{"id":224,"date":"2017-11-27T17:42:48","date_gmt":"2017-11-27T16:42:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=224"},"modified":"2020-01-17T19:01:05","modified_gmt":"2020-01-17T18:01:05","slug":"the-unseen-realm-v","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2017\/11\/27\/the-unseen-realm-v\/","title":{"rendered":"The Unseen Realm – V"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>CHAPTER 25<\/p>\n

Holy War<\/p>\n

The last chapter closed with the demise of the giant Og, last of the Rephaim (Deut 3:1\u201311<\/a>). Israel\u2019s battles in the Transjordan bring us face-to-face with an issue that has trouble<\/span>d Bible students and scholars for centuries: the practice of extermination in Israel\u2019s war of conquest. Og\u2019s defeat is illustrative: \u201cAnd we devoted them to destruction, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, devoting to destruction every city, men, women, and children\u201d (<\/span>Deut 3:6<\/a> English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).Despite their unusual size, the biblical text is clear that the giant clan members were human<\/em>. For example, the word \u02beadam<\/em> (\u201chumankind\u201d; cf. Gen 1:26\u201327<\/a>) is used to describe the victims of the conquest in cities associated with giant clans (Josh 11:14<\/a>). Arba is called \u201cthe greatest man (\u02beadam<\/em>) among the Anakim.\u201d The generic Hebrew word for people (\u02bfam<\/em>; i.e., human populations) is also used of giant clans: Deut 2:10<\/a> (the Emim); Deut 2:20<\/a> (the Zamzummim); Deut 3:1\u20133<\/a> (Og\u2019s people); Deut 9:2<\/a> (the Anakim). This language raises the question of how both supernaturalist views of Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a> (see ch. 13<\/a>) would understand this human description of the Anakim against the clear genealogical link back to the quasi-divine Nephilim (Num 13:33<\/a>). For those favoring literal cohabitation in Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a>, the point of the language ascribing humanity to Nephilim descendants would simply mean Anakim were mortal\u2014not immortal gods. For those preferring the sort of divine parentage of which Yahweh\u2019s intervention to produce the Israelites is an analogy, human descriptions would not be unexpected, as Israelites were obviously human despite Yahweh\u2019s intervention.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

Og was lord of Bashan, the region that included Mount Hermon. We saw that the verb translated \u201cdevote to destru<\/span>ction\u201d (kharam<\/span>) shares the same root consonants (kh-r-m<\/span>) as Mount Hermon (khermon<\/span>).Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament<\/em><\/a> points out the correlation. See Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament<\/em> (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 474<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> The wars with Sihon and Og foreshadowed the logic of kherem<\/span>,Kherem<\/em> is the corresponding noun to the verb kharam<\/em>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> the act of devoting something to destruction, a logic<\/span> that, as we will see in this chapter, has the Nephilim bloodlines as its focus.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

KHEREM AND THE BIBLICAL SUPERNATURAL WORLDVIEW<\/p>\n

The idea of kherem<\/span> is broader than warfare. Fundamental to the concept is a sanctioning of some person or thing because it is forbidden either due to an accursed status or due to Yahweh\u2019s exclusive ownership and use.Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament<\/em>, 474<\/a>. See also Jackie A. Naud\u00e9, \u201c\u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (I), \u05d7\u05b5\u05e8\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (I),\u201d in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology &amp; Exegesis<\/em> (ed. Willem VanGemeren; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 276<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> Persons or objects could be consecrated to Yahweh using this verb (Lev 27:28<\/a>; Num 18:14<\/a>; Josh 6:18<\/a>; Mic 4:13<\/a>). No other object or person could be substituted for that which was sanctified in this sense. The death sentence for worshiping another god was described with the verb kharam<\/span> (Exod 22:20<\/a>). Any person guilty of this crime was accursed. The sentence could not be revoked. Yahweh was the exclusive owner of that life or thing.<\/p>\n

Joshua\u2019s kherem<\/span> must be viewed against the backdrop Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> and what I\u2019ve called the \u201cDeuteronomy 32<\/a> worldview\u201d: Yahweh had disinherited the nations, assigning them to the rule of lesser gods. Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> is evoked by Israel\u2019s initial contact with the occupants of the land in Numbers 13:32\u201333<\/a>, where the giant Anakim are described as descendants of the Nephilim. As we\u2019ll see in the discussion that follows, this belief is behind the conquest passages that use the verb kharam<\/span> (\u201cdevote to destruction\u201d) to describe Israel\u2019s warfare on certain occasions. Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139<\/a> is the basis for the general goal of the conquest. Israel is Yahweh\u2019s elect portion of humanity, and the land of Canaan is the geography that Yahweh, as owner, specifically allotted to his people.Several passages have Yahweh referring to Canaan\/Israel as \u201cmy land\u201d or \u201cmy inheritance\u201d (e.g., 2 Chr 7:20<\/a>; Isa 19:25<\/a>; Jer 2:7<\/a>; 16:18<\/a>; Ezek 38:16<\/a>; Joel 1:6<\/a>; 3:2<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a><\/p>\n

In the view of the biblical writers, Israel is at war with enemies spawned by rival divine beings. The Nephilim bloodlines were not like the peoples of the disinherited nations. Genesis 10<\/a> clearly casts the human inhabitants of those nations as owing their existence to Yahweh, as they descended from Noah\u2019s sons and, therefore, Noah\u2014all the way back to Adam, Yahweh\u2019s first human son. The Nephilim bloodlines had a different pedigree. They were produced by other divine beings. They did not belong to Yahweh, and he therefore had no interest in claiming them. Coexistence was not possible with the spawn of other gods.<\/p>\n

Viewed against this backdrop, Joshua\u2019s kherem<\/span> is a holy war begun under Moses in the Transjordan, specifically against the Amorite giant kings Sihon (Deut 2:34<\/a>) and Og (Deut 3:6<\/a>).There is one earlier instance of kharam<\/em> in the context of warfare prior to the Transjordanian wars against the giants: Num 21:2\u20133<\/a>. In this instance, Yahweh does not command the kherem<\/em>. Rather, \u201cIsrael\u201d (the speaker is not further identified) promises God that the king of Arad and his city will be put under kherem<\/em> in retaliation for that king\u2019s kidnapping of some Israelites. Yahweh acquiesced and the name of the place of the destruction was called Hormah (khormah<\/em>, which means \u201cdestruction\u201d\u2014again, the same consonants as kherem<\/em>). While God did not command the kherem<\/em>, the narrative notes that the \u201cCanaanites\u201d were \u201cdevoted to destruction.\u201d I noted the indiscriminate use of this term (along with \u201cAmorite\u201d) in the previous chapter. See the ensuing discussion for how this relates to the giant clans as the specific targets of kherem<\/em>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> The lives of Israel\u2019s enemies were to be \u201cdevoted to destruction\u201d as an act of sacrifice to Yahweh. But just who was in Yahweh\u2019s crosshairs to this extent?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

THE RATIONALE OF JOSHUA\u2019S KHEREM<\/p>\n

How is Joshua\u2019s kherem<\/span> presented to readers? As in other instances, we must return to Numbers 13:32\u201333<\/a> to begin. One specific line is of importance (in boldface type):<\/span><\/p>\n

32<\/a> So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, \u201cThe land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and a<\/strong><\/span>ll the people that we saw in it are of great height<\/strong>. 33<\/a> And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to <\/span>them\u201d (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The first encounter of Israel with the inhabitants of the land involves the Anakim. The report of the spies contains the sweeping comment that everyone they saw in the land was unusually <\/span>tall. There are good textual reasons for not taking this statement as a literally true assessment in terms of its comprehensive nature. We\u2019ve already noted that the biblical writers at times use sweeping generalizations that are not intended to be precise. For instance, <\/span>Genesis 15:16<\/a> and Joshua 7:7<\/a> referred to the occupants of the land as \u201cAmorites\u201d when it is abundantly clear that there were othe<\/span>r ethnic groups in the land.For example, Perizzites, Hittites, Hivites, Girgashites, etc. (Exod 3:8<\/a>; 23:23<\/a>; Deut 7:1<\/a>; 20:17<\/a>; Josh 12:8<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a> The term \u201cCanaanite\u201d is also used in the same imprecise way (Gen 12:6<\/a>; 28:1<\/a>, 6<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Consequently, it is much more coherent to read the statement as indicating that the Israe<\/span>lite spies saw unusually tall people groups everywhere they went in the land.This is not to say, however, that there were vast numbers of giant clan members. The account of Caleb is of interest in this regard. Caleb was one of the original twelve spies sent in by Moses (Num 13:6<\/a>, 30<\/a>). He and Joshua were the only two who believed that Yahweh would give victory over the giant Anakim and were therefore allowed to enter the land forty years later (Num 14:30<\/a>). Part of the original spying account in Num 13:22<\/a> notes that the spies encountered \u201cAhiman, Sheshai, and Talmai the descendants of Anak\u201d in Hebron. The same three individuals are listed in Josh 15:14<\/a> as being driven out by the returning Caleb. Were these the only Anakim in Hebron? Were these three names representative of lineages? The latter seems likelier than the former, because the same three names surface again in Judg 1:10<\/a>, where they are defeated by the tribe of Judah. Either the same three Anakim (or their families) escaped death at the hands of Caleb (note they were \u201cdriven out\u201d in Josh 15:14<\/a>) only to meet their demise later, or these names are emblematic of tribes (or clans) which were part of the Nephilim bloodline targeted by Israelites in both Joshua\u2019s wars and the efforts noted in the book of Judges after Joshua\u2019s death. If we presume the situation in Hebron is representative of the situation in Canaan, then various cities mentioned in the conquest narratives may have been home to various clans or family groups belonging to Anak. One certainly does not get the picture of huge numbers of Anakim, much less the entire population of Canaan being Anakim. Doak references Deut 9:1\u20132<\/a> and Josh 11:21\u201322<\/a> as evidence that the Anakim were conceived of as ubiquitous throughout the land (Brian Doak, The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel<\/em>, Ilex Series 7 [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013], 73\u201374). In my view, this is an overreading of these passages. Deut 9:1\u20132<\/a> can quite easily be read as first referencing the general population (v. 1<\/a>\u2014\u201cnations greater and mightier than you\u201d\u2014note the plural) and then singling out the Anakim who live among those nations (v. 2<\/a>). The statement in Josh 11:21\u201322<\/a> that \u201cJoshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel\u201d does not require the conclusion that Anakim are to be equated with the entire population of Canaan. Rather, it could just as well mean that wherever<\/em> Anakim were encountered within Canaan they were eliminated. In other words, the passages can speak to how the Anakim had permeated Canaan without making the term a virtual synonym for \u201cthe nations\u201d within Canaan.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a> Numbers 13:28\u201329<\/a> supports this reading. Those verses tell us where the spies ventured: the Negeb, the hill country, the s<\/span>eacoast, and along the Jordan. Verse 29<\/a> has the spies noting that they saw Anakim in those locations among Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites.<\/p>\n

This point helps explain something<\/span> that will become apparent as we proceed\u2014that the lemma kharam<\/span> in the conquest accounts is used only of assaults in cities or locales that overlap with giant clan population clusters. There is one exc<\/span>eption, a lone indiscriminate use of kharam<\/span> in Deuteronomy 7:1\u20132<\/a>.The term is also used in two passages in Deuteronomy whose context is actually post<\/em>-conquest. Deut 13:12\u201318<\/a> presupposes Israelite occupation (\u201cone of your<\/em> cities\u201d) and is a command for kherem<\/em> against anyone who would seek to make Israelites worship other gods. Deut 20:10\u201318<\/a> is concerned with rules for future wars when Israel is settled in the land. The passage has Israel in possession of chariots (a weapon they did not have coming out of Egypt) and allows Israel to offer peace to targeted cities. The kherem<\/em> ensues when peace is rejected. The logic (threat of apostasy and idolatry) is the same.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>9<\/a> That passage calls for an indiscriminate kherem<\/span> because of the indiscriminate generalization in Numbers 13:32\u201333<\/a>. The words of Moses<\/span> in Deuteronomy 7:1\u20132<\/a> reflect the report Moses had received forty years earlier. Its meaning is not that all inhabitants of the land are put under kherem<\/span> because everyone is a giant. Its meaning is th<\/span>at, wherever they are found, the bloodlines of the giant clans\u2014descendants of the Nephilim\u2014are to be eradicated. Once the conquest of Canaan actually begins, that is indeed how the term is used in the reports of Israelite victories. We must allow <\/span>the more precise passages to inform the generalizations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

THE WARS OF JOSHUA<\/p>\n

Soon after the victories over Sihon and Og, Moses died without ever having stepped into the promised land. The leadership of the nation passed to Joshua (Num 27:18\u201323<\/a>; Deut 34:9<\/a>; Jo<\/span>sh 1<\/a>), who was directed by God to spy out the land (Josh 2<\/a>), then cross the Jordan from the site of Shittim (Josh 3\u20134<\/a>), and renew the covenant between God and Israel (Josh 5<\/a>). The conquest began at Je<\/span>richo, a central location in the land. A central military campaign would have the immediate effect of separating the cities of the north and south regions. It was a strategy of divide and conquer.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

As with Jericho (Josh 6:18<\/a>, 21<\/a>), the city of Ai was \u201cdevoted to destruction\u201d after the spiritual failure of the Israelite Achan (Josh 8:26<\/a>).The conquest had begun at Jericho, a city in the Jordan River Valley, a few miles north of the Dead Sea, into which the Jordan enters. The city is thus in one of the locations spied out forty years earlier. Since these locations were put under kherem<\/em> (when others were not), we have to conclude that some Anakim were known to live in these cities based on the wording of Num 13:28\u201329<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>10<\/a> Joshua then moved south into the hill countr<\/span>y, part of the land that the spies had surveyed and where they had seen Anakim. The southern campaign is described in Joshua 10<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

28<\/a> As for Makkedah, Joshua captured it on that day<\/span> and struck it, and its king, with the edge of the sword. He devoted to destruction every person in it; he left none remaining. And he did to the king of Makkedah just as he had done to the king of Jericho.<\/span><\/p>\n

29<\/a> Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Makkedah to Libnah and fought against Libnah. 30<\/a> And the Lord gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel. And he struck it with the <\/span>edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.<\/p>\n

31<\/a> Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Libnah to L<\/span>achish and laid siege to it and fought against it. 32<\/a> And the Lord gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he captured it on the second day and struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person<\/span> in it, as he had done to Libnah.<\/p>\n

33<\/a> Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish. And Joshua struck him and his people, until he left none remaining.<\/p>\n

34<\/a> Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed<\/span> on from Lachish to Eglon. And they laid siege to it and fought against it. 35<\/a> And they captured it on that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword. And he devoted every person in it to destruct<\/span>ion that day, as he had done to Lachish.<\/p>\n

36<\/a> Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron. And they fought against it 37<\/a> and captured it and struck it with the edge of the sword, an<\/span>d its king and its towns, and every person in it. He left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and devoted it to destruction and every person in it.<\/p>\n

38<\/a> Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned b<\/span>ack to Debir and fought against it 39<\/a> and he captured it with its king and all its towns. And they struck them with the edge of the sword and devoted to destruction every person in it; he left none re<\/span>maining. Just as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king.<\/p>\n

40<\/a> So Joshua struck the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes<\/span>, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as the Lord God of Israel commanded. 41<\/a> And Joshua struck them from Kadesh-barnea as far as Gaza, and <\/span>all the country of Goshen, as far as Gibeon. 42<\/a> And Joshua captured all these kings and their land at one time, because the Lord God of Israel fought for Israel. 43<\/a> Then Joshua returned, and all Israe<\/span>l with him, to the camp at Gilgal (Josh 10:28\u201343<\/a> English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

This passage tells us on five occasions that the inhabitants of these hill country cities were \u201cdevoted to destruction,\u201d along with six editorial<\/span> comments that Joshua \u201cleft none remaining.\u201d The strategy of the Israelites is apparent at this point. Israel\u2019s kherem<\/span> focused on those regions where Anakim were known to live in the land (the Num 13:<\/span>28\u201329<\/a> report) and, therefore, certain cities in those regions. Other people living in those regions and towns were naturally also under threat\u2014they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Joshua an<\/span>d his army didn\u2019t check identification, so to speak, or interview the occupants to weed out non-Anakim. When they arrived at a place under kherem<\/span>, the intent was to leave no Anakim alive.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

After the invasion of the southern hill country, Joshua went north and carried out the same plan.<\/p>\n

The northern campaign is described in Joshua 11<\/a>. Various people groups are named in the descrip<\/span>tions there who also appear in Num 13:28\u201329<\/a>, where it is explained that the twelve Israelite spies had seen Anakim (Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites; v. 3<\/a>). Interestingly, Joshua ran into warriors fr<\/span>om nearby Mount Hermon in the region of Bashan as well (v. 4<\/a>). Once again, we are told that Joshua\u2019s armies \u201cleft none remaining\u201d (v. 8<\/a>) and devoted the cities of the region to destruction (v. 12<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Th<\/span>e destruction seems wanton, but it isn\u2019t. The logic of the kherem<\/span> emerges in Joshua 11:21\u201323<\/a> (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

21<\/a> And Joshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debi<\/span>r, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua devoted them to destruction with their cities. 22<\/a> There was none of the Anakim left in the land of<\/span> the people of Israel. Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some remain. 23<\/a> So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses. And Joshua gave it for an inheritance<\/span> to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land had rest from war.<\/p>\n

This passage makes it evident that the target of kherem<\/span> was the Anakim. It is crucial to notice that this passage refer<\/span>s to the \u201chill country of Judah\u201d and the \u201chill country of Israel.\u201d That is language that would only make sense after<\/em> the tribal allotments under Joshua\u2014which had not yet taken place\u2014and after<\/em> the coun<\/span>try of Israel split into two under Rehoboam, an event centuries yet future<\/em>. The book of Joshua very obviously was written long after the events it describes. The anachronistic language is important. T<\/span>he \u201chill country of Judah\u201d refers to the southern campaign (Judah was the southern kingdom in the divided monarchy after Rehoboam). The \u201chill country of Israel\u201d speaks to the northern campaign (Israel was the northern kingdom in the divided monarchy). <\/span>Joshua 11:21\u201323<\/a> tells us that in both campaigns the object was the Anakim<\/em>.This passage therefore adds another clarification to the generalized description of Num 11:28\u201329<\/a>. As discussed earlier, the spies had made the blanket statement that they had seen Anakim wherever<\/em> they had gone. One of those locations was the \u201chill country\u201d where the Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites dwelled. These people groups are noted in Joshua 11\u2019s<\/a> description of the northern campaign. Deut 9:1\u20132<\/a> seems to support this approach, as the Anakim of verse 2<\/a> appear to be cast as a subset of the population described in verse 1<\/a>. Deut 9:1\u20132<\/a> is important in this regard as it is included in those passages that provide the rationale for the conquest. Not only were the Israelites outnumbered by an entrenched population (Deut 9:1<\/a>), but the giant Anakim they had feared back in Num 13:33<\/a> had to be dealt with (Deut 9:2<\/a>). Hendel makes a similar point about the giant clans: \u201cThe function of the Nephilim-Rephaim in all of these [biblical] traditions is constant\u2014they exist in order to be wiped out: by the flood, by Moses, by David, and others.\u2026 Note that the giant aboriginal inhabitants of Seir, Ammon, and Gaza are also utterly annihilated, generally by Yahweh (Deut 2:12<\/a>, 20\u201323<\/a>); see also Deut 9:1\u20133<\/a>; Amos 2:9<\/a>\u201d (Ronald S. Hendel, \u201cOf Demigods and the Deluge: Toward and Interpretation of Genesis 6:1\u20134,\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature<\/em> 106.1 [March 1987]: 21<\/a> and note 40).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>11<\/a><\/p>\n

As if this were not enough of an indication to draw the reader\u2019s attent<\/span>ion to the Nephilim bloodlines, the writer adds in verse 22<\/a>, \u201cOnly in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod\u201d did some of the Anakim remain. Why add that note? Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod were Philistine cities. One<\/span> needs only to recall Goliath of Gath and his brothers to understand that the writer of Joshua is setting the stage for the fact that annihilation of these bloodlines would continue into David\u2019s era.See Josh 13:2\u20133<\/a>; 1 Sam 17:4<\/a>, 23<\/a>; 2 Sam 21:15\u201322<\/a>; 1 Chr 20:4\u20138<\/a>. It is interesting to note that the Philistines are known from ancient texts outside the Bible to have been one of the Sea Peoples. The Sea Peoples were seafaring people from the Aegean who tried to invade (with varying degrees of success) the coast of Canaan and Egypt in roughly 1200\u20131150 bc<\/span>. One of their points of origin was Caphtor, an island in the Aegean. Jeremiah 47:4<\/a> and Amos 9:7<\/a> explicitly connect the Philistines with Caphtor. The Caphtorim are among the peoples discussed in Deut 2:20\u201323<\/a> in connection with the Anakim. Goliath was from Gath, a Philistine city. The Old Testament has other giants from Gath (2 Sam 21:16<\/a>, 18<\/a>, 20<\/a>, 22<\/a>; 1 Chr 20:4<\/a>, 6<\/a>, 8<\/a>), descendants of Rapha, a name that many scholars connect to the Rephaim (see B. Becking, \u201cRapha,\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], 687<\/a>). The name \u201cGoliath\u201d is either Luwian or Lydian, that is, deriving from one of the cultures that are connected to the Aegean region (see Aharon Kempinski, \u201cSome Philistine Names from the Kingdom of Gaza,\u201d Israel Exploration Journal<\/em> 37:1 [1987]: 20\u201324). An inscription from Gath has surfaced with what appears to be the name \u201cGoliath\u201d on it (see Aren M. Maeir, Stefan J. Wimmer, Alexander Zukerman, and Aaron Demsky, \u201cA Late Iron Age I\/Early Iron Age II Old Canaanite Inscription from Tell e\u1e63-\u1e62\u00e2f\u012b \/Gath, Israel: Palaeography, Dating, and Historical-Cultural Significance,\u201d Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research<\/em> 351 [2008]: 39\u201371<\/a> [esp. 48\u201350<\/a>]). Lastly, fifty years ago E. C. B. MacLaurin put forth the interesting thesis that biblical \u02bfanaqim<\/em> (\u05e2\u05e0\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd<\/span>) might be equitable to Greek (digamma) anx<\/em>, a title used of gods and mythic heroes in Greek literature (MacLaurin, \u201cAnak\/\u02be\u03b1\u03bd\u03be<\/span>,\u201d Vetus Testamentum<\/em> 15:4 [1965]: 468\u201374). MacLaurin further argues for a correlation of \u02bfanaqim<\/em> and seranim<\/em>, a biblical term used of Philistine military governors (e.g., Judg 3:3<\/a>; 16:5<\/a>). Given the apparent relationship of the Anakim with the Philistines in several biblical passages, and the classification of the Philistines with the Sea Peoples from the Aegean, these correlations, though speculative, deserve consideration. See the companion website<\/a> for more detail. It seems certain that some relationship existed between these people groups, though what precisely that was isn\u2019t clear. It also seems fair to suggest that in the context of a local flood perspective, these connections provide a possible historical trajectory for giants after the flood.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/span>2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

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

SUPERNATURAL, NOT BIZARRE, ORIENTATION<\/p>\n

The point of this brief reconstruction is not that Israelites took only the lives of the remnant of the giant clans. Others were certainly slain. The point is that the rationale for kherem<\/span> annihilation was the specific elimination of the descendants of the Nephilim. Ridding the land of these bloodlines was the motivation.The idea of kherem<\/em> is that of devoting something wholly to God. As Naud\u00e9 notes, the verb \u201cinvolves consecration of something or someone as a permanent and definitive offering for the sanctuary; or in war, the consecration of a city and its inhabitants to destruction and the carrying out of this destruction\u201d (\u201c\u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (I), \u05d7\u05b5\u05e8\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (I),\u201d 276<\/a>). The logic is that the elimination of these targeted bloodlines, perceived as the spawn of hostile gods, was a gesture of burnt offering back to Yahweh. Not only had other gods encroached on Yahweh\u2019s portion (Deut 32:9<\/a>), violating the boundaries of their own allotment, but they had raised up warriors to prevent Yahweh\u2019s children from inheriting his land. The only way to ensure occupation of the land was to eliminate the giant-warrior clans raised up to prevent that occupation. Kherem<\/em> was a fierce judgment on any lethal threat by other gods against Yahweh\u2019s own children in Yahweh\u2019s own land.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>13<\/a> If Numbers 13:28\u201329<\/a> is to be believed, the Anakim were scattered throughout the land of Canaan. Joshua 11:21\u201323<\/a> makes it clear that these were the peoples targeted for complete elimination, not every last Canaanite.<\/p>\n

In point of fact, the conquest narratives utilize other verbs besides kharam<\/span> that are not necessarily words for taking life.That is, they lack the specificity of kharam<\/em> in that regard. When the biblical text in certain instances says that \u201cno one remained\u201d in a city or region, it cannot be assumed that this means everyone died (i.e., was a victim of kherem<\/em>) unless that clarification is added. They may have been driven away or fled, since the commands of conquest utilize other vocabulary: garash<\/em> (\u201cto drive out\u201d: Exod 23:28<\/a>, 29<\/a>, 30<\/a>, 31<\/a>; 33:2<\/a>; Deut 33:27<\/a>; Josh 24:12<\/a>, 18<\/a>); yarash<\/em> (\u201cto dispossess, drive out\u201d: Exod 34:24<\/a>; Num 21:32<\/a>; 33:52<\/a>, 53<\/a>, 55<\/a>; Josh 3:10<\/a>; 12:1<\/a>; 13:6<\/a>; 17:12<\/a>, 13<\/a>; 23:5<\/a>, 9<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>14<\/a> This indicates that kherem<\/span> was not the goal of every engagement. The picture that emerges when all the descriptions are woven together was that, when Israelite soldiers encountered a member of the giant clans or others known to be descended from those clans, they were under kherem<\/span>. Others might be killed in warfare, but their lives were not required by the supernatural-theological orientation that is telegraphed in Num 13:26\u201333<\/a>, Deut 2\u20133<\/a>, and Josh 11:21\u201323<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The unusual size of these people groups was attributed to divine origin, something a belief in the supernatural must allow. It is not, however, an excuse for a reading of the text that is cartoonish or bizarre.I speak here of discussions (usually online, and never under peer review) that have the biblical giants tens or even hundreds of feet tall. There is no justification for these sorts of ideas in the biblical text.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>15<\/a><\/p>\n

How tall were the biblical giants? The only measurement for a giant that exists in the biblical text is that of Goliath.Recall from chapter 23<\/a> that the dimensions for Og\u2019s bed are not a reliable indicator of his own size. The dimensions are an overt link back to the sacred marriage bed of Marduk, a deity whose own size is of mythological proportions. While there is no doubt that Deut 3:11<\/a> has Og as a Rephaim giant, we cannot know how tall he was from his bed.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>16<\/a> The traditional (Masoretic) Hebrew text has him at \u201csix cubits and a span\u201d (1 Sam 17:4<\/a>), roughly 9 feet, 9 inches. The Dead Sea Scroll reading of 1 Sam 17:4<\/a> disagrees and has Goliath at four cubits and a span, or 6 feet 6 inches. Virtually all scholars consider the Dead Sea Scrolls reading superior and authentic.The smaller size is also the reading of the Septuagint. See the comments in P. Kyle McCarter Jr., I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary<\/em>, Anchor Yale Bible 8 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 286<\/a>; Generally, the Dead Sea Scroll readings for Samuel are regarded as superior to the Masoretic text when the two disagree, especially when the scrolls also coincide with the Septuagint. Bergen\u2019s thoughts are representative: \u201cSerious concerns\u2014and, frequently, highly negative evaluations\u2014have arisen concerning the quality of text transmitted to us in the MT.\u2026 The majority of modern researchers who have studied this issue conclude that in most cases where there is disagreement in the wording of a passage, the LXX\u2019s reading is superior to that of the MT\u201d (Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel<\/em>, New American Commentary 7 [Nashville: Broadman &amp; Holman, 1996], 26<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>17<\/a><\/p>\n

Archaeological work across the ancient Near East confirms that six and one-half feet tall was, by the standards of the day, a giant.See Daniel J. Hays, \u201cThe Height of Goliath: A Response to Clyde Billington,\u201d Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society<\/em> 50.3 (2007): 509\u201316<\/a>. See the companion website<\/a> for my own interaction with Billington.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>18<\/a> One scholar of Israelite culture notes that the average height of an ancient Israelite in the patriarchal period was around five feet.Victor Matthews, Manners and Customs in the Bible<\/em>, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 3.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>19<\/a> Famed biblical archaeologist G. Ernest Wright notes, \u201cAt Gezer were found at least one hundred skeletons from about 3000 B.C. And from various graves and deposits there are many other remains of the third and second millennia, especially from Megiddo, Jericho, and Gezer.\u2026 There are no remains of any aborigines of abnormal size.\u201dG. Ernest Wright, \u201cTroglodytes and Giants in Palestine,\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature<\/em> 57.3 (September 1938): 305\u201309 (esp. 307). For the archaeological reports, see A. Macalister, \u201cReport on the Human Remains Found at Gezer, 1902\u20133,\u201d Palestine Exploration Quarterly<\/em> 35.4 (1903): 322\u201326. See also Yossi Nagar, \u201cHuman Osteological Database at the Israel Antiquities Authority: Overview and Some Samples of Use,\u201d Bioarchaeology of the Near East<\/em> 5 (2011): 1\u201318, http:\/\/anthropology.uw.edu.pl\/05\/bne\u201305\u201301.pdf<\/a>; Baruch Arensburg, \u201cThe Peoples in the Land of Israel from the Epipaleolithic to Present Times: A Study Based on Their Skeletal Remains\u201d (PhD diss., Tel-Aviv University, 1973); B. Arensburg and Y. Rak, \u201cJewish Skeletal Remains from the Period of the Kings of Judaea,\u201d Palestine Exploration Quarterly<\/em> 117.1 (1985): 30\u201334.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>20<\/a> This last comment is noteworthy since these are areas where one would expect giant clan settlements. To date, there is no human skeletal evidence from Syria-Palestine (Canaan) that shows extraordinary height.A number of amateur researchers and websites have asserted that two seven-foot female skeletons were found in a twelfth-century-bc<\/span> cemetery at Tell es-Sa\u2019idiyeh on the east bank of the Jordan. This assertion comes from a commentary on Deuteronomy written by Jeffrey Tigay of the University of Pennsylvania (J. Tigay, Deuteronomy<\/em>, JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996], 17<\/a>). Tigay gave the following footnote information after mentioning this alleged discovery: \u201cThe discovery in Jordan was reported by Jonathan Tubb of the British Museum in a lecture at the University of Pennsylvania in 1995; see the British Museum\u2019s forthcoming Excavations at <\/em>Tell es-Sa\u2019idiyeh<\/em> III\/2.\u201d As it turns out, this is not true. I wrote professor Tubb at the British Museum to ask if he had published a report on these two skeletons, and I mentioned Tigay\u2019s footnote. He replied (April 29, 2014): \u201cI\u2019m sorry to disappoint, but I\u2019m afraid the footnote resulted from a misunderstood comment I made at a lecture on Sa\u2019idiyeh I gave at Penn some time ago. We don\u2019t, in fact, have any unusually large skeletons from the Sa\u2019idiyeh cemetery. We are in the last stages of preparing the final report on the graves, and all of the metrics will be contained in the volume.\u201d Readers can visit the companion website<\/a> for a screenshot of the original email. To date, there are no human skeletons from Canaan that show bizarre height.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>21<\/a> The same is true of the Mediterranean world of the biblical time period.Readers are urged to read the pioneering research of Adrienne Mayor in this regard (The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times<\/em> (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). Mayor surveys all the reports in classical Greek and Roman texts about sighting of skeletal remains of human giants and then correlates the location with paleontological discoveries of the bones of dinosaurs and large prehistoric mammals (e.g., mastodons) to demonstrate that these ancient reports were misidentifications of animal remains unknown to people in the classical period. Mayor conducts the same sort of research for North American reports of giant bones in a follow-up volume, Fossil Legends of the First Americans<\/em> (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005). Paleontologists have done similar research as well. See James L. Hayward, \u201cFossil Proboscidians and Myths of Giant Men,\u201d Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies<\/em> 12 (1984): 95\u2013102. The same sort of mistakes in identification occurred in modern times in centuries before paleontological science achieved the level of expertise it now enjoys. In 1643 what were thought to be the skeletal remains of a giant man were discovered in Belgium. Years later the bones were identified as thigh bones from a mammoth (Taika Helola Dahlbom, \u201cA Mammoth History: The Extraordinary Journey of Two Thighbones,\u201d Endeavour<\/em> 31.3 (2007): 110\u201314.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>22<\/a><\/p>\n

This is no surprise. The ancient Israelites, like other peoples of Canaan at the time, did not embalm their dead. Consequently, human skeletal remains from the first two millennia bc are not common. Of the millions of people that lived in ancient Syria-Palestine during that two-thousand-year span, a few thousand skeletons have survived. The situation in ancient Egypt is proportionally better due to embalming. Moreover, people who were embalmed tended to be among the elite class, which meant their diets were better, which in turn meant better health and optimal growth. Based on examination of mummies, the average height of an Egyptian male was between 5 and 5.5 feet.Sonia R. Zakrewski, \u201cVariation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions,\u201d American Journal of Physical Anthropology<\/em> 121.3 (2003): 219\u201329; P. H. K. Gray, \u201cThe Radiography of Mummies of Ancient Egyptians,\u201d Journal of Human Evolution<\/em> 2.1 (1973): 51\u201353; Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, and Aly El\u2010Sawaf, \u201cStature Estimation in Ancient Egyptians: A New Technique Based on Anatomical Reconstruction of Stature,\u201d American Journal of Physical Anthropology<\/em> 136.2 (2008): 147\u201355.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>23<\/a><\/p>\n

This is not to say that there is no evidence external to the Bible for unusually tall people in Canaan during the biblical period. One Egyptian text from the period of Ramesses II, described by Pritchard in a chapter entitled \u201cProblems of Asiatic Geography,\u201d specifically makes that point. The text reads at one point:<\/p>\n

The narrow valley is dangerous with Bedouin, hidden under the bushes. Some of them are of four or five cubits [from<\/em>] their noses to the heel<\/em>, and fierce of face. Their hearts are not mild, and they do not listen to wheedling.James Bennett Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures<\/em>, 3rd ed., with supplement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 477. \u201cFour to five cubits\u201d would be between 7 and 9 feet, the known range for unusually tall humans in modern experience. This Egyptian text is interesting since Ramesses II is the pharaoh most biblical scholars presume was the pharaoh of the exodus.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>24<\/a><\/p>\n

The picture that emerges from the biblical text and archaeology is that vestiges of the Nephilim bloodline were scattered throughout Canaan among a number of other people groups. The aim of the conquest was to drive out all the inhabitants and eliminate these bloodlines in the process. The thinking is foreign to us, but it was part of the supernatural worldview of the biblical writers.<\/p>\n

Israel failed, of course. It would be centuries before the sort of kingdom envisioned by Moses and Joshua would arise. And that was mostly a mess. We tend to process the Old Testament after Joshua as just a bunch of genealogies with some murder, sex, and scandal thrown in to keep our attention. There\u2019s more to it than that\u2014a lot more.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Section Summary<\/em><\/p>\n

The wars of conquest under Moses and Joshua were supposed to cleanse the land of a competing divine bloodline and install Yahweh\u2019s own children, his inheritance, into the place he had allotted for them. Yahweh\u2019s rule on earth was to be reconstituted in Canaan.<\/p>\n

Frankly, it didn\u2019t seem much like Eden.<\/p>\n

In contrast to the idyllic beginnings in Eden, the installation of Israel into the land had been violent. Those means were necessary to revive Yahweh\u2019s original vision in a fallen world, a world full of divine and human conflict, of free imagers seeking their own will, not the will of the creator. Yahweh could have just spoken Israel into existence in the land. He could have acted unilaterally as high sovereign to resuscitate his rule on earth. But Yahweh\u2019s decisions in the original Eden meant that he would not overturn human (or divine) freedom in his imagers. Yahweh had chosen to accomplish his ends through imagers loyal to him against imagers who weren\u2019t. This commitment to humanity, his original imagers on earth, is one often-missed reason why, when humanity (Israel) failed to restore God\u2019s rule, God took matters into his own hands by becoming human<\/em> in Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

Consequently, in a world governed by other gods who had become hostile rivals in the wake of Yahweh\u2019s judgment at Babel, Yahweh\u2019s presence was unwelcome. There would be war. There would be death. The land had to be repossessed and made holy. Canaan would be Yahweh\u2019s beachhead of cosmic geography from which Israel could fulfill its mission. Israel would be a kingdom of priests, a conduit through which the disinherited nations of the earth would see Israel\u2019s prosperity. The surrounding peoples would hear of Israel\u2019s God, see his unmatched power, and seek his covenantal love. The nations would be reclaimed, not by force, but by free imagers choosing to turn toward the true God\u2014the creator and Lord of all.<\/p>\n

At least that was the plan.<\/p>\n

We know that Israel ultimately failed. The seeds of that failure were sown in the events of the conquest. For whatever reasons\u2014lack of faith or lack of effort, or both\u2014Israel failed to drive out their enemies. They allowed vestiges of the targeted bloodlines to remain in the land in the Philistine cities. They chose to coexist (Judg 1:27\u201336<\/a>). The visible Yahweh, the Angel, asks the rhetorical question, \u201cWhy would you do such a thing?\u201d and then announces the consequence: \u201cNow I say, I will not drive them out from before you; they will become as thorns for you, and their gods will be a trap for you\u201d (Judg 2:2\u20133<\/a>). The name of the place where he uttered these words was thereafter appropriately remembered as Bochim, a Hebrew word that means \u201cweeping\u201d (Judg 2:5<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Not surprisingly, the rest of Israel\u2019s history is a sordid roller-coaster ride. Loyalty to Yahweh\u2014refusing to worship any other god\u2014was of course at the heart of salvation in the Old Testament. Possession of the land is linked to this loyalty as far back as the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:1\u20132<\/a>, 8\u201310<\/a>; 22:15\u201318<\/a>). The covenant at Sinai reinforced that connection (Lev 26<\/a>; Deut 4:25\u201327<\/a>, 39\u201340<\/a>; 11:18\u201324<\/a>). It would be due to failure in this loyalty that Israel was sent into exile\u2014expelled from the land of promise.<\/p>\n

But Yahweh wouldn\u2019t give up entirely on Israel. The book of Judges makes it clear that he would respond to both repentance and apostasy with equal consistency. The visible Yahweh did show up from time to time, as in the cases of Gideon (Judg 6<\/a>) and Samson (Judg 13<\/a>). But it was only with Israel\u2019s last judge, the faithful Samuel, that Yahweh\u2019s appearances became less rare.<\/p>\n

Israel\u2019s monarchy would suffer through Saul and eventually flourish under David and his son Solomon. But the monarchy thereafter crumbled, dragging God\u2019s intended kingdom into centuries of apostasy and civil war before ending in divine judgment.<\/p>\n

The terrible end would produce theological lessons: Eden cannot come and survive without Yahweh\u2019s constant presence\u2014as had been the case in the original Eden. The kingdom of God cannot be built with human hands. As Israel reached the final stages of failure, God announced through the prophets that plans had changed. Restoring Eden would require God\u2019s enduring presence in the hearts of his children, and an ideal king who would remain loyal to Yahweh. God himself would supply the second Adam, the son of David, the perfect ruling servant.<\/p>\n

Old Testament history after the conquest is the story of what might have been. But the Old Testament after the book of Joshua shouldn\u2019t be read like a protracted obituary. The spiritual war doesn\u2019t end. The biblical writers have messages to communicate against the backdrop of their supernatural worldview. The stories of prophets and kings aren\u2019t just a biblical soap opera. There\u2019s an unseen reality show going on at the same time. What\u2019s playing on that channel will occupy us the rest of the way through the Old Testament.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

PART 6<\/p>\n

THUS SAYS THE LORD<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

CHAPTER 26<\/p>\n

Mountains and Valleys<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Penetrating into Canaan and establishing itself as an independent state didn\u2019t solve the problem of cosmic geography for Israel.Earlier, in chapter 15<\/a>, we briefly discussed cosmic geographical thinking in passages from the historical books and the period of the monarchy (e.g., 1 Sam 26:17\u201319<\/a>; 2 Kgs 5:15\u201319<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> If anything, it sharpened the conflic<\/span>t. Not only was Israel surrounded by hostile nations and their gods, but there were also pockets of divine resistance from within.<\/p>\n

The period of the judges and the monarchy form a tale of military and<\/span> spiritual struggle. On the ground, the Israelites were still hamstrung by the presence of the vestiges of the Rephaim\/Nephilim who had escaped annihilation in the conquest and by incursions from enemies on the peripheries. Toward the end of the last chapter I briefly <\/span>noted Joshua 11:21\u201323<\/a>, which informed us that the eradication of the Anakim had not been total. The writer of Joshua noted in that <\/span>passage that some Anakim were known to live in cities that would later become cities of the Philistines\u2014Israel\u2019s chief enemy during the united monarchy. Spiritually, these conflicts had high stakes, as they signaled the infiltration of other gods siphoning off Israelite worshipers into their own cults. Since <\/span>believing loyalty to Yahweh was foundational to Yahweh\u2019s protection and remaining in the land, the spiritual battle was just as much a threat as the physical one.<\/span><\/p>\n

The books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings clearly describe the military conflict. That\u2019s the one that\u2019s easy to see through modern<\/span> eyes and with a modern worldview. But beneath the surface there\u2019s a war of a different nature raging. We\u2019ll cover a few examples in this chapter.<\/p>\n

HOLY GROUND<\/p>\n

When Moses was told to construct the tabernacle and its equipment, the Bible tells us that God revealed a pattern for doing so (\u201cAnd you will erect the tabernacle according to its plan, wh<\/span>ich you have been shown on the mountain\u201d\u2014Exod 26:30<\/a>). Earlier, in chapter 22<\/a>, we discussed how the tabernacle description aligned with divine abodes of other gods, namely from Ugarit. We need to revis<\/span>it the tabernacle here, since its history prepares us for the more permanent temple\u2014the place where the Name would dwell.<\/p>\n

The implication of God having Moses follow a divine pattern is that the tabern<\/span>acle tent structure on earth was to be a copy of the heavenly tent\u2014as in heaven, so on earth. The heavenly tent prototype was the heavens themselves, as Isaiah 40:22<\/a> tells us (\u201cHe is the one who sits <\/span>above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; the one who stretches out the heavens like a veil and spreads them out like a tent to live in\u201d). In other words, the heavens and earth were conceived of as Yahwe<\/span>h\u2019s true tabernacle or temple. The earthly dwelling place erected by the Israelites mimicked the grand habitation of the cosmos.A number of scholars have devoted attention to the way the cosmos, tabernacle, and temple are described in similar terms in the Old Testament. See, for example, 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; 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>, Biblical Tools and Studies 18 (ed. L. Michael Morales; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 161\u201366.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a><\/p>\n

The tabernacle was not only the abo<\/span>de of Yahweh; it was also his throne room. Yahweh sits above the circle of the earth, in his heavenly tent, on his throne above the waters that are above \u201cthe firmament,\u201d and rests his feet on the earth (\u201cThus says the <\/span>Lord: \u2018Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool\u2019\u2005\u201d\u2014Isaiah 66:1<\/a> English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).For example, see Job 9:8<\/a>; Psa 104:2<\/a>. See the companion website<\/a> for more on Israelite cosmology.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> The ark of the covenant was there, the sacred object associated with Yahweh\u2019s presence\u2014his Name.In 2 Sam 6:1\u20132<\/a> (cf. 1 Sam 4:4<\/a>; Jer 7:12<\/a>) we read: \u201cDavid again gathered all the chosen men in Israel, thirty thousand. David got up and went and all the people who were with him, from Baale-judah to bring up from there the ark of God which is called the name, the name of Yahweh of hosts [\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05be\u05e0\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0 \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e6\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span>], upon which the cherubim sit.\u201d
\n<\/span> The word shem<\/em> (\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd<\/span>) appears twice in this verse\u2014the ark is called the name, the name of Yahweh of hosts. The point is that the ark is identified with the Name, who is Yahweh, since Yahweh is the one seated on the cherubim. Many English translations obscure the Hebrew text here, rendering something like \u201cwhich is called by the name of the LORD of hosts,\u201d which omits one of the occurrences of shem<\/em>. The reason is that many scholars consider the dual occurrence of shem<\/em> to be an accidental repetition by a scribe, what textual critics call dittography (see for example, P. Kyle McCarter Jr., II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary<\/em>, Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 9 [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964, 2008], 163<\/a>). While this is possible, there is no inherent interpretive problem with the Masoretic Text as it stands in view of the evidence for divine co-regency (the two Yahwehs) already noted. That the ark would be called the name is understandable, since the ark was a placeholder for the very presence of Yahweh, who is the name. The same association (note the anthropomorphic language) is conveyed in 2 Sam 7:2<\/a>, where the ark<\/em> is said to dwell<\/em> in a tent.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a><\/p>\n

The<\/span> tabernacle traveled with Israel during the entire journey to the promised land. Once Israel penetrated the land, the ark of the covenant (and therefore the tabernacle structure) was situated at Bethel (<\/span>Judg 20:27<\/a>), a name that means \u201chouse of God.\u201d You know Bethel by now. It was the place where Jacob had his encounter with Yahweh and the angels of his council atop the \u201cladder\u201d (i.e., a ziggurat; <\/span>Gen 28:10\u201322<\/a>). It was the place where the \u201cangels of God\u201d appeared to him again when he was fleeing from Esau, his brother (32:1\u20135<\/a>). It was the place where Jacob built an altar and a pillar to commemo<\/span>rate the appearance of the visible Yahweh (31:13<\/a>; cf. 35:1\u20137<\/a>).Bethel was also the place where Deborah the prophetess, who sat under the terebinth tree, lived (Judg 4:5<\/a>). I have omitted subjects like divination from much of the book. See the companion website<\/a> for how that subject is informed by the divine council and Israel\u2019s supernatural worldview.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a><\/p>\n

Sometime later the tabernacle moved from Bethel to Shiloh. Once that move occurred, it was said that the \u201chouse of God\u201d was Shiloh (Judg<\/span> 18:31<\/a>; 1 Sam 1:24<\/a>; Jer 7:12<\/a>). The Old Testament indicates that Shiloh became the place of sacrifice (Judg 21:19<\/a>; 1 Sam 1:3<\/a>). At Shiloh we see the boy Samuel encounter the physicalized Yahweh, the Wor<\/span>d (1 Sam 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Eli the priest later foolishly sent the ark of the covenant out to battle, and it fell into the hands of the Philistines, who took it to Ashdod and installed it in the temple of their god<\/span>, Dagon. In a fascinating (and funny) incident of cosmic geography, Yahweh\u2019s presence destroyed the statue of Dagon. First Samuel 5:5<\/a> describes the reaction of the Philistine priests: \u201cTherefore the p<\/span>riests of Dagon and all who come into the house of Dagon do not tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod until this very day.\u201d This threshold was now Yahweh\u2019s geography\u2014they dared not walk on it.In light of the supernatural-theological connections between the biblical text and Mesopotamia, which we\u2019ve discussed elsewhere, it is worth noting that Dagon had Mesopotamian roots as well. Healey writes: \u201cDagan is one of the most persistent deities of the world of Semitic religion. His worship is well attested from the third millennium bce<\/span> in the Ebla texts and he appears in Sargonic personal names, but neither source gives any hint of the precise nature of this deity.\u2026 Sargon attributed his conquest of Upper\/Western Mesopotamia to Dagan and worshipped him in Tuttul. This confirms Dagan\u2019s regional authority, leaving southern Mesopotamia to other deities, including Enlil. He is well attested in the Mari texts as one of the principal deities of the Amorites of Old Babylonian Upper Mesopotamia\u201d (see J. F. Healey, \u201cDagon,\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], 216\u201317<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a><\/p>\n

Ev<\/span>entually the ark was brought to Jerusalem. At first, David placed it in a temporary tent he had made for it (2 Sam 6:17<\/a>; 2 Chr 1:3\u20134<\/a>), under the assumption that he was going to build a temple for it.David later removed it during the time of civil unrest caused by his son Absalom (2 Sam 15:24\u201325<\/a>). In the meantime, the place of sacrifice had become Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:4<\/a>), where, we are told, an ancient \u201ctent of meeting\u201d of Moses had been moved (2 Chr 1:3<\/a> esv<\/span>). In Solomon\u2019s day, Gibeon was the high place of worship. The \u201ctent of meeting\u201d at Gibeon was actually the Mosaic tabernacle, since sacrifices were offered there (something that was not true of the<\/em> tent of meeting in Moses\u2019 day). This separation of the ark at Jerusalem and the tabernacle tent at Gibeon was the situation during the time of Solomon as well, prior to Solomon\u2019s construction of the temple.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Like the tabernacle, the temple contains striking imagery associated with Eden. Eden was a lush garden and a holy mountain.See chapter 6<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a> The tabernacle\u2019s tent enclosure contained furnishings and decorations that<\/span> evoked Edenic imagery.See chapter 22<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>9<\/a> All of these motifs\u2014tent, mountain, garden\u2014come together in the temple, the fixed place where Yahweh was considered to dwell and order the earth and the heavens with his counc<\/span>il.<\/p>\n

THE TEMPLE AS COSMIC TENT DWELLING<\/p>\n

Many Bible readers assume that once the temple was built the tabernacle was forgotten or perhaps permanently dismantled. In reality, the tabernacle tent, with its ho<\/em><\/span>ly of holies, was moved into the temple with the ark<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Recall that within the tabernacle was another building, completely covered with curtains, called the holy place. This room was divided in two by a<\/span> veil, behind which was the holy of holies, the room that contained the ark (Exod 26<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

The inside of the temple also had this same type of inner room arrangement.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

There was one major difference, though, between the inner sanctum of the temple and that of the tabernacle. The inner area of the temple had two giant cherubim in it, standing side by <\/span>side, the tips of their wings stretching across to touch each other, like so:<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

The effect of this was that the cherubim wings formed the seat of a throne for Yahweh, and the ark was his footst<\/span>ool. The width and height dimensions between the cherubim can accommodate the size of the tented holy of holies. This has led some scholars to theorize that the tented holy of holies was moved inside <\/span>the temple, erected under and between the cherubim.See R. E. Friedman, \u201cTabernacle,\u201d in Anchor Bible Dictionary<\/em> (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992<\/em>), 6:292\u2013300<\/a>; Friedman, \u201cThe Tabernacle in the Temple,\u201d Biblical Archaeologist<\/em> 43 (1980): 241\u201348<\/a>. Friedman seeks to incorporate more of the tabernacle structure within the temple than the holy of holies, an idea that has drawn sharp criticism (see Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, \u201cThe Form and Fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a Recent Proposal,\u201d Jewish Quarterly Review<\/em> 86.1\u20132 [July\u2013October 1995], 127\u201351). My position is only that it is coherent to see the tented holy of holies from the tabernacle within the holy of holies in Solomon\u2019s temple. According to Exod 38\u201339<\/a>, the tented area of the tabernacle (holy place and holy of holies) measured ten cubits wide and thirty cubits long (15 feet by 45 feet). The holy of holies was a ten-cubit cube area. The corresponding spaces in Solomon\u2019s temple were larger: sixty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high (1 Kgs 6:2<\/a>), with the holy of holies a twenty-cubit cube. In terms of spacing, there is no obstacle to having the tented holy of holies from the desert tabernacle within the innermost sanctum of the temple. In my view, this explains some of the \u201ctent\u201d language associated with the temple (see the following note). The cherubim throne graphic is from Martin Metzger, K\u00f6nigsthron und Gottesthron: Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in \u00c4gypten und im Vorderen Orient im dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutung f\u00fcr das Verst\u00e4ndis von Aussagen \u00fcber den Thron im Alten Testament<\/em> (Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker, 1985).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>10<\/a> In the temple, the imagery of Yahweh on his throne and \u201cliving\u201d in the ancient tent were both preserved.We know the tabernacle tent structure (mishkan<\/em>) was moved inside the temple from several other considerations. 1 Kgs 8:4\u20138<\/a> tells us that it wasn\u2019t only the ark that was brought to the finished temple, but also the tabernacle and its accoutrements. Although the passage does not explicitly say the tent was moved inside the temple sanctum, other passages suggest that the tent and the temple were somehow co-identified. Well after the days of Solomon, 2 Chr 24:6<\/a> reports that when King Joash ordered repairs for the temple, he angrily asked, \u201cWhy have you not required the Levites to bring from Judah and Jerusalem the tax of Moses, the servant of Yahweh, and of the assembly of Israel for the tent of the testimony<\/strong>?\u201d (emphasis added). In 2 Chr 29:3\u20137<\/a> (esv<\/span>, emphasis added), Hezekiah laments the disrepair of the temple. His complaint contains both temple and tabernacle tent wordings: \u201cIn the first year of his reign, in the first month, [Hezekiah] opened the doors of the house of the <\/strong>Lord<\/span> and repaired them. He brought in the priests and the Levites and assembled them in the square on the east and said to them, \u201cHear me, Levites! Now consecrate yourselves, and consecrate the house of the Lord<\/span>, the God of your fathers, and carry out the filth from the Holy Place. For our fathers have been unfaithful and have done what was evil in the sight of the Lord<\/span> our God. They have forsaken him and have turned away their faces from the tabernacle [<\/strong>mishkan<\/span>] of the <\/strong>Lord<\/span> and turned their backs. They also shut the doors of the vestibule and put out the lamps and have not burned incense or offered burnt offerings in the Holy Place to the God of Israel.\u201d It is interesting that in Hurowitz\u2019s lengthy rejection of Friedman\u2019s proposal, none of these passages from 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles are to be found.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>11<\/a><\/p>\n

THE TEMPLE AS COSMIC MOUNTAIN AND GARDEN<\/p>\n

The Temple of Yahweh in Israel was naturally associated with a cosmic mountain dwelling like Sinai because it was situated in Jerusalem on Mount Zion, the new <\/span>Sinai.See Ronald E. Clements, \u201cSacred Mountains, Temples, and the Presence of God,\u201d in Cult and Cosmos: Tilting toward a Temple-Centered Biblical Theology<\/em>, Biblical Tools and Studies 18 (ed. L. Michael Morales; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 69\u201385; Richard J. Clifford, \u201cThe Temple and the Holy Mountain,\u201d in Morales, Cult and Cosmos<\/em>, 85\u201398.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>12<\/a> Psalm 48<\/a> makes this quite clear:<\/p>\n

1<\/a> Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised<\/p>\n

in the city of our God!<\/p>\n

His holy mountain<\/strong>, 2<\/a> beautiful in elevation,<\/p>\n

is the joy of all the earth,<\/p>\n

Mount Zion<\/strong>, in<\/span> the far north [Lit.: heights of the north]<\/strong>,<\/p>\n

the city of the great King (Psa 48:1\u20132<\/a> English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Zechariah 8:3<\/a> (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>) echoes the same notion: \u201cThus says the Lord: I have returned to Zion and will dwell [liter<\/span>ally, \u201cwill tabernacle\u201d; shakan<\/span>] in the midst of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the Lord of hosts, the holy mountain.\u201d<\/p>\n

As anyone who has been to Jerusa<\/span>lem knows, Mount Zion isn\u2019t much of a mountain. It certainly isn\u2019t located in the geographical north\u2014it\u2019s actually in the southern part of the country. So what\u2019s meant by \u201cthe heights of the north\u201d?<\/p>\n

T<\/span>his description would be a familiar one to Israel\u2019s pagan neighbors, particularly at Ugarit. It\u2019s actually taken out of their literature. The \u201cheights of the north\u201d (Ugaritic: \u201cthe heights of tsaphon<\/span>\u201d<\/span>) is the place where Baal lived and, supposedly, ran the cosmos at the behest of the high god El and the divine council.The word for \u201cnorth\u201d in Hebrew is tsaphon<\/em>. At Ugarit it is tsapanu<\/em>. In both languages the term refers to geographical location and the cosmic mountain to the far north, the dwelling place of the divine council. See H. Niehr, \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\u201329<\/a>; Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament<\/em>, Harvard Semitic Monographs 4 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972) 57\u201379, 131\u201360; C. Grave, \u201cThe Etymology of Northwest Semitic \u1e63ap\u0101nu<\/em>, Ugarit Forschungen<\/em> 12 (1980): 221\u201329; E. Lipinski, \u201cEl\u2019s Abode,\u201d Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica<\/em> 2 (1971): 13\u201368.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>13<\/a> The psalmist is stealing glory from Baal, restoring it to the One to whom it <\/span>rightfully belongs\u2014Yahweh. It\u2019s a theological and literary slap in the face, another polemic.<\/p>\n

This explains why the description sounds odd in terms of Jerusalem\u2019s actual geography. This is why Isaiah <\/span>and Micah used phrases like \u201cthe mountain of the house of Yahweh\u201d (Isa 2:2<\/a>; Mic 4:1<\/a>). The description is designed to make a theological point, not a geographical one. Zion is the center of the cosmos,<\/span> and Yahweh and his<\/em> council are its king and administrators, not Baal.<\/p>\n

The temple is also the Edenic garden, full of lush vegetation and animals. The description of the temple\u2019s construction in 1 King<\/span>s 6\u20137<\/a> is explicit in this regard.See Lawrence E. Stager, \u201cJerusalem and the Garden of Eden,\u201d in Morales, Cult and Cosmos<\/em>, 99\u2013118; Victor A. Hurowitz, \u201cYhwh\u2019s Exalted House\u2014Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon\u2019s Temple,\u201d in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel<\/em>, Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, rev. ed.; (ed. John Day; London: Bloomsbury\/T &amp; T Clark, 2007), 63\u2013110 (esp. 87\u201390).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>14<\/a> Flowers, palm trees, gourds, cypress trees, cherubim, lions, and pomegranates all adorn the temple via its carved architectural features.<\/p>\n

In Ezekiel\u2019s vision of the<\/span> new temple (Ezek 40\u201348<\/a>), he saw a temple built on a high mountain (40:2<\/a>), whose courts were decorated with palm trees (40:31\u201334<\/a>). The interior was decorated with more palm trees and cherubim (41:17\u20132<\/span>0<\/a>.). Ezekiel\u2019s temple-garden was well watered, like Eden, since a river flowed from it that supernaturally gave life to everything else (47:1\u201312<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In Israel\u2019s theology, Eden, the tabernacle, Sinai, an<\/span>d the temple were equally the abode of Yahweh and his council. The Israelites who had the tabernacle and the temple were constantly reminded of the fact that they had the God of the cosmic mountain and the cosmic garden living in their midst, and if the<\/span>y obeyed him, Zion would become the kingdom domain of Yahweh, which would serve as the place to which he would regather the disinherited nations cast aside at Babel to himself. <\/span>Micah 4<\/a> puts it well:<\/p>\n

1<\/a> It shall come to pass in the latter days<\/p>\n

that the mountain of the house of the Lord<\/p>\n

shall be established as the highest of the mountains,<\/p>\n

and it s<\/span>hall be lifted up above the hills;<\/p>\n

and peoples shall flow to it,<\/p>\n

2<\/a>  and many nations shall come, and say:<\/p>\n

\u201cCome, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,<\/p>\n

to the house of the God of Jacob,<\/p>\n

that he ma<\/span>y teach us his ways<\/p>\n

and that we may walk in his paths.\u201d<\/p>\n

For out of Zion shall go forth the law,<\/p>\n

and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Mic 4:1\u20132<\/a> English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

UNHOLY GROUND<\/p>\n

In stark contrast to the temple, the place in Israel\u2019s cosmic-geographical thinking where heaven and earth intersected, there were sinister places within Canaan that became associated with the powers of darkness, specifically the vestiges of the Rephaim\/Nephilim bloodlines.<\/p>\n

In our earlier discussion of the conquest we came across the Rephaim. The Rephaim were giants. Deuteronomy informed us that the Anakim were considered Rephaim (Deut 2:11<\/a>), as were the Zamzummim (Deut 2:20<\/a>). Og of Bashan \u201cwas left from the remnant of the Rephaim\u201d (Deut 3:11<\/a>), so that \u201cBashan was called the land of the Rephaim\u201d (Deut 3:13<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Joshua 11:22<\/a> tells us that the conquest had failed to eliminate all the Anakim, that some remained in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. The Rephaim presence persisted in the land until the time of David. The giant Goliath, who came from Gath (1 Sam 17:4<\/a>, 23<\/a>), was a descendant of the refugee Anakim\/Rephaim. He had brothers, too, as we learn in 1 Chronicles 20<\/a>:<\/p>\n

4<\/a> And after this there arose a war in Gezer with the Philistines. Then Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Sippai, one of the descendants of the Rephaim. And they were subdued. 5<\/a> And again there was war with the Philistines. And Elhanan son of Jair struck down Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver\u2019s beam. 6<\/a> And again there was war in Gath. And there was a very tall man there, and he had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in all. He himself was also a descendant of the Rephaim. 7<\/a> And he taunted Israel, but Jehonathan son of Shimea, brother of David, struck him down. 8<\/a> These were born to the giants in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants (vv. 4\u20138<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Rephaim of the Transjordan in the days of Moses were associated not only with Bashan but also Ashtaroth and Edrei, two cities that, in the literature of Ugarit, were considered as marking the gateway to the underworld. In David\u2019s time, the Rephaim were also associated with death in a more peripheral, but conceptually similar, way.<\/p>\n

There are nearly ten references in the Old Testament to a place known as the Valley of the Rephaim. On several occasions the Philistines are described as camped there (2 Sam 5:18<\/a>, 22<\/a>; 23:13<\/a>).This is not to suggest that the valley was named after Rephaim within the Philistine camp. Scripture doesn\u2019t indicate the origin of the name, though it\u2019s obvious it had some association with the Rephaim. Edelstein notes: \u201cIn the LXX, the valley is called (1) \u2018Valley of the Rephaim (Gk Raphaim<\/em>)\u2019 (2 Sam 23:13<\/a>); (2) \u2018Valley of the Titans<\/em> (Gk Titan\u014dn<\/em>)\u2019 (2 Sam 5:18<\/a>); (3) \u2018Valley of the Giants (Gk gigant\u014dn<\/em>)\u2019 (1 Chr 11:15<\/a>; 14:9<\/a>). This reflects a tradition in which \u2018Rephaim\u2019 is the equivalent of \u2018Giants.\u2019 It may have been a matter of deliberate choice that the text has the descendants of giants (cf. Hesiod <\/a>Theog.<\/em><\/a> 132\u201360<\/a>, 207\u201310<\/a>), the Philistines (2 Samuel 15\u201322<\/a>), outwitted by the mighty three (2 Sam 23:13\u201317<\/a> = 1 Chr 11:15\u201319<\/a>) and ultimately defeated by David\u2019s army in the \u2018Valley of the Giants\u2019 (2 Sam 5:17\u201325<\/a> = 1 Chr 14:8\u201317<\/a>)\u201d\u2014see Gershon Edelstein, \u201cRephaim, Valley of (Place),\u201d in Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary<\/em>, vol. 5 (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 676<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>15<\/a>Joshua 15:8<\/a> and 18:16<\/a> tell us that the Valley of the Rephaim adjoined another valley\u2014the Valley of Hinnom, also known as the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.See Duane F. Watson, \u201cHinnom Valley (Place),\u201d Anchor Bible Dictionary<\/em>, 3:202<\/a>. Josh 18:16<\/a> (esv<\/span>) refers to \u201cthe Valley of the Son of Hinnom, which is at the north end of the Valley of Rephaim.\u201d
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>16<\/a> In Hebrew \u201cValley of Hinnom\u201d is ge hinnom<\/span>, a phrase from which the name gehenna derives.<\/p>\n

In New Testament times, gehenna had become a designation for the fiery realm of the dead\u2014hell or Hades. The history of the Valley of Hinnom no doubt was part of the reason for this conception. The translated meaning of ge hinnom<\/span> in Hebrew is most likely \u201cvalley of wailing,\u201d an understandable description given the child sacrifice that took place there. The Valley of Hinnom was the place where King Ahaz and King Manasseh sacrificed their own sons as burnt offerings to Molech (2 Chr 28:3<\/a>; 33:6<\/a>). These sacrifices took place at ritual centers called topheth<\/span> (\u201cburning place\u201d), and later the Valley of Hinnom became referred to by the place name Tophet (Jer 7:32<\/a>; 19:6<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The meaning and identity of Molech (Hebrew consonants, m-l-k) is hotly debated by scholars.See G. C. Heider, \u201cMolech,\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), 581\u201385<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>17<\/a> It is hard to see one clear association, however, as coincidental. Molech\u2019s name appears in two snake charms from Ugarit in connection with the city of Ashtaroth (Ugaritic: \u02bf \u1e6f\u1e6frt<\/span>), the place known from the biblical accounts about Og (Deut 1:4<\/a>; 9:10<\/a>; 12:4<\/a>).Ibid. Heider notes: \u201c\u2026 the Ugaritic \u2018address\u2019 for Mlk, \u02bf\u1e6ftrt<\/em>, is likely to be identified with the city Ashtaroth in Bashan, just north of Ammon. In sum, the Semitic comparative evidence yields the portrait of an ancient god of the netherworld, involved in the cult of the dead ancestors (and perhaps their king, given the meaning of the root mlk<\/em>, at least in West Semitic).\u201d
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>18<\/a> Another Ugaritic text puts the god Rpu, the patron deity of the Rephaim, in Ashtaroth as well. These texts at the very least inform us that there was a close religious association between Molech and the Rephaim. This makes sense in light of the geographical relationship between the Valley of the Rephaim and the Valley of Hinnom in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s particularly fascinating\u2014or disturbing\u2014is that the location of these valleys is directly adjacent to the southern side of Jerusalem, Mount Zion, the place of Yahweh\u2019s presence in his temple.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

THE SPIRITUAL VALLEY<\/p>\n

These examples are just a sampling of the cosmic-geographical worldview of the biblical writers and their times. Spiritual conflict lurks behind a wide range of Old Testament episodes and practices. The conflict between the powers of darkness and the presence of Yahweh was an ever-present part of life for the ancient Israelite. Unfortunately, the biblical record is riddled with examples of Israelites being seduced by or embracing those powers.<\/p>\n

Israel enjoyed a united monarchy\u2014meaning that all twelve tribes were united under one king\u2014through the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. The enterprise began poorly. The Israelites\u2019 demand for a king (1 Sam 8<\/a>) was not a call for someone who would administer righteousness within the country and bring stability. Rather, it was a rejection of Yahweh\u2019s ability to fight for his obedient people (1 Sam 8:20<\/a>). The divine warrior of the exodus and wars against the Anakim had been cast aside for\u2014ironically\u2014the tallest person on the Israelite side (1 Sam 9:2<\/a>). \u201cMake us a king like the other nations!\u201d God gave them what they asked for, and they paid the price.<\/p>\n

Eventually the kingdom solidified under David, the man after God\u2019s own heart. In fact, God had picked him out specifically for the task (1 Sam 16<\/a>) and validated his status with a victory over a Rephaim giant (Goliath) in single combat. God went so far as to initiate a covenant with David, declaring that only David\u2019s descendants would be legitimate heirs of his kingship (2 Sam 7<\/a>).<\/p>\n

That succession lasted one generation, through the kingship of Solomon. Once Solomon was gone, the kingdom split into two kingdoms: Israel (ten tribes) to the north and Judah (two tribes), with its capital in Jerusalem. It was only a matter of time before each of them succumbed to idolatrous disloyalty to Yahweh. In the northern kingdom, it happened immediately. Jeroboam, Israel\u2019s first rebel king, made a rebuilt Shechem his first capital city (1 Kgs 12:25<\/a>). Shechem had been the place where Joshua had gathered Israel before his death to dedicate the nation to finishing the conquest and remaining pure before Yahweh (Josh 24<\/a>). Jeroboam set up cult centers (1 Kgs 12:26\u201333<\/a>) for Baal worship in two places to mark the extent of his realm: Dan (which was in the region of Bashan, close to Mount Hermon) and Bethel (the place where Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs).See Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary<\/em>, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 9 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 154\u201355<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>19<\/a> The symbolism of spiritual warfare in these decisions was palpable. No one faithful to Yahweh would have missed their intended contempt. Ten of Israel\u2019s tribes were now under the dominion of other gods. Yahweh would destroy Israel in 722 via the Assyrian Empire.<\/p>\n

Judah, the southern kingdom, ostensibly loyal to David and Yahweh, would also fail. They too would have kings who turned from Yahweh. The Davidic dynasty eventually collapsed and Judah\u2019s people were sent into exile in\u2014of all places\u2014Babylon.<\/p>\n

We mustn\u2019t conclude that God didn\u2019t try to turn the hearts of his people back to himself. That\u2019s precisely why he raised up prophets\u2014after they had met with him and his council.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

CHAPTER 27<\/p>\n

Standing in the Council<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s face it. Few Bible readers know much about the prophets, who after the conquest take a backseat to David, Solomon, and maybe a couple of the judges. The average Christian reads the prophetic material only when the pastor needs a good sermon on sin or judgment. The prophets are just a bunch of wild-eyed doom-and-gloom fanatics.<\/p>\n

The caricature is not completely without foundation, but it fails to accurately communicate who the prophets were, why God raised them up, and what their mission was. There is a distinct pattern to Yahweh\u2019s sovereign choice of human leaders, a pattern that includes the divine council.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

JUST WHAT WAS A PROPHET?<\/p>\n

To discern the full implications of this pattern, it is vital to first understand what is meant by the term \u201cprophet.\u201d Forecasting future events was only a small part of what <\/span>prophetic figures did and what they were about. Prophets were simply people who spoke for God\u2014men and women who, at God\u2019s direction, looked their fellow Israelites in the eye and told them they were being disloyal to the God to whom they owed their existence and who had chosen a relationship with them over everyone else on earth. Prophets told people the unvarnished truth <\/span>and often paid dearly for it.<\/span><\/p>\n

The \u201cclassical prophets\u201d (e.g., Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) preached during the days of the monarchy (from the time of Saul onward). But God had been appointing people to speak on his behalf f<\/span>or much longer than that. For example, Samuel, the last of the judges, is called a prophet (1 Sam 3:20<\/a>). Since Samuel is a transitional figure from the time of the judges to the establishment of the f<\/span>irst king in Israel, Samuel is thought of as the first prophet. That isn\u2019t actually the case. If we define prophets simply as spokespeople for God, prophets go all the way back to the beginning.Jesus affirmed that perspective. He accused the Pharisees of spilling the blood of all the prophets sent by God to his people, beginning with Abel, the righteous son of Adam (Luke 11:49\u201351<\/a>). Why would Jesus reference Abel this way as among the prophets? Because he represented God\u2014of Adam and Eve\u2019s two children, he was the godly son. We might say prophets speak for God, but even more broadly than that, a prophet is someone God views or calls as his chief representative among the population of his human imagers. Adam, of course, was the original imager of God, and Abel stood in the stead of his father as one who walked with God, imaging his Maker on earth. Cain killed Abel, and Abel was replaced by Seth, who we are told was in the \u201clikeness\u201d and \u201cimage\u201d of his father, Adam. Not coincidentally, that terminology comes from Gen 1:26<\/a>. All humans are divine imagers, but in our fallen condition we often don\u2019t image God as we are able and as he intended. If the Bible teaches anything it\u2019s that people need divine intervention and divinely appointed leadership to avoid abusing our free will by following our own inclination to be our own master instead of remaining loyal to God.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n

THE FIRST PROPHET<\/p>\n

Eden was the dwelling place of Yahweh, the place from which he ruled with his council. Humanity was created to be part of God\u2019s family and his ruling council. That\u2019s not difficult to discern when approaching Genesis in its original ancient context, but seeing Adam as a prophetic figure requires moving outside Genesis. In Job 15:7\u20138<\/a> (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>), Eliphaz, one of Job\u2019s friends, asks Job some intriguing questions: \u201cAre you the first man who was born? Or were you brought forth before the hills? Have you listened in the council of God? And do you limit wisdom to yourself?\u201d<\/p>\n

The questions are obviously rhetorical. By using contrast, they each anticipate an answer of no. Of course Job was not the first man\u2014Adam was. Job had not listened in the council of God (Hebrew: sod eloah<\/span>), but the rhetorical contrast implies that Adam had<\/em> listened in the council of God. This would make sense, given that Adam lived in Eden, the meeting place of the council, and that it had been God\u2019s intent for human beings to be his earthly children and human members of his council.<\/p>\n

Think back to Genesis 3:8<\/a>, a passage I\u2019ve alluded to before, in which Yahweh approaches humans as a man. When Adam and Eve violated God\u2019s command, they suddenly heard \u201cthe sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.\u201d This \u201cwalking\u201d terminology suggests that God appeared to them in human form (spirits don\u2019t \u201cwalk\u201d). The text says that Adam and Eve knew it was God\u2014there was no surprise or shock. This was an experience they\u2019d had before. Adam and Eve were familiar with being in God\u2019s presence. We don\u2019t think of that in prophetic terms because there were no other people. But once there were, Adam and Eve would have been the mediators between God and other humans, their own children.<\/p>\n

The description of Yahweh \u201cwalking\u201d is also used of God\u2019s active presence inside Israel\u2019s tabernacle<\/em>, creating another link between Eden, the cosmic mountain, and the tabernacle sanctuary.See Lev 26:12<\/a>; Deut 23:14<\/a> (Hebrew: 15<\/a>); 2 Sam 7:6\u20137<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> One can read the Old Testament in vain for any instance where Yahweh walked around the camp of Israel, as opposed to appearing in a cloud over the holy of holies, and so the description here isn\u2019t describing God literally glad-handing with the Israelites. Rather, the language is another way of saying that Yahweh\u2019s abode was among the Israelites\u2014and where Yahweh\u2019s house was, his council was. On the other side of the veil was where Yahweh and his council could be found.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

ENOCH AND NOAH<\/p>\n

The idea that \u201cwalking\u201d was language that expressed presence shouldn\u2019t be foreign to us. We use it, too, when we talk about \u201cwalking with God.\u201d Our conception is one of communion or rel<\/span>ationship. Scripture uses the phrase for at least that much, but it could also mean more direct contact with the divine presence. And understanding the notion of \u201cmeeting with God\u201d is crucial to understanding what being God\u2019s spokesperson meant. When God chose someone to speak for him\u2014to represent him to the rest of humanity or to his own people, they had to meet first. This is the <\/span>idea behind the biblical \u201ccall\u201d to service.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the Old Testament, two men \u201cwalked with God\u201d (the same Hebrew verb used to describe God\u2019s \u201cwalking\u201d above). They were both prophetic figures: Enoch and Noah. It is cert<\/span>ain that these two men directly encountered God, though few details are given.<\/p>\n

Enoch is remembered in Genesis 5:22<\/a>, 24<\/a> as never seeing death. These passages note that he walked with God, and God took <\/span>him. Jewish writings from the time period between the Old and New Testaments do in fact connect these few words with the divine council. In the book of 1 Enoch (12:1ff.<\/a>) the events of Genesis 5:22<\/a>, 24<\/a><\/span> serve as the springboard to Enoch\u2019s visions of heaven and God\u2019s throne room. Enoch was considered God\u2019s mouthpiece by Jewish readers primarily because he was the person who delivered God\u2019s words of j<\/span>udgment to the fallen sons of God after the Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> incident (1 Enoch 13\u201316<\/a>). The New Testament also reports that Enoch \u201cprophesied\u201d:<\/p>\n

It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, p<\/span>rophesied, saying, \u201cBehold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in <\/span>such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him\u201dThe source of the quotation is 1 Enoch 1:9<\/a>. See chapter 38<\/a> for more New Testament connections to Enoch\u2019s role (in 1 Enoch) in delivering the sentence of doom to the fallen sons of God.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> (Jude 14\u201315<\/a> English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Noah also walked with God, according to Genesis 6:9<\/a>. God spoke directly to Noah, as he<\/span> had done to Adam before him and many prophets after him. Noah was God\u2019s mouthpiece, prophesying the coming flood to his contemporaries, warning them of the coming judgment (2 Pet 2:5<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\n
\n

THE PATRIARCHSJoseph is omitted from this discussion, since God\u2019s activity in his life is described in providential terms. However, his meeting with \u201ca man\u201d (Gen 37:12\u201317<\/a>, esp. 15<\/a>) is often taken by interpreters as an encounter with an embodied angel. The text isn\u2019t clear that this supposition is accurate. However, this incident happened at Shechem, the location of the Oak of Moreh (see the discussion on sacred trees and the Angel of Yahweh).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a><\/p>\n

The pattern of an encounter with God or with divine council members as validation of one\u2019s prophetic status gets even clearer with the patriarchs. Since we\u2019ve covered this ground in previous chapters, though not with an eye to understanding the pattern behind these events, we\u2019ll take an abbreviated tour here.<\/p>\n

The reader will surely recall that Yahweh appeared<\/em> to Abraham on several occasions (Gen 12:1\u20137<\/a>; 15:1\u20136<\/a>; cf. Acts 7:2\u20134<\/a>). There\u2019s a detail in these encounters that I\u2019ve not mentioned before. In Gen 12:6\u20137<\/a>, we\u2019re told that Yahweh appeared to Abraham at the Oak of Moreh, which was near Shechem. Yahweh\u2019s subsequent visitation with Abraham just before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah occurred at a place called the Oaks of Mamre (Gen 18:1<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Oak of Moreh and the Oaks of Mamre are each what scholars call a terebinth\u2014a sacred tree that got its sacred reputation because it marked a spot where divine beings appeared. In fact, \u201cOak of Moreh\u201d literally means \u201cOak of the Teacher.\u201d The point behind the name would be that some divine figure teaches people or dispenses information at this location\u2014what we commonly think of as an oracle. Because they were thought to be holy ground, places where God was present,See 1 Chr 10:12<\/a>; Gen 35:8<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a> such places were considered good places to bury loved ones. The dispensing of divine knowledge and divine decrees is of course something the biblical writers associated with the divine council (Job 15:7\u20138<\/a>; 1 Kgs 22:13\u201323<\/a>). This connection will be especially transparent when we get to the classical prophets.<\/p>\n

While Abraham was still a pagan, God had chosen him to be the father of Yahweh\u2019s new earthly inheritance after the debacle at Babel, where the nations were given over to lesser elohim<\/span> (Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a>). Abraham became the conduit for God\u2019s truth to the disinherited nations. Abraham\u2019s son, Isaac, enjoyed the same status, and Yahweh appeared to him also when confirming the covenant (Gen 26:1\u20135<\/a>). Jacob had a number of direct divine encounters (Gen 28:10\u201322<\/a>; 31:11\u201313<\/a>; 32:22\u201332<\/a>). He inherited the covenantal prophetic status of his father and grandfather.<\/p>\n

The pattern that emerges from the patriarchal sagas is that when God chooses someone to represent him, that person must first meet with God. By necessity, that meeting is with the visible Yahweh, who can be discerned by human senses. In many cases, the divine job interview occurs in a place that is described as God\u2019s home or headquarters, the place where the divine council meets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

MOSES, JOSHUA, AND THE JUDGES<\/p>\n

It should be obvious that the pattern for divine approval of prophetic status holds true for Moses. Deuteronomy 34:10<\/a> makes it clear that Moses was a prophet, and his num<\/span>erous divine encounters validated that status (Exod 3:1\u20133<\/a>; 24:15\u201318<\/a>; 33:7\u201311<\/a>). For the Israelites, divine encounter was what convinced people that Moses was God\u2019s man. Exodus 19:9<\/a> makes the connection<\/span> explicit: \u201cAnd Yahweh said to Moses, \u2018Look, I am going to come to you in a thick cloud in order that the people will hear when I speak with you and will also trust in you forever.\u2019\u2005\u201d<\/p>\n

The implication <\/span>is clear\u2014the people need to listen and will listen to the person who is validated by an encounter with the presence of God.<\/p>\n

Divine encounter was also what initially validated Joshua as a prophet. In E<\/span>xodus 24:13<\/a>, just before the description of how Moses and the elders of Israel shared a meal with Yahweh on Sinai, we read, \u201cSo Moses rose with his assistant Joshua, and Moses went up into the mountai<\/span>n of God\u201d (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>). The verse implies that Joshua went along with Moses to see God. Exodus 33:9\u201311<\/a> makes Joshua\u2019s contact with Yahweh a bit clearer:<\/p>\n

9<\/a> When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud wou<\/span>ld descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the Lord would speak with Moses. 10<\/a> And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would ris<\/span>e up and worship, each at his tent door. 11<\/a> Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun<\/span>, a young man, would not depart from the tent (Exod 33:9\u201311<\/a> English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In Deuteronomy 31:14\u201323<\/a> Yahweh specifically commands Moses to bring Joshua to the tent of meeting, where God himself commissioned Josh<\/span>ua to replace Moses.<\/p>\n

THE CLASSICAL PROPHETS<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most familiar initiation of a prophet into Yahweh\u2019s presence\u2014and his divine council throne room\u2014is the case of Isaiah. Isaiah 6:1\u20132<\/a> (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>) reads:<\/p>\n

1<\/a> In the year that K<\/span>ing Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne<\/strong>, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple<\/strong>. 2<\/a> Above him stood the seraphim<\/strong>. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face,<\/span> and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.<\/p>\n

Verse 8<\/a> (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>) makes it clear why Isaiah has been summoned:<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd I heard the voice of the Lord saying, \u2018Whom shall I send, and who will go for u<\/strong><\/span>s<\/strong>?\u2019 Then I said, \u2018Here I am! Send me.<\/strong>\u2019\u2005\u201d<\/p>\n

It is important not to miss the wording of Isaiah 6:8<\/a>\u2014whom shall I<\/em> send, and who will go for us<\/em>? As we saw in an earlier chapter about the divine council, the <\/span>participatory nature of God\u2019s rule with his council is again evident.See chapter 3<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> God is the commissioner, but the commission extends from his divine council as well.<\/p>\n

The same divine rite of passage was experien<\/span>ced by Ezekiel in an even more dramatic call to ministry. Instead of transporting Ezekiel to Yahweh\u2019s throne room, Yahweh and members of his entourage come to Ezekiel (1:1\u201328<\/a>), who is then commissione<\/span>d as Yahweh\u2019s spokesman (2:1\u20133<\/a>). Ezekiel begins his book:<\/p>\n

1<\/a> In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the Chebar canal, the heavens were o<\/span>pened, and I saw visions of God.\u2026<\/p>\n

4<\/a> As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness around it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the<\/span> fire, as it were gleaming metal. 5<\/a> And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures.\u2026<\/p>\n

26<\/a> And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance li<\/span>ke sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance.\u2026<\/p>\n

28<\/a> Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell on my fac<\/span>e, and I heard the voice of one speaking.<\/p>\n

2:1<\/a> And he said to me, \u201cSon of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you.\u201d 2<\/a> And as he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me and set me on my feet,<\/span> and I heard him speaking to me. 3<\/a> And he said to me, \u201cSon of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to nations of rebels, who have rebelled against me. They and their fathers have transgressed agai<\/span>nst me to this very day (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The prophet Jeremiah fits the pattern as well. We saw in an earlier chapter that the embodied Word appeared to Jeremiah to commission him for duty:<\/p>\n

7<\/a> \u201cTo all to whom I s<\/span>end you, you shall go,<\/p>\n

and whatever I command you, you shall speak.<\/p>\n

8<\/a> Do not be afraid of them,<\/p>\n

for I am with you to deliver you,<\/p>\n

declares the Lord.\u201d<\/p>\n

9<\/a> Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mo<\/span>uth. And the Lord said to me,<\/p>\n

\u201cBehold, I have put my words in your mouth\u201d (Jer 1:7\u20139<\/a> English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Jeremiah\u2019s dramatic call by the embodied Yahweh is quite important in the book of Jeremiah, for it serves as <\/em><\/span>the basis of true prophet status<\/em>. What began in the days of Moses as public validation of his call and the call of those who served with him became fixated in the minds of Israelites as a litmus test <\/span>to apply to any who claimed to be God\u2019s vessel. In Jeremiah 23<\/a> we read God\u2019s own words about false prophets:<\/p>\n

16<\/a> Thus says the Lord of hosts: \u201cDo not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to<\/span> you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. 17<\/a> They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, \u2018It shall be well with you\u2019<\/span>; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, \u2018No disaster shall come upon you.\u2019\u2005\u201d<\/p>\n

18<\/a> For who among them has stood in the council of the Lord<\/p>\n

to see and to hear his word,<\/p>\n

or who ha<\/span>s paid attention to his word and listened?\u2026<\/p>\n

21<\/a> \u201cI did not send the prophets,<\/p>\n

yet they ran;<\/p>\n

I did not speak to them,<\/p>\n

yet they prophesied.<\/p>\n

22<\/a> But if they had stood in my council,<\/p>\n

then they would have pr<\/span>oclaimed my words to my people,<\/p>\n

and they would have turned them from their evil way,<\/p>\n

and from the evil of their deeds\u201d (Jer 23:16\u201318<\/a>, 21\u201322<\/a> English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The implications are clear: true prophets have stood a<\/span>nd listened in Yahweh\u2019s divine council; false prophets have not.<\/p>\n

The litmus test of direct divine encounter for validating one who claimed to speak for God never went away in Israel. It was alive and <\/span>well in New Testament times. The next three chapters\u2014the final ones devoted to the Old Testament\u2014will ready our minds for Yahweh\u2019s ultimate human voice. The prophets would fail in their ministry, in the sense that they were not able to preserve and revive Israel\u2019s loyalty to Yahweh. Israel\u2019s failure meant a change in Yahweh\u2019s approac<\/span>h to reviving his kingdom rule. The prophetic message would change to judgment and redemption\u2014but the means was deliberately veiled. Even God\u2019s loyal angels couldn\u2019t quite figure out exactly what God was plotting (<\/span>1 Pet 1:12<\/a>).<\/p>\n

You and I have the advantage of hindsi<\/span>ght\u2014but we still need to know what we\u2019re looking at.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

CHAPTER 28<\/p>\n

Divine Misdirection<\/p>\n

We\u2019re at a significant stage in the epic saga of God\u2019s goal for humanity, his desire to have a human family with whom he and his divine family could rule in a new Eden. Ever since the disruption of Eden, God has been at work to use men and women to restore the original vision. The most visible manifestation of that effort was the creation of a new family through Abraham and Sarah: Israel. But Israel failed miserably in its mission, from the incomplete conquest to the splintering of the unity of its twelve tribes to the collapse of the Davidic dynasty into exile in Babylon<\/em>, the very place at which Yahweh had decided to disinherit the nations and create his own people millennia earlier.<\/p>\n

The apostasy of his people and their subsequent exile prompted a change in Yahweh\u2019s approach to restoring his rule on earth. He could not depend on humans, though he had pledged himself to humanity\u2019s preservation. He would no more forgo the role of his human imagers than he would destroy them. Because his original creation of humanity as his image had meant free-will agency, his kingdom must of necessity include humanity in its recovery and in rulership, else the Edenic vision would be undermined. There could be only one solution, though it would have two strategic deployments. God understood that only he<\/em> could be trusted with perfectly accomplishing his own will. He would therefore have to become man and, in addition, he would have to inhabit the hearts of his children.This is not the only trajectory in biblical theology necessitating the incarnation, but it is an essential one.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> Residing in a tabernacle or temple was not enough. He had to indwell those who chose to follow him.<\/p>\n

The second of these strategies is the most transparent. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God announced in the days before the southern kingdom of Judah fell to Babylon that, though the kingdom of Judah would be destroyed, he was making a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:33<\/a>): \u201cI will put my law in their inward parts and on their hearts I will write it, and I will be to them God, and they themselves will be to me people.\u201d Yahweh would send his Spirit to indwell his people. They could not be trusted with their freedom, but he would not eradicate it, nor would he leave them without enablement.I\u2019ll pick up some of the threads regarding the Spirit and his coming in later chapters focused on the New Testament.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a><\/p>\n

The first strategy, however, is much more cryptic. It will occupy our attention the rest of the chapter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

THIS IS NOT THE MESSIAH YOU\u2019RE LOOKING FOR<\/p>\n

Readers will instinctively realize that by this \u201cfirst strategy\u201d of God becoming a man I\u2019m ultimately referring to Old Testament prophecies about messiah. Th<\/span>oughts of Jesus naturally flow through your mind. But that\u2019s because we have the New Testament. We have 20\u201320 hindsight. Israelites and Jews in exile had no such thing. But the disconnection is much deeper than that.<\/span><\/p>\n

By God\u2019s design, the Scripture presents the messiah in terms of a mosaic profile<\/em> that can only be discerned after<\/em> the pieces are assembled. Paul tells us why in 1 Corinthians 2:6\u20138<\/a>. I<\/span>f the plan of God for the messiah\u2019s mission had been clear, the powers of darkness would never have killed Jesus\u2014they would have known that his death and resurrection were the key to reclaiming the natio<\/span>ns forever.See chapter 37<\/a> for more about Paul\u2019s vocabulary for the powers of darkness.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a><\/p>\n

Chances are good that you\u2019ve heard the New Testament mistakenly read back into the Old hundreds of times. Therefore you might be surprised to hear me say that the Old Testament profile<\/span> of the messiah was deliberately veiled. Let me illustrate.<\/p>\n

The word translated \u201cmessiah\u201d (mashiach<\/span>) is fairly common in the Old Testament. It occurs over three dozen times. It simply means \u201canointed.<\/span>\u201d Lots of people were anointed in the Old Testament, particularly kings, but many of those were unscrupulous or incompetent or both. Mashiach<\/span> occurs with reference to a deliverer whose appearance woul<\/span>d be future to the Old Testament era in only a handful of places, and some of those aren\u2019t clear as to whether the anointed is even a follower of Yahweh.For example, Psa 2:2<\/a>, due to the mention of the \u201ckings of the earth,\u201d would likely have been taken by a Jew living in the Old Testament era as referring to a time in the distant future. How far into the future Dan 9:25\u201326<\/a> may have been placed by a Jewish reader depends on when it was written. As anyone knows who has studied eschatology in depth, a good case can be made for the passage being fulfilled in the Second Temple period, as well as a time yet future. It also isn\u2019t clear whether the passage refers to one \u201canointed\u201d (mashiach<\/em>) prince or two, and whether one or the other is good or evil. The fact that Cyrus the Persian, a pagan, could be called mashiach<\/em> by God (Isa 45:1<\/a>) illustrates the flexibility and ambiguity of the concept. There is no single verse in the Old Testament that contains the word mashiach<\/em> that one could point to and discern the scope of what Jesus did in the New Testament.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> And there is no Old Testament <\/em>verse that has <\/em><\/span>a dying and rising mashiach.<\/em> If you\u2019re thinking Isaiah 53<\/a> is the exception, it isn\u2019t. The word mashiach<\/span> does not appear in that passage. That doesn\u2019t mean Isaiah 53<\/a> isn\u2019t part of the messianic profile<\/span>\u2014it means that the content of Isaiah 53<\/a> is just one<\/em> piece of a much larger whole.For a recent technical treatment of Isaiah 53<\/a> as being a legitimate part of a dying and rising messiah theology, see John D. Barry, The Resurrected Servant in Isaiah<\/em> (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012). Barry\u2019s work focuses on one piece of the mosaic profile, the servant motif in Isaiah.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a> The pieces were kept separate to obscure the big picture.<\/p>\n

This sheds light on certain episodes in the New Testament, <\/span>such as why Peter couldn\u2019t grasp the notion of Jesus going up to Jerusalem to die. Peter believed Jesus was the messiah (the word for \u201canointed one\u201d in Greek is christos<\/span>, \u201cchrist\u201d). When Jesus announc<\/span>ed he was going to die in Jerusalem, Peter didn\u2019t say, \u201cI know\u2014I read that in my Bible.\u201d He couldn\u2019t<\/em> read it in his Bible because there was no single verse for the idea<\/em>. Rather, the concept of a dying<\/span> and rising messiah must be pieced together from a scattering of disparate fragments in the Old Testament that, each taken alone, don\u2019t seem to have anything like a messiah in mind. None of the fragments reveal the final assemblage.<\/span><\/p>\n

Even after<\/em> the resurrection the disciples had to have their minds supernaturally opened to see a suffering messiah. The risen Jesus says that explicitly in Luke 24<\/a>:<\/p>\n

44<\/a><\/span> \u201cThese are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything that is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.\u201d 45<\/a> Then he opened thei<\/span>r minds to understand the scriptures.<\/p>\n

The point is straightforward: Only someone who knew the outcome of the puzzle, who knew how all the elements of the messianic mosaic would come together, could ma<\/em><\/span>ke sense of the pieces<\/em>. Jesus had to enable the disciples to understand what the Old Testament was simultaneously hiding<\/em> and revealing<\/em>. It wasn\u2019t a matter of reading a verse here and there.<\/p>\n

Unfortunat<\/span>ely, most Christians today don\u2019t understand the complexity that Luke 24:44\u201345<\/a> reveals. Instead, they repeatedly hear the New Testament read back into the Old. That\u2019s unfortunate, since this makes Old <\/span>Testament passages say things that no New Testament writer ever quoted them as saying.<\/p>\n

Genesis 3:15<\/a> is a good example. This is the passage where God told the serpent (nachash<\/span>) that one of his offsprin<\/span>g would bruise the heel of one of Eve\u2019s offspring, and that Eve\u2019s offspring would bruise his (the serpent\u2019s) head. This is often taken as evidence for a suffering and dying messiah and the messiah\u2019s victory over the forces of <\/span>evil through the resurrection. But that isn\u2019t how the <\/em>New Testament cites the passage<\/em>. The verse is indeed alluded to by Paul in Romans 16:20<\/a>, where he mentions the prospect <\/span>of the serpent being crushed (not just his head, and not just bruised). But the crushing isn\u2019t performed by Jesus, the son of Eve and risen messiah. Rather, Paul has God<\/em> crushing the serpent under the<\/span> feet of believers<\/em>!Note that Rom 16:20<\/a> identifies the serpent as Satan. As I noted in chapter 8<\/a> when discussing the Hebrew word sa\u1e6dan<\/em>, the Old Testament never uses that term of the divine Edenic rebel. Since the term\u2019s meaning (\u201cadversary\u201d) was conceptually appropriate, though, it became used as a label for God\u2019s original opposer after the Old Testament period.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a><\/p>\n

The account of Abraham\u2019s near offering of Isaac (Gen 22<\/a>) is another example. Not only does no New Testament author ever cite the story as a picture of either the crucifixion or re<\/span>surrection, but Isaac didn\u2019t die in the incident<\/em>. Some see an allusion to this passage at Jesus\u2019 baptism, when a voice from heaven announced, \u201cThis is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased,\u201d but t<\/span>hat isn\u2019t<\/em> what the voice said in Genesis 22<\/a> (see Matt 3:17<\/a>; Mark 1:11<\/a>; Luke 3:22<\/a>).There are other alternatives for an allusion here, but there may in fact be no allusion at all. The gospel writers don\u2019t say \u201cthis happened in fulfillment\u201d of any particular verse with respect to the heavenly voice.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a><\/p>\n

These Old Testament passages and others have been made by modern commentators to speak about the messiah and his wor<\/span>k in ways the New Testament authors don\u2019t<\/em> claim. We shouldn\u2019t create connections where the biblical text doesn\u2019t. Instead, we need to think more carefully about what we do<\/em> find in the text.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s plan<\/span> to redeem humanity, reclaim the nations, and revive Eden depended on the incarnation of the second Yahweh figure and his subsequent death and resurrection. The story of the cross is the biblical-theological ca<\/span>talyst to God\u2019s plan for regaining all that was lost in Eden. It couldn\u2019t be emblazoned across the Old Testament in transparent statements. It had to be expressed in sophisticated and crypti<\/em><\/span>c ways to ensure that the powers of darkness would be misled<\/em>. And it was. Even the angels didn\u2019t know the plan (1 Pet 1:12<\/a>).In chapter 37<\/a> I briefly discuss two related items: (1) Paul\u2019s comments in 1 Cor 2:8<\/a> that, had \u201cthe rulers of this age\u201d known what God\u2019s plan of redemption was\u2014that the messiah must die to accomplish salvation\u2014they \u201cwould not have crucified the Lord of glory\u201d; and (2) the meaning of Jas 2:19<\/a> (\u201cYou believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe\u2014and shudder!\u201d [esv<\/span>]). In regard to the first item, the gospel accounts of demons recognizing Jesus make it clear that the powers of darkness knew that the messiah had arrived. Only demons address Jesus as \u201cson of the Most High\u201d in Scripture (Mark 5:7<\/a>; Luke 8:28<\/a>). However, they did not know God\u2019s means for accomplishing salvation and the restoration of the Edenic kingdom\u2014hence Paul\u2019s statement. The complete messianic profile and plan of salvation was cryptically scattered and veiled throughout the Old Testament.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT<\/p>\n

I want now to give you a glimpse of God\u2019s secret plan for the hope of Israel and the disinherited nations\u2014in biblical theology, all humanity. We\u2019ll focus on simple but fundamental pieces of the messianic mosaic that form meaningful patterns of thought.The messianic mosaic has many pieces and complex patterns. See the companion website<\/a> for more examples and detail.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>9<\/a><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s begin with Adam. The obvious description of his role and identity is \u201cthe first man.\u201d But look at Adam a bit more closely. If I ask, \u201cHow is Adam cast in the biblical story?\u201d some other ways of thinking about Adam present themselves. Adam was the son of God. As son of the king (God), he was royalty.Second Temple Jewish literature has much to say about the kingship of Adam and (see following) Moses. This theology is an important part of Jewish messianic expectations prior to the time of Jesus. Major studies in this regard include D. E. Callender, Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human<\/em>, Harvard Semitic Studies 48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 21\u201365; Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls<\/em>, Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah 42 (Leiden: Brill, 2002); Charles Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence<\/em>, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 153\u201355; 163\u201367; John R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: from Sirach to 2 Baruch<\/em>, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 1 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988); Wayne Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology<\/em>, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1965); M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve<\/em> (Early Judaism and Its Literature 3 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1992).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>10<\/a> He was his father\u2019s designated ruler in Eden. He was also put in the garden to \u201cwork\u201d the land (Gen 2:15<\/a>). One Hebrew lemma for his activity is \u02bfabad<\/span> (consonants: \u02bfbd<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Once expelled from the garden, he was displaced from God\u2019s kingdom to suffer\u2014working the garden became a difficult drudgery. But that isn\u2019t all. Adam lost his earthly immortality. He died, but Scripture is careful to note, via the genealogies, that his lineage lived on, most precariously through Noah, all the way to Abraham and then Israel, and finally to Jesus.See Luke 3:23\u201338<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>11<\/a> His eternal life is guaranteed by God\u2019s power, but his bodily return to the new Eden depends on the resurrection of Christ, \u201cthe firstborn from the dead\u201d (Col 1:18<\/a>; Rev 1:5<\/a>).<\/p>\n

We could summarize Adam\u2019s profile this way:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Adam<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

son of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

ruler-king<\/p>\n

(governs in God\u2019s place)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

servant<\/p>\n

(\u02bfbd)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

suffers<\/p>\n

(effect of sin)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

exile and death<\/p>\n

(ceases to exist on earth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

lives on through descendants<\/p>\n

(resurrection contingent)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Now let\u2019s think about Israel. In terms of descent, Israelites trace their heritage back to Adam. But a closer examination of the story of the nation produces remarkable similarities to Adam\u2019s profile. God calls the nation his son (Exod 4:23<\/a>; Hos 11:1<\/a>).For more on this concept, see John J. Schmitt, \u201cIsrael as Son of God in Torah,\u201d Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology<\/em> 34.2 (2004): 69\u201379.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>12<\/a> Israel is not only the light to the nations (Isa 42:6<\/a>; 49:6<\/a>), but God intended Israel to rule over the nations (Deut 15:6<\/a>; 26:19<\/a>; 28:1<\/a>; Rom 4:13<\/a>). This only makes sense given that God is ruler of the nations (Psa 22:28<\/a>) and Israel is his son. This vision, of course, will be tied to the messianic heir of David (Zech 9:9\u201310<\/a>; Psa 89:27<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Israel (corporately) is referred to as God\u2019s servant (\u02bfebed<\/span>; lemma: \u02bfbd<\/span>; Isa 41:8\u20139<\/a>; 44:1\u20132<\/a>, 21<\/a>; 45:4<\/a>; 49:3<\/a>). Like Adam, Israel\u2019s transgressions lead to exile from the place where the divine presence resided (Isa 2:6\u20138<\/a>; Ezek 7\u20139<\/a>; Jer 13:10<\/a>).It is possible, though uncertain, that Israel is compared to Adam in Hosea 6:7<\/a>. The term \u02beadam<\/em> in that verse could refer to a city or be a generic reference to humankind.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>13<\/a> The result is suffering\u2014many times over\u2014under foreign powers and wicked kings. Eventually, Israel is exiled and ceases to exist as a nation. But the prophets foretold Israel\u2019s resurrection, most vividly through the vision of the dry bones (Ezek 37<\/a>). The nation is reborn after the exile in the form of the returning inhabitants of Judah from Babylon. Israel\u2019s profile looks familiar:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Adam<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Israel<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

son of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

son of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

ruler-king<\/p>\n

(governs in God\u2019s place)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

highest among nations<\/p>\n

(Israel\u2019s king is most high)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

servant<\/p>\n

(\u02bfbd)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

servant<\/p>\n

(\u02bfbd)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

suffers<\/p>\n

(effect of sin)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

suffers<\/p>\n

(effect of sin)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

exile and death<\/p>\n

(ceases to exist on earth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

exile and death<\/p>\n

(ceases to exist on earth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

lives on with God and<\/p>\n

through descendants<\/p>\n

(resurrection contingent)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

lives on through Judah<\/p>\n

(resurrection contingent)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Next, Moses. As a believing Israelite, Moses was a son Abraham and therefore of God (Rom 4:11\u201312<\/a>, 16<\/a>; Gal 3:7<\/a>, 23\u201329<\/a>). His status in that regard was special since he was God\u2019s appointed deliverer-ruler of the nation. Curiously, Yahweh tells him that he will be \u201cas God\/a god [elohim<\/span>] to Pharaoh\u201d and to Moses\u2019 brother Aaron (Exod 4:16<\/a>; 7:1<\/a>). It would be through Moses, of course, that God\u2019s signs and wonders would be wielded against Egypt. As a leader through whom flowed divine power, he would naturally come to be seen by the Israelites as a quasi-divine figure, though he was just a man.Second Temple Jewish writers adopted this perspective, both in terms of Moses\u2019 role as Yahweh\u2019s instrument against Pharaoh and the effect that God\u2019s glory had on his physical appearance (Exod 34:29\u201330<\/a>). See Wayne Meeks, \u201cMoses as God and King,\u201d Religions in Antiquity<\/em> 69 (1968): 361\u201365.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>14<\/a><\/p>\n

Moses is called the servant of God (\u02bfebed<\/span>; lemma: \u02bfbd<\/span>; Exod 14:31<\/a>; Num 12:7<\/a>; Deut 34:5<\/a>; Josh 8:31<\/a>). He suffers for his sin and is prohibited from entering the promised land (Num 20:1\u201312<\/a>; Deut 1:37<\/a>; 34:4\u20136<\/a>), though God permits him to see it from a distance before his death (34:4\u20136<\/a>). The transfiguration (Matt 17:1\u20134<\/a>) informs us that Moses lived on with God but, as with everyone, his resurrection in a new Eden was contingent on one who was to come. We can now add Moses to our table:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Adam<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Israel<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Moses<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

son of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

son of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

son of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

ruler-king<\/p>\n

(governs in God\u2019s place)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

highest among nations<\/p>\n

(Israel\u2019s king is most high)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ruler-king<\/p>\n

(over God\u2019s people)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

servant<\/p>\n

(\u02bfbd)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

servant<\/p>\n

(\u02bfbd)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

servant<\/p>\n

(\u02bfbd)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

suffers<\/p>\n

(effect of sin)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

suffers<\/p>\n

(effect of sin)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

suffers<\/p>\n

(effect of sin)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

exile and death<\/p>\n

(ceases to exist on earth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

exile and death<\/p>\n

(ceases to exist on earth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

exile and death<\/p>\n

(ceases to exist on earth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

lives on with God and<\/p>\n

through descendants<\/p>\n

(resurrection contingent)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

lives on through Judah<\/p>\n

(resurrection contingent)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

lives on with God<\/p>\n

(resurrection contingent)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

We now come to Israel\u2019s king. Recall that God had promised David an everlasting dynastic succession in what we now call the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7<\/a>; Psa 89<\/a>). The fulfillment of this promise would fail in the Old Testament era due to the death of Israel in exile. But Israel\u2019s resurrection through Judah\u2014the tribe of David\u2014would keep the promise alive. As we\u2019ll see in more detail later, the fulfillment of the promise would be inaugurated at the first coming of Jesus, Yahweh incarnate. The consummation of the promise is yet future. For our purposes here, how do the patterns emerge in Israelite (Davidic) kingship and the messianic son of David?<\/p>\n

Like Moses and all believing Israelites, David was an earthly son of Yahweh. But we learn from certain psalms that the kings of David\u2019s line were also called \u201cson of God\u201d in an act of anointed adoption specific to the enthroned king (Psa 2:7<\/a>). The king was Yahweh\u2019s anointed (mashiach<\/span>) descendant of Judah (Gen 49:10<\/a>), his ruling representative among all his earthly children (Psa 2:2<\/a>). As with Moses, the kingship, by virtue of this adoptive language, carried with it a quasi-divine aspect (Psa 45:6\u20137<\/a>).For information on Israelite divine kingship in its ancient Near Eastern context, see Adela Y. Collins and John Joseph Collins eds., King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Arthur E. Cundall, \u201cSacral Kingship\u2014Old Testament Background,\u201d Vox Evangelica<\/em> 6 (1969): 31\u201341; K. M. Heim, \u201cKings and Kingship,\u201d Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books<\/em> (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 610\u201322<\/a>; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings<\/em> (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1976); Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel<\/em> (Wales: University of Wales Press, 1967); J. J. M. Roberts, \u201cThe Enthronement of YHWH and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms,\u201d Catholic Biblical Quarterly<\/em> 64.4 (2002): 675\u201386.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>15<\/a>Psalm 89:27<\/a> casts the throne of David as the \u201cmost high\u201d (elyon<\/span>) among all the nations. The ultimate son of David, it was presumed, would be \u201ca prophet like unto Moses\u201d (Deut 18:15<\/a>; cf. Acts 3:22<\/a>; 7:37<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Not only were Adam, Moses, and Israel (corporately) God\u2019s servant, but King David was Yahweh\u2019s servant (\u02bfebed<\/span>; lemma: \u02bfbd<\/span>; 2 Sam 3:18<\/a>; 7:5<\/a>, 8<\/a>; Psa 89:3<\/a>), as were other godly kings (1 Kgs 3:7<\/a>; 2 Chr 32:16<\/a>). One particular \u201cbranch\u201d or offshoot from the tribe of Judah and David\u2019s line would be the individual servant God would use to bring salvation to Israel (Isa 11:1<\/a>; 49:5<\/a> [cf. 49:3<\/a>]; Jer 23:5<\/a>; 33:15<\/a>; Zech 3:8<\/a>; 6:12<\/a>). Like the corporate servant Israel, this individual servant would suffer and die (Isa 53:1\u20139<\/a>), but yet live to see his offspring (Isa 53:10<\/a>), a multitude made righteous by his service (Isa 53:11<\/a>).On the interplay between the corporate and individual servant and its relationship to Mosaic servant motifs, see G. P. Hugenberger, \u201cThe Servant of the Lord in the Servant Songs of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure,\u201d Irish Biblical Studies<\/em> 1 (1979): 3\u201318.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>16<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The picture of messiah begins to appear:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Adam<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Israel<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Moses<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

King\/Messiah<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

son of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

son of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

son of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

son of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

ruler-king<\/p>\n

(governs in God\u2019s place)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

highest among nations<\/p>\n

(Israel\u2019s king is most high)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ruler-king<\/p>\n

(over God\u2019s people)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ruler-king<\/p>\n

(represents David and Israel; ruler over God\u2019s people and all nations)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

servant<\/p>\n

(\u02bfbd)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

servant<\/p>\n

(\u02bfbd)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

servant<\/p>\n

(\u02bfbd)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

servant<\/p>\n

(\u02bfbd)<\/p>\n

(represents Israel; redeems Israel, the failed servant)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

suffers<\/p>\n

(effect of sin)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

suffers<\/p>\n

(effect of sin)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

suffers<\/p>\n

(effect of sin)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

suffers<\/p>\n

(effect of sin of others\u2014Israel\u2019s and all nations\u2019)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

exile and death<\/p>\n

(ceases to exist on earth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

exile and death<\/p>\n

(ceases to exist on earth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

exile and death<\/p>\n

(ceases to exist on earth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

exile and death<\/p>\n

(ceases to exist on earth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

lives on with God and through descendants<\/p>\n

(resurrection contingent)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

lives on through Judah<\/p>\n

(resurrection contingent)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

lives on with God<\/p>\n

(resurrection contingent)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(resurrected by the power and plan of God; all who are his\u2014from Israel and all nations\u2014will rise and rule with him)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The identity and purpose of the messiah are unknowable from a Bible verse\u2014and even many Bible verses. The profile proceeds along conceptual trajectories that eventually merge into a portrait. And so Jesus\u2019 question (Luke 24:26<\/a>) to the two men on the road to Emmaus makes eminent sense: \u201cWas it not necessary that<\/em> the Christ suffer these things<\/em> and enter into his glory?\u201d Yes, of course it was. It\u2019s just hard<\/em> to see that unless you know what you\u2019re looking for<\/em>. The messianic portrait can only be discerned by assembling a hundred terms, phrases, metaphors, and symbols, which themselves take on meaning only when their patterns and convergences are detected.<\/p>\n

There are a few other pieces to show you. They deserve a chapter all their own.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

CHAPTER 29<\/p>\n

The Rider of the Clouds<\/p>\n

Our last chapter focused on a few of the fundamental elements of the Old Testament\u2019s messianic mosaic. One of those elements was kingship. I noted that Israelite kingship possessed a quasi-divine flavor. This was common throughout the ancient Near East\u2014civilizations believed that kingship was instituted by the gods, and therefore the king was a descendant of the gods. What that meant and how it worked varied. In Israel\u2019s case, the human king was chosen or adopted into the role of the \u201cson of God\u201d to carry out Yahweh\u2019s rule. This official status was legitimized to only one dynasty in Israel\u2014the line of David.<\/p>\n

Although it\u2019s clear how that would be important to a messianic claim, it leaves us with an important question: Would the messiah be truly divine\u2014Yahweh incarnate\u2014or would he be merely a man thought<\/em> to be divine, by adoption?This question is core to the heretical idea of \u201cadoptionist Christology,\u201d the idea that God chose the human man, Jesus, to be messiah. That notion does not require that Jesus was actually Yahweh incarnate\u2014in fact, it denies it.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> By the time of Jesus\u2019 birth\u2014as God incarnate\u2014Jews were intellectually acclimated to the idea of Yahweh being (at least) in human form, including being embodied. The incarnation takes that notion another step. There is indeed a clear indication from the Old Testament that Israel\u2019s final Davidic ruler would be God become man\u2014an idea reinforced by the New Testament, particularly in one telling scene.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

THE DIVINE COUNCIL MEETING OF DANIEL 7<\/a><\/p>\n

All roads seem to intersect somewhere with the divine council. The divine nature of the messiah is no exception. The idea derives from a divine council scene in <\/span>Daniel 7<\/a>. The scene begins (Dan 7:1\u20138<\/a>) with an odd vision. Daniel sees four beasts coming out of the sea.Dan 7<\/a> is in Aramaic. The Hebrew and Aramaic lemma translated \u201csea\u201d is yam<\/em>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> The fourth beast is the most terrifying and imposing. We learn that the four beasts represent<\/span> four empires, as had been the case with Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s dream in Daniel 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s described next is significant.<\/p>\n

9<\/a> I continued watching until thrones were placed and an Ancient of Days sat; his clot<\/span>hing was like white snow and the hair of his head was like pure wool and his throne was a flame of fire and its wheels were burning fire. 10<\/a> A stream of fire issued forth and flowed from his presence;<\/span> thousands upon thousands served him and ten thousand upon ten thousand stood before him. The judge sat, and the books were opened (Dan 7:9\u201310<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Several things jump out at us right away. First, we kno<\/span>w that the Ancient of Days is the God of Israel because the description of his throne as fiery and having wheels matches that of the vision of Ezekiel 1<\/a>. Ezekiel\u2019s vision also included a human figure <\/span>on the throne of God (Ezek 1:26\u201327<\/a>). Second, there are many<\/em> thrones in heaven, not just one (\u201cthrones were set up\u201d). These thrones mark the presence of the divine council.As we\u2019ll see, Dan 7<\/a> was a crucial passage for the ancient doctrine of two (good) powers in heaven in ancient Judaism<\/em> prior to Christianity. Judaism eventually declared the two powers doctrine heretical as it was a useful apologetic for the Christian belief in Jesus as God. For scholarly discussion of the two powers and the theological struggle it caused within Judaism, see Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism<\/em> (repr., Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012); Daniel Boyarin, \u201cThe Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,\u201d Harvard Theological Review<\/em> 94.3 (July 2001), 243\u201384. Further, some sects of Judaism after the exile were resistant to any sort of divine plurality, including the divine council of their own Bible. Consequently, rabbis tried to argue that there were only two thrones in Dan 7<\/a>, one for God and one for King David. This idea fails for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the second figure that is specifically named in the scene (the \u201cson of man\u201d) takes no seat. Dan 7<\/a> actually follows (literarily) a divine council scene in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> Third, the council is calle<\/span>d to session to decide the fate of the beasts\u2014national empires. The decision of the council to slay the fourth beast and remove the dominion of all the beasts (vv. 11\u201312<\/a>) is important for eschatology,<\/span> but that\u2019s peripheral to our focus here.See chapter 30<\/a> for more on the eschatological implications of this divine council meeting.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> Daniel 7:13\u201314<\/a> moves us forward in our pursuit of a truly divine messiah. Daniel says:<\/p>\n

13<\/a> I continued watching in the visions of the night, and look, with th<\/span>e clouds of heaven one like a son of man was coming, and he came to the Ancient of Days, and was presented before him. 14<\/a> And to him was given dominion and glory and kingship that all the peoples, the<\/span> nations, and languages would serve him; his dominion is a dominion without end that will not cease, and his kingdom is one that will not be destroyed.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a lot to unpack here. It\u2019s clear from th<\/span>e text that the Ancient of Days (the God of Israel) and the \u201cone like a son of man\u201d are different characters in the scene. \u201cSon of man\u201d is a fairly frequent phrase in the Old Testament. Ezekiel, for example, is called \u201cson of man\u201d dozens of times i<\/span>n the book of Ezekiel (e.g., Ezek 2:1\u20138<\/a>). The phrase simply means \u201chuman one,\u201d and so Daniel 7:13<\/a> describes someone who appeared human coming on or with<\/em><\/span> the clouds<\/em> to the Ancient of Days. It is that<\/em> description that points in the direction of a second<\/em> deity figure in the scene. We are back to the concept of two Yahweh figures we saw earlier in the Ol<\/span>d Testament.<\/p>\n

THE CLOUD RIDER<\/p>\n

The first thing we need to understand is the wider ancient context for this description. We\u2019ve talked a good bit about the ancient literature of Ugarit, Israel\u2019s close neighbor to the <\/span>north. In the Ugaritic texts, the god Baal is called \u201cthe one who rides the clouds.\u201dOn this title for Baal, see W. Hermann, \u201cRider upon the Clouds,\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), 703\u201305<\/a>. Daniel 7<\/a> actually follows (literarily) a scene in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle. See the companion website<\/a> for my paper, drawn from my dissertation: \u201cThe Baal Cycle as Backdrop to Daniel 7<\/a>: An Old Testament Rationale for Jewish Binitarianism\u201d (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Atlanta, GA, November 2003).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a> The description became an official title of Baal, whom the entire ancient Near Eastern world considered a deity of<\/span> rank. To ancient people all over the Mediterranean, Israelite or not, the \u201cone who rides the clouds\u201d was a deity\u2014his status as a god was unquestioned. Consequently, any figure to whom the title was attributed was a god.<\/span><\/p>\n

Old Testament writers were quite familiar with Baal. Baal was the main source of consternation about Israel\u2019s propensity toward idolatry. In an effort to make the point that Yahwe<\/span>h, the God of Israel, deserved worship instead of Baal, the biblical writers occasionally pilfered this stock description of Baal as \u201ccloud rider\u201d and assigned it to Yahweh (emphasis in the following passages is added).<\/span><\/p>\n

There is no one like God, O, Jeshurun, who rides through the heavens<\/strong> to your help, and with his majesty through the skies (Deut 33:26<\/a>).<\/p>\n

O kingdoms of the earth, sing to God; sing p<\/span>raise to the Lord, Selah, to the one who rides in the highest heavens<\/strong> of old. See, he gives forth his voice, a mighty voice (Psa 68:32\u201333<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Bless Yahweh, O my soul. O Yahweh my God, you are very great<\/span>. You clothe yourself with splendor and majesty, you who cover yourself with light as with a garment, who stretch out the heavens like a tent curtain, the one who sets beams in the waters for his uppe<\/span>r chambers, who makes clouds his chariot<\/strong>, who rides on the wings of the wind (Psa 104:1\u20134<\/a>).<\/p>\n

An oracle of Egypt: Look! Yahweh is riding on a swift cloud<\/strong> and is coming to Egypt. And the idols of Egypt w<\/span>ill tremble in front of him, and the heart of Egypt melts in his inner parts (Isa 19:1<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The literary tactic made a theological statement. The effect was to \u201cdisplace\u201d or snub Baal and hold up Yahweh <\/span>as the deity who legitimately rode through the heavens surveying and governing the world.<\/p>\n

The lone exception<\/em> to the pattern of using this unambiguous deity title of the God of Israel is Daniel 7:13<\/a>. T<\/span>here a second figure\u2014a human figure\u2014receives this description. The description was known across the ancient world as Baal\u2019s. No one questioned Baal\u2019s deity status. Daniel 7<\/a> therefore describes two pow<\/span>ers in heaven\u2014two Yahweh figures, since, in all other places in the Old Testament, Yahweh is the cloud rider.<\/p>\n

Just as importantly, the one who rides the clouds in Daniel 7:13<\/a> receives everlasting king<\/span>ship from the Ancient of Days. As we saw in the previous chapter, everlasting kingship belonged only to the son of David. We\u2019ve just filled in more of the messianic mosaic: The ultimate son of David, the messianic king, will b<\/span>e both human (\u201cson of man\u201d) and deity (\u201cthe rider of the clouds\u201d).<\/p>\n

That\u2019s precisely what we get in the New Testament.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

JESUS AS DANIEL\u2019S SON OF MAN, THE CLOUD RIDER<\/p>\n

With respect to New Testament studies, the descriptive phrase \u201cson of man\u201d is intensely debated. Since it means \u201chuman one\u201d and was a title used of prophets in the Old Testament, many scholars see no divine status attached to it. That\u2019s likely the case in most of the description\u2019s occurrences of Jesus. But when the New Testament writer quotes Daniel 7:13<\/a>, it\u2019s a different story. The backdrop of Daniel 7<\/a> and the divine nature of the phrase must be willfully ignored to avoid a statement of deity.<\/p>\n

Two verses in Luke make a transparent connection between the profile of the suffering messiah (\u201canointed one\u201d; Greek: christos<\/span>) and the \u201cson of man\u201d phrase (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

For just as the lightning shines forth, flashing from one place under heaven to another place under heaven, so the Son of Man<\/strong> will be in his day. But first it <\/strong>is necessary for him to suffer many things, and to be rejected<\/strong> by this generation (Luke 17:24\u201325<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Was it not necessary that the Christ suffer these things<\/strong> and enter into his glory? (Luke 24:26<\/a>).<\/p>\n

But the most dramatic passage in regard to Jesus as the divine<\/em> son of man is Matthew 26<\/a>. The scene has Jesus standing before Caipahas prior to his condemnation and crucifixion:<\/p>\n

57<\/a> Now those who had arrested Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. 58<\/a> But Peter was following him from a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest. And he went inside and was sitting with the officers to see the outcome. 59<\/a> Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false testimony against Jesus in order that they could put him to death. 60<\/a> And they did not find it, although many false witnesses came forward. And finally two came forward 61<\/a> and said, \u201cThis man said, \u2018I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it within three days.\u2019\u2005\u201d 62<\/a> And the high priest stood up and said to him, \u201cDo you reply nothing? What are these people testifying against you?\u201d 63<\/a> But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, \u201cI put you under oath by the living God, that you tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!\u201d 64<\/a> Jesus said to him, \u201cYou have said it. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven<\/strong>.\u201d 65<\/a> Then the high priest tore his robes<\/strong>, saying, \u201cHe has blasphe<\/strong>med<\/strong>! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have just now heard the blasphemy<\/strong>! 66<\/a> What do you think?\u201d And they answered and said, \u201cHe deserves death!\u201d (Matt 26:57\u201366<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In what seems like a cryptic answer to a very clear question, Jesus quotes Daniel 7:13<\/a> to answer Caiaphas. The reaction is swift and unyielding. Caiaphas understood that Jesus was claiming to be the second Yahweh figure of Daniel 7:13<\/a>\u2014and that was an intolerable blasphemy. Jesus\u2019 answer provides the high priest with the accusation he needs for a death sentence, but also gives us a clear testimony of Jesus as the final son of David, Yahweh incarnate, through whom Yahweh will reclaim the nations disinherited at Babel.<\/p>\n

As with the ancient conquest under Joshua, that dominion isn\u2019t going to come without conflict. But this time, there will be no failure at the end of the campaign. Yahweh\u2019s message of the messianic mosaic to the hostile gods opposing his global Edenic vision was, \u201cYou\u2019ll never know what hit you.\u201d But he has one more thing to say to them before the kingdom is launched under Jesus: \u201cYou can try and stop my plans, but you\u2019re all going to die like men.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

CHAPTER 30<\/p>\n

Prepare to Die<\/p>\n

The close of the Old Testament period was a dark, desperate time. By the end, the vestige of Yahweh\u2019s portion, the family he had raised up through Abraham after forsaking the nations at Babel, consisted of only two tribes (Judah and Benjamin), collectively referred to as the kingdom of Judah. But even as the hordes of Babylon, the army of Nebuchadnezzar, descended on Jerusalem for the last time, the prophets offered a glimmer of hope. Yes, Yahweh would punish his children for turning to other gods, but a remnant would survive. Yahweh\u2019s plan had not been overturned. He would send a servant who would ensure its survival. There would<\/em> be an Edenic kingdom, but in the future, not in the Old Testament era.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve sketched the encrypted signals concerning the coming king and his kingdom in the last two chapters. Daniel 7<\/a>, our stopping point in the previous chapter about the divine nature of the deliverer, linked his appearance with this message of hope in the wake of the exile: The kingdom of God had failed in the Old Testament, but it would rise from the ashes when the divine king made his appearance. That messianic king would inaugurate a kingdom that would spread throughout the earth and eventually succeed in restoring Eden.<\/p>\n

These ideas are familiar. Less apparent, however, is the way the Old Testament characterizes the launching of God\u2019s kingdom as a war between gods and men. In this chapter I want to briefly overview this vision. The Deuteronomy 32<\/a> worldview we\u2019ve looked at many times looms large. The kingdom will come. The divine holy ones loyal to Yahweh and Yahweh\u2019s people are his agents to expand that kingdom. But the nations and the gods who rule them (\u201cprinces\u201d in Daniel\u2019s description) will stand opposed. As the kingdom of God grows, the dominions of the dark powers will shrink and their gods will ultimately perish.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

THE KINGDOM WILL COME<\/p>\n

In the divine council scene of Daniel 7<\/a>, the son of man, a second Yahweh figure, received an everlasting kingdom. But it is crucial to note that this kingdom came only in the wak<\/span>e of the council\u2019s decision to judge the four beasts (four empires) reported in the vision of Daniel with which the chapter began. Daniel reported:<\/p>\n

11<\/a> I continued watching until the beast was slain an<\/span>d its body was destroyed, and it was given over to burning with fire. 12<\/a> And as for the remainder of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but a prolongation of their life was given to them for a<\/span> season and a time.<\/p>\n

13<\/a> I continued watching in the visions of the night, and look, with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man was coming, and he came to the Ancient of Days, and was presented bef<\/span>ore him. 14<\/a> And to him was given dominion and glory and kingship that all the peoples, the nations, and languages would serve him; his dominion is a dominion without end that will not cease, and his k<\/span>ingdom is one that will not be destroyed (Dan 7:11\u201314<\/a>).<\/p>\n

A more precise description of this kingdom follows in verses 15\u201328<\/a>. We need to look carefully at certain statements in this passage.<\/p>\n

As for me, <\/span>Daniel, my spirit was troubled within me, and the visions of my head terrified me. 16<\/a> So I approached one of the attendants and I asked him about the truth concerning all this; and he told me that he <\/span>would make known to me the explanation of the matter. 17<\/a> \u201cThese great beasts which are four in number are four kings who will arise from the earth. 18<\/a> But the holy ones of the Most High will receive t<\/span>he kingdom, and they will take possession of the kingdom forever, forever and ever. (Dan 7:15\u201318<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In his vision, Daniel asks one of the standing divine attendants at the council meeting (Dan 7:16<\/a>) ab<\/span>out the meaning of what he has seen. He learns that the beasts are kings, but \u201cthe kingdom\u201d will be given to the \u201choly ones of the Most High,\u201d who will never lose possession of it.<\/p>\n

Two items are notew<\/span>orthy. First, the interpretation is interesting in that, in verses 13\u201314<\/a>, it was the divine son of man who received an everlasting kingdom from the Most High. We therefore have two recipients of this <\/span>everlasting kingdom: the son of man and the holy ones of the Most High. We have to keep reading to discern who the holy ones are. Second, verses 13\u201314<\/a> didn\u2019t describe any conflict before the son of ma<\/span>n received the kingdom, only that the four beasts had been judged before the kingdom was given. We can agree with Daniel that more information is needed. He asks the attendant:<\/p>\n

19<\/a> Then I desired to ma<\/span>ke certain concerning the fourth beast that was different from all the others\u2014exceedingly terrifying, with its iron teeth and its claws of bronze; it devoured and crushed and stamped the remainder with its feet\u2014<\/span>20<\/a> and concerning the horns that were on its head, and concerning the other horn that came up and before which three horns fell, and this horn had eyes and a mouth speaking boastfully, and <\/span>its appearance was larger than its companions. 21<\/a> I continued watching, and this horn made war with the holy ones and it prevailed over them, 22<\/a> until the Ancient of Days came and gave judgment to the<\/span> holy ones of the Most High; and the time arrived and the holy ones took possession of the kingdom (Dan 7:19\u201322<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The chronology of events gets some clarification here. The fourth beast\u2014obviously prio<\/span>r to its death in verse 11<\/a>\u2014makes war with the holy ones and defeats them. This causes the Most High to act on their behalf, and so they take possession of the kingdom, something that must follow the d<\/span>emise of the fourth beast. The interpretation and the chronology are reiterated in what follows:<\/p>\n

23<\/a> And he said, \u201cThe fourth beast is the fourth kingdom that will be on the earth that will be differen<\/span>t from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour the whole earth and it will trample it and it will crush it. 24<\/a> And as for the ten horns coming from it, from this kingdom ten kings will arise, and a<\/span>nother will arise after them. And he will be different from the earlier ones, and he will subdue three kings. 25<\/a> And he will speak words against the Most High, and he will wear out the holy ones of th<\/span>e Most High, and he will attempt to change times and law, and they will be given into his hand for a time and two times and half a time. 26<\/a> Then the court will sit, and his dominion will be removed, t<\/span>o be eradicated and to be destroyed totally. 27<\/a> And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the nation [Hebrew: \u02bfam<\/span>, \u201cpeople\u201d] of the hol<\/span>y ones of the Most High; his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey him.\u201d<\/p>\n

28<\/a> This is the end of the account. As for me, Daniel\u2014my thoughts terrified me greatly an<\/span>d my face changed over me, but I kept the matter in my heart (Dan 7:23\u201328<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The reference to the fourth beast \u201c[wearing] out the holy ones of the Most High\u201d (v. 25<\/a>) harks back to his victory over the <\/span>holy ones in verse 21<\/a>. The enemy (this \u201clittle horn\u201d) defeats the holy ones. In response, the divine council (\u201ccourt\u201d) holds session\u2014the assembly Daniel is witnessing\u2014to deal with (destroy) the fourth<\/span> beast. The result of that meeting in verse 27<\/a> is that the kingdom is given to \u201cthe nation of the holy ones of the Most High.\u201d Interestingly, earlier the kingdom had been given to \u201cthe holy ones of th<\/span>e Most High\u201d (vv. 18<\/a>, 22<\/a>) and before that (v. 14<\/a>) to the divine son of man.<\/p>\n

The passage is clear in one respect\u2014before the everlasting kingdom is received, the fourth beast is destroyed. It is less cl<\/span>ear in terms of who inherits the kingdom. There are three candidates: the son of man, the holy ones of the Most High, and the nation of the holy ones of the Most High.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

THE HOLY ONES OF THE MOST HIGH<\/p>\n

In the previous chapter, I briefly noted the parallel nature of the vision of Daniel 2<\/a> to this vision in Daniel 7<\/a>. The kingdom received by these three parties is the kin<\/span>gdom from Daniel 2:44\u201345<\/a> \u201cnot made by human hands\u201d that will never be destroyed\u2014the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

Bible readers and scholars of course argue about how best to identify the fourth kingdom. Daniel 2:4<\/span>4<\/a> makes identification with Rome obvious enough, in that the kingdom of God appears at the time of the fourth kingdom.Since the fourth beast\/kingdom subsumes the others, the wording in Dan 2:44<\/a> is \u201cin the days of those kings.\u201d
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> The New Testament, of course, has the kingdom of God inaugurated at the coming o<\/span>f Jesus during the Roman Empire, and yet still in the process of coming.See, for example, Matt 12:28<\/a>; Mark 1:15<\/a>; Luke 8:1<\/a>, 10<\/a>; 16:16<\/a>; 21:31<\/a>; Rom 14:17<\/a>; Col 1:13<\/a>; cf. 1 Cor 15:24<\/a>, 50<\/a>; 2 Tim 4:1<\/a>, 18<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a><\/p>\n

The description of this kingdom has both divine and earthly aspects. This is just what we would expect, since God\u2019s goal of re<\/span>viving a global Eden involves people but is a supernatural rule. Considering the identity of the \u201choly ones\u201d helps us see this anew.<\/p>\n

The phrase \u201choly ones\u201d is a translation of Hebrew qedoshim<\/span> (or qedo<\/span><\/span>shin<\/span> in the case of the Aramaic in Dan 7<\/a>). The term can refer to the members of the divine council in heaven (e.g., Psa 89:5\u20137<\/a>).The Hebrew term qedoshim<\/em> occurs twice in these verses. Some English translations have \u201csaints,\u201d but this is misleading.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> However, the term can also refer to people. Several times in Leviticus<\/span> the people are referred to collectively as qedoshim<\/span>. This again is not unexpected, since the imagery of the priesthood, tabernacle, and temple creates an analogy to the sacred space of God\u2019s throne r<\/span>oom and those who have access to Yahweh in heaven\u2014his divine family, the divine council.See Lev 11:44\u201345<\/a>; 19:2<\/a>; 20:7<\/a>, 26<\/a>; 21:6<\/a>; Psa 16:3<\/a>; 34:9<\/a>. Psa 16:3<\/a> refers to the qedoshim<\/em> that are in the land, making it certain that the term can refer to people.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a><\/p>\n

The range of usage for qedoshim<\/span> helps us parse the \u201choly ones\u201d of Daniel 7<\/a>. The phrase refers to both human fo<\/span>llowers of Yahweh and the members of his divine council. Both families rule together in Yahweh\u2019s everlasting kingdom, along with the Yahweh in human form, the son of man, the risen Christ. We\u2019ll see more of how this works in upcoming ch<\/span>apters, but here\u2019s a preview:<\/p>\n

The kingdom of God is reborn at the first<\/em> coming of Jesus. His arrival marks the beginning of the end of the rule of darkness and the <\/span>initiation of Yahweh\u2019s reclamation of the nations ruled by the other gods. Jesus is the son of man, and the kingdom is his. Ruling with him will be the holy ones of Yahweh\u2019s (and his) council.<\/p>\n

Note in<\/span> Daniel 7:27<\/a> that the kingdom is given to the nation<\/em> of the holy ones of the Most High but it is still referred to as God\u2019s kingdom (\u201chis<\/em> kingdom\u201d). This is a subtle reference to joint rulership in Go<\/span>d\u2019s kingdom. The nation of the holy ones refers to the human followers of Yahweh aligned with him and his council. As we\u2019ll see in later chapters, in New Testament theology, all believers\u2014Jew or Gentile\u2014are the people of God, having inherited the promises of the <\/span>covenant with Abraham (Gal 3:7\u20139<\/a>, 23\u201329<\/a>). The kingdom language of Daniel 7<\/a> informs us that all the nations once disinherited and ruled by<\/span> corrupt gods will be made subject both to God<\/em> and to his people.<\/em>Some translations have \u201ctheir kingdom\u201d in Dan 7:27<\/a>. This requires viewing the referent of the Aramaic suffix pronoun to be the people. The pronoun is singular, though. It is possible to have a singular pronoun refer to a collective group, but usually the pronoun refers back to its nearest antecedent, in this case the singular entity referred to as \u201cMost High.\u201d
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a> This is why the book of Revelation says of believers, \u201cThe one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I will give him aut<\/span>hority over the nations<\/strong>.\u2026 I will grant to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also have conquered and have sat down with my Father on his throne\u201d (Rev 2:26<\/a>; 3:21<\/a>).<\/p>\n

A COMING WAR OF GODS AND MEN<\/p>\n

The triumph of the kingdom of God will not come before the final conflict known in Scripture as the day of the Lord. The words of Zechariah 14<\/a> are telling:<\/p>\n

1<\/a> Look! A day i<\/span>s coming for Yahweh, when your plunder will be divided in your midst. 2<\/a> I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, and they will loot the houses, and the<\/span> women will be raped; half of the city will go into exile, but the remainder of the people will not be cut off from the city. 3<\/a> Then Yahweh will go forth and fight against those nations, like when he <\/span>fights on a day of battle. 4<\/a> On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in half, from east to west, by a very grea<\/span>t valley; and half of the mountain will withdraw toward the north, and the other half toward the south. 5<\/a> And you will flee by the valley of my mountains, because the valley of the mountains will reac<\/span>h to Azal, and you will flee like you fled from the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. And Yahweh my God will come, and all the holy ones with him<\/strong> (Zech 14:1\u20135<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Yahweh comes with his hea<\/span>venly army at the day of the Lord to disarm and defeat the hostile supernatural powers. Isaiah said the same thing:<\/p>\n

21<\/a> And this shall happen on that day:<\/p>\n

Yahweh will punish the host of heaven in heave<\/span>n,<\/p>\n

and the kings of the earth on the earth.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>  And they will be gathered in a gathering, like a prisoner in a pit.<\/p>\n

And they will be shut in a prison and be punished after many days.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>  And the ful<\/span>l moon will be ashamed<\/p>\n

and the sun will be ashamed,<\/p>\n

for Yahweh of hosts will rule on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem,<\/p>\n

and before his elders in glory (Isa 24:21\u201323<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Yahweh will rule before his council\u2014her<\/span>e called elders\u2014having punished both his human foes (\u201ckings of the earth\u201d) and his supernatural enemies (\u201cthe host of heaven in heaven\u201d),More literally, \u201cthe host of heaven in the heavens.\u201d The phrase refers to nonhuman beings, i.e., beings that are divine and supernatural.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> in order to re-establish his rule in his earthly abode, Mount<\/span> Zion.<\/p>\n

What does the punishment of the gods entail? For that we return to Psalm 82<\/a>, where we got our first exposure to Yahweh\u2019s council in this book. In the first few verses of that psalm, Yahweh was <\/span>standing in the council to accuse his divine sons of corruption. Instead of governing the nations in righteousness, the gods who had received the disinherited nations after the Babel incident had led the people astray, away from the Most High. Their time comes at the climax of the kingdom when Yahweh reclaims the nat<\/span>ions from them. The final verses portend their fate. The God of Israel speaks:<\/p>\n

6<\/a> I<\/span> have said, \u201cYou are gods,<\/p>\n

and sons of the Most High, all of you.<\/p>\n

7<\/a> However, you will die like men,<\/p>\n

and you will fall like one of the princes\u201d (Psa 82:6\u20137<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The psalmist then exclaims:<\/p>\n

8<\/a> Rise up, O Go<\/span>d, judge the earth,<\/p>\n

because you shall inherit all the nations (Psa 82:8<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The rule of the gods will be ended when the Most High reclaims the nations he once disinherited. Daniel 7<\/a> makes clear that Yah<\/span>weh\u2019s loyal divine and human families will share that rule.<\/p>\n

THE FUTURE RE-INHERITANCE OF THE NATIONS<\/p>\n

The Day of the Lord is a time of judgment, but it is also cast in Scripture as a time of rejoicing for Yahweh\u2019s people. When the rule of the gods begins to cru<\/span>mble, Yahweh will call his own from among the nations. Isaiah 66<\/a>, a passage that plays a crucial role in explaining the explosion of the gospel after the resurrection, describes the judgment and hope <\/span>looming in a time future to the Old Testament period:<\/p>\n

16<\/a> For Yahweh enters into judgment on all flesh with fire and his sword,<\/p>\n

and those slain by Yahweh shall be many.<\/p>\n

17<\/a> Those who sanctify themselves<\/span><\/p>\n

and those who cleanse themselves to go into the gardens<\/p>\n

after the one in the middle,<\/p>\n

eating the flesh of swine<\/p>\n

and detestable things and rodents together<\/p>\n

shall come to an end!\u201d declares Yahweh.<\/p>\n

18<\/a> \u201cA<\/span>nd I\u2014their works and thoughts!\u2014am about to come to gather all nations and tongues,<\/p>\n

and they shall come and see my glory.<\/p>\n

19<\/a> And I will set a sign among them,<\/p>\n

and I will send survivors from them to the<\/span> nations:<\/p>\n

Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow;<\/p>\n

Tubal and Javan, the faraway coastlands<\/p>\n

that have not heard of my fame,<\/p>\n

and have not seen my glory.<\/p>\n

And they shall declare my glory among the nation<\/span>s, 20<\/a> and bring all your countrymen from all the nations as an offering to Yahweh on horses and chariots and in litters and on mules and camels, to my holy mountain, Jerusalem,\u201d says Yahweh, \u201cjust as <\/span>the sons of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel to the house of Yahweh. 21<\/a> And indeed, I will take some of them as priests and the Levites,\u201d says Yahweh. 22<\/a> \u201cFor just as the new heavens and ear<\/span>th that I am about to make shall stand before me,\u201d declares Yahweh, \u201cso shall your descendants and your name stand (Isa 66:16\u201322<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Incredible as it sounds, people from the disinherited nations will re<\/span>turn to Yahweh, out from under the dominion of their gods. Where Israel failed in that mission as a kingdom of priests (Exod 19:6<\/a>) Yahweh himself will succeed. He will be the agent for his own mission<\/span>. This is the story of how Eden will be reborn\u2014a story told by the New Testament.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll have more to say about the final conflict. There are other startling connections to the divine council worldview <\/span>in eschatology. But we don\u2019t have to wait until the end times for New Testament connections to the supernatural worldview of the Old Testament. In that regard, the New Testament hits the ground running.<\/p>\n

Section Summary<\/em><\/p>\n

The story of Israel\u2019s monarchy is about more than David\u2019s battle with Goliath, his guerrilla war with Saul, the impulsive affair with Bathsheba, and his son Solomon\u2019s accumulation of w<\/span>isdom and wives. We tend to be fixated on Saul, David, and Solomon because that\u2019s normally the exposure we get to the books from Samuel through Malachi. But there\u2019s more to these Old Testament books\u2014almost half the Bible\u2014than stories about kings.<\/span><\/p>\n

As intriguing as Israel\u2019s kings were, the men who wrote the monarchy\u2019s history weren\u2019t aiming at producing biographies. Their messaging was primarily the<\/span>ological. They had a story to tell\u2014about the spiritual cause and effect of Israel\u2019s failure, the wrath of God, and Yahweh\u2019s plan to prevent his original Edenic goal from being a legacy of ashes.<\/p>\n

The h<\/span>istorical books and the writings of the prophets operate within the scope of the supernatural worldview of the biblical writers. The nations were still under the domain of hostile foreign gods. Israel was <\/span>in constant conflict with enemy nations. In the time of the judges, spiritual and moral apostasy prevailed. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. The failure of the conquest produced, instead of the Edenic rule of God reborn, something akin to the lawless American West.<\/span><\/p>\n

The anarchy culminated in the demand for a king. The choice came too early and with a misguided motive. But Yahweh ha<\/span>d begun planning for David\u2019s rise even before he was born, via the ministry of Samuel\u2014the last judge, as well as a priest, prophet, and anointer of kings. David eventually rose to prominence, but the fraternal conflict between Saul (chosen by rebellious Israelites for his height) and David (chosen by Yahweh for his <\/span>heart) was emblematic of the unseen spiritual war for the land and the people. The vestiges of the Rephaim persisted, and the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle were at separate locations, dividing the priesthood.<\/span><\/p>\n

The crisis points were eventually resolved. David\u2019s men eliminate<\/span>d Goliath\u2019s brothers. Solomon reunited the ark and the tabernacle after the construction of the temple (2 Chr 5:1\u201314<\/a>). The land promised to Abraham came under Solomon\u2019s rule and jurisdiction (1 Kgs 4:<\/span>21<\/a>; cf. Gen 15:18<\/a>). Then everything fell apart in the wake of Solomon\u2019s death.<\/p>\n

Two things happened during the dual death spirals of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Yahweh called prophets, assure<\/span>d them of his presence and power through divine encounter, and decreed a new covenant, a new solution to the re-establishment of Edenic rule. In the bitterest of ironies, Babylon would swallow up Yahweh\u2019s inheritance. The tables seemed completely turned. But appearances can be deceiving.<\/span><\/p>\n

The real irony, as prophets like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Habakkuk informed anyone who would listen, was that Bab<\/span>ylon was Yahweh\u2019s tool. Even as Judah was taking its last gasp, Yahweh was engineering the circumstances of an everlasting kingdom that could not be contained by geography. It would be ruled by a man who was also God, whose identity must be concealed long enough for him to die and rise again, so that the curse<\/span> of sin would be overturned, the lord of the dead would lose his authority, and the eternal life of Eden would encircle the earth.<\/span><\/p>\n

All of that would play out in New Testament theology. Scholars have long thought of that narrative in two phases: the kingdom already<\/em>, and the kingdom not yet<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>PART 7<\/p>\n

THE KINGDOM ALREADY<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

CHAPTER 31<\/p>\n

Who Will Go for Us?<\/p>\n

The arrival of Jesus, the messiah of Israel, is the fulcrum upon which God\u2019s plan for the restoration of Eden tilts toward realization. He is the center of the biblical epic. Even though someone reading the Bible straight through has to wade three-quarters into it before encountering him, he\u2019s been in the shadows the whole time. No, Jesus wasn\u2019t an earthly man before he was born. Rather, Yahweh\u2014the visible, second Yahweh\u2014has been part of the biblical story in the form of a man since Eden.<\/p>\n

It is this second personage who would, four hundred years after the close of the Old Testament period, be born of the Virgin Mary as the human man we know as Jesus of Nazareth. He had to become a man to ensure that humanity, God\u2019s imager, is not erased from the Edenic vision due to his mortal weakness and invariable propensity to use his free will to attempt to gain autonomy from God.<\/p>\n

An Edenic realization without human participation would mean that the nachash<\/span> would then have won a victory\u2014the abolition of humankind as God\u2019s image. God need not change his plan in response to human weakness or the self-willed rebellion of a divine council member. He need not remove humanity or human freedom\u2014and with it, his image\u2014to accomplish what he wants. An omniscient, all-powerful being doesn\u2019t need to cheat. He knows how best to win\u2014and how best to misdirect his opponents.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve already included Jesus in certain aspects of the supernaturalist Old Testament worldview and theology. We\u2019ve seen that he ranks as unique among the divine sons of God of Yahweh\u2019s council.See the discussion of monogenes<\/em> in chapter 4<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> We\u2019ve talked about the Old Testament backdrop to Jesus as the Word and the One who comes on the clouds.See chapters 16<\/a> and 29<\/a>, respectively.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> But those items barely scratch the surface.<\/p>\n

In this chapter, our goal is to accomplish two things. We\u2019ll fill in a few more pieces of the messianic mosaic by noting more connections between Jesus and the second Yahweh figure, and then take a brief look at the divine council backdrop to the beginning of Jesus\u2019 public ministry.Due to space constraints I have excluded discussion of John 10:34\u201335<\/a>, where John has Jesus citing Psa 82:6<\/a> in defense of his deity. Nearly all modern commentators fail to take the verse in light of the original context of Psa 82<\/a>, which has the divine council as its focus. They strangely have the elohim<\/em> of Psa 82:6<\/a> as mere humans, which reduces Jesus\u2019 self-defense to saying that he is allowed to call himself the son of God because every other Jew could as well. This undermines Jesus\u2019 claim to deity in the passage and ignores how the quotation is bookended with two suggestions of his deity: (1) identification with the Father (John 10:30<\/a>)\u2014who is Lord of the council; and (2) the assertion that the Father is in<\/em> Jesus (John 10:38<\/a>). Interpretation of the quotation of Psa 82:6<\/a> in John 10<\/a> must not ignore the original divine\u2014not human\u2014context of the psalm. That context is part of the power of the quotation\u2014that the Jewish Scriptures bore witness to nonhuman<\/em> sons of God. This reminder is the gist of Psa 82:6<\/a>. Juxtaposed as its quotation is in John 10<\/a>, between two statements that identify Jesus with the Father, the point of the theology produced by the quotation in context is that Jesus is not only a divine son of God, but superior to all divine sons of God in his identification with the Father, the Lord of the divine council. I have addressed this issue in an academic paper available on the companion website<\/a>: Michael S. Heiser, \u201cJesus\u2019 Quotation of Psalm 82:6<\/a> in John 10:34<\/a>: A Different View of John\u2019s Theological Strategy\u201d (presented at the Pacific Northwest Regional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA, May 13\u201315, 2011).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

JESUS AS THE NAME<\/p>\n

In an earlier chapter, we learned about the Angel of Yahweh, in whom was the Name, another term for the essence or presence of Yahweh (Exod 23:20\u201323<\/a>).See chapter 18<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> The New Testament applies that<\/span> concept to Jesus in several passages. For example in John 17<\/a>, the famous prayer of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prays:<\/p>\n

5<\/a> And now, Father, you glorify me at your side with the glory that I<\/span> had at your side before the world existed.<\/p>\n

6<\/a> I have revealed your name to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you have given them to me, and they have kept your word.\u2026 11<\/a> <\/span>And I am no longer in the world, and they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given to me, so that they may be one, just as we are. 12<\/a> When I <\/span>was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given to me, and guarded them, and none of them has perished except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture would be fulfilled.\u2026<\/p>\n

25<\/a> <\/span>Righteous Father, although the world does not know you, yet I have known you, and these men have come to know that you sent me. 26<\/a> And I made known to them your name, and will make it known, in order <\/span>that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I may be in them (John 17:5\u20136<\/a>, 11\u201312<\/a>, 25\u201326<\/a>).<\/p>\n

When Jesus tells God the Father that he has revealed God\u2019s name to the disciples (John 17:6<\/a>), he<\/span> isn\u2019t talking about telling the disciples what God\u2019s name was. They could read their Old Testament and see that in thousands of places (e.g., Exod 3:1\u201314<\/a>). Revealing God\u2019s name to them meant showing <\/span>them who God was and what he was like. He did that by living among them as a man. Jesus was God among them. He was the incarnation of God\u2019s essence (Heb 1:3<\/a>).The citation of Heb 1:3<\/a> draws attention to the Greek word hypostasis<\/em>, often translated as \u201cnature.\u201d The term refers to \u201cessence, actual being, reality\u201d (see William F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature<\/em> [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 1040). Hereafter abbreviated as BDAG.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a><\/p>\n

The notion of making God known by reveal<\/span>ing his name also takes us back to Yahweh\u2019s Angel in the Old Testament. Recall that Yahweh\u2019s Angel was Yahweh in human form\u2014Yahweh\u2019s \u201cname\u201d or presence resided in that Angel (Exod 23:20\u201323<\/a>). John draw<\/span>s on that language in his presentation of Jesus as God.As we\u2019ll discuss in a later chapter, the New Testament also says that the presence of God dwells in each believer. The indwelling presence (the Name) with respect to Jesus goes beyond mere indwelling, as the language of John 17<\/a> makes clear. John 17<\/a> has Jesus with the Father before the world existed (17:5<\/a>; cf. John 1:1\u201314<\/a>). The language also goes beyond the idea that Jesus \u201cbecame\u201d God or received God at his baptism. That cannot be the point because of John 17:24<\/a>, where Jesus says that the Father loved him \u201cbefore the foundation of the world.\u201d
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> When Jesus says he has \u201ckept them in your name,\u201d he means he has kept those followers the Father gave to him by means of<\/em> God\u2019s own power and pr<\/span>esence\u2014the Name, now incarnated in Jesus.<\/p>\n

In this regard it is worth noting that, just as \u201cthe Name\u201d was another expression for Yahweh, so \u201cthe Name\u201d was used to refer to Jesus.As C. K. Barrett notes on Acts 5:40\u201342<\/a>, \u201cThe Jews used \u05e9\u05c1\u05dd<\/span> [shem<\/em>; \u201cthe name\u201d] to avoid saying God;<\/em> the Christians took this up for Jesus; therefore they thought of Jesus as God\u201d (C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles; The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1<\/em> [Edinburgh: T&amp;T Clark International, 2004], 301<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a> For example, in Roman<\/span>s 10<\/a> we read:<\/p>\n

9<\/a> If you confess with your mouth<\/strong> \u201cJesus is Lord<\/strong>\u201d and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10<\/a> For with the heart one believes, resulting in righteou<\/span>sness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation. 11<\/a> For the scripture says, \u201cEveryone who believes in him will not be put to shame.\u201d 12<\/a> For there is no distinction between Jew and Gree<\/span>k, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who is rich to all who call upon him. 13<\/a> For \u201ceveryone who calls upon the name of the Lord<\/strong> will be saved\u201d (Rom 10:9\u201313<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The important thing to note here is that t<\/span>he quotation of verse 13<\/a> comes from Joel 2:32<\/a>. In that Old Testament text we read: \u201ceveryone who calls on the name of the Yahweh shall be saved.\u201d The apostle Paul deftly links \u201cconfessing Jesus is Lor<\/span>d\u201d in verse 9<\/a> with the statement of the Old Testament prophet. This happens many times, especially in Paul\u2019s writings.The major scholarly work on how Jesus is \u201cswapped for Yahweh\u201d in Old Testament quotations is David C. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul\u2019s Christology<\/em> (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a> The Name and Yahweh were interchanged in Israelite theology, so that trusting in<\/span> \u201cthe Name of Yahweh\u201d meant trusting in Yahweh. Likewise, trusting in the name of the Lord, who is Yahweh in the Old Testament quotation, is the same as confessing Jesus as Lord.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JESUS AS THE ANGEL OF YAHWEH<\/p>\n

The identification of Jesus and the Angel who is the visible Yahweh by virtue of embodying the Name is made explicit in Jude 5<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Now I want to remind you, although you know<\/span> everything once and for all, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, the second time destroyed those who did not believe.<\/p>\n

This short verse credits Jesus with delivering the Isra<\/span>elites from Egypt.The wording of this verse is not the same in every manuscript of the Greek New Testament. It occurs in some of the oldest manuscripts of Jude (e.g., Alexandrinus and Vaticanus). Some New Testament scholars prefer the variant reading kurios<\/em> (\u201cLord,\u201d likely pointing to Yahweh himself) on the grounds that it is ambiguous and that Jude probably didn\u2019t have the incarnation in view, which would have prompted a reading of \u201cJesus\u201d (see Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude<\/em>, Word Biblical Commentary 50 (Dallas: Word, 1998], 42\u201343<\/a>). This view of course must presume Jude was ignorant of the Old Testament motif of Yahweh in human form applied to Jesus by other New Testament writers. In other words, there is a clear conceptual relationship between Yahweh in human form (the Angel, who is said to have delivered Israel from Egypt in Judg 2:1\u20132<\/a>) and the incarnation, though they are not precisely the same in nature. Jude didn\u2019t need to have the incarnation in view to write \u201cJesus\u201d in verse 5<\/a>. He only had to identify Jesus with the visible Yahweh tradition of the Old Testament, something that is hardly odd in the New Testament. And since the visible Yahweh is Yahweh, the note about punishing the angels is no objection to a connection with the incarnate Jesus. See the discussion in this regard in Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude<\/em>, New American Commentary 37 (Nashville: Broadman &amp; Holman, 2003), 444<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>9<\/a> The reference is to Exodus 23:20\u201323<\/a> (cf. Judg 2:1\u20132<\/a>), where the Angel of the Lord, in whom is the Name, goes before Israel in the procession out of Egypt. The reference to destruct<\/span>ion could be to the death of the Egyptians, but it is more likely post-Sinai, where judgments of enemies of Yahweh during the wilderness wanderings and the conquest (cf. Josh 5:13\u201315<\/a>) resulted in dest<\/span>ruction of unbelievers.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

THE COUNCIL IS IN SESSION<\/p>\n

We often think of the commencement of the ministry and mission of Jesus as something quiet and mundane. Not so. A day in the ministry of the incarnate Yahweh was a spiritual <\/span>assault on the forces of darkness to reclaim what rightfully belonged to him, his Father the invisible Yahweh, and those human beings who were part of the divine council family. The Gospels are far more than a boring point-to-point travelogue.<\/span><\/p>\n

We\u2019ve all read about Jesus\u2019 baptism before, perhaps dozens of times\u2014but we have likely missed the context for it. John\u2019s gospel (John 1:19\u201323<\/a>, 29\u201331<\/a>) sets i<\/span>t up this way:<\/p>\n

19<\/a> And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem so that they could ask him, \u201cWho are you?\u201d 20<\/a> And he confessed\u2014and he did not deny, and confe<\/span>ssed\u2014\u201cI am not the Christ!\u201d 21<\/a> And they asked him, \u201cThen who are<\/em> you? Are you Elijah?\u201d And he said, \u201cI am not!\u201d\u2005\u201cAre you the Prophet?\u201d And he answered, \u201cNo!\u201d 22<\/a> Then they said to him, \u201cWho are you, so<\/span> that we can give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?\u201d<\/p>\n

23<\/a> He said,<\/p>\n

\u201cI am<\/em> \u2018the voice of one crying out in the wilderness,<\/p>\n

\u201cMake straight the way of the Lord,\u201d\u2005\u2019<\/p>\n

just as Isai<\/span>ah the prophet said.\u201d \u2026<\/p>\n

29<\/a> On the next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, \u201cLook! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30<\/a> This one is the one about whom I said, \u2018After me is comin<\/span>g a man who is ahead of me, because he existed before me.\u2019 31<\/a> And I did not know him, but in order that he could be revealed to Israel, because of this I came baptizing with water\u201d (John 1:19\u201323<\/a>, 29\u20133<\/span>1<\/a>).<\/p>\n

What\u2019s startling is the passage cited by John the Baptist. He identifies himself with the anonymous voice of Isaiah 40:3<\/a> that heralded the coming of Yahweh. The significance is obscured in English<\/span> translations:<\/p>\n

1<\/a>  \u201cComfort<\/strong>; comfort<\/strong> my people,\u201d says your God.<\/p>\n

2<\/a> \u201cSpeak<\/strong> to the heart of Jerusalem, and call<\/strong> to her,<\/p>\n

that her compulsory labor is fulfilled, that her sin is paid for,<\/p>\n

that she has rece<\/span>ived from the hand of Yahweh double for all her sins.\u201d<\/p>\n

3<\/a>  A voice is calling in the wilderness, \u201cClear the way of Yahweh!<\/p>\n

Make a highway smooth in the desert for our God!<\/p>\n

4<\/a>  Every valley shall be li<\/span>fted up,<\/p>\n

and every mountain and hill shall become low,<\/p>\n

And the rough ground shall be like a plain,<\/p>\n

and the rugged ground like a valley-plain.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>  And the glory of Yahweh shall be revealed,<\/p>\n

and all hum<\/span>ankind together shall see it\u201d (Isa 40:1\u20135<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In Isaiah 40:1<\/a> we learn that God is the speaker. He issues four commands, which I\u2019ve put in boldfacing. All four commands are grammatically plural in Hebrew<\/em><\/span>.<\/em> That means that Yahweh is commanding a group.<\/em> The group cannot be Israelites or a collective Israel, since it is Israel that Yahweh is commanding the group to comfort, speak to, and call. You should<\/span> know the identity of the group by now: the divine council.Hebrew scholars of course have long noticed the grammatical forms in the initial verses of Isaiah and identified them with the assembled divine council. See Frank Moore Cross, \u201cThe Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,\u201d Journal of Near Eastern Studies<\/em> 12 (1953): 274\u201377; Christopher R. Seitz, \u201cThe Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature<\/em> 109.2 (1990): 229\u201347<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>10<\/a><\/p>\n

The context of Isaiah 40<\/a> is a new beginning for Israel. Judah, the remaining two tribes, had spent seventy years in captivity in Babylon. <\/span>God brought them out of exile and back to the land. However\u2014and this is frequently overlooked\u2014the other ten tribes never emerged from exile. They were lost, scattered among the disinherited nations. But the coming of the messiah will result in redemption for <\/span>all<\/em> the tribes. Yahweh will draw his children from every tribe and nation, whether Abraham\u2019s literal descendants or not.Jeremiah has all the tribes in view when he declares the Lord says, \u201cI myself will gather together the remnant of my flock from all the lands<\/em> where I have driven them\u201d (Jer 23:3<\/a>; italics mine). Jer 29:14<\/a> (\u201call the lands\u201d; \u201call the places\u201d) presents the same vision. Ezekiel prophesies the same sort of comprehensive return (Ezek 36:22\u201336<\/a>). See also Isa 49:6<\/a>; Ezek 37:19<\/a>; 47:13<\/a>, 21\u201322<\/a>; 48:1\u201331<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>11<\/a><\/p>\n

In response to the<\/span> commands in Isaiah 40:1\u20132<\/a>, a lone response comes:<\/p>\n

A voice is calling in the wilderness, \u201cClear the way of Yahweh!<\/p>\n

Make a highway smooth in the desert for our God!\u201d (Isa 40:3<\/a>).<\/p>\n

It is this verse that c<\/span>onstitutes John the Baptist\u2019s answer to the priests and the Levites. In Isaiah 40:3<\/a>, the council member who responds is not identified. Earlier, in Isaiah 6:8<\/a>, when Yahweh asks, \u201cWhom shall I send, an<\/span>d who will go for us<\/em>?\u201d Isaiah the prophet answers, \u201cI am here! Send me!\u201d But that was centuries earlier. The exchange in Isaiah 40<\/a> also brings to mind the divine council scene of 1 Kings 22<\/a>, where a c<\/span>ouncil member steps forward with a plan to finish Ahab.<\/p>\n

With the arrival of the messiah, the apostle John casts John the Baptist in Isaiah\u2019s role. Like the prophet of old, John the Baptist has \u201cstood <\/span>in the council\u201d (Jer 23:16\u201322<\/a>) and answered the call. To a Jew familiar with the Old Testament, the pattern would not be lost. As had been the case at the time of Isaiah, Yahweh\u2019s council had met in r<\/span>egard to the fate of an apostate Israel. Isaiah had been sent to a spiritually blind and deaf nation. The calling of John the Baptist tells the reader that Yahweh\u2019s divine council is in session again, only this time the aim is to launch the kingdom of God with the second Yahweh, now incarnate, as its point man.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

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

THE INCARNATE YAHWEH LEADING A NEW EXODUS<\/p>\n

The description of the baptism of Jesus added to the unfolding drama\u2014for those who knew what they were reading. Mark\u2019s account of the baptism (Mark 1:9\u201311<\/a>) provides some key insights that connect to the Old Testament worldview we\u2019ve been tracking:<\/p>\n

9<\/a> And it happened that in those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. 10<\/a> And immediately as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens being split apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. 11<\/a> And a voice came from heaven, \u201cYou are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are two items in this passage whose importance is not conveyed in English translation.<\/p>\n

First, Mark\u2019s note that the heavens were \u201csplit apart\u201d is significant. The Greek lemma is schizo<\/span>. Mark\u2019s choice of the term in connection with the water baptism of Jesus has drawn the attention of scholars because of the use of schizo<\/span> in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Jesus and the apostles. Not coincidentally, schizo<\/span> is the verb used in Exodus 14:21<\/a> to describe the miraculous parting of the sea.One of the better scholarly works on Mark\u2019s use of the Old Testament to portray the events of Jesus\u2019 life and ministry as a new exodus is Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah\u2019s New Exodus and Mark<\/em> (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997; rev. and repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>12<\/a><\/p>\n

Think back to our discussion of the exodus event.See chapter 19<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>13<\/a> The deliverance from Egypt was a victory over hostile gods. In Exodus 15:11<\/a> Moses asked the rhetorical question, \u201cWho is like Yahweh among the gods?\u201d The answer was obvious: no one. The exodus event was a release from exile. Yahweh brought his people out of Egypt to reconstitute them as a nation and re-establish his Edenic kingdom rule on earth.<\/p>\n

Mark wants readers to see that a new exodus event is happening. The kingdom of God is back, and this time it will not fail because it\u2019s being led by the visible Yahweh, now incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth.For other exodus motifs in Mark, see Watts, Isaiah\u2019s New Exodus and Mark<\/em>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>14<\/a> The imagery is even more startling when we factor in Jude 5<\/a>, a passage we looked at earlier in this chapter. Jude has Jesus leading a people out of Egypt.<\/em> The reference was to the visible Angel, who was Yahweh in human form, who brought Israel out of Egypt into the promised land (Judg 2:1\u20132<\/a>; cf. Exod 23:20\u201323<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Second, Mark 1:11<\/a> has God\u2019s voice from heaven pronouncing, \u201cYou are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.\u201dSee also Matt 3:17<\/a>; Luke 3:22<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>15<\/a> We tend to think of this declaration as a sentimental one, or perhaps some verbal token of affection. It is far more than that. When God refers to Jesus as his \u201cbeloved\u201d he is affirming the kingship of Jesus\u2014his legitimate status as the heir to David\u2019s throne.<\/p>\n

The key term is \u201cbeloved.\u201d Scholars have noticed that the term was used of Solomon, the original heir to David\u2019s throne. It\u2019s difficult to discern that in English translation, though, since the Hebrew term gets translated as a proper name: Jedidiah. Solomon is referred to as \u201cJedidiah\u201d in 2 Samuel 12:24\u201325<\/a>:<\/p>\n

24<\/a> David consoled Bathsheba his wife, and he went to her and slept with her. She bore a son, and he called him Solomon, and Yahweh loved him. 25<\/a> He sent word by the hand of Nathan the prophet, so he called him Jedidiah because of Yahweh.<\/p>\n

Notice the wording. \u201cJedidiah\u201d is a name or term that Nathan told David the Lord wanted assigned to Solomon. The name in Hebrew is yediydyahu<\/span> and is related to dawid<\/span>\/dawiyd<\/span>, the proper name \u201cDavid,\u201d which also means \u201cbeloved.\u201d\u201cDavid\u201d is spelled two ways in the Hebrew Bible. See Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament<\/em> (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1999), 215<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>16<\/a> Used of Solomon, the term amounts to a title that marked Solomon as the legitimate heir to the Davidic covenantal throne.See Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings<\/em> (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1976), 30\u201331; Nicolas Wyatt, \u201c\u2005\u2018Jedidiah\u2019 and Cognate Forms as a Title of Royal Legitimization,\u201d Biblica<\/em> 66 (1985): 112\u201325 (republished in \u201cThere\u2019s Such Divinity Doth Hedge a King\u201d: Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature<\/em>, Society for Old Testament Study Monographs; [Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2005], 13\u201322).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>17<\/a> The same message is telegraphed with respect to Jesus. God\u2019s own voice announces, This is the king, the legitimate heir to David\u2019s throne.<\/em><\/p>\n

The New Testament story, then, begins with a dramatic revisitation of Yahweh\u2019s call to the divine council to send someone to announce the appearance of Yahweh in the man Jesus of Nazareth. That much will become evident to friend and foe, human and divine. The strategy behind the appearance of the king, however, is cloaked.See chapter 28<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>18<\/a> It had been over five hundred years since the return of Judah from exile. The emergence of Jesus, born and raised in obscurity, from the water launches a battle of wits that entangles both the divine and the human realms.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>CHAPTER 32<\/p>\n

Preeminent Domain<\/p>\n

In the previous chapter we saw that the arrival of John the Baptist and Jesus the messiah played out against the backdrop of a divine council passage found in Isaiah 40<\/a>. W<\/span>hile the episodes of John\u2019s appearance and Jesus\u2019 baptism are familiar, the theological framework provided by Isaiah is easy to miss.<\/p>\n

The supernatural context of Jesus\u2019 actions and statements also fre<\/span>quently goes unnoticed. We have space to share only a few examples. The cosmic backdrop of the divine council worldview of the Old Testament to which you\u2019re now acclimated will make them quite discernible. Even though they are too often taught that way, the Gospels <\/span>are far more than a boring point-to-point travelogue. Consider this chapter a cure.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/span><\/span>THIS IS MY FATHER\u2019S WORLD<\/p>\n

In the last chapter we saw how the Gospels portrayed the baptism of Jesus as a new exodus. The exodus, of course, was the precursor to reviving the kingdom of God in the land<\/span> of promise. Israel danced while Moses sang out, \u201cWho is like Yahweh among the gods?\u201d As Moses led Israel through the watery chaos and the unholy ground of other gods, so Jesus, \u201cthe prophet like Moses\u201d (<\/span>Acts 3:22<\/a>; 7:37<\/a>), first came through the waters (his baptism) before launching the kingdom.<\/p>\n

This mission was not only about the single land and people of Israel, whom Yahweh had created after cons<\/span>igning the existing nations to the dominion of lesser gods at Babel. The coming of the incarnate Yahweh was the beginning of reclaiming those nations as well<\/em>. But the gods of darkness were not going t<\/span>o surrender their domains without a fight\u2014and the battle began so quickly that Jesus barely had time to dry off.<\/p>\n

The gospel writers tell us the event that immediately followed Jesus\u2019 baptism was his j<\/span>ourney into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil at the direction of the Holy Spirit (Matt 4:1<\/a>; Mark 1:12<\/a>; Luke 4:1\u201313<\/a>). Think about the location: the wilderness.<\/em> The term obviously refers to a l<\/span>iteral place, most likely the wilderness of Judea (Matt 3:1<\/a>), but it\u2019s also a metaphor for unholy ground.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve seen this in one particular instance. Conceptually, the wilderness was where Israelites <\/span>believed \u201cdesert demons,\u201d including Azazel, lived. The Azazel material is especially telling, since, as I noted in our earlier discussion, Jewish practice of the Day of Atonement ritual in Jesus\u2019 day included driving the goat \u201cfor Azazel\u201d into the desert outside Jerusalem and pushing it over a<\/span> cliff so it could not return.See chapter 22<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> The wilderness was a place associated with the demonic, so it\u2019s no surpris<\/span>e that this is where Jesus meets the devil.<\/p>\n

But why would the Spirit compel Jesus to go into the desert to face the devil? The answer takes us back to the previous chapter and the Gospels\u2019 presentatio<\/span>n of Jesus\u2019 baptism and revival of God\u2019s kingdom as a new exodus event. In the Old Testament, Israel, the son of God (Exod 4:23<\/a>), passed through the sea (Exod 14\u201315<\/a>) and then ventured out into the wil<\/span>derness on the way to Canaan to re-establish Yahweh\u2019s kingdom. But Israel\u2019s faith and loyalty to Yahweh faltered (Judg 2:11\u201315<\/a>). They were eventually seduced by the hostile divine powers (\u201cdemons\u201d) wh<\/span>ose domain was the wilderness (Deut 32:15\u201320<\/a>). Jesus, the messianic son of God and royal representative of the nation, would succeed where Israel failed. As R. T. France notes:<\/p>\n

The most significant ke<\/span>y to the understanding of this story is to be found in Jesus\u2019 three scriptural quotations. All come from Deut 6\u20138<\/a>, the part of Moses\u2019 address to the Israelites before their entry into Canaan in which <\/span>he reminds them of their forty years of wilderness experiences. It has been a time of preparation and of proving the faithfulness of their God. He has deliberately put them through a time of privation as an educative process. They have been learning, or should have been learning, what i<\/span>t means to live in trusting obedience to God.\u2026 Now another \u201cSon of God\u201d is in the wilderness, this time for forty days rather than forty years, as a preparation for entering into his divine calling. There in the wilderness he too faces those same tests, and he has learned the lessons which Israel had so imperfectly grasped. His Father is testing him in the school of privation, and his triumphant rebuttal of the devil\u2019s suggestions will ensure that the filial bond can survive in spit<\/span>e of the conflict that lies ahead. Israel\u2019s occupation of the promised land was at best a flawed fulfillment of the hopes with which they came to the Jordan, but this <\/span><\/span>new \u201cSon of God\u201d will not fail and the new Exodus (to which<\/span> we have seen a number of allusions in ch. 2<\/a>) will succeed. \u201cWhere Israel of old stumbled and fell, Christ the new Israel stood firm.\u2026 The story of the testing in the wilderness is thus an elaborate t<\/span>ypological presentation of Jesus as himself the true Israel, the \u2018Son of God\u2019 through whom God\u2019s redemptive purpose for his people is now at last to reach its fulfillment.\u201dR. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew<\/em>, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 128<\/a>. France\u2019s quotation includes an excerpt from M. D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew<\/em> (London: SPCK, 1974), 245.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a><\/p>\n

In the first temptation of<\/span> Jesus, Satan tried to entice him into satisfying his hunger by turning stones to bread. The problem of hunger was, of course, an issue in Israel\u2019s wanderings in the wilderness on the way to Canaan. Jesus responds by quoting <\/span>Deuteronomy 8:3<\/a>, which reads in context, \u201cAnd [Yahweh] humbled you and let you go hungry, and then<\/em> he fed you with that which you did not know nor did your ancestors know, in <\/span>order to make you know that not by bread alone but by all that<\/em> goes out of the mouth of Yahweh humankind shall live.\u201d Jesus\u2019 point was that his loyalty was to the invisible Yahweh alone; he would obey<\/span> no other.<\/p>\n

The second temptation was like the first. Satan dared Jesus to jump from the top of the temple to prove he was the son of God, whom God\u2019s angels would protect. Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16<\/a><\/span>, which again is in the context of obedience to Yahweh alone: 16<\/a> \u201cYou shall not put Yahweh your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah. 17<\/a> You shall diligently keep the commandments of Yahweh yo<\/span>ur God and his legal provisions and his rules that he has commanded you\u201d (Deut 6:16\u201317<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The ultimate temptation comes last, and hits directly at Jesus\u2019 ultimate mission\u2014to reclaim the nations that ar<\/span>e rightfully Yahweh\u2019s:<\/p>\n

8<\/a> Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9<\/a> and he said to him, \u201cI will give to you all these things, if y<\/span>ou will fall down and worship me\u201d (Matt 4:8\u20139<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Satan offered Jesus the nations that had been disinherited by Yahweh at Babel. Coming from the \u201cruler of this world\u201d (John 12:31<\/a>), the offer was not a h<\/span>ollow one. As the original rebel, the nachash<\/span> of Genesis 3<\/a> (cf. Rev 12:9<\/a>) had, by New Testament times, achieved the status of the lead opposition to Yahweh.Recall that in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sa\u1e6dan<\/em> (\u201cadversary, challenger\u201d) was not a proper name (see chapter 8<\/a>). The theology of spiritual war and the perceived hierarchy of the unseen forces hostile to God evolved in the progress of revelation. See G. H. Twelftree, \u201cDemon, Devil, Satan,\u201d in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels<\/em> (ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992); T. Elgvin, \u201cBelial, Beliar, Devil, Satan,\u201d in Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship<\/em> (ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000); Philip S. Alexander, \u201cThe Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,\u201d in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment<\/em> (Leiden: Brill, 1998\u201399), 2:351\u201353.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> This was part of the logic of attributing <\/span>the term sa\u1e6dan<\/span> to him as a proper personal name. Recall as well that the nachash<\/span> has been cast down to the \u02beerets<\/span>, a term that referred not only to \u201cearth\u201d but also the realm of the dead, Sheol.See chapters 10\u201311<\/a>, along with footnote 9 on page 281<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> The<\/span> \u201coriginal rebel,\u201d whose domain became earth\/Sheol, nachash<\/span>\/Satan was perceived by Second Temple and New Testament theology as primary authority over all other rebels and their domains. Consequently, <\/span>his lordship over the gods who ruled the nations in the Deuteronomy 32<\/a> worldview of the Old Testament was presumed.<\/p>\n

Had Jesus given in, it would have been an acknowledgment that Satan\u2019s permission was<\/span> needed<\/em> to possess the nations. It wasn\u2019t. Satan presumed power and ownership of something that, ultimately, was not his but God\u2019s. The messaging behind Jesus\u2019 answer is clear: Yahweh will take<\/em> the na<\/span>tions back by his own means in his own time. He doesn\u2019t need them to be given away in a bargain. Jesus was loyal to his Father. Since reclaiming the nations was connected with salvation and redemption from t<\/span>he effects of the fall in Eden, accepting Satan\u2019s offer would have undermined the necessity of the atonement of the cross.As I noted in chapter 28<\/a> and briefly discuss in chapter 37<\/a>, the powers of darkness were not aware of God\u2019s plan of salvation. They, like Satan in the wilderness, knew that Yahweh\u2019s messiah had come and that at least one purpose was the repatriation of the nations of the world under Yahweh\u2019s dominion. But they did not discern that the death of the messiah was the lynchpin to the plan, The death, burial, and resurrection of the messiah would result in the reconstitution of God\u2019s family as one body united to Christ, the Church, which was \u201ccircumcision neutral\u201d and not tied to physical descent from Abraham.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

GAME ON<\/p>\n

Immediately following this confrontation, Jesus \u201creturned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee,\u201d where he preached in the region\u2019s synagogues and was rejected by those in his home town of Nazareth (Luke 4:14\u201315<\/a>). Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus moved out of Nazareth and went to live in Capernaum (Matt 4:12\u201316<\/a>). At Capernaum he began his ministry with a simple but appropriate message: \u201cRepent, because the kingdom of heaven is near\u201d (Matt 4:17<\/a>). Jesus then did two things: called his first disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, and John) and healed a demon-possessed man (Mark 1:16\u201328<\/a>; Luke 4:31\u20135:11<\/a>). Let the holy war begin.Other scholars have noted how the announcement of the kingdom coincides with the expulsion of demons. See Craig A. Evans, \u201cInaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,\u201d Bulletin for Biblical Research<\/em> 15.1 (2005): 49\u201375<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a><\/p>\n

It might sound hard to believe, but this event is first time in the entire Bible we read about a demon being cast out of a person. No such event is ever recorded in the Old Testament. The defeat of demons, falling on the heels of Jesus\u2019 victory over Satan\u2019s temptations, marks the beginning of the re-establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. Jesus himself made this connection absolutely explicit: \u201cIf it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you\u201d (Luke 11:20<\/a>English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>). And since the lesser elohim<\/span> over the nations are cast as demons in the Old Testament, the implications for our study are clear: The ministry of Jesus marked the beginning of repossession of the nations and defeat of their elohim<\/span>.The connection of the gods of the nations installed in Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a> with the demons (Hebrew: shedim<\/em>) of Deut 32:17<\/a> can be traced by comparing Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a> with Deut 4:19\u201320<\/a>; 17:3<\/a>; 29:25\u201326<\/a>; 32:17<\/a>. The interconnections of these passages is why Deuteronomy 32:17<\/a> refers to the shedim<\/em> (\u201cdemons\u201d) as elohim<\/em> (\u201cgods\u201d). Many English translations obscure all this, sometimes in very awkward ways that require ignoring grammar and syntax. 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. As noted in earlier chapters, the term shedim<\/em> comes from Akkadian shadu<\/em>, which describes a guardian spirit. The word choice is appropriate in Deut 32:17<\/a> given the context of Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a> and cosmic geography: the nations are the domains of other gods who are, in turn, their guardians. Instead of administering Yahweh\u2019s just rule in these nations under his authority, preparing them for their return to Yahweh via Israel and the terms of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:3<\/a>), these divine beings lured Yahweh\u2019s children to worship them and abused their charge (Psa 82<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a><\/p>\n

In Luke\u2019s account, Jesus preaches, heals, and casts out more demons after this initial exorcism. He also gathers more disciples. In Luke 9<\/a>, Jesus gathers his twelve disciples together and gives them power and authority over the demons, sending them out to proclaim the kingdom of God (9:1\u20136<\/a>). The symbolic telegraphing of choosing twelve<\/em> disciples (one to correspond to each of the tribes of Israel<\/em>, Yahweh\u2019s domain) is evident.<\/p>\n

As if the intention wasn\u2019t clear enough, in the next chapter Jesus does something dramatic to announce to all who understood the cosmic geography of Babel what was really happening:<\/p>\n

After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where He Himself was going to come (Luke 10:1<\/a>New Revised Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>nrsv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Jesus sent out seventy<\/em> disciples. The number is not accidental.Some translations read seventy-two instead of seventy. Greek New Testament manuscript evidence for both readings is divided among very ancient manuscript traditions. The difference arose on account of the Septuagint, which has \u201cseventy-two\u201d for the number nations in Gen 10<\/a>. The traditional Hebrew (Masoretic) text has the number of nations as seventy. Consequently, either number points to a correlation back to the nations divided at Babel and the cosmic-geographical worldview of <\/em>Deut 32:8\u20139<\/em><\/a>. The number seventy of the traditional Hebrew text is best on external grounds, given the witness to seventy \u201csons of El\u201d in the divine council at Ugarit. As Fitzymer, noting Deut 32:8<\/a>, writes: the number \u201chas often been thought to reflect the nations of the world in the table of Gen 10:2\u201331<\/a> and would symbolize the coming evangelization of the Gentiles and diaspora Jews by the disciples, whereas the Twelve would have been sent to Israel itself\u201d (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Gospel according to Luke X\u2013XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes<\/em>, Anchor Yale Bible 28A [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 846<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a> Seventy is the number of nations listed in Genesis 10<\/a> that were dispossessed at Babel. The seventy \u201creturn with joy\u201d (Luke 10:17<\/a>) and announce to Jesus, \u201cLord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!\u201d Jesus\u2019 response is telling: \u201cI saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven\u201d (10:18<\/a>). The implications are clear: Jesus\u2019 ministry is the beginning of the end for Satan and the gods of the nations. The great reversal is underway.Given the connection made in the New Testament between the nachash<\/em> (serpent) figure and the Hebrew word sa\u1e6dan<\/em> (\u201cadversary\u201d) in Rev 12:9<\/a>, the judicial role of the satan<\/em> described in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1\u20132<\/a>) becomes noteworthy. The role of the satan<\/em> in Job involved roaming through the earth. In the context of the divine courtroom scene of Job 1\u20132<\/a>, the ostensible purpose was to see, among humanity, who was (or wasn\u2019t) obedient to God. This precipitates God\u2019s words about Job. The satan<\/em> issues a challenge to God\u2019s assessment, and perhaps to the justness of God\u2019s ordering of the world. Job becomes the focus of that challenge, as his integrity (and, by implication, God\u2019s) is questioned. Presuming this accusatorial role, when the New Testament writers have Satan expelled from heaven in Luke 10:17\u201318<\/a>, the theological message would be that, with the commencement of the kingdom of God, Satan\u2019s role as \u201caccuser of the brethren\u201d is finished. God is no longer listening to challenges as to whom he deems righteous. That this phrase (\u201caccuser of the brethren\u201d) occurs uniquely in Rev 12:10<\/a>, right after the only verse in the New Testament that connects the terms Satan, devil, and dragon (cf. the serpent) cannot be coincidental. The inauguration of the kingdom of God by the messiah means that Satan, the lord of the dead, has no \u201clegal\u201d authority in God\u2019s court (council) by which to condemn any member of that kingdom. On Job 1\u20132<\/a> and the accuser, see Peggy Day, An Adversary in Heaven: <\/em>\u015b\u0101\u1e6d\u0101n<\/em> in the Hebrew Bible<\/em>, Harvard Semitic Monographs 43 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 79\u201383. For a scholarly treatment of the divine courtroom, tracing its constituent ideas from the Hebrew Bible through the Second Temple period on into the New Testament, see Meira Z. Kensky, Trying Man, Trying God<\/em>, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 289, second series (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2010).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>9<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

GROUND ZERO: The Gates of Hell<\/p>\n

The spiritual skirmishes against the powers of darkness are evident throughout Jesus\u2019 ministry. One of the more dramatic is described in Matthew 16:13\u201320<\/a>. Jesus goes with his disciples to the district of Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asks the famous question, \u201cWho do people say that I am?\u201d Peter answers, \u201cYou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.\u201d Jesus commends Peter:<\/p>\n

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18<\/a> And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against\u2005it (Matt 16:17\u201318<\/a>English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

This passage is among the most controversial in the Bible, as it is a focal point of debate between Roman Catholics, who reference it to argue that the passage makes Peter the leader of the original church (and thus the first pope) and those who oppose that idea. There\u2019s actually something much more cosmic going on here. The location of the incident\u2014Caesarea Philippi\u2014and the reference to the \u201cgates of hell\u201d provide the context for the \u201crock\u201d of which Jesus is speaking.<\/p>\n

The location of Caesarea Philippi should be familiar from our earlier discussions about the wars against the giant clans.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

Caesarea Philippi is adjacent to the Pharpar River. Noting this geography, we can see exactly where Jesus was when he uttered the famous words about \u201cthis rock\u201d and the \u201cgates of hell\u201d to Peter.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

Caesarea Philippi was located in the northern part of the Old Testament region of Bashan, the \u201cplace of the serpent,\u201d at the foot of Mount Hermon.See chapter 24<\/a>. As one scholar of the Bible\u2019s historical geography notes: \u201cThe northern frontier of Canaan is drawn from the Mediterranean Sea to Mount Hor, north of Gebal (Byblos). It extends to Apheka (\u2018Afqa) on the Nahr \u2018Ibrahim then to Lebo-hamath (Labweh) in the Valley of Lebanon, and further encompasses the land of Damascus and northern Transjordan, the Bashan, to the southern end of Lake Chinnereth.\u2026 Extra Canaanite Transjordan is extended to encompass the Bashan as well.\u2026 Hence, the land of Israel includes Mount Hermon and the northern and central part of Transjordan, comprising the Bashan, Gilead and the Plain (Mishor) up to the river Arnon\u201d (Zecharia Kallai, \u201cThe Patriarchal Boundaries, Canaan, and the Land of Israel: Patterns and Application for Biblical Historiography,\u201d Israel Exploration Journal<\/em> 47.1\u20132 [1997]: 71\u201373).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>10<\/a><\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

Things hadn\u2019t changed much by Jesus\u2019 day, at least in terms of spiritual control. You may have noticed on these maps that Caesarea Philippi was also called \u201cPanias.\u201d The early church historian Eusebius notes: \u201cUntil today the mount in front of Panias and Lebanon is known as Hermon and it is respected by nations as a sanctuary.\u201dAs quoted in Rami Arav, \u201cHermon, Mount (Place),\u201d in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary<\/em> (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 159<\/a>. Panias is the Arabic pronunciation for the Greek Banias.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>11<\/a><\/p>\n

The site was famous in the ancient world as a center of the worship of Pan and for a temple to the high god Zeus, considered in Jesus\u2019 day to be incarnate in Augustus Caesar.See \u201cArchaeological Sites in Israel-Banyas: Cult Center of the God Pan,\u201d at the website for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs: http:\/\/www.mfa.gov.il\/MFA\/IsraelExperience\/History\/Pages\/default.aspx<\/a>. For a thorough scholarly treatment of Banias\/Panias and its religious history, including connections to biblical Bashan and Hermon, see Judd H. Burton, \u201cReligion, Society, and Sacred Space at Banias: A Religious History of Banias\/Caesarea Philippi, 21 BC\u2013AD 1635\u201d (PhD diss., Texas Tech University, 2010).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>12<\/a> As one authority notes:<\/p>\n

More than twenty temples have been surveyed on Mt. Hermon and its environs. This is an unprecedented number in comparison with other regions of the Phoenician coast. They appear to be the ancient cult sites of the Mt. Hermon population and represent the Canaanite\/Phoenician concept of open-air cult centers dedicated, evidently, to the celestial gods.Arav, \u201cHermon, Mount (Place),\u201d 159<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>13<\/a><\/p>\n

The reference in the quotation to \u201ccelestial gods\u201d takes our minds back to the \u201chost of heaven,\u201d the sons of God who were put in authority over the nations at Babel (Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a>) who were not to be worshiped by Israelites (Deut 4:19\u201320<\/a>; 17:3<\/a>; 29:25<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The basis for Catholicism\u2019s contention that the Church is built on Peter\u2019s leadership is that his name means \u201cstone.\u201dThe name \u201cPeter\u201d is Greek petros<\/em>, a word that refers broadly to stone. The word translated \u201crock\u201d in Matt 16:18<\/a> is petra<\/em> (\u201cbedrock, massive rock formation\u201d), a word closely related to petros<\/em>. SeeBDAG, 809<\/a>. Peter was also called Cephas (John 1:42<\/a>; Gal 2:11<\/a>), which is a transliteration of kephas<\/em>, deriving from Aramaic kepha\u02be<\/em>, which means \u201crock\u201d as well. On the wordplay, see Gerald L. Borchert, John 1\u201311<\/em>, New American Commentary 25A (Nashville: Broadman &amp; Holman, 1996), 143\u201344<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>14<\/a> For sure there is wordplay going on in Peter\u2019s confession, but I would suggest there is also an important double entendre: the \u201crock\u201d refers to the mountain location<\/em> where Jesus makes the statement. When viewed from this perspective, Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, at \u201cthis rock\u201d (this mountain<\/em>\u2014Mount Hermon). Why? This place was considered the \u201cgates of hell,\u201d the gateway to the realm of the dead, in Old Testament times.See chapter 24<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>15<\/a><\/p>\n

The theological messaging couldn\u2019t be more dramatic. Jesus says he will build his church\u2014and the \u201cgates of hell\u201d will not prevail against it. We often think of this phrase as though God\u2019s people are in a posture of having to bravely fend off Satan and his demons. This simply isn\u2019t correct. Gates are defensive structures, not offensive weapons. The kingdom of God is the aggressor.See the discussion in John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text<\/em>, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 2005), 675<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>16<\/a> Jesus begins at ground zero in the cosmic geography of both testaments to announce the great reversal. It is the gates of hell that are under assault<\/em>\u2014and they will not<\/em> hold up against the Church. Hell will one day be Satan\u2019s tomb<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

BAITING THE ENEMY<\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard to imagine, but the conflict ratchets up one more notch after Peter\u2019s confession.<\/p>\n

Mount Hermon, as readers will recall, was the place where, in Jewish literature such as the book of 1 Enoch, the sons of God of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> chose to launch their rebellion against Yahweh. Jesus had one more statement to make to his unseen enemies.<\/p>\n

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree that the next event in the ministry of Jesus after Peter\u2019s confession was the transfiguration:<\/p>\n

2<\/a> And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3<\/a> and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. 4<\/a> And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. 5<\/a> And Peter said to Jesus, \u201cRabbi, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.\u201d 6<\/a> For he did not know what to say, for they were terrified. 7<\/a> And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, \u201cThis is my beloved Son; listen to him.\u201d 8<\/a> And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only (Mark 9:2\u20138<\/a>English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve already learned the significance of \u201cbeloved\u201d with respect to Jesus\u2014that it is a divinely affixed title marking the rightful heir to David\u2019s throne and, therefore, the kingdom of God on earth.See chapter 31<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>17<\/a> Our focus here is on the event itself.<\/p>\n

In early church tradition, the location of the mount of transfiguration was believed by many to be Mount Tabor.See G. Mussies, \u201cTabor,\u201d in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd ed.<\/em> (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden; Boston; Cologne; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 828<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>18<\/a> The earliest witness to this tradition is the fourth century ad.Mussies writes, \u201cThis tradition can be traced back to Cyril of Jerusalem (348-c<\/em>. 386 ce<\/span>), who speaks of it in passing: \u2018They (Moses and Elijah) were with Him when He was transfigurated on Mt. Thabor and told the disciples about the end which He was to fulfil in Jerusalem\u2019 (Catech<\/em><\/a>. 12, 16<\/a>). His contemporary Jerome (348\u2013420 ce<\/span>) likewise mentions it only casually when describing to Eustochium the journeys made in the Near East by her mother Paula: \u2018She climbed Mt. Thabor on which the Lord was transfigurated\u2019 (Epistle<\/em><\/a> 108, 13<\/a>)\u201d (Mussies, \u201cTabor,\u201d in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible<\/em>, 828<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>19<\/a> The gospels themselves give no name, and so the tradition has no biblical precedent. Mount Hermon is also much higher than Tabor (8,500 feet vs. 1,843 feet), which would fit better with the description of a \u201chigh mountain\u201d by Mark (and in Matt 17:1<\/a>).Avraham Negev, The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land<\/em>, 3rd ed. (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1990); \u201cTabor, Mount (Place),\u201d in Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary<\/em>, vol. 6 (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992)<\/em>, 305<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>20<\/a> Some scholars still hold to the Tabor identification, but many have come to agree that the close proximity of Caesarea Philippi to Mount Hermon and the symbolic-religious associations that relationship entails make Mount Hermon the logical choice for the transfiguration.See John J. Rousseau and Rami Arav, Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary<\/em> (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 209\u201310. Mount Hermon also makes good sense in light of Psa 68:15<\/a>. See chapters 33\u201334<\/a> for more on Bashan.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>21<\/a><\/p>\n

The imagery is striking. We\u2019ve seen already that the Jewish tradition about the descent of the Watchers, the sons of God of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>, informed the writings of Peter and Jude. Now we see that the transfiguration of Jesus takes place on the same location identified by that tradition. Jesus picks Mount Hermon to reveal to Peter, James, and John exactly who he is\u2014the embodied glory-essence of God, the divine Name made visible by incarnation. The meaning is just as transparent: I\u2019m putting the hostile powers of the unseen world on notice. I\u2019ve come to earth to take back what is mine. The kingdom of God is at hand.<\/em><\/p>\n

The account of Peter\u2019s confession at the foot of Mount Hermon and the revelation of the transfiguration on its unholy slopes marked a key transition point in Jesus\u2019 life, particularly as the Gospel of Mark presents it. After he throws down the gauntlet at the transfiguration, he begins to move toward Jerusalem to his death. One scholar puts it this way:<\/p>\n

Mark not only presents a consistent and historically probable account of the movements of Jesus during the last weeks or months of his life \u2026 indeed there is good reason for accepting the account as historically accurate. How long the period was cannot be determined. But it begins with Peter\u2019s Confession near Caesarea Philippi and a practically simultaneous conviction or announcement on Jesus\u2019 part that he could not expect such recognition from the multitudes or the authorities, but that he must appear in Jerusalem and there in some way or measure suffer the woes of the last days before the kingdom of God could come.See Chester Charlton McCown, \u201cThe Geography of Jesus\u2019 Last Journey to Jerusalem,\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature<\/em> 51:2 (1932): 107\u201329. McCown, along with most scholars, does not see the gospel accounts as presenting a reliable chronology of Jesus\u2019 ministry. Rather, each had his own literary-theological agenda, which accounts for differences in the geographical presentation in the Gospels of Jesus\u2019 ministry. McCown sees Mark as the most succinct record and, consequently for him, the most historically reliable accounting.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>22<\/a><\/p>\n

The enemy knows who Jesus is, but, as noted earlier, the forces of darkness do not know the plan.See footnote 5 on page 279<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>23<\/a> Jesus has baited them into action, and act they will. He has given them the rope, and they will eagerly hang themselves with it. Jesus will go to Jerusalem to drink from the cup that the Father has planned for him. But the instrument of death will be the catalyst that launches the kingdom of God in its full force.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/span><\/span>CHAPTER 33<\/p>\n

A Beneficial Death<\/p>\n

By the time of the events in the region known in Old Testament days as Bashan\u2014Peter\u2019s confession at Caesarea Philippi and the transfiguration on Mount Hermon\u2014Jesus knew t<\/span>hat the hour of his death was fast approaching. He had provoked a confrontation with intelligent evil in many ways over the years of his ministry, but what he did and said in those two places was especially defiant. The move was calculated.<\/p>\n

THE BULLS OF BASHAN<\/p>\n

All four gospels describe the crucifixion of Jesus in varying degrees of detail. One of the more thorough descriptions is that of Matthew:<\/p>\n

35<\/a> And when they had crucified him, they <\/span>divided his clothes among themselves by casting lots. 36<\/a> And they sat down and were watching over him there. 37<\/a> And they put above his head the charge against him in writing: \u201cThis is Jesus, the king <\/span>of the Jews.\u201d 38<\/a> Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39<\/a> And those who passed by reviled him, shaking their heads 40<\/a> and saying, \u201cThe one who would destroy t<\/span>he temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross!\u201d 41<\/a> In the same way also the chief priests, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking <\/span>him, saying, 42<\/a> \u201cHe saved others; he is not able to save himself! He is the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him! 43<\/a> He trusts in God; let him deliver him n<\/span>ow if he wants to, because he said, \u2018I am the Son of God\u2019!\u201d 44<\/a> And in the same way even the robbers who were crucified with him were reviling him.<\/p>\n

45<\/a> Now from the sixth hour, darkness came over all th<\/span>e land until the ninth hour. 46<\/a> And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, \u201cEli, Eli, lema sabachthani<\/span>?\u201d (that is, \u201cMy God, my God, why have you forsaken me?\u201d) (Matt 27:35\u201346<\/a>)<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Many readers will know that Matthew tracks on Psalm 22<\/a> in this description. The parallels are impossible to miss:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Matthew 27<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Psalm 22<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

They divided his clothes among themselves by casting lots (v. 35<\/a><\/span>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cThey divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots\u201d (v. 18<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u201cThose who passed by reviled him, shaking their heads.\u2026 In the same way also the chief priests, along with the scri<\/span>bes and elders, were mocking him\u201d (vv. 39<\/a>, 41<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cAll who see me mock me. They open wide their lips; they shake the head \u2026 they gaze, they look at me\u201d (vv. 7<\/a>, 17<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u201cJesus cried out with a loud voice, s<\/span>aying, \u2018Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani<\/span>?\u2019 (that is, \u2018My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?\u2019)\u201d (v. 46<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cMy God, my God why have you forsaken me?\u201d (v. 1<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

In addition to the clear textual links between<\/span> Matthew and Psalm 22<\/a>, scholars have long noticed that elements of Psalm 22<\/a> appear to describe injuries and conditions congruent with crucifixion:<\/p>\n

\u2022 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are ou<\/span>t of joint (v. 14<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\u2022 My strength is dry like a potsherd, and my tongue is sticking to my jaws (v. 15<\/a>).Readers may presume I\u2019ve missed verse 16<\/a> (v. 17<\/a> in the Hebrew text): \u201cThey have pierced my hands and feet.\u201d (That rendering is the esv<\/span> translation.) I have not. Most Hebrew manuscripts of this verse do not have a reference to piercing the hands and feet, but read something to the effect: \u201cLike the lion they are at<\/em> my hands and feet\u201d (leb<\/span>) or \u201cmy hands and feet have shriveled\u201d (NRSV). The verse is arguably one of the most textually difficult in the Old Testament. With respect to our ensuing discussion, the lion imagery is interesting, since that imagery is applied to the devil in the New Testament (1 Pet 5:8<\/a>). For piercing, see Zech 12:10<\/a>. The scholarly literature on this verse is copious. A sampling illustrates the interpretive quandary: John Kaltner, \u201cPsalm 22:17b: Second Guessing \u2018The Old Guess,\u2019\u2005\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature 117:3<\/em> (1998): 503\u201306<\/a>; Brent A. Strawn, \u201cPsalm 22:17b: More Guessing,\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature<\/em> 119:3 (2000): 439\u201351<\/a>; Kristin M. Swenson, \u201cPsalm 22:17: Circling around the Problem Again,\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature<\/em> 123:4 (2004): 637\u201348<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

Less apparent are some under-the-surface connections to the divine council worldview and its co<\/span>smic holy war context. If you were to read all of Psalm 22<\/a> at this point in our journey, verse 12<\/a> would no doubt jump off the page: \u201cMany bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me.\u201d<\/p>\n

STRONG BULLS OF BASHAN<\/em>?<\/p>\n

We know by now that Bashan carries a lot of theological baggage.See chapter 24<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> It was the Old Testament version of the gates of hell, the gateway to the underworld realm of the dead. It was<\/span> known as \u201cthe place of the serpent\u201d outside the Bible. It\u2019s associated with Mount Hermon, the place where Jews believed the rebellious sons of God from Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> descended.<\/p>\n

Simply put, if you wan<\/span>ted to conjure up images of the demonic and death, you\u2019d refer to Bashan. If it\u2019s true that elements of Psalm 22<\/a> prefigure the crucifixion, it makes sense that a reference to Bashan would be part of t<\/span>hat. But we still need a bit more context for understanding it.<\/p>\n

In earlier discussion of Bashan, I briefly noted the presence of the cult site at Dan located within its northern region. The site was i<\/span>nfamous with respect to the idolatrous worship of Samaria, the renegade northern kingdom of the ten tribes of Israel who forsook David\u2019s dynasty after Solomon died. This confederacy and rival kingdom was set up by Jeroboam (<\/span>1 Kgs 12:25\u201333<\/a>). So the worship of other gods\u2014gods besides Yahweh who were called demons (shedim<\/span>)\u2014was part of the identity of Bashan.<\/p>\n

That helps us process Amos 4<\/a>, where the \u201cb<\/span>ovines of Bashan\u201d also appear:<\/p>\n

1<\/a> Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who live on the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the powerless, who crush the poor, who say to their husbands, \u201cBring something so t<\/span>hat we may drink!\u201d 2<\/a> My Lord Yahweh has sworn by his holiness that, \u201cBehold, the days are coming upon you when they will take you away with hooks, even the last of you with fishing hooks (Amos 4:1\u20132<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

Since the \u201ccows of Bashan\u201d are said to speak to their \u201chusbands,\u201d scholars are universally agreed that Amos is specifically addressing upper-class women of northern Israel who were idolaters of the g<\/span>olden calves of Bashan. I wouldn\u2019t disagree with that necessarily, but there\u2019s more to the wording than that.<\/p>\n

Amos could be targeting temple priestesses who served the gods along with male priests. It<\/span> is also quite possible that the cows of Bashan are the deities themselves in the form of the idols. This possibility is strengthened by noticing their crimes: \u201coppressing the poor [dallim<\/span>]\u201d and \u201ccrus<\/span>hing the needy [ebyonim<\/span>].\u201d These same two Hebrew words are used in Psalm 82<\/a>, where the corrupt elohim<\/span> are accused of exactly these same crimes (Psa 82:3\u20134<\/a>).The association is even stronger if the word \u201cHarmon\u201d in verse 3<\/a> is changed to \u201cHermon.\u201d The reference to being \u201cdragged off to Harmon\u201d has puzzled scholars, since there is no such place known. Some choose to change the text so that it reads \u201cgarbage dump,\u201d but most scholars think the original text should read \u201cHermon.\u201d The Hebrew letter that produces the \u201ch\u201d in \u201cHarmon\u201d (\u05d4<\/span>) is nearly identical to the one that produces \u201cKhermon\u201d \/ \u201cHermon\u201d (\u05d7<\/span>), and so most scholars think the puzzle is the result of a simple scribal error. See Elmer H. Dyck, \u201cHarmon (Place),\u201d in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary<\/em> (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 60\u201361<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a><\/p>\n

For our purposes, what we know for sure ab<\/span>out Bashan is that it has secure associations with demonic powers. Although Psalm 22<\/a> wasn\u2019t originally messianic in focus, Matthew\u2019s use of it fixes that association.The word for \u201cmessiah\u201d (mashiach<\/em>) appears nowhere in Psa 22<\/a>. See chapter 28<\/a> for the cryptic nature of messianic prophecy.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> The implication is that Jesus, a<\/span>t the moment of agony and death, was surrounded by the \u201cbulls of Bashan\u201d\u2014demonic elohim<\/span> who had been the foes of Yahweh and his children for millennia.Although it\u2019s doubtful that he was thinking of Bashan, C. S. Lewis\u2019s scene in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe<\/em> depicting the voluntary death of Aslan on the stone table, surrounded by a horde of ghastly creatures under the command of the White Witch, is a vivid analogy to the point of Psa 22:12<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a><\/p>\n

THE FALL OF BASHAN<\/p>\n

Bashan was ground zero for Old Testament demonic geography. But for all the darkness conjured up by the term, references to \u201cBashan\u201d in the Old Testament aren\u2019t all sinister. Psalm <\/span>68:15\u201323<\/a> describes a time when Yahweh takes ownership of Bashan.<\/p>\n

15<\/a> A mountain of God is the mountain of Bashan;<\/p>\n

a mountain of many peaks is the mountain of Bashan.<\/p>\n

16<\/a> Why do you look with hostility, <\/span>O many-peaked mountains?<\/p>\n

This mountain God desires for his dwelling.<\/p>\n

Yes, Yahweh will abide in it forever.<\/p>\n

17<\/a> The chariots of God<\/p>\n

are twice ten thousand, with thousands doubled.<\/p>\n

The Lord is among them<\/span> at Sinai, distinctive in victory.<\/p>\n

18<\/a> You have ascended on high; you have led away captives.<\/p>\n

You have received gifts from among humankind,<\/p>\n

and even from the rebellious, so that Yah God may dwell there<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The first thing that sticks out in this passage is that the infamous Mount Bashan is called the \u201cmountain of God\u201d (68:15<\/a>). The phrase \u201cmountain of God\u201d is actually \u201cmountain of elohim<\/span>\u201d (har elohim<\/span>) <\/span>in Hebrew. That means it can be translated as either \u201cmountain of God\u201d or \u201cmountain of the gods.\u201d<\/p>\n

The latter makes more sense than the former in context for the very observable reason that the two mou<\/span>ntains in the passage\u2014Bashan and Sinai\u2014are rivals at the beginning of the psalm. The mountain of the gods (Bashan) \u201clooks with hatred\u201d at Yahweh\u2019s mountain, Mount Sinai. God desired Sinai for his abode, and the psalmist asks Bashan, \u201cWhy the envy?\u201d This would make little sense if Bashan was already un<\/span>der Yahweh\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n

The psalmist intends a contrast of association. In the Old Testament, Sina<\/span>i is firmly associated with Yahweh and Israel. Bashan is the polar opposite of Sinai. It symbolizes unholy ground.<\/p>\n

The rest of the psalm describes an assault on Bashan by Yahweh and his holy army. We <\/span>know the description refers to spiritual warfare since there was no such engagement of the Israelites in the Old Testament, and also because verse 17<\/a> clearly speaks of a divine army. Yahweh, the divin<\/span>e warrior, will one day tear down the strongholds of Bashan. He will lead a train of captives down from the mountain (v. 18<\/a>).<\/p>\n

TAKING PRISONERS<\/p>\n

Psalm 68:18<\/a>, where Yahweh leads a host of captives, may sound familiar. Paul cites the verse in Ephesians 4<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Psalm 68:18<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ephesians 4:8<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

You have ascended on high; you have led away cap<\/span>tives. You have received gifts from among humankind.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Therefore it says,<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men\u201d (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

If you look closely, there is a problem i<\/span>n the quotation. For Paul, Psalm 68:18<\/a> was about Jesus ascending on high and giving<\/em> gifts to humanity. Jesus is somehow the fulfillment of Psalm 68<\/a>. But the Old Testament text has God ascending and re<\/em><\/span>ceiving<\/em> gifts.<\/p>\n

Reconciling this conflict of ideas requires getting some context first.<\/p>\n

Psalm 68<\/a> gives us a standard description of conquest, known from other ancient texts and even from ancient sculpt<\/span>ure and iconography. The victorious captain of the army leads the enemy captives behind him; they are the human booty of war.<\/p>\n

When Paul quotes Psalm 68:18<\/a> in Ephesians 4:8<\/a>, he does so thinking of Jesu<\/span>s. Part of the confusion over how to interpret what Paul is saying is that so many commentators have assumed that captives are being liberated<\/em> in Ephesians 4<\/a>. That isn\u2019t the case. That idea would flat<\/span>ly contradict the well-understood Old Testament imagery. There is no liberation; there is conquest<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Paul\u2019s words identify Jesus with Yahweh. In Psalm 68:18<\/a> it was Yahweh who is described as the conque<\/span>ror of the demonic stronghold. For Paul it is Jesus, the incarnate second Yahweh, surrounded by the demonic elohim<\/span>, \u201cbulls of Bashan,\u201d fulfilling the imagery of Psalm 68<\/a>. Jesus puts the evil gods \u201cto <\/span>an open shame\u201d (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>) by \u201ctriumphing over them by [the cross]\u201d (Lexham English Bible
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>leb<\/a>) (Col 2:15<\/a>). Psalm 68:18<\/a> and Ephesians 4:8<\/a> are in agreement if one sees conquest, not liberation.<\/p>\n

What about the \u201creceiving\u201d and \u201cgiv<\/span>ing\u201d problem? Paul\u2019s wording doesn\u2019t deny there was conquest. What it does is point to the result<\/em> of the conquest.<\/p>\n

In the ancient world the conqueror would parade the captives and demand tribute for h<\/span>imself. Jesus is the conqueror of Psalm 68<\/a>, and the booty does indeed rightfully belong to him. But booty was also distributed after a conquest. Paul knows that. He quotes Psalm 68:18<\/a> to make the poin<\/span>t that after Jesus conquered his demonic enemies, he distributed the benefits of the conquest to his people, believers. Specifically, those benefits are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (<\/span>Eph 4:11<\/a>).<\/p>\n

But how is Paul getting that idea? He explains himself in Ephesians 4:9\u201310<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Psalm 68:18<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ephesians 4:8<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

You have ascended on high; you have led away captives. You have received gifts<\/span> from among humankind.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Therefore it says,<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/td>\n\n

(In saying, \u201cHe ascended,\u201d what does it mean but that he had also descended i<\/span>nto the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Christ\u2019s conquest results in the dispensing of gifts <\/span>to his people after ascending (in conquest) in verse 8<\/a>. But that ascent was accompanied by a descent (\u201cinto the lower regions\u201d).<\/p>\n

Paul\u2019s logic is not at all clear, at least at first. What ascent and de<\/span>scent is he talking about? The text does not make clear the order of events, or even whether there was<\/em> an intended order.<\/p>\n

The key to understanding Paul\u2019s thinking is the descent. There are two possibl<\/span>e explanations. The most common view is that, upon his death, Jesus descended into the lower regions of the earth.<\/em> This is the way Ephesians 4:9<\/a> is worded in many translations. In this case, the langu<\/span>age speaks both of the grave and of cosmic Sheol, the underworld. This is possible since elsewhere in the New Testament we read that Jesus descended into the underworld to confront the \u201cspirits in prison\u201d\u2014the original transgressing sons of God from <\/span>Genesis 6<\/a> (1 Pet 3:18\u201322<\/a>).See chapter 12<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> But that visitation may not be Paul\u2019s point of reference here.<\/p>\n

The second view is reflected in the English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>, which is the transl<\/span>ation I used for Ephesians 4<\/a>. Note that instead of \u201clower parts of the earth\u201d the English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a> inserts a comma: \u201cthe lower regions, the earth.\u201d The effect of the comma is that Jesus descended to \u201cthe lower reg<\/span>ions, [in other words] the earth<\/em>.\u201d This option fits the context better (the gifts are given to people who are of course on earth) and has some other literary advantages. If this option is correct, the<\/span>n the descent of verses 9\u201310<\/a> does not refer to Jesus\u2019 time in the grave, but rather to the Holy Spirit\u2019s coming to earth after Jesus\u2019 conquering ascension on the day of Pentecost.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

JESUS AND THE SPIRIT<\/p>\n

This view makes sense in that the ascent (victory) would refer to the resurrection, and the descent would speak of the ensuing coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. They are both tri<\/em><\/span>umphs<\/em>. But it raises an obvious question: Is Paul confusing Jesus with the Spirit?<\/p>\n

Perhaps we should instead ask, is the Spirit Jesus in some way? The question sounds odd, but it\u2019s akin to asking if t<\/span>he man Jesus is God in some way. The answer, as we\u2019ve seen in previous chapters, is that Jesus is the second Yahweh, the embodied Yahweh of the Old Testament. But Jesus is not the \u201cFather\u201d Yahweh. He therefore <\/span>is but isn\u2019t<\/em> Yahweh. It\u2019s the same with the Spirit. The Spirit is Yahweh, and so he is Jesus as well, but not incarnate or embodied. The Spirit is but isn\u2019t<\/em> Jesus, just as Jesus is but isn\u2019t<\/em><\/span> Yahweh the Father. The same sort of \u201ctwo Yahwehs\u201d idea from the Old Testament is found in the New Testament with respect to Jesus and the Spirit. That<\/em> is the source of Trinitarian theology.There are seeds of this in the Old Testament as well, where the distinction between the Spirit and God is blurred just as the distinction between the Angel and God is blurred. For example, in Isa 63:7\u201311<\/a>, an account of the wilderness wanderings, Yahweh is mentioned (v. 7<\/a>) along with the Angel of his presence (v. 9<\/a>). Yahweh was the savior of Israel (v. 8<\/a>), but so was the Angel (v. 9<\/a>); thus the writer interchanges the two. In verse 10<\/a> the Israelites are said to have \u201crebelled against\u201d (Hebrew: marah<\/em>) and \u201cgrieved\u201d (Hebrew: atsab<\/em>) the Holy Spirit. Psa 78:40\u201341<\/a> is a parallel passage to Isa 63:7\u201311<\/a>, but that passage has the rebellion and grieving (the Hebrew words are the same) directed against \u201cthe Holy One of Israel,\u201d a well-known title for God. Taken together, the two passages interchange Yahweh, the Angel, and the Spirit. In Ezek 8<\/a> the prophet sees a divine being in the form of a man (v. 2<\/a>). The being is embodied, since he extends his hand to Ezekiel (v. 3<\/a>) and grabs him by a lock of the hair to lift him up. But it is the Spirit<\/em> who is said to lift him up (v. 3<\/a>). Later (vv. 5\u20136<\/a>), the entity speaks to Ezekiel and refers to the temple as \u201cmy sanctuary.\u201d Is the entity the Spirit, who is identified as Yahweh by virtue of his reference to \u201cmy sanctuary,\u201d or is he the embodied Yahweh, who seems to have been the Spirit as well? The point is that the language of the passage blurs the distinctions between three figures: Yahweh, the second (embodied) Yahweh, and the Spirit.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a><\/p>\n

Viewed a<\/span>gainst this backdrop, the idea that Jesus and the Spirit might be identified with each other isn\u2019t so strange. In fact, it helps us make sense of some things certain New Testament writers said about the Spiri<\/span>t.<\/p>\n

It is clear that Jesus and the Spirit are different persons. That\u2019s clear from passages about Jesus\u2019 baptism (Matt 3:16<\/a>), his temptation (Matt 4:1<\/a>), and other passages (Matt 28:18\u201320<\/a>; Acts <\/span>7:55<\/a>). Jesus also said he and the Father would send the Spirit (John 14:26<\/a>; 15:26<\/a>; cf. Luke 24:49<\/a>). The Spirit was to come and indwell and empower believers. The events on Pentecost in Acts 2<\/a> mark the<\/span> coming of the Spirit.<\/p>\n

But the New Testament also identifies the Spirit with Jesus:Note that the effect of these verses is to make Jesus and God transposable as well (i.e., the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus is the same Spirit, and so Jesus and God are interchangeable).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a><\/p>\n

6<\/a> And they traveled through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaki<\/span>ng the message in Asia. 7<\/a> And when they came to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus<\/strong> did not permit them (Acts 16:6\u20137<\/a>).<\/p>\n

9<\/a> But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, <\/span>if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ<\/strong>, this person does not belong to him. 10<\/a> But if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spi<\/span>rit is life because of righteousness (Rom 8:9\u201310<\/a>).<\/p>\n

For I know that this will turn out to me for deliverance through your prayer and the support of the Spirit of Jesus Christ<\/strong> (Phil 1:19<\/a>).<\/p>\n

4<\/a> But when th<\/span>e fullness of time came, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5<\/a> in order that he might redeem those under the law, in order that we might receive the adoption. 6<\/a> And because you <\/span>are sons, God sent out the Spirit of his Son<\/strong> into our hearts, crying out, \u201cAbba! (Father!)\u201d (Gal 4:4\u20136<\/a>).<\/p>\n

10<\/a> Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace meant for you sought <\/span>and made careful inquiry, 11<\/a> investigating for what person or which time the Spirit of Christ<\/strong> in them was indicating when he testified beforehand to the sufferings with reference to Christ and the glo<\/span>ries after these things (1 Pet 1:10\u201311<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Paul\u2019s quotation directs our attention in two important ways. First, not only did the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross mean the fall of Bashan, emblematic of th<\/span>e cosmic powers of evil, but it also triggered the empowerment of the Church by the gifts of the Spirit. Second, that victory and empowerment also had something to do with Pentecost.<\/p>\n

Paul\u2019s thought ab<\/span>out Pentecost in Ephesians 4<\/a> is quite the understatement. As it turned out, what happened at Pentecost cannot be understood without cosmic geography\u2014the Deuteronomy 32<\/a> worldview. Like the gospel accou<\/span>nts, there\u2019s much more behind Acts 2<\/a> than we might have presumed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

CHAPTER 34<\/p>\n

Infiltration<\/p>\n

The day of Pentecost is an event remembered by millions of Christians each year. Although Acts 2<\/a> is one of the more familiar passages in the New Testament outside the Gospels, what the passage describes as happening that day definitely sounds strange.<\/p>\n

1<\/a> And when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in the same place. 2<\/a> And suddenly a sound like a violent rushing wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3<\/a> And divided tongues like fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4<\/a> And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them ability to speak out.<\/p>\n

5<\/a> Now there were Jews residing in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6<\/a> And when this sound occurred, the crowd gathered and was in confusion, because each one was hearing them speaking in his own language. 7<\/a> And they were astounded and astonished, saying, \u201cBehold, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8<\/a> And how do we hear, each one of us, in our own native language? 9<\/a> Parthians and Medes and Elamites and those residing in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10<\/a> Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya toward Cyrene, and the Romans who were in town, 11<\/a> both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs\u2014we hear them speaking in our own languages the great deeds of God!\u201d 12<\/a> And all were amazed and greatly perplexed, saying to one another, \u201cWhat can this mean?\u201d 13<\/a> But others jeered and said, \u201cThey are full of sweet new wine!\u201d (Acts 2:1\u201313<\/a>).<\/p>\n

This description of the events of Pentecost is sprinkled with divine council imagery and has secure connections to the supernatural Deuteronomy 32<\/a> worldview we\u2019ve talked about at length. Revealing those features is central to understanding what\u2019s happening in Acts 2<\/a> and the role it plays in Yahweh\u2019s plan to reclaim the nations and restore Eden.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

DIVINE COMMISSIONING<\/p>\n

The first two points of the description that deserve attention are the \u201cviolent rushing wind\u201d and the \u201cdivided tongues like fire.\u201d Both are images in the Old Testament associated with God\u2019s presence\u2014the disciples are being commissioned by God in his council like the prophets of old.<\/p>\n

The whirlwind is familiar from divine encounters of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1<\/a>, 11<\/a>) and Job (Job 38:1<\/a>; 40:6<\/a>). Ezekiel\u2019s divine commissioning likewise has the enthroned Yahweh coming with great wind (Ezek 1:4<\/a>). The whirlwind motif is often accompanied by storm imagery, which can also include fire (Isa 30:30<\/a>).See E. J. Mabie, \u201cChaos,\u201d in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry &amp; Writings<\/em> (ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 41\u201354<\/a> (esp. 46\u201347<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> Having \u201cwind\u201d as an element in describing God\u2019s presence makes sense given that the Hebrew word translated \u201cwind\u201d can also be rendered \u201cspirit\/Spirit\u201d (ruach<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Ezekiel\u2019s commissioning is particularly instructive since not only does Yahweh come to him with a wind, but with the wind there is \u201cfire flashing\u201d (Ezek 1:4<\/a>). Burning fire is a familiar element of divine-council throne-room scenes (e.g., Isa 6:4<\/a>, 6<\/a>; Dan 7:9<\/a>). It is especially prominent in the appearances at Sinai (Exod 3:2<\/a>; 19:18<\/a>; 20:18<\/a>; Isa 4:5<\/a>).See also 2 Sam 22:9\u201313<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> Fire in the Old Testament was an identifier of the presence of God, a visible manifestation of Yahweh\u2019s glory and essence.See also Gen 15:17<\/a> and Patrick D. Miller, \u201cFire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel,\u201d Catholic Biblical Quarterly<\/em> 27 (1965): 256\u201361.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> It was also a way of describing divine beings in God\u2019s service (Judg 13:20<\/a>; Psa 104:4<\/a>).The flame of Gen 3:24<\/a> may actually describe an individual divine being (see Ronald Hendel, \u201c\u2005\u2018The Flame of the Whirling Sword\u2019: A Note on Genesis 3:24,\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature 104:4<\/em> [1985]: 671\u201374<\/a>). The seraphim<\/em> of Isa 6:2<\/a>, 6<\/a> that attend Yahweh\u2019s throne may also have been fiery beings if the noun derives from the verb saraph<\/em> (\u201cto burn\u201d). It is more likely that seraphim<\/em> derives from the Hebrew noun saraph<\/em> (\u201cserpent\u201d), which in turn is drawn from Egyptian throne guardian terminology and conceptions. If that is the case, Egyptian imagery relating to the divine throne guardians includes fire as well. See Philippe Proven\u00e7al, \u201cRegarding the Noun saraph<\/em> in the Hebrew Bible,\u201d Journal for the Study of the Old Testament<\/em> 29.3 (2005): 371\u201379.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a><\/p>\n

The wind and fire in Acts 2<\/a> signified to readers informed by divine council scenes that the gathered followers of Jesus were being commissioned by divine encounter. They were being chosen to preach the good news of Jesus\u2019 work. The fire connects them to the throne room. The tongues are emblematic of their speaking ministry.What happened on the day of Pentecost shouldn\u2019t have been completely unexpected. It might certainly be the case that none of the gathered disciples were around on the day of Jesus\u2019 baptism when John the Baptist said that Jesus would baptize people \u201cwith the Holy Spirit and with fire\u201d (Matt 3:11<\/a>; Luke 3:16<\/a>). But we know from Acts 1:1\u20135<\/a> that Jesus had indeed told the disciples he would send the Spirit after his resurrection and therefore gave them orders to wait for that event (see John 14:26<\/a>; 15:26<\/a>; Luke 24:49<\/a>; John 7:39<\/a>). Additionally, although baptism \u201cwith the Holy Spirit and with fire\u201d sounds like people would be baptized with two separate things (the Holy Spirit; fire), the grammar and syntax of these passages allow an equation or identification of these two elements. That is, they speak of the same thing, which would make good sense since fire symbolized the divine presence. See David L. Turner, Matthew<\/em>, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 115\u201316<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

BACK TO BABEL<\/p>\n

At first glance there doesn\u2019t seem to be much in the Pentecost description that relates to the incident at Babel which had such cosmic-geographical and theological importance in the Old Testament. That first glace would be mistaken.<\/p>\n

There are two key terms in the passage that connect it back to Babel in an unmistakable way. The flaming tongues are described as \u201cdivided\u201d (Greek: diame<\/span>rizo<\/span>), and the crowd, composed of Jews from all the nations, is said to have been \u201cconfused\u201d (Greek: suncheo<\/span>).The more technical, correct transliteration for the latter term is sygcheo<\/em>. The one in the running text is to facilitate pronunciation.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a><\/p>\n

The second term, suncheo<\/span> (v. 6<\/a>), is the same word used in the Septuagint version of the Babel story in Genesis 11:7<\/a>: \u201cCome, let us go down and confuse<\/strong> [Septuagint: suncheo<\/span>] their language there.\u201dA handful of New Testament commentators have noticed this but were at a loss as to what to make of it since they lack the divine council worldview backdrop with which Old Testament scholars are familiar. For example, C. K. Barrett says, \u201cThe use of the word suggests an intended allusion to the story of Babel, but the word, or words (\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd<\/span>), are not uncommon (in the NT Acts only: 2:6<\/a>; 9:22<\/a>; 19:32<\/a>; 21:27<\/a>, 31<\/a>) and it would be unwise to press too strongly the thought of a reversal of the dispersion of mankind as a result of diversity of speech\u201d (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles; The Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols.<\/em> [Edinburgh: T&amp;T Clark International, 2004], 119<\/a>). Barrett is correct that the reversal of the dispersion has nothing directly<\/em> to do with diversity of speech<\/em>. But it has everything to do with regathering the disinherited nations given up in Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a>, the event of Babel.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a> The multiplicity of nations represented at Pentecost is another link to Babel. Each nation had a national language. More importantly, all those nations referred to in Acts 2:9\u201311<\/a> had been disinherited by Yahweh when they were divided.<\/p>\n

The other word of importance (diamerizo<\/span>; v. 3<\/a>) is also used in the Septuagint, but not in Genesis 11<\/a>. It is found exactly where one would expect it if one were thinking in cosmic-geographical terms\u2014Deuteronomy 32:8<\/a> (Septuagint: \u201cWhen the Most High divided [diamerizo<\/span>] the nations, when he scattered humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the nations\u201d).The Septuagint renders the Hebrew beney elohim<\/em> (\u201csons of God\u201d) as \u201cangels.\u201d For full discussion, see Michael S. Heiser, \u201cDeuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,\u201d Bibliotheca Sacra<\/em> 158 (January\u2013March 2001): 52\u201374<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a> This is a strong indication that Luke is drawing on the Septuagint, and specifically the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11<\/a> and Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139<\/a>, to describe the events on Pentecost. What happened there has some relationship to what happened at Babel\u2014but what is it?<\/p>\n

At Pentecost the tongues are \u201cdivided\u201d (diamerizo<\/span>) or, perhaps more coherently, \u201cdistributed\u201d among the disciples as they are commissioned to preach the good news to the throngs at Pentecost. As Jews gathered in Jerusalem for the celebration heard and embraced the news of Jesus and his resurrection, Jews who embraced Jesus as messiah would carry that message back to their home countries\u2014the nations. Babel\u2019s disinheritance was going to be rectified by the message of Jesus, the second Yahweh incarnate, and his Spirit. The nations would again be his.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

GO INTO ALL THE EARTH<\/p>\n

The really amazing thing about Acts 2<\/a> is the part people skip: the list of nations. To understand what Luke\u2019s list telegraphs, we have to go back to Genesis 11<\/a> again. Here\u2019s a ma<\/span>p of the nations listed in Genesis 10<\/a> that were divided in Genesis 11<\/a>:Some Bible maps have \u201cGether\u201d near India, but this is hardly correct. As David Baker notes in the Anchor Bible Dictionary<\/em><\/a>, \u201cAccording to the Table of Nations (Gen 10:23<\/a>), Gether is the son of Aram, the forefather of the Arameans or Syrians, who himself was the son of Shem, son of Noah. He and his descendants are thus Semitic. The corresponding genealogy in 1 Chr 1:17<\/a> places Gether as a son of Shem and brother of Aram. This is probably due to a simple copying error by an early scribe. His eye slipped from the first to the second of two lines which ended with the same word, \u2018Aram,\u2019 leading to the loss of the original line \u2018the sons of Aram (are)\u2019 which is still found in Genesis. Little else is known about the identity or geographical location of Gether, although the association with Aram would suggest an Aramean city\u201d (see David W. Baker, \u201cGether [Person],\u201d in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary<\/em> [ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992], 997<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>9<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Map<\/p>\n

What are we looking at? The key idea to grasp is that t<\/span>he \u201cTable of Nations\u201d in Genesis represents the known world at the time it was written<\/em>. The Old Testament is a product of the ancient Near Eastern environment in which the biblical writers lived. Ther<\/span>e are no references in it (or anywhere else in the Bible) to locations like China, South America, North America, or Australia. What this means is that the Old Testament description of the disinheriting of the nations in <\/span>Genesis 11<\/a> and Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139<\/a> is based on the nations known in biblical times. The Table of Nations lists known nations east to west, from eastern Mesopotamia to Tarshish (Gen <\/span>10:4<\/a>), the most remote western point. What lay beyond Tarshish, through what we now call the Straits of Gibraltar, was a complete mystery to the biblical writers.<\/p>\n

The list of nations in Acts 2<\/a> is not <\/span>merely a rehashing of all the names in Genesis 10<\/a>. Many names are different. A few observations about the list, however, reveal that it nevertheless correlates with the Table of Nations and its signif<\/span>icance for cosmic geography.<\/p>\n

First, the book of Acts is about the spread of the gospel to the known world at the time<\/em>. The book begins with the statement in Acts 1:8<\/a> that the disciples who will encoun<\/span>ter the Spirit are to be Jesus\u2019 witnesses to the known world: \u201cBut you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth\u201d (<\/span>English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>). The \u201cend of the earth\u201d in the days of Luke, and of course the apostle Paul, was the extent of the Roman Empire.<\/p>\n

\"Map<\/p>\n

This brings us to <\/span>a second important observation: In terms of geographical coverage, the reach of the gospel chronicled in the book of Acts constitutes an <\/em>east-to-west sweep through the known world<\/em>. Establishing that r<\/span>equires a closer inspection of the nations listed in Acts 2:9\u201311<\/a> at the Pentecost event:<\/p>\n

\"Map<\/p>\n

9<\/a> Parthians and Medes and Elamites and those residing in<\/em> Mesopotamia, Judea an<\/span>d Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10<\/a> Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya toward Cyrene, and the Romans who were in town, 11<\/a> both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs (Acts 2:9\u201311<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Ther<\/span>e is significant patterning to the list of nations in Acts 2<\/a> connected with the coming of the Spirit and the commissioning of the disciples.<\/p>\n

The list begins with \u201cParthians and Medes and Elamites and <\/span>those residing in Mesopotamia\u201d (2:9<\/a>). Jewish literature from the intertestamental period tells us that there was a Jewish population in Parthia (=Persia) at this time (1 Macc 15:15\u201322<\/a>).This passage in 1 Maccabees is about Rome\u2019s support of Jewish populations in various parts of its empire. The reference to Arsaces in v. 22<\/a> is of significance for our discussion here, as Arsaces (also spelled Arsakes) was king in Parthia (Persia). On a Jewish population in Parthia, see also Josephus, <\/a>Antiquities<\/em><\/a> 15.2.2 par. 14<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>10<\/a> These were J<\/span>ews who had migrated to Persia after choosing not to return to Jerusalem after the end of the exile. The Medes are known from the Old Testament in connection with where the ten northern tribes of Israel had been d<\/span>eported by the Assyrians (2 Kgs 17:6<\/a>; 18:11<\/a>). Persians (Parthians) and Medes are mentioned together in the Old Testament (Esth 1:19<\/a>; Dan 5:28<\/a>; 6:8<\/a>, 12<\/a>, 15<\/a>), and the kings of Media are men<\/span>tioned with the Elamites as well (Jer 25:25<\/a>). The list in Acts, then, begins at the farthest points east where there were Jewish populations, then progresses westward<\/em>.<\/p>\n

After moving westward through Me<\/span>sopotamia, the list naturally splits into southern and northern directions, following the land as it forks at the Mediterranean Sea. The southern fork extends through Judea and Arabia.Scholars have pondered why Judea is in the list, since the rest of the list consists of people groups speaking foreign languages. Some early church fathers thought that there might be a textual problem here and proposed alternative place names. The most natural solution would be that \u201cJudea\u201d refers to the parameters of the Old Testament\u2019s Davidic Empire, which extended from the Euphrates to Egypt. After the mention of Mesopotamia, David\u2019s empire covered most of the Fertile Crescent (Syria and Damascus; cf. Gal 1:15\u201321<\/a>). These areas included foreigners and foreign languages.<\/em>
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>11<\/a> The island of<\/span> Crete is also mentioned. Paul took the gospel to both places (Titus 1:5<\/a>; Gal 1:15\u201317<\/a>). For the most part, Paul\u2019s missionary journeys followed the north fork through Asia Minor and Greece. But there w<\/span>ere people at Pentecost from the nations of the south fork. We know the gospel followed the Nile down into Ethiopia (Acts 8:26\u201340<\/a>) and bore fruit in Cyrene (Acts 11:20<\/a>; 13:1<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The list keeps moving we<\/span>stward to Rome. By starting in the east, where there were Jewish populations because of the exile, and moving west, the Pentecost list confirms God\u2019s evangelism strategy articulated by Paul, who said that the gospel was for <\/span>the Jew first, and then the Gentile (Rom 1:16<\/a>). Three thousand Jews came to believe in Jesus as a result of the events at Pentecost (Acts 2:41<\/a>), and those three thousand Jewish<\/span> converts went back to their homelands after the Pentecost pilgrimage. These new disciples were the seeds of the gospel, Yahweh\u2019s plan to reclaim the nations.<\/p>\n

The book of Acts ends with Rome, the dest<\/span>ination of the imprisoned Paul on his way to appeal to Caesar. Luke\u2019s account therefore has Rome as its westernmost progression. But reversing the disinheritance of the nations required going farther than Rome. The most westerly point in the<\/span> Table of Nations was Tarshish. Does the pattern of reversal initiated at Pentecost include Tarshish? Amazingly, it does.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

I MUST GET TO SPAIN<\/p>\n

The New Testament and early church tradition suggest that Paul was released from his bondage and went farther<\/em> west before being taken into custody by the Romans for a second and final time.The most thorough study on Paul\u2019s imprisonment and martyrdom is Harry W. Tajra, The Martyrdom of St. Paul: Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends<\/em>, vol. 3 (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Tajra argues that Paul\u2019s appeal lapsed due to prosecutorial failure to successfully prosecute the case within the required time period and that Paul was released, at least for a couple of years, during which he visited Spain. Paul was later arrested again during the reign of Nero and executed for treason to the empire. There is also evidence for the belief in Paul\u2019s visit to Spain in early church writings such as Eusebius (260\u2013339 ad<\/span>; Hist. eccl.<\/em><\/a> 2.22<\/a>), the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170 ad<\/span>), the Acts of Peter<\/em> (late 2nd century ad<\/span>), and Clement of Rome (ca. 96 ad<\/span>, First Epistle to the Corinthians, V). Clement has Paul reaching \u201cthe farthest bounds of the West\u201d after his release. As one scholar notes,\u201d For a Roman, the \u2018farthest bounds of the West,\u2019 a phrase often used by Roman writers to refer to Spain, could only mean the Iberian peninsula\u201d (Otto F. A. Meinardus, \u201cPaul\u2019s Missionary Journey to Spain: Tradition and Folklore.\u201d The Biblical Archaeologist<\/em> [1978]: 61\u201363).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>12<\/a> In fact, Paul told people that he fully expected to go to Spain after the Roman imprisonment mentioned in Acts. In his letter to the Romans, Paul told them twice that he intended to go to Spain (Rom 15:24<\/a>, 28<\/a>):<\/p>\n

22<\/a> For this reason also I was hindered many times from coming to you, 23<\/a> and now, no longer having a place in these regions, but having a desire for many years to come to you 24<\/a>\u2005whenever I travel to Spain. For I hope while I am passing through to see you and to be sent on my way by you, whenever I have first enjoyed your company for a while. 25<\/a> But now I am traveling to Jerusalem, serving the saints. 26<\/a> For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27<\/a> For they were pleased to do so, and they are obligated to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they ought also to serve them in material things. 28<\/a> Therefore, after I have accomplished this and sealed this fruit for delivery to them, I will depart by way of you for Spain (Rom 15:22\u201328<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Why is Spain of any concern to us, and why did Paul want so badly to go there? In Paul\u2019s day, Spain was where Tarshish was<\/em>. Tarshish was a Phoenician colony in what was later Spain.<\/p>\n

The point is profound: Paul was convinced that his life\u2019s mission as apostle to the Gentiles\u2014the disinherited nations\u2014would only be finished when he got to Spain.Paul\u2019s language indicates he expected to get to Spain. See the discussion of \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd<\/span> with the subjunctive as equivalent to \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd<\/span> with the subjunctive in Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert Walter Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature<\/em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 237<\/a>. On the Old Testament context for Paul\u2019s urgency to get to Spain, see Roger Aus, \u201cPaul\u2019s Travel Plans to Spain and the \u2018Full Number of the Gentiles\u2019 of Rom XI 25,\u201d Novum Testamentum<\/em> 21:3 (July, 1979): 232\u2013262.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>13<\/a> As incredible as it sounds, Paul was conscious that his mission for Jesus actually involved spreading the gospel to the westernmost part of the known world\u2014Tarshish\u2014so that the disinheritance at Babel would be reversed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES<\/p>\n

Paul telegraphed that belief in Romans 11<\/a>\u2014even before he told his readers he wanted to go to Spain (Rom 15:24<\/a>, 28<\/a>). Discerning that requires observing how Paul is tracking on certain Old Testament passages about the reclamation of the nations\u2014the Gentiles.<\/p>\n

25<\/a> For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, so that you will not be wise in your own sight, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26<\/a> and so all Israel will be saved, just as it is written,<\/p>\n

\u201cThe deliverer will come out of Zion;<\/p>\n

he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.<\/p>\n

27<\/a> And this is the covenant from me with them<\/p>\n

when I take away their sins\u201d (Rom 11:25\u201327<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Paul says, \u201cI want you to understand this mystery.\u201d What mystery? That God\u2019s own portion and son, Israel, hardened their heart. For how long? \u201cUntil the full number of the Gentiles has come in.\u201d Why is it important that this inclusion of the Gentiles happen? \u201cAnd so a<\/em>ll Israel<\/em> will be saved.\u201d Paul includes people from the disinherited nations in Israel, Yahweh\u2019s family. This family reunion will only happen when \u201cthe deliverer comes out of Zion.\u201d<\/p>\n

But why would Paul link the \u201cthe full number of the Gentiles\u201d with Spain (Tarshish)? Why did he believe that his life and ministry would not be over until he got there? Because he knew Isaiah 66:15\u201323<\/a>. The passage has a number of correlations with the events of Pentecost, not only with respect to Acts 2<\/a> but other passages as well. (Recall that in the last chapter, we saw how Psalm 68<\/a>, including the conquest of Bashan, was quoted by Paul in Ephesians 4<\/a> about the victory of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost.) I\u2019ve listed those correlations in the table below and inserted footnotes to guide our reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Isaiah 66:15\u201323<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Other Passages and Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

For look! Yahweh will come in fire<\/strong>,<\/p>\n

and his chariots<\/strong> like the storm wind<\/strong>, to give back<\/p>\n

his anger in wrath,<\/p>\n

and his rebuke in flames of fire<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

For Yahweh enters into judgment on all flesh with fire<\/p>\n

and his sword,<\/p>\n

and those slain by Yahweh shall be many (vv. 15\u201316<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

A violent rushing wind<\/strong> came from heaven.\u2026 And divided tongues like fire<\/strong> appeared to them (Acts 2:2\u20133<\/a>).<\/p>\n

A mountain of God is the mountain of Bashan \u2026 This mountain God desires for his dwelling.\u2026 The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, with thousands doubled.\u2026 You have ascended on high; you have led away captives. You have received gifts from among humankind (Psa 68:15\u201318<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u201cAnd I \u2026 am about to come to gather<\/strong> all nations<\/strong> and tongues<\/strong>, and they shall come and see my gloryJerusalem is the place where the glory of God resided in Israel.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> (v. 18<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Now there were Jews residing in Jerusalem<\/strong>, devout men from every nation<\/strong> under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd gathered<\/strong> and was in confusion, because each one was hearing them speaking in his own language<\/strong> (Acts 2:5<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

I will set a sign among them. And I will send survivorsThe \u201csurvivors\u201d are those Jews who survived the exile. Isaiah prophesies that God\u2019s punishment of exile has served to send Israelites\/Judeans into the nations to spread the knowledge of Yahweh in them (\u201cdeclare his glory\u201d). Paul sees Isa 66:19<\/a> as fulfilled at Pentecost\u2014Jews that embrace Jesus go back to their nations to \u201cdeclare God\u2019s glory\u201d in those nations. See verse 20<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> from them to the nations: Tarshish, Pul, and Lud<\/strong>,Some English translations, like the leb<\/span>, read \u201cPul\u201d here. The reading should be \u201cPut\u201d (from LXX) because there is no nation or people known as Pul in ancient history (see esv<\/span>). The Septuagint reading of \u201cPut\u201d makes good sense, as Put is a nation regularly mentioned with Lud elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Jer 46:9<\/a>; Ezek 27:10<\/a>; 30:5<\/a>; 38:5<\/a>). See Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40\u201366: Translation and Commentary<\/em> (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 627<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> who draw the bow; Tubal and Javan<\/strong>, the faraway coastlands that have not heard of my fame, and have not seen my glory.Put, Lud, Tarshish, Tubal, and Javan all appear in the Table of Nations in Gen 10<\/a>. Put and Lud are associated with Libya, North Africa (western Egypt), and Cush (Ethiopia). Tubal and Javan correspond to Asia Minor and (Ionian) Greece. See Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40\u201366<\/em>, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 627\u201328<\/a>; David W. Baker, \u201cLud (Person),\u201d in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary<\/em> (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 397<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> And they shall declare my glory among the nations, (v. 19<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia,These places are all found in Asia Minor (see the map<\/a> for the Pentecost nations).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a>Egypt<\/strong> and the parts of Libya<\/strong> toward CyreneThese places are all in North Africa (see the map<\/a> for the Pentecost nations). Acts 8<\/a> has the gospel taken into Ethiopia.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> (Acts 2:9\u201310<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

and bring all your countrymenIn other words, the Jewish evangelists will bring more people\u2014Gentiles, now called \u201cbrothers\u201d\u2014as an \u201coffering to the Lord.\u201d This would fulfill the original covenant with Abraham, and all Israel as a kingdom of priests\u2014to bless the nations (Gen 12:1\u20133<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a>from all the nations<\/strong> as an offering to Yahweh on horses and chariots and in litters and on mules and camels, to my holy mountain, Jerusalem<\/strong>,\u201d says Yahweh, \u201cjust as the sons of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel to the house of Yahweh. And indeed, I will take some of them as priests and for Levites,\u201d says Yahweh (vv. 20\u201321<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\u201cFor just as the new heavens and earth that I am<\/em> about to make shall stand before me,\u201d declares Yahweh, \u201cso shall your descendants and your name stand.<\/p>\n

And this shall happen: From new moon to new moon and from Sabbath to Sabbath all flesh shall come to bow in worship before me<\/strong>,\u201d says Yahweh (vv. 22\u201323<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

See Paul\u2019s mission as apostle to the Gentiles.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Why did Paul want to get to Spain (Tarshish)? Paul saw his ministry as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 66<\/a>, where Yahweh would take people from all nations to be his children. Paul believed he was the instrument to bring in the \u201cfull number of the Gentiles\u201d that would result in all true Israelites\u2014those who believe in Jesus\u2014being saved (Rom 11:25\u201327<\/a>).Compare what Paul wrote in Gal 3:7\u20139<\/a>, 28\u201329<\/a>: 7<\/span><\/a>\u201cUnderstand that the ones who have faith, these are sons of Abraham. 8<\/span><\/a>And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed the good news in advance to Abraham: \u2018In you all the nations will be blessed.\u2019 9<\/span><\/a>So then, the ones who have<\/em> faith are blessed together with Abraham who believed.\u2026 28<\/span><\/a>There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29<\/span><\/a>And if you are<\/em> Christ\u2019s, then you are descendants of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.\u201d
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>14<\/a> Tarshish is listed in Isaiah 66<\/a>, but was not represented in the names at Pentecost. The farthest point west in the Pentecost list is Rome (Acts 2:10<\/a>). Paul knew that Spain (Tarshish) was part of the mission of Isaiah 66<\/a>. He needed Spain so that his \u201coffering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit\u201d (Rom 15:16<\/a>).<\/p>\n

And so it was that a room full of Jews, commissioned directly by the Spirit, went out and began the process by which the disinherited nations would be brought back into Yahweh\u2019s family. Pentecost marked the beginning of an unstoppable march across the known world\u2014and our world, a world they didn\u2019t know\u2014that would culminate in a global Eden.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

CHAPTER 35<\/p>\n

Sons of God, Seed of Abraham<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve devoted a lot of space to describing God\u2019s plan to reclaim the disinherited nations and restore his rule. Let\u2019s review: Yahweh\u2019s original intention was th<\/span>at all humankind would be his earthly family, ruling in cooperation with him and his heavenly family. The Old Testament describes the ruin of Yahweh\u2019s desire through a series of primeval rebellions. But the original objective was not defeated, only delayed. After the rebellion at Babel, Yahweh s<\/span>et aside the nations and called Abraham to begin anew.<\/p>\n

Even as Yahweh started his kingdom plan with this<\/span> one man and his wife, there were hints that the nations were not forgotten\u2014in fact, God said that through Abraham all nations would be blessed (Gen 12:3<\/a>). The focal point of that blessing was to be t<\/span>he ultimate son of Abraham, the messiah. After his resurrection, the Spirit promised by Jesus\u2014and by the prophets of old\u2014came at Pentecost and began the great reversal. The gospel was carried to all the nations of the known world, transforming men<\/span> and women held hostage to other gods into sons and daughters of Yahweh.There have been several lengthy scholarly studies on divine sonship as it relates to Christians: Brendan Byrne, \u201cSons of God\u201d\u2014\u201dSeed of Abraham\u201d: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background<\/em> (Analecta Biblica 83; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1979); James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation Into the Background of Yiothesia in the Pauline Corpus<\/em> (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament<\/em> 48; T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992); Matthew Vellanichal, The Divine Sonship of Christians in the Johannine Writings<\/em> (Analecta Biblica 72; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1977). Shorter articles include: Michael Peppard, \u201cAdopted and Begotten Sons of God: Paul and John on Divine Sonship,\u201d Catholic Biblical Quarterly<\/em> 73:1 (Jan 2011):92\u2013110; James Tabor, \u201cFirstborn of Many Brothers: A Pauline Notion of Apotheosis,\u201d (Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 21; Chico: Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984), 295\u2013303.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

IF YOU ARE CHRIST\u2019S, YOU ARE ABRAHAM\u2019S SEED<\/p>\n

We saw in the last chapter that Paul understood God\u2019s plan of infiltration in the wake of Pentecost and, once confronted by Jesus on the road to Damascus, h<\/span>is own role in that plan. In his letters he referred to it as a mystery\u2014how God could make the Gentile, a member of the disinherited nations, a full member in the family that he\u2019d begun with Abraham. I<\/span>nstead of being disinherited<\/em> by Yahweh, Gentiles were now joint heirs of the true God. Paul\u2019s letter to the predominantly Gentile church at Ephesus is one example:<\/p>\n

1<\/a> On account of this I, Paul, the p<\/span>risoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles 2<\/a> \u2014if indeed you have heard about the stewardship of God\u2019s grace given to me for you. 3<\/a> According to revelation the mystery<\/strong> was made known to me, j<\/span>ust as I wrote beforehand in brief, 4<\/a> so that you may be able when you read to understand my insight into the mystery<\/strong> of Christ 5<\/a> (which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men as i<\/span>t has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit): 6<\/a> that the Gentiles are fellow heirs<\/strong>, and fellow members of the body, and fellow sharers of the promise in Christ Jesus throug<\/span>h the gospel (Eph 3:1\u20136<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Paul\u2019s message to the church at Galatia was just as dramatic:<\/p>\n

6<\/a> Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, 7<\/a> then understand that the ones wh<\/span>o have faith, these are sons of Abraham. 8<\/a> And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed the good news in advance to Abraham: \u201cIn you all the nations will be b<\/span>lessed.\u201d 9<\/a> So then, the ones who have faith are blessed together with Abraham who believed.\u2026 26<\/a> For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27<\/a> for as many of you as were baptized into C<\/span>hrist have put on Christ. 28<\/a> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29<\/a> And if you are Christ\u2019s, then yo<\/strong><\/span>u are descendants of Abraham, heirs according to the promise<\/strong> (Gal 3:6\u20139<\/a>, 26\u201329<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In Christ, believers are \u201cthe sons of God.\u201d The language of inheritance is crystal clear. It derives from and advances <\/span>the Old Testament idea that humans were meant to be in the family<\/em> of God all along. It\u2019s no coincidence that the New Testament writers repeatedly describe salvation into Yahweh\u2019s family with words lik<\/span>e \u201cadoption,\u201d \u201cheir,\u201d and \u201cinheritance\u201d to describe what the Church really is\u2014the reconstituted divine-human family of God. The believer\u2019s destiny is to become what Adam and Eve originally were: immortal, glorified imagers of God, living in God\u2019s presence as his children.<\/span>Recent studies on angelic\u2013human relationships in Second Temple Jewish angelology and New Testament angelology have focused on this \u201cangelification\u201d (divinization) of believers. For example, one scholar focusing on this material concludes that original humanity ought to be considered \u201cboth angelomorphic and divine\u201d (Crispin Fletcher-Louis, \u201cThe Worship of Divine Humanity as God\u2019s Image and the Worship of Jesus,\u201d in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus<\/em> (ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, Gladys S. Lewis; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), 112\u2013128 (esp. 113\u2013120). Another notes: \u201cComparing and relating humans to angels was in the time of Paul an important feature of Jewish religious life\u201d (Guy Williams, The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle: A Critical Examination of the Role of Spiritual Beings in the Authentic Pauline Epistles<\/em>, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 231 [G\u00f6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 2009], 113\u201314).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> The theological messaging is unmistakable in the context of the epic story we\u2019ve tracked through the Old Testament:<\/p>\n

11<\/a> He came<\/span> to his own things, and his own people did not receive him. 12<\/a> But as many as received him\u2014to those who believe in his name\u2014he gave to them authority to become children of God, 13<\/a> who were born not of<\/span> blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a husband, but of God (John 1:11\u201313<\/a>).<\/p>\n

1<\/a> See what sort of love the Father has given to us: that we should be called children of God, and we are!<\/span> Because of this the world does not know us: because it did not know him. 2<\/a> Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that whenever he is reveale<\/span>d we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is (1 John 3:1\u20132<\/a>).<\/p>\n

4<\/a> But when the fullness of time came, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5<\/a> in order that he might r<\/span>edeem those under the law, in order that we might receive the adoption. 6<\/a> And because you are sons, God sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, \u201cAbba! (Father!),\u201d 7<\/a> so that you are<\/span> no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, also an heir through God (Gal 4:4\u20137<\/a>).<\/p>\n

15<\/a> For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received the Spirit of adoption, <\/span>by whom we cry out, \u201cAbba! Father!\u201d 16<\/a> The Spirit himself confirms to our spirit that we are children of God, 17<\/a> and if children, also heirs\u2014heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suf<\/span>fer together with him so that we may also be glorified together with him (Rom 8:15\u201317<\/a>).<\/p>\n

4<\/a> Just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him<\/span> in love, 5<\/a> having predestined us to adoption through Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will (Eph 1:4\u20135<\/a>).<\/p>\n

We are accustomed, of course, to thinking of the Church as the \u201cbo<\/span>dy of Christ.\u201d It is certainly that as well. But this term points us to the family metaphor. The idea of the Church being \u201cthe body of Christ\u201d reflects the truth that it is through Christ\u2019s physical<\/em> i<\/span>ncarnation, physical<\/em> death, and physical<\/em> resurrection that believers\u2014Jew or Gentile\u2014become members of God\u2019s family. Quoting Paul once again: \u201cThe Gentiles are fellow heirs, and fellow members of the b<\/span>ody, and fellow sharers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel\u201d (Eph 3:6<\/a>).<\/p>\n

It is Christ who fuses the chosen sons of God from Abraham\u2019s line to the sons of God called from the nations. His <\/span>work on the cross is where the exiled and the disinherited meet, forming one new entity. But that\u2019s only one aspect of who we are.<\/p>\n

INHERITED AUTHORITY: A Stake in the Family Business<\/p>\n

Believers are more than God\u2019s family. Being \u201cthe sons of God\u201d also means being members of God\u2019s governing rule\u2014his council. Believers have a divinel<\/span>y appointed purpose. Adam and Eve were supposed to make all the world Eden\u2014to spread the kingdom rule of God so that we could enjoy the love of God, our Father. That hasn\u2019t changed.<\/p>\n

Recall that, in an<\/span>cient Israelite thinking, God\u2019s home was not only where his family lived, but also where the council met. The place was one and the same, and the members were one and the same. So it is in the New Testament. While New <\/span>Testament writers employ family terms to describe the Church, it is also no coincidence that they use Old Testament terminology we would associate with the divine council. Ephesians <\/span>1:5<\/a>, 11\u201319<\/a> is a good starting point:<\/p>\n

5<\/a> having predestined us to adoption through Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will \u2026 11<\/a> in whom also we were chosen, having been predes<\/span>tined according to the purpose of the One who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12<\/a> that we who hoped beforehand in Christ should be for the praise of his glory, 13<\/a> in whom also yo<\/span>u, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also when you believed you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14<\/a> who is the down payment of our inheritance<\/strong>, until th<\/span>e redemption of the possession, to the praise of his glory.<\/p>\n

15<\/a> Because of this I also, hearing of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16<\/a> do not cease giving thanks for you, <\/span>making mention in my prayers, 17<\/a> that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him 18<\/a> (the eyes of your hearts having b<\/span>een enlightened), so that you may know what is the hope of his calling, what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance<\/strong> among the saints<\/strong>, 19<\/a> and what is the surpassing greatness of his power towar<\/span>d us who believe.<\/p>\n

The English translation obscures an important Old Testament connection back to the divine council. The word for \u201csaints\u201d in verse 18<\/a> (and elsewhere in the New Testament) is hagioi<\/span>, w<\/span>hich means \u201choly ones.\u201d Paul tells the Ephesians that believers have a glorious inheritance among the holy ones.<\/em><\/p>\n

We\u2019ve discussed the term \u201choly ones\u201d in the Old Testament before.See chapter 30<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> It is used of divine<\/span> beings in Yahweh\u2019s divine council (e.g., Job 5:1<\/a>; 15:15<\/a>; Psa 89:5\u20137<\/a>; Zech 14:5<\/a>). The Hebrew term is qedoshim<\/span>. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by New Testament writers,<\/span> translates that term with hagioi<\/span>, the same word as in Ephesians 1:18<\/a>. We also saw earlier that the Old Testament uses qedoshim<\/span> of people\u2014specifically of believing Israelites\u2014those not guilty of worsh<\/span>ipping other gods and bringing the disaster of exile to pass (Psa 16:3<\/a>; 34:8<\/a>; cp. Lev 26:14\u201333<\/a>).<\/p>\n

We saw earlier, in chapter 30<\/a>, that both uses come together in a crucial chapter\u2014Daniel 7<\/a>. That chapter<\/span> had the second Yahweh figure in human form, the son of man, receiving an everlasting kingdom from the enthroned Ancient of Days. The kingdom was also given to the holy ones\u2014both divine and human (Dan<\/span> 7:22<\/a>, 27<\/a>). The passage conveyed the idea of joint rulership in God\u2019s kingdom.<\/p>\n

Paul echoes that thought in his letter to the Ephesians when he says that we have an inheritance among the holy ones. We <\/span>are not only heirs and children in God\u2019s divine family, but we inherit the right to rule and reign with Jesus. Paul described our kingdom inheritance in Col 1:11\u201313<\/a>. He prays that his readers will be<\/p>\n

<\/span>11<\/a> enabled with all power, according to his glorious might, for all steadfastness and patience with joy, 12<\/a> giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you for a share of the inheritance<\/strong> of the sain<\/span>ts [holy ones] in light, 13<\/a> who has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom<\/strong> of the Son he loves.<\/p>\n

Once the nations are restored to Yahweh through the gospel, believers <\/span>will displace the divine beings who presently dominate the nations and rule in their place as Yahweh\u2019s children and corulers. As Paul wrote elsewhere, believers will \u201cjudge angels\u201d (1 Cor 6:3<\/a>).As noted earlier, other scholars refer to this teaching as the \u201cangelification\u201d of the believing community (see Williams, Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle<\/em>, 117\u201318).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> The a<\/span>postle John is just as direct in Revelation 2<\/a>:<\/p>\n

[Jesus says]: 25<\/a> Nevertheless, hold fast to what you have until I come. 26<\/a> And the one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I will give him<\/span> authority over the nations<\/strong>, 27<\/a> and \u201che will shepherd them with an iron rod; he will break them in pieces like jars made of clay,\u201d 28<\/a> as I also have received from my Father, and I will give him the mo<\/span>rning star (Rev 2:25\u201328<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The power of this passage is found in John\u2019s citation (in v. 27<\/a>) of Psalm 2<\/a>, which describes the messiah\u2019s reign. Before telling his messianic king, \u201cYou will break them with<\/span> an iron rod,\u201d Yahweh says to him, \u201cYou are my son; today I have begotten you. Ask from me and I will make the nations your heritage, and your possession the end of the earth\u201d (Psa 2:7\u20138<\/a>). Jesus, the <\/span>messiah, inherits the everlasting kingdom\u2014and then shares it with his children, \u201cthose who overcome\u201d until his return. John tells us directly in his next chapter (Rev 3:21<\/a>) that those who overcome rul<\/span>e and reign with Jesus:<\/p>\n

20<\/a> Behold, I stand at the door and knock! If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, indeed I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with me. 21<\/a> The one who conquers, <\/span>I will grant to him to sit down with me on my throne<\/strong>, as I also have conquered and have sat down with my Father on his throne (Rev 3:20\u201321<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The destiny of the believer is not only a place in God\u2019s ho<\/span>me, but dominion with Jesus \u201camong the holy ones\u201d (Eph 1:18<\/a>).<\/p>\n

THE MORNING STAR<\/p>\n

Revelation 2:28<\/a>, quoted just above, had an unusual phrase in it. To the one who overcomes, Jesus says, \u201cI will give him the morning star.\u201d The odd wording reinforces the idea of our j<\/span>oint rule with Jesus over the nations.<\/p>\n

The \u201cmorning star\u201d phrase takes us back once more to the Old Testament, which at times uses astral terminology to describe divine beings. Job 38:7<\/a> is the best ex<\/span>ample (\u201cthe morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God shouted for joy\u201d).See also Judg 5:20<\/a>; Dan 8:10<\/a>; 12:3<\/a>; Rev 1:20<\/a>; 12:4<\/a>, 9<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a> Stars were bright and, in the worldview of the ancients, living divine beings since they moved in the sky an<\/span>d were beyond the human realm.<\/p>\n

The morning star language in Revelation 2:28<\/a> is messianic\u2014it refers to a divine being who would come from Judah. We know this by considering two other passages in tandem<\/span>.<\/p>\n

In Numbers 24:17<\/a>, we read the prophecy that \u201ca star will go out from Jacob, and a scepter will rise from Israel.\u201d Numbers 24:17<\/a> was considered messianic in Judaism, completely apart from the New Tes<\/span>tament writers.See Testament of Levi 18:3<\/a>; Testament of Judah 24:1<\/a>; 1QM 11:6\u20137<\/a>; 4QTestim 9\u201313<\/a>; CD 7:18\u201320<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> In other words, literate readers of John\u2019s writing would have known the morning star reference was not about literal brightness. It was about the dawning of the returned kingdom of Go<\/span>d under its messiah. Later in the book of Revelation, Jesus himself refers to his messianic standing with the morning star language: \u201cI am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star\u201d (<\/span>Rev 22:16<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The wording of Revelation 2<\/a> is especially powerful when read against this backdrop. Not only does Jesus say<\/em> that he is the messianic morning star in Revelation 22:16<\/a>, but when he says \u201c<\/span>I will give him [who overcomes] the morning star\u201d (Rev 2:28<\/a>), he grants us the authority to rule with him.<\/p>\n

As dramatic as these thoughts are, we\u2019ll see one that trumps them all in the next chapter. We<\/span> aren\u2019t just God\u2019s children and corulers with his Son. We\u2019re Jesus\u2019 siblings<\/em>\u2014and each of us will meet the council with him at our side.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

36 weiter<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CHAPTER 25 Holy War The last chapter closed with the demise of the giant Og, last of the Rephaim (Deut 3:1\u201311). Israel\u2019s battles in the Transjordan bring us face-to-face with an issue that has troubled Bible students and scholars for centuries: the practice of extermination in Israel\u2019s war of conquest. Og\u2019s defeat is illustrative: \u201cAnd … <\/p>\n

\u201eThe Unseen Realm – V\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-224","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\/224","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=224"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2500,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224\/revisions\/2500"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}