{"id":204,"date":"2017-11-24T16:40:42","date_gmt":"2017-11-24T15:40:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=204"},"modified":"2020-01-17T18:52:39","modified_gmt":"2020-01-17T17:52:39","slug":"the-elohim-what-or-who-are-they","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2017\/11\/24\/the-elohim-what-or-who-are-they\/","title":{"rendered":"The Elohim: What (or Who) Are They?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>PART 1<\/p>\n

FIRST THINGS<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

CHAPTER 1<\/p>\n

Reading Your Bible Again\u2014<\/p>\n

for the First Time<\/p>\n

We all have watershed moments in life, critical turning points where, from that moment on, nothing will ever be the same.<\/p>\n

One such moment in my own life\u2014the catalyst behind this book\u2014came on a Sunday morning in church while I was in graduate school. I was chatting with a friend who, like me, was working on a PhD in Hebrew studies, killing a few minutes before the service started. I don\u2019t recall much of the conversation, though I\u2019m sure it was something about Old Testament theology. But I\u2019ll never forget how it ended. My friend handed me his Hebrew Bible, open to Psalm 82<\/a>. He said simply, \u201cHere, read that \u2026 look at it closely.\u201d<\/p>\n

The first verse hit me like a bolt of lightning:<\/p>\n

God [elohim<\/span>] stands in the divine assembly;<\/p>\n

he administers judgment in the midst of the gods [elohim<\/span>].Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations come from the Lexham English Bible<\/em> (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012). Typographical formatting used in the Lexham English Bible<\/em> has been removed.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve indicated the Hebrew wording that caught my eye and put my heart in my throat. The word elohim<\/span> occurs twice in this short verse. Other than the covenant name, Yahweh, it\u2019s the most common word in the Old Testament for God. And the first use of the word in this verse worked fine. But since I knew my Hebrew grammar, I saw immediately that the second instance needed to be translated as plural. There it was, plain as day: The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly\u2014a pantheon\u2014of other gods<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Needless to say, I didn\u2019t hear a word of the sermon. My mind was reeling.<\/p>\n

How was it possible that I\u2019d never seen that before?<\/em> I\u2019d read through the Bible seven or eight times. I\u2019d been to seminary. I\u2019d studied Hebrew. I\u2019d taught for five years at a Bible college.<\/p>\n

What did this do to my theology?<\/em> I\u2019d always thought\u2014and had taught my students\u2014that any other \u201cgods\u201d referenced in the Bible were just idols. As easy and comfortable as that explanation was, it didn\u2019t make sense here. The God of Israel isn\u2019t part of a group of idols. But I couldn\u2019t picture him running around with other real gods, either. This was the Bible, not Greek mythology. But there it was in black and white. The text had me by the throat, and I couldn\u2019t shake free.<\/p>\n

I immediately set to work trying to find answers. I soon discovered that the ground I was exploring was a place where evangelicals had feared to tread. The explanations I found from evangelical scholars were disturbingly weak, mostly maintaining that the gods (elohim<\/span>) in the verse were just men\u2014Jewish elders\u2014or that the verse was about the Trinity. I knew neither of those could be correct. Psalm 82<\/a> states that the gods were being condemned as corrupt in their administration of the nations of the earth. The Bible nowhere teaches that God appointed a council of Jewish elders to rule over foreign nations, and God certainly wouldn\u2019t be railing against the rest of the Trinity, Jesus and the Spirit, for being corrupt. Frankly, the answers just weren\u2019t honest with the straightforward words in the text of Psalm 82<\/a>.<\/p>\n

When I looked beyond the world of evangelical scholarship, I discovered that other scholars had churned out dozens of articles and books on Psalm 82<\/a> and Israelite religion. They\u2019d left no stone unturned in ferreting out parallels between the psalm and its ideas and the literature of other civilizations of the biblical world\u2014in some cases, matching the psalm\u2019s phrases word for word. Their research brought to light other biblical passages that echoed the content of Psalm 82<\/a>. I came to realize that most of what I\u2019d been taught about the unseen world in Bible college and seminary had been filtered by English translations or derived from sources like Milton\u2019s Paradise Lost<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

That Sunday morning and its fallout forced a decision. My conscience wouldn\u2019t let me ignore my own Bible in order to retain the theology with which I was comfortable. Was my loyalty to the text or to Christian tradition? Did I really have to choose between the two? I wasn\u2019t sure, but I knew that what I was reading in Psalm 82<\/a>, taken at face value, simply didn\u2019t fit the theological patterns I had always been taught. And yet there had to be answers. After all, the passages I had only now noticed had also been read by apostles like Paul\u2014and by Jesus himself, for that matter. If I couldn\u2019t find help in finding those answers, I would just have to put the pieces together myself.<\/p>\n

That journey has taken fifteen years, and it has led to this book. The path has not been easy. It came with risk and discomfort. Friends, pastors, and colleagues at times misunderstood my questions and my rebuttals of their proposed answers. Conversations didn\u2019t always end well. That sort of thing happens when you demand that creeds and traditions get in line behind the biblical text.<\/p>\n

Clarity eventually prevailed. Psalm 82<\/a> became a focal point of my doctoral dissertation, which also examined the nature of Israelite monotheism and how the biblical writers really thought about the unseen spiritual realm. I wish I could say that I was just smart enough to figure things out on my own. But in reality, even though I believe I was providentially prepared for the academic task I faced, there were times in the process when the best description I can give is that I was led<\/em> to answers.<\/p>\n

I still believe in the uniqueness of the God of the Bible. I still embrace the deity of Christ. But if we\u2019re being honest when we affirm inspiration, then how we talk about those and other doctrines must take into account the biblical text.<\/p>\n

What you\u2019ll read in this book won\u2019t overturn the important applecarts of Christian doctrine, but you\u2019ll come across plenty of mind grenades. Have no fear\u2014it will be a fascinating, faith-building exercise. What you\u2019ll learn is that a theology of the unseen world that derives exclusively from the text understood through the lens of the ancient, premodern worldview of the authors informs every<\/em> Bible doctrine in significant ways. If it sounds like I\u2019m overpromising, just withhold judgment till you\u2019ve read the rest of the book.<\/p>\n

What you\u2019ll read in this book will change you. You\u2019ll never be able to loo<\/em>k at your Bible the same way again<\/em>. Hundreds of people who read the early drafts of this book over the past decade have told me so\u2014and appreciated the experience deeply. I know they\u2019re right because I\u2019m living that experience, too.<\/p>\n

My goal is simple. When you open your Bible, I want you to be able to see it like ancient Israelites or first-century Jews saw it, to perceive and consider it as they would have. I want their<\/em> supernatural worldview in your<\/em> head.<\/p>\n

You might find that experience uncomfortable in places. But it would be dishonest of us to claim that the biblical writers read and understood the text the way we do as modern people, or intended meanings that conform to theological systems created centuries after the text was written. Our context is not their context<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Seeing the Bible through the eyes of an ancient reader requires shedding the filters of our traditions and presumptions. They processed life in supernatural terms. Today\u2019s Christian processes it by a mixture of creedal statements and modern rationalism. I want to help you recover the supernatural worldview of the biblical writers\u2014the people who produced the Bible. Obtaining and retaining that ancient mind-set requires observing a few ground rules, which we\u2019ll examine in the next chapter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>CHAPTER 2<\/p>\n

Rules of Engagement<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve always been interested in anything old and weird. I was good at school, too. When I became a Christian in high school I felt like I\u2019d been born for Bible study. I kn<\/span>ow\u2014that level of interest in the Bible wasn\u2019t normal for a teenager. It was a bit of an obsession. I spent hours studying the Bible, as well as theology books. I took commentaries to study hall.<\/p>\n

Since<\/span> there was no 12-step program for my addiction, I went to Bible college to feed it. After that it was off to seminary. I wanted to be a biblical studies professor, so the next step was graduate school, whe<\/span>re I finally focused on the Hebrew Bible and lots of dead ancient languages. I\u2019d found biblical nerdvana<\/span>, at least until that Sunday morning when I saw Psalm 82<\/a> without English camouflage.<\/p>\n

Lookin<\/span>g back, I can explain all my study, education, and learning before and after my Psalm 82<\/a> moment using two metaphors: a filter and a mosaic.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

FILTERING THE TEXT<\/p>\n

Filters are used to eliminate things in order to achieve a desired result. When we use them in cooking, the unwanted elements are dredged, strained, and discarded. When used in our cars, they prevent particles from interfering with performance. When we use them in email, they weed out what (or whom) we don\u2019t want to read. What\u2019s left is what we use\u2014what contributes to our meal, our engine, or our sanity.<\/p>\n

Most of my education was conducted in this way\u2014using filters. It was no sinister plot. It was just what it was. The content I learned was filtered through certain presumptions and traditions that ordered the material for me, that put it into a system that made sense to my modern mind. Verses that didn\u2019t quite work with my tradition were \u201cproblem passages\u201d that were either filtered out or consigned to the periphery of unimportance.<\/p>\n

I understand that a lot of well-meaning Bible students, pastors, and professors don\u2019t look at how they approach the Bible that way. I know I didn\u2019t. But it\u2019s what happens. We view the Bible through the lens of what we know and what\u2019s familiar. Psalm 82<\/a> broke my filter. More importantly, it alerted me to the fact that I\u2019d been using one. Our traditions, however honorable, are not intrinsic to the Bible. They are systems we invent to organize the Bible. They are artificial. They are filters<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Once I\u2019d been awakened to this, it struck me as faithless to use a filter. But throwing away my filters cost me the systems with which I\u2019d ordered Scripture and doctrine in my mind. I was left with lots of fragments. It didn\u2019t feel like it at the time, but that was the best thing that could have happened.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

THE MOSAIC<\/p>\n

The facts of the Bible are just pieces\u2014bits of scattered data. Our tendency is to impose order, and to do that we apply a filter. But we gain a perspective that is both broader and deeper if we allow ourselves to see the pieces in their own wider context. We need to see the mosaic created by the pieces.<\/p>\n

The Bible is really a theological and literary mosaic. The pattern in a mosaic often isn\u2019t clear up close. It may appear to be just a random assemblage of pieces. Only when you step back can you see the wondrous whole. Yes, the individual pieces are essential; without them there would be no mosaic. But the meaning of all the pieces is found in the completed<\/em> mosaic. And a mosaic isn\u2019t imposed on<\/em> the pieces; it derives from<\/em> them.<\/p>\n

I now view Psalm 82<\/a> not as a passage that shredded my filter but rather as an important piece of a larger, mesmerizing mosaic. Psalm 82<\/a> has at its core the unseen realm and its interaction with the human world. And that psalm isn\u2019t the only piece like that; there are lots of them. In fact, the intersection of our domain and the unseen world\u2014which includes the triune God, but also a much more numerous cast\u2014is at the heart of biblical theology.<\/p>\n

My passion is to persuade you to remove your filter and begin to look at the pieces of Scripture as part of a mosaic so that this \u201cbig picture\u201d can begin to take focus. If you do it, you\u2019ll find, as I did, that this approach leads you to the answers to questions like, \u201cWhy is that<\/em> in the Bible?\u201d and \u201cHow can I make sense of all this?\u201d If you\u2019ve spent serious time in Scripture, you know that there are many odd passages, curious phrases, troubling paradoxes, echoes of one event in another, connections within and between the testaments that can\u2019t be coincidental.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

OBSTACLES AND PROTOCOLS<\/p>\n

There are some serious obstacles to transitioning from seeing the Bible through filters to allowing all of its pieces to form a mosaic. I\u2019ve experienced all of them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1.<\/em>We\u2019ve been trained to think that the history of Christianity is the true context of the Bible<\/em><\/p>\n

We talk a lot about interpreting the Bible in context, but Christian history is not<\/em> the context of the biblical writers. The proper context for interpreting the Bible is not Augustine or any other church father. It is not the Catholic Church. It is not the rabbinic movements of late antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is not the Reformation or the Puritans. It is not evangelicalism in any of its flavors. It is not the modern world at all, or any period of its history<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers\u2014the context that produced<\/em> the Bible.We do not share the cognitive framework of the biblical writers. While the implications may seem uncomfortable, it is hermeneutically pointless to pretend otherwise. See the companion website<\/a> for examples of resistance to this transparently obvious fact.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> Every other context is alien to the biblical writers and, therefore, to the Bible. Yet there is a pervasive t<\/em>endency in the believing Church to filter the Bible through creeds, confessions, and denominational preferences<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not arguing that we should ignore our Christian forefathers. I\u2019m simply saying that we should give their words and their thought the proper perspective and priority. Creeds serve a useful purpose. They distill important, albeit carefully selected, theological ideas. But they are not inspired. They are no substitute for the biblical text.<\/p>\n

The biblical text was produced by men who lived in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean between the second millennium bc and the first century ad. To understand how biblical writers thought, we need to tap into the intellectual output of that world. A vast amount of that material is available to us, thanks to modern technology. As our understanding of the worldview of the biblical writers grows, so does our understanding of what they intended to say\u2014and the mosaic of their thinking takes shape in our minds.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

3.<\/em>We assume that a lot of things in the Bible are too odd or peripheral to matter<\/em><\/p>\n

Sometime after we moved to Wisconsin for my doctoral work, my wife and I found a church that felt as if it might become our new church home. The pastor had a degree from a well-known seminary. His first two sermons from 1 Peter were filled with solid exposition. I was excited about the prospects. By our third visit, he had reached 1 Peter 3:14\u201322<\/a> in his sermon series, a very odd passage that\u2019s also one of my favorites. What happened next is etched on my memory. The pastor took the pulpit and announced with complete sincerity, \u201cWe\u2019re going to skip this section of 1 Peter since it\u2019s just too strange.\u201d We didn\u2019t visit again.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve seen this sort of evasion more than once. Usually it\u2019s not as dramatic. Pastors don\u2019t typically tell their people to skip part of the Bible. The more common strategy for \u201chandling\u201d strange passages is more subtle: Strip the bizarre passage of anything that makes it bizarre. The goal is to provide the most ordinary, comfortable interpretation possible.<\/p>\n

This strategy is ironic to say the least. Why is it that Christians who would strenuously defend a belief in God or the virgin birth against charges that they are unscientific or irrational don\u2019t hesitate to call out academic SWAT teams to explain away \u201cweird\u201d biblical passages? The core doctrines of the faith are themselves neither ordinary nor a comfortable fit with empirical rationalism.<\/p>\n

The odds are very high that you\u2019ve never heard that Psalm 82<\/a> plays a pivotal role in biblical theology (including New Testament theology). I\u2019ve been a Christian for over thirty years and I\u2019ve never heard a sermon on it. There are many other passages whose content is curious or \u201cdoesn\u2019t make sense\u201d and so are abandoned or glossed over. Here\u2019s a sampling of them:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Gen 1:26<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Gen 3:5<\/a>, 22<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Gen 10\u201311<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Gen 15:1<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Gen 48:15\u201316<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Exod 3:1\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Exod 23:20\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Num 13:32\u201333<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a>See the esv<\/span> or NRSV. These translations rightly incorporate the Dead Sea Scroll reading into the running text of the translation.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Deut 32:17<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Judg 6<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 1 Sam 3<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 1 Sam 23:1\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 1 Kgs 22:1\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 2 Kgs 5:17\u201319<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Job 1\u20132<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Pss 82<\/a>, 68<\/a>, 89<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Isa 14:12\u201315<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Ezek 28:11\u201319<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Dan 7<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Matt 16:13\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 John 1:1\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 John 10:34\u201335<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Rom 8:18\u201324<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Rom 15:24<\/a>, 28<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 1 Cor 2:6\u201313<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 1 Cor 5:4\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 1 Cor 6:3<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 1 Cor 10:18\u201322<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Gal 3:19<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Eph 6:10\u201312<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Heb 1\u20132<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 1 Pet 3:18\u201322<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 2 Pet 1:3\u20134<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 2 Pet 2:4\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Jude 5\u20137<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Rev 2:26\u201328<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 Rev 3:21<\/a><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t consider that a mere catalog. The list is deliberate, and all of those passages will be examined in this book. All are conceptually interconnected, and all help illuminate the more commonly studied passages\u2014those that do<\/em> \u201cmake sense.\u201d Look them up for a glimpse of what we\u2019ll be talking about.<\/p>\n

How are we supposed to understand the identity of the \u201csons of God\u201d in Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>? Why did Jesus angrily rebuke Peter by saying \u201cGet behind me, Satan\u201d? Why does Paul tell the Corinthian church to stop arguing because they would someday \u201crule over angels\u201d? There are lots of explanations offered by pastors and teachers of the Bible for these and other strange passages, but most are offered without consideration of how that explanation works with the rest of the Bible, with passages strange or not-so-strange.<\/p>\n

In this book, I\u2019ll be offering my take on many \u201cstrange passages.\u201d Other scholars have done the same. But if mine are different, it\u2019s because they grow out of the perspective of the mosaic. They don\u2019t exist in isolation from other passages. They have explanatory power in more than one place.<\/p>\n

My point is not to suggest that we can have absolute certainty in interpretation everywhere in the Bible. No one, including the present writer, is always right about what every passage means. I have a firm grasp of my own lack of omniscience. (So does my wife, for the record.) Rather, my contention in this book is that if it\u2019s we<\/em>ird, it\u2019s important.<\/em> Every passage plays a coherent role in the mosaic whole.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve said that the mosaic of biblical theology gives coherence to the pieces of the Bible. But the Bible is a long, detailed work. One of the hardest parts about writing this book was deciding what to reserve for another book\u2014how to be comprehensive without being exhaustive. I decided to cheat.<\/p>\n

The present book is the culmination of years of my time spent reading and studying the biblical text and exploring the insights of other scholars. I\u2019ve accumulated thousands of books and scholarly journal articles that relate in some way to the ancient biblical worldview that produces the mosaic. I\u2019ve read nearly all of them in part or whole. My bibliography is nearly as long as this book. I mention this to make it clear that the ideas you\u2019ll read here are not contrived. All of them have survived what scholars call peer review. My main contribution is synthesis<\/em> of the ideas and articulating a biblical theology not derived from tradition but rather framed exclusively in the context of the Bible\u2019s own ancient worldview.<\/p>\n

The present book is academic in tone, but it\u2019s not necessarily a book for scholars. You don\u2019t need to have gone to seminary or earned an advanced degree to follow along. I\u2019ve tried to reserve technical discussion to a companion website<\/a> to this book that will provide fuller discussion on certain topics, additional bibliography, and \u201cnuts and bolts\u201d data from the original languages for those who desire that.The companion website is www.moreunseenrealm.com<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a><\/p>\n

For those for whom this book may feel too dense, I\u2019ve written a less-detailed version entitled Supernatural<\/em>. It covers the core concepts in this book with an orientation toward practical application of the supernatural worldview of the biblical writers\u2014toward how the biblical mosaic presented here should change our spiritual lives and outlook.<\/p>\n

The subtitle of this book (\u201cRecovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible\u201d) captures the struggle of being a modern person with a believing heart trying to think like a premodern biblical writer. If you can feel even a little of that conflict, you\u2019re where I\u2019ve been for a very long time. And I\u2019m still on that journey. Somewhere along the way, I came to believe that I didn\u2019t need protection from my Bible. If you believe that too, you\u2019re good to go.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

CHAPTER 3<\/p>\n

God\u2019s Entourage<\/p>\n

Children often ask, \u201cWhat was there before God made the world?\u201d The answer most adults would give is that God<\/em> was there. That\u2019s true, but incomplete. God had company. And I\u2019m not talking about the other members of the Trinity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

GOD\u2019S FAMILY<\/p>\n

The biblical answer is that the heavenly host was with God before creation. In fact, they witnessed it. What God says to Job in Job 38:4\u20137<\/a> is clear on that point:<\/p>\n

4<\/a> \u201cWhere were you at my laying the foundation of the earth?<\/p>\n

Tell me, if you possess understanding.<\/p>\n

5<\/a> Who determined its measurement? Yes, you do know.<\/p>\n

Or who stretched the measuring line upon it?<\/p>\n

6<\/a> On what were its bases sunk?<\/p>\n

Or who laid its cornerstone,<\/p>\n

7<\/a> when the morning stars were singing together<\/p>\n

and all the sons of God shouted for joy?<\/p>\n

When God laid the foundations of the earth, the \u201csons of God\u201d were there, shouting for joy. But who are the sons of God? Obviously, they aren\u2019t humans. This is before<\/em> the creation of the world. We might think of them as angels, but that wouldn\u2019t be quite correct.<\/p>\n

The unseen world has a hierarchy, something reflected in such terms as archangel<\/em> versus angel<\/em>. That hierarchy is sometimes difficult for us to discern in the Old Testament, since we aren\u2019t accustomed to viewing the unseen world like a dynastic household (more on that following), as an Israelite would have processed certain terms used to describe the hierarchy.On the hierarchy of divine beings within the heavenly host, see E. Theodore Mullen Jr., \u201cDivine Assembly,\u201d The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary<\/em>, vol. 2 (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 215\u201316<\/a>; S. B. Parker, \u201cSons of (The) God(S),\u201d in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible<\/em>, 2nd ed. (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden; Boston; Cologne; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 798<\/a>; Michael S. Heiser, \u201cDivine Council,\u201d in Lexham Bible Dictionary<\/em> (ed. John D. Barry and Lazarus Wentz; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012); Michael S. Heiser, \u201cDivine Council,\u201d in the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings<\/em> (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 112\u201316<\/a>; G. Cooke, \u201cThe Sons of (the) God(s),\u201d Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/em> 35 (1964): 22\u201347.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> In the ancient Semitic world, sons of God<\/em> (Hebrew: b<\/span>eney elohim<\/span>) is a phrase used to identify divine beings with higher-level responsibilities or jurisdictions. The term angel<\/em> (Hebrew: mal\u02beak<\/span>) describes an important but still lesser task: delivering messages.This is why, in the Hebrew Bible, the sons of God are actually never called angels. That is, there are no passages in which beney elohim<\/em> (and similar phrases) occur in parallel with mal\u02beakim<\/em> (\u201cangels\u201d). Later Jewish texts, such as the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, in some instances rendered beney elohim<\/em> as angeloi<\/em> (\u201cangels\u201d), but such translation decisions are not driven by the distinctive Hebrew vocabulary.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a><\/p>\n

In Job 38<\/a>, the sons of God are referred to as \u201cmorning stars.\u201d That same description is found outside the Bible in ancient texts from the biblical world. Ancient people thought the stars were living entities.Compare Isa 14:13\u201314<\/a>. Astral religion and solar mythology were common in the ancient world. The notion that stars were animate divine beings was part of Israelite thinking. The stars had names (Psa 147:4<\/a>), were created by God (Gen 1:16<\/a>), were thought of as a divine army (Judg 5:20<\/a>; Isa 40:25\u201326<\/a>; Dan 8:10<\/a>; Rev 12:1\u20139<\/a>). The idea persisted well into the New Testament era. See Mark S. Smith, \u201cAstral Religion and the Representation of Divinity: The Cases of Ugarit and Judah,\u201d Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World<\/em> (ed. Scott Noegel, Joel Walker, Brannon Wheeler; University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 187\u2013206; Alan Scott, Origen and the Life of the Stars: A History of an Idea<\/em>, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Elmer B. Smick, \u201cAnother Look at the Mythological Elements in the Book of Job,\u201d Westminster Theological Journal<\/em> 40 (1978): 213\u201328<\/a>; Ulf Oldenburg, \u201cAbove the Stars of El: El in Ancient South Arabic Religion,\u201d Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/em> 82 (1970): 187\u2013208.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> Their reasoning was simple: Many stars moved. That was a sign of life to the ancient mind. Stars were the shining glory of living beings.<\/p>\n

The stars also inhabited the divine realm\u2014literally, in the sense that they existed off the earth. The ancients believed that divine beings lived far away from humans, in remote places where human habitation wasn\u2019t possible. The most remote place of all was the sky, the heavens.<\/p>\n

Morning stars are the stars one sees over the horizon just before the sun appears in the morning. They signal new life\u2014a new day. The label works. It conveys the right thought. The original morning stars, the sons of God, saw the beginning of life as we know it\u2014the creation of earth.<\/p>\n

Right from the start, then, God has company\u2014other divine beings, the sons of God. Most discussions of what\u2019s around before creation omit the members of the heavenly host. That\u2019s unfortunate, because God and the sons of God, the divine family, are the first pieces of the mosaic.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve barely made it to creation so far, and already we\u2019ve uncovered some important truths from Scripture that have the potential to affect our theology in simple but profound ways. Their importance, if it isn\u2019t clear yet, will become apparent soon.<\/p>\n

First, we learned that the sons of God are divine, not human. The sons of God witnessed creation long before there were people. They are intelligent nonhuman beings. The reference to the sons of God as stars also makes it clear that they are divine. While the language is metaphorical, it is also more than metaphorical. In the next chapter we\u2019ll see other passages that tell us that the sons of God are real, divine entities created by Yahweh, the God of Israel.<\/p>\n

Second, the label \u201csons\u201d deserves attention. It\u2019s a family term, and that\u2019s neither coincidental nor inconsequential. God has an unseen family\u2014in fact, it\u2019s his original family. The logic is the same as that behind Paul\u2019s words in Acts at Mars Hill (the Areopagus) that all humans are indeed God\u2019s offspring (Acts 17:28<\/a>). God has created a host of nonhuman divine beings whose domain is (to human eyes) an unseen realm. And because he created them, he claims them as his sons, in the same way you claim your children as your sons and daughters because you played a part in their creation.<\/p>\n

While it\u2019s clear that the sons of God were with God before creation, there\u2019s a lot about them that isn\u2019t clear. They\u2019re divine, but what does that really mean? How should we think of them in relation to God?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

GOD\u2019S HOUSEHOLD<\/p>\n

The rulers of ancient Egypt were called pharaohs. In the language of ancient Egypt, the title was actually two words, per a-a<\/span>, which meant \u201cgreat house(hold).\u201d The household concept fo<\/span>r the ruling families of ancient Egypt was that of a dynastic bureaucracy. Pharaohs typically had large, extended families. They frequently appointed family members to key positions of authority in their administration. The elite staffing of the king\u2019s govern<\/span>ing bureaucracy typically came from Pharaoh\u2019s household. They were administrators, not lowly messengers.<\/p>\n

This concept and structure was well <\/span>known throughout the ancient world. It spoke of layered authority: a high king, elite administrators who were often related to the king, and low-level personnel who served the higher levels of authority. Everyone in the system was part <\/span>of the government, but authority and status were tiered.<\/p>\n

Several Old Testament passages describe this administrative structure existing in the heavenly realm, as we<\/span>ll. Psalm 82<\/a> is perhaps the clearest\u2014and perhaps the most startling. As I related in the first chapter, it\u2019s the passage that opened my own eyes. The psalm refers to Yahweh\u2019s administration as a counc<\/span>il.The major scholarly works on the divine councils of Canaan, Ugarit, and Israel are E. Theodore Mullen Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature<\/em>, Harvard Semitic Monographs 24 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) and Lowell K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy<\/em> (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994); H. W. Robinson, \u201cThe Council of Yahweh,\u201d Journal of Theological Studies<\/em> 45 (1944): 151\u201357; David Marron Fleming, \u201cThe Divine Council as Type Scene in the Hebrew Bible\u201d (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989); Min Suc Kee, \u201cThe Heavenly Council and Its Type-Scene,\u201d Journal for the Study of the Old Testament<\/em> 31.3 (2007): 259\u201373; Patrick D. Miller, \u201cCosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol,\u201d Horizons in Biblical Theology<\/em>, no. 2 (1987): 53\u201378; Ellen White, Yahweh\u2019s Council: Its Structure and Membership<\/em> (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 65; T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). See also my review of White\u2019s book on the companion website<\/a>. For a general academic survey of the divine council, see Heiser, \u201cDivine Council<\/a>,\u201d in Dictionary of the Old Testament<\/em>; Heiser, \u201cDivine Council,\u201d in Lexham Bible Dictionary<\/em><\/a>. On Psa 82<\/a> see Matitiahu Tsevat, \u201cGod and the Gods in Assembly,\u201d Hebrew Union College Annual<\/em> 40\u201341 (1969\u201370): 123\u201337; James Stokes Ackerman, \u201cAn Exegetical Study of Psalm 82\u201d (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1966); Willem S. Prinsloo, \u201cPsalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?\u201d Biblica<\/em> vol. 76, no. 2 (1995): 219\u201328.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> The first verse reads:<\/p>\n

God (elohim<\/span>) stands in the divine assembly;<\/p>\n

he administers judgment in the midst of the gods (elohim<\/span>).<\/p>\n

You no doubt noticed that, as I pointed out in chapter one, the word <\/span>elohim<\/span> occurs twice in this verse. You also probably recognize elohim<\/span> as one of God\u2019s names, despite the fact that the form of the word is plural<\/em>. In English we make words plural by adding -s<\/em> or -es<\/em> o<\/span>r -ies<\/em> (rats, horses, stories<\/em>). In Hebrew, plurals of masculine nouns end with -im<\/span>.<\/p>\n

While the word elohim<\/span> is plural in form, its meaning<\/em> can be either plural or singular. Most often (over 2,000 times)<\/span> in the Hebrew Bible it is singular, referring to the God of Israel.<\/p>\n

We have words like this in English. For example, the word sheep<\/em> can be either singular or plural. When we see sheep<\/em> by itself, we d<\/span>on\u2019t know if we should think of one sheep or a flock of sheep. If we put sheep<\/em> into a sentence (\u201cThe sheep is lost\u201d), we know that only one sheep is meant since the verb is<\/em> requires a singular subject<\/span>. Likewise, \u201cThe sheep are lost\u201d informs us that the status of more than one sheep is being discussed. Grammar guides us. It\u2019s the same with Hebrew.<\/p>\n

Psalm 82:1<\/a> is especially interesting since elohim<\/span> o<\/span>ccurs twice in that single verse. In Psalm 82:1<\/a>, the first elohim<\/span> must be singular, since the Hebrew grammar has the word as the subject of a singular verbal form (\u201cstands\u201d). The second elohim<\/span> must be<\/span> plural, since the preposition in front of it (\u201cin the midst of\u201d) requires more than one. You can\u2019t be \u201cin the midst<\/em> of\u201d one<\/em>. The preposition calls for a group\u2014as does the earlier noun, assembly<\/em>. The <\/span>meaning of the verse is inescapable: The singular elohim<\/span> of Israel presides over an assembly of elohim<\/span>.<\/p>\n

A quick read of Psalm 82<\/a> informs us that God has called this council meeting to judge the elohim<\/span><\/span> for corrupt rule of the nations. Verse 6<\/a> of the psalm declares that these elohim<\/span> are sons of God. God says to them:<\/p>\n

I have said, \u201cYou are gods [elohim<\/span>],<\/p>\n

and sons of the Most High [beney elyon<\/span>], all o<\/span>f you.<\/p>\n

To a biblical writer, the Most High (elyon<\/span>) was the God of Israel. The Old Testament refers to him as Most High in several places (e.g., Gen 14:18\u201322<\/a>; Num 24:16<\/a>; Pss 7:17<\/a>; 18:13<\/a>; 47:2<\/a>). The son<\/span>s of God\/the Most High here are clearly called elohim<\/span>, as the pronoun \u201cyou\u201d in verse 6<\/a> is a plural form in the Hebrew.<\/p>\n

The text is not clear whether all of the elohim<\/span> are under judgment or just some. <\/span>The idea of elohim<\/span> ruling the nations under God\u2019s authority is a biblical concept that is described in other passages we\u2019ll explore later. For now, it\u2019s sufficient that you see clearly that the sons o<\/span>f God are divine beings under the authority of the God of Israel.As we proceed, I\u2019ll be referring to the \u201cdivine council worldview\u201d of the biblical writers. This phrase and others like it refer to God\u2019s rule over all things, visible or invisible, through his intelligent agents\u2014his imagers\u2014both human and nonhuman. Since, as we will discover, it was God\u2019s original intention for humanity (and thus humanity\u2019s original destiny) that they rule and reign with him as part of his heavenly nonhuman household, human affairs are encompassed in the divine council worldview. In biblical theology, there is a symbiosis of both realms, whether in loyal service to God, or in spiritual conflict in the wake of divine and human rebellions.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a><\/p>\n

You see why the psalm threw me for a loop. The first verse has God presiding over an assembly of gods. Doesn\u2019t that sound like a pant<\/span>heon\u2014something we associate with polytheism and mythology? For that very reason, many English translations obscure the Hebrew in this verse. For example, the New American Standard Bible
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>nasb<\/a> translates it as: \u201cGod takes His stan<\/span>d in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers.\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no need to camouflage what the Hebrew text says. People shouldn\u2019t be protected from the Bible. The biblical writers weren\u2019t po<\/span>lytheists. But since Psalm 82<\/a> generates questions and controversy, we need to spend some time on what it teaches and what it doesn\u2019t teach, along with other passages that inform us about the divine co<\/span>uncil. We\u2019ll do just that in the next chapter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

CHAPTER 4<\/p>\n

God Alone<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no doubt that Psalm<\/a> 82<\/a> can rock your biblical worldview. Once I saw what it was actually saying, I was convinced that I needed to look at the Bible through ancient eyes, not my traditions. I had to navigate the questions that are probably floating around in your own head and heart now that you\u2019ve read\u2014really read\u2014that passage.<\/p>\n

First and foremost, you should be aware of some of the ways the clear meaning of Psalm 82<\/a> is distorted by interpreters and why it isn\u2019t<\/em> teaching polytheism.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

DIVINE BEINGS ARE NOT HUMAN<\/p>\n

Many Christians who object to the plain meaning of the Hebrew text of Psalm 82<\/a> assert that this psalm is actually describing God the Father speaking to the other members of the Trinity. This view results in heresy. I\u2019m confident you can see why\u2014the psalm has God judging the other elohim<\/span> for corruption (vv. 2\u20134<\/a>). The corrupt elohim<\/span> are sentenced to die like humans (v. 7<\/a>). These observations alone should make any Christian who cares about the doctrine of God abandon this idea. It has other flaws. The end of the psalm makes it evident that the elohim<\/span> being chastised were given some sort of authority over the nations of the earth, a task at which they failed. This doesn\u2019t fit the Trinity.<\/p>\n

Other Christians who see the problems with this first idea try to argue that the sons of God are human beings\u2014Jews to be specific. Some Jewish readers (who obviously would not be Trinitarian) also favor this view.<\/p>\n

This \u201chuman view\u201d is as flawed as the Trinitarian view.Space constraints make it impossible to fully address the flawed thinking behind the human explanation for elohim<\/em> (in Psa 82<\/a> and elsewhere) in this chapter. In the discussion that proceeds, I touch on some of the more glaring logical and scriptural problems for this view. Arguments for the human view of elohim<\/em> stemming from passages like Judg 18<\/a>, Exod 22:7\u20139<\/a>, Psa 45:7<\/a>, or Jesus\u2019 quotation of Psa 82:6<\/a> in John 10:34<\/a> are dealt with at length on the companion website<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> At no point in the Old Testament does the Scripture teach that Jews or Jewish leaders were put in authority over the other nations. The opposite is true\u2014they were to be separate from other nations. The covenant with Abraham presupposed this separation: If Israel was wholly devoted to Yahweh, other nations would be blessed (Gen 12:1\u20133<\/a>). Humans are also not by nature disembodied. The word elohim<\/span> is a \u201cplace of residence\u201d term. Our home is the world of embodiment; elohim<\/span> by nature inhabit the spiritual world.<\/p>\n

The real problem with the human view, though, is that it cannot be reconciled with other references in the Hebrew Old Testament that refer to a divine council of elohim<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Psalm 89:5\u20137<\/a> (Hebrew: vv. 6\u20138<\/a>) explicitly contradicts the notion of a divine council in which the elohim<\/span> are humans.<\/p>\n

5<\/a> And so the heavens will praise your wonderful deed, O Yahweh,<\/p>\n

even your faithfulness, in the assembly of the holy ones.<\/p>\n

6<\/a> For who in the sky is equal to Yahweh?<\/p>\n

Who is like Yahweh among the sons of God,<\/p>\n

7<\/a> a God feared greatly in the council of the holy ones,<\/p>\n

and awesome above all surrounding him?<\/p>\n

God\u2019s divine council is an assembly in the heavens<\/em>, not on earth. The language is unmistakable. This is precisely what we\u2019d expect if we understand the elohim<\/span> to be divine beings. It is utter nonsense if we think of them as humans. There is no reference in Scripture to a council of human beings serving Yahweh in the skies (Jews or otherwise).<\/p>\n

What Psalms 82<\/a> and 89<\/a> describe is completely consistent with what we saw earlier in Job 38:7<\/a>\u2014a group of heavenly sons of God. It also accords perfectly with other references to the sons of God as plural elohim<\/span>:<\/p>\n

The sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh. (Job 1:6<\/a>; 2:1<\/a>)<\/p>\n

1<\/a> Ascribe to Yahweh, O sons of God,<\/p>\n

ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.<\/p>\n

2<\/a> Ascribe to Yahweh the glory due his name (Psa 29:1\u20132<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Do these references describe a group of Jewish leaders, among whom (in the passage from Job) Yahweh\u2019s great adversary appears, leading to Job\u2019s suffering? The conclusion is obvious.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

PLURAL ELOHIM DOES NOT MEAN POLYTHEISM<\/p>\n

Many scholars believe that Psalm 82<\/a> and other passages demonstrate that the religion of ancient Israel began as a polytheistic system and then evolved into monotheism. I reject that idea, along with any other explanations that seek to hide the plain reading of the text. In all such cases, the thinking is misguided.I\u2019ve written three technical articles that discuss this subject: \u201cAre Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 32:8\u20139 and Psalm 82?\u201d HIPHIL<\/em> 3 (2006); \u201cMonotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,\u201d Bulletin for Biblical Research<\/em> 18.1 (2008): 1\u201330<\/a>; and \u201cDoes Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible Demonstrate an Evolution from Polytheism to Monotheism in Israelite Religion?\u201d Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament<\/em> 1.1 (2012): 1\u201324<\/a>. The first and third articles are accessible online via the companion website<\/a>. The third article addresses some recent articulations of the consensus view, that Psa 82<\/a> has Yahweh and El as separate deities. See the companion website<\/a> for some excerpts from this article and further discussion.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> The problem is rooted in a mistaken notion of what exactly the word elohim<\/span> means.<\/p>\n

Since elohim<\/span> is so often translated God<\/em>, we look at the Hebrew word the same way we look at capitalized G-o-d. When we see the word God<\/em>, we instinctively think of a divine being with a unique set of attributes\u2014\u200bomnipresence, omnipotence, sovereignty, and so on. But this is not how a biblical writer thought about the term. Biblical authors did not assign a specific set of attributes to the word elohim<\/span>. That is evident when we observe how they used the word.<\/p>\n

The biblical writers refer to a half-dozen different entities with the word elohim<\/span>. By any religious accounting, the attributes of those entities are not<\/em> equal.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Yahweh, the God of Israel (thousands of times\u2014e.g., Gen 2:4\u20135<\/a>; Deut 4:35<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 The members of Yahweh\u2019s council (Psa 82:1<\/a>, 6<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 Gods and goddesses of other nations (Judg 11:24<\/a>; 1 Kgs 11:33<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 Demons (Hebrew: shedim<\/span>\u2014Deut 32:17<\/a>)There is much confusion about the term demon<\/em> among both scholars and nonspecialists. The term in its ancient Near Eastern context doesn\u2019t align well with modern conceptions (from the Middle Ages onward). See the ensuing discussion and footnotes.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 The deceased Samuel (1 Sam 28:13<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 Angels or the Angel of YahwehThe choice between these two options depends on the interpretation of Gen 35:7<\/a> and the event(s) that form(s) the backdrop to that verse. Later chapters in this book will make it clear that I believe the Angel of Yahweh is Yahweh in visible form, and so that particular angel shares Yahweh\u2019s attributes. However, the rest of the discussion here makes clear that angels\u2014in fact, all spiritual beings\u2014are elohim<\/em> due to the nature of what that term in fact denotes.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> (Gen 35:7<\/a>)<\/p>\n

The importance of this list can be summarized with one question: Would any Israelite, especially a biblical writer, really believe that the deceased human dead and demons are on the same level as Yahweh? No. The usage of the term el<\/span>ohim<\/span> by biblical writers tells us very clearly that the term is not about a set of attributes. Even though when we<\/em> see \u201cG-o-d\u201d we think of a unique set of attributes, when a biblical writer wrote eloh<\/span>im<\/span>, he wasn\u2019t thinking that way. If he were, he\u2019d never have used the term elohim<\/span> to describe anything but Yahweh.<\/p>\n

Consequently, there is no warrant for concluding that plural elohim<\/span> produces a pantheon of interchangeable deities. There is no basis for concluding that the biblical writers would have viewed Yahweh as no better than another elohim<\/span>. A biblical writer would not have presumed that Yahweh could be defeated on any given day by another elohim<\/span>, or that another elohim<\/span> (why not any of them?) had the same set of attributes. That<\/em> is polytheistic thinking. It is not the biblical picture.<\/p>\n

We can be confident of this conclusion by once again observing what the biblical writers say about Yahweh\u2014and never say about another elohim<\/span>. The biblical writers speak of Yahweh in ways that telegraph their belief in his uniqueness and incomparability:<\/p>\n

\u201cWho is like you among the gods [elim<\/span>], Yahweh?\u201d (Exod 15:11<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2005\u2018What god [el<\/span>] is there in the heaven or on the earth who can do according to your works and according to your mighty deeds?\u2019\u2005\u201d (Deut 3:24<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u201cO Yahweh, God of Israel, there is no god [elohim<\/span>] like you in the heavens above or on the earth beneath\u201d (1 Kgs 8:23<\/a>).<\/p>\n

For you, O Yahweh, are most high over all the earth.<\/p>\n

You are highly exalted above all gods [elohim<\/span>] (Psalm 97:9<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Biblical writers also assign unique qualities to Yahweh. Yahweh is all-powerful (Jer 32:17<\/a>, 27<\/a>; Pss 72:18<\/a>; 115:3<\/a>), the sovereign king over the other elohim<\/span> (Psa 95:3<\/a>; Dan 4:35<\/a>; 1 Kgs 22:19<\/a>), the creator of the other members of his host-council (Psa 148:1\u20135<\/a>; Neh 9:6<\/a>; cf. Job 38:7<\/a>; Deut 4:19\u201320<\/a>; 17:3<\/a>; 29:25\u201326<\/a>;32:17<\/a>; Jas 1:17<\/a>)Jas 1:17<\/a> calls God \u201cthe Father of lights,\u201d a phrase that points to God as the creator of celestial objects and all other heavenly beings. Like the cultures of the wider ancient world, Jewish thinking held that the stars were heavenly beings. The idea is found in the Old Testament, where the sons of God are metaphorically referred to as \u201cthe stars of God\u201d (Job 38:7<\/a>). James\u2019 description of God as the \u201cFather of lights\u201d therefore speaks of God as the creator of all heavenly beings. He alone is uncreated\u2014they are created and, therefore, inferior. See P. W. van der Horst, \u201cFather of the Lights,\u201d Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible<\/em>, 2nd ed. (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden; Boston; Cologne; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 328\u201329<\/a>. The fact that, in biblical theology, there can by definition be only one uncreated being in turn means that all other elohim<\/em> inhabitants of the spiritual realm are made of something<\/em>. We often mistake invisibility with nonmateriality, but that is scientifically (materially) not the case.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a> and the lone elohim<\/span> who deserves worship from the other elohim<\/span> (Psa 29:1<\/a>). In fact, Nehemiah 9:6<\/a> explicitly declares that Yahweh is unique\u2014there is only one<\/em> Yahweh (\u201cYou alone are Yahweh\u201d).<\/p>\n

The biblical use of elohim<\/span> is not hard to understand once we know that it isn\u2019t about attributes. What all the figures on the list have in common is that they are inhabitants of the spiritual<\/em> world.<\/em> In that realm there is hierarchy. For example, Yahweh possesses superior attributes with respect to all elohim<\/span>. But God\u2019s attributes aren\u2019t what makes him an elohim, since inferior beings are members of that same group. The Old Testament writers understood that Yahweh was an elohim<\/span>\u2014but no other elohim<\/span> was Yahweh. He was species-unique among all residents of the spiritual world.<\/p>\n

This is not to say that an elohim<\/span> could not interact with the human world. The Bible makes it clear that divine beings can (and did) assume physical human form, and even corporeal flesh, for interaction with people, but that is not their normal estate. Spiritual beings are \u201cspirits\u201d (1 Kgs 22:19\u201322<\/a>; John 4:24<\/a>; Heb 1:14<\/a>; Rev 1:4<\/a>). In like manner, humans can be transported to the divine realm (e.g., Isa 6<\/a>), but that is not our normal plane of existence. As I explained earlier in this chapter, the word elohim<\/span> is a \u201cplace of residence\u201d term. It has nothing to do with a specific set of attributes.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take a look at some other questions Psalm 82<\/a> raises.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

WHAT DOES GOD NEED WITH A COUNCIL?<\/p>\n

This is an obvious question. Its answer is just as obvious: God doesn\u2019t need<\/em> a council. But it\u2019s scripturally clear that he has one. The question is actually similar<\/span> to another one: What does God need with people?<\/em> The answer is the same: God doesn\u2019t need<\/em> people. But he uses them. God is not dependent on humans for his plans. God doesn\u2019t need us for evangelism. He<\/span> could save all the people he wanted to by merely thinking about it. God could terminate evil in the blink of an eye and bring human history to the end he desires at any moment. But he doesn\u2019t. Instead, he works his plan for all things on earth by using human beings. He\u2019s also not incomplete without our worshi<\/span>p, but he desires it.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not saying that the question of whether God needs a council is <\/span>pointless. I\u2019m saying that it\u2019s no argument against the existence of a divine council.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

ARE THE ELOHIM REAL?<\/p>\n

Those who want to avoid the clarity of Psalm 82<\/a> argue that the gods are only idols. As such, they aren\u2019t real. This argument is flatly contradicted by Scripture. It\u2019s also illogical and shows a misunderstanding of the rationale of idolatry.<\/p>\n

With respect to Scripture, one need look no further than Deuteronomy 32:17<\/a>.<\/p>\n

They [the Israelites] sacrificed to demons [shedim<\/span>], not God [eloah<\/span>], to gods [elohim<\/span>] whom they had not known.<\/p>\n

The verse explicitly calls the elohim<\/span> that the Israelites perversely worshiped demons (shedim<\/span>). This rarely used term (Deut 32:17<\/a>; Psa 106:37<\/a>) comes from the Akkadian shedu<\/span>.Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament<\/em> (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1999), 1417<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> In the ancient Near East, the term shedu<\/span> was neutral; it could speak of a good or malevolent spirit being. These Akkadian figures were often cast as guardians or protective entities, though the term was also used to describe the life force of a person.\u201c\u0161edu,\u201d The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago<\/em>, Vol. 17: \u0160 Part II (ed. John A. Brinkman, Miguel Civil, Ignace J. Gelb, A. Leo Oppenheim, Erica Reiner; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1992), 256.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a> In the context of Deuteronomy 32:17<\/a>, shedim<\/span> were elohim<\/span>\u2014spirit beings guarding foreign territory\u2014who must not be worshiped.In the wider context of Deuteronomy as a whole, these shedim\/elohim<\/em> are the gods allotted to the nations (see chapters 14\u201315<\/a> of this book). Some recent evangelical treatments of the term shedim<\/em>, most notably that of John Walton, contribute much to the discussion but seem to confuse language that identifies an entity as a member of the spiritual realm (elohim<\/em>) with hierarchy in the divine council (see the companion website<\/a> for specific interaction with John H. Walton, \u201cDemons in Mesopotamia and Israel: Exploring the Category of Non-Divine but Supernatural Beings,\u201d in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus<\/em> [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014], 229\u201346). The biblical picture is simply not a neat one that conforms precisely to cognate material. All spiritual beings are, in biblical usage, labeled elohim<\/em>. Terms like beney elohim<\/em> or beney elim<\/em> can either denote rank in the divine council (e.g., Job 1:6<\/a>; 2:1<\/a>; Psa 89:6<\/a> [Heb: 89:7<\/a>]) or, more generally, speak of spiritual beings (Job 38:7<\/a>; Psa 29:1<\/a>). All spiritual beings are members of the heavenly host, the divine council (1 Kgs 22:19\u201323<\/a>), in the sense that they all have some role to play. (There are no spiritual beings who operate alone. They are either under God\u2019s authority or in rebellion.) Some beings are distinguished by role, such as messengers (mal\u02beak<\/em>, a term translated in many instances as \u201cangel,\u201d but which means \u201cmessenger\u201d). In ancient Near Eastern councils, messengers have low rank\u2014but the term does not always denote low status. For example, at Ugarit the messengers (mlkm<\/em>) of Baal are still referred to as gods (\u02beilm<\/em>; KTU<\/em><\/a> 1.3.iii:32<\/a>). They are not \u201cless divine\u201d because of their role. Even Yahweh himself, when embodied or appearing in human form, takes that term (\u201cangel [mal\u02beak<\/em>] of Yahweh\u201d; see chapters 16\u201318<\/a>). Yahweh embodied in the Old Testament is not lesser than Yahweh invisible who is the sender. Hierarchy and identification are not completely interchangeable notions. For our purposes here, Deut 32:17<\/a> serves simply to point to the fact that the biblical writers understood the elohim<\/em> as real beings. That Paul picks up on this passage to express fear of fellowship with demons (1 Cor 10:21\u201322<\/a>; see chapter 38<\/a> of this book) informs us that he believed the elohim<\/em> of Deut 32:17<\/a> were real spiritual beings.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a> Israel was supposed to worship her own God (here, eloah<\/span>; cf. Deut 29:25<\/a>).This is the central point of the shema<\/em>, the creed of ancient Israel (Deut 6:4<\/a>). Despite its familiarity and centrality in Old Testament theology, the shema<\/em> is one of the most notoriously difficult verses in the Bible to translate. See the companion website<\/a> for discussion.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>9<\/a> One cannot deny the reality of the elohim\/shedim<\/span> in Deuteronomy 32:17<\/a> without denying the reality of demons.Deut 32:17<\/a> is poorly translated in a number of Bible versions. See Michael S. Heiser, \u201cDoes Deuteronomy 32:17 Assume or Deny the Reality of Other Gods?\u201d Bible Translator<\/em> 59.3 (July 2008): 137\u201345.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>10<\/a><\/p>\n

Scholars disagree over what kind of entity the shedim<\/span> were. But whatever the correct understanding of shedim<\/span> might be, they are not pieces of wood or stone.<\/p>\n

Scholars of Paul\u2019s first letter to the Corinthians know that, in the apostle\u2019s warning to not fellowship with demons (1 Cor 10:20<\/a>), Paul\u2019s comments follow the history of the Israelites described in Deuteronomy 32<\/a>.A good scholarly resource on this point is Guy Waters, The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul<\/em> (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament<\/em> 221; T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). See especially footnote 12 on page 134, where the Waters provides a list of commentators that argue Paul has Deut 32:17<\/a> explicitly in view in 1 Cor 10:20<\/a>. Proving that the elohim\/shedim<\/em> of Deut 32:17<\/a> are not merely idols does not depend on 1 Cor 10:20<\/a>. Their spiritual identity is evident after a trip through Deuteronomy. In Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a> (reading v. 8<\/a> with the Dead Sea Scrolls, as do the esv<\/span> and NRSV), when the nations were divided at the tower of Babel incident, the nations were placed by God under the authority of lesser elohim<\/em>, the \u201csons of God\u201d (see chapter 14<\/a> of this book for more detail). The parallel passage to that text is Deut 4:19\u201320<\/a>. There the gods \u201callotted\u201d to the other nations while Yahweh took Israel are called the \u201chost of heaven.\u201d Worshiping them is forbidden. This is the same language as in 1 Kgs 22:13\u201323<\/a>, where the prophet Micaiah has a vision of a divine council meeting (see chapter 7<\/a> of this book). These members of the \u201chost of heaven\u201d are called elohim<\/em> in Deut 17:2\u20135<\/a>, where Israel is again warned to not worship them. Unfortunately, Deut 29:25<\/a> informs us that Israelites did worship elohim<\/em> that were not \u201callotted\u201d to them. These passages, along with Deut 32:17<\/a>, interchange the following terms or phrases: host of heaven, gods (elohim<\/em>), and demons (shedim<\/em>). This is where Paul got his theology. He isn\u2019t innovating\u2014he knows Deuteronomy well.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>11<\/a> He warns believers against fellowship with demons on the basis of Israel\u2019s failure in worshiping other gods. Paul uses the word daimonion<\/span>, one of the words used frequently in the New Testament for evil spiritual beings, to translate she<\/span>dim<\/span> in Deuteronomy 32:17<\/a>. Paul knew his Hebrew Bible and didn\u2019t deny the reality of the shedim<\/span>, who are elohim<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cNO GODS BESIDES ME\u201d?<\/p>\n

Another misguided strategy is to argue that statements in the Old Testament that have God saying \u201cthere is none besides me\u201d mean that no other elohim<\/span> exist. This isn\u2019t the case. <\/span>These phrases do not contradict Psalm 82<\/a> or others that, for example, say Yahweh is above all elohim<\/span> or is the \u201cGod of gods [elohim<\/span>].\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve written a lot on this subject\u2014it was a focus of my doctoral <\/span>dissertation.See sections 1.2 and 1.3 of Heiser, \u201cMonotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism?<\/a>\u201d for a summary of the part of my dissertation that deals with this issue.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>12<\/a> These \u201cdenial statements,\u201d as they are called by scholars, do not assert that there are no other elohim<\/span>. In fact, some of them are found in chapters where the reality of other elohim<\/span> i<\/span>s affirmed. We\u2019ve already seen that Deuteronomy 32:17<\/a> refers to elohim<\/span> that Paul believed existed. Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139<\/a> also refers to the sons of God. Deuteronomy 4:19\u201320<\/a> is a parallel to that passage,<\/span> and yet Deuteronomy 4:35<\/a> says there is no god besides Yahweh. Is Scripture filled with contradictions?<\/p>\n

No. These \u201cdenial statements\u201d do not deny that other elohim<\/span> exist. Rather, they deny that any el<\/span><\/span>ohim<\/span> compares to Yahweh. They are statements of incomparability. This point is easily illustrated by noticing where else the same denial language shows up in the Bible. Isaiah 47:8<\/a> and Zephaniah 2:15<\/a> <\/span>have, respectively, Babylon and Nineveh saying \u201cthere is none besides me.\u201d Are we to believe that the point of the phrase is to declare that no other cities exist<\/em> except Babylon or Nineveh? That would<\/span> be absurd. The point of the statement is that Babylon and Nineveh considered themselves incomparable<\/em>, as though no other city could measure up to them. This is precisely the point when these same phr<\/span>ases are used of other gods\u2014they cannot measure up to Yahweh. The Bible does not contradict itself on this point. Those who want to argue that the other elohim<\/span> do not exist are at odds with the supern<\/span>atural worldview of the biblical writers.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

EXAMINING THE LOGIC<\/p>\n

The denial that other elohim<\/span> exist insults the sincerity of biblical writers and the glory of God. How is it coherent to say that verses extolling the superiority of Yahweh above a<\/span>ll elohim<\/span> (Psa 97:9<\/a>) are really telling us Yahweh is greater than beings that don\u2019t exist? Where is God\u2019s glory in passages calling other elim<\/span> to worship Yahweh (Psa 29:1\u20132<\/a>) when the writers don\u2019t bel<\/span>ieve those beings are real? Were the writers inspired to lie or hoodwink us? To give us theological gibberish?<\/p>\n

To my ear, it mocks God to say, \u201cYou\u2019re greater than something that doesn\u2019t exist.\u201d So is<\/span> my dog. Saying, \u201cAmong the beings that we all know don\u2019t exist there is none like Yahweh\u201d is tantamount to comparing Yahweh with Spiderman or Spongebob Squarepants. This reduces praise to a snicker. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire such nonsense?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

MISUNDERSTANDING IDOLATRY<\/p>\n

The biblical prophets love to make fun of idol making. It seems so stupid to carve an idol from wood or stone or make one from clay and then worship it. But ancient people did not believe that their gods were actually images of stone or wood. We misread the biblical writers if we think that.<\/p>\n

What ancient idol worshippers believed was that the objects they made were inhabi<\/em>ted<\/em> by their gods. This is why they performed ceremonies to \u201copen the mouth\u201d of the statue.Edward M. Curtis, \u201cIdol, Idolatry,\u201d in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary<\/em> (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 377<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>13<\/a> The mouth (and nostrils) had to be ritually opened for the spirit of the deity to move in and occupy, a notion inspired by the idea that one needs to breathe to live. The idol first had to be animated with the very real spiritual presence of the deity. Once that was done, the entity was localized for worship and bargaining.<\/p>\n

This is easily proven from ancient texts. There are accounts, for example, of idols being destroyed. There is no sense of fear in those accounts that the god was dead.Michael Dick, a scholar who has devoted two decades of attention to the subject of idolatry in Israel and the ancient Near East, agrees. In his scholarly work on the subject, Dick cites a number of texts where the ancient idolater used deity language for the product of his hands, but also made an intellectual distinction between the statue and the deity it represented, or which was thought to take residence in the statue. See Michael P. Dick, Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East<\/em> (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 33\u201334. In one telling citation referenced by Dick, the destruction of the statue of Shamash of Sippar was not regarded as the death of Shamash. Indeed, Shamash could still be worshiped.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>14<\/a> Rather, there was only a need to make another idol.<\/p>\n

Paul\u2019s warning in 1 Corinthians 10:18\u201322<\/a>, alluded to previously, reflects this thinking. Earlier in the letter, he told the Corinthians that an idol had no power and was, in and of itself, nothing (1 Cor 8:4<\/a>). While Gentiles had other lords and gods, for believers there was only one true God. But in chapter 10<\/a>, he clarifies that he also knows that sacrifices to idols are actually sacrifices to demons\u2014evil members of the spiritual world.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

WHAT ABOUT JESUS?<\/p>\n

Readers of Psalm 82<\/a> often raise a specific question about Jesus. If there are other divine sons of God, what do we make of the description of Jesus as the \u201conly begotten\u201d son of God <\/span>(John 1:14<\/a>, 18<\/a>; 3:16<\/a>, 18<\/a>; 1 John 4:9<\/a>)? How could Jesus be the only<\/em> divine son when there were others?<\/p>\n

\u201cOnly begotten\u201d is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially to modern ears. Not only doe<\/span>s the translation \u201conly begotten\u201d seem to contradict the obvious statements in the Old Testament about other sons of God, it implies that there was a time when the Son did not exist\u2014that he had a beginning.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Greek word translated by this phrase is monogenes<\/span>. It doesn\u2019t mean \u201conly begotten\u201d in some sort of \u201cbirthing\u201d sense. The confusion extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Gr<\/span>eek word. For years monogenes<\/span> was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos<\/span> (\u201conly\u201d) and gennao<\/span> (\u201cto beget, bear\u201d). Greek scholars later discovered that the second part of the word monogenes<\/span><\/span> does not come from the Greek verb gennao<\/span>, but rather from the noun genos<\/span> (\u201cclass, kind\u201d). The term literally means \u201cone of a kind\u201d or \u201cunique\u201d without connotation of created origin. Consequently, sin<\/span>ce Jesus is indeed identified with Yahweh and is therefore, with Yahweh, unique among the elohim<\/span> that serve God, the term monogenes<\/span> does not contradict the Old Testament language.<\/span><\/p>\n

The validity of this<\/span> understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17<\/a>, Isaac is called Abraham\u2019s monogenes<\/span>. If you know your Old Testament you know that Isaac was not<\/em> the \u201conly begotten\u201d son of Ab<\/span>raham. Abraham had earlier fathered Ishmael<\/span> (cf. Gen 16:15<\/a>; 21:3<\/a>). The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham\u2019s unique<\/em> son, for he was the son of the covenant promises. Isaac\u2019s genealogical line would <\/span>be the one through which Messiah would come. Just as Yahweh is an elohim<\/span>, and no other elohim<\/span> are Yahweh, so Jesus is the unique Son, and no other sons of God are like him.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve already encountered a<\/span> lot of material that needs careful thought\u2014and we\u2019ve barely begun this epic story. The sons of God watched as God laid the foundations of the earth (Job 38:7<\/a>). We\u2019re about to see, as they did long ag<\/span>o, exactly what their Maker was up to.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

CHAPTER 5<\/p>\n

As in Heaven, So on Earth<\/p>\n

The saying \u201cas in heaven, so on Earth\u201d is familiar to Christians. It\u2019s part of the Lord\u2019s Prayer (Matt 6:9\u201315<\/a>). In that prayer, we learn what the saying means: \u201cyour kingdom come, your will be done\u201d (6:10<\/a>). The kingdom of God is the rule of God. God desires to rule over all<\/em> he has created: the invisible spiritual realm and the visible earthly realm. He will have his way in both domains.<\/p>\n

In the next three chapters, I\u2019ll explain how the ancient biblical writers originally conceived this kingship from the beginning of creation. What we\u2019ll discover amounts to the real focus of the Bible\u2014its theological center, if you will. I\u2019d put it this way:<\/p>\n

The story of the Bible is about God\u2019s will for, and rule of, the realms he has created, visible and invisible, through the imagers he has created, human and nonhuman. This divine agenda is played out in both realms, in deliberate tandem.<\/p>\n

The term imager<\/em> may be unfamiliar. Later in this chapter I\u2019ll explain what it means to be one.<\/p>\n

The part of the story we know most about is the one we\u2019re in\u2014the visible, terrestrial world. Naturally, that\u2019s the one that gets the most attention from pastors and theologians. The invisible realm is regularly overlooked, or talked about only in relation to God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The two realms are not mutually exclusive or peripheral to each other; they are integrally connected\u2014by design. That point is telegraphed very early in the biblical story.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

CREATOR OR CREATORS?<\/p>\n

The \u201cas in heaven, so on Earth\u201d idea is much older than the Lord\u2019s prayer. It begins in Genesis. The first chapter of Genesis is easily misinterpreted by one not yet acquainted with God\u2019s original family and household, the divine council. Note carefully the emphasis in bold I\u2019ve placed in Genesis 1:26\u201328<\/a>:<\/p>\n

26<\/a> And God said, \u201cLet us<\/strong> make humankind in our<\/strong> image and according to ou<\/strong>r<\/strong> likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every moving thing that moves upon the earth.\u201d 27<\/a> So God created humankind in his<\/strong> image, in the likeness of God he<\/strong> created him, male and female he<\/strong> created them. 28<\/a> And God blessed them, and God said to them, \u201cBe fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven, and over every animal that moves upon the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n

Many Bible readers note the plural<\/em> pronouns (us<\/em>; our<\/em>) with curiosity. They might suggest that the plurals refer to the Trinity, but technical research in Hebrew grammar and exegesis has shown that the Trinity is not a coherent explanation.The most exhaustive scholarly treatment of the plural language and the image is W. Randall Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism<\/em> (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 15; Leiden: Brill, 2003). See especially pp. 17\u201394<\/a>. Seeing the Trinity in Gen 1:26<\/a> is reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament, something that isn\u2019t a sound interpretive method for discerning what an Old Testament writer was thinking. Unlike the New Testament, the Old Testament has no Trinitarian phrases (e.g., \u201cFather, Son, and Holy Spirit\u201d; cf. Matt 28:19\u201320<\/a>). The triune godhead idea is never transparently expressed in the Old Testament. Since, as we saw in chapter 3<\/a>, other references to divine plurality involve divine beings who are lesser than Yahweh, we must be careful about attributing the language of divine plurality to the Trinity. Doing so will get us into theological trouble in other passages. As we\u2019ll see in chapters 17<\/a> and 18<\/a>, Israelites and first-century Jewish writers did<\/em> discern a two-person<\/em> Godhead in the Old Testament. I believe that the evidence for a two-person Godhead discussed in those chapters can in places reveal a third person in the Old Testament (see the companion website<\/a>). In chapter 33<\/a> we\u2019ll see how New Testament writers used the two-person Godhead perspective of the Old Testament to talk about Jesus as God and to articulate the belief that the Spirit was part of the Godhead as well. The answer to the plurality language is also not<\/em> the \u201cplural of majesty.\u201d As Jo\u00fcon-Muraoka notes, \u201cThe we<\/em> of majesty does not exist in Hebrew\u201d (Paul Jo\u00fcon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew<\/em> [Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003], 2:375\u201376<\/a> [par. 114.e<\/a>]). The plural of majesty does exist for nouns (see Jo\u00fcon-Muraoka, par. 136.d<\/a>), but Gen 1:26<\/a> is not about the nouns\u2014the issue is the verbal forms. See also John C. Beckman, \u201cPluralis Majestatis<\/em>: Biblical Hebrew,\u201d Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics<\/em>, vol. 3 (P-Z) (ed. Geoffrey Khan; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 145\u201346.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> The solution is much more straightforward, one that an ancient Israelite would have readily discerned. What we have is a single person (God) addressing a group\u2014the members of his divine council.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s like me going into a room of friends and saying, \u201cHey, let\u2019s go get some pizza!\u201d I\u2019m the one speaking. A group is hearing what I say. Similarly, God comes to the divine council with an exciting announcement: \u201cLet\u2019s create humankind!\u201d<\/p>\n

But if God is speaking to his divine council here, does that suggest that humankind was created by more than one elohim<\/span>? Was the creation of humankind a group project? Not at all. Back to my pizza illustration: If I am the one paying for the pizza\u2014making the plan happen after announcing it\u2014then I retain both the inspiration and the initiative for the entire project. That\u2019s how Genesis 1:26<\/a> works.<\/p>\n

Genesis 1:27<\/a> tells us clearly that only God himself does the creating. In the Hebrew, all the verbs of creation in the passage are singular in form: \u201cSo God created humankind in his image, in the likeness of God he created him.\u201d The other members of the council do not participate in the creation of humankind. They watch, just as they did when God laid the foundations of the earth (Job 38:7<\/a>).<\/p>\n

You might wonder at this point why the language changes from plural in verse 26<\/a> (\u201cLet us<\/em> make humankind in our<\/em> image and according to our<\/em> likeness\u201d) to singular in verse 27<\/a> (\u201cSo God created humankind in his<\/em> image, in the likeness of God he created him\u201d). Does the Bible contradict itself here? No. But understanding the switch requires understanding what the \u201cimage\u201d language means.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

IMAGE OR IMAGER?<\/p>\n

Identifying the nature of the divine image has preoccupied students and pastors for a long time. Chances are you\u2019ve heard a sermon or two on the topic. I\u2019m willing to bet that what yo<\/span>u\u2019ve heard is that the image of God is similar to something in this list:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Intelligence<\/p>\n

\u2022 Reasoning ability<\/p>\n

\u2022 Emotions<\/p>\n

\u2022 The ability to commune with God<\/p>\n

\u2022 Self-awareness (sentience)<\/p>\n

\u2022 Language\/commun<\/span>ication ability<\/p>\n

\u2022 The presence of a soul or spirit (or both)<\/p>\n

\u2022 The conscience<\/p>\n

\u2022 Free will<\/p>\n

All those things sound like possibilities, but they\u2019re not. The image of God means none of those things. If it<\/span> did, then Bible-believers ought to abandon the idea of the sanctity of human life in the womb. That assertion may jar you, but it\u2019s quite evident once you really consider that list in light of how Scripture talks about the image of God.<\/span><\/p>\n

Genesis teaches us several things about the image of God\u2014what I call \u201cdivine image bearing.\u201d All of what we learn from the text must be accounted for in any discu<\/span>ssion of what the image means.<\/p>\n

1. Both men and women are equally included.<\/p>\n

2. Divine image bearing is what makes humankind distinct from the rest of earthly<\/em> creation (i.e., plants and animals). The te<\/span>xt of Genesis 1:26<\/a> does not<\/em> inform us that divine image bearing makes us distinct from heavenly beings, those sons of God who were already in existence at the time of creation. The plurals in Genesis <\/span>1:26<\/a> mean that, in some way, we share something with them when it comes to bearing God\u2019s image.<\/p>\n

3. There is something about the image that makes humankind \u201clike\u201d God in some way.<\/p>\n

4. There is nothing i<\/span>n the text to suggest that the image has been or can be bestowed incrementally or partially. You\u2019re either created as God\u2019s image bearer or you aren\u2019t. One cannot speak of being partly<\/em> or potentially<\/em> <\/span>bearing God\u2019s image.<\/p>\n

Among the list of proposed answers to what image bearing means are a number of abilities<\/em> or properties<\/em>: intelligence, reasoning ability, emotions, communing with God, self-awarene<\/span>ss, language\/communication ability, and free will. The problem with defining the image by any of these qualities is that, on one hand, nonhuman beings like animals possess some<\/em> of these abilities, alt<\/span>hough not to the same extent as humans. If one animal anywhere, at any time, learned anything contrary to instinct, or communicated intelligently (to us or within species), or displayed an emotional response (again to us or <\/span>other creatures), those items must be ruled out as image bearing. We know certain animals have these abilities because of carefully conducted research in the field of animal cognition. Artificial intelligence is on the verge of similar breakthroughs. And if intelligent extraterrestrial life is ever discovered, that would also undermine such definitions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Defining image beari<\/span>ng as any<\/em> ability is a flawed approach. This brings me back to my pro-life assertion. The pro-life position is based on the proposition that human life (and so, personhood) begins at conception (the p<\/span>oint when the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm). The simple-celled zygote inside the woman\u2019s womb, which pro-lifers believe to be a human person, is not self-aware; it has no intelligence, rational thought processes, or emotions; it cannot speak or communicate; it cannot commune with God or pray; and it cannot exercise its will or respond to the conscience. If you want to argue <\/span>that those things are there <\/span>potentially<\/em>, then that means that you have only a potential person. That\u2019s actually the pro-choice position. Potential<\/em> personhood is not actual<\/em> personhood. This thought process woul<\/span>d mean that abortion is not killing until personhood is achieved, which nearly all pro-choicers would certainly consider to be after birth.<\/p>\n

Even the soul idea fails the uniqueness and actuality tests.<\/span> This notion derives from the traditional rendering of Genesis 2:7<\/a> in the King James Version (\u201cand the man became a living soul<\/em>\u201d). The Hebrew word translated \u201csoul\u201d is nephesh<\/span>. According to the Bible,<\/span> animals also possess the nephesh<\/span>. For example, in Genesis 1:20<\/a>, when we read that God made swarms of \u201cliving creatures,\u201d the Hebrew text underlying \u201ccreatures\u201d is nephesh<\/span>. Genesis 1:30<\/a> tells us the \u201c<\/span>living nephesh<\/span>\u201d is in animals.<\/p>\n

The term nephesh<\/span> in these passages means conscious life<\/em> or animate life<\/em> (as opposed to something like plant life). Humans share a basic consciousness with certain animal<\/span>s, though the nature of that consciousness varies widely.<\/p>\n

We also cannot appeal to a spirit<\/em> being the meaning of image bearing. The word nephesh<\/span> we just considered is used interchangeably with the Heb<\/span>rew word for spirit (ruach<\/span>). Examples include 1 Samuel 1:15<\/a> and Job 7:11<\/a>. Both terms speak of an inner life where thinking, reason, and emotions occur, along with their use in activities like prayer a<\/span>nd decision making. The point is that the Old Testament does not distinguish between soul and spirit.Only one passage in the New Testament suggests a differentiation between body, soul, and spirit: 1 Thess 5:23<\/a>. Since the Old Testament clearly sees two parts to humans (body and soul\/spirit; material and immaterial), it is best to interpret this single verse the same way for theological consistency. Many scholars do not consider soul and spirit in this verse as discrete, separate items. This verse is similar to the shema<\/em> (Deut 6:4<\/a>; cf. Matt 22:37<\/a>; Mark 12:29\u201330<\/a>), which tells us to love God with all our heart, soul, and might. The point is totality<\/em>, not that heart, soul, might (and mind in the gospel references) are separable. The Old Testament uses both nephesh<\/em> and ruach<\/em> to describe the source of these inner parts. Totality is also the point of Heb 4:12<\/a> (which actually uses four items, not three).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> All these qualities associated with spirit require cognitive function, and so cannot be relevant <\/span>until after brain formation (and use) in the fetus.<\/p>\n

So how do we understand divine image bearing in a way that does not stumble over these issues and yet aligns with the description in Genesis? Hebrew<\/span> grammar is the key. The turning point is the meaning of the preposition in<\/em> with respect to the phrase \u201cin<\/em> the image of God.\u201d In English we use the preposition in<\/em> to denote many different ideas. That <\/span>is, in<\/em> doesn\u2019t always mean the same thing when we use that word. For example, if I say, \u201cput the dishes in<\/em> the sink,\u201d I am using the preposition to denote location<\/em>. If I say, \u201cI broke the mirror in<\/em> pi<\/span>eces,\u201d I am using in<\/em> to denote the result<\/em> of some action. If I say, \u201cI work in<\/em> education,\u201d I am using the preposition to denote that I work as<\/em> a teacher or principal, or in some other educational capa<\/span>city.<\/p>\n

This last example directs us to what the Hebrew preposition translated in<\/em> means in Genesis 1:26<\/a>. Humankind was created as<\/em> God\u2019s image. If we think of imaging as a verb or function, that translat<\/span>ion makes sense. We are created to image God, to be his imagers. It is what we are by definition. The image is not an ability we have, but a status. We are God\u2019s representatives on earth. To be<\/em> human <\/span>is to image God.<\/p>\n

This is why Genesis 1:26\u201327<\/a> is followed by what theologians call the \u201cdominion mandate\u201d in verse 28<\/a>. The verse informs us that God intends us to be him on this planet. We are to creat<\/span>e more imagers (\u201cbe fruitful and multiply \u2026 fill\u201d) in order to oversee the earth by stewarding its resources and harnessing them for the benefit of all human imagers (\u201csubdue \u2026 rule over\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>GOD\u2019S TWO FAMILY-HOUSEHOLD-COUNCILS<\/p>\n

Understanding that we are God\u2019s imagers on earth helps to parse the plurals in Genesis 1:26<\/a> and the change to singular language in the next verse. God alone created<\/span> humankind to function as his administrators on earth. But he has also created the other elohim<\/span> of the unseen realm. They are also like him. They carry out his will in that realm, acting as his repres<\/span>entatives. They are his heavenly council in the unseen world. We are God\u2019s council and administration in this realm. Consequently, the plurals inform us that both God\u2019s families\u2014the human and the nonhuman\u2014share imaging status, though the realms are different. As in heaven, so on Earth.<\/span><\/p>\n

This biblical theology sets the table for understanding other passages and concepts in both testaments. The logic<\/span> of idolatry we talked about earlier takes on new irony. Humans after the fall will resort to making objects of wood and stone that they must ceremonially animate to draw the deity into the artifact. But from the beginning, God created his own imagers\u2014humankind, male and female. His desire was to live among them<\/span>, and for them to rule and reign with him.<\/p>\n

After the fall that plan was not altered. Ev<\/span>entually, God would decide to tabernacle within<\/em> humans, through his Spirit. Language describing believers as sons or children of God (John 1:12<\/a>; 1 John 3:1\u20133<\/a>), or as \u201cadopted\u201d into God\u2019s family (Gal 4<\/span>:5<\/a>; Eph 1:5<\/a>) is neither accidental nor pragmatic. It reflects the original vision of Genesis<\/em>. And once we are glorified, the two council-families will be one\u2014in a new Eden. We\u2019ll discover more about a<\/span>ll those themes as we proceed.<\/p>\n

This<\/em> is what Eden was about \u2026 as in heaven, so on Earth. The original intent becomes even clearer once we understand the ancient conception of Eden.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

CHAPTER 6<\/p>\n

Gardens and Mountains<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve learned that the Old Testament describes two household-families of God, one human and the other nonhuman. Those two families were created as God\u2019s representatives to serve him in different realms. In this chapter we\u2019ll explore how descriptions of Eden reinforce these concepts.<\/p>\n

We usually think of Eden as it\u2019s described in Genesis 2:8<\/a>, the place the first humans called home: \u201cYahweh God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.\u201d But the description of Eden as the home of humankind deflects our attention away from Eden\u2019s primary status.<\/p>\n

Eden was God\u2019s<\/em> home on earth. It was his residence. And where the King lives, his council meets. As modern readers, we don\u2019t see how that thinking is telegraphed in the biblical text. Ancient readers couldn\u2019t miss it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

THE ANCIENT CONTEXT<\/p>\n

Eden can only be properly understood in light of the worldview the biblical writers shared with other people of the ancient Near East. Like Israel, the people of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, for example, also believed in an unseen spiritual world that was governed by a divine council. The divine abodes of gods\u2014the places they lived and where they met for governing the affairs of the human world\u2014were portrayed in several ways. Two of the most common were gardens and mountains. Eden is described as both in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n

Ancient people thought of their gods living in luxuriant gardens or mountains for simple reasons. It made sense that the gods would have the best lifestyle because, well, they\u2019re gods<\/em>. Cosmic celebrities can\u2019t possibly live like we do.<\/p>\n

The ancient Near East was primarily an agrarian culture where most people subsisted day-to-day, hand-to-mouth. The few who didn\u2019t live that way were kings or priests\u2014and thinking as the ancients did, those few had been chosen for that elevated status by the gods. The environment was hot and arid. Life depended on finding water and harnessing its power. That\u2019s why the world\u2019s first civilizations were founded along rivers (e.g., the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates). Surely the gods lived in a place where water was abundant, where life-sustaining vegetation and fruit grew everywhere, where an abundance of animals were nourished to fatness. The gods lived in places where there was no conceivable lack. Paradise.<\/p>\n

Mountain peaks were the domain of gods because no humans lived there. Ancient times were not like modern times. People didn\u2019t recreationally climb mountains. They had no equipment with which to get very far if they tried. Mountains were remote and forbidding\u2014the perfect places for gods to get away from pesky humans. Mountain peaks touched the heavens, which was obviously the domain of the gods.<\/p>\n

This sort of thinking in part explains why Egypt\u2019s temples are carved and painted with the imagery of luscious gardens, or why pyramids and ziggurats were built. These structures were mountains made by human hands which served as gateways to the spiritual world, the realm of the gods, in life or in death. They were metaphors in stone.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

ANCIENT UGARIT<\/p>\n

For our purposes, though, it is the less grandiose ancient civilization of Ugarit, a city-state in ancient Syria, just to the north of Israel, which is particularly relevant.The best scholarly resources on the garden and mountain imagery at Ugarit and the Old Testament are Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament<\/em>, Harvard Semitic Monographs 4 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf &amp; Stock, 2010); L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus<\/em> (Biblical Tools and Studies 15; Leuven: Peeters, 2012); Daniel T. Lioy, \u201cThe Garden of Eden as a Primordial Temple or Sacred Space for Humankind,\u201d Conspectus: The Journal of the South African Theological Seminary<\/em> 10 (2010): 25\u201357<\/a>; Gordon Wenham, \u201cSanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,\u201d in Cult and Cosmos: Tilting toward a Temple-Centered Biblical Theology<\/em> (ed. L. Michael Morales; Biblical Tools and Studies 18; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 161\u201366.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

The site <\/span>of Ugarit was discovered in 1928 and excavated in the decades that followed. One of the major finds was a library containing thousands of clay tablets, roughly 1400 of which were in an alphabetic lang<\/span>uage (now called Ugaritic) that was closer to biblical Hebrew than any other ancient language. The vocabulary and grammar are in many instances virtually identical.<\/p>\n

Scholars have learned a lot from th<\/span>is library, about both Ugarit and the content of the Old Testament. The chief deity of Ugarit was El\u2014one of the names that appear in the Old Testament for the God of Israel. El had a divine council wh<\/span>ose members were \u201cthe sons of El,\u201d and he had a coruler, Baal. Since El\u2019s and Baal\u2019s duties sometimes appeared to overlap, and since Ugarit was so geographically close to Israel, it was small wonder that Baal worship was such a problem in Israel. The discoveries at Ugarit put all of that<\/span> Old Testament history in context.<\/p>\n

El and Baal were, to say the least, markedly different in behavior from Yahwe<\/span>h of Israel. But the literature of Ugarit proved very illuminating in other respects, especially as to where El, Baal, and the Ugaritic divine council lived and held court. At Ugarit the divine council had three levels: the highest authority (El, who did most of his ruling thr<\/span>ough a coruling vizier, Baal), the \u201csons of El,\u201d and messenger gods (mal\u2019akim<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The council of El met on a mountain or lush<\/span> garden. These were not different places. Rather, the same place was described in two different ways. The abode of El had an abundant water supply, as it was situated at the \u201csource of the two rivers\u201d in the \u201cmidst of the fountains of the doub<\/span>le-deep.\u201d The divine council met in a place called Tsapanu<\/span>, the remote heights of the north (tsapanu<\/span> means \u201cnorth\u201d).<\/p>\n

Council meetings were held in \u201cthe tents<\/span> of El\u201d or El\u2019s \u201ctent shrine,\u201d whence divine decrees were issued. At times Baal\u2019s palace was in view, with its \u201cpaved bricks\u201d that gave his house \u201cthe clearness of lapis lazuli.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

YAHWEH\u2019S ABODE<\/p>\n

All of this will sound familiar to someone who has read the Old Testament closely. The Hebrew Bible uses these same descriptions for the abode and throne room of Yahweh. And where Yahweh is, he is surrounded by his heavenly assembly, ready to conduct business (cf. Isa 6<\/a>; 1 Kgs 22:13\u201328<\/a>). The Old Testament has a three-tiered council structure like that at Ugarit. Yahweh is at the top.We will see in later chapters that Yahweh too has a coregent or vizier, just as the council at Ugarit. But that figure is not another created elohim<\/em>\u2014it is Yahweh himself in a second personage. This is the backdrop to the idea of a Godhead that Christians often only associate with the New Testament.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> His family-household (\u201csons of God\u201d) are next in hierarchy. The lowest level is reserved for elohim<\/span> messengers\u2014mal\u2019akim<\/span> (the word translated \u201cangels\u201d).<\/p>\n

The Tabernacle tent structure and the Tent of Meeting, both of which are mentioned throughout the books of Exodus through Judges, are clear parallels to places where God dwells and hands down his decrees. Yahweh could also be found on mountains (Sinai or Zion). In Psalm 48:1\u20132<\/a>, Jerusalem, the city of God, is said to be located in the \u201cheights of the north\u201d (tsaphon<\/span> in Hebrew).\u201cHeights of the north\u201d is my own translation, deliberately more literal than phrases like \u201cfar north\u201d in many English translations. The phrase points to the mountainous regions to the north of Canaan, well-known in Canaanite religion as Zaphon, the mountain dwelling of the Canaanite (Ugaritic) divine council. See \u201cZaphon,\u201d in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible<\/em>, 2nd ed. (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden; Boston; Cologne; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 927<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> Mount Zion is the \u201cmountain of assembly,\u201d again located in the \u201cheights of the north\u201d (Isa 14:13<\/a>). At Sinai, Moses and others saw the seated God of Israel, under whose feet was a pavement \u201clike sapphire tile work and like the very heavens for clearness\u201d (Exod 24:9\u201310<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The garden of Eden, of course, is a lush, well-watered habitation (Gen 2:5\u201314<\/a>). Ezekiel 28:13<\/a> mentions the garden of Eden (\u201cgarden of God\u201d), but then adds the description that the garden of God is \u201cGod\u2019s holy mountain\u201d (Ezek 28:14<\/a>).That Ezekiel\u2019s \u201cgarden of God\u201d and \u201choly mountain of God\u201d are to be identified with each other as the same divine abode is presumed by all interpreters I know of for a straightforward reason. God is addressing a single divine resident (\u201cyou\u201d) concerning his living space throughout. There is no way to grammatically justify the notion God is speaking to different individuals in Ezek 28<\/a>, and so the range of descriptions for that figure\u2019s dwelling speaks of one location.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> We naturally think of God\u2019s mountain as Mount Sinai or Mount Zion. When it comes to garden imagery, the latter is spoken of in Edenic terms. Like Eden, Mount Zion is also described as a watery habitation (Isa 33:20\u201322<\/a>; Ezek 47:1\u201312<\/a>; Zech 14:8<\/a>; Joel 3:18<\/a>). Whether Sinai or Zion, the mountain of God is, in effect, his temple.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

IMPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

An ancient Israelite would have thought of Eden as the dwelling of God and the place from which God and his council direct the affairs of humanity. The imagery is completely consistent wi<\/span>th how Israel\u2019s neighbors thought about their gods.Eden and its environs have received a good deal of attention in scholarship. Noteworthy studies include Geo Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion<\/em> (King and Saviour 4; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1951); Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2\u20133<\/em> (American Oriental Society; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> But in biblical theology, there is additional messaging.<\/p>\n

As we\u2019ll see in the ensuing chapters, the biblical version of the divine council at the di<\/em><\/span>vine abode includes a human presence<\/em>. The theological message is that the God of Israel created this place not just as his own domain, but because he desires to live among his people. Yahweh desires a<\/span> kingdom rule on this new Earth that he has created, and that rule will be shared with humanity. Since the heavenly council is also where Yahweh is, both family-households should function together. Ha<\/span>d the fall not occurred, humanity would have been glorified and made part of the council.<\/p>\n

This is not speculation. In the last chapter we saw the beginning of the theological idea that humans are the <\/span>children of God. It was God\u2019s original intent to make them part of his family. The failure in Eden would alienate God from man, but God would make a way of salvation to bring believers back into that family (<\/span>John 1:12<\/a>; 1 John 3:1\u20133<\/a>). We also saw that humanity\u2019s presence showed that God\u2019s original desire was for his human children to participate in his rule. Both of these theological threads wind t<\/span>hrough the Old Testament and create the context from which New Testament writers will talk about the kingdom and the glorification of believers. These are ideas we\u2019ll return to in future chapters.<\/p>\n

One<\/span> more verse about Eden\u2014one that will vault us into the next chapter: Eden is described in Ezekiel 28:2<\/a> as the \u201cseat of the gods.\u201d The phrase should be familiar to modern readers. It speaks of governin<\/span>g authority (\u201ccounty seat\u201d; \u201cCongressional seat\u201d). Ezekiel\u2019s words draw attention to Eden as a seat of authority and action. There was work to be done. God had plans for the whole planet, not just Eden.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

CHAPTER 7<\/p>\n

Eden\u2014Like No Place on Earth<\/p>\n

God does not act without purpose. He created the heavenly host, intending that they carry out his will. Did he create them to meet some need in him? No. A complete, perfect being has no deficiencies. God has no need of a council, but he uses one. Similarly, God did not need humans to steward his creation or, later on, to reveal that Messiah had come. But those were his choices as well. God delighted in creating proxies to represent him and carry out his wishes. His decisions in that regard have ramifications.<\/p>\n

EARTH WAS NOT EDEN<\/p>\n

The first observation is one that is transparent from the biblical text, but somehow missed by many: Not all the world was Eden<\/em>. It\u2019s important to establish that Eden was, rather th<\/span>an the entire earthly creation, only a tiny part of it. This distinction will become important in future chapters. The text tells us this in several ways.<\/p>\n

Eden was actually a tiny plot on Earth. Its l<\/span>ocation is circumscribed by geographical markers (Gen 2:8\u201314<\/a>). In the last chapter we saw that the Ugaritic council met in a garden where two rivers intersected (\u201cin the midst of the fountains of the <\/span>double deep\u201d). Eden is described with four water sources:<\/p>\n

10<\/a> Now a river flowed out from Eden that watered the garden, and from there it diverged and became four branches. 11<\/a> The name of the first is <\/span>the Pishon. It went around all the land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12<\/a> (The gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stones are there.) 13<\/a> And the name of the second is Gihon. It went around <\/span>all the land of Cush. 14<\/a> And the name of the third is Tigris. It flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates (Gen 2:10\u201314<\/a>).<\/p>\n

This description alone tells us quite clearly the earth was<\/span> not Eden. There are other indicators.<\/p>\n

In Genesis 1:26\u201327<\/a> God made humankind as his imagers, his representatives in this new domain. This functional view of the image becomes clear in the commands of <\/span>verse 28<\/a>:<\/p>\n

And God blessed them, and God said to them, \u201cBe fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven, and over every animal that<\/span> moves upon the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n

Notice that verse 28<\/a> says that the earth<\/em> needed filling. This does not refer to Eden. Eden has not even appeared yet in the Genesis story. Its first mention comes in Genesis 2:<\/span>8<\/a>:<\/p>\n

And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.<\/p>\n

The garden of Eden is said to be in the east<\/em>. The directional word informs us that there were other<\/span> parts of the earth. God \u201cplanted\u201d this garden. We know from Genesis 1<\/a> that the dry land (called \u201cearth\u201d) already existed. It had to in order for God to plant a garden in it to the east.<\/p>\n

Genesis 2:15<\/a> <\/span>is also of interest. The man God has made is put in the garden for a reason: \u201cAnd Yahweh God took the man and set him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to keep it.\u201d The man\u2019s job is to take car<\/span>e of the garden. Earlier in Genesis 1:28<\/a>, his job was to \u201cbe fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule.\u2026\u201d Of course the man needs a woman for that, but she hasn\u2019t even been cr<\/span>eated yet in Genesis 2<\/a> when God puts the man in the garden. Cultivation of the garden and subduing the earth are not the same tasks.<\/p>\n

Genesis 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> aren\u2019t intended to be chronological in their relati<\/span>onship. What they reveal is that the man\u2019s original task was to care for the garden, where he lived (Gen 2<\/a>). After he gets a partner (Gen 1<\/a>), God says to both of them (the commands are plural in Hebre<\/span>w) to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and rule over its creatures.<\/p>\n

We can see that the tasks of humanity, taken in tandem with the earlier observations that require Eden and Earth to<\/span> be distinct, distinguish Eden and the earth. It makes no sense to subdue the garden of God. It\u2019s already what God wants it to be. There\u2019s no place on Earth like it. If it needed subjugation, that would imply imperfection. That\u2019s something that cannot be said about Eden, but it\u2019s true of the rest of the world. For<\/span> sure God was happy with the whole creation. He pronounced it \u201cvery good\u201d (Gen 1:31<\/a>).<\/span> But \u201cvery good\u201d is not perfect.In context, describing the creation as \u201cvery good\u201d means that the creation was fit for human habitation and the perpetuation and survival of Earth\u2019s creatures. Had the biblical writer wanted to convey a situation of perfection\u2014where nothing was lacking or in need of any improvement\u2014he would have chosen a word other than \u1e6dob<\/em> (\u201cgood\u201d). Hebrew words such as t\u014dm<\/em> convey completeness (see The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament<\/em> [Leiden; New York: Brill, 1999], 1743<\/a>). The idea that the pronouncement of Gen 1:31<\/a> (\u201cAnd God saw everything that he had made and, behold, it was<\/em> very good\u201d) means that earth was created in a state of perfection is a common one, found very early on in the early church fathers. There are a number of problems with this assumption, of which I only mention a handful here. The claim here is not that creation failed to conform to God\u2019s will. Indeed, the creation was precisely what God wanted at the time. Rather, creation was not all that Eden was, a contrast that God intended and which informs the biblical-theological story. For a full treatment of this issue, see Hulisani Ramantswana, \u201cGod Saw That It Was Good, Not Perfect: A Canonical-Dialogic Reading of Genesis 1\u20133\u201d (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2010). A dissertation by Eric M. Vail also offers some insights: \u201cUsing \u2018Chaos\u2019 in Articulating the Relationship of God and Creation in God\u2019s Creative Activity\u201d (PhD diss., Marquette University, 2009). The concepts of chaos and disorder and the presentation of Genesis cosmology as bringing order, both in terms of human habitation and divine temple-building for Yahweh\u2019s rest and habitation, are subjects I have elected to reserve for a second volume. These subjects are accessible in the meantime in many works. See for example, William P. Brown, The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder<\/em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), esp. chapter 3, \u201cThe Cosmic Temple: Cosmogony according to Genesis 1:1\u20132:3\u201d; John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate<\/em> (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009); Moshe Weinfeld, \u201cSabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord,\u201d M\u00e9langes bibliques et orientaux en l\u2019honneur de M. Henri Cazelles<\/em> (ed. A. Caquot, and M. Delcor; Alter Orient und Altes Testament 212; Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), 501\u201312.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

Lastly, Eden and Earth must be distinct since, after the fall, Adam and Eve are expelled from it and have to live elsewhere. Unless you believe that they were sent in<\/span>to outer space, you must acknowledge Eden and Earth as distinct.<\/p>\n

Observing this distinction affects a range of biblical concepts and provides solutions to a few thorny theological problems. But I\u2019m on<\/span>ly concerned with one issue here. The distinction helps us see that the original task of humanity was to make the entire Earth like Eden<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Adam and Eve lived in the garden. They cared for it. But the r<\/span>est of the earth needed subduing. It wasn\u2019t awful\u2014in fact Genesis 1<\/a> tells us that it was habitable. But it wasn\u2019t quite what Eden was. The whole world<\/em> needs to be like God\u2019s home. He could do the job <\/span>himself, but he chose to create human imagers to do it for him. He issued the decree; they were supposed to make it happen. They were to do that by multiplying and following God\u2019s direction.<\/p>\n

Eden is w<\/span>here the idea of the kingdom of God begins. And it\u2019s no coincidence that the Bible ends with the vision of a new Edenic Earth (Rev 21\u201322<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

PROCLAMATION AND PARTNERSHIP<\/p>\n

The working relationship between God and humankind, before and after the fall, involves genuine, meaningful participation on the part of God\u2019s human imagers. This is most transparently seen as God works through figures like Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, the prophets, and the apostles. But the pattern extends to us, to all believers. There is nothing we do that God could not accomplish himself. But he has not chosen that method. Rather, he tells us what his will is and commands his loyal children to get the job done.<\/p>\n

We saw in an earlier chapter that imaging status is something shared by human and nonhuman, divine beings. This fact is reflected in the plural language of Genesis 1:26<\/a>, when God said, \u201cLet us make humankind.\u201d The ensuing singular forms guided us to conclude that the passage has humankind created by a single creator, the God of Israel, who creates humans as his imagers. The prior plural language was a clue that God\u2019s other family, the divine sons of God created sometime earlier, were also imagers of their creator.<\/p>\n

Given this connection and backdrop, the participatory nature of the working relationship between God and his human imagers is no surprise. The heavenly council works under the same kind of arrangement. God decrees his will and leaves it to his administrative household to carry out those decrees. That\u2019s apparent from two Old Testament passages.<\/p>\n

First Kings 22<\/a> provides a revealing glimpse into a divine council meeting. The first fifteen verses set the context. After three years of peace between Syria and Israel, King Jehoshaphat of Judah, the southern Israelite kingdom, paid a visit to Ahab, the king of Israel, the northern kingdom that had broken away from the tribes loyal to David\u2019s dynasty. The northern kings were described throughout the Old Testament as spiritually apostate. Ahab was arguably the worst of the bunch.<\/p>\n

Ahab wanted Jehoshaphat to join forces with him in a plan to break the peace by attacking Ramoth-Gilead, which was under Syrian control. Ramoth-Gilead was part of the original tribal land of Gad and a Levitical city of refuge (Josh 20:8<\/a>; 21:38<\/a>; 1 Chr 6:80<\/a>; Deut 4:43<\/a>). It didn\u2019t legitimately belong to the Syrians. That was Ahab\u2019s leverage.<\/p>\n

Jehoshaphat agreed with this reasoning, but wanted to know whether Yahweh approved. The apostate king of Israel summoned about four hundred of his prophets, who told the kings they would win the battle. Suspicious, Jehoshaphat asked if there were any other prophets around to consult. Yes, there is one, Ahab answered\u2014and made no secret of his hatred of that prophet. Micaiah, the prophet of Yahweh, always told Ahab things he didn\u2019t want to hear\u2014like the truth.<\/p>\n

Micaiah was summoned and asked whether the kings should go to war. At first he mocked Ahab, pretending to be like the other prophets, but Ahab wasn\u2019t stupid. Here\u2019s what happened next:<\/p>\n

16<\/a> Then the king [Ahab] said to him, \u201cHow many times must I make you swear that you shall not tell me anything but truth in the name of Yahweh?\u201d 17<\/a> So he [Micaiah] said, \u201cI saw all of Israel scattering to the mountains, like sheep without a shepherd. Yahweh also said, \u2018There are no masters for these, let them return in peace, each to his house.\u2019\u2005\u201d 18<\/a> Then the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, \u201cDid I not say to you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but disaster?\u201d<\/p>\n

19<\/a> And he [Micaiah] said, \u201cTherefore, hear the word of Yahweh. I saw Yahweh sitting on his throne with all the hosts of heaven standing beside him from his right hand and from his left hand. 20<\/a> And Yahweh said, \u2018Who will entice Ahab so that he will go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead?\u2019 Then this one was saying one thing and the other one was saying another. 21<\/a> Then a spirit came out and stood before Yahweh and said, \u2018I will entice him,\u2019 and Yahweh said to him, \u2018How?\u2019 22<\/a> He said, \u2018I will go out and I will be a false spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.\u2019 And he said, \u2018You shall entice and succeed, go out and do so.\u2019 23<\/a> So then, see that Yahweh has placed a false spirit in the mouth of all of these your prophets, and Yahweh has spoken disaster concerning you\u201d (1 Kgs 22:16\u201323<\/a>).<\/p>\n

This passage, specifically verses 19\u201322<\/a>, describes a meeting between God and his divine council. Verse 20<\/a> tells us plainly that God had decided it was time for Ahab to die. God then asked the host of heaven standing in attendance how Ahab\u2019s <\/em>death should be accomplished<\/em>. God had decreed Ahab was going to die at Ramoth-Gilead, but the means of his death was not decreed. The council debated the matter until one of the spiritual beings came forward with a proposition (vv. 21\u201322<\/a>): \u201cI will go out and I will be a false spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.\u201d Upon hearing this, God said (paraphrasing), \u201cGood. I know that will work\u2014go get it done.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are other glimpses of this kind of divine decision making, where God\u2019s decree and genuine participation on the part of his council are both evident.<\/p>\n

In Daniel 4<\/a> Nebuchadnezzar relates a dream wherein he saw an enormous tree that reached into the heavens. Nebuchadnezzar tells Daniel that in the dream he saw a watcher\u2014a term for a divine being (a \u201choly one\u201d) in this chapter of Daniel (Dan 4:13<\/a>, 17<\/a>, 23<\/a>). The watcher proclaims that the tree will be chopped down, leaving only its stump. The tree and the stump are symbols for Nebuchadnezzar, who, the watcher announces, will lose his mind and become like an animal (Dan 4:13\u201316<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In verse 17<\/a> readers discover who decreed this fate for Nebuchadnezzar:<\/p>\n

The sentence is by the decree of the watchers,<\/p>\n

and the decision by the command of the holy ones,<\/p>\n

in order that the living will know<\/p>\n

that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of humankind,<\/p>\n

and to whomever he wills he gives it (Dan 4:17<\/a>).<\/p>\n

What\u2019s fascinating here is that the source of the decree is said to be the watchers, but sovereignty belongs to the singular Most High. Later, when Daniel interprets the dream, he says:<\/p>\n

This is the explanation, O king, and it is<\/em> a decree of the Most High that has come upon my lord the king (Dan 4:24<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Here we see that the ultimate authority behind the decree is God, the Most High, and yet the watcher who delivered the decree in verse 17<\/a> said \u201cthe sentence is by decree of the watchers.\u201d Both God and his divine agents were involved in the decision.<\/p>\n

Daniel adds a few details as he continues. Note the emphasis in bold carefully:<\/p>\n

25<\/a> you [Nebuchadnezzar] will be driven away from human society and you will dwell with the animals of the field, and you will be caused to graze grass like the oxen yourself, and you will be watered with the dew of heaven, and seven periods of time will pass over you until that you have acknowledged that the Most High is sovereign<\/strong> over the kingdom of humankind, and to whom he wills he gives it. 26<\/a> And in that they said to leave alone the stump of the tree\u2019s root, so your kingdom will be restored for you when you acknowledge that heaven is sovereign<\/strong> (Dan 4:25\u201326<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Verse 25<\/a> says very plainly that the Most High is sovereign. It is clearly singular. The phrase \u201cheaven is sovereign\u201d is interesting because the Aramaic word translated heaven (shemayin<\/span>) is plural and is accompanied by a plural verb. The plurality of shemayin<\/span> can point to either the members of the council or the council as a collective. In any event, the wording is suggestive of the interchange between council and Most High earlier inDaniel 4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The takeaway is that God rules over the heavenly realm and the earthly realm with the genuine assistance of his imager-representatives. He decrees and they carry out his commands. These points are clear. What is perhaps less clear is that the way God\u2019s will is carried out and accomplished is open\u2014imagers can make free decisions to accomplish God\u2019s will. God decrees the ends, but the means can (and apparently are at times) left up to the imagers.<\/p>\n

This balance of sovereignty and free will is essential for understanding what happened in Eden. The choices made by human and nonhuman beings described in Genesis 3<\/a> were neither coerced nor needed by Yahweh for sake of his greater plan. The risk of creating image bearers who might freely choose rebellion was something God foresaw but did not decree. We\u2019ll examine all that in more detail in the next chapter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Weiter:<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PART 1 FIRST THINGS CHAPTER 1 Reading Your Bible Again\u2014 for the First Time We all have watershed moments in life, critical turning points where, from that moment on, nothing will ever be the same. One such moment in my own life\u2014the catalyst behind this book\u2014came on a Sunday morning in church while I was … <\/p>\n

\u201eThe Elohim: What (or Who) Are They?\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2496,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204\/revisions\/2496"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}