Hebrew dictionary is DBL, which stands for Dictionary of Biblical Languages. This dictionary suggests there are 12 shades of meanings to the word elohim, each one indicated by a number in bold. There\u2019s a lot of information here, including reference numbers to other resources, but I just want to draw your attention to three features, which are also shared by the more detailed Hebrew dictionaries.
\nFirst, each shade of meaning begins with a one- or two-word definition or translation. Next, you get an explanation of that translation. Finally, you get some examples of verses where the word is used with that meaning. So the first shade of meaning is \u201cGod\u201d (with a capital \u201cG\u201d) as the definition, then \u201cthe true God\u201d as an explanation, and then Gen 1:1 as the example. The second shade of meaning has \u201cgods\u201d as the definition, and \u201cdeities other than the true God, which are falsely worshiped\u201d as the explanation. You can see that one of the examples for that meaning is 1 Kgs 11:33, which Dr. Heiser mentioned when talking about the \u201cgods of the nations.\u201d
\nSo even here in this dictionary, just in these first two meanings, you can see evidence about what Dr. Heiser talked about\u2014divine plurality. So when you use a dictionary like the Dictionary of Biblical Languages, you can discover the richness of any Hebrew word\u2014and in Logos you can get there even from an English Bible translation.<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 3
\nThe First Problem with Understanding Monotheism<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Identify the first problem with understanding monotheism
\n\u2022 Explain the meaning of the Hebrew word elohim according to the OT
\n\u2022 Recognize how English Bible translations differ regarding the translation of elohim and how those differences affect our understanding of monotheism<\/p>\n
English Bible Translations of Elohim<\/p>\n
So, why the difficulty in defining monotheism? The use of the Hebrew term is clear enough, but our English translations, unfortunately, obsure the original Hebrew vocabulary.<\/p>\n
Elohim in 1 Samuel 28:13<\/p>\n
In 1 Samuel 28:13, the English Standard Version (the ESV) does a nice job of handling elohim: \u201cThe woman said to Saul, \u2018I see a god coming up out of the earth.\u2019 \u201d This is the story where Saul has asked a medium at Endor to conjure up Samuel, and when she does, this is what she says: \u201cI see a god\u201d\u2014an elohim\u2014\u201ccoming up out of the earth.\u201d The New International Version, curiously enough, has, \u201cI see a ghostly figure coming up out of the earth.\u201d That is very, very interpretive. You really wouldn\u2019t know at all that we have elohim there in the verse. A little better is the New King James Version, where we read, \u201cI saw a spirit ascending out of the earth.\u201d But \u201cspirit\u201d is an entirely different word in Hebrew\u2014it\u2019s ruach. It\u2019s not elohim. So, again, the translation obscures which word we actually have. The New American Standard Bible is a little bit better: \u201cI see a divine being coming up out of the earth.\u201d That gets pretty close to what a literal rendering of elohim would be, but not quite.<\/p>\n
Elohim in Deuteronomy 32:17<\/p>\n
In Deuteronomy 32:17 we have the same issue. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) does a very nice job with the verse. We read, \u201cThey sacrificed to demons, who were not God\u201d\u2014notice we have a capital G-O-D; the word there is eloah, a different word than elohim, and then\u2014\u201cto gods whom they have not known.\u201d There\u2019s our word elohim. So, the NASB has, \u201cThey sacrificed to demons who were not God, to gods whom they have not known.\u201d It\u2019s very clear, very understandable. And the New King James Version as well: \u201cThey sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods they did not know.\u201d These three translations we just saw do a nice job. But when we go to the Revised Standard Version, look at what we have: \u201cThey sacrificed to demons, which were no gods\u201d\u2014lowercase G\u2014and then it says, \u201cto gods they had never known.\u201d Do you feel the contradiction there? \u201cThey sacrificed to demons, which were no gods, to gods they had never known.\u201d Well, they either are or they aren\u2019t. You can tell the translator is struggling here with how to handle the elohim in this verse. The English Standard Version (ESV) reflects a struggle as well: \u201cThey sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known.\u201d Again, you get that contradictory feel in the way it\u2019s rendered.<\/p>\n
Elohim in Psalm 82:1<\/p>\n
Psalm 82:1 also has issues. The ESV renders \u201cgods,\u201d plural, at the end of the verse. I\u2019m going to read the whole verse to capture the context: \u201cGod has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.\u201d It is a very literal rendering. The New King James Version is also very literal: \u201cGod stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods.\u201d Again, plural elohim. But look what happens when we go over to the New Living Translation: \u201cGod presides over heaven\u2019s court; he pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings.\u201d And \u201cheavenly beings\u201d isn\u2019t a bad translation, but it doesn\u2019t capture, again, that literal flavor that would let you know that you have elohim here in the verse. The New American Standard Bible renders our plural elohim as \u201crulers\u201d\u2014\u201cHe judges in the midst of the rulers.\u201d Again, you would have no idea that the word here is actually elohim.<\/p>\n
The Old Testament Concept of Divine Plurality is Foundational to the New Testament Trinity<\/p>\n
So, to summarize, our translations, in part, contribute to this tension that we feel. There is actually another reason, though, that we feel tension over the idea of divine plurality. And, again, I don\u2019t want you to miss the point. Divine plurality, just the idea, is an important baby step toward helping your Jewish friend understand that, look, when we, as Christians, embrace the idea of a Trinity or Jesus as God, we can still think of ourselves as monotheists in the sense that there is only one incomparable Yahweh. There is only one like Him. But, there is divine plurality. There are multiple elohim, and, as we will see in the course of this course, there is an idea of a Godhead in the OT as well.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on Deuteronomy 32:17 FSB
\nNotes on Psalm 82:1 FSB
\nCommentary on 1 Samuel 28:12\u201314 NAC:12S<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
English Versions of the Bible LBD<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 4
\nComparing English Translations with the Text Comparison Tool<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Use the Text Comparison tool to compare English versions of the Bible
\n\u2022 Create a collection of English Bibles and compare their translation choices<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Dr. Heiser showed us that English Bible translations\u2014even literal ones\u2014can disagree, especially when it comes to the translation of the Hebrew term elohim, typically translated \u201cGod\u201d or \u201cgods.\u201d This is important, because the translation of elohim affects how we understand monotheism. In this video, I want to demonstrate how to set up the Text Comparison tool to compare translations in the way that Dr. Heiser did.<\/p>\n
Using the Text Comparison Tool<\/p>\n
You can access the Text Comparison tool by going to the Tools menu and selecting \u201cText Comparison.\u201d When you perform a text comparison, Logos locks the Text Comparison panel to the right side of the window so that it doesn\u2019t interfere with the rest of your layout. You can see that it\u2019s locked in place by this thin gray divider, and because it\u2019s locked, you can\u2019t resize the panel. But you can move it, and I\u2019m going to do that so we have a bit more room.
\nTo use the Text Comparison tool, just type in the Bible verse or verse range in this Search box. We\u2019ll use the example Dr. Heiser was speaking of, 1 Sam 28:13. In the next box you can choose which translations to compare. Again, let\u2019s follow what Dr. Heiser used in his comparison of 1 Sam 28. We\u2019ll use the abbreviated translation names here and separate them with a comma. First, the English Standard Version (ESV), then the New International Version (NIV), the New King James Version (NKJV), and finally, the New American Standard Bible (NASB95). Once you\u2019re finished, click the arrow or press [Enter] to run the comparison.<\/p>\n
Comparing Different Translations<\/p>\n
Now we have the four different translations in one panel so we can compare them. That\u2019s great, but it\u2019s still a little difficult to see the precise differences between the four versions. But don\u2019t worry, because we can ask Logos to highlight those differences by clicking on this blue letter \u201cA.\u201d When you do so, you\u2019ll see that Logos now highlights every difference between the first version\u2014we call that the base text\u2014and one of the other versions.
\nYou can even hover over the highlights to remind yourself how the base text translates the same word or phrase. You\u2019ll also see that you get a percentage number above all the translations except for the base text. That indicates what percentage of words is different in each translation, compared to the base text.
\nYou\u2019ll also see that a second icon has become active here at the top. When this icon is toggled on, the words and phrases from the base text are inserted into the other translations so it\u2019s easier to compare each translation with the original. It\u2019s up to you which of these settings you use for text comparison, and when you make your choice, Logos will remember the settings for next time.
\nIn this verse, the major difference between the four translations is the way that they translate elohim. Here in our base text, the ESV, elohim is translated as \u201ca god.\u201d But in the NIV it\u2019s \u201ca ghostly figure,\u201d in the NKJV it\u2019s \u201ca spirit,\u201d and in the NASB it\u2019s \u201ca divine being.\u201d The fact that these four Bible versions all translate the word differently shows the difficulty translators have had with the word elohim in this verse.
\nThis demonstrates why the Text Comparison tool is so useful. I always use it when I\u2019m studying a passage, because it alerts me to parts of the text that are difficult to interpret or translate. If different English translations translate the same word or phrase in very different ways, you\u2019ll know that you\u2019re going to need to spend a bit of time working out exactly what that phrase means.
\nIf you don\u2019t have Greek or Hebrew, or are a bit rusty, then comparing English translations is a must\u2014but I recommend comparing English translations even if you do know Greek and Hebrew well. Even when you\u2019re doing your own translation, it\u2019s always useful to see how other people translate the same verse.<\/p>\n
Creating Bible Collections for Comparison<\/p>\n
To get the most out of the Text Comparison tool, I suggest you create at least two Bible collections for comparison. First, you should create a collection of literal (or word-for-word) translations, like this one here. Because all of these translations are fairly literal, there won\u2019t be much difference between them, so it will be relatively easy to spot the interpretative issues where there are differences. I recommend that you don\u2019t include very old translations like the King James Version or the American Standard Version, because all the \u201cthees\u201d and \u201cthous\u201d and archaic suffixes will show up as differences, and that tends to get in the way.
\nIf you\u2019re teaching others, I also suggest you create a second collection of Bibles that are popular amongst the people that you are teaching. Here\u2019s the collection that I use, but each church or study group will have a different list. If the people you\u2019re teaching are following along with you in their translation, they may sometimes wonder why their Bible seems to say something different [from] yours. It\u2019s useful for you to know about those differences, so that you can fine-tune your teaching to take them into account.
\nWhen you\u2019re using a collection in a text comparison, you\u2019ll see that the Bibles are always listed in alphabetical order. That might mean that your base text is not the one that you want it to be. If that\u2019s the case, just add your preferred version to the beginning of the Reference box, and Logos will move it to the top of the list and use it as the base text. Once you\u2019ve done that, that combination will show up under \u201cRecent\u201d on the drop-down menu, so next time you\u2019ll be able to get to it really quickly.<\/p>\n
Using a Keyboard Shortcut to Access the Text Comparison Tool<\/p>\n
The Text Comparison tool is useful because it\u2019s quick and simple, so you can make it a part of your workflow every time you study. But before I finish, let me show you a keyboard shortcut that gives you even quicker access to a text comparison. This shortcut works anywhere in Logos, and it\u2019s particularly useful when you\u2019re hovering over a Bible reference.
\nSo let\u2019s imagine we\u2019re reading 1 Samuel 28, and we\u2019re interested in this cross reference. You can hover over it to see the verse in your preferred version, but if you now press F7 on your keyboard, you\u2019ll see you get an instant pop-up text comparison using the Bibles that are most highly prioritized in your library. Isn\u2019t that wonderfully quick and simple? I find myself using F7 all the time.
\nSo the Text Comparison tool allows you to identify areas where translations disagree or where the meaning of an English word is ambiguous. Use it often, and you\u2019ll find it much easier to pinpoint parts of the biblical text that deserve particularly close attention.<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 5
\nThe Second Problem with Understanding Monotheism<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Identify a second problem with understanding monotheism
\n\u2022 List the number of ways the biblical authors used the Hebrew word elohim
\n\u2022 Explain the implications of the biblical use of elohim for monotheism<\/p>\n
The Biblical Understanding of Elohim<\/p>\n
There is a second reason why we feel some tension when we take our little monotheism test, and that\u2019s because when we see the letters G-O-D, we sort of automatically assign a specific set of unique attributes to G-O-D, to God. And so the idea that there could be multiple gods, multiple elohim, sort of troubles us because, again, we have this mental reflex to think of G-O-D in utterly unique terms. Well, the biblical writers do not use elohim that way, and so that\u2019s something we have to get used to and take account of because it\u2019s in the biblical text.<\/p>\n
Beings Other Than YHWH<\/p>\n
Now, you\u2019ll recall that elohim was used of a range of entities, and they are not equal in attributes, very obviously. If you\u2019ll look at our list again, the God of Israel is not the same as the gods of the nations in the mind of the biblical writer. The God of Israel is not the same as the gods of Yahweh\u2019s council or certainly demons or the deceased human dead. An Israelite would just know that there\u2019s a big difference between a departed loved one\u2014their spirit, their immaterial nature\u2014and when they used elohim to describe that departed loved one; they know that, in terms of attributes, that person is nowhere near the same as Yahweh, the God of Israel, but, nevertheless, they use the same term to describe both and other things. So why is that? How do we understand that?<\/p>\n
Beings in the Spiritual Realm<\/p>\n
I think that the best way to understand that is to have this in mind: Yahweh, the God of Israel, is an elohim, but no other elohim is Yahweh. Elohim is actually what I would call a place-of-residence term. What that means is elohim tells you what the proper domain is for that thing. By nature, God (the God of Israel), the plural elohim of God\u2019s council, the demons, the angels, the departed human dead, they are part of what, you know, we would call even today the spiritual world. They live in that place; whereas, this realm, the realm of the embodied, is our realm, the human realm.
\nSo, an elohim, by definition and by nature, is a disembodied entity. And so you can use elohim to refer to anything that fits in that realm or that place. So I think place of residence really helps us understand how the biblical writers thought of elohim. They did not think of a specific set of attributes. They thought of where that being, that entity, was or properly was\u2014in a disembodied state\u2014not a specific set of unique items or attributes or characteristics like we do, and we need to just wrap our minds around that difference as we proceed.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Elohim as \u201cGods\u201d in the Old Testament FSB
\nThe OT Names of God: El and Related Names BEB<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Names of God: Elohim ISBER
\nGod (Elohim) DDDB<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Elohim (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd) Bible Word Study<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 6
\nSearching English Bibles for the Words of Christ<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Search the words of Christ for all forms of an English word<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Dr. Heiser challenged the popular notion that the word \u201cgod\u201d always refers to beings with a certain set of attributes, and he argued his case, up to this point, primarily from the OT. But how does Jesus use the word? Did He also talk about the gods?
\nIn this video, I want to show you how to restrict a Bible search to just the words of Christ, and I\u2019ll show how you can use the search results\u2019 Verses and Analysis views to display your results more clearly.<\/p>\n
Setting the Parameters for a Bible Search<\/p>\n
First, click the magnifying glass icon from the toolbar and choose the Bible search mode. Now we need to set our parameters. Let\u2019s start by choosing a Bible translation. The quickest way is to type its abbreviation into this Find box\u2014for example, \u201cNKJV\u201d for New King James Version.
\nWhen you\u2019re performing a Bible search, you can adjust the search range; that is, which part of the Bible you want to search. You might be tempted to restrict the search just to the Gospels, but actually the words of Jesus also appear in several other NT books\u2014such as Acts, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Revelation\u2014so we\u2019ll set the search range to \u201cNew Testament.\u201d
\nNow you need to limit your searches to the words of Christ. To do that, click on \u201cAll Bible Text,\u201d and you can see that this particular Bible translation has two search fields: \u201cSurface Text\u201d (that\u2019s the English text of the translation) and \u201cWords of Christ,\u201d which are the words Jesus spoke and are usually indicated by red letters. Different Bible versions will have different fields to search on; you can search for the words of Christ in several different Bibles, but it\u2019s worth remembering that the HCSB Bible also has a field for OT quotations, which you might find useful one day. But we\u2019ll stick with the NKJV and select \u201cWords of Christ.\u201d
\nWe want to find the occasions where Jesus mentioned \u201cGod\u201d or \u201cgods,\u201d plural. We only need to type in one of the forms of that word, because here on the Search panel menu we\u2019re able to ask Logos to search all forms of that word. If that\u2019s ticked, then Logos will search for singular, plural, and derivatives of the word. We also need to make sure that \u201cMatch case\u201d is turned off so that Logos will search for \u201cGod\u201d with a capital \u201cG\u201d as well as \u201cgods\u201d with a lower case \u201cg.\u201d
\nOnce the options are correct, we can click the blue arrow to conduct the search.<\/p>\n
Viewing the Search Results<\/p>\n
The Verses View<\/p>\n
When you run the search, you can see that there are different ways to view the results. In this tutorial, I\u2019m only going to show you the Verses and Analysis views. Verses displays the search results in a verse by verse format and has one special feature\u2014it allows you to add extra translations to the search results for a comparison, which can often be useful. You might simply want to compare two different translations, of course\u2014maybe a literal translation, like the NKJV, you\u2019d want to compare with a dynamic equivalent translation like the NLT. Or, if you\u2019re fluent in the biblical languages, you might want to add a Greek NT or Hebrew Bible to your results.
\nThat could be especially useful if you wanted to search for \u201cgod\u201d with a lowercase \u201cg,\u201d because you wouldn\u2019t be able to perform that search in a Greek or Hebrew Bible, because they didn\u2019t have upper- and lower-case letters when the Bible was written. But you can perform the search in an English Bible and still see the results in Greek. If you don\u2019t know the biblical languages, you might do the opposite: search in Greek or Hebrew, but show the results in English. This view is also handy if the Bible version you want to use doesn\u2019t support the field you need to search\u2014so if you were searching for OT quotations, you would have to specify the HCSB in the search because that\u2019s the only Bible that supports that field. But you could also see the results in your preferred translation as well.<\/p>\n
The Analysis View<\/p>\n
But today we\u2019re interested in the different ways Jesus uses the word \u201cgod,\u201d so the Analysis view is going to be the most helpful to us because Analysis can give us a summary of the different results of this search. This view gives all kinds of extra data about the search results in these different columns. The column we\u2019re particularly interested in is the \u201cResult\u201d column, because that tells us what word or words Logos found when it performed our search. You could scroll down the list and look for all the different results (such as the possessive \u201cGod\u2019s\u201d here), but it\u2019s much easier to ask Logos to group the results in different sections for you.
\nTo do that, just drag the column header up into the space indicated. Now all the results of God with a capital \u201cG\u201d are grouped together. Let\u2019s collapse that section by clicking on the section header, and then also collapse the possessive \u201cGod\u2019s,\u201d again by clicking on the header. Now you can see that while Jesus nearly always uses the word \u201cgod\u201d to refer to the true God, He does twice use the word to refer to other gods, both in John 10. Let\u2019s click on the Bible name to open the NKJV to that reference.
\nYou\u2019ll see here\u2014after the phrase, \u201cIt is written in your law\u201d\u2014a small letter \u201ce\u201d and then a megaphone icon. The megaphone identifies the speaker of this immediate quotation as the psalmist Asaph. This small letter \u201ce\u201d is a cross reference. It tells us the content of this verse is either connected or quoted from another verse. And you can see that that verse is Psa 82:6.
\nSo we\u2019ve used the Search tool and discovered that Jesus mentions \u201cgods\u201d twice, and it\u2019s in reference to the OT, so Jesus, here, is affirming what the OT says. It\u2019s still a difficult passage to interpret, and it\u2019s something that Dr. Heiser will develop in another lesson. But by way of preview, it\u2019s clear that Jesus is asking the Pharisees why they say it\u2019s blasphemy for Him to refer to Himself as the Son of God, when the Hebrew Bible itself refers to gods who are sons of the Most High\u2014and the Pharisees, of course, cannot answer Jesus\u2019 question.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
If you ever need to search for \u201cSpirit\u201d with a capital \u201cS,\u201d or find all the occasions where Jesus speaks about love, or locate all the OT quotations in the NT that mention Israel, you can use Bible search options like these, display what you find in multiple Bible versions, and even analyze the results in detail.<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 7
\nUnderstanding Elohim and the Implications for the Godhead<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Summarize how the use of the Hebrew word elohim affects the understanding of monotheism
\n\u2022 Describe the implications of this understanding on the idea of the Godhead<\/p>\n
Summary<\/p>\n
So, let\u2019s summarize what we\u2019ve learned so far. We\u2019ve seen that the Jewish Bible\u2014the Hebrew Bible, the OT\u2014has more than one thing as elohim. The biblical writers use elohim to describe a number of entities, not just the God of Israel. We also saw that the Hebrew word elohim does not refer to a specific set of attributes. We learned that just by virtue of the way the biblical writers used it; they understood that an angel or a demon or a departed loved one or the god of some other nation was not, in terms of attributes, equal to the God of Israel, but nevertheless, they were all elohim. Lastly, since elohim is not about attributes, the biblical writers were not denying monotheism by using that word to describe other figures they believed existed.<\/p>\n
The Biblical Understanding of Elohim<\/p>\n
So that means that the answer to our first question is really broken down into some basic ideas. First, the OT tells us that believing in many elohim does not violate the Shema, the belief that Yahweh is unique. Remember, we said that Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim was Yahweh. That is what a biblical writer believed. That is what an orthodox, faithful Israelite believed. They believed in a populated spiritual world filled with elohim because, to them, elohim just meant you belong in that realm. It was not connected with a specific set of unique attributes. So, Yahweh was one of those, but He was still utterly unique, and that\u2019s the point of monotheism.<\/p>\n
The Implications for the Godhead<\/p>\n
So, therefore, in principle\u2014second idea\u2014the Shema and monotheism are not biblical reasons to reject belief in Jesus. As we will see\u2014I\u2019ll get more specific here\u2014monotheism is not a reason to reject a Godhead. Again, the notion of divine plurality is just our starting point. It\u2019s just sort of a baby step toward getting to Godhead thinking, and we need to sort of get over that hurdle for our Jewish person about the way they are defining monotheism. The biblical material, the biblical writers, had a much wider latitude, a much different way of looking at it, than we do.
\nLastly, since Jesus is not a separate god, this discussion, again, is only an icebreaker for our Jewish friends. We will build on it later as we get to the OT\u2019s own view of a Godhead, and that\u2014I can sort of tip our hand\u2014that begins with a two-person Godhead. And then we\u2019ll apply what we learn there in the OT to a third person, to the Trinity. But these three ideas are answers to our questions that we can sort of give to our Jewish friend, really sort of internalize ourselves, as we talk to people about our faith. And I think that you\u2019ll find them fundamental toward other things as we proceed through the course.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
God: Monotheism LBD<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Godhead ZEBV2DG<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Elohim Topic Guide<\/p>\n
UNIT 2
\nWhat Is Yahweh\u2019s Council?<\/p>\n
8. The Divine Council in Psalm 82
\n9. The Role of the Divine Council
\n10. Using the NET Bible Notes to Find Manuscript Differences<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 8
\nThe Divine Council in Psalm 82<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 List two different ways Psa 82:1 uses elohim
\n\u2022 Explain God\u2019s condemnation of the elohim in Psa 82:1 for judging unjustly
\n\u2022 Demonstrate how Psa 89 shows that the divine council exists in the heavenly realm<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Another question in relation to all this material would be something like this: \u201cMike, when you were discussing the word elohim, some passages talked about elohim in Yahweh\u2019s council and those elohim being set over the nations of the world. What is that all about?\u201d
\nWell, that idea is found in the OT, specifically in Deut 32:8\u20139, and the parallel to that passage is Deut 4:19\u201320. These passages collectively talk about the superiority of Yahweh to other elohim, and even more specifically it references the judgment that happened at the Tower of Babel, the human rebellion there. And so God, in Deut 32:8\u20139, divides up the nations and puts them under the authority of lesser elohim. And this is before the creation of Israel, which will become an important thought as we progress. But to really sort of understand this and grasp it, we have to go back to Psa 82.<\/p>\n
Elohim in Psalm 82<\/p>\n
Singular and Plural Elohim<\/p>\n
Here in Psa 82 you\u2019ll notice the first word is \u201cGod.\u201d We have, \u201cGod has taken his place\u201d\u2014or taken a stand\u2014\u201cin the divine council.\u201d The word \u201cGod\u201d here in the Hebrew text is the word elohim. We know this is singular, referring to the singular God of Israel, because in the Hebrew the verbal that goes with this noun, elohim, is a singular participle, nitsav, in Hebrew. So elohim here is very clearly a reference to the singular God of Israel. But the second half of the verse is different. We read, \u201cin the midst of the gods\u201d\u2014in the midst of the elohim; it\u2019s the same Hebrew word again, elohim\u2014\u201cin the midst of the elohim, he\u201d\u2014the first elohim of the verse\u2014\u201cpasses judgment.\u201d
\nNow, this second elohim has to be plural in meaning because of the prepositional phrase in Hebrew that precedes it\u2014beqerev, \u201cin the midst of.\u201d You can\u2019t be \u201cin the midst of\u201d one single individual. Now, some would suggest though that what we have here is a reference to a human council, a council of human beings. That may sound odd, but it will come up again as we progress through the course and in different places, in different passages we\u2019ll discuss. That idea that this is God presiding over a meeting, as it were, of His human judges on earth is really contradicted by passages like Psa 89.<\/p>\n
Elohim as Heavenly Beings<\/p>\n
If we go to Psa 89 we\u2019ll see the same sort of divine council language. We have \u201cthe assembly of the holy ones,\u201d but notice the holy ones here are meeting, in verse 6, \u201cin the skies,\u201d in the heavens. And we know these holy ones are divine beings because we have a reference to a meeting of the heavenly beings, the beney elim\u2014elim is a plural of el, the word for \u201cgod.\u201d So, very clearly here the divine council is something that is set in the heavens, in the skies, not on earth. And so a human explanation for Psa 82 and the divine council idea, the plural elohim there just doesn\u2019t work.<\/p>\n
Condemning the Elohim<\/p>\n
Now, if we went through Psa 82 we would also see other evidence that we have, again, a council, an assembly, a bureaucracy of other divine beings, other elohim. God is judging them, and specifically in the verses that follow verse 1 God is judging them for being corrupt\u2014corruptly administering the nations of the earth that were assigned to them way back in Deut 32:8\u20139. They are not enacting the justice that the Creator\u2014their Creator\u2014would have go on on earth. They\u2019ve become corrupt, and so the psalm is really dealing with how God is going to judge them.<\/p>\n
Elohim over Nations<\/p>\n
When we get to verse 6 God says to them, \u201cI said, \u2018You are gods.\u2019 \u201d Here again you\u2019ll notice that we have the word elohim. So God is again referencing these individuals, these beings that He\u2019s created, that He has set over the nations, who are divine beings. He\u2019s judging them and calling them gods once again. This verse actually rules out any idea that the plural elohim in Psa 82:1 might be a reference to the Trinity. The members of the Trinity are not corrupt, and God isn\u2019t going to judge them. Here in verse 6 He says to these plural elohim, He says, \u201cYou are gods, sons of the Most High.\u201d And then he says, \u201cYou\u2019re going to die like men.\u201d Again, the members of the Trinity would not be judged in this way. That would be theologically aberrant to most of what else occurs in the Bible.
\nAt the end of the psalm the psalmist says, \u201cArise, O God, judge the earth; [for] you shall inherit all the nations!\u201d Now, you might ask, \u201cWell, doesn\u2019t God own all the nations anyway?\u201d Well, He does. We go back in Deut 32 again, which we\u2019ll see in a moment, God is the one who is dividing the nations and assigning them to the other elohim. So He is in control of all the nations. But again, this is just a segue into Deut 32:8\u20139. So let\u2019s take a closer look at what\u2019s going on in that passage.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on Psalm 82 FSB
\nCommentary on Psalm 82 HBP<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Psalm 82: The Judgment of God in the Great Assembly EBCV5:PPESS
\nPsalm 82: The Judgment of God in the Great Assembly EBCV5:PRE<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 9
\nThe Role of the Divine Council<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Explain the relationship between Deut 32:8\u20139 and the Tower of Babel
\n\u2022 Show how God set up lesser elohim to rule the nations
\n\u2022 Demonstrate how the Shema presumes divine plurality<\/p>\n
The Divine Council in Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139<\/p>\n
I would like to take a look at Deut 32:8 and 9 briefly for a moment. You\u2019ll notice that we have two translations here: One is the NIV, and the other is the ESV. As we go through these, you\u2019re going to notice right away that there is a significant difference between the translations. If we start with the NIV, and we read in verse 8, \u201cWhen the Most High\u201d\u2014and, again, we know who that is, that\u2019s God\u2014\u201cgave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind \u2026\u201d Now, when was that? Well, that\u2019s a reference back to the Tower of Babel event when the nations were divided up. So, \u201c\u2026 when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.\u201d If we look at the ESV, though, we get a completely different picture: \u201cWhen the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the people according to the number of the sons of God.\u201d
\nThis is actually a very well-known text-critical issue known to scholars. And even those of you who have study Bibles, I can almost guarantee that you\u2019re going to have a footnote at this verse about this issue, this difference in manuscript readings. The NIV follows the traditional Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text, and reads \u201csons of Israel.\u201d The ESV, though, is following the reading of the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of a different Hebrew text. The Septuagint was used by Jesus and the apostles and Jews a few centuries prior to the time of Jesus, and it\u2019s also supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the ESV actually has incorporated a Dead Sea Scroll reading into its running text, into its translation here.
\nThe reading \u201csons of God\u201d is the demonstrably superior one, the authentic one\u2014and there are a lot of technical reasons for that that we don\u2019t need to go into. But, for the sake of our discussion here, what these verses are describing is God\u2019s act of dividing up the nations\u2014again, at Babel. And when He did that, He put the nations under the authorities of lesser elohim, lesser divine beings. And the reason He did that is in verse 9: \u201cFor the Lord\u2019s portion\u201d\u2014reading in the ESV\u2014\u201cis his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.\u201d
\nSo the point here is that God sort of disinherits the other nations, sort of refusing to be their God, refusing to have the one-to-one covenant relationship with them because of what happened at Babel. So He forsakes them. He abandons them or disinherits them, puts them under the authority of lesser elohim in His heavenly host. Again, everyone is under God\u2019s authority overall, but, ultimately, the nations are put under the authority of the sons of God, and what God does then is He chooses Jacob, He chooses Israel, as His own people.
\nBut if you think about this, back at the Tower of Babel event, Israel did not yet exist. Abraham had not yet been called. That\u2019s only going to happen in Gen 12, right after the Babel event, and that\u2019s also a logical and scriptural evidence that the reading \u201csons of Israel\u201d can\u2019t be correct here, because Israel didn\u2019t exist yet. So, this is the passage that really gives us this world view about the nations being under the authority or the administration\u2014the bureaucratic overlordship, you might want to say\u2014of lesser elohim that we sort of get implied from Psa 82.<\/p>\n
The Divine Council in Deut 4:19\u201320<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 4:19 and 20 is a parallel passage to Deut 32:8 and 9. I want to draw your attention briefly to this: \u201cBeware, lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, these are things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven\u201d (Deut 4:19). So there we get this idea again that the nations and their gods are sort of meant for each other; they are sort of brought together\u2014again, in an act of punishment\u2014at Babel, this disinheriting of the nations in favor of Israel, all these nations under the whole heaven. And in verse 20, \u201cBut the LORD has taken you [Israel] and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance\u201d (Deut 4:20). Now you can see right away, a lot of the language is very similar to what we just saw in Deut 32:8 and 9.
\nNow, if we read through the book of Deuteronomy, we are going to find out in chapter 17 that Israel does apostatize. They end up worshiping these other gods that they are not supposed to worship, that were not meant for them (because they are meant to be in covenant relationship with Yahweh, the God of Israel). So we find out that they do apostatize to these host of heaven, and that same host of heaven are called demons later in Deut 32:17, so there is this connection between the elohim over the nations and those elohim that were not supposed to be worshiped. They get worshiped, and they become known as siddim, \u201cdemons,\u201d in Deut 32:17. So we have to recognize that in the Israelite worldview, the idea that there were nations out there that were not Israel\u2014Gentile nations\u2014and they were under the authority of lesser divine beings, and these divine beings were real, that this is a biblical theology, this is a biblical idea.<\/p>\n
Divine Plurality and the Shema<\/p>\n
Again, it goes very much in concert with divine plurality. And this is why, if we take a look at the Shema in Deut 6:4, look at what it says: \u201cThe LORD is our God, the LORD is one.\u201d Now, that might not be the translation you have in your translation, so I have listed some other ones. The Shema is actually sort of notorious as being somewhat elastic in translation because in Hebrew, there are no verbs in the verse. They have to be supplied. But all of these translations are possibilities, but they all include the idea that Yahweh is our God\u2014meaning that other peoples have other gods, and the biblical theology is that that is by divine design. That is God\u2019s will. Yahweh is the lone authority figure that commands all the nations and all their other gods, and that idea, I think, is quite familiar from the OT to most of you. But the idea that, sort of, this was an act associated with the Tower of Babel incident might be new.
\nNow, the point of all this is that the Shema itself\u2014again, this thing that might be keeping your Jewish friend from thinking about worshiping Jesus and believing in Him\u2014the Shema itself assumes and presumes divine plurality in its language. It is not a violation of the Shema or, as we saw earlier, a violation of monotheism to worship Jesus as God along with the God of Israel. These deities were real. They were over the nations, and they were put there by Yahweh.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
So, if you remember our initial question that we began this section with\u2014\u201cWhen you were discussing the word elohim, what about this idea of elohim and the council being over the nations of the world?\u201d\u2014we\u2019ve just seen that that is a biblical idea, but the actual answer is important. We see again that the OT has a theology of divine plurality, and the Shema assumes that. It\u2019s part of the Shema\u2014the LORD our God, as opposed to the god of some other nation. We know they\u2019re real, but they\u2019re not for us. They are under the command of our God, the God of Israel. This is okay, since elohim was not tied to a set of divine attributes. Again, we cannot think of the term elohim as being a set of unique characteristics. This is not the way that the biblical writer and the Israelite saw things. Again, we\u2019re used to thinking that way, but we need to adopt our theology from the biblical text.
\nYahweh rejected the nations at Babel and disinherited them as His people and assigned them to other elohim. So the two lessons are: Worshiping any other elohim was evil. That was a sin. That was wrong. But Jesus is not a separate god. As we are going to see in the rest of this course, Jesus is identified with Yahweh. So think about that: If Jesus is identified with Yahweh because of some things we are going to see in the OT, then worshiping Jesus is not worshiping a different god; it\u2019s not worshiping another god; it\u2019s worshiping Yahweh, the same way, even though we have two persons. And what we are going to see in the rest of the course is this sort of divine two-ness, this two but yet one, and then later three but yet one. These are OT ideas that spring from the very baby-step idea of divine plurality. So we\u2019re going to move from this divine plurality talk into something more specific now: How the OT itself gives us Yahweh, but then refers to a second figure and then later on a third figure as Yahweh as well. And the OT is going to give us these hints of a Godhead sort of concept, a Godhead sort of thinking. And since Jesus is identified with Yahweh, believing in Him, worshiping Him, is not a violation of the Shema or monotheism.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God FSB
\nDeuteronomy 32:8\u20139 and the Old Testament Worldview FSB
\nDivine Council LBD<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Commentary on Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139 HD
\nCommentary on Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139 WBCV6:D21:1034:12<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 32:7\u20139 Passage Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 10
\nUsing the NET Bible Notes to Find Manuscript Differences<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Use the NET Bible Notes to find text-critical, translation, and study information on Bible passages
\n\u2022 Use Link sets to link any Bible version to the NET Bible Notes<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Dr. Heiser pointed out that textual traditions disagree on the reading of Deut 32:8; some read \u201csons of God,\u201d and others read \u201csons of Israel.\u201d In this video, I want to show you how one resource, called the NET Bible, can help you understand these manuscript differences, and how you can use Link sets to use the NET Bible Notes with your preferred Bible translation.<\/p>\n
Opening the NET Bible<\/p>\n
To open the NET Bible, just start typing its name into the Command bar and press Enter when the suggestion appears. You may not have heard of the NET Bible, but I think it\u2019s one of the most important Bibles in Logos. It\u2019s important for two reasons: first, because it\u2019s a fresh, scholarly, readable translation of the Bible; and second, because the translators have jam-packed it full of notes that help us understand why things were translated in certain ways, with plenty of evidence and clear reasoning.
\nYou can see just how many notes there are\u2014there are three notes just on the verse that we\u2019re studying, and verse 10 has no less than seven footnotes!<\/p>\n
Textual Notes in English Bibles<\/p>\n
But you may not yet be all that impressed. After all, most Bibles have footnotes, including the ESV here. So let\u2019s look at the ESV\u2019s footnote on the phrase \u201csons of God.\u201d It simply tells us that \u201csons of God\u201d is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint, while \u201csons of Israel\u201d is found in the Masoretic Text. But it doesn\u2019t tell us why there\u2019s a difference, and it doesn\u2019t tell us why the ESV translators opted for the reading \u201csons of God.\u201d
\nSo let\u2019s look at some of the other versions of the Bible to see their notes. A quick way of switching to another version of the Bible is to press the left or right arrow keys on the keyboard.
\nThe NASB doesn\u2019t have a note. The NRSV note is very short. There\u2019s no note in the KJV, either, and the NLT note is a bit longer but it doesn\u2019t tell you anything new.<\/p>\n
The NET Bible Text-Critical Notes<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s take a look at the NET Bible note and see if you can spot the difference. That note is so detailed that I\u2019ve got to scroll down to be able to read it all! You can see that the MT (which stands for Masoretic Text, [which] is the traditional Hebrew text) reads \u201caccording to the number of the sons of Israel.\u201d But further down the note we read that a fragment at Qumran (that\u2019s a Dead Sea Scroll) has \u201csons of God,\u201d while the LXX\u2014that\u2019s the Septuagint, which, as you can see, was translated from Hebrew manuscripts before the time of Christ\u2014has \u201cangels of God.\u201d Most of the time these different manuscripts agree, but where there\u2019s a slight difference, then Bible translators have to determine which one best represents the original reading, and these notes explain why the translators of the NET Bible are pretty confident, [just like Dr. Heiser is,] that \u201csons of God\u201d is the original. They even cite an article Dr. Heiser wrote on this very subject.
\nSo if you want to understand some of the issues that Bible translators work through when they create a translation, the NET Bible Notes are one of the best places to go.<\/p>\n
Viewing Just the Notes of the NET Bible<\/p>\n
But what if you want access to the notes, but don\u2019t want to use the NET Bible translation itself? Don\u2019t worry\u2014Logos lets you do that, too. When you opened the NET Bible, you might have noticed that there was a [related] resource in your library, called The NET Bible First Edition Notes. If you open that resource, you\u2019ll see that it contains all the notes from the NET Bible, but it\u2019s separate from the Bible itself, and you don\u2019t have to click on any of the note indicators.
\nNow [that] we have the Notes open, all we need to do is to link it to our favorite Bible. Let me drag it down here, so I can see the NLT and the Notes at the same time. To link the Bible with the Notes, go up to the Resource menu and set your Bible to Link set \u201cA,\u201d and now do the same for the Notes. Because the two Link sets have the same letter, it means that when you scroll in one of them, the other will move, too. So now you have the benefit of the NET Bible Notes with the convenience of your favorite translation.<\/p>\n
The NET Bible Study Notes and Translation Notes<\/p>\n
But the NET Bible Notes don\u2019t just include notes about text-critical issues. While there are about 2,500 text-critical notes, there are also more than 10,000 study notes and more than 47,000 translators\u2019 notes. Those translators\u2019 notes help you understand why the translators translated a particular verse in the way that they did, and the study notes provide cultural and historical background information. You can see those three different notes here in Deut 32:15.<\/p>\n
Opening Multiple Copies of a Bible<\/p>\n
By the way, did you know that Logos allows you to have multiple copies of the Bible and other resources open at the same time? Let\u2019s say you wanted to compare this passage with Deut 4:19\u201320, as Dr. Heiser did earlier. If you try to open an NLT Bible in the normal way, Logos just switches to the one that\u2019s already open. But if you click on the resource menu, you can choose \u201cCopy this panel to a new tab\u201d or press CTRL + Shift + N. Now you can turn to Deut 4:19 in the second copy and compare the two passages.
\nYou can do the same with the NET Bible Notes. If you want to link these two resources together, you can do that, too. You shouldn\u2019t choose Link set \u201cA,\u201d because that\u2019s already in use, but if you set both of these resources to Link set \u201cB,\u201d they\u2019ll scroll together, without disturbing the Link set you\u2019ve already created on the left.
\nSo, using the NET Bible Notes and creating a Link set between the Notes and our Bibles, we\u2019ve created a custom study Bible with more than 60,000 text-critical, study, and translators\u2019 notes, all linked to our favorite Bible.<\/p>\n
Unit 1\u20132 Quiz<\/p>\n
To take the Quiz for this unit please click here.<\/p>\n
UNIT 3
\nDoesn\u2019t the Old Testament Deny the Existence of Other Gods?<\/p>\n
11. No God Besides Yahweh
\n12. Searching for Different Forms of a Phrase from Isaiah 47:8
\n13. The Logic of Idolatry in the Ancient World
\n14. Idols in Psalm 115
\n15. Idols in 1 Corinthians 8
\n16. \u201cElemental Spirits\u201d in Galatians 4
\n17. Using the BDAG Greek Lexicon to Determine a Word\u2019s Meaning<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 11
\nNo God Besides Yahweh<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Articulate the OT\u2019s position on the existence of other \u201cgods\u201d
\n\u2022 Explain the meaning of the phrase \u201cno god besides Yahweh\u201d in Deut 4
\n\u2022 Give biblical examples defending Dr. Heiser\u2019s interpretation of the phrase \u201cnone besides me\u201d<\/p>\n
Introduction: The Other Elohim Are Real<\/p>\n
At this point, it\u2019s important to stop for another question: \u201cAren\u2019t those other elohim just idols? Doesn\u2019t the OT say that there is no god besides Yahweh?\u201d This is a natural question at this point because we have talked about other elohim and the fact that the Israelites worshiped these other elohim. It\u2019s very natural to assume that we are just talking about idols. So what about those questions?
\nWell, the OT does say, naturally, that there is no other god besides Yahweh, but we also know that these other elohim must be real because we believe in the reality of demonic entities and, of course, departed human dead in 1 Sam 28:13. In other words, we believe that these other elohim\u2014some of these other entities that get called elohim\u2014they must be real, and logic, of course, would dictate that anything within that spectrum of meaning, that spectrum of usage, would be real as well, because even the Shema assumes this world view.<\/p>\n
What Does the Phrase \u201cNo God Besides Yahweh\u201d Mean?<\/p>\n
The real question, though, is: What does \u2018no god besides Yahweh\u2019 mean? Now, does it mean that Yahweh is the only elohim that exists or is real? Or does it mean that Yahweh is incomparable? And remember, when we talked about elohim, we talked about it being a place-of-residence term, that Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim is Yahweh. So, again, hearkening back to that point, that will help us process this question. Our one Yahweh is incomparable is what we\u2019re really looking at, as far as the theology of the biblical writers. \u201cNone besides me,\u201d \u201cnone like me,\u201d and similar phrases are not denials of the existence of other elohim. They are actually statements of incomparability, and that\u2019s not difficult to prove, really, on two trajectories, sort of two lines of approach to that whole issue.<\/p>\n
Denial Phrases (\u201cNone Besides Me\u201d) Declare One\u2019s Incomparability<\/p>\n
On the one hand, if you were to do a search on these phrases\u2014\u201cnone besides me,\u201d \u201cnone like me\u201d\u2014you would discover, remarkably perhaps, that these same phrases show up in Deut 32 and Deut 4. We just looked at those passages as being critical, crucial, to the idea that when Yahweh divided up the nations, He put them under the authority of other elohim. Well, how can you have that point being made\u2014that there are other elohim that are put over the nations, allotted to those nations\u2014and then have this language about there being none besides Yahweh? The only real answer to that is incomparability\u2014that the phrases do not mean that only one god exists, but that Yahweh, the God of Israel, is utterly incomparable. He is, what I like to say, species unique. He is utterly different than anything else or anyone else.<\/p>\n
An Example from Isa 47:8, 10<\/p>\n
The other trajectory is that there are certain places where these denial phrases are used, where the idea that only that thing exists is just impossible. If we go to Isa 47:8 and 10, and then we\u2019ll go to Zeph 2:15, we\u2019ll see an illustration. The first one here in Isa 47, in verse 1, we learn that the writer is talking about Babylon, and if we go down to verse 8, we see this statement: Babylon is speaking and saying, \u201cNow therefore hear this, you lover of pleasures, who sit securely, who say in your heart, \u2018I am, and there is no one besides me.\u2019 \u201d Then in verse 10 we have the same idea in Babylon\u2019s mouth: \u201c \u2018I am, and there is no one besides me.\u2019 \u201d Now, think about it. Is Babylon, the city, claiming that no other cities exist? Well that would be absurd. No, the claim is that Babylon thinks of herself as being the best, as being completely incomparable, as being utterly unique, at the top of the heap.<\/p>\n
An Example from Zeph 2:15<\/p>\n
You see the same thing in Zeph 2:15. In this case, it\u2019s Nineveh that\u2019s the focus. So, in verse 13, Nineveh is specifically mentioned, and we get to verse 15, and we read: \u201cThis is the exultant city that lived securely, that said in her heart, \u2018I am, and there is no one else.\u2019 What a desolation she has become, a lair for \u2026 beasts!\u201d Again, this is exactly the same language in Hebrew as these, what we call, denial phrases. So, again, the same question is operable here. Is Nineveh saying to herself, \u201cI am the only city that exists?\u201d Again, that would be absurd. The whole point of the statement is, \u201cI\u2019m the best. There\u2019s no one like me. I am incomparable.\u201d And that\u2019s the way we have to take these denial phrases in the OT\u2014specifically to avoid a contradiction, especially when you get to Deut 4 and Deut 32, when these phrases show up right in the same passage, especially Deut 32, where verse 17 says that these demons are elohim and it\u2019s illegitimate to worship them. So, to avoid that problem, we need to really think like the biblical writers were thinking, that these other elohim are real. They are under the command, they are under the sovreignty, of Yahweh, the God of Israel, and the reason that works is because He is incomparable.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Divine Council: \u201cNo Other Gods beside Me\u201d LBD
\nIdolatry BEB<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
The Sovereignty of God IRBT:CE
\nYahweh and the Gods IRBT:CE<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 12
\nSearching for Different Forms of a Phrase from Isaiah 47:8<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Search for a phrase in one or more English Bibles
\n\u2022 Use lists and proximity search operators to search for different forms of a phrase<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Dr. Heiser argued that phrases like \u201cthere is none besides me\u201d do not deny the existence of other elohim; rather, these phrases express the incomparability of Yahweh, the God of Israel, among all other elohim. In this video, I want to show you how to search for an exact phrase from an English Bible translation, and how to alter your search to find different forms of that phrase using lists and proximity searching.<\/p>\n
Finding a Phrase in Your Translation<\/p>\n
As you can see, I have my Bible open to Isa 47:8, and here you can see the phrase \u201cthere is no one besides me\u201d that Dr. Heiser mentioned. If we scroll up to the beginning of the chapter, you can see that this phrase was spoken by the city of Babylon. Clearly the inhabitants weren\u2019t suggesting that they were literally the only city on earth and that no other cities even existed. Rather, the Babylonians were claiming that none of the other cities in the world compared to them. In the same way, Dr. Heiser suggested that God used this phrase to speak of His incomparability among the other elohim.
\nLet\u2019s see if we can find the other times that phrase is used. To do so, just select the phrase, right-click it, and choose \u201cSearch this resource.\u201d You can see that Logos only returns two results, and they\u2019re both from this chapter. So where are those other occasions that Dr. Heiser mentioned? Let\u2019s expand the search to include all of our top five Bibles, to see if the phrase occurs elsewhere in a different translation.
\nIn the Grid view, the solid squares indicate that the phrase has been found in that version, so you can see that several other verses have been found in the NASB and NRSV. But one of the great things about the Grid search is that you can also hover over the hollow squares and find out why that phrase wasn\u2019t found. So if I hover over Isa 45:6 in the ESV, you can see that it\u2019s translated there as \u201cnone besides me,\u201d instead of \u201cno one besides me,\u201d which is what we searched for.
\nSo we really ought to include \u201cnone besides me\u201d in our search, too. Perhaps that will find even more verses in different books\u2014and in verse 21 the ESV said, \u201cno other god besides me,\u201d so we probably ought to look for that, too. But if you think back to the video, Dr. Heiser also mentioned the phrase \u201cnone like me.\u201d
\nSo now we\u2019ve got a problem. We know that the beginning of the phrase could start with \u201cnone,\u201d \u201cno one,\u201d or \u201cno other god\u201d\u2014it could even start with \u201cno god\u201d\u2014and the end of the phrase could be \u201cbesides me,\u201d \u201clike me,\u201d or perhaps even \u201capart from me.\u201d They could even be the opposite way around, so instead of saying, \u201cthere is no God besides me,\u201d it could say, \u201cbesides me, there is no God.\u201d Well, if you\u2019re keeping up, that\u2019s 24 possible phrases that we need to look for.<\/p>\n
Using Search Operators to Find Different Forms of a Phrase<\/p>\n
How are we going to proceed without laboriously typing 24 different phrases into Logos? All we need to do is to split the phrase that we\u2019re searching for into two parts. Let me show you what I mean.
\nLet\u2019s search for \u201cno God\u201d WITHIN 3 WORDS \u201cbesides me.\u201d You can see from the results that are highlighted here that this search finds the phrase \u201cthere is no god beside me\u201d in Deut 32:39 and the phrase \u201cbesides me there is no God\u201d from Isa 45:5. That\u2019s because WITHIN 3 WORDS means that the order of the two parts of the phrase doesn\u2019t matter. \u201cNo God\u201d could be before \u201cbesides me\u201d or after, so long as they\u2019re within three words of each other. If you prefer, you can use the keywords BEFORE or AFTER instead of WITHIN. When you use one of those three keywords, we call that a proximity search.
\nNow all we need to do is add in the other possibilities for the first part of the phrase. I\u2019m going to put parentheses around this first part of the search, then add the other search terms inside the parentheses, and I\u2019m going to separate each one with a comma: (\u201cno God,\u201d \u201cnone,\u201d \u201cno one,\u201d \u201cno other God\u201d). Let\u2019s run this search now, and you\u2019ll see that we get many more results, including Isaiah 47:8, which we were looking at earlier, [which] says, \u201cthere is no one besides me.\u201d
\nWhat we\u2019ve created here is a list. Each item in the list is separated by a comma, and the parentheses help Logos know exactly which items are in the list. When Logos comes across a list like this, it performs the search for the first item in the list\u2014\u201dno god\u201d WITHIN 3 WORDS \u201cbesides me.\u201d Then it performs the same search for the second item in the list\u2014\u201dnone\u201d WITHIN 3 WORDS \u201cbesides me,\u201d and so on. It then merges all the results together into one set of results, as you can see here.
\nOne mistake that people often make is to use the OR operator instead of a comma. That doesn\u2019t work, because that doesn\u2019t create a list. You must use commas instead of the word OR when you\u2019re creating lists.
\nLet\u2019s finish our expression. We\u2019ve done the left-hand side. Now we can do the right-hand side: (\u201cbesides me,\u201d \u201clike me,\u201d \u201capart from me\u201d). So now we have two lists. You can see even more of their power, because with these two lists, there are now 24 possible combinations of that phrase\u2014more, if you count the fact that \u201cbeside\u201d could be singular or plural\u2014but by using lists and proximity searching, we are able to find every occurrence.
\nBut even with all these results, we still haven\u2019t found all that the Bible says about God\u2019s incomparability. We\u2019ve only seen what He says about Himself. But what about the times when someone else says, \u201cThere is no God like you\u201d or \u201cthere is no God like Him\u201d? I\u2019ll finish by modifying this query again to include those possibilities, too\u2014but first, I\u2019ll widen this search window so you can see it more clearly.
\nThis time, delete the word \u201cme\u201d from these phrases [(\u201cbesides,\u201d \u201clike,\u201d \u201capart from\u201d)], and now add a third list at the end: BEFORE 1 WORD (me, you, him, \u201cthe lord\u201d)\u2014and we put \u201cthe lord\u201d in quotes, because obviously that\u2019s a phrase.
\nYou can\u2019t mix BEFOREs and WITHINs in the same search, so we\u2019ll have to adjust the keyword here. You can always run a second search with AFTER later, if you want to make sure you don\u2019t miss anything.
\nWe\u2019re now checking 48 combinations, and you can see that we\u2019ve found many more phrases similar to the one in Isaiah. But there\u2019s one I particularly want to point out, and that\u2019s this one in Psa 86:8, where David said, \u201cThere is none like you among the gods.\u201d That verse really does prove the point that Dr. Heiser is making, doesn\u2019t it? There are other elohim, but none of them are even comparable with Yahweh.
\nWhen you\u2019re looking for a phrase in the Bible that could take many different forms, lists and proximity searching [are] very powerful [tools] to find all the different forms of that phrase in your different English Bibles.<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 13
\nThe Logic of Idolatry in the Ancient World<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Explain the function of the idol in the ancient world
\n\u2022 Explain why the Israelites did not create an image of Yahweh
\n\u2022 Show how a god is different than an idol<\/p>\n
The Function of the Idol in the Ancient World<\/p>\n
The other reason this idea doesn\u2019t work has to do with the logic of idolatry. Now, in our thinking\u2014again, because we\u2019re sort of mentally trained to think of elohim as matching only one set of attributes, and that other elohim can\u2019t be real and can\u2019t exist, and so we just sort of make them idols, and that\u2019s comforting because we know that idols aren\u2019t real\u2014well, that really wouldn\u2019t have worked in the ancient world because an ancient person wasn\u2019t an idiot. Okay. They knew that the thing they made was not the thing that made them. That kind of language that we see in the Prophets and Isaiah and other places, sort of poking fun at that idea, is really tied to the logic of idolatry, and let me explain that.<\/p>\n
The Idol Was Only an Image of the Deity<\/p>\n
When an ancient person created an idol, they created it in such a way that it sort of matched a perceived or imagined appearance of the deity. The idea wasn\u2019t that the piece of stone or wood was the deity. The idea was that idol would become a living space for the deity that was thought\u2014believed\u2014to exist. An idol was a way of localizing a divine being so that you could relate to it, so that you could cajole it, so that you could barter with it. So this is why the ancient person, when they created an idol, they had ceremonies called The Opening of the Mouth, for example, where they went through a ritual, believing that when they did this ritual the deity would come to them and would enter the idol and live there among their people. That would become sacred space to where that idol was, you know, so that the people could go to it, bring offerings to it, again, barter with it, make deals with it, so on and so forth.
\nIt is interesting that this is part of the reason why there is no image of Yahweh\u2014because Yahweh cannot be beckoned and brought to us and tamed. Okay. Yahweh is not a tamed deity. He is not a deity you can bring to you and sort of localize it for whatever end that you have, to barter with it and so on and so forth. The mentality in Israel was completely different. But my point is that the idol itself was known to not be the deity. There was a real deity that would come and live inside that object and animate it.<\/p>\n
Destroying the Idol Only Destroyed the Image, Not the Actual Deity<\/p>\n
Another sort of line of evidence for this is you will actually come across certain inscriptions in the ancient world where an idol was destroyed. Now, if an idol got destroyed, to an ancient person, that didn\u2019t kill the god\u2014that didn\u2019t kill the deity. They would have to build another one so that the deity would have a space to live in, a thing to inhabit. Again, the ancient person, when they created idols, did not believe that the object itself was a living entity. Now, it became something like that when the deity came and resided in it. So, sort of retreating to this position\u2014that all those other elohim are just idols, they\u2019re just pieces of wood and stone, they\u2019re not real\u2014that would not have worked in the ancient world; that is not the concept they had.<\/p>\n
Gods Are Real, but They Are Not Synonymous with Idols<\/p>\n
So, in summary and answer to question three\u2014\u201cAren\u2019t these just idols?\u201d\u2014what did we learn? Well, we learned that \u201cnone beside me\u201d and other phrases like that really have to do with the incomparability of Yahweh, not that Yahweh is the only elohim that is real or that exists, because that would create a contradiction in other texts in the OT. We are preventing a contradiction when we affirm other elohim. And idols and deities were identified with each other, but they were not synonymous. These are important points to keep in mind, again, because the OT has this theology of divine plurality. Again, this is just part of their worldview that is going to contribute toward this idea of Godhead in a populated world where we have other elohim.<\/p>\n
Old Testament Affirms Divine Plurality and Yahweh\u2019s Incomparability<\/p>\n
And so, for our Jewish friend back at the beginning of the course, we were talking about this being an obstacle to believing in Jesus as God or the idea of a Godhead\u2014that this is foreign to the OT, and the OT only has one deity existing. That is not actually the Israelite worldview. We are seeing that. We\u2019re getting into it now a little ways. We are seeing that, in our OT theology, that there are things in the OT that are very accommodating to the idea that the issue is really Yahweh\u2019s uniqueness in the spiritual world and His incomparability, and any being that is attached to\u2014identified with\u2014Yahweh is okay to worship, and this is why a Jew could become a Christian in the ancient world and worship Jesus. Because Jesus was, in the mind of the NT writer, identified with Yahweh. Now, we are going to get into, shortly, how the NT writer made that identification. He\u2019s going to be using things in the OT that speak of Yahweh in His two-ness or three-ness and applying that to Jesus in the NT to build on this theology.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
The Logic of Idolatry FSB
\nIdolatry LBD<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Idolatry ISBER
\nIdols DDDB<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Idolatry Topic Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 14
\nIdols in Psalm 115<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Name two characteristics of idols in the ancient world
\n\u2022 Give two examples of how Psa 115 subverted the idolatry of its time
\n\u2022 Demonstrate how a monotheism that worshiped Yahweh, the God of Israel, was consistent with the idea of plural elohim yet did not slide into idolatry<\/p>\n
Introduction to Idolatry and Psalm 115<\/p>\n
One of the things that always come up in the context of this discussion is, \u201cWhat about passages that talk about idols as being completely lifeless and just feckless\u2014not able to do a blessed thing?\u201d Psalm 115, for example, let\u2019s take a look at that: \u201cTheir idols are silver and gold,\u201d the psalmist says, \u201cthe work of human hand. They have mouths, but they do not speak; they have eyes but do not see; they have ears but do not hear, noses but do not smell, hands but do not feel, feet but do not walk. They do not make a sound in their throat. Those who make them become like them. So do all who trust in them.\u201d It\u2019s a pretty pathetic picture of idols. So how does this fit with this idea, again, of plural elohim, divine plurality, whether idols or not?<\/p>\n
Idols Were Objects Believed to be Inhabited By Their Elohim<\/p>\n
This actually takes us back to the discussion about the logic of idolatry. An idol itself, to an ancient person, was not a living being. Again, this is something that we often assume was in the mind of the ancient person because they\u2019ll talk about their idols as their gods, and in some sense they were because they believed that when they fashioned this object, the deity\u2014whoever it represented\u2014would come to that object and inhabit it and localize itself there, sort of attach itself to that object. But the object itself had no real power; it couldn\u2019t do anything. It was just a piece of wood or stone or what have you.
\nSo, to the ancient mind, an idol was, again, something like a local address for the spiritual entity, the deity. When an idol was destroyed, we noted that the ancient person isn\u2019t going to look at some sort of the rubble of the idol and think, \u201cOh no, my god is dead now. My god just died. Someone killed it.\u201d They\u2019re not going to think that at all. There was a clear separation intellectually for them between the object\u2014the idol\u2014and the deity itself that was conceived to be, again, a real entity, part of the spiritual word.
\nSo what they would do is they would just build another idol so that the deity would again localize itself in that object or attach itself to that object, so that there could be some sort of relationship, religiously, with the deity through that object. Again, an idol was something that was used to localize a divine being, a divine presence, in the religion of the Gentile nations around Israel.<\/p>\n
All Spiritual Elohim Are Inferior to Yahweh<\/p>\n
At the deeper level, though, if you look at Psa 115, the passage really also draws a comparison between even the lesser deity\u2014the other elohim that was thought to inhabit these objects\u2014and Yahweh. The psalmist is poking fun at the ability even of the living entity, the deity that was presumed to exist. And in comparison to Yahweh, if you read the whole psalm and other materials like this passage, the real point theologically being made is that Yahweh, the God of Israel, is completely capable and can never have His powers stripped from Him, unlike other entities, unlike other gods that, comparatively speaking, are just nothing. So, again, the issue that really comes forth is incomparability\u2014that Yahweh was utterly unique among all divine beings, among anything in the spiritual world.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on Psalm 115:1\u201318 FSB
\nCommentary on Psalm 115 HBP
\nIdolatry NBDTE<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Monotheism: Ancient Israel EDB<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Psalm 115 Passage Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 15
\nIdols in 1 Corinthians 8<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Name two ways 1 Cor 8 assumes the existence of other elohim
\n\u2022 Defend why 1 Cor 8 does not contradict the OT\u2019s theology of many elohim but affirms and assumes that theology
\n\u2022 Illustrate how 1 Cor 8 is part of a longer section (1 Cor 8\u201310) in which Paul utilizes the worldview of Deut 32, with its multiple elohim, to warn believers of the dangers of worshiping other gods<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 8 and the Reality of Other Elohim<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 8 is another passage that comes up in relation to, \u201cWhat about this OT worldview we\u2019ve been talking about with divine plurality and other elohim?\u201d If we look at 1 Cor 8:1, we read, \u201cNow concerning food offered to idols: we know that all of us possess knowledge. This \u2018knowledge\u2019 puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.\u201d
\nVerse 4: \u201cTherefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that \u2018an idol has no real existence\u2019 and that \u2018there is no God but one.\u2019 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth\u2014as indeed there are many gods and many lords\u2014yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, who is Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.\u201d<\/p>\n
Elohim are Real, and Idols are Worthless Objects<\/p>\n
There are a couple of things to unpack in relationship to this passage. One is this idea that an idol has no real existence. Literally, the text just says an idol is nothing. So that translation is a little bit interpretive. And there\u2019s a little bit of misdirection going on elsewhere in the translation, this notion of \u201cso-called idols.\u201d The Greek word there is leg\u014d; it\u2019s the normal word for \u201cto call,\u201d or \u201cto say,\u201d or \u201cto be called.\u201d It\u2019s not a special Greek word that implies, \u201clet\u2019s just pretend,\u201d or \u201cnot really.\u201d So sort of reading that in this passage as though it contradicts the OT worldview we\u2019ve been talking about really doesn\u2019t have a secure basis at all in the original text.
\nPaul is not saying, \u201cLet\u2019s just pretend those gods are out there.\u201d He takes them a lot more seriously than that. In fact, he denies that idea in the next breath when he says, \u201cIndeed there are many gods and many lords.\u201d Which brings us to another point, and that is that Paul affirmed the OT worldview, I would say, in this passage, where there were many other gods, many other elohim who held dominion over believers in other nations. He says that there are indeed many gods and many lords, and that\u2019s the way the text really should be read. In some English translations you have scare quotes put around \u201cgods\u201d and \u201clords\u201d; again, it\u2019s over-pretending, as though Paul is pretending.<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s Fear: Worshiping the Elohim of the Nations<\/p>\n
Paul is not pretending here. He knows his OT very well. In fact, he is expressing the Shema. He says \u201cLook, there are many gods and many lords out there, but for us\u2014for believers\u2014for us, there is one Lord, one God.\u201d It\u2019s his way of expressing the Shema. You remember Deut 6:4, the creed of Israel: \u201cThe LORD our God is one.\u201d The Lord our GOD is one, not other gods, the Lord our God is one. Even the first commandment in the Ten Commandments, the whole idea that we should have no other gods before Yahweh, even that commandment doesn\u2019t deny their existence. It\u2019s a statement of who deserves worship: No other god but Yahweh, no one besides Him.
\nSo Paul can say, \u201cLook, hey, the nation is out there, the pagan is out there, they have their gods, they have their lords.\u201d He knows Deuteronomy 32 and other places in the OT. But what he\u2019s saying is, \u201cLook, for us, we are followers of the true God. We are followers of the God of Israel.\u201d So the context in 1 Cor 8:8, this whole issue of, \u201cShould we eat meats sacrificed to idols?\u201d On one hand, Paul knows, he understands, that an idol\u2014just that object\u2014is nothing. So he says, really, in verse 8, \u201cLook, an idol is nothing; we\u2019re no better if we eat or if we don\u2019t eat.\u201d Essentially, it\u2019s really a nonissue because he knows that an idol in and on of itself is nothing. But then he also says, in the same passage, \u201cWell not really everybody sort of grasps this, and so some care needs to be taken when we exercise this freedom.\u201d But later in chapter 10, in 1 Corinthians, he\u2019s talking about the same thing, this issue, \u201cShould we eat meat sacrificed to idols or not?\u201d When he gets to chapter 10 it looks like he contradicts himself because there he says, \u201cThis is a forbidden practice because I don\u2019t want you to be in fellowship with demons.\u201d<\/p>\n
Elohim and the Nations<\/p>\n
Now, you could look at some commentaries on this passage, 1 Cor 8\u201310. Here\u2019s what you\u2019re going to find: You\u2019re going to find that Paul is very familiar with Deut 4 and Deut 32. He is essentially tracking on this whole idea that the people of God have Yahweh as their God, and everybody else is sort of under dominion of some lesser elohim being, a very real being. There are other gods, there are other lords, but for us there\u2019s only one: the true God of Israel. Paul\u2019s tracking on that, and he\u2019s concerned that the believers in Corinth not fall victim to the same issue as we read in Deut 32:17, where the Israelites worshiped other gods, other siddim, other demons. They had other gods, demons, that were not allotted to them, that were not assigned to them. They transgressed the great commandment of worshiping only Yahweh. So Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10 especially, is tracking on this idea.
\nThe difference between the two passages really is\u2014if we read the passages, the chapters, all together, chapters 8 through 10\u2014is that Paul is fine when it comes to just the sort of abstract question about an idol because he knows an idol isn\u2019t the issue. But in chapter 10 he starts talking about what to do with meat sold in the market places, and it seems that there was some connection to the actual ritual in an idol\u2019s temple. That\u2019s what he is concerned about because he does not want this transgression. He does not want any other entity, any other elohim, any other god worshiped in any way, because that was where Israel fell. They worshiped demons instead of the true God of Israel. That\u2019s why he uses the same language we find in Deut 32:17, where siddim, the demons, are called elohim. Paul says, \u201cDon\u2019t do that, don\u2019t get anywhere near that.\u201d So his theology is actually very consistent with the worldview of Deut 32.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on 1 Corinthians 8 FSB
\nCommentary on 1 Corinthians 8:1\u201313 BNTC:FEC<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Paul and the Shema LBG:1C
\nCondemnation of Idolatrous Practices (1 Cor 8:1\u201311:1) PNTC:FLC<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
1 Corinthians 8:1\u201313 Passage Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 16
\n\u201cElemental Spirits\u201d in Galatians 4<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Name four possible meanings of the Greek word stoicheia
\n\u2022 Identify two ways that Gal 4 does not contradict the OT\u2019s theology of many elohim, but is consistent with it
\n\u2022 Illustrate how the Jewish and Gentile audience of Gal 4 is crucial to understanding its relationship with the OT theology of divine plurality<\/p>\n
The Context of Galatians 4 and the Term Stoicheia<\/p>\n
Galatians 4 is another passage that comes up where you might wonder if Paul\u2019s theology is contradictory or not consistent with this OT theology of the nations being punished, being set aside, rejected by Yahweh in terms of a covenant relationship, and put under the authority of other lesser elohim, other sons of God. It\u2019s what we read in Deut 32:8 and 9 and its parallel, Deut 4:19 and 20.
\nGalatians 4, again, is actually pretty consistent with this. In the first five verses, Paul is talking to Jews because he uses the phrase, \u201cthose who are under the law.\u201d So that\u2019s pretty apparent. The issue really comes\u2014and the reason why it\u2019s a question\u2014comes in verses 8 through 11, where we read, \u201cFormerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observed days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.\u201d<\/p>\n
Paul Is Not Denying the Reality of Other Elohim<\/p>\n
What is Paul talking about here? Well, the key to understanding what Paul was saying here is the context of his audience in verses 8 through 11. Paul is not denying that there are other elohim in the spiritual world. Again, he knows his OT, and he affirms that idea elsewhere, in the other parts of his writing. So he\u2019s not denying that point. What he\u2019s actually rejecting and denying is the fundamental idea behind pagan astrology\u2014that the objects in the day and night sky control destiny and are deities in and of themselves. And we learned that\u2014we get that interpretation\u2014from verses 9 and 10, specifically the phrase, \u201celemental spirits,\u201d which in Greek is stoicheia.<\/p>\n
Stoicheia and Its Range of Meaning<\/p>\n
Now if we look up stoicheia in a lexicon, we will find out that there are basically four possible meanings to it in classical Greek literature. One would be basic principles of religious teaching. Of course, for a Jew, that would be the Law. Two would be rudimentary substances of the physical world. In the ancient world, there was an attempt to sort of do primitive science and figure out, \u201cWell, what\u2019s the world actually made of?\u201d And there were very basic elements\u2014earth, wind, fire, and water. The assumption was that everything that we see and experience in the physical world is somehow made of those elements. And the word stoicheia was sometimes used to refer to those primal substances. The third possibility is that stoicheia refers to astral deities, or deities connected with astrological mythology about the heavens and how they dictate destiny over people on earth. Fourth, it\u2019s sometimes used very generically to just spiritual beings without any real description.
\nPaul uses the term twice in Gal 4, in verse 3 and in verse 9. Verse 3 is in the section, verses 1 to 5, that is dealing with people under the Law\u2014Jews. So I would say that the meaning is pretty apparent that stoicheia there are these basic principles of the Law, the Jewish Law in that case. Verse 8 through 11, though, I think he\u2019s speaking to Gentiles. And, again, you could look this up in the commentaries; this is not certainly unique with me. But now we are turning our attention to Gentiles in these verses because these are the people who didn\u2019t know God. Well, a Jew certainly knew who God was\u2014may not have been in a believing relationship\u2014but these people didn\u2019t know God.
\nWhen you get to verse 9, when Paul hits stoicheia as the problem, I think it makes sense to take it as a reference to astrological mythology. And also, again, because of verse 10, because if you look at what Paul\u2019s concerned about, he says, \u201cHey, you people are observing days and months and seasons and years.\u201d Note: He doesn\u2019t say \u201cSabbaths.\u201d He doesn\u2019t use a Jewish term that was connected with their calendar. What he is saying is, \u201cLook, our Jewish friends didn\u2019t really understand what was really going on their own Scriptures about the gospel, about the plan of salvation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s Rejection of Astrological Mythology<\/p>\n
So the Gentiles, who didn\u2019t know the true God, they\u2019re getting messed up with this whole idea that something\u2019s going on in the heavens, these heavenly objects or general entities\u2014possibly, again, because of verse 10, this idea that when the objects in heaven move around, that somehow that has a dictate on my life, again, astrological mythology. Paul\u2019s saying, \u201cLook, the objects up in the sky, the day or night sky, are not deities. They\u2019re just objects, okay? They\u2019re just the sun, the moon, the stars, or what not, and they have no control over your destiny.\u201d And so that, specifically, is what he\u2019s rejecting as being any sort of genuine divine power over your life. He wants them to break from that idea and worship Christ and to believe in Christ, who is the Messiah, again, forecast, foretold in the Jewish Scriptures.
\nSo when Paul goes into churches like Galatia, he\u2019s really dealing with a mixed audience: Jew and Gentile who have put their faith in Christ. And so Galatians 4 we have a similar breakdown where he\u2019s talking to Jews, and then he moves to Gentiles, trying to get them to follow the truth, follow the true God and, of course, Jesus, whom God has sent.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on Galatians 4 FSB
\nNew Testament Terms for Unseen Divine Beings FSB
\nCommentary on Galatians 4:3 NAC:G<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Beings that by Nature Are Not Gods LBG:G
\nThe Meaning of Stoicheia TDNT
\nStoicheia DDDB<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Galatians 4 Passage Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 17
\nUsing the BDAG Greek Lexicon to Determine a Word\u2019s Meaning<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Explain the layout of a BDAG entry
\n\u2022 Use BDAG to research different meanings of Greek words<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Dr. Heiser told us there are four possible meanings of the Greek word stoicheia. You\u2019ve probably used Greek lexicons often, but I want to focus on the most significant Greek lexicon in your library and help you fully understand it so you can use the information you find to determine the meaning of words like this. That lexicon is called A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, but it\u2019s better known by the abbreviation BDAG, after the initials of the four main contributors: Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich.<\/p>\n
Opening a BDAG Entry<\/p>\n
The easiest way to use the lexicon is to right-click on the phrase \u201celementary principles\u201d in our English Bible, make sure \u201cLemma\u201d is selected here on the right-hand side, and choose \u201cLook up\u201d from the left-hand side of the menu. The lemma is the dictionary form of the Greek word that\u2019s been translated as \u201celementary principles.\u201d When we look that up, Logos will open our most highly prioritized Greek lexicon\u2014and, by default, that\u2019s BDAG. If you\u2019ve changed your prioritization, you may still see BDAG at the bottom of the left-hand part of the menu, but if it isn\u2019t there, I strongly recommend changing your library prioritization to make sure it\u2019s one of your top five lexicons. It really is too important to ignore.<\/p>\n
Understanding BDAG Entries<\/p>\n
So now we have the lexicon open to the entry on \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (stoicheion). There is a lot of information in BDAG, so I want to show you how to focus in on the most important parts. Before I do that, however, I\u2019m going to click on the Visual Filter menu and make sure that \u201cLinks to open panels\u201d is turned on. After a couple of seconds, if there are any links in this resource to something that\u2019s open on my screen, like this Bible, Logos will highlight it in red. It\u2019s a great way of seeing at a glance whether the Bible passage we\u2019re looking at has been discussed.
\nBut we\u2019re getting ahead of ourselves. Let\u2019s go back to the beginning.<\/p>\n
The Definitions<\/p>\n
The heading shows us what word we\u2019re looking at, and these other two elements tell us it\u2019s a second-declension neuter noun\u2014but you only need to worry about that if you\u2019re trying to memorize the word. Each solid number or hollow letter indicates a different possible meaning, and, as Dr. Heiser said, there are four possibilities here. Three labeled \u201ca,\u201d \u201cb,\u201d and \u201cc\u201d are grouped together, and the fourth stands alone under number 2.
\nSo let\u2019s start with that last meaning. Like all the others it has an extended definition in bold type, which is probably the most important piece of information you\u2019re looking for. After that is the English gloss, or what the editors call \u201ca formal equivalent,\u201d which is in bold and italics. This is the word or short phrase you would normally use in an English translation to get across this meaning. Obviously there\u2019s a lot more that is said in this entry, but those are the most important elements.
\nSo, let\u2019s go back to the first three meanings. They have the same format, but they\u2019re grouped together. That\u2019s because they\u2019re all basic components of something, but that something is different in each case. Their extended definition begins at 1, in bold, and then continues in each lettered section in ordinary type.
\nBDAG quite often breaks sentences up with examples and other references, but I strongly recommend that the first time you read an article, you ignore everything inside parentheses, to avoid being overwhelmed. So here you\u2019d read \u201cbasic components of substances underlying the natural world, the basic elements from which everything in the world is made and of which it is composed \u2026 to disappear in the world conflagration at the end of time.\u201d Without the content of the parentheses, BDAG makes a lot more sense and looks a lot less scary.
\nBy the way, did you notice that one of the words was in bold italics? Just as before, that indicates it\u2019s the suggested gloss for this meaning.
\nThe next possibility\u2014again, ignoring everything in parentheses\u2014is \u201cbasic components of celestial constellations\u201d with the suggested gloss of \u201cheavenly bodies.\u201d The third possibility is \u201cthings that constitute the foundation of learning \u2026 or even letters of the alphabet, ABC\u2019s.\u201d<\/p>\n
Deciding the Meaning<\/p>\n
So now we\u2019ve examined the extended definitions and formal English equivalents for each of the four possible meanings. After that overview, we\u2019re now able to look at those definitions more closely, paying particular attention to the third and fourth because they both mention Galatians. We\u2019re told that the third meaning is \u201cprobable for the passage in [Galatians] and,\u201d skipping the parentheses, \u201c[Colossians],\u201d although we\u2019re also told to see the next suggested meaning.
\nThat says that the meaning of \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (stoicheion)\u2014if you get an abbreviation in Greek, it\u2019s almost certainly the word the article is about\u2014is much disputed, and there\u2019s a fairly lengthy discussion about what it might mean, with some preferring sense 1c, and others, sense 2.
\nSo how are we going to decide? Until now we\u2019ve been ignoring the text in parentheses, but it\u2019s time we took a closer look. The parentheses contain references to other uses of the word so that you can compare the meaning there. If you know Greek, you might want to read a few of the references in the original language, but even if you don\u2019t, many of them are available in English translation. So let\u2019s go back to the beginning and look inside the parentheses and see if that helps us.<\/p>\n
Using the References<\/p>\n
According to the editors, examples of meaning 1a can be found in Plato and the Greek Magical Papyri (Papyri Graecae Magicae), and you may be able to access this text through seminary libraries. But other references are also given, which we can access here in Logos. That\u2019s the Wisdom of Solomon and 4 Maccabees. Because these writings were part of the Septuagint\u2014that\u2019s the Greek translation of the OT and other important Jewish books\u2014we\u2019re able to read them in English, Greek, or interlinear format.
\nThere are also other references we can look up in our library in both Greek and English translations. They include NT references\u2014[those are] always displayed in bold\u2014Philo, Josephus, and writings from the early church, like The Shepherd of Hermas. You can switch between different editions of these writings using the Parallel Resource menu.
\nNote that both Lake\u2019s and Brannan\u2019s translations have a reverse interlinear, which you\u2019ll probably find very helpful. Most of these writings are available in Greek, but unless you\u2019re looking at biblical text, Logos won\u2019t display Greek manuscripts in the Parallel Resource menu when you\u2019re reading English translations. If you want to change that, then you\u2019ll need to create a collection that contains both the English and Greek editions.
\nAs you can see, I\u2019ve created a collection for early Christian writings that includes the church fathers and the apocryphal gospels. I would encourage you to do the same and then make sure you tick the \u201cShow in parallel resources\u201d box. Then, when you click the Parallel Resources menu, you\u2019ll get a second column that includes both English and Greek texts. You\u2019ll need to do the same for ancient Jewish writings, although you could put them all in the same collection if you prefer.
\nIf you just want to quickly look at a specific edition and don\u2019t have time to create a collection, you can right-click on the reference, make sure it\u2019s selected in the right-hand menu, and choose the edition you want from the list at the bottom. If the edition you need isn\u2019t one of your top five editions, choose Power Lookup for even more choice.
\nNot only do these references give examples of each usage, but they also give you an idea of when a word came to have a particular meaning. If you hover over the author, you\u2019re told the approximate date of that writing. That\u2019s important, because the meaning of words can change over time, and you don\u2019t want to anachronistically read a recent meaning back into the first century, or assume a classical meaning still holds.<\/p>\n
Using the BDAG Entries<\/p>\n
So that gives you a good overview of an entry in BDAG. But how do you put it to use? How do you determine what meaning a particular use of a word has? The most important factor is context. The first meaning rules itself out, because it wouldn\u2019t make sense if Paul was suggesting the Galatians were turning back to be slaves of earth, air, fire, and water.
\nI\u2019m also personally not convinced that meaning two fits Paul\u2019s theological context, nor that there is sufficient evidence for this meaning in the first century. All the evidence cited is quite late, some as late as the sixth century. So I\u2019m torn between meaning 1b, as argued by Dr. Heiser, and 1c, which the editors think is most probable.
\nBecause I\u2019m not sure, I should probably look up the journals listed at the end of the article. They begin after this em dash. Then right at the end there\u2019s another em dash, followed by a list of major grammars and dictionaries that could be examined. For example, M-M stands for Moulton-Milligan\u2019s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, which you can purchase in Logos as an add-on.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
To summarize: When using BDAG, look for the extended definitions and formal equivalents first. Then read in more detail, but ignore everything in parentheses so you don\u2019t get overwhelmed. Once you\u2019ve done that, you can go back and check the references, paying particular attention to the dates of each writing. Finally, if you still need more help, you can ask your library to source the journal articles, or you can consult other works.
\nKnowing how to use BDAG will increase your understanding of Greek vocabulary and make it much easier for you to check what writers say about the meaning of particular words. Using BDAG confidently will give you an added depth and richness to your NT exegesis.<\/p>\n
Unit 3 Quiz<\/p>\n
To take the Quiz for this unit please click here.<\/p>\n
UNIT 4
\nAren\u2019t the Host of Heaven Just Celestial Objects Rather Than Actual Beings?<\/p>\n
18. The \u201cHost of Heaven\u201d in the Old Testament
\n19. Summary of Divine Plurality in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 18
\nThe \u201cHost of Heaven\u201d in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Explain the meaning of the phrase \u201chost of heaven\u201d in Deut 4:19\u201320
\n\u2022 Understand how 1 Kgs 22 shows that the heavens are populated
\n\u2022 Describe the relevance of the lesser deities to all that goes on between Israel and the surrounding nations<\/p>\n
The Host of Heaven in Deuteronomy 4:19\u201320; 32:8\u20139<\/p>\n
Another question that naturally comes up in the context of Deut 32 is this: \u201cDeuteronomy 32:8 and 9 and Deut 4:19 and 20 have the nations allotted to each other and their gods, but Deut 4:19 and 20 calls these gods the host of heaven. So aren\u2019t those just celestial objects, like the sun, the moon, and the stars?\u201d In other words, maybe it\u2019s the worship of those objects, and these entities aren\u2019t really real.<\/p>\n
The Host of Heaven Are Real Beings<\/p>\n
Well, let\u2019s take a look at that. We have some problems with it right away if we give it some thought. This same language is used of the heavenly beings of Yahweh or the angels, like Lord of Hosts. So we can\u2019t assume, obviously, that the host of heaven in phrases like that are not real, because there is a populated spiritual world, and all branches of Judaism and Christianity are going to believe that point. The fundamental passage for that is 1 Kgs 22, which we will see in a moment. Then the second obstacle to it is, of course, the host of heaven\u2014these beings that are allotted to the other nations\u2014are called demons in Deut 32:17. So, again, they have to be real. Okay, well, we\u2019ve covered that one enough. I want to move on to 1 Kgs 22, where the host of heaven are called spirits, very clearly.<\/p>\n
Evidence from 1 Kings 22<\/p>\n
So, if we go to 1 Kgs 22, and we look at the passage, this is where Micaiah, the prophet, is giving sort of his announcement as to what the Lord\u2019s opinion is on a plan that Ahab had to go to war. We read in verse 19, \u201cMicaiah said, \u2018Therefore hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on his throne and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said \u201cWho will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?\u201d And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, \u201cI will entice him.\u201d \u2019 \u201d
\nNow we can stop here just to make the observation that the host of heaven very clearly here are entities that are standing beside the Lord, and they are referred to as spirits; they are spirit beings. One of them comes forward with an idea as to how God\u2019s will\u2014that it\u2019s time for Ahab to die\u2014how that could be accomplished. And we read the rest of the narrative, and we see what the spirit suggests: In verse 22, \u201c \u2018And the LORD said to him, \u201cBy what means?\u201d And he said, \u201cI will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.\u201d And he [God] said, \u201cYou are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.\u201d Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.\u2019 \u201d So, the passage shows very plainly that heaven, the heavens\u2014the spiritual world\u2014are populated. Yahweh is in the company of other spirits, other spiritual beings, other elohim in other passages, because, again, that\u2019s what elohim means\u2014a resident of the spiritual world. Yahweh has these spirits with Him and around Him, and they are called the host of heaven. So that fits really very nicely with the whole idea of Deut 32, that some of these spiritual beings, you know, are sinister. They were put over the nations. They wind up being worshiped. They become corrupt, as we saw in Psa 82.<\/p>\n
Yahweh Is Lord of the Host of Heaven<\/p>\n
Again, a lot of these passages just make a very simple point that we all believe. Even if a lot of this material is new to you, you believe that there is an intersection between the spiritual realm and the human realm. And this is some of the OT language for it. So, we don\u2019t need to retreat to suggestions like, well, we\u2019re just talking about astrology or worship of celestial objects in Deut 32 and Deut 4. No. We\u2019re talking about the idea that Yahweh is the sovereign, and He forsook the nations of the world, and He set them underneath the authority of other lesser deities as a punishment, so that He would go and call Israel and make them His own people. And, frankly, the rest of the story of the OT is the antagonistic relationship between Israel and those nations, and between Yahweh and their gods. And so this is sort of the backdrop to all that goes on in the OT between Israel, as the people of God, trying to reestablish the rule of God on earth, and these other competing entities and the peoples that belong to them.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Hosts of Heaven LBD
\nNotes on Deuteronomy 4:19 FSB
\nHost of Heaven BEB<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Host of Heaven DDDB<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Hosts of Heaven Topic Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 19
\nSummary of Divine Plurality in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Describe how the Shema does not contradict divine plurality
\n\u2022 Explain the relationship between elohim and Yahweh<\/p>\n
Divine Plurality Does Not Violate the Shema<\/p>\n
So, let\u2019s summarize what we\u2019ve learned so far. We\u2019ve seen that the Shema is not a contradiction to the divine plurality of the Hebrew Bible. We\u2019ve also seen that the Shema affirms the uniqueness of Yahweh, a uniqueness that operates alongside divine plurality. Again, that was the idea that Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim is Yahweh. This language we\u2019ve seen in OT theology is about Yahweh\u2019s inequality, His uniqueness, His perfection\u2014the fact that He\u2019s so far above all the other elohim. It\u2019s not about that Yahweh is the only elohim that exists. Third, we\u2019ve also seen that divine plurality is not inconsistent with monotheism. It\u2019s no reason to reject belief in Jesus. And lastly, we\u2019ve mentioned several times that these observations pave the way for the next step to explaining how Christianity grew out of Judaism but still embraced Israel\u2019s God.<\/p>\n
Divine Plurality Is the Bridge to the Christian Trinity<\/p>\n
The OT, as we are going to see, actually identifies a second elohim\u2014some other elohim besides Yahweh\u2014as Yahweh. And out of that is going to grow what we would consider Godhead thinking in the Hebrew Bible, in Judaism, in the OT. And that\u2019s going to prepare us for what the NT writers are thinking and writing when they start talking about Jesus.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Understanding Israelite Monotheism FSB<\/p>\n
UNIT 5
\nWhat Other Being Was Identified with Yahweh?<\/p>\n
20. The Godhead in Ancient Judaism
\n21. The Biblical Evidence for Two Powers in Heaven
\n22. The Second Yahweh of the Old Testament
\n23. Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh
\n24. Yahweh and \u201cThe Word\u201d
\n25. Yahweh and the \u201cCloud Rider\u201d<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 20
\nThe Godhead in Ancient Judaism<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Explain that ancient Judaism accepted a two-person Godhead
\n\u2022 Describe when and why Judaism rejected the two-person Godhead<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Our next question goes something like this: \u201cYou said that the OT has places where a figure besides Yahweh was identified with Yahweh, or as Yahweh. What exactly do you mean?\u201d<\/p>\n
Ancient Judaism Accepted a Two-Person Godhead
\nWell, this actually takes us into something that is foreign to most Christians and, believe it or not, also most Jews, and that is that Judaism, at one time in its history, had the belief that there was a Godhead. Specifically, this was known in Judaism as the \u201cTwo Powers in Heaven\u201d idea. And this is not, sort of, a good one and a bad one, sort of like a theological dualism. This was the belief that there were two holy beings at the same level in Judaism\u2014Two Powers in heaven. This was part of Jewish theology up until roughly the second century AD, and there are lots of reasons for that, and there\u2019s a lot of interesting background for that, some of which we will be getting into. But, in my experience, I have found that most Jews have never heard of this doctrine, because in the second century AD this was declared a heresy, in part in response to Christianity because of its belief about Jesus. But at one point, Judaism had this part of their theology that was just evident. Everyone knew it. Everyone accepted it. So, we need to get into this a little bit.<\/p>\n
The \u201cTwo Powers in Heaven\u201d Concept Allowed Jewish Christians to Worship Jesus<\/p>\n
It really answers the question more fundamentally of how is it that a Jew who is committed to monotheism, that would be willing to be put to death rather than deny their monotheism\u2014in the first century you had situations like this where the Romans would say, \u201cWorship the emperor,\u201d and they would refuse, and they would be put to death because their adherence to the Shema was so serious: \u201cThe LORD our God is one\u201d\u2014how is it that a Jew of that mentality, of that level of commitment, could then turn around and worship Jesus as God, along with the God of Israel? Part of the reason was this Two Powers part of their theology, and that\u2019s what we want to explore next. We want to know, where did they get this from? How did this idea develop?<\/p>\n
The Two Powers in Heaven Concept Researched by Jewish Scholar Alan Segal<\/p>\n
Now, the best resource for this is something written by a guy named Alan Segal, who was Jewish, called Two Powers in Heaven, and I\u2019m going to sort of track along the lines that Segal proposed in his book, as far as where in the world Jewish theology got this. Now, Segal was a Jewish scholar, and so he believed that this was heretical because of his Judaism, but his work was foundational, really, in the Jewish community for alerting Jews to the fact that this was once part of our theology, and it helped the Jewish community to sort of understand how Christianity could have come out of Judaism and Jews could have believed all this stuff.
\nSo, I want to take you with him, and sort of independently as well\u2014because, again, this is my own presentation of this\u2014I want to take you back through the OT, as to what the rabbis were noticing and seeing that led them to develop this idea that there was a Godhead in the OT and, of course, therefore was acceptable in their own religion, again, before the second century AD.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Old Testament Godhead Language FSB
\nDoctrine of the Trinity ODCC<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Jewish Theology in the Rabbinic Period ECV13<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 21
\nThe Biblical Evidence for Two Powers in Heaven<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Describe how certain OT passages portray two powers or God-level figures.<\/p>\n
Three Passages on the Nature of the Jewish Godhead<\/p>\n
I want to start out generally and show you a few passages that are sort of odd, that get noticed in rabbinical material that speaks and discusses the nature of God. And then, after we go through a few very general passages, we are going to move to some more particular ideas.<\/p>\n
Evidence of Two Powers in Genesis 19:24<\/p>\n
So, our first one here is Gen 19:24. If you look closely at this passage, there is something unusual about it, just on the surface. The passage reads, \u201cYahweh rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfurous fire from Yahweh out of heaven.\u201d Maybe you noticed already what the unusual feature is: Yahweh, the name, occurs twice in the verse. And if you look at it again, a second time, you see that Yahweh is raining upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfurous fire from Yahweh. Well, how can Yahweh be doing something from Yahweh? And the rabbis noticed this and thought that it just sounded unusual, sounded odd, as though there were two Yahweh Figures in the same scene, and one was doing something in relation to another, but they were both Yahweh.<\/p>\n
Evidence of Two Powers in Amos 4:11<\/p>\n
Take a look at Amos 4:11. We have another sort of odd passage. It reads, \u201c \u2018I have wrought destruction among you, as when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. You have become like a brand plucked from the burning, yet you have not turned back to me,\u2019 declares Yahweh.\u201d Now the speaker is Yahweh. We find that out at the end of the verse. So, what\u2019s unusual about it? Take a close look. Our speaker, Yahweh, speaking in the first person: \u201cI have wrought destruction among you, as when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.\u201d Yahweh, the speaker, is referring to God in the third person, as though God was a separate entity. You say, \u201cWell, I thought Yahweh was God.\u201d Well, He is. So then, what\u2019s He doing referring to God? Like, \u201cI\u2019m God, and God over here did this, that, and the other thing.\u201d Again, the rabbis picked up on this language and thought that it was unusual enough to, again, merit the idea. The way they dealt with this was to sort of come up with an idea that there was Yahweh and there was sort of another Yahweh. There were Two Powers or Two God-level Figures in heaven.<\/p>\n
Evidence of Two Powers in Genesis 22:11\u201312<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s look at another one: Gen 22:11 and 12. Now, this is the familiar Abraham and Isaac story, and in verse 1 of Gen 22 we have God testing Abraham and said to him\u2014and of course we know the story, what He wanted him to do, to sacrifice Isaac, his son\u2014so, after He says, \u201ctake your son and offer him as a burnt offering\u201d in verse 2, we get to verse 11: \u201cBut the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, \u2018Abraham, Abraham!\u2019 And he said, \u2018Here I am.\u2019 He said, \u2018Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.\u2019 \u201d Again, notice the language here. We have God as the one testing Abraham, but when the angel confronts Abraham, the angel uses the first person \u201cme\u201d in relationship to the testing\u2014the actual test. And you say, \u201cWell, didn\u2019t the test come from God? Why is now the angel referring to himself as though he were God?\u201d Well, that\u2019s going to become important because there are actually a lot of passages that sort of blur the distinction between one particular angel and God Himself, even to the point where they are identified as each other, and the angel is referred to as the God of Israel. That\u2019s what we want to look at as we get more particular.<\/p>\n
Summary of Biblical Evidence for the Jewish Godhead<\/p>\n
So, by way of summary\u2014to this point anyway\u2014we\u2019ve noticed that there are certain passages in the OT that sounded to the ear like the God of Israel was two. There was this two-ness but yet one sort of idea going on. Rabbis took note of this and referred to the idea as Two Powers being in Heaven. And this belief was acceptable in Judaism until around 100 AD, the second century, when it was declared a heresy. And, again, one reason why the Jewish community reacted that way at that time was that was the advent of Christianity with its emphasis on the worship of Jesus alongside the God of Israel. So this formed sort of the backdrop to what happened in the Apostolic Era. But we want to go back even further in the OT and look at some very clear indicators of this sort of two Yahwehs but yet one idea in Israelite thinking and OT theology.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Note on Genesis 19:24 FSB
\nAngel of the Lord BEB<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Angel of Yahweh DDDB
\nThe Angel of Yahweh in Genesis LBG:G1250<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 22
\nThe Second Yahweh of the Old Testament<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Discuss the Angel of the LORD and its identification with Yahweh
\n\u2022 Explain what \u201cthe Name\u201d represents and who it refers to
\n\u2022 Show what role the Presence of God played in OT events<\/p>\n
What Other Being in the Old Testament Is Identified with Yahweh?<\/p>\n
We want to continue our discussion by focusing on the Angel of the LORD, the Angel of Yahweh, and something called The Name\u2014The Name theology in the OT. This is really the best place to begin to sort of unravel this second Yahweh, Godhead kind of thing in the OT. We\u2019ll start with Exod 3. In Exodus 3\u2014again, the burning bush story that pretty much everyone knows that has any sort of orientation to the Bible, but it\u2019s a good example of\u2014have you ever really read it closely? Because there is something, again, unusual going on.<\/p>\n
The Angel of the LORD and \u201cThe Name\u201d Theology<\/p>\n
The Angel of the LORD Is Identified with Yahweh in Exodus 3:1\u20134<\/p>\n
We start in verse 1: \u201cNow Moses, tending the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, drove the flock into the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.\u201d And verse 2 says, \u201cAn angel of Yahweh appeared to him in a blazing fire out of the bush.\u201d Who\u2019s in the bush? The angel is in the bush, but he\u2019s not alone. If you keep reading, down in verse 4, it says, \u201cWhen Yahweh saw that he had turned aside to look, God called to him out of the bush.\u201d So we actually have two figures in the bush: the angel and Yahweh. And, as you keep reading in Exodus chapter 3, it\u2019s kind of hard to tell which one is speaking. Or is only one speaking? Does one take over the other? And I think that is actually deliberate because, as we are going to see in other passages, there is really no effort to distinguish the two at times. And, again, at other times they are closely identified with each other to the point that you just can\u2019t tell them apart.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Name\u201d Is Associated with the Angel of the LORD in Exodus 23:20\u201322<\/p>\n
Exodus 23 is a really critical passage for all this. It connects the angel with this concept called The Name; that\u2019s going to become very important. So in verse 20 in Exod 23, the scene is God speaking to Moses about going to the promised land. They already received the law, and God says to Moses, \u201cI am sending an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have made ready. Pay heed to him and obey him. Do not defy him, for he will not pardon your offenses, since my name is in him.\u201d We can stop there. This language is unusual because the whole idea of pardoning transgressions or offenses is really the province of God, and God tells Moses that this angel will not pardon anyone who doesn\u2019t obey him, and the whole rationale for this is, \u201cMy name is in him.\u201d So, what does that mean?<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Name\u201d Represents the Presence of Yahweh in Deuteronomy 12:4\u20136, 11<\/p>\n
If we go over to Deut 12\u2014and there are a number of passages in Deuteronomy like this\u2014we get sort of an introduction as to what The Name meant to a Jew. In Deuteronomy 12, we see in verses 4 and 5 that God was going to choose a place to \u201cestablish his name there.\u201d Now, when they get into the land, initially they\u2019re going to be there with the tabernacle, but as time goes on, the plan was to create a temple, build a temple, and it would be in that place, at a central location for all their worship, that God would choose to put His Name or choose to establish His Name. Again, this language occurs in Deuteronomy quite frequently. Now, the point of it was not that we\u2019re going to build this place, and then I\u2019m going to scratch the YHWH over the door\u2014that there\u2019s something about four consonants that\u2019s special. The idea actually is that The Name is another way to refer to Yahweh\u2019s presence Himself. Jews today, actually, sort of have this in their consciousness. A very observant Jew will not say the word Yahweh, will not try to pronounce the name. Instead, they will either say Adonai, which means \u201cLord,\u201d or they will say HaShem, which means \u201cThe Name.\u201d So, The Name is actually another way to refer to Yahweh Himself.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Name\u201d Refers to God in Psalm 20<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s look at another passage. In Psalm 20, verses 1 to 7 says this: \u201cMay the LORD answer you in the day of trouble! May the name of the God of Jacob protect you!\u201d And then we read, \u201cSome trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.\u201d Now, the idea here isn\u2019t that when the Israelite army or an individual Israelite was in trouble they would just start shouting, \u201cYahweh, Yahweh, Yahweh!\u201d or they would be putting their trust, again, in a string of consonants. That isn\u2019t the point. The Name was the essence, the presence, the person of God Himself. That\u2019s the point to these verses.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Name\u201d Is Associated with the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 6:1\u20132<\/p>\n
In 2 Samuel 6, we get another indication of this: \u201cDavid again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called the name, the name of the LORD.\u201d Now, this is a verse that\u2019s often obscured in translation. The Name actually occurs twice in the verse, so this is a very literal translation. The ark of God, the ark of the covenant, was called The Name, The Name of the Lord. Now, why in the world would you call this box\u2014okay, the ark of the covenant\u2014why would you call it The Name, HaShem, The Lord? Well, it\u2019s kind of obvious when you think about it. The ark was the place that was perceived as either the throne of God or the place where God dwelled, inside the holy of holies in the tabernacle. So it was very natural to associate that object with the very presence of God. So this is quite consistent with the idea that the term HaShem, The Name, refers to God Himself, and that idea is going to be very important in a moment, as we\u2019ll see.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Name\u201d Is Personified in Isaiah 30:27<\/p>\n
Isaiah 30:27 is interesting here, too: \u201cBehold, the name of the LORD comes from afar, in blazing wrath, with a heavy burden; his lips full of fury, his tongue like devouring fire.\u201d In this passage, we see The Name personified. We see The Name depicted as though He were a person, even an embodied person. This is anthropomorphic language. If we go back to Exod 23 with all of this information, here\u2019s what it does for us: God says, \u201cI am sending an angel before you, Moses, to guard you on the way, and you\u2019d better listen to him, because he will not pardon your transgressions. Why? Because My Name is in him.\u201d That\u2019s another way of saying, \u201cBecause I\u2014my very presence, my essence\u2014is inside, is in this angel. This angel, in effect, is me in human form. He is me.\u201d And, again, this is going to play into the idea of the Two Powers, because, as we look at other passages, we\u2019re going to see that the angel is just so tightly identified with Yahweh that it is almost impossible to distinguish them, but yet they are distinguished. So it gives you that, again, that flavor\u2014that two yet one, one yet two sort of flavor in the OT.<\/p>\n
The Presence Delivered Israel from Egypt in Deuteronomy 4:35\u201337<\/p>\n
If we go to Deut 4, in verses 35 to 37, the important point here is actually in verse 37, where we read, \u201cBecause he [God] loved your fathers and chose their offspring after them and brought you out of Egypt with his own presence by his great power.\u201d Now, this is important because we just saw in Exod 23 that it\u2019s the angel who is bringing them out of Egypt and into the promised land. Here we read that it\u2019s His presence, and other passages are going to read that it was God Himself. So which is it? Who led the nation out of Egypt and into the promised land? Was is Yahweh? Was it His presence? Was it the angel? The answer is \u201cyes,\u201d because they all sort of merge and blur. And this is another indication that My Name in this angel is another way of saying \u201cMy Presence, My Essence\u201d\u2014\u201cI am in this angel even though I am separate from him.\u201d Again, this two yet one, one yet two sort of thinking in the OT.<\/p>\n
The Presence Is Identified with the Angel of the LORD in Exodus 33:13\u201314 and Judges 2:1\u20134<\/p>\n
In Exodus 33, we see it repeated. God tells Moses, \u201cMy presence will go with you\u201d\u2014again, just like Deuteronomy. Judges 2 is especially interesting in this regard because here we see the angel in the very first verse: \u201cThe angel of Yahweh came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, \u2018I brought you up from Egypt.\u2019 \u201d So again, which one is it? Well, you don\u2019t need to parse out who\u2019s doing what because they are all essentially\u2014and I\u2019m using that term deliberately\u2014they are all essentially Yahweh. They are Yahweh in different persons\u2014specifically, the angel. The angel who has the presence in him is Yahweh, but yet somehow isn\u2019t. He is but isn\u2019t Yahweh. If you stop to think about it, this is actually how we think of Jesus. We affirm the deity of Christ, that Jesus is God, but Jesus really is but isn\u2019t God. He is God in terms of His essence. He is fully God, but He\u2019s not the Father. So how does that work? You have this \u201cis but isn\u2019t\u201d thing going on, and it\u2019s precisely the same thing that you see in the OT between Yahweh and the angel. They are the same, but yet they\u2019re different. They\u2019re the same, but yet they\u2019re not. This sort of Godhead concept thinking right in our OT.<\/p>\n
The Angel of God Is Identified with Yahweh in Genesis 31:10\u201313<\/p>\n
Genesis 31 is noteworthy as well. We have here in verse 11, \u201cThen the angel of God said to me in the dream\u201d\u2014Jacob is the one speaking\u2014\u201c \u2018Jacob!\u2019 And I said, \u2018Here I am.\u2019 And he said, \u2018Lift up your eyes and see all the goats that mate with the flock are striped, spotted and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you.\u2019 \u201d This is the incident where Jacob and Laban are having a bad time with each other, and Laban is trying to cheat Jacob, and God appears to him in the form of the Angel of God and says, you know, \u201cHere\u2019s what we\u2019re going to do.\u201d And in verse 13, look at it, the angel is speaking now. The angel actually looks at Jacob and says, \u201cI am the God of Bethel.\u201d Now, Bethel was a place where Jacob had had a divine encounter with Yahweh Himself, when he was escaping from his brother, and here you have an angel identified directly with Yahweh in that earlier scene. \u201cI am the God of Bethel.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Angel of God Is Equated with God in Genesis 48:14\u201316<\/p>\n
Genesis 48 is probably my favorite passage on this whole subject and one of my favorite passages in the OT. This is when Jacob is blessing the sons of Joseph. And, again, it\u2019s a good example of how many times have we read over this and not really seen what\u2019s there? Verse 14: \u201cBut Israel [that is, Jacob] stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim\u2019s head, though he was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh\u2019s head, thus crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the firstborn. And he blessed Joseph, saying,\u201d\u2014now catch this; just listen to what he\u2019s saying\u2014\u201c \u2018The God in whose ways my father Abraham and Isaac walked,\u2019 \u201d\u2014the word there is elohim\u2014\u201c \u2018the God [also elohim] who has been my shepherd from my birth to this day,\u2019 \u201d\u2014and then here it comes, not a third \u201cthe God,\u201d but\u2014\u201c \u2018the angel, who has redeemed me from all harm \u2026\u2019 \u201d Right there we have God and the angel set on equal status. \u201cMay the God who did this, the God who did that, the angel who did X-Y-Z \u2026\u201d And here\u2019s the kicker: \u201c \u2018May he bless these lads.\u2019 \u201d It\u2019s not \u201cmay they\u201d; it\u2019s \u201cmay he.\u201d The verb in Hebrew there is actually singular. It\u2019s grammatically singular. If the writer had wanted to distinguish, to separate God from this angel, this is an easy place to do it, but he doesn\u2019t do it. They use a singular verb, \u201cMay he bless these boys.\u201d It\u2019s pretty dramatic for this to be in the OT. This is the Jewish Bible. This is the Israelite theology coming at you, where you have God cast as one, but yet two, and two, but yet that are the same, right from our OT, right from the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
Summary: The Angel Is the Second Yahweh in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
So, what we have here again, just by way of a summary statement, we have the angel, who is Yahweh, alongside of Yahweh. We have two, but yet one. Again, you start to see where the Two Powers thinking comes into play, and, again, what we would call later on as Godhead sort of thinking.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Theophany in the Old Testament FSB
\nThe Name Theology of the Old Testament FSB
\nThe Divine Messenger in Judges 2:1 NAC:JR<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
The Presence of God in the Old Testament BEB
\nName DDDB<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Angel of the Lord Topic Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 23
\nYahweh and the Angel of Yahweh<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Explain the distinction between the Angel of the Yahweh and Yahweh in Judg 6
\n\u2022 Describe how the Godhead language in the OT is the backdrop for the Christological language of the NT<\/p>\n
Are the Angel and Yahweh Different Forms of One Person?<\/p>\n
Now, you might be thinking: \u201cWell, maybe the Angel and Yahweh, maybe we don\u2019t really have two separate figures. Maybe these are just like different forms of one person, of one entity. We don\u2019t really have two entities. It just sort of looks that way.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Angel of the LORD in Judges 6<\/p>\n
Well, I want you to take a look at Judg 6, because Judg 6 actually addresses that issue. This is the story of Gideon, and we read in verse 11 that \u201cthe angel of Yahweh came and sat under the Terebinth at Ophrah, which belonged to Joash, the Abiezrite. His son, Gideon, was then beating out wheat inside a winepress, in order to keep it safe from the Midianites.\u201d So the angel comes to Gideon, and he is meeting him at this Terebinth, this tree, so keep that in the back of your mind. \u201cThe angel of Yahweh appeared to him and said to him, \u2018Yahweh is with you, valiant warrior.\u2019 \u201d So that statement has the angel distinguishing himself from Yahweh, so there is again this distinction going on. Gideon said to him, \u201cPlease, my Lord, if Yahweh\u2019s with us, why has all this befallen us?\u201d \u201cIf God\u2019s with us, why are we in this mess.\u201d And verse 14 continues, \u201cYahweh turned to him.\u201d Now think about that.<\/p>\n
Yahweh in Judges 6<\/p>\n
Up until this point, we don\u2019t even have Yahweh in the scene. Or do we? That\u2019s the question. Because the angel has come to the Terebinth tree to meet Gideon, and then all of a sudden we have Yahweh turning toward him. So what\u2019s exactly going on here? Again, it\u2019s a little fuzzy, but Yahweh turns to him and says, \u201c \u2018Go in this might of yours and save Israel from the hand of Midian. Do not I send you?\u2019 And he said to him, \u2018Please, Lord, how can I save Israel? Behold, my clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father\u2019s house.\u2019 And Yahweh said to him, \u2018I will be with you. You shall strike the Midianites as one man.\u2019 \u201d So he\u2019s saying, \u201cLook, I\u2019m going to be with you. Don\u2019t be afraid. Go get the job done.\u201d
\nAnd in verse 17, \u201cHe [Gideon] said to him\u201d\u2014we don\u2019t know who Gideon is talking to; is it Yahweh or is it the angel? It\u2019s ambiguous there, but \u201che said to him, \u2018If now I have found favor in your eyes, then show me a sign that it is you who speaks with me.\u2019 \u201d He says, \u201cI want to know that this is really happening to me.\u201d And then Gideon gets this idea in the next verse: \u201cWhy don\u2019t you wait here, and I\u2019m going to go prepare a little meal, a little offering, and please stay here until I get back.\u201d And so, we read in verse 18 that He, the speaker, says, \u201cI\u2019ll stay until you return.\u201d
\nNow, again, we\u2019re not quite sure exactly what\u2019s going on because as the chapter began, we had the angel coming at the Terebinth tree, and then we had Yahweh somehow in the scene. So, are they the same? Are they different? What exactly is going on? Well, if we continue, Gideon goes and prepares his little meal, and he brings the meal, in verse 19, to Him under the Terebinth. So, again, that\u2019s where the angel was. And then in verse 20, that seems to be what is going on: \u201cThe angel of God said to him, \u2018Take the meat and unleavened cakes and put them on this rock and pour the broth over them.\u2019 \u201d And Gideon obeyed, and \u201cthen the Angel of the Lord [the Angel of Yahweh] reached out the tip of his staff and touched the meat and the cakes, and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed them.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Angel of the LORD Is Distinct from Yahweh in Judges 6<\/p>\n
And now, watch what happens: \u201cAnd the angel of Yahweh vanished from his sight.\u201d Now, you might think, \u201cWell that\u2019s the end of the scene. The Angel of the Lord is out of the picture now. He goes away.\u201d But look at what happens next: \u201cThen Gideon perceived that he was the angel of Yahweh, and Gideon said, \u2018Alas, O Lord God, for now I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face.\u2019 \u201d I mean, he\u2019s scared. You\u2019re not supposed to be able to do this and survive. And then in verse 23 it says, \u201cBut Yahweh said to him, \u2018Peace be to you. Do not fear. You are not going to die.\u2019 \u201d Yahweh is still there. He\u2019s still in the scene.
\nSo here we have a chapter, an episode, a scene, where both the angel and Yahweh are present, sort of like in Exod 3, but some of the language that goes on actually blends or confuses or blurs the two and yet distinguishes them at the same time. So they are there in the same scene, but again we have this difficulty of separating them. And in some cases the narrator cares about separating them, and in other cases he doesn\u2019t, and this is deliberate, because the angel\u2014in the Israelite mind\u2014the Angel of Yahweh was Yahweh anyway. Why? Because The Name\u2014the presence of Yahweh\u2014was in him.<\/p>\n
Summary: The Angel of Yahweh Is Yahweh in Human Form<\/p>\n
Now, by way of summary to this point, we have learned that the Hebrew Bible contains clear suggestions of a Godhead, Yahweh as two figures\u2014again, this two but yet one sort of feeling in certain passages. We learned that The Name is another way of referring to Yahweh\u2014again, as Jews still do to this day. The Name is within the Angel of Yahweh, and what that means is that this angel\u2014that particular angel, the Angel of the LORD, the Angel of Yahweh\u2014is therefore Yahweh in human form. Now this is not the incarnation, like we think of with Jesus, in the OT, but it is Yahweh appearing as a man, and, not only that, but in some instances those appearances seem to be Yahweh, and other times they are this other Yahweh\u2014again, this two but yet one. Two but yet one; one but yet two, and think about this: one of them looks like a man. Again, you can see how this is the backdrop for the Christological language of the NT, the Godhead thinking of the early Christians and the NT writers as well.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on Judges 6 FSB
\nThe Call and Commissioning of Gideon (Judges 6:11\u201324) NAC:JR<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Commentary on Judges 6:11\u201327 WBCV8:J<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Judges 6:11\u201327 Passage Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 24
\nYahweh and \u201cThe Word\u201d<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Explain how the Word of the LORD can be understood as Yahweh appearing in human form
\n\u2022 Demonstrate how Gen 15:1, 1 Sam 3, and Jer 1:4\u20139 indicate that the Word of the LORD is a manifestation of Yahweh in human form<\/p>\n
The Word as Yahweh in Human Form<\/p>\n
Now, we just got done talking about the Angel of the LORD, but there are some other figures in other passages, other features in the text that also show us this idea of Yahweh being in human form, and again, this two but yet one sort of feel. The next one is the Word. Now, we are probably familiar with this as Christians because of John chapter 1, \u201cThe Word was made flesh,\u201d and so on and so forth. But that\u2019s actually an OT idea that Yahweh is the Word.<\/p>\n
The Word in Genesis 15:1<\/p>\n
If you look at Gen 15:1\u2014\u201cAfter these things, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: \u2018Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield. Your reward shall be very great.\u2019 \u201d Now, this might sound silly, but visions are something that are seen. Okay, this is visible. This is not just the word of the LORD in the sense of something popping into the ear of Abraham or maybe something that he is imagining, like a dream or something in his mind. He sees something, and that something is the Word of the LORD.<\/p>\n
The Word in 1 Samuel 3<\/p>\n
In 1 Samuel 3, we get sort of a more dramatic illustration of this. This is the story of little boy Samuel\u2014again very familiar, but have we really looked at what\u2019s going on here? In verse 1 we read, \u201cNow the young man, Samuel, was ministering to the LORD [to Yahweh] under Eli, and the word of the LORD was rare in those days. There was no frequent vision.\u201d Again, we usually think of the Word of the LORD being rare as sort of maybe that doing the right thing was rare or God rarely spoke thru a prophet. It could, of course, mean those things, but it means more than that. There was no frequent vision\u2014that is, you don\u2019t have God showing up in human form these days. That was unusual, unlike the times of the Patriarchal Period. Verse 7: \u201cNow Samuel had not yet experienced the LORD. The word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him.\u201d Samuel had never had a divine encounter is the point of that verse. He had never had God come to him, like God came to Abraham or to Isaac or to Jacob. Samuel had not had that divine encounter experience yet.
\nThe LORD called Samuel again the third time, in verse 8. We know the story, and I\u2019ll skip some of the elements here, but Samuel hears a voice calling his name, and he thinks it\u2019s Eli, and he goes, and he says, \u201cWell, here I am. What did you want?\u201d And Eli says, \u201cIt\u2019s not me.\u201d And they figure out it must be God calling Samuel. And so Eli gives him instructions: \u201cIf it happens again, this is what you say.\u201d And so in verse 10, Yahweh comes to Samuel again. And we read: \u201cThe LORD [Yahweh] came and stood\u201d\u2014again, this is the language of embodiment\u2014\u201ccame and stood, calling as at other times\u201d\u2014it had been Yahweh\u2014\u201cSamuel, Samuel! And Samuel said, \u2018Speak, for your servant hears.\u2019 \u201d So Samuel gets his divine encounter. He gets bad news about Eli.
\nAnd the end of the chapter again reinforces this idea that the Word of the LORD coming to Samuel\u2014and, again, to other people as well, other prophets\u2014was a vision. It was God in human form, just like the angel in human form in other passages. We read in verse 19: \u201cSamuel grew, and the LORD [Yahweh] was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground. And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established as a prophet of the LORD. And the LORD appeared again at Shiloh\u201d\u2014and this is where the ark was in the tabernacle\u2014\u201cthe LORD revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh.\u201d How? How did He make Himself visually manifest? \u201cBy the word of the LORD.\u201d Again, this language, the Word of the LORD being Yahweh in human form, this is an OT concept that is really lurking behind John chapter 1 that is more familiar to us.<\/p>\n
The Word in Jeremiah 1:4\u20139<\/p>\n
Jeremiah 1 is another such instance, and this one sort of even makes it more dramatic in a very specific way. This is the call of Jeremiah, and he says in verse 4: \u201cNow the word of the LORD came to me saying, \u2018Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.\u2019 \u201d Then they have a little bit of a chat. Verse 6, Jeremiah responds and says, \u201cThen I said, \u2018Ah, Lord GOD [Yahweh Elohim in the Hebrew text].\u2019 \u201d So Jeremiah identifies the Word, who is speaking to him, as the LORD God, and he says, \u201c \u2018Truly I do not know how to speak, for I am only a boy.\u2019 But Yahweh said to me, \u2018Do not say, \u201cI am only a boy,\u201d for you shall go to all to whom I send you.\u2019 \u201d Now, catch this, what happens in verse 9: \u201cThen the LORD [Yahweh] put out his hand and touched my mouth.\u201d That is the language, not only of just human appearance, but of embodiment. This is God, this is Yahweh, in a body, in human form. He reaches out His hand \u201cand touched my mouth.\u201d So there is a tactile event there. \u201cAnd the LORD said to me, \u2018Now I have put my words in your mouth.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
Summary: The Word is the Embodiment of Yahweh<\/p>\n
Again, this is all OT backdrop to the idea that Yahweh could show up on earth, interact with people as a man. And this is again the context for what\u2019s going to come later in NT writings, NT theology. So, we are just, again, just getting a glimpse. We are going through different indicators of this idea that Yahweh is still in heaven, but He is also here on earth, okay, in human form. The angel is the embodiment of Yahweh; the Word is the embodiment of Yahweh as well.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Prophetic Commissioning and the Divine Presence FSB
\nProphets and the Divine Council LBD<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Word of God DOT:HB<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Word of God Topic Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 25
\nYahweh and the \u201cCloud Rider\u201d<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Cite biblical passages that portray Yahweh as a rider on the clouds
\n\u2022 Show where the Cloud Rider is portrayed as an entity distinct from Yahweh
\n\u2022 Explain how Judaism once had a theology of Godhead<\/p>\n
The Cloud Rider in the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n
The next element, the next motif or theme we want to talk about, is something known as the Cloud Rider or the One Who Comes Upon the Clouds. Now, this title is very important for the Two Powers thinking in ancient Israelite religion and later Judaism, and I\u2019ll try to explain why.
\nFirst, we need to start out with recognizing that the whole title, the epithet, the characterization of riding on the clouds was very familiar in the ancient world because this is naturally what a deity did. A deity would live up in the heavens and would move around in the clouds and command them, and so on and so forth. It really comes out in literature from Ugarit about the god Baal. The Rider on the Clouds was a stock title of the deity, Baal. Now, that\u2019s important because Baal was not a lesser figure. He wasn\u2019t just a mere angel. He wasn\u2019t some sort of random spirit. Everyone in the ancient world would have recognized Baal as a true deity in the sense of he\u2019s a full deity. He is not sort of a lesser divine figure that could get pushed around.<\/p>\n
The Cloud Rider in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
Yahweh as the Cloud Rider<\/p>\n
The biblical writers actually used this phrase, \u201cThe One Who Rides the Clouds,\u201d of Yahweh specifically to make the point that it isn\u2019t Baal who commands the clouds. And think about what that means. It means that if you command the clouds, you command rain, which gives you fertility in the land. It helps you have something to eat. You get crops from it. So their point is that Baal isn\u2019t the one responsible for our survival here, for our food, for our sustenance\u2014it\u2019s Yahweh; it\u2019s the God of Israel. Again, riding on the clouds is sort of a military thing because it\u2019s a chariot figure in some instances, where you are commanding the heavens. No, it isn\u2019t Baal who commands the heavens. It\u2019s Yahweh.<\/p>\n
The Cloud Rider as a Second Figure<\/p>\n
So the biblical writers took this phrase right out of literature that was known elsewhere and used it of Yahweh, the God of Israel, in several places. But we\u2019re going to get to one. There is one place where it is not used of the God of Israel. It is used of a second figure, who is in the same scene as the God of Israel. And it\u2019s kind of stunning when we get to that point. Let\u2019s take a look at some of the other passages where the cloud-riding idea is used of the God of Israel, Yahweh.<\/p>\n
The Rider on the Clouds in Deuteronomy, the Psalms, and Isaiah<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 33:26: \u201cThere is none like God, O Jeshurun, who rides through the heavens to your help, through the skies in his majesty again.\u201d The God of Israel is the one who rides through the heavens. Psalm 68: \u201cO kingdoms of the earth, sing to God. Sing praises to the LORD [to Yahweh], to him who rides in the heavens.\u201d Again, there you get that riding motif again.
\nIn Psalm 104:1, we read, \u201cBless the LORD, O my soul, O LORD [O Yahweh] my God. You are very great. You are clothed with splendor and majesty, covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent. He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters. He makes the clouds his chariot [again, the Charioteer of the Heavens]. He rides on the wings of the wind.\u201d It\u2019s very clear there.
\nIn Isaiah 19, \u201cAn oracle concerning Egypt: Behold, the LORD [Yahweh] is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt.\u201d Again, this is just stock vocabulary for a true deity, what a deity was. You know, the charioteer of the heavens, of the clouds, again used of the God of Israel.<\/p>\n
The Rider on the Clouds in Dan 7<\/p>\n
But when you get to Dan 7, something changes. And this passage became a crucial text in early Judaism for the Two Powers idea, that there were two Yahweh-level deities, deity figures\u2014again, this idea of two but yet one, one but yet two. This was a crucial passage. In verse 9, it begins. Daniel says, \u201cAs I looked on, thrones were set in place.\u201d He is having a vision of what\u2019s going on in the heavens, and thrones\u2014plural\u2014were set in place. \u201cAnd the Ancient of Days took his seat.\u201d Now, we know who the Ancient of Days is, that\u2019s God, and He\u2019s enthroned there. \u201cHis garment was like white snow, and the hair of his head was like a lamb\u2019s wool. His throne was tongues of flame. Its wheels were blazing fire.\u201d
\nNow what does that remind you of? That\u2019s the same imagery from Ezek 1, okay? Ezekiel\u2019s wheel. We have the throne, the throne is on wheels, and so on and so forth. There is fire. Again, it is unmistakable that the being on this seat is the God of Israel. This is stock throne room vision vocabulary. But as we keep going, we have Him surrounded by myriads upon myriads of holy ones attending him: \u201cThe court [or the council\u2014there\u2019s our divine council] sat, and the books were opened.\u201d And then look what happens: \u201cOne like a human being came with [or upon, depending on your translation] the clouds of heaven.\u201d This is the only passage in the OT where the cloud riding theme, the cloud riding motif or title, is attributed to a being who is not Yahweh, the God of Israel. But by doing this, it identifies this being as though he were Yahweh as well. And, again, we have human form: \u201cOne like a human being\u201d coming upon the clouds of heaven.
\nThis is why this passage became such a big deal in early Judaism, because the rabbis knew their text well. They knew that this was a description that, everywhere else, only happened of Yahweh, but Yahweh is already in the picture, and now you have this second person described in the same way that is normally reserved for Yahweh, the God of Israel. Again, it became a focal point of this Two Powers in Heaven, this Godhead sort of conception in Israelite thinking.
\nIn fact, Segal\u2014you remember I referred to him a while back\u2014the Jewish scholar, who has probably done the most work in this area on the Two Powers of Heaven, demonstrating that this was part of Judaism up until the second century. He actually said in his book, \u201cDaniel 7 describes a heavenly enthronement scene involving two divine manifestations, the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days. It may easily be describing two separate divine figures.\u201d
\nAgain, he understood the material well. Again, his work was about tracking this element of thought through rabbinical texts, through Judaism. Again, Judaism once had a theology of Godhead that we know, as Christians, is really going to get picked up on and, in some ways, elaborated on in the NT and applied to Jesus. This is all OT backdrop to what scholars would call the High Christology of the NT.<\/p>\n
Summary: Two Yahweh Figures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
So, to summarize, we\u2019ve seen that OT theology includes the idea that Yahweh can be present in two persons, essentially two Yahweh figures, sometimes in the same scene. And we\u2019ve also seen that OT theology teaches that this Second Yahweh figure is portrayed, at times, in human form, visually, and in some cases even embodied. Again, this is very transparent as far as a backdrop to how a Jew in the first century could have heard the message of Jesus and understood it in its own context and not considered it foreign or antagonistic or hostile to his own monotheism and, frankly, his own Hebrew Bible. It\u2019s just an important trajectory that we\u2019re still just getting our teeth into and being able to follow a little bit as we learn the context for our NT, this OT idea of Godhead language and Godhead thinking.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Note on Deuteronomy 33:26 FSB
\nNotes on Daniel 7:9\u201314 FSB
\nRider on the Clouds LBD<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Rider Upon the Clouds DDDB<\/p>\n
Unit 4\u20135 Quiz<\/p>\n
To take the Quiz for this unit please click here.<\/p>\n
UNIT 6
\nDid Jews Really Believe in Two Powers?<\/p>\n
26. The Jewish Belief in a Second Yahweh Figure
\n27. Jewish Interpretations of the Second Power: Exalted Humans
\n28. Jewish Interpretations of the Second Power: Important Angels
\n29. Finding and Understanding Early Jewish Writings
\n30. Jewish Interpretations of the Second Power: The Logos<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 26
\nThe Jewish Belief in a Second Yahweh Figure<\/p>\n
Now, some would naturally ask: \u201cIs this for real? Did Jews really believe in a Second Power, a Second Yahweh, Two Powers in Heaven? Or is this just sort of a convenient way to justify the belief in a Godhead or a Trinity?\u201d
\nWell, the answer is: They really did believe this. And I think to demonstrate that, other than the Old Testament passages we\u2019ve looked at, it would be helpful to actually go through ancient Jewish texts that were written after the OT was completed, but yet before the NT era, to show you how they were processing some of these passages.<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 27
\nJewish Interpretations of the Second Power: Exalted Humans<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 List five ancient Jewish sources that demonstrate a Jewish belief in Two Powers or a Second Yahweh figure.
\n\u2022 Summarize four specific ways Jews in the intertestamental period (\u201cSecond Temple period\u201d) tried to identify the Second Power in heaven as an OT character exalted to heaven and made divine.
\n\u2022 Explain why Jews in the Second Temple period would understand that the \u201cSecond Power\u201d was an exalted OT character.<\/p>\n
The Second Power as an Old Testament Character Made Divine<\/p>\n
Jews, in the Second Temple period\u2014and that\u2019s the period that began with the building of the Temple after the Jewish community gets back from Babylon, after the exile, they build the temple again, the Second Temple, so from that period all the way to 70 AD\u2014Jews in that period were writing things about their theology, about their faith. And in that body of literature, they were struggling to deal with the Second Yahweh idea, some of these Godhead passages, these odd angel passages, the Word, the Rider on the Clouds, all these things. They were trying to come to grips with what their Bible was saying, and they sort of parsed out their views in a couple different categories, as to who the Second Power was, who it might be. And I want to go through those.
\nThe first one is exalted humans. In some cases, Jews thought that, well maybe a biblical character\u2014maybe someone who had sort of a close, special relationship with God or to God in the OT\u2014was sort of, when they got to heaven, put in this second-level deity position. Now, right away, you might be thinking, well, how does that work in the OT era? Well, with some it worked better than others, but I want to go through a few of the options, just so that you can see how they were thinking.<\/p>\n
Adam as the Second Power<\/p>\n
The first one is Adam. I have here a text known as 2 Enoch 30:11 and 12. Again, this is material that did not make it into either the canonical Old or New Testament, but that was the product of Jewish hands and Jewish thinking during the Second Temple period, and you\u2019ll notice a few things right off the bat here that are kind of unusual. This text identifies Adam as one of God\u2019s chief angels over creation, believe it or not. Verse 11 says, \u201cAnd on the earth, I assigned him [Adam] to be a second angel, honored and great and glorious, and I assigned him to be a king to reign on the earth and to have my wisdom.\u201d There was a belief in early Judaism that Adam himself actually had been an angel and then was put on earth to govern the earth and to steward the earth, as we read in Genesis.
\nIn the Testament of Abraham 11:4, another Jewish text, we read where Abraham is shown a man\u2014Abraham has this vision again of heaven\u2014\u201ca man seated on a golden throne, who has a terrifying appearance [notice the phrase] like the master\u2019s [like God].\u201d Okay, he\u2019s somehow like God. Abraham\u2019s guide, who is Michael, reveals the figure\u2019s identity in verse 9. He says, \u201cThis is the first formed Adam, who is in such glory, and he looks at the world, since everyone has come from him.\u201d Again, it reflects this idea that Adam was an angel and then he was put on earth as a man, and then afterwards, he gets this exalted second-in-command or second sort of deity level like the Master, like God, position. So, some Jews during this period again thought that the best answer to the identity of the Second Power in heaven was Adam.<\/p>\n
Jacob as the Second Power<\/p>\n
Others, however, thought it was Jacob. In the Prayer of Joseph, Fragment A, lines 1\u20133, we read about Jacob and the role that he was perceived as playing in the minds of some Jews. Jacob is deified in this passage. We read, \u201cI, Jacob, who is speaking to you, am also Israel, an Angel of God and a ruling spirit.\u201d Now that actually hearkens back to this idea again of the nations of the earth being put under the lesser elohim. God\u2019s inheritance, God\u2019s portion, was Israel. Later in the Hebrew Bible\u2014we haven\u2019t mentioned it specifically yet\u2014but later in the Hebrew Bible, the idea that Michael was the patron angel of Israel and sort of identified with God, came into view.
\nBut here, the idea that that special angel that has command over God\u2019s portion, over Israel, is Jacob himself, again exalted to some sort of deity-level kind of existence. He says, \u201cI am he, whom God called Israel, which means \u2018a man seeing God,\u2019 because I am the firstborn of every living thing, to whom God gives life.\u201d Jacob is then confronted by a jealous archangel, Uriel, in the text, whom Jacob puts in his place as the eighth after me (Prayer of Joseph, Fragment A, line 7). So Jacob is even outranking this archangel, Uriel. Jacob then declares, \u201cI, Israel, the archangel of the power of the Lord and the chief captain among the sons of God, am I not Israel, the first minister before the presence [literally, before the very face of God]?\u201d (Prayer of Joseph, Fragment A, line 7). Again, some Jews thought, by virtue of this text and other ones, that it was Jacob himself exalted again to sort of a heavenly form of existence, deified in essence, who was the Second Power who would come in the days of Moses later on, as this angel, in whom was Yahweh.<\/p>\n
Enoch as the Second Power<\/p>\n
Enoch was another candidate. Now, Enoch might be one that we would think of, because the OT has Enoch not dying, but being sort of translated or taken to heaven, and that idea is found in texts within Jewish literature in the Second Temple period, and it plays a part in this whole who\u2019s the Second Power question among Jews. So in 1 Enoch, the book of 1 Enoch, chapter 71, we read: \u201cThus it happened after this that my spirit [Enoch is the speaker] passed out of sight and ascended into the heavens. Also, I saw two rivers of fire, the light of which fire was shining like hyacinth. Then I fell on my face before the lord of spirits [so Enoch has a divine encounter with God], and the angel, Michael, one of the archangels, seizing me by my right hand and lifting me up, led me out into all the secrets of mercy, and he showed me all the secrets of righteousness. And I saw countless angels\u201d (1 Enoch 71:1\u20138) So, again, Enoch is telling us about his vision.
\nIf we continue on, we get to 1 Enoch 71:10, and Enoch says, \u201cWith them, the Ancient of Days [so among this multitude was the Ancient of Days]. His head is white and pure like wool, and his garment is indescribable.\u201d So, very similar to what we read in Dan 7. \u201cI fell on my face, and my whole body mollified, and my spirit was transformed. Then an angel came to me and greeted me.\u201d And now listen to what Enoch says. The angel greets Enoch and says to him, \u201cYou, son of man, who art born in righteousness and upon whom righteousness has dwelled, the righteousness of the Ancient of Days will not forsake you.\u201d Enoch, in this text, becomes the son of man figure, the Second Yahweh figure, of Dan 7. So, to some Jews\u2014again, the Jew writing this text\u2014believed that Enoch himself was this second being, this Second Yahweh figure in heaven, this Second Power.
\nWe also read in a book called 2 Enoch some of the same ideas. In 2 Enoch 22:4\u201310, we read, \u201cAnd I fell down flat and did obeisance to the Lord.\u201d So just like 1 Enoch, Enoch bowing down before the Lord. \u201cAnd the Lord with his own mouth said to me, \u2018Be brave, Enoch. Do not be frightened. Stand up and stand in front of my face forever. And Michael, the Lord\u2019s archangel, lifted me up and brought me in front of the face of the Lord.\u201d Again, it sounds very similar to 1 Enoch. \u201cAnd the Lord said to his servants, sounding them out, \u2018Let Enoch join in and stand in front of may face forever [be in my presence forever],\u2019 and the Lord\u2019s Glorious Ones did obeisance and said, \u2018Let Enoch yield in accordance with your word, O Lord.\u2019 And the Lord said to Michael, \u2018Go and extract Enoch from his earthly clothing [put off that old body] and anoint him with my delightful oil, and put him into clothes of my glory [so he\u2019s getting a new set of clothes, but also he\u2019s being transfigured and transformed].\u2019 And so Michael did just as the Lord had said to him. And I looked at myself, and I had become like one of his Glorious Ones.\u201d So, again, we get this idea that Enoch is transformed in this heavenly vision. He becomes, again, at that level, the second power level.<\/p>\n
Moses as the Second Power<\/p>\n
Other Jews thought that Moses, believe it or not, was the Second Power. And right away, you\u2019re going to see, well, how does that work with the angel who was with Moses. Again, you don\u2019t need to really logically analyze these things, because some of them are beyond logical analysis. These are just expressions of the faith of some Jews, or at least the thinking of some of their thologians as to how we get to the Second Power. Again, the son of man issue was a big deal, but also the angel. But, to some, Moses was the guy. Moses was the answer. In a text known as Ezekiel the Tragedian, we read in verses 68\u201379: \u201cOn Sinai\u2019s peak, I [Moses is the speaker] saw what seemed a throne.\u201d So, like the OT, Moses is there at Sinai, and he is seeing, again, the splendor of God, the throne of God, \u201cso great in size, it touched the clouds of heaven, and upon it sat a man of noble mien.\u201d
\nNow, if you know your OT well, you know that in Exodus 24, there is a vision of God enthroned on Sinai, so it\u2019s picking up on that a little bit. \u201cThis man was becrowned and with a scepter in one hand, while with the other, he did beckon me.\u201d It\u2019s like, \u201cCome here, Moses. Come here.\u201d \u201cI made approach and stood before the throne. He handed over the scepter, and he bade me mount the throne, and gave me the crown. And then he himself withdrew from off the throne.\u201d
\nAnd this text, this is a Jewish text, has God vacating the throne, handing the accoutrements of kingship to Moses and saying, \u201cHave a seat. Try it out.\u201d Again, to the writer of this text, Moses was the Second Power. This is all speculation, naturally, but I want to show you these texts to show you that Jews were not unaware of some of these passages, like the son of man passage, like the portrayals of God in human form, the events at Sinai. They\u2019re thinking about how to sort of deal with what they\u2019re seeing in their own Bible in the context of this two but yet one; one but yet two, and then God-embodied as well. They\u2019re doing something with it, and, to a certain group, the answer was an exalted, glorified human from the OT. But there was another category that we\u2019ll see in a moment.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Pseudepigrapha NBDTE
\nCommentary on 2 Enoch 30 CPOT
\nThe Influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament POT
\nCommentary on 1 Enoch 71 CPOT<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Jacob in the Prayer of Joseph BAJ:JIHD
\nThe Gifts of God in Ezekiel the Tragedian MAJC:TBHS<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 28
\nJewish Interpretations of the Second Power: Important Angels<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Name two important angels that ancient Jewish sources considered as an option for identifying the \u201cSecond Power\u201d found in the OT.
\n\u2022 List five ancient Jewish sources that demonstrate a Jewish belief in two powers or a Second Yahweh figure.
\n\u2022 Describe five specific examples of how Jews in the Intertestamental period (\u201cSecond Temple period\u201d) tried to identify the Second Power in heaven as a specific exalted angel.<\/p>\n
The Second Power as an Important Angel<\/p>\n
The second category of entities or beings that Jews in between the Old and New Testament, the Second Temple period, were considering as far as being an answer to who the Second Power was, were exalted angels, important angels, and some of them come from the OT and some of them really don\u2019t; some of them are different figures.<\/p>\n
Michael as the Second Power<\/p>\n
Now, probably the most obvious one of these is Michael. Michael was considered, again by some Jewish writers even in the OT or very close to that context, to be the second figure. I say even in the OT maybe because of how Michael might be understood in relation to beings like the Prince of the Host and so on and so forth. We don\u2019t want to really get into those things too deeply, but for our sake right here, Michael was a candidate for the Second Power, Yahweh\u2019s sort of co-ruler or co-regent in Heaven and on Earth. And the reason he was sort of a logical figure was because in his position, sort of a special angel in relationship to God, since God\u2019s inheritance, His allotment\u2014remember back to the Deut 32:8\u20139 worldview where the nations of the world were under the authority of lesser elohim. In view of that setup is real lack, sort of this angelic guardian, this divine guardian figure. And so, it was Yahweh\u2019s property, and Michael sort of becomes this figure that becomes special in Jewish mind, and in the book of Daniel, Michael shows up in chapter 10.
\nMany Jews in between the testaments thought this must be the Second Power because of what goes on in Dan 10:1\u20133, 21 and Michael\u2014his name means \u201cwho is like God,\u201d either a question or maybe some sort of statement. Again, it was a little fuzzy in the mind of some, but Michael became a primary candidate for the Second Power in heaven.
\nIn the Testament of Dan\u2014this is a Second Temple text obviously, not a biblical text\u2014in the Testament of Dan 6:1\u20132, we read this: \u201cAnd now fear the Lord, my children. Be on guard against Satan and his spirits. Draw near to God and to the angel who intercedes for you because he is the mediator between God and men, between God and the rest of the nations of the world, for the peace of Israel. He shall stand in opposition to the kingdom of the enemy.\u201d Now, this plays a little bit again on Dan 10:13, 20 where you have angels that were sort of over different geographical regions. You have the Prince the Greece, the Prince of Persia, and Michael is called, in the book of Daniel, \u201cYour Prince, o\u2019 Israel.\u201d And so this gets taken up in this Second Temple text, Testament of Dan, to the point where Michael becomes the mediator between God and all those other nations\u2014God and humanity, a very exalted position. Of course, in the NT, the one mediator is Christ. And you can see again, there is some sort of relationship going on in terms of the thinking, not necessarily in terms of the theology because Jesus is the mediator between God and men, Jesus is the second person of a triune godhead.
\nWhile here in Jewish thinking, Michael would be a Second Yahweh figure, a second person of a godhead, so to speak, that takes this mediatorial role. In Joseph and Aseneth 14:1\u20138, another Second Temple period test, we learn a little bit more about Michael. Michael is called in this text, in verse 1, \u201cThe Morning Star that rose out of heaven.\u201d Again, this is something else that gets attributed by Christians later to Jesus. \u201cThe star rose as a messenger and the herald of light of the great day and the man called her a second time and said, \u2018Aseneth! Aseneth!\u2019 \u201d This is Joseph\u2019s wife. \u201cAnd she said, \u2018Behold! Here I am Lord. Who are you? Tell me.\u2019 And the man said, \u2018I am the Chief of the House of the Lord and the Commander of the whole Host of the Most High.\u2019 \u201d So again in the context, this is talking about Michael. So Michael becomes the Morning Star in this Jewish text and he is the Commander of the Heavenly Host, the Commander of the House of the Most High. Very easy to see how he would be the second person in this godhead thinking. So to some Jews, Michael was the god.<\/p>\n
Ya\u2019el (Yahoel) as the Second Power<\/p>\n
Another angel we would not have heard of other than these Second Temple texts is the angel Ya\u2019el or Yahoel. You\u2019ll see it spelled different ways and different translations in these texts. That name, think about it, Ya\u2019el. These are two names for God in the OT. I\u2019m going to take you through some text were Ya\u2019el is clearly God Himself and then another text where he\u2019s an angel other than God. So it\u2019s kind of the same thing that we saw going on with our OT. Again, Jews are thinking the same thoughts. They\u2019re writing texts to try to help them articulate this idea in their own minds.
\nIn Apocalypse of Abraham, Abraham is commanded to worship God on the place of highness by reciting a song, listing God\u2019s names. So in this text, Abraham breaks into song and spouts up all these names of God from verses 8\u201313. I want you to look at verse 13. The verse ends with El, El, El, El, and then Ya\u2019el. So here the name Ya\u2019el is attributed to God Himself, the God who is being praised by Abraham in this text.
\nThe same deified figure appears in another text called The Life of Adam and Eve, in chapter 29, the first six verses. And in this case again, it\u2019s God Himself who is called Ya\u2019el. I\u2019ll read a little bit from that text. Eve is the speaker; she says, \u201cWhen the Lord had said these things, He ordered us cast out of Paradise. Your father, Adam, answered and said to the angels. \u2018See, you are casting me out; I beg you, let me take fragrances Paradise, so that after I have gone out, I might bring an offering to God so that God will hear me.\u2019 And they (the angels) came to God and said, Ya\u2019el, eternal king, command that fragrant incenses from Paradise be given to Adam.\u201d So again, very clear Ya\u2019el is God Himself.
\nBut if we go to Apocalypse of Abraham, here\u2019s the point, in chapter 10, verses 1\u20137 and 15\u201317, Ya\u2019el is not the God of Israel. It\u2019s a different figure. In this text, when you think about it, you\u2019re using two divine names, Ya (which is the short form of Yahweh) and El, and you\u2019re referring to somebody else other than the God of Israel by that name. Again, that\u2019s a little shocking for a Jew to write something like that. But it shows you again that this godhead two-powers thing is in their mind; it\u2019s part of their thinking; it\u2019s part of their religious orientations; it\u2019s part of their theology. So if we, down here to verse 3, \u201cWhile I was still face down on the ground (again this is Abraham), I heard the voice of the Holy One speaking, \u2018Go, Ya\u2019el of the same name through the mediation of my ineffable Name, consecrate this man and strengthen him against his trembling.\u201d So God orders Ya\u2019el to help out Abraham\u2014very clearly a second figure. \u201cThe angel he sent to me in the likeness of a man (he looks like a man) came and took me by my right hand and stood me on my feet and said to me, \u2018Stand up Abraham, friend of God, I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God. I am Ya\u2019el, and with me Michael blesses you.\u201d So distinguished also from Michael.
\nSo again you have disagreement between Jewish writers, Jewish thinkers at the time, but the major point here is to show that this isn\u2019t sort of a convenient idea, this two-powers idea that Christians can sort of make up and use to say, \u201cHey, belief in Jesus as part of a Godhead is Jewish. It\u2019s Old Testament, it\u2019s consistent.\u201d It is consistent, it is Jewish, not because it\u2019s convenient for NT theology, but because Jews saw it and were thinking. And the evidence for that is right here in Jewish texts that were composed before the NT, that have nothing to do with the NT, that are never cited in or by the NT. This is part of Jewish thinking.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Angels between the Testaments LBD
\nThe Doctrine of Angels in Judaism TDNT<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Michael DDDB
\nAngels and Christology DPHL
\nSpeculation on a Principal Angelic Mediator EDEJ<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Angel Topic Guide
\nMichael (archangel) Topic Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 29
\nFinding and Understanding Early Jewish Writings<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Create and search a collection of early Jewish writings
\n\u2022 Provide a brief synopsis of several resources that contain early Jewish writings<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
In Dr. Heiser\u2019s lecture, he referenced several Jewish religious writings that reveal important theological ideas in ancient Judaism. In this video, I want to introduce you to those writings\u2014to show you what they are like, how you find them in your library, and how you can use them.<\/p>\n
Creating a Collection of Early Jewish Writings<\/p>\n
At first it might seem that these Jewish writings are hard to track down. That\u2019s because the writings are fairly short, so they\u2019ve been collected together into larger volumes. You won\u2019t be able to find them unless you know what those larger volumes are. So I\u2019m going to show you the most important of these, so that when you\u2019re doing your own research, you\u2019ll have quick access to them.
\nAs you can see, I\u2019ve created a collection of most of the early Jewish writings in my library, and I would encourage you to do the same. To do so, open the Collections tool from the Tools menu and drag the resources you can see on my screen from your Library into the \u201cPlus these resources\u201d section, as you can see I\u2019ve done here. Make sure \u201cShow in parallel resources\u201d is ticked, too.
\nCreating a collection makes it much easier to find the resources you want in your library. With your library open (middle-click to open it in a tab), you can just change this drop-down to select your collection, and quickly get to the resources you need. Let me open each one in turn so you can see what it contains.<\/p>\n
Resources Containing Early Jewish Writings<\/p>\n
Apocrypha of the Old Testament<\/p>\n
First, the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. These writings are well-known, as they\u2019re included in some Bibles, particularly in Catholic churches. Most of them were written by Jews somewhere between 200 BC and 100 AD. Most were written in Greek, but some were probably written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek.
\nIf you\u2019re interested in finding out more about each writing, then there is an introduction to each piece. For example, if I click on Sirach, you\u2019ll see that there are several pages of introduction before the writing itself begins. Because these writings are included in some Bibles, you\u2019ll have a few different versions of many of them. You can therefore access alternative translations from the parallel resource menu.<\/p>\n
The Dead Sea Scrolls in English<\/p>\n
Next, let me show you the Dead Sea Scrolls in English, which is included in Portfolio. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by a Jewish sect around the first century BC and lay undiscovered in mountainous caves until the late 1940s. The scrolls were mainly written in Hebrew and Aramaic.
\nThere are two types of writings\u2014firstly, writings about how the community was to be run, their hymns and poetry, and their commentaries on biblical texts. We call these the sectarian scrolls, because they\u2019re unique to this sect. But there were also lots of biblical texts in the caves, which are by far the earliest copies of the OT that we have. This resource contains the sectarian scrolls. These scrolls don\u2019t necessarily reflect what most Jews were thinking, but they still provide a fascinating insight into Jewish life around the time of Christ.
\nThe Dead Sea Scrolls in English contains the most important writings in an easy-to-read translation. But there\u2019s also The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, which is more comprehensive and includes both Hebrew transcriptions and a more literal, word-for-word English translation.<\/p>\n
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament<\/p>\n
Next up is the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. These writings are much less well known, but they\u2019re still important. Two of the writings that Dr. Heiser mentioned are in this resource. That\u2019s \u201cThe Testament of Dan,\u201d which is part of \u201cThe Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,\u201d and \u201cThe Books of Adam and Eve.\u201d Most of the writings are named after characters from the OT, and that\u2019s how the writings got their name\u2014they\u2019re pseudonymous, to which is added the Greek word epigraph\u0113, which means \u201cinscription.\u201d
\nIt\u2019s difficult to be sure exactly how and when the writings in the Pseudepigrapha came about. Most of them were probably written by Jews between roughly 200 BC and 200 AD, but they were often preserved by Christians, and have sometimes been influenced by later Christian thinking, so they may not always reflect first-century Jewish thinking.
\nThey were usually written in Greek or Hebrew and later translated into languages like Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, Latin and Slavonic. The English translations often try to piece together the original from these later translations. Where the Greek texts survive, they\u2019re available to you\u2014and this resource has got great introductions written by Dr. Heiser, so even if you don\u2019t read Greek, it\u2019s still very valuable.<\/p>\n
The Works of Josephus<\/p>\n
The fourth resource I want to show you is The Works of Josephus, which is available in both English translation and the original Greek. Josephus was a first-century Jewish army commander who surrendered to the Romans after persuading the rest of his unit to kill one another rather than be captured. I\u2019ve opened the resource to that part of his story, which makes fascinating reading. But we\u2019re rather glad he was captured, because he spent the rest of his life persuading the Romans that Jews were a noble people and the Jewish religion was exceedingly worthy. He even mentions Jesus once or twice. As a result, his writings give us a real insight into first-century Jewish thinking, although Josephus writes more favorably of the Roman invaders than most of his fellow compatriots might have done.<\/p>\n
The Works of Philo<\/p>\n
The final resource is The Works of Philo. If Josephus was a historian influenced by the Romans, Philo was a philosopher influenced by the Greeks. He lived in Alexandria around the time of Christ. Most of his writings are philosophical or religious, but he tends to interpret the Hebrew Bible in an allegorical fashion that is very alien to contemporary students of the Bible, and seems very different from the approach of the NT writers. That\u2019s because the Judaism of the Greek-speaking world (which we call Hellenistic Judaism) was often quite different from the Palestinian Judaism that was more familiar to both Jesus and Paul. Again, we also have the Greek original, and if you\u2019ve created a collection, as I suggested, you can switch between them from the parallel resources menu.<\/p>\n
The Targums<\/p>\n
You might also consider adding the Targums to your collection. Targums are Aramaic translations or extended paraphrases of the OT that were produced by Jews sometime before the fifth century AD. They\u2019re interesting because the additions and explanations inserted into the biblical text help us understand the concerns of the time. If you want to add the Targums into your collection, just add series:\u201cCAL Targums\u201d as a rule here, and they\u2019ll be added in. But because I don\u2019t know Aramaic, I\u2019m not going to include them.<\/p>\n
Searching the Collection of Early Jewish Writings<\/p>\n
Another reason I recommended you created a collection is so you can search these writings. Dr. Heiser was particularly interested in the angel Michael. So you could search your collection for Michael\u2019s name. If I sort by Title, you\u2019ll find that he\u2019s quite a popular character, particularly in the Pseudepigrapha, and you could read those references to get an insight into how Michael was viewed by some early Jews.
\nTo be honest, if you\u2019re new to these writings, it can be hard to find your way around them. For example, if you\u2019re looking for the quotation from chapter 29 of The Life of Adam and Eve that Dr. Heiser mentioned, you need to be aware that there are two chapter 29s in the book. That\u2019s because this writing\u2014like several in the Pseudepigrapha\u2014exists in more than one form. It\u2019s the second one here that contains the quote about Jael that Dr. Heiser referred to.
\nSo if you\u2019re struggling to find something, often searching this collection is the best way to track it down. That way, if you can\u2019t remember whether \u201cThe Testament of Dan\u201d is in the Apocrypha or the Pseudepigrapha, you can still find it through a search, and then jump to chapter 6, which Dr. Heiser referred to.<\/p>\n
Links to Early Jewish Writings<\/p>\n
But the best thing about these writings is that if you come across references to them in other resources, you don\u2019t need to worry about collections or searching. If I open up BDAG, a Greek lexicon, you can see that there are references to \u201cThe Testament of Dan,\u201d to Josephus, and to Philo, and all of them are linked so that you can read the reference just by clicking\u2014or even hovering over\u2014the link.<\/p>\n
Finding More Information on Early Jewish Writings<\/p>\n
If you\u2019re interested in even more Jewish writings, look on the Logos website for Charlesworth\u2019s Pseudepigrapha. This resource includes more writings than the one I showed you. For example, it includes \u201cJoseph and Aseneth\u201d and \u201cThe Apocalypse of Abraham,\u201d both of which Dr. Heiser mentioned. It also provides a more modern translation and longer introductory essays. You could also look on the Logos website for the Mishnah and the Talmud.
\nIf you want to find out more about these writings, but don\u2019t have time to read a long introduction, I recommend using the Topic Guide. As its name suggests, it\u2019s perfect for finding out more about just about any topic. Just create a guide, then type in what you\u2019re looking for, such as \u201cpseudepigrapha,\u201d and choose a dictionary so you can read more. As well as the Pseudepigrapha, you\u2019ll find Topic Guides on the Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, Philo, the Targums, the Mishnah, and the Talmud.
\nSo hopefully you\u2019re now a little more familiar with these early Jewish writings. By adding them to a collection, you\u2019ll be able to find them easily. By using the Topic Guide, you can read more about them, so that when you find references to them in other resources, you\u2019ll understand exactly what you\u2019re reading.<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 30
\nJewish Interpretations of the Second Power: The Logos<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Name the third category of entities or beings that intertestamental Jews used to identify the \u201cSecond Power\u201d found in the OT.
\n\u2022 Recall four works of Philo that demonstrate a Jewish belief in two powers or a Second Yahweh figure.
\n\u2022 Describe three specific ways Philo identified the second power in heaven as a divine figure known as the Logos.<\/p>\n
The Logos as the Second Power<\/p>\n
Now, aside from exalted humans (OT characters) and special angels, I want to mention a third sort of candidate for the second power thinking\u2014in Jewish thinking\u2014before the NT. And this one sort of provides a convenient transition into the NT itself. And that is the idea of the Logos.
\nWe may not realize it, Logos is of course the Greek word for \u201cword\u201d\u2014the \u201cWord of God\u201d and this is the word used in John 1 about the Word being made flesh. That was actually a term, though, that shows up in Jewish writing before the NT era. Specifically, it\u2019s associated with a man named Philo. And in Philo\u2019s writings, he as well as these other Jews that we\u2019ve been talking about in terms of their religious thinking are again trying to articulate this idea of this second being beside God who was, but who wasn\u2019t deity, was but wasn\u2019t Yahweh, that sort of thing.
\nAnd for Philo, the way he expresses that most profoundly is the Logos. Philo says of the Logos that God \u201csustained the universe to rest firm and sure upon the mighty Logos who is my viceroy [who is my co-ruler]\u201d (Dreams 1: 241; see Agriculture, 51). So Philo has the God of Israel referring to this being, this figure, the Logos, as the co-ruler with him of the universe. The Logos, Philo says elsewhere is, \u201cthat power of His [that power of God\u2019s] by which he made and ordered all things\u201d (Confusion, 137).
\nNow that gets really close to NT language, about Jesus being the agent of creation, the One through whom or by whom all things were brought into being and all things consisted, all things are maintained. I mean, for Philo, the Logos was this figure. Philo also refers to the Logos as God, theos in Greek\u2014Greek term there. You have the reference in Philo. He also calls the Logos \u201cthe second God\u201d (Questions in Genesis 2:62). In Greek, it\u2019s deuteros theos. Again, think about this\u2014this is a Jew. He is not considered a heretic in his own day. He\u2019s considered an important critical thinker and articulator of Jewish theology. He is referring to the Logos, this being that isn\u2019t God per se, isn\u2019t God in some ways, some way different, but then he is referring to him as theos\u2014as God\u2014and as a second God. And it gets very close to the Ya\u2019el thing. You know, two names of God applied to a second figure.
\nWell here we have language that you would think, especially for a Jew, would be isolated to only the God of Israel, but it\u2019s not. It\u2019s placed upon this second figure. Philo also refers to their being two gods (On Dreams 227\u2013229), a synonym for the two powers in Jewish thought of the day. Again, for Philo and for those who followed his writings and followed his views, the best sort of candidate was this figure known as the Logos, the Word of God; it was sort of an extension of God Himself, who could be called God or the second God.
\nAgain, the whole point of all this is not to take these texts and sort of put them at the level of the Old or New Testament, it\u2019s to show you that Jews\u2014Zealots, you know people who are willing to be put to death rather than worship the Roman emperor or any other deity\u2014Jews were using this kind of language, Godhead language, and felt completely fine with it. Didn\u2019t feel that it violated monotheism at all and understood that it was rooted in the OT itself. This is the context for what\u2019s going to come in the NT, both in terms of what Jesus did\u2014what he said, what he did, who he was, and also how NT writers expressed that.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Logos LBD
\nPhilo Judaeus LBD<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
An Introduction to Philo Judaeus of Alexandria WP
\nLogos DJG<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Logos Topic Guide
\nPhilo Judaeus Topic Guide<\/p>\n
Unit 6 Quiz<\/p>\n
To take the Quiz for this unit please click here.<\/p>\n
UNIT 7
\nHow Did the New Testament Writers Understand the Second Yahweh Figure?<\/p>\n
31. The Second Yahweh and \u201cThe Word\u201d
\n32. The Second Yahweh and \u201cThe Angel\u201d
\n33. The Second Yahweh and \u201cThe Name\u201d
\n34. Finding Where \u201cThe Name\u201d Refers to God
\n35. The Second Yahweh and the \u201cRider on the Clouds\u201d
\n36. Jesus as the Second Yahweh<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 31
\nThe Second Yahweh and \u201cThe Word\u201d<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Name one important NT passage that builds upon the belief of a \u201cSecond Yahweh\u201d and apply it to Jesus.
\n\u2022 Explain how the characterization of Jesus as the \u201cWord\u201d that became flesh (John 1:14) finds its origin in OT thought.
\n\u2022 Summarize how NT writers apply ot themes concerning a second Yahweh figure to Jesus<\/p>\n
The Second Yahweh and Jesus in the New Testament<\/p>\n
We now come to the NT. How did the NT writers repurpose all these? In fact, we could ask it in form of a question like this: How did the NT writers think about the Second Yahweh figure of the OT? What did they do with this stuff? What did they do with these ideas? Now, let\u2019s take a look.
\nThe NT writers, of course, were well aware of these ideas, and on occasion they used them very specifically to refer to Jesus. They sort of attached them to Jesus, and when they did that\u2014again, think about what we\u2019re dealing with here, the whole second power idea would have been well known to Jewish thinkers, anyone sort of literate who knew the material in a moderately good way\u2014when the NT writers start using these features of the OT text and applying them to Jesus, it\u2019s going to be very apparent to the audience what that means, what the claims are. They\u2019re going to see that Jesus is being identified with Yahweh, as Yahweh\u2019s equal, not based on a new idea or a wish, but based on OT ideas.<\/p>\n
The \u201cWord\u201d in John 1<\/p>\n
The first one of these is the Word, and I\u2019ve made a few comments about this already, but in John 1, again a very familiar passage, we\u2019re going to see\u2014now that we have a little bit of that OT backdrop about the Word\u2014that Yahweh appeared to people and he is referred to as the Word. What that means when we come to John 1: \u201cso in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.\u201d Again, that is completely consistent with OT thinking, certain OT passages. If you were to dovetail into commentaries where you would read things about how John got this idea from Graeco-Roman philosophy or Hellenistic philosophy, I\u2019m not going to say that John was never influenced by any of those things, but what I will say is John really knew his OT well and that\u2019s primarily where he\u2019s getting his theology. That\u2019s what the NT writers are into and what they\u2019re quoting.
\nSo we have the Word here who was God, Yahweh was God, Yahweh is the Word. He was in the beginning with God. Again, right there we have a little division. So we have the Word now, not only is He God but He\u2019s also distinct from God. Again, you get this two-but-yet-one, one-but-yet-two sort of idea going on. \u201cAll things were made through Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.\u201d In verse 14, \u201cAnd the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only son from the Father, full of grace and Truth.\u201d Verse 18, \u201cNo one has ever seen God. The only God who is at the Father\u2019s side, he has made him known.\u201d
\nNow think about that phrase. \u201cThe only God\u201d\u2014makes it sound like there\u2019s one, but that only God is \u201cat the Father\u2019s side.\u201d How can you be the only one and yet at the Father\u2019s side? Again, you get this two-but-one, one-but-two sort of language and it comes right out of the OT. Again, it shows the continuity between the testaments and the consistency and continuity in the conceptual thinking, the theological thinking between the two testaments. It\u2019s very consistent.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on John 1:1\u201318 FSB
\nThe Logos in John\u2019s Prologue FSB<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Logos (\u201cword\u201d) TDNTAOV
\nThe Prologue (John 1:1\u201318) BNTC:GSJ<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
John 1:1\u201318 Passage Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 32
\nThe Second Yahweh and \u201cThe Angel\u201d<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Identify two OT passages that describe God\u2019s means for delivering the Israelites from slavery in Egypt.
\n\u2022 Recognize how Jude 5 links Jesus to the Angel of Yahweh, a major Second Yahweh figure in the OT.
\n\u2022 Summarize how Jude utilized the OT theme of the Angel of the Lord and applied it to Jesus.<\/p>\n
Who Delivered Israel out of Egypt?<\/p>\n
Aside from the Word, we also have the whole angel idea being repurposed by NT writers. In Jude 5, I want you to take a close look at this verse. We read, \u201cNow I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus who saved a people out of the land of Egypt afterward destroyed those who did not believe.\u201d Now wait a minute. I thought God delivered the people out of Egypt. No wait, I thought the Presence did that in Deut 4. Oh wait, I thought it was the angel in Exod 23. And now here, it\u2019s Jesus. Well, which one is it?
\nAnd the point is, yeah it\u2019s all of them because all of those titles, all of those figures are Yahweh. They are this Second Yahweh figure as well; they\u2019re all interchangeable is the point. We have again in the OT this angel who was but wasn\u2019t Yahweh. He was the same in essence because Yahweh\u2019s very presence was in Him, but yet He was distinct from Yahweh; He was but He wasn\u2019t Yahweh. Here we have Jesus put right into that scene where it\u2019s Jesus who is the One who is delivering the people from Egypt. It\u2019s just astonishing. I mean, you couldn\u2019t get any clearer, any more explicit than what Jude is doing here in verse 5.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on Jude 5 FSB
\nCommentary on Jude 5 NAC:12PJ<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Justin Martyr on Christ\u2019s Role in the Exodus ANF1:AFJMICE<\/p>\n
Justin Martyr on Christ\u2019s Role in the Exodus ANF1:AFJMI<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 33
\nThe Second Yahweh and \u201cThe Name\u201d<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Identify three NT verses that place Jesus within in the context of the Godhead theology of the OT
\n\u2022 Explain how Jesus is identified with \u201cthe Name\u201d of the OT, the presence of Yahweh cast in human form as the Angel of Yahweh
\n\u2022 Summarize how NT writers apply OT themes concerning a Second Yahweh figure to Jesus<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Name\u201d in John 17<\/p>\n
Next, let\u2019s look at \u201cthe Name.\u201d Now, again, in the OT thinking, in Israelite thinking, \u201cthe Name\u201d was another way to refer to Yahweh. And I made the comment that trusting in the Name of the Lord was not about trusting in a string of consonants; it was about trusting in God Himself. Now, you take that as a backdrop\u2014the fact that the Name was in this angel who was Yahweh in human form\u2014and go to John 17.
\nThis is Jesus\u2019 high priestly prayer (as it\u2019s been termed by moderns), and look at what He says: \u201cI have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world.\u201d Now, it\u2019s easy to think that this somehow means Jesus was telling the people or teaching the people who God was, or God\u2019s name, but now think about that: Was there a Jew alive in the first century or any century up to that point that didn\u2019t already know what God\u2019s name was? In the burning bush incident, God reveals His name. Every Jew, every Israelite, knew what the name of God was. Jesus didn\u2019t come here saying, \u201cHey folks, I just wanted to show up here and tell you what God\u2019s name was, are you ready?\u201d No, they already know that.
\nSo when He prays, \u201cI have manifested your name to people whom you gave me out of the world,\u201d He is basically saying, \u201cI\u2019ve shown them you. I am to them what God is like. This is what God is like, this is who He is: it\u2019s me. I am what God is like. I am showing them the Father.\u201d If you keep going, verse 12, \u201cWhile I was with them, I kept them in [or by] your name, which you have given me.\u201d
\nJesus didn\u2019t keep them safe or keep them on the right path or instruct them by giving them four consonants. He is showing them through His life what God is like and giving them instruction on who God is. They get to live with Him. He is God embodied. He is God in human form. He is God to them because He is; He is the name embodied, just like the angel was. He is God in visible human form.
\n\u201cI made known to them your name.\u201d Again, this isn\u2019t information; Jesus isn\u2019t sort of stopping the presses and saying, \u201cI know what God\u2019s name is.\u201d Look, everyone knows what God\u2019s name is; the point is, \u201cI\u2019m manifesting you to them. I am you to them in a body. You have come to them as me.\u201d These are all statements that, if you understand the Name is God\u2014the very essence of God\u2014you put that into John 17 in the high priestly prayer and it\u2019s pretty dramatic what Jesus is saying here and the way the NT writer is connecting Him, the person of Jesus of Nazareth, with the Name of the OT, God Himself.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on John 17:1\u201326 FSB
\nOnoma (Name) TDNTAOV<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
The Prayer of Jesus (John 17:1\u201326) BNTC:GSJ
\nName DLNTID<\/p>\n
Finding where \u201cThe Name\u201d Refers to God<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Filter out unwanted search results when searching for an English phrase
\n\u2022 Search a collection of English Bibles<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Dr. Heiser drew together some interesting connections about the term \u201cthe Name\u201d and this concept of the \u201csecond Yahweh\u201d in John 17. He made the point that the name of God is the very essence of God. In this video, I want to show you how Dr. Heiser made these connections by using the Search tool to find the phrase \u201cthe Name\u201d in an English translation.<\/p>\n
Searching for an English Phrase<\/p>\n
Now you might say, \u201cSearching for a phrase is easy! All you need to do is click on the magnifying glass, make sure your parameters are correct (ESV, All Passages, All Bible Text), and just put the phrase in quotation marks.\u201d Well, yes\u2014the mechanics of the search are easy, but look at the results. There are a lot of places where the phrase \u201cthe name\u201d appears, but not in the sense that Dr. Heiser was referring to. \u201cThe name of the river,\u201d \u201cthe name of his son,\u201d and so on\u2014there are lots of unwanted results here. So I also want to show you how to refine your search results by using search parameters and by thinking carefully about the different resources in your library.<\/p>\n
Filtering Out Unwanted Results<\/p>\n
So how should we exclude all those unwanted results? No one method is going to be perfect here, so I\u2019ll show you two different methods, and we\u2019ll use both methods to ensure we\u2019re doing a comprehensive study.
\nThe first thing we can do is to exclude the word \u201cof\u201d from our results, because we\u2019re only interested in occasions when the phrase \u201cthe name\u201d stands alone. By removing results for the phrase \u201cthe name of,\u201d we should be able to get rid of all those irrelevant results that you can see at the moment. To do that, I\u2019m going to add ANDNOT \u201cthe name of\u201d to our search criteria. Note that ANDNOT needs to be typed in capital letters. You can see immediately that almost all of our false positives have now gone, and at least half these search results are just what we\u2019re looking for.
\nHaving done that, we can now try a different tactic. You can see here in Lev 24:11 that the word \u201cName\u201d has a capital letter. Many Bible translations use capital letters when referring to God, so if we search for \u201cthe name\u201d with a capital \u201cN,\u201d we might find more relevant results. To do that, we select \u201cMatch case\u201d from the Search menu. You\u2019ll want to search for \u201cthe Name\u201d with a lowercase \u201ct\u201d and \u201cThe Name\u201d with an uppercase \u201cT.\u201d
\nWhen you perform that search, you can see that we only get two results, but one of those we didn\u2019t find earlier on. That\u2019s because this verse also includes the phrase \u201cthe name of,\u201d so it was excluded by our earlier criteria. But perhaps, like me, you\u2019re surprised by the fact that there are only two results for \u201cthe Name\u201d with a capital \u201cN.\u201d In this particular translation the editors made an interpretive and editorial decision to capitalize the first letter in \u201cname\u201d only in these two places, but different English Bibles may use different styles. If other versions of the Bible capitalize the word more frequently, that may help us track down the other uses that are more similar to the way that Dr. Heiser is using the phrase.<\/p>\n
Searching Multiple English Bibles<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s change our search so that it searches all English Bibles. I\u2019ve previously created a collection that gathers together all those Bibles, so I can just choose that collection here in the search.
\nWhen you work with multiple translations in a search, it\u2019s best to use the Grid view. These are the translations in our collection, and the filled squares indicate which translation has a hit. We searched the ESV before, and it only had two hits: Lev 24:11 and 24:16. But notice all the filled squares here for the NIV. It has more hits than any other translation. So, unlike most other translations, the editors of the NIV made the decision to capitalize the first letter in \u201cName\u201d in a number of places to show that it referred to God.
\nThat\u2019s very helpful to us, because that\u2019s the sense of the phrase that Dr. Heiser was referring to. So let\u2019s switch to the NIV translation here and then broaden the search query once more by thinking of other words that might be used in place of \u201cthe.\u201d I\u2019m thinking here of pronouns like \u201chis\u201d and \u201cyour\u201d and \u201cmy.\u201d We\u2019ll add these phrases to the query, separated by a comma: \u201chis Name,\u201d \u201cyour Name,\u201d and \u201cmy Name.\u201d Just to be on the safe side, let\u2019s add them with capital letters for the pronouns too, in case they\u2019re at the beginning of a sentence.
\nNow let\u2019s run the search, and since we\u2019re only looking at one translation, we\u2019ll switch back to Verses view. Here at the top of the results is Exod 23:21, where Yahweh instructs the Israelites to obey His angel because His Name is in him. Then, in Deuteronomy, God mentions this \u201cdwelling for his Name\u201d as the primary location for worship. And look at Deut 14:23, which talks about the sacrifice that is offered in the \u201cpresence of the LORD \u2026 at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name.\u201d Later, in 1 Kings 8, you can see that \u201cthe Name\u201d is strongly associated with the temple, the place where God was to make His home.<\/p>\n
The Relevance of the Results<\/p>\n
You can see how Dr. Heiser has drawn together these threads. \u201cThe Name\u201d is strongly associated with the very presence of God. It\u2019s almost as if He and \u201cthe Name\u201d are interchangeable. And really, \u201cthe Name\u201d is the very essence of God.
\nThese search results show us just how much the phrase \u201cthe Name\u201d is used in the OT. So when Jesus mentions \u201cthe Name\u201d in His prayers to His Father, He is drawing from this OT background to affirm that He has revealed God as God\u2019s presence on earth. We can see from our first search that several later NT writers also use the phrase in a similar way\u2014again, apparently referring to Jesus.
\nWhen you\u2019re exploring, you don\u2019t arrive at your destination straightaway, and studying the Bible with Logos is definitely an exploration. So when you\u2019re searching, it\u2019s important that you use techniques like the ones we have here (refining your search queries with additional phrases and with parameters like \u201cMatch case\u201d). It\u2019s also important that you think carefully about which resources you should use to help you on your journey\u2014because with Logos, a little patience and a little thought go a very long way in your explorations.<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 35
\nThe Second Yahweh and the \u201cRider on the Clouds\u201d<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Name one important NT chapter that connects Jesus to the Godhead theology of the OT
\n\u2022 Explain how Jesus is identified with the Rider on the Clouds, a deity-title in both OT and Canaanite literature
\n\u2022 Summarize how NT writers apply OT themes concerning a Second Yahweh figure to Jesus<\/p>\n
The Rider on the Clouds in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
Lastly, I want to consider this rider on the clouds motif in the OT. Now, you\u2019ll recall that the \u201cone who rode the clouds\u201d\u2014this was a stock phrase for deity in the OT. Every time it was used in the OT by the biblical writers, it refers to the God of Israel. It was a means of describing Yahweh except for one time, and that one time was in Dan 7:13 where we read, \u201cI saw in the night visions, and, behold, upon the clouds of heaven, there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days, and was presented before him.\u201d Now, we knew who the Ancient of Days was\u2014that is the God of Israel, but yet this one time, the one who comes with the clouds is a second figure. I made a comment that this was a critical passage for the whole two-powers thinking because it was so obvious to anyone who knew their OT what was going on here.<\/p>\n
The Rider on the Clouds in the New Testament<\/p>\n
Well, the NT writers knew their OT; and in Matt 26, one of the most dramatic scenes in the NT, this passage comes into play\u2014this is when Jesus is on trial before Caiaphas. So in verse 57 we read, \u201cThose who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered.\u2026 And the high priest stood up (in verse 62) and said, \u2018Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?\u2019 \u201d They just rolled out two false witnesses and they\u2019re accusing Jesus of things and the high priest says, \u201cCome on, say something.\u201d But Jesus remained silent and the high priest said to Him, \u201cI adjure you by the Living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.\u201d
\nNow, at this point, Jesus gives an answer and we typically read this and think that Jesus must be trying to be clever or He\u2019s trying to be cryptic, because it looks like just a throw-away answer\u2014like it\u2019s sort of doesn\u2019t really answer the question\u2014but that\u2019s precisely the opposite of what\u2019s going on here. In verse 64, Jesus said to him, \u201cYou have said so, but I tell you, from now on, you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven.\u201d Jesus answered to Caiaphas\u2019 question, \u201cCome on, tell us if you\u2019re the Son of God or not.\u201d Instead of being cryptic or clever or deflecting it, Jesus looks him right in the eye and He quotes Dan 7:13, \u201cI\u2019m the second power. I am the bearer of this deity title, a title that belongs only to Yahweh. Is that clear enough for you, Caiaphas?\u201d And Caiaphas gets it instantly\u2014look at the next verse, \u201cThen the high priest tore his robes and said, \u2018He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.\u2019 \u201d
\nCaiaphas knows his OT very well, and he knows the two-powers idea very well. He knows what\u2019s going on in Dan 7 that we have the Ancient of Days, the God of Israel and then a Second Yahweh figure, the Son of Man coming upon the clouds, a title used only of Yahweh everywhere else, and Jesus of Nazareth is standing in front of him saying, \u201cI\u2019m that guy. That\u2019s your answer.\u201d As soon as he hears it, he tears his clothes and says, \u201cThis man is a blasphemer. He has claimed to be God.\u201d And that\u2019s pretty much the end of the trial. Jesus has just essentially signed His own death certificate by this claim, this quotation of Dan 7.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Note on Matthew 8:20 FSB
\nNotes on Matthew 26:57\u201366 FSB
\nSon of Man LBD<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 Trial before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:57\u201368) NAC:M
\nSon of Man DDDB<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Son of Man Topic Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 36
\nJesus as the Second Yahweh<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Summarize how the NT writers understood the two Yahwehs idea of the OT
\n\u2022 Explain how Jesus is identified with Second Yahweh figure<\/p>\n
Summary of the Second Yahweh in the New Testament<\/p>\n
So to summarize our answer for what the NT writers did with all this material\u2014again, there are two powers in heaven, this two Yahwehs idea from the OT. We\u2019ve seen that the NT writers repurposed that material, that theology, for the idea of Yahweh being embodied or Yahweh being visible in human form. They identified Jesus with the Second Yahweh figure of the OT and when they did that, they were expressing their own theology that Jesus was indeed Yahweh, the God of Israel incarnate, in human form. Jesus was therefore not just an angel, and He was not a different elohim other than Yahweh. So, worshiping Him did not violate the Shema. These are very important points.
\nBy identifying Jesus with the Second Yahweh figure of the OT, the statement was very clear\u2014Jesus wasn\u2019t just divine; He wasn\u2019t an angel, He wasn\u2019t, you know, a sort of a divine being of lesser quality, lesser essence than the God of Israel. He was, in fact, that other Yahweh, that Second Yahweh figure of the OT. He was Yahweh in human form, come to earth, come to man. He was Yahweh. He was the God of Israel, and that became their message and part of articulating that was drawing from all these material that we\u2019ve seen to this point.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
The Divine Council and New Testament Views of Christ LBD
\nTitles of Jesus Christ LBD<\/p>\n
UNIT 8
\nHow Does the Language of Divine Plurality Relate to Jesus as God\u2019s \u201cOnly Begotten\u201d Son?<\/p>\n
37. Jesus as God\u2019s \u201cOnly Begotten\u201d Son
\n38. Understanding the Greek Term Monogen\u0113s
\n39. Using the Bible Word Study to Explore the Meaning of Monogen\u0113s<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 37
\nJesus as God\u2019s \u201cOnly Begotten\u201d Son<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Describe OT references to the \u201csons of God\u201d<\/p>\n
Distinguishing between \u201cSons of God\u201d and Jesus<\/p>\n
Whenever I teach on these topics, one of the questions that I expect is a very understandable one, very common, and that is something like, \u201cYou know, I\u2019m not just used to hearing the doctrine of God explained this way, especially as it relates to Jesus. I\u2019m used to thinking of Jesus as the only begotten Son. So what about that phrase in the NT? How does \u2018only begotten\u2019\u2014that\u2019s so common in many translations\u2014how does that relate to what we\u2019re talking about here?\u201d This is actually a really important question.
\nThe OT certainly has other sons of God, and non-human sons of God at that. For instance, in Job 1:6 or Job 2:2 we have a reference to the sons of God assembled before Yahweh as the story about Job begins to unfold. There are other references to sons of God as well that are divine beings in the OT. So what do we do with that and this language about Jesus being the only begotten Son of God? Those are issues, too, against the whole backdrop of divine plurality\u2014again, plural elohim. What do we do with this specific language that we\u2019re so familiar with in the NT?
\nWell, the NT writers really take pains to make the specific point that Jesus is different. Jesus is identified with Yahweh, and in many cases, as we\u2019ve already seen, that specific, sort of, Second Yahweh figure right out of OT theology. So we need to spend a few minutes talking about this phrase\u2014monogen\u0113s in Greek, \u201conly begotten\u201d\u2014to sort of sort out the relationship between that and this other material.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Genesis 6 and the Sons of God FSB
\nCommentary on Job 1:6 NAC:J<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Sons of (the) God(s) DDDB<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Sons of God Topic Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 38
\nUnderstanding the Greek Term Monogen\u0113s<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Name two weaknesses of using \u201conly begotten\u201d as an English translation for the Greek word monogen\u0113s
\n\u2022 Paraphrase how the term monogen\u0113s distinguishes Jesus from all other elohim or \u201csons of God\u201d known from the OT
\n\u2022 Demonstrate how the word monogen\u0113s is consistent with the identification of Jesus with the second Yahweh figure of the OT<\/p>\n
The Meaning of Monogen\u0113s<\/p>\n
The Greek term monogen\u0113s actually reinforces the point that we\u2019ve been angling here for\u2014that there\u2019s a unique divine being other than Yahweh, the sort of Second Yahweh figure that is Yahweh as well, but also isn\u2019t, that there\u2019s something unique about that individual, that figure. Monogen\u0113s used to be considered as coming from two Greek terms\u2014monos, which means \u201conly,\u201d and the verb genna\u014d, which means \u201cto beget.\u201d So monogen\u0113s, \u201conly begotten,\u201d hence the translation.
\nThat was the view up until the late 19th, early 20th centuries. But later discoveries really have convinced scholars that monogen\u0113s that comes from monos, again which means \u201conly,\u201d and the noun gen\u0113, which is \u201ckind\u201d or \u201ctype,\u201d and so the term actually means \u201cunique\u201d \u201cone of a kind\u201d literally. And this meaning actually comes forth in the NT in several places.
\nI think the best example is probably Heb 11:17, where Isaac is called the monogen\u0113s of Abraham. But now if you think about it, Isaac was not the firstborn son of Abraham\u2014that was Ishmael. So why would Isaac, whose actually number two, be called monogen\u0113s? Well, the reason is that he\u2019s unique. He was the son of the promise, through which the promises of God and the covenant would be transmitted and come.
\nSo the whole idea of uniqueness is really bound up in the term; and in fact, you can see that in other examples in the NT. I\u2019ll show you those in a moment, but just to summarize so that we reinforce the point here that it\u2019s consistent with what we\u2019ve been doing in the OT is that the \u201conly begotten\u201d language speaks to uniqueness, not point of origin\u2014uniqueness. Again, we want to keep stressing the fact that OT theology and NT theology are very consistent in this regard with their idea of a Godhead, but yet the persons in that Godhead really being Yahweh, all of them sharing Yahweh\u2019s identity and essence. So since Yahweh was unique and Jesus was identified with Him, the term really reinforces the whole idea.<\/p>\n
Monogen\u0113s in the New Testament<\/p>\n
If you actually looked up the occurrences of monogen\u0113s in the NT, you would find that its meaning really does speak to uniqueness and not some point of origin or chronology or something like that. There\u2019s a real stress on uniqueness. If we go through a few of these examples, even Luke 8:42, that Jairus had only one daughter. Well, you could say, \u201cWell, that\u2019s chronology.\u201d Well, if you really think about even that one, we don\u2019t know that he didn\u2019t have other children, but the fact that he only had one girl made her unique in his family unit.
\nWe don\u2019t need to go through all of these examples, but I would challenge you to look through them and look for yourself, discover for yourself that monogen\u0113s is really about uniqueness. And so we shouldn\u2019t allow that to, sort of, either distract from this discussion or allow other religious groups that want to say something else about Jesus to use that term against the idea that He is to be identified with Yahweh, the uncreated God of Israel.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Jesus as the Unique Son of God (monogen\u0113s) LBD
\nNotes on John 3:16 FSB
\nNote on Hebrews 11:17 FSB
\nMonogen\u0113s TDNT<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Only Begotten ISBER<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Monogen\u0113s (\u201conly begotten; unique\u201d) Bible Word Study<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 39
\nUsing the Bible Word Study to Explore the Meaning of Monogen\u0113s<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Use the different sections of the Bible Word Study tool to explore the meaning of a Greek word
\n\u2022 Describe key differences between several important Greek lexicons<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
In the previous lecture, Dr. Heiser described the meaning of monogen\u0113s as \u201cone of a kind\u201d rather than \u201conly begotten.\u201d In this video, I want to show you how to use the Bible Word Study tool to gather information about a word so you can assess the evidence for yourself.<\/p>\n
Opening the Bible Word Study Tool<\/p>\n
You can create a Bible Word Study from the Guides menu, and you can study any word that\u2019s in the Bible\u2014either English words, Greek words, or Hebrew words. In this case, we\u2019re looking at a Greek word, so to let Logos know that, just type the letter \u201cg:\u201d and then the transliteration of your word: \u201cmonogen\u0113s.\u201d You can see that as I type, Logos narrows down its suggestions, and then I can choose the one I want.
\nThe Bible Word Study has several sections, but we\u2019re going to be concentrating on those sections that help us to understand what a word means. In particular, does monogen\u0113s mean \u201conly begotten,\u201d or does it mean \u201cone of a kind\u201d?<\/p>\n
The Lemma Section<\/p>\n
The first place you should look is in the Lemma section. Here we have the English gloss, in bold type. The gloss is a very simple dictionary definition, and you can see that both possible meanings are given.
\nUnderneath are links to all the lexicons in your library that discuss the word. You can see that some of them give a definition like \u201cunique,\u201d and others say \u201conly begotten.\u201d Clearly there\u2019s either some disagreement, or perhaps the word can mean slightly different things in different contexts.<\/p>\n
The BDAG Lexicon<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s open the first lexicon here, which is BDAG. BDAG are the initials of the four editors, Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich. BDAG is often considered the most accurate and authoritative lexicon for NT studies, so it carries quite a lot of weight. The flip side of that is that it also contains a lot of detail, and sometimes there\u2019s just too much to take in.
\nYou can see here that it gives two definitions for monogen\u0113s\u2014but neither of them mean \u201conly begotten,\u201d and you can see that they suggest that a translation of \u201conly\u201d or \u201cunique\u201d would always be appropriate. And if you look right at the top of the definition, you can see these two words, monos and genos, which the editors of BDAG are suggesting are the two words behind monogen\u0113s. That\u2019s important, because that supports Dr. Heiser\u2019s argument that monogen\u0113s does not come from the word genna\u014d, which means \u201cto be born,\u201d but comes from genos, which means \u201ctype\u201d or \u201ckind.\u201d
\nBut further down the article there is a discussion about being \u201cbegotten.\u201d That\u2019s all part of a very long sentence, which you probably need a bit of time to digest, but the editors are referring to another reference work\u2014which is only available in German, unfortunately\u2014which suggests the meaning \u201cbegotten\u201d in relation to Jesus. The editors of BDAG don\u2019t affirm or deny this suggestion, but you can see from the end of the sentence that they suggest that if there is that meaning, it would be similar to the use of the word \u201cfirstborn\u201d in Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:15.<\/p>\n
The LSJ Lexicon<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s now take a look at the second lexicon, which is labelled LSJ. That stands for Liddell, Scott, and Jones. This lexicon is different from BDAG because it doesn\u2019t just cover the NT but a wide range of Greek literature over a long period of history. LSJ is useful to find out how words were used in wider Greek society, but you have to be a little bit careful with it, because some words have a specialist theological meaning in the NT, which the LSJ won\u2019t necessarily mention.
\nBut as we look at this word, you can see that in secular Greek, it doesn\u2019t appear to have the meaning of \u201conly begotten\u201d at all. Again, you can see that the editors suggest it comes from the word genos, which means \u201ctype\u201d or \u201ckind,\u201d just as Dr. Heiser suggested.<\/p>\n
The TDNT Lexicon<\/p>\n
That\u2019s not to say all these dictionaries support Dr. Heiser\u2019s argument. The TDNT, for example, strongly emphasizes that monogen\u0113s means \u201conly begotten,\u201d even though they accept that it comes from genos and not genna\u014d. But it\u2019s worth noting that TDNT is not a lexicon as such, but a theological dictionary, and therefore the authors\u2019 theological beliefs are much more likely to influence their articles than those in other lexicons.
\nSometimes that can bring out an understanding you won\u2019t find elsewhere, but at other times it can lead to a lack of impartiality. You\u2019ll have to decide for yourself which is the case here. The TDNT is also a bit older than the other dictionaries we\u2019ve looked at, so if views have changed, as Dr. Heiser suggests, then we shouldn\u2019t be surprised if TDNT takes an older view.
\nSo we\u2019ve now looked at three major lexicons or dictionaries to help us understand whether monogen\u0113s means \u201conly begotten\u201d or \u201cone of a kind.\u201d There certainly seems to be more evidence for \u201cone of a kind,\u201d but there\u2019s still some exploring that needs to be done.<\/p>\n
The Translation Section<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s now go to the second section of the Bible Word Study, which is the Translation section. This section tells us how the word is translated in our default Bible. Because the ESV always translates the word as \u201conly,\u201d the translation wheel looks rather boring, so let me switch to the KJV so you can see how this older translation differs from the ESV.
\nYou can see now that on six occasions the KJV translates monogen\u0113s as \u201conly begotten,\u201d but on three occasions it\u2019s translated as \u201conly.\u201d You can click on each section of the wheel to find out which verses were translated in which way. These translations are a contrast to the ESV, where it\u2019s always translated as \u201conly\u201d and never as \u201conly begotten.\u201d
\nIf I switch to another modern translation, like the NIV, then it\u2019s often translated as \u201cone and only,\u201d but again, never as \u201conly begotten.\u201d So this information also supports Dr. Heiser\u2019s argument that our understanding of the word has changed, so that modern translations understand it as \u201cone and only,\u201d while older translations often understand it as \u201conly begotten.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Root Section<\/p>\n
But there [are] a couple more sections we need to look at. The root section tells us what words are behind monogen\u0113s, and often that\u2019s very useful. Unfortunately for us, however, it doesn\u2019t help us today, because it rightly says that the root word behind monogen\u0113s is the word ginomai, which means \u201cto be.\u201d As you can see, there are lots of other words that have ginomai as their root, including genos and genna\u014d. So although this section helps us to trace the root back to ginomai, we don\u2019t know whether that should be traced through genos or through genna\u014d.<\/p>\n
The Phrases Section<\/p>\n
But two final sections right down here at the bottom should help. The Phrases section gives us a link to a Topic Guide on \u201cOnly Begotten.\u201d That\u2019s really helpful because it points us to various Bible dictionaries, and you can see from the snippet of the first dictionary entry that the editors state quite clearly that it does not carry the idea of birth at all. If you click on the entry, you can see many of the arguments that Dr. Heiser has used. That\u2019s a good reminder that when you\u2019re discussing the theological implications of a biblical word, then Bible dictionaries are often a great place to look.<\/p>\n
The Textual Searches Section<\/p>\n
So the evidence for Dr. Heiser is mounting, but there\u2019s one final section I want to take you to, and that\u2019s the Textual Searches section here at the bottom. This links to other Greek texts in your library, so you can see how the word is used in each text. Each of these texts dates from a couple of hundred years either side of the time of the NT, so they\u2019re very useful in helping us understand how words were used at the time. Even better, these texts are also available in English, so even if you don\u2019t know Greek, you should be able to follow along.
\nYou can look at these in more detail yourself, but I\u2019m going to look at The Works of Josephus. Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian, and you can see that he uses monogen\u0113s on four occasions. Let\u2019s click the link to perform the search, and then open the last of these results.
\nAs you can see, it opens to a Greek manuscript, but if I click this plus icon, Logos then shows me similar resources, and I can choose the English translation. Let me drag that down here and link the two by setting them both to Link set \u201cA.\u201d
\nYou can see that the translator has translated monogen\u0113s as \u201conly begotten,\u201d but as the translation is more than 250 years old, that shouldn\u2019t surprise us. Yet, if you read the text carefully, you\u2019ll see that Izates wasn\u2019t the only begotten son. Izates had a brother, Monobazus, and a number of [half-brothers], too. Clearly Josephus is using the word monogen\u0113s to mean that Izates was very special to his father, and not that he was the only one born to his father\u2014and again, that\u2019s just what Dr. Heiser was suggesting.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
So you can see how the Bible Word Study brings together resources from right across your library to help you understand the meaning of words and how they\u2019re used. From this one study, you\u2019ve been able to read lexicons, theological dictionaries, and Bible dictionaries. You\u2019ve been able to look at the word in various English translations, and you\u2019ve even looked at how other first-century writers used the word. The Bible Word Study is the perfect tool to help you verify what scholars claim and to give you a deeper understanding of biblical words.<\/p>\n
Unit 7\u20138 Quiz<\/p>\n
To take the Quiz for this unit please click here.<\/p>\n
UNIT 9
\nHow Did New Testament Writers Express Belief that Jesus Was Unique among the Sons of God?<\/p>\n
40. Review of Divine Plurality in Psalm 82
\n41. Jesus\u2019 Quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34
\n42. Interpreting Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34 (Part One)
\n43. Interpreting Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34 (Part Two)
\n44. Creating Collections of Commentaries to Study Psalm 82
\n45. Understanding Jesus\u2019 Use of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 40
\nReview of Divine Plurality in Psalm 82<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Describe how Psalm 82 shows a divine plurality<\/p>\n
The Elohim in Psalm 82<\/p>\n
I want to go back and look at Psa 82 once again. We\u2019ve spent a lot of time there, so I\u2019ll go through this quickly. You\u2019ll recall that in the first verse of Psa 82 we had the Hebrew word elohim occur two times. The first one was translated with a capital G\u2014G-O-D: \u201cGod has taken his place in the divine council. In the midst of the gods\u201d\u2014there\u2019s our second elohim\u2014\u201che holds judgment.\u201d So, we had one verse with elohim occurring two times, one was singular and the other was plural, and we talked about the divine plurality that comes through in this verse. If you go down a few verses in Psa 82, we ran into verse 6, where the speaker, Yahweh, says, \u201cI said you are gods.\u201d There we have another elohim. And those elohim are called \u201csons of the Most High.\u201d So Psalm 82 has divine plurality, and those plural elohim are referred to as sons of God, sons of the Most High.
\nOver in Psalm 89 we made that point that it\u2019s inadequate and frankly inaccurate to assume that the elohim of Psa 82\u2014these sons of God, sons of the Most High\u2014were human beings. Because the identical language in some cases\u2014some cases it\u2019s similar, some cases it\u2019s identical\u2014in Psa 89 show us very clearly in verse 6 that the heavenly beings who are part of this assembly or council of the holy ones are in the skies, they\u2019re in the heavens\u2014again, the spiritual realm. We don\u2019t have human beings ruling from the skies. Not only that does not make sense, but it\u2019s just not part of OT theology.
\nSo, by way of summary, in our little review of Psa 82, Psa 82 describes Yahweh presiding over a council of lesser elohim\u2014again the heavenly host, the spirit members of the heavenly host. elohim\u2014again, just to refresh our memory\u2014was not a term that should be associated with a specific set of attributes, but more or less a place of residence. If you were an elohim, you were a resident of the spiritual world. These elohim are called sons of God, and so it\u2019s clear that there are many divine sons of God. Human beings are not the sons of God in Psa 82 because it\u2019s a heavenly council. Now, all of that is back-dropped to John 10, where John has Jesus quoting Psa 82\u2014specifically Psa 82:6. So let\u2019s take a look at that now.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on Psalm 82 FSB
\nNotes on Psalm 89:1\u201318 FSB<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 41
\nJesus\u2019 Quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives:<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Recognize that John placed Jesus\u2019 use of Psa 82:6 in relation to two clear statements of Jesus\u2019 deity
\n\u2022 Identify how Jesus\u2019 quotation of Psa 82:6 in John 10:34 reinforced His other claims that He was more than a mortal person
\n\u2022 Show how a plural understanding of the word elohim in Psa 82 reinforces the idea that Jesus is not a mere mortal<\/p>\n
John 10:34 in Context<\/p>\n
In John chapter 10, we need to start with verse 22 to sort of pick up the context before we get to the actual quotation. Verse 22 we read, \u201cAt that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the Colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, \u2018How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.\u2019 Jesus answered them, \u2018I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father\u2019s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father\u2019s hand. I and the Father are one.\u201d Now, that\u2019s a very crucial statement\u2014\u201cI and the Father are one\u201d\u2014because, as we\u2019re going to see, the Jewish people listening to Him don\u2019t take it as some sort of abstract statement that Jesus is somehow in unity of mind with the Father or agrees with the Father. They believe that He is claiming some sort of equality with God.<\/p>\n
The Quotation of Psalm 82:6<\/p>\n
In verse 31, we read, \u201cThe Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.\u201d Verse 32: \u201cJesus answered them, \u2018I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?\u2019 The Jews answered him, \u2018It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.\u2019 \u201d So they understand John 10:30 as, again, some sort of theological statement on the part of Jesus, that He is somehow equal with the Father, and that offended them. And it\u2019s at this point that Jesus has to defend Himself, and He quotes Psa 82:6. We read in verse 34, \u201cJesus answered them, \u2018Is it not written in your law, \u201cI said, you are gods\u201d? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came\u2014and scripture cannot be broken\u2014do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent in the world, \u201cYou are blaspheming,\u201d because I said, \u201cI am the Son of God\u201d?\u2019 \u201d And right there we have the quotation in verse 34, and then Jesus elaborates a little bit in verse 35.<\/p>\n
Psalm 82:6 Supports Jesus\u2019 Own Identification with the Father<\/p>\n
Continuing in verse 37:\u201c \u2018If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.\u2019 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.\u201d So Jesus not only precedes the quotation with a statement about equation with the Father, but He follows it with another statement that, \u201cThe Father is in me and I am in the Father.\u201d Again, this sort of ontological unity, this sort of cosmic sameness or togetherness; and the Jews were quite offended by this.<\/p>\n
Key Issues to Address in the Quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34<\/p>\n
So in John 10:34 we have some key issues to address. How does Jesus\u2019 use of Psa 82 reinforce the claim to deity? I can\u2019t stress this point enough because, as we\u2019re going to see, the most common interpretation of what\u2019s going on in John 10 does nothing to reinforce or bolster a claim to deity, but I think that\u2019s an important point. Second, how do we interpret Jesus\u2019 use of Psa 82 to reinforce His claim to deity and not undermine it? So we\u2019re going to add that little element. We don\u2019t want our interpretation to undermine what\u2019s going on verse 30 and then what\u2019s going on afterwards when again Jesus claims this oneness with the Father. We also need to determine if our interpretation of the quotation is consistent with the rest of the OT. And again, believe it or not, most of the common interpretations you\u2019ll find in commentaries on this don\u2019t do these things; they fail. We need to take a look at what\u2019s really going on now.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on John 10:31\u201342 FSB
\nAn Attempted Stoning and Jesus\u2019 Response (John 10:31\u201339) NAC:J111<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Commentary on John 10:34\u201336 PNTC:GJ
\nMonotheism in the Gospel of John DJ<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
John 10:31\u201339 Passage Guide<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 42
\nInterpreting Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34 (Part One)<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Describe the first of two common interpretive approaches to interpreting the use of Psa 82:6 in John 10:34
\n\u2022 Name three ways in which interpretations of John 10:34 that deny divine plurality in Psa 82 can be criticized
\n\u2022 Demonstrate why the first of two common interpretive approaches to interpreting the use of Psa 82:6 in John 10:34 fails to recognize that elohim refers to the one God of Israel, misunderstands the meaning of the word elohim, and undermines the divinity of Jesus Christ<\/p>\n
The Two Common Interpreations of Psalm 82:6<\/p>\n
The most common view of what\u2019s going in John 10:32 with the quotation of Psa 82:6 is that the gods that the quotation alludes to are actually human beings. Now, I have mentioned this before: This is the view that if you look this up in the commentary, 99 times out of 100, this is what you are going to find. There are problems with this view, but I need to go through it so that you know and can see some of the issues. There are really two ways this is argued. So the first way, the mortal view we will call is argued, is that the elohim of Psa 82:6 are Jewish leaders, like Jewish judges. People who are functioning in some sort of leadership capacity, helping people, decide cases about the law. The other view, the other way I should say, to argue this view is to assume that the elohim are not the Jewish leadership, the Jewish judges, but just Jews in general at Mount Sinai. And that\u2019s drawn from the language about to whom the Word of God came. So I am going to try to explain both of these angles, both of these trajectories on how the mortal view is defended. This approach, when you really think about it, undermines the deity message of Jesus that John is trying to communicate.<\/p>\n
Interpretation One: The Elohim of Psalm 82 are Jewish Judges<\/p>\n
So the first one, the presumed basis for the mortal view that we have Jewish elders here\u2014Jewish judges who are called elohim\u2014really derives from Exod 22:7\u20139; and in Hebrew, this is verses 6 through 8. You will notice in the passage\u2014we might as well just read the whole thing\u2014that there are references to God: \u201cSo if a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man\u2019s house, then if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God [it\u2019s literally, \u201cnear to elohim\u201d] to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor\u2019s property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, \u2018This is it,\u2019 the case of both parties shall come before God [\u201cbefore elohim\u201d]. The one whom [elohim] condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.\u201d So the logic of this is that, look here we have a scene where there is a problem\u2014again, someone has violated the law in some way\u2014and they take the case to elohim.<\/p>\n
A Critique of Interpretation One: Elohim Refers to the One God of Israel<\/p>\n
Now, it\u2019s assumed here that elohim should be translated plural, and so we have human beings, human judges, that are elohim. Well, the problem with that\u2014and you noticed as we went through this translation\u2014is that it\u2019s a perfectly good translation to translate it. It\u2019s singular, \u201cGod,\u201d that they bring it before\u2014God. In other words, that whoever is doing the ruling, it\u2019s sort of doing it in the name of God, but they are not elohim in and of themselves. The plural presumption actually stems from a different passage, Exod 18. Now this is the passage where Jethro and Moses have a conversation, and Jethro observes that Moses basically has to spend his whole day hearing cases from the people, and he says, \u201cWell, this really isn\u2019t a good idea. Why don\u2019t you get some help?\u201d And so Moses appoints elders; he appoints judges to help him with this task. And if we go to Exod 18, we see here all of the places where elohim is found in this passage\u2014again showing up in English\u2014where we can see right off the bat that never in this passage are people appointed actually called elohim. That has to be read into the passage. It is perfectly fine again to have \u201cGod\u201d as the translation.<\/p>\n
Confusion about the Meaning of the Word Elohim<\/p>\n
I would suggest that what is driving a sort of a human plurality of elohim here is precisely Psa 82. People are troubled by Psa 82 because they think incorrectly, as we\u2019ve seen, that it\u2019s some sort of violation of monotheism to have plural elohim. But we spent a lot of time earlier discussing the fact that elohim is a term used of other entities, other beings that we would all believe exist\u2014such as angels or demons or, again, the spirit of the deceased human beings (1 Sam 28:13)\u2014and that elohim really isn\u2019t a term therefore that\u2019s linked to a specific set of attributes. So having multiple elohim has nothing to do with attributes. It doesn\u2019t mar the uniqueness of Yahweh, the God of Israel, in any way. That\u2019s why we pointed out that elohim is really about where you are from. If you are an elohim, you are a member of the spiritual world. That\u2019s really all the term means\u2014you are by nature disembodied. So if we do not have that trouble in the back of our minds, there is no reason to go to Psa 82 and think that it\u2019s human beings because when we actually look at these passages, again Exod 18, it\u2019s never clear. It\u2019s never actually stated that human beings are elohim. That has to be sort of imported into the text.<\/p>\n
Interpretation One Undermines Jesus\u2019 Claim to be More than a Mere Mortal<\/p>\n
When we take that back to John chapter 10, if that\u2019s the case, if Jesus is just talking about human beings, think about this: If Jesus is trying to defend His deity and says, \u201cLook, don\u2019t you guys know that other human beings were called elohim?\u201d how in the world does that reinforce the claim to Jesus\u2019 deity? He would, in effect, be arguing to the Pharisees, or whoever is opposing Him on this point, whoever is picking up stones to stone Him, \u201cLook don\u2019t be angry with me because I\u2019m just claiming to be a son of God like anyone of you could because you\u2019re all elohim or you have human elohim around here with your judges.\u201d It does nothing to bolster or enhance or even defend in any way the claim that Jesus was trying to make that He was one with the Father. He has just, in fact\u2014in this view\u2014made Himself equal to any other person, and that is really contrary to what John is doing in chapter 10.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Commentary on John 10:34\u201336 BNTC:GSJ<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Commentary on the Use of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34 CNTUOT<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 43
\nInterpreting Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34 (Part Two)<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Describe the second of two common interpretive approaches to interpreting the use of Psa 82:6 in John 10:34
\n\u2022 Name three ways in which interpretations of John 10:34 that deny divine plurality in Psa 82 can be criticized
\n\u2022 Demonstrate why the second of two common interpretive approaches to interpreting the use of Psa 82:6 in John 10:34 fails to understand that Psa 82 does not refer to Mount Sinai, misunderstands the meaning of the word elohim, and undermines the divinity of Jesus Christ<\/p>\n
Interpretation Two: The Plural Elohim of Psalm 82:6 Are the Jewish People as a Whole<\/p>\n
Now, aside from the idea that we have human judges that are elohim, the second way to argue this is that it\u2019s just more broadly speaking Jews\u2014specifically, that\u2019s based upon in verse 35 this idea that the quotation has some wording to the effect of to whom the Word of God came.
\nIf you actually look at the passage, and again at Psa 82, the quotation there says, \u201cHey, don\u2019t you realize that \u2026 didn\u2019t those to whom the Word of God came \u2026\u201d so forth and so on. And so that phrase is taken to mean giving of the law at Sinai. And so many scholars think that, again, what Jesus is thinking of here when He thinks of Psa 82 is a scene at Sinai that the Jewish people are receiving the law, and then they are the sons of God\u2014they are elohim.<\/p>\n
A Critique of Interpretation Two: Psalm 82 Does Not Refer to Mount Sinai<\/p>\n
Well again, aside from the fact that this just does not help his argument for deity, there are certain problems with this. The quote itself does not come from any book that has a scene about Mount Sinai. The quote very clearly comes from Psa 82, not anywhere in the Torah, like the book of Exodus or the book of Deuteronomy, which you would expect if it was about a scene at Mount Sinai. There is no mention of Mount Sinai, in fact, in Psa 82. There\u2019s really nothing in Psa 82 to connect that scene with anything that happened at Mount Sinai. The scene itself from Psa 82:1 is very clearly about a divine council meeting, and we saw from Psa 89 that that occurs in the heavens, not anywhere on earth. Also, in Sinai passages, if we actually look back to the giving of the law at Sinai, the people of God are nowhere called elohim in those scenes. So again, this is sort of something that has to be imagined or sort of contrived.<\/p>\n
Confusion about the Meaning of the Word Elohim<\/p>\n
Again, probably motivated by sort of the unnerving or disturbing thought that we cannot have multiple elohim because we are monotheists. Again, that simply ignores or perhaps is ignorant of the whole issue of elohim meaning you come from the spiritual world\u2014again, thinking that elohim means a specific set of attributes, and we can\u2019t have more than one deity with these unique attributes. Well, we don\u2019t; only Yahweh has certain attributes, but that isn\u2019t what elohim means. It means a resident of the spiritual world. So, again, if you don\u2019t have that problem, you do not have to sort of invent this view that we have somehow the scene at Sinai in Jesus\u2019 mind when He quotes Psa 82.<\/p>\n
The Law Is a General Way of Referring to the Entire Old Testament<\/p>\n
would also say lastly that elsewhere, the phrase \u201claw\u201d is used of some other locations, some other book in the OT besides something in the Torah. For instance, in the 1 Cor 14:21, Paul, citing Isaiah, calls that citation \u201cthe law.\u201d So the law can just be a more broad term to choose to any passage of the OT, and in this case it\u2019s Psa 82. And it\u2019s no mystery where the quotation comes from, and it has nothing to do with Sinai.<\/p>\n
Interpretation Two Undermines Jesus\u2019 Claim to be More than a Mere Mortal<\/p>\n
But to summarize, the problem with the mortal view is that if you think that Jesus has mere human beings in His mind when He\u2019s quoting Psa 82\u2014as though John, the writer of the Gospel, believed that the elohim of Psa 82 were just humans\u2014if that\u2019s what is in their head, if that\u2019s what\u2019s in their mind, then it, in effect, has Jesus saying, \u201cLook, I\u2019m just like you guys. Don\u2019t be mad at me for calling myself a son of God because, hey, back in Psa 82 other human beings get to call themselves elohim and sons of God too. Why are you mad at me?\u201d That in no way reinforces the point He made in verse 30: \u201cI and the Father are one.\u201d And it in no way helps make us understand the claim following the quotation that \u201cthe Father is in me and I am in the Father.\u201d Could we say that about every Jew? Could we say that about just Jewish leaders? We cannot say that about any human being. There is no human being except Yahweh incarnate, who is Jesus, who can make that claim. And so this idea that Jesus is thinking that the elohim of Psa 82 are just mortals really reduces Him to being like anybody else in the scene because He is in effect saying, \u201cI\u2019m just like you. Why are you mad at me?\u201d I think there\u2019s something else going on that really works the opposite direction, that really reinforces Jesus\u2019 claim to being Yahweh in flesh, and we will take a look at that.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Nomos (\u201cLaw\u201d) TDNTAOV<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
\u201cI Said You are Gods\u201d: Psalm 82:6 and John 10 JBLV108<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 44
\nCreating Collections of Commentaries to Study Psalm 82<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Create collections of different kinds of commentaries
\n\u2022 Use the collections in the Passage Guide<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
In a previous lesson, Dr. Heiser mentioned that the interpretation of elohim as divine beings in Psalm 82 is rare among commentators. If you were interested in this psalm, you might therefore want to consult several commentaries on the passage. In this video, I want to show you how to use Logos\u2019 Passage Guide and Collections tool to access and organize the commentaries in your library, using Psalm 82 as an example.<\/p>\n
Accessing Commentaries through the Passage Guide<\/p>\n
To create a Passage Guide, go to Guides and then choose Passage Guide and enter Psa 82:1\u20132. There\u2019s a section in this guide called \u201cCommentaries,\u201d and it provides links to those commentary resources in your library that discuss this psalm. Using the Commentaries section of the Passage Guide allows you to jump to the place where Psalm 82:1\u20132 is the main topic of discussion. This Passage Guide is great, but if I click the \u201cmore\u201d button, you can see that the number of commentaries is rather overwhelming.
\nAnd have you noticed that different commentaries have different amounts of explanation? Calvin\u2019s commentary has a lot of detail, for example, while Harper\u2019s Bible Commentary is much, much briefer. Both are useful, because sometimes you may have a limited amount of time and [may] just want to survey the issues in a passage, [while] at other times you\u2019ll be doing an in-depth study and [will] want as much information as possible from a commentary.
\nI want to help you organize your commentaries so you can compare different commentaries to one another, and so you can choose an appropriate commentary depending on the time you have available and the depth of study you want to do.<\/p>\n
Creating a Collection of Commentaries<\/p>\n
You organize your commentaries by creating collections. Collections are really useful, because with them you can ask Logos to restrict your library, searches, and guides to specific collections, which can save you a lot of time. So let me show you how to create some collections of commentaries and use those collections in the Passage Guide to speed up your study of Psalm 82.
\nLet\u2019s go to the Tools menu and choose Collections. When you\u2019re using the Passage Guide, I recommend creating at least three collections in Logos: one for commentaries that comment on the whole Bible in one volume, one for Bible notes, which give more detail about verses that might be difficult to understand, and a third for commentaries that discuss one or two books of the Bible in a lot of detail. That way you can quickly get to a discussion at the depth you need.
\nLet\u2019s create a collection for commentaries that deal with the whole Bible in one volume. These commentaries will give a brief overview of the passage. Give your collection a name\u2014I\u2019ll call mine \u201cCommentaries, one-volume.\u201d Then you just need to type in a filter. For one-volume commentaries, enter \u201ctype:commentary subject:bible\u2014commentaries.\u201d You\u2019ll see that at the bottom of the panel, all of the one-[volume] commentaries are automatically added into our collection through this filter. The collection is automatically saved, and I can go back to my library at any time and just show those resources by choosing the new collection from this menu.
\nThe great thing about creating collections using rules like this is that Logos keeps them dynamically updated. So if in the future I purchase another one-volume commentary, Logos will automatically add them to this collection.<\/p>\n
Using Library Filter Fields<\/p>\n
You may be thinking, \u201cHow do you know what filter to enter?\u201d The format is actually very simple, and it\u2019s exactly the same as if you were looking for books in your library. You just type the field name (like \u201ctype\u201d or \u201csubject\u201d), then a colon, and then type in what you\u2019re searching for (like \u201ccommentary\u201d or \u201cbible\u2014commentaries\u201d).
\nBut how do you know which fields to use? Well, all the fields are shown in the Details view of your library. I\u2019ll open the Library in a tab by right-clicking. If you\u2019re not already in that view, just press the View button. I\u2019m also going to remove the information panel, so you can see more of the Library. These columns are the additional fields of information that Logos provides for each resource, and you can use each one as a filter when you\u2019re building collections. If you right-click on the column headings, you can see all the other fields that are also available and toggle them on or off.
\nTo create your filter, just type the field name first, followed by a colon and then the search term, just as we did a moment ago. So you could search for resources by a particular author, or [by] a particular rating, or [by their belonging] to a particular series. The field name is usually the same as the column header, but some long headers are abbreviated. If you want to check the field name from your library, just press F1 to open the Help and scroll down to \u201cLibrary Filter Fields.\u201d<\/p>\n
Using Subjects in Logos<\/p>\n
You might also be wondering, \u201cHow do you know what subject to specify?\u201d The easiest way is to find a book in the library that you definitely want in your collection and see what subjects are assigned to it. You\u2019ll then know to use that subject in your collection. So before I created this collection, I looked for Jamieson\u2019s commentary on the whole Bible and checked the subject, so I knew which one to use.
\nWhen you\u2019re creating collections using subjects, you have to be a little bit careful. Logos uses the Library of Congress data for the Subjects field, and the librarians at the Library of Congress aren\u2019t always consistent. So it\u2019s worth comparing our collection against the list of commentaries in the Passage Guide to see if there\u2019s anything missing. If you do find one that\u2019s missing\u2014like The Teacher\u2019s Commentary here\u2014you can manually add that resource to your collection. Just go back to the Library, find the resource\u2014in this case The Teacher\u2019s Commentary\u2014and then drag the resource to the \u201cPlus these resources\u201d section of the Collections tool.<\/p>\n
Creating Additional Collections of Commentaries<\/p>\n
So we\u2019ve now created the first of the three collections that I\u2019m recommending, a collection of one-volume commentaries. Now let\u2019s create a collection for Bible notes. Go back to the Collection panel and click on \u201cNew.\u201d Give the collection a name\u2014Bible Notes\u2014and enter \u201ctype:bible-notes\u201d in the filter. And that\u2019s all.
\nThe final collection I suggest you make is one that includes all the commentaries that aren\u2019t one-volume commentaries or Bible notes. Click \u201cNew\u201d again, give [the collection] a name, and enter \u201ctype:commentaries\u201d in the filter. That collects all our commentaries and excludes the Bible notes, so now all we need to do is to also exclude the one-volume commentaries we were just working with. To do that, click on \u201cOpen,\u201d then drag the one-volume commentary collection into the \u201cMinus these resources\u201d section.
\nSo now we have three collections\u2014one-volume commentaries for when we need a quick overview; Bible notes, for when we want more information about hard-to-understand verses; and detailed commentaries, for when we want a thorough study. Now let\u2019s go back to the Passage Guide and put all that together and see how that can help us in Psalm 82.<\/p>\n
Viewing the Collections of Commentaries in the Passage Guide<\/p>\n
If you hover over the Commentaries header in the Passage Guide, you will see a drop-down menu called \u201cSettings.\u201d At the top of that menu are all the commentary collections you\u2019ve created, and below that [is] a list of all the commentary series in our library.
\nIf you were studying Psalm 82, you might first want a quick overview of the passage. So you can choose the one-volume commentary collection and perhaps click on the Holman Concise Bible Commentary. It gives you an overview, just as we wanted, and tells us that the identity of the \u201cgods\u201d is hard to determine. But it doesn\u2019t on its own give us more help, and for that we need more detail.
\nSo let\u2019s look at one of the Bible notes and choose the NET Bible Notes. That gives you some cross-references to look up for two of the views about the identity of the gods, and that will help you make your mind up. If you were doing a quick study, looking at those two collections might well be enough for you, but if you were doing a detailed study, you\u2019d also want to use the third collection and look up even-more-detailed commentaries.
\nLet\u2019s look at A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. This commentary contains about as much information on just the first two verses of Psalm 82 as the other resources had on the entire psalm. Here it acknowledges the position that some interpret the gods as human judges, but then it explains that the language fits that of divine beings, and references Job 1\u20132. The commentator says that these are not false gods, but divine creatures, and then references God\u2019s divine council. This is very similar to Dr. Heiser\u2019s position on Psalm 82.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
So in this video, we\u2019ve learned that when you\u2019re studying the Bible, you\u2019ll often want to look at different types of commentaries, depending on the complexity of the passage you\u2019re looking at and how much time you have available. By creating collections of different types of commentaries and specifying those in the Passage Guide, you can make sure that you can quickly get to the resources you need.<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 45
\nUnderstanding Jesus\u2019 Use of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Identify how the \u201cdivine beings\u201d view of Jesus\u2019 use of Psa 82:6 in John 10:34 differs from the two consensus \u201cmortal humans\u201d views
\n\u2022 Generalize the importance of the citation of Psa 82:6 within the context of two other claims by Jesus that identified Himself with God
\n\u2022 Articulate how the assumption of plural divine sons of God in Psa 82 by Jesus is used to explain how his own self-description as God\u2019s Son identifies Him as being more than a mortal human being<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 Use of Psa 82:6: Elohim as Divine Beings<\/p>\n
What I think is going on in John\u2019s use of Psa 82\u2014again, Jesus quoting Psa 82:6\u2014is something quite different than what you\u2019ll read in just about any commentary. I am going to call it \u201cdivine beings view\u201d because, as you already know, I believe that the plural elohim in Psa 82 are not human beings, but they are divine beings. They\u2019re elohim. They\u2019re members of the heavenly host. They are members of the spiritual realm, the spiritual world, and that is why they are called elohim\u2014again, having nothing to do with attributes. So I take the quotation at face value. It\u2019s from Psalm 82, and the gods in verse 6 are the elohim\u2014and even more specifically, the elohim assigned to the nations because they\u2019re being judged for ruling corruptly, and so we can\u2019t be talking about humans.
\nAnd again, just to repeat the points, the same language happens in Psa 89 where the council of elohim are in the heavens, not on earth. At no time do Jewish judges ever rule over the nations in OT theology; at no time were Jewish judges set over the nations with the intention to rule. Again, these are ideas that you will not find in the OT, but you will find divine beings put over the nations\u2014Deut 32:8 and 9, Deut 4:19 and 20. So these sons of God were put over the nations, and they are the focus of Psa 82.<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 Self-Identification in Light of Psalm 82<\/p>\n
So what is John doing? Well, if we go back and look at what\u2019s going on in John 10\u2014sort of the flow of the argument\u2014we have here the statement, \u201cthe Word of God that came.\u201d My view is that the utterance itself\u2014the Word of God that came to these elohim\u2014if you go back in Psalm 82, it\u2019s the actual statement that Yahweh makes. The words that come from Yahweh\u2019s mouth directed to the elohim, that\u2019s the word that is being referred to in that description. It\u2019s the pronouncement from God that was uttered in that council scene.
\nSo, He is speaking to these divine beings, and His word\u2014His sentence, essentially\u2014what\u2019s going to happen to them, the effect of that is that when Jesus quotes it, He is saying, \u201cLook, you guys need to remember, when you\u2019re accusing me of what I just said about my relationship with the Father, you need to remember from your own Bible, back in Psa 82:6, that there are other non-human sons of God. So when I am starting to equate myself, you know, with God, the foundational message is that I am more than human. I am not just any man. I am not just a mortal. I am more than human.\u201d And there is precedent for the idea that you can have other elohim back in Psa 82, but Jesus is going to go further because He is not just any spiritual entity; He is not just some spirit, some random spirit from the heavenly host.
\nHe is going to take that statement and build on it. So what we have if we\u2019re looking at John 10, notice that in verse 30, he has, \u201cI and my Father are one.\u201d And then down in verse 38, he has, \u201cThe Father is in me and I\u2019m in Him.\u201d That sandwich in the middle there\u2014the thing that is sandwiched\u2014is this quotation, and here is my proposal: If the quotation has Jesus meaning to say, \u201cI am more than a mortal man,\u201d then that quotation is part of an overall argument that He is not only more than mortal, but He is about as un-human, higher than human, superior to humanity as you can get. He and the Father are one. So this idea that He is more than man is part of His justification for calling Himself equal with God. If I could summarize it this way, Jesus\u2019 argument is basically that, \u201cYour own Bible says that God has divine sons that aren\u2019t you, that aren\u2019t mortals, that aren\u2019t Israelites, that are no man. God does have divine sons that are not human. I am using Psa 82:6 to make the point that, hey, I\u2019m more than human too, and even beyond that, thirdly, I claim to be sent to do the Father\u2019s works because I and the Father are one. And you know what, if you don\u2019t believe that, believe the works, because only God Himself could do these things.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jesus Assumes His Superiority over Lesser Divine Beings<\/p>\n
And so His last sort of argument in the logic chain is, \u201cI\u2019m more than just divine. Yeah, we have those. We have other divine beings, but I\u2019m even above them. I\u2019m not only above humanity, I\u2019m above other divine sons of God. I am the Father in flesh right here before you. I and the Father are one. The Father is in me, and I\u2019m in the father.\u201d And even that little hint about the Father being in Him, if you remember our discussion back to the Name theology and what John, same writer, does in John chapter 17, identifying Jesus with the Name\u2014again, that OT idea that there was a special divine being who appeared as a man but was Yahweh because he had the Name in him\u2014again, that relationship, John is playing a little bit with that too. But he is using Psa 82 to show that Jesus is more than a human being, and even more than that, He is above all other divine beings, too. He and the Father are one.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 Quotation of Psalm 82 in John 10 LBD<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
The Old Testament in John DJG<\/p>\n
Unit 9 Quiz<\/p>\n
To take the Quiz for this unit please click here.<\/p>\n
UNIT 10
\nCan Seeds of a Christian Trinity Be Found in the Old Testament?<\/p>\n
46. Seeds of a Christian Trinity in Isaiah 63 and Psalm 78
\n47. Seeds of a Christian Trinity in Ezekiel 8
\n48. New Testament Use of Old Testament Godhead Language
\n49. Summary of Old Testament Godhead Language<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 46
\nSeeds of a Christian Trinity in Isaiah 63 and Psalm 78<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Name two OT passages that contribute to a portrait of a Trinitarian God
\n\u2022 Explain how the themes and terms associated with the Second Yahweh figure are applied to the Holy Spirit in certain OT passages
\n\u2022 Demonstrate how the application of these themes and terms contribute to the theology of a three-person Godhead in the NT<\/p>\n
The Themes of the Second Power Applied to the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n
One issue that comes up is, \u201cI can see where a two-person Godhead is pretty clear in the OT, and we have this two Yahweh\u2019s idea\u2014two Yahweh figures from the OT. But what about a third? What about a Trinity?\u201d We want to take a look at that.
\nBasically, once you know the strategies that the OT writers used to communicate this idea of a Godhead, this idea of Yahweh, and then this sort of Second Yahweh figure, who is but yet isn\u2019t Yahweh\u2014he is Yahweh in the presence, the essence, but they\u2019re still distinct in some passages\u2014once you sort of have in your head what the writer is doing and how that idea is communicated, you will run into, in certain passages, the Spirit, where the Spirit is described by means of some of the same motifs and ideas. And in some cases, you actually get passages where the Spirit is present along with God in the second figure in some way, and you actually have three right in the same passage.
\nBut I want to show you examples of both kinds of those things. One where we have three present, and in another where we have the Spirit described in sort of the same ways as the more familiar second person, Second Yahweh figure in the OT. And that\u2019s the way we get sort of a threesome. We get the three-in-one and one-but-three idea that is more familiar in the NT; we can see it the Old.<\/p>\n
Comparing Isaiah 63 with Deuteronomy 4 and Exodus 23<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s take a look at Isa 63. If we start reading at verse 7, \u201cI will recount the steadfast love of the LORD,\u201d there we have LORD (small caps), that\u2019s Yahweh. \u201cThe praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD has granted us, and the great goodness to the house of Israel that he has granted them according to his compassion, according to the abundance of his steadfast love. For he said, \u2018Surely they are my people, children who will not deal falsely.\u2019 And he became their Savior. In all their affliction he was afflicted. And the angel of his presence saved them.\u201d
\nNow, I want to stop there because we\u2019ve covered a lot of ground with the angel. And in particular, we noted that it was the angel in some passages, and in other passages it was God, Yahweh Himself, who led the people out of Egypt and through the wilderness on the way to the promised land. In fact, in Deut 4, we saw one passage where it was the presence of God that was given credit for doing that. So, here we have Yahweh, then we have this angel\u2014the angel of His presence\u2014and the picture is the wilderness wandering. And we took a look at Exod 23, that the passage is so important, where God says, \u201cI\u2019m going to send an angel before you to guide you on the way, and you better listen to him because my name is in him.\u201d So, we have a flashback here in Isa 63 toward these two Yahweh personages.
\nWe continue, \u201cIn his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.\u201d There\u2019s a little ambiguity there because we don\u2019t know who \u201che\u201d actually is there\u2014probably the Lord, but it might also be the angel who did those things. Verse 10 is the critical juncture: \u201cBut they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit.\u201d I want to focus your attention on \u201crebelled\u201d and \u201cgrieved\u201d; specifically, the Hebrew terms behind both of those are going to show up in a key passage that is explicitly parallel to this one, and that is Psa 78.<\/p>\n
God, the Angel, and the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n
In Psalm 78, we have again a recounting of the journey through the wilderness on the way to the promised land. In verse 40 we read, \u201cHow often they rebelled against him in the wilderness and grieved him in the desert! They tested God again and again and provoked the Holy One of Israel.\u201d Now, here\u2019s the point: Over in Isa 63, we saw that we have God, the angel, and then the Spirit is the one grieved and rebelled against. But in the parallel passage, in Psa 78, it\u2019s not the Spirit that is rebelled against and grieved. The very same Hebrew terms that are used in Isa 63 are used in Psa 78:40. There, it refers to the God of Israel Himself.
\nSo if you look at the events, the wilderness wanderings, through both of these passages at the same time, you get a blurring of distinction between the Spirit and God Himself. They\u2019re spoken of the same way. They overlapped. And again, we already have the Lord and the angel in the one scene. So if you sort of superimpose or\u2014pardon the pun\u2014triangulate between Isa 63 and Psa 78, the Spirit becomes part of this picture where you wonder, \u201cWho\u2019s doing what? Who\u2019s offended? Who\u2019s leading? Is it God, is it the angel, or is it the Spirit?\u201d The answer is \u201cyes.\u201d It\u2019s all of them. So you have three figures spoken of, talked about with the same language, the same motifs, the same ideas. You look at a passage like this, and you get the impression that the Spirit is also in a very tight relationship to God and the Second Yahweh. So the Spirit sort of becomes a third Yahweh figure when we look at these passages altogether.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on Isaiah 63:8\u201310 FSB
\nA History of Compassion, with Failures (Isaiah 63:7\u201314b) NAC:I4066<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Diverse Conceptions of the Holy Spirit DNTB
\nHow Much Was Intimated Concerning the Trinity in the Old Testament? STV1:GHSULC<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 47
\nSeeds of a Christian Trinity in Ezekiel 8<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Identify one important OT passage that contributes to a portrait of a Trinitarian God
\n\u2022 Explain how the themes and terms associated with the Second Yahweh figure are applied to the Holy Spirit in certain OT passages
\n\u2022 Demonstrate how the application of these themes and terms contribute to the theology of a three-person Godhead in the NT<\/p>\n
Connecting Second Yahweh Imagery to the Spirit in Ezekiel 8<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s look at another passage. In Ezekiel 8 we have some interesting language. Verse 2: \u201cThen I looked, and behold, a form that had the appearance of a man. Below what appeared to be his waist was fire, and above his waist was something like the appearance of brightness, like gleaming metal.\u201d Now, let\u2019s stop there. If you\u2019re really familiar with the book of Ezekiel, you will sort of identify immediately where this description is found elsewhere. And it\u2019s in Ezek 1, of the figure that is on the throne; the enthroned God of Israel in Ezek 1 is described with the same terms that we just read here.
\nLet\u2019s go back to Ezek 8:3. This figure, \u201cHe put out the form of a hand and took me by a lock of my head.\u201d And then, who lifted him up? Was it the enthroned God of Israel? The divine man in Ezek 1? God again described in the form of a man? No, it\u2019s the Spirit. The Spirit is the one who lifts him up. So, again, we have a blurring of language used about Yahweh in the form of a man, Yahweh embodied. That\u2019s very familiar from Ezek 1, and of course, this makes me also think of Jer 1, where the Word of the Lord, who is also called Yahweh explicitly in Jer 1, reached forth his hand and touched Jeremiah\u2019s mouth\u2014very similar language. But here it\u2019s the Spirit. The Spirit is the one doing the lifting with his hand. So we actually have the Spirit, sort of, again, described in the same way we would expect the Second Yahweh figure to be described, but this time it\u2019s the Holy Spirit.
\nIt\u2019s interesting that in verse 5\u2014\u201cThen he said to me, \u2018Son of man, lift up your eyes and look toward the north\u2019 \u201d\u2014we start to get a description of the temple structure. In verse 6 the speaker refers to the structure as \u201cmy sanctuary.\u201d So now we\u2019re sort of back to God because it\u2019s God\u2019s temple. Who is it then in the picture? Who\u2019s in the scene? It is God, or is it the Spirit? You get the same sort of ambiguity that you saw earlier in the OT between God and the angel, or God and the Word, or God and the Name. Again, these are different ways to refer to the same essential being\u2014the God of Israel.
\nThe important thing here is, again, there\u2019s ambiguous language sort of blurring the two, but there\u2019s a very clear usage early in the chapter of language that you would expect to see for the Second Yahweh figure, the human form Yahweh, the embodied Yahweh. But in this case, it\u2019s the Spirit. So, it\u2019s just illustrative of the kind of thing that once you have this in your head\u2014the sort of tactic, if you will, on the part of the writer to give us this theological messaging about Yahweh being two but yet one\u2014here we actually have a third figure, the Spirit that enters into that discussion and those sorts of descriptions.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Notes on Ezekiel 1:3\u20132:2 FSB<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
The Spirit of God OTTV1:IG<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 48
\nNew Testament Use of Old Testament Godhead Language<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 List three ways NT writers repurpose Second Yahweh imagery found in the OT to describe a Trinitarian-type God
\n\u2022 Explain how NT writers understood the deity of Jesus as an OT Second Yahweh figure
\n\u2022 Sketch how NT writers understood the deity of the Holy Spirit by connecting the Spirit to the person of Jesus<\/p>\n
The New Testament and Repurposing of Second Yahweh Imagery<\/p>\n
The NT writers repurpose a lot of this sort of language\u2014again, with the Spirit in mind\u2014when they articulated their theology of God\u2019s threeness, God\u2019s three-in-oneness, the Trinitarian idea that we\u2019re familiar with as Christians.<\/p>\n
New Testament Writers Identify Jesus with the Second Yahweh Figure<\/p>\n
Thinking about the OT though, we have seen that we have Yahweh, the God of Israel, and then, in relation to Him, there\u2019s this Second Yahweh figure\u2014again, who is but isn\u2019t Him. There\u2019s the sameness in essence because the Second Yahweh figure has the Name of Yahweh, the essence of Yahweh, in him, the angel specifically. Again, there are some passages where that could be Yahweh personally embodied, but then we have other passages where there\u2019s a Second Yahweh figure.
\nThen we have this \u201ctwo but yet one\u201d thing going on. In some cases it\u2019s deliberately ambiguous, again, to reinforce that point. So we have Yahweh, we have the Second Yahweh figure in the visible, and now we bring along the Spirit that is connected to both of these other Yahweh figures because of the use of similar language that\u2019s often used of the second one getting used of the third one. Well, in the NT, we have God the Father, naturally, and Jesus. So there we have that very easy, sort of, two-in-one connection.
\nIf Jesus is identified with the Second Yahweh figure, then we would expect as well that the NT writers would have the Spirit. So we have the same three-in-oneness.<\/p>\n
New Testament Writers Identify the Spirit with Jesus to Describe a Three-Person Godhead<\/p>\n
What I want to draw your attention to here is the way that the NT writers are seemingly aware of the two-yet-one, the two Yahwehs idea, Father and Son, Yahweh and Second Yahweh figure. And that second figure becomes central in their thinking Jesus. They actually use that connection\u2014that backdrop, if you will\u2014to link the Spirit to Jesus, and therefore to God. Because for them, the hub that all this really revolves around is Jesus Himself.
\nWhat I mean by this, perhaps a little clearer, is if we look at Acts 16, for example, there the Holy Spirit is called the \u201cspirit of Jesus\u201d; it\u2019s not the spirit of God, \u201cthe spirit of Jesus.\u201d As Jesus is but isn\u2019t the Father, okay\u2014He is God, but He\u2019s not the Father, so He may share the same essence, but the Son is not the Father, so Jesus is but isn\u2019t God in that way when it comes to specifics of Father and Son\u2014so the Spirit is but isn\u2019t Jesus. He sort of is Jesus in that they share the same essence, but they\u2019re still two separate entities. So the writers actually fused the second and third person with this sort of language, again creating this chain link of three in their thinking, in their Godhead thinking.
\nRomans 8:9 has the Spirit of God as the Spirit of Christ. That\u2019s also mentioned in 1 Pet 1:11, so there we have the Spirit of Christ. Was it the Spirit of God? Or is it the Spirit of Christ? And the answer is \u201cyes.\u201d The Spirit is connected to both because both are, in and of themselves in their own relationship, the same in essence. So the NT writers are using the sort of same tactic, the same descriptive elements, the same descriptive strategy to articulate a threeness.
\nIn Galatians 4:6, God \u201csent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts.\u201d Again, it doesn\u2019t say that God sent His spirit or the Spirit of God. It says \u201cthe spirit of His Son into our hearts.\u201d So in some way, in some mysterious way, the Spirit is Jesus, but yet He\u2019s not. He\u2019s a different person as well.
\nI think of other passages where\u2014\u201cWhere two or three are gathered together, I am in your midst.\u201d Again, we share the Spirit. That\u2019s the sort of thing that\u2019s going on here, where the Spirit is but isn\u2019t Jesus, just as Jesus is but isn\u2019t God the Father. This sameness of essence and yet differentiation in person, we can actually look back at the OT and see the same thing going on with the Second Yahweh, to the first Yahweh, and then the Spirit being connected back to the same sort of descriptive strategies and elements. In certain passages, the Spirit made part of that Godhead thinking. The NT writers were aware of these relationships, and I think the critical point here is that they didn\u2019t invent this idea.<\/p>\n
New Testament Trinitarian Thinking Comes from Old Testament Theology<\/p>\n
The NT writers do not just come up with the idea of a Godhead, of two or three persons. They\u2019re getting this idea\u2014this three-in-oneness idea\u2014from the OT because they can see it there. But now, when Jesus has come and become incarnate, and Jesus leaves and says, \u201cI will send my spirit\u201d in other passages, and the Spirit becomes the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of Jesus, you see exactly the same thinking, exactly the same strategy going on in how the NT writers articulate their view of the Godhead. This is very consistent with the OT and consistent with Hebrew or Jewish theology. We just often don\u2019t really have that in mind because we lack the OT context for it. But as we spend time in this course, looking at these things, it sort of pops out at you in the NT.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
The Biblical Basis for Trinitarian Confession NBDTE<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Jewish Context of the New Testament DTIB<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 49
\nSummary of Old Testament Godhead Language<\/p>\n
New Testament and Old Testament Understanding of the Godhead<\/p>\n
So summarizing our response to this previous question, when we understand how the two-yet-one are revealed in the OT, we\u2019re then able to detect when the Spirit is described in the same ways, with the same motifs, and in the same strategies. The Spirit gets brought into that discussion in familiar ways. Also, the OT two-yet-one\u2014the two Yahwehs\u2014idea is present in the NT, and at times, the NT writers equate the Spirit with that Second Yahweh figure, with that second Yahweh slot (if you want to say it that way) who is Jesus. And the result is the inclusion of the Spirit into the Godhead thinking. Again, it\u2019s consistent across both Testaments.<\/p>\n
Unit 10 Quiz<\/p>\n
To take the Quiz for this unit please click here.<\/p>\n
UNIT 11
\nHow Does an Old Testament Godhead Address the Claims of other Religions?<\/p>\n
50. The Old Testament Godhead and Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses
\n51. The Old Testament Godhead and Mormonism
\n52. The Old Testament Godhead and Academic Skepticism
\n53. The Old Testament Godhead and Jewish Evangelism
\n54. Summary of the Course<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 50
\nThe Old Testament Godhead and Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Recall how the idea of Jesus being the \u201cWord\u201d identifies Jesus as the Second Yahweh figure of the OT
\n\u2022 Explain how Jesus\u2019 identification with the OT Second Yahweh figure undermines other religions\u2019 claims that the \u201cWord\u201d was a divine being of lower status than the God of Israel
\n\u2022 Demonstrate that, in view of the Second Yahweh figure being above all other elohim in the OT, when Jesus is identified with the Second Yahweh figure He cannot be viewed as merely equal to other elohim, but must be superior to them<\/p>\n
The Jehovah\u2019s Witness View of the Trinity<\/p>\n
Now, most of us are probably familiar with some of the major beliefs of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses. They do not adhere to any sort of Trinitarian or Godhead theology. They have Jesus as a created being\u2014and perhaps an angel of the highest angel that there is, the sort of first and best created thing, but certainly not God. And when you show them a passage like John 1:1, \u201cIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,\u201d they\u2019ll be very insistent that you should translate it, \u201cThat the Word was a God\u201d\u2014just a divine being, but not God Himself, as again, Orthodox Christianity, as you start articulating in their idea of the Trinity.<\/p>\n
The \u201cWord of the Lord\u201d and the Gospel of John<\/p>\n
Well, I think what we\u2019ve learned in this course really helps us here because it\u2019s just frankly incorrect to say that the \u201cWord\u201d there in John 1:1 is properly understood as \u201ca God,\u201d when the Word in the OT, as we\u2019ve seen, was actually Yahweh Himself\u2014not just any elohim, but Yahweh Himself. We\u2019ve seen how the NT writers are repurposing, they\u2019re drawing from this OT passages about the \u201cWord\u201d being very explicitly Jehovah Himself, Yahweh. Again, the passages that we looked at\u2014I think that would be the best examples.
\nAgain, sort of an application, sort of way when you\u2019re in a discussion with a Jehovah\u2019s witness or someone else that will take this position would be Gen 15:1\u20136. This is the call of Abraham, one of those scenes where the Word of God is the one who gives him the covenant. It\u2019s very obviously Yahweh.
\nFor 1 Samuel 3, again, I\u2019d completely and explicitly identified with Yahweh the Word that comes to Samuel, the Word of the Lord. In Jeremiah 1:1\u20139, this is the call of Jeremiah, where Jeremiah very plainly\u2014the text is unmistakable\u2014says that, \u201cThe word of the Lord came to me,\u201d and then Jeremiah calls the Word Yahweh, Jehovah. And in verse 9, the Word, Yahweh, puts out His hand and touches his mouth. Again, these are very transparently understandable ideas that we can see the NT writers\u2014John in this case, was John 1\u2014drawing upon to apply to Jesus and articulate this theology that not only in the OT do we have Yahweh appear as a human being, and in some cases an embodied human being, but now, \u201cThe Word became flesh and dwelt among us\u201d (John 1:14). It\u2019s very clear what they\u2019re thinking in the NT. So, to look at John 1 and say, \u201cOh, it\u2019s just a God instead of Yahweh Himself,\u201d you\u2019ll have a real problem there with the OT passages of the type that we\u2019ve looked at here.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses ODCC
\nJehovah\u2019s Witnesses DCA
\nLogos ODCC<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses ECV13
\nLogos (\u201cWord\u201d) NIDNTT<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 51
\nThe Old Testament Godhead and Mormonism<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Recall how the idea of Jesus being the \u201cWord\u201d identifies Jesus as the Second Yahweh figure of the OT
\n\u2022 Explain how Jesus\u2019 identification with the OT Second Yahweh figure undermines other religions\u2019 claims that the \u201cWord\u201d was a divine being of lower status than the God of Israel
\n\u2022 Demonstrate that, in view of the Second Yahweh figure being above all other elohim in the OT, when Jesus is identified with the Second Yahweh figure He cannot be viewed as merely equal to other elohim, but must be superior to them<\/p>\n
The Mormon View of the Trinity<\/p>\n
Now, Mormons have some unique elements to their theology. They would be tritheistic, not traditionally Trinitarian. They would view the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as God, but three distinct gods, not this three-in-one, one-but-three, is-but-isn\u2019t sort of thinking. They separate the three out much more than, again, a standard, a Trinitarian understanding would do. The effect of that, if we really think about the material that we\u2019ve gone through to this point, is that when you go to Psa 82, Yahweh, the God of Israel, again, is superior to all other elohim.
\nThis would mean, for instance, that if you had this tritheistic idea, then the Son and the Spirit wouldn\u2019t really be equated with Yahweh, the God of Israel. You get a little bit of confusion there. When you separate them instead of uniting them in one essence, you get questions like, \u201cWere they all the same?\u201d \u201cAre they all the same essence?\u201d and so on and so forth.<\/p>\n
Three \u201cYahweh Figures\u201d Guarantees Only Yahweh is Worshiped<\/p>\n
Mormonism would have no problem of denying that, but when you look at Psa 82 and some of these other passages\u2014especially how they\u2019re used and repurposed in the NT\u2014and the whole idea, the whole emphasis on, \u201cYou can worship only Yahweh,\u201d that means that number two and number three person in the Godhead must also be Yahweh. Because if they\u2019re not Yahweh, then you are worshiping some deity other than Yahweh, and that would be a violation of the Shema. It\u2019s be a violation of the command to have no other gods before the God of Israel, the God the Father, so to speak.
\nSo, it\u2019s really important that we see this idea in the OT developed, that you don\u2019t have separate deities in Israelite thinking. You have one Yahweh, and His essence is in another person\u2014a second person, a Second Yahweh figure\u2014and then this gets applied again to Jesus in the NT, and also the Spirit. So if you don\u2019t do that, if you don\u2019t have this sort of essential fusion of the three persons, you wind up praying to or worshiping a deity that is other than the God of Israel. And there you have some theological problems. So you can\u2019t have this separation like Mormonism is sort of prone to do.<\/p>\n
Consequences of Failing to Distinguish One Elohim from Other Elohim<\/p>\n
The other thing that I would say is that in Mormon theology, there\u2019s this sense that Jesus\u2014because again we separate the elohim out the way that they do\u2014that Jesus is sort of brothers, put on an equal level with other elohim. And that is not the impression you get from Psa 82. In Psalm 82, there\u2019s Yahweh, and all the other elohim are lesser because He is above them. He is commanding them in council. He is passing sentence upon them. He is going to be ultimately the owner of all the nations because it was Him who, in an act of punishment at Babel, distributed the nations that were not Israel. He didn\u2019t want to be in covenant relationship with them, put them under the lesser sons of God. He is absolutely superior. He has a unique set of attributes. He is what I would call \u201cspecies unique.\u201d Well, again, if you don\u2019t have a sort of fusion between Jesus and the Father, that they\u2019re essentially the same, then you wind up\u2014when you worship Jesus\u2014you wind up worshiping a lesser being and a different being than Yahweh, the God of Israel. So, you get into trouble there.
\nSo I think what we\u2019ve seen in Psa 82 sort of helps us see that in the OT there was a great concern that only Yahweh was worshiped. And so when you have these other beings coming to the scene, the Second Yahweh figure, it\u2019s important for the writer to telegraph to the reader that this second entity is still Yahweh, not something different\u2014still Yahweh, Yahweh\u2019s Name, His essence is in him, so on and so forth. We\u2019ve had plenty of examples of this, but I want to stress this point: Only Yahweh was to be worshiped, bring sacrifices, prayed to, so on, and so forth. You can\u2019t worship any other and not be in violation of the Shema. So it is very important in terms of NT theology to have Jesus be Yahweh to avoid a violation of the fundamental command of the OT.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Mormons ODCC
\nMormonism DCA<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Mormons ECV13<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 52
\nThe Old Testament Godhead and Academic Skepticism<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Name three ways a NT doctrine of God has its origins in the OT
\n\u2022 Explain how scholars who deny that a deified Jesus is consistent with monotheism have failed to account for the Two Powers theology found in the OT
\n\u2022 Demonstrate the belief that Yahweh in human form was not a late invention but emerged out of OT Godhead theology<\/p>\n
Skeptical Approaches to Jesus<\/p>\n
How does what we\u2019ve covered about an OT Godhead theology, or the OT conception of Godhead thinking, how does that help us address academic skepticism about Jesus? Specifically what I mean here is the idea that Jesus as God\u2014what scholars would call \u201chigh Christology\u201d, \u201cexalted Christology,\u201d that Jesus was God in the flesh\u2014that this is a very late idea and it\u2019s frankly foreign from the OT, that the NT writers more or less just invented it. How does this help us?<\/p>\n
Biblical Godhead Theology Begins in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
Well, I don\u2019t think we can really say coherently that the notion of a Second Yahweh figure, the idea of a Godhead itself, is late. Certainly it\u2019s not late into the Christian era because it\u2019s Jewish. It is very, obviously, alive and well in the OT and in Jewish texts prior to the NT era, before any of the NT was ever written, and before Jesus actually showed up here on earth to do and accomplish His ministry. So the idea that it\u2019s late just really lacks coherence. It\u2019s in the Hebrew Bible. And the Hebrew Bible has, as we\u2019ve seen, this two-but-one, one-but-two\u2014and even three, but especially this two-but-one, one-but-two\u2014sort of thinking when it comes to Yahweh in a sort of a co-Yahweh, a co-ruler, someone who is but isn\u2019t Yahweh. That idea is very Hebraic. It\u2019s in the OT; it\u2019s part of the OT thinking about God. So to accuse the NT writers of essentially making that up really doesn\u2019t make a whole lot of sense and frankly ignores a lot of what we\u2019ve looked at in this course.<\/p>\n
Old Testament Godhead Theology and Its Later Developments<\/p>\n
They might also say that Jesus as God is some sort of innovation\u2014it\u2019s inconsistent with Judaism. So even if they might allow that, \u201cYeah, there\u2019s some sort of the same idea going here, but Christians did something so completely different with it that it was inconsistent with the OT, with earlier Judaism,\u201d I think what we\u2019ve seen helps us address that as well. It doesn\u2019t make much sense because the NT writers are using the OT to build their points. They\u2019re using OT theology. They\u2019re using OT Godhead thinking to further articulate the fact that, \u201cHey, not only do we have Godheaded thinking in our OT, our Jewish Bible, but since Jesus came and did what He did on the cross, we now have a fuller picture of what\u2019s going on. We actually had it lived in front of us, where God became a man and did these things and did all these magnificent works,\u201d and so on and so forth. So the NT writers are not viewing what they\u2019re saying as inconsistent with the OT in any way. They\u2019re dependent on the OT, and they\u2019re just repurposing what was found in the OT in the New\u2014not to create anything new, but to establish continuity with the OT theology of the Godhead that we\u2019ve been looking at.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Deity of Christ BECA<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Evidence for the Deity and Humanity of Christ GDBV1:GFGS
\nChristology EDT:SE<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 53
\nThe Old Testament Godhead and Jewish Evangelism<\/p>\n
Learning Objectives<\/p>\n
After this section, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Identify two ways of how the NT\u2019s use of OT Godhead concepts were compatible with monotheism and the Jewish Shema
\n\u2022 Defend how the NT\u2019s use of OT Godhead concepts and imagery to describe Jesus can help Jewish people understand the Christian view of Jesus as Yahweh in human form
\n\u2022 Illustrate how a Christian theology of the Trinity developed from the Hebrew Bible, showing that Christian doctrine is not antithetical to the Jewish Scriptures<\/p>\n
Old Testament Godhead is the Bridge to Christianity<\/p>\n
Can we summarize how this information would apply to Jewish evangelism? That\u2019s really sort of where we started things\u2014the question when you\u2019re talking to a Jewish person and really feel that they can\u2019t accept believing in Jesus because it would violate monotheism or the Shema.<\/p>\n
The Shema and a Christian Trinity<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve really seen, I think, with some clarity that the idea of divine plurality is present in the OT. And if you remember back, that was sort of a baby step just to get you and our Jewish friends that we know thinking about the idea that the Shema and Israelite monotheism had, as part of that view of God, had an idea, a conception of divine plurality, and that was okay because Yahweh was unique among all other beings in the spiritual world. That this idea of divine plurality itself, just that small kernel thought, was not inconsistent with monotheism or the Shema because it doesn\u2019t compromise Yahweh\u2019s other uniqueness among all other spiritual entities, among all other elohim.
\nI would also say that the first Christians were among many Jews who believed in a two Yahweh Godhead, two Yahweh idea. Of course, bringing the Spirit into the discussion too, we have the standard sort of Trinitarian thought.<\/p>\n
The Second Yahweh and Polytheism<\/p>\n
So, here we had Jews, okay\u2014the Church is born out of Judaism\u2014we had Jews who were willing to be put to death rather than worship, say, the Roman emperor, willing to suffer the death penalty to avoid violating the Shema, and yet they found it completely acceptable to put their faith in Jesus as Messiah, as God incarnate, God come to earth. That had no contradiction for them in terms of their status as believing in monotheism and the uniqueness of Yahweh and also worshiping Jesus, because to them it was still worshiping Yahweh. And the reason it was still worshiping Yahweh is because they were informed by this OT Godhead thinking that we\u2019ve spent a lot time talking about. Just as back in the OT, you would have had these persons, these Yahweh figures, still being Yahweh, so that was perfectly acceptable.
\nIn the NT, when Jesus comes along, and He\u2019s the second power to Christians\u2014He\u2019s that Second Yahweh figure\u2014there was no violation. He was still Yahweh, and so we can worship Him. We can pray to Him. We would not be violating the Shema and the great command to have no other God beside the God of Israel.
\nSo we\u2019re looking at all these, and I think the context is pretty obvious that the very idea is consistent with Judaism and consistent with OT theology. I think we can easily see how easily adaptable this whole idea was to Jesus in the minds of the NT writers, and certainly the minds of the early church. So again, this isn\u2019t an invention. It\u2019s not an innovation that somehow would strike horror into the heart of a Jew, because the first Christians were Jews. They knew the Shema. They knew their fundamental creed. They knew their fundamental theology. But they also knew about this two powers idea\u2014this two-but-yet-one sort of thinking, these seed thoughts of Godhead\u2014and they were able to make the transition.<\/p>\n
Explore*<\/p>\n
Suggested Reading<\/p>\n
Trinity BECA<\/p>\n
See Also<\/p>\n
Trinity NDT
\nTrinity NDT<\/p>\n
Guides and Tools<\/p>\n
Trinity Topic Guide<\/p>\n
Unit 11 Quiz<\/p>\n
To take the Quiz for this unit please click here.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
SEGMENT 54
\nSummary of the Course<\/p>\n
I hope you\u2019ve enjoyed the course Jewish Trinity. In this course\u2014just by way of review\u2014we looked at big-picture things like monotheism. I began the course by introducing a problem [that is] especially [troublesome] for modern Jews: How is it that a Jewish person today, or a Jewish person in the ancient world, could look at Jesus and think of Jesus as the God of Israel, incarnate, in flesh, as a man born of a woman? We looked at how that was a real stumbling block because it felt to a Jew like it was a denial of monotheism\u2014\u201cthe LORD our God is one\u201d\u2014and the creed of Judaism seems to forbid this idea. But I hope that you\u2019ve seen that that sort of thinking, NT theology about Jesus, was not a violation of monotheism.
\nThat\u2019s where we began our journey. Once you\u2019re over that hump, once your Jewish friend that you\u2019re trying to talk to about the Lord is over that hump, you can get into all sorts of passages and see again from this course how OT writers described the God of Israel, even, as more than one person, and then that knowledge, that language, was transferred into the NT by NT writers to reference Jesus. So the idea of a Godhead, God in more than one person, is actually Jewish. It\u2019s actually Israelite. It\u2019s in both Testaments.
\nI hope that you\u2019ve enjoyed the course. I hope that you get a lot of use out of it. My recommendation, going beyond the videos, is pretty simple: Make sure that you track down all the readings, the links within your course. There isn\u2019t whole lot written that really takes this specific perspective that I\u2019ve tried to give you in the course, so those are the best items that I can possibly recommend for further study.<\/p>\n
Final Exam<\/p>\n
To take the Final Exam for this course please click here.<\/p>\n
@book{Heiser_2014,
\nplace={Bellingham, WA},
\nseries={Logos Mobile Education},
\ntitle={OT291 The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead},
\npublisher={Lexham Press},
\nauthor={Heiser, Michael S.},
\nyear={2014},
\ncollection={Logos Mobile Education}}<\/p>\n
Exportiert aus Verbum, 15:58 16. M\u00e4rz 2019.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction Introducing the Speaker I am Dr. Mike Heiser, your instructor for this course. I want to tell you a little bit about myself before we launch into it. I have a PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin. I also have a master\u2019s degree from that … <\/p>\n