Myth

Completed first draft of The Myth That Is True (January 2, 2012)
NOTES:
1. This draft is not for distribution in email or on the web in any form. The draft will remain on the web page
designated for it until the end of January, 2012, at which time it will be removed from the web, along with older
portions.
2. New Structure. Section headings and division of chapters within those headings has changed since the last
(2010) draft. Some of these changes are preparatory to revisions I will be making when editing this first draft.
3. New Chapters are indicated. Since chapters have been moved around several times, there will be points of
incongruence in the overall flow (especially in footnotes where I refer to chapters by number). That will be
corrected in the next round (#5).
4. Rewritten Material refers to rewriting beyond a mere edit. In some cases it is substantial.
5. The draft is complete only in the sense that it is a first draft. The plan from this point is to do a close readthrough and edit. This will involve more than reader corrections (and I have many of those to consult which is
appreciated). It will involve a lot of re-writing, deleting some material, adding other things, though I dont imagine
that will amount to a lot of content. Some things just have to wait. For example, one of the things I know I will do
is include one page summaries with each section header and end-of-section summaries reviewing where weve
been and why, and where were going next. The aim of round two will be greater coherence and clarity. It needs
help there. I will do this toward making the manuscript presentable as a book to a publisher. I do not plan to put
that second draft online.
Preface (Rewritten Material)

Introduction (Rewritten Material)
Setting the Stage
Chapter 1 Muzzling the Dragon NEW
Chapter 2 Gods Heavenly Household
Chapter 3 Gods Wisdom
Chapter 4 As in Heaven, So on Earth
Chaos Erupts
Chapter 5 Costly Decisions (Rewritten Material)
Chapter 6 Appearances Can be Deceiving
Chapter 7 The Bad Seed
Chapter 8 A Tall Order
Chapter 9 And God Gave Them Up
Divine Intervention
Chapter 10 An Unexpected Word
Chapter 11 Seeing Gods Name
Chapter 12 Growing Pains
Chapter 13 Gods Home Address
Chapter 14 Gods Family, Gods Rules
Chapter 15 Follow the Template (New; old 17 with some Rewritten Material)
A Turn for the Worst
Chapter 16 Like a Bad Penny (old 15)
Chapter 17 Devoted to Destruction (old 16)
Chapter 18 Divine Kingship
Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved
Chapter 19 Standing in the Council

Chapter 20 Gone, But Not Forgotten
Chapter 21 Thy Kingdom Come
Hidden in Plain Sight
Chapter 22 The Human One
Chapter 23 Pre-Eminent Domain
Chapter 24 Stealth Tactic (some added material)
Chapter 25 Unseen Siege
Chapter 26 Infiltration
Chapter 27 Knowing Your Identity
Chapter 28 Choosing Sides
Eden Restored
Chapter 29 NEW Shock and Awe
Chapter 30 NEW Ruling Over Angels
The Myth That is True:

Rediscovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible
Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2011
Dont Skip the Preface
I want to be up front with you right from the start. This book will introduce you to ideas that
youve never heard of beforenot from your pastor, a radio preacher, a home Bible study, or
even a formal class about the Bible. Some of what you read will startle you. The flip side of
that coin, though, is that it will also delight you, if youre the kind of person whos long had
the feeling that Gods Word just has to be more than a repository of self-help platitudes, or a
collection of tales from antiquity, or a handbook of traditions that keep God tame in a tidy
theological box.
Ive Been Where Youll Be Going
I remember having such an inkling. It seems long ago now, but it really isnt. My journey
was prompted by a couple of things. One was a strong sense that my Christian life really did
have a cosmic purpose. I dont say that because I had something unusual happen to me after I
became a Christian. Quite the contrary. My life has been spectacularly mundane. I havent
had a Damascus Road encounter. I wasnt the chief of sinners. But it was actually the
ordinariness of it all, juxtaposed to what I read of Gods plan for all things, that fascinated
me. The closer my minds eye scrutinizes my past, a host of quiet, apparently inconsequential
moments and decisions scream the providence of God.
Its kind of like watching Its a Wonderful Life, where George Baileys life turns on common
events that happen every day: a good deed gets misunderstood; someone in the family dies;
you pass up a long-anticipated opportunity thinking the chance will come again; an
impetuous moment overrides good advice; a spasm of loyalty grants someone else success
and your continued obscurity. George doesnt notice how any of it matters for things yet
future, or how the lives of the people of Bedford Falls are connected in the providence of
God. For my own part, looking back I see the ordinary deeds of steadfast friends and passing
acquaintances, frivolous remarks that provided unintended clarity, flashes of insight sparked
by the seemingly unconscious behavior of others. There were crushing failures and
unexpected deliverances, steps of faith and decisions by indecision. And every one of them a
signpost to destiny, a destiny that itself is part of a mysterious, sweeping, comprehensive
plan. A plan conceived long ago in the mind of God with very specific intenta plan that
somehow includes me . . . and you.
This small appreciation for the intricacy of the divine plan that encompasses everyone and all
things gave me a strong sense of confidence in the good intentions and powerful abilities of
God and the coherence of his decision to reveal himself to us. All roads would eventually
lead to and validate both. This was to be a special grace to me, as the Spirit instilled the
conviction within me very soon after I came to Christ that my life was going to be focused on
the academic study of Scripture. Through a growth process I could not discern, I was blessed
with the intuition that the passages many people considered weird or difficult were more
important than most had conceived. They were there for a reason. They were part of a
comprehensibly presented, purposeful revelation. They had a role to play in the cosmic
drama of Scripture. They were windows through which we could discern the coherence of
the divine agendaif we had the courage to believe what we saw.
Our Context Isnt the Bibles Context
I cant point to the dawning of this realization, but I came to suspect that the key to
understanding such textsand really the entire biblical revelationwas to approach them
the way the ancients would have on their own terms. People who claim to be serious about
the Bible often expend a lot of energy talking about how it needs to be interpreted in
contextbut then turn around and filter it through their own traditions. The context for
correctly understanding the Bible is not the Church Fathers. Biblical theology neither began
nor ended with Augustine. It is also not the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation, or
modern evangelicalism. Rather, the correct context for interpreting the Bible is the context in
which it was producedthe ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Talk about having a firm
grasp on the obvious.
Put another way, it was God who decided when in history to move human beings to record
information about Himself and His plan. God was the one who decided when, where, why,
and to whom that process we call inspiration would be in operation. This truth is important,
even vital, for being honest with the Bible and what it says. Early church fathers and the
reformers after them had access to some material that could give them some insight into
those cultures of ages long past. But they had glaring weaknesses as interpreters, through no
fault of their own, for the most part. Most of them, for example, couldnt read Hebrew, the
primary language of the Old Testament. Some of the more famous early fathers couldnt
even read Greek. Augustine had only a rudimentary knowledge of Greek and had no
knowledge of Hebrew, and yet his opinions on many matters of interpretation were to
become the final word in Christian theology.
Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin were more adept in the biblical languages, and
had the benefit of the theological thought that accrued to the writings of the early church
fathers, but they too were severely handicapped in ways that work to the advantage of
modern biblical scholars. For example, the Hebrew Bible was the product of a world that
wouldnt be well known until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This was the period that
saw the decipherment of the languages of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan. The
languages, literature, and archaeological remains of these contexts contemporary to ancient
Israel provided a myriad of insights about the culture, language, worldview, and spiritual
practices revealed in the Old Testament. Biblical theologians and pastors studying prior to
the 19th century had access to none of this material. I admire these great minds of the past,
but what Im describing is true. If you sent me into a room without my glasses with a list of
things to find, Id probably find some of them, but Id pass right by others.
We shouldnt harbor the false impression that interpreting the New Testament escapes these
pitfalls because its closer to our time. Two thousand years ago really isnt close to our
time. It wasnt even close to Augustines time, either. By the time Augustine came on the
scene, Jesus had been risen for over 300 yearslonger than the United States has been a
country. Do we have the correct context for understanding people in the colonial period?
Maybe for some things, but were quite a bit removed from their mindset. But the more we
steep ourselves in their everyday existence through the physical objects they used or owned,
the places they lived, original documents, and personal correspondences, our understanding
improves. Thats what we need for the Bibleto get inside their heads as much as possible.
That means comprehending their world, and that in turn begins long before the New
Testament era.
Understanding the Old Testament is critical for every Christian for one simple reason: it is
the wellspring of the New Testament. As brilliant as the church fathers and reformers were,
their resources were restricted. Their articulation of biblical theology consequently reflects
those limitations. One cannot claim to interpret the New Testament accurately apart from an
accurate understanding of the Old Testamentand that in turn is not possible without an
accurate understanding of the original ancient Near Eastern context of the Old Testament,
chosen under the providence of God. Its like skipping ingredients in a recipe. The result may
be edible, but it wont be nearly as delicious as something prepared properly.
A Promise Not to Protect You from the Bible
I didnt have to be convinced that it was not a careless or capricious decision on Gods part to
dispense His revelation at the time that he did, and against the cultural backdrop of that time.
It was a much tougher sell to surrender the desire to fit the Bible into my own pre-packaged
theological system. What would it mean to take the Bible on its own terms and to essentially
just let the chips fall where they may? I soon learned that going down that path necessitated
abandoning a myth that many well-meaning evangelical teachers and scholars have helped
perpetuate: that the biblical writers shared nothing in common in terms with the surrounding
cultures when it came to religion. Now that Im on the other side of several graduate degrees
involving ancient Near Eastern studies, I can tell you that the average Christians exposure to
ancient backgrounds for the Bible is a delicate exposure that can only be described as
procedurally safe. Its one thing to hold up a pot or a cuneiform text that talks about a
marriage law and wax eloquent about how it illumines the Bible. Its quite another to point
out that the Old Testaments view of the afterlife wasnt quite what the Westminster
Confession described, but was closer to what other ancient people outside Israel believed.
After reading the Old Testament and other ancient material from the biblical period closely, I
discovered a number of items that didnt jive with traditional ways of formulating biblical
theology. I had to make a choice. Was I willing to side with the Bible when its own content,
illumined by a deep knowledge of the ancient world in which God moved people to produce
it, deviated from what I had been taught in my modern evangelical context? Again, a special
grace compelled me to think that choosing the Bible wasnt going to hurt my faith. God was
the same God then as he is now. I wasnt going to understand the text by making its writers
fit into molds created by theologians who lived centuries after its creation and who worked
without access to its ancient cultural context. The Bible would be okay, and so would I. I just
needed to trust God. People didnt need to be protected from the Bible, and I didnt need to
protect it from itself.
Id like to tell you that I never had any doubts or concerns after my decision to let the Bible
be what it is, but Ill spare you the condescension. When I began my intellectual and spiritual
journey, I had no map and no directions. It was a little scary at times. I often wondered where
Id wind up.
I came to discover what Im going to share with you only by providences like those I
mentioned earlier. I wish I could relate the dozens of times I went to a library searching for
something I thought would help only to be guided by what seemed like random events to a
resource Id never heard of that almost instantly reordered some problem in my mind. It was
like being on a journey that I was supposed to take. And so it was and is. I want you to
experience the joy of the same journey of discovery. Thats the reason for this book. I cant
promise that your journey through these pages will always be comfortable. What I can say
with confidence is that youll never look at your Bible the same way again. And while were
on that subject, I need to say a few things about what the Bible is and isnt.
The Bible: A Very Ordinary Supernatural Book
Christians readily accept the notion that God uses people to accomplish His will. But
somehow weve been unconsciously trained to think that anything God does must be supernormal. That just isnt the case, even in biblical times. Most of what God does is behind the
scenes, unseen and unappreciated until hindsight opens our eyes.
Take the Bible. We often view its production as something out of a science fiction novel. The
prophet wakes up, starts breakfast, and then gets zapped by the invisible Spirit. Having no
control over his body or brain, the prophets arm, wrist, and hand pick up a stylus in response
to an unspoken command. Entranced in a zombie-like stupor, he starts writing words
dictated into his head by the Spirit of God. When the Spirit releases him he looks down in
amazement at what the encounter produced. Thats an X-Files episode, not good theology.
The truth is that the people who wrote the Bible were very ordinary, and what they wrote
followed the normal conventions of writing books for their day in virtually every detail. On
occasion, God did directly dictate material, but that kind of thing is actually very rare in the
Bible. Most of the time, the writer was apparently unaware the Spirit of God was doing
anything special when he wrote. We know thats true for many reasons. One would be that
we have four gospels which, while recording the same life of Jesus, frequently differ in their
presentation, particularly if you count the exact word choices. If God was dictating
everything, why would he have to dictate it with different vocabulary each time? Did he
leave things out of one gospel and not another to be playful or capricious? Couldnt God get
it right? Did the exact words uttered in any given scene keep changing? Even when the
gospel accounts agree substantially there are still small differences in the original language
like verb tense or word order. Scripture was demonstrably not dictated. Thats very
important, since Ill be showing you how ancient texts outside the Bible have a lot of content
that sounds like the Bibleprecisely because the biblical writers used it and were informed
by it.
All that said, we ought not presuppose that the human writers were abandoned to only their
own abilities. The process was definitely human, but not exclusively human. Rather, they
were free to write as they felt emotionally compelled and moved, and as they were trained or
not trained. Biblical writers followed ordinary forms of literature in their writing. If the
biblical writer was describing a covenant treaty between God and his people, his description
conforms in style to covenant treaties known elsewhere in the ancient world. To depart from
this style would have been to prompt the question from a reader, What kind of covenant
treaty is this? Didnt this guy know how to write one? The apostle Paul writes his letters to
the churches in a recognizable style and with an expected format. Those who read Pauls
letters knew what a letter was supposed to sound like. Just as we wouldnt write a letter
home to Mom and put footnotes in it, or jot down a recipe and lace it with legal mumbojumbo, so the biblical writers wrote as expected by their audience.
Biblical writers were also influenced by written material known in their time that wasnt
inspired by the God of the Bible. Just as preachers today quote poetry, Bible commentaries,
encyclopedia articles, or TIME magazine to drive home a point, so did the biblical writers.
Paul quotes from pagan Greek poets.1 The psalmists and prophets borrow vocabulary and
lines of material from the literature of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria (especially the
literature of a place called Ugarit).2 Some New Testament passages draw from ideas found
in ancient Jewish books that, while deemed useful by many Jews and Christians, were not
considered inspired. The biblical writers were not endorsing this kind of material as, but they
did find it valuable for their theology.
Although the fact that the biblical writers do this kind of thing may be unfamiliar to you, it
will be very important on our journey. Some things the Bible says can only be correctly
understood when we situate what is said in its ancient context. The Bible is certainly for our
benefit, and the benefit of those living a thousand years from now. But the Bible was not
written for us as the immediately intended audience. Its an ancient work, and we must
understand it on its own terms. It was Gods decision to reveal truth and have that truth
recorded at an ancient point in history and in an ancient context. We dont do it justice by
ignoring all that. We dont know better than God, and dispensing with the ancient
environment doesnt make the Bible more understandableit in fact distorts or impairs its
meaning. Situating the Bible in its ancient social, historical and, yes, religious context
doesnt harm the Bibleit illumines the Bible for people like us who are culturally removed
from its original context.
A Disclaimer of Sorts
I should telegraph one last thing about this book. By design I have tried to keep it uncluttered
by lots of Hebrew and Greek words and technical jargon. At times that was unavoidable, but
my goal was to put forth what I want to get across as straightforwardly and concisely as
possible. What well talk about at times is mind-bending enough without long rabbit-trails on
word studies, or technical grammatical issues from the original Hebrew and Greek.
Whenever I felt myself unnecessarily lapsing into academese, Ive inserted a footnote
directing you to a more detailed analysis of some issue. The footnotes will direct you to the
website devoted to this book.3 While I could have avoided footnotes completely, I want you
to know that everything youll read in the book, though often quite different, can be well
supported by scholarly, peer-reviewed work in the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible.
None of it is contrived or idiosyncratic. Its all based on solid scholarship, and if you can
digest that sort of thing, you can check it out on the website.
1
For example, Acts 17:28 (Epimenides, 600 B.C.; Aratus, 315240 B.C.); I Cor 15:33 (Menander, 342-291 B.C.,
or Euripedes, 480-406 B.C.).
2
For example, Prov. 22:17-24:22 (Wisdom of Amenemope).
3
This website (www.themyththatistrue.com) is not yet active.
Introduction:
The BibleHow Much Do You Really Believe It?
Some readers surely noticed that the title of this book borrows a line from J. R. R. Tolkien,
the literary genius whose creativity and scholarship gave the world The Hobbit and The Lord
of the Rings. With respect to the similarities between the biblical storyline and well-known
mythologies from the ancient world, Tolkien acknowledged the commonalities but asserted
with confidence that the Bible was Gods true myth.
True Myth
A lot of readers will naturally be uncomfortable with the use of the word myth with respect
to the Bible. Thats understandable since that word is often used today to cast something as
being untrue or unhistorical. That isnt what Tolkien meant, and it isnt what I mean. In
broad terms, when speaking of literature like the Bible, myth refers to a document or story
where divine characters are an integral part of the story. The Bible certainly qualifies in that
respect! One writer summarized the thoughts of Tolkien, as well as those of his friend and
colleague, also a literary scholar, C. S. Lewis, on the matter:
. . . [Myth is] a means of communicating truth that could not be conveyed in
any other way. All myths and all religions . . . contained some aspect, some
distorted reflection of the True Myth, which is the Gospel as revealed in the
Bible . . . [In] Christianity - and only in Christianity - myth has entered into
reality and history. Far from being fantasy or fiction created by fertile human
imaginations, myth was for Tolkien a way of knowing truth. Myth was a
literary form and, at the same time, a way of capturing a glimpse of the
transcendent truths of existence. In the Gospel, that Truth had entered into
history and reality, and the Christian Myth was the singular truth to which all
other stories pointed and from which they actually grew.4
Academically speaking, those scholars who wish to strip the Bible of its miraculous events
and otherworldly qualities since they cannot be explained empirically by science are said to
be de-mythologizing the Bible. I have no interest in such an approach. In fact, my goal is
to re-mythologize the Bible for a contemporary generation by encouraging people
Christians among themto believe that the unseen world is truer and more real than the
world in which we live. And that brings me to what I see as the fundamental problem I want
to address in this book.
C. S. Lewis once said, The value of the myth is that it takes all the things we know and
restores to them the rich significance which has been hidden by the veil of familiarity.5 As I
see it, the Bibles supernatural narrativeits description of the otherworldly conflict raging
10
all around ushas been lost to view because of a veil of familiarity that modern preachers,
teachers, and scholars have draped around it. For sure most serious Christians would insist
that they have not dumped their belief in miracles or the spiritual world. And yet something
inside us as moderns compels us to not believe in an invisible, animate world or universe. We
tend to accept as supernatural only that which we must accept or else wed deny the faith,
but no more. There are a couple of reasons for this.
Skeptical Believers
For one thing, we arent as open to the supernatural as we think we are. Many Christians
are supernaturalists who think like skeptics. Ask yourself what would be going through your
mind if a Christian friend confided in you one day that they believed they had been helped by
a guardian angel, or that they audibly heard a disembodied voice warning them of some
unforeseeable danger, or that they had seen an image of Jesus in some moment of crisis.
What if they related an incident akin to Martin Luthers so many centuries ago, about
throwing an inkwell at a demon that had been tormenting him while he tried to work on his
translation of the Bible into German? What if your friend was convinced God had directed
their life in some way through a dream? Or that their believing spouse had said goodbye to
them in a brief encounter after death? Most of us would have to admit that our initial
impulse would be one of doubt about what we were hearing. Our mind would immediately
consider the possibility of other explanationsin fact we would seek other explanations
because our modern inclination is to insist on verifiable evidence. We might even
recommend counseling or a physical.
I dont bring this issue up because I think we should get our theology from experience. As
youll find out, I think spiritual beings can and do seek to deceive us, and we need our
theology to be rooted in the text. However, our modern, rationalistic evangelical sub-culture
has trained us to think that our theology precludes these experiences or this kind of contact. I
can recall in my own life hearing faithful missionaries relate dramatic encounters with
demons in some uncivilized country and thinking that there could have been some other
explanations given the primitive outlook of the people involved. In my thinking back then,
the more given to superstition (i.e., the less modern) that people were, the more such things
got reported. I didnt realize it until later that I had just transformed what the apostles would
have called another day on the job (or the advance of the kingdom of God) a case of
unenlightened superstition.
To some extent this is understandable, given the abusive manipulation of people through
alleged spiritual experiences perpetrated in certain sectors of Christianity. But Im not
talking about attention-seekers and their lust for power over people. Nor do I have in view
the innocent churchgoer who is under the spiritual abuse of having his or her commitment to
Jesus judged by the presence or absence of a paranormal encounter. Its a perversion of the
gospel to convince people that they arent close to God unless theyve got their own personal
miracle that validates their testimony. Im talking about the personal and private and, most
importantly, the content of the biblical text.
11
Whether we want to admit it or not, since we live in a modern scientific age, we are prone to
think these kinds of experiences are misinterpretations of some other happenstance, or
something that is treatable with the right medication. We would think it absolutely
unwarranted to insist on scientific evidence for the virgin birth, insisting that faith is required.
Why then do many Christians call on academic SWAT teams to explain away other weird
passages? Arent those important? Does acceptance of the supernatural extend only to the
items referenced in creeds and confessions?
The truth is that we just arent open to the regularity of the spiritual conflict that goes on
behind the veil of our five terrestrial senses and, as I will show in this book, we are quite
ignorantsometimes willfullyof the mythic past of that conflict described in the Bible.
The result is that very people who should be predisposed to embracing the reality of the
otherworldly find it foreign territory. Christians have desensitized themselves to the spiritual
world. We talk as if we wished we lived in apostolic days, but my guess is that most of us
would be scared to death at the spiritual conflict they regularly experienced.
Bored Consumers
A second reason the Bible has become hidden behind the veil of familiarity is that
Christians have been unconsciously trained to think of the Bible as merely a handbook for the
mundane. We certainly need the Bibles guidance for things like marriage, parenting, ethics,
and social responsibility, but the Bible is more than a book of advice. When this is the
portrayal of the Bible presented to people sermon after sermon, year after year, thats what
the Bible becomes to them. Ive had preachers tell me that when they try to go beyond
therapeutic sermons, many in their congregation complain that the effort was misguided and
the outcome not relevant. Pastors are easily tempted to be shallow (and many have been
trained to be so) due to the Churchs attitude of consumerism. If they get too impractical
people have other choices and will go elsewhere.
The result of this utilitarian cycle is that our churches are filled with people who mentally
divorce thinking deeply about the biblical text from living for Christ. Pondering the text for
any other reason than to get a spiritual buzz is at best nerdy and at worst cold-hearted. Their
senses are dulled to the Bibles story of the otherworldly drama working its way out on
earthly soil. Sermons peppered with pithy platitudes about life are considered to meet lifes
problems and induce the feeling of knowing God. But the effects are very temporary.
Shaping or sharpening a worldview takes more time and effort, though the payoff is
exponentially more enduring. And as each generations theological imagination atrophies, the
Church produces an abundance of pastors who, though godly, look at the Bible the same
way.
Sunday School Shouldnt Be Forever
A final reason for the presence and endurance of the veil of familiarity is that it is far easier
to consider the Bible a collection of stories that affirm our traditions than spend the time it
takes to closely scrutinize what is says, especially the parts that are foreign to our minds, and
then figure out how the parts fit into the whole. If we give some sincere thought to the
12
majority of the sermons we have heard, many amount to little more than repetition of the
words in the Bible that we can read by ourselves. What we hear on a Sunday morning is
essentially Sunday School stories that last longer, with a few points of application that would
be lost on anyone who isnt an adult. A deep sermon is one that involves the passing
mention of a Greek or Hebrew word on the way to reminding us to read our Bibles, pray,
support the church financially, and be nice to other people.
Most pastors are certainly capable of more than this. Its easy for them to defend themselves,
too, as they can legitimately point to their congregations low tolerance for detailed content.
But in my experience, the real problem is that the mythic narrative underneath the surface of
Bible stories awaits discovery for most Christians, even pastors. They cannot consider
something that they were never taught profound or practical or even stimulating. Its time
that changed.
Theological Joyriding
So what are we to do? As my title suggests, I believe we need to rediscover the cosmic
worldview of the Bibleto see the contents of the Bible the way ancient Israelites and
Christians would have seen it. Thats easier said than done, to be sure, but unless youre
doing it, you cannot understand whats going on in most of the Bible, and you have little
hope of seeing how the grand plotline hangs together. You may not realize it now, but if its
weird, its important. What may feel like filler isnt. There are no throwaway passages. You
just cant see them for what they aresince you arent an ancient Israelite or an early Jewish
Christian who lived two millennia ago. You need a new set of eyes.
An important step toward recovering a re-mythologized narrative of the Bible is accepting
the premise that the spiritual world, the world we do not see with our earthly eyes, is the real
world. It is the world of our everyday existence that is secondary or peripheral. Put in
popular terms, we need to escape the matrixthe notion that the here and now is the
litmus test of reality.
But we fear to consider life in those terms. We are afraid to believe that we are at the center
of a death match among beings of unimaginable power. And yet this is precisely what the
Bible describes in detailin both testaments. Tragically, much of this material has been
obscured by camouflaged translation and the fear of uncomfortable answers to strange
passages. The sad reality is that much of what is put forth as Christian doctrine nowadays is
done so without regard to the context of the ancient people who first heard it, felt it, believed
it, and saw it. The point isnt that Christian doctrine is wrong; its that it has lost something in
terms of the richness and fascination it had to those who lived long ago.
Think of this book as my offer to drive you home to the faith. Im a believer like you are, so
youre probably sure I can get you there in one piece. But I know something you dont
youve never taken the way Ill be going. Once youre in my car, since I dont want your trip
to be dull, I start drawing your attention to points of interest along the way. Thats when you
start to feel a little uncertain. It doesnt take you long to realize that nothing looks as it
should. You begin to wonder if I know the way to the right house, since the signposts youve
13
come to expect just dont look the same. Dont worry. You may not be able to retrace Im
taking you, but youll arrive safe and sound.
What I offer in this book may seem radical, but it is nothing less than the worldview of the
ancient Israelite and the first century Jew. The ancients believed in the existence of a unique,
supreme God, as well as a vast, cosmic, unseen world populated with other gods, angels, and
evil beings of various origins, ranks, and tasks. These are the characters in an enduring,
titanic struggle for the souls of humankind and the destiny of earth. Our Bible is a witness to
this winner-take-all war. Its the stuff of which epic myths are made. But in this case, its
the myth that is true.
4
5
Michael Russell, http://lordofthekingdom.com/2006/06/22/finding-true-myth/, June 22, 2006.

C. S. Lewis, On Stories and Other Essays on Literature (Harcourt, 1982), p. 90.
14
Chapter 1
Muzzling the Dragon

Im betting it feels strange to start off this way. Youre likely wondering why Id begin
with Satan. Actually, Im not. I know Satan is called the dragon in the book of
Revelation, but he isnt the point. Im talking about the sea monster God defeated when
he created the heavens and the earth.
Really.
I know. No sooner did I get you in the car than youre sure were lost. Were not. But I
did warn you about the trip.
The Chaos Monster of Psalm 74
Genesis 1 is not the only account of creation in the Bible. Thats probably a surprise since
Genesis 1 the familiar go-to passage for the origin of the world. The other creation
account I have in mind is one youve likely read before but didnt realize what it was
saying. In that passage, Psalm 74, creation happens after God subdues a tremendous
monster.
For the sake of orientation, Ive underlined the creation language youd recognize from
Genesis to highlight the creation description, as well as verse references for that language
from Genesis 1:
12
13
14
15
16
17
Yet God my King is from of old,

working salvation in the midst of the earth.
You divided the sea (Gen 1:6-7) by your might;
you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.
You split open springs and brooks;
you dried up ever-flowing streams.
Yours is the day, yours also the night (Gen 1:4-5);
you have established the heavenly lights and the sun (Gen 1:14-18).
You have fixed all the boundaries of the earth (Gen 1:9-10);
you have made summer and winter (Gen 1:14).
The language has obvious references to creation. But look at what I didnt underline.
Right in the middle of Gods ordering the sea and dry land, establishing the sun, moon,
and stars and the seasons they mark, we read that God broke the heads of the sea
15
monsters and crushed the heads of Leviathan. What in the world (couldnt resist the
pun) is going on?
An ancient Israelite would have no trouble deciphering the messaging in Psalm 74. In the
literature of ancient Mesopotamia and Canaan (particularly from Ugarit, a city state in
ancient Syria), neighboring regions with which the Israelites had frequent contact, these
symbolic images were very familiar.
One of the most famous stories that has survived on ancient tablets discovered at Ugarit
is the story of how Baal became king of the gods. This story is the backdrop for Psalm
74. The epic tale describes how Baal battles against Yamm (as with biblical Hebrew, the
word means sea). Yamm was a chaotic, violent force, often depicted as a great dragonlike sea monster. In the guise of this sea beast, Yamm was also referred to by the names
Tannun or Litanu. Baal defeated the raging sea and the sea monster, earning everlasting
dominion over the gods. The moral of the Ugaritic story is that the high king of the gods
(Baal) has power over the unpredictable forces of nature.
The same story of a battle between a great god seeking kingship and a terrible sea
monster is known from Mesopotamia (specifically, Babylon). In this epic, called Enuma
Elish, the deadly conflict is directly linked to creation. In Enuma Elish, heaven and earth
were created after two gods fought to the death over supremacy in the pantheon. Without
a clear leader, the cosmos faced anarchy and disorder. Order had to be established, and so
a conflict for kingship ensued. The loser of the battle was a great sea dragon named
Tiamat. The winner, the high god Marduk, cut Tiamats body in half and made heaven
and earth with the two pieces. The dragon was dead, Marduk brought order to the
cosmos, and heaven and earth were created.
Psalm 74 has close parallels to both these epics. In the Ugaritic story about Baal, the
italicized Ugaritic terms are precise equivalents to some Hebrew words in Psalm 74:1314. Those verses read: You divided the sea (yam = Yamm) by your might; you broke the
heads of the sea monsters (tanninim = Tannun) on the waters. You crushed the heads of
Leviathan (= Litanu). Other passages in the Old Testament refer to Leviathan using
descriptions found in Ugaritic tablets. In some Ugaritic stories Litanu is described as a
twisting serpent and fleeing serpent. Those exact phrases are used of Leviathan in Isa
27:1 and Job 26:13.
Notice in Psa 74:13 that the sea (yam) is divided or splitjust as the monster of the
deep in the Babylonian story was cut in half. In Genesis the waters were divided in two
by a great expanse or firmament created by God. Half the waters were stationed
above the firmament (which as the sky) and half stayed below on the earth. In Genesis
these waters that were split were the deep (Gen 1:2), tehom in Hebrew. The word
tehom is very similar to Babylonian Tiamatso similar that many scholars of the last
century believed the Genesis description was borrowed from the Babylonians. Few
scholars accept that notion today in the wake of the discovery of the literature of Ugarit.
Hebrew tehom is actually identical to the primeval sea waters of Ugaritic epics (called
taham).
16
Psalm 74 and Genesis 1 therefore have conceptual connections to the material from
Babylon and Ugarit, though 74 is much more vivid in revealing those connections.
Understanding the Ancient Imagery
God didnt really fight a literal dragon at the beginning of creation and use parts of it to
build heaven and earth. Rather, these are images that convey important ideas. The people
of the biblical world knew nothing of physical science, and the biblical writers provide no
coherent scientific process for the creation. They merely assert who was responsible
(Yahweh) and describe his acts with imagery familiar to all at the time. They did so
deliberately and for good reasons.
The biblical writers drew on the mythological epics of Ugarit and Babylon to provide
their own answers to two theological questions: Who is king of the gods? and Who
controls the forces of nature? The answer to both questions was Yahweh, the God of
Israel. Using ancient Near Eastern mythological imagery was logical since the imagery
was familiar throughout the known world. Inserting Yahweh into these scenes made the
theological message unmistakable to both Jew and Gentile; it would not be missed by
anyone in the ancient Near East.
Answering both of these questions in the context of creation also gave ancient Israelite
readers the timeline for both lessons: from the very beginning, Yahweh was king of all
gods, and it was Yahweh who created the world in the first place, subduing untamed
nature to bring about an orderly world for human habitation.
That these lessons were theologically crucial is apparent from the fact that all ancient
civilizations have stories that provide answers to these questions. People all over the
world in antiquity wanted to know who was in charge of the divine realm and the forces
of nature as they experienced them. The people of antiquity had an intuition that the
ordered world in which they lived wasnt always that way. It came from somewhere, and
was ordered by someone other than themselves. They knew the gods were around before
the heavens and earth, so that made them the logical candidates for creating the world
they experienced. And since natural disasters (flood, drought, famine, fire, etc.) happened
all the time, the ancients suspected that at least some of them were behind these disasters.
That in turn meant some of the gods liked humans while others did not. The gods werent
exactly one big happy family.
All this boils down to the fact that there was a pressing need to know who was in charge.
Life was chaotic and unpredictable, especially in the ancient world, where ones survival
was a daily problem to be solved. There was conflict in the divine realm, which made life
even more uncertain. It is for this reason the Old Testament uses what scholars now call
chaos imagery in presenting Yahweh as creator and king. Yahweh was the one who
brought about the heavens and earth, holding back the forces of nature from unrestrained
violence against humanity. Yahweh frequently appears in a whirlwind with fire,
lightning, and tempest, thereby identifying him as the source and controller of all these
17
forces (Job 22:14; 38:1; Psa 97:2; 104:3; Nah 1:3). He is Lord of the hosts of heaven,
king of all gods (Deut 10:17; Psa 86:8; 95:3; 96:4; 136:2; 2 Chron 2:5).
Comprehending Chaos: The Natural Realm
It is important to take the discussion of the idea of chaos a bit further, as it has a role to
play in the biblical epic. In creation accounts, chaos refers to the forces of creationas
created. The forces of nature, chaotic as they are, are not morally evil, as creation is not a
moral, personal entity. When these forces break forth, they can and do cause disaster and
human misery, but they have no mind to intend as much. While this is the case, the forces
of nature were created as a reflection of their Creator, but subservient to the Creators
will. Nature is untamed, unpredictable, and uncontrollable power. It is a picture of the
Creator God. Paul of course understood this ideathat observing nature could teach us
about the attributes of God (Rom 1:18-20). The creation stories tell us that the chaotic
forces of nature needed to be restrained by the Creator, their only Master, to make the
world habitable for humanity, and so they were.
We know from the biblical text that the above is true primarily because of Genesis 1:2
and 1:31. In Gen 1:2 we read that when God began creating the heavens and the earth,
the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep (tehom).
Tehom, the primeval waters of chaos, is pictured as subdued and passive, already
conquered, for there is no battle scene in Genesis 1, unlike Psalm 74. The two are not in
contradiction. They merely describe two points in Gods activity to bring about the
heavens and the earth. Some view Gen 1:2 as sinister or as speaking of divine judgment,
mainly because of the reference to darkness, but this is not coherent. The forces of nature
are not evil or the Devil, the latter of which is described as a personal spiritual entity in
the Bible. Other passages clearly associate God with the darkness with no hint of
punishment, and so darkness in and of itself does not denote evil and judgment (Exod
20:21; Deut 5:22; 1 Kings 8:12; 2 Chron 6:1). Darkness was merely one of the conditions
present before God ordered the creation (Job 38:9). It is likely associated with Gods
dwelling since God was perceived as living above the sky, which was dark at night (Psa
18:8-11).
The point is straightforward: chaosunpredictability, untamed naturewas part of
Gods original creation. Genesis 1 goes on to describe how God ordered the world and
filled it, and when we get to Gen 1:31, the end of Gods work, we read that God deemed
the results very good. There is no reference to the chaotic forces of nature being
eliminated or completely tamed; they are rather held back and brought under the
Creators greater power, his restraint. They behave as they were created to behave, but
are not allowed full release, which would make human habitation impossible.
We can know more clearly that this description is on target from other considerations in
the biblical text.
First, there was only one place on earth where nature was completely tamed and no threat
at all to humans: Eden. Many Bible readers think of the entire original earth as Eden, but
18
that is not what the Scripture says. Eden was only a tiny plot on the earth. It is given very
specific geographical markers (Gen 2:8-14) on earth. The original planet earth prior to the
Fall of humanity was not Eden. Eden was in fact a deliberate contrast to the rest of the
planet. It was at peace without any threat of the chaotic forces of nature breaking forth
because it alone was where God was; it was his earthly abode. The rest of creation was
very good, but it was not Eden. This also shows us that the declaration that God saw
his work as very good did not mean he saw it as perfect. Perfection was Eden, a small
part of the planet, not the entire planet. Perfection required the presence of God, which
was true only in Eden, the place where God had come to earth.6
Second, we know the preceding description of creation is accurate since the curses that
resulted from the Fall are never said to involve natural disaster. It is commonly assumed
that the natural disasters humans have experienced from time immemorial extend from
human sin at the Fall. Frankly, thats thinking too highly of ourselves as sinners. The
curses meted out in the wake of the Fall have nothing to do with natural disaster. A close
reading of Gen 3:16-19 shows that the curses that effect humankind are very focused:
Adam and Eve lose immortality, food production becomes toilsome, and Eves pain in
childbirth would be acute.7 The ground is not cursed so that it will hereafter produce
natural disasters. The text never says this and does not need to, since natural forces that
cause those sorts of things were allowed to remain in the fabric of creation (Gen 1:2),
albeit under restraint.
Isaiah 45:7, a verse that occurs in a passage parallel to Gen 1:2, adds support for this
point: I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the
LORD, who does all these things. Along with light and darkness, the text is clear that
calamity was part of the original creation. These three conditions were subsequently
ordered or managed by God in Genesis 1woven into the ordered creation as God
wished, but not eliminated. What happened in Eden did not cause the creation to behave
unpredictably; it resulted in perfection being lost.
Third, we can be sure that chaos part of creation since all creation will only become
Edenic in the distant future, what scholars call the eschaton, the end time. Some
scholars would argue that the chaos monster (Leviathan or tehom) was killed and so the
idea of chaos being an inherent part of creation is wrong. This approach over-literalizes
the imagery. Just as we would not believe that heaven and earth were made from the
body parts of a cosmic sea monster, so there is no need to believe a real cosmic monster
was killed. The language is that of conquest and kingship, which are the teaching points
of the symbolic images. Besides, if the monster was really killed, why would Isaiah
clearly say that only at the last day will Leviathan meet his true end?
In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong word will punish
Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the
dragon that is in the sea. (Isa 27:1)
The book of Revelation, taking its cue from Isa 27:1, agrees. The actual elimination of
the unpredictable wildness of the created world will only come with the final reign of
19
God on earthwhen all the earth is Eden. Only when the new heaven and new earth is
brought into being will there be no more sea (Rev 21:1). That is where the cosmic epic
we call the Bible ultimately takes us, but were still at the beginning! Theres a lot of
ground to cover before we get to the climax.
Implications
Why would God create this way? Why allow some element of unpredictability in
creation, as opposed to making the whole earth Eden? Doesnt this put humanity at risk
of harm?
Ive already hinted at part of the answer to these questions. Nature was designed to reflect
the character and power of God. He is pure, untamed power. A creation with chaotic
forces reflects images God. But God is also good, and so he restrains for humankinds
benefit. But still further, God is also other than creation and humankind. This is where
Eden comes in. God desired a place on his earth where humankind could learn that only
in the presence of God was there perfection and unthreatened eternal life. Only in Eden
was creation in perfect harmony with God and his creatures. Eden was a contrast to the
rest of the planet by design. Adam and Eve of course did not discover life outside Eden
until they sinned, but they could experience Gods fullest intention for life on earth. They
only way it could be lost was if they rejected it, which they eventually did.
This original arrangement was therefore not a threat to humanity. Life on earth only
became uncertain in the wake of human rebellion, not in Gods design. Only after being
thrust out of Eden was humanity at risk from nature, no longer under the protection of the
divine environment. The world Adam and Eve found after was as God had designed it
fully capable of sustaining human life, though now with great toil and risk. Only after the
Fall was immortality (though even in Eden dependent on God) lost and the appearance of
death inevitable.
For readers of the Bible long after Adam and Eve, the creation narratives are designed to
make us long for life with Godto long for the eschaton, when all the earth is Eden
anew, when God returns to earth as its immediate, present ruler. This restoration of Eden
is the ultimate storyline of the Bible, but it is one that involves many subplots that we will
encounter in this book: rebellion, faithlessness, spiritual powers of darkness that seek
both human destruction and Yahwehs humiliation, divine abandonment, and Yahwehs
masterful strategyovert and covertto remedy the tragic consequences of evil and
human sin. In our earthly existence natural disasters happen not because God
indiscriminately targets people with them, nor because he needs them included for some
larger plan to work, but because earth is not Eden.8 Creation is behaving as it was
designed to behave, but humans now suffer the consequences of being divorced from
Gods abode in Eden. Gods original intention was rejected by humankind.
Despite the unpredictability that is part of our non-Edenic world, the forces of nature are
still actually restrained. The natural world could be much worse than it is. In fact this is
the point of much of the Bibles apocalyptic materialthat as the final day of judgment
20
(followed by the restoration of Eden) approaches, natural disasters, including ominous

celestial signs and events, will increase in number and intensity (Matt 24:7; Luke 21:11;
Rev 15:1). Chaos is unleashed as punishment on a wicked world, much in the manner of
the flood, to prepare for something new. This is why the pain of childbirth is used to
describe the time of the end in the Bible: horrible pain followed by new birth (Matt 24:8;
Rom 8:22).
While the Fall was not the origin of suffering due to natural forces, it is nevertheless
associated with that suffering since one of its results was that humankind now found itself
at the mercy of a world where catastrophe could happen. Another of its results was the
proliferation of human evil. These two problems are the fundamental causes of human
misery and death. God decided not to eliminate the wildness of nature, leaving it
unpredictable but restrained. He also decided not to eliminate humans when they sinned,
or to step in and eradicate their ability to sin again, opting instead to expel them from
Eden. This is why peoplebeliever and unbeliever, righteous or notsuffer in life.
In Chapter 5 Ill discuss how Gods decision to create humans free (and to leave them
that way after the fall) follows the same rationale for why he decided to create a world
that wasnt Eden. Both are an extension and reflection of his attributes. The decision of
creation was morally good since it instilled a longing for paradiseGods perfect
presence in the worldin the human heart. That good longing becomes corrupted in
various episodes in the biblical story. Likewise Gods decision to make humans free was
ultimately required by Gods character and nature, and it too was good, though costly, to
both humanity and God himself. For now, however, we need to keep setting the stage for
humanitys entrance into the worldand there are a lot of characters to meet before we
get to that moment!
This distinction is important for other theological reasons. It provides a strong point of refutation against
monism (all is one) and pantheism (the creation is God). If the entire earth was perfect, but perfection
requires the presence of God, a monist or pantheist could use this notion in defense of their belief systems.
Distinguishing Eden from the entire earth prevents this argument.
7
The language in Genesis 3:16 speaks of multiplying pain in childbirth, not that childbirth would now
become painful. This suggests there would have been pain in childbirth even in Eden. This is logical given
what has to happen anatomically at the birth of a child. There is no indication in Genesis that Eve was more
human than human.
8
Some readers may presume that if God knows natural disasters will happen, he must in some way ordain
them. The Scriptures actually disconnect foreknowledge and predestination without denying either. God
can and, as Scripture notes in several places, does predestinate events, but events as they occur do not need
to be predestinated because God knows them. See Chapter 6.
21
Chapter 2
Gods Heavenly Household
Children often ask, What was there before God made the world? Im guessing the
answer most adults would give is Godbut that actually isnt completely correct. The
more precise answer is that God and his heavenly host were around before God created
the world as we know it. Well see a passage in a moment from Job where thats made
clear.
Most discussions of What was before creation omit the members of the heavenly host.
As I look back on my own education, that omission isnt surprising. The biblical theology
of divine beings in Gods unseen bureaucracy receives scant attention in most theology
textbooks, and most of what is written is superficially derived from the English Bible.
The subject just hasnt been assigned much importance. Thats unfortunate because it is
absolutely crucial.
I believe that an accurate understanding of the relationship of God to these other beings is
the key to understanding biblical theology. God and his heavenly household are the
centerpiece of the mythic narrative that has been obscured by time and culture. In the
Preface to this book I made the point that the church needs to re-contextualize its
theology in terms of ancient Israelite religion to really understand whats going on in the
Bible. Consider this chapter Exhibit A in defense of that assertion. Read prayerfully and
closely, because youll never look at your Bible the same way again.
Introducing the Elohim
Well start our introduction with the obscure but important passage I referred to in the
last chapter, Job 38:4-7. In the section of the book of Job where these verses are found,
God is challenging Job, who wanted to know why he was suffering. Gods general
answer in Job 38-42 is that he doesnt need to explain himself because hes God. Part of
that response reads:
4
Where were you [Job] when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Speak if you have understanding!
5
Who fixed its dimensions? Surely you know!
Or who measured it with a line?
6
On what were its bases sunk?
Who set its cornerstone,
7
When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
22
Theres a lot to be said about this passage. First, you probably noticed that God is
basically asking Job (sarcastically) where Job was when He created the earth. God refers
to the time when he laid earths foundations, fixed and measured its dimensions,
sank its bases, and set its cornerstone. Second, you also no doubt noticed the
underlined portion. We learn from this text that, at the very moment of earths creation,
there were already a number of sons of God. These sons of God shouted for joy when
they saw Gods creative power and handiwork. You might be thinking the sons of God
are the angels. Thats a common assumption, but its not quite correct since the Hebrew
word for angels (malakim) is completely different than the Hebrew words behind sons
of God. Third, you may have discerned via the underlining that the two lines of verse 7
parallel each other. That is, the sons of God who shout for joy are also identified as
morning stars who sang together. Such parallelism is the major feature of Hebrew
poetry: one line renames or repeats another. I wont lapse into a lecture on Hebrew
poetryjust make a mental note of the parallel, that the sons of God are identified with
the heavenly starry host.
The passage raises some questions. Maybe youre wondering if we can be sure that
Gods description really does refer to the creation of the earth. Im going to keep my
promise to save all the data that proves this for an appendix.9 By way of just one proof
for now, though, you should know that the Hebrew words in Job for laying the
foundations are the same words as used in other verses that undoubtedly refer back to
the creation of the earth (see Psalm 102:25 [Hebrew, 26]; 104:5; Prov. 8:29; Isa. 48:13;
51:13, 16). One verse in that list should jump out at you right awayProverbs 8:29.
Thats the passage we read in Chapter One, where Wisdom claimed to be at Gods side
serving as his assistant in creation! This is clear biblical testimony that the sons of God
who watched the show were watching God and his co-creator in action. They were all
therebefore there were human beings.
Why would I emphasize that last line when its so painfully obvious? Because many
Christian pastors and professors teach that the phrase sons of God refers to humans!
Granted, they usually do not make that mistake in this passagethe supernatural
character of the sons of God is irrefutable in Job 38 since humans were not yet created.
However, in other passages, it is argued by many that sons of God refers to human
beings. The reason for this misguided conclusion requires a bit of background.
In the original Hebrew, the phrase sons of God in Job 38:7 is beney elohim.10 You
might recognize elohim as one of Gods names. In fact, it is the most common name for
Israels God, despite the fact that its shape or spelling is plural. (Yes, you read
correctlyplural). Hebrew actually has two generic words for God (or any other
foreign god): the more common is el; the other is eloah. In English we normally make
words plural by adding -s or -es to words (rats; horses). In Hebrew, plurals of
masculine nouns end with im (and God is always described with masculine pronouns
in the Bible he; him). The word elohim is the plural of eloah; the plural of el is
elim.
23
The above discussion means that the word elohim all by itself can refer to either God
(capitalized, the God of Israel) or gods (lower case, other divine beings). We have to
wait for the word to be put into a sentence to know which meaning is the focus. We have
words like this in English. For example, the word sheep can be either singular or
plural. By itself we cannot tell which option is correct. If we put sheep into the
sentence, The sheep is lost, we know only one sheep is meant since the verb is
requires its subject to be singular. Likewise, the sheep are lost informs us that more
than one sheep is in view.
Over two thousand occurrences of the word elohim in the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament point to the singular God of Israel. We know this because of the grammar of
the sentences in which the word occurs, as well as context. Job 38:4 obviously refers to
the God of Israel since the grammar there has the creator speaking in the first person
singular (I laid the foundations of the earth). At other times, God is referred to as haelohim, with the Hebrew definite article (the word for the) in front of elohim. It was
written this way to signal that the God of Israel was THE God (par excellence) among
all other gods. The grammar and context of any particular occurrence helps the reader
make the decision about what to do with elohim.
It shouldnt be surprising that since God can be referred to as elohim and ha-elohim the
Hebrew Old Testament attaches the phrase the sons of to both forms of Gods name.
At times the Hebrew text refers to the sons of God as beney elohim and at other times as
beney ha-elohim. There is no difference in meaning. In the same manner, the Hebrew
text occasionally reads beney elimwith the meaning sons of God (though plural in
shape, elim refers to the singular God in that phrase, just like elohim does).11 One verse
(see Psalm 82:6 below) uses the phrase beney elyon (sons of the Most High), since
elyon is yet another name for God.
The thought might have occurred to you that when the Hebrew writers referred to the
God of Israel as THE God (par excellence) or Most High (greater and more exalted
than all others) that this implies more than one god. If that question crept into your mind,
kudos to you! Youd be correctand that brings us to the reason why so many
evangelical scholars and pastors want the sons of God to be human beings in certain
passages. They think having heavenly sons of God in certain passages puts polytheism in
the Bible.
This uneasiness is felt especially acutely in Psalm 82, since Psalm 82:1 and 82:6 identify
the sons of God as plural elohimgods. But that is the literal and most straightforward
understanding of the text. What opponents of the obvious meaning of the text miss is that
the presence of more than one god in the Bible does not mean polytheism as we
commonly use that word. If these last two sentences sound way out, stay with me. Lets
take a look at Psalm 82 (note my insertion of Hebrew and grammatical terms and the
underlining):
A psalm of Asaph.
24
God (elohim) stands in the divine council (literally, council of El);

among the gods (elohim) He pronounces judgment.
2
How long will you (plural) judge unjustly,
showing favor to the wicked?
Selah.
3
Judge the wretched and the orphan,
vindicate the lowly and the poor,
4
rescue the wretched and the needy;
save them from the hand of the wicked.
5
They neither know nor understand,
they go about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth totter.
6
I said, you (plural) gods (elohim),
sons of the Most High (beney Elyon), all of you (plural);
7
but you (plural) shall die as men do,
fall like any prince.
8
Arise (the command is singular), O God (elohim),
judge (the command is singular) the earth,
for you (singular) shall inherit all the nations.
Despite the fact that it makes people uncomfortable, the text means what it says.12 In
Psalm 82:1, the first elohim must be singular, since the Hebrew grammar has the word as
the subject of a singular verb. The second elohim must be plural, since the preposition in
front of it (in the midst of) requires more than one. You cant be in the midst of one
person. And according to Psalm 82:1, the singular God (elohim) of Israel presides over
an assembly or council of other gods (elohim).13 Verse six makes it perfectly clear that
these other elohim are the sons of the God of Israel. In that verse God himself is
speaking (I said) to the other elohim of that divine council, and he addresses them with
the plural you. He says point-blank: you are gods (elohim), all of you. The fact that
he is speaking to a group (plural elohim) is made certain even in the English, since God
also calls them sons of the Most High.
Some who object to the obvious meaning of the text may assert that this psalm is actually
describing God the Father speaking to the other members of the Trinity. This view
results in heresy here, in some very obvious ways. First, not all the members of the
Trinity are sons. The Holy Spirit is not the Son of God or a son of God. Second, if the
passage has the Trinity in mind, then God is charging them with corruption! Verses 2-5
are quite clear that God is displeased with these other elohim in his council and has
indicted them for their wicked rule. Third, this view would also have the Trinity
sentenced to death! They would die like mortals (as men do). This cant refer to the
death of Christ for three reasons: (a) the death sentence isnt restricted to just one son of
God; (b) the death sentence is for personal guilt and corruption; (c) the Son (note the
capitalization) who is Gods own essence and uncreated, is superior to the other sons of
God (more on that in a moment). Fourth, it is evident from the last verse that the
judgment of the sons of God, these other elohim, has something to do with Gods
reclamation of the nations of the earth. The implication is that the sons of God have been
ruling the earth and doing it wickedly, and so they must be removed for Gods rule to
25
come to full fruition. In other words, they are an impediment or a nuisance (or at best a
disappointment). Certainly not the way wed want to look at the Trinity.
But what about the view that the elohim upon whom God has placed a death sentence are
human rulers? This, too, is incoherent. Ask yourself some questions of the text. What is
the scriptural basis for the idea that God presides over a council of humans that governs
the nations of the earth? Some commentators who reject the face-value meaning of
Psalm 82 like to argue that Israels council of seventy elders is in view herethat God is
judging Israels judges or elders for their corruption. This makes little sense, since at no
time in the Scriptures did Israels elders ever have jurisdiction over all the nations of the
earth. In fact, as well see in the next chapter, the situation is exactly oppositeIsrael
was separated from the nations to be Gods own possession and focus of his rule.
Moreover, since when do the corrupt decisions of a group of humans make the
foundations of the earth totter (v. 5)? Lastly, if these elohim are humans, why are they
sentenced to die like humans? This is nonsensical, and is defeated by the grammar and
structure of the Hebrew text.14 It would be akin to sentencing a child to grow up, or a
dog to bark, or a human being to breathe. The point of verse 6 is that, in response to the
corruption of the elohim, they will be stripped of their immortality at Gods discretion
and die like humans die. A clear contrast is set up in the text.
The real problem with the human view, though, is twofold. This view cannot be
reconciled with: (1) other references in the Hebrew Old Testament that refer to a divine
council and other elohim; (2) other passages in the Hebrew Bible speak of an act of God
to divide the nations of the earth among the sons of God as a punishment for their
rebellionbefore there was a nation of Israel. Once you understand the texts well
examine below, Psalm 82 becomes completely coherentand frankly brings much of the
Old Testament into proper focus. For the remainder of this chapter well focus on the
first issue: references to a heavenly council that make it clear that the council of Psalm 82
is comprised of God and other supernatural beings. Well tackle council functions and
related concepts in chapters that follow.
Yahweh and His Elohim Council
There are several other places in the Hebrew Bible that speak of plural elohim and a
heavenly council. Perhaps the most familiar passages where the sons of God show up are
the first two chapters of Job:
Job 1:1ff.
1
There was a man in the land of Uz named Job. That man was blameless
and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. 2Seven sons and three
daughters were born to him; 3his possessions were seven thousand sheep,
three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred sheasses, and a very large household. That man was wealthier than anyone in
the East. 4It was the custom of his sons to hold feasts, each on his set day in
his own home. They would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with
26
them. 5When a round of feast days was over, Job would send word to them
to sanctify themselves, and, rising early in the morning, he would make
burnt offerings, one for each of them; for Job thought, Perhaps my
children have sinned and blasphemed God in their thoughts. This is what
Job always used to do. 6 And it came to pass, when the sons of God
presented themselves before the LORD, Satan came along with them. 7The
LORD said to Satan, Where have you been? Satan answered the LORD, I
have been roaming all over the earth. 8The LORD said to Satan, Have you
noticed My servant Job? There is no one like him on earth, a blameless and
upright man who fears God and shuns evil!
Job 2:1ff.
1
Once again the sons of God presented themselves before the LORD. Satan
came along with them to present himself before the LORD. 2 The LORD said
to Satan, Where have you been? Satan answered the LORD, I have been
roaming all over the earth. 3The LORD said to Satan, Have you noticed
My servant Job? There is no one like him on earth, a blameless and upright
man who fears God and shuns evil. He still keeps his integrity; so you have
incited Me against him to destroy him for no good reason. 4 Satan
answered the LORD, Skin for skinall that a man has he will give up for
his life. 5But lay a hand on his bones and his flesh, and he will surely
blaspheme You to Your face. 6So the LORD said to Satan, See, he is in
your power; only spare his life.
In both these passages the Hebrew phrase translated, the sons of God is beney haelohim. Although I have the familiar Satan in this passage, the Hebrew word here
(sa an) is best translated The Adversary since it has the definite article prefixed to it
(ha-sa an) Hebrew does not prefix proper names with the article, and neither does
English (I am not the Mike). In the Intertestamental period and the New Testament
era, sa an became a proper name for Gods arch enemy. The word as used here actually
refers to a being who exercises a prosecutorial functionone who accuses or indicts
another person. In the ancient Near East, to which the Old Testament culturally belongs,
this was a specific role within the divine council (see Zechariah 3:1-7 for perhaps the
classic passage on this function).
The picture here is that the divine council is meeting for business, and the Adversary has
a role in that meeting. The Hebrew text is ambiguous as to whether he is a member of the
council or one of the sons of God.15 He may simply be an officer of the council at its
meetings.16 One also encounters the sons of God (beney ha-elohim) in Deuteronomy
32:8 (in Old Testament manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other sources) and
Genesis 6:1-4. Well discuss those passages in detail in other chapters as well.
27
Before we leave Job 1-2, take note of how the human view of the sons of God fails
hopelessly in those chapters. There is simply no way that the sons of God could be
human beings in Job 1-2.
One encounters the sons of God in the slightly variant spelling beney elim in two biblical
passages. In Psalm 29:1, a verse that has suffered greatly at the hands of translators, the
other elohim are commanded to worship Yahweh:
Ascribe to the LORD, O sons of God (beney elim),
ascribe to the LORD glory and strength!
It is quite clear from this text that Yahweh is to be worshipped by other elohim, not the
other way around. The God of Israel is qualitatively superior. Psalm 89:5-7 (Hebrew,
vv. 6-8) echoes the same thought, and specifically references the divine council:
5
Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD,

your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!
6
For who in the skies can equal the LORD,
Who can compare with the LORD among the sons of God (beney elim),
7
a God greatly dreaded in the council of the holy ones,
held in awe by all around Him?
I naturally underlined the phrase sons of God and obvious references to the divine
council to draw your attention to their existence in the biblical text, but I also underlined
in the skies and all around him. The reason is to emphasize that these sons of God
are in heaven and around Gods throne. They are not a human council of judges. Once
again, the human view is completely inadequate. Any explanation thats offered for
the sons of God and the plural elohim for Psalm 82 must also work in Psalm 89, and this
text makes it clear that these beings and this council are in the heavens.
Perhaps the most striking scene of the divine council is found in I Kings 22. We looked
at this passage in our first chapter when discussing free will. Here we have an actual
divine council meeting concerning the evil king Ahab (note the underlined portions,
NRSV):
1
For three years Aram and Israel continued without war. 2 But in the
third year King Jehoshaphat of Judah came down to the king of Israel. 3
The king of Israel said to his servants, Do you know that Ramoth-gilead
belongs to us, yet we are doing nothing to take it out of the hand of the
king of Aram? 4 He said to Jehoshaphat, Will you go with me to battle at
Ramoth-gilead? Jehoshaphat replied to the king of Israel, I am as you
are; my people are your people, my horses are your horses.
5
But Jehoshaphat also said to the king of Israel, Inquire first for the
word of the LORD. 6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets
together, about four hundred of them, and said to them, Shall I go to battle
against Ramoth-gilead, or shall I refrain? They said, Go up; for the LORD
28
will give it into the hand of the king. 7 But Jehoshaphat said, Is there no
other prophet of the LORD here of whom we may inquire? 8 The king of
Israel said to Jehoshaphat, There is still one other by whom we may
inquire of the LORD, Micaiah son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never
prophesies anything favorable about me, but only disaster. Jehoshaphat
said, Let the king not say such a thing. 9 Then the king of Israel
summoned an officer and said, Bring quickly Micaiah son of Imlah. 10
Now the king of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah were sitting on their
thrones, arrayed in their robes, at the threshing floor at the entrance of the
gate of Samaria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them. 11
Zedekiah son of Chenaanah made for himself horns of iron, and he said,
Thus says the LORD: With these you shall gore the Arameans until they
are destroyed. 12 All the prophets were prophesying the same and saying,
Go up to Ramoth-gilead and triumph; the LORD will give it into the hand
of the king.
13
The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him,
Look, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king;
let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably. 14 But
Micaiah said, As the LORD lives, whatever the LORD says to me, that I
will speak.
15
When he had come to the king, the king said to him, Micaiah, shall
we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain? He answered him,
Go up and triumph; the LORD will give it into the hand of the king. 16 But
the king said to him, How many times must I make you swear to tell me
nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD? 17 Then Micaiah said, I
saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep that have no shepherd;
and the LORD said, These have no master; let each one go home in peace.
18 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell you that he would
not prophesy anything favorable about me, but only disaster?
19
Then Micaiah said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the
LORD sitting on his throne, with all the host of heaven standing beside him
to the right and to the left of him. 20 And the LORD said, Who will entice
Ahab, so that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? Then one said one
thing, and another said another, 21 until a spirit came forward and stood
before the LORD, saying, I will entice him. 22 How? the LORD asked
him. He replied, I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his
prophets. Then the LORD said, You are to entice him, and you shall
succeed; go out and do it. 23 So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in
the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has decreed disaster for
you.
24
Then Zedekiah son of Chenaanah came up to Micaiah, slapped him
on the cheek, and said, Which way did the spirit of the LORD pass from
me to speak to you? 25 Micaiah replied, You will find out on that day
when you go in to hide in an inner chamber. 26 The king of Israel then
ordered, Take Micaiah, and return him to Amon the governor of the city
and to Joash the kings son, 27 and say, Thus says the king: Put this fellow
29
in prison, and feed him on reduced rations of bread and water until I come
in peace. 28 Micaiah said, If you return in peace, the LORD has not
spoken by me. And he said, Hear, you peoples, all of you!
Note from this remarkable vision of the true prophet of Yahweh that the deliberative
assembly is once again in the presence of God. There is no possibility that this is a
human council.
There are other references to the corrupt gods of the nationsand not idolsoutside
immediate divine council contexts. They affirm that other gods were part of the
worldview of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. The first list below contains passages where the
word elohim or ha-elohim is in the Hebrew text where you read gods. The second list
has verses where the Hebrew word is elim. As I noted above, elim is likely still singular
(God) when found in the phrase beney elim. However, when it occurs by itself, its
plural.
The plural elohim / ha-elohim
Psalm 86:8 - Among the gods there is none like you, O Yahweh; neither [are there
any works] like your works.
Psalm 95:3 - For Yahweh is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
Psalm 96:4 - For Yahweh is great, and deserving of exceedingly great praise: he is
to be feared above all gods.
Psalm 97:7 - All who served images were put to shame; those who boasted in
mere idols; even all the gods bow down before him [Yahweh, see v. 5 preceding]
Psalm 97:9 - For you, O Yahweh, are Most High above all the earth: you are
exalted far above all gods.
Psalm 135:5 - For I know that Yahweh is great, and that our lord is above all
gods.
Psalm 136:2 - O give thanks to the God of gods: for his mercy endures for ever.
Psalm 138:1 - I will praise you with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing
praise to you.
The plural elim

Exodus 15:11 Who is like you, O Yahweh, among the gods? Who is like you,
majestic in holiness, awesome in splendor, doing wonders?17
30
Psalm 58:1 - Do you indeed decree what is right, O gods? Do you judge people
fairly?18
But Are They RealAnd What If They Are?

It is common for those who resist the plain meaning of the text of Psalm 82:1, 6 to argue
at this point that such references to other gods are actually references to idols, or that they
are figurative expressionsthat Israelites didnt really believe such beings exist. The
first of these is discussed in detail in Chapter Nine. For now we need only note that
Moses himself says the other elohim are real entities, not just idols. In Deuteronomy 32,
Moses is rehearsing how Israel sinned during their wilderness trek by worshipping other
gods. When we get to verse 17 we read: They sacrificed to demons, not God,19 to gods
(elohim) they had never known, new gods (lit., new ones) that had come along recently,
whom your fathers had not feared. The important observation is that the Israelites
sacrificed to demons, and those demonic recipients of the sacrifices are also called gods
(elohim). If it is argued that the other elohim are just idols and dont really exist, then we
have to conclude demons arent real. This is poor theology.
Those who want to argue on other grounds that these references to other gods cannot be
taken as reflecting what Israelites really believed dont realize how that objection does
injustice to both the biblical text and the God of Israel. What I mean here is that, if the
above verses are not conveying factual information relative to biblical theology, then
Gods superiority is a mockery. For example, if Moses is comparing Yahweh to beings
that dont exist, how is Yahweh glorified? To have Moses saying Who is like you, O
Yahweh, among the beings that arent real is to judge Gods greatness by nothing. We
are greater than something that doesnt exist! So is a microbe. This view
unintentionally brings God down quite a few notches, to say nothing of the deception
involved on Moses partand even Gods since he inspired the words. Saying among
the beings that we all know dont exist there is none like Yahweh is tantamount to
comparing Yahweh with Mickey Mouse, Spiderman, or some fictional literary figure.
This reduces praise to a snicker. It also makes the writer somewhat mentally unbalanced.
He sings Yahwehs praise before beings he really believes arent there? He commands
the same imaginary beings to worship Yahweh (Psa. 29:1)? Worse yet, Yahweh presides
over a council of beings that dont exist? Why would the Holy Spirit inspire such
nonsense?
More substantive is the fact that those who dont want to take the text for what it says in
such verses fear that they might be affirming polytheism as part of the belief system of
the biblical writers. Im sympathetic to this concern, since I felt that way the first time I
saw this after my decision to let the text be my teacher. It was difficult for me to
understand that some cherished notions about the word G-O-D were actually
misconceptions. Because I thought G-O-D was exclusively the name of a personal being,
namely Yahweh of Israel, I tended to assign the attributes of the God of Israel, to the
word spelled G-O-D. When I came to realize that there were other G-O-D-S in a
heavenly council, it seemed (and thats an important word) as though Yahweh was just
31
one among equals. That sounded like polytheism, and that bothered me. The answers to
my concerns, though, were readily available.
The first thing I had to do was to see if a term like polytheism (or some other term
besides monotheism) really fit what it was Israel believed about Yahweh. Polytheistic
religions typically have a group of gods who fight and scheme against one another for
power, and sometimes leadership of the lead god in charge can (and does) change in such
religions. These systems also universally assume that the gods can be identified with
parts of the creation, and that at least subset of the pantheon is basically equal in power
and ability (or they have powers and abilities that offset the powers and abilities of the
other top tier gods). Other terms relevant to this question are also flawed, such as
henotheism (the belief in one superior god among other gods) and monolatry (the belief
that you should worship only one god though others exist). These terms are deficient in
that they do not sufficiently describe what the biblical writers believed. Henotheistic
systems can have the lead god toppled and replaced by another god who then becomes
superior (one wonders on what grounds, since just prior to that the god was inferior).
Monolatry fails to articulate why one God is superior and what criteria make him
superiorit comments only on worship.
Israels faith cannot be adequately understood by any of the terms above. Yahweh was
not understood as on a par with other gods. In fact, while Yahweh is often called an
elohim there are a number of instances where the Hebrew text adds the definite article
(the word the) to elohim. The result is that Yahweh is ha-elohimTHE elohim (par
excellence)compared to all other elohim.20 Yahweh is also referred to as the elohim of
elohim (Deut. 10:17) another declaration of his superiority. These designations are
significant, for if all the elohim were the samejust plain old elohimwhy would
Yahweh be singled out in such a way? There must be something about Yahweh that
merited this elevation. To an Israelite, the differences were more than just what Yahweh
did for them, as though his elevation was a popularity contest. No, there were essential,
qualitative differences between Yahweh and all other elohim
First, Yahweh is credited with creating all the members of the heavenly host.21 By
definition this means he was viewed as the creator of all the other elohim. By definition
the rest of the elohim are qualitatively inferior to Yahweh since they are created beings.
Second, the faithful Israelite believed that the unique elohim who created other lesser
elohim was sovereign over those lesser elohim. Third, because he was qualitatively
distinct and superior, Yahweh alone deserved worship. The faithful Israelite believed
Yahweh alone was the pre-existent, sovereign, omnipotent creator. To say that a divine
council of plural elohim means polytheism requires ignoring Israels description of its
God with respect to the other gods.
Coming to grips with how and why a godly Israelite distinguished Yahweh from the other
elohim was only part of what helped me deal with the shock of what the biblical text
actually said about Yahweh and the divine council. Knowing that it didnt mean
polytheism as we understand that term was one thing; knowing what it did mean was
another. If the word elohim itself wasnt to be exclusively equated with Yahweh, what
32
did it mean? With all these elohim running around in the Old Testament, the ancient
Israelite must have understood something about the term.
I came to discover that the Old Testament actually calls a number of beings or entities
elohim. Yahweh, of course is called an elohim, as are Yahwehs sons, the sons of the
Most High in Psalm 82:6. You also may recall that Deut 32:17, a verse we looked at not
too long ago, refers to demons (shedim) as elohim. Angels may also be called elohim,
assuming there is a connection between Genesis 35:7 and Genesis 32:1-2. In Gen. 35:7,
the word God (in all English translations) is elohim, but it is accompanied by a plural
verb form, which may mean we are to translate the word gods. Genesis 35:7 has Jacob
saying the gods appeared to him when he was fleeing from his brother Esau. It seems
certain that this is a reference back to Gen. 32:1-2, when the angels of God appeared to
Jacob at that precise time. That would mean the angels of God of Gen 32:1-2 are
called elohim in Gen 35:7. Lastly, the spirits of human dead are called elohim in 1 Sam
28:13. In that passage the witch of Endor is ordered by Saul to contact the dead Samuel.
She obeys and when she says, I see an elohim coming up out of the earth, both she and
Saul identify that elohim as the deceased Samuel.
What are we to make of this? It makes no sense to have Yahweh, the sons of God,
demons, angels, and the spirits of dead humans all interchangeable with respect to their
attributes! No Israelite would have thought the disembodied human dead had the same
attributes as Yahweh, or an angel. This conundrum actually reinforces what we saw
abovethat the term elohim itself does not refer to a set of attributes possessed by the
God of Israel. E-L-O-H-I-M as a word does not refer to a being that is omnipotent,
omniscient, omnipresent, etc. It cannot, since beings far below the God of Israel in terms
of attributes are identified with the same word.
The solution is that elohim refers to an inhabitant of a certain plane of existencethat
plane or reality we normally refer to as the spiritual world. All of the beings that are
called elohim have as their proper habitation the spiritual world. The inhabitants of that
plane of reality are by nature disembodied. They may take on flesh and cross over to
the other plane of reality (our world), where beings are by nature embodied, but that is
not their normative state. This is why the human dead are also on that plane of reality. As
we will explore in succeeding chapters, terms like angel and demon actually describe
functions within the spiritual world. In effect, they are job descriptions held by certain
elohim. For our purposes now, among the elohim, only one elohim is omnipotent,
omniscient, omnipresent, and so onYahweh. Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim
are Yahweh. He is species unique. There is only one. This was Israels faith, and it is
our faith. We need not be afraid of what the text says.
What About Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God?
There was one final issue that I had to process once I discovered that the Hebrew text of
the Old Testament spoke openly of many elohim sons of God: what about Jesus as the
only begotten son of God? For some reason, it had never struck me that, while the New
Testament apparently referred to Jesus in such terms, the Old Testament had a number of
33
verses that referred to plural sons of God. How could Jesus be the only one when there
were others?
Only begotten is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially for modern readers.
The Greek word from which this translation has derived is monogenes. Not only does the
translation only begotten seem to contradict the obvious statements in the Old
Testament about other sons of God, it sounds as though there was a time when the Son
did not existthat he had a beginning.
The Greek word monogenes actually doesnt mean only begotten. The confusion
extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For many years
monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos (only) and
gennao (to beget, bear). Scholars of Greek linguistics have discovered, though, that the
second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao, but
rather the noun genos (class, kind). The term literally means one of a kind or
unique with no connotation of time or origin or solitary existence. The validity of this
understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is
called Abrahams monogenesbut it is crystal clear from the Old Testament that Isaac
was not the only son Abraham had begotten, since he had also fathered Ishmael prior to
Isaac. The term must mean that Isaac was Abrahams unique son, for he was the son of
the covenant promises and the line through which Messiah would come. Just as Yahweh
is an elohim, and no other elohim are Yahweh, so Jesus is the unique Son, and no other
sons of God are like Him.
As well see in other chapters, this is a sort of backdoor approach to Jesus being of the
same unique essence as the Father. Nothing is doctrinally lostbut our understanding of
the unique Son is much sharper, and rooted in the Hebrew Old Testament of all places!
But while the divine council doesnt conflict with the Christian idea of a godhead, is the
notion of a godhead found in the Old Testament? Im guessing you can anticipate my
answer.
9
See www.themyththatistrue.com for a full discussion.

I am using only English letters to spell this Hebrew term rather than strictly proper transliteration for
reasons of convenience for English readers.
11
See www.themyththatistrue.com for how elim in this phrase still points to a singular being. However,
elim by itself and not following sons of (Hebrew, beney) can only mean plural gods (cf. Job 41:17).
12
See www.themyththatistrue.com for a detailed analysis of the Hebrew grammar and syntax of Psalm 82.
13
What follows in this chapter is a basic introduction to the divine council. Aside from the Appendixes
related to this chapter, for more information on the divine council see E. Theodore Mullen, Divine
Assembly, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 214-217; S. B. Parker,
Council (Sod), in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Eerdmans, 1999); and Michael S.
Heiser, Divine Council, in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings (Intervarsity
Press, forthcoming).
14
See www.themyththatistrue.com.
15
The questions are difficult to answer given the paucity of the biblical material relevant to the discussion.
See www.themyththatistrue.com.
16
We will discuss Satan in more detail in other chapters.
17
This verse requires a brief comment. All scholars and translators agree (due to the obvious context) that
the Hebrew text here is elim. I mention this because the plural here is spelled with the normal y [yodh].
This note is important because of the next verse in the discussion, Psalm 58:1. Many English translations
10
34
do not recognize the shortened spelling in that verse and so translations are often confusing (e.g., the word
gets translated as something to do with silence). At other times, the reference to plural gods is
deliberately obscured (e.g., NIV, rulers). Some of the more recent translations get Psalm 58:1 right
(ESV, NRSV).
18
See the above footnote. Also note the content of this verse that it has the gods judging humanity
unjustly, just like Psalm 82. See the next chapter for the rulership of the gods / sons of God and their
corruption.
19
The word for God here is singular: eloah. Some translations inaccurately read They sacrificed to
demons, no gods, or They sacrificed to demons that were no gods. Both of these examples make it
sound like the demons are not gods, but the text says the opposite. In fact, if this were the correct
translation, it is contradicted in the next breath, since the non gods are again called gods: They
sacrificed to demons, no gods, gods they did not know
20
Examples include Duet. 4:35, 39; Josh 22:34; 1 Kings 8:60.
21
See Neh 9:6; Psa 33:6; Psa 148:1-5; Gen 2:1. These passages are discussed in detail in a subsequent
chapter. These passages are the basis for New Testament claims that God, through the Son, is the creator of
all things visible and invisible (Col 1:15-17).
35
Chapter 3
Gods Wisdom
Were all familiar with the first verse of the Bible: In the beginning, God created the heavens
and the earth. What could be simpler? In the beginning there was only God. There was nothing
else and no one else, right? Well, not quite. God wasnt actually alone at the creation.
For the Christian reader, this qualification isnt news. Christianity describes God as a Trinity
there is one God but that God is three persons. If thats your frame of reference, you affirm that
God was never alone, not even before creation. In fact, Christianity goes one step furtherit
declares that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, who was God in human flesh, was the agent
that God used to create everything. John 1:1, 14 make that idea clear: In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and
dwelled with us. John 1:3 adds, All things were made through him, and without him was not
any thing made that was made. Paul says the same thing in 1 Cor. 8:6, yet for us there is one
God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
In Genesis God creates by means of his word (And God said, let there be light . . .). Its easy
for us to look at the New Testament, written centuries after Genesis, and sense that there must be
some relationship between this verbal utterance spoken by God and the unusual description of
Jesus in the Gospel of John as the Word. But if thats the case, how did John make what seems
to us to be quite a leapunderstanding the declaration or word pronounced in Genesis not merely
as a spoken utterance, but as a person, the Son. How do you read Genesis 1 and get that? How
did John conceive this as a possibility and not feel he was adding something to the Old
Testament?
Believe it or not, the Old Testament describes a second figure active in creation as wellwe just
dont find that in Genesis 1. This second figure is described in two ways. One is the subject of
Chapter 9 and is best put off until that point in the unfolding story weve just begun. The other is
the focus of the rest of this chapter.
The Instrument of Creation
John is actually on solid ground. Since Genesis doesnt explicitly describe two persons creating
the heavens and earth, it is natural to wonder where the New Testament gets the idea that both
God and the Son, Jesus, were active in the creation of everything. I use the plural were active
since Jesus is described as the instrument God used in creation. God the Father still gets ultimate
credit for creating, not the Son, but the New Testament is clear that it was by means of Jesus,
Gods instrument, that all things came into being.22
36
The description of Jesus as the instrument of creation is an important one, for it provides us
with a means of understanding how this description of Jesus is entirely consistent with the Old
Testament. It also draws our attention to fundamental problems for God in his interaction with
anything outside his uncreated self.
The problems I allude to are a bit hard for us to process since we are created beings. First, God is
so unlike anything elsehe is so completely other or contrary to everything elsethat it
isnt a simple thing to describe anything he does in anything other than human terms. Second, as
Jesus himself said, God is disembodied spirit (John 4:24), and so he cannot be processed, known,
or understood by the things he has createdbecause they arent what he is. The biblical writers
had no conception (and neither do we, frankly) of how a disembodied, non-physical entity would
make something. God has no hands and no eyes, so he cant fashion things in a way we could
understand, and we dont create anything by just speaking it into existence. For that reason,
though the biblical writer of Genesis was led under inspiration to say that God created certain
things by his word, other biblical writers made it a point to clarify that the word was actually
a figure that served as Gods instrument for creating. This figure or instrument is often described
in physical and even human termsin both testaments. By making the disembodied and nonphysical into something physical that our human senses could understand, God was able to solve
the problem of how he could tell us what he did at the beginning. Later on, God used that same
strategy for helping human beings like Abraham and Moses discern he was therehe came to
them as an embodied human figure, or as something else physical they could see. Well look at
many of these instances later. For now it is enough to realize that they all led to Jesus, the
ultimate physicalization of God for humankind.
Gods Artisan
We encounter the first clear, but unexpected, description of a second figure who was active in
creation in Proverbs 8:22-31. Ive used a single underline in the passage below for the parts that
identify this person as distinct from God and as participating in creation. Much of this language
comes directly from Genesis 1.
22
The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work,

the first of his acts of old.
23
Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
25
Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth,
26
before he had made the earth with its fields,
or the first of the dust of the world.
27
When he established the heavens, I was there;
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28
when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
29
when he assigned to the sea its limit,
37
so that the waters might not transgress his command,

when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30
then I was beside him, like a master workman,
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31
rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the children of man.
Who is this figure? We find our answer by going back to the first verse of Proverbs 8Does
not Wisdom call? Does not understanding raise her voice? Proverbs 8 has a figure called
Wisdom present with God at the moment of creation, and this figure is described in feminine
terms. Repeatedly in this passage Wisdom informs us that she existed before the creation of
Gods material world. In verse 30 we discover that Wisdom was Gods master workman. The
idea that Wisdom was Gods instrument of creation also occurs in Psalm 104:24, where we read,
How wonderful are your works, O Lord! With Wisdom you have made them all; the earth is
filled with your creatures.
If youve studied literature before, you know that what weve been looking at is something called
personificationtaking an abstract idea like wisdom and casting it as a person or living thing.
English does this kind of thing as well. We might say, Greed overtook him, or Love blinded
her. In these cases, greed and love are spoken of as though they were living things. In
keeping with this personification technique, Ive capitalized Wisdom in this discussion.
Elsewhere in Proverbs Wisdom is cast as a person. In Proverbs 1:20-33 Wisdom takes on the
role of biblical prophet, warning her audience of their impending doom should they live as fools.
Ive underlined some of the words that will help illustrate the personhood of Wisdom:
20
21
22
Wisdom cries aloud in the street,

in the street plazas she raises her voice;
at the head of the noisy streets she calls out;
at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
And those who scoff delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
Whats the Point?

Why does the writer of Proverbs do this? Some scholars and critics of the Bible believe that this
passage is evidence of a primitive polytheism, specifically the presence of a goddess. For these
scholars, the untold story of Israels faith is that Yahweh, the God of Israel, had a wife! Gods
and goddesses of other ancient faiths and texts are typically depicted as creating the world and its
contents through the language of sexual intercourse. However, there is nothing like this
procreative language in Proverbs 8 or anywhere else in the Old Testament. To make matters even
more emphatic, the Hebrew Bible doesnt even have a word for goddess.23
38
What about the feminine terminology then? The feminine pronouns are quite obvious (she
raises her voice; she calls out; she speaks). Some interpreters use this as a proof that
Wisdom is really a goddess figure in Israels religion. Theres a far more boring reason why
feminine language is used of Wisdom.
If youve ever studied a foreign language or are bilingual, you know that languages assign
gender as part of the way their grammar works. In English we have many words that we
intuitively know describe males (boy, man, actor, priest, buck, bull) or females
(girl, woman, actress, priestess, doe, heifer). Other words in English are
ambiguous, requiring some context for what gender were talking about: author, doctor,
lawyer. The English we use today doesnt assign gender to such ambiguous words that have
nothing inherently to do with physical gender. Many languages around the world, however, must
do this because of the way their grammar works.24 The reason for this derives from the way a
language relates words to each other in sentences.25 German, French, and Spanish are examples.
The ancient biblical languages assign a gender to all nouns, not just the ones that have physical
gender. It may seem odd, but the Hebrew word for wisdom is classified as feminine in gender
in the Hebrew language. This is why when we read about the person of Wisdom in the Bible, she
is described with feminine pronouns. The issue is grammatical classification, not that Wisdom
has a real gender or should be thought of as a woman. The word for law in HebrewTorah
is also grammatically feminine. No one would argue that the law is female! Using grammatical
gender to prop up the goddess idea just doesnt work.
Its far more coherent to see Wisdom as the literary expression of Israels anti-polytheistic belief
system. While Yahweh had a divine family, his divine council, the biblical writers never endorse
the idea that Yahweh had a wife. While other nations had the world being created through a
sexual relationship between the chief god and goddess, the Hebrew Bible says Gods instrument
for bringing all things into being was his Wisdom, not a goddess. The point, then, of saying that
Wisdom was at Gods side as his artisan was to deny that the God of Israel sexually cohabited
with a goddess to create everything, as the other nations conceived. God created all that is by his
Word (see Chapter 9) and his attributes, such as Wisdom.
But can we be sure that Wisdom in Proverbs 8 was Gods Wisdom? Perhaps God just called out
another deity or goddess to get the job done. The Hebrew Bible does not support such a notion.
Other passages confirm that Wisdom is inseparable from Yahweh. Note the parallel thoughts
that are underlined:
Proverbs 3
19
20
The LORD by Wisdom founded the earth;

by understanding he established the heavens;
by his knowledge the deeps broke open,
and the clouds drop down the dew.
Jeremiah 10
10
But the LORD (YAHWEH) is the true God;

he is the living God and the everlasting King.
39
At his wrath the earth quakes,

and the nations cannot endure his indignation.
11
Thus shall you say to them: The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth
shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.
12
It is he who made the earth by his power,

who established the world by his Wisdom,
and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.
The language of founding the earth, establishing the heavens, and the deeps come from
creation descriptions in Genesis and elsewhere, including Proverbs 8.26 The connection between
these passages and Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8 is clear. Yahweh established the world by his
Wisdom.
Why is this important? Ive suggested that this second deity figure is really a way of describing
the plurality within the Trinity. That only works if the second figure shares the attributes of God.
Specifically, since were talking about Wisdom being present before anything was created,
Wisdom needs to be uncreated. Many interpreters would deny this on the basis of Proverbs
8:22. The translation above (ESV) reads, The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work,
the first of his acts of old. Other translations have different renderings:
The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old (NIV)
The LORD created me at the beginning of His course As the first of His works of old.
(Jewish Tanakh)
The problem is that the Hebrew word that receives all these translations is in fact used to convey
each of these meanings in various passages in the Old Testament. You may not realize it now, but
theres a lot hanging on the issue since Wisdom language in the Old Testament is applied to
Jesus (see Chapter 21) as the agent of creation. If Jesus was a created being, you dont have a
Trinity.
So which is it? The solution is actually pretty logical. If the Wisdom were talking about is Gods
Wisdom, then it must have always existed, since the only time it could not have existed would be
when God didnt existbut God is eternal. Therefore, Wisdom must also be eternal. Wisdom in
Prov. 8:22 could not have been created in the sense that there was a time when Wisdom was
not because there was never a time when God was not. You cant have the biblical God if that
God does not have Wisdom. Wisdom exists with God as his attribute, and God is eternal, without
beginning. The translation possessed isnt bad since it speaks to Gods eternal possession of
this attribute, and so the eternality of the attribute. Brought forth is consistent with eternality
since Wisdom would be construed as something brought it into play when God created the
heavens and the earth.
Wisdom in the Divine Council
40
While its true that Wisdom is an attribute of God that gets personified by the biblical writer,
theres more going on here than clever writing. The writer uses this technique to cast Wisdom, an
attribute of God, as a person who displaces the procreating goddess of other religions. Wisdom
therefore assumes a common role occupied by a goddess in the pagan belief systems of the
nations surrounding Israel. This created the feel for the Israelite that there were two eternal beings
in heaven who could neither be completely fused into one, nor separated. Wisdom wasnt
Yahweh, but couldnt be divorced from Yahweh either. The result is that the seed idea of a
godheadone God but plural personswas planted in the mind of the Israelite who read the
passages weve discussed here. Well see this idea expressed again and again in the chapters that
follow.
Jewish writers in the period between our Old and New Testaments expressed this notion in pretty
explicit terms. Here are some examples:
Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-4, 9-11
1
O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who has made all things with your word, 2 And
ordained man through your Wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which
you have made, 3 And order the world according to equity and righteousness, and execute
judgment with an upright heart: 4 Give me Wisdom, who sits alongside your throne; and do
not reject me from among your children:
9
And Wisdom was with you, who knows your works, and was present when you made the
world, and knew what was acceptable in your sight, and right in your commandments. 10 O
send her out of your holy heavens, and from the throne of your glory, that being present she
may work with me, that I may know what is pleasing unto you. 11 For she knows and
understands all things, and she shall lead me soberly in my doings, and preserve me in her
power.
Sirach 24:1-5
1
Wisdom shall praise herself, and shall glory in the midst of her people. 2 In the council of
the most High shall she open her mouth, and triumph before his power. 3 I came out of the
mouth of the most High, and covered the earth as a cloud. 4 I dwelt in high places, and my
throne is in a cloudy pillar. 5 I alone compassed the circuit of heaven, and walked in the
bottom of the deep.
The language is startling. The Jewish writer, committed to a theology that there was only one
unique Yahweh among the elohim, places Wisdom either alongside the throne of God or as
coming from Gods own throne, having come from God himself! As well see in a later chapter,
this is exactly the same kind of language the New Testament uses of Jesus.27 This means that
Wisdom was part of the divine council, and linked to Gods throne of authority. This in turn
indicates once again that the divine council included the notion of a godhead. Frankly, the
godhead preceded the divine council. In the beginning there was God and his Wisdom. The
godhead created all things that exist, even the invisible thingsthe lesser elohim of the divine
council we read about in Chapter One. Moreover, from the very beginning, even before creation,
41
there was hierarchy in heaventhere was Yahweh and his chief agent.28 This conception will
reappear many times as we continue on our journey.
Its not a new idea that the godhead was around before the foundations of our world were laid,
but you probably didnt think of that idea operating in terms of the divine council. All of this,
however, provides critical background information for comprehending what was going on when
Yahweh announced a momentous, glorious decision to his divine council: Lets make
humankind in our image!
22
See Colossians 1:13-17 and 1 Cor. 8:6.

When describing a goddess, the Hebrew Bible uses the masculine form of the word for god, not the expected
feminine form.
24
Sometimes we do this in English in an abstract way. For example, we speak of ships or cars as feminine (she
was the grandest ship on the sea; she really flies).
25
As one grammar puts it, Gender is a feature allocated to nouns on the basis of their form or the way they combine
with other elements in a clause (Christo Van der Merwe, Jackie Naud , Jan Kroeze, Christo Van der Merwe,
Jackie Naud , and Jan Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research
Systems, Inc., 1997). English usually telegraphs word relationships by word order. We can tell by listening or
reading what word goes with what other word or words. Other languages put little emphasis on word order. They
attach endings to words that indicate gender, number [e.g., singular or plural], and role in the sentence. This is
called inflection.
26
See Psa. 89:11; 102:25; 104:5, 8; (founding); Psa. 65:6; 74:16; 119:90; Prov. 8:27 (established); Gen. 1:2
(deeps).
27
See Chapter 20.
28
This is not to exclude the Holy Spirit. He will come into the picture in later chapters.
23
42
Chapter 4
As in Heaven, So on Earth
The axiom As in heaven, so on earth is familiar to most Christians. We usually associate the
idea with the Lords Prayer. The idea is much older, though, and is fundamental to understanding
Gods original intention behind His creation of human beings, an intention more readily
processed now that weve been introduced to Gods heavenly council.
Creator or Creators?
Lets start with Genesis 1:26-28. Note the underlining carefully:
26 Then God said, Let us make humankind as our image, after our likeness. And
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens
and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that
creeps on the earth. 27 So God created man as his own image, as the image of
God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them.
And God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it
and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and
over every living thing that moves on the earth.
A lot of Bible readers have noted the plural pronouns (us; our) with curiosity. Ill be
discussing those in more detail in the next chapter. For now Ill be up front and let you know that
the best explanation for them is not the Trinity but the members of his divine council, the
heavenly host. Among scholars the wording of Genesis 1:26 is called the plural of
exhortationa fancy way of saying one person is announcing something to a group. God
comes to the divine council with an exciting announcement: lets create humankind! It would
be like me going into a room of friends and saying, Hey, lets go get some pizza!
But if God is speaking to his divine council here, does that suggest at all that humankind was
created by more than one being, by the lesser gods of the divine council? And if thats the case,
is that a contradiction with Genesis 2, where we dont see any council in that chapters
elaboration on the creation of Adam and Eve? These are important, natural questions, but no
cause for concern. Genesis 1:27 tells us very plainly that, when it came down to the act of
creating humanity, only the single God of the Bible did that. How do we know that? At the risk
of dredging up painful memories of your high school English classes, the answer is grammar
says so.
If you take a close look at verse 27, its obvious as to who is doing the creating: So God created
man as his own image, as the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
One grammatical clue is obvious, even in English. If more than one god was participating in the
creation of humanity, the text would read in their own image. The pronouns, though, are
singularthey refer to one person. Less obvious is the fact that all the underlying Hebrew verbs
43
in this verse that speak of creating are also singular. Although the exhortation went out to a
whole group (the council), only one being created humankindthe God of Israel.
Image or Imager?
If youve been studying the Bible for even a little while youve probably wondered about what
the image of God is. Chances are you have heard a sermon or two on the topic. Ill also bet that
what youve heard is something along the lines of the image of God being intelligence,
rationality, emotions, the ability to commune with God, self-awareness, language capability, the
presence of a soul, a conscience, or free will. If thats the case, and if what you heard sounded
good, prepare for another jolt: the image of God means none of those things and if it did, there
would be no reason to talk about the sanctity of human life in the womb, at least in the early
stages of development.
Genesis 1 and 2 teach us several things about the image of God, and all of what we learn from
the text must be accounted for in any discussion of what the image means. First, both men and
women are equally included in what Ill call for now divine image bearing. Second, divine
image bearing is what makes humankind distinct from the rest of the Genesis creation (i.e.,
plants and animals). Note, however, that the text of Genesis 1:26 does not inform us that divine
image bearing makes us distinct from heavenly beings, those sons of God who were already in
existence at the time of creation. The plurals in Genesis 1:26 mean that, in some way, we share
something with them when it comes to bearing Gods image. Third, there is something about the
image that makes mankind like God in some way. Fourth, there is nothing in the text to
suggest that the image has been or can be bestowed incrementally or partially. Youre either
created as Gods image bearer or you arent. One cannot speak of being partly created in
Gods image or potentially bearing the image.
That leads us back to my comment about the sanctity of human life. Among the list of proposed
answers to what the image is are a number of abilities or properties: intelligence, rationality,
emotions, communing with God, self-awareness, language capability, and free will. The
problem with defining the image by any of these things is that, on one hand, non-human beings
like animals possess some of these abilities, albeit not as fully, which would mean they are not
unique to humans. On the other hand, the conceived contents of a womans womb, when
composed of little more than cells or tissue prior to brain development, has none of them.
Animals can learn to do things contrary to their nature, they can show emotion, and they have
language (we have no reason to assume language must be across species, as opposed to within
species). Artificial intelligence has achieved some of these properties as well.
The pro-life position is based on the assertion that human life (and so, personhood) begins at
conception (the point when the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm). The simple-celled
zygote inside the womans womb, which we believe to be a human person, is not self-aware; has
no intelligence, rational thought processes, or emotions; it cannot speak or communicate; it
cannot commune with God; and it cannot exercise its will or conscience. If you want to argue
that those things are there potentially, then that means that its personhood is only potential,
which is the pro-choice position. A potentially human person is not an actual human person, and
so abortion in the early stages would not be murder. Since there is no hint in Genesis that the
44
image comes in stages, defining the image of God in such terms raises the spectre that, to base
personhood on the image, the image must be actually present. This is a precarious ethical
position.
Even the presence of a soul fails these tests. The former doesnt work because animals also
possess the nephesh, the Hebrew word translated soul in Genesis 2:7 (and the man became a
living soul). For example, in Genesis 1:20 when we read that God made swarms of living
creatures, the Hebrew text underlying creatures is nephesh. The term means conscious life
or animate life as opposed to something like plant life, and there are other clear examples
where animals are described with the same word.29 My point here is not that humans dont have
a soul. They certainly do, and it is linked to personhood in biblical theology. My point is only
that the soul isnt the image.
My view of what the image means is based on a point of Hebrew grammar, specifically a special
function of the preposition in with respect to the phrase in the image of God. In our own
English languageand we dont often think about our own language in such detailwe use the
preposition in to denote many different ideas. That is, in doesnt always mean the same
thing when we use that word. For example, if I say, put the dishes in the sink, I am using the
preposition to denote location. If I say, I broke the mirror in pieces, I am using in to denote
the result of some action or accident. If I say, I work in education, I am using the preposition
to denote that I was as a teacher or principal, or some other administrative capacity.
This last example is the key to understanding what the Hebrew preposition usually translated
in means in Gen 1:26and that will in turn unlock the meaning of image bearing. The idea I
want to put forth is that humankind was created as Gods image. In other words, the preposition
tells us that humans work as Gods imagersthat they work in the capacity of Gods
representatives. The image is therefore not a thing put in us; it is something we do or are. It is
not a thing; it is a function or status. Dont think of it as a noun; think of it as a verb. Being
created as Gods imagers means we are Gods representatives on earth. Humans were created to
rule and care for the earth as God would if he were physically present. It is as though we are Him
when it comes to overseeing His earth. This duty is part of being human, and you are human (by
virtue of your DNA) from conception. This is why Genesis 1:26-27 are followed by what
theologians call the dominion mandatethat these humans are now to subdue the earth
(1:28). Verse 28 helps define verses 26-27.
If you are human, then, you are an imager of God, regardless of your abilities. You use your
abilities to steward the planet in whatever way you can wherever you are. For some that means
farming, bringing forth the earths abundance. For others its being a scientist, learning what
makes the earth and the universe tick. For still others its being in business, creating wealth,
goods, and services for human work and well-being. Every moral form of gainful employment
carries out some task that benefits the earth and its inhabitantsthat seeks to fulfill the purpose
of the earth in Gods mind as he intended it. All such jobs have Gods blessing. Being in the
ministry is no more sacred than anything else done in Gods will. That is what imaging means.
Even the stillborn baby or severely retarded person is an imager (since they are human, by
definition). The status of imager is passed on to every human. Every human therefore has the
dignity of being Gods stand-ins on this planet. We may not understand how human lives such
45
as these can image God and serve the creation, but they do. Perhaps their purpose is to compel us
to appreciate normal creation or creation before the Fall brought such tragic consequences to
life as God intended.
How do we share this function or status with the members of Gods council? We share this
status in general in that they, too, are Gods administrators. They do as God wills as though he
were there. Like us, they are the conduits for Gods actions on behalf of (or in spite of) people.
However, when it comes to earth, we outrank them, for it was to humanity God gave the earth
for stewardship, not to any other being.
This sweeping status promotion is critical for understanding the flow of biblical theology. In
the ancient world outside of Israel, the idea of being Gods earthly human representative was
reserved only for kings. You might recall the notion of the Pharaoh being God on earth as an
example. In fact, the idea that royal bloodlines were also divine bloodlines survives even to
today. In Europe, the absolute monarchies of France and England operated on the assumption of
the divine right to rule. Before World War II, Japanese Emperors were thought of in such
terms. In non-western cultures, the same idea still survives.
The amazing thing about Genesis 1:26 is that it tells us that, from the very beginning, God
intended all humans to be His royal representatives. The image of God idea is thoroughly
democratic in biblical theology. Like the members of Gods heavenly family, we are all Gods
childrenand God made us His imagers in this place. We were not created as Gods slaves. We
are His children and members of his royal household. We were intended to rule the earth
together as Father and sons and daughters.30
Gods Terrestrial Throne Room
As if this wasnt enough, as Gods royal sons and daughters, we were also intended to be
members of Gods divine council. Thats not readily apparent from Gen 1:26-27. For that we
need to take a brief look at the place where God intended humankind to dwell, the garden of
Eden and its connection to the divine council.
As I noted in the Preface, certain things in the Bible can only be properly understood in the full
context of ancient Israelite religion, which in turn can at times only be understood in terms of the
broad worldview Israel shared with the surrounding cultures. Eden is a good case in point.
Like Israel, the people of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, for example, also believed in an
unseen spiritual world that was governed by a divine council. While biblical Israels faith
described a single unique God of gods as sovereign, the literature of her pagan neighbors
described an elite group of gods who ran the cosmos and who were served by other gods or
human slaves. These gods held their meetings and lived in luxuriant gardens. These gardens were
well watered with rivers and subterranean springs that watered the rest of the earth, and had trees
that had supernatural attributes or powers.31 The garden of the gods was typically situated on a
mountain, and so the divine garden was also frequently referred to as the mountain of the gods.
It was at this place that the gods lived, held council, and announced decrees. Curiously, the gods
were thought to live and meet in tents in these divine gardens and mountains.
46
All of these motifs for the dwelling place and headquarters of the divine council occur in the
Bible with respect to Eden. Were all familiar with the description of Eden in Genesis as a
garden with four rivers, and hence a well-watered place (Gen. 2:10-14), but it will no doubt be
a surprise to many readers that Eden is also described in the Bible as a mountain! Ezekiel 28:1314 explicitly refers to Eden as the garden of God and the mountain of Godattributing both
kinds of descriptions of the meeting place of the divine council. Ezekiel 28:2 also refers to this
place as the seat of the gods (moshab elohim). Even in our own English language the word
seat refers to the place of administration (county seat). Amazingly, this seatEden, the
garden and mountain of God, the place of divine council governmentis described by Ezekiel as
being in the midst of the seas (Ezek. 28:2), again utilizing the well-watered imagery of the
council headquarters that would be familiar to ancient people in biblical times.
In biblical terms, then, Eden was the heavenly-earthly headquarters or nerve center from which
Yahweh administered the earth through his divine council. Initially, Yahweh and his council had
set up shop alone, but that all changed when Yahweh suddenly announced to the council that he
had decided to make another creature who would be his imager, along with his heavenly sons, in
this wonderful place. In fact, Yahweh announced, governance of this paradise would be handed
over to the new kids on the block, called humankind and whom Psalm 8:5 described as inferior
to the sons of God (you have made him a little lower than the elohim).32
Since Eden was the place where both spheres intersected, it was Gods intent that humankind
share membership in and be an extension of his divine council. Job 15:7-8 give us a hint of this
when one of Jobs friends taunts him by comparing Job to Adam: Are you the first man who
was born? Or were you brought forth before the hills? Have you listened in the council of God
(eloah)? The elohim would assist Gods sovereign rule from the spiritual plane, and humankind
would take over on the earthly plane. It was a wonderful plan, but to understand how it was
supposed to workand how it went off trackwe need to sort out the relationship of imaging,
free will, and Gods sovereignty to one another. If youve ever thought about those subjects and
had your head spin, dont despair. There is an answer. Really.
29
See Gen 1:21, 24, 30. Genesis 1:30 is interesting in that the text tells refers to the living nephesh as being in
animals.
30
The last comment about sons and daughters extends from the equal imaging status of male and female
(Genesis 1:27). There is no gender distinction when it comes to imaging status, no hint that male imagers are
superior to female imagers. In fact, the commands given immediately afterward are plural, reinforcing the point that
both genders, side by side, were to subdue and have dominion over the earth. While it may be the case that later
in the New Testament we find that Paul argued for some hierarchical relationship between male and female, based
on who was created before whom, and who was created for whom (1 Cor. 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:13), Pauls point is
being made in relation to headship within the home against the specific backdrop of the Genesis 6 incident
(because of the angels in 1 Cor. 11:10; see Chapter 6). There is no clear indication that Pauls discussion in 1 Cor.
11:2-16 was intended to apply to the question of female ordination. That said, the statement of 1 Cor. 11:3 with
respect to God being the head of Christ is noteworthy, for it plainly suggests that there is hierarchy within the
godhead. Though the godhead is composed of persons who are absolutely the same in essence, those persons have a
hierarchical relationship. This relationship was present from the very beginning, prior to creation, since it is the
second person (Christ) who as the agent of creation at the behest of the Father. Hierarchy in role is therefore
compatible with sameness or equality in essential being. There are a number of issues relating to gender roles in
imaging God, including roles within the Church, but those are beyond the scope of this book. See
www.themyththatistrue.com for further discussion.
47
31
See the articles Eden, Garden of (Place) and Garden of God in the Anchor Bible Dictionary for a more
detailed discussion.
32
Elohim of course could be translated as a singular (a little lower than God), but when this verse is quoted by the
author of Hebrews (Heb 2:7), it is taken as a plural (angels). The Septuagint also takes it plural, and is the source
of the quotation in Heb 2:7.
48
Chapter 5
Costly Decisions
Its hard to imagine why God would bother creating anything. Preachers and devotional
writers at times wax eloquent about Gods motivation, supposing that God wanted to express
himself, or wanted to be worshipped, or felt somehow compelled by his own love or joy to
call all things into being. While these speculations might warm our hearts, they arent
actually helpful. In fact, they make it sound as though God had some emotional deficit to
fill, or creation happened in response to some spasmodic urge God couldnt contain. God
needs nothing and has no urges that need attention. God would have been fully complete in
himself had he not created anything. All we can say with certainty is that he did create all
things other than himself, and that some of those creatures share some of his own attributes.
Knowing Good and Evil
We know humans were not the first intelligent beings God created, since the heavenly sons
of God were already present when the earth was formed (Job 38:4-7),33 an event that
obviously preceded the creation of humanity. We have also seen by now that the well known
exhortation let us make humankind in our image meant that both divine beings and human
beings were created as imagers of Godrepresentatives of God wherever he placed them to
serve him. This understanding helps us come to grips with some other plurality language in
the early chapters of Genesis, particularly that associated with the Fall, how that tragic event
was made possible, and why the divine plurality language should be distanced from the
Trinity. Lets take the last point first.
Many readers will reflexively assume that let us create humankind in our image echoes the
members of the Trinity. This option is fundamentally unsound since it reads later theology
back into a passage, but also because of the harm done to the Trinity when that explanation is
taken to other passages where language reflecting divine plurality occurs. Psalm 82,
introduced in Chapter 2, comes immediately to mind, since in that psalm the other gods are
charged with moral corruption. The Trinity obviously cannot be in view there.
Any discussion of this plurality language must also incorporate Gen 3:22, which adds to the
awkwardness of seeing the Trinity in Gen 1:26. After Adam sinned God declared, the man
has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. If the us of Gen 1:26 refers to the
Trinity, then one would expect that when God says Adam has become like one of us after
his transgression, he is speaking to the other members of the Trinity. Those scholars who, as
noted in Chapter 2, never want to see the word elohim as referring to multiple divine beings
are apparently driven to a Trinitarian view of Gen 3:22, for prior to the failure of Eve the
serpent (correctly, in light of Gen 3:22) had told Eve that God did not want the humans to eat
of the forbidden tree since when they did they would become like elohim (Gen 3:5).
49
My view is that elohim in Gen 3:5 should be translated plural (they would become as gods
since Gen 3:22 clearly requires a plural understanding (one of us). These elohim are the
members of the divine council in Eden, Gods abode and headquarters. Those who reject that
perspective must say that the serpent told Eve that when she ate she would become like the
other members of the Trinity (i.e., the triune God). This raises the question of what God did
not want Adam and Eve to learn that would make them like the triune God. This is a difficult
question to answer for those who want to defend the idea that the plural language speaks of
the Trinity.
Many theologians argue that knowing evil means just seeing it happen or having an
intellectual knowledge without actual experience of evil. This wording is deliberate, since the
members of the Trinity cannot actually commit evil, but they can see it. But Adam and Eve
didnt watch someone else sin; they were the ones that sinned. It also seems very clear that
Eve already intellectually understood what sin was. Eves conversation with the serpent tells
us that she knew eating of the forbidden fruit meant disobedience to God. She needed no
explanation as to what disobedience (sin) entailed. Other theologians argue that knowing
good and evil refers to making decisions, something the Trinity could do without being
morally suspect. This answer is equally flawed. Adam had made plenty of decisions before
falling into sin (e.g., he decided what to name the animals). Eve decided to talk to the serpent
and to eat. Since Adam and Eve already had decision-making ability prior to the Fall, that
ability cannot be the explanation of their state after the Fall.
The correct interpretation of the knowing good and evil phrase and its associated plural
(us) must account for several things:
(1) After the Fall, Adam and Eve were in a state that made them like the divine beings
in Gods heavenly host.
(2) That state also made them like God. When God said that the fallen Adam and Eve
had become as one of us he included himself in that number along with the other
divine beings he had previously created.
(3) This knowing state was something that God did not desire for humanity, else he
would not have forbidden eating of that particular tree, and would not have attached
dire consequences to it.
The phrase knowing good and evil in question occurs in only one other passage outside
Genesis 2-3, Deut 1:39:
And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children,
who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I
will give it, and they shall possess it.
The context is important for understanding not only the meaning of the phrase in Deut 1:39,
but also more broadly. The little ones referred to here are the generation of Israelites that
would arise after the original generation that had escaped from Egypt at the exodus. That first
50
generation had been sentenced by God to wander in the desert for forty years until they died
off for their refusal to enter the Promised Land in conquest (Num 14). The new generation
had no knowledge of good and evil and would be allowed entrance into the land.
The meaning is clearly that the second generation was not held morally accountable for the
sins of their parents. Though as children they were under the authority of their parents, they
had no decision-making authority in the matter and were thus not willing participants. As
such, they were not considered liable. They were innocent.
This context makes good sense in Gen 3. Prior to knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve
were innocent of any moral accountability. Though under Gods authority, Adam and Eve
had never made a willing, conscious decision to disobey God. They had never been
considered morally responsible for their actions. Now that had changed. It was Gods wish
that they never find themselves in such a position, since it would mean his original intent for
creating humankind would be derailed. He would have to punish the transgression and was
justified in doing so.
How does this apply to the members of Gods council? How were Adam and Eve now like
them? Adam and Eve now found themselves morally responsible to God just as the members
of the council were already held morally responsible for their actions. There is no indication
that the elohim of the council were considered innocent by God or were given a grace
period of innocence. On the contrary, when one of these divine beings does transgress
Gods wishes (the serpent, elsewhere described as a divine being; see Chapter 7), they are
immediately considered accountable and not innocent.
In principle the same idea applies to God. While there is no authority over God, either. God
is morally accountable for what he does, but that accountability is to himself. This sounds
odd, but Scripture actually affirms it with respect to Gods covenant with Abraham. For his
part, Abraham was accountable to God for believing God and obeying what God said as his
adopted child (Gen 17:1-2; 22:16-18). But who would hold God accountable? As the writer
of Hebrews expressed it, For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one
greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself (Heb 6:13).
Adam and Eve were now morally responsible for their actions. God was not trying to keep
something good from them. It had been Gods wish that they never find themselves in such a
position, since it would mean his original intent for creating humankind would be derailed
and they would have to be punished.
How Could the Fall Have Happened?
If you are tracking to this point in our journey you can see how God set the stage for his
original plan. God intended for his human imagers, his human family, to live with him in that
slice of earthly perfection known as Eden, along with his divine imagers, the divine sons of
God. Since we have the book of Revelation, which informs us that when all is rectified the
entire globe will be Edenic, we can imagine that, had humanity not rebelled, eventually the
51
perfection of Eden would have overspread the earth. Heaven would literally meet earth on a
global scale, and all Gods imagers would rule and administer that world.
How could things have gone so wrong?
This is an obvious question. What isnt so obvious is that the Fall occurred as the result of a
decision on Gods part that was truly wonderful. That something was free will, given to
humans, as well as Gods other imagers.
Acknowledging genuine free will contributes to answering other questions: How and why
could Adam and Eve sin if their natures were not evil? How did the serpent come to tempt
Eve, itself an act of evil? The answer to these questions is that all these agents were free to
make the choices they made. They were not compelled by predestination to do what they did,
even though God foreknew what would happen if such freedom was extended.
I raise these questions because, whether we realize it or not, their implications have a direct
impact on how we view all that goes on in the invisible world and the epic battle between
good and evil for the souls of humankind. While God foreknows events he does not decree or
need evil. Evil happens because Gods imagers share his attribute of freedoman attribute
that is in fact essential to being Gods imager. And though it made the Fall possible, it was
the best thing God ever did for us.
These assertions need explaining, so lets unpack one idea at a time. Lets start with the
connection between imaging God and free will.
Recall that the language of Gen 1:26 (let us create humankind in our image) tells us that
not only were God and the other heavenly beings around prior to humanity, but that human
beings shared something both God and the other heavenly beings already had in common, at
least to some degree. God created us in some way like himself and like his heavenly host
without compromising his own uniqueness. I am suggesting that we think of this common
bond in terms of sharing attributes of God.
Theologians have articulated the idea of shared (communicable) attributes between God
and humankind for centuries. One of Gods attributes that he shares with us, and other nonhuman imagers, is freedom. Others include power, intelligence, love, etc. The critical point is
this: if we are imagers of Godtruly like himthen we must have genuine free will. We
cannot be like God and not be free. Why? Because imaging God means acting as God in his
place, as though he were here. We mirror God, and God is a free being. If our free will is
removed, we would cease to be imagers of God. We would not be like him or be able to
function as he would with respect to the tasks he has given humanity. Free will is essential to
imaging God.
Lets unpack this a little more. What do we mean by free will and how does that reflect
God? When we talk about free will we need to think carefully about what we mean and dont
mean, and what can be said from the perspective of Scripture, and what cant be said. We
52
also need a definition that applies equally to human beings and intelligent members of the
heavenly host.
In briefest terms, free will is the ability to make a choice without coercion. This does not
mean our decisions are made in total freedom, however. Total freedom involves (1) making
choices without any external influence at all, or (2) having the power to filter all external
influences at will so as to make a truly independent, self-contained choice. Only God has
such total freedom. He exercised the first when he made decisions before there were any
created beings who might interact with him. The second is a power that most theologians
admit God has, but they disagree as to how much God might allow our actions to influence
him.
We, on the other hand, have no such autonomy. Any decision we make is made either
because of some immediate influence on that decision, or because of the cumulative effect on
our character by previous influences and decisions. No human being has ever been in such
complete isolation that God or any other human being has never influenced them. There is no
scriptural warrant for anyone being so completely abandoned by God, and no human being
has survived without some environment that included other human interaction. There is no
such thing as total autonomy in decision making within the world that God has created and in
which he has put us. It must be understood, though, that coercion and influence are not the
same. The former nullifies free will; the latter is in constant cooperation with it.
So why is free will so wonderful? Just consider the alternative. If our decisions were all
coerced, how authentic would those decisions actually be? If love is coerced, is it really
love? If hate is coerced, is it really hate? Is any coerced decision really a genuine decision at
all? Not if no other option was possible because of the coercion. We all know the difference,
too. When your Mom made you eat your broccoli, that was coercion, not a choice. The IRS
doesnt tell you that you may perhaps pay your taxes by April 15. How satisfying or
comforting would it be to hear your spouse or a parent say they love you if they were not
truly free to refuse to do so, but they do it anyway? We appreciate such statements all the
more since we know our spouse or parent could actually decide otherwise. The viability of
the alternative makes the choice precious.
In the theological realm, this subject quite quickly becomes intertwined with the issues of
Gods foreknowledge, predestination, and omniscience. For example, without genuine free
will, how can we say we love God? If we obey because our obedience was predestinated, that
means we couldnt do otherwise, which means we didnt really choose to obey God. We had
to obey. Isnt Gods predestination therefore coercive? The same goes for sin. If God
foreknows you will commit a particular sin and you in fact commit that sin, how could you
not have committed that sinand so how are you genuinely responsible for that sin? How is
this not coercion by predestination?
How are these difficulties to be addressed? Some theologians assume that God needs to be in
direct control over every decisionthat he needs to be the ultimate cause of every eventin
order to be sovereign. If this is not the case, it is argued, then God isnt the controller of the
universe, someone else is (or everyone is, at any given point). This notion is then wedded to
53
Gods omniscience so that Gods foreknowledge of all decisions necessitates divine

predestination of all decisions. Our freedom in such a perspective is then defined as our
ability to make decisions that God has predestined but that our desires or nature also agrees
with. That way, we are told, we are still responsible for our actions. And since evil cannot be
exempted from predestination, it must therefore exist because God has willed it to existhe
is somehow the ultimate cause. This is usually conceived of as a passive, permissive
causationGod allowed evil to enter creation, but did not initiate it. But this is like saying
God allows something to conform to his predestination, which implies he could disallow
something to conform to what he has already predestinedwhich is incoherent.
On the other side are those theologians who have argued that God has taken a totally handsoff approach. They usually do not argue that humans are totally without influence in the
decisions they make, since that would require quarantine from all other humans and from
God. However, since God does not control every human decision, he doesnt actually know
what everyone will do all the time. This in turn means that God does not have exhaustive
foreknowledge, and so he is not omniscient, at least in the traditional sense. Humans are
certainly responsible for their own actions in such a view. And while God is not to blame for
evil, we are left with the impression that he cannot control it, and so evil has a sort of
independence from God. If that is the case, how can God be the conqueror of evil without
being able to control it completely?
Decreed Ends and Free Means
Since we arent told much in Genesis about how human freedom works in relation to divine
attributes like foreknowledge, predestination, sovereignty, and omniscience, we need to look
elsewhere in Scripture for some clarification. There are two important passages to consider.
The first is 1 Samuel 23:1-14. Note the underlining carefully.
1
Now they told David, Behold, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are
robbing the threshing floors. 2 Therefore David inquired of the LORD, Shall I go and
attack these Philistines? And the LORD said to David, Go and attack the Philistines
and save Keilah. 3 But Davids men said to him, Behold, we are afraid here in
Judah; how much more then if we go to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines?
4
Then David inquired of the LORD again. And the LORD answered him, Arise, go
down to Keilah, for I will give the Philistines into your hand. 5 And David and his
men went to Keilah and fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock
and struck them with a great blow. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. 6 When
Abiathar the son of Ahimelech had fled to David to Keilah, he had come down with
an ephod in his hand. 7 Now it was told Saul that David had come to Keilah. And Saul
said, God has given him into my hand, for he has shut himself in by entering a town
that has gates and bars. 8 And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to
Keilah, to besiege David and his men. 9 David knew that Saul was plotting harm
against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring the ephod here. 10 Then said
David, O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to
come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 Will the men of Keilah
surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O
54
LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant. And the LORD said, He will come
down. 12 Then David said, Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into
the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will surrender you. 13 Then David and
his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went
wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he
gave up the expedition. 14 And David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness,
in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but
God did not give him into his hand.
In this account, David appeals to the omniscient God to tell him about the future. In the first
instance (23:1-5), David asks God whether he should go to the city of Keilah and whether
hell successfully defeat the Philistines there. God answers in the affirmative in both cases,
David goes to Keilah, and indeed defeats the Philistines.
In the second section (23:6-14), Davis asks the Lord two questions: (1) will his nemesis Saul
come to Keilah and threaten the city on account of Davids presence? And (2) will the people
of Keilah turn him over to Saul to avoid an attack on the city? Again, God answers both
questions affirmatively. Saul is going to come down and the people of Keilah will hand you
over to him. But heres the interesting pointneither of those things actually happen. Once
David hears Gods answer, he and his men leave the city. When Saul discovers this fact (v.
13), he abandons his trip to Keilah. Saul never actually goes to Keilah, and therefore David is
never handed over by the people of Keilah to Saul. But why is this significant?
This passage (specifically the second section) clearly establishes that divine foreknowledge
does not necessitate divine predestination. God foreknew what Saul would do and what the
people of Keilah would do given a set of circumstances. In other words, God foreknew a
possibilitybut this foreknowledge did not mandate that the possibility was actually
predestinated to happen. The events never happened, so they could not have been
predestinated, despite the fact they had been foreknown by God. Predestination and
foreknowledge are separable.
The same idea comes through in other passages. For example:
Matthew 11
20
Then he [Jesus] began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had
been done, because they did not repent. 21 Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you,
Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon,
they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be
more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you,
Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For
if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained
until this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for
the land of Sodom than for you.
55
In Matthew 11 we see Jesus (fore)knowledgeable declaration that had a given set of

circumstances prevailed an outcome different than what happened in real time would have
ensued. The theological point can be put this way:
That which never happens can be foreknown by God, but it is not predestinated.
But what about things that do happen? They can obviously be foreknown, but are they
predestinated if they are foreknown? There are two ways to look at this, and both may be
simultaneously true.
First, it might sound awkward, but since we have seen above that foreknowledge in itself
does not necessitate predestination, all that foreknowledge truly guarantees is that something
is foreknown. It can be coherently argued that if God foreknows some event that happens,
then he may have predestinated that event. But as 1 Samuel 23 informs us, a foreknown event
is not guaranteed to have been predestinated. The only guarantee is that God foreknew it
correctly, whether actual or merely possible. I would also add that since 1 Samuel 23 shows
us that God knows things actual and possible, there is no reason to think that he cannot
foreknow all things actual and possible, a very traditional approach to omniscience. This
would mean that God can foreknow both our actual and possible decisions, but need not
predestine either.
Second, God may foreknow an event and predestinate that same event, but such
predestination may pertain only to the specific end result or outcome of a series of events that
are not specifically predestinated. In other words, God may know and predestinate the end
how something is ultimately going to turn out according to his willbut other precursor
events to that ultimate end may not be predestinated (though, as noted above, its quite
reasonable to assume God foreknew them as well). This brings us to our second important
passage, 1 Kings 22:1-23, as it provides an illustration of what Im describing here.
1
For three years Syria and Israel continued without war. 2 But in the third year
Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel. 3 And the king of
Israel said to his servants, Do you know that Ramoth-gilead belongs to us, and we
keep quiet and do not take it out of the hand of the king of Syria? 4 And he said to
Jehoshaphat, Will you go with me to battle at Ramoth-gilead? And Jehoshaphat
said to the king of Israel, I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as
your horses. 5 And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, Inquire first for the word
of the LORD. 6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four
hundred men, and said to them, Shall I go to battle against Ramoth-gilead, or shall I
refrain? And they said, Go up, for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king. 7
But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here another prophet of the LORD of whom we
may inquire? 8 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man by
whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah, but I hate him, for he
never prophesies good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the
king say so. 9 Then the king of Israel summoned an officer and said, Bring quickly
Micaiah the son of Imlah. 10 Now the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of
Judah were sitting on their thrones, arrayed in their robes, at the threshing floor at the
56
entrance of the gate of Samaria, and all the prophets were prophesying before them. 11
And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made for himself horns of iron and said, Thus
says the LORD, With these you shall push the Syrians until they are destroyed. 12
And all the prophets prophesied so and said, Go up to Ramoth-gilead and triumph;
the LORD will give it into the hand of the king. 13 And the messenger who went to
summon Micaiah said to him, Behold, the words of the prophets with one accord are
favorable to the king. Let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak
favorably. 14 But Micaiah said, As the LORD lives, what the LORD says to me, that I
will speak. 15 And when he had come to the king, the king said to him, Micaiah,
shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain? And he answered him,
Go up and triumph; the LORD will give it into the hand of the king. 16 But the king
said to him, How many times shall I make you swear that you speak to me nothing
but the truth in the name of the LORD? 17 And he [Micaiah] said, I saw all Israel
scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the LORD said,
These have no master; let each return to his home in peace. 18 And the king of
Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good
concerning me, but evil? 19 And Micaiah said, Therefore hear the word of the
LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside
him on his right hand and on his left; 20 and the LORD said, Who will entice Ahab,
that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said one thing, and another
said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, I will
entice him. 22 And the LORD said to him, By what means? And he said, I will go
out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, You are
to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so. 23 Now therefore behold, the
LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has
declared disaster for you.
This passage, specifically verses 19-22, describes a meeting in the heavens among God and
the members of his heavenly host. We read in verse 20 that God had decided it was time for
wicked king Ahab to die. That much, we know, had been decreed by the Lord and so
predestinedit was going to happen for sure. Ahabs number was up. God then asks the
other heavenly beings how Ahabs death should be accomplished. God had already decided
that Ahab was going to die at Ramoth-Gilead, but the means of his death was not yet
determined. The heavenly beings of Gods heavenly council as it were, subsequently
deliberated among themselves (v. 20 - one said one thing, and another said another) about
how to do this. Finally, one of the heavenly beings comes forward (v. 21) with a proposition
(v. 22): I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. Upon
hearing this, God says (paraphrasing), Yep, thatll workgo get it done.
The point here is not that God learned anything. Indeed, my view is that he foreknew all the
options that the heavenly beings came up with and debated among themselves, though we are
not told that. The point is that God predestinated an event yet future (Ahabs death), but left
it up to lesser beings with free will to accomplish the means by which the predestined event
would occur. God left the details to his agentsbut the end was guaranteed, for the Lord had
foreknown and decreed it. We see here a symbiosis of a predestinating God and his freewill
beings. It is important to realize that God himself decided to do things this way. The freedom
57
of these lesser beings was genuinethey got to decide how to do what God wanted done
but Gods overall sovereignty did not suffer. The spirits in 1 Kings 22 were freethe text
gives no indication they were coerced or just rubber stamping somethingbut they were not
autonomous, as they bring their decision to the Lord (whom it appears would have vetoed a
dumb idea!).
There are other less explicit glimpses of this kind of cooperation, where an event was
predestinated by Godthe only single being who has that kind of power and authorityand
his lesser agents whom God allows to be part of a process of bringing about his decrees that
includes their free (but not autonomous) choices. Take a close look at Daniel 4:1-27:
1
King Nebuchadnezzar to all peoples, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the
earth: Peace be multiplied to you! 2 It has seemed good to me to show the signs and
wonders that the Most High God has done for me. 3 How great are his signs, how
mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion
endures from generation to generation. 4 I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house
and prospering in my palace. 5 I saw a dream that made me afraid. As I lay in bed the
fancies and the visions of my head alarmed me. 6 So I made a decree that all the wise
men of Babylon should be brought before me, that they might make known to me the
interpretation of the dream. 7 Then the magicians, the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and
the astrologers came in, and I told them the dream, but they could not make known to
me its interpretation. 8 At last Daniel came in before mehe who was named
Belteshazzar after the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods
and I told him the dream, saying, 9 O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, because I
know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is too difficult for
you, tell me the visions of my dream that I saw and their interpretation. 10 The visions
of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the
earth, and its height was great. 11 The tree grew and became strong, and its top
reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. 12 Its leaves were
beautiful and its fruit abundant, and in it was food for all. The beasts of the field
found shade under it, and the birds of the heavens lived in its branches, and all flesh
was fed from it. 13 I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a
watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven. 14 He proclaimed aloud and said thus:
Chop down the tree and lop off its branches, strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit.
Let the beasts flee from under it and the birds from its branches. 15 But leave the
stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, amid the tender
grass of the field. Let him be wet with the dew of heaven. Let his portion be with the
beasts in the grass of the earth. 16 Let his mind be changed from a mans, and let a
beasts mind be given to him; and let seven periods of time pass over him. 17 The
sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones,
to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and
gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men. 18 This dream I, King
Nebuchadnezzar, saw. And you, O Belteshazzar, tell me the interpretation, because
all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation,
but you are able, for the spirit of the holy gods is in you. 19 Then Daniel, whose name
was Belteshazzar, was dismayed for a while, and his thoughts alarmed him. The king
58
answered and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream or the interpretation alarm you.
Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, may the dream be for those who hate you
and its interpretation for your enemies! 20 The tree you saw, which grew and became
strong, so that its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole
earth, 21 whose leaves were beautiful and its fruit abundant, and in which was food for
all, under which beasts of the field found shade, and in whose branches the birds of
the heavens lived 22 it is you, O king, who have grown and become strong. Your
greatness has grown and reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the
earth. 23 And because the king saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven
and saying, Chop down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump of its roots in the
earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, in the tender grass of the field, and let
him be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field,
till seven periods of time pass over him, 24 this is the interpretation, O king: It is a
decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king, 25 that you shall be
driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. You
shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven,
and seven periods of time shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules
the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will. 26 And as it was commanded to
leave the stump of the roots of the tree, your kingdom shall be confirmed for you
from the time that you know that Heaven rules. 27 Therefore, O king, let my counsel
be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your
iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a
lengthening of your prosperity.
The point of interest for our purposes is that verse 17 says very plainly that the punishment
laid upon Nebuchadnezzar is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the
holy ones. . . . Note the plurals (watchers . . . holy ones). In some sense, this sovereign
decree was made in part by these heavenly beings. I say in part, because the text of verse 17
continues (cf. vv. 24-25), that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of
men. It is clear that this decision was made by the Watchers under the authority of the
(singular) Most High God, akin to what we saw going on in 1 Kings 22. God had made a
decision, and these watchers had some role in that process.
Going back to our earlier theological proposition, lets add one now:
1. That which never happens can be foreknown by God, but it is not predestinated.
2. That which does happen was foreknown by God, but may or may not have been
predestinated.
What all this means with respect to Gods wonderful decision to give us (and other heavenly
beings) free will is that there can be variability in the causation of events without impinging
on divine foreknowledge and sovereignty. Contrary to what many theologians have said, God
does not need to predestine every single event that ever occurs in order to be sovereign.
Rather, as we have seen, foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination, and God can
leave decisions to his free will beings all the while decreeing (predestinating) a final
outcome. We are also not forced to conclude with some theologians that events not yet real
59
cannot be foreknown. This is an unnecessary conclusion to draw in the defense of genuine

free will.
Perhaps an illustration from Gods general revelation, the created world, will also be helpful.
In the twentieth century, the study of the ultra small turned our understanding of the nature of
matter and reality upside down. At the level of electrons and other subatomic particles, the
observable universe begins breaking down into a bizarre world where, for example,
elementary particles can occupy all places at the same time and nothing can be described in
terms of certainty but only in terms of probability. The experimental evidence for all this
was what prompted the great physicist, Albert Einstein, to retort, "God doesn't play dice.
Einstein was honestly disturbed by the apparent randomness of nature and particle behavior
that defied logic at the subatomic level. But the findings of physicists in the early decades of
the 20th century have been verified countless times by subsequent generations of scientists in
ever more complex experiments, using vastly more precise and powerful equipment. Today,
the experimental evidence of these findings is essentially unchallenged. Yet the matter of
everyday stuff we see and feel and experience does not disintegrate, and the physical
processes that depend on this matter does not break down or lose its inherent characteristics
and qualities.34 Somehow, despite this true chaotic randomness, everything still works.
When Paul tells us in Romans 1:20 that Gods invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power
and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the
things that have been made, perhaps we should take that more seriously. It appears the
natural worlds combination of laws and genuine freedom mirror Gods own governance of
all things and all creatures.
The idea that God doesnt predestinate every event may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable. It
might sound like God isnt in control. First, we need to be sure that our idea of Gods control
or sovereignty is grounded in the text of the Bible, not a creed or the teachings of a favorite
author. Think of what Im describing this way. What shows a more powerful Godhaving a
God that predestinates every event before it happens, thereby nullifying the possibility of his
creatures making any other decisions other than those invariably determined, or having a God
that can integrate any decision made by a free will agent into a plan whose ultimate
conclusion he has ordained so that nothing of his ultimate will is lost or overturned?
In practical terms, the passages we have considered inform us that predestination of all things
must give way to sovereign oversight of free events as they move toward selected
predestinated ends. Everything ends as God wills. God is in control and yet humans (and
heavenly beings) are genuinely freeand accountable. What we do matters in the course of
Gods plan. But there is a dark side to all this. Free will means that free agents can proliferate
eviland since they are free, intelligent evil believes it can win the long war against God.
A Fateful Decision
The implications of all this are profound. Humans and heavenly divine beings have genuine
free will. God may foreknow all things real and possible, but he does not predestinate every
event. But what about evil? God must have foreknown the entrance of evil into his created
60
world by the acts of free agents. Was free will a colossal miscalculation? How do we process
the entrance and perpetual disruption of evil?
It is true that God foreknew the cost of his decision to give intelligent creatures free will. We
must acknowledge that, in his mind therefore, the cost of free will was to be preferred over
the alternativeand that in choosing this preference, God knew what he was doing. And the
solution to evil was not the revocation of this decision. This would be theologically aberrant,
for it would mean that the one who knew all things didnt know enough to avoid a horrible
mistake. No, God granted free will and with that decision came anotherthat he would not
remove or violate it. Doing so would be a reversal of his own creative decree that results in
remaking us into something not like himself (cf. Gen 1:26).
The fallout of this compels certain conclusions. First, God cannot just step into time as it
were and stop a freewill decision, something we often want him to do when it comes to the
horrific evil in the world. Second, while he will not take away free will, God can and does
seek to influence people away from evil and toward righteousness, and skillfully uses agents
such as angels and other people in that influencing process.35 Third, God can and does
protect us (or not) from the fallout of a freewill decision to choose evil, whether that decision
was made by a human or other divine being. This is not a violation of free will, since it
focuses on the results of an act, not the act itself. We are not abandoned, and Gods ultimate
decreed end is not overturned by evils successes.
The fact that human beings and other heavenly beings have genuine free will means that the
potential is there for free acts of evil. In fact, Gods decision resulted in the entrance of evil
into his creationas he knew it would, since the death of Christ was something God did
indeed ordain before the foundation of the world. But as we have seen, foreknowledge does
not necessitate predestination. How did Satan become evil? He chose to disobey out of his
own free will. Neither he nor other divine beings were created as evil beings. Did Satan have
a choice in tempting Adam and Eve? Yes, and he made his choice, and is fully accountable
for it. Was Satan compelled by God to do so because of predestination? No, the choice was
free, but God foreknew it and had already decreed that, when all is said and done, his Son
would be the key to undoing this evil. Were Adam and Eve forced by predestination to sin?
No, they made a choice, but again God had already made plans to atone for their choices.
If you have ever wondered why Satan and other evil divine beings do what they do despite
the power of God, this approach is the answer. There are evil divine beings because those
beings have made evil choices and continue to wreak havoc in Gods world. And since
everything is not predestinated, they believe they can thwart Gods purposes. This is why
Scripture describes their opposition to a messianic bloodline, to the covenantal holiness of
Gods people, to the very survival of those who follow the true God. Though confronted with
superior power, they think they can win the battle for the souls of humanity. And the fact is,
they won battles in the Bible many times, and win countless battles today. Why wouldnt
such victories, as frequent as they are, reinforce this belief? We may be assured of an
ultimate end (which they may or may not deny), but evil has a lot of freedom. God has
established parameters, and may (Job 1:6ff.) selectively restrict how far evil can go in
61
specific circumstances, but evil has not been predestinated out of its victories. The battle is
real, and the stakes can go no higher.
Some would look at all this and assume that Gods decision to give humankind genuine free
will was pretty risky. I wouldnt use that term, since God is sovereign. The decision was a
calculated one. He had foreseen and ordained an end to which he would steer all things. And
yet there is a result of his decision: suffering. God deemed giving us and his other heavenly
creatures free will preferable to creating us as mindless, will-less robots. And when I say
preferable, I mean preferable for us, not God. God doesnt need to slant anything to his
advantage. He needs no advantage and his sovereignty assures him (and us) that his plan will
end as he ordained. Free will, despite the terrible consequences, is preferable for us. Without
it we could not experience life as God intended, could not appreciate Gods creation and
blessings, could not rise above disaster, and could not minister to others who suffer. We
would be mindless automatons, mere lackeys in a pointless divine exercise. Withholding free
will to his creatures would be the ultimate act of selfishness for a god. It really would be only
about him. But the mythic narrative of the Bible tells us on every page that just isnt the case.
33
Job 38:4-7 reads: 4 Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have
understanding. 5 Who determined its measurementssurely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 On
what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of
God shouted for joy? Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture citations are from the English Standard Version
(ESV).
34
My thanks to Charles Blevins for helping me with this wording.
35
In terms of divine election, it could coherently be argued that God influences some people more than others
that is his choice. And we must acknowledge with Scripture that anyone who comes to faith in Christ must be
influenced to do so by God. A spiritually dead individual (which would be every human being) cannot respond
to the grace of God without divine influence (Eph. 2:1-10; Phil 2:12-13). In the sense that God has ordained the
outcome and not intermediate events, one could still hold to irresistible grace, if by that one speaks of one of
Gods ultimately decreed outcomes. This is just an observation on my part, not an endorsement of any particular
such argument.
62
Chapter 6
Appearances Can Be Deceiving
Its probably not much of a risk on my part to assume that youve heard of or read the story of
the serpent and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. But have you ever wondered why Eve
wasnt scared witless when the serpent spoke to her? If you go back and read the account in
Genesis 3, theres simply no indication that she did anything but suppress a yawnbut why
would that be the case? And, more to the point, what does that have to do with the unfolding
drama the Bible began with the creation of humankind? And why did I put serpent in
quotation marks? So glad you asked.
Did You Notice the Problem?
Now, you might be thinking, Well, maybe animals back then could talk. Ive read this sort of
thing before. I hope youll pardon me when I say thats absurd. This isnt interpretation of the
text; its evasion of the issue. The only other instance where we have an animal speaking to a
human being in the Bible is that of Balaams donkey in Numbers 22:22-41. In that case the
speech was prompted by an appearance of the divine vice regent, the Angel of the Lord, and the
text plainly tells us that it was God who enabled the donkey to speak (v. 28). That certainly
isnt the case in Genesis 3 with the serpent.
I know calling something absurd might not sound kind, but its actually nicer than saying, If
you want to take that view, then I hope you can live with contradictions between passages in the
Bible, since thats where this view ultimately leads.
There are two other passages in the Old Testament that most scholars would say have something
to do with what happened in Eden in Genesis 3: Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14:1-22.36 In those
passages God taunts and pronounces judgment on the kings of Tyre and Babylon, respectively.
To drive the point home that these kings deserve judgment, the inspired prophet compares them
to the supernatural being (a spectacular cherub in Ezekiel 28, and Lucifer, son of the dawn
in Isaiah 14) whose contemptuous pride resulted in a failed coup against God.
Notice that these passages refer to a divine being, not a serpent. And that gets to the heart of
the issue. In both these passages, the primeval enemy of God, the being who causes the fall of
humankind into sin, is not a snake but some sort of supernatural being. And it is absolutely
certain the event referred to in Ezekiel 28 is that of Genesis 3, since Ezekiel 28:13 mentions
Eden and the garden.
Those who wish to argue that Lucifer appeared as a snake must cope with the fact that there
isnt a single biblical text that says Lucifer (or any other divine being) can change into an
animal. At best, this solution is simply a convenient escape hatch. And even if there was
such biblical evidence, it still doesnt answer why Lucifer would need or choose to speak to Eve
63
as a snake, or why Eve wasnt surprised. Having Lucifer appear or possess a snake actually
complicates matters, since this view still means that prior to this assumed appearance or
possession snakes didnt talk. Put another way, if Lucifers presence in the snake is the
explanation for its speaking ability, then snakes didnt talk before this happened. Eve still
should have been shocked when the alleged snake started the conversation. So the question
remains: Who or what spoke to Evea literal snake, a member of the animal kingdom, or a
supernatural being?
Animal, Vegetable, MineralOr Something Else?
Fortunately, theres a simple answer for all this, but you might want to sit down first. The
reason why Eve wasnt shocked that a snake was talking to her is because she wasnt talking to
a snake. She was talking to a luminous divine being and not an animal of any kind. That being
may have had some sort of serpentine appearance, but he was not a snake from the animal
kingdom. To make my case to you well need to do two things: (1) recall the ancient backdrop
for the descriptions of the garden of Eden that I noted in the last chapter; and (2) look at Genesis
3, Ezekiel 28, and Isaiah 14 very closely. Well start with the ancient backdrop.
In the last chapter I briefly sketched how the descriptions of the Garden of Eden in the book of
Genesis match descriptions of the location where, in both the Bible and other ancient Near
Eastern texts, the divine council lived or met for business.37 Council gatherings took place on
a cosmic mountain, the place where heaven and earth intersected, where divine decrees were
given, and kingship was exercised. The cosmic mountain was not only described as a mountain,
but was also a well-watered place, a beautiful garden.38 I pointed out that Eden is described as
both a well-watered garden and a mountainand the place where Yahweh announced his
decision to create humanity to his divine council. The description of Eden as a divine mountain
comes from Ezekiel 28:13-14. The same chapter refers to Eden as the seat of the gods
(moshab elohim). The word seat of course refers to the place of administration, even in our
own language (county seat). The imagery is quite consistent. The only significant difference
is that in Ezekiel the enemy of God is a shining divine being, whereas it is a serpent in Genesis.
Im arguing, of course, that this difference is only apparent.
But what about the plain wording of Genesis 3? Isnt the chapter crystal clear that the thing
talking to Eve was a snake? Actually, the vocabulary is clear, but the meaning that traditional
interpretation has given it is not, and has in fact produced the snake problem noted above.
The Hebrew word translated serpent or snake in Genesis 3 is nachash (pronounced,
nakash). More specifically, the word is ha-nachash. The prefixed ha is the way Hebrew
denotes a definite article (the word for the). So ha-nachash may be said to mean the
nachash.
The word nachash is a very elastic term in Hebrew. It can function as a noun, a verb, or even as
an adjective. When nachash functions as a noun it means snake, and so the traditional
translation is possiblebut it yields the contradiction with Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 noted
above.39 When nachash serves as a verb it means to practice divination.40 That meaning
could also be possible in Genesis 3 due to the deception or going onLucifer claiming to have
the real word from God. When a verb receives an article attached to it, the action of the verb
64
is then transformed into a person doing the action. Hence the word ha-nachash would then best
be translated the diviner.
The third optionthe adjectival meaning of nachashis the solution to the contradiction
problem. When nachash serves as an adjective, its meaning is shining bronze or polished
(as in shiny). By adding the definite article to the word, ha-nachash would then quite easily
mean the shining one. Angelic or divine beings are elsewhere described in the Bible as
shining or luminous, at times with this very word, nachash.41 We often dont think about how
common this vocabulary of shining brilliance is for angels and other divine beings. The Bible
abounds with descriptions of such beings as flashing or as lightning, or uses the brilliance
of jewels to describe the blazing appearance of such beings. This has important ramifications
for solving the snake problem.
Whats so significant about translating ha-nachash as shining one and not snake in Genesis
3? Very simply, shining one is the literal meaning of Lucifer. The name Lucifer is
actually Latin and comes from the Latin Vulgate translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. In
Isaiah 14:12, the Hebrew name of primeval conspirator against God is Helel ben-Shachar
Shining One, son of the Dawn. Translating ha-nachash as Shining One removes the
contradiction of seeing a snake vs. a supernatural being in Eden since it provides an explicit
parallel between the two passages.
We have words like this in English if you think about it. The very same noun / verb / adjective
interplay is evident here:
(Noun): The cleanup is going to take a long time.
(Verb): We must clean up this oil spill.
(Adjective): The cleanup procedures need to be followed.
What results from this approach is that Eve was confronted by a member of the divine council
on the way to work, so to speak. She wasnt surprised, because she saw these beings come
and go with regularity. We get the flavor of this context in Genesis 3:22. Following Adam and
Eves sin God laments that now the two have become as one of usthe same plural language
as in Genesis 1:26. Eden was the place where council was held. It just happened that on this
day, one of them had a score to settle.
Personally, I think it quite possible that the choice of the word nachash in Genesis 3 was
designed as a double entendre. The enemy of God was a shining divine being that also had a
serpentine appearance. No, Im not contradicting what I said above. Saying that Eve was
speaking to a divine being of serpentine appearance is different than saying she was dealing
with a snake from the animal kingdom. Ezekiel 28 supports this notion.
A Closer Look at Ezekiel and Isaiah
Neither the name Helel nor the word nachash appear in Ezekiel 28, but we do have a
corresponding description of Edens villain. Note the underlined portions of Ezekiel 28:13-14:
65
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your
covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and
carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that
you were created they were prepared. 14 You were a shining42 guardian cherub. I placed
you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire43 you
walked.
The point of the description is the same as Isaiah 14 and Genesis 3. The appearance of the
supernatural rebel in the garden of Eden is described with brilliant, shining jewels. The
description of this shining being as shining, guardian cherub points to a serpentine appearance
for this divine being, and therefore another parallel to Genesis 3. It is common among Bible
scholars to suppose that the cherubim were sphinx-like creatures, based primarily on some
carved depictions of thrones from Egypt and Phoenicia. Certain carvings portray thrones that
are, as in Ezekiel 1, supported by creatures with wings and four faces. This perspective, while
possible, isnt terribly coherent in Ezekiel 28. It cannot account for why the being in Eden
and so parallel to the entity in Genesis 3isnt described as sphinx-like, or leonine, or having
four faces. The reality is that the meaning and derivation of the Hebrew word for cherub is
uncertain.44 The most likely possibility is that the term refers to a spirit being who guards or
blesses (praises), or which serves as the gatekeeper to the divine throne room, without respect to
physical appearance.
Curiouslyand perhaps tellinglythose beings whose station is in Gods throne room and who
are portrayed in the Old Testament as praising God in the throne room do have a serpentine
appearance (Isaiah 6). These beings are known to us as seraphim. Decades ago scholars
believed that the word saraph (the plural is seraphim) meant burning one or fiery one since
there was a Hebrew verb of that spelling with that meaning. However, the common Hebrew
noun saraph means serpent. Numbers 21:8 is but one of the more obvious examples of this
word and that meaning. For our purposes, seraphim were not mere snakes from the animal
kingdomthey had hands, feet, and wings, and could speak (Isa 6:2, 6). They were apparently
something both human-like and serpentine.45 If cherub is merely a generic term for a being
whose appointment was in the throne room of God, this would account for why the adversary of
Eve in Eden is described with that term and yet as nachash in Genesis 3.
But what about the curses of Genesis 3? Surely those rule out a translation of Shining One
and help us salvage the traditional view, despite its problems. This approach is a bit misguided,
since the curses describe the nachash in terms of what he would be after he was punished, not
before. In fact, the curses make far more sense if they are directed at a fallen divine being than
a mere snake. Why? Let me point out a couple of the most apparent reasons.
First, consider the cursing of the nachash with respect to Eve. God tells the nachash that there
will be enmity or some sort of adversarial relationship between the offspring of Eve (human
beings, not necessarily female) and the offspring of the nachash. What are we to make of this if
the nachash is only a snake from the animal kingdom? Commentators have danced around that
issue for millennia. The fact is that all humans do not hate or fear snakes, and snakes do not by
nature exist to attack or harass humans.
66
In Gen. 3:14 we read that God curses the nachash to eat dust all the days of his life. Snakes do
not eat dirt as a means of sustenance, and so the curse is not meant to be taken literally. This of
course has given rise to the notion that before the Fall snakes were upright animalsan idea for
which I have even seen some Christian commentators appeal to evolutionary biology! If this
kind of literalism is brought to the passage, then one is pressed to answer questions like: How
do we know which parts of the curse are figurative and which are literal?; In what way is it
the worst curse to crawl on the ground? (cursed are you above all livestock). Other creatures
crawl on their belly, and so their fate is at least as bad. And there are worse fates in the
animal kingdom. Some creatures live only to be eaten by others. I would suggest that snakes
were created by God the way we know them today and that their method of propulsion has
nothing to do with what happened in Genesis 3.
Lastly, in case youre still stuck on the first verse of Genesis 3, I need to let you in on a secret.
Check a variety of English translations on Genesis 3:1. Many will have something like, Now
the serpent was craftier than any of the other beasts of the field . . . Surely the fact that Genesis
3:1 says the other beasts means that the serpent was an animal, right? I could agree with that,
but the secret is that the word other isnt in the Hebrew text! Its supplied by translators
interpretively. The text literally says, Now the serpent was craftier than any beasts of the
field, to which I say, no kiddinghe was a divine being, so he ought to be smarter! Rather
than argue in favor of the nachash being a snake, a member of the animal kingdom, Genesis 3:1
implies that the nachash was a superior being.
Frankly, I think a more serious question in all this should be put to those who want a snake in
the garden: How can this curse in Genesis 3:14 be reconciled with the punishment of Edens
divine rebel described in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28? A look at the passages below will tell you
immediately that there is nothing like what is traditionally imagined in Genesis 3 in these other
Eden passages. In Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 the rebel is punished by banishment to Sheol (the
Hebrew place of the dead and punishment, see below) or being cast to the earth. These
descriptions are hopelessly irreconcilable with Genesis 3 if one has an animal, a snake, in view.
Note the specific underlined punishments:
Isaiah 14:9-15
9
10
11
12
Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come;
It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth;
It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.
They will all respond and say to you,
Even you have been made weak as we,
You have become like us.
Your pomp and the music of your harps
Have been brought down to Sheol;
Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you
And worms are your covering.
How you have fallen from heaven,
O Shining One, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
67
13
14
15
You who have weakened the nations!

But you said in your heart,
I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the heights of the north.
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.
Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol,
To the recesses of the pit.
Ezek 28:2, 8-9, 13-17

2
Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre, Thus says the Lord GOD,
Because your heart is lifted up
And you have said, I am a god,
I sit in the seat of gods
In the heart of the seas;
Yet you are a man and not God,
Although you make your heart like the heart of God
They will bring you down to the pit,

And you will die the death of those who are slain
In the heart of the seas.
Will you still say, I am a god,
In the presence of your slayer,
Though you are a man and not God,
In the hands of those who wound you?
13
14
15
You were in Eden, the garden of God;

Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
You were the anointed cherub who covers,
And I placed you there.
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
68
16
17
By the abundance of your trade

You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.
Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I put you before kings,
That they may see you.
I take the curses that result from the fall of humankind metaphorically. Again, I do not mean
they arent real and didnt happen. I mean that we are dealing with something cosmic in the
curses, not something so mundane as the posture of snakes. As youll note from the passages
above from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, the rebellion of the Shining One was basically due to
pride. What you likely do not realize is that these passages (almost every verse) are crammed
with divine council vocabulary and motifs present in the ancient literature of surrounding Near
Eastern cultures.
For starters, lets go to Isaiah 14:13-14, noting the underlining:
I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on
the mount of assembly in the heights of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the
clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.
Theres a lot to be gleaned here.46 Weve already seen in Chapter 3 that the title Most High
refers to either the ultimate sovereign of the council (Yahweh) or his vice regent who effectively
runs the cosmos for Him (the Son, or Jesus as we discover in the New Testament). We also saw
there that stars of God is another term for the bene elohim of the divine council (cf. Job 38:68). Helel, the Shining One, vows to displace God and Jesus from rulership over the council so
he can take control of the heavens and the earth. We learn here that the place of this rulership is
above the heights of the clouds. The phrase mount of assembly is a very common reference
to the divine assembly, the heavenly council, as its location in the heights of the north. Isaiah
14 is explicitly clear that what was going on (in Eden no less, via the parallel text Ezekiel 28)
was an attempted coup of the divine council.
The punishment meted out in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 seems curious. The text seems to
simultaneously suggest that Helel would be sent to Hell as it were, but also the earth. This is no
contradiction, since the common word for earth in Hebrew (erets) is also used to denote the
place under the earth where the dead await judgment.47 Well say a good deal more about this
place in succeeding chapters. For now just realize that there is no contradiction; its a double
entendre. Helel lost his job in the divine council throne room and was sent to the erets, earth
and here is where the curses of Genesis 3 help us to make sense of all this. Helel wanted to be
69
above all created things as their lord, but God punished him to a geographically lower region.
By being sent to earth (erets), he was lower than heavenbut theres more. He was also sent to
Sheol, the Pit (erets), where he would (literally) be under any under creature in the animal
kingdom. Its about as far down as God could put him! Note how Genesis 3, Isaiah 14, and
Ezekiel 28 are conceptually unanimous on these ideas:
Genesis 3 The nachash (Shining One) is put down on the ground (denoted by the
eating dust reference in 3:14)
Isaiah 14 Helel (Shining One) is brought down to Sheol (v. 11); cut down to the earth
[erets] (v. 12); thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit (v. 15).
Ezekiel 28 The brilliant shining cherub is cast from the [cosmic] mountain of God (v.
16) and cast to the ground [erets] (v. 17)
Implications
What all this means is that there is no contradiction between these passages. The vocabulary
and metaphors dovetail. All three have a shining supernatural being in Eden who rebelled
against God, who sought to usurp the headship of the divine council, who was cast from Gods
presence, and who was placed beneath the created things he vowed to rule, sentenced to the
domain of the Underworld. There is no need to posit talking animals, universal fear of snakes,
or a literal diet of dirt for those snakes. Everything falls together if the snake viewpoint is set
aside. The old enemy, whose name eventually became known to us as Satan, had been
transformed as a angel [messenger] of light (2 Cor 11:14).
We know the tragedy that occurred in the wake of this rebellion. Eve was deceived and,
together with Adam, plunged humanity into a sinful state. But again there is more at play here.
While it is true that Helel wanted rulership of the council, there was another goal. He knew it
was Gods intention to make humankind his imagers, members of his divine council, and to give
them authority over earth, the place where council met. Humans were therefore a threat, pure
and simple. The only solution was to eliminate them, but he didnt dare do that himself. Despite
being a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44), God had to make that decisionand he
would make that decision if they sinned against him. Or so Helel thought.
Adam and Eve did sin of course, but God reacted in a way Helel did not anticipate. He gave
them another chance. While the humans were driven from the garden of Eden, they at least
were not killed. Moreover, God instituted a means by which their transgression could be atoned
for. One day, some human child of Eve (Gen 3:15) would undo the effects of their fall. And as
Paul informs us much later, this seed or offspring was Christ (Gal. 3:15-16). The divine vice
regent of Yahwehs council would one day be born of human flesh, pay the penalty for our sin,
and rise again so that we could regain our status as children of God, rulers with him in his
council over all that is his.
Interestingly enough, something like this reconstruction of the Shining Ones motives has
survived from antiquity. Although I dont consider the book inspired, the Jewish book called
70
The Life of Adam and Eve, written prior to the days of Jesus, describes a conversation between
Adam and the devil concerning why it was that the latter had come to hate the former so
virulently. I think it gives us a bit of insight into what Helel no doubt considered a slight when
humankind was given earthly dominion and council status. The conversation is preserved in
chapters 12-16 (Charles translation):48
12 1 And with a heavy sigh, the devil spake: O Adam! all my hostility, envy, and sorrow is for
thee, since it is for thee that I have been expelled from my glory, which I possessed in the
heavens in the midst of the angels and for thee was I cast out in the earth. 2 Adam answered,
What dost thou tell me? 3 What have I done to thee or what is my fault against thee? Seeing that
thou hast received no harm or injury from us, why dost thou pursue us?
13 1 The devil replied, Adam, what dost thou tell me? It is for thy sake that I have been hurled
from that place. 2 When thou wast formed, I was hurled out of the presence of God and banished
from the company of the angels. When God blew into thee the breath of life and thy face and
likeness was made in the image of God, Michael also brought thee and made (us) worship thee in
the sight of God; and God the Lord spake: Here is Adam. I have made thee in our image and
likeness.
14 1 And Michael went out and called all the angels saying: Worship the image of God as the
Lord God hath commanded. 2 And Michael himself worshipped first; then he called me and said:
Worship the image of God the Lord. 3 And I answered, I have no (need) to worship Adam. And
since Michael kept urging me to worship, I said to him, Why dost thou urge me? I will not
worship an inferior and younger being (than I). I am his senior in the Creation, before he was
made was I already made. It is his duty to worship me.
15 1 When the angels, who were under me, heard this, they refused to worship him. 2 And
Michael saith, Worship the image of God, but if thou wilt not worship him, the Lord God will be
wrath with thee. 3 And I said, If He be wrath with me, I will set my seat above the stars of
heaven and will be like the Highest.
16 1 And God the Lord was wrath with me and banished me and my angels from our glory; and
on thy account were we expelled from our abodes into this world and hurled on the earth. 2 And
straightway we were overcome with grief, since we had been spoiled of so great glory. 3 And we
were grieved when we saw thee in such joy and luxury. 4 And with guile I cheated thy wife and
caused thee to be expelled through her (doing) from thy joy and luxury, as I have been driven
out of my glory.
The basic reason for Helels hostility was that he refused to worship the human imager of God.
And why should he, in light of Psalm 8:5? That verse tells us that humanity was created a little
lower than the elohim. Your translation probably says a little lower than the angels, but the
word translated angels there is actually elohimjust like in Psalm 82. The picture that emerges
is that humans were by nature inferior to the plural elohim rulers of Yahwehs council, and yet
God held his human imagers in such high esteem that he not only desired them to be his
spiritual children, but wanted the non-human members of the council to acknowledge an inferior
status to them!
You may be thinking that the elohim of Psalm 8 might be singular; that is, the verse might mean
that humans were created a little lower than God. Thats certainly possible, but it isnt the
way the inspired author of the book of Hebrews took it. Hebrews 2:5-8 (ESV) reads:
5
Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are
speaking. 6 It has been testified somewhere, What is man, that you are mindful of him,
71
or the son of man, that you care for him? 7 You made him for a little while lower than
the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, 8 putting everything in
subjection under his feet. Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left
nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to
him.
The author of Hebrews is quoting a translation weve already bumped into in this book: the
Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that was available in Jesus day, the Septuagint.
It is clear from the quotation that the translator considered the elohim of Psalm 8:5 to be a
plural. Amazingly, he makes the point that the deity vice regent himself, when he became a
human being, was for a little while lower in status than the other members of the divine
council. And yet we know that his essence was unchanged, since he is referred to as the
monogenes during his time on earth.49
There was one more loss for Adam and Eve that deserves attention. Prior to their fall from
grace Adam and Eve had what Id call contingent immortality. That is, they were not eternal
(they had a beginning), but they would live on indefinitely given certain conditions. The
conditions were pretty simple: dont sin; eat of the Tree of Life; and dont do something stupid
thatll get you killed. The first of those conditions probably sound familiar to you and are quite
apparent from the text. If Adam and Eve sinned, God had told them, they would surely die.
After their sin we find that Gods warning did not mean instant death, but separation from God
and the inexorable aging of their bodies toward death. Im also guessing that most readers
would have no objection to my contention that this dying process was linked to separation from
Eden and the tree of life. If it had no connection to their life continuing, and if it was normal
food, why call it the Tree of Life?
My own view goes beyond this, however. I believe that it was necessary for Adam and Eve to
eat of the Tree of Life to remain immortal. In other words, eating of that tree was part of how
they could avoid aging and dyingwhich means they could have died before the fall. And that
brings me to the third condition. Were all used to believing that Adam and Eve were fully
human, but we often dont think about what that means. If Adam and Eve were genuine
humans, they had to eat, drink, and breathe. If they had to do those things, that means they
could die. If Adam and Eve would have bled if they cut themselves (and on what grounds
would we presume they wouldnt have bled?), then they could have injured themselves badly
enough to die.
I hope you get the point, especially since it helps explain things like the Tree of Life and why it
was so necessary to remove them from Eden once they had sinned. Once God decided not to
kill them on the spot for their sin, if Adam and Eve had been allowed to remain in the garden of
Eden with access to the Tree of Life, Gods initial declaration that they would die would have
been jeopardized. They could have lived on and suspended their own judgment indefinitely.
They had to be removed so their punishment could begin. And to compound the penalty,
sustaining themselves physically would now be exponentially harder outside of Eden.
What questions must have gone through the minds of Adam and Eve as they looked back at
Eden, now forbidden re-entry by the divine sentry! As they trudged off to start over outside
72
Gods paradise, having lost the birthright of immediate, experiential rulership in Gods council,
a million thoughts must have plagued them. What did Yahweh mean that there would be an
ongoing, adversarial relationship between our offspring and the offspring (seed) of the
nachash? What did the nachash think when he heard that? He was right theredid he
understand what it meant? If he did and didnt like the news was he still a threat?
Eve couldnt possibly have understood what the answers to these questions would be, and
neither did her immediate children. We have the benefit of looking back at how it all played
out. To appreciate the rest of the Old Testament we must walk the path humanity took just after
being driven from Eden. It is no understatement to say that the events of Genesis 3-11, recast
against the backdrop of the divine council and the person of the nachash, define and lay bare
whats going on in the rest of the Old Testament. Helel did indeed understand the words of
Yahweh. It didnt take him long to act on that knowledge, either.
36
I am well aware of the scholarly skepticism (even on the part of evangelicals) who would argue that these
passages have nothing to do with Genesis 3 and the serpent. In my view, this is an excellent example of how
evangelicals have dismissed the supernatural and neglected comparative ancient material in their treatment of these
passages. See www.themyththatistrue.com for a more lengthy, technical discussion of the reasons that this
skepticism is unwarranted and incorrect.
37
Incidentally, all this descriptive language and more is used later in the Old Testament to describe the more
familiar cosmic mountains where God lived or could be found: Sinai and Zion. Well get to those remarkable
descriptions and their relationship to the divine council later in the book.
38
See www.themyththatistrue.com. For example, in the religion of ancient Syria (called Ugarit in antiquity), a
country that borders Israel to the north, the high god El and his council met to govern the cosmos at the "source of
the two rivers in the "midst of the fountains of the double-deep.
39
Examples of snake as the obvious translation in context are Number 21:6, 9.
40
Examples would be II Kings 21:6; Gen 30:27; Gen 44:5.
41
See Dan. 10:6; Ezek 1:14-16, 21ff.; 10:9; Rev. 1:14-15.
42
The word I translate here as shining is typically translated anointed. That translation is based on the
assumption that the Hebrew word (mimshach) comes from the root mashach (the common word for anointed one
or messiah). This is not the only possible root word. Given the rest of the description in 28:13 (the jewels) the
word more likely comes from an Akkadian term which means to shine or to sparkle (hence, You were the
shining guardian cherub).
43
The phrase stones of fire is enigmatic to commentators. They are considered by many to be personified
precious stones (hence stones of fire would refer to other shining divine beings among whom the shining
cherub worked or held council). A similar description of the divine council meeting place is found in the book of
1 Enoch (I Enoch 14-18; cf. 17:1-3; 18:6-9).
44
See www.themyththatistrue.com for a detailed discussion of the word cherub and this issue.
45
The word usually translated signet ring or signet of perfection (ESV) in Ezek. 28:11 may actually come from
a Semitic word for serpent. Genesis 3 (and Ezekiel) may thus have a double entendre in view: a shining being of
serpentine appearance.
46
See www.themyththatistrue.com for the detailed evidence and explanation.
47
For example, the underworld was considered the land of the dead (cf. Job 10:21-22; Jer 17:13; Jonah 2:7; Psa
71:20; Isa. 63:10).
48
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, (ed. Robert Henry Charles; Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems,
Inc., 2004), 2:136.
49
Jesus is also referred to with other vice regent terms during his life, making his deity clear. Well hit the other
terms in later chapters.
73
Chapter 7
The Bad Seed
As enigmatic as Gods statement to Eve had beenthat her offspring or seed would be at
odds with the offspring or seed of Helel, the rebel nachashthings get even stranger. Before
we jump into what is arguably one of the oddest passages in the Bible, we need to get a handle
on what exactly is meant by the seed of the nachash.
One thing to note right away is that we dont read about the descendants of Eve battling or
cringing before snakes. Instead we read about the resolute spread of evil over the earth. Adam
and Eves eldest son, Cain, murders his younger brother Abel. A few generations later a man
named Lamech is identified as a polygamist and thug. Things eventually get so bad that in
Genesis 6:5 we read, the wickedness of humankind had multiplied over the earth, so that every
intention of the thoughts of his heart was continually evil. Not exactly a ringing endorsement
of those whom God originally intended to be his co-rulers on earth.
What does the spread of the human malignancy of sin have to do with the seed of the nachash
and its antagonism toward the human seed, the seed of Eve? Since the nachash was not merely
a snake, one could read Genesis 3:15 as describing two literal lines or groups that would come
to hate each other after the Fallone human and one divine. But the evil described shortly after
Genesis 3 is human-to-human, people acting wickedly toward other people, and so the nachash
doesnt seem to be part of this, at least in terms of having a literal lineage that sought to harm
humans. Does Gen 3:15 forecast that other divine beings would come along who, like the
nachash, would be hostile toward humans? Or are the seed of the nachash wicked people?
The answer to both questions is yes, and they are not mutually contradictory. The cryptic phrase
the seed of the nachash refers both to wicked humans who would live in opposition to God
and those who would follow God, and divine beings who would rebel against God as Helel did,
with disastrous results for humanity. But in addition to that, it also refers to a situation God
knew would arise that would constitute a direct threat to the promise he gave in Genesis 3:15,
that one particular offspring of Eve would eventually undo the effects of the Fall. Theres a lot
to unpack here, and some of it will seem quite strange. Mythic storytellingthe unraveling of a
narrative that claims direct divine activity in the world of humankindoften is. Such is the
Bible. Lets start with a few things that might be familiar.
Rather than seed of the nachash it may be best to think of the phrase seed of Helel (or,
seed of the devil) instead. Although were talking about the same individual, this adjustment
in focus is helpful. Were used to the thought of the devil or Helel having spiritual seed in the
form of people who oppose Gods will. In a pretty blunt use of this kind of phrase, Jesus told a
group of scribes and Pharisees who were rejecting him, You are of your father the devil, and
your will is to do your fathers desires (John 8:44, ESV). Matthew has Jesus referring to the
same group as serpents and a brood of vipers (Matt. 23:33). Writing in one of his later
74
letters, the apostle John makes an interesting connection between being children of the devil
and the evil committed by Cain:
8
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning
from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works
of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for Gods seed
abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10
By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the
devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who
does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you have heard from the
beginning, that we should love one another. 12 We should not be like Cain, who was
of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his
own deeds were evil and his brothers righteous. (I John 3:8-12, ESV)
Johns point is that those whose lives are characterized by wickedness are in the tradition of
Cain and are children of the devil. As those who are born of God are children of God,
so, by implication, the children of the devil are born of the devil. This kind of expression
also occurs in the Old Testament in a more peripheral way, where Gentile hording armies, the
enemies of Israel, are described with serpentine vocabulary.50
We know the language John uses here refers to a spiritual lineage since the children of God
have Gods seed abiding in them, a reference to the Holy Spirit which gives us the life of
God. Peter echoes the same thought in I Peter 1:23, where he describes those born again
(literally, born from above), as being born not as mortal offspring or seed, but of
imperishable seed, through the word of God. The opposite implication is that evildoers do not
have the Spirit and are under the control of their spiritual father, the devilHelel, the nachash.
Because of the effect of the Fall, no human is part of the family of God until the atoning work of
Christ is applied to them. Well hit this again in another chapter when we talk about what it
really means that believers are called sons of God.
But there was something more literal or physical foreshadowed in Gods warning to Eve. God
knew that Helels rebellion would not only affect the behavior of humanity; it would also
embolden members of the divine council. The ripple effect of evil would extend to the cosmic
mountain.
Genesis 6:1-4 is one of those texts that, for many, is best left alone. Many contemporary
evangelical Bible scholars have gone to great lengths to strip the mythology out of it (i.e., the
supernatural elements) so as to make it more palatable. But one has to wonder how bending
supernatural language to human reason is consistent with the testimony of affirming a
supernatural worldview. The passage Im talking about reads:
1
When humankind began to multiply upon the face of the earth and daughters
were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw the daughters of humankind, that they
were attractive. And they took for themselves as wives any that they chose. 3 Then
the LORD said, My Spirit will not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days
shall be 120 years. 4 The giants (Hebrew, nephilim) were on the earth in those
75
days, and also afterward, whenever the sons of God came in to the daughters of
humankind and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were
of old, the men of renown.
There are few passages in either testament that raise as many questions as this one. In fact, there
are so many that it will take two chapters to address them all. Who are the sons of God? Are
they divine or human? If divine, how could they have sexual relations with human women and
produce children? Were the nephilim really giants? These are the obvious issues, but we should
add a few more that link these four verses to the comments in Genesis 3:15, the statement about
the extent of sin in Genesis 6:5, and the great Flood (Gen 6-9): Was this sexual union evil? If it
was, why does it seem that only the humans get blamed for the evil, and punished by the Flood?
If every living person was wiped out by the Flood, how is it that there were giants (nephilim) on
the earth after the Flood, like verse four says? Just how did things get so bad on earth, and what
do these four verses have to do with it? Is there some sort of cause and effect being suggested?
These questions are usually dispensed with by arguing that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are
merely human beingsmen from the line of Seth, Adam and Eves son who was born after
Cain murdered Abel (Gen 4:25-26; 5:3-4).51 The explanation is offered that these four verses in
Genesis 6 describe forbidden intermarriage between the godly men of Seths lineage and the
ungodly women of Cains line. This logic is based on Genesis 4:26, where we read that after
Seths birth men began to call on the name of the Lord (ESV). Everyone that lived on earth
ultimately came from these two lines (they were Adam and Eves children), and this is allegedly
the way the Bible distinguished the godly versus the ungodly. After Cain killed Abel, so we are
told, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful from Cains evil brood. The marriages of
Genesis 6:1-4 erased this separation and incurred the wrath of God in the Flood.
If this sounds workable to you, you arent alone. What Ill call the Sethite explanation has
been the majority view of this passage since the beginning of the fifth century A.D. In reality,
though, like the de-mythologizing of Psalm 82, it creates significant theological problems and is
internally contradictory. You might be thinking the alternative isnt much better, but it is. The
supernatural view requires only that we believe that supernatural beings exist and can interact
physically with human beings. This can be easily demonstrated and the objections readily
handled by paying close attention to the text. The Sethite view, on the other hand, ultimately
puts doctrines like inspiration and inerrancy in peril, and forces us to conclude that salvation in
ancient times was tied to lineage and gender. It also requires denying the literal view of Genesis
6 its historical heritage in Judaism and the early church.
Exposing the deficiencies of the Sethite explanation isnt difficult. Some of its problems are
immediately evident. First, Genesis 4:26 never says the only people who called on the name of
the Lord were men from Seths lineage, nor does it say that Seths birth produced some sort of
spiritual revival. This is an idea brought to the text from the imagination of the interpreter.
Second, if these marriages are human-to-human, how is it that giants (nephilim) were the result
of the unions?52 Third, the text never calls the women daughters of Cain. Rather, they are
daughters of men [humankind]. Fourth, nothing in Genesis 6:1-4 or anywhere else in the
Bible identifies those who come from Seths lineage with the descriptive phrase sons of God.
76
This also is brought into the passage because of the perceived need to avoid the supernaturalism
in the text.
There are many more, perhaps less obvious, problems with the Sethite explanation. I noted in
Chapter 2 that the phrase sons of God (bene [ha] elohim) throughout the Old Testament refers
to divine beings.53 Proponents of the Sethite explanation typically reference passages where
similar phrases refer to humans to support their view. For example, in Isaiah 43:6 God refers to
human beings as his sons and daughters. In Hosea 1:10 God tells the unfaithful Israelites
that after they are punished for their sin, one day in the future he will again call them sons of
the living God. These verses appear to help the Sethite explanation, but they actually
undermine its presuppositions. Neither passage connects the vocabulary to the line of Seth, nor
is the language restricted to males. The point of these passages is that believers are Gods
children, and if we take that back to Genesis 6, we are forced to conclude that the passage is
teaching that only Sethite males were believersand only Cainite women were unbelievers.
The logic is strained, to say the least, and perhaps sexist.
A close reading of Genesis 6:1-4 makes it clear that a contrast is being created between the sons
of God and the daughters of humankind. Here is the passage again, with two types of
underlining to draw out the contrast:
1
When humankind began to multiply upon the face of the earth and daughters
were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw the daughters of humankind, that they
were attractive. And they took for themselves as wives any that they chose. 3 Then
the LORD said, My Spirit will not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days
shall be 120 years. 4 The giants (Hebrew, nephilim) were on the earth in those
days, and also afterward, whenever the sons of God came in to the daughters of
humankind and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were
of old, the men of renown.
Put another way, the text has humankind producing only daughters. The point is that sons are
not mentioned as offspring of humankind. When the word sons is introduced, it is always
qualified with the phrase of God, and not connected to the human childbearing of Genesis 6:1.
One could object here that it isnt fair to argue that since the word sons isnt used with the
word humankind a deliberate contrast is intended between the two groups (one human, one
divine). One could say that were all children of God in some sense. God made humans, so we
are all his offspring, as Paul says in Acts 17:22-29. Thats true, but the person who wants to
believe the Sethite explanation cannot use this as a way to avoid the contrast. Saying that we
are all Gods children so as to erase the contrast undermines the very basis for the Sethite
explanation. If everyone is human in Genesis 6:1-4 and the divine language is used only
because all humans are Gods children, then why do we need to restrict the godliness to Seths
line? Why view the marriages as evil at all? Why view them as violating any boundary God
laid out for marriage?
In point of fact, there is no indication in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible that human
beings had been given any marriage laws before the Flood. The biblical text compels the
77
conclusion that prior to the Flood there were no marriage prohibitions of the kind that came with
Moses. There was no Israel and no Gentiles. Moreover, the Bible is clear that some of
marital practices forbidden under the law Moses were allowed at this time. For example,
intermarriage of close relatives was allowed. This is the only coherent explanation for where
Cain got his wife and how population increased in the early history of humanity. Given these
facts, why would we expect that any other marriage law given later in Israels history was in
effect before the Flood? The assumed intermarriage prohibition has to be inserted into the story
for the sake of the Sethite explanation. The reasoning is entirely circular.
Particularly damaging to the Sethite view is the fact that the sons of Seth do not survive the
Flood. If the Sethite males were so godly, how is it that they perished? Did God punish the
innocent with the guilty? The implication is that the sons of Seth were included in the statement
of Genesis 6:5 (the wickedness of humankind had multiplied over the earth, so that every
intention of the thoughts of his heart was continually evil) and excluded from Gods grace in
Genesis 6:8 (But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord).
In point of fact, there is simply no evidence from the biblical text that the line of Seth (wholly or
in the greater part) in Noahs day was godly.54 Only Noah and his immediate family were saved
from death. There is no usefulness in the observation that Noah was in the line of Seth, either
(Gen 5; Luke 3:36-38). This would force the Sethite proponent to admit that all the other sons
of Seth were ungodly and perished in the Flood, which in turn requires the conclusion that the
entire group of the sons of God (sons of Seth) in Genesis 6:1-4 amounted to only four
peopleNoah and his sons! But that would mean that Noah and his sons, as the sons of God,
were the ones committing the sin of intermarriage. And that option brings the incoherence of
the Sethite view full circle: Why then werent Noah and his sons condemned to die in the Flood
if they were the ones committing the sin of intermarriage? Why would they have been spared?
As hopeless as the Sethite explanation is with respect to the Old Testament material, its most
serious problems only surface once you get into the New Testament. Two passages are
especially relevant to what happened in Genesis 6:1-4. I have again underlined items for
observation and discussion:
II Peter 2:1-10 (ESV)
1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false
teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying
the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And
many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be
blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their
condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 4 For if
God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed
them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not
spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven
others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the
cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making
them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued
78
righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that
righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous
soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how
to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment
until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of
defiling passion and despise authority.
Jude 5-7 (ESV)
5
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who
saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not
believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority,
but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness
until the judgment of the great day 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the
surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued
unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Several things are immediately apparent with respect to these passages. They are undoubtedly
about the same subject:
II Peter 2
Jude
God did not spare the angels . . .
. . . the angels who . . .
. . . when they [the angels] sinned . . .

[and] despise authority . . .
. . . did not stay within their own

position of authority but left their
proper dwelling . . .
. . . cast them into hell and committed

them to chains of gloomy darkness to
be kept until the judgment . . .
. . . kept in eternal chains under

gloomy darkness until the judgment of
the great day . . .
. . . by turning the cities of Sodom

and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned
them to extinction, making them an
example . . .
. . . just as Sodom and Gomorrah . . .

serves as an example . . .
. . . follow their sensuality . . .

distressed by the sensual conduct of
the wicked . . . who indulge in the lust
of defiling passion . . .
. . . indulged in sexual immorality and

pursued unnatural desire . . .
The Jude account does not contain the reference to Noah and the Flood present in the II Peter
version (v. 5), but it is perfectly apparent that both versions are referencing the same episode. It
is completely clear that this episode involved angels and a decision those divine beings made
to despise some sort of divinely-ordained boundary (authority; proper dwelling). The II
Peter accounting securely and certainly situates this sin at the time of Noah and the Flood (For
if God did not spare angels when they sinned . . . but preserved Noah . . . with seven others . . .
when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly . . .). That the type of sin committed
79
by the angels was sexual is clear from the vocabulary (sensuality; sensual conduct; lust of
defiling passion; sexual immorality; unnatural desire) as well as the linkage of the angels
sin to the Sodom and Gomorrah incident.
At this point a question is obvious: What sin are Peter and Jude referencing? There is only one
possibilitythe sin of Genesis 6 that precipitated the Flood of Noah. Not only is this the only
conceivable match given the data in II Peter and Jude, but there is no other sin by angels
recorded in the Bible that would in any way relate to Noah, the Flood or, by extension due to the
sexual nature of the sin, Sodom and Gomorrah. Evangelical scholars and Bible teachers often
resort to throwing up their hands and saying we just dont know, postulating some angelic sin
we arent told about in the Bible so as to avoid what appears to them an embarrassing piece of
mythology in the Scriptures.55 Inserting data into the Bible isnt proper interpretive method.
Some readers might wonder at this point, What about the original fall of the angels? It may
sound a bit presumptuous, but this is one of those doctrines that everyone knows about but
which cannot be found in the Bible. The reasoning works like this:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Satan (Helel; the nachash) tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden;

Satan is an angelic being and ruler of the demons;
There are demons in other passages of the Bible.
Therefore, Satan and these other angels (demons) fell together prior to the Garden of
Eden incident.
The problem is in the conclusionit overextends the evidence in the Bible. If you read the
Bible through completely and with close attention, you will eventually realize that the fall of
what is likely a large group of angels (demons) is never described anywhere in the Bible prior to
the Fall of Adam and Eve. We read of Helel in the garden and his evil. We then read Genesis
6:1-4.
This void is often filled by appeal to Revelation 12:7-9, where Satan and his angels are cast out
of heaven. That passage very clearly does not refer to a pre-Flood event, though, and so is no
help for this conundrum or to the Sethite explanations search for an angelic sin. Revelation 12
correlates this event (12:7-9) to the birth of Christ (12:1-4), the resurrection (12:5), and the
plight of Israel (the woman of 12:6) leading up to the final conflict before the consummation of
Gods kingdom (12:6, 10-17; see Dan. 12:1-3). Revelation 12:10 clearly links the expulsion of
Satan and his angels to the work of Christ, and so the context is post-flood. Further, Revelation
12:11 notes that, after this expulsion, Satan knows his time is short, a comment that would
make little sense if this referred to a pre-flood episode. Lastly, Jesus himself, when beginning
his public ministry, said, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18, ESV).
Returning to II Peter and Jude, these passages are important in that they demonstrate that these
New Testament authors understood the sons of God of Genesis 6 not as the sons of Seth, but as
supernatural beings. To deny the supernatural view of Genesis puts one in the position of
suggesting that Peter and Jude, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, misunderstood the
passage. This is a dangerous threat to inspiration and inerrancy, and the thought process that
80
leads to this crossroad is frankly driven by only one concernavoiding what seems to be the
weird circumstance of heavenly beings having sexual relations with human women.
To be fair, the weird factor is understandable. But given the mythic, supernatural worldview of
the Old Testament it is not surprising. And yet we are offended at taking the text to mean what it
says. We would do well to ask why we find these four verses so offensive. Do we really need to
be embarrassed at the thought that divine beings could come to earth, assume corporeal flesh
with all of its capabilities (and limitations), do what is described in Genesis 6:1-4? Flesh is
flesh, and it seems that throughout the Old Testament it is the required form of dress for
supernatural beings that either seek to or need to interact closely with human beings. In Genesis
18 Yahweh himself and two angels have a meal with Abraham. Supernatural beings do not need
to eat, but when in flesh, they can. Ill say more about this in the next chapter, but at this point it
should be noted that all the great theological minds of the Church prior to Augustinemen like
Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertulliansaw no theological problem with supernatural beings
assuming flesh that had the expected capacities of flesh.56 So did nearly every Jewish thinker in
antiquity.
We know this is the case because of what we read in various ancient Jewish books outside the
Bible, such as the Book of Jubilees, certain Dead Sea Scrolls, and 1 Enoch. The latter is
particularly significant, since certain Jewish groups (like those at Qumran) held the book of
Enoch to be inspired and part of the canon. The book of Jude (v. 14) quotes from 1 Enoch, and a
number of other New Testament passages allude to parts of it.57 1 Enoch was never considered
inspired by the early church fathers, but many of those men considered it a valid source for
history and doctrine.58 I would agree1 Enoch is not inspired, but it can provide useful
insights into how we should understand the Genesis 6 episode. For example, 1 Enoch records
the decision of the sons of God (referred to as Watchers in Dead Sea Scrolls that preserve parts
of 1 Enoch):
1 Enoch 6:1-859
1
It came to pass after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were
born to them, elegant and beautiful. 2 And when the Watchers, the sons of heaven, saw
them, they became infatuated with them, saying to each other, Come, let us choose for
ourselves wives from the offspring of men, and let us have children. 3 Then their leader
Shemyaza said to them, I fear that you may not go through with this plan, 4And that I
alone will suffer for such a terrible crime. 5 But they answered him and said, We all
swear, 6 And bind ourselves by mutual oaths, that we will not change our mind, but will
execute our plan. 7 Then they swore all together, and bound themselves by mutual
oaths. The whole number of those who descended on what is the top of Mount Hermon,
in the days of Jared, was two hundred. 8 That mountain therefore came to be Hermon,
because they had sworn upon it, and bound themselves by mutual oaths.
This passage provides several interesting points that are in concert with Genesis 6:1-4. Aside
from the obvious, that the account tells of beings from heaven who came to earth and cohabited
with human women, we learn that the Watchers, the heavenly beings, knew from the very outset
that what they desired to do was wrong. This sheds some light on Judes brief note about
81
heavenly beings and humans having a proper abode. We also learn that these beings came
down in the days of Jared and descended to Mount Hermon. We will not discuss the
reference to Hermon here, except to point out that the name Hermon (pronounced khermon in
Hebrew), is formed from the Hebrew term kherem, which is a word that means destruction
and is the Hebrew equivalent for Islams jihadholy war. This term foreshadows the real
intent of Israels practice of utterly destroying the populations of certain sites on their way to the
Promised Land. As I will demonstrate in a later chapter, these sites were all predominantly
populated by descendants of the nephilim, the offspring of the unions of Genesis 6:1-4.
The reference to the days of Jared is important because of Genesis 6:5, which describes an
earth overrun with all kinds of wickedness. Jared is a name drawn from the genealogies of
Genesis 5, specifically 5:18. A look back at that chapter reveals that Jared lived centuries
before Noah. Why is this significant? Because it means that after the Watchers, the sons of
God, descended, it took centuries for humanity to become corrupt to the point of God
determining an event like the Flood was necessary to punish evil. There is a cause and effect
relationship between the descent of the sons of God and the wickedness of humanity. The link
between Genesis 6:1-4 and 6:5 that seems implied is made explicit in 1 Enoch and other ancient
texts. Individual Watchers are blamed for dispensing knowledge to humans that led to their
corruption:
1 Enoch 7-8
7 1 And all the other [Watchers] took wives for themselves, and each chose for
himself one, and began to go in to them and to defile themselves with them, and
they taught them charms and spells, and the cutting of roots, and made them
acquainted with plants . . . 8 1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and
knives, and shields, and breastplates, and revealed to them the metals [of earth]
and metallurgy, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of crystals, and the
adornment of the eyelids, and all kinds of precious gems, and all sorts of coloring
makeup. 2 And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication,
and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. 3 Shemyaza also
taught them the use of drugs, and root-cuttings, Armaros taught them how to undo
spells, Baraqijal taught astrology, Kokabel taught the knowledge of the
constellations, and Ezeqeel taught divination by meteorology, Araqiel taught
geomancy, Shamsiel taught the signs of the sun, and Sariel taught the course of
the moon. 4 And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . .
What humanity was taught needs to be set in context. Some, if not all, of the items in this list
are not inherently evil. However all these items were utilized in some way in the pagan religions
of the ancient world. The knowledge of horticulture, for example, was commonly used to
produce drugs that in turn produced altered states of consciousness associated with demonic
worship.60 Astronomical knowledge became a gateway to worship the starswhich, as you
may recall from Chapter 2, were associated with the sons of God of the divine council. The
advent of makeup and other adornments were apparently used for seduction (hence the reference
to fornication). Since the Genesis 6:1-4 episode is our only biblical reference to actual
unfaithfulness on the part of the members of Gods council, it would seem this fuller picture
82
from other texts helps explain the odd statements in the book of Job about God not trusting his
holy ones (Job 4:18; 15:15).61
The above passages also help answer some vexing questions, even among experts. Scholars
have been puzzled as to why the Genesis 6:1-4 account seems to exclude the sons of God from
blame for the Flood, focusing attention instead on humankinds wickedness. The answer is
simple, but perhaps not obvious. In the account in 1 Enoch 9-11, the offending Watchers are
eventually punished in the time of Noah. Specifically, they are rounded up, chained, and
imprisoned within the earth until the time of endthe final judgment that the Old Testament
calls the Day of the Lord. This is where all Jewish textsincluding the New Testamenthave
the fallen sons of God.
Recall that in Jude and II Peter we read about the punishment of the fallen sons of God:
II Peter 2:4 - For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell
and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment . . .
Jude 6 - And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority,
but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness
until the judgment of the great day.
The key term to note is hell in II Peter 2:4. The Greek word here is not the expected Hades.
Rather, Peter says the fallen Watchers were sent to Tartarus. This Greek word is the precise
term used in classical Greek myths about the ancient giants. The divine Titans were imprisoned
in Tartarus, the lowest part of the underworld, by the Olympian gods Uranos, Kronos and Zeus.
The connection is explicit and unmistakable.
The picture that thus emerges is that the sons of God descended in the days of Jared, in
premeditated violation of Gods will that they stay in their proper dwelling. They took human
women as their wives, and the act was apparently not resisted. Not only are there surviving
texts that tell us this directly, but the language of Genesis 6 (took wives) is the normal
expression used elsewhere in the Old Testament for getting married, not any sort of violent
sexual act. God allowed this set of circumstances to continue for centuries, but by the time of
Noah humanity had been willingly corrupted by the knowledge doled out by the Watchers.
The moral corruption of humanity was not the only reason action eventually had to be taken to
rectify the situation. When the Old Testament writer tells us that only Noah and his immediate
family circle were unsullied by all this, he telegraphs a specific message. The seed of the
woman was not to mingle with the seed of the nachash, for it was the seed of the woman who
would undo the effects of the Fall. Though there is no direct biblical evidence that the sons of
God intended to pollute what we know from hindsight to be the messianic line (Jesus lineage
runs through Noah back to Adam and Eve),62 the mythic narrator wants us to discern that the
result of this co-mingling of human and celestial flesh, even if unintentional, was that the
completely human seed of the woman had nearly been eclipsed. The redeemer-seed of the
woman had to be completely and only human, since what was ultimately being prefigured by
that pronouncement back in Eden was sacrificial death of the human incarnate Son of God. We
83
tend to look at the flood as the act of a vengeful, perhaps even capricious, God. Rather, it was an
act of grace, born of regret (Gen. 6:6), to preserve the family of Noah and the plan of
redemption. The necessary human seed could not be lost or the promise would fail.
50
For example, Isa 14:29; 30:6; Jer 8:17; 46:22.

A variation of the viewpoint that the Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are only humans has the sons of God as
divinized human rulers. A survey of the academic literature arguing this view reveals that it depends on taking the
phrase sons of the Most High in Psalm 82:6 and wedding it to the fact that David is referred to as a son of God
(i.e., God referes to the Israelite king as my son). Proponents cite other ancient Near Eastern material where the
king or Pharaoh is referred to in the same way. Other passages that appear to use the word elohim of humans are
cited in defense (e.g., Exodus 22:7-8). Further, this view understand Gods wrath at the marriages as polygamy
that these divinized human rulers took as many wives as they wanted. We have already seen how the human view
of the plural elohim language in Psalm 82 implodes under analysis, and so this view is rendered implausible.
Proponents of this view overlook some obvious problems. First, the text of Genesis 6 never says the marriages
were polygamous. That is read into the text (and specifically denied in the version of the story in 1 Enoch). I will
address the other passages where elohim seems to refer to humans in future chapters. Second, the examples of
other human kings as sons of a god arent terribly helpful to the divinized human ruler view since many (even the
majority) of those instances have human kingship descending from the gods by virtue of a literal cohabitation of a
human wife with a god. Hence they agree with the view of Genesis 6 that takes the sons of God as divine beings.
Lastly, though I will address the other passages where elohim seems to refer to humans in future chapters, for now
it is sufficient to add that elohim in these verses may best be translated as God (the God of Israel) and not as a
plural. In that case, these verses are no support to the divinized human ruler view.
52
See the next chapter for a brief discussion of why the term nephilim means giants.
53
If Chapter 2 is no longer fresh in your mind, Id recommend going back and reading through it again, since Ill
draw on it here. I would also recommend reading through the Appendixes relevant to that chapter again.
54
It is common for evangelical scholars to make statements similar to the following: Seth establishes the line of
righteous antediluvians culminating with Noah in Genesis 5 and continuing to Jesus (Richard S. Hess, Seth, in
the Anchor Bible Dictionary [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 5:1118). But if one reads this genealogy in Genesis 5,
no one except Enoch is actually described in spiritually favorable terms. We have only a genealogy and are left
with only our imagination as to how these people lived and behaved. The godliness is inserted into the text.
55
This is somewhat understandable, since a number of ancient cultures have a story like Genesis 6:1-4, connected
to some divine judgment like a flood, where heavenly beings came to earth and fathered childrenheroes, kings
by human women. See www.themyththatistrue.com.
56
cite VanderKam here. It is worth noting that all Jewish rabbis and scholars up to the second century A.D.
believed the same thing. At that point in history, the rabbis changed their position. After the advent of Christianity
they saw the need to avoid having heavenly sons of God in their sacred books. Not coincidentally, it was at this
same time that the teaching of Two Powers in heaven also became a heresy (Segal.
57
See www.themyththatistrue.com for the use of Enoch in the NT.
58
Note VanderKam here and others.
59
The translation is my own, and incorporates readings from Aramaic Enoch scrolls from Qumran, as well as the
Greek and Ethiopic texts of 1 Enoch. As such, it may not correspond exactly to English translations available on
the web or in paperback.
60
The New Testament term pharmakeia (cf. English pharmaceutical; pharmacy) refers to the production of
potions and drugs from various sorts of plants and other organic matter. In New Testament days the practice was
often connected to sorcery. It is often translated sorcery or magic (see Rev 9:21; 18:23; 22:15).
61
Note that Job 15:15 is in a divine council context. Job 15:8 asks a rhetorical question about standing in Gods
council. In another chapter on the Old Testament prophets Ill point out how standing in the council relates to
the commissioning of prophets and other spokesmen of God (cf. Jer. 23:18-22).
62
Luke 3:36-38.
51
84
Chapter 8
A Tall Order
The last chapter focused on the incoherence of the attempted explanations for Genesis 6:14 that deny anything supernatural occurredthat the sons of God were mere humans, not
heavenly beings. The problems with such a view are serious. I didnt say everything I
could have in that regard, though. I left out one particularly issue to which well now turn
our attention, and issue that also provides a nice transition into the supernatural views
own perceived difficulties.
I speak here of the fact that the offspring of the sexual unions in Genesis 6:1-4 produced
giants (nephilim). If the sons of God were mere humans, one wonders why the children
born to their wives were so unusual. Those who hold the Sethite view or some variation
of it contend that the nephilim were not actually giants. This objection is understandable,
since having giants as a result of these marriages pretty much destroys the normalcy of
whats going on in Genesis 6:1-4. As a result, opponents of the supernatural view of
Genesis 6:1-4 necessarily must deny that the offspring of the sexual unions in that chapter
were giants.
Establishing that the word nephilim means giants is therefore important. The simplest
way to demonstrate the validity of this understanding is to say that the spelling of the
word nephilim tells us what the word can and cannot mean. In other words, the shape of
the Hebrew word is the key to knowing that the word means giants.63
The word nephilim is actually spelled two different ways in the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament. As we begin our discussion of this, the first thing you need to keep in mind is
that Hebrew originally had no vowelseverything was written with consonants only. I
know this sounds strange, but you could actually read English this way if you had to
(perhaps not with complete clarity, but you could understand a lot). For example, Im
betting you can read these sentences with little difficulty:
Snt cls s cmng t twn
Prsdnt Bsh wll spk tnght n tlvsn
Fd th dg bfr gng t schl
Th sprbwl s n xctng ftbll gm
85
The reason you could get through these sentences despite the absence of vowels is that
you know the vocabulary of your own language very well. The same was true of Hebrew
speakers and writers. Eventually, though, Hebrew scribes began to use consonants to
mark vowelscertain consonants began to do double-dutyto help readers. English
also does that. In elementary school, we learned that the vowels were a, e, i, o, and u
and sometimes y. The letter y in English can be a consonant or a vowel, and the same
is true in Hebrew! The Hebrew letter for y (called yod) sometimes functions to mark a
vowel soundspecifically a sound like our long i (pronounced ee) in words like
machine. Still later on in Middle Ages, the Jewish scribes invented a vowel system of
little dots and dashes to go over and under the consonants.
Now for our first observation about the word nephilim. Notice that the word nephilim has
an i-vowel in the middlenephilim. What you cant see in English is that this i-vowel in
the Hebrew text is sometimes marked with the consonant y and other times its not:
ne-ph-l-m (Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33)
ne-phy-l-m (Numbers 13:33)
You probably noticed that both spellings show up in Numbers 13:33. Well come back to
that point, but for right now just realize that the reason is not that the biblical writer
couldnt decide how to spell it or didnt know how to spell! Believe it or not, the presence
of both spellings in that single verse is an important clue to what the nephilim actually
were.
The second thing to note is very simple as well: the word nephilim ends with im. This
ending is the way Hebrew denotes a plural (more than one). English adds -s (cats), -es
(dishes), or with some words, -ies (babies). Hebrew uses im.
So why is the presence of that little y in the middle of the word nephilim important?
Most people who deny that the nephilim were giants argue that the word comes from a
Hebrew root verb spelled with the consonants: n-ph-l (naphal; to fall). The argument
is therefore made that nephilim means fallen ones (as in spiritually evil) or those who
fall upon [someone] (i.e., a warrior or soldier,). The tiny middle y, though, makes this
explanation impossible. Nephilim cannot be a verbal form. Why? Because the middle y
in nephylim tells us that the original source root ALSO had a middle y in it, and no
plural verbal form in Hebrew is spelled this way.64
When I say no plural verbal form in Hebrew is spelled this way you might think Im
being pretty picky about making my case. Actually, my point is an important one:
language have rules, and those rules dictate what words mean. Let me illustrate from
English before continuing. Hebrew is like many other languages in that it uses a basic
root or group of consonants and then adds things to them into various shapes to form
various words. For example, lets take the root word spell in English. Note how the
shape of the word is changed to make different words:
spells (could be a verb denoting an ongoing action; could also be a noun)
86
spelled (a verb of past time)

spelling (a verb of present time)
speller (a noun one who spells)
misspell (a verb of different meaning)
spellbound (an adjective)
The same thing happens in Hebrew. There are rules for how words are formed, and those
rules ought not be ignored. The claim of those who deny the nephilim were giants on the
basis that the word is some sort of verbal form can be easily tested using the rules of
Hebrew spelling or word formation. In Hebrew, fallen ones (a term formed from the
Hebrew verb naphal / to fall) would be spelled nephulim.65 Likewise, those who fall
upon would be spelled nophelim. Even though the reader may not know Hebrew, it is
perfectly obvious that neither spelling of the presumed root source naphal matches the
term in Genesis 6 or Numbers 13:33nephilim.66
While there is no formation in Hebrew using the verb naphal that can account for the
Hebrew spelling nephylim in Numbers 13:33, the rules of Hebrew word formation do
allow that nephilim could be an adjective based on Hebrew naphal.67 The meaning in that
case would be fallen. While this is possible, it isnt plausible for a very simple reason:
it fails to answer why the word nephilim was used by the biblical writer in Numbers
13:33 for persons of great height. Lets take a look at Numbers 13:33 (note the
underlined portions):
30
But Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, Let us go up at once and
occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it. 31 Then the men who had gone up
with him said, We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger
than we are. 32 So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land
that they had spied out, saying, The land, through which we have gone to spy it
out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are
of great height. 33 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 them. (ESV)
The description in Numbers 13:33 undermines opponents of the supernatural view who
argue that the word nephilim refers to spiritually fallen beings by virtue of the word
being an adjective. The great height cannot be accounted for in that explanation. An
appeal to nephilim as an adjective does nothing to overturn the supernatural view of
Genesis 6:1-4.
So where does this leave us? Is there a source root for nephilim that accounts for the
Hebrew spelling and explains the descriptions in Numbers 13:33?68 Fortunately, there is
an answerin Aramaic. Aramaic was the language of the Babylonian people during the
time in history that the Jews were taken into exile. In that language there is the noun
naphil. The Hebrew spelling of this noun has an original middle ynphyl, and when
one adds the standard ending for plural nouns (-im) one gets the Hebrew spelling of the
87
form in Numbers 13:33, nephylim!69 And what does the Aramaic word naphil mean?
Giant!
This little rabbit-trail back to the Babylonian exile has another point to it. Not only did
Aramaic become a common language for the Jews during the exile, but the exile was the
period when the Jewish scribes assembled and polished the final form of biblical books of
our Old Testament that we have today (at least everything that was written to that point,
which was nearly everything).
What does this have to do with the word nephilim? Lets go back to Numbers 13:33 again
(with the same underlined portions):
30
But Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, Let us go up at once and
occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it. 31 Then the men who had gone up
with him said, We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger
than we are. 32 So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land
that they had spied out, saying, The land, through which we have gone to spy it
out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are
of great height. 33 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 them. (ESV)
If you looked up Numbers 13:33 in a commentary, you would likely find some note that
the two occurrences of nephilim here and the material in the parentheses above in verse 33
were added later (material added by scribes is called a gloss). Some evangelicals argue
that these additions undermine a link between the sons of Anak whom the Israelite spies
encountered and the nephilim of Genesis 6:1-4. Supposedly, that linkage was just a later
scribes uninformed, erroneous opinion.
It is certainly true that scribes added bits of information to help readers of their own day
understand the ancient contents of the Bible. Usually this happens with geographic place
names, where a scribe will give the name of a city and then add what the name used to be,
thereby orienting his readers.70 However, an appeal to scribal stupidity or naivet seems
to ignore the fact that the phrase is in biblical text by inspiration. Any such gloss must
be viewed as part of the process of inspiration, else we have material in the Bible that
really doesnt belong there. That doctrinal problem aside, this misguided attempt to avoid
the giantism of the nephilim fails to take into account the rest of the description that cant
be blamed on scribesthat the sons of Anak were of great height and made the
Israelites feel like grasshoppers.
I actually think this gloss makes the giantism of the nephilim very clear. Look carefully at
the lines in question, noting the colored detail which is evident only in the Hebrew
spelling:
33
And there we saw the Nephylim (the sons of Anak, who come from the
Nephilim)
88
Did you notice that only the first of these two nephilims has the middle y? I would
argue that if a later scribe, writing during the time when Aramaic was in full use among
the Jews, added this material, he did so to make sure that the readers knew that the word
nephilim specifically came from naphil and meant giants. In fact, this is the only place
in the Hebrew Bible where the fuller y spelling of nephilim occurs. The scribe inserted
the full middle y spelling from the root source naphil (giant) and then explicitly
linked that form, which can only mean giant, to the older, more ancient spelling of
nephilim found in Genesis 6:4! The other details (of great height; like grasshoppers)
solidified the point being made.
Some interpreters of Genesis 6:1-4 and Numbers 13:33 resort to the desperate argument
that the statement in Numbers 13:33 was actually a false report of the unbelieving spies.
In other words, the description of the spies that the inhabitants of the land were giants
(nephilim) was a lie! That their report was called bad (ESV, v. 32) or evil in other
translations is offered as proof for this assertion.
There is simply no exegetical foundation for this view. It is a deliberate misreading
inserted into the text to avoid the presumed problem of the nephilim. The reason the
report of the spies was called bad is absolutely transparent from the biblical textthe
spies wanted to chicken out and refused to trust God. Nowhere in all the descriptions in
the Old Testament about this episode do we read that Israel was punished for lying, or that
the people had been deceived by a lying report. We read the opposite everywherethat
the people did not believe the word of Joshua and Calebwho, by the way, did not object
to the truthfulness of the report about the giants, and did not accuse the other ten spies of
lying about the threat!
But if the nephilim were really giants, then what? Its no surprise that a literal view of
Genesis 6:1-4 as I am suggesting disturbs peopleand I used to be among their number.
That said, the problems are not difficult to solve if one allows for the supernatural in ones
Christian worldview. So lets walk through the questions that are no doubt on your mind
in the pages that remain in this chapter.
In the context of our recent discussions about the nachash, his seed, and Genesis 6:1-4,
taking the nephilim as giants means that, aside from the seed of the nachash referring to
evil people devoted to opposing Gods people and Gods plans, there was also a literal
seed of the nachash that in part fulfilled the curse pronounced in the garden. I am not
suggesting by this phrase that the divine sons of God of Genesis 6:1-4 were commanded
by Satan to do what they did, or that they were somehow genetically related to Satan.
The biblical text doesnt tell us such things. For the moment I am proposing that, on one
hand, the curses were worked out in the rise of evil humans who opposed God and also in
the rise of super-human or hybrid physical beings who also sought to crush the people
of God.
Genesis 6:1-4 is clear that these beings were humanthey had human mothersbut it is
equally clear that they were also divine, having divine beings as their fathers. We have
89
already seen that a purely human explanation for the identity of the sons of God makes
little sense and is riddled with contradictions. Those problems and the inspired testimony
of Peter and Jude compel us to conclude that the sons of God were divine beings. But
how can heavenly beings have sexual relations with human women? And arent these
beings just spirits?
The Bible does, of course, refer to Gods heavenly messengers as spirits on at least one
occasion (Ps 104:4), but it is a matter of the biblical record that heavenly beings often take
physical, corporeal form. In fact, I would suggest that when divine beings cross the great
divide between heaven and earth to interact with human beings, the required form of
dress appears to be flesh.
I am not speaking here of beings that merely appear to be physical but actually would not
be solidmere apparitions of human form. That is not what the biblical text describes on
several occasions. For example, the text is quite clear that angels met with Abraham in
physical, solid flesh, for they ate a meal together (Gen 18).71 In Genesis 19 these two
angels are sent to Sodom and Gomorrah to retrieve Lot and his family from the impending
doom pronounced by God on that city. Genesis 19:10 informs us that the two angels had
to physically grab Lot and pull him back into his house to avoid molestation in Sodom,
something that would be hard to do if the two beings were not truly physical!
Another example is Genesis 32:22-31, where we read that Jacob wrestled with a man
(32:24) whom the text also describes as elohim twice (32:29, 31). Hosea 12:3-4 refers
back to this incident and describes the being who wrestled with Jacob as elohim and
malak (angel). Ill have more to say about this particular angel in later chapters, but for
now it needs to be understood that one does not wrestle with an apparition. This was a
physical struggle, and one that left Jacob injured as a result of the beings touch (32:3132).
The ultimate point made by these examples is that the two heavenly beings that ate the
meal with Abraham did not need to eat. Immortal beings need no sustenance to extend
their lives. However, the text makes it clear that they could do this very physical, earthy
activity. This is part of the answer to the common objection that Matthew 22:23-33
teaches that angels (and therefore any other heavenly being) cannot engage in sexual
intercourse. The passage reads:
23
The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no
resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, Teacher, Moses
said, If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow
and raise up children for his brother. 25 Now there were seven brothers
among us. The first married and died, and having no children left his wife
to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After
them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven,
whose wife will she be? For they all had her. 29 But Jesus answered them,
You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of
God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in
90
marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the
dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not God of
the dead, but of the living. 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were
astonished at his teaching.
A couple items require attention. The text does not say angels cannot have sexual
intercourse; it just says they dont. Second, Jesus description is restricted to angels in
heavenno comment is made about what capabilities angels may or may not have when
they come to earth in physical form. The idea that Jesus taught that angels cannot engage
in sexual activity must be imposed on the text. The point seems to be that marriage and
childbearing arent necessary in heaven. This would make perfect sense since procreation
is only necessary when the survival of the species depends on it. That isnt the case in
heaven.
The real reason that this passage is used to allegedly overturn the idea that the sons of God
are divine beings is that the idea of such sexual intercourse is so strange. All that is
required, though, is allowing heavenly beings to assume flesh when they come to earth,
and that the flesh they have assumed has the properties and capabilities of normal flesh.
One might ask what else in the Bible is too strange for modern minds to accept. How is
the virgin birth normal? What isnt mind-blowing about Jesus having both a divine and
human nature fused together? For that matter, what is so ordinary about God going
through the human birth process and growing and learning as any other child? Frankly,
the idea that the co-regent and creator of the universe had to learn how to talk, eat with a
spoon, and be potty trained is far more shocking than Genesis 6:1-4and yet this is
what Scripture affirms when it informs us explicitly that the second person of the godhead
became a human.
Another objection to the supernatural explanation of Genesis 6:1-4 is the issue of how
giants survived the flood. Many commentators who hold to a global flood in Genesis 6-8
seek to deny the giantism of the nephilim because they think that is necessary to preserve
their view of the flood. To refresh your memory, Genesis 6:4 reads:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons
of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These
were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
Opponents of the giant explanation seem to feel that it is easy to explain Genesis 6:4s
comment about nephilim being on the earth after the flood if the text is only describing
human warriors or evil (fallen) people. What could be more obvious? Of course there
were great warriors or evildoers on the earth after the flood! This easy explanation,
though, is its own worst enemy, for it begs the question of why the author would point
something out that is so patently obvious. But if the author is again trying to link the giant
clans in the Old Testament after the flood with the nephilim of Genesis 6:4, such a phrase
makes sense.
91
I would argue this is exactly what is going on here. The author (or again perhaps an
inspired editor/scribe during the exile) knows that his readers will encounter giants
elsewhere in the biblical stories (e.g., the sons of Anak in Num 13:33, Og of Bashan in
Deut 3, and Goliath in I Sam 17-18). Ancient readers would find this odd since the giant
nephilim were supposedly wiped out in the great flood. The writer had to give his readers
some explanation for why there were giants after the flood when only Noah and his family
survived.72
There are basically three options for explaining the comment in Genesis 6:4 and the
presence of giants after the flood if one takes the view that the nephilim were indeed
giants: (1) the Flood of Genesis 6-8 was in fact localized and not global; (2) the survivors
of the flood, Noah and his family, somehow carried the genetic material that produced the
nephilim; and (3) the same kind of behavior described in Genesis 6:1-4 happened after the
flood, producing other nephilim.
The first view, a localized flood, is quite workable, but it naturally depends on the
coherence of the arguments in defense of a local flood, especially those arguments
dealing with the wording in the biblical text that seems to suggest the flood was
worldwide.73 Given the fact that the cohabitation between the human women and divine
beings described in Genesis 6 began in the days of Jared/Yarad in Jewish tradition, there
would have been many nephilim all over the known ancient world, the geographical
regions noted in the Table of Nations. In any view of the great Flood, the flooded regions
were repopulated. This view allows some nephilim descendants to have survived and
resettle the regions of Canaanand other areas where giants and individuals who
claimed to be of divine ancestry are found in ancient literature. The second view seems
flatly denied by Scripture. Noah and his familial generation were considered pure by
God (Gen 6:9), a description that requires they had not engaged in any of the evil that led
up to the flood, evil that included what is described in Genesis 6:1-4.
The third view is also quite possible, as it finds an explanation in the Hebrew grammar of
Genesis 6:4. Without going under the hood of our English translation too much, Genesis
6:4 could easily be translated there were nephilim on the earth in those days and
afterward, whenever the sons of God went into the daughters of man.74 As we saw in
the last chapter, Peter and Jude, like other ancient traditions about this event, have the
offending sons of God of Genesis 6:1-4 imprisoned after their sin at the time of the flood.
Consequently, the original sons of God could not be behind any repetition of this
transgression of heaven and earth. This translation suggests that what happened in
Genesis 6:1-4 happened again.
The first and third options also help answer other questions. Evangelical Christians are
fond of supporting the idea of a global flood by appealing to other ancient traditions from
around the world that have a cataclysmic flood story. What those apologists regularly
neglect to mention is that many of those same stories also contain conceptual parallels to
whats described in Genesis 6:1-4, stories of gods who came from heaven and who
fathered royal, kingly lines by human women.75 Whats more, some of these tales of
sexual union between the gods and human women are set after the time of some global
92
cataclysm. Genesis 6:4 suggests the same. Both a local flood or the grammatical
explanation are capable to explaining the preponderance of stories in other cultures about
a great flood and cohabitation between gods and human women. The local flood option
would argue that these stories arise from the populations which resettled flooded areas
that some of the settlers were descended from the nephilim of around prior to the Genesis
flood. The grammatical approach would argue that the cohabitation activity continued
after the flood.
A few paragraphs ago I mentioned that for the moment I was arguing that the nephilim
had something to do with the curse concerning the seed of the nachash that concerned
a literal, supernatural enemy of the people of God, but that the nachash and the nephilim
werent physically related in any way. Thats true, but the nephilim and the nachash
share something else besides being common enemies of Gods people, something that not
only demonstrates anew the supernatural nature of the nephilim, but also answers one of
the most enduring questions in biblical theology.
63
It isnt easy to explain why this is a certain conclusion from the Hebrew text if readers havent had
Hebrew. For those who have, Appendix ___ has the nuts and bolts details.
64
In other words, for those more familiar with grammar, nephilim cannot be a participle from the root
naphal. See www.themyththatistrue.com for the technical details. Since the presumed Hebrew root is a
verb (to fall) the word in question (nephilim) must be a participle. Participles are how Hebrew (and
many other languages) convert a verb to noun (person, place, or thing).
65
Fallen ones is passive. That is, the term implies something happened TO these beings or persons
(some event or circumstance made them fallen). The form I noted in the discussion (nephulim) is the
passive plural participle of naphal, and it obviously is not spelled like nephilim. In fact, the Hebrew root
naphal never has a middle y in any of its passive verb or participle forms.
66
Those who fall upon is an active idea. That is, the term implies something these beings or persons are
actively doing (they are falling upon). The form I noted in the discussion (nophelim) is the active plural
participle of naphal, and it obviously is not spelled like nephilim. In fact, there is no active verb or
participle form in Hebrew that has a middle y.
67
This is the view offered by Hamilton in his first NICOT volume on Genesis.
68
In the next chapter we shall see that other passages beside Num 13:33 describe offspring of the nephilim
themselves as giants.
69
Aramaic plurals do not end in im, but rather in. This is not a problem for the explanation offered here
since there are examples in the Hebrew Bible where Aramaic nouns are brought into the Hebrew language
and subsequently pluralized with the proper Hebrew endings. See www.themyththatistrue.com.
70
See Genesis 28:19 for example.
71
The Genesis 18 story is very interesting, and we have discussed it before (see Chapter 1). With respect to
this chapter, one has two choices for the identity of the One called Yahweh in that chapter. Either it is
Yahweh himself (the Father) in physical form, or it is the second person of the godhead. In my view the
latter is preferable in view of what is likely a conceptual parallel to this chapter, Gen 32:22-31, where Jacob
wrestles with a man but whom the text refers to as elohim. Later the prophet Hosea looks back at that
this event and uses the term elohim and malak, which suggests that it is the vice-regent of Yahweh in the
form of the Angel of Yahweh who struggled with Jacob (see the discussion and Chapter ___ ). If the
person in Genesis 18 is the vice-regent of the council, then Genesis 18 clearly refers to the second God of
Israels religion as Yahweh (18:1, 10, 22, etc.)
72
Interestingly, one of the explanations offered by later rabbis was that Noah himself was a giant!
93
73
My interest here is not to defend the local flood view. For arguments in defense of that view, see Carol
Hill, The Noachian Flood: Universal of Local? Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 9:2
(2002); David Siemens, Some Relatively Non-Technical Problems With Flood Geology Perspectives on
Science and the Christian Faith (1992); http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html.
74
The syntax of the verb sequence in Gen 6:4 very likely indicating what is called a frequentative waw
(see Skinner on this verse, International Critical Commentary, Genesis, and Wenham, Word Biblical
Commentary, Genesis 1-15).
75
List some examples. Cf. Engnell, Frankfort, Mettinger.
94
Chapter 9
And God Gave Them Up
As fascinating as the events precipitating the biblical flood of Noah are, its the events
that follow the flood that are most critical to understanding the way things really arethe
matrix of human and divine reality in the biblical worldview. As weve seen, Genesis
6:1-4, a passage relegated to arcane status by most interpreters, proved to be the backdrop
for key elements and concepts in later Israelite history and theology. Well discover the
same is true of the next passage we need to rescue from obscurity.
The Tower of Babel
Genesis 11:1-9 reads:
1
Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as
people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and
settled there. 3 And they said to one another, Come, let us make bricks,
and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for
mortar. 4 Then they said, Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower
with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we
be dispersed over the face of the whole earth. 5 And the LORD came down
to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And
the LORD said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one
language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing
that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go
down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand
one anothers speech. 8 So the LORD dispersed them from there over the
face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its
name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of
all the earth. And from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all
the earth.
Youll notice right away that theres the same sort of plural of exhortation going on in
verse 7 as we saw in Genesis 1:26.76 The verse has Yahweh proclaiming let us go down
and confuse their language, but, as in Genesis 1:26, the plural announcement is followed
by the actions of only one person, Yahweh: So the LORD dispersed them . . . (11:8).
God declares what needs to be done to his divine council and then goes and does it. But
this isnt going to be our focus in this chapter. Theres something far more important
going on.
Genesis 11 must be understood in conjunction with Genesis 10; the two are inseparable
with respect to interpretation. Genesis 10 records what scholars have called the Table of
95
Nations, the listing of the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Noahs sons who
survived the flood. But Genesis 10 actually gives us more than a list of physical
descendants. Many of the names in this listing are not people, but geographical regions
or cities. This is why scholars have opted for Table of Nations as opposed to
genealogies when describing this chapter. Genesis 10 (for the most part) gives us a list
of the nations whose populace can trace their ancestry to one of the three sons of Noah.
My qualification for the most part leads us to several important initial observations.
The Table of Nations assumes that the names of Noahs sons are behind the names of the
nations. The total number of nations descended from Shem, Ham, and Japheth comes to
seventy. This figure is produced by eliminating Nimrod (vv. 8-12). Nimrod doesnt
belong in the total since Genesis 10:8-12 is a biographical rabbit-trail. The text gives us
no indication that Nimrod was to be understood as a nation, since Nimrod doesnt
father anyone (or a nation) in the list. The statement is merely that Nimrod came from
Cush (v.8), not that he ruled over a land that would become known by his name. Rather,
he ruled over Babel, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
We learn in Genesis 11:1-9 that Yahweh dispersed the people of the earth. Prior to this
dispersion the people all had one language. The story as it stands in Genesis 11:1-9
seems to end there. It appears there is little else to be learned about what went on at this
division of the nations. But thats only because we havent looked at what other Old
Testament passages say about this event.
Dividing the Nations
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 reads as follows:77
8
When the Most High apportioned the nations as an inheritance, when

he divided up humankind, he established the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God. 9 But the LORDs portion
is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 describes how Yahwehs dispersal of the nations at Babel resulted
in his disinheriting those nations. The statement in Deuteronomy 32:9 that Yahwehs
portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance tips us off that a contrast in affection
and ownership is intended. Yahwehs decision was a declaration that he was no longer
going to be the god of those nations. That privilege would be granted to Israel alone.
God turned away from the nations of Genesis 10-11, instead making a new nation to be
the object of his affectionIsrael. I like to refer to this decision of God as the Romans
1 event of the Old Testament. Romans 1 describes how God gave humankind up to
their persistent rebellion.
Most English Bibles do not read according to the number of the sons of God in
Deuteronomy 32:8. Rather, they read according to the number of the sons of Israel.
The difference derives from disagreements between manuscripts of the Old Testament.
There are many reasons why sons of God is the correct reading, among them being that
96
this reading is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.78 While many modern English Bibles point
this out in footnotes to Deuteronomy 32:8, several recent English translations (NRSV,
ESV) have adopted the reading in recognition of its superiority.
Frankly, you dont need to know all the technical reasons for why the sons of God
reading in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is what the verse originally said. You just need to think a
bit about the wrong reading, the sons of Israel. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 hearkens back to
events at the Tower of Babel, an event that occurred before the call of Abraham, the
father of the nation of Israel. This means that the nations of the earth were divided at
Babel before Israel even existed as a people. It would make no sense for God to divide up
the nations of the earth according to the number of the sons of Israel if there was no
Israel. This point is also brought home in another way, namely by the fact Israel is not
listed in the Table of Nations.
So what happened to the other nations? What does it mean that they were apportioned as
an inheritance and to whom were they apportioned? As odd as it sounds, the rest of the
nations were summarily put under the administrationgiven as an inheritanceof the
lesser elohim of the divine council. What these two verses tell us is that Yahweh decided
his own people would be Israel (which did not yet exist at Babel), and the other nations
drawn up as a result of the dispersal at Babylon were numbered (counted out)
according to the number of the sons of God. Interestingly, in Ugaritic literature, the
number of the sons of God was 70the same number as the nations in Deuteronomy
32:8-9.79
That this interpretation is sound is made clear by an explicit parallel passage,
Deuteronomy 4:19-20. There Moses says to the Israelites:
19
And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the
sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away
and bow down to them and serve them whom the LORD your God has
allotted to all the nations under the whole heaven. 20 But the LORD has
taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a
people of his own inheritance, as you are this day.
Deuteronomy 4:19-20 is the other side of Gods punitive coin. Whereas in Deuteronomy
32:8-9 God apportioned or handed out the nations to the sons of God, here we are told
God allotted the gods to those nations. Basically, they were made for each other! God
decreed, in the wake of Babel, that the other nations he had forsaken would have other
gods besides Himself to worship. It is as though God was saying, if you dont want to
obey me, Im not interested in being your godso here are some other gods for you.
Verse 20 of Deuteronomy 4 follows the allotment with the same idea we saw in
Deuteronomy 32:9 on the heels of the division of the nations: The Lord has chosen his
own peopleyou, O Israel, whom he took out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
But why such a severe punishment to what happened at Babel? To understand Gods
response, we need to back up just a bit.
97
After Adam and Eve sinned in Eden, they were forbidden re-entry into Eden. Recall that
Eden was the mount of God, the place where the divine council had been conducting
businessthe place where Yahweh resided and where heaven and earth met. It had
been Yahwehs intention that humankind, male and female, be part of his council. After
all, they were his sons and daughters; they had a divine, royal pedigree. Humanity was to
have dominion over the earth as Yahwehs imagers, his representativeshis earthly coregents.
Part of the reason for the expulsion was to cut off Adam and Eve from the tree of life.
Their sin had cost them their immortalityan attribute of divine beings that was
naturally part of council turf. But expulsion also meant they were cut off from the
council proceedings. This doesnt mean Adam and Eve (and so humanity) were
disenfranchised from being Gods imagers. That status was and is inseparable from
being human. Rather, they were expelled from the council. But they were also forgiven.
They were still Gods children and his imagers, but they there would be no living humans
in the divine council. Only upon death would Adam and Eve be reunited with Yahweh in
a personal, eternal relationship. Life on earth was like an indefinite, unpaid suspension or
an involuntary leave of absence from a company you love and long for. Humanity has an
unending desire for utopia because were wired that way.
We can see a foreshadowing of the prospect of the new heaven and new earth here.
Theres a reason why the book of Revelation ends with another Eden. I cant go into
the details of how the new heaven and earth in Revelation utilize divine council imagery,
but for now let it be noted that God will bring all things full circlehuman beings will
indeed rule and reign with him and his heavenly host on earth.
The point of this remembrance for our current purposes is that, once expelled from the
place of the divine council, it was a sacrilege to try and reverse that decision by ones
own human efforts. The nachash had succeeded in seducing Eve in Eden with the
promise that she could be like one of the elohim of the councilto have their
knowledgebefore that knowledge had been granted by her Father, Yahweh (Gen. 3:22).
Genesis 1:26 informs us that it had been Yahwehs intention all along to make
humankind like the cosmic members of the council, to make them part of the council.
But what God planned it is Gods right to bring to pass in his own time. Ironically, Eve
had been seduced into wanting what was to be hers but not on her timetable.
The same is true of the Babel incident. It was a sacrilege to build a tower that would
reach to the heavens. Why? The reason isnt because God hates architecture or
construction work. The reason is that the heavens were perceived as the place where God
livedand where the council held session. This is demonstrable in several ways.
It is important to notice that the building of the tower attracts the attention of Yahweh
and, ultimately, the divine council:
98
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the
children of man had built. 6 And the LORD said, Behold, they are one
people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of
what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be
impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their
language, so that they may not understand one anothers speech.
Were this just a mundane building project, one would think God would have better things
to do. Yahweh is not a glorified building inspector. The building of the tower of Babel
represents an attempt by humanity to enter the divine domain. It is a rebellion against
Gods imposed limitations. After the debacle of Eden, Yahweh instituted an orderly
relationship between the world of humankind and the world of the divine. Heaven and
earth will only meet in a broad, inclusive way, at the new heaven and the new earth
when we go back to Eden. The current boundaries are to be kept. As Genesis 6:1-4 was
a transgression of the boundary or proper domain, so was the building of the tower of
Babel. The problem is that human beings, created like elohim (Gen 1:26) perpetually
seek to be elohim. God has a schedule and plan for humanitys glorification, and it is not
for humanity to make substitutions or alter the timetable.
Yahwehs response to this rebellion was decisive. Prior to Genesis 11, the Bible gives us
the impression that God was still interacting with humanity in a personal way. It was in
the time of Cain and Abel that people began to call on the name of the Lord, at least
implying anyone could have a personal relationship with Yahweh if they wanted. God
has to clean the slate in Genesis 6-8, but then restores a relationship with humanity in
Genesis 9. The tower of Babel marks a dramatic change in this circumstance, though.
According to Deuteronomy 32:8-9, at Babel God disinherits the nations of the world. No
longer will he relate to them directly. It is as if to say God is giving them a bit of what
they seem wantto be out from under his thumb so they can make their own decisions.
While the decision was harsh, the other nations are not completely forsaken. As we read
the Old Testament, we discover that it was Gods intention that the Israelites serve as a
conduit for all the other nations to come back to the true God. This is one of the reasons
why Israel is later called a kingdom of priests (Exo. 19:6) and why the Law of Moses
contained instructions for Gentiles being brought into Israel, thereby gaining re-entrance
into the community of the people of God. Israel would be tended to by the God of
gods and the Lord of lords (Deut. 10:17), and those disinherited would be in spiritual
bondage to the corrupt sons of God. And yet Yahweh would offer a path of escapebut
that path wound through Israel (and eventually Israels messiah).
The Gods Cant Be Trusted
One of the more interesting questions with all this concerns whether the sons of God set
over the nations in the wake of the Babel debacle were servants of Yahweh in the council
who eventually became corrupt, or were already rebels. Either is workable in Old
Testament theology, but we really are not told in Scripture. One thing we that is made
clear, however, is that the gods of the nations did not direct the people under their
99
dominion to the true God, and abused their subjects. In fact, the gods of the nationsthe
sons of God of Deuteronomy 32are the gods being judged in the now familiar text of
Psalm 82:
1
God (elohim) stands in the divine council;

among the gods (elohim) He pronounces judgment.
2
How long will you (plural) judge unjustly,
showing favor to the wicked?
.
3
Judge the wretched and the orphan,
vindicate the lowly and the poor,
4
rescue the wretched and the needy;
save them from the hand of the wicked.
5
They neither know nor understand,
they go about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth totter.
6
I said, you (plural) gods (elohim),
sons of the Most High (beney Elyon), all of you (plural);
7
but you (plural) shall die as men do,
fall like any prince.
8
Arise, O God (elohim),
judge (the command is singular) the earth,
for you (singular) shall inherit all the nations.
In Psalm 82:2 Yahweh charges the elohim with being corrupt judges who favor the
wicked. The wording of 82:3-4 suggests that God is asking rhetorical questions in that
versespelling out the kind of judgment the elohim should be conducting, as opposed to
what theyre doing (82:2). We know that it is God speaking (and not the psalmist) by
virtue of the first person in 82:6. It is most natural to assume that the speaker of verse 6
(I said) is the same as the speaker in the preceding verses. After all, in 82:6-7 who else
would be decreeing punishment against other elohim? And the basis for such a
punishment is decreed would be the charges leveled in 82:2-4. Psalm 82:8 provides us
with the evidence we need for connecting this psalm to Deuteronomy 32, and hence to
Genesis 11. The psalmist here calls for God himselfthe true God who forsook the
nations long agoto rise up and take the nations back as his inheritance. The point in the
verse is not that Yahweh wasnt the king over all the earth at the time the psalmist wrote.
Rather, it is that the only real solution for ending the enslavement of the nations is for the
sovereign God to be their Godto enter a relationship with them as he has with Israel.
The situation created by yet another instance of the lack of trustworthiness of divine
beings (cf. Job 4:18; 15:15) was serious. Psalm 82:5 basically tells us that the corruption
of the sons of God over the nations threw affairs on earth into chaos. And while Yahweh
did pronounce judgment against the corrupt elohim (you will die like men do), the
chaos was controlledand even part of an intentional judgment on the nations who had
been disinherited. As we know from our own experience, when God gives people up to
their own sin and rebellion, the result is chaos. And yet God can use such misery as part
of a later appeal to repent. What Im talking about here takes us back to Deuteronomy.
100
The Deuteronomy 32 Worldview

Yahwehs fateful decision at the tower of Babel to abandon his relationship with the
nations of the earth and their people to lesser elohim is of fundamental importance for
understanding the Old Testament. These two passages are at the core of the Old
Testaments own explanation as to where the pagan pantheons of the nations come from.
From Babel onward, the rest of the story of the Old Testament is about Israel versus the
disinherited nations, and Yahweh versus the corrupt, rebel elohim of those nations. This
geographical and spiritual conflict is at the heart of what I have referred to previously as
the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. This is the worldview of the ancient Israelite, and the
Christians of the early Church who inherited the Old Testament as their Bible. Ill have a
lot to say about how this worldview plays out in the Old Testament, but we have already
ventured down some of those roads far enough that you can get a glimpse of what well
encounter.
The Bible describes a world where cosmic-geographical lines have been drawn. Israel
was holy ground because it was Yahwehs inheritance. The territory of other nations
belonged to other elohim because Yahweh had decreed it as such. The lands of the other
nations were populated by those who worshipped the corrupt elohim, and by the remnant
of those who had been fathered by other elohim. The nations sought to consume Israel
the fallen elohim wanted Yahwehs portion as their own. Yahwehs people would either
worship them or be eliminated. Israel would only gain their landed inheritance by holy
war. Circumcision was given as a reminder to Israelites that they were Yahwehs
portion. The symbol was sexual and procreative in nature to serve as a reminder of how
the nation was birthedby the miraculous intervention of Yahweh with Abraham and
Sarah. The contrast with the procreation of Genesis 6:1-4 and its results could not be
more stark.
As well see in subsequent chapters, this worldview helps make sense of both odd
passages and some sweeping theological concepts in the Bible. For example, note the
unusual concern of David when he is being pursed by Saul and driven out of Israel:
I Samuel 26
17
Saul recognized Davids voice and said, Is this your voice, my son
David? And David said, It is my voice, my lord, O king. 18 And he said,
Why does my lord pursue after his servant? For what have I done? What
evil is on my hands? 19 Now therefore let my lord the king hear the words
of his servant. If it is the LORD who has stirred you up against me, may he
accept an offering, but if it is men, may they be cursed before the LORD, for
they have driven me out this day that I should have no share in the heritage
of the LORD, saying, Go, serve other gods.
David links being in Israel with being able to worship Yahweh. Why? Is David ignorant
of the fact that the God who made heaven and earth can be anywhere? NoDavid
101
knows that Israel is Yahwehs portion, and all other territory has been disinherited by
Yahweh and handed over to the other gods. He cant worship as he should if he is not on
holy ground. The ground outside Israel belongs to other gods.
Another curious incident points to the same worldview. Upon being healed by Elisha the
prophet, Naaman, commander of the army of Syria, a domain outside Israel, asks a
strange request of the prophet:
2 Kings 5
17
Then Naaman said, If not, please let there be given to your servant two
mules load of earth, for from now on your servant will not offer burnt
offering or sacrifice to any god but the LORD. 18 In this matter may the
LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of
Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the
house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD
pardon your servant in this matter. 19 He said to him, Go in peace.
Why would Naaman would ask Elisha for dirt? In the Deuteronomy 32 worldview, this
is easily explicable. Naaman wants to make sure he is worshipping the God of Israel
from now on. The only way he can be sure he is worshipping the true God on holy
ground is to take the holy ground with him.
In the Deuteronomy 32 worldview, Israel was Yahwehs chosen people, a people
destined for blessing. Israel was also a hunted people, targeted for destruction, by both
spiritual and physical forces. And when the Church inherited Israels status as
Abrahams seed (Gal. 3), Christians were placed in the crosshairs as well.
The idea that the world was populated and controlled by fallen elohim, bent on retaining
their certain geographical regions and the people in them is therefore a New Testament
idea as well. Why else would Paul used geographical terminology to describe the
heavenly host: principalities, rulers, thrones, authorities, powers, dominions? Other
snippets from the New Testament come to mind. Against the backdrop that the seventy
nations surrounding the holy land of Israel were under evil dominion, is it a coincidence
that Jesus first sends out seventy disciples when the kingdom of God is inaugurated?80
Hardly. It was the inauguration of the reinstatement of the kingdom of God over all
nations, as intended from the beginning.
But The Gods are Just Idols . . . Right?
The Deuteronomy 32 worldview is not something that would be welcomed by those who
are more comfortable with a demythologized Bible. As with Psalm 82, where the plain
meaning of the text is that Israelite religion acknowledges the existence of other elohim,
the divine plurality underlying the Deuteronomy 32 worldview is resisted, usually in two
ways: (1) by asserting that the sons of God / corrupt elohim in these passages are only
idols, not real entities; and (2) by appealing to denial statements in Deuteronomy and
102
Isaiah that have Yahweh saying there are no gods besides him. As we saw in Chapter
Three when dealing with the reality of other gods in Psalm 82 and 89, these objections
create theological problems and are not internally coherent. Lets take the them in order.
The first objection argues that the sun, moon, stars, and heavenly host of Deuteronomy
4:19-20 are idols because in the verses immediately preceding have Moses warning Israel
to not make idols. The passage reads:
15"Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on
the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,
16beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves,
in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17the likeness of
any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in
the air, 18the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of
any fish that is in the water under the earth. 19 And beware lest you lift up
your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars,
all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and bow down to them and serve
them. And the LORD your God has allotted them, to all the peoples under
the whole heaven. 20 But the LORD took you and brought you out of the
iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are
this day.
At first glance the arguments seems coherent. It fails, however, on two counts. First, a
careful reading of the passage tells us that what kind of idols Moses was talking about.
Nowhere in verses 15-18 does Moses warn against making an image of the sun, the
moon, the stars, or anything else in the host of heaven. Rather, the images he forbids are
of animals, birds, fish, and (possibly) beings in the waters of Sheol under the earth.
Moses transitions in verse 19 to the heavenly host. In effect, Deuteronomy 4:15-18
shows us there was a single concernworship of any other entity or thing besides
Yahweharticulated in two ways: dont make images of anything in the animal
kingdom, and dont worship any member of the heavenly host.
The second problem with this objection is external to the passage. In any interpretation
of Deuteronomy 4:15-20 we ought to ask some questions: In what way does the entire
book of Deuteronomy understand the heavenly host? Is there any clear argument in
Deuteronomy that the heavenly host are idols? Is that the only way they are understood
in Deuteronomy? Since Deuteronomy 4:19-20 is clearly a parallel to Deuteronomy 32:89, how are the sons of God / elohim understood in Deuteronomy? Are they ever or only
idols? These questions are not only important for answering the question at hand. They
are vital for getting a clear picture of the Deuteronomy 32 worldview.
Answers to these questions are obtainable by triangulating several passages in
Deuteronomy. These passages each contain elements of the answer and must be put
together and interpreted with respect to one another. To telegraph the conclusion a bit,
the parallel between Deuteronomy 4:19-20 and 32:8-9 informs us that the host of heaven,
at least in those passages, are real elohim, not inanimate idols of wood or stone. This
103
would be akin to the heavenly host as divine beings in I Kings 22. That this is what
Moses had in mind is apparent from Deuteronomy 17:3, 29:25, and (especially)
Deuteronomy 32:17, 43. That said, it is very natural that the ancient disinherited pagan
make idols to worship his gods. For this reason, while the conclusion is inescapable that
the host of heaven / sons of God are real elohim, those elohim are associated with the
idols erected and worshipped by pagans in their honor.
As with the parallel relationship between Deuteronomy 4:19-20 and 32:8-9,
Deuteronomy 17:2-3 identifies the host of heaven as elohim:
2"If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the LORD
your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight
of the LORD your God, in transgressing his covenant, 3and has gone and
served other gods (elohim) and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or
any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden . . .
Deuteronomy 29:25 does the same, though a bit more indirectly. Speaking of the
Israelites, Moses says:
25 They turned to the service of other gods (elohim) and worshiped them,
gods whom they had not experienced and whom He [God] had not allotted
to them.
The key here is the word allotted. This is the same Hebrew word as used in
Deuteronomy 4:19 for the host of heaven allotted to the other nations, and in
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 for the allotted inheritance idea. The point in Deuteronomy 29:25
is that Israel had committed the sacrilege of worshipping the other gods allotted to the
disinherited nations.
The connections are clear, but someone could still ask whether the word gods in theses
passages still just refers to idols. After all, there are a variety of verses in the Bible where
what the context clearly says are pieces of wood and stone are called gods.
Deuteronomy 32:17 clears up the question. Read the verse carefully, with attention to the
Hebrew terms that are in the parentheses as well as the parallel structuring:
They sacrificed to demons (shedim), not God (eloah),
to gods (elohim) they had never known,
to new gods (lit., new ones) that had come recently,
whom your fathers had never dreaded.
The meaning of the verse is unambiguous. Israel had committed the blasphemy of
sacrificing to demons. These demons were not God; they were not the one to whom
sacrifice was owed. Israel was Yahwehs inheritance and possession. Notice that the
ensuing phrase creates a parallel structure that repeats the thought, but when the thought
is echoed, the word describing the beings to whom the sacrifices were made is not
104
demonsit is gods (elohim). The demons that had been sacrificed to are called
elohim.
Anyone who takes the Bible and theology seriously would not deny that demons exist.
Since this verse tells us the demons are elohim, it cannot be denied that the elohim are
real entities. Any such denial would mean denying that demons are real. If the elohim
are just blocks of stone or wood, then so are the demons. And if the elohim in this part of
Deuteronomy 32 are real and not just blocks of stone, then the bene elohim (sons of God)
of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 cannot be dismissed as only lifeless idols. The same must be said
of the host of heaven in Deuteronomy 4:19-20, the parallel to Deuteronomy 32:8-9. The
host of heaven allotted to the disinherited nations are realthey are demonic elohim
not just statues.
This verse is frequently obscured in English translations, though the Hebrew underlying
the English is quite clear. For example, the ESV reads, They sacrificed to demons that
were no gods (eloah) . . . That translation makes it sound as though the very opposite of
what Ive sketched out here is the case. The ESV translation takes the word eloah as
plural, and that is its downfall. This noun is not plural, but singular. The translation of
eloah should be God as I have translated above. The NRSV agrees: They sacrificed
to demons, not God . . .81
No Gods Besides Me?
By this point in our journey it should be beyond question that there are passages in the
Old Testament that affirm the existence of other gods. Chapter Two aloneour
introduction to the divine councilmade that quite clear. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the
passages related to it also testify to this biblical teaching. But the second objection must
still be addressed. What about statements in the Bible where the Yahweh or someone
else says there is no god besides me or some similar statement?
It may surprise you that several of these statements occur in the two chapters we just
devoted so much space toDeuteronomy 4 and 32:
Deuteronomy 4:35 - You were shown these things so that you might know
that the LORD, he is the God (ha-elohim), besides him there is no other.
Deuteronomy 4:39 Know therefore this day, and lay it to your heart, that
Yahweh, he is the God (ha-elohim) in heaven above and on the earth beneath;
there is no other.
Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god
beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that
can deliver out of my hand.
Liberal scholars tend to see the juxtaposition of these statements with other parts of
Deuteronomy 4 and 32 that affirm the existence of other elohim as either a hapless
105
merging of polytheistic and monotheistic traditions or just plain old blunders by the
scribes who allegedly put the Bible together. Weve already seen that evangelicals try to
get over this hurdle by denying the elohim are real. Neither explanation is coherent.
There is a much simpler solution: statements that declare there is none besides
Yahweh are declarations of Yahwehs incomparability. This is completely consistent
with what I noted in Chapter Three: Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim is
Yahweh. He is unique and incomparable.
Ive written a lot on this subject, but most of it is very technical.82 I can spare you most
of the verbiage about Hebrew sentence structure and linguistics, but I think one more
thought is appropriate. I argue that such denial statements commenting on other gods
and Yahweh are not denials at allthey are statements of incomparability. Two passages
in the prophets make my point clear. Isaiah uses one of the familiar denial phrases to
denote comparison, not non-existence. Consider the following, noting the underlining:
Isaiah 47:1-8
1 Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the
ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more
be called tender and delicate. 2 Take the millstones and grind flour, put off
your veil, strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers. 3
Your nakedness shall be uncovered, and your disgrace shall be seen. I will take
vengeance, and I will spare no one. 4 Our Redeemer--the LORD of hosts is his
name--is the Holy One of Israel. 5 Sit in silence, and go into darkness, O
daughter of the Chaldeans; for you shall no more be called the mistress of
kingdoms. 6 I was angry with my people; I profaned my heritage; I gave them
into your hand; you showed them no mercy; on the aged you made your yoke
exceedingly heavy. 7 You said, "I shall be mistress forever," so that you did
not lay these things to heart or remember their end. 8 Now therefore hear this,
you lover of pleasures, who sit securely, who say in your heart, "I am, and
there is no one besides me; I shall not sit as a widow or know the loss of
children.
Zephaniah 2:13-15
13 And he will stretch out his hand against the north and destroy Assyria, and
he will make Nineveh a desolation, a dry waste like the desert. 14 Herds shall
lie down in her midst, all kinds of beasts; even the owl and the hedgehog shall
lodge in her capitals; a voice shall hoot in the window; devastation will be on
the threshold; for her cedar work will be laid bare. 15 This is the exultant
city that lived securely, that said in her heart, "I am, and there is no one else."
What a desolation she has become, a lair for wild beasts! Everyone who passes
by her hisses and shakes his fist.
Respectively, these passages have Babylon and Nineveh saying there is none besides
me. Are we to believe that the point of the phrase is to declare that no other cities exist
except Babylon or Nineveh? Hardly. This is patently absurd. The point of the statement
106
is that Babylon and Nineveh had considered themselves incomparable, as though no other
city could measure up to them. This is precisely the point when these same phrases are
used of other godsthey cannot measure up to Yahweh. There is no contradiction in
Deuteronomy 4 and 32.
The stage is now set for understanding history and theology of Israel on its own terms.
The story of Gods people is not a mere mundane tale of judges and kings and scribes and
soldiers going about their business. Its the story of cosmic conflict, of a winner-take-all
spiritual war. Its time to read your Bible again for the first time.
76
See Chapter Four.

For a technical discussion of the translation of Deut. 32:8-9 see
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf.
78
As I noted in a 2001 article, there are no good text-critical reasons to read sons of Israel at the end of
verse eight (Michael S. Heiser, Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God, BibSac 158:629 [Jan. 2001]: 5274 [esp. pp. 52-59]). The Dead Sea Scrolls reading has long been known as the original reading (see
Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992], 269; J. Tigay,
Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996], 514-518; P.
W. Skehan, A Fragment of the Song of Moses [Deut 32] from Qumran, BASOR 136 [1954] 12-15; Julie
Duncan, A Critical Edition of Deuteronomy Manuscripts from Qumran, Cave IV. 4QDt b, 4QDte, 4QDth,
4QDtj, 4QDtk, 4QDtl, [Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1989]; Eugene Ulrich et al., eds., Qumran
Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy to Kings [DJD XIV; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995], 75-79).
79
For a discussion of this Ugaritic text, see www.themyththatistrue.com. The number 70 will show up in a
number of other interesting divine council contexts, and so this is no coincidence.
80
See Appendix ___ for a discussion of Luke 10:1-12, as well as the seventy versus seventy-two readings
in this chapter.
81
Other English translations that translate this correctly include the KJV, NKJV, and the NIV.
82
See Appendix ___ and my paper online on Israelite monotheism.
77
107
Chapter 10
An Unexpected Word
We learned from Deuteronomy 32:8-9 that Yahweh placed the nations under the
governance of junior elohimthe sons of God of his divine council. The stated intention
on Gods part was that, having finished with his efforts to be the God of an unwilling
humanity, it was time to start over as it were. This is why the author of Genesis moved
immediately from the Babel incident to Genesis 12, where God chose Abraham to make
for himself a new nation. The nations are historynow lets get started.
If youve been a Christian for any length of time, or attended Sunday School as a child,
you know the Abraham story. God calls Abraham out of Mesopotamia, completely out of
the blue, Abraham leaves, then God makes a covenant with him to have a child in his old
age. Simple, right? As with so many other Bible stories weve already touched on in this
book, there is much more than meets the eye. Unwrapping this one will involve a bit of a
rabbit trail, but its pretty important. Believe it or not, the call of Abraham turns out to be
one of the most important clues to understanding some things the apostle John wrote in
the New Testament about the deity of Jesus. Say what? Keep reading.
The Joy of Abraham
In Genesis 11:10-32 we are given Abrams (Abrahams) lineage. Its tempting to just skip
those genealogies and go right to Genesis 12, where we think well read about Abrams
first encounter with Yahweh. But its important to notice a small detail at the tail end of
the family history. If you compare the last two verses of the genealogical backdrop,
Genesis 11:31-32, with Acts 7:2-4, youll discover that Genesis 12 was not the first time
that God had appeared to Abram. Genesis 11:31-32 tells us that before the Genesis 12
encounter, Abram and his family, led by Abrams father Terah, had already left
Mesopotamia and settled in a place called Haran. We subsequently read in Acts 7:2-4:
2
And Stephen said: Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory
appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he
lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, Go out from your land and from your
kindred and go into the land that I will show you. 4 Then he went out from
the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died,
God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living.
Since there is no specific account of a divine appearance to Abram in Mesopotamia in the
Old Testament, we pretty much have to presume that Stephen was thinking of Genesis
11:31-32 when he said this. This is important in that it established an important fact: that
Abrams first encounter in Mesopotamia involved a visible appearance of Yahweh.
108
Abram and Yahweh had talked beforeand when that first conversation had occurred,
we read in Acts 7:2, Yahweh had appeared to Abram.
A close reading of the Old Testament tells us that a visible manifestation is actually a
normal modus operandi for Yahweh with respect to Abram and the patriarchs. On many
occasions where the biblical text has Yahweh83 speaking with Abram, the language of an
appearance is used to describe the event:
Gen 12:1-3 1 Now the LORD said to Abram, Go from your country and your
kindred and your fathers house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will
make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so
that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who
dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be
blessed.
Gen 12:6-7 - 6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the
oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. Then the LORD
appeared to Abram and said, To your offspring I will give this land. So he built
there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
This brings us to Genesis 15, where the covenant of Genesis 12:1-3 is repeated and
ratified by a covenantal ceremony. The description of the person speaking to Yahweh
here is even more startling:
1 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: Fear
not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great. 2 But
Abram said, O Lord God [Hebrew, adonai-Yahweh] what will you give
me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of
Damascus? 3 And Abram said, Behold, you have given me no offspring,
and a member of my household will be my heir. 4 And behold, the word of
the Lord came to him: This man shall not be your heir; your very own son
shall be your heir. 5 And he brought him outside and said, Look toward
heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them. Then he said
to him, So shall your offspring be. 6 And he believed the Lord [Hebrew,
Yahweh] and he counted it to him as righteousness.
This is a fascinating text. Notice right from the start that it is the Word of the Lord who
comes to Abram in a vision. For sure we might be tempted to say that the phrase the
word of the Lord came to him merely denotes a sound in Abrams ear and no other
person is visibly there. I would suggest, though, that this is no mere voice or auditory
sensation. The Word here is something that can be seenwhy else call it a vision?
Abraham has previously had such a vision (Gen 12: 6-7), and in verse four we read that
the Word brought him [Abram] outside to continue the conversation. This isnt the kind
of description one would expect if Abram was hearing only a sound. One would expect
something like And Abram followed the sound outside.
109
The best evidence that Genesis 15 is describing a visible person referred to as the Word
comes from the New Testamentand from Jesus, the Word, himself. In John 8:56, the
Incarnate Word tells his Jewish antagonists that he appeared to Abraham prior to his
incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth: Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my
day. He saw it and was glad. The Jews object to this claim, whereupon Jesus utters his
famous statement, before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58).84 My point here is that only
one passage in the Old Testament makes sense of this claim by Jesus, the WordGenesis
15:1, where the Word of the Lord appeared to Abraham in a vision as the visible,
personal manifestation of Yahweh.
I hope you grasp the significance of this interchange. Since the Word is clearly equated
and identified as Yahweh in Genesis 15, when the New Testament has Jesus saying that
was me, he is claiming to be Yahweh in visible form. He is the Word of the Old
Testament, who was the visible Yahweh.85 And even more ironic, the Word is speaking
to Abraham about his promised miraculous offspring, through whom all nations of the
earth will be blessed. And we learn from Paul in Galatians 3:16 that the ultimate son of
Abraham was Christ himself (Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his
offspring. It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one,
And to your offspring, who is Christ). The deity who would one day become a human
being and whose body would be from the line of Abraham, was speaking to Abraham in
physical form before even the first of Abrahams children had been conceived! And since
this seed of Abraham (Christ) is also of the lineage of Adam and Eve (Luke 3:38), he is
the seed of the woman who would undo the effects of the Fall, and who was the object of
hatred by the seed of the nachash.
Yahweh and His AssistantYahweh
My goal here is not to bend your mind (too much, anyway). All of the items above will
be more fully developed as we continue. Rather, my goal is to establish something that
we will see again and again in this book as we journey through the Old Testament.
Yahweh, who is spirit (John 4:24), regularly appeared to people in physical form. More
accurately, the Old Testament actually witnesses to two Yahwehs. There is the
unembodied Yahweh, who is spirit, and who cannot be detected with the normal
human senses, and whom it would be fatal for humans to see. Then there is the second
Yahweh, who comes to humans by visual means: a cloud, flashing light, a burning bush,
and as a physical being. I say two Yahwehs because, at times, both the unembodied
and the sensory Yahweh are described as being together at the same time.
If youre tracking, you realize that this is the early conception of a godhead in the Old
Testament. That doctrine or idea was not invented in the New Testamentit is drawn
from the Old Testament. What makes the New Testament conception climactic is that the
second Yahweh of the Old Testament is finally born of a human woman, thereby
becoming a vulnerable human being, sent on that path by God his Father, to undo the
effects of the Fall.
110
Sometimes the second Yahweh, when he comes to people in a way they can process,
comes in the corporeal form of a man. I would argue that this is the case in Genesis 15.
There are several strands of evidence for that conclusion.
First, consider Genesis 18, perhaps the most famous biblical passage for a physical
appearance of Yahweh:
1
And the LORD [Yahweh] appeared to him [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre, as
he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. 2 He lifted up his eyes and
looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them,
he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth.
That one of these three men is Yahweh is evident from the divine name used in Hebrew
text (Yahweh is translated LORD in all capital letters). But, you might object, that word
is just part of the narrative as written by someone who wasnt there. While it is true that
at the beginning of the chapter we are not clearly told that Abraham recognized Yahweh,
this isnt significant in light of what follows. We are told that Yahweh in Genesis 18 and
his two associates shared a meal with Abraham (18:3-8). They could not eat the meal
unless they were embodied.
The narrator subsequently makes it clear that Abraham did know he was in the presence
of Yahweh by means of the narrators description of his conversation with Yahweh after
the other two men leave to go to Sodom. Once Abraham discerns that the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah is imminent, he objects out of concern for his nephew Lot, a
resident of Sodom. Addressing the Yahweh figure he says, Far be it from you to do
such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as
the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just? It
is clear that Abraham knows the person before him is the Judge of all the earth who has
the power of life and death over Sodom and Gomorrah.
The two Yahwehs idea is also evidenced in the text when Sodom and Gomorrah are
destroyed. In one of the easiest-to-overlook verses in the Bible we read (note underlining
carefully): Then (Yahweh) the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire
from (Yahweh) the LORD out of heaven. Hope you caught it: Yahweh rained down
sulfur and fire from Yahweh. There are two Yahwehs in the verse!
You may not have ever seen two Yahwehs in that verse before, but the rabbis before,
during, and after Jesus day did. This verse eventually became a focal point of discussion
for something accepted in Judaism for centuriesthe idea of there being two powers in
heaven.86 This notion of two Yahwehsa greater Yahweh and a lesser Yahweh
was accepted in Judaism until after the rise of Christianity. At that time, Christians (who
were, in the beginning of the Church, mostly Jewish) found it useful for articulating the
deity of Jesus and a godhead, and for legitimizing the worship of Jesus alongside the God
of Israel. We dont need to get into the history of all this, though. For our purposes, note
that what Ive introduced you to is very ancient and quite understandably creates a link
between the Old Testament and Judaism and the godhead of Christianity and the New
111
Testament. Jesus was and wasnt God at the same time, in that, while he was Godthe
same essence as the Fatherhe wasnt the Father. They were two separate persons but
were the same being or essence. So it was with the second Yahweh. He was Yahweh
since he is identified as suchbut he wasnt the Father or unembodied Yahweh. He
was Yahweh in physical form.
The Physical Word of the LORD
It is evident in Genesis 18 that Abraham did indeed recognize to whom he was talking.
But how? How would Abraham have recognized this man as Yahweh? I would suggest
that hed seen him before, namely in Genesis 15, but likely even earlier.87
The second indication that Yahweh at times appeared as a man is drawn from the life of
Samuel when he was a boy. I Samuel 3 is another familiar Bible story that we often read
through too quickly. Little Samuel keeps hearing a voice calling for him while hes
trying to sleep, but theres more to it than that. The voice is the Word of God:
1 Now the young man Samuel was ministering to the Lord under Eli. And
the word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision. 2
At that time Eli, whose eyesight had begun to grow dim so that he could not
see, was lying down in his own place. 3 The lamp of God had not yet gone
out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of
God was. 4 Then the Lord called Samuel, and he said, Here I am! 5 and
ran to Eli and said, Here I am, for you called me. But he said, I did not
call; lie down again. So he went and lay down. 6 And the Lord called
again, Samuel! and Samuel arose and went to Eli and said, Here I am,
for you called me. But he said, I did not call, my son; lie down again. 7
Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, and the word of the Lord had not
yet been revealed to him. 8 And the Lord called Samuel again the third
time. And he arose and went to Eli and said, Here I am, for you called
me. Then Eli perceived that the Lord was calling the young man. 9
Therefore Eli said to Samuel, Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall
say, Speak, Lord, for your servant hears. So Samuel went and lay down
in his place. 10 And the Lord came and stood, calling as at other times,
Samuel! Samuel! And Samuel said, Speak, for your servant hears. . . .
19 And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him and let none of his words
fall to the ground. 20 And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that
Samuel was established as a prophet of the Lord. 21 And the Lord appeared
again at Shiloh, for the Lord revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the
word of the Lord.
I hope youre as amazed as I was the first time I saw this passage in this light. As with
Genesis 15, the first verse of this passage makes a clear association between the Word of
the Lord and a visionary experiencenot a mere auditory event. The Word was rare
because visions were rare. Notice at the end of the chapter the fact that we are talking
about the Word as a being who was seen is absolutely nailed down. The Lord (Yahweh)
112
appeared again at Shiloh, the place where the tabernacle (temple) was located before
Solomons temple was built. And Yahweh revealed himselfagain the language of
sightby the Word of the Lord. Notice as well that once Eli figures out whats going on
and instructs Samuel on how to respond, the Word came again and stood before
Samuel. Voices do not stand! Persons do. God appears once again in physical form and
is referred to as the Word.
Our last example from the Hebrew Bible concerning Yahweh as a man is Jeremiah 1,
where Yahweh calls the prophet to service:
1 The words of Jeremiah, the son of Hilkiah, one of the priests who were in
Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, 2 to whom the word of the Lord came in
the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of
his reign. 3 It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of
Judah, and until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the son of Josiah,
king of Judah, until the captivity of Jerusalem in the fifth month. 4 Now the
word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5 Before I formed you in the womb I
knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a
prophet to the nations. 6 Then I said, Ah, Lord God! [Hebrew, adonaiYahweh] Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a youth. 7 But
the Lord [Yahweh] said to me, Do not say, I am only a youth; for to all to
whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall
speak. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, declares
the Lord. 9 Then the Lord [Yahweh] put out his hand and touched my
mouth. And the Lord [Yahweh] said to me, Behold, I have put my words
in your mouth.
It is quite clear from the first eight verses in this chapter that the prophet is conversing
with Yahweh, who in verse 4 is referred to as the Word. We could easily take this as
Jeremiah speaking to the air or responding to something only in his ear. But then comes
verse nine, where the Word reaches out and touches Jeremiah. Sounds dont reach out
and touch people. This is what a physical person does.
If you are familiar with your Bible, by now you can see the connection between all of this
and John 1:1-3, where John identifies the Word (the Logos in Greek) as the one who
became flesh (1:14) and lived with themJesus. That kind of talk can be confusing.
How does a person become known as the Word? Most scholars think that John got this
idea from the influence of Greek thought on the Jews, specifically from a Jewish writer
named Philo, who wrote a lot about the Logos. Although I wouldnt say John was totally
uninfluenced by Greek culture (it was a Greek world, and the New Testament was written
in Greek), I would suggest that John got the idea from his Old Testament, not the Greeks.
The Word of the LORD, the Messenger of the LORD
Genesis 15 wasnt the last meeting Abraham had with the second Yahweh. Contact
continued with him and his sons, the rest of the biblical patriarchs. In order to process the
113
episodes that follow, you need to internalize the concept that the Word of Yahweh as a
person was, in effect, the special messenger of Yahweh. This might seem obvious at first.
Yahweh in physical form appears to Abraham with a messagein fact he is called the
Word. Bearing a message makes him a messenger. This messenger was and wasnt
Yahweh. He was identified with Yahweh, but also distinguished from Yahweh.
Lets take a look at what else happens to Abraham and the other patriarchs in regard to
the second Yahweh figure. Recall that the second Yahweh often (but not exclusively) was
made manifest in the form of a man.
Gen 22:1-2 1 After these things God tested Abraham and said to him,
Abraham! And he said, Here am I. 2 He said, Take your son, your only son
Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a
burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.
Gen 22:10-12 - 10 Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to
slaughter his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and
said, Abraham, Abraham! And he said, Here am I. 12 He said, Do not lay
your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God,
seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me. 13 And Abraham
lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a
thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a
burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called the name of that place,
The LORD will provide [Lit., Yahweh will see/Yahweh sees]; as it is said to
this day, On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided [Lit., it was seen]. 15
And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven 16 and
said, By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this
and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I
will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on
the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in
your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have
obeyed my voice. 19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and
went together to Beersheba. And Abraham lived at Beersheba.
The first thing to notice is that God speaks to Abraham. Second, Abraham recognized the
voice. After Abraham obeys Gods command and prepares Isaac for sacrifice, Abraham
is commanded to cease the sacrifice by a voicewhich he again recognizes. But this
time we are told that the voice is that of the Angel of the LORD (Angel of Yahweh).
The word angel here is the Hebrew word malak, which simply means messenger.
The title Angel of the LORD simply means Messenger of the LORD.
The next items for observation are very important. The Angel speaks to Abraham in verse
11, and then distinguishes himself from God (the speaker of 22:1-2). But immediately
after doing so, he commends Abraham for not withholding Isaac from methere us a
switch to the first person. After the ram is provided, the Angel speaks again and mouths
114
the covenant Yahweh made with Abrahamagain in the first person. This is very typical
of ancient messenger protocolthe messenger assumes the identity of the one who has
given the message:
By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD (Yahweh), because you have
done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely
bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven
and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess
the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.
As the Word / Messenger / Angel interacts with Abrahams chosen sons, the sons of the
covenant, it becomes even clearer that the Messenger / message-Giver are tightly
identified. The Messenger is Yahweh in physical form, but yet isnt.
The Gods of Isaac and Jacob
The pattern holds with Isaac and Jacob. In Genesis 26:1-5, the Yahweh figure appears to
Isaac and reiterates the terms of the covenant made with his father Abraham:
1
Now there was a famine in the land, besides the former famine that was in the
days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Gerar to Abimelech king of the Philistines. 2
And the LORD (Yahweh) appeared to him and said, Do not go down to Egypt;
dwell in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with
you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands,
and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. 4 I will multiply
your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these
lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5 because
Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes,
and my laws.
According to Genesis 26:23-24, a short time later in Isaacs life, there is another
appearance. In this instance, the visible Yahweh is explicitly identified as the God of
Abraham:
23
From there he [Isaac] went up to Beersheba. 24 And the LORD (Yahweh)

appeared to him the same night and said, I am the God of Abraham your father.
Fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your offspring for my
servant Abrahams sake. 25 So he built an altar there and called upon the name of
the LORD and pitched his tent there. And there Isaacs servants dug a well.
After these two occasions, we next see the Yahweh figure encounter Isaacs son, Jacob.
The episode, known as the story of Jacobs Ladder, though quite familiar, deserves
some close attention. Noting the underline portions, in Genesis 28:10-22 we read:
115
10
Jacob left Beersheba and went toward Haran. 11 And he came to a certain place
and stayed there that night, because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones of
the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place to sleep. 12 And he
dreamed, and behold, there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it
reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending
on it! 13 And behold, the LORD (Yahweh) stood above it and said, I am the LORD
(Yahweh), the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on
which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. 14 Your offspring shall be
like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east
and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the
families of the earth be blessed. 15 Behold, I am with you and will keep you
wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you
until I have done what I have promised you. 16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep
and said, Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it. 17 And he was
afraid and said, How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of
God, and this is the gate of heaven. 18 So early in the morning Jacob took the
stone that he had put under his head and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the
top of it. 19 He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was
Luz at the first. 20 Then Jacob made a vow, saying, If God will be with me and
will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to
wear, 21 so that I come again to my fathers house in peace, then the LORD shall be
my God, 22 and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be Gods house.
And of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you.
Several items are noteworthy for our discussion. First, Jacob sees (plural) angels of
God (in Hebrew, malakey-elohim) going up and down the structure. In this encounter,
other divine council members are present. Second, the Yahweh figure is also visibly
present along with these other divine beings. Third, the Yahweh figure promises to
protect Jacob throughout his life. This will be an important point to retain once we get to
Genesis 48 below. Fourth, Jacob names the place Bethel (house of God). We know
from the Abraham stories that there already was a place that was so-named because it
was associated with divine appearances. Note Jacobs comment in verse 22: and this
stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be Gods house. Obviously, a stone pillar is
neither a house nor a temple. The point was that the stone pillar marked the spot as a
place where the divine and human worlds met.
As Jacobs life proceeds, he is in and out of trouble, and yet Yahweh is with him. After
he succeeds in fleeing from his uncle Laban, Jacob learns that he will soon be coming
face-to-face with Esau, the brother from whom he had stolen his fathers blessing year
ago. At the time of Jacobs trickery, Esau had sought to kill him, and so now Jacob is
wondering whether his brother is still holding a grudge. In fact, Jacob takes steps to
escape from a direct meeting. We pick up the narrative in Genesis 32:
1
Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. 2 And when Jacob saw
them he said, This is Gods camp! So he called the name of that place
Mahanaim.3 And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother in the land
116
of Seir, the country of Edom, 4 instructing them, Thus you shall say to my lord
Esau: Thus says your servant Jacob, I have sojourned with Laban and stayed
until now. 5 I have oxen, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants. I
have sent to tell my lord, in order that I may find favor in your sight. 6 And the
messengers returned to Jacob, saying, We came to your brother Esau, and he is
coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him. 7 Then Jacob was
greatly afraid and distressed. He divided the people who were with him, and the
flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, 8 thinking, If Esau comes to the
one camp and attacks it, then the camp that is left will escape. 9 And Jacob said,
O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O LORD (Yahweh)
who said to me, Return to your country and to your kindred, that I may do you
good, 10 I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the
faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed
this Jordan, and now I have become two camps. 11 Please deliver me from the
hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, that he may come and
attack me, the mothers with the children. 12 But you said, I will surely do you
good, and make your offspring as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered
for multitude.
Jacob in effect asks the Yahweh figure who had promised protection in Gen 28:10-22 to
honor that promise. We as readers can therefore securely link the Yahweh of these two
passages together. Again, that might seem self evident, but it becomes important for what
follows. Jacob gets his confirmation in the same chapter:
22
The same night he [Jacob] arose and took his two wives, his two female
servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 He took
them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. 24 And
Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.
25
When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip
socket, and Jacobs hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he
said, Let me go, for the day has broken. But Jacob said, I will not let you go
unless you bless me. 27 And he said to him, What is your name? And he said,
Jacob. 28 Then he said, Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel,
for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed. 29 Then Jacob
asked him, Please tell me your name. But he said, Why is it that you ask my
name? And there he blessed him. 30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel,
saying, For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered. 31
The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. 32
Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is
on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacobs hip on the sinew of
the thigh.
Once again we need to make some observations. First, in Genesis 32:1-2, Jacob
was met by divine council members, the angels of Godthe same phrase used for the
beings he saw in his ladder vision. The meeting must have been encouraging since it
was proof that the high God was near. Second, Genesis 32 makes it apparent that the
117
man with whom Jacob wrestled was a divine being. The being himself says you have
striven with God (elohim). Jacob takes the divine figure at his word and considers
himself to have struggled with God or a god (I have seen elohim face-to-face). Third,
this was a physical struggle, where the elohim was in tangible, corporeal form. This went
well beyond a vision.
Given the ground we have covered in this chapter already, it should be apparent that this
elohim might be the other Yahweh that keeps appearing to the patriarchs. Some might
object to that idea by noting that nowhere in this episode do we see the name Yahweh
used of the being with whom Jacob wrestled. It is certainly possible that this omission
could rule out the co-regent figure, meaning that Jacob wrestled with some other divine
council elohim. However, an identification with THE Angel is suggested by the
prophet Hoseas recounting of the episode in Hosea 12:3-4.88 Note the literary technique
Hosea uses to create parallel thoughts:
In the womb he [Jacob] took his brother by the heel;
and in his manhood he strove [Hebrew, sarah] with God [elohim].
Yes, he strove [Hebrew, sarah] with an angel [malak],
and prevailed:
he wept, and made supplication to him;
he found him in Bethel, and there he spoke with us.
This parallelism doesnt nail down an identification with the other Yahweh, since we
know mere angels at times did take physical form (Genesis 18-19). However, it is
possibleand I would argue quite probable, based on what follows belowthat we are
once again dealing with the second Yahweh.
In Genesis 35 we read of Jacob himself recounting this eventor one of the events of
Genesis 32. Genesis 35:1-7 reads:
1
God (elohim) said to Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there. Make an
altar there to the God (el) who appeared (a singular verbal form) to you when you
fled from your brother Esau. 2 So Jacob said to his household and to all who
were with him, Put away the foreign gods (elohim) that are among you and
purify yourselves and change your garments. 3 Then let us arise and go up to
Bethel, so that I may make there an altar to the God (el) who answered (a singular
verbal form) me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have
gone. 4 So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods that they had, and the rings that
were in their ears. Jacob hid them under the terebinth tree that was near Shechem.
5
And as they journeyed, the terror of God (elohim) fell upon the cities that were
around them, so that they did not pursue the sons of Jacob. 6 And Jacob came to
Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he and all the people who
were with him, 7 and there he built an altar and called the place El-bethel, because
118
there God (ha-elohim) had been revealed (a plural verbal form) to him when he
fled from his brother.
This is an intriguing passage. What is recounted here is not looking back to the Jacobs
ladder incident since Jacob was not fleeing from Esau (35:1) when that incident
occurred. The underlining above serves to indicate that fact that, in verses 1 and 4 Jacob
refers to a lone deity (el + singular verbal form) who had appeared to him when fleeing
from Esau. But in verse seven, a plural verb form makes it possible that Jacob is also
remembering a time when the gods (elohim) of the council (plural) appeared to him.
Since Genesis 28 (the ladder incident) is ruled out, the only possible events Jacob is
recalling are those of Genesis 32. In Gen. 32:1-2 the angels of God met him, and then
he encounters the divine man. It may be that the wording of Genesis 35 speaks of both
situations, and so the singular and the plural are understandable and appropriate.
However, for technical reasons, it is also possible that the plural here may still only refer
to the one deity figure of Genesis 32. Notice that I double-underlined God in verse 7.
The reason was because God in that verse is not just elohim, it is ha-elohim. Recall that
in Chapter 2 we saw that when elohim is preceded by the definite article (the word the;
ha- in Hebrew), it is a signal that THE God par excellence is in view. Consequently, a
literal translation would be and there he [Jacob] built an altar and called the place Elbethel, because there THE God (elohim) had been revealed to him when he fled from his
brother. And in every other instance in the entire Hebrew Bible of the word elohim
being preceded by the article, when a singular divine entity is referred to, it is THE
elohim of Israel.
The point here is that, if THE elohim of Israel is being referred to here, then it was THE
elohim of Israel who wrestled with Jacob. Other aspects of Genesis 35 confirm this. In
verses 1 and 4 we have the word el used for God. In both instances, el is preceded by
the definite articleand so those verses are referring to the appearance of THE God (hael) of Israel. Second, Jacob notes that this God was the one who has been with me
wherever I have gone. This statement hearkens back to the original promise of Genesis
28 and its reiteration in Genesis 32. In the former the promising deity was visible; in the
latter he was visible and physical.
One final evidence seals this identification. In what might be the most startling passage
in the Hebrew Bible for identifying the unseen, unembodied Yahweh with his visble
self, the second Yahweh, we turn to Gen. 48:15-16 for Jacobs deathbed words of
blessing to Josephs children:
1
After this, Joseph was told, Behold, your father is ill. So he took with him his
two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. 2 And it was told to Jacob, Your son Joseph
has come to you. Then Israel summoned his strength and sat up in bed. 3 And
Jacob said to Joseph, God Almighty (El Shaddai) appeared to me at Luz
(Bethel)89 in the land of Canaan and blessed me, 4 and said to me, Behold, I will
make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a company of peoples
and will give this land to your offspring after you for an everlasting possession. 5
119
And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came
to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and
Simeon are. 6 And the children that you fathered after them shall be yours. They
shall be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance. 7 As for me,
when I came from Paddan, to my sorrow Rachel died in the land of Canaan on the
way, when there was still some distance to go to Ephrath, and I buried her there
on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem). 8 When Israel saw Josephs sons, he
said, Who are these? 9 Joseph said to his father, They are my sons, whom God
has given me here. And he said, Bring them to me, please, that I may bless
them. 10 Now the eyes of Israel were dim with age, so that he could not see. So
Joseph brought them near him, and he kissed them and embraced them. 11 And
Israel said to Joseph, I never expected to see your face; and behold, God has let
me see your offspring also. 12 Then Joseph removed them from his knees, and he
bowed himself with his face to the earth. 13 And Joseph took them both, Ephraim
in his right hand toward Israels left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward
Israels right hand, and brought them near him. 14 And Israel stretched out his
right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left
hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the
firstborn). 15 And he blessed Joseph and said,
The God (ha-elohim) before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
The God (ha-elohim) who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,
16
The Angel (ha-malak) who has redeemed me from all evil,
May he bless the boys
The parallel position of ha-elohim and ha-malak (Angel) is explicit. Since the Bible
very clearly teaches that God is eternal and existed before all things, and that angels are
created beings, the point of this explicit parallel is not to say that God is an angel. On the
other hand, it affirms that this Angel is God (note that the article ha- is attached to the
name of both figures). The two are fused not only because of the parallel, but because of
something you cant see in the English translation. The verb bless underlined above is
not plural, which would indicate two different persons are being asked to bless the
boysit is singular, thereby telegraphing a tight fusion of the two divine beings on the
part of the author.
As we leave this chapter, the implications of what weve seen are staggering. The
patriarchal stories, so often the subject of bedtime Bible reading, create an astonishing
picture for us. Ive characterized the second Yahweh in some respects as Yahwehs
assistant. That is certainly true on one level, for he is Yahwehs Messenger. He is more
than that, though. In subsequent chapters well see that the second Yahweh is a lieutenant
and co-ruler as well. We saw in Genesis 1 that Gods original goal was to have co-rulers
on earth who were part of his larger divine council administration. After the Fall this had
to be reclaimed; humans had to be redeemed back into Gods council-family. The second
Yahweh is essentially Gods heavenly co-ruler and his chosen means to appear among
humans. This is complex Old Testament theology, but as we see Gods plan for joint rule
120
on earth (his earthly kingdom) play out under Moses, the Judges, and the Israelite king,
the patterns will become clear. For now, we need to start thinking of the second Yahweh
in simple terms: Yahwehs Word, his Messenger, and his co-ruler.
There is still so much more to the story. Well meet the Angel again . . . in some
very unexpected places.
83
Recall that English translations represent the divine name Yahweh LORD in all capital letters.
When Jesus says I am (instead of the expected, I was), he is taking for himself the name of God
revealed to Moses in Exodus 3 at the burning bush incident. There God said his name was I am (Exo.
3:14).
85
By the way, this triangulation of John 8:56 and Genesis 15:1ff. is what Paul was referencing in Galatians
3:8, where he says that the gospelthat God would justify the Gentile nationswas preached to Abraham.
Christ, the Word, came to Abraham and told him that through him the other nations would be blessed (cf.
Gen 12:1-3; 15:1-6). Paul sees this as speaking of the Gentiles being brought into Gods family (sons of
God) through Christs work on the cross.
86
The two powers in heaven is not evidence of dualism (a good god versus an ultimate evil god, who are
evenly matched) because both these powers accepted in Judaism are good. The two powers idea has
received a lot of scholarly attention. For more discussion,
87
Although it is true that the divine name Yahweh never comes from Abrahams mouth in this chapter (he
uses the generic lord [adonay] instead of Yahweh], Genesis 18:25 suggests strongly that Abraham knew
who he was talking to was Yahweh. After twice saying far be it from you he refers to him as the Judge
of all the earth.
88
Verses 4-5 in the Hebrew text.
89
Luz is Bethel, as is demonstrated by comparing Gen 28:19; 35:6; 48:3; Judg 1:23.
84
121
Chapter 11
Seeing Gods Name
For those who may not recall, the biblical story of the patriarchs ended on a sour note. In
Genesis 37-50 we find the story of Joseph, one of the more inspirational in the entire
Bible. This favored son of the patriarch Jacob went from being sold into slavery by his
brothers to the pinnacle of power in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh himself. But as the
next book of the Old Testament notes ominously, a new Pharaoh came along who didnt
know Joseph and who had no regard for his family, now grown into a vary large
population in the land they had been given during Josephs life.
The growth of the family of Jacob into the people of Israel frightened the Pharaoh deeply.
The Israelites were perceived as a threat to his power, and so the saying that the
embodied Word had given originally to Abraham centuries before came to pass: Know
for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be
servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years (Gen 15:13). But there
was a flip side to that dark oracle: But I will bring judgment on the nation that they
serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions (Gen 15:14). Out of the
misery of Egypt God would bring the promised seed line, all in due time. That time came
beginning with a familiar Old Testament storybut a story so familiar that amazing
truths escape our attention.
The Burning Bush
The story of the exodus from Egypt really begins in chapter 3 of the book by that name.
Moses encounter with the divine at the burning bush has been etched into our minds by
Sunday School teachers, ministers and, of course, Cecil B. DeMilles epic film, The Ten
Commandments. Incredibly, though, you may never have noticed what really happened
at that event unless you were paying very close attention to the biblical text. Hollywood
certainly didnt tell us everything. Noting my underlining once again:
Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of
Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to
Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared to him
in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the
bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will turn
aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned. 4 When the LORD
(Yahweh) saw that he turned aside to see, God (Elohim) called to him out
of the bush, Moses, Moses! And he said, Here I am. 5 Then he said,
Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which
you are standing is holy ground. 6 And he said, I am the God (Elohim) of
your father, the God (Elohim) of Abraham, the God (Elohim) of Isaac, and
122
the God (Elohim) of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to
look at God (Elohim). 7 Then the LORD (Yahweh) said, I have surely seen
the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry
because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings, 8 and I have come
down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up
out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and
honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the
Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 9 And now, behold, the cry of the
people of Israel has come to me, and I have also seen the oppression with
which the Egyptians oppress them. 10 Come, I will send you to Pharaoh
that you may bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt. 11 But
Moses said to God (Elohim), Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and
bring the children of Israel out of Egypt? 12 He said, But I will be with
you, and this shall be the sign for you, that I have sent you: when you have
brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain. 13
Then Moses said to God (Elohim), If I come to the people of Israel and
say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they ask
me, What is his name? what shall I say to them? 14 God (Elohim) said to
Moses, I AM WHO I AM. And he said, Say this to the people of Israel, I
15
AM has sent me to you.
God also said to Moses, Say this to the people
of Israel, The LORD (Yahweh), the God (Elohim) of your fathers, the God
(Elohim) of Abraham, the God (Elohim) of Isaac, and the God (Elohim) of
Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and thus I am to be
remembered throughout all generations. 16 Go and gather the elders of
Israel together and say to them, The LORD, the God of your fathers, the
God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, I
have observed you and what has been done to you in Egypt, 17 and I
promise that I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of
the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and
the Jebusites, a land flowing with milk and honey. 18 And they will listen
to your voice, and you and the elders of Israel shall go to the king of Egypt
and say to him, The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us; and
now, please let us go a three days journey into the wilderness, that we may
sacrifice to the LORD our God. 19 But I know that the king of Egypt will
not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. 20 So I will stretch out
my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that
he will let you go. 21 And I will give this people favor in the sight of the
Egyptians; and when you go, you shall not go empty, 22 but each woman
shall ask of her neighbor, and any woman who lives in her house, for silver
and gold jewelry, and for clothing. You shall put them on your sons and on
your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians.
The first thing to notice is that God isnt alone in the burning bush. The second
Yahwehthe Yahweh humans could visually discernis in the bush as well. The
passage clearly has both the Angel (Exod 3:2) and Yahweh (the LORD; Exod. 3:4) in the
bush. The fact that Exod 4:4 says that the LORD (Yahweh) saw that he [Moses] turned
123
aside to see the bush does not mean Yahweh was standing somewhere else watching the
reaction of Moses, for the verse continues to say that God (Elohim) called to Moses from
out of the bush. This God is then identified as Yahweh in verses 7 and 141-5, when he
reveals his name. The invisible Yahweh and the visible Yahweh figure are both there.
The New Testament affirms this explanation in Acts 7:30-35. The martyr Stephen says in
that text:
30
Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him [Moses] in
the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. 31 When Moses
saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and as he drew near to look, there came
the voice of the Lord: 32 I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham
and of Isaac and of Jacob. And Moses trembled and did not dare to look. 33
Then the Lord said to him, Take off the sandals from your feet, for the
place where you are standing is holy ground. 34 I have surely seen the
affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning,
and I have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to
Egypt. 35 This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, Who made you a
ruler and a judge?this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the
hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.
As with the account in Exodus 3, this passage tightly identified the Angel with Yahweh
without making them completely identical. And yet the idea that they are inseparable in
nature is subtly communicated.
There is something a bit unusual about the language in Exodus 3. We are told the Angel
appeared in a flame of fire in a bush. This is unusual in that, Yahwehs Angel typically
appears in human form, not some other visible form, like a flame. We have two choices
with respect to understanding this wording. One option is that the Angel in typical
human form appeared in the flames of a fire. Theres nothing to suggest this isnt what
happened, though we are accustomed to thinking that Moses just saw fire. We may just
need to adjust our thinking about this episode. The other option requires that you recall a
point I made in Chapter 3 when I was discussing the meaning of the image of God. I
said that, based on a point of Hebrew grammar, the literal phrase in the image of God
was better translated as the image of God. I illustrated how even in English the
preposition in can mean as or in the capacity of. The same preposition is found
here in Exod. 3:2 where we read that the Angel of Yahweh appeared to Moses in a flame
of fire in a bush. I would suggest that the phrase be translated as a flame of fire in a
bush. The result is that the means by which the Angel, the second Yahweh, chose to
appear to Moses was a flame of fire. This would mean that the Angel himself could alter
his own means of appearance.
My preference is for the first optionthat Moses saw a human form in the fire. The
language reminds one of the episode of Daniels three friends in the fiery furnace (Daniel
3), where Nebuchadnezzar saw a fourth figure in the fire, one who was like a son of the
gods. We cant make too much of Nebuchadnezzars statements since, as a pagan, he
wouldnt be a reliable source for Israelite theology. Nevertheless, Daniel 3:28 has
124
Nebuchadnezzar interpreting this sighting as an appearance of Yahwehs angel. This

could be the writers literary means of directing the readers attention back to the
appearances of the Angel of Yahweh in the older Old Testament books, and even
specifically to Exodus 3. At any rate, the Angel and Yahweh are closely connected and,
in this instance, connected with fire.
The Name Invisible and Visible
There is a second clue to discerning that the Old Testament writer linked the Angel and
Yahweh. As we read the account, it is unmistakable that the visible flame and the voice
of God are fused in the mind of Moses (and so the reader). It is also quite obvious that the
name behind this voice is Yahweh. Neither Moses nor we can separate the flame, the
voice, and the name. The name of Yahweh and the Angel are thus fused by the writer.
Yahweh says I AM WHO I AM . . . this is my name forever. In other words, the name
is who Yahweh is. The Name is a means of describing Yahwehs essential being. We
ask a persons name to identify that person. When Moses asks Yahwehs name for a
means of conveying his identity, he is told I AM WHO I AM. If we asked Yahweh
who he is, hed say I AM.
Its hard to wrap our minds around this kind of language and its implications. Perhaps the
easiest way to put it is that the Name is Yahwehs essence. This perspective can help us
understand how it is that a distinct being like the Angel or the Word is and yet isnt
Yahweh. The essence of Yahweh functions separately from Yahweh and can be
embodied. When the invisible Yahweh and the second Yahweh figure that is visible are
both present, both are Yahwehs essence, but only one is detectable to the human eye.
Lets unpack all this a bit.
Sometimes the Name isnt necessarily visible, but the Name functions as a substitute
word for Yahweh and is described in personhood terms. If you have Jewish friends
who are serious about their Judaism, this idea isnt so unfamiliar. Modern Jews who seek
to avoid using the word Yahweh in conversation (lest they take it in vain) substitute haShem for the divine name, a phrase which is Hebrew for the Name. The Old Testament
has this same kind of substitution in places, where the reader can tell the Name is a
person. Isaiah 30:27-28 is quite striking in this regard:
27
Behold, the Name of the LORD comes from afar, burning with his anger,
and in thick rising smoke; his lips are full of fury, and his tongue is like a
devouring fire; 28 his breath is like an overflowing stream that reaches up to
the neck; to sift the nations with the sieve of destruction, and to place on
the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads astray.
Other passages convey the Name as person idea through parallel lines. In Psalm 20,
verses 1 and 7 we read:
1
May the LORD answer you in the day of trouble!

May the name of the God of Jacob protect you!
125
Some trust in chariots and some in horses,

but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
The idea of Psalm 20:1, that Yahweh can bring deliverance, is familiar. But doesnt it
sound odd that the psalmist would pray that the Name protect anyone? Israelites in
need of protection wouldnt be trusting a string of consonants (Y-H-W-H) to help them!
The psalm indicates that the Name is another way of saying Yahweh. When the
psalmist trusts in the Name, he is trusting in Yahweh. Psalm 44:4-5 conveys the same
idea:
4
You are my King, O God;

ordain salvation for Jacob!
Through you we push down our foes;
through your name we tread down those who rise up against us.
Again, the Israelites arent trusting four consonants to tread down their enemies! They
are trusting the Name, and the Name is Yahweh. Isaiah 60:8-9 is also worth looking at:
8
Who are these that fly like a cloud, and like doves to their windows? 9 For the
coastlands shall hope for me, the ships of Tarshish first, to bring your children
from afar, their silver and gold with them,
for the Name of the LORD your God,
and for the Holy One of Israel,
because he has made you beautiful.
Note the last line in Isaiah 60:9 for he has made you beautiful. The prophet speaks of
one person herethe Holy One of Israel, who is also known as the Name of the Lord.
Deuteronomy has a lot to say about the Name, especially with respect to the Name being
the presence of God which will reside in the tabernacle, the holy city, and eventually the
temple. Deuteronomy 12 is representative:90
1 These are the laws and rules that you must carefully observe in the land
that the Lord, God of your fathers, is giving you to possess, as long as you
live on earth . . . 4 Do not worship the Lord your God in like manner, 5 but
look only to the site that the Lord your God will choose amidst all your tribes
as His habitation, to establish His name there. There you are to go, 6 and
there you are to bring your burnt offerings and other sacrifices, your tithes
and contributions, your votive and freewill offerings, and the firstlings of
your herds and flocks . . . 11 you must bring everything that I command you
to the site where the Lord your God will choose to establish His name: your
burnt offerings and other sacrifices, your tithes and contributions, and all the
choice votive offerings that you vow to the Lord.
In these instances, the Name is a substitute term for Yahweh. There is interchangeability
since the Name is Yahwehs essence. But the Israelite also described the Name in visible
terms, and so in some passages the Name refers to a second Yahweh figure. For example,
126
the demands of Deuteronomy 12 are taken up by Solomon, builder of the Jerusalem

temple. At the dedication ceremony for the temple in I Kings 8-9 we read:
8: 1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the
tribes, the leaders of the fathers houses of the people of Israel, before King
Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out
of the city of David, which is Zion. 2 And all the men of Israel assembled to
King Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh
month. 3 And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark. 4
And they brought up the ark of the LORD, the tent of meeting, and all the
holy vessels that were in the tent; the priests and the Levites brought them
up. 5 And King Solomon and all the congregation of Israel, who had
assembled before him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing so many
sheep and oxen that they could not be counted or numbered. 6 Then the
priests brought the ark of the covenant of the LORD to its place in the inner
sanctuary of the house, in the Most Holy Place, underneath the wings of the
cherubim. 7 For the cherubim spread out their wings over the place of the
ark, so that the cherubim overshadowed the ark and its poles. 8 And the
poles were so long that the ends of the poles were seen from the Holy Place
before the inner sanctuary; but they could not be seen from outside. And
they are there to this day. 9 There was nothing in the ark except the two
tablets of stone that Moses put there at Horeb, where the LORD made a
covenant with the people of Israel, when they came out of the land of
Egypt. 10 And when the priests came out of the Holy Place, a cloud filled
the house of the LORD, 11 so that the priests could not stand to minister
because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the
LORD. 12 Then Solomon said, The LORD has said that he would dwell in
thick darkness. 13 I have indeed built you an exalted house, a place for you
to dwell in forever . . . 22 Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD
in the presence of all the assembly of Israel and spread out his hands
toward heaven, 23 and said, O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like
you, in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and showing
steadfast love to your servants who walk before you with all their heart, 24
who have kept with your servant David my father what you declared to
him. You spoke with your mouth, and with your hand have fulfilled it this
day. 25 Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, keep for your servant David
my father what you have promised him, saying, You shall not lack a man
to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your sons pay close
attention to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me. 26
Now therefore, O God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you
have spoken to your servant David my father. 27 But will God indeed
dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain
you; how much less this house that I have built! 28 Yet have regard to the
prayer of your servant and to his plea, O LORD my God, listening to the cry
and to the prayer that your servant prays before you this day, 29 that your
eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you
127
have said, My name shall be there, that you may listen to the prayer that
your servant offers toward this place . . .
9: 1As soon as Solomon had finished building the house of the LORD and
the kings house and all that Solomon desired to build, 2 the LORD appeared
to Solomon a second time, as he had appeared to him at Gibeon. 3 And the
LORD said to him, I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you have
made before me. I have consecrated this house that you have built, by
putting my name there forever. My eyes and my heart will be there for all
time.
Notice that Yahweh appears to Solomon in these passages. The appearance is in the
form of a cloud (8:10). After the glory cloud fills the temple, Yahweh declares that his
Name will now take residence in the temple. The implication is that the Name is the
glory that is being veiled by the cloud. The cloud is visible but yet obscures direct
contact with the essence of Yahweh, the Name.
The Name and the Angel
Perhaps the most dramatic example where the Name, the essence of Yahweh, is visually
manifested and perhaps even embodied is Exodus 23:20-22. Speaking to Moses God
said:
20
Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to
bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him
and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your
transgression, for my name is in him. 22 But if you carefully obey his
voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an
adversary to your adversaries.
For certain this is no ordinary angel. This Angel has the authority to pardon sins or
withhold pardon, a status that belongs to God. We saw earlier in Genesis 48:15-16 that
this Angel was referred to as God. In Genesis 31, a passage I didnt bring into the earlier
discussion of the Angel, we have an explicit equation of the Angel and the God of Israel.
Jacob explains to Rachel and Leah why their uncle, Laban, had come to be angry with
him. Jacob informs them that God had supernaturally made Jacobs flocks increase in
number, no matter how many times Laban changed the terms. When Laban decided all
the spotted calves would belong to Jacob, God had those calves multiplied. The same
thing happened when Laban changed the terms to striped calves. Jacob relates the dream
in which God told him all this would happen:
11
Then the Angel of God said to me in the dream, Jacob, and I said,
Here I am! 12 And he said, Lift up your eyes and see, all the goats that
mate with the flock are striped, spotted, and mottled, for I have seen all that
Laban is doing to you. 13 I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a
pillar and made a vow to me. Now arise, go out from this land and return to
the land of your kindred. (Genesis 31:11-13, ESV)
128
The Angel who speaks to Jacob in a dream identifies himself as the God of Bethel. Note
that the Angel does not use the third person, as though talking about God. He does not
say, thus says the Lord, I am the God of Bethel. Rather, he uses the first person (I am
the God of Bethel). Even more precisely, the Angel adds that he is the God of Bethel
where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me.
Exodus 23:20-22 is making the same kind of Angel / God of Israel connection. The
Angel that Yahweh sends before Moses and the nation has Yahwehs name in him. In
other words, Yahweh is in this human-like being who leads the people of Israel into the
Promised Land.
Getting a grasp of the Name invisible and visible and the relationship of the invisible
Name and the visible Angel helps us wade through some other tricky passagesin both
testaments. By way of illustration, you may be wondering how Moses and other people in
the Old Testament could see Yahweh and converse with him and not violate the biblical
statements that no one can see God or his face and live. For instance, in Exodus 33:20
Moses himself is told, you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.
Didnt Moses see the face of God at the burning bush? The short answer is Nohe saw
the Angel (and presumably the Angels face, as other patriarchs had done). The Angel is
the visible Yahweh, not the invisible Yahweh? But, you might then ask, what sense does
it make to say no one can see an invisible beings facethat makes no sense. On the
surface it doesnt, but lets unpack it a bit.
A good time after Moses encountered the Angel and Yahweh at the burning bush, he
made an unusual request of Yahweh in Exodus 33:18, please show me your glory.
What had Moses not seen that he now wanted to see? What makes the request even more
odd is that Moses had regular meetings with Yahweh after the burning bush episode:
Exodus 33:7-11
7
Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off
from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who
sought the LORD (Yahweh) would go out to the tent of meeting, which was
outside the camp. 8 Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people
would rise up, and each would stand at his tent door, and watch Moses
until he had gone into the tent. 9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of
cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the LORD
(Hebrew, he) would speak with Moses. 10 And when all the people saw
the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would
rise up and worship, each at his tent door. 11 Thus the LORD (Yahweh) 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, a young
man, would not depart from the tent.
129
One important observation here is that, despite the texts statement that God spoke with
Moses face to face (Exo. 33:11) the text is also quite clear that Moses was speaking to a
cloud. Consequently, face to face conversation with God need not mean that Moses
saw Gods face. Moses was clearly speaking to someone veiled inside the cloud. Numbers
12:4-8 might also help a bit:
Numbers 12:4-8
4
And suddenly the LORD (Yahweh) said to Moses and to Aaron and
Miriam, Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting. And the three of
them came out. 5 And the LORD (Yahweh) came down in a pillar of cloud
and stood at the entrance of the tent and called Aaron and Miriam, and they
both came forward. 6 And he said, Hear my words: If there is a prophet
among you, I the LORD (Yahweh) make myself known to him in a vision; I
speak with him in a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful
in all my house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in
riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not
afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
According to verse 8, Moses saw and spoke with the form of the LORD. This comment
needs to be interpreted alongside the verses that precede it. Since verse 5 is clear that
Yahweh was, as at other times, in the pillar of cloud, it seems that what is meant is that
the cloud was a visible manifestation of Yahweh. Prior to Moses, this kind of contact is
rare in the Bible. With Moses, though, the contact seems daily. Again we note that the
expression face to face need not require the notion that Moses saw the literal face of
God. It points to proximity or, in the case of the regularity of Moses encounters, even
intimacy, not literal eye contact. The same would be true of the mouth to mouth
description in verse 8.
The point here is that the Hebrew word face (panim) need not refer to the front part of a
literal human head that has two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. It often refers to a persons
immediate presence.91 Moses had seen the cloud that veiled Yahweh. He had seen the
Angel, the humanoid veil of Yahweh. What he had never experienced, and what he
asked to experience, was the direct presence of Yahweh. Yahweh had to deny Moses
requestfor his own goodbut offered a compromise of sorts:
Exodus 33:18-23
18
Moses said, Please show me your glory. 19 And he (God) said, I will make
all my goodness (or, beauty92) pass before you and will declare the name of the
LORD. And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on
whom I will show mercy. 20 But, he said, you cannot see my face (panim), for
man shall not see me and live. 21 And the LORD (Yahweh) said, Behold, there is
a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, 22 and while my glory passes by
I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have
130
passed by. 23 Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my
face shall not be seen.
The reply is interesting, to say the least. Moses knew the Name was in the Angel (Exod
23:20-23), and he had of course seen the Angel. Here Yahweh more or less says, Okay,
Ill let you see my beauty, but what that really amounts to is letting you see my Name,
but thats still going to be cloaked by a human form. We arent told how this particular
humanoid manifestation of Yahweh was different than the Angel, but Moses seemed to
go away satisfied. He knew he was going to see what was inside the Angel, albeit
through yet another filter, and that was the most that could be done for his own
protection. Yahweh must be cloaked for human eyes.
Lets catch our breath a bit! This chapter and the one previous bring into view some
observations that are very important for much of what well cover the rest of our journey.
First, it is the Old Testament, not the New, where the idea of different deity-persons,
sharing one essential nature, and who function in a godhead is first introduced. Second,
since the God of Israel is uncreated and distinct from all things physical, he is by nature
invisible, disembodied, and incomprehensible as he is to human beings. Consequently,
he often chooses to interact with human beings in ways that humans can visually process,
such as a flame or a cloud, but at other times in human appearance (e.g., the Angel).
Third, the disembodied Yahweh and the visible, detectable Yahweh may be present at the
same time. These theological threads not only enable us to discern whats going on in
some puzzling Old Testament narratives. They sharpen our senses to the bigger picture of
Gods plan for restoring his rule to earth and humankind as his council imagers.
90
Need to interact briefly with the recent work of Richter here, and reviews of her work.
The standard Hebrew lexicons (BDB, HALOT) make it clear that presence or in the presence of is
often the meaning of panim.
92
See Hosea 10:11 for this meaning of the word behind the ESVs goodness.
91
131
Chapter 12
Growing Pains
The incident at the burning bush marks a turning in the Old Testament story. Yahwehs
call of Moses sets in motion a series of events that culminate with the exodus from Egypt
and the birth of the nation of Israel. In fact, thats probably the way most readers have
been taught to process the events in the book of Exodus. These thoughts are of course
true, but they fall far short of how all this fits into the cosmic narrative of the Old
Testament. There is so much more going on.
In the early chapters of this book we learned about Gods divine family, the divine
council, and how it was Gods intention to create and nurture his human sons on earth.
These humans would live where God lived, and interact with Gods divine children, since
Eden was the place of council. Gods human children would be, in effect, members of his
ruling council administration, stewarding the earth as though God were physically doing
so. The divine members of the council had their imaging tasks, and humans had imaging
tasksand together they would be one family under the Lord of the council, who would
interact with them by various visible and more intimate means that the humans could
comprehend and withstand. God wanted earthly and divine united in one family, living in
the place where heaven and earth met.
All of this was destroyed by the Fall and the judgment rendered on the nations of the
earth at the Tower of Babel. After the latter, God was, in terms of the human race,
childlessuntil he called Abraham and started over on his plan to have a people and a
kingdom of his own on earth. Yahweh nurtured and protected Abraham and his
descendants, at times doing so by means of direct contact through the Angel. Eventually,
this preservation took Jacob and his family to Egypt, where they were saved from famine
through the administration of Joseph in Pharaohs court. But, as the beginning of the
book of Exodus ominously reports, There arose a Pharaoh who didnt know Joseph.
Abrahams descendants became the slaves of the Egyptians, a people whom Yahweh had
disowned, and who worshipped gods inferior to Yahweh whom Yahweh had appointed
for Egypt as part of the judgment of Babel. And there they stayed for over 400 years.
When Yahweh spoke to Moses out of the burning bush as Moses beheld the form of the
Angel, it marked a return to the days of the ancient patriarchs and to the plan for
Yahwehs rule on earth. The book of Exodus contains a number of references to the
divine council themes we just traced in the paragraphs above. Most of them are lost in
casual reading, but they are vital for understanding the progression of the divine plan
through the history of Israel and through the pages of the New Testament.
Israel is My Son
132
Anyone who has seen the film The Ten Commandments recalls the drama of the scene
where Moses stands before Pharaoh and demands, Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel,
let my people go! Its clear to us that Moses is Gods messenger, and that Israel is Gods
people. But the movie fails to capture the impact of this confrontation conveyed by
Scripture in the context of all that has transpired before it in the cosmic narrative.
For example, when Moses stood before Pharaoh he came not as a mere messenger.
Rather, he came as an elohim. In Yahwehs own words to Moses, See, I have made you
as God [elohim] to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet (Exod 7:1).
As the Angel was the physical representation of Yahweh to Moses, so Moses would be
the physical representation of Yahweh to Pharaohand to Aaron and the other Israelites
(cp. Exod 4:16). This is something our English translations miss completely.
Another item that is easily missed, though it is captured in English translation, is found in
Exodus 4:21-22:
21
And the LORD said to Moses, When you go back to Egypt, see that you do
before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden
his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh,
Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son. 23 and I say to you, Let my son
go that he may serve me. If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your
firstborn son.
This language is echoed in Hosea 11:1, a passage to which Matthew attributes prophetic
significance, but which was originally looking back in time to the exodus: When Israel
was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt have I called my son.
The choice of words may strike us as curious, but it is significant. This is actually the
first in a series of textual clues in Exodus that the structure of Gods kingdom rule on
earth would mirror that of the divine council in heaven. The chart below illustrates this
point and telegraphs some of the clues well note in this chapter:
133
Yahwehs Council and Earthly Rule

Established after Babel
Yahwehs People and

Their Earthly Rule / Administration
The idea that a human being would function as an elohim under Yahwehs authority is
modeled after the divine council structure of the invisible and visible Yahweh. Later in
the Old Testament, this human as elohim idea will form the basis for Yahweh calling
Israels king my son (Psalm 2:7) and for the additional notion that the Messiah would
not only be the son of God, but would be identified with Israel itself, who was Yahwehs
child, according to the worldview of Deut. 32:8-9.
You may recall that in our discussion of Deut. 32:8-9 I mentioned that the number of
nations given up by Yahweh at the judgment of Babel was seventy. I also mentioned
that, in an effort to deny there are other elohim in a heavenly council, some commentators
try to argue that Psalm 82 describes Israels council of seventy (the Sanhedrin). We saw
that such a view made little sense, since at no time in the Scriptures did Israels elders
ever have jurisdiction over all the nations of the earth. But there is a correlation between
the seventy elders of Israel and the divine council, and it is telegraphed in our chart.
The number of the sons of God after the judgment at Babel was seventy (to correspond to
the nations), and this was the same number assigned by Jewish tradition to the
membership of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of Judaism. The number of the elders is
based on two passages. Exodus 18 recounts Jethros advice to Moses (the human
elohim) to select men to help him govern the people of Israel. No number is given in
that passage, but in Exodus 24:1-2, 9 we read:
Then he said to Moses, Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab, and
Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship from afar. 2 Moses alone
shall come near to the LORD, but the others shall not come near, and the people
134
shall not come up with him. . . . 9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and
seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. There
was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven
for clearness.
The wording suggests that these seventy elders were drawn from a larger group. This is
consistent with the heavenly council, for it is evident that there are more than seventy
sons of God. There were seventy set over the nations, but they became corrupt and are
the object of the sentencing of Psalm 82. There are other references to sons of God who
remain loyal to Yahweh. The point to notice, though, is as in heaven, so on earth. There
is a structural relationship between the council in heaven and the administration of Gods
people on earth.
These sorts of details are lost to us, as we are sadly unfamiliar with divine council motifs
in the Bible. They would not be lost to an ancient culture familiar with the cosmic
storyline of the Bible. And theres more.
Who Is Yahweh?
As dramatic as the account of Israels escape from Egypt is, certain features of it take on
more color when close attention is paid to the text and the cosmic background of the
event can be appreciated.
Pharaoh, as we know, was unresponsive to the command of God through Moses to
release His son, Israel. The result was a series of plagues. Pharaoh had sarcastically asked
Moses, Who is the Lord, that I should heed his voice and let Israel go? He got an
answer to his question in unmistakable terms.
The Bible tells us that the plagues were aimed at Egypts gods (Exod 12:12; Num 33:4),
those elohim who had been given their authority by Yahweh and who were supposed to
govern Egypt on his behalf, but who became corrupt and received the worship due to
their superior. From the 4th dynasty onward in Egypt, Pharaoh was considered the son of
the high God Re. In this role Pharaoh was perceived as the maintainer of the cosmic order
established by Re at the creation. Yahweh showed himself superior to both Pharaoh and
Re by undoing the cosmic order, putting the land into chaos. Yahwehs chosen human
representative, Moses, had the kind of power the false god Re was supposed to wield and
grant his alleged son, the Pharaoh.
Not only were the plagues designed to show the superiority of Yahweh to all the gods and
convince Pharaoh that Yahweh was the God of gods, but it was also designed to declare
the same thing to all the peoples of the surrounding countries. When Moses met up with
Jethro after the crossing the of Red Sea, Jethro told him, Now I know that the LORD
(Yahweh) is greater than all the gods (ha-elohim) (Exod 18:11a).
On the other side of the Red Sea, Moses and the people of Israel sang the praises of the
unmatchable Yahweh. This song is recorded for us in Exodus 15. In Exodus 15:11
135
Moses asks, Who is like you, O LORD (Yahweh), among the gods (elim)? The answer,
of course, is none. As I noted in Chapter Two, this praise is reduced to cheap triviality
if one denies the existence of other gods. Moses might as well have asked what cartoon
characters were as powerful as Yahweh. Without the cosmic backdrop, the praise is
meaningless.
The Destroying Angel
The final plague, the death of the firstborn, was particularly aimed at Egypts gods. God
told Moses, For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the
firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will
execute judgments: I am the LORD (Exod. 12:12; cp. Num 33:4).
It is in this tragic judgment that we see a different side of a now familiar personage, the
Angel of Yahweh. To this point, the Angel has been a figure of hope and protection. Not
so on the night of the Passover. We read in Exod. 12:23, For the LORD will pass through
to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two
doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your
houses to strike you. Obviously, there is no explicit reference to the Angel here.
However, the word translated destroyer here, mashchit, gives us a clue as to who the
destroyer was. This word occurs only a few times in the Hebrew Old Testament. When it
refers to a divine judgment being carried out, there is only this passage and two others: 2
Sam. 24:16 and 1 Chron 21:15, which are two accounts of the same incident. 2 Samuel
24:16 reads:
And when the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the
LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel, the destroyer (mashchit)
among the people, It is enough; now stay your hand. And the angel of the LORD
(Yahweh) was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
It is not an accident that the destroying angel is identified as the Angel of Yahweh. The
visible Yahweh carried out such destruction on behalf of Israel on other occasions. For
example, Isaiah 37:36 informs us: And the angel of the LORD (Yahweh) went out and
struck down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. And when
people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies.
The Delivering Angel
The Angel was active in the exodus event itself. The deliverance from Egypt is described
in Exodus 13-14, a large portion of which is reproduced below:
Exodus 13:17-22
17
When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of
the Philistines, although that was near. For God said, Lest the people change
136
their minds when they see war and return to Egypt. 18 But God led the people
around by the way of the wilderness toward the Red Sea. And the people of Israel
went up out of the land of Egypt equipped for battle. 19 Moses took the bones of
Joseph with him, for Joseph had made the sons of Israel solemnly swear, saying,
God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones with you from here.
20
And they moved on from Succoth and encamped at Etham, on the edge of the
wilderness. 21 And the LORD (Yahweh) went before them by day in a pillar of
cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them
light, that they might travel by day and by night. 22 The pillar of cloud by day and
the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people.
Exodus 14
Then the LORD said to Moses, 2 Tell the people of Israel to turn back and encamp
in front of Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, in front of Baal-zephon; you
shall encamp facing it, by the sea. 3 For Pharaoh will say of the people of Israel,
They are wandering in the land; the wilderness has shut them in. 4 And I will
harden Pharaohs heart, and he will pursue them, and I will get glory over
Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD. And
they did so. 5 When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, the mind
of Pharaoh and his servants was changed toward the people, and they said, What
is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us? 6 So he made
ready his chariot and took his army with him, 7 and took six hundred chosen
chariots and all the other chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them. 8 And
the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued the people
of Israel while the people of Israel were going out defiantly. 9 The Egyptians
pursued them, all Pharaohs horses and chariots and his horsemen and his army,
and overtook them encamped at the sea, by Pi-hahiroth, in front of Baal-zephon.
10
When Pharaoh drew near, the people of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold,
the Egyptians were marching after them, and they feared greatly. And the people
of Israel cried out to the LORD. 11 They said to Moses, Is it because there are no
graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? What have
you done to us in bringing us out of Egypt? 12 Is not this what we said to you in
Egypt, Leave us alone that we may serve the Egyptians? For it would have been
better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness. 13 And Moses
said to the people, Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the LORD, which
he will work for you today. For the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall
never see again. 14 The LORD will fight for you, and you have only to be silent. 15
The LORD said to Moses, Why do you cry to me? Tell the people of Israel to go
forward. 16 Lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it,
that the people of Israel may go through the sea on dry ground. 17 And I will
harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will
get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots, and his horsemen. 18 And the
Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh,
his chariots, and his horsemen. 19 Then the angel of God who was going before
the host of Israel moved and went behind them, and the pillar of cloud moved
137
from before them and stood behind them, 20 coming between the host of Egypt
and the host of Israel. And there was the cloud and the darkness. And it lit up the
night without one coming near the other all night. 21 Then Moses stretched out his
hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night
and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 22 And the people of
Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to
them on their right hand and on their left. 23 The Egyptians pursued and went in
after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaohs horses, his chariots, and his
horsemen. 24 And in the morning watch the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud
looked down on the Egyptian forces and threw the Egyptian forces into a panic, 25
clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily. And the Egyptians said,
Let us flee from before Israel, for the LORD fights for them against the
Egyptians. 26 Then the LORD said to Moses, Stretch out your hand over the sea,
that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon
their horsemen. 27 So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea
returned to its normal course when the morning appeared. And as the Egyptians
fled into it, the LORD threw the Egyptians into the midst of the sea. 28 The waters
returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen; of all the host of Pharaoh that
had followed them into the sea, not one of them remained. 29 But the people of
Israel walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wall to them on
their right hand and on their left. 30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day from the
hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore. 31 Israel
saw the great power that the LORD used against the Egyptians, so the people
feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.
We learn from this passage that both the invisible Yahweh and the now familiar visible
Yahweh were both present at the crossing of the sea, the greatest miracle in the Old
Testament. The invisible Yahweh, veiled by cloud and fire, led the liberated captives so
they could travel day and night (Exod 13:17-22)and he wasnt alone. When the
Israelites were trapped at the sea both the invisible Yahweh and the visible Yahweh (the
Angel) moved from the front where they were leading the procession to take up position
behind the people (Exod 14:19-20). Together they stood between Israel and Pharaohs
army, throwing Pharaohs horsemen into chaos.
I can only speak for myself, but for many years I had no idea that the Angel, Yahweh in
human form, was present with the invisible Yahweh at this dramatic event. Despite the
fact that there is probably no more familiar incident in the Old Testamentone that just
about everyone has heard ofI had missed the Angel and the transparent reference to
both Yahweh figures present at the same place and at the same time. I had also never
heard anyone point out how this pivotal episode in the cosmic narrative supported the
idea of a godhead due to the Angels identity as the visible Yahweh. But it was there the
whole time.
As I noted at the start of this chapter, most Bible readers think of the exodus and the
burning bush incident as the birth of the nation of Israel. In light of how the book of
Exodus develops and uses certain divine council themes, it might be more accurate to say
that Exodus gives us the rebirth of the people of Yahweh as his earthly council imagers
138
and participants. The plan of Yahweh to reverse the effects of the Fall and the scattering
of the nations through his chosen portion of Israel gets moving again in this important
Old Testament book. Israel is Yahwehs reborn son, free to worship the one who
conquers other gods.
But this rebirth had a purpose beyond Israels own status as Yahwehs chosen portion.
The next chapter outlines another theme brought to bear in Exodus that is just as
important to understanding the cosmic narrative of the Bible. It is in the book of Exodus
where we first discover that Israel is to be a kingdom of priests. Israels rebirth would
also be the key to redeeming the disinherited nations back to the high God, Lord of the
council. This task could only be accomplished, though, if Yahwehs people refused to
follow the gods of the disinherited nations and kept themselves distinct from the people
of those nations under judgment. Only then would Yahweh bless the disinherited nations
through his chosen nationin fulfillment of his original promise to Abraham in Genesis
12:1-3 so many years before.
139
Chapter 13
Gods Home Address
Reconstituting the nation of Israel marked Yahwehs movement toward re-establishing
his kingdom rule on earth. Were quite used to thinking of the founding of Israel in such
terms, but the formation of the nation had more cosmic implications. Not only was a
nation reborn, but Yahweh had successfully reclaimed a human familychildren who
would, as intended at the beginning, image Him and, progressively, transform the earth
into a new Eden. You may be wondering how I get this grandiose notion from just the
exodus event, especially since the story of Israel just doesnt seem to read that
spectacularly. Depends on what grabs your attention.
Eden Revisited
In Chapter 3 we discovered that Eden was the dwelling place and headquarters of the
divine council. We were reminded of the description of Eden in Genesis as a lush garden
with four rivers (Gen. 2:10-14). Eden was also a mountain (Ezek. 28:13-14), the
administrative seat of the gods (Ezek. 28:2) situated in the midst of the seas (Ezek.
28:2), a description that reiterated well-watered imagery of the council headquarters. We
also learned that the idea that Yahweh lived a garden and on a mountain is completely
consistent with the ancient mindset of Israels neighbors. They also spoke of the gods
living on high mountains, which were close to the heavens, and luxuriant gardens, place
of paradise. The Old Testament actually uses both kinds of imagery to describe any place
where Yahweh lived. Yahweh, of course, is also portrayed as omnipresent,93 but when he
met with humankind he did so in specific locales.
This is familiar by now, but I didnt address something about Eden earlier that has
relevance here. The time wasnt right. Weve come a long way since that chapter. Weve
covered a lot of ground about the Old Testament having two Yahwehs, one invisible, the
other visible and, at times, even embodied in human form. Weve talked about the
absolute necessity for Yahweh to come to humans in a way that humans can process, and
for their own protectionas the second, visible Yahweh. The presence of the second
Yahweh has divine council implications, for the second Yahweh is the chief agent of the
will of Yahweh and his council. That shouldnt be a surprise, since weve seen repeatedly
that where Yahweh is, his council is never far behind.
These ideas are present in the imagery of the Genesis garden scenes. For instance, the
account of the creation of humankind in Genesis 2 contains vocabulary that suggests a
physicalized Yahweh in the garden. Yahweh forms the animals and Adam out of the
ground (Gen. 2:7, 19), verbiage that feels like it would require the use of hands. Gen 3:8
140
says that Adam and Eve heard the sound of the LORD God walking Walking is
another word that speaks of embodiment. The LORD God is walking around in the
garden, and Adam and Eve hear his movement. Spirits dont walk and make sounds with
their footsteps or as they brush by foliage.
I bring this issue up because what starts with only a suggestive hint in the cosmic garden
becomes progressively more apparent as we move on in the Old Testament. It seems that
we have an embodied Yahweh right from the beginning in the garden, but were not quite
sure. As time goes on, we see the visible Yahweh make himself known in dramatic ways,
and even how both the visible and the invisible Yahweh can be simultaneously present.
What I want to draw your attention to here is that the writers of Scripture want readers to
see the links to Eden. The fact is, they are always dropping hints that the presence and
kingdom of Yahweh on earth began at Eden, and will end there once again. Well see in
what follows that while the visible Yahweh changed earthly addresses, where he could be
found was described in the same ways.
Sinai, the Mountain of God
The fact that Eden is referred to as both a garden and a mountain in Ezekiel 28:13-14 is
significant, for it provides a conceptual link between Eden and the holy mountain of God
that features so prominently in Israels early history: Mount Sinai.
Weve already looked at a number of passages that have Yahweh as residing on Mount
Sinai, such as Exodus 3:1-3, the burning bush incident, and Exodus 24:9-11, where
Moses and some companions saw the God of Israel and enjoyed a meal in his presence.
Interestingly, in the Exodus 24 episode we are given some details of Yahwehs
appearance. The text notes the apparently seated visible Yahwehs feet, under which was
a pavement of sapphire stone (Hebrew, sappir), like the very heaven for clearness
(Exod. 24:10). We know were dealing with the visible second Yahweh since invisible
spirits dont have feet. This is the Yahweh that can be processed with the human senses.
Other throne scenes are consistent with these features.
Yahwehs presence on Sinaia place that actually goes by other names in the Old
Testament94is elsewhere accompanied by fire, smoke, flashing light, lightning, and
loud noises.95 Deuteronomy 33:1-2 is representative:
1
This is the blessing with which Moses, the man of God, blessed the Israelites
before his death. 2 He said: Yahweh came from Sinai, and He shone upon them
from Seir. He appeared in radiance from Mount Paran, and approached from
Ribeboth-Kodesh, from his right lightning flashed at them.
All of these elements are found in descriptions of Yahwehs throne or throne room,
creating an immediate association between the place of sovereign council and the holy
mountain. The most famous is Isaiah 6.
Isaiah 6
141
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and
lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him stood the
seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he
covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called to another and said:
Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory! 4 And
the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the
house was filled with smoke. 5 And I said: Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a
man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my
eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!
Perhaps the second-most familiar throne room description is the bizarre vision of Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 1
22
Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of an expanse,
shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads. 23 And under the
expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another. And each
creature had two wings covering its body. 24 And when they went, I heard the
sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the sound of the
Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army. When they stood still,
they let down their wings. 25 And there came a voice from above the expanse over
their heads. When they stood still, they let down their wings. 26 And above the
expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like
sapphire (Hebrew, sappir); and seated above the likeness of a throne was a
likeness with a human appearance. 27 And upward from what had the appearance
of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed
all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it
were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him. 28 Like the
appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the
appearance of the brightness all around. Such was the appearance of the likeness
of the glory of the LORD.
This famous, odd description of the wheeled throne of Yahweh is echoed in the book of
Daniel:
Daniel 7
9
As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of days took his seat; his
clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne
was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire.10 A stream of fire issued and came
out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten
thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.
It is important to point out that these passages place Yahwehs throne room on both the
earth (Sinai) and in heaven. It is actually fairly common for the Old Testament to
142
simultaneously have Yahweh on earth and in heaven, and then describe his throne-abode
in identical ways. In Psalm 18 we see all the features of the throne imagery, and the
passage has Yahweh in the temple and in the heavens:
6
10
11
12
13
14
In my distress I called upon the LORD;

to my God I cried for help.
From his temple he heard my voice,
and my cry to him reached his ears.
Then the earth reeled and rocked;
the foundations also of the mountains trembled
and quaked, because he was angry.
Smoke went up from his nostrils,
and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.
He bowed the heavens and came down;
thick darkness was under his feet.
He rode on a cherub and flew;
he came swiftly on the wings of the wind.
He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him,
thick clouds dark with water.
Out of the brightness before him
hailstones and coals of fire broke through his clouds.
The LORD also thundered in the heavens,
and the Most High uttered his voice,
hailstones and coals of fire.
And he sent out his arrows and scattered them;
he flashed forth lightnings and routed them.
I wont belabor the point by listing more passages, since it should be clear that Sinai and
the throne room of Yahweh are described in identical ways. But what about the divine
council? We need to establish the presence of the council in these descriptions for there
to be any analogy with Eden.
Sinai, Council Headquarters
You may have noticed the council already in one of the passages you just read. Here it is
again, though Ive underlined different phrases this time.
Daniel 7
9
As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of days took his seat; his
clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne
was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire.10 A stream of fire issued and came
out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten
143
thousand stood before him; the court (or, council) sat in judgment, and the books
were opened.
This is one of the more explicit divine council texts in the Old Testament. There are
multiple thrones in this heavenly scene, along with the single throne occupied by the
Ancient of Days, the God of Israel.96 There is a clear reference to the councilthe word
translated court here refers to a judicial body. It is used again in verse 26 where we
read But the court/council shall sit in judgment . . . Besides those council members
seated, a multitude of others are also present. Yahweh has a packed meeting room!
There is another passage among those weve read in this chapter that also has the council
at Sinai, though you would never guess that because of the translation. I speak of Deut.
33:1-2. Ive added verses 3-4 here for the sake of our discussion:
1
before his death. 2 He said: Yahweh came from Sinai, and He shone upon them
from Seir. He appeared in radiance from Mount Paran, and approached from
Ribeboth-Kodesh, from his right lightning flashed at them. 3 Indeed, he loved the
people, all his holy ones at your hand. And they followed at your feet; he bears
your words, 4 the law which Moses commanded us, an inheritance for the
assembly of Jacob.
If youre wondering where the council is in this passage, you wouldnt be alone. The
problem is the translation and, more fundamentally, the Hebrew text used for the
translation. Many modern translations are quite similar to the above, which is my own
literal translation of the traditional Hebrew (Masoretic) text of the Old Testament. Others
are closer to what follows below, Deuteronomy 33:1-4 according to the Septuagint, the
Greek translation of the Old Testament, whose text differs slightly from the traditional
Hebrew text used for most English translations:
1
before his death. 2 He said: The LORD came from Sinai, and He shone to us from
Seir; He made haste from Mount Paran with ten thousands of Kadesh, his angels
with him. 3 And He had pity on his people, and all the holy ones were under your
hands; and they were under you; and he received his words, 4 the law which
Moses charged us, an inheritance to the assemblies of Jacob.
So what are we looking at? As the traditional Hebrew text goes, the Hebrew phrase in
verse 2 underlying Ribeboth-Kodesh is the same (except for an alternative spelling) as
what occurs at Deut. 32:51 (Meribath Kadesh). This is why most scholars today
consider the phrase to be a geographical place name, and Id agree, with respect to what
theyre reading in the traditional Hebrew text. The Septuagint, however, obviously has
something else going on! While it is possible to get ten thousands of Kadesh from the
Hebrew consonants of the traditional Masoretic text, the very common Hebrew word for
angels (malakim) does not appear in the traditional Masoretic text. The Septuagint
translation (aggeloi = angels) came from a different Hebrew text. According to the
144
Septuagint, the Old Testament quoted most often by Jesus and the apostles in the New
Testament, angels were at Sinai.
The heavenly host of the divine council is also placed specifically at Sinai in Psalm 68:97
15
16
17
18
O mountain of God, mountain of Bashan;

O many-peaked mountain, mountain of Bashan!
Why do you look with hatred, O many-peaked mountain,
at the mount that God desired for his abode,
yes, where the LORD will dwell forever?
The chariots of God are twice ten thousand,
thousands upon thousands;
the Lord is among them; Sinai is now in the sanctuary.
You ascended on high,
leading a host of captives in your train
and receiving gifts among men,
even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there.98
The conclusion that follows is that, like Eden, the divine council was present at Yahwehs
subsequent dwelling place, Mount Sinai.
The Tent Sanctuaries
If I asked you where God lived after Sinai youd probably be able to come up with the
answer pretty quickly. Some would likely say the Temple; others might say the
Tabernacle. The answer is pretty much on target. Theres actually one other structure to
consider before we get to those that will help us process the descriptions of the
Tabernacle and the Temple.
Before the Tabernacle was constructed (Exodus 35-40), Moses would meet with Yahweh
in a small tent called the Tent of Meeting. Though many take the Tent of Meeting and
the tabernacle as the same, some passages appear to clearly have the Tent of Meeting in
existence before the tabernacle.99
The Tent of Meeting is important because its a tent. I know that hardly sounds profound,
but its true. The reason is that elsewhere in the biblical world, the divine beings of the
divine council were considered to live in tentsatop their cosmic mountains, of course,
which were also gardens! The tent of the god or gods was, as with mountains or lush
gardens, the place where heaven and earth intersected and the god or gods did their
business of issuing decrees and decisions. Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Ugarit are among the
cultures that portrayed their gods in tent shrines. It was a common cultural idea, perhaps
akin to how many people think of churchchurch is a place youd expect to meet God,
or where God hangs around, so to speak.
For Israel, the Tent of Meeting was the place God met with Moses and dispensed oracles
for his people (Exod 33:7-11; Num 11:16-30). It was a structure of convenience, though.
Once the Tabernacle was built.
145
The word tabernacle (mishkan) literally means dwelling, an appropriate term since
Yahweh would take it as his dwelling place with the Israelites. It was a portable tent
structure that served as the location for Israelite worship during the wilderness
wanderings under Moses, and then Joshua. It constructed during the Israelites stay at the
foot of Sinai (Exodus 25-40). Harpers Bible Dictionary elaborates:
[The tabernacle] consisted of a rectangular enclosure, hung with curtains
supported on poles, some 145 feet (44 m.) long, 72 feet (22 m.) wide, and 7 feet
(2.2 m.) high (Exod. 27:18). Within this, there was another building, also
curtained, divided in two by a veil, behind which was the Holy of Holies
containing the Ark; before the veil stood the altar of incense, the seven-branched
lampstand, and the table for the bread of the Presence (Exod. 25:30). In the
courtyard outside this building stood the altar of burnt offering and the laver
(Exod. 30:18). When the Israelites moved about during their wilderness
wanderings, the whole tabernacle was dismantled by the Levites and re-erected by
them wherever the tribes pitched camp (Num. 1:51). While it was stationary, the
twelve tribes camped around it in a defined order (Num. 2:1-31), with the Levites
in its immediate vicinity (Num. 1:52-53). The furnishings of the tabernacle were
made of the finest and costliest materials (Exod. 25:3-7).100
Moses was told to construct the Tabernacle and its equipment according to the pattern
shown to him by Yahweh on the holy mountain (Exod. 26:30; cf. 25:9, 40). The
Tabernacle on earth was to be a copy of the heavenly tent in accord with the religious
principle of "as in heaven, so on earth." The heavenly tent prototype was the heavens
themselves, as Isaiah 40:22 tells us (It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its
inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and
spreads them like a tent to dwell in). This kind of language is also why the earth is
referred to as Gods footstoolYahweh sits above the circle of the earth, in his heavenly
tent, on his throne above the waters which are above the firmament, and rests his feet
on the earth (Isa. 66:1 Thus says the LORD: Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool).101 Understanding this imagery is critical for understanding the descriptions
of where God chooses to dwell on earth, since those descriptions match. The locale where
Yahweh dwells on earth is heaven on earth.
To summarize, like the Tent of Meeting, the Tabernacle was considered the home of
Yahweh, the place where his presence resided. It was also the throne room of Yahweh,
since the ark of the covenant was there, and Yahweh was thought to reside above the
cherubim.102 The Tabernacle became the focal point for the presence of Yahwehor,
more accurately, it was the dwelling place of the Name. Recall that in Chapter 10 we
looked at passages like Deuteronomy 12, where the tabernacle, the place of sacrifice, was
the place Yahweh caused his Name to dwell (Deut. 12:10). We see the same idea in
Jeremiah 7:12, after the tabernacle was stationed at Shiloh (see below) Go now to my
place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell Already there are divine
council implications. We know two things about the Name from earlier chapters: (1) the
Name is another term for YahwehYahweh is at times called the Name, and vice versa;
146
(2) the Name was within the Angel (Exod. 23:20-23), who therefore was the physically
embodied second Yahweh.
The Tabernacle traveled with Israel during the entire journey to the Promised Land. Once
Israel penetrated the Land, the ark of the covenant (and hence the Tabernacle structure)
was situated at Bethel (Josh. 20:27), a name that means house of God. This then
became the place where one inquired of God. Bethel is a place that has come up many
times in our discussion. You know Bethel by now. It was the place where Jacob had his
encounter with Yahweh and the angels of his council atop the ladder (i.e., a ziggurat;
Gen. 28:10-22). It was the place where the angels of God appeared to him again when
fleeing from Esau, his brother (Gen. 32:1-5). It was the place Jacob built and altar and a
pillar to commemorate the appearances of Yahweh and the elohim to him (Gen 35:1-7). It
was the place Deborah the prophetess who sat under the terebinth tree lived (Judges 4:5).
Sometime later the Tabernacle moved from Bethel to Shiloh. Once that moved occurred,
it was said that the house of God was Shiloh (Judges 18:31; 1 Sam 1:24; Jer. 7:12)).
The Old Testament indicates that Shiloh naturally became the place of sacrifice (Judges
21:19; 1 Sam 1:3). At Shiloh we see the boy Samuel encounter the physicalized Yahweh,
the Word (I Sam 3). It remained there even after Eli the priest foolishly sent the ark of the
covenant out to battle and it fell into the hands of the Philistines. The ark traveled to
several locations after Yahweh judged the Philistines, but the priests and the ephod,
which held the means of inquiring of God, the Urim and the Thummim, remained at
Shiloh (1 Sam. 14:3).
Eventually the ark was brought to Jerusalem. At first, David placed it in a temporary tent
he had made for it (2 Sam. 6:17; 2 Chron. 1:3-4), under the assumption that he was going
to build a temple for it. He removed it during the time of civil unrest caused by his son,
Absalom (2 Sam 15:24-25). In the meantime, the place of sacrifice had become Gibeon
(1 Kings 3:4) where, we are told, an ancient Tent of Meeting of Moses had been moved
(2 Chron. 1:3). In Solomons day, Gibeon was the high place of worship. The Tent of
Meeting at Gibeon was actually the Mosaic Tabernacle, since sacrifices were offered
there (something that was not true of the Tent of Meeting in Moses 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 Solomons construction of the Temple.
The important point in all of this is that, not only was the abode and throne room of
Yahweh considered to be the lush garden of Eden and a holy mountain, they were also
considered to be found within a tent structure. All of these imagestent, mountain,
gardencome together in the Temple, the fixed place where Yahweh was considered to
dwell and order the earth and the heavens with his council. Lets take them in that order.
The Tent in the Temple
We sort of assume that once the Temple was built and the ark of the covenant was placed
inside it that the Tabernacle tent structure was discarded or perhaps destroyed. This isnt
the case. In reality, the Tabernacle tent was moved into the Temple with the ark. Recall
147
that within the tabernacle was another building, completely covered with curtains, called
the Holy Place. This room was divided in two by a veil, behind which was the Holy of
Holies, the room that contained the Ark (Exod. 26). The inside of the temple also had this
same type of inner room arrangement. 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-side, the tips of their wings stretching
across to touch each other, like so:
The effect of this was that the cherubim wings formed the seat of a throne for Yahweh,
and the ark was his footstool. Amazingly, if one measures the width and height
dimensions between the cherubim, one discovers they are precisely the same as the
dimensions of the tabernacle, which means the tabernacle structure could be erected
under and between the cherubim.103 In the temple, the imagery of Yahweh on his throne
and living in the ancient tent were both preserved.
We know the tabernacle tent structure was moved inside the temple from several other
considerations. There are passages like 1 Kings 8:4, which tell us that it wasnt only the
ark that was brought to the finished temple, but also the Tabernacle and its
accoutrements. Well after the days of Solomon, the Chronicler reports that when King
148
Joash ordered repairs for the Temple, he angrily asked, Why have you not required the
Levites to bring in from Judah and Jerusalem the tax levied by Moses, the servant of the
LORD, and the congregation of Israel for the tent of testimony? When Hezekiah wanted
the temple repaired and true worship reinstituted at the temple his words also suggest the
tabernacle tent structure was in the temple:
3
In the first year of his reign, in the first month, [Hezekiah] opened the doors of
the house of the LORD and repaired them. 4 He brought in the priests and the
Levites and assembled them in the square on the east 5 [A]nd said to them, Hear
me, Levites! Now consecrate yourselves, and consecrate the house of the LORD,
the God of your fathers, and carry out the filth from the Holy Place. 6 For our
fathers have been unfaithful and have done what was evil in the sight of the LORD
our God. They have forsaken him and have turned away their faces from the
tabernacle (mishkan) of the LORD and turned their backs. 7 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 (2 Chronicles 29:3-7).
Other passages are more direct. Psalm 26:8 (of David) says, O Yahweh, I love the
habitation of your house; and the place of the tabernacle (mishkan) of your glory. Psalm
61:5 sounds remarkably like the overhead cherubim wing covering in its parallel
wording:
Let me dwell in your tent forever!
Let me seek refuge under the covering of your wings!
Finally, Josephus reports that the tabernacle tent was brought to the temple (Ant 8.101;
see also 106), and he notes that the outspread wings of the cherubs had the effect of
looking like a tent (8.103).
The point here is to solidify the Old Testaments temple as tabernacle thinking. Now
we need to do the same for its temple as mountain and temple as garden mindset.
The Temple as Cosmic Mountain and Cosmic Garden
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 Sinai.
Psalm 48:1-2 makes this quite clear:
1
Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised

in the city of our God!
His holy mountain, 2 beautiful in elevation,
is the joy of all the earth,
Mount Zion, in the heights of the north,
the city of the great King.
149
Zechariah 8:3 echoes the same notion: Thus says the LORD: I have returned to Zion and
will dwell [literally, will tabernacle; shakan] in the midst of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem
shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the LORD of hosts, the holy
mountain.
As anyone who has been to Israel knows, while Mount Zion is a mountain of sorts, it
isnt very high. And it is certainly not the highest peak in the region. The language is
curious. And what is meant by the heights of the north?
This description would be a familiar one to Israels pagan neighbors, for it is taken out of
their literature. The heights of the northliterally, the recesses of Zaphonis the
place where Baal lived and, supposedly, ran the cosmos at the behest of the high god El.
The psalmist is stealing glory from Baal as it were and restoring it to the One to whom it
rightfully belongsYahweh. Its a theological and literary slap in the face. The Old
Testament writers do this with some frequency, but that isnt something wed notice
unless we were working in Hebrew and were well read in the literature of Israels
neighbors.
This explains why the description sounds odd in terms of Jerusalems actual geography
its designed to make a theological point, not a geographical one. Zion is the center of the
cosmos, and Yahweh and his council are its King and administrators, not Baal. This is
why Isaiah and Micah used phrases like the mountain of the house of Yahweh (Isa. 2:2;
Micah 4:1). Zion / Jerusalem is the mountain of the LORD of hosts. The Jerusalem
temple is where the high God lives, and it is situated on the cosmic mountain, the
mountain of Yahweh and his council.
The temple is also the Edenic garden, full of lush vegetation and animals. The description
of the temples construction in 1 Kings 6-7 is explicit in this regard.
The cedar within the house was carved in the form of gourds and open flowers.
(6:18)
Around all the walls of the house he carved engraved figures of cherubim and
palm trees and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms. (6:29)
He covered the two doors of olivewood with carvings of cherubim, palm trees,
and open flowers. He overlaid them with gold and spread gold on the cherubim
and on the palm trees. (6:32)
[A]nd two doors of cypress wood. The two leaves of the one door were folding,
and the two leaves of the other door were folding. On them he carved cherubim
and palm trees and open flowers, and he overlaid them with gold evenly applied
on the carved work. (6:34-35)
18
Likewise he made pomegranates in two rows around the one latticework to

cover the capital that was on the top of the pillar, and he did the same with the
150
other capital. 19 Now the capitals that were on the tops of the pillars in the
vestibule were of lily-work, four cubits. 20 The capitals were on the two pillars
and also above the rounded projection which was beside the latticework. There
were two hundred pomegranates in two rows all around, and so with the other
capital. 21 He set up the pillars at the vestibule of the temple. He set up the pillar
on the south and called its name Jachin, and he set up the pillar on the north and
called its name Boaz. 22 And on the tops of the pillars was lily-work. Thus the
work of the pillars was finished. 23 Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was
round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty
cubits measured its circumference. 24 Under its brim were gourds, for ten cubits,
compassing the sea all around. The gourds were in two rows, cast with it when it
was cast. 25 It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three
facing south, and three facing east. The sea was set on them, and all their rear
parts were inward. 26 Its thickness was a handbreadth, and its brim was made like
the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily. It held two thousand baths. 27 He also
made the ten stands of bronze. Each stand was four cubits long, four cubits wide,
and three cubits high. 28 This was the construction of the stands: they had panels,
and the panels were set in the frames, 29 and on the panels that were set in the
frames were lions, oxen, and cherubim. On the frames, both above and below the
lions and oxen, there were wreaths of beveled work . . . 35 And on the top of the
stand there was a round band half a cubit high; and on the top of the stand its stays
and its panels were of one piece with it. 36 And on the surfaces of its stays and on
its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of
each, with wreaths all around . . . So Hiram finished all the work that he did for
King Solomon on the house of the LORD: 41 the two pillars, the two bowls of the
capitals that were on the tops of the pillars, and the two latticeworks to cover the
two bowls of the capitals that were on the tops of the pillars; 42 and the four
hundred pomegranates for the two latticeworks, two rows of pomegranates for
each latticework, to cover the two bowls of the capitals that were on the pillars.
(7:18-42)
In Ezekiels vision of the new temple (Ezekiel 40-48), he saw a temple built on a high
mountain (40:2), whose courts were decorated with palm trees (40:31-34). The interior
was decorated with more palm trees and cherubim (41:17ff.). Ezekiels temple-garden
was well-watered, like Eden, since a river flowed from it that supernaturally gave life to
everything else (47:1-12).
In Israels theology, Eden, the tabernacle, Sinai, and 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 they obeyed him, Zion would become the
kingdom domain of Yahweh, which would serve as the place to which he would re-gather
the disinherited nations cast aside at Babel to Himself. Micah puts it rather well:
1
It shall come to pass in the latter days

that the mountain of the house of the LORD
151
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,

and it shall be lifted up above the hills;
and peoples shall flow to it,
and many nations shall come, and say:
Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Eden-Tabernacle-Temple and the Babel Incident

You may recall from Chapter 8 that one of the most important events of the Old
Testament was the rebellion at the Tower of Babel. This event is central to the idea that
Yahwehs rule through his divine council is of fundamental importance for understanding
the Bibles cosmic story. What weve learned in this chapter helps us process what was
going on in that eventwhat made it important enough for Yahweh to intervene and
disinherit the nations.
Since gods were thought to live in temples, across the ancient world temples were viewed
as places where heaven and earth occupied mutual space. The temple was the point of
intersection between the heavenly realm and the terrestrial realm, just like the cosmic
mountains of the gods. This in turn is why many temples were built in the form of
mountains and at locations where it was believed the first mound of earth appeared after
creation (e.g., ziggurats or pyramids). There was a conceptual-visual connection between
temples and the mountains where the gods lived.
We know that the Babel story is set in Babylon, since Babylon is the land of Shinar
(Gen 10:2).104 The Shinar-Babylon connection is more explicit in Daniel 1:2, where
Shinar is the land of Nebuchadnezzar, the place where he took the vessels of the Jewish
temple after destroying Jerusalem. Babylon is situated in Mesopotamia, a region known
for its ziggurat temples, such as the partially destroyed one below from Ur (Iraq)
152
It is for this reason that all scholars agree that the Tower of Babel in Shinar of the Old
Testament was a ziggurat, a physical stairway to the heavens in the ancient mind. For
our purposes, the building project of Babel in Genesis 10 was an effort to build, in
physical form, a cosmic mountain. It was an effort, unsanctioned by Yahweh, to rebuild
Edento construct a place where Yahweh and the divine council would live and meet.
You might wonder why this was a bad idea to Yahweh, especially since it was his
original intention to have human beings with him in his divine council on earth along
with his heavenly family members. The effort was offensive for several reasons. First, it
is up to Yahwehnot human beingsto decide where he will meet with humanity and
where his abode will be. Humans do not control Yahweh or his will. Yahweh had not
commanded the tower to be built. Second, the last time human beings tampered with the
earthly council arrangement in Eden was Genesis 3, the Fall. Rather than let Yahweh
decide how the divine council on earth arrangement worked, particularly at what point
human beings would have access to divine knowledge and be as elohim, Adam and
Eve were seduced into taking matters into their own hands. Babel involved the same sort
of hubris. Third, the motivation wasnt entirely the illegitimate idea of putting Yahweh
on notice as to where he and his council would live. The scheme also involved gaining
fame for having built the place where God lived. In short, the incident at Babel showed
Yahweh his earthly children were still rebellious and wanted access to him and his
council on their own terms, not his. Yahweh disinherited the nations called Abraham to
start a new family.
The children of Abraham, the nation of Israel, had direct access to Yahweh through both
the visible Yahweh and Yahwehs human servant, Moses. Unlike Babel, Yahweh chose
the time and place to meet with humanity and to allow humanity glimpses of his council.
At first this was Sinai, but the final intended location was Zion. But before Yahweh had
his people leave Sinai there was one more thing for him and his council to do. Yahwehs
new family was to have a unique relationship with him. They had to be taught how to
relate to him, how to worship him, and how to avoid mingling with the people of the
disinherited nations who had their own corrupt elohim masters. They had to know that
where they lived Yahweh was, and it was holy ground. The outer realm, divided among
153
the disinherited nations, was the realm of darkness, forsaken by Yahweh and thus the
domain of other gods and rebellion against Yahweh. It was time to lay down the Law.
93
For example, see Jer. 23:23-24; Psa. 139:7-10.

Mount Sinai is also called Mount Horeb in the Old Testament. For example, see Exod. 3:1-3; Deut. 4:15;
5:2; 1 Kings 8:9.
95
For example, see Exo. 19:16, 18; 20:18; Deut. 5:4-5, 22-26.
96
Some Jewish interpreters say the plural thrones refers to only two thronesthat of the God of Israel
and the other for King David, whom they identify with the Son of Man in this passage. There are several
problems with that view, namely the passages clear parallels to divine council scenes from the Ugaritic
Baal Cycle (see Chapter 20) and the fact that the Son of Man neither takes a seat, nor is one offered to him
when he approaches the Ancient of Days. It also cannot be argued that the plural seats are for human
Jewish elders (see Chapter 1 for how that idea is used against a heavenly council of elohim), since the
court/council in Daniel 7 is clearly in heaven and is making a decision for the human holy people at the
time when the kingdom of the son of Man is established; cf. Dan 7:22).
97
The references to Bashan are striking, especially when read against the backdrop of the demonic
geography outlined in Chapter 14. NOTE: Im not sure at this point whether Ill return to Bashan after
chapter 14 to explain Psalm 68, or whether Ill add something to Ch. 14 that does that.
98
Readers may recognize that this is the passage quoted in the New Testament by Paul (Eph. 4:8). See
Chapter 23 for comments on this quotation.
99
The issue is actually pretty confusing. On one hand, we have passages like Exod. 33:7-11 which have
Moses using the Tent of Meeting before the construction of the Tabernacle. This passage and a general
survey of the material indicate several facts that distinguish the Tent of Meeting from the Tabernacle: (1)
one man could pitch, unlike the much larger Tabernacle, which took scores of workers to tear down, erect,
and transport; (2) the Tent of Meeting was outside the camp, unlike the tabernacle, which was in the middle
of the camp; (3) the Tent of Meeting was guarded and maintained by a single person; (4) There is no
indication that the Tent of Meeting was a place of sacrifice, or that the ark of the covenant was kept in it.
100
Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible
dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.) (1013). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
101
For example, see Job 9:8; Ps. 104:2.
102
This is controversial. Many scholars do not think the ark is rightly understood as a throne since it is
elsewhere called Gods footstool. However, while footstool is entirely appropriate when speaking of the
Temple cherubim and ark (see the discussion), there were no such giant cherubim in the Tabernacle, which
would suggest the ark was a throne. English translations often have mercy seat for the lid of the ark, on
which were the cherubim, but the Hebrew term actually means covering or place of covering / place
of atonement.
103
See R. E. Friedman, Tabernacle, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:292-300); idem, The Tabernacle
in the Temple, BA 43 (1980): 241-248. The graphic is from Martin Metzger, Knigsthron und
Gottesthron: Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in gypten und im Vorderen Orient im dritten und
zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutung fr das Verstndis von Aussagen ber den Thron
im Alten Testament (Butzon and Becrker Kevelaer, 1985).
104
David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 5:1220.
94
154
Chapter 14
Gods Family, Gods Rules
Ill admit, its a little hard to get excited about the law of God. Were not as close to it as
King David was, when he wrote the law of the Yahweh is perfect, reviving the soul; the
testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple (Psalm 19:7), or Paul, who
exclaimed that he delighted in the law of God in his heart (Romans 7:22). This distance
notwithstanding, anyone who has read much of the Bible knows the Law is a very
important part of Israels identity. As such, its a subject that cant be overlooked.
All of Israelite culture was shaped by the Law: marriage and family relationships, social
welfare, work and charity, sacrifice and ritual, personal and community holiness, foreign
relations, and worship are some of the broad areas defined by the Law. But more
fundamentally, the Law is about teaching basic ideas to Yahwehs earthly family about
living in his presence, which by definition involves the divine council. The Law
reinforces the separation of the divine and earthly spheres while laying out the rules for
their co-existence in the process of working back to Yahwehs Edenic goal of divinehuman rule on earth. We just arent used to thinking about the law in association with
God and his heavenly host and the reconstitution of council rule on earth.
The Cosmic Mountain: The Birthplace of the Law
In the last chapter we spent a good deal of time discovering that Eden, Sinai, the
Tabernacle, the Temple, and Zion were all described in the same imagery. This is the
case since they were all the home of Yahweh and, therefore, the place where the divine
council met. We specifically looked at passages like Deut. 33:1-4 to establish the
presence of the divine council at Sinai. We need to consider that passage again in this
chapter, because Deut. 33:1-4 helps us understand an idea that shows up in the New
Testament which might sound a bit strange if youve never come across it before: the
Law was delivered by angels, members of the divine council.
This idea comes to us in three New Testament passages, two of which are below:
Acts 7:52-53
52
Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those
who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have
now betrayed and murdered, 53 you who received the law as delivered by angels
and did not keep it.
155
Hebrews 2:1-2a
1
Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we
drift away from it. 2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be
reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3 how
shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?
I remember the first time I came across these verses. I had read a lot of the Old Testament
before and had never seen this idea, so I naturally wondered where in the world the New
Testament writers were getting it. Turns out if you stick with translations that follow the
traditional Masoretic Hebrew text for the Old Testament, there are places where angels
are at Sinai, but theres no place where the law is mentioned in conjunction with angelic
appearances at Sinai. It seems completely contriveduntil you take a look at the
Septuagint, the Bible of the early church.
In the last chapter, we saw that the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 33:1-4 has angels
at Sinai whereas the traditional Hebrew text does not. That isnt all the Septuagint
passage does, though. Take a look at the passage in both versions:
Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text
Septuagint
This is the blessing with which Moses, the 1 This is the blessing with which Moses, the
man of God, blessed the Israelites before
man of God, blessed the Israelites before
his death.
his death.
1
He said: Yahweh came from Sinai, and

He shone upon them from Seir. He
appeared in radiance from Mount Paran,
and approached from Ribeboth-Kodesh,
from his right lightning flashed at them.
Indeed, he loved the people, all his holy

ones at your hand. And they followed at
your feet; he bears your words,
4 the law which Moses commanded us, an

inheritance for the assembly of Jacob.
4 the law which Moses charged us, an

inheritance to the assemblies of Jacob.
He said: The LORD came from Sinai, and

He shone to us from Seir; He made haste
from Mount Paran with ten thousands of
Kadesh, his angels with him.
And He had pity on his people, and all the

holy ones were under your hands; and they
were under you; and he received his words,
The fundamental difference, noted in the last chapters, is that the Septuagint version has
angels in it (v. 2) and the traditional text doesnt. In verse 3 the traditional Masoretic Text
seems to equate the people with all his holy ones. This connection creates the
impression that Yahwehs people, his holy people, are under his authority (under your
hand). They follow at the LORDs feet and receive the Law. Note that the singular
pronoun he in he bears your words refers to Israel collectively (i.e., ISRAEL bears
your words). Israel is often referred to with singular nouns in the Bible (my son,
156
Exod. 4:21-23; my servant, Isa. 44:1). The Septuagint, however, gives the reader the
impression that his people and all the holy ones are different groups. In the
Septuagint, God pities his people, and his holy onesthe angels referred to in the
previous verseare under his authority. This separation of two groups allows the reader
to see a reference to angels and the law in the same passage.
However, while we can see the New Testament authors saw an implied giving of the Law
through the divine council, Deut. 33:1-4 doesnt explicitly say the law came to Israel by
means of angels. We still have no explicit Old Testament text that has the law being
given by an angelic intermediary or do we? Galatians 3:19 adds a tantalizing detail
that, in my mind, gives us more clarity on the matter (the italics are mine):
Galatians 3:19
19
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring
should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through
angels by an intermediary.
Without going into too much detail, Galatians 3:19 informs us that there was an
intermediary between God and the angels who was somehow responsible for giving the
law. Most scholars assume this is a reference to Moses. Other scholars have noted that
this is problematic in light of the very next verse (Now an intermediary implies more
than one, but God is one), but they then assume that the mediator referred to in verse 9 is
a mediator to angels. No wonder this has been described as one of the most confusing
texts in the New Testament!105
Let me suggest another solutionone that offers a mediator for God, for the angels, and
doesnt violate Gods oneness. Weve devoted a lot of time and space thus far to
describing Yahwehs main means of being present with humans in a way that both
protected them and helped them process Him as a person: the Angel. I would suggest
that this Angel, Yahweh embodied and thus made visible as a man, is the mediator to
whom Galatians 3:19 alludes.
How can I say this? Recalling that the embodied Yahweh of the Old Testament is
consistently identified as the Angel, and that the Angel is at times found in the fire but
referred to as Yahweh, Deuteronomy 9:9-10 takes on new significance.106 Moses says:
9
When I went up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the
covenant that the LORD made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days
and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water. 10 And the LORD gave me the
two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the
words that the LORD had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of the
fire on the day of the assembly.
This language is by now very familiarthe language of human physicality (finger)
applied to Yahweh. This is the stock description of the second Yahweh, the Angel. It
157
shouldnt be a surprise that the New Testament speaks of angelic mediation for the
Lawit was written by the Angel who is God in the presence of council angels and then
dispensed to Israel through Moses.
Living as Imagers and Council Members
I said at the start of the chapter that the Law simultaneously reinforces the separation of
the divine and earthly spheres while laying out the rules for kingdom life on earth. Thats
a fancy way of saying that the purpose of the Law was to tell the ancient Israelites who
had just emerged from slavery in Egypt, and who were the newly reconstituted family of
God on earth, how to properly image God and live as though they were in his councilin
the presence of Gods holiness. These are big ideas, and the Law is a vast subject to
cover. One chapter obviously cant do it justice, but I think I can summarize and illustrate
these ideas in the space we do have.
Back in Eden, it was Gods intention that all humanity, beginning with Adam and Eve,
would image him and steward creation. That is still the goal, and all humans are still to be
viewed as imagers. Imaging and humanity are inseparably linked. After the Fall,
however, the task had to be accomplished in non-Edenic conditions. The task got harder
because of the curses incurred at the Fall. As human rebellion multiplied, culminating
with the disinheriting of the nations at Babel, humanity forsook the mission of imaging
Yahweh and focused on other gods. Yahweh had to raise up a new people, and now these
people needed to be re-oriented as to how Yahweh wanted to use them to re-establish his
kingdom on earth. The Law was a guide for that purpose.
Saying that the Law lays out rules for kingdom life doesnt mean that I think well be
living under such laws when Eden is restored on earth, or that we should reinstitute the
Mosaic Law today. Indeed, some of the Law reflects a patriarchal society. The Mosaic
Law is as much a part of the ancient human cultural context of Moses day as it is
divinely inspired. God gave this revelation to people living at a certain time in a certain
placehe didnt change them into some other kind of human or go to a different culture.
Yahweh used what he had at his disposal. We can suppose God could have injected
entirely new ideas into his revelation at all points, so that the Law would look more
modern and more refined, but the reality is that he didnt. Fixing the culture wasnt the
point. Some of the Old Testament laws may seem unfair or downright goofy to us, but
their purpose was to make a larger point: Yahweh is our father, we are his family, he
wants us to live in his presence and administer an unfallen creation with him and his
heavenly host by merging heaven and earth. What could be better than that?
The Law was designed to both instill a desire for this goal and to make clear that it could
not be achieved through human effort. That was one of the lessons at Babel. Humans are
not going to bring Eden back through their own efforts or devices. You dont become
united to Yahweh and his elohim family-council on your own terms. Thats Gods task on
his timetable. The Law therefore reinforces certain ideas in the mind of the Israelite
and we ought to have the same ideas firmly entrenched in our mind as well.
158
Some General Lessons from The Law

Fundamentally, the Law teaches us that there is a divine realm and a human realm. The
divine realm is set apart (holy) from the human realm (profane which merely
means common). It teaches us that God has put certain boundaries between those
realms that ought not be violated. It is forbidden, for example, to communicate with the
deadnot because it cant happen, but because it can, and humans cannot process and
deal with the results. The realm of the dead, what we think of as the spiritual world, is
not the human realm, so humans cannot control it and be certain its residents are what
they seem to be, or are trustworthy. We also learn from the Law that the cosmos has Godgiven order, and that order must be maintained and not violated. Life on earth is to reflect
this concept of orderliness vs. chaos. This is at the heart of why animals are divided into
groups acceptable (clean) and unacceptable (unclean) for food. The food laws were,
in effect, a living illustration of realm separation to teach the bigger idea.
The Law does this by means of rules about sacred space (areas), clothing, food, sexual
relationships, community conduct, etc. Since God knows human nature bestor, perhaps
we should say how unfallen human nature would most enjoy lifefollowing Gods laws
results in blessing and prosperity.
In regard to the inter-relationship of the Law to the divine council to the Israelites as the
special focus of Yahwehs desire to restore his Edenic divine-human rule on earth, some
of the wordplay in the Hebrew Old Testament is interestingand in my view, not
coincidental. For example, the Hebrew word for council (as in the divine council in
Psalm 82) is adat. Note that the two consonants are d and t respectively. This word
is used throughout the Old Testament and is frequently translated congregation. It is
used of the nation of Israel roughly 100 times in the Pentateuchthe adat Israel. The
Law dispensed in the presence of the divine adat at Sinai is often called the edut same
consonants but different vowels, since both words come from the same basic root in
Hebrew.107 The tablets of the Law handed to Moses by the visible Yahweh on Sinai were
at first kept in the Tent of Meeting and then the Tabernacle, inside the ark of the
covenant. As such, all of these items came to be referred to as the edut.108 The mercy
seat above the ark of the covenantthe place where Yahweh met with Moseswas
therefore said to be above the edut.109 All of these items and the nation itself were
verbally (and therefore mentally) interconnected with Yahweh and the divine council on
Sinai. The imagery is supplemented by realizing that Israel was corporately referred to as
the son or sons of God. The Law was truly a gift from heaven for Yahwehs earthly
council sons and daughters. It was the handbook for divine kingdom thinking and living.
We can go deeper into the terminology by also noting that Israel was intended by
Yahweh to be a kingdom of priests who are a holy nation (Exod. 19:6). The Hebrew
phrase kingdom of priests can actually convey several ideas:
kingdom of people set apart to be priests This option implies that the
Israelites were to function as intercessors to the outer, disinherited nationsto
bring them to Yahweh and Yahweh to them.
159
kings who are priests (priest-kings) This option has each Israelite being
a king and a priest. Note that the Messiah, who was also called the son of
God, served in both roles.
royal priests This alternative is like the preceding, except it denotes
member of the royal family in general, as opposed to specifically being a
king.
Personally, I think the ambiguity in meaning is deliberate and that the phrase was
intended to convey all these ideas. The Israelites were in the family of the King and
hence royal. As was the case for all humanity in Eden, they were intended to be kings,
fellow rulers of Yahwehs dominion, imaging him as though he were physically present.
As priests, the Israelites were a display-people, a showcase to the world of how being in
covenant with Yahweh changes a people.110 Yahweh was working back to Eden and
toward a day when all the nations would be reclaimed as his own. But this would all start
with Israelif they would choose it by walking in the Law and believing in Yahwehs
promises to them.
Holiness and Sacred Space
The idea of the separateness of the divine realm was reinforced by the laws that allowed
or disallowed proximity to Yahweh. These permissions or prohibitions extended to
objects associated with Yahweh (e.g., the ark of the covenant or vessels inside the
Tabernacle or Temple), since sanctity (holiness) could be transmitted to objects.
Holiness of course also concerned morality, but it meant much more. Additionally, there
were gradations of holiness. The closer one got to Yahweh, the more holy the ground or
the object in his proximity.
For example, the sacred space occupied by the Tabernacle and Temple got progressively
more holy from the entrance to the innermost room. The terms that describe this
progression are evidence of this progression. From the entrance to the Temple, there is
the Court, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies). There were
essentially zones of holiness. The objects in each zone were progressively more holy,
culminating with the ark of the covenant in the Most Holy Place. The priests in various
zones were distinguished in the Mosaic Law by their clothing. The holier the zone, the
fewer priests that were dressed in certain ways, ending with the high priest, who wore the
ephod, the breastplate, and the headdress inscribed with holy to Yahweh. The holier the
zone and priest, the more costly the animal sacrificed to sanctify them when they entered
into the presence of Yahweh for various rituals. Priest and non-priests could be
disqualified by from any zone wherein they were permitted by a variety of things that
rendered them unclean: sexual activity, bodily emissions, contact with a dead body,
childbirth, etc. All of this reinforced the rarified air of the presence of Yahwehthe
presence that, at one time, all humans shared. These things werent evil, but they did
disqualify one from sacred space. Some of the items in this particular list are explainable
by the order principle. There was the orderly proper constitution of the human body,
for example. Normally, the body would not be losing blood or other fluids. The dead did
not belong to the normal terrestrial realm, and so contact with that realm had to be
160
addressed; the unclean person had to be made clean or whole (normalized) before
entering sacred space. Sexual activity was the something confined to the terrestrial realm;
it did not cross over into the non-terrestrial presence of Yahweh. The body served as an
analogy for the orderliness of all things as designed by Yahweh. The issue wasnt
morality; it was reinforcement of realm distinction and cosmic order. Yahweh was
not of this earth, and care needed to be taken to be close to his presence.
Since Israel, by means of the Tabernacle and then the Temple, was where Yahweh had
chosen to abide, the Promised Land it occupied in effect became holy ground. This
hearkens back to our earlier discussion of the disinheriting of the nations and the election
of Abraham. From the moment of the division of the nations among the sons of God and
the call of Abraham and subsequent creation of Yahwehs inheritance, Israel was
sacred space and everything outside of it was not. Israel was holy; everywhere else was
profane. Israel was Yahwehs holy portion; the nations were the domain of the corrupted
sons of God and therefore unclean. Israel was to be separate from the nations and their
people. Intermarriage with the people of the disinherited nations was a particular concern.
The law provided strict rules for Gentile conversion into Israel and foreign women
brought into the nation through war or other circumstances.
What this means is that the principle of the two realms and the principle or order vs.
chaos was analogized on earth. The boundary between Israel and the nations had to be
maintained, and this reinforced the divine / holyterrestrial / profane dichotomy.
Sacrifice and Ritual
It goes without saying that there were regular violations of the principles of holiness laid
down in the Law. The Law itself made provision for restoring Gods order and holiness
by means of sacrifice and ritual.
Sacrifice is quite foreign to us, particularly if we come from the modern Western world.
Many of us would even find it reprehensible since were talking about blood sacrifice.
Blood was viewed as the most vital life substance (the life of the flesh is in the blood;
Lev. 17:11). In Israelite sacrifices, blood could not be consumed, but had to be poured
out on the ground. Hebrew wordplay again gives us a glimpse into the teaching lesson
conveyed in this simple practice.111 The life force of the red (adom) blood (dam) returned
to the earth (adamah) on behalf of humanitys (adam) sin or cleanness. We often forget
that Genesis 1:24 and 2:7 tell us that both land animals and humans came from the earth.
The life force of the blood would return and be absorbed from whence it came. Blood
was a symbol of the earthly realm of the cosmos. When a violation of the heavenly realm
occurredwhether a violation of morality (sin / moral impurity) or a violation of
holiness (uncleanness / spiritual impurity), something on the terrestrial plane had to die to
restore balance. The point again was that the two realms, while so utterly distinct, were
inseparably connected. Depending on the violation, the lesson to be learned wasnt that
the violator or the sacrifice deserved to die. Rather, it was to reinforce the idea that
God had connected heaven and earth from the very beginning. What happens in sacred
161
space, whether order is kept or chaos breaks through, affects the equilibrium of the other
realm. Balance must be restored and chaos subdued.
Violations of realm distinction could occur within Israel (e.g., violations of the sacred
space of the Tabernacle or Temple) and outside Israel (e.g., violating prohibitions
associated with Gentile people and nations). Because human failure is so frequent and so
noticeable, it would have been quite apparent to the Israelite that earth-bound humans
were incapable of living in perfect order and harmony with God. They were in constant
danger of disrupting order. In fact, one annual ritual, the Day of Atonement (Yom
Kippur), was designed to make sure that the slate could be totally wiped clean and a new
beginning could be had.
Yahweh and Azazel
In point of fact, the Day of Atonement ritual actually provides a fascinating convergence
of all the ideas weve discussed to this point in the chapter: holiness, realm distinction,
restoration, sacred and profane space, and Yahweh and his family versus the nations and
their elohim.
If youve at least flipped through Leviticus on your way to another book of the Bible you
may know that the Day of Atonement ritual is described in Leviticus 16. Part of that
description goes like this:
7
Then [Aaron] shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the
entrance of the tent of meeting. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one
lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel. 9 And Aaron shall present the goat
on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering, 10 but the goat on
which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make
atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. (Lev.
16:7-10; ESV)
Why is one of the goats for Azazel? Who or what is Azazel? Heres where things get
a little strange, unless you are acquainted with the cosmic geographical ideas weve been
talking about.
The word Azazel in the Hebrew text can be translated the goat that goes away. This
is the justification for the common scapegoat translation (NIV, NASB, KJV). The
scapegoat, so the translator has it, symbolically carries the sins of the people away from
the camp of Israel into the wilderness. Seems simple enough.
However, Azazel could also be a proper name. In Lev. 16:8 one goat is for Yahweh
while the other goat is for Azazel. Since Yahweh is a proper name and the goats are
described in the same way, Hebrew parallelism suggests Azazel is also a proper name,
which is why more recent translations, sensitive to the literary character of the Hebrew
text, read Azazel and not scapegoat (ESV, NRSV, NJPS). So whats the big deal?
162
The point of importance is that Azazel is the name of a demon in the Dead Sea Scrolls
and other ancient Jewish books. In fact, one scroll (4Q 180, 1:8) Azazel is the leader of
the angels that sinned in Genesis 6:1-4. The same description appears in the book of 1
Enoch (8:1; 9:6; 10:48; 13:1; 54:56; 55:4; 69:2). Recall that in Intertestamental
Judaism, the offending sons of God from Genesis 6 were believed to have been
imprisoned in a Pit or Abyss in the Netherworld. As we saw in Chapter 6, he apostle
Peter uses the Greek term Tartarus for this place (2 Peter 2:4). Tartarus is translated
Hell in some English versions, but the term actually refers to the lowest place in the
Netherworld, which was conceived as being under the earth humans walk upon. In Greek
thought, Tartarus was the prison for the divine giants (Titans) defeated by the Olympian
gods. The blood of these Titans that fell to earth in these battles created a new race of
savage men that the gods destroyed in a flood. In Jewish theology, Azazels realm was
somewhere out in the desert, outside the confines of holy ground. It was a place
associated with supernatural evil.
I believe Azazel is best taken as a proper name of a demonic entity. In the Day of
Atonement ritual, the goat for Yahwehthe goat that was sacrificedpurifies the people
of Israel and the Tabernacle/Temple. Sins were atoned for and what had been ritually
unclean was sanctified and made holy. But purification only described part of what
atonement meant. The point of the goat for Azazel was not that something was owed to
the demonic realm, as though a ransom was being paid. The goat for Azazel banished the
sins of the Israelites to the realm outside Israel. Why? Because the ground on which
Yahweh had his dwelling was holy; the ground outside the parameters of the Israelite
camp (or, nation, once the people were in the Land) had been consigned to fallen,
demonic deities back at Babel. Sin could not be tolerated in the camp of Israel, for it was
holy ground. Sins had to be transported to where evil belongedthe territory outside
Israel under the control of gods set over the pagan nations.112 The high priest was not
sacrificing to Azazel. Rather, Azazel was getting what belonged to him: the ugly
sinfulness of the nation.
Taking Azazel as a proper name explains another weird statement in the very next
chapter of Leviticus (17:7): So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat
demons, after whom they whore (ESV). The Day of Atonement ritual was part of the
solution to the practice of some Israelites to sacrifice to goat demons. We are not told
why they did this, but the period of bondage in Egypt may have introduced them to
deities identified with goat sacrifices, or they conceptually thought the demons of the
wilderness needed to be kept at bay while on the way to the Promised Land. The latter
has an Egyptian flavor to it, since Egyptians considered territory outside Egypt to be full
of perils and chaotic forces. For Israelites, such sacrifices were ineffective and could
descend to idolatry. Restrictions and prohibitions had to be made with respect to
sacrifice. All sacrifices needed to occur at the tent of meeting (Lev. 17:1-7), and the Day
of Atonement ritual was the only sanctioned expulsion of sins ritual.
While Christians associate the Law with Old Testament Israel and a thing of the past with
respect to faith in Christ, the themes and issues weve touched on here have importance
in the New Testament. There is still sacred space, cosmic geography, and spiritual evil in
163
the New Testament, though we often dont parse what we read in that way. Well cover
that ground eventually, but for now you just need your senses tuned. Our journey through
the Old Testament and the theology of ancient Israel is far from over.
105
See, for example, F. F. Bruces discussion of Gal. 3:19-20 in the NIGTC series, The Epistle to the
Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982), 175180.
106
See also Exodus 24:12; 31:18; 32:15-16; Deut. 4:13; 5:22.
107
See for example Exod. 31:18; 32:15; 34:29; Psa 19:7; 119:88; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chron. 23:11.
108
See for example Exod. 16:34; 25:16, 21-22; 26:33-34; 27:21; 30:26; 31:7; 38:21; 40:3; Num 1:50; 9:15.
109
Exod 30:6; Lev. 16:13.
110
John I. Durham, vol. 3, Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus (, Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas:
Word, Incorporated, 2002), 263.
111
The brief discussion of this in Susan Niditchs book, Israelite Religion, is particularly helpful here.
Some of this section was drawn from her work.
112
Some theologians use Azazel in Leviticus 16 to support what is called the Ransom Theory of the
atonement. This theory argues that the Day of Atonement ought to be viewed as an offering of a ransom to
Satan and not as a substitutionary atonement that satisfies the wrath of God. Since the Day of Atonement
prefigures the atoning sacrifice of Christ, it is argued that Jesus life was a ransom paid to Satan. The
Ransom Theory is implicitly put forth in C. S. Lewis classic, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,
where the death of Aslan is a payment owed to the White Witch.
164
Chapter 15
Follow the Template

The ultimate goal of the exodus from Egypt was, of course, the re-establishment of a
family and kingdom for Yahweh on earth. Israel was to be a kingdom of priests (Exod
19:6), mediating the knowledge and will of the true God to all the nations of the earth.
After all, God had told Abraham that it would be through his descendants, Yahwehs
portion (Deut 32:8-9), that all the nations disinherited at Babel would be blessed (Gen
12:1-3). And once that was done, Yahweh would transform the world into the second
Eden.
Think about it. The disinherited nations would witness a strange spectacle. The nation of
Israel was unusual for sure. It was a people who worshipped an invisible God in garden
Temple that had no idols; a people who voluntarily obeyed a law handed down on a
cosmic mountain by the invisible God embodied with his council; a people who
considered their god the true God and themselves as part of His divine family; a people
who had been supernaturally created by a God who had so spectacularly defeated Egypt
and the other gods and people who had stood in their way so that they became dreaded
(Deut. 11:25). Yahweh deliberately wanted his people to be peculiar or distinct,
blessed above all nations, and utterly confident in his protection. Who wouldnt want to
be part of that? The establishment of Israel in the land, with the laws governing true
worship and right relationships between Yahwehs imager-children would be ground zero
for a systematic reclamation of the nations he had disinherited back at Babel, so as to
graft them back into his family as they turned their hearts to him. Anyway, thats the way
it was supposed to work.
As it turned out, this plan would only take hold with the coming of Jesus and his death
and resurrection, which led to the birth of the new people of God, his temple, and
Pentecost (see Chapters 22-28). The powers of darkness and human evil would once
again win another round in the long war against God. But this, too, was foreseen. But
before we explore what happened after Sinai, I want to help you look at Gods design for
re-establishing his rule with his people on earthto progressively restore what was lost
at Babel and, ultimately, Eden. There were templates begun in Eden that get mirrored in
the subsequent effort of God to re-establish his kingdom rule and defeat the free will
rebellion of lost humanity and his unseen enemies.
The Seeds of Divine-Human Kingship on Earth
Weve seen that the Tabernacle, the portable tent shrine carried by Israel throughout the
time of these holy wars, was constructed and decorated as a reminder of the Edenic
garden-mountain throne room of Yahweh. Even more elaborate was the Temple that
165
would eventually be built once Israel had won the Holy Land from its enemies. This
visual reminder of Yahwehs original abode was a perpetual reminder that Yahweh
desired to be king on earth among humanity. But from the very beginning, this kingship
was to involve human co-rulersYahwehs imagerswho would represent the heavenly
king on the earth.
Adam and Eve Yahwehs original imagers and thus given a status as steward-kings on the
new earth. On one hand, humans were commissioned with maintaining and cultivating
the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15). This reflects a stewardship task. On the other hand,
Adam and Eve are clearly given a kingly or ruling task. As Genesis 1:26-28 notes, they
are to have dominion over the earth and subdue it.
The Hebrew terms underlying have dominion and subdue are used elsewhere in the
Old Testament for the exercise of kingship and for the extension of a kings authority
through his representatives. Examples would include:
1 Kings 4:22-24
22
Solomons provision for one day was thirty cors of fine flour and sixty cors of
meal, 23 ten fat oxen, and twenty pasture-fed cattle, a hundred sheep, besides deer,
gazelles, roebucks, and fattened fowl. 24 For he had dominion over all the region
west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the
Euphrates. And he had peace on all sides around him.
I Kings 5:15-16
15
Solomon also had 70,000 burden-bearers and 80,000 stonecutters in the hill
country, 16 besides Solomons 3,300 chief officers who were over the work, who
had charge of the people who carried on the work.
1 Chronicles 22:17-18
17
David also commanded all the leaders of Israel to help Solomon his son, saying,
Is not the LORD your God with you? And has he not given you peace on every
side? For he has delivered the inhabitants of the land into my hand, and the land is
subdued before the LORD and his people.
18
2 Chronicles 8:10
10
And these were the chief officers of King Solomon, 250, who exercised
authority over the people.
Psalm 110:1-2
1
The LORD says to my Lord:

Sit at my right hand,
166
until I make your enemies your footstool.

The LORD sends forth from Zion
your mighty scepter.
Rule in the midst of your enemies!
A few other observations are in order. The Genesis account informs us that the rulersteward imaging status was shared by both men and women since the commands in Gen.
1:26-28 are grammatically plural. The ruler-stewards had no priestly role. There was no
sacrifice before the fall and no need for mediation with God, as the visible Yahweh
walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. Yahwehs council was also present on earth, as
that was the location of Yahwehs throne and abode.
Ultimate Sovereign
Ruling from
Shared Rulership
Divine Abode
Chaos
Evil/Rebellion
Yahweh (invisible; perhaps also visible before the Fall

given the wording of Gen 3:8)
Earth (Eden; the impression given before the Fall is that the
intent is global rule)
With humans; divine council also present
On earth (Eden)
Not present in Eden; part of natural world, but restrained.
Not present in Eden or anywhere else
The Fall of course disrupted this structure. Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden and
the Scripture gives no hint that Yahweh and his council remained on earth in any tangible
way, at least not in the way portrayed in the Eden narratives. The imager-ruler-steward
status of Adam and Eve was not revoked, but would be more difficult due to the
punishment of the curses for the Fall. Genesis 1:26-28 distributes the imaging status to all
humans. The fact that Genesis 5:3 uses the language of Genesis 1:26-28 to describe
Adam and Eves first offspring sustains that idea. After the Fall, however, humans had to
assume a priestly role. Sacrifice for sin was now essential, and this was the responsibility
of family head. Yahweh is still to be found, but humans are now cast in the role of
seeking him out (Gen. 4:26) as opposed to Yahweh doing the seeking. Humans had to
make themselves acceptable for contact with God, as opposed to being in such a state by
default. Yahweh did still come to humans (e.g., Noah), but this was apparently the
exception, not the rule.
A divinely imposed distance was therefore maintained between humans and Yahweh and
his council. We know that it was not Yahwehs intention that this effect of the Fall be
permanent because of what Yahweh had said when pronouncing the curses. At some
point, a descendant of Eve would undo the effects of the Fall, but would be opposed by
the seed of the nachash, which, as we have overviewed in other chapters, were any
human or non-human enemies of Yahweh and his people.
True to Yahwehs prediction, certain seed of the nachash did make the situation worse. In
Genesis 6 the sons of God violate the imposed boundary. Rebel members of the divine
167
council exploit humanity. As we saw earlier, the accounts in Genesis and 1 Enoch
suggest several motives, among them the desire to usurp Yahwehs ruling relationship
with humans, to be worshipped in place of Yahweh, and to turn Yahweh against
humanity by increasing their wickedness. A peripheral result was also that the human
seed from whence the Deliverer was put in peril. The situation might be illustrated this
way:
Ultimate Sovereign
Ruling from
Shared Rulership
Divine Abode
Ruler in Darkness
Chaos (natural)
Evil / rebellion
Yahweh (invisible)
The heavens (invisible spiritual realm); only sporadic biblical
note of divine presence on earth (Enoch, Noah)
Humans still responsible for original mandate of Gen 1:28;
now a struggle since no direct divine assistance from God or
his council. A mode of stewardship but not assisting with
divine rule since there is no specific divine enablement.
The heavens (invisible spiritual realm)
The fallen nachash; given domain over Sheol (not the usual
term, but the less common one, erets); i.e., domain over the
dead since his temptation led to human mortality by virtue of
sin and expulsion from Eden.
This domain (erets) is also the word for earth, and so the
nachash is in combat with humanity for dominion of the earth.
This is another obstacle to humans imaging God as intended.
Eden is gone; the natural world is untamed but still restrained;
curses aimed at adding burdens to this situation
The nachash is now part of mortal life on earth; there is now a
realm of the dead;
The sons of God interfere with the human mandate (raise up
seed, more imagers) by leaving their own realm and cohabiting
with humans; motives are varied according to extra-biblical
sources; the effect, if unchecked, would be the infection of the
promised line from Eve, which would produce the deliverer of
Gen 3:15, the one promised who would reverse the tragedy of
Eden (sin and death); a human offspring was required to undo
the human tragedy, but this promise accrues other elements as
Old Testament theology progresses.
The Flood offered a temporary solution to the problems cause by the sons of God in
Genesis 6, but not to the Fall. That Yahweh still wanted a kingdom on earth with human
co-rulers is evident by the repetition of the commission to Adam and eve to the patriarch
Noah after the Flood (Gen 9:1-2). As such, humankind was to spread Yahwehs kingdom
over the earth. Humanity did the exact opposite at Babel, refusing to overspread the earth
and desiring to re-create the Edenic council conditions on their own terms. We know the
result: the nations were disinherited, effectively ending Yahwehs vision of divine-human
168
co-regency on earth. As such, the ruling relationships changed. Ive illustrated the ruling
structures after Genesis 6 up to Babel and after Babel this way:
Ultimate Sovereign
Ruling from
Shared Rulership
Divine Abode
Ruler in Darkness
Chaos (natural)
Evil / rebellion
Yahweh (invisible)
The heavens (invisible spiritual realm); no divine presence on
earth after Noah until the call of Abraham.
Humans still responsible for original mandate of Gen 1:28),
but attention now shifts to one human family with whom
rulership will be shared. Will change with the call of Abraham.
The heavens (invisible spiritual realm). Will change with the
call of Abraham.
The fallen nachash; given domain over Sheol (not the usual
term, but the less common one, erets); i.e., domain over the
dead since his temptation led to human mortality by virtue of
sin and expulsion from Eden.
This domain (erets) is also the word for earth, and so the
nachash is in combat with humanity for dominion of the earth.
This is another obstacle to humans imaging God as intended.
Eden is gone; the natural world is untamed but still restrained;
curses aimed at adding burdens to this situation
Humanity is forsaken by Yahweh; they are undependable and
self-willed; Yahweh will have to raise up a new family with
which to share rulership on earth via the divine presence.
Humanity, though forsaken, is not destroyed; the nations put
under lesser sons of God (consigned to them, as it were);
Yahweh will call Abraham and will create a new family from
him, through whom the disinherited nations will be brought
back into the family.
The end of a divine-human ruling relationship on earth under Yahweh was quickly
revived when Yahweh called Abraham immediately after the Babel debacle. With the call
of Abraham and the ensuing covenant promises Yahweh made with Abraham and his
descendants, the divine-human ruling structures were kickstarted and operated alongside
the administrations of the sons of God over the disinherited nations. Yahweh was
sovereign over both arrangements, but he only had a personal investment with Abrahams
family (who would become known as Israel). In the illustrations below, note how the
administration of the disinherited parallels Yahwehs more personal dealings with
patriarchal Israel. Eventually, when the patriarchal existence of Israel gave way to
nationhood after the exodus, the parallels become even sharper.
Set side by side, we see some important similarities and differences with the way
Yahweh runs the disinherited nations and his own portion Israel. After Babel, Yahweh
re-instituted the device of having a human co-ruler over his children. Prior to the Fall,
169
Adam and Eve were to be co-regents over Yahwehs childrenat the time, all humanity.
After God abandoned humanity at Babel and chose Abraham to start over, Abraham and
his chosen heir (Isaac, then Jacob) became the leader of Yahwehs people. It was to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that Yahweh appeared, securing the status of those patriarchs
as Yahwehs human co-ruler of Yahwehs people. That system evolved into the headship
of Moses, Joshua after him, and eventually kings.
Ultimate
Sovereign
Ruling from
Yahweh (invisible)
Shared Rulership
Humans still responsible for original

mandate of Gen 1:28), but attention
now shifts to one human family
with whom rulership will be shared.
The heavens (invisible spiritual

realm); The divine presence reappears to Abraham, at times
embodied (e.g. the Word; Gen 15:1;
cp. Gen 18). Hints of a Promised
Land, where Yahweh will be God
his peopleIsrael, the people of
Abrahamare dropped in the
covenant terms (Gen 12:1-3).
Biblical writers use language

reminiscent of divine council beings
to telegraph this intent of humandivine sonship (e.g., Israel will be as
the stars of heaven; Gen 15:5;
22:17; 26:4; 37:9; Deut 1:10; 1
Chron 27:23; cp. Job 38:7-8).
Divine Abode
Ruler in Darkness
The heavens (invisible spiritual

realm); will be eventually in the
land.
The fallen nachash; given domain
over Sheol (not the usual term, but
the less common one, erets); i.e.,
Getting to this land as the people

of God is the point of the exodus
from Egypt after the patriarchal
age. Eventually the kingdom of
Israel is in the land and reaches
the borders described to the
patriarchs (but the post-Mosaic
borders / dimensions differ; they
are larger). God rules in visible
form (Angel, Word) during the
wilderness wanderings through
the monarchy.
Israel is called the corporate son
of God (Exod 4:23); God rules in
visible form (Angel, Word)
during the wilderness
wanderings, with Joshua, with
Samuel, and with kings David
and Solomon. After the
monarchy divides he will call
prophets by such an appearance
to continue the co-authority
motif. God shares his rulership
with Moses and other chosen
authorities seventy elders. The
structure of single ruler with 70
over the people is adopted from
ancient divine council structures.
Eventually the divine sonship /
divine imager/steward role is
embodied in Israels king (who
takes ultimate form in the
messiah, the promised seed of
Eve).
Tent of Meeting / Tabernacle;
Temple
Still lord of the dead;
relationship to the other spiritual
enemies is unclear, though the
170
domain over the dead since his

temptation led to human mortality
by virtue of sin and expulsion from
Eden.
Chaos (natural)
Evil / rebellion
This domain (erets) is also the word

for earth, and so the nachash is in
combat with humanity for dominion
of the earth. This is another obstacle
to humans imaging God as intended.
Eden is gone; the natural world is
untamed but still restrained; curses
aimed at adding burdens to this
situation
Humanity is forsaken by Yahweh;
they are undependable and selfwilled; Yahweh will have to raise
up a new family with which to share
rulership on earth via the divine
presence.
Humanity, though forsaken, is not
destroyed; the nations put under
lesser sons of God (consigned to
them, as it were); Yahweh calls
Abraham and will create a new
family from him, through whom the
disinherited nations will be brought
back into the family.
lines are blurred in Sheol with

the presence of the Rephaim.
The Tabernacle and Temple had

Edenic garden imagery; intended
to be a heaven (Eden) on earth.
The gods of the nations become
corrupt (Psa 82); Israel falls
repeatedly into error by
worshipping them; descendants
of the Nephilim bloodlines
oppose the conquest of the land
and are specifically targeted by
Joshua (see Chapters 16-17); a
holy war on unseen and seen
levels; reflected in the concepts
of cosmic geography.
It is interesting to note that the disinherited nations had no king on earth appointed by
Yahweh, but there was in fact a single non-human ruler over the earth sentenced to that
role by Yahweh: the nachash. You may recall from our discussion in Chapter 5 that the
account of the nachash in Genesis 3 has parallels in Isaiah 14, where the Shining One,
son of the dawn (Helel ben Shachar in Hebrew; Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate) was
consigned to the erets after trying to vault himself above the Most High God. The
Hebrew word erets, as noted in that earlier chapter, means earth and also, in certain
passages, the domain of the human dead and the Nephilim/Rephaim spirits, the
demons.113 The double entendre is significant. While there are no passages that describe
explicit hierarchical links between the nachash and the demons, it is easy to see how his
former council standing had been a superior rank to those demons who had never served
in the council, and how the nachash could be perceived as the pre-eminent villain, the
ultimate adversary (the satan)114 to Yahweh. The original offending sons of God of
Genesis 6 have no direct connection to the nachash either. Since they were imprisoned by
Yahweh in the abyss that is part of the erets / Underworld, it is not difficult to see,
however, that they too would be associated with the nachash, since his domain is the
erets. Additionally, the sons of God whom Yahweh set over the nations, the enemies of
171
his portion Israel, are never actually said to work for the nachash. Rather, they work
for Yahweh on earth. As we will see in Chapter 20, though, they become corrupt and are
sentenced in Psalm 82 to a certain but future death, as are all other enemies of Yahweh
the seed of the nachash. All of this is backdrop to the statement in Matthew 25:41, where
hellfire was prepared for the devil and his angels.
Lastly, notice from the illustration that the disinherited nations are ruled by 70 sons of
God. The number 70, as we noted in an earlier chapter, is the traditional Canaanite
number for the second tier of the divine council, the sons of God. It is also a number that
matches the number of disinherited nations when one counts the names listed in Table of
Nations in Genesis 10, which sets up the story of the Tower of Babel in the Genesis
narrative.
The mirror council rule of Yahwehs portion also includes a group of 70the 70 elders
of Israel. I mentioned this group back in Chapter 11, and noted a connection between
these men and the advice of Moses father-in-law that Moses choose men to help him
govern Israel. Exodus 18 describes that decision.
References to elders in Israel can be found before Jethro gave such advice to Moses
(Exod. 3:16-18; 4:29; 12:21; 17:5-6) and verses such as Numbers 11:16, 24 suggest that
there were more than 70 elders (gather for me seventy men from the elders). Since
no number of the advisers chosen by Moses is ever given in the account, and since these
men were placed over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of
tens (Exod. 18:21), it is certain that the number of men who helped govern Israel under
Moses was much larger than 70. But within that larger number, several passages indicate
that there were 70 elders who had a special governing role, for they were privileged to
see Yahweh and the council with Moses, and were commissioned by Yahweh himself to
govern.115
Exodus 24:1-2, 9
Then he said to Moses, Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab, and
Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship from afar. 2 Moses alone
shall come near to the LORD, but the others shall not come near, and the people
shall not come up with him. . . . 9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and
seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. There
was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven
for clearness.
Numbers 11:16-18, 24-25
16
Then the LORD said to Moses, Gather for me seventy men of the elders of
Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them, and
bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you. 17
And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit
that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with
172
you, so that you may not bear it yourself alone. 18 And say to the people,
Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat, for you have wept
in the hearing of the LORD, saying, Who will give us meat to eat? For it was
better for us in Egypt. Therefore the LORD will give you meat, and you shall eat.
. . . 24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD. And he
gathered seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tent.
25
Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the
Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit
rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it.
The entirety of Chapter 19 is devoted to the fact that divine commissioning such as we
read in the Numbers 11 passage is a recurring theme intimately associated with the divine
council. It is sufficient here to only remind you that Yahweh in the cloud and in his tent
dwelling is a stock description of the place where the divine council is. What we have
here is Yahweh, in the presence of his council, commissioning the earthly counterpart to
that council, the 70 elders. Originally, all humans were to serve Yahweh in this way, but
the demise of the Edenic situation interrupted that goal. When re-establishing his kingly
rule on earth through Israel, Yahweh begins by electing a human co-ruler and a mirror
council to represent his authority over his earthly family. But this was just the
beginning. As well see in subsequent chapters, Gods ultimate Edenic purpose to have
all his children rule all the nations was still the target goal. For now, we need to turn our
attention to the human co-ruler, the king.
113
For example, the underworld was considered the land of the dead (cf. Job 10:21-22; Jer 17:13; Jonah
2:7; Psa 71:20; Isa. 63:10). See my article in Vetus Testamentum on Isaiah 14 and Ugaritic for more
details.
114
See the comments in Chapter 1 on the satanhow the word satan is not a proper noun in the OT but
becomes a proper noun later on.
115
See Chapter 18 for the significance of the commissioning act.
173
Chapter 16
Like a Bad Penny
Its hard to imagine the herd of unkempt humanity camped at Sinai as a turning point in
the cosmic plan of God for planet earth, but it was. For centuries the idea of a people of
God was a faded concept, an idea whose death was prolonged in the brick pits along the
Nile only for the sake of the hubris of successive dynasties of Pharaohs convinced they
had been spawned by the gods of that allotment of dirt known as Egypt. But at the right
timea chronology extended by the will of Yahweh for several reasons well note in a
momentthe visible Yahweh appeared to the AWOL murderer Moses and announced
that the status quo was about to change.
And change it did. After demanding Pharaoh release his son from bondage (Exod.
4:22-23), Yahweh toyed with the gods of Egypt in a show of power that should have
lasted much longer in the minds of the Israel than it did. Yahweh gathered his people to
Sinai and gave the nation its constitution, the Law, a means of maintaining the sanctity of
their relationship with Yahweh. He gave them a place of worship designed to remind
them of the symbiotic relationship of the heavenly council and themselves as imagers of
Yahweh chosen to be a kingdom of priests, conduits to the disinherited nations. Who is
like Yahweh among the gods? How quickly they forgot.
The Seeds of Holy War
Understanding what happens next in the cosmic narrative of the Bible requires recalling
our earlier discussion of the seed of the nachash and the Nephilim. The seed of the
nachash referred to the ongoing struggle between all who would take sides against
Yahweh and his children. This struggle was part of the curses handed out after the Fall,
when Yahweh dropped the hint that the Fall would one day be undone by the seed of the
womana human being descended from Eve. The seed of the woman would be opposed
and threatened by the seed of the nachash, the evil Shining One.
As I noted earlier, the seed of the nachash is a term applied to evil people (you are of
your father the devil), but also includes a supernatural element. Specifically, the first
threat to what we understand as the messianic line came as a result of the transgression of
heaven and earth in Genesis 6:1-4 that produced the Nephilim. Although there is no
evidence that the reason for the transgression was to destroy the line of Eve, that threat
was indeed a residual effect.
The interference with the normal human lines of descent from Eve by the sons of God
threatened the divine promise to undo the effects of the Fall in three ways. First, the
deliverer needed to be truly human, a full descendant of Eve. Second, it was Yahwehs
intentionalbeit an intention revealed much laterthat this deliverer be the full human
174
incarnation of his own essence. The second Yahweh, the visual, physical Yahweh, would
one day become fully human by birth and deliver the human race. The influence of
another supernatural presence manifested in fleshly form violated both parts of the plan.
Third, the descendants of the sons of God, the Nephilim and their descendants, were a
physical peril to Gods children. The flood didnt put an end to the Nephilim problem,
nor would it rescind the curse of that the seed of the nachash would be the nemesis of the
divine plan. The Nephilim clans were not only lethal enemies, but they were potentially
an ongoing hazard to the purity of the necessary lineage through intermarriage. Like a
bad penny, they just keep turning up in the story, and its never good. All of this is why,
in the wake of the exodus, God decided that the problem needed a permanent resolution.
I know the idea that Genesis 6:1-4 is what contextualizes the wars of Joshua sounds
pretty strange. Youve probably never heard that before, so youll likely need some
convincing. Frankly, its been right under our noses the whole time. Youve read it before
but didnt realize what you were looking at. Well find in this chapter and the next that
there was a rationale for the variation in the language of conquest. Sometimesrarely,
actuallythe Israelites were told to utterly destroy certain people; at other times driving
them away was sufficient. What made the difference? The Nephilim connection.
The point that Ill be arguing for here and in the next chapter is simple: the peoples
targeted for extermination in Israels holy war for the Land were descendants of the
Nephilim, or those living among those descendants. The objective was the elimination of
the line originally fathered by the fallen sons of God, not wanton destruction of normal
human life. Israel could take no chance that the perceived demon seed of the Nephilim
surviving in the Land. Those who were perceived as being in these clans or likely
marrying into these lines were to be eliminated as a preventative to the deliverers line
being corrupted or cut off.
Israel left Sinai with its mission to claim the terrestrial allotment promised to their
forefathers by Yahweh with the visible Yahweh himself leading them. Lets look once
more at a pivotal passage, but this time we need to observe a bit more of that passage.
Ive double-underlined the most important parts for this chapter:
Exodus 23:20-24
20
Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you
to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his
voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my
name is in him. 22 But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I
will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 When
my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the
Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out, 24
you shall not bow down to their gods nor serve them, nor do as they do, but you
shall utterly overthrow them and break their pillars in pieces.
175
Youre probably thinking, hes not really going to talk about all those ites is he?
Well . . . yes. Hang in there. You wont be boredI promise. I think itll blow your
mind, actually.
Lets start with the first name in the list, the Amorites. You no doubt have read about
them before, as they are noted in some very familiar passages. In Genesis 15:12-16 we
read:
12
As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful
and great darkness fell upon him. 13 Then the LORD said to Abram, Know for
certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be
servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. 14 But I will bring
judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with
great possessions. 15 As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you
shall be buried in a good old age. 16 And they shall come back here in the fourth
generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.
In Yahwehs eyes, the Amorites were an evil people, whose judgment would coincide
with the deliverance of Abrahamsand His ownpeople from a foreign land which
held them in bondage. The reference and the chronology, of course, refer to the Egyptian
bondage and the exodus out of Egypt. But why pick on the Amorites? Why do they seem
so detestable to Yahweh?
Most commentators will point out the obvious here, that the Amorites worshipped idols
and foreign gods, and likely engaged in horrible practices in that worship. 1 Kings 21:26
tells us that much. But that could be said of practically any pagan group in the area of
Palestine who did not worship Yahweh. Why single the Amorites out? We get our answer
in an obscure passage of the book of Amos, a passage where God reminds Israel of the
conquest of the Amorites after the exodus:
Amos 2:9-10
9 Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the
height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above
and his roots beneath. 10 Also it was I who brought you up out of the land of
Egypt and led you forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the
Amorite.
What was different about the Amorites destroyed by Israelites as part of the conquest of
the Promised Land? They were unusually tall. Sound like anyone weve run into before?
The historical material on the Amorites is sparse. Interestingly, the word for Amorite
actually comes from a Sumerian word (MAR.TU) which vaguely referred to the area
and population west of Sumer / Babylon and hence foreign to them. It could, therefore,
simply refer to foreigners or peoples who inhabited the area northwest (following the
Tigris and Euphrates river valley) of Mesopotamia. The point is that the term is very
broad and non-specific. Even in the Bible we find that there were Amorites who were
176
allies of the people of God. In Genesis 14:13, for instance, an Amorite is said to have
been an ally to Abraham. But some of those Amorites were very tall and thus targeted by
God for destruction. This is a pattern that will emerge as we go, and I for one dont think
its coincidental.
I just mentioned Abraham, so lets stick with him. The Genesis 14:13 passage that has an
Amorite allied with him is noteworthy since it is part of a story that includes some
important people group names for our purposes here:
Genesis 14:1-16
1
In the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer

king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, 2 these kings made war with Bera king of
Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of
Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3 And all these joined forces in the
Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea). 4 Twelve years they had served
Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 In the fourteenth year
Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim
in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, 6 and
the Horites in their hill country of Seir as far as El-paran on the border of the
wilderness. 7 Then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh) and
defeated all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who were
dwelling in Hazazon-tamar. 8 Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the
king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out,
and they joined battle in the Valley of Siddim 9 with Chedorlaomer king of Elam,
Tidal king of Goiim, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, four
kings against five. 10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits, and as
the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into them, and the rest fled to
the hill country. 11 So the enemy took all the possessions of Sodom and
Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way. 12 They also took Lot, the
son of Abrams brother, who was dwelling in Sodom, and his possessions, and
went their way. 13 Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew,
who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and of Aner.
These were allies of Abram. 14 When Abram heard that his kinsman had been
taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, 318 of them, and
went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15 And he divided his forces against them by night,
he and his servants, and defeated them and pursued them to Hobah, north of
Damascus. 16 Then he brought back all the possessions, and also brought back his
kinsman Lot with his possessions, and the women and the people.
The passage is a bit confusing, but the basics are that way back in the time of Abraham, a
confederation of kings led by a fellow named Chedorlaomer went to war with another
confederation of kings led by the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. We dont really care
about the politics of all thisbut we do care about verse 5-8. Here we learn that God had
providentially used Chedorlaomer and his cronies to eliminate certain specified people
groups in the area: the Rephaim, the Zuzim, the Emim, and the Amorites. Weve already
seen that the Amorites who were targeted later on in the days of Moses and Joshua were
177
unusually tall. What about these Amorites? Is there anything to suggest the same
characteristic?
I think you already know the answer. Amorite in this list is juxtaposed with the
Rephaim, who are associated with the Underworld, the realm of the dead, in the Old
Testament. They are also one of the giant clans descended from the Nephilim and so
are all the other people groups in this listing. How can we be sure of all this? Hold on . . .
the rides going to get pretty wild.
The Fate of the Nephilim in Jewish Theology
Unlike the biblical account of the Nephilim, other ancient Jewish texts like the book of 1
Enoch present a different, more detailed picture. In a conversation cast between God and
Enoch, 1 Enoch 15 relates what happened after the destruction of the Nephilim giants:
1
And He [God] answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: Fear not, Enoch,
thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my
voice. 2 And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede
for them: You should intercede for men, and not men for you: 3 Wherefore have
ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled
yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done
like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? 4 And though ye
were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the
blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the
children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and
perish. 5 Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them,
and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6
But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all
generations of the world. 7 And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for
as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. 8 And now, the
giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits
upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. 9 Evil spirits have
proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy
Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth,
and evil spirits shall they be called. 10 [As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall
be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the
earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] 11 And the spirits of the giants afflict,
oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause
trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences.
12
And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the
women, because they have proceeded from them.116
The passage is interesting, to say the least. According to this text, the beings we think of
as demons or evil spirits are actually the spirits of deceased Nephilim. Upon their
death, the supernatural half of the Nephilim, their spirits, proceeded from their bodies
178
and became evil spirits on earth. These disembodied demonic entities roam the earth to
afflict and harass humanity.
Scholars of ancient and rabbinical Judaism have pointed out for some time that the
explanation for the origin of demons put forth in 1 Enoch 15 is the standard answer for
Jewish theology as to where demons came from. But the book of 1 Enoch is not in the
biblical canon, and so cannot be regarded as inspired. We just have to let the origin of
demons remain a mystery since the Bible doesnt teach this . . . or does it?
The Giant Clans After the Flood
To answer this question we need to take a look at events that transpired well after the
flood in biblical chronology. We return first to a now familiar passage from Numbers
13:25-33, which describes the inhabitants of the land intended for the Israelites,
inhabitants of unusual height:
25
At the end of forty days they returned from spying out the land. 26 And they
came to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the people of Israel in the
wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh. They brought back word to them and to all the
congregation, and showed them the fruit of the land. 27 And they told him, We
came to the land to which you sent us. It flows with milk and honey, and this is its
fruit. 28 However, the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are
fortified and very large. And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there. 29
The Amalekites dwell in the land of the Negeb. The Hittites, the Jebusites, and the
Amorites dwell in the hill country. And the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and
along the Jordan. 30 But Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, Let us
go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it. 31 Then the men
who had gone up with him said, We are not able to go up against the people, for
they are stronger than we are. 32 So they brought to the people of Israel a bad
report of the land that they had spied out, saying, The land, through which we
have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people
that we saw in it are of great height. 33 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 them.
The passage very plainly describes the Anakim, the sons of Anak, as very tall. It also
explicitly connects the Anakim to the Nephilim, the former deriving from the latter in
terms of lineage. After this incident in the days of Moses, the Israelites are punished by
God for their lack of faith. They are sentenced to wander in the wilderness for forty years.
They eventually start heading back toward Canaan near the end of this forced pilgrimage,
but on the other side of the Jordan River. God through Moses instructs the people to go
through the Transjordan. A close look at some Old Testament passages that few would
call exciting reveals some fascinating details about this part of their journey back to the
Promised Land. Note the underlined portions of the excerpts from Deuteronomy 2:
Deuteronomy 2
179
So we went on, away from our brothers, the people of Esau, who live in Seir,
away from the Arabah road from Elath and Ezion-geber. And we turned and
went in the direction of the wilderness of Moab. 9 And the LORD said to me, Do
not harass Moab or contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of
their land for a possession, because I have given Ar to the people of Lot for a
possession. 10 (The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall
as the Anakim. 11 Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the
Moabites call them Emim. 12 The Horites also lived in Seir formerly, but the
people of Esau dispossessed them and destroyed them from before them and
settled in their place, as Israel did to the land of their possession, which the LORD
gave to them.) 13 Now rise up and go over the brook Zered. So we went over the
brook Zered. 14 And the time from our leaving Kadesh-barnea until we crossed the
brook Zered was thirty-eight years, until the entire generation, that is, the men of
war, had perished from the camp, as the LORD had sworn to them. 15 For indeed
the hand of the LORD was against them, to destroy them from the camp, until they
had perished. 16 So as soon as all the men of war had perished and were dead
from among the people, 17 the LORD said to me, 18 Today you are to cross the
border of Moab at Ar. 19 And when you approach the territory of the people of
Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of
the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the
sons of Lot for a possession. 20 (It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim
formerly lived therebut the Ammonites call them Zamzummim21 a people
great and many, and tall as the Anakim; but the LORD destroyed them before the
Ammonites, and they dispossessed them and settled in their place . . . 26 So I sent
messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon the king of Heshbon, with
words of peace, saying, 27 Let me pass through your land. I will go only by the
road; I will turn aside neither to the right nor to the left. 28 You shall sell me food
for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink. Only
let me pass through on foot, 29 as the sons of Esau who live in Seir and the
Moabites who live in Ar did for me, until I go over the Jordan into the land that
the LORD our God is giving to us. 30 But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let
us pass by him, for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart
obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day.
We learn several things of note from this passage. Inhabitants known among the
Moabites and Ammonites as, respectively, the Emim and the Zamzummim, had
populated the Transjordan in the days of Esau, well before the bondage in Egypt. The
Emim are described as tall as the Anakim, and were considered Rephaim. This very
explicitly links the Emim to the Nephilim. The Emim / Rephaim had been removed from
the area of Moab before Israels arrival at this time in their history, paving the way for
safe passageat least through Moab. The next leg of the journey was northward through
the territory of Ammon (v. 19). Moving to Deuteronomy 3 we read:
Then we turned and went up the way to Bashan. And Og the king of Bashan
came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 2 But the LORD said
180
to me, Do not fear him, for I have given him and all his people and his land into
your hand. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon the king of the Amorites,
who lived at Heshbon. 3 So the LORD our God gave into our hand Og also, the
king of Bashan, and all his people, and we struck him down until he had no
survivor left. 4 And we took all his cities at that timethere was not a city that we
did not take from themsixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of
Og in Bashan. 5 All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars,
besides very many unwalled villages. 6 And we devoted them to destruction, as we
did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, devoting to destruction every city, men,
women, and children. 7 But all the livestock and the spoil of the cities we took as
our plunder. 8 So we took the land at that time out of the hand of the two kings of
the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, from the Valley of the Arnon to
Mount Hermon 9 (the Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, while the Amorites call it
Senir), 10 all the cities of the tableland and all Gilead and all Bashan, as far as
Salecah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 11 (For only Og the
king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed
of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four
cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit.)
Notice that two kings are mentioned here, both of whom clashed with Israel and paid a
terrible price. These two kings were Sihon and Og, collectively referred to as the two
kings of the Amorites. The extent of their kingdom was from the Valley of the Arnon
to Mount Hermon . . . all the cities of the tableland and all Gilead and all Bashan, as far
as Salecah and Edrei.
Demonic Geography
These become more than dry geographical details when we observe two details in
Deuteronomy 3. First, verse 11 informs us that Og of Bashan was one of the Rephaim.
Right on the heels of letting readers know Ogs status as one of the Rephaim, the writer
describes the immense dimensions of his bed (probably a sarcophagus), roughly 6 feet
wide by 13.5 feet long. Second, the territorial description mentions Mount Hermon.
Mount Hermon was, according to 1 Enoch 6:1-6, the mountain to which the Watchers,
the sons of God, descended when they came to earth and cohabited with human women.
This connection with the incident described in Genesis 6:1-4 is consistent in view of the
connections between the terms Rephaim, Anakim, and Nephilim. Third, the broader area
of which Mount Hermon was part was Bashan, a place of special cosmic-geographical
significance, as well see in a moment.
Other passages confirm the connections between the Rephaim giants and Mount Hermon.
For example, in Joshua 12:1-5 (ESV we read:
Now these are the kings of the land whom the people of Israel defeated and took
possession of their land beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise, from the Valley of
the Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward: 2 Sihon king of the
Amorites who lived at Heshbon and ruled from Aroer, which is on the edge of the
181
Valley of the Arnon, and from the middle of the valley as far as the river Jabbok,
the boundary of the Ammonites, that is, half of Gilead, 3 and the Arabah to the Sea
of Chinneroth eastward, and in the direction of Beth-jeshimoth, to the Sea of the
Arabah, the Salt Sea, southward to the foot of the slopes of Pisgah; 4 and Og king
of Bashan, one of the remnant of the Rephaim, who lived at Ashtaroth and at
Edrei 5 and ruled over Mount Hermon and Salecah and all Bashan to the boundary
of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and over half of Gilead to the boundary of
Sihon king of Heshbon.
The passage from Joshua 12 links the Rephaim giants to Mount Hermon, but also
associates them with two other cities of specific note, Ashtaroth and Edrei. Other
passages confirm that these cities and their surrounding areas were populated by
Rephaim.117 Additionally, this Rephaim presence was partnered with the Amorites,
another unusually tall people (Amos 2:9-10).
Ashtaroth and Edrei are significant since the ancient literature of Ugarit (a small ancient
kingdom north of Lebanon) mentions them as two places associated with the rapiuma
the Ugaritic word for Rephaim.118 The Rephaim of Ugarit are not described as giants, but
they are described as divine at Ugarit. They are deified dead royal ancestorsthe
spirits of the great warrior kings who inhabit the Underworld. If this sounds like an echo
of the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 who are also referred to as mighty warriors (gibborim)
and men of renown, your intuition would be correct. The early Jewish notion found
most explicitly in 1 Enoch that what we know as demons are the departed spirits of dead
Nephilim has a biblical parallel. Lets unpack this a bit more.
The Hebrew term for the Underworld is Sheol. You may have seen it before in the
notes of your study Bible at certain passages. The concept of Sheol is very complex, as
the word is used in several ways. Sheol most often is a very general term for the grave,
the place everyone goes to when they die. Both the wicked and the righteous go there
everyone dies and goes to the grave.119 In the Old Testament, the grave is nearly always
described negatively or neutrally. Israelites were like any of usthey werent
enthusiastic about dying since there was uncertainty about precisely what happened to
you when you died.120
The above may be quite new to readers, and so illustrating the presence of the Rephaim
in Sheol in the biblical text is in order.
Isaiah 14:9-15 (ESV)
9
10
Sheol beneath is stirred up

to meet you when you come;
it rouses the shades (in Hebrew, Rephaim) to greet you,
all who were leaders of the earth;
it raises from their thrones
all who were kings of the nations.
All of them will answer
182
and say to you:

You too have become as weak as we!
You have become like us!
Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,
the sound of your harps;
maggots are laid as a bed beneath you,
and worms are your covers.
How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.
11
12
13
14
15
This first passage is already familiarIsaiahs taunt against the King of Babylon where
he utilizes the story of the fall of Helel, the nachash, to amplify how pompous and
arrogant the king of Babylon was.121 Lets turn to some other texts.
Psalm 88:10-12 (Hebrew Bible, vv. 11-13)
10
Do you work wonders for the dead (in Hebrew, Rephaim)?

Do the departed rise up to praise you? Selah
Is your steadfast love declared in the grave,
or your faithfulness in Abaddon?
Are your wonders known in the darkness,
or your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?
11
12
Job 26
1
2
Then Job answered and said:

How you have helped him who has no power!
How you have saved the arm that has no strength!
How you have counseled him who has no wisdom,
and plentifully declared sound knowledge!
With whose help have you uttered words,
and whose breath has come out from you?
The dead (in Hebrew, Rephaim) tremble
under the waters and their inhabitants.
183
Sheol is naked before God,

and Abaddon has no covering.
In most instances where Sheol is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, a place where all the
dead go and remain is in view. Other passages suggest that the righteous await a future
time of being present with God, but the unrighteousand particularly the sinister
Rephaim deadare permanent residents.
That the Israelites and the biblical writers considered the spirits of the dead giant warriorkings to be demonic is evident from the fearful aura attached to the geographical location
of Bashan. As noted above, Bashan is the region of the cities Ashtaroth and Edrei, which
both the Bible and the Ugaritic texts mention as abodes of the Rephaim. Whats even
more fascinating is that in the Ugaritic language, this region was known not as Bashan,
but Bathanthe Semitic people of Ugarit pronounced the Hebrew sh as th in their
dialect. Why is that of interest? Because Bathan is a common word across all the
Semitic languages, biblical Hebrew included, for serpent.122 The region of Bashan was
known as the place of the serpent. It was ground zero for the Rephaim giant clan and,
spiritually speaking, the gateway to the abode of the infernal deified Rephaim spirits.
But theres more. In Ugaritic literature, the Rephaim of Ashtaroth and Edrei are called
kings and gods. The word for kings in Hebrew is melakimand the Ugaritic
language had the same consonants, mlkm. However, at Ugarit the title mlkm also meant
something elseto be a subject of the god Milkom (also known as Molech or Malik).
Notice that the consonants in Milkom are mlkm. One Ugaritic tablet specifically refers
to Ashtaroth as the abode of Milkom/Malik. Cuneiform texts from other civilizations in
Mesopotamia refer to these mlkm as gods, specifically the Anunnaki gods, gods who
inhabited Sheol under the lord of the Underworld and of fire, Nergal.123
Malik/Milcom was associated with child sacrifice in the Old Testament (2 Kings
23:10,13). He is referred to as the abomination of the Ammonites in 1 Kings 11:5,7,
and is specifically said to receive such sacrifices while residing in Sheol (Isa. 57:9).
Milcom was also worshipped at another demonic stronghold in Israelite thinkingthe
Valley of Hinnom. The phrase Valley of Hinnom in Hebrew is pronounced gehinnom.124 We get the word Gehenna from it, since that is the way it is referred to in
Greek in the New Testament. In New Testament theology this was Hell or Hades. GeHinnom in Hebrew most likely means valley of wailing, an understandable description
given the child sacrifice that took place there. The Valley of Hinnom was the place that
King Ahaz and king Manasseh sacrificed their own sons as burnt offerings to Molech (2
Chr 28:3; 33:6). These sacrifices took place at ritual centers called topheth (burning
place) and later the Valley of Hinnom became referred to by the place name Topheth
(Jer 7:32; 19:6).
The Valley of Hinnom was also geographically associated with a regional Rephaim
stronghold in Joshua 15:8. In describing the allotted land for the tribe of Judah, the writer
states, then the boundary goes up by the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the southern
184
shoulder of the Jebusite (that is, Jerusalem). And the boundary goes up to the top of the
mountain that lies over against the Valley of Hinnom, on the west, at the northern end of
the Valley of the Rephaim. In perhaps clearer terms, the Valley of the Rephaim lies
between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Its northern end opens into the Valley of Hinnom
(Gehenna), which is immediately south of Jerusalem. The Valley of the Rephaim is
mentioned in several passages in the Old Testament, and was often the place where the
Philistines gathered for battle.125 In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old
Testament, this valley is called Valley of the Giants (Greek, gigantes).
The Philistines, of course, are very familiar to readers due to the most famous giant in the
Bible, Goliath. We all know about Goliaths height, but is he specifically connected to
the Rephaim or the Anakimand hence the nephilimin any way? The answer is yes.
Recalling that Goliath was from Gath (1 Samuel 17:23), the following verses make the
connection quite clear, and in a sort of back door way, affirm yet again that the
Nephilim were considered giants, not normal human progeny:
Joshua 11 (ESV)
21
And Joshua 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. Joshua devoted them to destruction with their
cities. 22 There was none of the Anakim left in the land of the people of Israel.
Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some remain.
I Chronicles 20 (ESV)
4
And after this there arose war with the Philistines at Gezer. Then Sibbecai the
Hushathite struck down Sippai, who was one of the descendants of the giants (the
Hebrew text reads Rephaim), and the Philistines were subdued. 5 And there was
again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the
brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weavers beam.
6
And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who
had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number,
and he also was descended from the giants (the Hebrew text reads from the
Rapha the Rephaim). 7 And when he taunted Israel, Jonathan the son of
Shimea, Davids brother, struck him down. 8 These were descended from the
giants (the Hebrew text again reads from the Rapha the Rephaim) in Gath,
and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.
Groups on the Periphery
What about the other peoples mentioned in the lists of those populations to be displaced
by the Israelites, namely the Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites? It is not certain
that all these people were descended from the Nephilim, though it is suggested. Those
people who were clearly Nephilim descendants were to be eliminated. Others who lived
185
among them who might not be direct descendants of the Nephilim would suffer the same
fate since the chance of intermingling was high.
The Perizzites are mentioned a couple dozen times in the Old Testament, frequently in
connection with the Rephaim. That they lived among the Rephaim, or were perhaps
related to the Rephaim is evident by statements such as that in Joshua 17:15, And Joshua
said to them, If you are a numerous people, go up by yourselves to the forest, and there
clear ground for yourselves in the land of the Perizzites and the Rephaim, since the hill
country of Ephraim is too narrow for you. The Hivites are interesting due to the meaning
of their name, which has the same consonants in Hebrew as another common name for
snake. Unfortunately, the Old Testament doesnt elaborate on them or their name so we
dont know if this is coincidental. If the inclusion of this people group in the list of other
Nephilim descendants is more than coincidental, it is striking that the Hivites figure in
several notorious points of Israelite history: the rap of Jacobs daughter Dinah (Gen.
34:2) and the deception of Israel during the conquest (Josh. 9:1-7). The Jebusites are also
intriguing because of their name, and the fact that they were the inhabitants of Jerusalem
before David conquered the city for his capital. Jebusite literally means those who
trample. It is interesting to speculate if this was a way to describe unusually large
people, but it is speculation nonetheless. Finally, the word Hittite has two points of
reference in the Old Testament. In most cases (and the wars of Joshua would follow this
option) the word is very general, referring to the descendants of Heth, one of the sons of
Canaan (Gen 10:15). Because of this lineage, they were related to the Jebusites, the
Amorites, and the Hivites.
While it is not certain from these texts that these people also were unusually tall, it is
suggested by Numbers 13, the famous passage of the report of the Israelites spies sent out
by Moses to reconnoiter the land:
25
that we saw in it are of great height. 33 And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons
of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like
186
In verse 32 the spies tell Moses that all the people they saw in the land were of great
height. This could be a reference only to the sons of Anak in the following verse, but ti
could also be a comprehensive assessment. Amos 2:9-10, which we considered above,
would support the latter. One thing that seems pretty certain is that those who were
considered descendants of the Nephilim were targeted for destruction. You may still
doubt the idea, as weve only discussed the names and passages describing these clans.
The case is made even stronger when we consider the geographical areas put under the
ban by Yahweh as Joshua embarked on the conquest of the Promised Land.
116
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament ed. Robert Henry Charles; Bellingham, WA: Logos Research
Systems, Inc., 2004), 2:198.
117
See Joshua 13:30-31; Deut 1:4.
118
See Rephaim in K. van der Toorn et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible DDD, (2nd
extensively rev. ed.; Leiden; Boston; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
119
With regard to the wicked, see Numbers 16:30ff. For examples of the righteous going to Sheol, see Psa
88:1-7 (David).
120
This is not to say there was no concept of Heaven in the Old Testament. Although the Old Testament
concept of glory does not line up with the way modern preachers use that term, passages like Psalm
73:23-26 do speak of the righteous being in Gods presence and receiving reward. An excursus here on the
Old Testament concept of the afterlife would be too distracting. It is sufficient to note that it appears from
the Hebrew Bible that the Old Testament sees Sheol as the place where all the dead go and remain, the
righteous awaiting a future time of being present with God. Bringing the New Testament into play, the
Scripture suggests that the Old Testament righteous were not with the Lord until the resurrection of Christ.
This would account for the everyone is in Sheol idea of the Old Testament. For our purposes, then, it is
best to refer to Sheol as the other side or the spirit world, restricting our discussion to the Old
Testament concept.
121
Many scholars hold that the term Rephaim refers to both the generic human dead (good or bad) and
the spirits of the ancient giants. The basis for that position is that certain passages mentioning the Rephaim
in connection with Sheol do not describe the Rephaim as kings or warriorsthere is in fact little or no
elaboration on the term. I am not persuaded that this is the right way to view the Rephaim of Sheol. One
can just as well start with the specific passages that have the Rephaim as the spirits of the warrior kings of
old and then contend that the passages that lack these details do not contradict the others. My own position
is that all the Rephaim dead in Sheol are the spirits of the giant kings. In this regard I take Isaiah 26:19 as
an exception, consider this reference a rhetorical device. Isaiah 26:14 and 26:19 both refer to the Rephaim,
but the point appears to be wordplay for the resurrection to eternal life with Yahwehthe evil Rephaim
(mighty warriors) will not rise again; Yahwehs Rephaim (his loyal peoplehis mighty warriors)
will. Additionally, that the spirits of dead humans are called Rephaim does not mean that there is no
distinction between the departed normal human dead and the giant Rephaim dead. Ancient cultic and
liturgical texts from a wide variety of literatures used single terms for different categories. Another biblical
example would be the use of elohim for the departed spirit of Samuel (I Sam. 28:13). In this sense, like
Rephaim, the word elohim denotes a being inhabiting the spiritual plane of reality. Perhaps the word
187
man is illustrative. That word can be used to refer to all human beings, male or female, young or adult,
but is also used to point more precisely to adult human males. The generic use does not invalidate the more
precise use.
122
See DDD entry for Bashan for this point and what follows.
123
See DDD for the entry Malik.
124
See Josh 15:8; Neh 11:30. The place is also called Valley of the Son of Hinnom (Josh 15:8 [var.];
18:16; 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6; Jer 7:3132; 19:2, 6; 32:35).
125
Josh 15:8; 18:16; 2 Sam 5:1825 [1 Chr 14:816]; 2 Sam 23:13 [1 Chr 11:15].
188
Chapter 17
Devoted to Destruction
At the close of the last chapter I described the Nephilim descendants targeted for
destruction in the conquest of the Land as being put under the ban by Yahweh. The
phrase actually comes from a Hebrew term, kherem, translated variously in English
versions as cursed, devoted to destruction, devoted to Yahweh, or devoted to the
ban. The idea of kherem was that everything designated as put under kherem was to be
treated as a sacrifice to Yahwehto be utterly destroyed and burned. Leviticus 27:28-29
illustrates this idea: But no devoted thing (kherem) that a man devotes (kharam, the
verbal root) to the LORD, of anything that he has, whether man or beast, or of his
inherited field, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing (kherem) is most holy to
the LORD. No one devoted (kherem), who is to be devoted for destruction (kharam) from
mankind, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.
The point is that nothing under kherem was to be keptas Achan and his family sadly
found outfor it was devoted to Yahweh as an offering. When the concept of kherem
is connected to warfare, as in the case with Joshuas wars of conquest, the result is the
Old Testaments version of holy war, where Yahweh would claim ownership of all life
under kherem as a wage of war. In this chapter well explore the kherem concept in the
Old Testament as a further line of evidence that the conquest of the Promised Land is
connected to Nephilim lineages.
It is important that the calls for holy war be viewed against the backdrop of what Ive
called the Deuteronomy 32 worldviewthe disinheriting of the nations by Yahweh
and the immediately subsequent creation of his own nation, Israel. After Babel, the
biblical worldview has Yahwehs portion opposed to the nations created in conjunction
with the dispersion at Babel who were rejected by Yahweh and given over to other
elohim. The picture that emerges is that the disinherited nations became enslaved to
inferior, corrupt (Psalm 82) elohim by virtue of their worship of those gods and being cut
off from the true God, the God of Israel. Israel, of course, was just a people after Babel,
and soon wound up literally enslaved in Egypt. During the bondage in Egypt, the land
promised by Yahweh to his son became occupied Nephilim descendants (Gen 6:4) and
other peoples from the surrounding disinherited nations. The Land had to be cleared of
both adversaries, but especially the remnant seed of the fallen sons of God whose
presence was cast as an extension of the seed cursing (the seed of the nachash) and
blessing (seed of the woman, Eve) in the wake of the Fall (Gen. 3). The holy warthe
war for the seedline of the deliverer and the Land of Yahwehs human familyhad a
cosmic thrust that was unmistakable to the ancients who read the account.
Whats In a Name?
189
The very word kherem is connected to the Genesis 6 incident and the Nephilim. The
relationship would have been readily apparent to an Aramaic or Hebrew speaker.
Recalling that Hebrew originally had no vowels, kherem is spelled with three Hebrew
consonants, transliterated for our purposes as kh-r-m. The kh in our transliteration is
actually transliterated in academic literature more accurately as an h with a dot under
itbut the pronunciation is basically the kh sound. There is an ancient geographic
place name with these exact same consonantsplus a final n consonant typically used
in geographic place names names: kh-r-m-n.126 The place name kh-r-m-n is spelled
Hermon in EnglishMount Hermon, the mountain where, according to the
intertestamental Jewish book of 1 Enoch, the sons of God (the Watchers) descended
from heaven and subsequently cohabited with human women. According to 1 Enoch, the
mountain got its name because the Watchers were cursed (kharam) for what they had
done.127
Not only is Mount Hermon associated with the events of Genesis 6:1-4 in the noncanonical book of 1 Enoch, that association is also evident in the Old Testamentif you
know where to look and what youre looking at.
Mount Hermon is specifically described as the territory of one the giant clans discussed
in the previous chapter: the Amorites. Deuteronomy 3:8-9 tells us, So we took the land
at that time out of the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the
Jordan, from the Valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon 9 (the Sidonians call Hermon
Sirion, while the Amorites call it Senir).
Mount Hermon was also associated with Baal worship and evil serpentine cults. The cult
center Baal-Hermon is mentioned several times in the Old Testament (e.g., Judges 3:3; 1
Chron. 5:23). The former of these passages describes the nations that were to be driven
out of the Land by Israel in a way that interests us here: These are the nations: the five
lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites and the Sidonians and the Hivites who lived
on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon as far as Lebo-hamath (see also Josh.
11:3). The proper noun Hivite, as you may recall from the last chapter, has the same
consonants as a common Semitic word for snake. Further, Senir, the Amorite name for
Mount Hermon (Deut. 3:8-9), was actually part of a mountainous region that included the
infamous place of the serpent discussed in an earlier chapter, Bashan: The members of
the half-tribe of Manasseh lived in the land. They were very numerous from Bashan to
Baal-hermon, Senir, and Mount Hermon (1 Chron. 5:23).
Initial Failure
We read in earlier chapters about the failure of the Israelites to enter the Land when ten
of the twelve spies sent out by Moses returned to the camp at Kadesh and reported that
the Land was filled with the tall, powerful Anakim, descendants of the Nephilim. The ten
spies convinced the people that the Anakim could not be defeated:
Numbers 13
190
25
that we saw in it are of great height. 33 And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons
of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like
Deuteronomy 1:26-33 also records the report of the spies, and Yahweh challenged the
Israelites to defeat the Anakim: Do not be in dread or afraid of them. The LORD your
God who goes before you will himself fight for you, just as he did for you in Egypt
before your eyes (Deut. 1:29-30). Israel refused to trust their God, and as a result of their
lack of faith, the Amorites chased them away like bees (Deut. 1:44) and Yahweh sent
the nation wandering in the desert until the unbelieving generation would die off. But the
enemy remained, and would still need to be confronted.
Getting Back on the Horse
After nearly forty years of wandering, Yahweh brought the Israelites back to the same
location of Kadesh (Numbers 20:1) where Israel had faltered. Moses requests passage
through the country of Edom, whose inhabitants were related to the Israelites through
Esau, Jacobs brother, but the king of Edom refused (Num. 20:14-21). Moses brother
Aaron died shortly thereafter, and Israel was attacked by the king of Arad, whose city
was devoted to destruction in response (Num. 21:1-3).
Eventually, the people left Kadesh and proceeded along the border of Edom, coming to
the land of Moab, which was under the control of the Amorites, a giant clan led by king
Sihon. As he had done with Edom, Moses asked permission to pass through Moabite
territory, but was again rebuffed (Num. 21:21-23). Moses had been told that Edom and
Moab were not to be conquered, since that territory had been given to Abrahams
nephew, Lot. Amazingly, even before the wandering nation arrived at this point in their
journey, Yahweh had providentially cleared the land of Nephilim descendants, not for the
people directly descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacobthe Israelitesbut for more
distant relatives of the divinely chosen patriarchs.128 Apparently the separation between
191
anyone related to Yahwehs portion, his elect people, was to be strictly enforced to cut
off any route of lineage infection. In Deuteronomy 2 we read:
8
So we [the Israelites] went on, away from our brothers, the people of Esau, who
live in Seir, away from the Arabah road from Elath and Ezion-geber. And we
turned and went in the direction of the wilderness of Moab. 9 And the LORD said
to me, Do not harass Moab or contend with them in battle, for I will not give you
any of their land for a possession, because I have given Ar to the people of Lot for
a possession. 10 (The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and
tall as the Anakim. 11 Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the
Moabites call them Emim. 12 The Horites also lived in Seir formerly, but the
people of Esau dispossessed them and destroyed them from before them and
settled in their place, as Israel did to the land of their possession, which the LORD
gave to them.) 13 Now rise up and go over the brook Zered. So we went over the
brook Zered. 14 And the time from our leaving Kadesh-barnea until we crossed the
brook Zered was thirty-eight years, until the entire generation, that is, the men of
war, had perished from the camp, as the LORD had sworn to them. 15 For indeed
the hand of the LORD was against them, to destroy them from the camp, until they
had perished. 16 So as soon as all the men of war had perished and were dead
from among the people, 17 the LORD said to me, 18 Today you are to cross the
border of Moab at Ar. 19 And when you approach the territory of the people of
Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of
the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the
sons of Lot for a possession. 20 (It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim
formerly lived therebut the Ammonites call them Zamzummim21 a people
great and many, and tall as the Anakim; but the LORD destroyed them before the
Ammonites, and they dispossessed them and settled in their place.
Like Edom and Moab, Israel was not to harass the Ammonites, for their land had been
granted to Lot and his descendants. There was one problem, though. While certain of the
Nephilim descendants had already been driven out, more had moved inthe Amorites
and now blocked the way through Ammonite territory. Numbers 21:21-23 describes the
situation:
Numbers 21
21
Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, saying, 22 Let me
pass through your land. We will not turn aside into field or vineyard. We will not
drink the water of a well. We will go by the Kings Highway until we have passed
through your territory. 23 But Sihon would not allow Israel to pass through his
territory. He gathered all his people together and went out against Israel to the
wilderness and came to Jahaz and fought against Israel.
Gods response and the ensuing rout of the enemy under Moses is given in both Numbers
21:21-23 and Deuteronomy 2:24-25:
192
Numbers 21
And Israel defeated him with the edge of the sword and took possession of his
land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, as far as to the Ammonites, for the border of
the Ammonites was strong. 25 And Israel took all these cities, and Israel settled in
all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all its villages. 26 For Heshbon
was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former
king of Moab and taken all his land out of his hand, as far as the Arnon.
Deuteronomy 2
24
Rise up, set out on your journey and go over the Valley of the Arnon. Behold,
I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land.
Begin to take possession, and contend with him in battle. 25 This day I will begin
to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven,
who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of
you.
Moses apparently asked for safe passage through Moab (Num. 21:21-22), since the
territory had been given to Lot. He may not have known that the Amorites were there, a
people whom Yahweh had said must be eliminated, and who were of unusual height
(Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height
of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above and his roots
beneath). A better answer is that God used this occasion to harden the heart of the
Amorite king before punishing him, as he had done with Pharaoh earlier. God had told
Abraham that the bondage in Egypt would serve to build up Gods wrath against the
Amorites (Gen. 15:16 the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete). Well, it was
complete now. Judgment day had come.
The annihilation of Sihon, king of the Amorite giant clan is chronicled in Numbers
21:23-26:
23
But Sihon would not allow Israel to pass through his territory. He gathered all
his people together and went out against Israel to the wilderness and came to
Jahaz and fought against Israel. 24 And Israel defeated him with the edge of the
sword and took possession of his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, as far as to
the Ammonites, for the border of the Ammonites was strong. 25 And Israel took
all these cities, and Israel settled in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and
in all its villages. 26 For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites,
who had fought against the former king of Moab and taken all his land out of his
hand, as far as the Arnon.
Sihons ally, Og of Bashan, was next. This territory was not part of Lots inheritance.
After the defeat of Sihon, Og of Bashan attacked the Israelites and came to the same end.
The incident is chronicled in Numbers 21:31-35 and Deuteronomy 3:
193
Numbers 21
31
Thus Israel lived in the land of the Amorites. 32 And Moses sent to spy out
Jazer, and they captured its villages and dispossessed the Amorites who were
there. 33 Then they turned and went up by the way to Bashan. And Og the king of
Bashan came out against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 34 But the
LORD said to Moses, Do not fear him, for I have given him into your hand, and
all his people, and his land. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of
the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon. 35 So they defeated him and his sons and all
his people, until he had no survivor left. And they possessed his land.
Deuteronomy 3
1
Then we turned and went up the way to Bashan. And Og the king of Bashan
came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 2 But the LORD said
to me, Do not fear him, for I have given him and all his people and his land into
your hand. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon the king of the Amorites,
who lived at Heshbon. 3 So the LORD our God gave into our hand Og also, the
king of Bashan, and all his people, and we struck him down until he had no
survivor left. 4 And we took all his cities at that timethere was not a city that we
did not take from themsixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of
Og in Bashan. 5 All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars,
besides very many unwalled villages. 6 And we devoted them to destruction, as
we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, devoting to destruction every city, men,
women, and children. 7 But all the livestock and the spoil of the cities we took as
our plunder. 8 So we took the land at that time out of the hand of the two kings of
the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, from the Valley of the Arnon to
Mount Hermon 9 (the Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, while the Amorites call it
Senir), 10 all the cities of the tableland and all Gilead and all Bashan, as far as
Salecah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 11 (For only Og the
king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed
of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four
cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit.)
The focus could not be clearer. Before Moses and the Israelites ever even set foot in the
Promised Land, the area on the other side of Jordan, the Transjordan, had to be cleared
of the Nephilim bloodlines. The idea of the seed of the nachash is also in view here
since, as noted in the last chapter, Bashan and the cities of Ashtaroth and Edrei,
mentioned several times in these passages, were considered the place of the serpent and
the gateway to the abode of the infernal deified Rephaim spirits. This demonic geography
had to be redeemedbrought back into Yahwehs kingdom. And once several of Israels
tribes settled in these Transjordanian regions, it was.129
194
The Wars of Joshua

Most readers will recall that soon after these victories, Moses died, without every having
stepped into the Promised Land. Some geographical orientation will be helpful as we
walk through Joshuas conquest:
195
A few observations are in order. The Transjordan having been conquered, God directs
Joshua to enter the Promised Land at its center, at Jericho. A central military campaign
would have the immediate effect of separating the cities of the north and south regions
divide and conquer. This is precisely the way Joshua took the land, and the agenda was
apparently the same.
Joshuas first goal was Jericho, which was devoted to destruction after the familiar
episode with Rahab the prostitute and the seven days of encircling the city (Josh. 2:1525). He then moved to Ai, where failure to devote everything in the city to destruction on
the part of Achan resulted in an Israelite defeat (Josh. 7:1-5). After the sin was dealt with,
Ai was totally destroyed, devoted to destruction, in a subsequent battle (Josh. 8).
Joshua then moved south into what was known as the hill country, as the map below
illustrates:
196
The southern campaign is described in Joshua 10. Part of that chapter reads as follows,
and the kherem concept is clear:
29
Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Makkedah to Libnah and
fought against Libnah. 30 And the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of
Israel. And he struck it with the 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.
31
Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Libnah to Lachish and laid
siege to it and fought against it. 32 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 in it, as he had done to Libnah. 33 Then Horam king of
Gezer came up to help Lachish. And Joshua struck him and his people, until he
left none remaining. 34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from
Lachish to Eglon. And they laid siege to it and fought against it. 35 And they
captured it on that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword. And he devoted
every person in it to destruction that day, as he had done to Lachish. 36 Then
Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron. And they fought
against it 37 and captured it and struck it with the edge of the sword, and 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. 38 Then Joshua and all
Israel with him turned back to Debir and fought against it 39 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 remaining. Just as he
197
had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king.
40
So Joshua struck the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the
lowland and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but devoted to
destruction all that breathed, just as the LORD God of Israel commanded. 41 And
Joshua struck them from Kadesh-barnea as far as Gaza, and all the country of
Goshen, as far as Gibeon. 42 And Joshua captured all these kings and their land at
one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. 43 Then Joshua
returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal.
After the invasion of the southern hill country, Joshua went north and carried out the
same plan:
Joshua 11
When Jabin, king of Hazor, heard of this, he sent to Jobab king of Madon, and to
the king of Shimron, and to the king of Achshaph, 2 and to the kings who were in
the northern hill country, and in the Arabah south of Chinneroth, and in the
lowland, and in Naphoth-dor on the west, 3 to the Canaanites in the east and the
198
west, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, and the Jebusites in the hill
country, and the Hivites under Hermon in the land of Mizpah. 4 And they came
out with all their troops, a great horde, in number like the sand that is on the
seashore, with very many horses and chariots. 5 And all these kings joined their
forces and came and encamped together at the waters of Merom to fight with
Israel. 6 And the LORD said to Joshua, Do not be afraid of them, for tomorrow at
this time I will give over all of them, slain, to Israel. You shall hamstring their
horses and burn their chariots with fire. 7 So Joshua and all his warriors came
suddenly against them by the waters of Merom and fell upon them. 8 And the
LORD gave them into the hand of Israel, who struck them and chased them as far
as Great Sidon and Misrephoth-maim, and eastward as far as the Valley of
Mizpeh. And they struck them until he left none remaining. 9 And Joshua did to
them just as the LORD said to him: he hamstrung their horses and burned their
chariots with fire. 10 And Joshua turned back at that time and captured Hazor and
struck its king with the sword, for Hazor formerly was the head of all those
kingdoms. 11 And they struck with the sword all who were in it, devoting them to
destruction; there was none left that breathed. And he burned Hazor with fire. 12
And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua captured, and struck
them with the edge of the sword, devoting them to destruction, just as Moses the
servant of the LORD had commanded. 13 But none of the cities that stood on
mounds did Israel burn, except Hazor alone; that Joshua burned. 14 And all the
spoil of these cities and the livestock, the people of Israel took for their plunder.
But every man they struck with the edge of the sword until they had destroyed
them, and they did not leave any who breathed. 15 Just as the LORD had
commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did.
He left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses.
The destruction seems wanton, but who was Joshua after in the campaign through the hill
country? The answer comes in Joshua 11:21-23.
21
And Joshua 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. Joshua devoted them to destruction with their
cities. 22 There was none of the Anakim left in the land of the people of Israel.
Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some remain. 23 So Joshua took the
whole land, according to all that the LORD had spoken to Moses. And Joshua gave
it for an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land had
rest from war.
The wording of this passage is interesting. The passage specifically wants the reader to
know that all these campaigns resulted in wiping out all the descendants of the Anakim
giants, who were in turn descendants of the Nephilim according to Numbers 13:33. As if
this were not enough to draw the readers attention to the Nephilim bloodlines, the writer
adds, Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some of the Anakim remain. Why add
that note? Because those cities were cities of the Philistines who also had such bloodlines
(Rephaim) in their midst, as the lineage of Goliath the Gittite (i.e., from Gath) tells
us very plainly, along with several other passages.130 The territory controlled by the
199
Philistines was part of the Promised Land and was therefore to be conquered as well, but
Joshua grew old before those sites could be taken (Josh. 13:1-7). It is also interesting that
the Hivites and Mount Hermon are again mentioned.
All of this evidence points to the idea that, while specific regions and people groups are
listed in various passages to be devoted to destruction, the real target were the Nephilim
bloodlines. At times these individuals were concentrated in specific cities and areas; at
others they were mingled with other peoples. But whenever editorial details about who
was being targeted are offered, the details note a blood relationship to the Nephilim or the
unusual height of the people devoted to destruction. It is difficult to see this as
coincidental, especially in light of the cosmic narrative that precedesand follows.
126
See pages 355-356 in Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) Hebrew-English lexicon for the relationship of these
words.
127
See Nickelsburgs Hermeneia commentary (177) regarding the wordplay.
128
See Gen 11:27-31; 12:4-5.
129
See Numbers 32; Deut 3:12-17.
130
See the next chapter, as well as Josh. 13:2-3; 1 Sam. 17:4, 23; 2 Sam. 21:15-22; 1 Chron. 20:4-8.
200
Chapter 18
Divine Kingship
During the chaotic period that followed Joshuas death described in the book of Judges,
there was no single ruler of Israel. Israel had been abandoned by the visible Yahweh, who
had physically led them for 40 years after the escape from Pharaoh, for refusing to drive
out the nachash-seed from the Land. This judgment was rendered at a place called
Bochim, which means weeping, and is recorded in Judges 2:1-5.
Now the Angel of Yahweh went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, I
brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to
your fathers. I said, I will never break my covenant with you, 2 and you shall
make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their
altars. But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done? 3 So now
I say, I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your
sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you. 4 As soon as the angel of Yahweh
spoke these words to all the people of Israel, the people lifted up their voices and
wept. 5 And they called the name of that place Bochim. And they sacrificed there
to the LORD.
In effect, Israel learned what it would be like to not have Yahwehs presence or a
divinely-appointed human leader with them during this period. They were overrun by
their enemies among the disinherited nations and enslaved. Yahweh periodically raised
up localized heroes (judges) as military deliverers so Israel was not wiped out, but it
was a bad situation. It wasnt until the WORD of Yahweh decided to return in the days of
Samuel that things changed (see Chapter 9). Samuel was the last judge, but was also a
prophet, priest, and Yahwehs chosen king-anointer.
The Seeds of Kingship
Our view of kingship in Israel is in fact often filtered through Samuel. Ive argued that
having a divinely appointed human co-ruler (a king) was something Yahweh decided to
do in part of the goal of restoring his Edenic kingdom. But in 1 Samuel 8 when the
people demand that the elderly Samuel appoint a king in his place as his own death
approaches, Samueland God as wellclearly dont like the idea. How do we
understand this? The fact is that we have simply misread 1 Samuel 8 and Samuels
reaction. The tension is resolved in the biblical text. The problem was not the request for
a king, but in the motive behind the request. The issue is what kind of king was
appropriate, not whether Israel should have a king or not.
201
Scripture is quite clear that God intended Israel to have kings. It is significant that from
the beginning of Gods call of Abraham, his reconstitution of an earthly family that
would result in a return to the Edenic notion of a divine-human council on earth under
Yahweh, the promise of kings was given to the patriarchs. The biblical text includes
several specific instances where God included kings in the promises and blessings for
Abraham and his family. The passages below are all set before the demand for a king by
the people in Samuels day:
Genesis 17:1-8, 15-16
1
When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to
him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make
my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly. 3 Then Abram
fell on his face. And God said to him, 4 Behold, my covenant is with you, and
you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be
called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of
a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you
into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant
between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for
an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I
will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all
the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God . . . 15
And God said to Abraham, As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name
Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will give
you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples
shall come from her.
Genesis 35:9-12
9
God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed
him. 10 And God said to him, Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be
called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name. So he called his name Israel. 11 And
God said to him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a
company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own
body. 12 The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will
give the land to your offspring after you.
Genesis 49:10
10
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the rulers staff from between his
feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
Numbers 24:5-7
202
How lovely are your tents, O Jacob, your encampments, O Israel! 6 Like palm
groves that stretch afar, like gardens beside a river, like aloes that the LORD has
planted, like cedar trees beside the waters. 7 Water shall flow from his buckets,
and his seed shall be in many waters; his king shall be higher than Agag, and his
kingdom shall be exalted.131
Deuteronomy 17:14-20
14
When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you
possess it and dwell in it and then say, I will set a king over me, like all the
nations that are around me, 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the
LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king
over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only
he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to
Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, You shall
never return that way again. 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself,
lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
18
And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a
book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19 And it shall be with
him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the
LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing
them, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not
turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he
may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.
Kingship was clearly in the picture before the time of Samuel. The last passage, Deut.
17:14-20, lays out rules for the kind of king that Israel should have. So what was the
problem in 1 Samuel 8 with respect to both Samuels and Gods response to the demand
of the people? Notice the objection in 1 Samuel 8:19-20: But the people refused to obey
the voice of Samuel. And they said, No! But there shall be a king over us, that we also
may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight
our battles. The issue was that, contrary to Gods promise that he would fight their
battles and protect Israel in the Land he had promised, Israel couldnt stand the fact that
they had no human military deliverer. They couldnt handle the idea that when a foreign
power threatened them, they had no commander-in-chief- but their God. They also appear
to have rejected the elders placed over them in Moses day as a national administration.
The biblical idea of a king was one who would be the chief agent of Yahweh in living out
the law of God (see below on the edut), upholding Yahwehs covenants, and judging
righteously. When threatened, the king would ask Yahweh for deliverance and not trust
in his own army or help from foreign armies. This is why Deut. 17:14-20 forbids
multiplying horses (for a cavalry), wives (creating foreign alliances with the disinherited
nations), and wealth (to pay mercenaries or tribute to foreign kings). Thats what all the
other kings of the earth didand thats the kind of king the people wanted from Samuel.
Gods King, Gods Son
203
Readers are probably familiar with certain passages in the Old Testament that state that
the king of Israel was the son of God. These passages are commonly cited in discussions
of the concept of the Messiah, but little is said beyond that connection. While the
Messiah is certainly the ultimate king of Israel, these passages affirm the idea that the
kings of Israel (those from Davids line) were also viewed as sons of God. Below are the
major texts in this regard.
2 Samuel 7:10-17
10
And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may
dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no
more, as formerly, 11 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I
will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the
LORD will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your
fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I
will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the
throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.
When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of
the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul,
whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made
sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever. 17 In accordance with
all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.
Psalm 2:
1
10
Why do the nations rage

and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying,
Let us burst their bonds apart
and cast away their cords from us.
He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the Lord holds them in derision.
Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying,
As for me, I have set my King
on Zion, my holy hill.
I will tell of the decree:
The LORD said to me, You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potters vessel.
Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
204
11
12
be warned, O rulers of the earth.

Serve the LORD with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Psalm 45
1
My heart overflows with a pleasing theme;

I address my verses to the king;
my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe.
You are the most handsome of the sons of men;
grace is poured upon your lips;
therefore God has blessed you forever.
Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one,
in your splendor and majesty!
In your majesty ride out victoriously
for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness;
let your right hand teach you awesome deeds!
Your arrows are sharp
in the heart of the kings enemies;
the peoples fall under you.
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.
The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;
Psalm 89:19-29
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Of old you spoke in a vision to your godly one, and said:

I have granted help to one who is mighty;
I have exalted one chosen from the people.
I have found David, my servant;
with my holy oil I have anointed him,
so that my hand shall be established with him;
my arm also shall strengthen him.
The enemy shall not outwit him;
the wicked shall not humble him.
I will crush his foes before him
and strike down those who hate him.
My faithfulness and my steadfast love shall be with him,
and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
I will set his hand on the sea
205
26
27
28
29
and his right hand on the rivers.

He shall cry to me, You are my Father,
my God, and the Rock of my salvation.
And I will make him the firstborn,
the highest of the kings of the earth.
My steadfast love I will keep for him forever,
and my covenant will stand firm for him.
I will establish his offspring forever
and his throne as the days of the heavens.
This sort of divine sonship language used of human beings isnt unique. We saw much
earlier that Israel as a nation was corporately referred to as the son of Yahweh. Moses
boldly told Pharaoh that Yahweh demanded, Let my son go that he may serve me
(Exod. 4:23). Hoseas famous statement is no doubt more familiar: When Israel was a
child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I called my son (Hosea 11:1). Elsewhere Hosea
expresses the same idea, Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand
of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to
them, You are not my people, it shall be said to them, Children of the living God
(Hosea 1:10).
The point in all these cases is not that every Israelite was deity incarnated, but that
Yahweh considered these humans to be his own childrenadopting them as it were.132
The king of Israel was a special case, though. While Yahweh has many human children,
only the kingspecifically Davidis referred to as the firstborn according to Psalm 89
(v. 27). Although many take this term to denote chronological origin in their effort to
deny the eternality of Jesus, to whom these divine kingship and divine Sonship passages
are applied by New Testament writers, it is clear that origin or chronology is not in view.
David was not the chronological firstborn in his own family, nor was he the first king.
The term refers to statusspecifically, it designates the inheritance of the kingly office
and Davids position as the starting point for a dynasty.
Divine Council Connections
There are other intriguing details about the king to be found in these and other texts,
several of which link his office to divine council terms weve seen before. Psalm 89:27
has God declaring I will make him [David] the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the
earth. The word highest in this verse is elyon, (Most High) the term used of God in
several places, including Psalm 82:6, perhaps the most explicit divine council passage in
the Old Testament. The fact that this title, elyon, is attributed to the Israelite king is
significant. Note that the king is elyon on the earth, over the rulers of the disinherited
nations.133 Just as both the invisible and visible Yahwehs are superior to and have
ultimate rule over the sons of God who have power over the disinherited nations, so the
human co-ruler son of God has authority over those nations under Yahwehs sovereignty.
The human king is, in fact, the human counterpart to the visible Yahweh. While Yahweh
appeared as a human being in the Old Testament, the king of Israel was a human being
206
with divine status. Both of these elements of course are merged in the incarnation of
Jesus, the ultimate visible manifestation of Yahweh and the king of Israel, and the
ultimate co-ruler and imager of God.134
In Psalm 2:8 we read that Yahweh will make the disinherited nations the inheritance
(heritage) of the Israelite king (Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession). Thus this Israelite king, who, as a human
being was created a little lower than the elohim (Psa. 8:5) is destined to rule the nations
allotted to the lesser elohim who received them at the judgment of the tower of Babel
described in Deut. 32:8-9. As well see in subsequent chapters, both of these themes recur
in the New Testament with respect to all believersthose who follow Christ will rule
over angels (1 Cor. 6:3) having been adopted into Gods family. They are set over the
nations at the time of the end (Rev. 2:26).
Returning briefly to Psalm 89, it is fascinating to note that this dominion of the Israelite,
Davidic king is ratified and guaranteed by the divine councilspecifically one member.
We saw above in 2 Samuel 7 that Yahweh made a covenant promise with David that the
rightful kings of Israel would only come through Davids dynastic family line. Only a son
of David could rightfully claim to be divinely-ordained to sit on the throne of Israel.
Psalm 89 reiterates this covenant in detail. In Psalm 89:35-37, after all the terms of
Yahwehs covenant with David have been spelled out again we read:
35 "Once I have sworn by my Holy One;
I will not lie to David.
36 "His descendants shall be forever
And his throne as the sun before me.
37 "It shall be established forever like the moon,
And the witness in the clouds will be faithful."
The key to understanding this small section of Psalm 89 are the two underlined portions.
Notice how the passage has certain parallel elements, which I've marked by letters and
indenting:
207
A I have sworn by my Holy One;

B I will not lie to David.
C "His descendants shall be forever
C his throne (shall be) as the sun before me.
C "It [his throne] shall be established forever like the moon,
A And a witness in the clouds will be faithful."
Translations disagree on the underlined portions.135 Many have "by my holiness" for the
first underline, but that makes little sense in light of the literary parallelism. It seems that
Yahweh has sworn by a person (a witness) in the second underlining, which calls for a
person being "sworn by" in the first underlining. All that is needed to arrive at "my Holy
One" is to change the vowel marks in the Hebrew at this point to conform it to "Holy
One," a description found elsewhere in the Old Testament.
What we have here is Yahweh swearing a covenantal oath to David and guaranteeing that
oath by some witness in the clouds. In the ancient Near East, this language was quite
common. It is not hard to find treaties and covenants between two human parties or
between a human party and a god that have other gods (at times even described as
members of a pagan religions version of a divine council) witnessing to or guaranteeing
the terms of the covenant.
At first glance, you might wonder how this could work in Israels faith. The idea that a
covenant Yahweh made would be backed up some other heavenly being sounds odd,
since it seems to suggest that Yahweh might not be able to fulfill the covenant or might
not want to at some pointlike he needs his feet held to the fire. After all, in Hebrews
6:13-20 we are told in no uncertain terms that since Yahweh could swear by no one
greater in his promises to Abraham, he swore by himself in those covenant promises.
That should settle it, or so we would think. But then theres Psalm 89.
If you give it some thought, it should be apparent as to who the second guarantor of
Yahwehs covenant is. The logical choice is the one weve seen again and again in our
journey through the Old Testamentthe second Yahweh. Its getting a little ahead of
ourselves to point out how the New Testament handles Psalm 89:35-37, but its worth
throwing in a spoiler or two. The New Testament tells us plainly that the faithful
witness in the clouds is the incarnated second Yahweh, Jesus. This would make perfect
sense since it is Jesus, the ultimate descendant of David who merges deity and humanity
into the office of the King of Israeland all the other nations as Psalm 89:27 shows us
into one person. In Revelation 1:4 we read:
208
4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him
who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are
before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the
dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.
For one final divine council connection with Israelite kingship, you may recall from our
the brief discussion several chapters ago about the Mosaic Law that Israel was at times
called the adat Israel, the assembly of Israel. The word adat in that phrase is the same
word for the divine council in Psalm 82. The Law dispensed in the presence of the
divine adat at Sinai is often called the edut same consonants but different vowels, since
both words come from the same basic root in Hebrew.136 Since the tablets of the Law
handed to Moses by the visible Yahweh on Sinai were at first kept in the Tent of Meeting
and then the Tabernacle, inside the ark of the covenant, all these items also came to be
referred to as the edut.137 There was therefore a verbal and mental connection established
between Yahweh and the divine council on Sinai and these things. With this review as
backdrop, notice the description of the coronation of King Joash in 2 Kings 11:9-12. The
wording of my translation below is a bit awkward, but I have deliberately literalized the
text to draw attention to the word edut:
Then he brought out the kings son and put on him the crown (nezer) and the
testimony (edut). And they installed him as king and anointed him, and they
clapped the hands and said, May the king live!
Most English translations have something like the ESV (Then he brought out the kings
son and put the crown on him and gave him the testimony. And they proclaimed him king
and anointed him, and they clapped their hands and said, Long live the king!). Such a
wording makes it sound as though the edut was given to the king (gave him the edut),
but the words gave him do not exist in the Hebrew text. The verb translated put on
refers to both the nezer (crown) and the edut (they are both direct objects of that verb).
This means that, like the crown, the edut was something worn by the king.
Scholars have disputed what this object was. Nezer (crown) is the same word used of
the headdress worn by the high priest (Lev. 8:9). That nezer had a gold plate with an
inscription on it that read holy to Yahweh (Exod. 39:30). This mixture of nezer plus
written inscription has led scholars to speculate that the edut may have been a plaque
with an inscription. My own view is that, since the edut was a term for the tablets of the
law, the edut worn by the king may have been a scapula or pendant worn by the king in
the shape of the tablets or inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The speculation isnt
important, though. What is more significant is the identification of the king, the earthly
son of God and the one set over the fallen sons of God and their nations, is identified with
the Law delivered by the visible Yahweh and the divine council at Sinai. The king is the
chief bearer, enforcer, and lover of the Law, and is effectively the chief human liaison
between Yahweh and the divine council. Once again, all these ideas are found in
descriptions of Jesus in the New Testament.
209
As we look back on the last two chapters, we can see the interrelationships between the
invisible Yahweh, the visible Yahweh, the idea of the divine status of Israels human
king, the divine council, the 70 elders, and the corporate children of Yahweh. But less
than a century after David took the throne, Israel plunged itself into worshipping idols
and rejecting the God who had created them and redeemed them from Egypt. The gods of
the nations would have their way.
210
131
The reference to Agag is to king Agag the Amalekite, whom Samuel killed after Saul refused to do so (1
Sam. 15). This indicates that this passage, though in the Pentateuch, was written after the time of Moses.
That said, it is placed in the text prior to the request for a king.
132
This is the backdrop to the New Testament idea of the believers adoption as sons and daughters of God.
See Chapter 25.
133
Psalm 89 actually follows the order of a divine council scene in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Following the
parallels is quite instructive, since the deity co-ruler under the high God at Ugarit is paralleled by Yahwehs
visual divine co-regent AND the human Israelite king.
134
See Chapter 21 for a fuller exposition of how these kingship themes are tied to Jesus in the New
Testament.
135
English translations disagree at these points in this passage for very technical reasons. See the detailed
discussion of the issues in this passage at www.themyththatistrue.com.
136
See for example Exod. 31:18; 32:15; 34:29; Psa 19:7; 119:88; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chron. 23:11.
137
See for example Exod. 16:34; 25:16, 21-22; 26:33-34; 27:21; 30:26; 31:7; 38:21; 40:3; Num 1:50; 9:15.
211
Chapter 19
Standing in the Council
At the close of the last chapter, we left the Israelites on the cusp of conquering the
Promised Land under the leadership of Moses and Joshua. Before we get into Israels
glory days under David and Solomon, we need to pause for a moment to explore a very
important theme in the Old Testaments cosmic narrative: the initiation and validation of
human beings for divine service. You may not realize it, but there is a distinct pattern to
Yahwehs sovereign choice of human leaders, a pattern that includes the divine council.
To discern the full implications of this pattern, it is vital to first understand what is meant
by the term prophet. Prophets are often thought of as people who, with Gods
assistance, foretold the future. Forecasting future events was actually a very small part of
what prophetic figures did and what they were about. To speak prophetically in the fullblown biblical sense meant simply to be a spokesperson for Godto be Gods
mouthpiece to his people and to the enemies of his people. At times that involved
functioning as a divine oracle and foretelling the future. Most of the time, though, it
meant speaking judgment and motivating the people of God to live the way God wanted
them to live. Additionally, it should also be noted that prophets served as examples of
godliness to their people. Prophets were people of exceptional righteousness and held to
very high standards of accountability by God.
We tend to think of prophets as coming along in the biblical story after the days of the
judges, who were temporary military and spiritual leaders prior to the time when Israel
had kings. The last of the judges was Samuel, but Samuel also served as a priest and was
called by God to be a prophet (1 Sam. 3:20). Since Samuel is a transitional figure from
the time of the judges to the establishment of the first king in Israel, Samuel is thought of
as the first prophet. This isnt actually the case. Prophets go all the way back to the
beginning.
Jesus affirmed as much when 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 11:49-51). Adam, of course, was the initial 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, whom we are told was in the likeness and
image of his father, Adam. That terminology comes from Genesis 1:26, and it isnt
coincidental. All humans are divine imagers, but in our fallen condition we often dont
image God as we are able and as he intended. We need divine intervention or divinely
appointed leadership to keep us on track, to keep us from wanting to be as God on our
own terms. God has always chosen righteous leaders for that purposeto speak
prophetically about doing Gods will, denouncing sin, and impede us from following
other lesser gods who promise to give us what only the true God can give us.
212
All of the figures weve talked about to this pointAdam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Moses, Joshua, and Samuelshould therefore be thought of as prophets, spokesmen for
God. They didnt just stumble into the job, either. They all had something specific in
common that marked them out as prophetsa direct encounter with the visible Yahweh
and members of the divine council. Lets go back to Eden where the threads of this divine
job interview begin.
The First Prophet
We saw in Chapter Three that Eden was considered the dwelling place of Yahweh, and
that human beings were originally intended to be part of the divine council on earth. To
see where Yahweh is or lives is to find oneself in his throne room, and throne room
scenes in the Old Testament include Yahwehs council. Eden was where Yahweh held
court, the place from which Yahweh ruled. We readily recall that it was in the garden
where Yahweh decreed that humankind would be created as his imagers, but what may
not be as obvious is that Adam met with the divine council in conjunction with his own
role as a mediating, prophetic human figure on earth. We learn this from Job 15:7-8,
where we hear Eliphaz, one of Jobs friends, ask Job, Are you the first man who was
born? Or were you brought forth before the hills? Have you listened in the council of
God? Have you restricted wisdom to yourself?
The questions are obviously rhetorical. They each anticipate no for an answer by using
contrast. Of course Job was not the first manAdam was. Job had not listened in the
council of God (Hebrew, sod eloah)but the rhetorical contrast implies that Adam had
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 Gods intent for human beings to be his
earthly children and human members of his council. We saw how all this came to a
screeching halt in Chapter 4, when the nachash, a member of the council, caused Adam
and Eve to sin, resulting in their expulsion from the place of council.
There are other clues in Genesis and elsewhere that Adam regularly experienced the
presence of God and his council. Adam lived in Eden, and Eden was where God and his
council were, moment by moment. We read in Genesis 3:8 that Adam and Eve could hear
the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. This
walking terminology can be construed two ways, both of which are valid in my
judgment. Spirits dont walk. Given all the evidence weve already seen for how
Yahweh appeared as a human to have direct contact with humans, this could be a very
early instance of the second Yahwehthe Yahweh in human formbeing directly
present with Adam and Eve. Another possibility is that this language is figurative and
speaks of the presence of God more generally. If this were the case, it would be akin to
Adam and Eve being able to hear or experience Yahweh as he governed from Eden, the
place where the council met.
Our discussion in Chapter 11 also helps us understand that the walking language here
denotes the presence of Yahweh in his cosmic throne room. In that chapter we saw that
213
the descriptions of Eden and Yahwehs cosmic mountainthe place where the divine
council metshowed up in descriptions of the tabernacle and the temple. As we saw in
Chapter 11, it is as thought the temple, and in particular the holy of holies, was the place
where heaven and earth metthe peak of the cosmic mountain, the gateway to another
plane of reality.
It may come as a surprise, but the description of Yahweh walking is also used of Gods
active presence inside Israels tabernacle, creating another link between Eden, the cosmic
mountain, and the tabernacle sanctuary.138 In Leviticus 26:11-12 we read, I will make
my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you
and will be your God, and you shall be my people. 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 isnt literally
describing God glad-handing with the Israelites like a politician stumping for votes.
Rather, the language is another way of saying that Yahwehs abode was among the
Israelites, and where Yahwehs house was, his council was. On the other side of the veil
as it were, was where Yahweh and his council could be found.
Other passages utilize the same language:
Deuteronomy 23:12 You shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go
out to it. 13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down
outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.
14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you
and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so
that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.
2 Samuel 7:4 But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, 5 Go
and tell my servant David, Thus says the LORD: Would you build me a house to
dwell in? 6 I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of
Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been walking about in a tent for my
dwelling. 7 In all places where I have moved with all the people of Israel, did I
speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd
my people Israel, saying, Why have you not built me a house of cedar?
Adams Kin
Several descendants of the first man also emerge as prophetic figures singled out as
righteous men, all of whom are related to Adam. The first of these, as we saw above in
Jesus words, was Abel. After Abel came Seth, born in Adams image. After Seth we
read of two men who walked with God (the same Hebrew verb used to describe Gods
walking above) who were widely viewed as prophetic figures within and without the
Bible: Enoch and Noah.
Although we use the phrase walk with God quite frequently today, it is in fact a very
rare biblical phrase, occurring only three timesall of them with respect to Enoch and
214
Noah. It is tempting to imagine the biblical writer is deliberately connecting Gods

walking with these two men, identifying them through this wording as two who stood
in midst of the council in a direct encounter with God, but we cannot be sure. We can be
certain, though, that these two men did directly encounter God, though few details are
given.
Enoch is remembered in Genesis 5:22, 24 as never seeing death. These passages note that
he walked with God, and God took 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.) the events of Genesis 5:22, 24 serve as the springboard
to Enochs visions of heaven and Gods throne room. Enoch was considered Gods
mouthpiece by Jewish readers primarily because it he was the person who delivered
Gods words of judgment to the fallen sons of God after the Genesis 6:1-4 incident (1
Enoch 13-16). The New Testament also reports that Enoch prophesied, as Jude 14-15
notes, It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying,
Behold, the Lord came 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 such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken
against him. This quotation by Jude comes from 1 Enoch 1:9.
Noah walked with God according to Genesis 6:9. God spoke directly to Noah, as he had
done to Adam before him, and many prophets after him. Noah was also Gods
mouthpiece, prophesying the coming flood to his contemporaries, warning them of the
coming judgment (1 Pet. 3:20).
The Patriarchs139
The pattern of an encounter with God or divine council members as validation of ones
prophetic status gets clearer with the patriarchs. Since weve covered this ground in
previous chapters, though not with an eye to understanding these events as having a
meaningful pattern, well take an abbreviated tour here.
The reader will surely recall that Yahweh appeared to Abraham on several occasions.
Genesis 12
1
Now the LORD said to Abram, Go from your country and your kindred and
your fathers house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a
great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a
blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will
curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. 4 So Abram went,
as the LORD had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years
old when he departed from Haran. 5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his
brothers son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that
they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When
they came to the land of Canaan, 6 Abram passed through the land to the place at
215
Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7
Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, To your offspring I will give this
land. So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
A repeat encounter is described in Genesis 15, where we are told that Abraham had a
meeting the Word, the second Yahweh, as he began his spiritual journey (. . . the Word
of the LORD came to Abram in a vision . . .). This meeting took place after Abraham was
settled in Canaan (Gen 13:12). Acts 7:2-4 informed us that Yahweh had actually
appeared to him before this, while he lived in Ur:
2
And Stephen said: Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to
our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and
said to him, Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land
that I will show you. 4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived
in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in
which you are now living.
There is a detail in these initial encounters that I have not mentioned before. Note that in
Genesis 12:6-7 we are told that Yahweh appeared to Abraham at the Oak of Moreh,
which was near Shechem. Yahwehs subsequent visitation of Abraham just before the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah occurred at a place called the Oaks of Mamre
(Genesis 18:1 And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the
door of his tent in the heat of the day).
The Oak of Moreh and the Oaks of Mamre are what scholars call a terebintha sacred
tree that got its sacred reputation because it marked a spot where a divine being appeared
(and where divine beings kept appearing). In fact, Oak of Moreh literally means Oak
of the Teacher. The point behind the name would be that some divine figure teaches
people or dispenses information at this spotwhat we commonly think of as an oracle.
Such places were considered good places to bury dead loved ones since they were
considered holy ground, or places where God lived.140 Again the divine council
connotations are transparent. Well see the association of sacred trees again momentarily.
God had chosen Abraham while he was still a pagan to be the father of Yahwehs new
earthly inheritance after the debacle at Babel, where the nations were given over to lesser
elohim (Deut. 32:8-9). Abraham obeyed, journeyed to Canaan, and Yahweh made a
covenant with him there. He alone had a relationship with the true God, and was destined
to preserve and dispense the truth about the Lord of all elohim to the dispossessed nations
(Gen 12:3). He was Gods man and Gods conduit for salvation to the rest of the
humanity.
Abrahams son, Isaac, enjoyed the same covenantal status, and Yahweh also appeared to
him when confirming the covenant between Him and Abraham with Isaac:
Genesis 26
216
Now there was a famine in the land, besides the former famine that was in the
days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Gerar to Abimelech king of the Philistines. 2
And the LORD (Yahweh) appeared to him and said, Do not go down to Egypt;
dwell in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with
you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands,
and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. 4 I will multiply
your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these
lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5 because
Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes,
and my laws.
Jacobs life is filled with dramatic divine council manifestations, and the elect status of
Abraham was again confirmed to Jacob in his dream interview with Yahweh at Bethel,
the episode known popularly as Jacobs ladder (Genesis 28:10ff.):
10
on it! 13 And behold, the LORD stood above it . . .
This initiation was followed by a series of encounters:
Genesis 31:11-13
11
Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, Jacob, and I said, Here I am!
And he said, Lift up your eyes and see, all the goats that mate with the flock
are striped, spotted, and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. 13 I
am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me. Now
arise, go out from this land and return to the land of your kindred.
12
Genesis 32:22ff.
22
The same night he [Jacob] arose and took his two wives, his two female
servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 He took
them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. 24 And
Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.
25
When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip
socket, and Jacobs hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he
said, Let me go, for the day has broken. But Jacob said, I will not let you go
unless you bless me. 27 And he said to him, What is your name? And he said,
Jacob. 28 Then he said, Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel,
for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed. 29 Then Jacob
asked him, Please tell me your name. But he said, Why is it that you ask my
217
name? And there he blessed him. 30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel,
saying, For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.
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 Gods home or headquarters, the place
where the divine council meets.
Moses and Joshua
It should be obvious that the pattern for divine approval of prophetic status holds true for
Moses. Deuteronomy 34:10 makes it clear that Moses was a prophet, and his numerous
divine encounters validated that status. In Exodus 3, Moses met the visible Yahwehthe
Angel of Yahwehand heard the voice of God from the burning bush. Here is a
sampling from the Old Testament of other divine encounters, several of which weve
seen before in other chapters. Note the connection with the tent of meeting and the
tabernacle, which, as Chapter 11 detailed, served as the visible cosmic mountain, the
abode of Yahweh in lieu of Eden and the gateway to his council quarters.
Exodus 24
15
Then Moses went up on the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain. 16
The glory of the LORD dwelt on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days.
And on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud. 17 Now
the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the
mountain in the sight of the people of Israel. 18 Moses entered the cloud and went
up on the mountain. And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights.
Exodus 33
7
Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the
camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the LORD
would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp. 8 Whenever
Moses went out to the tent, all the people would rise up, and each would stand at
his tent door, and watch Moses until he had gone into the tent. 9 When Moses
entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the
tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. 10 And when all the people saw the
pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise up and
worship, each at his tent door. 11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to
face, as a man speaks to his friend.
As well see in a moment, the impression of divine approval and validation of Moses was
so deep upon the people of Israel that, from the days of Moses onward, meeting with God
became a criterion for true prophetic status. There are hints even in the days of Moses
that divine encounter was what convinced people that someone was Gods man. Consider
the two passages below:
218
Exodus 19
7
So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these
words that the LORD had commanded him. 8 All the people answered together and
said, All that the LORD has spoken we will do. And Moses reported the words
of the people to the LORD. 9 And the LORD said to Moses, Behold, I am coming
to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may
also believe you forever.
The implication is clearthe people need to listen and will listen to the person who is
validated by an encounter with the presence of God.
Numbers 11
24
So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD. And he gathered
seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tent. 25 Then
the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the Spirit
that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested
on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it.
The seventy elders who would help Moses in his administration of Israel were brought
before the presence of God, who gave them a portion of the spirit that rested on Moses
linking them to the divine encounter approval that validated Moses position. Only a true
prophet has access to the divine.
This linkage to the presence of God through Moses is what initially validated Joshua as a
prophet, at least until his own personal encounter with the visible Yahweh. Note the
following passages:
Exodus 24
12
The LORD said to Moses, Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that
I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I
have written for their instruction. 13 So Moses rose with his assistant Joshua, and
Moses went up into the mountain of God. 14 And he said to the elders, Wait here
for us until we return to you. And behold, Aaron and Hur are with you. Whoever
has a dispute, let him go to them.
Exodus 33
9
When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the
entrance of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. 10 And when all the
people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people
would rise up and worship, each at his tent door. 11 Thus the LORD used to speak
to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again
219
into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart
from the tent.
Deuteronomy 31
14
And the LORD said to Moses, Behold, the days approach when you must die.
Call Joshua and present yourselves in the tent of meeting, that I may commission
him. And Moses and Joshua went and presented themselves in the tent of
meeting. 15 And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud. And the pillar
of cloud stood over the entrance of the tent. 16 And the LORD said to Moses,
Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers . . . 23 And the LORD
commissioned Joshua the son of Nun and said, Be strong and courageous, for
you shall bring the people of Israel into the land that I swore to give them. I will
be with you.
It is clear that Joshua experienced the kind of divine encounter that Moses had, even
before his official commissioning in Deuteronomy 31. After Moses died and Joshua
took the mantle of leadership, Joshua met the Angel of Yahweh himself as he was about
to invade Jericho:
Joshua 5
13
When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a
man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went
to him and said to him, Are you for us, or for our adversaries? 14 And he said,
No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come. And
Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, What does my
lord say to his servant? 15 And the commander of the LORDs army said to
Joshua, Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are
standing is holy. And Joshua did so.
This is a fascinating passage. As close readers of the Old Testament, it is fairly easy for
us to establish that the man in the passage is the Angel of Yahweh. An important clue
is the drawn sword in his hand. The Hebrew phrasing here occurs only two other times in
the Hebrew Bible, Numbers 22:23 and 1 Chron. 21:16. Both explicitly name the Angel
of Yahweh as the one with the drawn sword in hand. That this is the Angel of Yahweh
is made unmistakable on two other counts: (1) the language in the passage that is drawn
from Exodus 3, the account of the burning bush (take your sandals from off your feet,
for the place where you are standing is holy) and (2) the fact that Joshua bows and
worships. Aside from these textual clues, it is interesting to speculate on how Joshua was
able to discern that this man was the Angel. My guessand it is only a guessis that
he had heard the voice before, as it was only when the Angel spoke that Joshua reacted in
reverence. Having accompanied Moses into the proximity of the divine presence on a
number of occasions, Joshua had heard the voice of the Almighty before. He knew it as
soon as he heard the Commander of the Israels host speak.
The Judges
220
Thus far in our journey weve only looked at one of the judges of Israel in terms of divine
encounterSamuel. In our investigation of the Word of the Lord as an embodied
Yahweh figure, we looked closely at several verses in 1 Samuel 3:
1
Now the young man Samuel was ministering to the LORD under Eli. And the
word of the LORD was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision . . . 4 Then
the LORD called Samuel, and he said, Here I am! 5 and ran to Eli and said,
Here I am, for you called me. But he said, I did not call; lie down again. So
he went and lay down. 6 And the LORD called again, Samuel! and Samuel arose
and went to Eli and said, Here I am, for you called me. But he said, I did not
call, my son; lie down again. 7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and the
word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him. 8 And the LORD called
Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli and said, Here I am,
for you called me. Then Eli perceived that the LORD was calling the young man.
9
Therefore Eli said to Samuel, Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say,
Speak, LORD, for your servant hears. So Samuel went and lay down in his
place. 10 And the LORD came and stood, calling as at other times, Samuel!
Samuel! And Samuel said, Speak, for your servant hears . . . 19 And Samuel
grew, and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground. 20
And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established as a
prophet of the LORD. 21 And the LORD appeared again at Shiloh, for the LORD
revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD.
Samuel was the last of the judges, but he was not the only judge described as
experiencing an appearance of the visible Yahweh. In Judges 6 we read that Gideons call
to serve as a judge in Israel came with an encounter of the Angel of Yahweh and the
voice of Yahwehjust as it had been with Moses:
11
Now the angel of the LORD came and sat under the terebinth at Ophrah, which
belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the
winepress to hide it from the Midianites. 12 And the angel of the LORD appeared to
him and said to him, The LORD is with you, O mighty man of valor. 13 And
Gideon said to him, Please, sir, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this
happened to us? And where are all his wonderful deeds that our fathers recounted to
us, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? But now the LORD has
forsaken us and given us into the hand of Midian. 14 And the LORD turned to him
and said, Go in this might of yours and save Israel from the hand of Midian; do not
I send you? 15 And he said to him, Please, Lord, how can I save Israel? Behold,
my clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my fathers house. 16
And the LORD said to him, But I will be with you, and you shall strike the
Midianites as one man. 17 And he said to him, If now I have found favor in your
eyes, then show me a sign that it is you who speaks with me. 18 Please do not depart
from here until I come to you and bring out my present and set it before you. And
he said, I will stay till you return . . . 21 Then the angel of the LORD reached out
the tip of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened
221
cakes. And fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the flesh and the unleavened
cakes. And the angel of the LORD vanished from his sight. 22 Then Gideon
perceived that he was the angel of the LORD. And Gideon said, Alas, O Lord GOD!
For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face. 23 But the LORD said to
him, Peace be to you. Do not fear; you shall not die.
This passage is noteworthy for several reasons. First, it should be observed that the Angel
appeared to Gideon at a sacred tree (v. 11). Second, verses 12-14 make it clear that the
Angel and Yahweh can be distinguished, for they place Yahweh in the conversation
along with the Angel. The same can be said of verses 21 and 23, since the Angel vanishes
in verse 21, but Yahweh is still talking to Gideon in verse 23. Since by the time of the
Judges in the biblical narrative readers know very clearly that the Angel is the embodied
Yahweh, we have a clear instance here of two Yahweh figures in the same passage.
The Classical Prophets
Perhaps the most familiar initiation of a prophet into Yahwehs divine council throne
room is the case of Isaiah. Isaiah 6 is certainly not new ground for readers:
1
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and
lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him stood the
seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he
covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called to another and said:
Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory! 4 And
the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the
house was filled with smoke. 5 And I said: Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a
man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my
eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts! 6 Then one of the seraphim flew to
me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar.
7
And he touched my mouth and said: Behold, this has touched your lips; your
guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for. 8 And I heard the voice of the Lord
saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here am I!
Send me.
The divine rite of passage experienced by Ezekiel in the first two chapters of the book
that bears his name is probably second only to Isaiah 6. Note the underlined references to
familiar items associated with appearances of the visible Yahweh at Sinai and the
appearance of shining beings associated with the council:
1
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 opened, and I saw visions
of God . . . 4 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 fire, as it were gleaming metal. 5 And from the midst of it came the
likeness of four living creatures . . . 13 As for the likeness of the living creatures,
their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches
moving to and fro among the living creatures. And the fire was bright, and out of
222
the fire went forth lightning . . . 22 Over the heads of the living creatures there
was the likeness of an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out
above their heads. 23 And under the expanse their wings were stretched out
straight, one toward another. And each creature had two wings covering its body.
24
And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many
waters, like the sound of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an
army. When they stood still, they let down their wings. 25 And there came a voice
from above the expanse over their heads. When they stood still, they let down
their wings. 26 And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a
throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was
a likeness with a human appearance. 27 And upward from what had the
appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of
fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his
waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him.
28
Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was
the appearance of the brightness all around. Such was the appearance of the
likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I
heard the voice of one speaking.
1
And he said to me, Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you.
And as he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me and set me on my feet, and I
heard him speaking to me. 3 And he said to me, Son 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 against me to this very day.
2
The prophet Jeremiah also fits the pattern. We saw in an earlier chapter that the embodied
Word appeared to Jeremiah to commission him for duty. The details are sketched here
from Jeremiah 1:
1
The words of Jeremiah, the son of Hilkiah, one of the priests who were in
Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, 2 to whom the word of the LORD came in the
days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign.
3
It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, and until
the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until
the captivity of Jerusalem in the fifth month. 4 Now the word of the LORD came to
me, saying, 5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were
born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations. 6 Then I said,
Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a youth. 7
But the LORD said to me, Do not say, I am only a youth; for to all to whom I
send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. 8 Do not
be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, declares the LORD. 9 Then the
LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the LORD said to me,
Behold, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, I have set you this day over
nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to
overthrow, to build and to plant.
223
Jeremiahs dramatic call by the embodied Yahweh is quite important in the book of
Jeremiah, for it serves as the basis of true prophet status. What began in the days of
Moses as public validation of his call and those who served with him became fixated in
the minds of Israelites as a litmus test to apply to any who claimed to be Gods vessel. In
Jeremiah 23 we read Gods own words about false prophets:
16
Thus says the LORD of hosts: Do not listen to the words of the prophets who
prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own
minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. 17 They say continually to those who
despise the word of the LORD, It shall be well with you; and to everyone who
stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, No disaster shall come upon you.
18
For who among them has stood in the council of the LORD to see and to hear his
word, or who has paid attention to his word and listened? 19 Behold, the storm of
the LORD! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of
the wicked. 20 The anger of the LORD will not turn back until he has executed and
accomplished the intents of his heart. In the latter days you will understand it
clearly. 21 I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet
they prophesied. 22 But if they had stood in my council, then they would have
proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their
evil way, and from the evil of their deeds.
The implications are clear: true prophets have stood and listened in the council; false
prophets have not. This test of prophetic status never went away in Israel. It was alive and
well in the days of Jesus and the apostleswhich helps explain several New Testament
passages that are critical to New Testament theology. These instances are the subject of
Chapter 21. For now, we must remain in the Old Testament and explore an office even
more important than that of prophet. Nothing, not even the high priestly office, outranked
kingship in Israel, for the it was the king who was described as the son of Yahweh on
earthand sonship of God quite obviously has something to do with the divine council.
138
Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 1: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary
(76). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
139
Joseph is omitted from this discussion, since Gods activity in his life is described in providential terms.
However, his meeting with a man (Gen. 37:15) is often taken by interpreters as an encounter with an
embodied angel. The text isnt clear that this is supposition is accurate. However, this incident happened at
Shechem, which was the location of the Oak of Moreh (see the discussion on sacred trees and the Angel of
Yahweh).
140
See I Chron. 10:12; Gen 35:8
224
Chapter 20
Gone, But Not Forgotten

Although they were the voices of the true God, the prophets failed in their mission to turn
the hearts of Yahwehs earthly children away from the gods of the disinherited nations.
The story is a familiar one if youve spent much time reading the Old Testament.
Things were fine for a while under David and then Solomon, but the ideal of Israelite
kingship didnt last long. What began as a trickle under David in terms of violating the
principles laid down in Deuteronomy for kings eventually became a torrent under
Solomon. Building a large standing army, multiplying wives, accumulating staggering
wealth were all part of Solomons administration. The taxes and forced labor required to
support his building projectsthe temple and his own lavish palacestressed the people
to the breaking point.
Consequently when Solomon died and it came time for his son Rehoboam to succeed
him, the people requested that he ease the burden. Rehoboam foolishly ignored their plea
and the rest, as they say, is history. Israel split into two realms, with ten of the twelve
tribes pledging loyalty to another ruler, Jereboam. It is important to note that Jereboams
kingdom had its own alternative system of worship to prevent people in his new
dominion from making pilgrimages to the Jerusalem temple, located in the southern
kingdom of Judah, where Rehoboam was king. The alternative worship system, removed
as it was from Yahwehs temple and priesthood, quickly gave way to the worship of the
foreign gods of the disinherited nations, especially Baal. The southern kings of the line of
David went back and forth in their loyalty to Yahweh, but apostasy eventually overtook
the rue worship of Yahweh.
Gods Divorce
The Old Testament uses a powerful, at times shocking, metaphor for the kind of apostasy
that resulted from Jereboams spiritual disloyalty to Yahweh and his temple: the
adulterous wife. What constitutes spiritual adultery? Generally, not worshipping the true
God and turning ones back on the priesthood, festivals, and sacrificesall of which
Jereboams new system of worship did. But it was far worse than choosing a different
hymnal or tinkering with theological propositions. Gods people adopted the worst of
pagan spirituality, including child sacrifice (Ezek. 16:20-21; Jer. 32:30-35). Spiritual
whoredom is the language used by God, through the prophets, to describe what he thinks
of Israels behavior in some of the most explicit material in ancient literature, much less
the Bible.
225
Perhaps the most familiar example is that of the book of Hosea, who prophesied in the
last days of the northern kingdom. Hosea was commanded by God to marry a prostitute
as a living analogy to Gods own marriage to Israel. First the northern kingdom of Israel
was scattered to the wind by the Assyrians, known for their extraordinary cruelty and
policy of displacing and removing populations from the regions they conquered. I like to
refer to them as the Klingons of the Old Testament, but their displacement policy is more
reminiscent of how the Nazis deported the Jews, splitting up families and destroying
national identity. Its no wonder (but a bit of an overstatement) that the northern ten tribes
came to be known as the lost tribes of Israel. God was through with them . . . or so it
seemed.
That wasnt the end of the metaphor, though. The remaining kingdom, Judah, is
described in the same way. Our English translations mute the explicit nature of what is
said in many of these passages, but the situation isnt difficult to comprehend in passages
like Ezekiel 16.
1
Again the word of the LORD came to me: 2 Son of man, make known to
Jerusalem her abominations, 3 and say, Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem:
Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an
Amorite and your mother a Hittite. 4 And as for your birth, on the day you were
born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor
rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. 5 No eye pitied you, to do any
of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the
open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born. 6 And when I
passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood,
Live! I said to you in your blood, Live! 7 I made you flourish like a plant of the
field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your
breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare. 8
When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love,
and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I
made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord
GOD, and you became mine . . . 15 But you trusted in your beauty and played the
whore because of your renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your
beauty became his. 16 You took some of your garments and made for yourself
colorful shrines, and on them played the whore. The like has never been, nor ever
shall be. 17 You also took your beautiful jewels of my gold and of my silver,
which I had given you, and made for yourself images of men, and with them
played the whore. 18 And you took your embroidered garments to cover them, and
set my oil and my incense before them . . . 24 you built yourself a vaulted
chamber and made yourself a lofty place in every square. 25 At the head of every
street you built your lofty place and made your beauty an abomination, offering
yourself to any passerby and multiplying your whoring. 26 You also played the
whore with the Egyptians, your lustful neighbors, multiplying your whoring, to
provoke me to anger. 27 Behold, therefore, I stretched out my hand against you
and diminished your allotted portion and delivered you to the greed of your
enemies, the daughters of the Philistines, who were ashamed of your lewd
226
behavior. 28 You played the whore also with the Assyrians, because you were not
satisfied; yes, you played the whore with them, and still you were not satisfied. 29
You multiplied your whoring also with the trading land of Chaldea, and even with
this you were not satisfied. 30 How sick is your heart, declares the Lord GOD,
because you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen prostitute, 31 building your
vaulted chamber at the head of every street, and making your lofty place in every
square. Yet you were not like a prostitute, because you scorned payment. 32
Adulterous wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband! 33 Men give gifts
to all prostitutes, but you gave your gifts to all your lovers, bribing them to come
to you from every side with your whorings. 34 So you were different from other
women in your whorings. No one solicited you to play the whore, and you gave
payment, while no payment was given to you; therefore you were different.
In a nutshell, God describes his bride as a nymphomaniac whore, a woman who pays men
for sex, going far beyond a normal prostitute who expects to be paid. On every street
corner Yahwehs wife sets up shop and plies her wares. Its even more explicit in
Hebrew, trust me.
By Ezekiels time, Israel had been destroyed by Assyria and Judah was already partially
in exile. God actually uses the language of divorce in both cases. If that language sounds
a bit incongruous for God, it isnt. God had warned both kingdoms that he would divorce
her if her behavior didnt change. God had already divorced Israel and kicked her out of
his house (Hosea 2:2 she is not my wife, and I am not her husband; cf. Hosea 9:15).
Speaking of the two kingdoms as sisters in Jeremiah 3 God says through the prophet:
6
The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: Have you seen what she did,
that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every
green tree, and there played the whore? 7 And I thought, After she has done all
this she will return to me, but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah
saw it. 8 She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent
her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear,
but she too went and played the whore. 9 Because she took her whoredom lightly,
she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. 10 Yet for all this
her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in
pretense, declares the LORD.
This passage is interesting in that it uses the language of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which
forbids a man who has divorced his wife for uncleanness from taking her back in
remarriage. As well see in a subsequent chapter, God remarries, but his wife is a new
Israel, not the old one, in accordance with this law.
God Forsakes His Royal Children
As we noted in the last chapter it was the task of the prophets to call the people back to
Yahweh, but their mission soon morphed into little more than warnings that judgment
was coming. And come it did. The Assyrians were as efficient as they were cruel.
227
Roughly 160 years later the southern kingdom, Judah, was conquered and sent into
captivity in Babylon. Not only is this situation described as a divorce, its cast as a
reversal of the covenantas though Yahweh was now disinheriting his child as he had
disinherited the other nations at Babel.
The Old Testament gives us more than just a glimpse of this despair. Its after this
deportation under Nebuchadnezzar that we read some of the most heartrending material
in the Old Testament.141 Yahwehs people, jolted by the reality of their demise, believed
that they had been disinherited themselves. Whereas the biblical writer of the book of 2
Samuel had made it clear that Yahweh promised David an everlasting kingly dynasty as
the divine imager on earth in the cosmic garden-mountain, Jerusalem, the overthrow of
king and temple forced the psalmist to take a reality check and ask some terrifying
questions:
Psalm 89:38-51
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
But now you have cast off and rejected;

you are full of wrath against your anointed.
You have renounced the covenant with your servant;
you have defiled his crown in the dust.
You have breached all his walls;
you have laid his strongholds in ruins.
All who pass by plunder him;
he has become the scorn of his neighbors.
You have exalted the right hand of his foes;
you have made all his enemies rejoice.
You have also turned back the edge of his sword,
and you have not made him stand in battle.
You have made his splendor to cease
and cast his throne to the ground.
You have cut short the days of his youth;
you have covered him with shame. Selah
How long, O LORD? Will you hide yourself forever?
How long will your wrath burn like fire?
Weve seen Psalm 89 before. The Psalm begins (89:5-8) with a declaration of Yahwehs
incomparability in the divine council. It then proceeds with the promise of an everlasting
covenant with Davids dynastic line. We saw in Chapter 17 that the Davidic king was to
be the inheritor of all the disinherited nations the elyon over all kings of the earth (89:27).
This promise came with the assurance that the covenant will be guaranteed by a faithful
witness in the clouds (89:35-37) who was a member of the divine council. But now there
was no throne, no king, no temple, no nation, and no relationship with Yahweh. Psalm
89:46 asks the obvious question: How long will Yahweh be angry with us? Had Yahweh
indeed renounced the covenant (v. 39)? What about the guarantee before the council?
228
Incredibly, even as the exile in Babylon was beginning, as both the metaphor of a
divorced wife and forsaken children were just beginning to be experienced in reality, God
had a message for the prophets that he was not finished with his plan to restore Eden and
have an earthly family. Even after Yahweh would forsake and punish his people, he
wouldnt completely abandon them forever. There would be a remnant for whom he
would revive his covenant and with whom he would make a new covenant, but in ways
they could hardly envisionways that are explained in the New Testament and that
involved a new wife and new family composition involving the very Gentile nations who
were now his enemies.
The message of hope began in Ezekiel 1, a chapter weve already looked at a few times.
Ezekiel sees a vision of Yahwehs throne, with the visible, embodied Yahweh on the
throne. The four faces of the cherubim in the vision are, not coincidentally, the four
cardinal points of the zodiac used in Babylon at the time.142 The implication would have
been clear to Ezekiel and his hearers or readers: the sovereign power of Gods throne
reaches every corner of the eartheven Babylon. What may look like a hopeless
situation was under the sovereign control of God. He was still on the throne and still on
the job. That he wanted Ezekiel and the rest of the captives to hear this message indicates
that he wasnt done with his people just yet. They would suffer, but only for a time.
Recall that Ezekiel was the prophet through whom the vision of the new temple was
given (Ezekiel 40-48).
The book of Daniel, written sometime after the last stage of deportation to Babylon was
completed, amplifies the simple message of Ezekiel 1 that, although Israel was gone into
exile, she was not forgotten. In fact, Daniels message includes visionary glimpses of the
fate of Gods people, beginning with the powers that conquered Judah. Beginning with
Babylon, the book of Daniel describes for Judah a series of disinherited nations that
would, in one way or another, dominate and abuse her. This series of events, which spans
centuries, is described not only as the decree of God, but also the decree of the divine
council. In what remains of this chapter and in the next, well take a look at these divine
decrees.
The Decree of Yahweh, the Decree of the Council
The book of Daniel relates several events in the life of the prophet connected to members
of the divine council, each of which gives him insight into Yahwehs plans for Israel or
Yahwehs sovereign control over the kingdoms of other nations. The teaching point is
clear: the God of Israel is in control over world affairs. The nations who have conquered
them are subject to judgment, and God will have his kingdom.
The book of Daniel begins to show Yahwehs control over the future of the nations
through the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar and the prophet Daniels interpretation of those
dreams. In Daniel 2 Nebuchadnezzar sees a huge statue composed of four different
metals. Daniel informs the king that the four metals represent four kingdoms: Babylon
and the three future kingdoms that will supersede Babylon. In Daniel 4
229
Nebuchadnezzar sees a watcher, that is a holy one in his dream (Dan. 4:10-19). Daniel
interprets the dream, which prophesies Nebuchadnezzars personal humiliation in which
God will afflict him with temporary insanity because he has refused to acknowledge the
sovereignty of the God of Israel (4:20-37).
A couple of items in Daniel 4 are of interest. The word watcher occurs only in Daniel 4
in the Old Testament (4:13, 17, 23), but it is a common word used in Jewish literature
between the Old and New Testament when that literature retells the stories of the sons of
God in Genesis 6. In other words, watchers is a term synonymous with sons of God;
they are members of the divine council.
In Daniel 4:17 Nebuchadnezzars punishment is described this way:
17
The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the
holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the
kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of
men.
The message of the superiority of the God of Israel over those people who had conquered
the children of Israel is clear. Notice that this decision is described as a decision handed
down by the watchers (plural), the holy ones (plural). The point is not that they rule over
all the nations, since we are told that the decree they have dispensed is for the purpose of
letting Nebuchadnezzar who exactly does rule: the Most High God of Israel. We looked
at this passage very briefly in Chapter 4 when making the point that Gods imagers
(heavenly or earthly) have genuine free will and participate in the progression of Gods
plans. A few verses later, though, the language is slightly altered:
24
this is the interpretation, O king: It is a decree of the Most High, which has
come upon my lord the king, 25 that you shall be driven from among men, and
your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. You shall be made to eat grass
like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven periods of
time shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of
men and gives it to whom he will. 26 And as it was commanded to leave the stump
of the roots of the tree, your kingdom shall be confirmed for you from the time
that you know that Heaven rules. 27 Therefore, O king, let my counsel be
acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your
iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a
lengthening of your prosperity.
This time the decree comes from the Most High, not the watchers. Is there a
contradiction? Nothe point is that the decrees of the Most High are the decrees of the
watchers, and vice versa. The Most High is the authority in heaven (hence the title Most
High), and the council is an extension of him. As noted in earlier chapters (see esp.
230
Chapter 4), the members of the council often deliver messages and have freedom in
carrying out divine decrees.143
In other places in Daniel it is the prophet who is visited by divine beings, often in waking
visions. These beings are described as human in appearance. Along with these beings,
there is at times a disembodied voice who commands these beings. This disembodied
voice will be important in what follows, so lets take a look at some passages.
Daniel 8
1
In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel,
after that which appeared to me at the first. 2 And I saw in the vision; and when I
saw, I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the
vision, and I was at the Ulai canal. 3 I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram
standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but
one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. 4 I saw the ram
charging westward and northward and southward. No beast could stand before
him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased
and became great. 5 As I was considering, behold, a male goat came from the west
across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground. And the goat had
a conspicuous horn between his eyes. 6 He came to the ram with the two horns,
which I had seen standing on the bank of the canal, and he ran at him in his
powerful wrath. 7 I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against
him and struck the ram and broke his two horns. And the ram had no power to
stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled on him. And
there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power. 8 Then the goat
became exceedingly great, but when he was strong, the great horn was broken,
and instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of
heaven. 9 Out of one of them came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great
toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land. 10 It grew great,
even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw
down to the ground and trampled on them. 11 It became great, even as great as the
Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and
the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. 12 And a host will be given over to it
together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw
truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper. 13 Then I heard a holy one
speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, For how long is the
vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes
desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?
14
And he said to me, For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall
be restored to its rightful state. 15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to
understand it. And behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a
man. 16 And I heard a mans voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called,
Gabriel, make this man understand the vision. 17 So he came near where I stood.
And when he came, I was frightened and fell on my face. But he said to me,
Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end. 18 And
231
when he had spoken to me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face to the ground. But
he touched me and made me stand up. 19 He said, Behold, I will make known to
you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation, for it refers to the appointed
time of the end. 20 As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the
kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the goat is the king of Greece. And the great
horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 As for the horn that was broken, in place
of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation, but not with
his power. 23 And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have
reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24
His power shall be greatbut not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful
destruction and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the
people who are the saints. 25 By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under
his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall
destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall
be brokenbut by no human hand. 26 The vision of the evenings and the
mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many
days from now. 27 And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days.
Then I rose and went about the kings business, but I was appalled by the vision
and did not understand it.
Lets boil down the passage into the essential elements for our purposes:
Daniel sees a ram with two horns.
The ram with two horns gets attacked by a goat with a single large horn.
o This ram and its two horns are the kingdoms of Media and Persia.
o The goat is the kingdom of Greece; its horn is its king.
The goat defeats the ram, but its horn is broken.
o Greece defeats Media and Persia, after which the king of Greece dies
Out of the goats horn come four other horns.
o The king of Greece is replace by four other kings who are inferior to him
One of the four horns becomes great, even to the host of heaven.
o One of the four new Greek kings assaults the host of heaven.
We are told of a being called the Prince of the host who is opposed by this new
great horn.
The Prince of the Host is also called the Prince of princes, since the attack of
the new great horn against this prince is described twice, once with each of
those phrases.
This new, great horn defeats some of the host and some of the stars.
The new, great horn is given power over a host so that regular burnt offerings in
the sanctuary cease.
Daniel then sees a man who is actually the angel Gabriel, though he is never
called angel in the passage.
There is also a separate human voice who commands Gabriel.
We are not given the identity of the goat, ram, horn(s), or host.
232
Scholars have found it easy to make sense of whats going on here, especially since the
text gives us specific names. Daniel 8 very transparently describes the final two
kingdoms under which Daniel worked while in exile the Medes and the Persians.
Daniel is told that these two kingdoms (which were administratively onehence there is
one ram) will be conquered by Greece, which they were, under the leadership of
Alexander the Great. After Alexander dies, his kingdom was in fact divided into four
sections. One of those sectional kingdoms attacked Jerusalem with the result that the
daily burnt offerings in the sanctuary were halted. The king at the time was Antiochus
Epiphanes, who committed various abominations against the Jewish people at this time in
history.
But what about the host language? Readers should by now be able to parse the
language. We have seen that language such as host of heaven and stars refers to the
sons of God, Yahwehs heavenly family as it were. But we also know that these very
same metaphors were used of the actual people of Israel (e.g., Gen. 15:1-5; 22:17; 26:4;
37:9-11; Exod. 4:22-23; 32:11). So what is being described, the assault against heavenly
beings or Israelites?
In my judgment, the answer is both. The vision here in Daniel 8 is another example of
the as in heaven, so on earth language of the Bible. In the physical, embodied world of
humanity, Israel was assaulted and oppressed by these kingdoms, and the raids of
Antiochus Epiphanes are described perfectly with respect to actual history that would
transpire. But this earthly conflict reflected a spiritual conflict in the unseen world, where
the princes of the disinherited nations of Media, Persia, and Greece were in conflict
with each other for superiority and against the Prince protecting Israel and his own
heavenly forces. We learn here in Daniel 8 that the battle is realevil can indeed win, for
both human and divine host and stars defeated.
How do we know this language includes the unseen world? The answer is found in
Daniel 10, where the conflicts of Daniel 8 are described once again.
Daniel 10
1
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who
was named Belteshazzar. And the word was true, and it was a great conflict. And
he understood the word and had understanding of the vision. 2 In those days I,
Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. 3 I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine
entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks. 4 On the
twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great
river (that is, the Tigris) 5 I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man
clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. 6 His body
was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming
torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of
his words like the sound of a multitude. 7 And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for
the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon
them, and they fled to hide themselves. 8 So I was left alone and saw this great
233
vision, and no strength was left in me. My radiant appearance was fearfully
changed, and I retained no strength. 9 Then I heard the sound of his words, and as
I heard the sound of his words, I fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the
ground. 10 And behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and
knees. 11 And he said to me, O Daniel, man greatly loved, understand the words
that I speak to you, and stand upright, for now I have been sent to you. And
when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling. 12 Then he said to me,
Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and
humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come
because of your words. 13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me
twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was
left there with the kings of Persia, 14 and came to make you understand what is to
happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come. 15
When he had spoken to me according to these words, I turned my face toward the
ground and was mute. 16 And behold, one in the likeness of the children of man
touched my lips. Then I opened my mouth and spoke. I said to him who stood
before me, O my lord, by reason of the vision pains have come upon me, and I
retain no strength. 17 How can my lords servant talk with my lord? For now no
strength remains in me, and no breath is left in me. 18 Again one having the
appearance of a man touched me and strengthened me. 19 And he said, O man
greatly loved, fear not, peace be with you; be strong and of good courage. And as
he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, Let my lord speak, for you have
strengthened me. 20 Then he said, Do you know why I have come to you? But
now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold,
the prince of Greece will come. 21 But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book
of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael,
your prince.
What do we learn in Daniel 10? Several items:
Daniel is actually in the presence of more than one heavenly being. These beings
are described in embodied terms (e.g., hand), which is quite consistent with
descriptions of angels elsewhere, including the visible Yahweh, the Angel.
The divine speaker fought against the prince of Persia.
This speaker was assisted by Michael, who is one of the chief princes and your
prince (i.e., the prince of Daniels people, Israel).
o This description means that the speaker is not Michael. Michael is actually
distinguished from the speaker two times (10:13, 21).
o That Michael is called one of the chief princes suggests that Michael is
not the Prince of princes of Daniel 8. Chief princes is likely the
equivalent of archangel in Greek. Michael is one of several archangels
in intertestamental Jewish literature.
The speaking divine being is also distinguished from the prince of Greece.
234
While the word for prince used here is most often used of human rulers in the Old
Testament, since the word is used to describe Michael and those princes against whom he
is fighting, it is evident here that prince in Daniel 8 and 10 refer to divine beings.
To this point, the text is pretty clear, but we are left with questions. Just who is the
speaker in these chapters? What is the speakers relationship to Michael? Who is the
Prince of princes, the Prince of the Host? Does the speaker have any relationship to those
titles? These arent easy questions, but I think we can unravel them. Its important to
make sense of the divine hierarchy in question because of other material well encounter
momentarily.
Many have concluded that the Prince of the host is indeed Michael, since the host that
gets conquered in Daniel 8 is Israel. While that may sound coherent, its actually only
half the story. If one reads words like host as having a double referenceto people
(Israel) and to divine beings (heavenly host), then an identification of Michael isnt a
given. The language elsewhere in the Old Testament is used of both the human children
of Yahweh and his heavenly council childrenand I suggest viewing Daniel 8 and 10
against that backdrop is the key to sorting all this out.
In keeping with my listing format for this chapter, here are my suggestions:
The Prince of the host and Prince of princes are the same entity.
The phrase Prince of the host in Daniel 8:11 refers to the heavenly commander
of the entire heavenly host. This allows Michael to be the prince of Israel
(Yahwehs earthly host) but not over the entire heavenly hosthe cant be,
since hes just one of several archangels in intertestamental Jewish literature.
Gabriel is another.
These suggestions still leave the issue of the identity of the speaker and his relationship to
Michael and the titles Prince of the (heavenly) host and Prince of princes. We get
some help from Daniel 11, where there is a parallel to what weve read in Daniel 8:
In Daniel 11 we are treated to another prophetic vision that virtually all scholars agree
mirrors the deeds of Antiochus Epiphanes, the same person who fulfilled the words of
Daniel 8. It is well known that, along with having the daily burnt offerings in the
sanctuary cease, Antiochus also did whats described in Daniel 11 as the abomination
which makes desolate. All of this is described in the historical Jewish book of 1
Maccabees (1:29-33, 41-57).144
This linkage between Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 is important when we note the parallel
below:
235
Daniel 8
Daniel 11
8:11 It (the little horn / Greek king)
became great, even as great as the Prince of
the host. And the regular burnt offering
And the king shall do as he wills. He shall
was taken away from him, and the place of exalt himself and magnify himself above
his sanctuary was overthrown.
every god, and shall speak astonishing
things against the God of gods . . .
8:25 - And he shall even rise up against the
Prince of princes, and he shall be broken
but by no human hand.
This parallel suggests that the Prince of the host and Prince of princes are
descriptions that parallel God of gods. In other words, when the little horn opposes the
Prince of the host and Prince of princes he is opposing Godthe God who is over all
other elohim. But is this possible? Is Yahweh ever described as a prince, a term that
implies subordinate status to some higher authority?
Had we not come this far in our discussion of the two Yahwehs and the divine council,
the answer wed most likely jump to would be no way. But the answer is actually
yesand Yahwehs supremacy is not violated. Weve been over the fact that the visible
Yahweh, the second Yahweh as it were, who is under the authority of the invisible
Yahweh, often comes to human beings as the Angel. The Angel is but isnt Yahweh
(the Father); he is the visible Yahweh sent by the invisible Yahweh to interact with
human beings. As such, he is over all other members of the heavenly host since he is
identified with Yahweh. But what does this have to do with Yahweh being called a
prince? The answer is that, while the invisible Yahweh (the Father) is never called a
prince, the visible Yahweh is described with this term. Turning to Joshua 5:11-14 we
read:
13
When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a
man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went
to him and said to him, Are you for us, or for our adversaries? 14 And he said,
No; but I am the commander (Hebrew, prince) of the army (Hebrew, host)
of the LORD. Now I have come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and
worshiped and said to him, What does my lord say to his servant? 15 And the
commander (prince) of the LORDs army (host) said to Joshua, Take off your
sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy. And Joshua
did so.
This is an amazing text. The very phrase used in Daniel the prince of the host is
found here two times! The prince here is a deity figure, for he commands the very same
thing of Joshua that the Angel commanded of Moses before the burning bush, inside of
which was the Angel of Yahweh: Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place
where you are standing is holy (see Exod. 3:1-5). But, you might protest, the word
236
angel isnt in Joshua 5:13-15. Aside from the very obvious linkages to the Angel in the
burning bush we just noted, theres one more piece of evidence that links this prince of
the host to the Angel who is the visible Yahweh. The prince is described as standing
with his drawn sword in his hand. This phrase occurs only four times in the Hebrew
text of the Old Testament: here in Joshua 5:13 and also in Numbers 22:23, 31 and 1
Chronicles 21:16. The other three references read as follows, and all have one thing in
common:
Numbers 22
23
And the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with a drawn
sword in his hand. And the donkey turned aside out of the road and went into the
field. And Balaam struck the donkey, to turn her into the road.
31
Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD
standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and
fell on his face.
1 Chronicles 21
16
And David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the LORD standing between
earth and heaven, and in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem.
Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.
The common element is the Angel of Yahweh. Everywhere this phrase is used it is used
to describe the Angel who is the visible Yahweh. Joshua 5:13-15 is no exception, since
the phrasing drawn from the burning bush story makes it clear that it is the Angel who is
speaking to Joshua.
Taking this information back to Daniel, I would suggest that the Prince of the host in
Daniel 8 should be identified with the Prince of the host in Joshua 5none other than the
Angel of Yahweh, who is the chief representative of Yahweh, and who is Yahweh in
human form in the Old Testament. If we make this correlation, the language in Daniel
falls into place. It is the Angel in Daniel 10 whom Michael assists in defending Israel,
and in softening up the prince of Persia so the prince of Greece can come along and
defeat him, as had been prophesied.
This is the picture, then, that emerges during the exile. Israel is gone into exile, but not
forgotten. Behind Israels circumstances a spiritual war rages between the elohim of
Israels enemy nations and the Most High, the visible Yahweh, and their council. Victory
is not immediate, for the forces of evil are being steered toward a different sort of victory
. . . a different sort of kingdom that would come.
141
The book of Lamentations is probably the best example.

Get the page numbers from Blocks NICOT Ezekiel commentary here.
143
This is very similar to certain passages in the Baal Cycle describing El and the Ugaritic council (for the
web).
142
237
144
Many Christians consider Daniel 11 to be a prefigurement of a future desecration, since Jesus, who lived
well after the events of Antiochus, informed his audience that the abomination which makes desolate was
yet to come. Jews of Jesus day would have known what such a thing would look like based upon the same
language being used in 1 Maccabees of the Antiochus blasphemy.
238
Chapter 21
Thy Kingdom Come

Its taken nineteen chapters, but were finally at the point where the notion of the two
Yahwehs crystallized in my mind years ago. And the passage that will be our focus for
this chapter not only made the circle complete for me, but its also one of the most pivotal
for early Judaisms doctrine of two powers in heavenbefore it became a heresy in the
wake of Jesus ministry and the apostolic preaching of the resurrection.145 Im speaking,
of course, of Daniel 7:9-14, the prophets vision of the Ancient of Days and the Son of
Man. To be honest, though, the whole chapter is important for the divine council
worldview Im sketching, so were going to walk through the entire chapter (primarily
ESV):
The Divine Council Meeting of Daniel 7
Daniel 7:1-8
1
In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions
of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream and told the sum
of the matter. 2 Daniel declared, I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four
winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. 3 And four great beasts came up
out of the sea, different from one another. 4 The first was like a lion and had
eagles wings. Then as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up
from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and the mind of a man
was given to it. 5 And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear. It was
raised up on one side. It had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was
told, Arise, devour much flesh. 6 After this I looked, and behold, another, like a
leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back. And the beast had four heads, and
dominion was given to it. 7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a
fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron
teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It
was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 I
considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little
one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And
behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great
things.
The description of these four beasts is certainly bizarre, but weve seen the elements of
the descriptions before. Some parts of the description are shared with the four faced
239
cherubim of Ezekiel 1. The metals derive from the book of Daniel itself, the dream of
Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2. More pointedly, a connection between Daniel 2 and Daniel
7 is made explicit in Daniel 7:17ff., where the text affirms that the Daniel 7 vision is
about four nations, just as the dream in Daniel 2. The little horn speaking great things
sounds a lot like the little horn of Daniel 8. In point of fact, scholars across many
Christian traditions have found considerable agreement between Daniel 2, 7, and 8.146 I
agree with the consensus, so we need not get bogged down in exploring these
relationships. Besides, its what follows that makes the passage really fascinating. Ive
underlined some important items and translated this portion myself.
Daniel 7:9-12
9
As I was looking,
thrones were set up,
and the Ancient of Days was seated;
his clothing was white as snow,
and the hair of his head was like pure wool;
his throne was flashing fire;
its wheels were burning fire.
10
A stream of fire issued
and came out from before him;
thousand upon thousands served him,
and myriads upon myriads stood before him;
the council was seated,
and the books were opened.
11
I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was
speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given
over to be burned with fire. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was
taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
Several features of the text jump out at us right away. First, we know 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. Ezekiels description of a humanoid figure on the
throne is also consistent with Daniel 7 since the Ancient of Days is described in human
terms (clothing, hair, head). Second, there are many thrones in heaven, not just one
(thrones were set up).147 The text is crystal clear that the God of Israel, the Ancient of
Days, is seated on a throne, but there are an unspecified number of other thrones in
Gods heavenly throne room. Third, the plural thrones are occupied by the members of
the divine council (the council was seated). Fourth, there appears to be a division in the
council between those who sat to render judgment and support staff who ministered to
the Ancient of Days. This hearkens back to our earlier discussion about the tiers of the
divine council hierarchy. Fifth, the divine council was meeting, with the Ancient of Days,
to decide the fate of the beasts (kingdoms) of the world who had, were, or would
subjugate Israel. Judgment is in fact pronounced, and the last beast is killed, while the
others were allowed to live for a while, though their dominion was taken away.
240
The point of the vision in broad terms is that God and his council govern the affairs of
humankind, specifically the rise and fall of nations. The High God and his council are in
control, no matter what things look like on earth. After seeing the beast receive the death
sentence in the council, Daniels vision continued:
Daniel 7:13-14
13
I saw in visions of the night,

and behold, with (or, upon)148 the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.
Theres a lot to unpack here. Its clear from the text that the Ancient of Days (God) and
the one like a son of man are different characters in the scene. Far less clear is the
importance of the description of the son of man. It is this description that compelled the
two powers in heaven idea in Judaismthe notion that there were in fact, two Yahwehs.
Son of man is a fairly frequent phrase in the Old Testament. Ezekiel, for example, is
called son of man dozens of times in the book of Ezekiel (e.g., Ezek. 2:1-8). The phrase
simply means human one, and so Daniel 7:13 describes someone who appeared human
coming on or with the clouds to the Ancient of Days. This is pretty straightforward. The
key to grasping the reason this verse affected Jewish theology so profoundly is to
understand the rest of the description, where this person was described as coming
with/upon the clouds.
The Cloud Rider
The first thing we need to understand is the wider ancient context for the description.
Weve talked a good bit about Baal in the course of this book, especially how he was the
chief rival to Yahweh in the hearts and minds of the Israelites at various points in their
history. Weve also noted how the prophets would at times take part of Baal theology
found in ancient religious texts outside Israel, such the ancient literature of Ugarit,
Israels close neighbor to the north. Throughout the Ugaritic texts, Baal is repeatedly
called the one who rides the clouds, or the one who mounts the clouds. The
description became an official title of Baal, whom the entire ancient Near Eastern world
considered a deity of rank. This is importantto ancient people all over the
241
Mediterranean, Israelite or not, the one who rides the clouds was a deity. There was no
ambiguity.
This title shows up in various wordings in the Old Testament as a title of the God of
Israel:
Isaiah 19:1 - An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, Yahweh is riding on a swift
cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and
the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.
Deut. 33:26 - There is none like God, O Jeshurun, who rides through the heavens
to your help, through the skies in his majesty.
Psalm 68:32-33 32 O kingdoms of the earth, sing to God; sing praises to the
Lord, Selah 33 to him who rides in the heavens, the ancient heavens; behold, he
sends out his voice, his mighty voice.
Psalm 104:1-4 1 Bless the LORD, O my soul! O LORD my God, you are very
great! You are clothed with splendor and majesty, 2 covering yourself with light
as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent. 3 He lays the beams of
his chambers on the waters; he makes the clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings
of the wind; 4 he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire.
Doing this makes sense. Its part of the same literary strategy of the Israelite prophets
weve seen before, where they take well-known material about a foreign god and attribute
it to Yahweh in some way. The effect is to displace or snub the foreign god and hold up
Yahweh as the deity who legitimately could hold the title. In our day and age, it would be
akin to someone who voted for Al Gore in 2000 referring to Mr. Gore as President
Gore in place of George W. Bush. On one level, it would be a gesture of contempt. On
another, it would speak to a belief that Mr. Gore was the real president. So it was with
the biblical writers. They would simultaneously dismiss Baal and put forth their own
theology that Yahweh was the real god.
The lone exception to the pattern of using this unambiguous deity title of the God of
Israel is Daniel 7:13. In Daniel 7 we see the God of Israel, on his familiar fiery throne
with wheels (cf. Ezek. 1) already present before the human one, the one like a son of
man, appears on the scene. It is this second figure that received the familiar deity title
used of Yahweh in every other instance in the Old Testament. The implications were very
clear to the rabbisthere are two deities, or two powers, in heaven. This was the
theology of Judaism until after the beginning of Christianity. The New Testament
references this two powers passage in a dramatic way to put forth Jesus as the incarnate
Yahweh, and Judaism responded by declaring the idea heretical around the second
century (the 100s) A.D., just after the passing of the twelve apostles.
The Kingdom Envisioned
242
Getting back to the flow of Daniel 7, notice that the son of man, this second deity who
appeared in human form, received an everlasting kingdom, but only after the fourth beast
was judged. It is also important to notice that verse 14 is a preview or summary of what is
described in verses 15-28. These three observations are critical for situating verses 13-14
in the flow of what verses 15-28 describe.
Daniel 7:15-28
15
As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious, and the visions of my
head alarmed me. 16 I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the
truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation
of the things. 17 These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the
earth. 18 But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and
possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever. 19 Then I desired to know the
truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly
terrifying, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, and which devoured and
broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet, 20 and about the ten horns
that were on its head, and the other horn that came up and before which three of
them fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and that
seemed greater than its companions. 21 As I looked, this horn made war with the
holy ones and prevailed over them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came, and
judgment was given for the holy ones of the Most High, and the time came when
the holy ones possessed the kingdom.
23
Thus he said: As for the fourth beast,

there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth,
which shall be different from all the kingdoms,
and it shall devour the whole earth,
and trample it down, and break it to pieces.
24
As for the ten horns,
out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise,
and another shall arise after them;
he shall be different from the former ones,
and shall put down three kings.
25
He shall speak words against the Most High,
and shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High,
and shall think to change the times and the law;
and they shall be given into his hand
for a time, times, and half a time.
26
But the council shall sit in judgment,
and his dominion shall be taken away,
to be consumed and destroyed to the end.
27
And the kingdom and the dominion
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven
243
shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High;
his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey them.
28
Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly
alarmed me, and my color changed, but I kept the matter in my heart.
The kingdom talk here in the context of a meeting of God and his council needs
explanation. Specifically, everything seems to move toward the establishment of the
everlasting kingdom of the Most High. Since this vision, like the dream of Daniel 2, is
about four kingdoms, it is worth recalling when the everlasting kingdom of the Most
High is mentioned in Daniel 2. Daniel 2 described Nebuchadnezzars dream of a statue
composed of diverse materials. A kingdom described as a stone not made with human
hands struck the image at its feetthe symbol of the fourth kingdomand destroyed it.
Dan. 2:44 notes, And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom
that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall
break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever.
The everlasting kingdom of the Most High, then, begins during the era of the fourth
kingdom. The same is true of Daniel 7, for it is the judgment of the fourth beast that
paves the way for the inauguration of the kingdom of the Most High. In Dan. 7:14 this
kingdom is said to be given to the deity son of man, and that it will have no end. But this
verse is only a summary. The full range of events leading up to the reign of the son of
man is unpacked a bit in the verses that follow.
We learn from Daniel 7:15-28 that the everlasting kingdom goes through several stages.
Notice that right after the summary in verse 14 about the son of man receiving an
everlasting kingdom, the divine being who interprets the scene for Daniel says in verse
18, the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom
forever, forever and ever. The phrase holy ones, as we have seen, is the Hebrew term
qedoshim (or, qedoshin in the case of the Aramaic in Daniel 7). The term can refer to the
members of the divine council in heaven (e.g., Psalm 89:5-7).149 However, the term can
also refer to people. Several times in Leviticus the people are referred to collectively as
qedoshim, yet another description that produces the imagery that the earthly people of
God mirror Gods council in heaven.150 Psalm 16:3 refers to the qedoshim that are in the
land, making it certain that the term can refer to people.
These holy ones in the land in Psalm 16:3 are of course Gods children, the Israelites,
in the Holy Land of Israel. That might seem obvious, but its important in light of a verse
we briefly glanced at in a previous chapter, Daniel 8:24. In this text we read that one of
the kings of Greece, whom nearly all scholars identify as Antiochus Epiphanes, shall
attack the people of the holy ones. Not unexpectedly, there is a tight relationship
between the holy ones of the heavenly council and the holy ones on earthGods earthly
family.
244
Its my view that what Daniel 7-8 are describing is the re-establishment of the kingdom
of God in Israel through the remnant of Gods earthly family that returned from Babylon
after being exiled. This remnant, back in the Holy Land, begins to restore the kingdom
out of the ashes, but is eventually assaulted again by the horn of Daniel 8 (Greece) and
then the horn of Daniel 7 (Rome). This of course is what happened historically. During
the time of the fourth beast (Rome) the kingdom of God would be kick-started again, but
this time not by the Israelites, but by the coming of the son of man (Jesus in his
incarnation). As well discuss in Chapter 22, the New Testament describes the kingdom
of God being reborn at the first coming of Jesus when he began his earthly ministry, not
the second coming. The beginning of Jesus ministry marks the end of the rule of
darkness and the beginning of the reclamation of the nations who are ruled by the other
gods. The fourth beast would be dealt with in the wake of the divine council meeting
described earlier in Daniel 7, setting the stage for the conditions of Daniel 7:27-28 to be
met: when the earthly holy ones will rule with the son of man. Note in Daniel 7:27 that
the kingdom is both given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High and his
kingdom shall be forever, all the nations once disinherited and ruled by corrupt gods
being made subject to him and to his people.151
The Gods Will Die Like Men
Way back in our first chapter we looked at Psalm 82s clear description of other, plural
elohim in a divine council under the God of Israel. Things have come full circle now as
far as the Old Testament is concerned. Psalm 82 tells us that, instead of governing in
righteousness, the gods who received the disinherited nations after the Babel incident
were corrupt. The last three verses of Psalm 82 speak to their fate when the God of Israel
says:
6
I said, You are gods (elohim),

sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.
Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!
The rule of the gods will be ended when the Most Highand his people, who are his
earthly council holy onesjudges the earth and reclaims the nations he once disinherited.
At that time God will carry out the sentence against the elohim. We, of course, have yet
to see this day. But we did get a glimpse, long ago in Galilee, and it is to that time our
story now moves.
245
145
See Chapter 9 for the first use of the phrase two powers in heaven and its association with Judaism in
this book. The major scholarly work in this area is the book by Alan Segal (Two Powers in Heaven: Early
Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism; Brill, 1977). Segals book documents how the idea of
two (good) powers in heaven was accepted in Judaism, and traces the teaching back to the third century
BC. He then documents how it became a heresy for Judaism at around the second century AD. My own
dissertation (2004) picked up where Segal left the backward trail, as I sought to trace the two powers idea
back into the Old Testament and Israelite religion.
146
Add bibliography here from reformed, covenantal, and dispensational traditions.
147
The rabbis tried to argue that there were only two thronesone for God and one for King David. This
idea fails for a number of reasons, not the least of which that the human-divine figure in the scene (the son
of man) is actually not seated. See www.themyththatistrue.com for more details.
148
The work of R. B. Y. Scott has established that the Aramaic preposition used in Dan. 7:13 can be
translated with or upon. See R. B.Y. Scott, "Behold He Cometh with Clouds," New Testament Studies
5 (1959): 127-132.
149
The Hebrew term qedoshim occurs twice in these verses. Some English translations have saints but
this is misleading.
150
See Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7, 26; 21:6; Psa. 16:3; 34:10.
151
See the final chapter in this book for how the New Testament ties all this together. Some translations
have their kingdom in Daniel 7:27. This requires viewing the referent of the Aramaic suffix pronoun to
be the people. The pronoun in 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 Most High. See the website for more detail.
246
Chapter 22
The Human One
Its easy for us, sitting as we are on this side of the New Testament, to look back and see,
however imperfectly, that the major themes of the Old Testaments cosmic narrative
converge in Jesus. You might even ask yourself at this point in our study how the Jews of
the first century could have missed who he was. The Word, the Name, the Angel, and
Wisdom all point to a godhead, and when any of those figures is embodied as the second,
now visible, Yahweh, we stand aghast at how the God-man Jesus, the miracle-worker
from Galilee who tied his acts to Old Testament revelation, could be rejected and
crucified. But before you or I are too hard on anyone, we need only recall that much of
what youve read in this book escaped you and me in the past. It may look plain as day
now, but that should only intensify the realization that we glossed right over a lot of
things for years without ever knowing it. Even though we have the New Testamentin
some respects a commentary on the Old Testament, the revelation Israelites hadwe still
missed an awful lot of what was given to us. This chapter will no doubt give you that
same feeling, but it will also tie together some threads that have been running since we
began our journey.
Jesus as Daniels Son of Man, the Cloud-Rider
In the last chapter we learned that the Son of Man of Daniel 7 was, to the ancient
Israelite, a second Yahweh figureanother version of the recurring theme of a deity
figure in human form in Israels faith. The term son of man in fact meant human one.
This figures role was tied to the restoration of the kingdom of God on earth. The Son of
Man, the embodied Yahweh, would rule on earth forever, reclaiming the disinherited
nations dominated by the corrupt sons of God.
What you may not realize is that son of man was the description most often used in the
gospels for Jesus, by Jesus himself. Most of the time theres nothing explosive about
Jesus use of the term, though it is striking that Jesus apparently enjoyed referring to
himself as the human one! On one occasion, though, the term is a telling claim by
Jesus to be the embodied deity in Daniel 7and was interpreted as such by his
adversaries. In Matthew 26 we read:
57
Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the
scribes and the elders had gathered. 58 And Peter was following him at a distance,
as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards to
see the end. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking false
testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none,
247
though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said,
This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three
days. 62 And the high priest stood up and said, Have you no answer to make?
What is it that these men testify against you? 63 But Jesus remained silent. And
the high priest said to him, I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the
Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus said to him, You have said so. But I tell you,
from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and
coming on the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said,
He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now
heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment? They answered, He deserves
death.
In what seems like a cryptic answer to a very clear question, Jesus tells Caiaphas, the
Jewish high priest, that he is the second Yahweh. The reaction is swift and unyielding
anyone who claims to be Yahweh is a blasphemer and deserves to die. Jesus answer
provides the high priest with the accusation he needs for a death sentence, but gives us a
clear testimony to Jesus as God incarnate. Unlike the claims of popular writers in our
day, such as Dan Brown in The DaVinci Code, the idea that Jesus was God in flesh did
not originate in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea under pressure from Emperor
Constantine. Hundreds of years earlier Jesus is marked as the human one, the Son of Man
of Daniel 7, the second Yahweh.
This is hardly the only place in the New Testament where Jesus is identified with the
second Yahweh of the Old Testament. Were just getting started.
Jesus as the Word
One of the most familiar passages in the New Testament is John 1. The first eighteen
verses read:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him,
and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the
life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has
not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He
came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through
him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. 9 The true
light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the
world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11
He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did
receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of
God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of
man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have
seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15
(John bore witness about him, and cried out, This was he of whom I said, He
who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me. ) 16 And from
248
his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given
through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever
seen God; the only God, who is at the Fathers side, he has made him known.
Most readers have probably had their pastor or someone else explain to them that his
passage was talking about Jesus. Thats true, of course, but Im guessing that many of
you were like me when I first saw this passage and heard that claim. The only reason I
could (sort of) buy it was verse fourteen, where the Word was made flesh. Looking back
at Chapter 9, though, which detailed that Yahweh himself was the Word who appeared
visibly and even physically to patriarchs and prophets, makes Johns language here much
more comprehensible. Of course no one has seen the Fatherhe is the invisible Yahweh,
undetectable by human eyes. Yahweh had to be veiled, to become visible or embodied,
for us to know him and to be shielded from his essence.
As in the Old Testament, it is the Word, the second Yahweh, who was the agent of
creation. As in the Old Testament, where the second Yahweh is at the Fathers side as
Wisdom, John 1:18 tells us that the only God, who is at the Fathers side is the one who
makes the Father known.152 The word only in that statement is the word monogenes,
which we considered briefly toward the end of Chapter Three. We saw there that the
word is often translated only begotten but actually means unique. Think about that
with respect to John 1:18. The unique God at God the Fathers side makes God the Father
known. By definition unique speaks of one, and we would expect the unique God to be
God the Father, not the one beside the Father. This is comprehensible, though, once we
realize that both were Yahweh, but one was the invisible Yahweh while the other was the
visible Yahweh, embodied for our understanding and protection. As Jesus told the apostle
Philip, Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever
has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father? (John 14:9).
Jesus as Possessor of the Name
As with the Son of Man and the Word, the New Testament applies the concept of the
Name, who is Yahweh to Jesus. In John 17, while awaiting his betrayal by Judas, Jesus
prays:
17: 1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven,
and said, Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may
glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give
eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that
they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I
glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to
do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that
I had with you before the world existed. 6 I have manifested your name to
the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you
gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that
everything that you have given me is from you. 8 For I have given them the
words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to
249
know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent
me. 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those
whom you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All mine are yours, and
yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 And I am no longer in the
world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father,
keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one,
even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name,
which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has
been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled
. . . 20 I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me
through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in
me, and I in you, that they also may be in us,153 so that the world may
believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have
given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and
you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may
know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I
desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I
am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before
the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world
does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I
made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that
the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.
The key phrase here is that Jesus was given the Name of the Father. Now, we know
that Jesus was not called Yahweh by the people of his day. The heralding angel who told
Mary she was to bear the Son of God told her specifically to name the child Jesus. But
lets think about this against the backdrop of the Old Testament notion of the Namethe
very Glory-presence of Yahwehbeing embodied in the Angel, the second Yahweh.
Consider an oft-repeated parallel thought from the same gospel: . . . the Father is in me
and I am in the Father (John 10:38).154 For John, to have the Name is to have the Father.
The concept is the same. And when Jesus says he has kept them in your name, he
means he has kept those the Father gave to him by means of Gods power and presence
the Name, now embodied in Jesus.155
But was the Name ever used as a substitution for Jesus? Was Jesus equated with
the Name as the Name was equated with Yahweh in the Old Testament? We can answer
in the affirmative on the strength of several passages.156
Acts 5:40-42
40
and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged
them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41 Then they left
the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to
suffer dishonor for the name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from
house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the
Christ.
250
At the very least, the expression here reveals the same mode of thinking as in the Old
Testamentthat the God we follow can be referred to by the phrase the Name. And
since the people using the wording here were Jews, the phrase has a distinct Old
Testament flavor. And it is clear that the Name for whom the apostles suffered was
Jesus.157
Romans 10:9-13
9
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your
heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart
one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For
the Scripture says, Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame. 12
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all,
bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For everyone who calls on the
name of the Lord will be saved.
The important thing to note here is that the quotation of verse 13 comes from Joel 2:32.
In that Old Testament text we read: everyone who calls on the name of the LORD
(Yahweh) shall be saved. The apostle Paul deftly links confessing Jesus is Lord in
verse 9 with the statement of the Old Testament prophet. This happens many times,
especially in Pauls writings.158 The Name and Yahweh were interchanged in Israelite
theology, so that trusting in the Name of Yahweh 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.
Jesus as Wisdom
There are several instances in the New Testament where Jesus is identified with the
second Yahweh who is the Wisdom of the Old Testament. Paul explicitly states that
Jesus is the Wisdom of God (I Cor. 1:24). Its possible that Paul meant only to say that
Jesus was Gods wise plan to outwit Satan,159 but I would suggest what Paul says
should be understood in the context of other apostolic sayings about Jesus and Wisdom.
The most striking and obvious instance of an identification of Jesus and Wisdom is Luke
11:49-51. This text refers to the Wisdom of God in terms now familiar to us, terms of
personhood. As you read, ask yourself who is speaking in the underlined portion:
46
And he [Jesus] said, Woe to you lawyers also! For you load
people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch
the burdens with one of your fingers. 47 Woe to you! For you build
the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. 48 So you are
witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they
killed them, and you build their tombs. 49 Therefore also the
Wisdom of God said, I will send them prophets and apostles,
some of whom they will kill and persecute, 50 so that the blood of
251
all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be
charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the
blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the
sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.
The passage is pretty straightforward. We know the context well enough to realize that
Jesus is the speaker, in this case once again railing on the hypocrisy of his enemies. But
in verse 49 Jesus suddenly interjects another speaker, the Wisdom of God, who proceeds
to say in the first person, I sent you prophets and apostles. Jesus does this in such a
way as to create the impression that it was Wisdom who sent the prophets and apostles,
something we know from both the Old and New Testament that God the Father did (e.g.,
Isa. 6:8; 10:6; Jer 1:7; I Cor. 1:28). Jesus is explicitly equating Wisdom and God the
Father.
Is Jesus confused? Is the gospel writer being careless? No way. Its deliberate, and sets
up a wonderful illustration of the theological value of having more than one gospel.
Check out the same passage in Matthew 23. Note the underlining carefully, and
remember the speaker is the same as beforeJesus:
29
[And Jesus said,] Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,

hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate
the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, If we had lived in the
days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in
shedding the blood of the prophets. 31 Thus you witness against
yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32
Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you
brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34
Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of
whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your
synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you
may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of
innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,
whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly,
I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Did you catch it? In this gospel, Matthew naturally has Jesus as the speaker who is
giving the Pharisees and scribes a tongue-lashing. But whereas the gospel of Luke had
Jesus making Wisdom a second speaker, Matthew puts the very words of Wisdom, who
has assumed the identity of God the Father in Luke, into Jesus own mouth! The effect of
this in the early church was electric: Luke and Matthew, through a written tag-team
effort, identified Jesus as Gods co-creator, Wisdom, who was identified as Yahweh, the
God of Israel. To those readers who knew their Old Testament well, the implication was
obvious: Jesus is the second Yahweh figure. He is Wisdom!
The writer of Hebrews telegraphs the same Wisdom-Jesus equation to his readers. In
Hebrews 1:1-3 we read 1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our
252
fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he
appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the
radiance [apaugasma] of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he
upholds the universe by the word of his power.
The Greek word apaugasma occurs only here in the entire New Testament. It also occurs
in only one place in the Septuagint. It is very rare. The first chapter of Hebrews is known
for its quotations of the Old Testament. The writer is addressing Jews (God spoke to our
fathers by the prophets; Heb 1:1) and so he uses sacred literature familiar to them as
Jews to build his case for the messianic lordship of Jesus. The passage in the Septuagint
where the word apaugasma occurs is actually from a book outside the canon that many
Jews also considered authoritative. Its a book weve looked into before: The Wisdom of
Solomon. Hebrews 1:3 draws on Wisdom of Solomon 7:22, where apaugasmathe
radiance of Gods gloryis none other than Wisdom: For she is a reflection
[apaugasma] of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of
his goodness. For the writer of Hebrews, Wisdom was Jesus.
Jesus as the Angel of Yahweh
Jesus and the Angel who is the visible Yahweh in the Old Testament are identified by
virtue of Jesus being the one in whom Gods name is in the new era of the New
Testament. Aside from that connection, though, it is possible in light of Jude 5,160 which
says:
Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully
informed of these facts once for all that Jesus, having saved the people out
of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.
This short verse in Jude credits Jesus as delivering the Israelites from Egypt. The
reference here is to Exodus 23:20-23, where the Angel of the Lord, in whom is the Name,
goes before Israel in the procession out of Egypt. The reference to destruction 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 resulted in destruction of unbelievers. The
reference might also be to other judgments that occurred after the exodus, such as the
abandonment of Israel by the Angel of the Lord in Judges 2, the destruction of people in
the plague of II Samuel 24, or Israels enemies the Assyrians by the Angel of the Lord (II
Chron. 32). At any rate, the identification here, along with all the other connections
between Jesus and the visible Yahweh, is striking.
Jesus as Lord of the Divine Council
That the New Testament ties Jesus to the second (visible) Yahweh figure of the Old
Testament is quite clear. As the second Yahweh, the one who is but isnt the FatherYahweh, it should also be clear that Jesus is superior to the divine council. The council
members were created beings and were at the service of God. Keeping this in mind helps
us understand one of the more enigmatic dialogues Jesus had with certain adversarial
253
Jews. In fact, it helps us identify that episode as a powerful statement of the deity of
Jesus.
Im speaking here of Jesus quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34-35. Psalm 82, of
course, is the central passage on the divine council in the Old Testament. To get the full
context, lets take a look at John 10, beginning in verse 22:
22
And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And
Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24 Then came the Jews round
about him, and said to him, "How long are you going to make us doubt? If you are
the Christ, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you believed
not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But you
believe not, because you are not of my sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear
my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give to them eternal
life; and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone pluck them out of my hand.
29
My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to pluck
them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one." 31 Then the Jews took
up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works have I
shown you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?" 33 The
Jews answered him, saying, "For a good work we would not stone you; but for
blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God."
To this point, a few things are crystal clear: (1) Jesus says he had told the Jews that he
was Messiah; (2) he identifies himself with Yahweh; and (3) they understood his
statement about being one with Yahweh as a claim to be God.161 Instead of making any
effort to correct their perception or deny that he was God, Jesus proceeds to take them to
Psalm 82:
34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law: 'I said, you are gods?' 35 If
he [God] called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture
cannot be broken; 36 how do you say of him whom the Father has sanctified and
sent into the world, 'You blaspheme!' because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I
do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though you don't
believe me, believe the works: that you may know, and believe, that the Father is
in me, and I in him." 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped
out of their hand, 40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where
John at first baptized; and there he abode. 41 And many resorted unto him, and
said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spoke of this man were true. 42
And many believed on him there.
You may recall that, way back in Chapter 1, I noted that many scholarsand practically
all evangelical scholarsthink that the elohim of Psalm 82 are human beings, namely the
elders of Israel. I reject that view for the reasons outlined in Chapter 1.162 Since so many
see the elohim in Psalm 82 as humans, it shouldnt be surprising that a large number of
scholarsand most, if not all, evangelicalsthink Jesus is applying this quotation to
human beings, in this case, the Jews who were challenging him. In other words, most
interpreters would say Jesus is saying, Look guys, you shouldnt have any trouble with
254
me calling myself God when your own Scriptures call other people gods. I dont think
this is the point of the quotation at all.
Any interpretation of Jesus quotation here must incorporate the context of what else
Jesus says in John 10 and make sense doing so. Jesus has declared himself to be one with
the Father, which the Jews interpret (correctly) as a claim to be God. Why would Jesus
seek to disabuse them of that idea when it was true? The majority interpretation of this
passage has Jesus in effect muting that claim (I can call myself God just like you guys
can). Why would Jesus correct their perception by backing away from a claim to be
God when he was God incarnate? This view gets more muddled when we notice that
after he quotes the passage Jesus adds the Father is in me, and I in him, and then the
Jews try to seize him again! Could the rest of the Jews say that? Was Jesus affirming,
then muting, then re-affirming his identification with the Father? Couldnt he make up
his mind? Were the Jews angry with him because he was indecisive? Hardlythey knew
he was claiming to be God, which raises the issue of how to better interpret his quotation
of Psalm 82:6.
Naturally, in light of this books first chapter, I believe that the elohim of Psalm 82 were
not human. That understanding of Psalm 82 leads me to argue here that Jesus was in fact
asserting his own deityand his own status as Lord of the divine council. Let me
explain.
The human elohim view that I reject derives from two assumptions brought to the text:
(1) that it is required by the impossibility of there being other elohim; and (2) that the
phrase "to whom the word of God came" in John 10:35 refers to the Jews who received
the law at Sinai i.e., the Pharisees' forefathers. Chapter 1 dispenses with the first
assumption, so lets go after the second.
First we need to come to terms with what is meant by the word of God and who it is
that receives that word in the original Psalm 82:6-7. Here it is:
6 I said, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.
7 Therefore you shall die as humans do, and you shall fall as one of the princes.
The speaker (I) in the passage is the God of Israel, the God who is standing in the
divine council in 82:1 among the other elohim to accuse them of corruption. God
announces in 82:6 that the elohim of the council are his sons, but because of their
corruption (vv. 2-5), they will be stripped of their immortality. I believe that when Jesus
quoted Psalm 82:6 he wanted his audience to remember who the speaker was (God) and
who the recipients were (the elohim of the divine council). He wanted his audience to
recollect, yeah, thats right, there are other elohim and those elohim are the sons of the
God of Israel. Jesus was not asking his Jewish audience to consider themselves as the
elohim of Psalm 82:6. We, as modern interpreters, have inserted that idea into the passage
and, consequently, into the minds of those who were listening to Jesus.
To illustrate the difference in the views:
255
Common Interpretation /
Jesus strategy assumes elohim are human
My View /
Jesus strategy assumes elohim are divine
The word of God that came = revelation

from God at Sinai.163
The word of God that came = the

utterance itself in Psalm 82:6 the
pronouncement from God
to whom the word of God came = the

Israelites at Sinai, or the Jews generally.
to whom the word of God came = the

elohim of the divine council in 82:1
Result = the Jews are the sons of the Most

High and to the elohim. Jesus can call
himself an elohim because all Jews can.
There is therefore no claim to deity.
Result = The Jews are not the elohim of

Psalm 82. Rather, Jesus reminds his
audience that there are other elohim-heavenly elohim of the divine council who
are Gods sons in 82:6. He wants the Jews
to remember that God is not the only
elohim and God has sons.
The logical question at this point is how Jesus effort to get the Jews to remember there
are plural elohim of any help to Jesus as he responds to the Jews who object to his claim
to be one with the Father, the invisible Yahweh. It seems that the view I am proposing
leaves Jesus saying, Hey, there are many sons of God, so I can call myself the son of
God. This wouldnt amount to claim of equality with God, since the sons of God were
created and inferior to Yahweh.
Youd be right if you thought thisbut only if you dont factor in the context of Jesus
quotation. On one hand, just reminding the Jews that God had heavenly sons would have
been sufficient to win the argument over the right to call himself a son of God. But Jesus
went beyond that. Since he says I and the Father are one before he quotes Psalm 82:6,
he was actually claiming to be the crown prince or co-regent of the councilthe one son
who shares the throne! This is why, elsewhere in John, Jesus is the unique son of God
(the monogenes).164 And his subsequent statement that, the Father is in me and I in
him, hearkened back to the invisible Yahweh being in the Old Testament co-regent,
the Angel of Yahweh (Exod. 23:20-23). He was claiming to be the embodied Yahweh,
Lord of the council. Its no wonder they tried to seize him.
As amazing as it was to see the concept of a godhead in the Old Testamentin effect, the
Jewish Bibleits even more amazing to realize what the connection to Jesus really
means. Its one thing to have God come to human beings in the Old Testament through
visible means, a mediating figure who at times was an embodied man. Its quite another
to have the second Yahweh be born of a woman as completely human, with all the
limitations and vulnerabilities that entails. The incarnation of God in Jesus was the
ultimate attempt by Yahweh to meet with us and experience us, and to have us experience
him. Anyone who has seen Jesus has seen the Father. But this was also more than an
256
extended visitation. It was all about overcoming the debacle in Eden, seed of the
nachash, and the disinheriting of the nations.
152
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 we have.
153
The idea of believers being in the Father and in Christ just as the Father is in the Son and the Son
in the Father, relates to the fact that it is the Christians destiny to become divine to be like Christ
because believers are the sons of God / children of God (cf. I John 3:1-3). This will be the subject of
another chapter.
154
See John 14:10-12, 20 and 2 Cor. 5:18.
155
This is not the Gnostic notion that the man Jesus became God or received God at his baptism. That
cannot be the point because of verse 24, where Jesus says that the Father loved him before the foundation
of the world.
156
I have not included Jesus I AM statements here. See the next chapter.
157
As C.K. Barrett notes, The Jews used to avoid saying God; the Christians took this up for Jesus;
therefore they thought of Jesus as God (C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts
of the Apostles; The Acts of the Apostles [2 v.: T&T Clark International, 2004], 301).
158
Footnote the book by Capes here.
159
And if thats the case, the Pauline doctrine of Jesus deity does not depend on this verse.
160
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 we have.
161
Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses would translate the end of this verse, . . . you, being a man, make
yourself a god, albeit for different theological reasons. Those in either camp who work in Greek would
argue that the Greek word for God here (theos) lacks the definite article, and so the indefinite a god is
correct because of Greek grammar and syntax. This objection does not hold water, as a syntactical search
for theos as a grammatical complement unpreceded by a definite article shows. For this technical
discussion and the results of this search, see www.themyththatistrue.com or www.michaelsheiser.com/UFO
162
There are other sound reasons for rejecting this view, but they are of a technical nature. See
www.themyththatistrue.com.
163
Notice that there is no reference to Sinai (or any mountain) in Psalm 82. The idea that the word here is
the law has to be supplied.
164
See Chapter 1 for the discussion on the monogenes son (usually translated imprecisely as, only
begotten).
257
Chapter 23
Pre-Eminent Domain
We often think of the commencement the ministry and mission of Jesus as something
quiet and covert. Not so. A day in the ministry of the incarnate Yahweh was a spiritual
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. We call it the kingdom of God. To Jesus it was holy war; a spiritual Special-Ops
mission.
Sadly, the intensity Jesus words and acts is frequently hidden in plain sight. Space
prevents going through all the gospels and the ministry of Jesus like we could. Well look
at three episodes in this chapter, and then focus on the crucifixion and resurrection in the
next. By now youve had your senses tuned by the cosmic backdrop of the divine council
worldview of the Old Testament. Its a good thing, too. The gospels are far more than a
boring point-to-point travelogue. Modern Bible teaching has just made it seem that way.
Consider this chapter a cure.
Who Will Go For Us?
From the moment Jesus came on the public scene as the messianic Servant of whom
Isaiah wrote, the kingdom of darkness came under assault. Weve all read about Jesus
baptism before, perhaps dozens of timesbut we have likely missed the context for it.
Johns gospel (John 1:19-23, 29-31) sets it up this way:
19
And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from
Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you? 20 He confessed, and did not deny, but
confessed, I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Are you
Elijah? He said, I am not. Are you the Prophet? And he answered, No. 22
So they said to him, Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent
us. What do you say about yourself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying out
in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as the prophet Isaiah said.
. . . 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, Behold, the
Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said,
After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me. 31 I
myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he
might be revealed to Israel.
258
Its pretty startling that John the Baptist would quote Isaiah 40 and identify himself with
the anonymous voice of Isa. 40:3 that heralded the coming of Yahweh. After all, that
would amount to an identification of Yahweh with Jesus, the one whom John explicitly
said he was announcing. But if we go back to Isaiah 40, things get even more interesting.
Isaiah 40:1-5
1
2
Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.

Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
and cry to her
that her warfare is ended,
that her iniquity is pardoned,
that she has received from the LORDs hand
double for all her sins.
A voice cries:
In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Every valley shall be lifted up,
and every mountain and hill be made low;
the uneven ground shall become level,
and the rough places a plain.
And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed,
and all flesh shall see it together,
for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
Yahweh commands that someone speak comfort to Jerusalem that her time of judgment
is past and her sins forgiven. But have you ever wondered just whom Yahweh was
commanding? Youll probably wonder even more when I tell you that all the underlined
commands in the first two verses are plural. Then again by this point maybe that doesnt
surprise you!
Hebrew scholars have long recognized Isaiah 40:1-2 as a call from Yahweh to his divine
council, due to the plural commands in these verses. The plural isnt referring to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, since the people of the holy city are the ones that need the
comfort. Yahweh is calling to his divine council that one of its members go to comfort
Jerusalemspecifically, to announce that the time of salvation and forgiveness has
arrived. Just as the message of repent or else came in the presence of the divine council
back in the famous scene of Isaiah 6, where Isaiah is present in Yahwehs throne room,
where council holds session, so it is that the announcement of pardon is issued in the
presence of the council. Think about what is said in Isaiah 6:8
And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go
for us? Then I said, Here am I! Send me.
After the call goes out, an anonymous voice responds:
259
A voice cries:
In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Every valley shall be lifted up,
and every mountain and hill be made low;
the uneven ground shall become level,
and the rough places a plain.
And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed,
and all flesh shall see it together.
for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
The anonymous voice that brings forth the message is somewhat reminiscent of 1 Kings
22, the divine council scene where the death of Ahab has been decreed, and then God
leaves it up to council members to get the job done. A member of the council steps
forward and announces the plan. Israels exile is over. Yahweh will return to his own
disinherited Israel, a people held captive by one of the nations disinherited at Babel,
before there was an Israel. The earth will never be the same, and all flesh will see it!
Amazingly, the Gospel of John casts John the Baptist in the role of the anonymous voice.
Anyone familiar with the divine council context of Isaiah 40 would instantly recognize
what is implied. Yahwehs divine council is now in session. Long-laid plans in the divine
war room are now to be enacted. God is commissioning John the Baptist to announce the
arrival of the visible Yahweh.
Not only is John the Baptist commissioned in a manner consistent with standing in the
council, but the Yahweh who comes on the scene bringing salvation is the visible,
incarnate YahwehJesus. The pattern of divine commissioning holds true for the
greatest prophetic figure, the prophet like unto Moses (Deut. 18:15-18).
John 1:29-34
29
The next day he [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said,
Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of
whom I said, After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before
me. 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with
water, that he might be revealed to Israel. 32 And John bore witness: I saw the
Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did
not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, He on whom
you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy
Spirit. 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.
Matthew 3:13-17 makes it even more dramatic:
13
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14
John would have prevented him, saying, I need to be baptized by you, and do
you come to me? 15 But Jesus answered him, Let it be so now, for thus it is
260
fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus
was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens
were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and
coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, This is my
beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.
The New Testament story, then, begins with a dramatic re-visitation of Yahwehs call to
the divine council to send someone to make way for Yahwehthe visible Yahwehwho
is on a mission to redeem his children. But that was only half the task.
Holy War
Incredibly, the mission of Jesus was not only for the children of Israel, the family
Yahweh created after consigning the existing nations to the dominion of lesser gods at
Babel. The coming of the incarnate Yahweh was for reclaiming those nations as well.
But the gods of darkness were not going to surrender their domains without a fightand
the battle began so quickly Jesus barely had time to dry off.
The gospel writers tell us the event that immediately followed Jesus baptism was his
journey into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil at the direction of the Holy Spirit
(Matt 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1-13). Think about that. The wilderness was territory
outside the holy ground of Israel. It was one of the places where Moses and Joshua
encountered giant clans. It was where Israelites believed desert demons, including
Azazel, were thought to inhabit. The Azazel material is especially telling, since, as I
noted in the chapter on the Day of Atonement, Jewish practice of that ritual in Jesus day
included driving the goat for Azazel into the desert outside Jerusalem and pushing it
over a cliff so it could not return. The wilderness was a place associated with the
demonic. And this was no exception.
You might wonder why the Spirit compelled Jesus to go into the desert to face the Devil.
Jesus concluding retort to Satan make the answer clear: be gone, Satan! For it is
written, You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve (Matt.
4:10). The point was not that God needed to see if Jesus was up to the task, but to root the
episode in the context of the whole of the Old Testament story: the battle of Yahweh vs.
the gods and who was loyal to whom.
The first temptation of Jesus was that Satan tried to entice Jesus into satisfying his hunger
by turning stones to bread. The problem of hunger was, of course, an issue in Israels
wanderings in the wilderness on the way to Canaan. Jesus responds by quoting Deut. 8:3,
which reads in context, And he [Yahweh] humbled you and let you hunger and fed you
with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you
know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes
from the mouth of Yahweh. His point was that his loyalty was to the invisible Yahweh;
he would obey no other. This is also apparent from Jesus words elsewhere about his
mission: My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work
(John 4:34). The second temptation is like the first. Satan dares Jesus to jump from the
261
top of the temple to prove he was the son of God, whom Gods angels would protect.
Jesus quotes Deut. 6:16, which again is in the context of obedience to Yahweh alone:
You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah. You shall
diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his testimonies and his
statutes, which he has commanded you (Deut. 6:16-17).
The ultimate temptation comes last, and hits directly at Jesus ultimate missionto
reclaim all that is Yahwehs:
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the
kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, All these I will give
you, if you will fall down and worship me (Matt 4:8-9)
Satan offered Jesus the nations that had been disinherited by Yahweh at Babel. As the
ruler of this world (John 12:31), the offer was not a hollow one. But accepting it meant
acknowledging that Satans permission was needed to gain the nations. Jesus answer is
clear: Yahweh will not regain the nations because they are Satans to give; rather, He will
take them back by his own means. The work of Christ was that means, and Jesus remains
loyal to his Father.
Immediately following this confrontation, Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to
Galilee where he preached in the regions synagogues and was rejected by those in his
home town of Nazareth (Luke 4:14-15) Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus moved out
of Nazareth and went to live in Capernaum (Matt. 4:12-16). At Capernaum he began his
ministry with a simple but appropriate message: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand (Matt. 4:17). Jesus then does two things: calls his first disciples: Peter, Andrew,
James, and John and heals a demon-possessed man (Mark 1:16-28; Luke 4:31-5:11). Let
the holy war begin.
It might sound hard to believe, but this event is first time in the entire Bible we ever 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 victory over Satans
temptations, marks the beginning of the re-establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.
Jesus himself made this connection absolutely explicit: If it is by the finger of God that I
cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you (Luke 11:20). And since
the lesser elohim over the nations are cast as demons in the Old Testament (Deut. 32:17)
the implications for our study are clear: the ministry of Jesus marked the beginning of
repossession of the nations and defeat of their elohim.
Following Lukes account of what happened next, Jesus preaches, heals, and casts out
other demons after this initial exorcism. He also gathers more disciples. In Luke 9 Jesus
gathers his twelve disciples together and gives them power and authority over the
demons, sending them out to proclaim the kingdom of God (Luke 9:1-6).
As if the intention wasnt clear enough, in the next chapter Jesus does something
dramatic to announce to all who understood what happened at Babelwhich includes the
262
demonic elohim of the nationswhat was really happening: Now after this the Lord
appointed seventy others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place
where He Himself was going to come (Luke 10:1). Jesus sent out seventy disciples. The
number is not accidental.165 It is the number of nations listed in Genesis 10 that were
dispossessed at Babel. The seventy return with joy (Luke 10:17) and announce to
Jesus, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name! Jesus response is
electric: I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18). The implications are
clear: Jesus ministry is the beginning of the end for Satan and the gods of the nations.
The great reversal is underway.
Cosmic Geographys Ground Zero: The Gates of Hell
Our last event occurs a bit later in Jesus ministry. In Matthew 16:13-20 we read that
Jesus went with his disciples to the district of Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asks the
famous question, Who do people say that I am? Peter answers You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God. Jesus commends Peter:
17
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this
to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 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 it.
This passage is among the most controversial in the Bible, as it is a focal point of debate
between Roman Catholics, who use 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. Theres
actually something much more cosmic going on here. The location of Caesarea Philippi
and the reference to the gates of hell provide the cosmic context for the rock of
which Jesus is speaking.
The location of Caesarea Philippi should look familiar. The map below gives a broad
orientation (see the red arrow):
263
In the close-up on the left, note that Caesarea Philippi is adjacent to the Pharpar River.
The close-up on the right, again noting the geography and the Pharpar River, we see
exactly where Jesus was when he said this:
264
Caesarea Philippi was located just north of Old Testament Dan, which, you recall from
Chapters 7 and 14 was the Old Testament gates of hell in the region of Bashan, the
place of the serpent.166
Things hadnt changed much by Jesus day, at least in terms of spiritual control. You may
have noticed on these maps that Caesarea Philipp was also called Panias. The early
church historian Eusebius notes: until today the mount in front of Panias and Lebanon is
known as Hermon and it is respected by nations as a sanctuary167 Panias is Arabic for
the Greek Banias. The site was famous in the ancient world as a center of the worship of
265
Pan and for a temple to the high god Zeus, considered in Jesus day to be incarnate in
Augustus Caesar.168 A more recent authority gives us a few more details:
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.
The celestial gods take our minds back to the host of heaven, the sons of God who were
put in authority over the nations at Babel (Deut 32:8-9) who were not to be worshipped
by Israelites (Deut. 4:19-20; 17:3; 29:25).
The basis for Catholicisms contention that the church is built on Peters leadership is that
his name (Greek: Petros; Aramaic: Cephas) means rock (Greek: petra; Aramaic:
kepha). For sure there is word play going on in Peters confession, but I would suggest
there is also an important double entendre: the rock refers to the mountain location at
where Jesus makes the statement. Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the
living God, at this place. Jesus in return tells Peter that on this rock (this mountain
Mount Hermon) he will build his churchand the gates of hell will not prevail against
it. We often think of Jesus gates of hell comment in terms of the church holding off
Satan and his demons in a defensive mode. This isnt correct. Gates are defensive
structures, not offensive weapons. 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
assaultand they will not hold up against the church, which will be built over Satans
tomb.
Its hard to imagine, but the conflict ratchets up one more notch after Peters confession.
Mount Hermon wasnt just linked to Bashan, Dan, the demonic elohim, and the giant
clans. It was the place where, in Jewish literature such as the book of 1 Enoch, where the
sons of God of Genesis 6:1-4 came in rebellion against Yahweh. Jesus has one more
statement to make.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree that the next event in the ministry of Jesus after
Peters confession was the Transfiguration. Mark 9:2-8 reads:
2
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 and his
clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. 4
And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. 5
And Peter said to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good that we are here. Let us make three
tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah. 6 For he did not know
what to say, for they were terrified. 7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a
voice came out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son; listen to him. 8 And
suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only.
266
In early church tradition, the location of the mount of transfiguration was believed by
many to be Mount Tabor. The earliest witness to this tradition is the 4th century A.D.169
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),170 which
would fit better with the description of a high mountain by Mark (and in Matthew
17:1). 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 symbolicreligious associations that relationship entails make Mount Hermon the logical choice for
the Transfiguration.171
The imagery is striking. On the very mountain where the rebel sons of God, the Watchers
of 1 Enoch, descended, Jesus reveals to Peter, James, and John, exactly who he isthe
embodied Glory of the Old Testament, the divine Name, the essence of Yahweh now
incarnate. The meaning is just as transparent: Ive come to earth to take back what is
mineand it starts here.
At this point you may be wondering how all this jives with the rest of Jesus life. Wasnt
Jesus rejected? Didnt Israel itself defeat and thus delay the kingdom? Didnt the gates of
hell prevail when Jesus was crucified? Didnt Satan and the demonic elohim know what
God was up to and stop it, at least for a while? Good questions.
165
See Appendix ___ for a discussion of Luke 10:1-12, as well as the seventy versus seventy-two readings
in this chapter.
166
See ABD entry on Hermon and DDD for supporting material on the website.
167
Ibid
168
Have some material on the grotto of Pan here:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early%20History%20%20Archaeology/Archaeological%20Sites%20in%20Israel%20-%20Banyas-%20Cult%20Cent. See also
the work of Judd Burton on this; see also http://www.bibleplaces.com/banias.htm..
169
This tradition can be traced back to Cyril of Jerusalem (348 - c. 386 CE), who speaks of it in passing:
They (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 (Catech. 12, 16). His contemporary Jerome (348420
CE) likewise mentions it only casually when describing to Eustochium the journeys made in the Near East
by her mother Paula: She climbed Mt. Thabor on which the Lord was transfigurated (Epistle 108, 13)
(ABD, 828).
170
Avraham Negev, The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (3rd ed.; New York: Prentice Hall
Press, 1996, c1990); Tabor, Mount (Place), ABD, 305.
171
See Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary; John J. Rousseau and Rami Arav
(Fortress, 1995), 209-210. Mount Hermon also makes good sense in light of Psalm 68:15-
267
Chapter 24
Stealth Tactic
It should come as no surprise that certain threads of the divine council worldview of the
Old Testament are picked up by New Testament writers with respect to the crucifixion of
Jesus and his work on the cross. There are in fact so many that the next two chapters are
devoted to bringing some of those connections to light.
Demonic Spectators to the Crucifixion
All four gospels describe the crucifixion of Jesus, to varying degrees of detail. One of the
more thorough descriptions is that of Matthew 27:32-46:
32
As they went out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. They
compelled this man to carry his cross. 33 And when they came to a place called
Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), 34 they offered him wine to drink,
mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. 35 And when they
had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. 36 Then
they sat down and kept watch over him there. 37 And over his head they put the
charge against him, which read, This is Jesus, the King of the Jews. 38 Then two
robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. 39 And those
who passed by derided him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, You who would
destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of
God, come down from the cross. 41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and
elders, mocked him, saying, 42 He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the
King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in
him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said,
I am the Son of God. 44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also
reviled him in the same way. 45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over
all the land until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a
loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why
have you forsaken me?
Though Matthew does not create specific points of connection with every element in the
psalm, his description clearly draws on Psalm 22. The parallels are hard to miss:
268
Matthew 27
Psalm 22
. . . they divided his garments among them . . . they divide my garments among
by casting lots . . . (v. 35)
them, and for my clothing they cast lots .
. . (22:18)
. . . they sat down and kept watch over
All who see me mock me; they make
him there . . . And those who passed by
mouths at me; they wag their heads . . .
derided him, wagging their heads . . . So
they stare and gloat over me . . . (22:17)
also the chief priests, with the scribes and
elders, mocked him . . . (vv. 36, 38, 41)
. . . Jesus cried out with a loud voice,
My God, my God, why have you
saying, Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? that
forsaken me? (22:1)
is, My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?
In addition to the clear textual links between Matthew and Psalm 22, scholars have long
noticed that elements of Psalm 22 appear to describe the procedures and effects of
crucifixion:
all my bones are out of joint (22:14)

my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue
sticks to my jaws (22:15)
they have pierced my hands and feetI can count all
my bones (22:16)172
These connections are familiar to most readers. Less apparent are some under-the-surface
connections to the divine council worldview and its cosmic holy war context. If you were
to read the entire psalm, at this point in our journey verse 12 would no doubt jump off the
page: Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me. Strong bulls of
Bashan?
Bashan, as we have seen, carries a lot of theological baggage. Weve seen that Bashan,
overlapping with the region of Dan, is linked in the Old Testament to serpent motifs and
the giant clan enemies of ancient Israel, the vestiges of the Nephilim bloodline. As we
saw in the last chapter, it also contained a major cult center within its borders, near
Mount Hermon. Bashans history as a place of worship for gods considered demonic in
Old Testament theology includes its prominence in the alternative worship of Samaria,
the renegade northern kingdom of the ten tribes of Israel who forsook Davids dynasty
when Solomon died. This confederacy and rival kingdom was set up by Jeroboam after
the dramatic confrontation with Solomons heir, Rehoboam, described in 1 Kings 12. The
Bible specifically tells us that Jeroboam set up a worship center in Dan where calves of
gold were worshipped (1 Kings 12:25-33). So the worship of other godsgods besides
Yahweh and thus under the condemnation of passages like Deut 32:17was known to
occur at Bashan. Moreover, these gods were fashioned as bulls or cows.
These bovines of Bashan are given specific attention in Amos 4
269
Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are on the mountain of Samaria, who
oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to your husbands, Bring, that we
may drink! 2 The Lord GOD has sworn by his holiness that, behold, the days are
coming upon you when they shall take you away with hooks, even the last of you
with fishhooks. 3 And you shall go out through the breaches, each one straight
ahead; and you shall be cast out into Harmon, declares the LORD.
Since the cows of Bashan are said to speak to their husbands, scholars are universally
agreed that Amos is specifically addressing upper-class women of northern Israel who
were idolaters of the golden calves of Bashan. I wouldnt disagree with that necessarily,
but theres more to the wording than that. Amos could be targeting temple priestesses
who served the gods along with male priests. It 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 that their crimes: oppressing the poor (dallim) and crushing the needy
(ebyonim). These same two Hebrew words are used in Psalm 82, where the corrupt
elohim are accused of exactly these same crimes (Psa. 82:3-4).
For our purposes, the point is that bulls of Bashan has certifiable connections to
demons. Although Psalm 22 wasnt originally messianic in focus, Matthews use of it
alerts us to an association. The implication is that Jesus, at the moment of agony and
death, was surrounded by the demonic elohim who had been the foes of Yahweh and his
children for millennia.
Had They But Known
I cant help but recall C. S. Lewis description of Aslan the lion, Lewis Christ figure,
bound and laying helpless on the stone table, surrounded by the Satan-figure, the White
Witch, and her evil minions, ready to slay their helpless victim. Had they but known the
ultimate result, they would never have done it. As Lewis so skillfully allegorizes, the
sacrifice of Aslan accomplishes redemption for the fallen son of Adam, and the
subsequent demise of the White Witch. Paul said the same thing about the evil powers
behind the crucifixion in 1 Corinthians 2:
6
Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this
age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a
secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our
glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would
not have crucified the Lord of glory.
The key term in Pauls statement is rulers or
in Greek, the plural form of
. The word
was commonly used in Greek to refer to human rulers, and Paul
uses it this way in passages like Romans 13:3. However, there are several scriptural
indicators that, in this instance, Paul has cosmic rulers in mind.
270
Paul is speaking specifically of the rulers (

) of this age (
). Both Greek
words in this phrase are found in Ephesians 2:1-2, where Paul says, And you were dead
in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world
(
), following the prince (
) of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at
work in the sons of disobedience. Here Satan is described as an
who is in some
way responsible for the course of this
. The rulers (
) of this age
(
) in Pauls letter to the Corinthians would then be demonic entities carrying out
Satans agenda. These rulers are also said by Paul to be doomed to pass away (1 Cor
2:6). This would be a very odd thing for Paul to point out for rhetorical impact, since all
humans die. But if it refers to divine beingsprecisely what is described in Psalm 82:7,
where the lesser elohim are sentenced to die like humankindthe description is fitting.
The Mystery of Messiah
The reason that the demonic elohim were blinded to the lynchpin of Yahwehs plan, the
destruction of the incarnate Yahweh, was that they could not foresee the resurrection. To
us it appears that the Old Testament, read, preached, and taught for centuries, is crystal
clear about a resurrected messiah in the pages of the Old Testament. It really isnt. Think
about what a quandary we would be in without the New Testament, all of which was
written after the resurrection.
If you take away the New Testament and the ministry of Jesus, the Old Testament is
actually quite cryptic about the Messiah. There are only two Old Testament passages that
use the term mashiach that are quoted by New Testament writers as prophetic statements
about messiah: Psa 2:2 (quoted in Acts 4:25-26; Rev 19:19) and Psa 89:51 (a faint
allusion to it occurs in 1 Pet 4:14). Another example of the clarity we take for granted
(but which is hardly clear at all) is the idea that messiah would be God incarnate. There is
actually no passage in the entirety of the Old Testament that unambiguously says the
Messiah would be Yahweh incarnate. The titles of Isaiah 9:6 hint at this, but scholars
have noted that the five titles are strikingly similar to the fivefold list of titles taken by
Egyptian pharaohs, who were just men. It is well known among scholars that the Israelite
kings of the 8th century B.C. (when this prophecy was written) incorporated Egyptian
throne symbology. For example, Hezekiahs seal, discovered by archaeologists, bears the
familiar Egyptian winged kheper beetle on it. Egyptian Pharaohs called their kings god,
everlasting, and father, but the Pharaohs were mere mortals. But if Isaiahs readers
could mentally link one word in those titles (wonderful; Hebrew pele) with the use of
that term in Judges 13:18-19, we have a different story. This Hebrew word is used of both
the invisible Yahweh (v. 19) and the Angel of Yahweh (v. 18) in Judges 13, and then
subsequently linked to a Davidic king whose government would have no end (Isa 9:7).
But how many Jews (or anyone) could detect that without hindsight? Hardly any from
what we read in the gospels. The disciples and the Pharisees are equally clueless, and the
former only knew what they knew because Jesus was teaching them.
271
What this tells us is that messianic prophecy was deliberately not laid out in clear
statements. It was cryptic. Rather than a list of verses spelling how who messiah would
be (and more importantly, what the plan was for re-establishing the kingdom of God) we
instead get a mosaic of traits scattered throughout the Old Testament, the pieces to a
picture that must be mentally assembled without any prior frame of referencelike
putting a puzzle together without ever seeing the completed picture on the box lid.
Most cryptic of all was the intended plan once messiah arrived. Genesis 3:15 promised
only a human deliverer, a descendant of Eve. We like to read blood sacrifice into the
animal skins God gave Adam and Eve in the garden, as though God couldnt have just
created them. And even if there was a sacrifice, it was an animal sacrifice. There is no
hint that the human redeemer prophesied in Genesis 3:15 would have to die and rise
again. The fact that the kings of Israel were called my son by Godand yet they all
died without being raisedmeans that the title son of God in and of itself did not speak
of a sacrificial death or resurrection. It isnt until the 8th century B.C. (and perhaps much
later, depending on the disputed authorship of that chapter) that we get any hint of a
dying and rising deliverer figure, courtesy of the book of Isaiah.173
And it is only a hinta text that could be read the way we know it played out, but could
also be read other ways. The death and resurrection of the servant, while certainly
exegetically plausible, is not self-evident. In the first 48 chapters of Isaiah, the servant
refers to corporate Israel. That changes in Isaiah 49, which sets the table for chapter 53.
For most readers, if not all, Isaiah 53 would leave people wondering which servant Isaiah
was talking about and why he changed the point of reference for the servant character.
While supernatural intelligences (i.e., Satan and demons) could recognize Jesus when he
was on earth (Mark 5:7; Luke 4:3-9; 8:28), Pauls point in 1 Cor 2 was that they did not
know what Gods strategy was. The best plan of action was to kill Jesusexactly what
God had foreseen and planned, but they had no clue this act would trigger their own
defeat. In hindsight, and with the aid of the Holy Spirit, Paul understood that the precise
connections between an anointed deliverer, the messiah, and the plan of God for
reclaiming the nations were kept under wraps. Paul referred to the plan and what it
produced as the mystery of Christ:
3
. . . the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.4

When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5
which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now
been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is
that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the
promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (Eph. 3:3-6; cf. Eph. 1:9; Col. 1:2627; Col. 2:2; 2 Cor. 4:3)
Its no wonder that Jewish writers between the Old and New Testaments didnt agree on
how to interpret passages like Isaiah 53. If you look at Jewish writings from the era
immediately before Jesus, you wont find much that indicates Jews were expecting a
dying and rising messiah. Even the apostles found it difficult to grasp or accept. Jesus had
272
to teach them the meaning of the passageit was divinely revealed to them (Matt. 26:2;
Luke 24:7). But even then the disciples dont seem to be clear on what was going on. It
was only after discovering the empty tomb that . . . the other disciple, who had reached
the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand
the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead (John 20:8-9). Judging from Peters
visceral objection on one occasion to being told by Jesus that he would die and be raised
from the dead, it seems that the disciples (at least Peter) intellectually understood what
they were being told, but didnt believe it.174
Still, Jesus wasnt always crystal clear about Gods plan. At times he was cryptic, too,
especially at the beginning of his ministry. It is interesting that Matthew, Mark, and Luke
are in agreement that Jesus did not begin speaking to his disciples about his death and
third day resurrection until after the Transfiguration. As we saw in the last chapter, the
Transfiguration at Mount Hermon was not only a revelation of deity for Peter, James, and
John, but was an announcement to the demonic elohim that their demise was now being
set in motion. Just prior to ascending the mountain and immediately after Peters
confession that Jesus was the Christ, Matthew records, From that time Jesus began to
show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders
and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised (Matt
16:21).175 Following this event, we have the Transfiguration, and when Jesus and his
disciples descend from Mount Hermon where Jesus does something for the last time: he
casts out a demon. From that point on, the gospels never record another exorcism and
Jesus begins to reiterate to the disciples that he would die and rise again.176
The above pattern suggests that Jesus avoided speaking of his death, and especially the
resurrection, until after he was done dealing with demonic entities. Going back to Pauls
comment, that the rulers of this age did not comprehend what was happening, it seems
coherent to suggest that this information was only obtainable from Jesus himself, or the
Spiritand it was information kept close to the breast.
Stone Pillow, Stone Altar
Jesus exchange with Nathaniel, predictably early in his ministry, is a classic example of
Jesus coded language about the plan he was on earth to accomplish. It also has points of
contact with the divine council.
43
The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him,
Follow me. 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, We have found him of whom Moses in
the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 46
Nathanael said to him, Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip said to
him, Come and see. 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him,
Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit! 48 Nathanael said to
him, How do you know me? Jesus answered him, Before Philip called you,
when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. 49 Nathanael answered him, Rabbi,
you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel! 50 Jesus answered him,
273
Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will
see greater things than these. 51 And he said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you,
you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on
the Son of Man. (John 1:43-51)
Scholars have struggled to discern what exactly Jesus meant by his prediction to
Nathaniel, that he would see heaven opened, and angels of God ascending and
descending on the Son of Man. The passage is enigmatic for the simple reason that it
never happensat no point in any of the gospels do we see angels ascend and descend
on Jesus.
About the only thing that scholars agree on regarding this odd statement by Jesus is that it
is an allusion back to Jacobs dream in Genesis 28:10-17
10
on it! 13 And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, I am the LORD, the God
of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will
give to you and to your offspring. 14 Your offspring shall be like the dust of the
earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and
to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be
blessed. 15 Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will
bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have
promised you. 16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, Surely the LORD is
in this place, and I did not know it. 17 And he was afraid and said, How
awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the
gate of heaven.
I have underlined the phrases above because they all factor in the interpretive
possibilities. Since this is the only place in the Bible (besides John 1:51) that describes
angels of God ascending and descending, and since Johns wording is that this will
happen upon the Son of Man, some scholars believe that the point is that Jesus
symbolically takes the place of the ladder, and so is the means to God. This is actually
unlikely for Greek grammatical reasons.177 Second, the point could be that Jesus isnt the
ladder per se, but marks the place where the ladder touched the earthin other words,
Jesus was saying that Nathaniel would see heaven come to earth or something like that.
A third option is that the point of the analogy Jesus is making is not the ladder or the fact
that the ladder touches the earthin fact, it isnt the ladder at all. As far back as
Augustine interpreters have considered whether the Son of Man is to be equated with the
stone upon which Jacobs head was resting when he had the dream. As Genesis 28 notes,
this stone was made into an altar where Jacob sacrificed to Yahweh. The stone is
anointed (mashiach) which is the word later used for messiah (Gen. 28:18; 31:13).
274
I tend to think that John conveyed this cryptic exchange to us for exactly the same
reasons that Jesus first uttered the words to Nathaniel: he wanted all these imagesand
moreto flood our minds. Yes, Jesus is the conduit from God to man. He wasquite
literallywhere heaven and earth intersected. His blood would be the ultimate sacrifice,
the culmination point for the sacrifice at Bethel. But if Nathaniel and John (and Jesus!)
were students of their Old Testament and firmly acquainted with other Jewish theological
literature of the time that sought to interpret the Old Testament, the statement meant
much more.
In our earlier discussions we talked about how prophetic figurespeople chosen by God
to carry and communicate his messagehad to be commissioned by direct encounter
with God. This encounter often took place in the throne room of God, where members of
the heavenly host were present. For Jacob, this encounter was his dream. He saw angels
of God and also saw Yahweh, who stood either at the top of the ladder or beside it (the
Hebrew is ambiguous). Subsequent to the dream, Jacob encounter angels of God once
more, on his way to meet Esau, his estranged brother. In that instanced we read, Jacob
went on his way, and the angels of God met him. And when Jacob saw them he said,
This is Gods camp! So he called the name of that place Mahanaim (Gen 32:1-2).
Since angels are messengers of God, Jacob perceived that the place where he met them
this time not in a dreamwas literally the camp or abode of God. And, in the context of
the divine council worldview, it was.
Taking this to John 1:51, we can see how the analogy works and is heightened. Jesus
replaces Yahweh in the context of the ladder vision. The angels of God are serving and
representing Jesus. Where Jesus is, God and the council are. Jesus, in effect, is the
messenger of the council, sent to accomplish the will of the Father. And more than that,
he is the stone which is the locus of atonement.
Jews were thinking this way before Jesus ever arrived. Philo, the famous Jewish
theologian whose life overlapped with Jesus, understood the place and the altar of
Jacobs dream to be the Logos (word), the same term John later used of Jesus.178 In
another text Philo saw the house of God of Gen. 28:17 as the Logos, by which the Ruler
of the universe governs all things.179
The idea of Jesus being identified with this altar stone is interesting for other reasons. In
Daniel 2, the stone that destroys the empires of humankind is equated with the kingdom
of God. Already in the centuries before Jesus writers like Josephus (Antiquities 10:210)
and books like 4 Ezra (13:6, 32, 26-37, 52) understood this stone to be the messiah. The
Targums interpreted the stone which the builders rejected in Psalm 118:22 as David,
the son of Jesse. Matthew 21:42 echoes that identification. Amazingly, Psalm 118:22 and
its identification as Jesus is quoted no less than seven times in the New Testament.180
Isaiah 28:16 references the same idea, but applies it to the temple: Therefore thus says
the Lord GOD, Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a
tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: Whoever believes will not be in
haste.
275
These three threadsthe stone altar at Bethel, marking the abode of God and his council,
the stone of the kingdom of God, and the cornerstone of the templeconverge in the
mission of Christ, the incarnate Yahweh. The temple was the dwelling place of God, the
place where the Glory would reside. That Glory was embodied in the second Yahweh in
the Old Testament. The temple represented Yahwehs physical rule in his domain, the
Promised Landthe land allotted for him and his people after the Babel incident, when
the other nations were disinherited. It meant the kingdom of Yahweh on earth had been
re-established. The temple was also the place where sacrifice was brought and offered.
Jesus is all of these things. In him dwells the essence and fullness of the Godhead, bodily,
as Paul wrote (Col. 2:9). He is the Word; He has the Name; He is Gods AngelMessenger, the embodied Yahweh of the Old Testament. Jesus is the temple. As the place
of sacrifice, Jesus is also the sacrifice itself, which is why the book of Hebrews has him
taking his own blood into the holy of holies (Hebrews 9:12; 10:19).
Its a good thing that the bulls of Bashan, the demon elohim now under judgment,
failed to discern how all these things would come together. Their bloodlust turned out to
be the harbinger of their own destruction and expulsion from their own domain.
172
This is the ESV translation. It should be noted that most Hebrew manuscripts of this verse do not have a
reference to piercing the hands and feet, but read something to the effect: like a lion [they are at] my hands
and feet. The lion imagery is interesting since later it would be applied to the Devil (1 Pet 5:8). For
piercing, see Zech 12:10.
173
The 8th century is Isaiahs lifetime. A later chronology depends on whether Isaiah 40-55 was put
together around the time of the exile, using what Isaiah had written in Isaiah 1-39, or if, as critical scholars
argue, there was a second or third prophetic figure writing under the name Isaiah.
174
Peter objected, Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you (Matt. 16:22). Jesus retorted,
Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God,
but on the things of man (ESV). Although the ESV and many translations have satan capitalized, Jesus
point was not that Peter was the devil. Rather, the word satan, which is Hebrew, means adversary. By
objecting, Peter was standing in the way of the mission and had to be rebuked.
175
Immediately after he told his disciples
176
Matthew has Jesus doing this four more times after the Transfiguration (17:23; 20:17-19; 26:32; 27:63);
Mark, three (Mark 9:31; 10:34; 14:28), and Luke three (18:33; 24:7, 46).
177
See the scholarly article by J. C. ONeill, Son of Man, Stone of Blood (John 1:51), NovTest XLV, 4
(2003): 374-381. ONeill writes: This is unlikely because the preposition is used in John with the
accusative and the LXX used the genitive. In the context of Gen. 28:12, the angels are using the ladder to
ascend to heaven and to descend from heaven, and with the genitive is appropriate. If the transcriber or
translator of John 1:51 into Greek had wanted to suggest that the Son of Man was now the ladder, he would
have naturally used a genitive. Instead, we have an accusative.
178
Philo, de somniis i. 116, 11.
179
Philo, de migratione Abrahami, 5-6.
180
Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:4, 7.
276
Chapter 25
Unseen Siege
Paul asserts in 1 Cor 2:6-8 that, had the elohim in charge of this fallen world understood
the consequences of moving people to crucify the son of God, they would never have
done it. The sacrifice of Christ was a mystery, a secret decreed before the ages,
understood only by those to whom the Spirit would reveal it. And He wasnt talking to
his enemies.
The elohim of the nations were not and are not omniscient. Sentenced with the loss of
their own immortality (Psalm 82), they had no idea that Yahwehs kingdom had already
been inaugurated under their own noses and would begin an aggressive advance in the
wake of the unthinkable: the resurrection of the incarnate Yahweh. Paul described what
the resurrection meant for the demonic elohim this way in Col. 2:15: He [Christ]
disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them
by it [the cross]. Not surprisingly, Pauls assessment comes out of the Old Testament,
and points to a place weve seen beforeBashan.
Take Out the Head
Bashan was the symbolic ground zero of Old Testament demonic geography. But for all
the darkness conjured up by the term, references to Bashan in the Old Testament arent
all bad news, unless youre on the dark side. Psalm 68:15-23 describes the fall of Bashan,
an even still future to the writer (vv. 21-22). For us, its an already, but not quite yet
victory.
15
O mountain of God, mountain of Bashan;

16
at the mount that God desired for his abode,
yes, where the LORD will dwell forever?
17
The chariots of God are twice ten thousand,
thousands upon thousands;
the Lord is among them; the one of Sinai is among the holy ones.181
18
and receiving gifts from humankind,
even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there.
19
Blessed be the Lord,
who daily bears us up;
277
God is our salvation. Selah

20
Our God is a God of salvation,
and to GOD, the Lord, belong deliverances from death.
21
But God will strike the heads of his enemies,
the hairy crown of him who walks in his guilty ways.
22
The Lord said,
I will bring (them) back from Bashan,
I will bring (them) back from the depths of the sea,
23
that you may strike your feet in their blood,
that the tongues of your dogs may have their portion from the foe.
The first thing that sticks out in this passage is that the infamous Mount Bashan is called
the mountain of God (68:15). Most commentators assume this language is meant to
convey the idea that Bashan was Gods mountain as well. I would disagree, but only in a
nuanced way. At the beginning of the psalm, Mount Bashan is not the territory of the God
of Israel. That changed by the end of the psalmand that change has very specific New
Testament connections.
The phrase mountain of God is actually mountain of elohim (har elohim) in Hebrew.
That means it can be translated as either mountain of God or mountain of the gods.
The latter makes much more sense than the former in context for the very observable
reason that the two mountains in the passageBashan and Sinaiare rivals at the
beginning of the psalm.
15
O mountain of God [or, of the gods], mountain of Bashan;

16
at the mount that God desired for his abode [Sinai or Zion], yes, where the LORD
will dwell forever?
17
The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, thousands upon thousands;
the Lord is among them; the one of Sinai is among the holy ones.
God desired Sinai for his abode, and the psalmist asks Bashan, Why the envy? This
would make little sense if Bashan was already under Yahwehs authority.
What we have here is a contrast of association. In the Old Testament, Sinai is firmly
associated with Yahweh and Israel. Sinai is the place where Moses brought the people
after the escape from Egypt. It is the place where the embodied Yahweh and the divine
council handed down the law, written with the finger of God.182 Bashan is the polar
opposite of Sinai. It is a place associated with the demonic elohim of Deut 32:8-9, 17 and
Psalm 82. It is the place associated with the nephilim bloodlines who stood in opposition
to the bloodline of Abraham (and so, Noah, Enoch, and Adam). It was the place of
disinheritance, and so it is that Bashan hates Sinai in this psalm.
The rest of the psalm describes an assault on Bashan by Yahweh and his holy army
against Bashan. We know the description refers to spiritual warfare since there was no
278
such engagement of the Israelites in the Old Testament, and also because verse 17 clearly
speaks of a divine army. Yahweh, the divine warrior, will one day tear down the
strongholds of Bashan, striking the heads of his enemies (v. 21). The result will be
complete victory. Yahweh is depicted as leading a train of captives down from the
mountain (vv. 18, 22) and back from the depths of the sea. The sea, of course, is one of
the more common terms for the realm of chaos and disorder. The victory is described in
graphic terms, no doubt familiar to people who had witnessed the horrors of ancient
combat: Yahwehs own victorious warriors will tramp through the blood of the evil ones,
and the dogs will eat their remains.
Taking Prisoners
Amid the description of triumph in Psalm 68 we come to verse 18:
18

and receiving gifts from humankind,
even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there.
If the verse sounds familiar it should. Paul quotes Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8. Here is
the quotation and the context of Ephesians 4 leading up to it:
1
I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the
calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with
patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spiritjust as you were
called to the one hope that belongs to your call 5 one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7
But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christs gift. 8
Therefore it says,
When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.
It may surprise you, but this is considered a very difficult citation of the Old Testament
by our New Testament author, Paul. I think youll see why when you see the relevant
parts of the passages side-by-side, as well as what Paul writes afterward:
Psalm 68:18
leading a host of captives
in your train and receiving
gifts from humankind.
Ephesians 4:8
When he ascended on high he led a host of
captives, and he gave gifts to men.
9
(In saying, He ascended, what does it mean but

that he had also descended into the lower regions,
the earth? 10 He who descended is the one who also
279
ascended far above all the heavens, that he might

fill all things.) 11 And he gave the apostles, the
prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and
teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of
ministry, for building up the body of Christ
For Paul this Old Testament verse was about Jesus ascending on high and giving
gifts to humanity, but the Old Testament text does not identify the subject of the
ascending, and has that subject receiving gifts instead of giving them. Before we resolve
this receiving versus giving problem, we need some context.
It isnt hard to find disagreements among the commentators on what Paul is doing in
Ephesians 4:8. Some try to change the meaning of Psalm 68, saying that verse 18 refers
to Yahweh ascent to Zion. That reading makes little sense since the imagery is very
clearly warfare (captives in your train) and Bashan is the enemy. Psalm 68 gives us a
standard description of conquest, known from other ancient texts and even from ancient
sculpture and iconography. The victorious captain of the army leads the enemy captives
behind him; they are the human booty of war. The gifts he receives refers to tribute
payments. When conquering a city or region, the victor would demand tribute payment in
return for sparing the city from total destruction. The Old Testament describes this on
several occasions, where foreign rulers among the Assyrians and Babylonians demand
tribute from Israelite and Judean kings at different points in Israels history. The imagery
is not at all strange to the ancient Semitic context.
When Paul quotes Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8, he does so thinking of Jesus. Part of the
confusion over how to interpret what Paul is saying is that so many commentators have
assumed that captives are being liberated in Ephesians 4. That isnt the case. That idea
would flatly contradict the well understood imagery of Psalm 68:18. There is no
liberation; there is conquest.
The effect of what Paul does is to once again merge Jesus with Yahweh. In Psalm 68:18
it was Yahweh who is described as the future conqueror of Bashan, the cosmicgeographical symbol of evil. For Paul it is Jesus. And so it is. Jesus, the incarnate second
Yahweh, surrounded by the demonic elohim bulls of Bashan, fulfills the imagery of
Psalm 68 by putting them to an open shame and triumphing over them by the cross
(Col. 2:15). Psalm 68:18 and Eph. 4:8 are in agreement if one sees conquest, not
liberation.
Widening the Net
The Fall of Bashan or, in New Testament terms, the victory of the cross, was but the first
major campaign in the long holy war to restore the rule of Yahweh over all the nations of
the earth. The New Testament depicts the present world as one where the forces of
darknessthe demonic elohim of the Deuteronomy 32 worldvieware actively
resisting the earthly and human family-army of Yahweh.
280
Paul in particular sees the cosmic-geographical conflict raging all around believers. In an
effort to awaken his readers to the unseen war, he uses a variety of terms that have ruling,
territorial nuances.183 We looked at one of those terms in the last chapter,
, often
translated as ruler. It was Paul who used that term to describe the rulers (
) of
this age, malevolent spiritual entities who were doomed to die (1 Cor. 2:5-6) as a result
of Jesus work on the cross.
The backdrop for understanding the conquest of Bashan and Pauls employment of
is of course what Ive called the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. Another passage in
the Old Testament, Daniel 10, presumes the Deuteronomy 32 worldview and provides us
with a specific link to Pauls terminology. Daniel writes:
4
On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of
the great river (that is, the Tigris) 5 I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a
man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. 6 His
body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like
flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the
sound of his words like the sound of a multitude. 7 And I, Daniel, alone saw the
vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling
fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves . . . 10 And behold, a hand
touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 And he said to me,
O Daniel, man greatly loved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand
upright, for now I have been sent to you. And when he had spoken this word to
me, I stood up trembling. 12 Then he said to me, Fear not, Daniel, for from the
first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your
God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. 13 The
prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one
of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia,
14
and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter
days. For the vision is for days yet to come. 15 When he had spoken to me
according to these words, I turned my face toward the ground and was mute. 16
And behold, one in the likeness of the children of man touched my lips. Then I
opened my mouth and spoke. I said to him who stood before me, O my lord, by
reason of the vision pains have come upon me, and I retain no strength. 17 How
can my lords servant talk with my lord? For now no strength remains in me, and
no breath is left in me. 18 Again one having the appearance of a man touched me
and strengthened me. 19 And he said, O man greatly loved, fear not, peace be
with you; be strong and of good courage. And as he spoke to me, I was
strengthened and said, Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me. 20
Then he said, Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to
fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece
will come. 21 But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is
none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.
281
Biblical scholars are in unanimous agreement that the princes referred to in Daniel 10
are divine beings, not humans. This is transparent from the mention of Michael in 10:13
and 10:21 (see also Daniel 12:1). The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old
Testament, also makes this clear. The Hebrew word for prince used throughout the
chapter is sar. In Daniel 10:13, where Michael is called one of the chief princes, the
Septuagint refers to Michael as one of the chief
n. In verse 21 prince is
translated aggelos (angel). In another Greek translation of Daniel, a text many scholars
consider even older than the Septuagint currently in use, the prince of Persia is called
the
of Persia and Michael is Israels
in 10:21.184 Paul most often used his
Greek Bible when writing his letters to Greek-speaking Gentiles. It makes perfect sense
that Paul would have these passages in mind when speaking of the rulers (archont n)
of this present age (
).
Most of Pauls other cosmic-geographical ruler terms are familiar to many readers.
principalities (arch )
powers / authorities (exousia)
cosmic rulers (kosmokrat )
powers (dynamis)
dominions / lords (kyrios)
thrones (thronos)
These terms are often grouped. The first three are all found in Eph. 6:12 (For we do not
wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the
cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the
heavenly places). Paul tells us in Eph. 1:20-21 that when God raised Jesus from the dead
he seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every ruler and
authority and power and dominion. That thought is echoed in Col. 2:15, where Paul says
that Christ is the head over every ruler and authority. Paul refers to the lords of 1 Cor
8:5 as godsand then identifies them as demons (1 Cor. 10:20). It was only after Christ
had risen that Gods plan was made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly
places (Eph. 3:10). Too bad for them.
These cosmic forces are the rulers and authorities disarmed and put to shame by the
cross (Col. 2:15). But what spelled doom for them was a boon to us: I am sure that
neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor
powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us
from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:38-39). And this reversalthe
cross as their demise and our blessing, brings us back to Ephesians 4.
Their Loss, Our Gain
282
We return now to the receiving and giving wording problem in Pauls use of Psalm
68 in Ephesians 4. Pauls wording doesnt deny there was conquest. What it does is point
to the result of the conquest. In the ancient world the conqueror would parade the
captives and demand tribute for himself. Jesus is the conqueror of Psalm 68, and the
booty does indeed rightfully belong to him. But what does he do? He uses the occasion of
his conquest to give gifts to his peoplethe Churchas Paul immediately explains in
Eph. 4:9-10. Christs conquest results in the dispensing of gifts (apostles, prophets,
evangelists, shepherds, and teachers) to his inheritance, his family of believers.
But what about the descent? What does that refer to and how does that factor into this?
There are two possible answers to this and either works with what Im saying here. The
most common view is that, upon his death, Jesus descended into the lower parts of the
earth. This is the way Eph 4:9 is worded in many translations. In this case, the language
speaks of both the grave and cosmic Sheol, the Underworld. This is entirely possible
since elsewhere in the New Testament we read that Jesus descended into the Underworld
to confront the spirits in prisonthe original transgressing sons of God from Genesis 6
(1 Peter 3:18-22).185 But that visitation may not be Pauls point of reference here.
The second view is reflected in the ESV, the translation I used in the table above. That
has Jesus descending to the lower regions [in other words], the earth. This option fits
the context better (the gifts) and has some other literary advantages. If this option is
correct, then the descent of verses 9-10 do not refer to Jesus time in the grave/Sheol, but
the Holy Spirits coming to earth after Jesus conquering ascension on the day of
Pentecost.
The second view makes chronological sense since the descent is connected to Christs
giving of gifts to the Church, but it raises a pretty obvious question: Is Paul confusing the
Christ with the Spirit? Or perhaps we should ask, Is the Spirit Christ? The questions
sound odd, but they are actually no different than asking whether Jesus and God are
confused with one another or, more simply, Is Jesus God? The answer, as weve seen
in previous chapters, is yes and no. Jesus is the second Yahweh, the embodied Yahweh of
the Old Testament. Jesus is not only Yahweh embodied, but Yahweh incarnate as a
human being. But Jesus is not the Father Yahweh. He is but isnt Yahweh. Its the
same with the Spirit. The Spirit is Yahweh, and so he is Jesus, but not incarnate or
embodied. The Spirit is but isnt Jesus as Jesus is but isnt Yahweh the Father.
Viewed against this backdrop, the idea that Jesus and the Spirit might be identified with
each other isnt so strange. In fact, it helps us make sense of some things certain New
Testament writers said about the Spirit.
It is clear that Jesus and the Spirit are different persons. That is clear from passages about
Jesus baptism (Matt. 3:16), his temptation (Matt. 4:1), and other passages (Matt. 29:1820; Acts 7:55). Jesus also said he and the Father would send the Spirit (John 14:26;
15:26; compare Luke 24:29). The Spirit was to come and indwell and empower believers.
The events on Pentecost in Acts 2 mark the coming of the Spirit.
283
But the New Testament also identifies the Spirit with Jesus. Here are some examples:
Acts 16:6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been
forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. 7 And when they had
come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did
not allow them.
Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit
of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not
belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin,
the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Philippians 1: 19 for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of
Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance.
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son,
born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so
that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent
the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!
1 Peter 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the
grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what
person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the
sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.
Not only did the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross mean the fall of Bashan, emblematic of
the cosmic powers of evil, but it also triggered the empowerment of the Church by the
gifts of the Spirit. But theres still more to the demise of Mount Bashan than meets the
eye. It was not only the preface to Pentecost; it accelerated the reversal of Babel.
181
On the translation the Lord is among them; the one of Sinai is among the holy ones see Marvin E.
Tate, Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 51-100 (Word Biblical Commentary 20; Dallas: Word,
Incorporated, 2002), 161. Tates translation is better than the ESV, but I also think some of the alternatives
he points to in his footnotes are better than his own translation (see my alterations of ESB elsewhere in the
psalm: v. 18). This psalm is notoriously difficult with respect to textual criticism.
182
See Chapter 13.
183
See the excellent article by Dan G. Reid in the Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Principalities and
Powers).
184
See Greek Theodotion Daniel.
185
See Chapter 26.
284
Chapter 26
Infiltration
The day of Pentecost is an event remembered by millions of Christians each year on the
church calendar. Although it is one of the more familiar passages in the New Testament
outside the gospels, what Acts 2 describes as happening that day definitely sounds
strange.
1
When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And
suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled
the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire
appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with
the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them
utterance.
It may not seem obvious, but this passage is littered with divine council connections.
While waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit after the resurrection, the disciples were
gathered in a room when a sound like a mighty rushing wind swept through the house.
That the fire had tongues is easily understood as metaphorical in the same way we
speak today of fire licking what it is burning. But why is the fire associated with the
Holy Spirit?
The answer lies in the Old Testament. Back in Chapter 18 we looked at how genuine
prophetsspokespeople for Godwere presumed to have had a direct encounter with
God to commission them for ministry. Frequently this encounter was in Gods throne
room, in the presence of the heavenly host, the divine council. Gods throne and throne
room was often described as fiery or in the midst of fire (e.g., Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1). That
motif was especially prominent in the appearances at Sinai. Fire in the Old Testament
was therefore identified with the presence of God, a visible manifestation of Yahwehs
glory and essence. In Acts 2 the gathered disciples meet Yahwehs presence and are
commissioned for their task of preaching the good news of Jesus work. The fire connects
them to the throne room. The tongues are emblematic of their speaking ministry.
What happened on the day of Pentecost shouldnt have been completely unexpected.
True, its very likely none of the gathered disciples were around on the day of Jesus
baptism when John the Baptist said that Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit
and with fire (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16).186 But we know from Acts 1:1-5 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.187
285
But what does this have to do with the tower of Babel incident, where the nations of the
earth were disinherited by Yahweh and put under the authority of lesser elohim? As it
turns out, a lot. Lets look at the larger passage in context:
1
When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And
suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled
the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided (
) tongues as of
4
fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled
with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them
utterance. 5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every
nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they
were bewildered (s
), because each one was hearing them speak in his own
7
language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, Are not all these who
are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native
language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia,
Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the
parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and
proselytes, Cretans and Arabianswe hear them telling in our own tongues the
mighty works of God.
At first glance there doesnt seem to be much that is useful here in terms of the incident at
Babel which had such cosmic-geographical and theological importance in the Old
Testament. All is not what it seems, though.
The two underlined terms are of critical importance for understanding what Acts 2 and
the events of Pentecost are really signaling. The second term,
(v. 6) is the same
word used in the Septuagint version of tower of Babel story in Genesis 11:7 - Come, let
us go down and there confuse (Septuagint:
) their language, so that they may not
188
understand one anothers speech. Both Acts 2:6 and the Septuagint of Genesis 11:7
link confusion (
) with human speech. In Genesis 11, of course, the context is
the division of the nations (and their languages) at Babel. The other term in verse 3
(
) is also used in the Septuagint, but not in Genesis 11. This word is used in the
other major passage that describes what happened at Babel, Deuteronomy 32 (Septuagint:
when the Most High divided [
] the nations, when he scattered humankind, he
fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the angels of God).
What this suggests is that Luke is drawing on the Septuagint, and specifically the tower
of Babel story in Genesis 11 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9, to describe the events on
Pentecost. What happened there has some relationship to what happened at Babelbut
what is it?
Weve already seen that the coming of the Spirit with fire mimics the Old Testaments
divine encounter commissioning scenes. That tongues of fire were divided as they
286
came to rest on each of the disciples is significant. The word divided (

) in
that phrase is more coherently understood as distributed (to each person). These
individuals. Individual disciples were commissioned and set apart for ministry
specifically, the language barrier was removed for preaching. As the extended story in
Acts 2 tells us, Jews from numerous geographic regions were present in Jerusalem on
Pentecost, and each heard the good news in their own language. This was a sign that the
gospel was going to spread through these men, beginning at Jerusalem (cf. Acts 1:8). The
division of humanity into many languages and nations at Babel was going to be overcome
by the work of Jesus, the second Yahweh incarnate, and his Spirit. The nations would
again be His.
The really amazing thing about Acts 2, though, is the boring part: the list of nations. To
understand what Lukes list telegraphs, we have to go back to Genesis 11. Heres a map
of the nations listed in Genesis 10 that were divided in Genesis 11:189
What are we looking at? The key idea to grasp is that the Table of Nations in Genesis
represents the known world at the time it was written. The Old Testament is a product of
the ancient Near Eastern environment of which is was a part. There are no references in it
(or anywhere else in the Bible) to China, South America, North America, Australia, etc.
At the time of the Old Testaments composition, What this means is that the Old
Testament description of the disinheriting of the nations in Genesis 11 and Deuteronomy
32:8-9 is based on all the nations known to those writers. The list covers Mesopotamia
and the lands beyond it to the east, the rest of the Fertile Crescent (Syria and Canaan). It
hits Arabia, Egypt, and the lands bordering the southern Mediterranean, as well as all the
countries of Asia Minor which border the northern Mediterranean. Tarshish was the most
remote known point. What lay beyond that city, through what we now call the Gates of
Gibraltar, was a complete mystery well into the modern era.
287
Its readily apparent that the list of names in Acts 2 and the Genesis Table of Nations are
different. The list in Acts 2 is therefore not a rehashing of all the names in Genesis. A few
observations reveal that it is much more than that.
First, the book of Acts is about the spread of the gospel to the known world at the time.
The book begins with the statement in Acts 1:8 that the disciples who will encounter the
Spirit are to be Jesus witnesses to the known world: But 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. The end of the earth in the days of
Luke, and of course the apostle Paul, was the extent of the Roman Empire.
In terms of geographical coverage, the book of Acts matches the coverage of the Table of
Nations. It records the east-to-west sweep of the gospel through the entire known world.
But lets take a look at a map of the nations in Acts 2 and think more about this.
288
If you read the list of nations in Acts 2 connected with the coming of the Spirit and the
commissioning of the disciples, there is an interesting pattern.
The list begins with Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia
(2:9). Jewish literature from the Intertestamental period tells us that there was a Jewish
population in Parthia (=Persia) at this time (1 Maccabees 15:22). These were Jews who
had migrated to Persian after choosing to not make the journey to Jerusalem when Cyrus
the Persian allowed the Jews to return home after the exile. The Medes are known from
the Old Testament in connection with where the ten northern tribes of Israel had been
deported by the Assyrians (2 Kings 17:6; 18:11). Persians (Parthians) and Medes are
mentioned together in the Old Testament (Esther 1:19; Dan. 5:28; 6:8, 12, 15), and the
kings of Media are mentioned with the Elamites as well (Jer. 25:25). The list in Acts,
then, begins at the farthest points east where there were Jewish populations. It begins to
move west to include inhabitants of Mesopotamiawhich is where the Jews were exiled
under Nebuchadnezzar.
After moving west through Mesopotamia, the list naturally splits into southern and
northern directions to move westward along the coasts of the Mediterranean. It is difficult
to understand why Judea is in the list, since these are people groups speaking foreign
languages. Scholars have puzzled over its inclusion. 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 Judea refers to the parameters of the Old
Testaments Davidic Empire, which extended from the Euphrates to Egypt. After the
mention of Mesopotamia, Davids empire covered most of the Fertile Crescent (Syria and
Damascus; cp. Gal. 1:15-21). These areas included different languages.
289
The list keeps moving westward to Rome. This is where the book of Acts ends, with Paul
imprisoned and ready for an appeal to Caesar. Cretans and Arabians are mentioned at the
end since the gospel also went there (Crete: Titus 1:5; Arabia: Gal 1:15-17).
There were three thousand Jews who came to believe in Jesus as a result of the events at
Pentecost (Acts 2:41), and those three thousand Jewish converts went back to their
homelands after the Pentecost pilgrimage. These new disciples were the seeds of the
gospel, Yahwehs plan to reclaim the nations and widen his family to include people who
were not Jews, through all the regions included in the list of disinherited nations in
Genesis.
By starting in the east, where there were Jewish populations because of the exile, and
moving west, the Pentecost list also confirms the evangelism strategy of Paul, who said
that the gospel was for the Jew first, and then the Gentile.
The book of Acts ends with Paul imprisoned in Rome, and Lukes list in Acts 2 ends with
Rome as its westernmost progression. But the reversing the circumstance of all the
disinherited nations isnt finished with Rome. One thing remains. Theres still one more
westerly point in the list of Genesis 11. In fact, its the most remote western point in that
listTarshish. What about Tarshish?
The New Testament and early church tradition suggest Paul was released from his
bondage and went further west before being taken into custody by the Romans for the
final time. In fact, Paul told people that he fully expected to go to Spain after his Roman
imprisonment. In his letter to the Roman believers he wrote:
24
I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey

there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25 At present,
however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. 26 For Macedonia and
Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the
saints at Jerusalem. 27 For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to
them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they
ought also to be of service to them in material blessings. 28 When therefore I have
completed this and have delivered to them what has been collected, I will leave
for Spain by way of you.
Why is Spain of any concern to us, and why did Paul want so badly to go there? Look at
the maps again. In Pauls time, Spain was where Tarshish was. Tarshish was a
Phoenician colony in what was later Spain. Only when Paul went to Spain (Tarshish)
would his lifes mission be finished. He was the apostle not to the Jewish world, but to
the disinherited nationsthe non-Jew, the Gentile.
As incredible as it sounds, Paul was actually conscious that his mission for Jesus actually
involved spreading the gospel to the known, westernmost part of the known world
Tarshishso that the disinheritance at Babel would be reversed. Sound crazy? Ill let
Paul tell you himself:
290
Romans 11:25-27
25
Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery,
brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the
Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob;
27
and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.
Paul says, I want you to understand this mystery. What mystery? That Gods own
portion and son, Israel, hardened their heart. For how long? Until the fullness of the
Gentiles has come in. Why is it important that the coming in of the Gentiles happen?
In this way all Israel will be saved. This will only happen and must happen when the
Deliverer comes from Zion. At that point, the sins of Yahwehs child, Jacob (Israel) will
be taken away and the covenant restored. As Paul said elsewhere, the gospel was to the
Jew first, then the Gentile (Greek; Romans 1:16-17).
But why would Paul link the fullness of the Gentilesthe promise and requirement of
Gentile salvation for the renewal of the covenantwith Tarshish? Why did he know his
life and ministry wasnt over until he got to Spain? Because he knew Isaiah 66:15-23.
Read the passage and see if it reminds you of Acts 2. Amazingly, the Pentecost
material is prefaced by the language of Psalm 68, the fall of Bashan, noted in our last
chapter.
15
For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the
whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. [See
Acts 2:1-4; Psalm 68:17-18]
16
For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all
flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.
17
Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following
one in the midst, eating pigs flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to
an end together, declares the LORD. [The apostasy of Israel and the Gentile will
come to an end]
18
For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all
nations and tongues. And they shall come [to the source Jerusalem] and shall
see my glory, 19 and I will set a sign among them. [Acts 2:1-11]
And from them I will send survivors [Jews who survive the exile] to the
[disinherited] nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud [both in north Africacovered
on both the maps abovePaul knew the gospel had penetrated this area (Acts
291
8:26-40)], who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan [Asia Minor and Greece], to the
coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they
shall declare my glory among the nations. 20 And they shall bring all your brothers
[the Jewish missionaries will retrieve their Jewish brethren] from all the
[disinherited] nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses and in chariots and in
litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem [Zion
the mountain of God, not the defeated Mount Bashan], says the LORD, just as the
Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD. 21
And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.
22
For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make
shall remain before me, says the LORD,
so shall your offspring and your name remain.
[repeats the wording of the covenant to Abraham
Yahwehs portionin Genesis 12:1-3; the goal is
a permanent family, of all nations, in a new Eden,
as it was before the disinheritance at Babel]
23
From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath,

all flesh shall come to worship before me,
declares the LORD.
And so it was that a room full of Jews, commissioned directly by the Spirit, went out and
won three thousand other Jews from all over the known world, who returned to the
disinherited nations in which they were scattered by Providence. It was a brilliant plan.
The captain of the Lords host came as a man to initiate Yahwehs end game through his
own atoning death, to give his hand-selected field commanders the winning strategy, and
to plant cell groups for Yahweh in the territory of the enemy. Pentecost marked the
beginning of an unstoppable march across the known worldand for us, even a world
they didnt knowto bring back the nations dispossessed at Babel. The time of the
fullness of the Gentiles was here. The offering of the Gentiles was acceptable,
sanctified by the Holy Spirit, as Paul hoped it would be (Rom. 15:16). They were under
new ownership.
186
Although these verses sound 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.
Hence, they speak of the same thing.
187
See John 14:26; 15:26; Luke 24:49; John 7:39.
188
Some commentators have noticed this but dont know what to make of it since they lack the divine
council worldview backdrop in their thinking. For example, C. K. Barrett says, The use of the word
suggests an intended allusion to the story of Babel, but the word, or words (, ), are not
uncommon (in the NT Acts only: 2:6; 9:22; 19:32; 21:27, 31) 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 (A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles; The Acts of the Apostles [2 v.: T&T Clark
International; ill., 1 map, 2004], 119).
.
189
Some Bible maps have Gether near India, but this is hardly correct. As David Baker notes in the
Anchor Bible Dictionary, According to the Table of Nations (Gen 10:23), 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
292
descendants are thus Semitic. The corresponding genealogy in 1 Chr 1:17 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, Aram, leading to the loss of the
original line the sons of Aram (are) 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
(ABD, vol. 2, p. 997).
293
Chapter 27
Your New Identity

Weve devoted a lot of space to describing the disinheritance of the nations by Yahweh,
and the delegation of those nations to lesser elohim in the divine council. Yahwehs
original intention was that all humankind would be his earthly family, ruling alongside
and in cooperation with Him and his heavenly family. But circumstances devolved to the
point where humanity was effectively disowned and placed beneath council personnel.
But Yahwehs original objective was not forgotten. It just took another form. An earthly
family whose destiny was to reinstitute the Edenic kingdom with Yahweh and his
heavenly ones had to be chosen. That choice began with Abraham.
Even at the very beginning of this new strategy, Yahweh hinted that this new family
Israel, the descendants of Abrahamwould be the means to reclaim the nations who had
just been disowned. How that would actually work was a mystery until its fulfillment in
Jesus. But looking back, we can see that God left a faint trail of clues. Yahweh appeared
to Abraham in Genesis 12 as a man, telling the already aged patriarch that he would have
innumerable offspring, adding that, through him, all families of the earth will be
blessed (Gen. 12:3). Weve already seen how this encounter involved the embodied
second Yahweh. John reported as much, noting that Abraham saw Jesus day (John
8:56). And Paul tells us point-blank that this was the gospel spoken to Abraham (Gal.
3:8).
(Believing) Seed of Abraham are the Sons of God
This last comment about the gospel spoken to Abraham is central to New Testament
theology. The context in which Paul makes this observation is a longer summation of
where he tells the believers at Galatia who were members of the disinherited nations
(Gentiles) that they are full heirs with believing Jewsthey are welcome in the family
of God.
Galatians 3
7
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the
gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In you shall all the nations be blessed. 9
So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. .
. . 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles,
so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. . . . 26 for in Christ
Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were
294
baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus. 29 And if you are Christs, then you are Abrahams offspring, heirs
according to promise.
In Christ, believers are the sons of God. The language of inheritance is crystal clear. It
derives from and advances the Old Testament idea that humans were meant to be in the
family of God. This is the backdrop for the family language in the New Testament that
describes the Church. Its no coincidence that the New Testament writers thought in
terms of adoption, heir, and inheritance to describe what the church really isthe
reconstituted divine-human family of God. The believers destiny is to become what
Adam and Eve originally wereimmortal, glorified imagers of God, living in His
presence as his children. Consider these passages:
John 1: 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to
all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become
children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of
the will of man, but of God.
1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be
called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know
us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are Gods children now, and what
we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be
like him, because we shall see him as he is.
2 Peter 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God
and of Jesus our Lord. 3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain
to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own
glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great
promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature . . .
Luke 20:34 And Jesus said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in
marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the
resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they
cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being
sons of the resurrection.
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son,
born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so
that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent
the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father! 7 So you are no
longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
Romans 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear,
but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, Abba!
Father! 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of
295
God, 17 and if children, then heirsheirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ,
provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him 18
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing
with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager
longing for the revealing of the sons of God!. . . 23 . . . but we ourselves, who
have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as
sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are
descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham
because they are his offspring, but Through Isaac shall your offspring be
named. 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children
of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that
we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for
adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.
We are accustomed, of course, to thinking of the church as the body of Christ. It is
certainly that as well. But this term points us to the family metaphor. The idea of the
Church being the body of Christ reflects the truth that it is through Christs physical
incarnation, physical death, and physical resurrection that believersJew or Gentile
become members of Gods family. It is Christ that fuses the chosen sons of God from
Abrahams line to the sons of God called from the nations. His work on the cross is
where the exiled and the disinherited meet, forming one new entity. Btu that still isnt the
whole story.
Inheritance: A Stake in the Family Business
But believers are more than Gods family. Being the sons of God also means being
members of the divine counciland that means theres a job to do.
Recall that, in ancient Israelite thinking, Gods 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 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 1:11-18 is
a good starting point:
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to
the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12
so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your
salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who
is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise
296
of his glory.15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord
Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you,
remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the
knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may
know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his
glorious inheritance with the holy ones.
The divine council connection is in Pauls last linethat the hope of the believer is his or
her glorious inheritance among the holy ones.
The translation among the holy ones is quite literal. The Greek word hagioi, nearly
always awkwardly translated in English as saints, literally means holy ones.190
Hagioi is used in the Greek Septuagint for Hebrew qedoshim (holy ones), which is
frequently used of divine beings in the divine council. Here are some verses we have seen
before:
Job 5:1 - Call now; is there anyone who will answer you? To which of the holy
ones (qedoshim) will you turn?
Job 15:15 - Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not
pure in his sight.
Psalm 89:5 Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the
assembly of the holy ones! 6 For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD?
Who among the gods is like the LORD, 7 a God greatly to be feared in the council
of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?
Zech 14:5 And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the
mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake
in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all
the holy ones with him.
The Old Testament also uses the same term for peoplespecifically of Israelites, the
people who would populate Yahwehs kingdom and, after the exile, who are prophesied
to re-inherit it.
Psalm 16:3 As for the holy ones in the land, they are the excellent ones, in whom
is all my delight.
Psalm 34:8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes
refuge in him! 9 Oh, fear the LORD, you his holy ones, for those who fear him
have no lack!
297
Daniel 8:22 22 As for the horn that was broken . . . 24 His power shall be great
but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed
in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people who are the holy ones.
Deuteronomy 33:2-3 is especially interesting in that qedoshim is used to refer to both
humans and divine beings in the same passage:
2 The LORD came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us;
he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy
ones, with flaming fire at his right hand.
3 Yes, he loved his people, all his holy ones were in his hand;
so they followed in your steps, receiving direction from you.
Theres actually a little more to the terminology than this. Were all familiar with the
commands in the Old Testament be holy for I am holy. What isnt apparent is that the
holy used of the people at whom the command is directed is actually plural. Here is a
literal rendering of one such passage as an example:
Lev 11:44 For I am the Yahweh your God; you are to make yourselves holy, since
you are holy ones, for I am holy . . . 45 For I am Yahweh, who brought you up
from the land of Egypt, to be your God. You are holy ones, for I am holy.
The point is that Israelites were deemed holy ones, not because they were perfect (far
from it), but because it was Gods intention to make them his family and his ruling
authorities on earththey were to be his kingdom on earth, as it was in Eden. At every
stage of this, though, until the physical, incarnate Yahweh was ruling with them as king,
and they were made divine through glorification, the kingdom of God was an already,
but not yet reality. After the kingdom was exiled, Jesus inaugurated it anew at his
coming through his body (his physical death and resurrection). The result was a new
family, but it was also a new council. This new administrations task was analogous to
Adam and Eves in Eden. They tended Eden, the earthly domain, headquarters, and
temple of Yahweh and his council. The new council does the same, but now the Church
is Yahwehs domain, temple, and headquarters. It is the place he is present and through
which his reign is expanding.
Against this backdrop, some New Testament passages take on fresh meaning.
Ephesians 2
19
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with
the holy ones and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom
the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22
In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the
Spirit.
298
1 Corinthians 3
16
Do you not know that all of you (you is plural) are Gods temple and that
Gods Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys Gods temple, God will destroy
him. For Gods temple is holy, and all of you (you is plural) are that temple.191
Colossians 1
11
May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all
endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified
you to share in the inheritance of the holy ones in light. 13 He has delivered us
from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved
Son.
1 Corinthians 6
1When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before
the unrighteous instead of the holy ones (believers)? 2 Or do you not know that
the holy ones (believers) will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by
you (believers), are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that
we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
This last passage is especially telling. Way back in Chapter One when I introduced the
divine council I noted elohim is a term that denotes any inhabitant of the spiritual world,
and terms like angel is basically a job description within the spiritual world. Paul tells
the bickering believers at Corinth that they will judge the world and judge angels.
What he means is that Christians will replace the sons of God who at present rule the
nations, but whom are now under the judgment of Psalm 82. This is why John, speaking
to the future destiny of Christians in the book of Revelation this way:
Revelation 2:25 [Jesus is speaking]: Only hold fast what you have until I come.
26 The one who overcomes and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will
give authority over the nations, 27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as
when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority
from my Father.
Incredibly, this passage quotes Psalm 2:8, where the underlined language describes the
messiah. But here the messiah, Jesus, applies the same description to his children. Who
rules the nations now? They are under the dominion of the corrupt sons of God. Gods
new council, the Church, is steadily displacing them. The nations will be given to
believersnot another group of angels. Believers will be their judges and replacements.
Jesus, Our Brother in the Council
299
In my opinion, no other passage in the New Testament is as powerful in its divine council
theology than Hebrews 1-2. Once you grasp the divine council worldview, these chapters
explode. Youll recognize of lot of terms and ideas weve covered to this point.
Hebrews 1
1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the
prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed
the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of
the glory of God and the exact imprint of his essence, and he upholds the universe by
the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right
hand of the Majesty on high, 4 being as much superior to angels as the name he has
inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Yahwehs son, Jesus, will inherit all things because he is Yahweh, and Yahweh reclaims
the nations. Indeed, Jesus is Yahwehs glory and essence (v. 3). The Greek word behind
essence is , and is usually translated nature in verse 3. However, this noun
often speaks of essence or actual being. 192 Recall that in our discussion of Wisdom the
word radiance pointed to Wisdom in the council. Jesus also inherits the namethe
essence of Yahweh in Old Testament thinking.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

You are my Son, today I have begotten you?
Or again,
I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
Let all Gods angels worship him.
Jesus is superior to the angels since he was begotten, which we saw in our Wisdom
discussion refers to being brought forth uncreated. Jesus is the son who deserves
worship because he is uncreatedand the essence of Yahweh.
7 Of the angels he says,
He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But of the Son he says,
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.
10 And,
You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
300
11 they will perish, but you remain;

they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.
13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,
Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?
Again the point is Jesus utter superiority to the angels; he occupies the second throne in
heaven as the second Yahweh.
14Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who
are to inherit salvation?
Yahwehs angels serve believers, those who inherit salvation since they are adopted into
Yahwehs family.
Hebrews 2
1 Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift
away from it. 2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and
every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3 how shall we escape
if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was
attested to us by those who heard, 4 while God also bore witness by signs and
wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to
his will.
Remember Pentecost and the conquest of Bashan?
5 Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are
speaking. 6 It has been testified somewhere,
What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
8
putting everything in subjection under his feet.
Note that Hebrews is clearearth wasnt created to be subject to angels, but to humans.
The Old Testament text that Hebrews 2:7 is quoting is Psalm 8:4-6. The Hebrew reads
that humankind was created a little lower than the elohim. And this is how it was in
Eden. Humans were not elohimand their pursuit of being like elohim caused problems.
Now in putting everything in subjection to him [humankind], he left nothing outside
his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 9 But we
301
see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned
with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he
might taste death for everyone.
The second Yahweh of Hebrews 1, who is the essence of Yahweh, was incarnated as a
man to taste death for everyone.
10
For it was fitting that he [Jesus], for whom and by whom all things exist, in
bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect
through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one
source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying,
I will tell of your name to my brothers;
in the midst of the council I will sing your praise.
13
And again,
I will put my trust in him.
And again,
Behold, I and the children God has given me.
This is an incredible text. Verse 10 speaks of Jesus, using the same language as Paul in
Colossians 1 of Jesus, the co-creator. This same Jesus brought many sons into the family.
And he is not ashamed to call themushis brothers. In fact, he will be the one who
introduces us to the council, telling them how wonderful it is to have us as his siblings.
Look at me, everyoneand the siblings Yahweh has given me!
14
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of
the same, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death,
that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to
lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring
of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that
he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make
propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when
tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Here is the logic of Gods promise to Eve in Genesis 3. Someday, a human being born
from your lineage, will reverse all that you and Adam have done.
But this, too, is already, but not yet. We are Gods kingdom . . . waiting for the
kingdom to come. But before that reaches its ultimate realization, theres a lot of ground
remaining to be won.
190
Most English translations have something like in the saints here, which makes little sense.
1 Cor. 6:19-20 repeats the thought, though there the you is singular, since Paul is talking about each
individual believers body being where the Spirit resides. Both are obviously true: the Spirit resides in each
believer, and collectively the believers are where the Spirit is.
192
The Greek is usually translated nature but it often speaks of essence (BDAG, ).
191
302
Chapter 28
Choosing Sides
Anyone whos seen the movie The Ten Commandments remembers Moses coming down
from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of stone only to be confronted with the sights and
sounds of the Israelites worshipping the golden calf (Exod. 32:15-24). Moses thunders:
Who is on the Lords side?
The demand to choose sides in the holy war that pitted Yahweh against the gods didnt
cease with the close of the Old Testament. Its actually found in the New Testament, but
in a couple of unlikely places.
Baptism as Holy War
1 Peter 3:14-22 is one of the more puzzling passages of the New Testament. Ive actually
been in church when the pastor simply announced he was skipping the text because it was
too strange. True, its weird, but its actually quite comprehensible against the backdrop
of the divine council worldview.
1 Peter 3:14-22
14
But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no
fear of them, nor be troubled, 15but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always
being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that
is in you; 16yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that,
when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to
shame. 17For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for
doing evil. 18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous,
that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the
spirit, 19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20because they
formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark
was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through
water. 21And now the antitypethat is, baptismsaves you, not be means of a removal
of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience on the basis of the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God,
with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
303
The overall theme of 1 Peter is that Christians must withstand persecution and persevere
in their faith. That much is clear in this passage. But whats with baptism, the ark, Noah,
and spirits in prison? And does this text say that baptism saves us?
To understand whats going on in Peters head here we have to understand a concept that
scholars have called types or typology. Typology is a kind of prophecy. Were all
familiar with predictive verbal prophecywhen a prophet announces that something is
going to come to pass in the future. Sometimes that comes out of the blue, with God
impressing thoughts on the prophets mind that he utters. On other occasions, a prophet
might take an object or perform some act and tell people that the thing or action
prefigures something that will happen. Ezekiel was notorious for this, like the time God
told him to shave his head and beard, weigh it the balances, and then burn a third of it,
beat a third of it with a sword, and scatter the last third to the wind to visually portray the
future of the city of Jerusalem (Ezek. 5:1-12). But we only know what Ezekiels antics
meant because they are spelled out in his prophecies. Ezekiel 5 tells us these are
prophecies and what the fulfillment would be. Types work differently.
A type is basically an unspoken prophecy. It is an event, person, or institution that
foreshadows something that will come, but which isnt revealed until after the fact. For
example, in Romans 5:14 Paul tells us that Adam was a tupos of Christ. This Greek word
means kind or mark or typeits actually where typology comes from. Paul was
saying that, in some way, Adam foreshadowed or echoed something about Jesus. In
Adams case, that something was how his act (sin) had an effect on all humanity. Like
Adam, Jesus did something that would have an impact on all humanityhis death and
resurrection. Another example would be Passover, since it prefigured the crucifixion of
Jesus, who was called the lamb of God. The point is that there was some analogous
connection between the type (Adam) and its echo (Jesus), called the anti-type by
scholars.
So how does this relate to our weird passage in 1 Peter? Peter uses typology in 1 Peter
3:1422. Specifically, he assumes that the great flood in Genesis 6-8, especially the sons of
God event in Genesis 6:1-4, typify or foreshadow the gospel and the resurrection. For Peter,
these events were commemorated during baptism. That needs some unpacking.
Back in Chapter 6 we saw the tight connections between Genesis 6:1-4 and the epistle of
2 Peter and Jude, whose content mirrors 2 Peter is many ways. Peter and Jude Peter were
very familiar with Jewish tradition about Genesis 6 in books like 1 Enoch, and believed
them. 1 Enoch 6-15 describes how the sons of God (also called Watchers) who
committed the offense of Genesis 6:1-4 were imprisoned under the earth (the
Underworld) for what they had done. The Watchers appealed their sentence and asked
Enoch, the biblical prophet who never died (Gen 5:21-24), to intercede for them. 1 Enoch
6:4 puts it this way:
304
They [Watchers] asked that I write a memorandum of petition for them, that they
might have forgiveness, and that I recite the memorandum of petition for them in
the presence of the Lord of heaven.193
God sent back his response by way of Enoch, who went to the imprisoned spirits and
announced to them that their appeal had been denied (1 Enoch 13:1-3; 14:4-5):
1 And, Enoch, go and say to Asael,194 You will have no peace.
A great sentence has gone forth against you, to bind you.
2 You will have no relief or petition, because of the unrighteous deeds that you
revealed, and because of all the godless deeds and the unrighteousness and the sin
that you revealed to men.
3 Then I went and spoke to all of them together. And they were all afraid,
and trembling and fear seized them.
1 Enoch goes on to describe the prison term as until the end of dayslanguage that refers
to the end times.
2 Peter 2:4 (cp. Jude 6) makes specific reference to the episode of Genesis 6:1-4 and the
imprisonment of fallen angels in the Underworld. The incident was also on Peters mind
when he wrote his first epistleand our strange passage. Peter saw a theological analogy
between the events of Genesis 6 and their fallout with the gospel and the resurrection. In
other words, he considered these events to be types or precursors to New Testament events
and ideas.
Just as Jesus was the second Adam for Paul, Jesus is the second Enoch for Peter. Enoch
descended to the imprisoned fallen angels to announce their doom. 1 Pet 3:1422 has Jesus
descending to these same the spirits in prison, the fallen angels, to tell them they were
still defeated, despite his crucifixion. Gods plan of salvation and kingdom rule was still
intact. In fact, it was right on schedule. The crucifixion actually meant victory over every
demonic force opposed to God. This victory declaration is why 1 Pet 3:1422 ends with
Jesus risen from the dead and set at the right hand of Godabove all angels, authorities
and powers.
So how does this relate to baptism? It explains the logic of the passage. Heres the
relevant part once more:
18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he
might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
19
in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20because they formerly
did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was
being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through
water. 21And now the antitypethat is, baptismsaves you, not be means of a
305
removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience on
the basis of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at
the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected
to him.
The two underlined words in verse 21 need reconsideration in light of the divine council
worldview. The word most often translated appeal (eperotema) in verse 21 is best
understood as pledge here, a meaning that it has elsewhere.195 Likewise the word
conscience (suneidesis) does not refer to the inner voice of right and wrong here.
Rather, the word refers to an attitude or decision that reflects ones loyalty, a usage that
is also found in other contexts.196
Baptism, then, is not what produces salvation. It saves us in that it first involves or
reflects a heart decision: a pledge of loyalty to the risen Savior. In effect, baptism in New
Testament theology is a loyalty oath, a public avowal of who is on the Lords side in the
cosmic war between good and evil. But in addition to that, it is also a visceral reminder to
the defeated fallen angels. Every baptism is a reiteration of their doom in the wake of the
gospel and the kingdom of God. Early Christians understood the typology of this passage
and its link back to the fallen angels of Genesis 6. Early baptismal formulas included a
renunciation of Satan and his angels for this very reason.197 Baptism wasand still is
spiritual warfare.
Renewing Our Vow
The second historic Christian rite, observing the Lords Table or communion, also has
divine council associations, and again they are not so obvious. This time we need to
begin in 1 Corinthians 8:1-6
1
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that all of us possess

knowledge. This knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines
that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But if
anyone loves God, he is known by God 4 Therefore, as to the eating of food
offered to idols, we know that an idol has no real existence, and that there is no
God but one. 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth
as indeed there are many gods and many lords 6 yet for us there is one God, the
Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.198
In 1 Cor 8 Paul was writing about whether it was permissible to eat food sacrificed to
idols. He decided that it was allowable because an idol is nothing (8:4) and people were
no better if they ate or abstained (8:8). However, he warned that believers who lack such
knowledge should abstain (8:9).
306
Although Paul bases his decision on the fact that idols are nothing, his comments in
verses 4-6 tell us that he knew the entities behind them were real.
Early in our study when I introduced the divine council, I noted that the Shema of Deut
6:5, the theological creed of Israel, was worded in such a way that the existence of other
gods was not denied (the Lord our God is one). Pauls wording in 1 Corinthians 8 has
the same feel. In fact, most scholars believe that Paul specifically has the Shema in
mind.199
The book of Deuteronomy, in which the Shema occurs, of course has several references
to other gods as real entities, considering them to be demons (Deut 32:17).200 If the writer
of Deuteronomy did not really believe there were other gods, then he would have to deny
the existence of demons as well. The writer knew there were other real gods, and so the
Shema was demanding loyalty to Yahweh (our God), not denying the existence of other
gods.
Paul, the former Pharisee who knew his Old Testament in fine detail, was echoing this
thought. He acknowledges in 1 Corinthians 8 that there are indeed other gods and lords
whom people consider gods and lords, but for the believer, there is only one true God
Yahweh.
We can be sure that Paul was thinking of the demonic entities of Deut. 32:17 with regard
to this issue since he quotes that verse in 1 Cor 10:14-22.
14
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people;

judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a
participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a
participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are
many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of
Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I
imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20
No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do
not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the
Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the
table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than
he? 23 All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are
lawful, but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good
of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any
question on the ground of conscience.
Why would Paul be so against eating the food sacrificed to idols here but not in 1 Cor 8?
Scholars have puzzled over this for centuries. The divine council worldview helps clarify
Pauls thinking.
Most clearly, the issue of eating the meat sacrificed to idolswhich in 1 Corinthians 8:16 was connected to lords and godsis here connected to demons. For Paul the pagan
307
gods were demons. This makes perfect sense when considered in light of Deuteronomy
32:17, which makes exactly the same connection. It is interesting that Paul isnt
completely categoricalhe allows that meat sold in the market place can be eaten
(10:25)but is fearful of provoking God to jealousy under other circumstances. This
phrase is an important clue, for it is lifted from Deut 32:16the verse right before 32:17,
where the gods are called demons. Lets look at the Old Testament passage in context:
15
16
17
18
But Jeshurun [Israel] grew fat, and kicked;

you grew fat, stout, and sleek;
then he forsook God who made him
and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation.
They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods;
with abominations they provoked him to anger.
They sacrificed to demons, not to God (eloah=singular),
to gods (elohim) they had never known,
new ones that had come recently,
whom your fathers had never dreaded.
You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you,
and you forgot the God who gave you birth.
Its pretty clear that Paul was worried about sacrificing to demons with respect to the
whole issue of meat sacrificed to idols. The meat wasnt really the issue; being involved
in the sacrifice was. Doing so would be to commit the same sin the ancient Israelites
committed, sacrificing to the gods of the nations that had been disinherited. This is why
Paul quotes Deut 32:17 as part of his verdict about the meat (1 Cor. 10:19-22):
19
What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is
anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not
to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the
cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the
Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we
stronger than he?
Apparently some in the Corinthian church had gone beyond eating the meat to actual
participation, assuming that since an idol was just piece of wood or stone, it was fine.
Paul had to teach them this wasnt the case, and used the Lords Table as an analogy (1
Cor. 10:14-18):
14
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people;

judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a
participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a
participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are
many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of
Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?
308
For Paul there was no middle ground. Participation at the Lords Table meant solidarity
with and loyalty to Yahweh. The Lords Table commemorated not only Jesus death (1
Cor. 11:23-26) but the covenant relationship Yahweh had with the participants. Violating
that relationship by participating in sacrifices to other gods was tantamount to siding with
the gods of the nations.
Delivered Unto Satan
Baptism and the Lords Table were gestures of allegiance. The family of Yahweh was to
keep itself whole and faithful to Yahweh. This context also helps us understand a
controversial phrase in 1 Corinthians 5.
Within the Church, there were at times lapses of loyalty when members of the
household of faith (Gal. 6:10) transgressed the moral and doctrinal boundaries set by
Yahweh. In such cases, Paul directed believers to remove fellow family members living
unrepentantly in sin from the church (1 Cor 5:913). More specifically, Paul demanded
that the disloyal be delivered to Satan (1 Cor 5:5). Paul further noted the goal of such a
decision is for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of
the Lord (1 Cor 5:6).
What did Paul mean by these phrases? With respect to the destruction of the flesh,
Paul often used the word flesh (sarkos) to refer to the physical body, but he sometimes
used it to refer to self-sufficiency, worldliness, or an ungodly manner of life.201 Since
there is no indication that someone expelled from the church was going to die as a result,
this second usage makes the most sense in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul is insisting that the
unrepentant person be dismissed from the church to live in his or her sin and endure the
consequences of their behavior.
But what about being delivered to Satan? For that, we need to look to the Old
Testament. Recall that the Israelites viewed their land as holy ground and the territory of
the non-Israelite nations as controlled by demonic gods. Israel was holy ground because
that was where the presence of Yahweh resided. The opposite was true everywhere else.
This perspective shifted after the formation of the Church. Gods presence was no longer
in the Jerusalem temple, but in the temple which is the body of believers (1 Cor. 3:16
17). That means where a church was, Yahweh was present. Therefore the church was
considered holy ground; anywhere outside the church was the demonic realm. Hence
Pauls thinking. To be expelled from the churchthe local manifestation of the place
where Yahweh liveswas to be thrust into the realm of Satan.
Casting baptism and the Lords Table in terms of loyalty to Yahweh might seem a bit
edgy. It makes the Church and its institutions sound like an army. It is.
193
All the translations in this chapter come from: George W. E. Nickelsburg and Klaus Baltzer, 1 Enoch : A
Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (Includes the text of the Ethiopic book of Enoch in English
translation.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001), 234-237.
309
194
This Watcher is also called Azazel elsewhere (see Chapter 22).

BDAG, 285.
196
BDAG, 786-787.
197
For example, see Tertullian: On the Crown, 3; On the Shows, 4; On the Soul, 35.3. See Ansgar Kelly,
The Devil at Baptism: Ritual, Theology, and Drama (Cornell, 1985), 94105.
198
This passage is nearly always translated with gods and lords in quotation marks, as though Paul
wasnt serious about what he was saying. The Greek manuscripts have no such punctuation. It is supplied
by modern translators who lack the backdrop of the divine council 32 worldview.
199
See for example, Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish
Monotheism, 9799.
200
See my BT article on Deut 32:17.
201
BDAG, p. 916; H. R. Balz and G. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 3:231.
195
310
Chapter 29
Shock and Awe
Weve come to the place in the divine storyline where the present must give way to the
future. Many scholars and Bible students have proposed all sorts of things for interpreting
what the Bible says about this future conflict, but anything approximating precision in
details is not possible. The reason is that, like Old Testament prophecy for the messiah
and Gods plan was deliberately secretive the first time around (see Chapter 24), so it is
with remaining biblical prophecy. In this and the final chapter, my goal is to show you
how the divine council / cosmic-geographical worldview we have been exploring sheds
significant light on how the long war ends and Christ and his re-constituted council will
reign.
A Summary Review
The mythic epic of the Bible began with how Gods original intention was to rule over
His new terrestrial creation through human imagers, all the while being present with his
heavenly imagersthe kingdom of heaven on earth. We saw how it went awry in the
wake of Gods decision to grant freedom to his imagers, both divine and human. The
decision was necessary, for the creature could not truly be like the creator without sharing
this attribute, the ability to truly exercise the will and choose between loyalty and
rebellion.
What appears to us as a long, drawn out divine plan to restore that which was fallen was
equally necessary. It might seem that God could have just stepped in after the fall and
eliminated humanitys free will, ensuring a permanent Eden and that would be that. God
could not do this and still be victorious due to his own prior decision. Removing freedom
from humanity would mean a reversal of the creation of humankind in Gods image, for
its removal mean that humanity would no longer be like God. Since imaging status was
also shared by the other divine beings God had created, the same would be true of them.
Reversing these decisions would amount to an admission of failure and defeat. It would
also impinge upon Gods omniscience and omnipotence. A deity possessing those
attributes could find another way to steer the course of creationseen and unseen
toward the ends he desired and had decreed, all while letting freedom run its course.
From our perspective this seems tragic, but only if we consider this terrestrial life. God
knows those who are his, and has prepared for them a life beyond this one that eye hath
not seen, nor ear heard for its wonder and satisfaction. But until the ends are achieved,
the long war between good and evil, between God and fallen humanity and corrupted
divine beings, would play out.
The realityand spectreof freedom placed God in the role of the Grand Influencer.
The freedom of imagers meant influence, not removal of freedom, must propel the course
311
of history. This is not deism in any sense; it is, rather, an acknowledgement of momentby-moment interest of God in the affairs of human life. God uses his Spirit and other
imagers (believing and unbelieving, human and non-human) to prompt those who can
embrace salvation to do so, and to live accordingly, advancing his kingdom slowly but
unstoppably toward his desired ends. Before the first advent of the Messiah, the ultimate
focus of this influence would be the incarnation of Yahweh as Jesus of Nazareth, whose
work on the cross would re-establish the kingdom of heaven on earth. Whereas Yahweh
was made visible and embodied in the Old Testament as a second Yahweh, now Yahweh
would be incarnated as a completely human man. This would be the key to Gods
ultimate aim, restoring Gods original Eden on a global scale, reclaiming the disinherited
nations, and widening the human family of God beyond the ethnic descendants of
Abraham to all who would be Abrahams seed by faith in the gospel (Gal 3). This
program exploded at Pentecost and has continued ever since.
But its always darkest before the dawn. While the forces of darkness could not see their
act of killing Jesus as the key to Gods plan, after their blunder they knew full well what
had been set in motion. And they would not go quietly. In the mind of these supernatural
evil entities, the cause is not lost. They know they are free and have won many victories,
and so they believe that the ruination of humankind and the defeat of Gods kingdom is
still possible. In their darkness they cannot fathom ultimate defeat, and so they persist.
The New Testaments description of end times makes it clear that the nations wont be
surrendered voluntarilythey will have to be taken back by Yahweh against the will of
the fallen. The climax will mean nothing less than apocalyptic war.
The Foe from the Mythological North
In biblical material written before the exile of the southern kingdom of Judah, prophetic
descriptions of an enemy from the north referred to a literal attack from a foe whose
location was north of Israel, or who approached Israel for that attack from the north. The
most obvious example would be Babylon, the nation that took Judah into exile and
destroyed Jerusalem (Jer 4:5-8; 20:4-5). In some texts such invasions were described in
language associated with chaosnatural upheavals and catastrophes, such as earthquakes
(Jer 4:24; Nah 1:5).
This language is part of the Day of the Lord theme in the prophets. The Day of the
Lord (and similar phrases, like that day) was a time envisioned by prophets when all
the wicked would be punished, whether among the disinherited nations (Obad 15; Zeph.
1:14-18; 2:415; Amos 1:1315; Joel 3:1112) or the descendants of Abraham (Amos
5:18-20; Joel 1:15). The Day of the Lord is also about salvation. A group of survivors,
called the remnant in certain passages (Mic. 4:67; Zeph. 3:1113) will survive and be
gathered by Yahweh so they can know Yahwehs presence in their midst (Amos 9:1415;
Zeph. 3:15, 20). These are not only descriptions of an Israelite re-gathering. The remnant
includes believing members of the disinherited nations (Isa 2:2-4; 19:18; Zeph. 3:9;
Micah 4:1-4; Zech 14:16-17) who will worship in Jerusalem.
312
That this language is used of the heavens (Joel 2:10) and the primeval deep (Psa 77:19)
shows that it concerns more than literal geography. Most of these kinds of passages
referred to events already past (e.g., the Babylonian invasion and exile), but passages like
Ezek 38 were written during the exile, and so some future enemy and event are in view.
Ezekiel 38:18-20 use the language of chaos being unleashed when Yahweh ushers in his
future "day" (v. 18) with "great shaking" (v. 19) when he shakes the world and destroys
the demonic hordes of Gog with fire, and brimstone (v. 20). And, as we discussed in the
very first chapter of this book, it is on that day that sea dragon Leviathan, the eminent
symbol of chaos, will finally be destroyed (Isa 27:1; see also Isa 51:9).
In Chapters 23-25 I traced how the New Testament re-purposes the Old Testaments
Bashan motifs. Readers will recall that Bashan, in the far north of Canaan, was a sinister
location in the cosmic-geographical worldview of ancient Israelites, and even Gentiles,
like the people of Ugarit. Bashan had been an important cult center to Baal; it was the
entrance to the Underworld / Sheol, the realm of deathand so, the realm of the nachash,
later called Satan. In Psalm 68 Bashan was destined for conquest by God. Paul saw this
victory as the resurrection and formation of the church (Eph 4). Its clear that Bashan was
not only geographical; it was mythologicalhaving to do with cosmic geography and
spiritual warfare.
This background information contributes in several ways to eschatology, the biblical
drama of end times.
Most generally, it compels us to take some of the language in the book of Revelation in
mythic terms (Babylon, the dragon from the sea, earthquakes). Any interpretation of
these terms and ideas that binds itself to only a modern, literal scheme of fulfillment is
missing the spiritual reality behind them that is just as real. Interpreting prophecy by only
modern political events that (seemingly) directly correspond to words in the Bible that
are given new, modern meanings will result in the same sort of shock experienced by the
first century Jews who found it difficult to process the fulfillment of prophecy presented
to them by the apostles. Just as was the case with the messianic mystery, prophecy is
invariably oriented to what is going on behind the reality seen with our eyes. It is cryptic,
and will burst through into our world in ways unexpected by those looking at the material
exclusively through the lens of our own immediate earthly context. This lack of
certainty in prophetic fulfillment may frustrate us, but God is frankly more concerned
with working his plan than satisfying our curiosity. I would suggest, though, that when
we consider the eschatological future in ways less bound to our own literal imaginings
about fulfillment, it becomes much more dramatic. Three examples will suffice.
The Eschatological Enemy from the North (Antichrist)
Scholars have longed linked the foe from the north theme with Daniel 11, a passage that
many scholars believe in some way relates to the Antichrist. In briefest terms, the reason
is that the known invasion of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) in 167 B.C. has
many elements that are detailed in Daniel 11 (see Chapter 20), where Daniels
eschatological foe is connected to the north many times. Antiochus attacked from the
313
north (and was from the northern Seleucid empire in Asia Minor). He committed the
abominable act of profaning the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar, made Jewish
customs such as circumcision punishable by death. These offenses started a rebellion in
Jerusalem that led to a short period of Jewish independence.
Despite the elements of precision noted by scholars between the invasion of Antiochus
IV and Daniel 11, there are clear contradictions between the record of Antiochus
invasion and parts of Daniel 11. Additionally, nearly two centuries later Jesus still
regarded the prophecy of the abomination of desolation (Dan 9:24-27) as yet to come.
Since the abomination spoken of in Daniel 9 is somehow connected to the temple (note
the mention of sacrifice and offering in Dan 9:27), Antiochus desecration is
considered consistent with the abomination of desolation, but the ultimate fulfillment
must be yet future in view of Jesus own words. As such, it is argued that Antiochus
cannot have been the actual fulfillment of Daniel 11 (or the abomination of Daniel 9:2427) and so historical inconsistencies with Antiochus are of no concern.
Regardless of the Antiochus issue, his association with the northern foe of Daniel 11
nevertheless shows us that the foe from the north motif is important. Later Jewish rabbis
and early Christian scholars paid close attention to it. Focusing on the mythic elements
opened up a number of interpretive possibilities for understanding the identity of the
great enemy in the climactic confrontation between the forces of good and evil.
For example, the enemy name Gog in Ezek 38-39 has connections to the demonic
cosmic geography associated with the north. The term Gog may also reflect a
personification of spiritual darkness if it derives from the Sumerian word gg, though this
is uncertain.202 The Septuagint text of Amos 7:1 mentions God (the traditional Hebrew
text does not) and calls him the king of the locust invasion described in that chapter of
Amos. Locus imagery for invading armies is familiar in the Old Testament, but
Revelation 9 connects that language with demonic entities from the abyss. This is
significant not only since the abyss (a Greek term, abyssos) is connected to the
Underworld / Sheol, but also because the original offending sons of God of Genesis 6
(cp. 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; 1 Enoch 6-11). This matrix of ideas may be designed to tell us
that the Gog invasion may not describe an earthly enemy but a supernatural demonic
enemy. But as we have seen, both reality planes are frequently connected in the biblical
epic.
The well-respected early church father Irenaeus saw another connection between the
Antichrist and the Underworld and the fallen sons of God of Genesis 6:1-4. Irenaeus
knew that in 2 Pet 2:4 the word for the abyss in which these fallen entities was
imprisoned was not the expected abyssos, but tartaros. This word was considered a lower
realm than the normal Underworld in Greek mythology.203 Specifically, it was the place
where the quasi-divine giant Titans were imprisoned. Titans (titanos) was the Greek
word used in many Old Testament passages for various giant clan names (e.g., Rephaim).
Irenaeus noticed that one of the variant spellings of this word (Teitan) added up to 666
in Greek. Irenaeus favored this answer for the number of the beast since it was not the
314
name of a specific ruler or figure, but an evil tyrant, and since the name was connected to
the demonic realm.
A third tradition in the thinking of early Christians and Jews connecting the
eschatological enemy and cosmic geography is that this enemy would come from the
region of Dan (which overlapped with Bashan) or the tribe of Dan, which moved into that
northern region after forsaking its original tribal inheritance (see Judges 18).
The tradition of a Dan-Antichrist connection can be found in the early church fathers
Irenaeus (2nd century A.D.) and Hippolytus (170-235 A.D.). Their suspicion proceeded
along several trajectories.
The tribe of Dan and its genealogy are treated in unusual ways in both the Old and New
Testament. In Rev 7:4, we read about 144,000 sealed servants of God from every tribe
of the sons of Israel. This is not the case as the list of tribes itself indicates, since Dan is
absent. The list itself is unlike any other in the Bible in terms of its order. Other than the
Dan omission, it has Judah, the tribe of Davidic royalty and of Jesus listed first. The early
fathers, along with many modern scholars, believe both unique features are deliberate and
driven by theology, since no other coherent literary reason is apparent. Judah is likely
listed first since that was the tribe of the Messiah. If this is a correct assumption as to the
motivation for that feature, then the omission of Dan may be due to Dans Old Testament
association with idolatry (Micah and the Levite, Judges 17-18; cp. 1 Kings 12) and the
negative association of its geographical proximity to Bashan.
The northern geography of Bashan was not the tribes original allotment. Dan migrated
(Judges 18) from its original allotment under Joshua in the south, just above Judah:
Dans migration positioned it in the northern region of Bashan (Judges 17-18), a region
associated with cosmic evil in Old Testament times. This region was also part of the
Seleucid Empire during the Second Temple period. The infamous ruler Antiochus
315
Epiphanes IV, invaded from this region. As noted previously, Antiochus is considered by
most scholars to be a foreshadowing of the antichrist since he committed the
abomination of desolation of Daniel 9:27.
A third trajectory proceeds from certain passages in the Old Testament that appear to cast
Dan in a sinister light. In Genesis 49:16-17 we read:
16
17
Dan shall judge his people

as one of the tribes of Israel.
Dan shall be a serpent in the way,
a viper by the path,
that bites the horses heels
so that his rider falls backward.
Hippolytus took this metaphorical reference, along with its serpentine coloring, as a
typological expression of Satanic opposition to Jesus. He further supported his view from
the messianic description of Judah in the same chapter of Genesis (49:10). He also
observed that only the tribes of Judah and Dan are referred to in the Old Testament as a
lions whelp (Gen 49:9; Deut 33:22). He took this as a deliberate juxtaposition of Judah
and Danone producing the Christ, the other producing the antichrist.
Jewish writers during the Second Temple period also looked at Dan with suspicion for
some of these same reasons. They were obviously not thinking of the antichrist, since the
Christian era was yet future. The association of Dan with the northern region of Bashan
316
was consistent with the Old Testament foe from the north motif. The north (tsaphon) is
also laden with religious-mythological significance. In Ugaritic mythology, ts-p-n is the
name of the cosmic holy mountain of Baal, the place of the Baals council.
Armageddon (Har-Mageddon)
Even people who have never studied the Bible have heard the term Armageddon.
Anyone who has ever delved into the term has undoubtedly read that the term refers to a
battle that will take place at or near Megiddo, the presumed geographical inspiration for
the term Armageddon. Further research would perhaps detect the fact that in Zech 12:11
the place name Megiddo is spelled in Hebrew with an n on the end, solidifying an
identification with Megiddo.
Despite the apparent coherence of this identification, its unsustainable.
The problems begin with the term itself. In Rev 16:12-16 we read:
12
The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water
was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east. 13 And I saw, coming
out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the
mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. 14 For they are
demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world,
to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty. 15 (Behold, I
am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake, keeping his garments
on, that he may not go about naked and be seen exposed!) 16 And they assembled
them at the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
Two items are relevant. First, John tells us explicitly that Armageddon is a Hebrew
term. That one is obvious. Less apparent is how the name is spelled in Greek in this
verse: Harmagedon (). The initial h in the place name corresponds to the
superscripted apostrophe in the Greek characterswhat is known as a rough breathing
mark in Greek. The Greek language had no letter h; it instead used this mark to convey
that sound. And so the correct name of the place of this battle is harmagedon. This
spelling issue becomes significant when we recall the term is actually a Hebrew word. In
Hebrew the word har means mountain. Our place name is therefore Har-Magedon,
Mount of Magedon. The question then is, what is Magedon?
There are two options for understanding Magedon. The first is the traditional
Megiddo the defense of which I sketched above. The meaning of the phrase would be
Mount Megiddo. Many well-meaning Bible teachers accept this phrase after looking at
pictures of Megiddo, like the one below:
317
The problem is that this is an archaeological tell an artificial mound created by

successive layers of building and occupation over millennia. It is not a mountain, and
there are no mountains in the entire region. It is at this point where Zech 12:11, the proof
text for Magedon being Megiddo because of the n at the end of the Hebrew spelling
actually dooms Megiddo as an identification. Take a look at the verse in its entirety in
context (vv. 10-11):
10
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a
spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom
they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and
weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. 11 On that day the mourning
in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of
Megiddo(n).
It is clear that the verse refers to a location where the Messiah will appear and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem will look on him whom they have pierced. This will occur at
the battle of Armageddon (Rev 19:11-21). Equally clear is the fact that Megiddo is a
plain, not a mountain! As we shall see, John was thinking about this odd spelling of
Megiddo with an n (the only time in the Hebrew Bible where this spelling occurs), but
he was not referencing it for the location of the battle. That brings us to our second option
for deciphering Magedon.
To those who do not know Hebrew, Megiddo seems like an obvious explanation for
Magedon since both words have m-g-d. But in Hebrew there are actually two letters
318
that get spelled g in Greek (and English translations, too). Megiddo is spelled as
follows
mem gimel daleth
M - G - D
The same m-g-d can be represented another way:
mem ayin daleth
M
- D
Neither Greek nor English have a letter (other than their hard g) that approximates the
sound of ayin, which is made in the back of the throat and sounds similar to hard g.
This is why there is no English letter for its transliteration. Rather, the superscripted left
parenthesis is used. Perhaps the best example of a Hebrew word that begins with the
letter ayin but is represented by g in English is Gomorrah. That familiar word is not
spelled with gimel, the g in Megiddo. It is spelled with ayin.
The above means that the Hebrew phrase behind Johns Har-Magedon is actually Har
M--D. Amazingly, this phrase exists in the Hebrew Bible as har moed. It is found in
Isaiah 14:13, a passage many readers will immediately recognize in its contextthe
passage associated with the fall of the Shining One (Lucifer in Latin) after exalting
himself against God (see Chapter 6):
12
13
14
15
How you are fallen from heaven,

O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly (= har moed)
in the far reaches of the north;
But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.
The phrase har moed is the dwelling place of the divine councilthe mountain of
assembly where the Most High dwells and holds court. The phrase would have been
familiar to Israelites and Jews familiar with their Bible, since other Semitic languages and
cultures have the same phrase for the meeting place of the gods.
319
These data mean that the final, apocalyptic show down will have something to do with
the meeting place of the divine council, Gods abode. Two questions remain: where is
that and why the n in the spelling?
The first question is very easy, and you probably already know the answer. The God of
Israel dwelled at Jerusalem, and so Jerusalem is his place of council. The final battle will
take place at Jerusalem, or have Jerusalem, the holy city, as its central concern. The goal
of such a battle is the destruction of the kingdom of God and the capturing of Yahwehs
portion of cosmic geographya reversal of the advancing kingdom that began with
Jesus appearance and Pentecost.
We can be sure of this identification for other reasons. Jerusalem did have a mountain
(Mount Zion). Jerusalem is also cast as the great cosmic mountain in Psalm 48:1-2:
1
Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised

in the city of our God!
His holy mountain, 2 beautiful in elevation,
is the joy of all the earth,
Mount Zion, in the far north,
the city of the great King.
Recall that, to Canaanites, the mount of assembly was not Jerusalem, but Baals mountain
in the heights of the north. We discussed this passage and this phrase back in Chapter
13. The psalmist is denying that the real cosmic mountain is Baals mountain; rather, it is
Zion. The psalmist would obviously know Jerusalem and Mount Zion were not in the
literal geographical north of the Promised Landit is in the south. But by situating Zion
in the heights of the north, the psalmist is declaring that Yahweh and his councilnot
Baalrule the cosmic world. The powers of darkness must have Jerusalem fall to regain
what they have lost to the kingdom of God.
As far as the n at the end of the word, John adopted the odd spelling found in Zech
12:11 not because he wanted to point to Megiddo as a location (since that verse clearly
calls Megiddo a plain, as it indeed is) but to link the visible return of the Messiah in Zech
12:10 with the final cosmic-geographical conflict for the destiny of earth. In other words,
by taking the familiar and theologically-charged term har moed and adding the n to it
from Zech 12:11, John effectively unites the theological imagery of Isa 14:13 and Zech
12:10.
Johns book of Revelation is well known to scholars for combining Old Testament
passages and their imagery in this way. The classic example is the divine council throne
room scene in Rev 4-5, where John combines imagery from Daniel and Ezekiel. The
imagery from Daniel 7 is especially telling, as that was the divine council scene in which
the kingdom of God was announced and the fate of the final beast was settled (see
Chapter 21).
Armaggedon: A Battle of Gods and Men
320
John alludes to another passage in Zechariah that connects Aramgeddon and the Day of
the Lord with the divine council. In Rev 19:11-16, the climax of the battle, we read:
11
Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is
called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His
eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a
name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in
blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies
of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white
horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the
nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of
the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has
a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
The underlined portion describing a divine army coming with Jesus to end the conflict of
Armageddon is an allusion to Zech 14:5, which reads, on context, as follows:
3
Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a
day of battle. 4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies
before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from
east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move
northward, and the other half southward. 5 And you shall flee to the valley of my
mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee
as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the
LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.
The passage from Zechariah clearly associates the final battle with Jerusalem, as our
understanding of the term Armageddon asserted. In point of fact, all the Old Testament
background passages to a final battle with evil are consistent in placing the conflict at
Jerusalem, not Megiddo. Johns use of the imagery also subtly connects Jesus with
Yahweh, since John has Jesus coming to earth, but Zechariah has it as Yahweh (v. 3).
Lastly, the holy ones (qedoshim) accompany Yahweh/Jesus to end the conflict. The
divine council is also present in other prophetic calls to war (Isa 13:4-5; 40:26).
We have considered this term before, noting that it can be used of both divine beings
(angels) and believers. In the New Testament, holy ones is the Greek term hagioi.
Interestingly, this passage from Zechariah is actually referenced by four other New
Testament books:
Matthew 25:31 - When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with
him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
1 Thess 3: 12 - may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one
another and for all, as we do for you, 13 so that he may establish your hearts
321
blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus
with all his saints.
2 Thess 1:7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord
Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting
vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel
of our Lord Jesus.
Jude 14 - It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied,
saying, Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute
judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that
they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly
sinners have spoken against him.
It is easy to see that two of these passages retain the ambiguous holy ones, which can
speak of divine beings or believers, while two clearly have angels. John merely refers
to an army from heaven.
I would suggest that the ambiguity is deliberate on Johns part, and can be taken as
indicating that the army of Jesus at his return includes both divine beings and glorified
believers, who have taken their place in the heavenly council and now return to earth to
displace the gods of the nations, claiming the globe for Yahweh. As we saw in Chapter
27, the New Testament doctrine of glorification includes the idea of human believers
being adopted into Gods family. They are the new sons of God who will rule and reign
with Gods non-human sons as originally intended in Eden. This theme of divine sonship
and eschatological rule of believers is evident elsewhere in the book of Revelation, and it
is that to which we now turn.
202
Cited from Block, The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 25-48 (The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997-c1998), p. 433; footnote 31. Blcok
cites the study of P. Heinisch, Das Buch Ezechiel bersetzt und erklrt, HSAT 8 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1923, p.
183).
203
See BDAG, p. 991.
322
Chapter 30
Ruling Over Angels
The conquest of evil at Armageddon removes the final obstacle to reclaiming the nations
disinherited at Babel (Deut 32:8-9), the demise of the corrupt sons of God who were
ruling those nations (Psa 82:6-8). In the distant past, God had disinherited the nations of
earth as his co-ruling family, the original Edenic design, choosing instead to create a new
family from Abraham (Deut 32:8-9). The disinherited nations were put under the
authority of lesser elohim sons of God. Having become corrupt, they were sentenced to
mortality (Psa 82:6-8). The Old Testament is basically a record of the long war between
Yahweh and the gods, and between Yahwehs children and the nations, to re-establish
Gods presence on earth in ruleagain, the original Edenic design. Though Yahwehs
victory began with the ministry of Jesus, the incarnation of the second Yahweh, the
conflict ended at Armageddon, a victory that would usher in the new earth, a global Eden
to be ruled by Christ with his reconstituted council of glorified believers.204 In this final
chapter, well take a look at how this picture is telegraphed in the book of Revelation and
elsewhere.
An Epic Summary
We spent some time in Chapter 27 outlining the New Testaments use of sonship, family,
and adoption terminology for believers (e.g., Gal 3:7-9, 23-28; John 1:11-12; 1 John 3:13; 2 Pet 1:2-4; Gal 4:4-6; Rom 8:15-23; Eph 1:4-5). The logic of this language should be
quite evident by now. In ages past the divine sons of God watched as Yahweh created the
world (Job 38:7-8). Yahweh then announced to his council his intention to create humans
who would be his imagers, a status his divine sons also shared (Gen 1:26-27). Originally,
the council headquarters and Yahwehs abode was on earth in Eden; Gods imagers,
divine and human, would both represent him in this new world.
The original intent was ruined by the rebellious acts of one divine being, the Shining
One, who tempted humanity, and the transgressions of both Adam and Eve. The humans
were drive out of Gods home and his council to live in the wonderful created world,
unprotected from its natural threats, doomed to image under duress and to die as mortals.
But God promised that one day, a human being from the line of Eve would come and
undo what had happened. The rest of the Bible is the story of Gods efforts, within the
context of the freedom he had given humanity and his divine sons, to bring about that
new Eden through this Human One. It is for this reason that, throughout the Bible, the
323
terminology of divine family and divine rule run intertwined. The book of Revelation
takes up both themes and, naturally, they are inseparable.
The Ones Who Overcome: Eternal Life with God
The book of Revelation frequently describes believers as those who overcome the
assault of evil described in the book by retaining their faith in Christ, the Lamb of God
who is the beginning and the end (see the use in Rev 12:11). On six occasions the term is
used in conjunction with the reward of eternal life in Gods Edenic home as part of his
family:
Rev 2:7 - He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the
one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of
God.
Rev 2:11 - He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The
one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.
Rev 2:17 - He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To
the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a
white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one
who receives it.205
Rev 3:5 - The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will
never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father
and before his angels (for this confession, compare Heb 2:10-13).
Rev 3:11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your
crown. 12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God.
Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name
of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of
heaven, and my own new name.
Rev 21:6 And he said to me, It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the
beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life
without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his
God and he will be my son.
Each of these passages affirms the eternal life of the believer, but the language goes
deeper, especially with the divine council worldview in mind. There is clear Edenic
imagery for the place where the believer will spend eternity (Rev 2:7). Revelation 2:11 is
also Edenic, though perhaps less transparent. The first death refers to physical death,
brought by Adams sin and expulsion from Eden. Since all humans, believers and
unbelievers, are resurrected before judgment, the second death is the final judgment (Rev
21:8).
324
Revelation 2:17 evokes the imagery of manna, the supernatural food that sustained the
lives of the Israelites during their journey to the Promised Land (Exod 16). It was the
bread from heaven, an analogy Jesus used of himself as the source of eternal life (John
6:31-58). Based on parallels found in Second Temple period Jewish literature, the white
stone was a symbol of legal acquittal or a token of membership among the righteous. The
meaning is therefore very similar to believers receiving white robes referenced in Rev
3:5. The idea of confessing those who overcome before the Father in Rev 3:5 echoes a
passage we looked at in Chapter 27, Heb 2:10-13, where Jesus presents his new siblings
(believers) to the council and the Father. Believers are pure (white robes) before that
great cloud of heavenly witnesses. The cloud of witnesses language naturally evokes
the language of the council in the clouds (Psa 89:5-8). The heavenly witnesses in
Hebrews includes believers who have died and met the Lord before the final conflict
(Heb 11; Rev 2:9-11).
Revelation 3:11 uses temple imagery and vocabulary. As we saw in earlier chapters, the
temple was decorated with Edenic iconography to recall the original dwelling place of
God on earth. Prior to the final consummation of the kingdom on earth in the new Eden,
the dwelling place of God was within the believer, and within believers corporately (1
Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20). Other New Testament writers draw on the imagery of the Israelite
Tabernacle, the dwelling place of God, to describe the presence of God within believers
(e.g., 2 Cor 5:1-4).
Rev 21:6 is the most explicit link between divine sonship and overcoming. Those who
overcome will inherit Yahwehs inheritance, a term that specifically draws on the
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 worldview of the Old Testament, where Israel was Yahwehs
inheritance in place of the nationsbut which would be the conduit to reclaim the earth.
Believers inherit that dominion with Christ and God. God will call each believer my
son.
The Ones Who Overcome: Eternal Rule with Jesus
The focus of the inheritance allusion in Rev 21:6 overlaps with the overcomer language
in other parts of the book of Revelation. Other occurrences of the phrase specifically
point to shared rulership of the new Eden, Yahwehs global inheritance.
Rev 2:26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will
give authority over the nations, 27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when
earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my
Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star.
Rev 3:21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I
also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.
325
The latter passage is startling, even given the impact of the divine council worldview we
have been tracking. Believers will share the throne of Christ, the very one he sat upon
with the Father at his exaltation. There can simply be no more powerful statement of
shared dominion.
The same thought is actually echoed in Rev 2:26-28. Believers will rule the nations with
a rod of iron, a phrase that comes from Psa 2:9, one of the clearest messianic psalms in
the Old Testament. John uses the same quotation elsewhere in Revelation of Jesus, in
reference to his birth (Rev 12:5) and his victory at Armageddon (Rev 19:15).
The statement I will give him the morning star must be understood in light of the
comment in the immediately preceding verse, even as I myself have received authority
from my Father and the subsequent use of morning star in 22:16. The phrase in Rev
22:16 refers to Jesus himself. I am in agreement with most scholars who believe that the
morning star reference is an allusion to Num 24:17, where it is associated with the
messianic tribe of Judah and messianic rule (see the word scepter in Num 24:17). Stars
were associated with divinity in the ancient world. The ruling divine messiah at the
climax of history is Jesus, so he is the morning star of Rev 22:16. Giving the believers
who overcome the morning star refers to believers sharing in the messianic kingdom rule.
This outcome and interpretation of the role of believers in this shared rule should be no
surprise given Daniel 7. In Chapter 21 we saw that this shared rulership was specifically
prophesied in that chapter. In Dan 7:9-10 the human one (son of man)referred to as
riding on the clouds, the familiar Yahweh descriptionreceives an everlasting kingdom
from the Ancient of Days during the meeting of the divine council. That kingdom
belongs to the son of Man, Jesus Christ, and his rule is shared by the members of his
council (holy ones; Dan 7:22) and believers (people of the holy ones of the Most
High; Dan 7:27).
All of this helps us make good sense of what looks like a throwaway line in Pauls first
letter to the Corinthians. In trying to convince believers not to take fellow believers to
court, Paul rebukes them by saying, Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How
much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! The divine council structure and what
we have seen in the book of Revelation brings this statement to life.
Post-Babel / Pre-Armageddon
Council Structure
Role of Rank
The Godhead
Ultimate Sovereignty
Sons of God206
Ruling the disinherited nations
Angels
A term of low tank, delivering

messages
Believers
Displace the corrupt sons of

God as overcomers
326
The chart illustrates the thinking behind Pauls rebuke. When believers inherit the nations
as overcomers, they therefore outrank divine beings of lesser rank, the angels. Though
there is shared authority for administering the new global Eden spread to all Gods
children, human or not, there is rank and authority. Believers are the new sons of God
chosen to rule all nations as Yahwehs complete inheritance.
The End of Chaos and Restoration of Eden
The Eden imagery at the end of the book of Revelation is very obvious, as that can be the
only context for the tree of life:
Revelation 22
1
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing
from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city;
also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding
its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 No
longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be
in it, and his servants will worship him.
14
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree
of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
19
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will
take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this
book.
Notice that the tree of life is specifically now for the healing of the nations, a clear
reference to the reclaiming of the nations turned over to lesser gods at Babel (Deut 32:89). The effect is also described no longer will there be anything accursed, a reversal of
the curses of the Fall. The other two tree of life references naturally link the eternal life of
the believer to being present in Edenthe place where God, the source of all life, dwells.
The Old Testament alludes to the reversal of the curse and the coming global kingdom in
striking ways that echo the Edenic conditions:
All those formerly sick or disabled would be restored to full health (Isa 29:1819;
30:26; Mic 4:67)
All will enjoy a supernatural abundance of milk, honey, fruit, and produce (Isa
4:2; 7:2122; 25:69; 30:2324; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:1315).
There will be peace throughout all creation (Hos 2:18; Isa 11:110; cf. Ezek
34:2528); and all Israel (Isa 10:20; 52:6; Ezek 39:22)
All nations (Isa 19:1925; cf. Ezek 38:23), will know that Yahweh is God.
327
This imagery, especially extending the tree of life to all the nations, globalizes Eden. In
so doing, chaos is eradicated from Gods creation. Isaiah 27:1 had said this would happen
in conjunction with the Day of the Lord (Armageddon), and John agrees. With evil
defeated and banished and a global Eden, there is finally no more sin. With chaos
eliminated, nothing can harm the believer in an eternal life with God. But John makes an
even more telling statement of the end of chaos in Rev 21:1, one of my favorite verses in
the Bible. For those who have not read this book, it means nothing, but for you my
readers, it encapsulates the entirety of the biblical epic, the myth that is true. Ill let it be
my conclusion:
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth
had passed away, and the sea was no more.
204
Some readers may wonder about Revelation 20 in connection with the final victory over evil. That
passage makes explicit reference to Gog and Magog (v. 7). Some theological systems try to argue (for sake
of their system) that this is a different Gog and Magog event than one they presume will occur in a literal
tribulation. I reject that idea, since it arbitrarily adds a second Gog and Magog event only on the basis of
preserving a system. Seeing another Gog and Magog event has no basis in the text itself. Aside from the foe
from the north motif, there are several textual indicators that demonstrate Armageddon is the event
described in Ezek 38-39 that are beyond the scope of this manuscript. Those will be placed, with
bibliography, on the future website www.themyththatistrue.com when the site becomes live. Connecting
Ezek 38-39 to Armageddon also requires that at least part of the book of Revelation recapitulates (i.e.,
repeats in cycles). This is the dominant scholarly view of the book, not the popular one (Left Behind
approach) which wants to read Revelation only in as a linear chronology. Lastly, thought I believe the
Armageddon battle and the battle of Rev 20 (Gog and Magog) are the same event, I reject the notion that
this rules out an earthly kingdom of God. It would rule out the idea that a 1000 year millennium is the point
of Revelation 20, but that issue is separate from an earthly kingdom. Chapter 30 sketches my view that the
new earth is not just descriptive of an eternal state, but an eternal kingdom of God on earth ruled by Gods
glorified human and divine familiesEden restored, with Gods imagers as his (Christs) ruling
administration.
328
205
Manna was the supernatural food that sustained the lives of the Israelites during their journey to the
Promised Land (Exod 16). It was the bread from heaven, an analogy Jesus used of himself as the source of
eternal life (John 6:31-58). Based on parallels found in Second Temple period Jewish literature, the white
stone was a symbol of legal acquittal or a token of membership among the righteous. The meaning is
therefore very similar to believers receiving white robes.
206
Recall that there were seventy nations in the Table of Nations in Gen 10, the same as the traditional
number of the sons of El at Canaan. This would be a subset of the heavenly host given the language of
innumerability applied to them elsewhere. Sons of God is a rank term, not an ontological one, and so the
biblical writer informs us that certain of the sons of God had this rank and task. The structure of the earthly
kingdom of God mimics this number elsewhere (see Chapter 15).
329

Myth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Myth

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Myth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Completed first draft of The Myth That Is True (January 2, 2012)

Preface (Rewritten Material)

Chapter 19 Standing in the Council

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

The Myth That is True:

Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2011

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Dont Skip the Preface

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Michael Russell, http://lordofthekingdom.com/2006/06/22/finding-true-myth/, June 22, 2006.

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Muzzling the Dragon

Yet God my King is from of old,

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

(followed by the restoration of Eden) approaches, natural disasters, including ominous

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

God (elohim) stands in the divine council (literally, council of El);

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD,

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

The plural elim

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

But Are They RealAnd What If They Are?

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

See www.themyththatistrue.com for a full discussion.

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work,

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

so that the waters might not transgress his command,

Wisdom cries aloud in the street,

Whats the Point?

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

The LORD by Wisdom founded the earth;

But the LORD (YAHWEH) is the true God;

Copyright Michael S. Heiser, 2006-2012; All Rights Reserved

At his wrath the earth quakes,