Genesis 1:1–5, Day 1

Before I begin…

Before getting into this, I’ve been asked why I keep alienating my friends by harping on a version of Creationism that most of them consider to be unbiblical. I can respond to that in several ways:

First, I’m not really “harping” on it at all. This is a multipart series that I’ve planned for quite a while, to replace something I did years ago. I’ve still got two or three chapters to write before I’m finished with it. I did the same thing with my series on The Jewish Feasts.
I’ve been vitally interested in both theology and astrophysics since, literally, my pre-teen years. I write about what interests me most.
I don’t consider that one’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is a “fundamental of the faith“, but many of my friends do, and I am convinced that the currently mandatory “Genesis Flood Theory” is an unnecessary stumbling block for many lost souls.
Although many wonderful Christians would refuse to fellowship with me because I’m not a Young Earth Creationist, I don’t feel the same about them; but I suppose I’d like to convince them that I’m “righter than they are.”

As stated below, “With respect to the question of Creation, the central, foundational Truth of all Scripture is that the One, True, Eternal, Triune God, by His own power, created and sustains all else that exists in the cosmos.“

Moving on…

My views are driven by several axioms:

God is both omnipotent and sovereign, so He can do whatever He wants to do, however He wants to do it!
The Bible, as originally written, is the inerrant, irrevocable, Word of God.
The Bible we now possess (at least insofar as the accepted canonical books are concerned) is substantially the same holy Word as the originals, but subject to a very limited extent to human error in translation and interpretation.
Correct interpretation (exegesis) of Scripture requires a consistent hermeneutic, which among other factors, includes recognition that some scripture is not meant to be taken literally, as discussed below in relation to The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation.
A consistent hermeneutic also must require recognition of the cultural background of both the writer and the ancient reader.
Though Holy Scripture is as valid and vital today as it ever was, correct interpretation demands unequivocally that modern culture and tradition not be anachronistically imposed on the writers and readers of the day in which they were written.
Because God is not a liar or an author of confusion, we must recognize that the testimony of God’s Word cannot conflict with the testimony of His Created World when both are rightly understood.

Hermeneutics and the Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”–Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
founder of The Biblical Research Society

The above quote is known by many expositors as “The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation.” I read somewhere that this has often been shortened to “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”

Implicit in the above is the assumption that the “plain sense of Scripture” sometimes does not seem to make sense. Certainly, when that is the case, you must first question your own common sense, but that doesn’t always solve the problem.

Few conservative Bible scholars believe that every word of Scripture is meant to be understood literally.

That is troubling to many, because the alternative opens the door to subjectivism and arbitrary conclusions. Yet almost all the great conservative Bible commentators practice a hermeneutic (a set of formal principles for Biblical interpretation) that allow for non-literal text, including parables, figures of speech, anthropomorphism, poetic exaggeration, and a host of other confusing factors. Not to mention translational difficulties.

None of that subtracts from the central truth that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” It is axiomatic to me that the Bible is inerrant in its original language and the original manuscripts. Yet some folks read my opinions, especially respecting emotional themes like creation, and make snide comments like, “So you believe it’s inerrant except when it isn’t!”

So, to clarify, I don’t think there are any substantive problems with corruption of our Scriptures over the millennia. There are, however, problems with translation, but few of those are impossible to unravel, with sufficient attention to the linguistic and cultural background of the inspired humans who penned the words, and those to whom the words were written.

There are also “mysteries.” Most Evangelicals are happy to admit that Paul revealed things hidden within Scripture that were mysteries with respect to the New Testament Church. The Church itself being one of the chief mysteries! The dual advents of Messiah are another mystery now revealed. Yet many seem unwilling to consider that some things are still mysterious.

What I consider to be the biggest factor of all that contributes to doctrinal confusion and infighting in the Church is that some misinterpretations are imbedded into a nearly impenetrable wall of tradition.

Unfortunately, the reason there are so many Christian denominations in the world, and the reason they often have so much trouble getting along, is that each has its own particular list of what constitutes “axiomatic and fundamental truths.” For example, I was brought up in a “fundamentalist” sub-denomination of Baptists that teaches there is no such thing as a universal Church of all believers; only local churches are Biblical. To them this is an axiomatic and non-negotiable Truth, based in part on the simple fact that the Greek word translated “church” is ecclesia, which translates literally as “assembly.” After all, how can people scattered across the world and across many ages possibly assemble together?

With respect to the question of Creation, the central, foundational Truth of all Scripture is that the One, True, Eternal, Triune God, by His own power, created and sustains all else that exists in the cosmos.

That fact is stated clearly and concisely in just one verse: Genesis 1:1.

As for what that process looked like and how we should interpret Genesis 1:2–31, I regard it as still a mystery.

A 6,000-year-old universe and the Genesis Flood Theory of today’s Young Earth Creationists does not meet the commonsense test, not because God can’t do whatever He wants, but because the clear evidence of centuries of careful observation and analysis by very smart and dedicated professionals, both Christians and otherwise, can’t be ignored. God is not the Author of Confusion. He doesn’t plant lies in front of our face to test our faith.

Moreover, the universe is demonstrably dynamic, changing over time even as we observe. That isn’t “evolution”, it’s simply the application of forces and interactions decreed by God. We understand the physics of supernovae (the implosion of giant stars) and we observe them happening. We understand the process of star formation, and we see examples of every stage of that process. We can’t see the movement of stars and galaxies, but we can measure their movements using Doppler shift, similar to the clocking of a speeding car.

Limitations of Science

When I was young, scientific method was viewed as a simple, 3-step process:

State a hypothesis.
Form a tentative theory.
“Prove” the theory, which then becomes a law.

But so many of the “laws” found under that paradigm have been subsequently found to be limited in scope (for example, Newton’s laws of motion are now known to be invalid for very large and very small masses), that the paradigm has changed:

Now, hypotheses still become tentative theories, but once a theory has become so well proved that it is accepted as true by most authorities on the subject, it still doesn’t get promoted to “law”. That is why it is utterly meaningless to say that “The Big Bang Theory” is just a theory!

Scientists now look for certain characteristics of a theory to judge how “well established” it is:

Obviously, the more evidence supports a theory, and the less that appears to contradict it, the stronger it becomes. This evidence may be experimental, or it may be observational. If it is statistical in nature, then the results must be well within a recognized margin of error.
To be considered a truly “scientific“, a theory must be judged to be “falsifiable.” That means that for all practical purposes, if there is no conceivable way that a theory can ever be proven false, then it must remain speculative in the minds of those who are not predisposed to take it on faith. This principle is the tool of choice for those who wish to exclude all discussion of religion, or “Intelligent Design“, as an alternative explanation.
For a theory to become intrenched as factual, it is also necessary for it to successfully produce demonstrably true predictions, by means either of observation, logical arguments, or mathematics.
The strongest theories are those that can be expressed by mathematics, because mathematics is the only truly “exact science“. Two plus two always equals four in our base 10 number system. The circumference of a circle divided by its diameter always equals pi (3.1415926…) in a Euclidean frame of reference.

Proving the Bible

Something I see online over and over again online is well-meaning Christians exclaiming over interesting archaeological finds that, “They prove that the Bible is correct.” No, they don’t! Science will never prove Scripture, and that is by God’s design, because He wants us to live by faith, not by sight. The most that science can do for us is to confirm the faith that God has already supplied to us.

At the same time, if we are worried that science will contradict our faith, then our faith is weak to begin with!

God has written of Himself in both Scripture and creation. The purpose of science is to help us understand creation. Embrace it!

Moses was a prophet!

According to Scripture, Moses was the greatest prophet of all times, other than Jesus. He didn’t personally see any of the events of Genesis, so how did he know what to write? Both the Old and New Testament contain numerous references to non-canonical source writings. Moses himself references The Book of the Wars of the Lord (no longer extant) in Numbers 21:14, which recorded some contemporary events, but I know of no sources that he could have used for events prior to his own birth. He could have gotten his information only from God. After-the-fact prophecy, so to speak.

How was that information communicated to him? Perhaps verbally, because we know that he and God talked to each other directly. Having nothing concrete to go by, I personally assume that from Genesis 11:10 forward, Moses’ inspiration was primarily verbal.

Verses 10–32 of chapter 11 constitute one of eleven so-called toledoth in Genesis. These primarily genealogical blocks of Scripture were included by Moses and are believed to be intended as section dividers.

Because the first 11+ chapters of Genesis consist of abbreviated, flowery accounts of earthshaking historical events, I see them as poetic discourse, a different genre from what follows. For that reason, I suspect that these chapters were conveyed, at least in part, via visions or dreams. There is a theological label for prophetic visions of past events: Preterism. A “full preterist” believes that all prophecy describes the past, in effect dismissing the possibility that prophets could foretell the future. I am far, far from that position! I am a “partial preterist” in that I refuse to dismiss the possibility that God can also reveal the unseen past to his prophets.

Typically, prophets preached and reported the content of visions and dreams, but not necessarily their interpretations.

Previous posts in this series on the topic of creation

In The Hijacking of Creationism, I laid out several of the views that Evangelical scholars have historically held in order to account for the apparent ancient age (13.8 billion years) of the universe. In particular, I focused on The Genesis Flood Theory, and its popularizer, Henry M. Morris. Today, 1/10/2024, I expanded on my bio of Dr. Morris. Yes, I am a little bit brutal with him, but his writings were frequently brutal towards those who disagreed with him.

In Does Science Trump Theology? I explore the intellectual domains covered by the two disciplines, similarities in the two, and how they should work together in Bible interpretation.

In Fountains of the Deep I draw on my own geological engineering background to present what I believe to be the most likely mechanism of the Genesis Flood. This mechanism is unlikely to have caused the distortion of the earth’s surface that followers of Morris demand. Incidentally, the 13.8-billion-year age of the universe is as firmly rooted in astrophysics and cosmology as the 4.54-billion-year age of earth is in geology. One of these days I’d like to hear a Young Earth Creationist explain how the Genesis Flood accounts for the cosmologic appearance of age.

In Geology a Flood Cannot Explain I randomly describe, from my own professional knowledge, a number of well-known geological features on earth that absolutely could not have been affected by a flood of any magnitude.

Fluid Mechanics courses for civil engineers are mostly irrelevant to understanding of the Genesis Flood, because they focus primarily on hydrostatics (forces exerted by water pressure on fixed structures like dams and canal locks), and laminar flow in engineered open channels and pipes. To the extent that they cover turbulent flow in natural channels like riverbeds, the primary interest is erosion of friable soils, sands and gravels. Before erosion can occur in solid rock, weathering must first break the rock down into smaller pieces, which is a process which usually takes years, if not centuries or longer. [I explore this fact in a post, Geology and the Saudi Sinai, part of a series on false evidence for believing that “the real Mt. Sinai” is in Saudi Arabia.]

Revisiting Genesis 1

I would like to take another look at the first few verses of Genesis 1 to present some ideas that you may not have considered before.

Prologue: Gen 1:1–5

Below, I present three very legitimate translations. The first is from an Evangelical favorite, the English Standard Version (ESV). The second is from the Jewish Publication Society (JPS). The third is from a new work, The Hebrew Bible, translated by Robert Alter over a 30-year period. Alter is a modernist, and not someone I would look to for dogma or Christian commentary, but from reading his books, I am convinced that he is, to his core, a top authority on Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern literature. I don’t believe that his translations are colored by any sectarian presuppositions, and that makes him my top comparator while trying to separate what the Hebrew Bible says from what tradition claims that it says.

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
— Genesis 1:1-5 (ESV)

1 When God began to create heaven and earth— 2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water— 3 God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.
— Genesis 1:1-5 (JPS)

1 When God began to create heaven and earth,
2 and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and
God’s breath hovering over the waters, 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And
there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided
the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness
He Called Night. And it was evening and it was morning, first day.
— Genesis 1:1-5 (Alter)

Before considering the difficulties posed by creation of light on “Day 1” (verses 3–5), we first need to consider verses 1 and 2.

Verse 1: I think that the ESV Study Bible, with a couple amendments, states the interpretive problem in verse 1 fairly well:

[Verse 1] can be taken as a summary, introducing the whole passage; or it can be read as the first event, the origin of the heavens and the earth (sometime [on or] before the first day), including the creation of matter[, energy], space, and time. This second view (the origin of the heavens and the earth) is confirmed by the NT writers’ affirmation that creation was from nothing (Heb. 11:3; Rev. 4:11).
…
Heavens and the earth here means “everything.” This means, then, that “In the beginning” refers to the beginning of everything. The text indicates that God created everything in the universe, which thus affirms that he did in fact create it ex nihilo (Latin “out of nothing”). The effect of the opening words of the Bible is to establish that God, in his inscrutable wisdom, sovereign power, and majesty, is the Creator of all things that exist.
— Dennis, Lane T. and Wayne Grudem, eds., The ESV Study Bible. Accordance electronic edition, version 2.0. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2008 (emphasis added, my additions are in brackets).

Probably half of the sources I use assume that verse 1 is a summary for what follows, ignoring the fact that none of what follows explicitly mentions the origins of the earth as a rocky planet covered by water. This view necessarily assumes that God created the individual building blocks (sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules, and the forces that bind them) concurrently with forming them into the finished product. This is not outrageous but leads to a crucial contradiction which I will discuss below—namely that light is produced by matter, and is a manifestation of electromagnetism, which is an essential binding force.

The other half of my sources take the “first event” approach. Most of those place verse 1 on day 1. If you take it prior to day 1, then you more or less put yourself potentially in the “Gap Theory” camp, which I have occupied, but which is anathema to Young Earth Creationists because it can imply death before The Fall. I’ll save my comments on that objection for another post in this series. Unfortunately, this view is subject to the same contradiction regarding electromagnetic binding.

The ESVSB contention that “[the] Heavens and the earth … means ‘everything’” assumes that the wording of the Scripture is a merism, a figure of speech that encompasses the first element, the last element, and everything in between. This assumption is not provable, but rather can only be taken on faith—which I do. It is a figure of speech used frequently in the Bible.

The term “the heavens” is hashamayim in Hebrew. It is a plural form and is usually rendered as such in translations. Up to seven heavens were recognized in ancient literature, but most scholars today differentiate between three heavens:

The atmosphere around and above us.
The cosmos beyond earth’s atmosphere.
The heavenly realm inhabited by God and his host.

I would rather prefer a more general statement that the term “heavens” means everything above the surface of earth: As explained below, Moses and his readers would have envisioned several elements:

The sky of air and birds.
A solid dome (the “firmament“) from which hang the suspended sun, moon and stars.
An ocean above, connected at the edges to the ocean below, and held up by the dome, (KJV, “firmament”).
The home of God and His Divine Host.

The first event view is supported in particular by the JPS and Alter translations above (“began to create”), which place verse 1 at the beginning of what might be interpreted as a string of creation events, those described in the remainder of the chapter, and anything subsequent.

Verse 2: In verse 2, there are actually four separate interpretive issues, which I will gloss over here:

“Without form (or formless) and void” and other translations, such as Alter’s “welter and waste.” The Hebrew, tohu wabohu, is linguistically of limited use to our understanding, because its usage in literary history is insufficient to allow a definite interpretation. Guesses range from “total chaos” to “undeveloped and unpopulated.” Halter deliberately chose his nouns to emulate the poetic language of the Hebrew rather than to take a position on precise meaning. Whatever the meaning here, I have generally pictured the state of the planet as an earth totally covered by water and shrouded in mist, which works very well with a Gap Theory and a flooded earth. However, I’ll mention another (better?) view below.
“Darkness.” The Hebrew choshek can mean things like darkness (perhaps because light is absent), or obscurity because light has been masked or reflected away. Again, obscurity works best with Gap Theories, but see below.
“The Deep.” The Hebrew tehom means either the deep sea, or the deep source waters of terrestrial springs which were viewed as interconnected with each other and with the sea (see Fountains of the Deep, where I discuss this in some detail).
“The Spirit of God“, “a wind from God”, or “God’s breath.” The Hebrew ruach, can mean any of these things, and probably means all of them here. See God with the Wind for an in-depth discussion.

The overwhelming problem with Light on Day 1:

The definition of light

Just what is “light”, anyway? If you think of it as simply, “the absence of dark”, then you are way off base—it’s the other way around. As a noun, “dark” denotes a concept (the absence of light), rather than a tangible thing. “Light” is something very real and specific. I suspect that all of my readers have had enough education to realize that light is electromagnetic energy. All of you will no doubt have seen some version of a spectrum diagram:

The problem is that most folks have a tendency to think of visible light as something that is fundamentally different from the rest of the spectrum, because our vision only detects wavelengths in a narrow band between about 400 and 700 nanometers. But the wavelength of electromagnetic energy is really an expression of how energetic the wave is. X-rays and gamma rays are fundamentally the same thing as visible light, just more energetic. Radio waves, radar, and microwaves are fundamentally the same thing as visible light, just less energetic. All of these things are emitted by matter, travel as waves, and are detected in the form of massless particles called photons.

So, if God literally created light on a literal Day 1, did He create just visible light, or the entire spectrum? If He just created visible light, then I have to ask, “visible to whom?” Humans all differ slightly in their light sensitivity. Bats, most amphibians, and many fish and insects see well into the infrared. Many species of insects, fish, and even mammals (including dogs and cats) can see into the ultraviolet. Using instrumentation, humans can now “see” all wavelengths of electromagnetism.

And what do we even count as visible to a normal human? Sunlight reaching Earth’s surface on a sunny day is around 52 to 55 percent infrared, 42 to 43 percent visible light, and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet. A biologist might say that “visible” means detectable using only our eyes, but we also detect longer and shorter wavelengths with other organs.

On the long-wave side of the spectrum, infrared (“below red”) is felt as heat on our skin; microwaves can penetrate skin, and if powerful enough, could even boil the water in blood and cells near the surface; and even lower UHF and VHF radio waves have been documented to set up resonant vibrations in structures like teeth with metallic fillings.

On the short-wave side of the spectrum, ultraviolet (“above violet”), which can cause sunburn and later melanoma; x-rays penetrate completely through our bodies and can cause damage to inner organs over time or can cause or kill cancers; unshielded gamma rays can cause catastrophic damage to human bodies.

Contrary to the diagram above, cosmic rays are not light or even electromagnetic energy in any sense, but rather are alpha and beta particles traveling at close to the speed of light, and thus possessing some of the same quantum properties as light.

The source of light

Light that reaches us from the sun is largely in the range of visible and near-visible light, but it starts out in the sun’s reactive core as gamma rays, high energy (short wavelength) byproducts of nuclear fusion. These gamma rays begin a “random walk” out of the sun’s core and through its conduction zone, repeatedly colliding with particles in the dense surrounding soup of hydrogen and helium ions, changing directions randomly, over and over again, and gradually losing energy (thus shifting to more benign longer wavelengths). Eventually, after something like 100,000 to a million years, they reach the sun’s surface and fly off in all directions at the speed of light, 186,282 miles per second.

Structure of the sun, from theuniverse-michael-lawson.weebly.com

An even more important consideration (mentioned above) is that, in the universe God created, electromagnetic energy (let me just call it “light” here, for brevity) is always associated with matter. There are a number of ways that light can be generated, but it always begins with matter. I’ll mention a possible exception below, under the heading “sh’kinah“, but for now, I’m talking about the light that all of us experience.

It is worth mentioning that all light is invisible until it strikes a detector. If you are in an empty, dark place and someone shines a flashlight past you, you may see the glowing source, but you will not see any trace of the beam, which consists only of a jiggling electromagnetic field, unless it strikes an air or dust molecule and reflects into your eye.

Most light in the universe is generated by stars like our sun, but all matter generates light, usually much less energetic than stellar gamma rays but still light, even if it is well below our range of sight. The human retina is populated by several types of light receptor: “cones” for detecting color when the light intensity is strong enough, and “rods” for detecting black and white in low light situations. My cat, Anna, can see me very well in a darkened (but not totally dark) room, because her retinas are mostly populated by “rods”.

Matter that is not heated to a glow, still generates heat, and that heat energy is radiated by light in the infrared region. If raised to a high enough temperature, the energy of the radiated light will eventually climb into the visible region, first red, and when hot enough, all the way to the blue side of the spectrum.

[Note: This is why the red and blue markings on faucets and automobile heater controls are so confusing and counterintuitive to me. To any scientist and most engineers, it should be red for cold and blue for hot, in spectral order.]

I took the photo of Anna, below, using an infrared sensor. The color isn’t real. The sensor’s pixels map the wavelengths of the infrared light in the scene and use an algorithm to determine the temperature that the pixel is “seeing”. False color is then added to encode it, as per the scale on the left. The warmest parts of the photo are her eyes, about 96°F. Next warmest is her face, followed by her tummy and legs. Her cold nose and the thick fur on her back and tail matches the cooler temperatures of the table she’s lounging on and the room to the right. The blue areas, our front door and glazed side panels, are quite cold. It was winter, and the windows here are single-glazed and very poor insulators.

In this photo, the small amount of heat registered from the window is a combination of heat from Anna and the room itself, being reflected back towards my sensor, heat generated by the window glass itself, and heat from outside conducted (see below) through the glass and woodwork.

All matter generates heat provided that its temperature is above absolute zero (−459.67°F). In the presence of any heat at all, the sub-atomic particles in atoms and molecules vibrate. The mechanism is beyond my scope here, but that vibration causes a release of energy in the form of heat. Heat energy is propagated in one or more of three ways:

Conduction – If two objects are touching each other, then the heat stored in the hotter will flow to the cooler (that’s the “first law of thermodynamics”).
Convection – In a gas or liquid, heat energy from a hot container will flow to the fluid by conduction and then the heated fluid will rise, setting up a convection current in the liquid.
Radiation – Whether or not either of the above occur, there will always be some heat flow in the form of electromagnetic radiation. To me, that is light, whether I can see it or not!

Absolute zero is theoretically unobtainable, because an object at absolute zero would cease all motion, including vibrations within the nucleus and movement of the electrons. All liquids and gasses (including the atmosphere) at this temperature would immediately solidify and collapse to a dense, inert lump, which I don’t believe describes the condition of earth in Genesis 1:2.

This is why I think that it would make no sense for light to have been created subsequent to the creation of matter in Genesis 1:1, whether you interpret that as a summary or a first event.

Since light is so intimately connected with matter, it is unthinkable to me that light would have come first.

Verses 4 and 5 are also difficult for me to accept in a literal sense. “Day and night” are conceptual nouns, and night simply refers to the shadow caused on one side of earth as it rotates away from the sun. But the sun isn’t created until Day 4. Some would say that this verse is where God created time. But time, as now understood by physicists, is part of the fabric of the universe itself (see Implications of God’s Omnipresence and Eternity in Space-Time).

sh’kinah

God’s own sh’kinah is also a light source, and one not connected with matter. It is the light source that led the Israelites out of Egypt, that lit up the top of Mt. Sinai, that resided in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and later the Temple, and that was described in the visions of several of the prophets.

Some commentators have suggested that God’s sh’kinah is the source of the light that God “created” on Day 1. This is absolutely a possibility, but if true, even if it functioned in exactly the same way as the light that we are familiar with, is it meaningful to say that God “created light” on Day 1 if the light he created had a different source from the light that we know? On Day 4, God assigned the responsibility for light-bearing to the sun, moon and stars. In any case, I think the sh’kinah is one of God’s native characteristics, not a later creation.

“Let there be light…”

The Hebrew for this phase is yehi or. With its many linguistic modifiers, Yehi appears 3,561 times in scripture, so it is well understood. To my knowledge, there is complete agreement on the translation here, “let there be“. I am not aware of any context in which it clearly denotes a creative act. It is like saying, “Hey bub, flip on the light, will ya’?”

Interpreting verses 3–31

As for me, I don’t think that Genesis 1:3–31 can be a literal description of how God created the cosmos, because these verses do not describe the immensely complex universe in which we live!

In The Hijacking of Creationism, I mentioned a number of alternative theories proposed by conservatives to explain this passage, as listed in Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology. Another such list is presented below:

Concordist and Non-Concordist Interpretations of Genesis 1, from an article at biologos.com, “Comparing Interpretations of Genesis 1“, by Deborah Haarsma and Loren Haarsma

The authors of the above table define “concordism” as follows:

In concordist interpretations, God made the earth using the sequence of events described in Genesis 1. In non-concordist interpretations, God created the earth using a different timing and order of events than those described Genesis 1.

According to 19th century theologian, minister and writer, C.I. Schofield, Genesis 1 describes God’s miraculous 6-day rebuilding of an ancient earth after a previous judgement (of earlier humans and/or angelic beings) by inundation. This is a Gap interpretation, from the left side of the table.

What has long intrigued me about Schofield’s Gap Theory is that in the sequence listed, Genesis 1 describes precisely how earth would most likely have recovered from a general flood like that of Noah’s day. If that is true, then both floods were miraculous inundations of the entire planet, and the unnaturally rapid recovery in both cases was also miraculous. This is why I have for years called myself a “gap guy“, or more recently, a “two-flood” guy.

Still, I am no longer adamant about Gap Theory, because it can’t be proven one way or the other, and I don’t share Scholfield’s opinion that the judgement leading to the earlier flood was connected to angelic corruption on earth. There is no Biblical evidence of angelic rebellion before Satan appears in the Garden of Eden.

More importantly, after doing extensive study during the last several years in the course of thinking about this series on Creation and another post on Gods and Demons, I feel drawn to a different interpretation that would be much more comprehensible to the people in Moses’ day and well beyond.

A better idea

What was the cultural background?

Regarding the culture of Moses’ day, it is inconceivable that he or his readers would have had the intellectual tools needed to process concepts like mass, energy, the nature of light, or even cosmically vast distances and time scales or a spherical earth.

We tend to think of ancient civilization as a scattering of isolated small city states like Sumer, Akkad, Elam, and even Egypt on the far end of the Fertile Crescent, but in the distant past there were already frequent interactions among peoples. Both war and peace brought people together, either in conquest or in trade. Consequently, there were many similarities in culture and religion. Though the names and functions of the pagan gods differed somewhat from region to region, there was general agreement about the nature of the world and the duties of the godhead in maintaining its order.

The region that became Israel was part of this milieu. The Israelites were descended from Abraham, who was Mesopotamian. Their later heritage was Canaanite and then Egyptian. The Torah (“Teachings“, the “Five Books of Moses”) that God delivered to His people, had the singular purpose of revealing Himself and His requirements to humankind.

Ancient Near East before Moses. http://www.hyperhistory.com 2016

In Moses’ day, as in Noah’s and even Jesus’ and beyond, the Israelites shared the beliefs of their Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) neighbors about cosmology (the nature of the heavens and the earth). Though their concept was, of course, deeply flawed, it was functionally adequate for millennia, and it diminished God’s role only in that it ascribed His creation to false creators. The following diagram shows the essence of what was universally accepted as true cosmology in the ANE.

Note that this is also clearly the cosmology described in Genesis 1!

Composite artist’s conception of the Ancient Near Eastern view of cosmology. Source unlisted.

The earth was a roughly disk-shaped island floating on the sea (possibly supported on “the pillars of earth”) and covered with a dome, the “firmament” of KJV. The sea was not only below the earth and feeding its springs (the “fountains of the deep”), but also covered the dome above (the “waters above the firmament”). In some versions the dome was supported by a ring of mountains (the “pillars of heaven”). The sun and moon traveled across the sky below the dome, sinking into the sea or through doors in the west, and traveling back east through the underworld to rise again. The stars and planets followed fixed grooves beneath the dome. Rain occurred when windows in the dome (the “windows of heaven”) were opened by the gods.

No matter how one interprets Genesis 1, the central issue that had to be addressed by God was that each element in the above diagram was believed to either be a god or goddess, or to be governed by one. And, of course, it was believed that all owed its existence to one or more chief creator gods. Rather than “nothingness” before creation, the cosmos existed, but was in a state of chaos (formlessness, or tohu wabohu, as defined above); thus, creation amounted to bringing order out of disorder.

So, what are my views?

A Genesis 1 alternative that makes total sense to me now is related to historical observations that the Israelites shared the culture and cosmology of the surrounding peoples. The Genesis account and the Bible as a whole condemns the pagan polytheistic connection, but does nothing to dispel the cosmological misconceptions, which were still believed by most cultures, including Israel’s, well into the Christian era.

The chart below displays relationships recognized by many conservative theologians who hold to a literal, Concordist, interpretation of Genesis 1; however, rather than interpreting the chart as an account of literally how God created the physical cosmos, I think it is better understood as a very abbreviated poetic description of the finished product.

From *Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design*,
by Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. Haarsma

Understood in that way, it becomes one version of a Creation Poem Interpretation of Genesis 1. As such, it is essentially a polemic (a statement argumentatively refuting an opinion or doctrine held by others) against the creation myths of pagan cultures who credit their false gods, who most certainly did not create or rule the cosmos!

The ANE held no conception of infinite time or eternity. They thought no farther back than the initial chaos (compare Genesis 1:2), out of which arose the creator god, who then began to assemble the cosmos from the chaos. Only Yahweh, claimed to be eternal and uncreated, and to create ex nihilo.

Whereas modern man sees existence as material in nature, with tangible substance and physical properties, it wasn’t enough for the ancients that something was visible and occupied space—as stated by John H. Walton in Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, it had to first “come into existence” metaphysically by being “separated out as a distinct entity, given a function, and given a name.”

A key insight that I have gleaned from Walton and others who have professionally studied the ANE is that the ancients viewed the ontological nature of the cosmos, i.e., “the nature of that which exists” in terms of function, whereas moderns view it in terms of substance. In other words, when a Big Bang Creationist like me thinks of God’s handiwork, I see mass and energy, bosons and fermions, stars and planets, rocks and trees, etc. A Young Earth Creationist similarly sees a universe of substance. To the ancients, in contrast, the substance of things is only incidental to their functions.

Consequently, I’m beginning to understand that God’s purpose in Genesis 1 was to ignore the misconceptions of the ANE regarding the physical nature of the cosmos, since that was a triviality to pretty much 100% of the population, and to say, in ways they would understand, “I, Yahveh, brought it into being [verse 1] and gave it function [the rest of Genesis 1].”

In this way of thinking,

Days 1 and 4 were about time, seasons, and the cosmic objects that differentiate them;
Days 2 and 5 were about the waters below and above, and about their denizens; and
Days 3 and 6 were about the land and its fecundity.

What point was God then making?

According to Walton, “The records of events in the ancient world were not given so that the reader could reconstruct the event. They were given so that the reader could understand the significance of the past for the present. In that sense, outcomes were more important than the events themselves.”

The pagan creation myth most familiar to modern scholars today is the Enuma Elish, from the Assyrian Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. I’ll close this post with a comparison of Genesis 1 with this pagan document, which I think clearly illustrates God’s point:

Bibliography

Haarsma, Deborah B., Loren D. Haarsma, Origens: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design,2011, Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources.

Walton, John H., Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, 2nd ed., 2018, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Zuck, Roy B., Basic Bible Interpretation, 1991, Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries

Did Ezekiel Prophesy the October 2023 Israel/Gaza War?

It’s way too early to say, but personally, I would rate the odds at about 50/50 right now. It all depends on what Russia does (see below).

What I’m referring to is an important prophecy delivered to Israel over 2-1/2 millennia ago, in Ezekiel 38–39. I wrote The Coming World War: Gog and Magog about that prophecy in 2015 and updated it in 2022. From what I have seen, the early stages of this war are checking the boxes, with no contraindications.

Of course, any war involving Israel is going to start with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Shots have also been fired on Israel and its allies by Iran, Syria, Iraq, Islamic Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Fatah-led Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. All are equipped by Iran directly and Russia directly or indirectly. Saudi Arabia, expected to be more or less on Israel’s side, has already intercepted and destroyed a suicide drone launched by the Houthis against Eilat, an important Israeli port on the Red Sea.

The key question going forward is, “What will Russia do?” If Russia enters the war, it will substantially increase the strength and mobility of the anti-Israel forces, and it will embolden other actors who are for now holding back.

But isn’t Russia debilitated by its failing war against Ukraine? No, I don’t think it is! I don’t think that official Russian military action in Ukraine has been very substantial. Most of that operation has been handled by the Wagner Group, a paramilitary force trained and supplied by the Russian Defense department, but with separate staffing and command structure. This arrangement allows Putin and the Russian military to say, “Hey, it isn’t our fault.”

I believe that the Russian Army, Navy and Air Force are all at nearly full strength. What is not strong is Putin’s reputation around the world and with his own people. What would help him to put that behind him is to direct a “can’t-fail” operation to destroy Israel, right now, while there is so much antisemitism and pro-Palestinian sentiment in the news. America doesn’t have the will to do more than spend money and send armaments, and no other country is likely to go out on a limb for Jews.

Comparing Russia and Iran with Israel, the 2023 Global Firepower assessments for the three as of October 28 show Russia as still the second most powerful country in the world out of 145 ranked (though China is rapidly closing the gap), Israel 18th and Iran 17th. With respect to individual firepower categories that I judge to be most applicable to the present situation, the numbers stack up as follows:

	Russia	Iran	Israel
Active & Reserve Troops	1,080,900	925,000	638,000
Paramilitary*	250,000	90,000	8,000
Tanks	12,566	4,071	2,200
Armored Vehicles	151,641	69,685	6,290
Artillery	10,911	2,630	950
Rocket Launchers	3,887	1,085	300
Total Aircraft	4,182	541	601
Fighter Aircraft	773	196	241
Transport Aircraft	444	86	37
Attack Helicopters	537	12	48
Fleet Strength	598	101	67
Aircraft Carriers	1	0	0
Submarines	70	19	5
Large Combat Ships	86	10	7
Mine Warfare	49	1	0

*Although Paramilitary forces might be a huge military disadvantage to Israel, the quarter million on paper for Russia may not be available due to ongoing warfare in Ukraine.

As you can see, Iran’s strength is comparable to Israel’s, but with Russia in the fray, Israel is completely overmatched. Make no mistake, Russia will go all-out if their regular military is engaged. It has already been reported that Russia’s Wagner Group is supplementing Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The US currently has one carrier battle group in the Mediterranean, and another in the Red Sea. Additionally, a nuclear submarine is on the way to station in the Red Sea. These are a powerful deterrent, but only if Biden decides to go all-out, too. It won’t happen, and congress would balk if he did.

How it plays out if this is the Gog/Magog War

Referring to Ezekiel 38 and 39, it begins in earnest when an array of hostile, mostly Muslim nations in the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe unite under the leadership of Russia to attack Israel and attempt to destroy her and to annihilate God’s Holy People. Geopolitical realities have prevented this from happening up until now, but Satan is no doubt aware of the growth of worldwide antisemitism since 1948, the general decline in human values and the lack of moral strength among Israel’s allies.

The prophecy passes over the events we are seeing now leading up to the attack, but they reveal the shocking truth that, though Satan may see it as his own initiative, it is God who is initiating the conflict to bring both Israel and her enemies to their knees in advance of the coming Tribulation. In vv 3–4, God says,

[3] ‘I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshekh and Tuval. [4] I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with all your army, horses and horsemen, all completely equipped, a great horde with breastplates and shields, all wielding swords.
—Ezekiel 37:3b–4 (CJB)

Putin and his allies act because God ordained it. Don’t be concerned with the prophetic imagery here of ancient armies and armaments. This war will not be about horses and swords, but about air and sea power, tank battles and explosions.

[8] After many days have passed, you will be mustered for service; in later years you will invade the land which has been brought back from the sword, gathered out of many peoples, the mountains of Isra’el. They had been lying in ruins for a long time, but now Isra’el has been extracted from the peoples and all of them are living there securely.
—Ezekiel 38:8 (CJB)

We are indeed in the “latter days“. Israel was “brought back” and “extracted from the peoples” some 75 years ago, and though surrounded by mortal enemies and subjected by daily rocket attacks, they have been lulled to sleep once again by a period of relative peace and security.

[14] “Therefore, human being, prophesy! Tell Gog that Adonai ELOHIM says this: ‘Won’t you be aware of it when my people Isra’el are living in security? [15] You will choose just that time to come from your place in the far reaches of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them on horseback, a huge horde, a mighty army;
—Ezekiel 38:14–15 (CJB)

Given the ways that prophecy works, this surprise attack could be speaking of the brutal proxy attack by Hamas that we’ve already seen, on October 7, or it could be referring to a main wave attack during a lull at or near the close of Israel’s reduction of Gaza.

If God Himself is the instigator of this war, then what could be His purpose?

[16] and you will invade my people Isra’el like a cloud covering the land. This will be in the acharit-hayamim [the “latter days”]; and I will bring you against my land, so that the Goyim [non-Jewish nations] will know me when, before their eyes, I am set apart as holy through you, Gog.’
—Ezekiel 38:16 (CJB)

And how will He accomplish that purpose?

[18] When that day comes, when Gog invades the land of Isra’el,’ says Adonai ELOHIM, ‘my furious anger will boil up. [19] In my jealousy, in my heated fury I speak: when that day comes there will be a great earthquake in the land of Isra’el; [20] so that the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the wild beasts, all the reptiles creeping on the ground and every human being there in the land will tremble before me. Mountains will fall, cliffs crumble and every wall crash to the ground. [21] I will summon a sword against him throughout all my mountains,’ says Adonai ELOHIM; ‘every man will wield his sword against his brother. [22] I will judge him with plague and with blood. I will cause torrential rain to fall on him, his troops and the many peoples with him, along with huge hailstones, fire and sulfur. [23] I will show my greatness and holiness, making myself known in the sight of many nations; then they will know that I am ADONAI.’
—Ezekiel 38:18–23 (CJB)

This is essentially a repeat of what He did in Egypt to free His people, but this time, the whole world will be watching!

[3] But then I will knock your bow out of your left hand and make your arrows drop from your right hand. [4] You will fall on the mountains of Isra’el, you, your troops and all the peoples with you; I will give you to be eaten up by all kinds of birds of prey and by wild animals. [5] You will fall in the open field, for I have spoken,’ says Adonai ELOHIM.
—Ezekiel 39:3–5 (CJB)

The remainder of Ezekiel 39 deals with the aftermath. God will take the destruction to at least the homeland of Gog (though Ezekiel elsewhere uses the term “coastlands” to designate a much larger area, so this probably means all of the invading nations will be crushed), vv 6-8. Israel, meanwhile, will begin cleaning up the mess. Combustible military equipment, which I take to be fuel, camp equipment, rifle stocks and so on, will provide fuel for seven years of burning, vv 9-10.

The dead invaders will be gathered and buried in mass graves in an unknown area called the Travelers’ Valley, east of the Dead Sea, in Jordan (or possibly east of the Sea of Galilee, in Syria), vv 11-16. This operation will take seven months and will block the valley, which evidently is a major east/west route for commerce. Those who remain will provide a feast for wild animals, vv 17-20.

As a result of the Gog and Magog War, if that is what this is:

[21] “‘Thus will I display my glory among the nations, so that all the nations will see my judgment when I execute it and my hand when I lay it on them. [22] From that day on, the house of Isra’el will know that I am ADONAI their God; [23] while the Goyim will know that the house of Isra’el went into exile because of their guilt, because they broke faith with me; so that I hid my face from them and handed them over to their adversaries; and they fell by the sword, all of them. [24] Yes, I treated them as their uncleanness and crimes deserved; and I hid my face from them.’
—Ezekiel 39:21–24 (CJB)

Final thoughts

I did an Internet search this morning trying to find other commentators who are attempting to match the current war with Bible prophecy. I did find one who pretty much agrees with me, but mostly what I found was ridicule and very poor, if any, textual analysis. My wife told me she listened to a couple videos by respected eschatologists who seemed to think that America’s support for Israel negates the possibility that this is Ezekiel’s war. I don’t follow that logic at all. If America is mentioned anywhere in Scripture, it is buried very deep! Ezekiel 38:13 does mention three nations that will support Israel. I see no reason to require that list to be exhaustive. But, if you insist, I think that a loose interpretation of v 13 could equate Tarshish with America, in either of two ways: (1) Tarshish is thought by most to have been a city on the Bay of Cadiz in southwestern Spain. Since that was just about as far west as Ancient Near East scholarship stretched, Ezekiel may have made that connection. (2) I was very briefly stationed at the US Naval Base, Rota, Spain in 1970, while awaiting air transportation to Naples. Rota is a relatively large base just across Cadiz Bay from the city of Cadiz and could be considered an American outpost. These two speculations are flimsy, and I think unnecessary.

Second, if you read many of my posts, I’m sure you’re aware that I firmly believe that God chooses important prophetic dates on the Hebrew calendar to accomplish His important purposes. October 7 this year (the date of the terror attack) fell on Tishri 22, the day following the 7-day Feast of Tabernacles, the last of the principal feasts commanded in Leviticus 23. This day is also known as Simchat Torah, and that is the first day of the annual Torah reading cycle in Jewish synagogues everywhere. One way or another, this war is bound to change the dynamics in the Middle East. Does a new cycle of Scripture reading correspond to a new cycle of Middle East relationships?

Will the Gog/Magog War do what God intends it to do? Of course! When I wrote the original post on this subject, I was thinking that the obvious outpouring of God’s power would bring many secular Jews around the world to a new measure of faith, and many Gentile atheists and agnostics would turn to God in faith. While there is bound to be some of this, I no longer think it will be widespread.

Today I think of Gog/Magog more as God shaking His fist and saying, “Enough! Israel is mine, and off-limits!” The blatant, in-your-face, unmistakable demonstration of His power will be viewed by most of deluded humanity as an afront, and they will hate Him more personally than ever before.

One effect almost sure to come out of Gog/Magog, I think, is that both the Iraeli and Arab militaries will be depleted to the extent that Antichrist will be able to entice them into a mutually binding peace treaty. You know the rest of this story!

Implications

If the Israel/Hamas war being fought now in the Gaza Strip is indeed the opening action in the Gog/Magog war prophesied by Ezekiel, then we are without question living in the “Last Days!” Given the rapid increase in evil in America and around the world, I can only hope and pray that it is so!

The Ancient of Days

Between research, and then pushing my aging brain to get things “on paper”, my blog posts generally take a long time to write, and I assume a long time for you to read—sorry. My goal with this one is to just go with what I know (or if you disagree, with what I think I know) and knock out something shorter. With maybe a few slightly off-topic thoughts thrown in. Just my ponderings here…

Mathematical Infinity symbol, Pixabay free image.

Infinity is a concept that most people are familiar with and that I have encountered over and over again during my long life, primarily in three contexts: pure mathematics, physics, and theology. Not so much petroleum engineering, my professional field.

Infinity is a useful concept—essential, in some respects—but it is not a real thing!

Defining the Infinite

Infinity is the concept of the unimaginably and immeasurably

It’s what you get when you disobey your grade school math teacher and divide by zero. It’s so big that when you double it, it’s still infinity. If you double it infinitely many times, it’s still just plain old infinity: ∞

God and Infinity

Theologians like to apply the term infinite to God. All of His attributes are said to be infinite in scope. Well, that may be, but the Bible doesn’t actually make that claim. Infinity was not a known concept in ancient times. If God had claimed it, nobody would have understood it anyway. The most you’re going to read in ancient literature is “a whole big bunch!”

Enormity only gets stated in idiomatic terms. For example, many English translations say that the “army from the east” in Rev. 9:16 will be exactly 200 million strong. The actual Greek says literally “twice ten thousand times ten thousand”, which is way bigger than the record 12 million that the US fielded in 1945, and way, way bigger than the next biggest human army in history. There is no question in my mind that John was speaking merely of a very large army. See also below.

That is not to say that God has no infinite attributes. I’m simply pointing out that, given the Bible’s silence, it’s a philosophical question, not theological.

God’s Size

In Implications of God’s Omnipresence and Eternity in Space-Time, I discussed God’s omnipresence in terms of His spanning, encompassing, infusing, and in fact subsuming all of everything that is—Space, the Universe, in other words, all matter and energy that exists. The 93 billion lightyears estimate I mentioned for the diameter of the universe is probably a minimum.

Some astronomers still throw around the term infinite for the actual size of the universe. That discussion goes beyond my pay grade. 93 billion lightyears is enough of a living space for me. That’s 550 quadrillion miles, or about 3 million trips to the sun and back. So, God is at least that big! If the universe is infinite, then God is more infinite… Huh?! That doesn’t mean anything quantitative.

God’s Age

In the same previous post, I explained that God’s age, as does His size, spans, encompasses, infuses and subsumes the age of the universe.

Some scientists postulate an infinitely old multiverse; that is, a master universe that grows, “buds off” like a hydra or a nematode, and the “baby universes” each have their own, random sets of physical laws. This theory has very tenuous scientific support and was proposed only to explain the mind-boggling (to unbelievers) Anthropic Principle, the unavoidable observation that our universe has a huge set of physical characteristics, many of which are independently necessary to support life in any way that we can envision. The idea is that if the multiverse is infinitely old, then it has spawned an infinite number of buds, and with infinite tries it is statistically likely that at least one of those is anthropically friendly. Hence, they have no need for the God hypothesis.

(Incidentally, they would never admit to this, if they even made the connection, but physicists have a theory that might account for a “god” popping into existence out of nothing. It’s a theoretical consequence of random quantum mechanical fluctuations over an infinite period of time. This is what is called a Boltzmann Brain, and no, I don’t believe that accounts for God! I’m just pointing out that, as much as I love science, it does have its inconsistencies.)

The Spirit Beings I discussed in Gods and Demons are immortal and everlasting, which means that they will survive forever if God lets them, but they have not always existed because God created them to manage the cosmos. Eternality is not the same as everlastingness. Scripture says that God alone is eternal—but what does that mean?

The assumption made by most theologians is that God has existed from the infinite past. There’s that pesky, undefinable infinity again. I don’t deny it, but I can’t comprehend it. There are some respected conservative theologians (don’t ask me who, I think I remember some of them, but I’m taking a vacation from research for this post, and I don’t want to slander anyone if I’m wrong) who acknowledge that God’s existence may define the term, “eternal.” That would be to say that His existence did have a beginning, and that beginning marked the beginning of eternity.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that. Once again, it is philosophy, not theology.

Daniel 7

[9] I beheld till the thrones were cast down [set in place], and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
[10] A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

[13] I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man [Daniel’s conception of the coming Messiah] came with the clouds of heaven and came to [approached] the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

[22] Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
—Daniel 7:9–10,13,22 (KJV) the annotations and emphases are mine

Daniel 7 is perhaps the most pivotal chapter in all of prophecy, because it explains so much that we read elsewhere in Scripture.

My emphasis here, though, is on the cast of characters. The stage is a meeting in heaven of God and His Divine Council. Those in attendance are,

The Ancient of Days, also called here the most High. The three instances in Daniel 7 are the only occurrences of the term, “the Ancient of Days”, in the Bible.
The term “son of man” appears many times in Scripture. At a minimum, it simply means a male human being. It is frequently used in the prophetic books to emphasize that the prophet is merely a human, delivering God’s divine words. Here, though, Daniel has added something important:

A human being is ushered into the presence of God in heaven. But the phrase, “with the clouds of heaven” is something that appears frequently in Ugaritic and Babylonian literature to signal the movements of Ba’al. The use of a polemic here is Daniel’s (or rather, the dream’s) way of saying that this particular Son of Man is divine!

Second Temple Era Jewish scholars, the Pharisees and their scribes, were divided on whether Daniel was actually referring to a divine Messiah or something else, but without question, when Jesus quoted this verse in Matthew 26:64 and applied it to Himself, the high priest and Sanhedrin sitting in Judgement of Him took it the only way possible, as an explicit claim not only that He was Messiah, but that He was divine.

[63] Yeshua remained silent. The cohen hagadol [high priest] said to him, “I put you under oath! By the living God, tell us if you are the Mashiach, the Son of God!” [64] Yeshua said to him, “The words are your own. But I tell you that one day you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of HaG’vurah [Lit., ‘the Power’, a euphemism for Yahweh] and coming on the clouds of heaven.” [65] At this, the cohen hagadol tore his robes. “Blasphemy!” he said. “Why do we still need witnesses? You heard him blaspheme! [66] What is your verdict?” “Guilty,” they answered. “He deserves death!”
—Matthew 26:63–66 (CJB) the emphasized text here is the quotation

There were also many, many of the Heavenly Host on stage. The “thousand thousands” in verse 10 are members of the Divine Council, while the “ten thousand times then thousand” are additional “angelic” witnesses. Here are two more examples of the idiomatic expression mentioned above. The Council members are the “they” of verse 13, ushering Jesus to God’s throne.
The term “saints” that occurs twice in verse 22 is קַדִּישׁ (qaddiysh, pronounced “kad-DEESH”). It means “holy”, “holy one”, or “holy ones”, and it applies both to redeemed humans and to loyal angels. That “judgement was given to the saints” can’t mean that they pronounce judgement, because that is Jesus’ job, specifically. Instead, it has to mean that they administer judgement, which is borne out in the statement that they also “possessed the kingdom.”

(Forgive me, but I’m going to throw in another rabbit trail here. My interpretation regarding “judgement” in verse 22 is an illustration of something that really bugs me: traditional, verses thoughtful, exegesis. I’ve personally read a number of commentaries on Daniel 7 over the years, and as far as I can recall, every single one of them has assumed that pronouncing judgement was in view, leading them to further assume that verse 22 is applying the name “Ancient of Days” to Jesus, rather than to Yahweh. Because we all know that it is Jesus who will pronounce judgement in the eschatological future.

Why? In no particular order, it is because (a) too many commentators lean too heavily on earlier works and forget to think for themselves; (b) too many Christian commentators overemphasize Jesus and relegate Yahweh to the “stale writings” of the Old Testament; (c) too few Christian commentators care enough about the ancient Hebrew and Near East cultural background to provide more that standard “Sunday School” answers to harder interpretive questions; and (d) simple careless thinking.

I’m not a theologian. I’m not a scientist. I’m an engineer, and skeptical of anything I haven’t personally evaluated.)

Is God Ancient, or Just Old?

So, this brings me, ponderously to be sure, to the crux of my ponderings. Which may seem anticlimactic to most of you.

Is God merely old, or is He ancient?

Those are relative terms, of course. Age is a property of “stuff” and stuff didn’t exist until God created it. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in effect, says that everything ages. But aging, and time itself, are properties of the universe. Isaac Newton notwithstanding, God does not age, because He is not bound by the universe He created.

As most of you know by now, I’m an “Old Earth Creationist.” In my view, God defined the physical laws, and then by His word, He spoke the universe into existence, in all of its building blocks and the forces that drive them. At one point in time and space, about 13.7 billion years ago. He decreed it, and He continues to supervise the orderly processes of birth, growth and maturation. Those processes are ongoing; God does not have to repeat them every week.

I have a different interpretation of the “six days” than those of Young Earth Creationists. To my senses, creation itself tells me that it is way more than 6,000 years old. Given that God doesn’t actually age, I would term Him truly “ancient” based on His resume. In my view, His “experience” is some 2.3 million times more impressive than a mere 6,000 years!

Pharisees

Christianity has traditionally viewed the Pharisees as a uniformly treacherous and hateful group of hypocrites.

There is a marked tendency among some to despise Judaism as a whole for producing such a “reprobate” sect. An Internet search for “Pharisees” turns up almost exclusively sites that range from mildly to bitterly critical. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “pharisaical” as an adjective meaning, “marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness.” Their Collegiate Thesaurus lists the synonyms, “hypocritical, canting, Pecksniffian [look it up], pharisaic, sanctimonious, [and] self-righteous.” But do they deserve the bad rep?

Personally, I don’t think so!

Pharisee History

According to Josephus, there were only about 6,000 Pharisees during the reign of Herod the Great, and that is unlikely to have changed much during Jesus’ lifetime.

The name “Pharisee” comes from the Hebrew Parush (pl. P’rushim), meaning “separated.” This term refers to their opposition to “the mingling”, that is, the mixing of Greek ideas into Biblical Judaism (which, incidentally, has also been the scourge of Christianity). It is believed by many scholars that the Pharisees were spiritual descendants of the Chasidim (“pious ones”), a devout group of scribes dedicated to the preservation of the written and oral Torah during and after the Babylonian Captivity.

**Dura-Europos Synagogue – Dura-Europos, Syria – AD circa 101-300**. One of the oldest intact (but inactive) synagogues in the world. Note that the representational art does **not** break the 2nd Commandment, which is specifically a prohibition against making idols to house the foreign gods prohibited by the 1st Commandment. The structure at the center of the wall is the **Holy Ark**, the closet for housing the synagogue’s *Torah* scrolls. The Ark is always on the west wall, opposite the door to the chamber and facing east. Photo from BreakingMatzo.com.

The first clear historical references to the Pharisees occurred in the Intertestamental period (between the Old and New Testament writings), during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BC). By then, they had formed into an elite religious society, or order, with limited membership and strict rules of conduct. They had gained wide popular support due to their opposition to Hellenism (Greek culture), the rise of the corrupt Sadducees, and the illegal high priesthood of the Hasmonean monarchs. Despite their popularity in the synagogues, their political influence was very limited at first.

Accused of fostering revolt, as many as 800 Pharisees were crucified by Alexander Jannaeus (108–76 BC). During the reign of Queen Alexandra Salome (76–67 BC), whose brother was a Pharisee, they finally gained considerable power. Unlike the Sadducees, they never welcomed Roman rule, but they were able to maintain some influence, only because they were willing to cooperate in order to maintain peace and stability.

During the Roman period, spanning the life of Herod the Great and the 1st Century AD up to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the Pharisees were highly influential with the populace as a whole, though it was the Sadducees who controlled the Temple and its ritual.

After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70, most Jewish sectarian orders disappeared, but many of the Pharisees were allowed to relocate to Jamnia (Yavneh), on the coast west of Jerusalem, where they formed the nucleus of the great Rabbinic movement of the following centuries.

Sect, or Order?

It is common to call the Pharisees a sect, but that term is misleading.

By definition, a sect is an offshoot of a larger religion, or a group sharing distinctive political and/or religious beliefs.

I would term the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and others as orders. An order is a formal group set apart within their religion by adherence to a particular rule or set of principles. The scribes, on the other hand, were not a religious order. As professionals, they probably belonged to a guild.

1st Century Judaism, as today, was highly sectarian. A majority of the Jewish population of Judea and Galilee probably would have said that they were followers of the Pharisees, that is, adherents of the Pharisee belief system, but to actually be a Pharisee—a member of the Order—required a difficult period of training, and then a formal ordination.

Torah

The Hebrew term Torah rightly translated means, not “law”, but “teachings.” The teachings of Torah do include legal precepts, of course, but those precepts are more about the nature and will of God than about legislation. Even to a Pharisee!

The Pharisees, like Rabbinic Judaism for the last 2,000 years, believed that Torah has two parts: written and oral.

Torah Shebichtav, the Written Torah

The written Torah itself is embodied in books or scrolls. The term primarily applies to the five Books of Moses. These writings individually or collectively are sometimes referred to by Jews as the Chumash (“one fifth”). I personally avoid the Greek term, “Pentateuch.”

To the Sadducees, only the five Books of Moses were Scripture. The Pharisees regarded as holy the entire Tanakh (the OT), consisting of Torah, Nevi’im (the Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings, sometimes referred to by Jesus simply as the Psalms).

[44] Yeshua said to them, “This is what I meant when I was still with you and told you that everything written about me in the Torah of Moshe, the Prophets and the Psalms had to be fulfilled.” [45] Then he opened their minds, so that they could understand the Tanakh…
—Luke 24:44–45 (CJB)

Torah Sheba’al Peh, the Oral Torah

The “Written Torah” was transcribed by Moses “from the mouth of the Almighty” and is contained within the Torah scroll. The “Oral Torah” incorporates the traditions handed down from Sinai but not (initially) put in writing, as well as the interpretations and rulings formulated by the sages of each generation.
—TheRebbe.org

The Pharisees taught that Moses received additional teachings on Mt. Sinai that he was not told to write down. Originally this “Oral Torah” was transmitted from father to son and from teacher to disciple. It consisted of additional instructions and rulings to clarify and quantify the written Torah; principles for exegesis of Torah; and authorization for the rabbis to protect the word of the Torah through making Gezayrot, or edicts, as conditions warrant.

Aside from famously criticizing “traditions of the Elders” that contradicted the letter or the spirit of the Written Torah, Jesus never spoke against the Oral Torah as a whole, and in fact He and His disciples were meticulous about obeying the precepts of both Written and Oral Torah. The formal right of the Scribes and Pharisees to administer Torah through interpretations and edicts (see above) was known as “binding and loosing” (prohibiting and permitting) and was believed to have the blessing of God and His Divine Council in heaven. Shortly before his crucifixion, Jesus endorsed this practice when He extended it to His apostles:

[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
—Matthew 18:18 (ESV)

Approximately 1800 years ago, Rabbi Judah the Prince concluded that because of all the “travails of Exile”, the Oral Torah would be forgotten if it was not recorded on paper. He therefore assembled the scholars of his generation and compiled the Mishnah, a written collection of all the oral teachings.

The Sanhedrin

The Biblical basis for the Sanhedrin was:

[18] “You are to appoint judges and officers for all your gates [in the cities ADONAI your God is giving you, tribe by tribe; and they are to judge the people with righteous judgment. [19] You are not to distort justice or show favoritism, and you are not to accept a bribe, for a gift blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of even the upright. [20] Justice, only justice, you must pursue; so that you will live and inherit the land ADONAI your God is giving you.
—Deuteronomy 16:18–20 (CJB)

Each major city was ruled by its own political and judicial “Lesser Sanhedrin” of 23 members. Under the monarchy, a “Greater Sanhedrin” was established at Jerusalem to serve as high court of justice and supreme governmental council.

This council at Jerusalem consisted of 71 members, of which the presiding member was the nasi (“prince”, or president), often the High Priest. Membership was appointed, with theological scholarship nominally the basic requirement—but in Roman times, politics effected all major appointments.

During Jesus’ Day, The Sanhedrin met in the “Chamber of Hewn Stone. Later they began meeting in the Royal Portico, which spanned the South side of the Temple Mount above and behind the Double and Triple Gates. Diagram ©Leen Ritmeyer, red box added by me.

According to the synoptic Gospels, Sanhedrin membership consisted of “chief priests, elders, and scribes.” Although there was overlap between those three groups, the chief priests were high ranking Temple priests, mainly members of the Sadducee order; the elders were most likely prestigious Pharisees; and the scribes were respected professionals who might have belonged to any particular order, or to none at all. The Gospel of John mentions only Pharisees and scribes from the Sanhedrin, but when John wrote, probably around AD 80, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin and the Temple were long gone and a distant memory to his readers.

Pharisees as Sanhedrin Agents

The Pharisees in Jesus’ day were scattered throughout Judea and Galilee, with concentrations in the cities. Many were attached to specific synagogues, while others adopted the life of itinerant teachers, doing much the same things as Jesus. Many of these, perhaps a large majority, were no doubt still Godly men like the first Pharisees, out of the spotlight and unconcerned with politics and wealth. Certainly, when Jesus crossed paths with these men, there were discussions and perhaps even confrontations. I have witnessed brash conversations between Jewish intellectuals in my own day, and I don’t think that it would have been any different then than now.

But what about the Pharisees and scribes that followed Jesus around from town to town? The late David Stern, translator of the Complete Jewish Bible, wrote frequently in his own books and commentaries that these men were probably on assignment from the Sanhedrin. One of the duties of that body was to investigate not only claims of heresy, but also claims of messiahship. Since priests and Levites on the council were mostly Sadducees, who did not believe in a coming messiah, this duty would naturally fall to Pharisees and their scribes. Some would have been belligerent, others merely inquisitive.

Some members of the Sanhedrin were Godly men (e.g., Nicodemus and Gamaliel), but many others were corrupt—collaborators, greedy for wealth and power, and jealous of their position. I believe that the “committee” following Jesus probably consisted of both types. Perhaps it was the same handful of men that we see Jesus arguing with over and over again. Can it be that whenever Jesus blasted the Pharisees, it was “those Pharisees from the Sanhedrin” that He was speaking of—not all Pharisees in General?

Core Beliefs of the Pharisees

Despite the impressions one often receives in reading of Jesus’ frequent confrontations with the Pharisees, He seldom disputed with them on points of doctrine. The Pharisees revered God’s Holy Word and were strongly committed to daily application and observance of its precepts.

They believed in resurrection, immortality, divine judgment, angels, and spirits. They looked for a coming messiah and took responsibility for evaluating claimants. They believed in God’s intervention in human affairs. Many things, they believed, are predestined; human will has only limited freedom within the sovereign will of God.

In Mt 23:1-3 (see below), Jesus is telling the followers of the Pharisees, in effect, “Do what they say, but not what they do.” The reference to “Moses’ seat” speaks literally of the customary seats in the synagogues that were occupied by the teacher during formal Torah studies, but I think it also implies an acknowledgement by Jesus of their historical authority to teach the truths of Torah.

Remains of the Moses Seat in an ancient Persian synagogue.

Jesus’ Debates with Pharisees

I am sure that you have heard it said that Jesus “turned the ancient world upside down with His new commandments and interpretations of scripture.” Certainly, He provided many new insights in the area of prophetic interpretation and fulfillment, but in my opinion He actually presented little or nothing new in the way of doctrine, because the doctrine He taught was already imbedded in the Tanach; rather, He set the record straight on issues that had been clouded by denominationalism, and He turned the clock back on corrupt, or at best legalistic trends that had developed within Jewish society.

Though the great sages of the Pharisees were in substantial agreement with each other on most doctrinal issues, they did, however, often disagree on certain points of interpretation or application. When we see Jesus arguing with a Pharisee, what He is doing most often is simply taking sides in these disagreements. For example, the issues discussed in the so-called “antitheses” of Mt 5:21–48 had been the subject of hot debate among the sages, particularly the rival houses, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Jesus was not presenting new doctrine, but rather pronouncing on these issues from the perspective of His divine authority.

If one can believe the Jewish literature of the Rabbinic age (and I think that most of it is trustworthy), almost everything that Jesus said had been previously said in some form by earlier Jewish sages. Some Christian scholars would claim that the rabbis plagiarized Jesus’ remarks, falsely attributing them to their own heroes. Of course, “critical scholarship” would say it was Jesus who plagiarized. My take is this: God’s truths are timeless and unchanging. God always has a remnant on the scene to expound that truth.

Because of God’s love and grace, He always “prepares the ground” ahead of the sower. Jesus did not arrive on the scene with a Gospel that was radically new and unacceptable to his Father’s chosen people. His path had been prepared in advance by the Pharisees, though ultimately most rejected Him.

As an engineer, I was taught that a good technical paper should have three parts: (a) tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em; (b) tell it to ‘em; and (c) tell ‘em what you told ‘em. In this case, the Pharisees did (a), Jesus did (b) and the New Testament writers did (c).

How did the Pharisees See Themselves?

The Rabbinical descendants of the Pharisees tackled this question in both versions (Babylonian and Jerusalem) of the Talmud. Both list the following Seven Kinds of a Pharisee, in very similar terms:

The “shoulder” Pharisee, who wears his good deeds on his shoulders and obeys the precept of the Law, not from principle, but from expediency.
The “wait-a-little” Pharisee, who begs for time in order to perform a meritorious action.
The “bleeding” Pharisee, who in his eagerness to avoid looking on a woman shuts his eyes and so bruises himself to bleeding by stumbling against a wall.
The “painted” Pharisee, who advertises his holiness lest anyone should touch him so that he should be defiled.
The “reckoning” Pharisee, who is always saying “What duty must I do to balance any unpalatable duty which I have neglected?”
The “fearing” Pharisee, whose relation to God is one merely of trembling awe.
The Pharisee from “love.”
—International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Certainly, one can find examples of each type of Pharisee in scripture. Note that only the “Pharisee from love” was considered by the later Rabbis to be a truly Godly man.

My Conclusions

Unfortunately, by Jesus’ day, many (but certainly not all, and probably not a majority) of the Pharisees and scribes had in fact succumbed to a legalistic form of worship. Where before they had kept Torah out of a deep zeal to obey God’s commands, now many began to define their spirituality not by their love but by a prideful tally of their good deeds.

[23:1] Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, [2] “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, [3] so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
—Matthew 23:1–3 (ESV) emphasis mine

What I am suggesting here is that you reconsider your attitude towards the Pharisees—to see them not as an evil cult that brought on the ruination of the Jewish people, but rather as a powerful spiritual force that bridged the gap between Ezra, Nehemiah and the latter prophets, and the arrival of Messiah.

Christians and Alcohol

Okay, I haven’t planned this one, and I’ll try to keep it short. The question was asked this week in a Sunday morning senior adult Bible class: is drinking alcoholic beverages permitted for Christians? This was way off-topic. The teacher gave a fairly non-committal answer and pulled us back to the subject of the lesson. I fully agree with what little response was given, but I’ll go into a bit more depth here, from my own perspective.

Grape arbor over Bible Times house in Ein Kerem, near Jerusalem. Photo ©Ron Thompson 2008.

First, though, some generalities and some analogs …

Generalities

I think Paul summed up the general principle in two passages of his letter to Corinth:

1Cor. 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

¶ All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
—1 Corinthians 6:9–12 KJV

Because of our sin nature, we all sin, and sometimes we do even the things listed in verses 9 and 10. But as redeemed people, we can’t be characterized by those sins, because we have been washed, sanctified and justified. We don’t have a list of things we can or can’t do, yet the desire of our spirit must surely be to honor God in whatever we do or don’t do.

1Cor. 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

¶ All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
—1 Corinthians 10:20–23 KJV

The emphasis here is not on sin, but on worship. Greek ethnos, here translated as “Gentiles”, does not mean non-Jews specifically; rather, it refers to “pagans“, who by definition worship the fallen angels who rule much of the world as “gods” (see my recent post, Gods and Demons).

In both passages, Paul is saying that our salvation comes from Jesus, not from legalistic adherence to rules of conduct.

Analogs

Local churches or associations of local churches traditionally (and with Biblical license) set rules for the conduct of their membership. Some of these rules may be related to doctrine, but others may be more an emphasis on maintaining fellowship with folks you might otherwise get crossways to.

An example of the latter is found in Acts 15, where James, the Nasi (president, so to speak) of the Jerusalem congregation, ruled that only a minimal list of standards should be demanded of non-Jews for fellowship with Jewish brothers in Messiah:

[19] “Therefore, my opinion is that we should not put obstacles in the way of the Goyim [non-Jews] who are turning to God. [20] Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood.
—Acts 15:19–20 (CJB)

Note that Jews in the Jerusalem church and elsewhere were still Jews and required to be “Torah Observant.”

Some modern churches are very legalistic, others not so much. The churches I grew up in were, and prohibited, for example,

Consumption of alcohol;
Shorts;
Pants of any kind on females;
Skirts above the shin for females;
Hair over the top of the ears for males;
Handholding (or worse, kissing!) for unmarried couples;
Mixed bathing;
“Picture shows”;
In one church, makeup on ladies.

Scripture doesn’t specifically prohibit any of those things, though many would have been unthinkable in the culture of the day.

There are some things that most Christians today, and many non-Christians, would consider bad that are not condemned in the Bible. The list below shows things that we might like to see addressed more forcefully, but alas, because of “the hardness of men’s hearts“, God saw fit to merely limit, regulate and discourage them—not to prohibit them in all circumstances.

Slavery;
Slaughter, including genocide;
Polygamy;
Divorce;
Incestuous marriage;
(Should I add alcohol consumption here? See below).

The Matter at Hand

In the case of alcohol consumption, there is no direct prohibition, but there are certainly warnings. I’ll mostly limit this discussion to wine, because most relevant references in scripture are to wine in particular. The problem is that the English “wine“, and for that matter the Latin “vinum“, both translate several different words found in the original manuscripts. Some references speak positively of wine, some negatively, and some are neutral. We must here consider what exactly constitutes “wine”, and what is conveyed by the respective terms in the Hebrew and Greek originals.

Merriam Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines the English “wine” as,

1 a : the alcoholic fermented juice of fresh grapes used as a beverage b : wine or a substitute used in Christian communion services
2 : the alcoholic usually fermented juice of a plant product (as a fruit) used as a beverage <blackberry wine>
3 : something that invigorates or intoxicates
4 : a dark red

Samuel Bacchiocchi’s book, Wine and the Bible: A Biblical Study on the Use of Alcoholic Beverages, surveyed English dictionaries going back around two centuries, and other secular works going back to Aristotle. He found numerous instances throughout with wording clearly implying that wine has always been a general term referring to both “must” (Lat. vinum mustum, freshly pressed grapes) and fully fermented wine, and all steps in between.

A 1st Century winepress near (but not part of) the Garden Tomb complex in Jerusalem. From MadainProject.

Language Issues

Bacchiocchi presents a case that the original languages of the Biblical manuscripts require that we regard all favorable mentions of wine as referring to unfermented must. Dr. Jim Anderson, past president of Kansas City’s Calvary Bible College, in his book, The Life of Christ, doesn’t present the case as forcefully, but his approach to the language issues is more straightforward.

I have the resources, but neither the time nor the will, to examine all 215 occurrences of “wine” in the English Standard Version. As a lifelong teetotaler, I have no axe to grind, so I’ll go with easy here and mostly paraphrase Dr. Anderson.

Heb. yayin — Most common OT term for wine. Per Anderson, the word only refers to the fermented product, and all references to it as a beverage (as opposed to medical usage) are negative. This can certainly be said of its use by Noah in Gen. 9, and by Lot in Gen. 19 before his seduction by his daughters. The Strong’s and Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) dictionaries also equate yayin with intoxicating wine; however, Vine’s Expository Dictionary, which I like a lot, says the yayin refers to juice in any stage of fermentation. Given that Melchizedek is a clear type of Messiah, his presentation of yayin to Abram is hard for me to see as negative in Gen. 14. The alcoholic content in this case is indeterminate from context.
Heb. tirosh — Apparently always refers to “new wine”, i.e., must, with little or no fermentation. In Gen. 27, Isaac was drinking yayin, which may have contributed to the sheepskin deception. In return, Isaac’s blessing of Jacob included a prayer for grain and tirosh.
Heb. shekar — This always refers to “strong drink“, fermented from grains. This type of beverage is never viewed as positive. It isn’t wine, of course, but I include it here as a related subject. Both yayin and shekar are prohibited to priests serving in the Tabernacle. However, in Num. 28, shekar is specified for drink offerings, which are “poured out”, not drunk.
Heb. chomets — Must, when it has fermented, becomes wine, in the familiar sense. Eventually, further fermentation turns yayin into vinegar, also known as “sour wine“, or chomets, which I’m told is bitter, but no longer intoxicating. Chomets was used as a condiment. In Rut. 2:14, Boaz invited Ruth to sit and dip bread into a bowl of vinegar (chomets) for seasoning.
Gr. oinos — Every source that I’ve looked at seems to agree that oinos refers to wine in any stage of fermentation. Only the context can show if the term is used positively or negatively. Not always easy! When Jesus was offered oinos mixed with myrrh at His crucifixion, He turned it down after tasting it (Mk. 15:23). Was that because of fermentation, or because of the myrrh (“gall” in Matthew), which when ingested is a bitter narcotic? In 1Tim. 3:8, “not addicted to much [oinos]” would seem to be speaking of an intoxicant. I’m not sure you can stretch that to be speaking of simple gluttony for grape juice, but again, to make this a negative, you have to assume what you are trying to prove. In 1Tim. 5:23, “a little wine for the sake of your stomach” is clearly speaking of medicinal use, which few would fault.
Gr. ochos — Low grade, sour wine, or vinegar. In Mk. 15:36, Just before His death, Jesus was offered ochos. In the earlier Cana miracle, only the word oinos is used. One would suppose that three levels of fermentation are in view here. The “master of the feast” said that usually “good wine” was served first and poor later. I would assume that “good” meant fresher, so the poor may have been approaching the over-fermenting of vinegar. Jesus’ wine would then be still fresher wine, perhaps not yet fermented at all. Where do we draw the line between good, bad and ugly here? We have only relative taste to go by.

Conclusion

The bottom line here is that I can’t take a final position on the question of whether or not Christians should feel free to drink, in moderation.

I was taught from childhood that “Christians don’t drink”, and I never have. Aside from flavoring agents in steak sauce and French fry batter, I’ve never tasted wine or beer, or anything else intoxicating, and I have absolutely no desire to do so. I would rather that Christians abstained entirely, because I can see absolutely no benefit to it. But having known many obviously good Christians who do occasionally partake, I simply can’t condemn in others what I’m not able to show conclusively that God has condemned.

That said, knowing the dangers and the destruction caused by substance abuse, I must personally believe that, as to my own life and family, consumption of recreational intoxicants and drugs is another of those things that God has declined to prohibit because of the hardness of men’s hearts.

The Roots of Christian Prayer

New Covenant Believers, whether Christian or Jew, have access to God through the indwelling Holy Spirit. The common Christian belief that Old Testament Jews had no personal access to God aside from the Cohanim, or Priesthood, is a misunderstanding, if not a slander on both God and His People. God considers Israel to be His wife—does a wife have no way to approach her husband?

While it is true that the OT emphasis was on God’s relationship with corporate Israel, it was never the case that individual Jews were without access to God by means of prayer, sacrifice and Temple worship. Many instances are recorded in Scripture of Jews offering personal prayer directly to God. Think of Hannah, for example, praying daily for a son and in her old age finally being blessed with Samuel. David was King, but had no priestly privileges, yet he was evidently the most prolific prayer warrior of ancient Israel. Solomon, David’s son, offered an elegant prayer in dedication of the new Temple that he built. Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were all from the tribe of Judah, and God honored their individual prayers in Babylon and Persia. Every Jewish family was required to send a family representative to the Jerusalem Temple of 14 Nisan every year to personally, by his own hand, sacrifice a lamb or kid at the foot of the altar. Jews of any tribe, including women, could enter the inner Court of Israel to bring a sacrifice to the altar when they felt the need. Biblical Ezra himself was instrumental in bringing synagogues, houses of prayer for common folks, to Jerusalem.

It is also not uncommon to hear devout Christian criticism of “Jewish prayer“, usually because it is viewed as “ritualistic” and thus, “Surely it can’t be heartfelt.” I beg to differ. This article is an introduction to Jewish and early Christian prayer life.

Early Synagogues

After successive Babylonian conquests of Judah, most of the Jews who were subsequently resettled in Babylonia were allowed to establish enclaves and worship as they saw fit. Daniel describes life in captivity only as it pertained to a select few from Jewish nobility who were housed in the royal palace and trained to serve in the King’s administration.

Since the Bible is mostly silent about the rest of the captives, Christian tradition tends to forget about all but Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. Many scholars believe that Godly Jewish exiles began congregating in homes, and in all probability that custom morphed into a synagogue system in captivity.

The later development of synagogues within Israel is probably related to Ezra and the events and edicts recorded in Nehemiah 8 – 12. Whatever their true origins, synagogues were eventually built throughout Israel and the Diaspora as a supplement to the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem.

By around 150 BC, Judaism had splintered into numerous sects. Politically, the Pharisees held a large minority of seats on the Sanhedrin, but otherwise they had little influence within the Temple and its ritual. They were, however, the most popular sect with the common people. They controlled most of the synagogues, and therefore most of Jewish adult education.

Like Christian denominations today, the Pharisees were not monolithic in all their views or practice, yet they were all fundamentally alike in their reverence for the Tanakh (that is, the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, which together comprise the Old Testament). I may have more to say about Pharisees in a future post, but for now, my stress is on the fact that the synagogues of Jesus’ day and beyond were tied to the teachings of the Pharisees, as is Orthodox Judaism today.

Jesus undoubtedly grew up worshiping in His local synagogue and learning not only from His father, but from sages of the Scribes and Pharisees. Apart from the facts of His own deity, the worldview that He taught after His baptism by John was in all important respects, the worldview of the Pharisees and the Synagogues.

Jesus’ ministry was to “the House of Israel.” He and His followers worshipped in the same ways as other Jews. After His resurrection and ascension, His followers were still Jewish and still met in the synagogues along with their “non-Messianic” Jewish brothers. At the close of Sabbath services, at sundown, the Messianic believers left the synagogues and adjourned to nearby homes to celebrate the Messiah. I agree with Messianic scholar Arthur Fruchtenbaum (Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology) that this practice is the likely true reason for Christian Sunday worship. The sharing of services in the synagogues continued until the “followers of the Nazarene” were gradually expelled.

Historians generally credit shared Jewish tradition as the single factor that enabled Judaism to persist as a recognizable ethnic culture through conquest, scattering, and thousands of years of persecution and genocide. Jewish prayer is the backbone of that tradition, and it is almost unchanged in Orthodox Judaism today from what it was in the synagogues of Jesus’ day and earlier.

From Synagogue to Church

Jesus and his apostles, including Paul, not only worshipped in the synagogues, but they frequently taught in the synagogues. As mentioned above, the early Christians worshipped as Jews alongside their Jewish friends and families at the synagogue, on Shabbat, then after sundown they adjourned to Christian homes to worship as followers of the Messiah.

Where did they go in the years after they were expelled from the synagogues? They started their own Messianic synagogues! The early “local churches” were patterned, both physically and organizationally, on the Jewish synagogues of the day. Having no Christian Bible, they worshipped from the same Jewish Bible that their Rabbi, Yeshua (Jesus), had taught from. Apart from recognizing the deity of their Rabbi, and meeting on Sunday in order to avoid profanation of the Sabbath, the ritual of their congregational meetings would not have differed substantially from what they had always practiced.

Modern Christians for the most part, lay or otherwise, know almost nothing about prayer or worship customs in general in the 1st Century AD, in the synagogues of either the non-Messianic or the Messianic congregations.

Let me emphasize, for a third time:

The early Church was 100% Jewish and grew out of the synagogues of Judaism, worshiped the Jewish Messiah, and was ultimately taught by a devout and unapologetic Jewish Pharisee named Shaul (names like “Paul” and “Peter” were Greek names for Jewish men who often ministered to the Greek-speaking world). The local churches certainly followed the customs and rituals of Judaism, including its prayer structure.

Until, that is, the Church itself cast off its charter members and their customs! When the non-Jews began to outnumber the Jews, arrogance on both sides caused a rift that still exits.

Prayer in Synagogue and Church

Prayer in the synagogues was mostly ritualized and recited from memory. Jewish believers in the first churches would have certainly continued to pray the same prayers that they had prayed all their lives, plus some new ones, specific to Worship of their newly revealed Messiah.

A Jewish prayer book, or *Siddur*. Published by ArtScroll® *Me’sorah* Publications, Ltd. Photo ©Ron Thompson. Because Hebrew is written right to left and back to front, this book has the front cover to the **left** of the spine.

Informal Prayer

Like faithful modern Christians, faithful Jews also pray often, individually and spontaneously, “from my lips to God’s ears.” That’s not to say without ritual. Sometimes that means wearing a tallit, or prayer shawl, draped over the head like a hood. Sometimes wearing tefilah, ritual boxes on the forehead and the back of one hand. Sometimes shuckling, or rocking forward and backward (there are several reasons for this custom, but think of the flame of a candle). Usually facing towards Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. And always while davening, i.e., moving the lips.

Formal Prayer

Jews from the time of Moses until late in the 2nd Century AD carefully memorized and passed down all aspects of Jewish custom, including worship practices. This was an obligation of every family and school, and though not all were faithful, many did participate. Because so many were memorizing the same things in parallel settings and “comparing notes” with each other, there was little chance for error to creep into the memorized material over all the generations.

When the oral process began to fail after the Roman dispersion, Jewish scholars began a written compilation, the Mishnah, and later the two compilations (Babylonian and Jerusalem) of the Talmud, plus countless additional Rabbinic writings. Because of these meticulous records, we can be very explicit about how the early Jews prayed and how those prayers have changed over the millennia.

Because of the meticulous record-keeping within Judaism, I am confident that Jews today pray much as they did in Jesus’ day, and because early Messianic Judaism was still Judaism and still associated with the synagogue, I am confident that their prayer was much the same.

In the remainder of this post, I’ll be addressing categories of formal prayer that I believe was practiced by 1st Century Jews and Christians.

Memorization of spoken ritual was required of non-messianic and messianic Jews in the 1st Century. While some modern Orthodox Jews still memorize vast amounts of information, most now rely on prayer books, or Siddurim (sing. Siddur). Pictured above is an English/Hebrew Siddur prepared for use in English-speaking synagogues. Most Orthodox Jews learn Hebrew, “the holy tongue”, but not all people who attend will understand that language, so Siddurim are often bilingual, with the vernacular either in parallel columns or interlinear.

Corporate Prayer

In today’s Church, corporate prayer usually means one person praying out loud while everyone else in attendance either listens and silently “agrees”—or thinks about other things. Honestly, I’ve never had the focus to follow along very effectively, and I’m too self-conscious to lead. I suppose that’s bad on me, but I’ve adjusted to the reality.

Am I alone? Maybe, but I fear being the hypocrite in:

[5] “When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites, who love to pray standing in the synagogues and on street corners, so that people can see them. Yes! I tell you, they have their reward already! [6] But you, when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. Your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
—Matthew 6:5–6 (CJB)

All Jews and all synagogues are not alike, but my own experience with the Orthodox is that they don’t like to be singled out for public or even one-on-one prayer. Prayer in the synagogues is focused on praising Hashem (“the Name”, God) and trusting Him to know their needs. To that end, a Rabbi, reader or “cantor” reads from the Siddur and the rest of the congregation lip-syncs or else quietly (moving lips and whispering) reads a responsive portion.

Kavanah

Yes, Jewish religious life is ritualized, but you have only to read the Tanakh (Old Testament) to see that God Himself commanded a great deal of ritual. People being what they are, nobody (including Jews) would deny that for many the recitations become mechanical and devoid of meaning; but this itself is a violation of Jewish law. Before any ritual, a faithful Jew must stop whatever he is doing and center his concentration and desire on God in “awe, fear, trembling and quaking.” The words he recites must represent to him Kavanah, or the “true desire of his heart.”

The Disciples’ Prayer

Was Jesus opposed to ritual prayer? Consider:

[7] “And when you pray, don’t babble on and on like the pagans, who think God will hear them better if they talk a lot. [8] Don’t be like them, because your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
—Matthew 6:7–8 (CJB)

The classic example of this is Elijah’s contest with the priests of Ba’al, who babbled to their god for hours, to no effect (1 Kings 18:26). Jesus’ exhortation to avoid “meaningless repetition” in prayer is certainly not referring to formalized (ritual, if you will) prayer. With His very next breath, He did as many of His contemporary rabbis did: He instituted a ritual prayer specifically for His own followers:

[9] Pray then like this:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
[10] Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
[11] Give us this day our daily bread,
[12] and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
[13] And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
—Matthew 6:9–13 (ESV)

Most evangelicals look on “The Lord’s Prayer” as merely a pattern, or template, to show the things that are proper in a prayer. That’s fine, I don’t think it need be an important issue for us, but my view is that Jesus’ disciples recited this prayer whenever they met, sort of on the lines of a “Pledge of Allegiance.” Most likely, it is a shortened version of the Amidah (see below).

Grace After Meals

Evangelical Christians are horrified if one of their number hosts a meal without “saying grace” before everyone digs in. If one eats a meal without first saying grace, he or she is “eating like a heathen“. Technically, there is absolutely no Biblical precedent for this Christian tradition. But wait! “Didn’t Jesus bless the food before His Last Supper and before feeding the 5,000?” See the next sections for more on blessings and what Jesus actually did before meals. Grace is a prayer said after eating, to thank God for the sustenance that He has just blessed you with.

Like all other formal Jewish and, I’m confident, early Christian prayer, the format and words for the Grace After Meals (Birkat Hamazon) has a usual, fixed format and wording.

Usual, because there are variations for special meals or for certain days, such as sabbaths, new moons, and feast days. There are also differences based on whether you are Sephardic or Ashkenazi, and slight variations for different sized groups.

Fixed, because the wording for all variations of all formal prayers is read from Siddurim.

Blessings

The prayers that most people associate with Judaism are the “blessings” (Hebrew b’rakhot, sing. b’rakhah). These are short, formulaic, often one-sentence prayers or benedictions that accompany almost anything that a faithful “observant” (practicing) Jew does or consumes during a day. Many begin with all or part of the phrase, “Barukh attah Adonai Eloheynu Melekh-ha‘olam…”, meaning “Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe…”.

These prayers have a single purpose, to praise God for His provision and watch-care. I’m sure that God honors our prayers, even when we fumble the terminology. And we do! But to ask someone at table to “bless the food” is meaningless. The blessings before eating were not intended to confer holiness or some special property on what we are going to consume. Nor are we asking God to regulate our metabolism to more favorably assimilate the nutrients. Food and drink are what they are, good or bad, and they do what they do, favorable or not. God has already seen to all that. That is why, whenever Jesus broke bread, for example, He said, “Blessed are you, Lord our god, King of the universe, for bringing forth bread from the ground.” We are praising God for what He has already done!

Blessings over food and fragrances. Photo ©Ron Thompson. The meal would begin with circulation of a pot of water (in ancient times) after the senior family member first saying the blessing over washing. After all diners had washed, the leader would then survey the table and, one after the other, would say all the blessings appropriate to the meal, usually in this order. For a formal meal with staged courses, the blessings would come before each course.

There are b’rakhot (blessings) for everything that a faithful Jew encounters in life, good or bad, minor or of great importance. Don’t believe me?

“Blessed is God who has formed the human body in wisdom and created many orifices and cavities. It is obvious and known before You that if one of them were to be opened or closed incorrectly, it would be impossible to survive and stand before You at all. Blessed is God, who heals all flesh and does wonders.”
—The Asher Yatzar, the “bathroom blessing”

Note the following example from the “Last Supper”, and find the two relevant blessings in the photo above:

[26] While they were eating, Yeshua [Jesus] took a piece of matzah [unleavened bread], made the b’rakhah [blessing], broke it, gave it to the talmidim [disciples] … [27] Also he took a cup of wine, made the b’rakhah, and gave it to them…
—Matthew 26:26–27 (CJB)

Daily Prayers

Jewish law obligates the Orthodox to pray at least three times a day. Many choose to gather at the synagogues for this as often as practical. The three formal prayer times are frequently referred to in Scripture. They consist of the morning (shacharit) prayers, the afternoon (minchah) prayers, and the evening (arvith or maariv) prayers.

The Sh’ma

The Sh’ma is the central affirmation of Judaism, and is cited twice a day, at the morning and afternoon prayers. Hopefully most Christians will recognize the preamble, as translated, “Hear, O Israel, God is our Lord, God is One.” The full text of the Sh’ma consists of three passages: Deuteronomy 6:4–9, Deuteronomy 11:13–21 and Numbers 15:37–41.

The Amidah

Another prayer that is obligatory, in some format, at all three daily services, and more often on some Holy Days, is the Amidah (lit., “standing”); also known as the “Standing Prayer”; also called the Shemoneh Esrei (“Eighteen”), because it originally consisted of 18 “benedictions”. During the Roman period, sometime after AD 70, a 19th benediction was inserted near the middle, as number 12 (highlighted in the “table of contents” below).

The added benediction is interesting, because it was in part added to “put a hex” on Christianity. One form, quoted in the Jerusalem Talmud, Benediction 12, the so-called Birkat haMinim (lit., “Blessing on the heretics”, though in reality it is a curse), reads as follows:

For the apostates (meshumaddim) let there be no hope,
and uproot the kingdom of arrogance (malkhut zadon), speedily and in our days.
May the Nazarenes (ha-naẓarim/noṣrim/notzrim) and the sectarians (minim) perish as in a moment.
Let them be blotted out of the book of life, and not be written together with the righteous.
You are praised, O Lord, who subdues the arrogant.

My personal opinion is that it is unlikely that this was added before the Bar Kochba Revolt of AD 132–136. During the First Jewish/Roman War (AD 66–73) and the Kitos War (AD 115–117), Christians joined forces with their non-Messianic brothers to fight the hated Romans. But when Simeon Bar Kochba (Simon Bar Koseba) led Jewish forces against the Romans, the sage Rabbi Akiva proclaimed him to be the Messiah. This posed an insoluble moral dilemma to the Christians, who then chose to stand down. The result was that prior decades of deteriorating relations suddenly became a decisive split.

Israel under Simeon Bar Kochba (shown in blue). By Rh0809 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, wikimedia.

Conclusion

This is just a smattering of information about a vast subject—the Jewish foundations of Christianity. Though my own interests vary widely, my principal goal during much of my life as an adult Christian has been to illuminate the debt that Christianity owes to its Jewish beginnings.

I am not advocating that Christian churches should go back to 1st Century ways of worshipping! I simply want to point out our beginnings and caution against judging ancient Jewish customs by anachronistic standards.

Gods and Demons

Heiser’s understanding of God is based on: “The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly – a pantheon – of other gods” (p. 11 Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, 2015).

Yep, that is definitely a startling statement coming from a conservative Christian Bible scholar! But completely out of context. Yes, Heiser did say that about a pantheon, but it was in a book introduction, where he was describing his initial knee-jerk reaction to Psalm 82 when he first encountered it as an ignorant student. The mature scholar Dr. Heiser, when he wrote the book, was neither pantheist nor polytheist. He was an unapologetic conservative believer in the one true God, creator not only of the universe, but also of the “angelic host” ruled by that God.

Before I get into that, let me dredge up some related musings from my own distant past:

Many years ago, it occurred to me that the pagan “gods” of secular history and of the Old Testament must have been something more than fables. How else can one explain the ability of the Egyptian magicians to duplicate the first three Mosaic plagues?

10 Moshe and Aharon went in to Pharaoh and did this, as ADONAI had ordered — Aharon threw down his staff in front of Pharaoh and his servants, and it turned into a snake.
11 But Pharaoh in turn called for the sages and sorcerers; and they too, the magicians of Egypt, did the same thing, making use of their secret arts.
12 Each one threw his staff down, and they turned into snakes. But Aharon’s staff swallowed up theirs.
—Exodus 7:10–12 CJB

20 Moshe and Aharon did exactly what ADONAI had ordered. He raised the staff and, in the sight of Pharaoh and his servants, struck the water in the river; and all the water in the river was turned into blood.
21 The fish in the river died, and the river stank so badly that the Egyptians couldn’t drink its water. There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.
22 ¶ But the magicians of Egypt did the same with their secret arts, so that Pharaoh was made hardhearted and didn’t listen to them, as ADONAI had said would happen.
—Exodus 7:20–22 CJB

2 Aharon put out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came up and covered the land of Egypt.
3 But the magicians did the same with their secret arts and brought up frogs onto the land of Egypt.
—Exodus 8:2–3 CJB

I simply don’t believe in magical arts by humans, unless there is some type of supernatural intervention. Certainly, it wasn’t Israel’s God helping Pharaoh’s magicians. The logical alternative, in my mind, is that it must have been some demonic power. It is a small step for me to conjecture that if there was some supernatural power behind at least some of the Egyptian “gods”, then why could there not be similar power behind other pagan deities? Consider the following:

[17] They sacrificed to demons [shedim], who were not God [eloah],
To gods [elohim] whom they have not known,
New gods [chadashim, literally, to new things] who came lately,
Whom your fathers did not know.
—Deuteronomy 32:17 (NASB)

Another thing I’ve been aware of for many years, is that the definition of “monotheism” has changed over the millennia. That change started as a Talmudic “defensive theology” with the rise of Trinitarian Christianity. Today, Merriam-Webster defines monotheism as, “the doctrine or belief that there is but one God.” But in ancient times, it meant, “the worship of but one God.” It is abundantly clear, from Scripture alone, that Israelites before the Babylonian captivity not only believed in other gods, but also were quite willing to worship them, alongside Yahweh. After the return from captivity, most Jews were unwilling to test Yahweh’s patience on that matter, but Second Temple Era (Intertestamental) literature makes it clear that even if the worship of “foreign gods” was rare at that time, belief in their reality was not.

Part of Merriam-Webster’s definition of “god” is, “a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship.” I have both heard and read many sermons, lessons, and devotionals that claim anything that a person values more than God is in fact that person’s god. I’m sure there is some truth to that, but I’m also sure that, if so, then all human beings are from time to time guilty of idolatry, and I think that harping on that subject trivializes a much more heinous sin: worshiping demonic beings!

Although the prophets sometimes polemicized against “gods made with human hands”, only the most unsophisticated among the ancient peoples believed that idols themselves were divine. Rather, like Yahweh’s Ark of the Covenant, they were the focus of contact between the demons and their worshipers.

One final related observation from my own mental data bank is that I long ago read discussions of whether or not the dictionary definition of “god” would also encompass angels. I don’t recall the conclusion reached, but it seems to me that, with respect to having “more than natural attributes and powers“, angels certainly qualify, and if said angels demand worship or are in fact worshiped, then the shoe fits.

Michael Heiser

In a recent email exchange with an old friend, I was introduced to an author I was unfamiliar with, the late Dr. Michael S. Heiser, and a branch of theology I didn’t even know existed as a separate scholarly specialty. Dr. Heiser, among other places, has been professionally affiliated with Liberty University and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, both of which I believe to be theologically sound on most issues. Wikipedia describes him as an “Old Testament scholar and Christian author with training in ancient history, Semitic languages, and the Hebrew Bible.”

Dr. Michael S. Heiser (February 14, 1963 – February 20, 2023), from Logos.com.

According to my friend, Heiser taught that, when God scattered the people of Babel, He “…created nations for them with separate borders and languages and assigned gods over each. Israel, his portion, was to be a light unto the Nations.” Honestly, that sounded really hokey to me at first; but not completely, in view of my previous mental ramblings mentioned above.

So, I’ve been cramming on his books and videos, and reading the opinions of others on his work. His books are scholarly and heavily footnoted, so they aren’t easy reading. I have been checking all of his Scripture references, which is very time consuming. I’m not close to done with my evaluations, but I’m off to a good start, and I believe that, with respect to his teachings on “the unseen realm” of angels and other spirit beings, his arguments are so far very compelling. As for his theology in general, he was a Presbyterian, and held many Reformed views that I do not accept.

Criticisms of Heiser’s Theology by Online Reviewers

Critical reviews of Heiser’s theology range from laughable to thoughtful. The quote at the very top of this post comes from theBereanCall.com, among the laughable.

Then there is someone on YouTube going by JackSmack77. According to him, Heiser is “a false prophet, unsaved devil and a liar…an unsaved fool…an unsaved devil who works for Satan”. Okay…

I can’t say that some of the more measured critical comments by more mainstream reviewers didn’t give me pause, but none of them convinced me.

I don’t believe anybody on earth (including Heiser) about everything, and I believe almost nobody about some things. God gave me an analytic brain, an inquisitive mind, an engineer’s insistence on meticulous accuracy, and a reluctance to take any human opinion at face value.

More than once in my blogs I have suggested that there are important interpretive Church traditions that do not in my opinion meet strict Biblical standards, even within Conservative Evangelical academia. Every Christian denomination has at least some beliefs that are based more on tradition than on Scripture. That is why there are “denominations” in the first place! Some of the traditions I question originated in the Hellenism of the 1st Century, some from two millennia of Christian antisemitism, some as a defense against the oft-hated Catholics and of course “Evolutionists”, and some simply from early translational errors.

With regard to translational errors, I don’t think there are any English translations that are free of them. Almost all translations are done by good Christians—with presuppositions. They may be top-notch linguists, but few have a really in-depth historical knowledge, including familiarity with ancient extrabiblical literature, which has long been incorrectly considered too flawed to consider (see below). Hebrew is a difficult language, and too often translators fall back on older translations like the King James.

On account of the constraints of time, Bible translators tend to rely on other people’s studies, which ultimately enter the reference books and standard commentaries.
—Edward L. Greenstein, Bar-Ilan University

This isn’t to say that I endorse all of what I’m describing below. But I’m not dismissing it either.

Keys to Heiser’s Theology

The theology discussed below has come to be called by some, the Deuteronomy 32 Worldview.

8 When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.
9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance.
—Deuteronomy 32:8–9 LXX-B (emphasis mine)

You may recognize this as the “hokey” topic I mentioned above. I’ll mention it again under “Angelic Rebellions.”

The Table of Nations, from Genesis 10. Noah’s descendants.

The Greek term correctly translated “angels of God”, is eggelon theou (ἀγγέλων θεοῦ). The quotation is from the Septuagint, aka, LXX, a 2nd Century BC translation from Hebrew into Greek of the Old Testament and part of the Apocrypha. Since the Apostle Paul was a missionary to the Greek-speaking world, he used and quoted from the LXX. Most English translations follow the KJV and render the original Hebrew text as “children of Israel”. I think that that is an early 17th Century error in interpreting the ancient customary meaning of b’ne Yisra’el. Having not spent enough time in the LXX, I had missed the topic entirely.

There is a lot of material to absorb from Heiser’s work (and the work of other scholars he quotes), so I am just going to comment on some key concepts that fall under this theological umbrella, particularly issues that have aroused the contempt of some of his critics.

Since a lot of what follows is my own analysis of the subject, I am showing what I specifically gleaned from Heiser (whether quoted or paraphrased) in blue type.

Source Materials

Heiser’s primary, though not sole, source is the Bible. He and a number of like-minded colleagues contend that there are a many clear and/or highly suggestive Scriptures, particularly in the OT, that shed light on angels, demons, Satan, the Divine Council (see below), angelic rebellions, and the “spirit world” in general. These are largely unfamiliar topics because translators and scholars for the most part have long been unwilling to consider extrabiblical evidence from Second Temple Judaism (the Second Century BC through the First Century AD) and the later Rabbinical Period.

Even less so are they willing to consider gleaning from pagan texts. Understandably. But the Ancient Near East (ANE) was a dynamically interconnected milieu that, stripped of mythology, shared many memories of their own common histories going back to Babel.

This literary blindness has always puzzled me, because off the top of my head, I think there are some 100 Biblical references to non-canonical sources actually cited by name by the Scriptural writers (see this for examples).

The fact that the large body of pre-Christian Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Jewish literature is rightly considered to not be Inspired does not mean that it was written as fiction and has no bearing on Judeo-Christian history. Aside from citations, the writers of the New Testament either quoted or paraphrased from The Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), The Wisdom of Solomon, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, 2 Esdras, and 1 Enoch.

Theology should not, of course, be gleaned from writings that weren’t inspired. But if contemporary non-canonical material can help us understand the material presented only in skeletal form in Scripture, then I think it’s fair to use it non-dogmatically. If that suggestion appalls you, then consider how often you’ve heard Josephus quoted, or Philo, or Eusebius.

The apocryphal book, 1 Enoch is particularly applicable to Heiser’s theology because it mostly discusses “fallen angels” on the antediluvian earth. Though 1 Enoch is included in the canon of a number of Christian denominations, it is clearly not an infallible source. Yet, parts of it have been given a “seal of authenticity” by being directly quoted in Scripture we include in our own canon:

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.”
—Jude 1:14–15 ESV

Compare with…

Behold, he will arrive with ten million of the holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him.”
—1Enoch 1:9 PSEUD-CW

Greek is in some respects a language rich in vocabulary, but it has only one word for “angel”, where Hebrew has many that are more descriptive (compare English “love” with the richer set of choices on that subject in the Greek). Because much of the Bible’s Hebrew material can’t be directly translated into Greek, there is much less clarity on these issues in the NT, in the important Greek Septuagint translation of the OT, and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The latter are of huge import but have only become available during my lifetime. I personally believe that Greek and Latin cultural influences on the Church have further muddied the water in modern scholarship.

The Elohim

Heiser has made a good case for defining “elohim” as a generic common noun designating all disembodied spiritual beings, from the eternal Triune God at the top, through the created angelic beings (a hierarchy of untold billions of individuals, both loyal and rebellious), and the spirits of the dead. For an example of the latter, read 1 Samuel 28.

Although the elohim are spirits, they can take on form to interact with humans. As such, they can be seen (at least in ancient times), speak audibly (as they did with Abraham, Isaac, Daniel, the women at Jesus’ tomb, and others), touch and be touched (Isaiah’s lips), wrestle (Isaac), and even breed with human women (Genesis 6).

Most Hebrew grammars define elohim as a generic term for “gods“. Strong’s and other grammars also list alternative meanings like “angels”, “magistrates”, or “judges”; but dictionaries derive definitions from actual usage, and I strongly suspect that the last two of those variants are mistranslations that the dictionaries added after the fact (much like English dictionaries now have twice as many definitions for “gay” than they did when I was a schoolboy). Whether we call them “gods”, “angels”, “spirits”, “spiritual beings”, or simply leave it at elohim, is simply a matter of semantics.

[6] Then his master shall bring him unto the judges [elohim]; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
—Exodus 21:6 (KJV) Emphasis mine

Consider Exodus 21:6, above. The KJV translation reads in part, “bring him unto the judges [elohim].” ESV, on the other hand, reads, “bring him to God [Elohim].” I would take the latter as the correct translation. But it’s a bit moot in this case, since the “judge” before whom he was to be brought was a priest functioning as God’s agent in the matter. I would consider it to be a valid paraphrase that, unfortunately, obscures the role of Elohim.

God as Elohim

As I’m sure most of you know, Elohim (capital “E”) is one of the primary terms used for Yahveh in the Bible. But the Hebrew language has no alphabetic “case”, so the capitalization (or not) of elohim is a transliteration device. Elohim is a descriptive common noun, used here (with a capital “E”) as a proper noun, or name, for a particular elohim. When Moses requested an actual name at the burning bush, God did not use Elohim, but rather the term we transliterate to Yahveh.

Chariot Throne? One of many, many failed attempts to depict Ezekiel’s vision.

Elohim (Yahweh) is not just any old elohim, of course. Yahweh is eternal and preexisted all of the Host of Heaven. He created all the other elohim, and He rules all the other elohim. And He is vastly superior, in every respect. Where they have power, it is only because He has granted that power, and when He retracts that gift, they will immediately lose it. These things are non-negotiable to me, and I think they were to Heiser, as well.

The -im suffix is a confusing issue. It is the Hebrew masculine plural ending for a noun, but it is more complicated than that. According to judaism.stackexchange.com, “both Eloahi and Elohim are the plurals of Eloah, but Eloahi is simple plural ([like] Jurors) while Elohim is a collective plural noun ([like] Jury).” But in practice, the plural forms are interchangeable, and elohim appears in the OT far more frequently than eloahi or eloah. The ambiguity is usually dispelled by the fact that other Hebrew parts of speech also have singular and plural forms. If elohim is grammatically tied to a singular verb or pronoun, then it is singular. If tied to a plural, it is plural. Also, as a common noun, elohim is often prefixed by an article, as haelohim, meaning “the gods.” Finally, according to Heiser, elohim by itself can be used for either singular or plural, like “deer” or “sheep”.

The Angel of God

The above discussion pretty much puts to rest the theological contention that the collective plural form of elohim is a Trinitarian construct. So, too, claims that the Hebrew adjective echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 (“Hear oh Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one [echad]“) is collective and therefore Trinitarian language. This, too, fails. Echad appears with and without modifying prefixes and suffixes 967 times in the OT. Considering just the 471 times that it occurs in lemma form (no attached modifiers, as here), it usually means, simply, “one” or “first“, e.g., “first day”, “one place”, “one flesh”, “one people”, “one of the bushes”, and so on. So, we can’t use these terms to prove the Trinity. We don’t need them to make that case!

Heiser believes in the Trinity, of course, but you really have to dig (in the material I’ve gotten through so far) to find it. He builds up to it, starting with a complicated discussion of “two Yahwehs—one invisible and in heaven, the other manifest on earth in a variety of visible forms, including that of a man.”

It was hard for me to grasp his particular point because I’m really quite used to the idea of the Transcendent God in heaven simultaneously present in a Theophany, like the pillars of fire and cloud; and of the Son appearing on earth as a Christophany while the Father remains in heaven. The OT makes frequent reference to “The Angel of God”, Yahweh mal’ak.

What Heiser was concerned with explaining, though, is how an OT Jew processed the concept of a visible manifestation of Yahweh on earth, at the same time knowing that Yahweh was in heaven. He calls this a “two Yahwehs concept“, taking care to distinguish that from the dualist views of Plato and the later Gnostics (urge and demiurge), and the Yahad of Qumran (Man of Righteousness and Man of Unrighteousness).

I recall reading only one mention in Heiser of the Holy Spirit: “I believe that the evidence for a two-person Godhead discussed in those chapters can in places reveal a third person in the Old Testament.”

The Heavenly Host

In Heiser’s theology, before The Triune God created the universe (or perhaps, per some ancient sources, on Day 1 of creation), He created an immense number of spirit beings (elohim); like Him, incorporeal, but vastly inferior to Him and only more or less immortal (they have no end, but they did have a definite beginning). They were created, and they will live forever unless God destroys them. These beings were created:

To “image” Him—Heiser sees “in His image” as an expression of function, not of attributes. The Host was created to represent Him in the Heavenlies, as man would be to represent Him on earth. Note, though, that man is a soul (nephesh) composed of both body and spirit, while the elohim are spirit with no natural body. Note also that man must procreate, but procreation is not a natural function of the elohim, who have no need of procreation.
To administer the coming universe—Again as Adam’s seed was to administer earth.
To be family to him—along with, yet again, Adam’s seed.

None of the above because God needed these things, but because He chose to share eternity with a vast family.

Terms that describe the nature of these beings:

Like God, they are called elohim.
Like God, they are spirit beings (ruachot), without physical substance.
Like God, they are “Heavenly Ones” (shamayim), dwelling in heaven, not on earth.
Like the stars of the yet-to-be created universe, they are described as “Stars” (kochebim, sometimes boqer kowkbe, “morning stars“), or light bearers.
Like God (but imperfectly), they are “Holy Ones” (qedoshim), set aside for God’s purposes.

The Heavenly Hierarchy

Heiser describes a hierarchy among the created elohim: “That hierarchy is sometimes difficult for us to discern in the Old Testament, since we aren’t accustomed to viewing the unseen world like a dynastic household… as an Israelite would have processed certain terms used to describe the hierarchy. In the ancient Semitic world, sons of God ([haelohim b’ne]) is a phrase used to identify divine beings with higher-level responsibilities or jurisdictions. The term angel (malʾak) describes an important but still lesser task: delivering messages. In Job 38, the sons of God are referred to as morning stars.”

The Holy Ones are holy only because of their proximity to God. The way I understand it, they sit on the Divine Council (more on that, below), and some are the “princes” spoken of in Daniel, overseeing affairs on earth and in the heavens. These latter are spoken of by the Apostle Paul:

[12] For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
—Ephesians 6:12 (KJV)

Note that the “angels” are only a subset of the Heavenly Host. They function as courtiers, or messengers. They answer to the archangels, but both groups, together with the seraphim and cherubim (“throne guardians”) are inferior in function to the Holy Ones. All of them together function sometimes as Heaven’s armies, under the direction of the “Captain of the Host.” This latter figure is a fellow created spirit being.

The Divine Council

“The term divine council is used by Hebrew and Semitics scholars to refer to [members of] the heavenly host, … divine beings who administer the affairs of the cosmos. All ancient Mediterranean cultures had some conception of a divine council. The divine council of Israelite religion … was distinct in important ways.”

I’m not sure what distinguishes Israelite beliefs from those of other Semitic and non-Semitic cultures, but from a Biblical standpoint, the concept seems to hold water. The idea is that, though God can of course do anything and everything Himself, He chose to share responsibility with His created beings. For a conceptual precedent, consider that God could have chosen to bring salvation to the World by means of divine fiat; instead, He first chose Israel as His “beacon on a hill”, and since the Resurrection, the Church is recipient of the Great Commission.

From time to time, God convenes His Council of upper-echelon Sons of God to discuss the status of events in the created universe, particularly on earth, and to decide on actions to take. For example,

A defining Biblical text is found in Psalm 82. This is a Psalm of Asaph, who King David appointed as chief musician to serve “in front of” the Ark of the Covenant after David pitched a tent for it within the City of David (1 Chronicles 16:5–7). According to 2 Chronicles 20:14, Asaph was also a seer, or prophet, as is evident in the Psalms that he wrote.

In Psalm 82, Asaph is prophetically seeing God convening His Council to criticize those who are unseen princes over worldly realms. Here the word elohim is translated “God” once for Yahweh Himself, and “gods” many times for the corrupt spiritual princes who are “judging unjustly.” Verse 6 defines who they are, the heavenly Sons of God, and verse 7 says that regardless of their status as such, they will still fall like any human prince, and they will die like any mortal human.

Note that this, like almost all Hebrew poetry, is structured in parallel lines. The second line of each verse expresses the same thought as the first, but in different, and often expansive, terms. Verse 5 here differs only in that it does the same thing in three parallel lines, each expressing the condition of oppressed humanity in harsher terms than the previous.

1 ¶ God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2 “How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
5 ¶ They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 ¶ I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
7 nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”
8 ¶ Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!
—Psalms 82:1–8 ESV

Psalm 89, a “Maschil [instructional poem] of Ethan the Ezrahite”, contains another clear prophetic view of the Devine Council. Ethan was a priest, and one of four men whose wisdom was compared to Solomon’s in 1 Kings 4:31.

[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 heavenly beings 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?
—Psalms 89:5–7 (ESV)

The next example is important in that it demonstrates how the Council functions. In 1 Kings 21, Israel’s King Ahab was upset after a harsh prophecy from Elijah, so he repented, and God gave him a “stay of execution”, so to speak. But three years later, in chapter 22, Ahab suggested to King Jehosaphat of Judah that they should unite in war against Syria. Jehosaphat promised to help, but suggested that they consult the prophets first. Ahab brought in 400 prophets to tell him whether or not it was safe to do battle. Being false prophets, they all told him what they thought he wanted to hear, that he would triumph.

But Jehosaphat wanted to hear from a prophet of Yahweh, so the prophet Micaiah was consulted. Micaiah’s words, quoted below, described God’s approach in the Devine Council. God delegates responsibility and takes suggestions but He reserves the final authority. Much as it would be in a business called “Yahweh and Sons.”

[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.”
—1 Kings 22:19–23 (ESV)

I’ll close out this section with Daniel’s vision of God on His “chariot throne”, surrounded by the enumerable Host and His Divine Council. This shows another of the administrative functions of the Host: keeping records, presumably so that the Righteous God can never be accused of unrighteousness in eternity to come.

[9] “As I looked,
thrones were placed [for Yahweh and the Council],
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.
—Daniel 7:9–10 (ESV)

Angelic Rebellions

The last topic but one I’m going to cover here, but very briefly because the length of this post, is the three “angelic” revolts described in Genesis. You are familiar with all three, but perhaps in a slightly different context.

First Rebellion: Genesis 3

Heiser connects the Serpent of Genesis 3 with the rebellion of the powerful figure called Satan in the NT, as prophesied in Isaiah 14.

Isaiah 14 is actually a prophecy against Babylon and its king, describing their fall at the hands of Assyria. Hebrew prophetic poetry often layers prophecy within prophecy, and most scholars agree that the verses below are such.

“Lucifer” is a name found only once in scripture. It is a translation of the Hebrew helel, a masculine noun meaning, literally, “a shining one.” The translation I normally prefer, the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB), translates “Lucifer, that rose in the morning” as “morning star, son of the dawn”, but in the Septuagint…

12 How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven ! He that sent orders to all the nations is crushed to the earth.
13 But thou saidst in thine heart, I will go up to heaven, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit on a lofty mount, on the lofty mountains toward the north:
14 I will go up above the clouds: I will be like the Most High.
15 But now thou shalt go down to hell, even to the foundations of the earth.
—Isaiah 14:12–15 LXX-B

Heiser suggests that perhaps Lucifer’s rebellion was in part precipitated by Yahweh’s decision to create mankind, a lower race of “imagers”. Primordial racism?

Second Rebellion: Genesis 6

According to Heiser, the Sons of God, below, were “Watchers” (Heb. iyr). These heavenly beings and the incident itself are the subject of a great deal of 1 Enoch, discussed above under “Source Materials“, and widely known to Jewish scholars in Jesus’ day. The function of Watchers is to observe and report to the Devine Council. In the OT, Watchers are mentioned in Daniel 4:13 and 23.

1 And Noe was five hundred years old, and he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth.
2 And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,
3 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose.
4 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
—Genesis 6:1–4 LXX-B

This unnatural union of Watchers and human women did not require “possession” of human males by the watchers. The Bible includes a number of examples of angelic beings taking human form and exhibiting human function. The products of the abominable union of angelic males with human females were hybrid Nephilim—giants with spirits that were evidently ineligible for the same fate as humans after death. Heiser equates demons with the spirits of dead Nephilim.

Third Rebellion: Genesis 11

After the abomination of angel/human coupling, sin on earth multiplied until God put an end to it by means of the Great Flood, an event of such vast consequence that it was recorded in the annals of every great civilization of the ancient world, and in a number of Jewish writings from the intertestamental period. After the flood waters receded enough that Noah and his family could step back onto dry land on the Ararat mountaintop, there must have been a slow drying as the water seeped back into the earth’s mantle (see my 2022 article, Fountains of the Deep). During that time, I think that the newly growing family of humanity migrated slowly southeast along the highlands of the Zagros Mountains and reentered the Shinar region near the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, from the east.

Probable migration route of Noah’s descendants after the Great Flood. Google Earth, annotated by Ron Thompson.

1 And all the earth was one lip, and there was one language to all.
2 And it came to pass as they moved from the east, they found a plain in the land of Senaar [Shinar], and they dwelt there.
3 And a man said to his neighbor, Come, let us make bricks and bake them with fire. And the brick was to them for stone, and their mortar was bitumen.
4 And they said, Come, let us build to ourselves a city and tower, whose top shall be to heaven, and let us make to ourselves a name, before we are scattered abroad upon the face of all the earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men built.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, there is one race, and one lip of all, and they have begun to do this, and now nothing shall fail from them of all that they may have undertaken to do.
7 Come, and having gone down let us there confound their tongue, that they may not understand each the voice of his neighbor.
8 And the Lord scattered them thence over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city and the tower.
9 On this account its name was called Confusion, because there the Lord confounded the languages of all the earth, and thence the Lord scattered them upon the face of all the earth.
—Genesis 11:1–9 LXX-B

Heiser contends that at this time, at the Tower of Babel, when Yahweh “confound[ed] their tongue” and “scattered them … over the face of the earth”, He divided them into 70 (or 72, depending on the translation elsewhere in scripture) distinct nations throughout Europe and western Asia, and assigned to each one or more “heavenly princes.” These spiritual beings either were or became corrupt and were subsequently worshipped by the people they oversaw.

8 When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.
9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance.
—Deuteronomy 32:8–9 LXX-B (emphasis mine)

Heiser may have made this point in something I have not yet read, but I believe that the nations of Deuteronomy 32:8 are the peoples that Paul referred to in Romans 1:18ff. Note, in particular,

[22] Claiming to be wise [engineering and constructing the Tower!], they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
—Romans 1:22–23 (ESV)

I had decided not to lengthen this post further by carrying the discussion of the Genesis 11 rebellion one step further, but perhaps I’ve been overruled… I went to sleep last night thinking about Ephesians 4, and I woke up this morning thinking about Ephesians 4. Then, at church this morning, we had a guest preacher in the pulpit, and his text was, out of all the roughly 1,189 chapters in the Bible, Ephesians 4! So, here are the relevant verses:

[8] Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
[9] (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth [or: lower parts, the earth]?
[10] He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
—Ephesians 4:8–10 (KJV) Emphasis mine

Paul’s message here was actually a midrash, that is, a metaphorical use of text to illustrate a point that is at most loosely connected to the text quoted. The underlined text quoted above refers back to Psalm 68, in particular

15 O mountain of God [har elohim, mountain of the gods], mountain of Bashan;
O many-peaked mountain, mountain of Bashan!
…
18 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.
—Psalm 68:15,18 ESV

Bashan is the region of the Golan Heights, Mt. Hermon and the surrounding area: Caesaria Phillipi with “The Gates of Hell”, the shrines to Pan, the god of the underworld, and Jeroboam’s calf idol at Dan.

This portion of the Psalm is a prophetic picture of Jesus, at His crucifixion and resurrection defeating the corrupt gentile “gods” and leading them captive to Sheol. These demonic captives were the booty of war. Paul is applying the Scripture metaphorically to say that the victor distributed booty to His subjects. That was an introduction to the subject of “spiritual gifts.” Nevertheless, the backstory in the Psalm is that Jesus has reversed the exclusion of the nations that was affected at Babel!

Angelic War

The final point I’ll pursue here is this:

The idea that, when Satan rebelled, he was exiled to earth, and 1/3 of the other angels, who were “his team”, were exiled with him. This is one of those Church traditions that occurs nowhere in scripture. It is no doubt based on Revelation 12, which actually describes a war in heaven between Michael and his angels, on one side, and Satan and his angels on the other.

Satan’s team lost. In the context, this happened, not when Lucifer fell, but when Jesus was born!

Malchus’ Ear

This is a brief and partial commentary on the events of John 18 up to the arrest of Jesus on the Mt. of Olives. My focus here is on interpreting the historical and cultural context, not so much on discussing theology. Much of this is copied verbatim from a post I published in April 2013 and updated as late as September 2022 (Easter Myths, part 3). I would suggest you read it here, instead, for additional context on Jesus’ arrest.

From the Sacrifices to the Garden

1 After Yeshua had said all this [the prayer of John 17], he went out with his talmidim [disciples] across the stream that flows in winter through the Kidron Valley, to a spot where there was a grove of trees; and he and his talmidim went into it.
—John 18:1 CJB

This is the early morning hours of Friday, Nissan 15.

On the previous day, many thousands of sheep and goats (lambs and kids, in fact) had been sacrificed in the Temple. Two of Jesus’ disciples (probably Peter and John) had been sent into town as representatives of the group. Their first task was to rent a banquet facility (“The Upper Room). Then they took the lamb that they had selected days earlier to the Temple. When their turn came, they were led to the “Killing floor” in the inner temple court—the “Court of Israel”. After a “laying on of hands”, one of them held the lamb while the other slit its throat and drained its blood into a gold or silver bowl held by a priest who was overseeing them. After the sacrifice was complete, they carried the lamb to an adjacent butchering area north of the altar. It had to be skinned and cut into parts. Certain parts were given to the Priests and Levites. Some waste pieces were thrown onto the altar for burning. The remainder of the good meat was wrapped in the skins and carried off to be cooked for the Seder that evening.

The Passover sacrifices in progress. ©The Temple Institute

The Seder meals began in houses and meeting places all over Jerusalem after the arrival of sundown was announced by a shofar (ram’s horn) blast from the “Place of Trumpeting” on the southwest corner of Royal Porch, where the Muslim Al-Aqsa Mosque stands today. Many of Jesus’ last words to His disciples were spoken at His final Seder and are recorded in John 13–16. The individual Seders generally lasted until around midnight, when all the celebrants would gather on the streets and rooftops to sing the Hallel psalms together. Finishing this, Jesus and His disciples walked out of the city gate, crossed the Kidron Valley and gathered on the Mt. of Olives, at Gat Shimonim (Gethsemane), an olive garden with an olive press.

The Garden and the Threat

2 Now Y’hudah, who was betraying him, also knew the place; because Yeshua had often met there with his talmidim.
3 So Y’hudah went there, taking with him a detachment of Roman soldiers and some Temple guards provided by the head cohanim and the P’rushim; they carried weapons, lanterns and torches.
4 Yeshua, who knew everything that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Whom do you want?”
5 “Yeshua from Natzeret,” they answered. He said to them, “I AM.” Also standing with them was Y’hudah, the one who was betraying him.
6 When he said, “I AM,” they went backward from him and fell to the ground.
7 So he inquired of them once more, “Whom do you want?” and they said, “Yeshua from Natzeret.”
8 “I told you, ‘I AM,’” answered Yeshua, “so if I’m the one you want, let these others go.”
9 This happened so that what he had said might be fulfilled, “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”
—John 18:2–9 CJB

Many commentators take the term “detachment of Roman Soldiers” to refer to a full cohort of 420 or 600 soldiers. The Greek (σπεῖραν) allows this meaning, but more generally, it can refer to an indeterminately sized band of men organized for some purpose. Given the total situation, it makes no military sense to me to assume that it was more than what we would term a “squad”, a handful of soldiers detailed in support of the Temple guards that the Sanhedrin dispatched to collect Jesus. My reasoning is as follows:

First, it was Passover night! There were as many as a million Jews in Jerusalem for the occasion, they’d just had a long, grueling day of milling around the Temple and getting ready for the week, including the sacrifices earlier in the day, and more sacrifices ahead on each day of the week; family ceremonies such as the formal elimination of hametz (leaven) from all Jewish homes that day; and elaborate preparations for the meals, feasts and ceremonies ahead. The Seders themselves adjourned late at night, and most folks were by then exhausted and anxious to go to bed and be ready for the next day of celebration.

The Roman garrison had been beefed up for the occasion. All hands were on deck, because there had been, in fact, unrest all over Israel, and many men would potentially be drunk and boisterous that night. Jesus was not the only threat. The Roman leaders were concerned about open rebellion, not about Jewish blasphemy.

Then consider Gat Shimonim (Gethsemane); it wasn’t a forest, it was a cultivated olive garden, with trees spaced out for sunlight and maintenance, and underbrush kept to a minimum for gathering, transporting and processing olives. There is a full moon every Nisan 15 (by design), so the garden is well lit, and surely many of the people in the garden had torches, as well. What went on that night was in full view of the city and Temple walls. A large number of civilians congregating in the garden would have dictated a need for more troops, but they were there at hand and could be easily summoned. Later that day, Pilate, the Governor, would show little alarm concerning the Nazarene and His band. The Roman military hierarchy there reporting to him would be cautious but would have no reason to make a “show of force”, and reacting to a popular rabbi in such a way would have been an unwise irritant to the people of the city.

No, the show belonged to the Sanhedrin, and between them and Judas, they had a good idea what to expect. The High Priest sent a detachment of Jewish Temple guards, and he himself was probably only represented by his servant, Melech (Malchus). The Romans were a small but professional escort delegation, probably more concerned with making sure the Temple guards didn’t overstep. It was probably Malchus or a senior guard who spoke to Jesus, and the Romans probably never drew their swords, even after the minor scuffle that followed.

The Scuffle

10 ¶ Then Shim‘on Kefa, who had a sword, drew it and struck the slave of the cohen hagadol, cutting off his right ear; the slave’s name was Melekh.
11 Yeshua said to Kefa, “Put your sword back in its scabbard! This is the cup the Father has given me; am I not to drink it?”
—John 18:10–11 CJB

Short sword similar to what Peter would have used to maim Malchus.

According to Luke 22:38, two of the disciples were carrying “swords” that night. One of them obviously was Peter, the other probably his brother Andrew. It is unlikely that either was carrying a military sword; both were fishermen by trade and would be accustomed to carrying knives for tending nets and lines, and for gutting fish. The Greek term used here is machaira, which probably designated a double-edged knife or dirk, a shorter version of a sword design that had been introduced into Israel by the Phoenician Sea Peoples.

Nor do I think Peter was a trained fighter. We know he was impetuous, but was he an idiot? Did he think he could mow down a band of trained Roman soldiers and Temple guards? Was he distraught and attempting to commit “suicide by Roman soldier”? I think that if he had attempted a frontal assault in Jesus’ protection, he would have been reflexively cut to pieces before he drew a drop of blood, and quite likely the slaughter would have extended to the other apostles present, as well. Indeed, there is no textual evidence that any of the soldiers found it expedient to bare their blades.

What I think really happened was that Peter took advantage of the soldiers’ preoccupation with Jesus, slipped around behind Malchus—his intended target—and deliberately sliced off his ear. Why Malchus? Because he was the High Priest’s servant and right-hand man. The High Priest, if he was even there, was protected by bodyguards, but likely nobody was concerned for Malchus. Harming the High Priest would have resulted in quick execution. By merely defacing Malchus, though, Peter was insulting and effectively crippling the High Priest and, to some extent, the Sanhedrin. Why an ear, of all things? Because Peter wasn’t a killer, and taking an ear did the job! Priests, Levites and all other Temple officials were required to be more or less physically perfect. With a missing ear, he would be considered deformed and unfit for Temple service.

Yes, Peter was impulsive. But he was also smart.

And Finally

So the detachment of Roman soldiers and their captain, together with the Temple Guard of the Judeans, arrested Yeshua, …
—John 18:12 CJB

Jesus’ last steps. *©Leen & Kathleen Ritmeyer, from Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus. Annotated by me.*

John 12: Preface to Jesus’ Last Passover

Along with many other Southern Baptist churches, the one I now attend is in the middle of a series of Bible Study lessons on the Book of John. We are covering John 12 over a two-week span. It is a particularly important chapter for me because it records the transition from Jesus’ itinerant ministry in and around Judah and Galilee, to His crucifixion and the aftermath.

Prologue

John 10

The events leading up to Jesus’ final Passover began with the previous Hanukkah, as recorded in John 10:22–39. Hanukkah is a Jewish celebration not mentioned in Scripture, but celebrated, nevertheless, by Jesus, His followers, and Jews everywhere. It is an 8-day festival, starting on the Jewish date Kislev 25, which usually corresponds with mid to late December. It is also called the Festival of Lights, or the Feast of Dedication, and it celebrates the Maccabean victory over Syria in 165 BC, and reconsecration of the Temple after its desecration by Antiochus IV and his successors.

During that Hanukkah, Jesus was confronted in Solomon’s Porch, the Collonade inside the eastern wall of the Temple Mount and challenged to state plainly if He was the expected Messiah. He responded that He had already answered that question and went on to say explicitly that He and [God] the Father are one, and that He, Himself, has power to grant eternal life. His accusers then threatened first to stone Him and then to arrest Him because He, being a man, was making Himself out to be God.

His response to that was to quote from Psalm 82, thereby invoking the entire Psalm and turning the accusations back on His accusers, before slipping away from them supernaturally. The explanation of that response is that the Hebrew Elohim, meaning God in some contexts, can mean “judges“, “angels“, or “masters” in other contexts. The Psalm itself is a pun or play on the word. Jesus is effectively saying that He is the judge of the judges.

1 Elohim [God] stands in the divine assembly;
there with the elohim [judges], he judges:
2 “How long will you go on judging unfairly,
favoring the wicked? (Selah)
3 Give justice to the weak and fatherless!
Uphold the rights of the wretched and poor!
4 Rescue the destitute and needy;
deliver them from the power of the wicked!”
—Psalm 82:1–4 CJB

After Jesus disappeared from the Temple, He was next seen in Bethany Beyond Jordan, the area where He and John the Baptizer had met earlier in the Book.

John 11

The confrontation in Solomon’s Porch recorded in John 10 occurred in December, and the Crucifixion was in Early April, so the raising of El’azar (Lazarus) had to have occurred in the intervening span of around three months. Many people, both friend and foe of Jesus, witnessed Lazarus’ resurrection. Subsequent plots against Jesus led Him to retreat to the town of Efrayim, in northeast Judah. When He returned to Jerusalem, possibly only weeks later, the miracle was still no doubt fresh in people’s minds.

Since the raising of Lazarus was a completely unprecedented event, it was probably totally shocking to everyone. We know of five resurrections prior to Lazarus: one by Elijah; one by Elisha while he lived; one by contact with Elisha’s corpse; and two previous by Jesus. Lazarus was the only recorded resurrection of someone three or more days after death. A number of commentaries note that three days in the grave were considered to be the maximum time for any hope of an apparently dead body to be capable of resuscitation; for example, The Net Bible Commentary references, “a rabbinic belief that the soul hovered near the body of the deceased for three days, hoping to be able to return to the body.” I think that this was probably a recognition that significant, irreversible signs of decomposition generally appear two to three days after death. Rigor mortis begins within a few hours of death, and fades after two or three days. Lividity becomes quickly evident but does not lock into place for about three days. Putrefaction begins immediately at the cellular level, but dependent on circumstances may not be externally evident for several days.

People

Unfortunately, almost nobody understands the various sects of Jesus’ day. The Gospel writers had no need to teach an in-depth course, because everyone in their day knew the players. Since pretty much every contact between Jesus and the sectarians was confrontational, that makes them all look like villains. But that is a skewed generalization! When someone was referred to in Scripture as a Pharisee, that was usually referring to a trained and ordained rabbi, but there weren’t all that many of those. Estimates for 1st Century Judea are about 6,000 Pharisees, 4,000 Essenes, substantially fewer Sadducees, and just pockets of anything else. Here is a very brief summary:

Sanhedrin

This, of course, was not a sect, but a system of governing courts, or councils. Every city had a Lesser Sanhedrin of 23 members, which answered to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. The latter consisted of 71 appointed members. The Cohen HaGadol, or High Priest, functioned as the Nasi, (Prince, President, Chief Justice, or Chairman of the Board, so to speak). Ideally around half of the remaining 70 were Pharisees and half Sadducees. In Jesus’ day they met daily in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, in the Temple complex (see diagram). Around the time of the Crucifixion, they moved into the nave of the Royal Portico, which was a grand basilica constructed parallel to the southern wall of the Temple Mount, where the Al Aqsa Mosque presently sits.

The Temple complex in Jesus’ day. The Chamber of Hewn Stone is a large room midway down the left side, adjacent to the ramp of the altar. The terrace above that on the drawing is where young *Jeshua* (Jesus) spoke to members of the Sanhedrin on His first recorded Passover (Luke 2:41–46). ©Leen Ritmeyer.

One of the official functions of the Sanhedrin was to evaluate anyone who claimed to be the Messiah. In the Synoptic Gospels, when you read of “chief priests and scribes” or “scribes and Pharisees” apparently harassing Jesus, I think that most likely they were officially tasked by the Sanhedrin to follow and question. Given the politicization of the Sanhedrin under Roman rule, some of these were undoubtedly hostile, but others were probably merely conscientiously concerned. Nicodemus and Gamaliel were surely members of the Council and were certainly not evil men. Joseph of Arimathea and Paul were probably both also members. With one exception, the book of John mentions only the Pharisees among those following the crowds with Jesus, but that should not be taken to mean anything other than the normal agents of the Sanhedrin. John wrote probably a decade after the destruction of the Temple and the priesthood. By that time, the Sadducees were a distant memory to his readers, and the Temple had been replaced in their lives by the synagogues. Banishment from the synagogue had become the worst punishment possible, short of death to some and worse than death to others.

High Priest

Under Mosaic Law, the High Priest was required to be a direct descendent of Aaron, as were all priests and Levites. King David replaced a corrupt High Priest with Zadoc, who was himself an Aaronic descendent. Subsequently, all high priests (but not other priests or the Levites) were to be from Zadoc’s lineage. From at least Hasmonean times, the office was corrupt to the extent that many high priests were illegitimate. Under Roman rule, appointments were made by the regent or governor, and the office became more political than religious.

Chief Priests

As the title suggest, these were high ranking priests in the Jerusalem hierarchy. Most, if not all, were probably members of the Sanhedrin. Most were Sadducees.

Sadducees

This is the first actual sect I will discuss. These men were considered the “priestly caste” in Judea. It consisted not only of priests, but also aristocratic “hangers on”. By no means were all priests Sadducees; in fact, many were Pharisees, though most were unaffiliated with either sect. Officially, the Sadducees rejected all scripture but the Five Books of Moses (the Chumash), and in particular, rejected the concept of resurrection. Though only a small sect, the Sadducees were wealthy, and thus powerful. They controlled the priesthood, the Levites, the Temple, and the festivals. After AD 70, they disappeared from history.

Pharisees

This sect had more popular support than any others in Jesus’ day, though they weren’t in control, either of the nation or the Temple. They did lead the synagogues, for the most part. They probably had their origins with holy elders in the Babylonia captivity but evolved into a cohesive sect alongside the Sadducees in the Hasmonean Kingdom of the 1st and 2nd Centuries, BC. The two sects were in open warfare with each other during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, the second Hasmonean King, and hundreds of Pharisees were killed.

Doctrinally, the Pharisees treasured the entire canon of the Tanach (Old Testament) and believed in resurrection. They were the popularizers of the “Oral Torah“, or so-called “traditions of the elders.” After the destruction of the Temple, only this sect survived, and they are the ones, humanly speaking, who God used to preserve a Jewish remnant for 2,000+ years.

Contrary to the assumptions of most Christians, the Pharisee sect was not monumental. Above, I mentioned four members of the Sanhedrin that we would not call evil. All of those were Pharisees. Paul was a Pharisee both before and after Damascus. In Acts 23:6 (ESV), he declared, “Brothers, I am [present tense] a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees.” It was Pharisees who wrote the Talmud, and I think they accurately analyzed their own shortcomings and eccentricities:

Talmudic Classification of the Pharisees:

(1) the “shoulder” Pharisee, who wears his good deeds on his shoulders and obeys the precept of the Law, not from principle, but from expediency;

(2) the “wait-a-little” Pharisee, who begs for time in order to perform a meritorious action;

(3) the “bleeding” Pharisee, who in his eagerness to avoid looking on a woman shuts his eyes and so bruises himself to bleeding by stumbling against a wall;

(4) the “painted” Pharisee, who advertises his holiness lest any one should touch him so that he should be defiled;

(5) the “reckoning” Pharisee, who is always saying “What duty must I do to balance any unpalatable duty which I have neglected?”;

(6) the “fearing” Pharisee, whose relation to God is one merely of trembling awe;

(7) the Pharisee from “love.”
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915 Edition

Scribes

The scribes were not a sect, but rather a profession. They were, as you would expect, the educated readers and writers of Israel. Many of them were Pharisees. Some were Sadducees or members of another sect, or of none at all. Many were members of the Sanhedrin.

Essenes

Little is said about the sect of the Essenes in the Bible, because they were ultrareligious outsiders who pretty much kept to themselves. Claims that John the Baptizer was an Essene are completely wrong.

Yahad

The Yahad are the sect of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many think that they were Essenes, but there were radical doctrinal differences between the two groups. My friend, Dr. Randall Price, wrote the definitive book on the subject, Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Am Ha’aretz

These were the common “people of the land”, those without power or wealth. Jesus’ ministry was primarily to this group, who were members of no sect, but mostly listened to the Pharisees.

Herodians

This was a political party, not a true sect. They were supporters of the Herodian Dynasty and were a small minority of the population.

Timeline of John 12

Verses 1,2

Jesus returned to Bethany “six days before the Passover”, which by my own calculations (see table, below) was March 30, 0030. The 30th was a Sabbath, so He had to have arrived no later than Friday afternoon. The dinner in His honor was, according to Mark, at the home of Simon the Leper, who we know nothing else about. The meal would have been prepared before sundown, and served after dark, on the new day. The account makes perfect sense, because Sabbath dinners were always festive and joyous occasions. Perfect for welcoming a distinguished friend and guest!

The Gregorian dates shown here are my own calculations based on NOAA lunar tables going back much farther even than that. ©Ron Thompson

Verses 3–8

The text says that Miryam washed Jesus’ feet with spikenard that she had obtained for His burial. (Could it be that she was the only one paying attention to what He had been saying?) We know from previous scripture that her family was important and well off, so her possession of the pure nard oil was not surprising. It was an expensive perfume imported from India in alabaster containers, and a pint of it would have cost about a year’s wages for a common laborer of the am Ha’aretz. The Southern Baptist quarterly mentions that respectable 1st Century Jewish women kept their hair concealed. That was true then, and it’s still true among the pious Orthodox. Using a headscarf like a Muslim woman is acceptable, but in Western cultures it is more common to wear a wig.

Jesus’ comment about the poor should not be taken as insensitive. He was making reference explicitly to Deuteronomy 15:11, and saying, in effect, that this is a drop in the bucket and will make little difference to the poor, who will always be around.

[11] for there will always be poor people in the land. That is why I am giving you this order, ‘You must open your hand to your poor and needy brother in your land.’
—Deuteronomy 15:11 (CJB)

Verses 9–11

We see here yet another example of the Sanhedrin plotting against Jesus, and in this case also against Lazarus. I would not wish to paint them as blameless, but I think they weren’t as bad as many believe. Yes, there were corrupt men on the Council, but on balance, I don’t think they were as worried about losing their personal influence as they were of goading the Romans into just what finally did happen in AD 70. Paul himself gives them an excuse of sorts:

1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
—Romans 10:1–3 ESV

Verses 12–19

The Triumphal Entry. It was the day after the feast at Simon’s house. Sunday, Nisan 10 of the year 3790, or by our reckoning, March 31, 0030. Jesus went from Bethany to Jerusalem. Rather than walk this time, He had to ride a donkey’s colt into the city in order to fulfill the prophecies of Psalm 118:25–26 and Zechariah 9:9. Actually, did you catch the oddity in Matthew 21:2? He actually rode two donkeys—a mare and her colt. Evidently, he rode the mare part way and then transferred to the colt for the last part of the ride. Bible trivia!

Another mistake that many people make is to think that the people glorifying Jesus as He rode into town are the same people that days later insisted that Pilate put Him to death and release Barrabas. The people waving palm fronds on Sunday were home in bed on Friday when Jesus was on trial. The only people present for that were Jesus’ enemies.

Verses 20–26

The quarterly, and some of my favorite commentators as well, interpret “some Greeks” as referring either to Greek nationals or to God-fearing gentiles visiting the city from outside Judea. I disagree. I think that the context here, and more clearly in John 5:35, is the same as that in Acts 6:1. It is referring to Greek-speaking Jews from the Jewish Diaspora.

What did they want? The quarterly is wrong to say that “John gave no indication”, but that it “triggered something in Jesus.” Verse 23 clearly states that what it triggered was a response; evidently what they wanted was to request that He visit their countries next, which would explain why His answer, that He was about to die and couldn’t go, was directly to the point. As was verse 26, where He effectively told them that, instead of Him following them home, they could ultimately follow Him home.

Verses 27–36

My purpose in writing a blog is not to regurgitate things that most of my readers already know, nor is it to find fault with Sunday School quarterlies, though I’m not above doing that from time to time. Though I don’t agree with anybody about everything, I really think that Dr. Howell has done a fine job with his commentary in this quarter’s booklet. The reason for my blog posts in general is that for decades I’ve tried to understand Scripture not only from conventional, traditional, points of view, but from my own historical and cultural perspectives and from observations of God’s design of the universe and its physical laws.

The reason I bring this up now is because, while this whole passage is extremely interesting and vitally important, I have only one thing to add to what Dr. Howell has said. He interprets God’s voice in verse 28 as a “thunderous response.” I’m pretty sure he is picturing an earsplitting clap of thunder from lightning striking a tree in his backyard. On the contrary, my own vision is of a gently rolling murmur of distant thunder, as carried by the wind. The Complete Jewish Bible translates it as,

[28] ‘Father, glorify your name!’” At this a bat-kol came out of heaven, “I have glorified it before, and I will glorify it again!”
—John 12:28 (CJB) Emphasis mine

I’ve written about the bat-kol, or “daughter of a voice”, before. It is the “low whisper”, or “still, small voice” that Elijah heard in I Kings 19:12ff. When God spoke to His prophets audibly, I think that it was in this soothing, intimate fashion, not like a scary Zeus or Thor figure would blare out to his minions. This whisper voice is the way it was depicted in ancient Jewish literature, as described by the 2nd or 3rd Century Rabbis who compiled it:

“After the death of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi,
the last of the prophets, the Holy Spirit ceased from
Israel; nevertheless they received communications
from God through the medium of the bat-koi.”
—Tosefta Sotah 13:2

Verses 37–50

In the same spirit as with the previous section, I am going to comment on only two thoughts:

First, in verse 38 John quotes Isaiah 53:1. Something that you should remember when reading the New Testament is that most Jews were taught Scripture from a very early age, in their homes and then, in some cases, in a beit midrash (house of study”, an arm of the local synagogue. For this reason, speakers like the rabbis and Jesus referred to entire passages of the Old Testament by merely quoting a key sentence or phrase. Thus, by quoting this one verse, Jesus was effectively applying Isaiah 53, in its entirety, to Himself. I repeat it here:

1 Who believes our report?
To whom is the arm of ADONAI revealed?
2 For before him he grew up like a young plant,
like a root out of dry ground.
He was not well-formed or especially handsome;
we saw him, but his appearance did not attract us.
3 People despised and avoided him,
a man of pains, well acquainted with illness.
Like someone from whom people turn their faces,
he was despised; we did not value him.
4 ¶ In fact, it was our diseases he bore,
our pains from which he suffered;
yet we regarded him as punished,
stricken and afflicted by God.
5 But he was wounded because of our crimes,
crushed because of our sins;
the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him,
and by his bruises* we are healed.
6 ¶ We all, like sheep, went astray;
we turned, each one, to his own way;
yet ADONAI laid on him
the guilt of all of us.
7 ¶ Though mistreated, he was submissive –
he did not open his mouth.
Like a lamb led to be slaughtered,
like a sheep silent before its shearers,
he did not open his mouth.
8 After forcible arrest and sentencing,
he was taken away;
and none of his generation protested
his being cut off from the land of the living
for the crimes of my people,
who deserved the punishment themselves.
9 He was given a grave among the wicked;
in his death he was with a rich man.
¶ Although he had done no violence
and had said nothing deceptive,
10 yet it pleased ADONAI to crush him with illness,
to see if he would present himself as a guilt offering.
If he does, he will see his offspring;
and he will prolong his days;
and at his hand ADONAI’s desire
will be accomplished.
11 After this ordeal, he will see satisfaction.
“By his knowing [pain and sacrifice],
my righteous servant makes many righteous;
it is for their sins that he suffers.
12 Therefore I will assign him a share with the great,
he will divide the spoil with the mighty,
for having exposed himself to death
and being counted among the sinners,
while actually bearing the sin of many
and interceding for the offenders.”
—Isaiah 53:1–12 CJB

Finally, John 12:40 was another Isaiah quote. In its Old Testament context:

8 ¶ Then I heard the voice of Adonai saying,
¶ “Whom should I send?
Who will go for us?”
¶ I answered, “I’m here, send me!”
9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
¶ ‘Yes, you hear, but you don’t understand.
You certainly see, but you don’t get the point!’
10 ¶ “Make the heart of this people [sluggish with] fat,
stop up their ears, and shut their eyes.
Otherwise, seeing with their eyes,
and hearing with their ears,
then understanding with their hearts,
they might repent and be healed!”
11 ¶ I asked, “Adonai, how long?” and he answered,
¶ “Until cities become uninhabited ruins,
houses without human presence,
the land utterly wasted;
12 until ADONAI drives the people far away,
and the land is one vast desolation.
13 If even a tenth [of the people] remain,
it will again be devoured.
¶ “But like a pistachio tree or an oak,
whose trunk remains alive
after its leaves fall off,
the holy seed will be its trunk.”
—Isaiah 6:8–13 CJB

Jesus is explaining, by this reference, why so many of His hearers could not see the truth, despite His signs and wonders. Just as God hardened Pharaoh’s heart after Pharaoh had several times hardened his own heart, He has hardened the hearts of many Jews who have repeatedly rejected Him. That doesn’t mean that Jews can’t be saved, obviously, nor does it mean that God has rejected the people as a whole. They are still “God’s chosen people”, natural branches of the olive tree to which we believers who are not Jews have merely been grafted.

How is this hardening even fair? Because God chose them for His own, revealed Himself to them, in particular, and gave them all the advantages of a special relationship. When the hardening ends, at the close of the Great Tribulation, all that remain alive, and I think their numbers will be vast, will be saved. Every last one of them, I believe!

In Memoriam

Today I learned that David H. Stern, PhD died late last year, at the age of 87. I’ve never met Dr. Stern, but between his books and his English translation, The Complete Jewish Bible, with a commentary on the New Testament, he, more than anyone else, influenced my interest in Jewish life and culture and the Jewish foundations of Christianity. He was born, educated and married in America, but as a devout Messianic Jew, he emigrated to Israel in 1979.

Dr. David H. and Martha Stern, courtesy All Israel News.

Life isn’t always easy for Messianic Jews in Israel. They are regarded by both secular and ultraorthodox Israeli Jews as “missionaries”, a term used in scorn, and are often denied Israeli citizenship. At the same time, I have known many non-Jewish Christians around the world, particularly those in Reformed denominations, to strenuously object to non-assimilated Jews, and to resist any recognition of the debt Christianity owes to its Jewish origins. And given the argumentative nature of many religious, ethnic Jews, I’m sure that even they could be a challenge to him. Many years ago, I had lunch at a Shoney’s Restaurant in Shawnee, Kansas, with Moishe Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus. Not to be too hard on a great man, but Rabbi Rosen was intensely critical of Dr. Stern, for reasons that I could not and still do not at all agree with.

_{Rest in peace, Dr. Stern.}
נוח על משכבך בשלום, דוקטור שטרן

The Implication of Genre in Job, Ezekiel and Genesis

Some notes on hermeneutics

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
–Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
founder of The Biblical Research Society

The above quote is known by many expositors as “The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation.” BibleTruths.org states that, “This has often been shortened to ‘When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.’” An implication of this rule, which I think is inescapable, is that not every word of Scripture is meant to be understood literally. That is troubling to many, because in careless or untrained hands it opens the door to subjectivism and arbitrary conclusions. Yet almost all the great conservative Bible commentators practice a hermeneutic (a set of formal principles for Biblical interpretation) that allows for non-literal text, including parables, figures of speech, anthropomorphism, poetic exaggeration, and a host of other confusing factors. Not to mention translational difficulties. Understanding the “genre” (from the Latin genus), or “literary type” of a Biblical passage is one obvious prerequisite for understanding how literally one should interpret it.

Suggesting that some passages should probably not be understood in a literal sense does not subtract from the central truth that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” It is axiomatic to me that the Bible is inerrant in its original language and the original manuscripts. Yet some folks read my opinions, especially respecting emotional themes like creation, and make snide comments like, “So you believe it’s inerrant except when it isn’t!”

My suggestion for anyone who wants to understand Scripture for himself or herself, or to judge the competence of another commentator, is to read a good book on hermeneutics. One that I recommend is Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth, ©Roy B. Zuck, 1991. I pretty much agree with all of Dr. Zuck’s stated principles, though I am not in full agreement with some of the applications he makes from his interpretations. For example, he and I are not on the same page with respect to Covenants and Dispensations.

I don’t think there are any substantive problems with corruption of our Scriptures over the millennia. There are a few problems with translation, but none that are impossible to unravel with sufficient attention to the linguistic and cultural background of the humans who penned the words, and those who the words are written to.

What I consider to be the biggest factor of all that contributes to doctrinal confusion and infighting in the Church is that some misinterpretations are enshrined in a nearly impenetrable wall of tradition.

In the remainder of this post, I am going to discuss three books in the Tanach, or Old Testament that I believe contain a mixture of literal and metaphorical text. Some of my readers will disagree with me about Job. Most will agree with me about Ezekiel, at least in general terms. Probably only a few will agree with me about Genesis.

The genres of Job

The book of Job is classified as “reflective wisdom literature” overall, but within the book, scholars recognize two, more specific, genres: Chapters 1, 2, and verses 7–16 of the final chapter, 42, are narrative, while the rest of the book is poetic.

Per Zuck, a Biblical narrative is a “story told for the purpose of conveying a message through people and their problems and situations.” The story is typically selective and illustrative, meaning that it doesn’t necessarily quote conversations verbatim or events in chronological order. Only substantive elements that contribute to the illustration are included. This is why, for example, the narrative content of the different Gospels differs somewhat from book to book when describing the same event. The separate human authors, under the same inspiration, often used different words to stress different aspects. Matthew and Luke report two Gadarene demoniacs, for instance, while Mark mentions only one, and John omits the incident entirely. Why only one in Mark? Because only one of them obeyed Jesus by telling his countrymen about the miracle of his exorcism and preparing the way for Jesus’ return to the region later in the book. The second man was inconsequential to the lesson Mark wished to teach.

Literate readers of our time have hopefully been taught a rigid set of literary rules for grammar and punctuation, but trying to hold ancient writers to the same standards is an anachronism. Thus, we must not be offended when quotations are loose, numbers are approximate, and chronology is fluid. In no ways do these things detract from the authority of Scripture.

When reading the narrative portions at the beginning and end of Job, we can be sure that there is no error in the substance of the story. What the words convey are substantially true, and the lesson they convey is unambiguous.

Leaving the narrative portions, the bulk of Job is poetic. Hebrew poetry has a very recognizable style of its own that some people find hard to follow. Rhyme and meter in the Hebrew originals cannot be transferred intact to English translations, but there is usually recognizable structure. One common element that we frequently see is two or more lines that state the same thing, but in different words. This rephrasing is called parallelism.

Biblical poetry is less exact than Biblical narrative, because the language of poetry is more flowery and sometimes exaggerated or hyperbolic. The narrative within the poem is much less important than the lesson taught by the poem. In my opinion it is dangerous to base dogma on poetic Scripture. Take, for example:

13 ¶ to him who split apart the Sea of Suf,
for his grace continues forever;
14 and made Isra’el cross right through it,
for his grace continues forever;
15 but swept Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Suf,
for his grace continues forever;
—Psalm 136:13–15 CJB

Psalm 136 is an antiphonal song, during which a cantor might have sung or chanted the first line of each verse and a choir of Levites the second. Its intent was to praise Almighty God, and any details included here that were not recorded in the Torah writings could conceivably be embellishment. Exodus does not state that Pharaoh drowned in the Sea (The Reed, or Red Sea), and my analysis (see Historic Anchors for Israel in Egypt) indicates that he did not. Furthermore, “swept Pharaoh and his army into the Sea” clearly contradicts the Exodus account. The Egyptian army followed the Israelites into the sea and the sea swept across them.

In the case of Job’s poetry, the important lessons have to do with God, His power, and His relationship to His creation. The conversations between the actors here (between Job and his wife and friends, or even the conversations between Job and God) were immaterial aside from their message and need not have been quoted exactly as literally spoken.

The genres of Ezekiel

Ezekiel is probably my favorite book in the Bible. It is a great illustration of the “prophetic” literary genre, and it may be the best example in Scripture of narrative and poetic symbolism.

What is prophecy? I think it is a message about the past, present, or future that is supernaturally delivered by God to His people through the agency of one or more of His people who are empowered by Him to act as His intermediary. I don’t think that there are any prophets today, though there will be again as the present age comes to a final end. There were no prophets after Micah until John the Baptizer. There have been none since the death of the Biblical apostles. Some Bible teachers will claim that today’s pastors and evangelists are prophets, by definition, but I don’t believe that the common leading of the Holy Spirit, which is often hard to distinguish from personal volition, counts. For one to feel like he is led by the spirit is nice, but not provable. Fallen humans should not revel in such feelings.

Ezekiel’s prophecies were mostly imparted to him by means of visions, and mostly passed on either through acting out skits (object lessons) or verbally. When verbal, and as recorded in Scripture, some were in narrative form, and some were poetic.

Ezekiel’s vision of God and heaven at the beginning of the book represent his impressions of whatever he actually saw. Efforts to interpret what he described in meaningful visual terms are fruitless. What I think we are supposed to see is that God is holy, majestic, and humanly beyond accurate description.

In chapters 4–32, Ezekiel presents a series of skits and sermons that call out the sins of Israel and other nations of the day and pronounce condemnation and judgement for those sins. Though he uses a mixture of plain language and symbolism, the unity of the message is clear.

Beginning with Chapter 33 we start seeing the beginnings of future restoration, culminating in the defeat of Gog and Magog in Chapters 38 and 39 (see my post, The Coming World War: Gog and Magog).

Finally, chapters 40–48 forecast events and objects in the Messianic age. Some of this material regards the return of God’s sh’kinah “presence” to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Previously, in chapters 10 and 11, Ezekiel described the departure of the sh’kinah from Solomon’s Temple immediately prior to its destruction by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 BC. The return of sh’kinah will be specifically to the Holy of Holies in the new Millennial Temple, which will be built on a radically different landscape at the same geographic location. I discuss my own exegesis (interpretation and analysis) of both the departure and return in the question-and-answer section near the end of my post, Opening the Golden Gate. That post also summarizes the history of the Temple in its different phases of construction. Contrary to what is believed by most Christians, both lay and ordained, it was the Father, not Jesus the Son, who will enter the Temple—and not through the Eastern Gate, but over it. The genre of both passages is prophetic narrative, and entirely symbolic, though with important theological meaning and at a location which is certainly literal. In theological terms, God in His immanence may have abandoned the Temple and the people of Israel, but in transcendence, He has always been with them.

the genres of Genesis

The five “Books of Moses“, often called Torah (Hebrew, not for “law”, but rather for “teachings”), or sometimes Chumash (my own default, Heb. “five”) or Pentateuch (Greek “five vessels, or containers”) are attributed by conservative scholars to Moses; a view that I share. They include to some extent, all genres of Hebrew literature.

The water world of Gen. 1:2. “The earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”

Genesis, in particular, is largely narrative in style, as you might guess. It also includes a small amount of poetry. I suggest that all of it, from beginning to end, is also prophetic in nature. Israel has always, since the Exodus from Egypt, considered Moses to be the greatest of the prophets. But I don’t recall ever hearing it suggested explicitly that his knowledge of preexilic history was prophetically derived. Certainly, it was! Recall that I implied above that the prophets, through supernatural means, saw events from their past, present and future, through the eyes of God. In a very real sense, that is what “inspiration by the Holy Spirit” really is.

In Genesis 1:1, Moses declared that, in the beginning (Reꜥshit, “first in time, order or rank”), God created (bara, to create ex nihilo, out of nothing whatsoever, which only God can do) the heavens (shamayim, plural, encompassing the air around us, the atmosphere above us, and the vastness of space) and the earth. The phrase “heavens and earth” in Scripture is a figure of speech called a “merism“, in which the totality of something is implied by substitution of two contrasting or opposite parts.

A more complete description of the genre of this one verse is “polemic prophetic narrative”. Every ancient civilization had a pantheon of pagan “gods”, and with each of those came a “creation myth.” In Genesis 1:1, the one true God said, “I did it—not them! Period!”

Theologically, that is really all we need to know about creation. God had no obligation to tell us exactly how he did it, or in what order, and if He had done so, nobody in the ancient world could have possibly understood it. Sure, I’m curious, but God said it, I believe it, and that’s the end of the story!

By the time verse 2 rolled around, the earth had been inundated for some reason. I will discuss that, and my interpretation of the rest of the chapter, in a future post. For now, I’ll simply refer back to the quotation at the top of this post, and say that, to me, the “Plain sense” of Genesis 1:1–2 make perfect “common sense” in a book about God: creation, passage of time, cataclysmic flood, and beginning of a new age. The plain sense of Genesis 1:3–31 does not make common sense to me, if indeed it describes creation at all. To me, it is strongly reminiscent of visions recorded by a number of prophets, including John. The age of man on earth starts with a vision and ends with a vision!

“Gotcha” Proofs by Young Earth Creationists

The following photo of the substructure of the Lincoln Memorial was posted on January 16, 2023, by an Admin on the Facebook page, Biblical Creation:

Fig. 1: The substructure of the Lincoln Memorial, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. As posted by Biblical Creation.

Here is the text they posted with it:

Anyone who has ever visited a cave has heard the evolutionist claim that stalactites and stalagmites growing in the cave take, on the average, a full century to grow only one inch and grow to be 40 feet or so only after several thousand years. Or so evolutionists once thought. For those who believe this along with millions of cave visitors each year, hundreds of thousands of years of Earth’s history begin to become a reality before their eyes. But the question is, does it really take a century to grow one inch of stalactite?

When the Lincoln Memorial was built during the 1930s, the engineers sank steel cylinders into the bedrock to anchor the monument. The base of the memorial is set high above ground, leaving a cavernous basement beneath the floor. Rainwater seeping through the marble floor has formed stalactites up to five feet long on the basement ceiling! This growth is an inch per year, not per century! The Earth is not millions of years old or even hundreds of thousands of years. We know from Biblical history and geneaologies [sic] that God created the Earth just thousands of years ago. Biblical truth always trumps man’s scientific theories.

As an old earth creationist, I believe that Genesis 1:1 happened much earlier than 4004 BC, but that God Almighty did, literally, through His awesome and limitless power, create the universe in its entirety. But, according to these people, whether I believe in evolution or not (and I don’t!) I am an “evolutionist”.

According to the above, evolutionists evidently no longer believe that it takes thousands of years, on average, for a stalactite to form, because the Lincoln Memorial proves otherwise. But what does the picture actually show?

To begin with, most of the Memorial, including all of the structure seen here, is concrete. The statue of Lincoln and the surfaces in the chamber surrounding it are in fact marble. Marble is calcium carbonate rock, just like caves with speleothems—stalactites and stalagmites. But the caves and the speleothems are native limestone. Marble is limestone that has been modified (metamorphosed) by the temperatures and pressures caused by thick overburden sediments. Both are water soluble, but the solubility is measurable, and yes, it normally takes a long time. Fig. 2, below, is a photo that I took of a marble and limestone structure that has been standing out in the open for around 2400 years. It has been damaged by human wear and tear, by earthquakes, and even by a 17th Century Venetian bomb, but for the most part, rainwater has had minimal effect on the stone itself.

Fig. 2: The Parthenon, in Athens, Greece. ©Ron Thompson, 1970.

At any rate, seepage between quarried and assembled blocks of marble or limestone can’t in any way be compared to seepage through the pores of native limestone! I can show you buildups of calcium carbonate in the water pipes in my house, too, but that has no bearing on the age of the earth. As usual with young earth creationists, there is no actual scientific analysis presented to back up the claims associated with their photo. My assumption is that the so-called “stalactites” are leeched salt, not calcite at all!

Atheists who attempt to use theology they don’t understand to disprove the Bible are fools. Christian apologists who try to use scientific principles or findings they don’t understand to shame science are also fools, and this “gotcha” post is very foolish.

As a devout Christian engineer retired from a geological field, I have a foot in both camps. I agree that Biblical truth always trumps scientific theory, but when there is a real conflict between the two, one must at least consider the possibility that traditional interpretations of Scripture might be flawed. It has happened before.

Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico. ©Ron Thompson

For more about my views on Creationism in general, please read https://gpront.blog/2022/08/04/the-hijacking-of-creationism/

Is There a Photo of Jesus?

Maybe.

Of course, I’m talking about the Shroud of Turin here—this “Catholic relic” appears to some to be the burial shroud of Jesus, and as such it seems made to order for Protestant scorn, and it is so startling that even the Vatican has been reluctant to display it over the centuries. But frankly, it’s been subjected to every kind of scientific test you can imagine over the last 45 years or so, and, despite occasional claims to the contrary, nobody has yet proved it a hoax. Personally, I am not a dogmatic supporter of the Shroud’s authenticity, but I find it intriguing, and I don’t believe that the Bible rules it out.

There are a number of good (and quite a few bad) books on the subject, so I haven’t been tempted to take it up myself before now. I finally decided to write about it in response to a negative article on creation.com that I just ran across. I will describe the Shroud and its history below, discuss the forensic evidence in its favor, then propose a scenario for its authenticity that I think accurately accounts for the culture of Jesus’ day without breaking Scripture.

Description of the Shroud

The Shroud of Turin is a single, fire-damaged sheet of linen about 14 feet long and 3.5 feet wide (more precisely, 8 x 2 Royal Cubits, where the Royal, or Long, Cubit is 20.67 inches). On one face of the sheet is a faint image of the ventral and dorsal (front and back) sides of a dead, naked, adult male, lying flat and with hands covering groin. It appears that the cloth was laid flat, and a body laid on it with the feet close to one end. Then the other end of the cloth was folded in half lengthwise over the top of the head and down to cover the feet, staining the cloth with blood. The image, apparently that of a crucifixion victim, appeared on, or was applied to, the cloth at some time after the blood staining.

Contrary to this paining, the image is on the **inside** of the fold. Illustration from history.com, “The Shroud of Turin: 7 Intriguing Facts”.

To the naked eye, the Shroud is a faint yellow monochrome, with the image appearing as a photographic negative. Enhanced photos of the Shroud are printed as photo negatives of the negative image that is on the cloth itself.

On top, the Shroud as photographed. On the bottom, a photonegative of the top image. From pensarte-asanchezgil.blogspot.com, UNA NAVE ESPACIAL LLAMADA TIERRA Capitulo XXXVIII Sindone 5

The intensity range of the image, rather than representing color as in a black and white photograph, records the varying distance between the draped cloth and the surface of the body.

3-dimensional cardboard carving of the head imaged on the Shroud, using relief data generated by a BK VP-8 Image Analyzer™. From National Geographic Magazine, June 1980.

The wounds, bloodstains and other marks on the Shroud of Turin, theshroudofturin.blogspot.com, “The Shroud of Turin: 2.4. The wounds”

In contrast to the human image, which is confined to an extremely thin layer on one side of the cloth, blood residue deposited on and within the weave of the cloth formed a fluid stain penetrating into the fibers. These stains are consistent with contact between the wounded body and the cloth, and between corresponding locations on the two lengthwise halves of the cloth.

I first learned about the Shroud when National Geographic published an article about it in their June 1980 issue. The thrust of that article was that a large team of American Scientists of various specialties, with lots of expensive equipment, had travelled to Turin, Italy, where the Shroud is kept, and done a lot of very intricate testing. They found a great deal of evidence supporting its validity, and none proving it a hoax. Nobody has ever been able to figure out how in the world it was made. The one hope of the research team was that a carbon 14 (C14) test would either prove it genuine or show that it is a recent forgery, but since the test sample is always destroyed during carbon dating, the church at that time would not let them damage the cloth to test it. By 1988, the Vatican did give permission to test a small sample, and the carbon test was finally done. With a big sigh of relief by doubters, the date obtained was 14th Century, AD. Case closed, right?

A murky provenance

Not so fast! The indisputable chain of custody only goes back to the 1350’s, more or less matching the carbon date, but there is also anecdotal evidence that it might have been around much longer.

Supposed travels of the Shroud. This is from a PowerPoint slide presented by The Shroud Center of Southern California. The appearance of the annotated dates were edited by me here for clarity.

Earlier provenance is based on sketchy data from sources that cannot be verified with certainty. Purportedly, a disciple of Jesus’ (not one of the 12) named Thaddaeus salvaged the cloth and took it to Edessa (the site now known as Urfa, Turkey). Edessa was Seleucid originally but became a Roman vassal city in the early 3rd Century. In the early 7th Century, it passed to Persian (Sassanian), and shortly thereafter, Muslim control.

Medieval legend holds that the Shroud remained in that city and was secreted behind a tile inside a city gate during parts of those years of conquest. The image on the cloth was mentioned in several apocryphal documents, and the cloth itself came to be called the Mandylion. That term is from a Greek word meaning a towel or tablecloth, and it referred to a loose military garment, open at the sides, that was draped over Medieval armor, more or less resembling a serape). In AD 943, the Byzantine Emperor (presumably Constantine VII) ransomed the Mandylion from the emir of Edessa and took it to Constantinople, where it was kept in the Blachernae Church. In AD 1204, it disappeared after Constantinople was sacked by Christian crusaders during the 4th Crusade. Legend holds that it was thereafter in the custody of the Knights Templar until the 1350’s, when it is known to have been exhibited a number of times in Lirey, France.

Archaeological evidence is scant. The coin shown below is from the 7th Century and seems to me to tie the Mandylion to the Shroud of Turin fairly convincingly.

Byzantine coin, minted AD 692. The image stamped on this coin seems to me to be indisputably based on the Shroud image, unless somehow the Shroud was based on the coin!

The Sudarium of Oviedo

There is a funerary face cloth called the Sudarium of Oviedo that is believed by many to be the cloth mentioned in John 20:7 “also the cloth that had been around his head, lying not with the sheets but in a separate place and still folded up.” This is an ancient linen cloth with bloodstains, but no mysterious image. Documentation for this cloth goes back to at least the 7th Century, since it has remained in one place for all that time. According to photoofjesus.com,

A 1999 study by the Spanish Center for Sindonology, investigated the relationship between the two cloths. Based on history, forensic pathology, blood chemistry (both the Shroud and the Sudarium have type AB blood stains), and the blood stain patterns being exactly similar and congruent on both cloths, they concluded that the two cloths covered the same head at two distinct, but nearly contemporaneous, moments of time.

If the Shroud is genuine, then I think it probable that the Sudarium is, as well, but that isn’t my subject here. What is germane to this discussion will be mentioned below.

The Sudarium should not be confused with another legendary cloth allegedly connected with the crucifixion, the Veil of Saint Veronica (Berenike).

The Sudarium of Oviedo, from mysticsofthechurch.com, “**THE SUDARIUM OF OVIEDO AND THE SHROUD OF TURIN**“

Forensics—findings and objections

Carbon 14 dating is known to be very accurate, to within a predictable range, so the stories from before the 14th Century can’t be true, can they? Well, unfortunately, in this case there are a couple serious problems with the dating. One is that the Shroud has allegedly been exposed to centuries of contamination by extraneous carbon from multiple surroundings, making it virtually impossible to accurately calibrate the test. Another is that repairs have been made to the Shroud on at least two occasions. One was after it was damaged by molten silver during a fire in 1532, but the patches sewn on in that case were sufficiently clumsy that it was easy to avoid them. An earlier repair, though, was so skillfully patched, by expert interweaving of threads, that the newer linen of the patch was undetected until years after the 1988 carbon testing—and of course it turned out that it was apparently the fabric of that patch that was tested, not the original fabric which theoretically still could date to the 1st Century. Subsequent non-radiometric dating methods have reportedly raised the probability of an early origin.

The image on the cloth is not painted, nor is it dyed, or inked or otherwise applied. It has the appearance of the cloth itself being scorched, but not at high temperatures. Modern science cannot say with certainty how this scorching occurred, though some sort of radiation is probably the cause. Neutron radiation has been proposed, but since the image penetrates the cloth only to a very small percentage of its thickness, then anything more energetic than an alpha particle beam (Helium-4 nuclei) makes no sense to me.

The effects of various electromagnetic radiation types (light wavelengths less energetic than those on the chart) on textiles have been studied. From a layman’s point of view, I think that what makes the most sense is a pulse in the ultraviolet range, which is known to cause cellular damage to the surface layers in fabric. Shroud researcher John P. Jackson proposed that vertical exposure to UV as the Shroud collapsed into a vacuum after Jesus “dematerialized” beneath it, could account for the image, in all respects. I’m not qualified to critique his work other than to say, “It makes sense to me”, in a general fashion. To be clear, if He dematerialized, then He immediately rematerialized at some other location. Biblical precedent for this is seen in Philip’s departure from the Ethiopian road and materialization in Azotus , on the way to Antioch, and in Jesus’ appearance before “Doubting Thomas” after His resurrection.

The blood stains on the cloth have an unnatural appearance, particularly on the enhanced views, because they penetrate the weave and are not part of the “scorched” image. Furthermore, they fluoresce in views like the right pane of the following photo. Creation.com is confused by these views, thinking that the blood is floating above the skin and hair, where it should be a crust or pool on the skin and should be beneath the outer layers of hair. In reality, what we see here is a contact transfer of blood to the cloth. Forensics show that the blood was on the cloth before the image was deposited. If this is Jesus’ authentic funeral shroud, then the blood on the cloth is from shortly after His death, when it was only partly coagulated. The image, on the other hand, is from a later time, presumably at the instant of His resurrection.

Positive (left) and negative of the face on the Shroud. Free image from metapicture.blogspot.com

Creation.com also questions the drooping hair on the image, thinking that it should be collapsed to the surface Jesus was lying on, not hanging as if He were standing up. I don’t agree. Scripture says that He was beat over the head with a stick while wearing the crown of thorns:

17 They dressed him in purple and wove thorn branches into a crown, which they put on him.
18 Then they began to salute him, “Hail to the King of the Jews!”
19 They hit him on the head with a stick, spat on him and kneeled in mock worship of him.
—Mark 15:17–19 CJB

As I can personally attest, head wounds bleed profusely. Jesus was savagely beaten over the head while wearing a crown of thorns, so he bled heavily through His hair before even going to the cross. By the time He came down from the cross, some 9 hours later, most of that blood would have hardened like hair spray.

Bloodstained forehead. Cropped photograph of the Shroud, from Stephen E. Jones, “My position on the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #7”

The cloth of the Shroud is not the cheap material used for menstrual rags, burial wrappings, or even middle-class clothing, but rather a high-grade cloth used for upper-class clothing and tapestries, very rare and expensive at the time. The weave was a herringbone twill, with threads composed of 70 to 120 fibrils of flax. Expert examination indicates that it was hand-spun, bleached, woven by hand, then washed with soapweed. These were characteristics of 1st Century linen weaving (in Medieval times, bleaching was commonly done after weaving of the cloth). This weaving technique was practiced by Syrian weavers, and remnants of such cloth were found at Masada, dating from no later than AD 70. Some folks object that this cloth isn’t really a luxury product because better fabrics from the time were composed of linen/wool blends. That was not an option in Judea, because:

¶ “‘Observe my regulations.
“‘Don’t let your livestock mate with those of another kind, don’t sow your field with two different kinds of grain, and don’t wear a garment of cloth made with two different kinds of thread.
—Leviticus 19:19 CJB

The blood-like deposits on the Shroud have been verified to be aged blood. It is red, more like fresh blood, because it contains high concentrations of bilirubin, along with creatinine, ferritin and myoglobulin, all of which, in the concentrations found, are proteins characteristic of blood shed under tremendous physical trauma, like that of torture. Washing with soapweed also helps to preserve the hemoglobin color.

Blood-stained cloth from the Shroud., from Stephen E. Jones, “The Shroud of Turin: 2.5. The bloodstains”.

Fossilized heel bone of a crucifixion victim, with spike. The heels were nailed into the sides of the upright.

Roman *flagrum* from Herculaneum (modern Ercolano) near Pompeii, from Stephen E. Jones, “The Shroud of Turin: 2.4. The wounds”.

Blood staining of the cloth and bruising on the image is consistent in all respects with the testimony of Scripture. There is blood on the wrists and feet, from the nails. The Greek allows for extension of “hand” to include the wrists, as would be anatomically required to hold a grown man to a cross with nails. There is blood on the side, from the Roman spear. UV studies reveal a halo of fluorescence around this blood. Serum separated from the blood accounts for that and matches scripture describing “blood and water” from the wound. There is blood on the head from the crown of thorns and the beatings. There are bloody, dumbbell-shaped marks all over the body due to 130 lashes with a Roman flagrum. There are swollen cheeks and a broken nose from beatings. There are abrasions on knees and shoulders from stumbling from the Praetorium to Golgotha (Gulgolta).

Creation.com criticized what they considered to be blood flow patterns inconsistent with gravity, but my own examination of photo evidence doesn’t bear that out.

Various types of pollen were found on the Shroud. Concentrated around the head region, in particular, there is a large amount of pollen from the thistle Gundelia tournefortii, a spiny plant common in the Jerusalem area that blooms (and pollinates) in the spring. The “crown of thorns?”

Crown of Thorns exhibit, “Helmet” of thorns in the permanent exhibition of the Shroud of Turin in the Pontifical Institute Notre Dame of Jerusalem Center. Contrary to popular images, a “helmet” style of crown was more appropriate for a Middle Eastern king than a Greek “wreath”. Blood patterns on the Shroud suggest a helmet.

Creation.com also criticizes the proportions of the body on the Shroud. First, they are concerned that the image shows a man about 5 ft. 10 in. in height, which they think, probably correctly, is taller than most 1st Century Jews. Yet, people of all ethnicities vary in height, and that would not make Him a freak among His own people. Perhaps they were obliquely referring to Isaiah’s prophecy:

He was not well-formed or especially handsome;
we saw him, but his appearance did not attract us.
—Isaiah 53:2 CJB

I think that is saying that Messiah will not be a heartthrob who attracts people by His physical charisma. Other detractors have claimed that it also implies that He will not stand out in a crowd because of His height. I am not convinced. Being a bit taller than average would help Him speak to crowds.

Creation.com also sees distortions in the lengths of the image’s limbs, the thickness of one leg and the size of the head. Once again, I’m not convinced. The image appears to be a vertical projection onto a cloth that is draped over a real three-dimensional person, and thus not perpendicular to the cloth at all locations. This would be expected to cause apparent foreshortening of perspective in places.

Is the head disproportionately small for the body? Perhaps. That has been explained by some as rigor mortis freezing (but see my next paragraph) the head in a downward tilt, from hanging on the cross. I think it is more likely that His Head was resting on something in the tomb; perhaps he was still wearing the crown of thorns.

Creation.com thinks it is ridiculous to believe that Jesus’ hands could be over His groin, because they believe He would have gone into rigor mortis on the cross, with His arms frozen at an upwards slant. But that is a ridiculous suggestion, and they should know better—rigor mortis is part of the decay process, and Jesus didn’t decay! Acts 13:37 (ESV) ” but he whom God raised up did not see corruption.”

Many detractors are convinced that the image should not show a beard, because:

I offered my back to those who struck me,
my cheeks to those who plucked out my beard;
I did not hide my face
from insult and spitting.
—Isaiah 50:6 CJB

I wear a beard. I don’t think it could be plucked out aside from small amounts at a time. They tried. This is Hebrew poetic hyperbole. It emphasizes a point using exaggeration. Not uncommon in the Psalms and Prophets. Looking at the Shroud image, it appears that the beard is forked, and in fact, that was noticed and incorporated into the commemorative coin shown above. That was either His style, or the plucking was partially successful.

Others don’t think that there is enough damage to Jesus, per:

Just as many were appalled at him,
because he was so disfigured
that he didn’t even seem human
and simply no longer looked like a man,
—Isaiah 52:14 CJB

Again, this is poetic hyperbole. I’ll bet that if you were to find a severed and mangled human hand on the ground, you would recognize it as human remains!

Biblical Considerations

Okay, here’s where I start the fun part.

The writers on creation.com are, I’m sure, good Christian folks, but I often disagree with their interpretations of Scripture, and more often with their analyses of science and history. Regarding their treatment of the Shroud of Turin, I certainly do agree, unequivocally, that the Shroud is completely unnecessary as proof of Jesus’ existence, His crucifixion, His resurrection, or His deity. However, I don’t think they have a good understanding of 1st Century Jewish burial practices. Here I will challenge their perceptions of how the Shroud appears to contradict Scripture.

The primary objection of creation.com was that the person in the Shroud evidently was not given the entire customary treatment. They suggest, in part, that Jesus could not have been entombed in a one-piece linen shroud because Lazarus was not—Lazarus’ body was washed, then slathered with aloe and wrapped with aloe-impregnated linen strips (plural) before entombment:

44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
—John 11:44 ESV

The truth is that even in Judea, with all its customs, there wasn’t just one way to be buried, because the legal precepts of Torah didn’t speak about it all that much. If you were rich or a king, you got the plush treatment, coffin and all. The indigent sometimes got tossed out the Dung Gate and put in a pauper’s grave. That’s evidently how landowners Chananyah and Shappira (Ananias and Sapphira) ended up.

1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property,
2 and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
…
5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.
6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
7 ¶ After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
…
10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
—Acts 5:1–10 ESV

I submit here that Jesus and Lazarus were handled in different manners because the circumstances of their deaths were different. Jesus was as a convicted felon. Lazarus died at his home at a time more suitable for “standard practice.” Because Lazarus was in good legal standing, there was not a hard and fast requirement for him to be buried the same day, though that was the ideal. He would have been taken to his family tomb as soon as practical, dressed in normal clothes. Then, at some time during the days of mourning, probably soon after rigor mortis broke some 36 hours after death, he would be prepped for his long sleep. This included wrapping him in multiple strips of linen that were smeared in spices (usually myrrh and sticky aloe) in order both to bind the cloths to each other and to the body, and to mask odor. A separate small piece of linen (a facecloth) was also provided to cover or wrap the head.

When Jesus was brought down from the cross, burial on the same day as death was required from:

22 “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree,
23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.
—Deuteronomy 21:22–23 ESV

But clearly there was simply no time for the normal burial customs to take place before the sun set. I think that Joseph or one of the others climbed up and wrapped the facecloth around His face and the crown of thorns. Jesus was then taken down and laid on a bier, most likely on top of the shroud brought by Joseph, so that His shame could be covered. His clothes had been plundered by the Roman soldiers, so he was naked.

The evidence of the Shroud shows Jesus’ torture and death just as described in Scripture, when understood in its cultural context. The events surrounding His final words and His death are described plainly in Matthew 27:45–56 and the parallels. His crucifixion began at around 9:00 am (e.g., Mark 15:25 “It was nine in the morning when they nailed him to the stake.”), and the darkness began around noon. He died at “about the ninth hour” which, by Jewish counting, was somewhere around 3:00 pm. Evidently His dead body remained on the cross for most of the rest of the afternoon because, while Luke is silent on the timing, the other three Gospels are united in placing the approach of Joseph of Arimathea to Pilate at “around evening.”

Nisan 14–17 timeline, simplified, ©Ron Thompson. The Gregorian dates presented here are my own calculations, from NOAA lunar phase charts.

I will propose a likely scenario for what followed, harmonized with John 19:38–42, since that is the version stressed by creation.com and others:

38 ¶ After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body.
39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight.
40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid.
42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.
—John 19:38–42 ESV emphasis added; see below for discussion

The crucifixion was on Friday, Nisan 15. Jesus had celebrated His last Passover Seder the night before, and it was now the 1st day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which was, in Jewish law, a Sabbath (Heb. Shabbat). The next day was to be the 7th day weekly Shabbat. Restrictions for the two days were similar, except that the mid-Passover weekly Shabbat was always considered to be particularly important. In the case of consecutive Shabbatot, it was permissible to prepare for the second one on the day of the first one.

So, when Joseph spoke to Pilate, dusk and the start of the Saturday Shabbat were rapidly approaching, as emphasized in Mark, using a Jewish English translation:

42 Since it was Preparation Day (that is, the day before a Shabbat), as evening approached,
43 Yosef of Ramatayim, a prominent member of the Sanhedrin who himself was also looking forward to the Kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Yeshua’s body.
—Mark 15:42–43 CJB emphasis added

There was a delay, because Pilate needed to check precedent, then once Joseph had permission, he barely had time to do what absolutely had to be done before the Temple shofarim (ram’s horn trumpets) signaled that the sun had sunk below the horizon and Shabbat had begun. First, he must walk quickly from the Praetorium (probably Herod the Great’s palace) to the nearby crucifixion site at Gulgolta (I believe that to be the site under the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, just outside the city wall of that day). Then with the help of Nicodemus and the Disciples, he had to lower Jesus to the ground, remove the nails from His wrists and heels, place Him on the bier, and carry Him the short distance to the tomb.

“Linen wrappings”, or a shroud?

John 19:40 says “wrappings”, plural othonion (Gr. ὀθονίοις), which may refer to the customary saturated linen strips, but I think it meant, simply, the Shroud and the headcloth. Since Biblical Greek has no punctuation, I suggest that for comparison with the synoptics, vs 40b should be translated “bound it in linen cloths, with the spices”. In other words, the binding strips and the spices were stored in the tomb for later processing, as soon as ritually permitted. There simply could not have been enough time that day!

The three synoptic Gospels all refer to “a linen sheet”, singular sindoni (Gr. σινδόνι a different Greek term probably referring to the fineness of the cloth).

Mark 15:46 says “Yosef purchased a linen sheet; and after taking Yeshua down, he wrapped him in the linen sheet (σινδόνι), laid him in a tomb which had been cut out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the entrance to the tomb.“

Matthew 27:59 uses the same singular, sindoni, as Mark, “Yosef took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen sheet, (σινδόνι) 60 and laid it in his own tomb, which he had recently had cut out of the rock.”

Likewise, Luke 23:53 “He took it down, wrapped it in a linen sheet (σινδόνι), and placed it in a tomb cut into the rock, that had never been used.”

Is there any other Scripture that might verify my interpretation?

Yes!

The Jewish custom was to seal a tomb, then come back in a year to pick up the dry bones and put them in an ossuary or a family niche. I can think of no reason why it would be necessary to open up a tomb two days later to renew spices already applied, yet that is what creation.com suggests was going on early that Sunday morning:

1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.
3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?”
—Mark 16:1–3 ESV

Joseph was not able to complete the customary preparation of the body because it was the Sabbath, and an even more important Sabbath was about to start. He did what could be done quickly, then he left Jesus wrapped in the shroud he had brought, rolled the stone into place, and notified Jesus’ mother that she would need to complete the process—which was really the family’s job in the first place. Washing the body, then applying the cloth strips and spices was a job that it would have probably taken them at least two or three hours to complete.

In conclusion

Creation.com approached this subject much as they do in their creation articles. They started out their story the way I do, by reading key books and articles on the subject. But they were looking for talking points, not for real issues. Their minds were made up going in. This shows up in several places. For one, they were quick to comment on the “floating blood” on the image’s head. Yes, that’s what it looks like, but “looks like” isn’t always enough. If they had read in depth, they would have learned that those big blobs were contact stains in the cloth, not part of the image on the cloth. In the picture, those stains fluoresced, like white teeth under black light at a party.

Another very major fault with the creation.com approach is that most Hermeneutics don’t allow you to make theological decisions based on a single passage. The creation.com article shows why. Their case was built on John’s account of the burial, but John contradicts all three of the synoptic gospels. By “contradictions”, I’m not implying error. The four Gospel writers viewed events from four different directions, and each had a point he was trying to make. Think about the old saw about the blind men and the elephant. The exegete’s responsibility is to study the Scriptures together to find the harmony that is there!

A third fault in the post is that they were so sure of the end result they were going to get that they rushed into the fight with wild punches. Rigor mortis is part of the decay process. Do they really think that Jesus began to decay? I don’t think so!

A fourth, and the last I will mention, is that they wrote from a shallow understanding of culture. The Bible is God’s autobiography. It touches on other things, but it’s not a self-help book, it’s not a science text, it’s not a history, and it’s not a civics book. To fully understand the cultural context of Judea, you have to go beyond Scripture and examine extra-Biblical sources. Their understanding of 1st Century burial practices is superficial.

Nobody will ever be able to prove that the Shroud is authentic. Some folks think that an artistic genius like Leonardo DaVinci could have pulled off a hoax like this, but why would he? Besides, yes, he did conceive of helicopters back in his day, but he didn’t build one! To successfully produce what the technology of his day could not allow him even to see boggles my mind.

Frankly, I would like for this to be genuine. Prior to the incarnation, God in all three persons was spirit. Whenever he materialized to a physical form, it was transient. Until Jesus took on flesh. I’d like to think that there is a commemoration of that flesh, here on earth!

Geology and the Saudi Sinai

Fig. 1: Jabal Maqla (Jabal al-Lawz range, from livingpassages.com web site)

A topic that comes up over and over again on social media archaeology groups is the contention that the real Biblical Mount Sanai is the mountain Jabal al-Lawz in northwest Saudi Arabia.

This is one of around a hundred astounding finds claimed by the late Ron Wyatt, who left his job as a medical technologist in Tennessee to chase his dreams as an amateur archaeologist. I don’t think that even a single one of his claims is valid. What he did was travel around the Middle East searching for things that superficially looked like something described in the Bible. A real archaeologist would produce tangible evidence for the find. Wyatt usually claimed to have found such evidence, but if so, only his own eyes ever saw it.

I previously disputed the contention by Wyatt’s many supporters that the traditional site of Mt. Horeb/Sinai, Jebel Musa, on the Sinai Peninsula, cannot be correct because that area was part of Egypt, not Arabia as Galatians 4:25 seems to require (see Moses, Paul, Sinai, Midian and Arabia). I thought I would spend a little time and space here discussing some of the other evidence alleged in support of Jabal al-Lawz.

I should state at this point that it is difficult to disprove something that cannot be proved in the first place. My purpose here is to offer a more sensible explanation of two of the main talking points used to justify the Saudi Sinai claims—the black mountaintop and the split rock. I offer no proof of my own contentions. I’ve never been on that site, so all I can provide is sound principles and other folks’ photographs and research.

The “Burnt Mountain”

The most striking feature of the Saudi Mountain is the black summit, which is claimed, based on a superficial visual impression only, to have resulted from God’s appearance over the mountain:

16 ¶ On the morning of the third day, there was thunder, lightning and a thick cloud on the mountain. Then a shofar [ram’s horn] blast sounded so loudly that all the people in the camp trembled.
17 Moshe brought the people out of the camp to meet God; they stood near the base of the mountain.
18 Mount Sinai was enveloped in smoke, because ADONAI descended onto it in fire — its smoke went up like the smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain shook violently.
19 As the sound of the shofar grew louder and louder, Moshe spoke; and God answered him with a voice.
—Exodus 19:16–19 CJB (emphasis added)

Fig. 2: Peak of Jabal Maqla, the “Burnt Mountain”, doubtingthomasresearch.com.

There is some confusion as to the proper name of the mountain in question. Ron Wyatt, Bob Cornuke and others Applied the name Jabal al-Lawz to the mountain pictured above, but al-Lawz is a somewhat higher peak to the north of that pictured, which is correctly called Jabal Maqla, meaning “Burnt Mountain”. That’s a minor point. The major question is, why is the peak blackened? Is that, as claimed by Wyatt and his followers, a remnant of scorching by God’s presence in the lightning, fire and smoke recorded in Exodus?

My interpretation of the passage above is that the lightning may have been literal, or perhaps static electricity, but that the fire and smoke were simply God’s sh’kinah glory, the same phenomena as the pillar of fire and smoke that led the Israelites for 40 years and that is never recorded to have damaged anything.

Furthermore, the contention that the mountainside was burned and that the burned area would still be visible after 3500 years, is beyond implausible. Compare the fire on Mt. Carmel when Elija confronted the priests of Ba’al some 600 years later; no trace of that remains, and Mt. Carmel is a known location.

Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.
—1 Kings 18:38 ESV

I have not been to the site of al-Lawz, but I have seen many photos, and I have read formal geological descriptions of the area, which is strikingly similar to portions of the Rio Grande Rift Valley in New Mexico, which I am personally well acquainted with, having grown up in Albuquerque.

Biblical Midian lies within the northwestern extremity of the Arabian-Nubian Shield, which is a granitic batholith, shown in gray below, that spans the Red Sea. Granite magmas solidify deep within the earth’s crust and are exposed by succeeding uplift and erosion. The Red Sea itself is a more recent rift zone, where plate tectonics (continental drift) is pulling northeast Africa and southwest Asia apart. Rift zones are always associated with volcanic activity, and this case is not different, as is also shown on the map, fig. 3.

Fig. 3: Distribution of northeast Africa and Arabia Cenozoic volcanism (researchgate.net, William Bosworth)

In reality, the blackened peak of Jabal Maqla is not due to scorching, but rather to lava flows, which are common along the rifting Red Sea and Jordan Valley. The geological literature describes the Jabal Maqla itself to be composed of a light-colored granite capped with volcanic rhyolite and andesite. The andesite is what makes the peak seem “burnt” (fig. 4). Rhyolite is a brown-colored lava which shows up on some aerial photos as volcanic dikes in older andesite flows.

Fig. 4: Andesite example, Photo ©Siim Sepp, 2005

The volcanic nature of the peak is particularly obvious from satellite imagery. The photos below (fig. 5 and the added fig. 5a) show the mountain and its surrounding drainage pattern. Note that the wadi on the north side is fed primarily from farther north, outside the blackened area. The tributary wadis that flow from the Jabal Maqla peak are paved with silt weathered from the darker andesite lavas.

Fig 5a (added): Clear view from southwest of obvious lava flows at Jabal Maqla. Google Earth.

Next (fig. 6) is a view cropped from a visitor’s photo, shot on the summit of Jabal Maqla. The partially weathered rocks they are sitting on are clearly volcanic in origin. To my eye they are primarily black andesite, with lighter colored rhyolite inclusions.

Fig. 6: Crop of 3rd-party photo taken on the summit. Source unknown.

For comparison, I am including as fig. 7 a photo of a typical New Mexico lava flow, from the region close to Carrizozo, south of my childhood home in Albuquerque.

Fig. 7: Carrizozo Little Black Peak, New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science.

The “Split Rock”

Unnumbered (added): Article from unknown source.

The second geological feature in the area that I want to discuss is the “split rock of Rephidim“, which Wyatt followers claim to have found to the northwest of Jabal al-Lawz.

1 ¶ All the congregation of the people of Israel moved on from the wilderness of Sin by stages, according to the commandment of the LORD, and camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink.
2 Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water to drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD?”
3 But the people thirsted there for water, and the people grumbled against Moses and said, “Why did you bring us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our livestock with thirst?”
4 So Moses cried to the LORD, “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me.”
5 And the LORD said to Moses, “Pass on before the people, taking with you some of the elders of Israel, and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go.
6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.
7 And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the LORD by saying, “Is the LORD among us or not?”
—Exodus 17:1–7 ESV

The claim is that this (fig. 8ff) is the rock that Moses struck with his rod, causing water to gush out to satisfy the thirst of the Israelites. As proof, they offer that the rock is close to Horeb; it is huge; it is split roughly in two, top to bottom; and it shows “obvious signs of water erosion.” Scripture says nothing about the appearance of the rock. Nearness to Horeb (Mt. Sinai) is only proof if Jabal al-Lawz really is Horeb.

I will discuss the question of erosion, below, but first I want to mention the probable origin of the rock and the rubble base on which it rests. This will have some bearing.

Glacial origin?

My initial reaction when I first saw photos of this granite behemoth and its associated elongated mound of rubble was surprise at what appeared to me to be glacial deposits in the Arabian desert! It would take a geological survey to establish the truth of my conjecture, but after research, I determined that there is indeed evidence of Mid-Cryogenian (Neoproterozoan) glaciation in the northern Arabian–Nubian (A-N) Shield region. This was a “snowball earth” period, one of two periods when virtually the entire planet was covered by continental ice sheets. The surface geology of the A-N Shield at this time is represented in gray on fig. 3, labeled as the Proterozoic basement complex.

Factors that led me to my conclusion were (a) the gigantic boulder that I thought surely must be a “glacial erratic“, an out-of-context rock too big to have been deposited by almost any other means; (b) the ridge on which it rests, appearing to possibly be “glacial till“, which is a deposit of rubble “usually described as massive (not layered), poorly sorted, and composed of multiple types of angular to sub-rounded rocks”; and (c) horizontal surfaces polished by fine grit and striated by larger fragments carried along at the base of the glacier.

Fig. 8: Split Rock, from 3rd party drone clip. The surface of the rock beneath the boulder shows apparent striations and polishing.

Fig. 9: Split rock, from 3rd party drone clip. Seen on edge and showing part of an apparent till ridge, or “moraine”.

Fig. 10: Rubble underlying the split rock, from alvarolima.com

Is the split miraculous?

Probably not. Such splitting is a normal characteristic of “frost wedging”, where moisture penetrates a small hole or crack in a rock, freezes, and wedges the opening larger. The ice melts, more water enters, and the cycle repeats. Over time, even huge boulders (and this one is said to be as large as 60 feet in diameter) will split. I have seen literally thousands of split rocks in New Mexico alone. The splits are almost always vertical, like this, because the water flows under gravity in the rock. I’ll provide two examples here.

Fig. 11 is a granite boulder, no doubt another glacial erratic, in the arid Joshua Tree National Park, in California. Fig. 12 is a photo of what is now a popular climbing spot near Albuquerque. Frost wedging accounts for probably all of the fracturing seen here. I did not take this picture, nor am I a rock climber, but some 50 years ago I stood either on that spot or on one very much like it close by, after hiking up along the axis of the ridge with a friend. Imagine my terror…

Fig. 11: Frost wedging in Joshua Tree National Park, ©Randall Nyhoff

Fig. 12: Knife Edge granite shield outcrop, Sandia Mountains, New Mexico. ©Steven VanSickle.

Erosion in and around the split rock

Descriptions of this rock always say there is “obvious water erosion” associated with it. Doubting Thomas Research Foundation (DTRF) is one organization that was apparently established by an individual to promote Jabal al-Lawz and its features. In one article they state about the split rock, “The erosion is within this split, along several paths descending from the base of the rock, and in the front and back of the hill at the bottom.” I will respond to this by commenting on photographic evidence I have seen.

Weathering of the megalith

Transportation of glacial till is slow and involves pushing, rather than rolling or tumbling. Rocks embedded in the till might become fragmented, or partially fractured, or chipped at the corners, but only roughly rounded. If sandwiched between ice and the underlying rock surface, polishing and scoring may result. I am assuming that the split rock is a glacial erratic that ended up at the top of the pile when the glacier melted. Sitting there, in that environment, it would have been subjected to three major weathering agents: frost wedging, exfoliation, and wind abrasion. The latter of these is mostly ineffective against hard igneous rocks.

However, both frost wedging and exfoliation are evident here. First, the frost wedging that I discussed above is undoubtedly responsible for the big split, and also for the oblong rock fragments littering the floor of the split, as well as the angular fissures in the walls of the split, as shown in fig. 13, below. I have also seen video footage of thin flakes of rock on the split’s floor. This was obvious debris from exfoliation—the eggshell layers that can be clearly seen in fig. 13.

Fig. 13: Floor of the Saudi “Split Rock”, showing exfoliation of the rock face. ©JohnTrifBrent.

Fig. 14 exhibits exfoliation on the external surfaces of the megalith, and on the rocks in the photo’s foreground. Exfoliation is due to heating and cooling of the rock itself, as opposed to thermal cycling of water in rock fractures. Temperature changes within the rock will be felt more quickly at the surface than under it, causing differential expansion and contraction. Since the granite is crystalline and brittle, an outer “skin” will eventually separate from its substrate. Such flakes, still clinging to the surface, can be seen in both photos, fig. 13 and fig. 14. Weathering by exfoliation typically rounds the surface of boulders. A great example of this is the Half Dome pluton, in Yosemite National Park.

A supporting structure?

DTRF (see above) also makes the following observation: “At the top of the hill, on one side of the split rock, is a large rectangular rock that may be holding the split rock upwards. In theory, this rectangular rock may serve a logistical (sic) purpose if the Exodus story is accurate. It would hold the split rock up for the scene to take place, as well as provide a safe spot for Moses to stand after striking the rock.“

Referring back to fig. 8, I assume that the author is referring to the vertical block immediately in front of the split rock, on the right or more probably the horizontal block on the left. From the photos I’ve seen, I would presume these to both be merely additional segments of the same boulder. Both are effectively separated from the main “lobes” of the boulder by wedging surfaces. To clarify, I have very roughly sketched what I see as the edges of major wedging planes in fig. 15.

Fig. 15: Wedging boundaries in split rock megalith. The shaky hand is mine.

A plinth for the split rock?

Of more interest to me, shown in fig. 16 (a crop of fig. 8), is the more or less flat surface that the megalith is sitting on. The regularity of the apparent cross-hatching on top of this rock surface suggests a striated and polished surface caused by dragging at the base of the glacier.

Fig. 16: Striated rock beneath the split rock.

Fig 17: Example of glacial striations and scouring, in high mountain terrain.

Erosion of the rock piled beneath the split rock

DTRF also noted erosional channels on “several paths descending from the base of the rock“. Other visitors to the site frequently mention such paths, or troughs, running from the split rock, down the face of the rubble, to the wadi below. The more astute acknowledge that this could be due to millennia of natural runoff. Others insist that there is not enough rain in the region to account for the erosion they see on the slope. Some visitors evidently account for the rubble-strewn mound itself by appealing to a strong flow of water from the rock after it was split by Moses’ rod.

I have seen one such erosional channel on video, but as a former desert-dweller, I have to say that it is not very impressive, and not visible on any of the photos presented here. Nor would I expect it to be. Clear, potable water simply does not erode solid granite blocks. Even if this rock had gushed water for the year that the Israelites stayed on Mt. Sinai, the only effect it would have on this mound would be to wash away small particles, from clay-sized through perhaps some cobbles. In the geologic ages since this mound was deposited, I would expect no more than the amount of erosion that is actually seen here.

DTRF seems to suggest that the rock might be limestone. if so, it might be dissolved by low pH water flow. It is not limestone. It is granite with other hard silicates mixed in, not carbonates.

Erosion in the surrounding wadi

DTRF on the wadi: “The ground level on both sides of the hill is smooth and uneven, giving the visual appearance of former water flows being there. It appears distinct from the rougher terrain that surrounds the site.” That is a good description of what can clearly be seen in photos and videos of the area.

He also states, primarily with respect to the rubble mound: “Yet, there is a lack of rainfall in this area of the world and there aren’t significant flash floods that could explain the apparent water erosion.” I totally disagree with this statement.

I suspect that the Hijaz area of northwest Saudi Arabia gets no more than a few inches of rain in a year, but the complex dendritic drainage system visible on satellite images (see next three figures) shows that there is plenty of flash flooding to move loose sediments for long distances, over time. Fig. 18 shows that the split rock lies central to a catch basin collecting runoff from the mountains to the east and south. In other words, erosion around the rock is from drainage upstream of the rock, not from the rock itself.

Above the split rock, in the east, there is another terrace and a larger catch basin. Water from that terrace cascades downwards, downstream of the rock, as is seen more clearly in fig. 19, an oblique view from the west. Referring back to fig. 18, water from these two basins flows downstream to the northwest, to an intersection with a main-channel wadi that flows south-southwest and ultimately empties into the Red Sea.

Fig. 20 is a wider-angle 3D view, from the southwest. This is the best view to see the scope of erosion in the area, and reveals that the area east of fig. 18 is a broad, flat, plateau.

Fig 18: Drainage system for the area around Jabal al-Lawz, Jabal Maqla, and the split rock. Google Earth. North at top.

Fig. 19: Oblique view of split rock area, looking down from the west. Google Earth.

Fig. 20: wider view, from the southwest. Google Earth.

I decided to add fig. 21 to emphasize the elevation changes in the region. Jabal Maqla is not marked here but is near the top edge of the photo in the blackened region. If the Israelites were camped near their water source at the split rock, then none of the highland areas marked here, and especially not Jabal Maqla, were easily accessible.

Light Yes, But Why Salt?

[Scriptural quotations from ESV unless otherwise noted]

13 “You are salt for the Land. But if salt becomes tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything except being thrown out for people to trample on.
14 ¶ “You are light for the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.
15 Likewise, when people light a lamp, they don’t cover it with a bowl, but put it on a lampstand, so that it shines for everyone in the house.
16 In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they may see the good things you do and praise your Father in heaven.
—Matthew 5:13–16 CJB

Christian theology often tends to forget that the Church did not yet exist when Jesus spoke these words. In fact, it did not exist until believing Jews and non-Jews had both been given the indwelling Holy Spirit, and that did not happen until after Jesus’ Ascension. His earthly ministry throughout His First Advent was specifically to Jews, not to the unborn Church, and not to non-Jews in general. In Matthew 10:5b–6, He told his 12 apostles-in-training, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” In Matthew 15:24, when he was asked by a Canaanite woman to rid her daughter of a demon, He responded by telling her that He “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

That is certainly not to say that He rejected overtures of faith by non-Jews. He ultimately granted the request of the Canaanite woman, and in Matthew 8:10b, He granted the petition of a Roman centurion and told His followers, “With no one [else] in Israel have I found such faith.”

But the fact remains that Jesus’ ministry, and in fact the whole of the four written Gospels, were directed to Israel. When we fail to recognize that fact, we open ourselves to the heresy of misappropriating Scripture. In this post, I am addressing one example of such error in discussing the concepts (plural) of “salt and light“, which Christians almost always discuss as if it were a “Church thing”, and just one thing. I do believe there is an important Church application, and I’ll address that near the end.

Please read this post as an academic exercise for improving our understanding of Scripture, not as criticism of any well-meaning individual or organization.

The context of the message

Matthew 5–7 is commonly called the Sermon on the Mount. “Sermon” may be too strong a term, because it is unclear which group Jesus was speaking to.

1 ¶ Seeing the crowds, Yeshua walked up the hill. After he sat down, his talmidim came to him,
2 and he began to speak. This is what he taught them:
—Matthew 5:1–2 CJB

The fact that Jesus was sitting, which limits voice projection, and that only the talmidim are mentioned as following Him up the hill, raises the question: was it an oration to all the people milling around, or just those gathered around closest to Him?

View from the possible location of the Mt of Beatitudes. The hillside is now, of course, the home of an ornate monastery, with immaculate gardens overlooking Lake Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee). Photo © Ron Thompson, 2008.

The term ὄχλουςα (ochlousa) is translated crowds, above, or multitudes in the KJV. This is an odd plural, sort of like “infinities”. Two infinities are still just infinity. Two crowds are still a crowd. I suppose it could be like “the crowd on His left and the crowd on His right”, but the term is always used for the group of people following Him, so that is unlikely. Roy Blizzard and David Bivin, in their book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, suggest that ὄχλουςα is a technical term referring to “the inhabitants of the surrounding area”, which might be an actual “multitude”, or might be just a few people.

Drones like the religious leaders that the Sanhedrin sent to follow Him from place to place would be a separate group mingled in and on the fringes of the gathered locals. Thir function was much like the Soviet trawler back in my Navy days that always trailed along behind my ship, an aircraft carrier, in the Mediterranean. When they had opportunity, they steamed in among the destroyers and frigates of our task force, spying and occasionally harassing.

There were probably at least some underemployed “seekers” in the mix, as well, following from place to place hoping for some sort of healing or salvation. Many probably finding what they sought.

The folks gathered more closely around Jesus and probably sitting near Him on the hill were His talmidim, or disciples, and verse 13, about salt would have applied more to them than to the larger group (see below). Whichever it is, Matthew 5:11–16 was clearly applicable only to Godly Jews when it was spoken.

Salt and Light to whom?

Before addressing the meanings of “salt” and “light” in Matthew 5, I think it important also to answer the question, who were to be the recipients of the salt and the light? I used the Complete Jewish Bible to quote Jesus’ words, above, because I think it correctly differentiates the two Greek words that the English Standard Version renders as “world”.

St. Augustine Lighthouse, © Ron Thompson 2001

In verse 14, “world” is a translation of the Greek κόσμος (Kosmos). In the modern world, the term “cosmos” refers to the universe as a whole, but in ancient times, the heavens above were thought to be merely a dome, or a sheet draped above the earth we inhabit. So, in effect, κόσμος referred to the world as a whole, consisting of all nations. Israel was, indeed, understood to be commissioned as God’s evangelist nation to the rest of humanity.

In verse 13, a different word, γῆ, or Ge, is used. In general, γῆ can, in fact, be translated as “world”, but I think that when connecting the word to Israel, it is almost always proper to default the translation to “land“, meaning specifically, Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel. Jesus’ listeners here were being told to be “salt for the Land”, i.e., a preservative for the people, or Covenants, of Israel. Not for the greater earth. Similarly, in verse 5, we are told that the meek will “inherit the land”. This is certainly true. It is a direct quotation from Psalm 37:11, which taken in context is clearly referring to Israel’s eventual peaceful habitation in the Land of Israel.

Light for the world

I will discuss the question of light before salt, because Christian usage of this term is more straightforward than that of salt.

As is expressed many times in the Tanakh, or “Old Testament”, particularly in the poetic Psalms and Prophets, the concept of “light“, where physical light is obviously not meant, primarily pertains to knowledge of truth. To shine a light, in this respect, is to bring the knowledge of salvation. It is clearly this idea that Jesus had in mind in the Matthew 5 text. This, I think (and most would agree), is borne out by his quotation of Isaiah 8:23–9:1 in the preceding chapter, Matthew 4:

12 ¶ Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee.
13 And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali,
14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
15 ¶ “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—
16 the people dwelling in darkness
have seen a great light,
and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death,
on them a light has dawned.”
—Matthew 4:12–16 ESV, emphasis added

However, there are a number of other symbolic usages of the term in the Tanakh, and I think that in some sense, all of these can be read into Jesus’ words. I will list some of these, with examples from the ESV:

To lead people forward—as God’s sh’kinah leading the Israelites through the darkness of the Wilderness:

Neh. 9:19 You in your great mercies did not forsake them in the wilderness. The pillar of cloud to lead them in the way did not depart from them by day, nor the pillar of fire by night to light for them the way by which they should go.

To lift the hearts of people—as God’s protection of the people menaced by Haman:

Esth. 8:15–17 Then Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal robes of blue and white, with a great golden crown and a robe of fine linen and purple, and the city of Susa shouted and rejoiced. 16 The Jews had light and gladness and joy and honor. 17 And in every province and in every city, wherever the king’s command and his edict reached, there was gladness and joy among the Jews, a feast and a holiday.

To expose sin—as God’s exposure of evil nations and rulers:

Job 12:21–25 He pours contempt on princes
and loosens the belt of the strong.
22 He uncovers the deeps out of darkness
and brings deep darkness to light.
23 He makes nations great, and he destroys them;
he enlarges nations, and leads them away.
24 He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth
and makes them wander in a trackless waste.
25 They grope in the dark without light,
and he makes them stagger like a drunken man.

To bring health and life from illness and death—as suggested by Elihu’s reproof of Job:

Job 33:28–29 He has redeemed my soul from going down into the pit,
and my life shall look upon the light.’
29 “Behold, God does all these things,
twice, three times, with a man,
30 to bring back his soul from the pit,
that he may be lighted with the light of life.

To bring confidence—as expressed by David after his deliverance from Saul:

Psa. 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear?

Salt for the Land

Sea Salt. Photo from myactivenutrition.com

While the Jewish concept of spreading “light to the world” represents God’s entire reason for Israel’s election as His chosen people—the total evangelization of all peoples on earth—

the “salt” concept has nothing to do with evangelization and is much more limited in scope.

From the example references to “salt”, below; from the record of history; and from a correct translation of γῆ (see above), it is clear to me that by exhorting His listeners to be “salt“, He was commanding them to function as His Covenant people, and by their words and actions, to be a preservative for the Godly remnant in Israel. Only such a Godly remnant could possibly function as evangelists to the world at large.

In the Ancient Near East (ANE) before written records were as ubiquitous as they later became, contracts and treaties were often “sealed” by ceremony. Salt, because of its preservative qualities and its flavor, was often part of such ceremonies. That practice was so prevalent that it was incorporated into Biblical covenants and covenant-related practice without explanation. The first mention in scripture is the instruction for preparation of incense to be burned in the Tabernacle:

34 ¶ The LORD said to Moses, “Take sweet spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, sweet spices with pure frankincense (of each shall there be an equal part),
35 and make an incense blended as by the perfumer, seasoned with salt, pure and holy.
—Exodus 30:34–35 ESV

Grain offerings were also to be seasoned with salt:

You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.
—Leviticus 2:13 ESV

Contributions to the priesthood from consecrated meat offerings were to be salted:

All the holy contributions that the people of Israel present to the LORD I give to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due. It is a covenant of salt forever before the LORD for you and for your offspring with you.”
—Numbers 18:19 ESV

The public water supply of the city of Jericho was miraculously purified through application of salt by the prophet Elisha:

19 ¶ Now the men of the city said to Elisha, “Behold, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees, but the water is bad, and the land is unfruitful.”
20 He said, “Bring me a new bowl, and put salt in it.” So they brought it to him.
21 Then he went to the spring of water and threw salt in it and said, “Thus says the LORD, I have healed this water; from now on neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it.”
22 So the water has been healed to this day, according to the word that Elisha spoke.
—2 Kings 2:19–22 ESV

When confronting Jeroboam’s army, Judah’s King Abijah invoked the eternality of the Davidic Covenant by pointing out that it was regarded as a covenant of salt:

Ought you not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel forever to David and his sons by a covenant of salt?
—2 Chronicles 13:5 ESV

Application to the Church

The Church consists of two groups which, together, Scripture refers to as “the Commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12-13): (a) a Godly remnant of physical Israel; and (b) Godly non-Jews grafted into the first group. A full discussion of this doctrine (see Romans 9–11, for example) is beyond my scope here, but both of these peoples, in unity, clearly bear the responsibility to bring light to the world. It is less clear but probably equally valid to assert that both peoples share a responsibility to bring preservatory ministry to each other and to the converts attracted to the light.

I am not pronouncing anything earthshaking in this post. I am pointing out a technical inconsistency in Christian teaching, but not suggesting that we are grossly misdirecting our efforts. I simply think that it is better to correctly understand the Jewish foundations of the Church.

Implications of God’s Omnipresence and Eternity in Space-Time

I have had trouble writing this because God’s Creation is so astoundingly complex that it has taken me over three months to settle on a narrative that avoids rabbit trails that are vitally interesting to me, but probably boringly obtuse to many of my readers.

My intention here is to explore two of God’s divine attributes that I think are very closely related, and to speculate, in the simplest terms I can come up with, how they might have additional implications in the light of modern physics.

“Theology Proper”

Any formal study of God and His creation is going to start with a textbook categorized as a “systematic theology.” The section of that book concerned with the nature and characteristics of God Himself is called a “theology proper.”

Intelligently discussing God’s Attributes is a tough task, because God Himself told us only what He determined we need to know, and the Bible was written in an age when both the inspired human writers and the intended readers couldn’t begin to understand all of what was written, or the vast majority of the topic that remained unwritten. In some cases, it seems to us as if some really important explanation is omitted that we would very much like to know. For instance, the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit can only be inferred from “hints” scattered throughout Scripture. Even the term “Godhead,” which at least sounds somewhat Trinitarian, is merely an infrequent translation of the Greek qeoteß, (theotes), which actually means simply “deity.” Paul used the term as a polemic against Colossian, gnostic pantheism, not as a theological description of the Trinity.

Why is there no specific Biblical mention of the Trinity? Well, perhaps it is because the ancient writers (and to a lesser extent, even today’s highly educated theologians) had no scientific or linguistic tools sufficient for the task. Explaining the Trinity is beyond the ability of even 21st Century Theologians. There is no known analog to make it clear to us. I suppose, personally, that it has something to do with the nature of sentience (consciousness—having senses and perceptions) without physical substance. “Spirit,” in the Biblical sense, is something that our best modern science can’t detect or explain. It isn’t matter. It isn’t energy. It is independent of either and in God’s case, it is superior to both.

Author and educator John C. Lennox suggests that man’s spirit, which is, in life, associated with his body, is what God means by His “image.” Dictionary definitions of “image” include terms like “reproduction”, “imitation”, “likeness”, etc., most of which imply that an image is in some way inferior to the original. God is spirit, whereas man’s spirit is confined to a physical body now, and even when that body is glorified, will still be constrained to locality.

Many Christians, if asked, would say that only Scripture is valid truth. I believe that the perceptions of man’s imperfect spirit are capable of much understanding, even of issues that aren’t fully addressed in Scripture. To this end, I am going to blend in a little human science.

Scientists do two things, for the most part really well: they collect data; and they propose explanations. In either order; in fact, frequently in iterations. Sometimes the explanations have a devious political or theological aim, but more often than not, it’s just enquiring minds wanting to know. Honest data collection can’t possibly hurt us, because it is our God who provides the data!

I am going to combine the concepts of God’s omnipresence and eternity in following sections, but classically they were considered to be entirely separate Divine Attributes.

Omnipresence

Classical views

God’s omnipresence means that He is present, everywhere in the cosmos, simultaneously and fully. He is here and aware of His surroundings, at this moment, in my home office where I am typing this post. At the exact same instant, He is present and aware of plasma currents in the heart of a star billions of light-years from my office. Not just one star—all of them, everywhere. And then, there are also the falling sparrows…

At the same time, He is present on a throne at a location we call “heaven,” where the Bible pictures Him communicating with angels, prophets and sundry other beings. Where His throne and its setting are described in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation, I think that the prophetic visions are not to be interpreted as a specific place, but rather as an interface between God and others, depicted in such a way as to convey glory and holiness to limited ancient understandings.

Of course, the Bible also depicts God as from time to time present at specific localities, for example: in a burning bush; outside a cave on Mt. Horeb; in a pillar of cloud and fire; above the Ark of the Covenant; and in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and later the Temple. These “theophanies” were instances where God chose to show a localized physical manifestation of his presence to reassure His people that He is more than just a disembodied concept.

Defining the cosmos

Hubble **eXtreme Deep Field** (**XDF**). This is a 2008 long exposure photograph of a very tiny area of the sky, and each item shown is a separate galaxy. From Wikipedia.

The astronomical term “cosmos” is defined by Merriam Webster as “an orderly harmonious systematic universe.” After millennia of honest science by many Christians and non-Christians, the current most popular view is that our universe (in my view, the only universe there is) is about 93 billion lightyears (550,000 billion-billion miles) in diameter—and that’s just the part we can see! A rough estimate that has been cited for years is that there are at least a hundred billion galaxies in the universe, with an average of a hundred billion stars per galaxy. That is probably conservative. It appears that most stars are associated with planetary systems like our Solar System. Most planets probably have one or more moons. But there is so much more out there than stars, planets and moons!

That’s the big stuff. Looking at the small stuff, most of you are somewhat familiar with the concept of atoms and molecules. You know that atoms consist of protons, neutrons and electrons. Actually, there is a whole “zoo” of other particles around us that are less familiar. Stars mostly burn Hydrogen. Our own sun burns around 200 million tons of hydrogen, the lightest of all elements, every second, and has enough left to keep burning for 4.5 billion more years.

God in the cosmos

God’s omnipresence means that He is present throughout the universe, as well as enfolding its entirety within the envelope of His presence. His omniscience (all-knowingness) assures that He is aware of every last particle within that volume, and His omnipotence (all-powerfulness) assures that His control extends to even the smallest sub-atomic particle within the volume. Does this mean that He is constantly propping everything up, or “micro-managing”? Clearly, He can fiddle wherever He wants to, and clearly (from Scripture), He occasionally does, but He is the author of the laws of physics, and I’m quite sure He is more than capable of having designed it to be self-sustaining! An automotive engineer can design and build a car, but he can also drive it without manually spooning gasoline to each cylinder. I trust my God, and I also trust what He has built and what He is continuously supervising.

The late Henry Morris rejected the “uniformitarian” concept that geological processes worked the same way in the past that they do today. But throughout his book, he mischaracterized the concept, as he did the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Both of those principles are valid only in a closed system, meaning no external interference. Both principles would say that an acorn dropping from the oak tree outside my office window will fall to the ground. But if I reach out and catch it, I haven’t violated the principle, I’ve simply violated the explicit assumption that the tree, the acorn and the ground was a closed system. My hand invalidated the assumption by making the system “open“. Was a world-wide flood possible without God’s intervention? Actually, yes, the physical laws make it highly unlikely, but don’t prohibit it. But we know that God intervened, so the laws didn’t apply in that case. (See Fountains of the Deep.)

Parenthetic: Is God’s omnipotence limited?

I think that most conservative theologians would say that it is! For example, Wayne Grudem states:

…it is not entirely accurate to say that God can do anything. Even [Scripture passages] must be understood in their contexts to mean that God can do anything he wills to do or anything that is consistent with his character. Although God’s power is infinite, his use of that power is qualified by his other attributes (just as all God’s attributes qualify all his actions). This is therefore another instance where misunderstanding would result if one attribute were isolated from the rest of God’s character and emphasized in a disproportionate way.
Grudem’s Systematic Theology (2nd ed.)

Many have added what I think should be self-evident, that God can’t violate simple logic. No, He can’t make a rock so heavy that He can’t lift if. That is a paradoxical absurdity. And no, He can’t make 2 plus 2 equal 6 (need I add, “in base 10”?). It is what it is.

Eternity (Timelessness)

Classical views

God’s attribute of eternity is comparable to His omnipresence, in that it defines His all-encompassing span of existence in time, rather than space. He is not only everywhere, but also everywhen. He is Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End. His temporal span is from eternity past through eternity future. When, at the burning bush, Moses asked Him His name, God replied in two ways. First,

God said to Moshe, “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be],” and added, “Here is what to say to the people of Isra’el: ‘Ehyeh [אֶהְיֶה, I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.’”
—Exodus 3:14 CJB

The above is commonly taken to be an expression of God’s timeless existence; effectively, “I am now what I always have been and always will be.” This, however, is not so much a name of God as a statement of His nature. His “covenant name” delivered in the following verse, is a wordplay on the Hebrew ehyeh:

God said further to Moshe, “Say this to the people of Isra’el: ‘Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [ADONAI], the God of your fathers, the God of Avraham, the God of Yitz’chak and the God of Ya‘akov, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered generation after generation.
—Exodus 3:15 CJB

The 4-letter Hebrew name given here, יהוה, known as the “Tetragrammaton,” is commonly transliterated and pronounced as Yahweh (or, Jehovah), but the vowels, and thus the pronunciation, are inferred rather than known. Strong’s defines it as “(the) self-Existent or Eternal“, but again, I think that this is an inferred, not a known, meaning, and based on the wordplay, I prefer to regard it as a proper name.

Defining time

Sorry, but illustrating timelessness isn’t easy. Some of you will recognize this as the BBC version of a time machine. Dr. Who’s disguised TARDIS.

Time, of course, is the concept that you perceive the present, remember (or not) the past, and anticipate (or not) the future. Physicists relate this to entropy, which some define as randomness, but that definition is deceptive. More accurately, a quantity called “degrees of freedom” increases. Newton’s Second Law says that, in a closed system (see above), entropy increases. At the risk of depressing you, an organism eats and assimilates its food, and grows. It may appear to be getting less “random” and more like an “organized” entity, but the fact is that each cell and biochemical molecule is simply part of a cycle of maturation and eventual death and decay. More cells mean more degrees of freedom. More stuff to go wrong. Scattered raw materials can be gathered and processed, and a useful machine can be manufactured, but all such constructs eventually wear out and fail, becoming scrap. “Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return.”

Space and Time: Spacetime

Both spacial and temporal location can be specified either relatively (here, there, now, then) or absolutely, using coordinates (for example, with rulers and clocks). But—think about this—are space and time merely abstract concepts, or are they real, tangible, things?

Space is most definitely real. It is not, as once thought, just the vacuum through which the “stuff” of the universe floats and moves. Now, observation and theoretical research suggest that space itself has properties that differentiate it from whatever is outside the universe. Time is evidently one of those properties, so also must be a real thing. Hold on to this concept: In the “old days”, the universe was thought to be an area in space; now we consider the universe to be space, time, and everything else that we know exists. Except, in my Christian “worldview”, for God and His realm, which are both outside the universe and permeating it to the smallest subatomic particle.

In 1905, Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity provided a theoretical framework for unifying the concepts of space and time. It turns out that there is a physical and geometrical relationship between the two seemingly unrelated concepts. To greatly oversimplify, if an accelerating object passes you at a high velocity, it will appear to you that it is foreshortened in the direction of motion, and that time is passing more slowly on it than on your own platform. The important thing in the present context (this post) is that both space and time appear to be—and in fact are—distorted, and their distortions are mathematically related. These effects are not easily seen except at velocities that are a significant proportion of the speed of light. It certainly does sound counterintuitive, but by now, the physics has long since been proved and integrated into modern technology.

God in time

Apologist author William Lane Craig, in his book Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time, examines the question of whether God’s Eternality implies that He exists within the framework of time or outside of time, looking in. In rather tedious detail, he approaches the question from the standpoints of theology, physics, and philosophy, and reaches the conclusion that God must exist within time in order to keep His bearings, since there would evidently be no temporal landmarks to go by.

Hmm… Lane is a very smart man who clearly embraces God in all His majesty, and he has obviously devoted a lot of thought and research into the subject. But his logic here, frankly, escapes me. God’s omnipresence means that He both envelopes and inhabits everything outside and inside the universe. His attribute of eternity implies the same with respect to time. The relativistic connection of space and time reinforces that implication. I see no reason that He should ever be disoriented, in any fashion. An expanded definition of “omnipresence”, then would state that

God simultaneously and instantaneously sees and remembers everything that exists and occurs at all locations in both space and time.

Note that I threw in the word “instantaneously” because, while nothing in the universe can travel faster than the constant speed of light, that is a limitation of space itself. Space with its enclosed stuff is expanding faster than the speed of light. There is no speed limit outside the universe.

What does Quantum Physics add to the picture?

A lot, and I only recently began probing the theological implications.

Newton’s First Law of motion states that, “An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.“ We call that tendency “inertia.”

It turns out that this law doesn’t hold for extremely small objects. We’ve known for about a hundred years that small objects like electrons and photons move in ways that are fundamentally unpredictable. The best you can ever do is calculate a probability distribution. Which was hard for many physicists, including Einstein, to accept, because they believed in a “deterministic universe“—if you know where everything is now, and the forces on it all, then theoretically you can predict the future. Einstein famously said, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” Make no mistake, he wasn’t a theist. What he meant was that he didn’t believe in a future determined by chance.

What does this randomness in nature mean, theologically? Warning: from here on, this is just my own speculation, not something from either science or theology. Take it or leave it. If there is randomness in the universe, then that can only be because God wanted it that way and designed it that way. If the future is truly random, then presumably even He can’t predict the future. <shock!!!> But God needn’t predict the future when He can see it! Remember, He lives in all times simultaneously. God fore-knows because He fore-sees.

Why would God have designed it this way? Perhaps it’s because He wanted to give the denizens of the universe freewill! That does not mean He’s lost control of the universe. Three reasons:

Large objects, like stars, planets and even baseballs and marbles, have enough inertia to obey the First Law.
If you flip a coin once, you’re equally as likely to achieve one result as the other, but if you flip it a thousand times, it’s virtually 100% sure that the total number of heads and tails will be very close to equal.
And, of course, God not only sees the future, but He can nudge it in any way that He sees fit. His sovereignty means He can, not that he necessarily does!

Summary of Judgement Seat and Crowns in Heaven

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.
—Revelation 22:12 ESV

This past Sunday, late in Bible class, someone raised the subject of “The Judgement Seat of Christ“, “crowns“, the “Bema” and so on. There was no time for me to put in my own two cents, but it is a subject that touches me personally. I was raised in a very legalistic fundamentalist church, and the whole question troubled me at the time more deeply than any other doctrinal issue. If “Jesus paid it all“, “not of works, lest any should boast“, and heaven is the carefree paradise we’ve been led to believe, then how is it that the first thing that happens after the Rapture is that we face judgement, possible humiliation in front of our peers, and maybe worse still, potential forfeiture of a fancy, jeweled crown to wear in our new mansion over the hilltop? And what’s the point of working hard for a crown if we have to give it right back, by “casting it at Jesus’ feet“?

This is a diversion from what I’ve been working on, a discourse on God’s omnipresence in space and time, and what that implies about creation, so I’m not going to do an exhaustive study of this subject. I’d be reinventing the wheel anyhow, because the late J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M., did an excellent job of nailing it down in an article, The Doctrine of Rewards: The Judgment Seat (Bema) of Christ. Below is a short summary of aspects that I have pondered over the last few days:

The Judgement Seat of Christ

The term “judgements” is used many times in Scripture, mostly regarding punishment. I am limiting this discussion to the major formal judicial reviews of the End Times recognized by many conservative theologians. There are variations in terminology, and some count three or five but for this purpose, I’m going with the diagram below, which lists four. In general, I think that the source book shown in the caption is pretty good, though I question LaHaye’s own previous judgement, in view of the terrible theology in his Left Behind series.

One view of the end-time major judgements, from *Charting the End Times*, by Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, ®2001.

The “Judgement Seat of Christ” is the most common name used by Christian theologians for the evaluation of Christians that occurs after the Rapture. The diagram shows the Rapture occurring simultaneously with the beginning of the seven-year Tribulation period. I strongly believe in a “Pre-Trib” Rapture, but I don’t think that Scripture requires the Tribulation to happen immediately after the Rapture. I personally think that there will be a time of major geopolitical developments on earth between the removal of the Holy Spirit and all Christian influence, on the one hand, and the beginning of Tribulation on the other. The war of Ezekiel 38 and 39 may be one of them (see The Coming World War: Gog and Magog).

Purpose of the Judgement Seat

This is emphatically not a judgement for sin, because Jesus’ crucifixion paid that cost, but rather an evaluation of the quality of our service. I think for a twofold purpose: (1) for recognition and kudos; and (2) for handing out of assignments. As discussed in Keathley’s article, the Scriptures imply that the Raptured Church will function administratively during the Millennial Kingdom. I don’t know that I can definitively back this up from Scripture, but my personal impression is that our individual responsibilities in the Kingdom will be based on our aptitudes and attitudes shown during our mortal lives. Although without sin, our glorified selves will still be recognizable, both physically and by non-physical personal traits.

Timing of the Judgement Seat

Many scholars (e.g., Keathley) show it at the beginning of Tribulation, others (e.g., LaHaye and Ice) show it as taking place during the entire seven-year span. I would say the beginning, and not the entire span. Why? First, because of its connection with Rosh Ha-Shanna, coming up in late October this year (see below), and also because I think that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb will be the focus in heaven during the period. Christian scholars tend to ignore Jewish cultural analogs when interpreting Jewish Scripture. Even though all Scripture is Jewish! Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosef) and most of the Gospel protagonists were thoroughly Jewish, and all but one of the canonical writers was Jewish. The exception being Luke, who I think was a Jewish convert. Jewish wedding customs in the 1st Century clearly pictured Jesus’ relationship with the Church, His bride (see Jesus and Hebrew Wedding Imagery). The Jewish wedding supper was a seven-day feast, so I think there is ample reason to think that the heavenly marriage supper might span seven prophetic days.

How could all of that “evaluation”, of all the Church saints from two Millenia of Church history, be accomplished virtually instantaneously? That is something I’m already working on for my next post: In God’s “native” realm, there is no such thing as “time”, or even “space”. He is independent of both and unbound by both. He exists simultaneously everywhere and everywhen. In 2 Peter 3:8, the apostle is paraphrasing Psalm 90:4 when he says that, to God, a day is as a thousand years. That is poetic language, not literal. The truth is, he could have said a million, or a billion, or trillions and trillions. Or conversely, a femtosecond (10^-15 seconds), for example, is no more obscure to Him as a day.

The Bimah—Jewish, too, not just a Greek concept!

Here is where I depart from Keathley and other Christian scholars.

The Greek term béma (βεμα, pronounced BAY-muh) is defined by Strong’s as “a platform to which someone [ascended] to receive judgment; (figuratively) the administration of justice – literally, given from “a tribunal-chair” (throne) where rewards and punishments are meted out.”

The Hebrew term bimah (מִמַּה, pronounced BEE-muh) is no doubt related, and has a similar meaning in general, but, for our purposes here, there is a much more specific meaning, attested as early as Neamiah’s time, in the Persian era. According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, the word means an “elevated place“, more specifically a “platform in the synagogue on which stands the desk from which the Torah is read. Occasionally the rabbi delivers his sermon from the bimah, and on Rosh Ha-Shanah the shofar [ram’s horn] is blown there.” The reading desk is also often referred to as a bimah. Significantly, I believe that the Rapture will occur on a Rosh Ha-Shanah (also known as Yom Teruah, The Day of Trumpets; see The Jewish Feasts: Part 11, Trumpets)!

Reading at the bimah, Bialystoker Synagogue, New York, N.Y., U.S.
©Juda S. Engelmayer

Parenthetic notes on the photos...

Above: The photo above shows three men standing at the bimah table in a small synagogue in Lower East-Side Manhattan. The synagogue is never called a "temple" by orthodox Jews, but it nevertheless serves many of the Temple's functions in the post-Temple world. The bimah stands near the center of the room, just as the altar stood in the center of the Court of Priests. The man seen in this photo in his woolen tallit (prayer shawl) is standing at the table with his face to the aron HaKodesh (the Holy Ark, a cabinet in which one or more Torah scrolls is stored. In this synagogue, the Ark is behind the red tapestry. Most likely the reader is not the rabbi, but rather a congregant who has been invited to "make aliya", or "go up" onto the bimah to read assigned passages from the Torah. Typically, when the Torah is taken out to be read before the community, one person reads the Torah, and that person is surrounded on either side with two gabbaim (as here) who ensure that the Torah is being read and treated respectfully and accurately.

Below: The photo below shows another feature of early synagogues, associated with the bimah, that I think is germane to this discussion—the "Seat of Moses".

The restored “Moses Seat” in the synagogue of Korazin, in Galilee.

The Bimah Seat

Also associated with the bimah platform was “the seat of Moses”. This seat was used by a scribe or other authoritative interpreter of scripture. Today it would be the rabbi. In Matthew 23, Jesus validated the authority of the interpretations made from the seat of Moses, even though, in the same breath, He said, effectively, “Do as they say, not as they do.”

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat,
so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
—Matthew 23:1–3 ESV

I think that, to understand the concept of the Judgement Seat of Messiah, you have to consider the Jewish concept and not just the Greek. We will be evaluated in the heavenly realm, not for sin, but for our performance in light of God’s expectations for His people as expressed in Scripture. Jesus will be the one, sitting on a heavenly bimah seat of Moses, who will be evaluating us and handing out crowns.

Crowns

Sad to say, even as a young adult, my vision of kingdoms and crowns was informed mostly by Walt Disney. So, I pictured literal golden streets and pearly gates in heaven, my home a palace, and on my head a jewel-encrusted crown. I think now that the glitz and bling is meant to convey a sense of beauty and purity, not to arouse materialistic jealousy and greed. The crowns may not be literal headwear but are certainly meant to convey the Greek and oriental picture of the victor’s laurel wreath.

In every case, the Greek word for these “crowns” is stephanos, for which the proper translation is “wreath”, i.e., a chaplet worn as a badge of royalty, honor or victory. The royal crown is always a diadem. Jesus’ crown of thorns was a stephanos, so it was most likely an ironic insult from the Roman soldiers, not something ordered up by Pilate as a complement to his sign of indictment nailed on the cross.

Depiction of Jesus’ crown of thorns, photographed in the back garden of the Bible Times Center, Ein Kerem, Israel. ©Ron Thompson, 2008.

A common Christian tradition says that at some point after receiving crowns at the bimah, we will cast them back at Jesus’ feet in adoration. This appears to be a corruption of Revelation 4:10–11, where 24 elders sitting in a circle of thrones stand and cast their own stephanos in front of the central throne, occupied, apparently, by Yahveh, the Father, not the Son:

10 the 24 elders fall down before the One sitting on the throne, who lives forever and ever, and worship him. They throw their crowns in front of the throne and say,

11 “You are worthy, ADONAI Eloheinu, to have glory, honor and power, because you created all things — yes, because of your will they were created and came into being!”
—Revelation 4:10–11 CJB

The Hijacking of Creationism

Over the last several months, I have adopted a new favorite author. His name is John C. Lennox. Among other things, he is a Cambridge-educated Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, and he has written a number of books on subjects that have interested me for many years.

Author, Educator, Mathematician and Philosopher, John C Lennox. BBC Photo.

Most of his opinions on the intersection of theology and science seem to match my own very closely. In particular, a point from his book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, particularly resonates with me.

Conservative Christian scholars have mostly agreed that God miraculously created the universe, that humans descended from a real Adam and Eve, that the Genesis Flood was real, and that science does not trump Scripture!

But not all of those are “Young Earth” Creationists, and not all believe the theory, stated nowhere in Scripture, that the universe’s appearance of vast age is due to the Genesis Flood. Now, unfortunately, according to Professor Lennox (and my own observation), you are no longer free to reject that view.

Today, if you say you are not specifically a “young earth” creationist, then you will automatically be viewed by most of your Christian peers as a denier of Scriptural inerrancy and an “Evolutionist“. A large percentage of conservative Christianity, including major influencers like John MacArthur Jr, who I greatly admire, accept Henry Morris’ flood theory more or less uncritically.

The so-called “flood theory” was popularized by Morris in 1961 in a book that he co-authored with theologian John Whitcomb, titled The Genesis Flood. I recall first reading the book in the late 70’s or early 80’s. It was formatted into two sections, the first being a theological treatment by Whitcomb, and the second a mechanistic approach by Morris, laying out his theory that the apparent age of the earth was caused by rapid erosion and redeposition of silt caused by earth-rending, catastrophic flooding, accompanied by massive earthquakes and tsunami surges. After reading Whitcomb’s exposition on the Biblical evidence for a worldwide flood, I was an enthusiastic fan of the book. That enthusiasm faded when I read Morris’ section. I found his grasp of fundamental geology and physics to be highly flawed, and his argumentative style (e.g., “any fool can plainly see…”) to be insulting.

The believability of The Genesis Flood was greatly enhanced by a Foreword (not included in the latest edition) written by an eminent geologist, John C. McCampell, PhD, of the University of Southwestern Louisiana. Unfortunately, book Forewords don’t always get read with the same concentration as the body. Dr. McCampbell did not endorse the theory! What he endorsed was Morris’ Christian worldview, fairness and independent thinking! The appliable paragraph read:

"From the [Foreword] writer's viewpoint, as a professional geologist, these explanations and contentions are difficult to accept. For the present at least, although quite ready to recognize the inadequacies of Lyellian uniformitarianism, I would prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of religion and geology, which retains the essential structure of modern historical geology, could be found."

Morris billed himself as a “hydrologist“. To me, the term “hydrology” implies much more than what Morris apparently did in his professional life. The US Geological Survey discusses the field broadly here. Wiktionary provides a more succinct definition, which I think works well:

Hydrology: Noun
1. The science of the properties, distribution, and effects of water on a planet's surface, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere.
2. The properties, distribution, and flows of water in a specific locale; the hydrological characteristics of a particular place or region.

But let’s examine Dr. Morris’ qualifications:
(this section updated on 1/10/2024)

In a 2006 Washington Post obituary, quoted by Wikipedia, Morris was hailed as the “father of modern creation science”, and his book as the “founding document of the creationist movement.” Yet Morris himself had only a dim understanding of the principles he invoked in the book.

His early education was at Rice University, where he earned a BS in Civil Engineering. Undergraduate CE courses focus primarily on basic physics and chemistry, math, engineering economics and design, structural analysis, strength of materials, soil mechanics, environmental issues, engineering computations, and fluid mechanics.

Leaving Rice with his BSCE degree, Morris took a three-year educational gap during which he was employed as a “hydraulic engineer”, apparently in the Rio Grande Valley monitoring sand wash in the border waters. With his rudimentary background, his job would have consisted mainly in recording flood levels and monitoring bank erosion. As far as I can determine, that is the extent of his practical hydrological experience.

After his stint “in the field”, Morris returned to Rice for a few years as, apparently, a graduate teaching assistant in civil engineering. He then moved on to the University of Minnesota, where he earned a master’s degree in hydraulics and a PhD in hydraulic engineering (a sub-field of civil engineering, where the focus is on dams and manufactured waterways).

The remainder of his career, until he departed to focus on creationism, was spent in academia, as a teacher of civil engineering and applied science. Speaking for myself, after earning an MS in Petroleum Engineering, I enraged my supervising professor by refusing to stay for a doctorate. My reason was that engineering PhDs are geared towards academic careers, not towards real-world experience and productivity. And, frankly, the real world pays way more than academia.

Morris’ career certainly did not qualify him in any way as an expert on the issues he addressed in The Genesis Flood. His theories defy the realities of geological science, and his frequent references to the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) and uniformitarianism demonstrated a poor understanding of both concepts.

I must now establish my own credentials for entering into this critique of Young Earth Creationism in general, and the Flood Theory in particular.

My undergraduate studies at the University of Texas were in math and physics. My intention was to do my postgraduate studies in astronomy, but after a 2-year Naval tour, practical considerations induced me to accept a graduate fellowship in Petroleum Engineering at Texas, instead.

Part of the apparatus for my Rock Mechanics thesis, 1975

For many years after college, my professional career was as a petroleum engineer. I started as a field production engineer for a major integrated oil corporation in Oklahoma, absorbing the hands-on, nuts and bolts of equipment and procedure in a very large working oil field. With proficiency came the desire to be more than a small cog in a big, cumbersome, money machine, so I left Big Oil to spend most of my career in more responsible positions with smaller “independent oil and gas companies”.

Typical well log suite, downloaded from USGS

Though I have worked in all phases of the industry, except for refineries, my main specialty was reservoir engineering. I had some of the same civil engineering training as Morris (dams, weirs and channels), but most of my education and years of professional experience were more geological in scope. I dealt with almost anything relating to sedimentary rocks and stratigraphy: where the constituent particles originated; how they were weathered, transported by erosion, deposited, cemented, chemically modified, saturated and disrupted by viscous fluid flow within their pore space or fractures; and how they were subsequently modified by folding, fracturing, compressing, uplifting, and sometimes being exposed at the surface or under the sea, and beginning the cycle all over again. I collected and analyzed cores, drill cuttings, fluid samples, pressure profiles, and electrical resistivity and radiation data. From all that, I had to make reasonable estimates of how much, if any, and what types of hydrocarbons were deep underground, who owned the mineral rights in the drainage area, whether it could be profitably retrieved, by what means and how fast, and ultimately, how much profit was to be expected. I was answerable to my employers, clients, government agencies, royalty owners and/or financial lenders. Sometimes I worked closely with geologists and legal folks, but mostly I worked for small companies and had to do pretty much all of the geology myself.

Alternate Christian theories to account for the apparent vast age of the universe.

I will have more to say on Morris, the Genesis Flood, and my own views on creation (both the science and the theology) in future posts. Some I wrote years ago, but I plan to rework and repost them. The rest of this post will be a discussion of the Conservative traditions that current “creation culture” now considers to be unacceptable.

In his book, No Final Conflict, Francis Schaeffer lists several areas where, in his judgment, there is room for disagreement among Christians who believe in Creationism and the total truthfulness of Scripture:

1. There is a possibility that God created a “grown-up” universe.
2. There is a possibility of a break between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or between 1:2 and 1:3.
3. There is a possibility of a long day in Genesis 1.
4. There is a possibility that the flood affected the geological data.
5. The use of the word “kinds” in Genesis 1 may be quite broad.
6. There is a possibility of the death of animals before the fall.
7. Where the Hebrew word bārāʾ is not used, there is the possibility of sequence from previously existing things.

Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology (the text used at Calvary Bible College when I was there) lists the following Conservative theories, which mostly fit into the scope of Schaeffer’s comments, above:

The gap theory holds that there was an original, quite complete creation of the earth perhaps billions of years ago (the creation mentioned in Gen. 1:1). Some sort of catastrophe occurred, however, so that the creation became empty and unformed (1:2). God then re-created the earth a few thousand years ago in a period of six days, populating it with all the species. This creation is described in Genesis 1:3–27. The apparent age of the earth and the fossil records showing development over long periods of time are to be attributed to the first creation. The catastrophe is often linked to the fall of Satan (Lucifer). Creation then lay in ruins for a long period of time before God rehabilitated or restored it.
The flood theory views the earth as only a few thousand years old. At the time of Noah, the earth was covered by a tremendous flood, with huge waves with a velocity of a thousand miles an hour. These waves picked up various forms of life; the mud in which these forms were eventually deposited was solidified into rock under the tremendous pressure of the waves. The various rock strata represent various waves of the flood. These unusual forces accomplished in a short period what geologists believe would ordinarily require three billion years to accomplish.
The ideal-time theory says that God created the world in a six-day period a relatively short time ago, but that he made it as if it were billions of years old. This is a genuinely novel and ingenious view. Adam, of course, did not begin his life as a newborn baby. At any point in his life he must have had an apparent (or ideal) age many years older than his actual age (i.e., the number of years since his creation). The ideal-time theory extends this principle. If God created trees, rather than merely tree seeds, they presumably had rings indicating an ideal age rather than their real age. Thus, each element of creation must have begun somewhere in the life cycle.
The age-day theory is based upon the fact that the Hebrew word יוֹם (yom), while it most frequently means a twenty-four-hour period, is not limited to that meaning. It can also mean epochs or long periods of time, and that is how it should be understood in this context. This view holds that God created in a series of acts over long periods of time. The geological and fossil records correspond to the days of his creative acts.
The pictorial-day (or literary-framework) theory regards the days of creation as more a matter of logical structuring than of chronological order. The author arranged the material in a logical grouping that took the form of six periods. While there may be some chronological dimension to the ordering, it is to be thought of as primarily logical. The account is arranged in two groups of three—days one through three and days four through six. Parallels can be seen between the first and fourth, the second and fifth, and the third and sixth days of creation.
The revelatory-day theory. The days were not successive days on which God did the creation, but days on which the story of creation was revealed. So the truth of the account took place in six twenty-four-hour periods, but the actual creation may have taken much longer than that.

Erickson himself favors the ideal-time theory, as you might guess from the wording of paragraph 3 above. He states that it is “in many ways irrefutable both scientifically and exegetically but presents the theological problem that it makes God an apparent deceiver.” I would agree that any theory that does not incorporate an assumption of vast actual age would have to include this form of apparent age in order to account for function via the known physical laws. In fact, I would compare it to a movie started in the middle. Virtually everything about the universe appears very much to be aged, and in fact would have to do so. I am more concerned with the suggestion of deception than Erickson is, in view of the following, which tells me I should be able to trust my senses:

For his 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.
—Romans 1:20 ESV

Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem, lists more or less the same group of theories, and goes into much more detail on all questions of creation.

Grudem sums up his opinion as follows: “My strong encouragement to the entire Christian community is that both old earth and young earth viewpoints should be acceptable for leaders in evangelical churches and evangelical parachurch organizations.”

Ryrie’s Basic Theology, Charles Ryrie, presents a subset of the above, but without specific names. He is far more concerned about the creation of Man, specifically, than the Universe in general.

Ryrie is somewhat non-committal regarding the Universe but does seem to favor a young earth. He is staunchly against biological evolution.

Some combination of the pictorial-day and revelatory-day theories seem to be favored by another contrarian, John Walton. I like Walton very much, but I’m not convinced of his arguments in this respect.

Like many Christians of my age, I grew up with a Schofield Reference Bible, and I liked Schofield’s favorite, the gap theory. I no longer use that term and have a different slant on it than I used to, but I’ll discuss my views on that in a later post. For now, call me “a two-flood, old earth creationist with all of post-Flood mankind descended from a recent, literal Adam and Eve.”

A Perspective on Biblical Covenants and Dispensations

Evangelical Protestant theologians for the most part fall into one of two categories: Covenentalists or Dispensationalists. Both groups talk about “Biblical Covenants”, but they differ sharply on the definitions and theological implications of these covenants, and how Salvation History (Soteriology) should be understood.

Most Christians that run in my circles have at least a passing knowledge of the Biblical “Covenants.” I am not going to go into detail here on the form and function of Ancient Near East (ANE) covenants and treaties. Rather, my limited goal in this post is to briefly discuss Covenant Theology, which I firmly reject, and then list the well-known Covenants between God and Israel and point out their loose relationships with the Dispensations that most of my Evangelical friends hold dear. I must point out that I am closer to the Dispensational Theology camp than to Covenentalists, but I don’t share their tent either. Allow me to simply beg off of accepting either of those labels.

Typical outline of an Ancient Near East Covenant or Law Code, from the *Holman Book of Biblical Charts, Maps and Reconstructions*, © Copyright 1993 Broadman & Holman Publishers

Covenant Theology is named for three particular Covenants that they embrace:

A “Covenant of Works“, aka, the Edenic Covenant. God said to Adam (paraphrased), “I’m giving you all this stuff, but if you do this sin, then I’m taking it away again.”
A “Covenant of Redemption“. When Adam sinned and relinquished the benefits of the Edenic Covenant, the three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, established this Covenant among Themselves wherein the Son would come to earth, live a totally sinless life, and then die a substitutionary death. Thus, it was a covenant of Jesus’ works, not of man’s.
A “Covenant of Grace“. All of subsequent human history falls under this Covenant.

So far, that all sounds pretty reasonable, but the devil is in the details, so to speak…

The Covenant of Redemption is a problem for me because Jesus always gave His Father executive credit. Nowhere in Scripture do I see Son or Spirit questioning, disagreeing with, or asking for a say in the Father’s decisions.

I fundamentally agree that all of humanity since the Fall has been dependent on God’s grace, but Covenant Theology goes on to erase the distinction between Israel and the Church, which I will dispute to my dying breath. They claim that the Israel of promise was not the physical “seed of Abraham”, but rather consisted only of elect individuals. They say that this “Spiritual Israel” of the Old Testament Jews and the Church of the New Testament are one and the same entity. The promises of God “to Israel” applied only and always to this entity. Through a process way beyond the scope of this brief study, many Old Testament “laws” and “customs” have been replaced and subsumed by New Testament upgrades (e.g., male circumcision has now become, thanks to interpretive magic, infant baptism), and things that were important to Physical Israel alone have now been abandoned (e.g., a Promised Land in the Lavant, which they insist is no longer relevant). Another consequence, which I will not explain here, is that Covenant Theology is in general amillennial, and rejects the possibility of a future Rapture of the Church, as well as a Millennial Kingdom.

Dispensational Theology rejects the above and originally believed that history is divided into seven periods during which God dispensed salvation according to different sets of standards:

innocence (Gen 1:1–3:7),
conscience (Gen 3:8–8:22),
human government (Gen 9:1–11:32),
promise (Gen 12:1–Ex 19:25),
law (Ex 20:1–Acts 2:4),
grace (Acts 2:4–Rev 20:3), and
the millennial kingdom (Rev 20:4-6)

I don’t think that most Dispensationalists today take those seven Dispensations to outline different requirements for salvation, because most now recognize that salvation is and always has been by grace, through faith. Rather, they view the Dispensations as progressive revelation of God’s will for man’s behavior and for right fellowship with God. Most Dispensationalists believe that Israel and the Church are entirely separate institutions, and most recognize that Israel will once again take center stage after a literal end-times Rapture of the Church—points with which I am in complete agreement.

The Biblical Covenants, and how some think they relate to Dispensations

If one feels the need to categorize history into Dispensations, have at it. Personally, I think that such lists are somewhat contrived and artificial. History is already pretty well categorized by Covenants that God made with mankind in general, and then with Israel in particular. I’m going to show below that the list of Dispensations above roughly corresponds to periods punctuated by the Covenants.

Most of these Covenants are clearly defined by one or more passages of Scripture. Bear in mind that any promise made by God has the force of a covenant, because what God promises, He delivers. I’m restricting the conversation below to major Covenants recognized by most theologians.

That said, some are a little less clearcut than others. For example, Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, in their book Charting the End Times, ©2001 and 2021, list the first two Covenants as (a) Edenic, Gen 1:28-30, 2:15-17; and (b) Adamic, Gen 3:14-19. The Dispensational online source CompellingTruth.org (CEO S. Michael Houdmann), on the other hand, lists Gen 1:26-30, 2:16-17 and 3:15 under the single umbrella of the Adamic Covenant. My own approach to these Scriptural references, as shown below, differs from both these approaches.

I take a contrarian position that all of the Covenants listed below are unilateral, unconditional and unending:

Unilateral, in the sense that God set the terms and laid out the requirements. He didn’t say, “if you want”, He said, “I will”.
Unconditional, in the sense that God knew that His creation is morally incapable of meeting His standards. He set standards and consequences, but no possible failure on the part of His people could permanently cancel the ultimate promises.
Unending, in the sense that early Covenants are not replaced by later ones. Each and every one builds on the previous.

Although salvation has always been by Grace, through Faith, the details of the relationship between saved humanity and God has been governed by the Covenants I will discuss below.

The First Covenant. (Gen 1:26-30) Most would call this the Edenic, or perhaps the Adamic, Covenant, but at this point, Day 6 in Genesis 1, both Eden and Adam have yet to be mentioned. By His one-sided pronouncements, God here gave to man dominion over the earth and its life; and to men and animals, He gave the right to a vegetable diet. He also here gives to man the first commandment mentioned in Scripture, to “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it”. Because it was first, many orthodox rabbis consider this to be the most important of all commandments. Note that God’s pronouncements here are unilateral (no response asked for or given). Some would say they are conditional because Adam was banished from the garden, but what is expressed in Genisis 1 evidently pertains to the earth in general, not to the Garden in particular. Again, neither Adam nor the Garden are mentioned in Gen 1.

Dispensationalists associate the “Dispensation of Innocence” with the period from Adam’s creation on “the sixth day” to his Fall. Some place the Fall on the 33rd year of Adam’s life, in parallel with the start of Jesus’ ministry on the 33rd year of His life. This is possible, but wholly without Biblical evidence. My view is that Adam, with no knowledge of good and evil until the Fall, had no propensity to willfully sin, i.e., he had no “sin nature”; nevertheless, he was “suggestible” because he also had no propensity to take God at His word. Therefore, I conclude that he was not truly an “innocent”!

The Adamic Covenant. (Gen 2:15-17) Here God put Adam in the Garden, gave him permission to eat freely from vegetation specifically in the Garden, but listed one exception and a curse for violation of that one prohibition. This is, again, a unilateral Covenant (no response asked for or given).

Many would insist that the Adamic Covenant is conditional and came to an end with the expulsion from Eden. Not so! In this Covenant, God promised blessings and a provisional curse. Eden is lost, but mankind is still under the curse, and will be until we enter The Eternal State. Paradise lost; Paradise regained. Since God’s plan for earth flowed from Adam, through Noah and the patriarchs to Jesus, I consider the Adamic Covenant to be an essential and unconditional early paragraph in all of God’s Covenant history.

Some scholars include Gen 3:14-19 in the Adamic Covenant, but I would say that these verses simply describe the effects that came from imposition of the curse of 2:17. Specifically, the passage contains curses directed at Satan (14-15), Eve (16), and Adam (17-19), respectively.

On the other hand, the curse on Satan found in 3:15 “he will bruise your head and you will bruise his heel”, is also a promise of blessing for God’s elect. I would perhaps regard this as a third, and separate Covenant, but I don’t have a name for it.

The period between the Fall and the Flood are considered by some to be “The Dispensation of Conscience“, but again I find fault with this idea. Human conscience is informed by so-called “natural law“, common-sense principles of morality and interpersonal ethics endowed by our Creator. Since the non-Jewish Church is not bound by Mosaic Law (see below), and since salvation has always been by God’s grace, we are essentially under the same system now as then, though with more knowledge at our disposal.

Peak of Mt. Ararat, iStock, from *The ESV Archaeology Study Bible*, ESV® Bible
Copyright © 2017 by Crossway.

The Noahic Covenant. (Gen 9:8-17); some would include with this Gen 8:20-9:17). The first use of the Hebrew term for “covenant” (b’riyt) is in Gen 6:18, where God promises to establish His Covenant with Noah after the flood. In Gen 9:1ff, God blesses Noah’s family and repeats the commandment to “be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth”. He then expands their food supply to include animals, so long as their blood is not consumed, and he cursed those who shed human blood—this is not, in my view, a commandment regarding capital punishment, but merely a promise that God will judge and avenge. Finally, He promised to never again destroy the earth with a flood and designated the rainbow as a reminder of that pledge. This is, again, a unilateral Covenant. Noah was given no choice in the matter. It was also clearly unconditional.

The rules established in verses 1-7 are known to Judaism as the “Noachide Laws“, which govern all of mankind. They have been expressed in slightly different terms over the millennia and were interpreted by James in Acts 15:28-29 as the minimum requirements that Jews in the Church would expect of non-Jews in order for the two groups to have mutual fellowship.

By the way, the sign of this Covenant was not a color pattern; it was a specific class of physical phenomena related to light refraction through mists, so there is really no reason to waste time on anger against “misappropriation of the rainbow sign.” Condemn the sin, but just ignore the flags.

The period from the flood to Abraham is said by some to be “The Dispensation of Human Government“, because they believe that the command to execute killers implies a call to self-government; but as mentioned above, I think that Gen 9:5-6 is a curse, not a command. The scattering from Babel, Gen 11:1-9, is in one sense, an indictment on human government, as is God’s warning to Israel in 1 Sam 8 that they would not be happy if they were ruled by a king. The fact that human government always ends up repressing Godly worship should be a warning against enthusiasm for any human government.

Patriarchal Canaan, from Bible Knowledge Commentary

The Abrahamic Covenant. (Gen 12:1-3 and numerous other references: 17:4-8; 22:15-18; 26:3-4; 28:13-15) With this Covenant, God established Israel as His Holy People. The “contract” was described to Abram (later called Abraham) by God and then was formalized by Him in the manner of ancient treaties (Gen 15). Years later, the terms of the Covenant were repeated and expanded, and Abraham responded by circumcising himself and the male members of his household (Gen 17). Still later, it was ratified with Isaac (Gen 26) and Jacob (Gen 28). One more restatement and clarification of the Abrahamic Covenant was delivered through Moses (Deut 30). In this important passage, God ties the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants together and states that Israel’s enjoyment of the Abrahamic promises will ebb and flow insofar as they incur the blessings and curses of the previous chapters of Deuteronomy.

It is important to note that the Abrahamic Covenant did not apply to Isaac’s siblings, nor to Jacob’s, but it did apply to Jacob’s 12 sons and all their physical descendants. There is pretty much unanimous agreement outside of Covenant Theology that this is an unconditional and unilateral Covenant between God and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob’s descendants.

The period from Abraham to the Exodus is said by some to be “The Dispensation of Promise“, in which man’s relationship with God was supposedly governed by man’s faithfulness in living up to God’s behavioral expectations in light of the promises made to the Patriarchs. This is perhaps expressed in Gen 18:19 (CJB) “For I have made myself known to him [Abraham], so that he will give orders to his children and to his household after him to keep the way of ADONAI* and to do what is right and just, so that ADONAI* may bring about for Avraham* what he has promised him.” Yet, I think that this brief parenthetical passage is meant merely to explain God’s rationale for giving Abraham the opportunity to intercede for Lot and his family.

Jebel Musa, the traditional site of Mt. Sinai. ©2017 Oak Tree Software

The Mosaic/Sinaitic Covenant. (Ex 20 and, by extension, most of Exodus through Deuteronomy) This is the most widely known of the Old Testament Covenants, but at the same time it is one of the most misunderstood, for several reasons. In brief:

The Covenant was not set up to enslave the Israelites or make their lives difficult, but rather to give them a sense of purpose and unity and to set them apart from other peoples, in a special relationship with God.
Christians tend to think of this as a works-based Covenant, and over the ages there have indeed been many Jews who have followed its precepts legalistically, but Scripture does not support that view. Salvation has always been by God’s grace.
The Hebrew word Torah means “teachings“. The Greek nomos indicates “that which is assigned or parceled out” What the Covenant dispenses is a fuller understanding of the nature and will of God, and the conduct that He demands from His elect people, Israel to set them apart from other peoples.
Orthodox rabbis count 613 commandments in Torah. Observance of these mitzvoth is a response of faith, never a means of salvation.
“Deuteronomy” is from a Greek term meaning “Second Law”, but that is not what it is. The Hebrew name of the book is D’varim, meaning “words”, or “matters”. As with other books of the Torah, it is derived from the first sentence, in this case, “These are the words that Moses Spoke…” Exodus through Numbers provided history about and guidance for the Israelites as pastoral nomads in the period between the Exodus and the Conquest. Deuteronomy is reinforcement, and adjustments for a settled, agrarian lifestyle in the Promised Land.
Christian statements like “we were once under Law but are now under Grace” and “we are bound by the moral law, but not the civil or ceremonial” are meaningless, because non-Jews were never bound by the Mosaic Covenant. When Paul said, “you are not under Law but under Grace”, he was speaking to non-Jewish Believers who were never bound by the legalism of Torah observance.
Like each of the other Covenants, it is unilateral.
Also, like each of the others, it is unconditional. Disobedience forfeits blessings and brings on curses, but it doesn’t cancel promises (see Deut 20 and nearly all of the Prophetic Books)! Like every other Biblical Covenant, the Mosaic is still effective for the people to whom it was addressed.

The period from Moses to Jesus is said by many to be “The Dispensation of Law“. Both classical and modern Dispensationalists—in fact I think most Christian theologians—believe that the Mosaic Covenant was conditional, and that it was cancelled by God because “the Jews refused to recognize their Messiah.” Many Dispensationalists localize this nullification to Mt 12, especially vs 24, where some Pharisees accused Jesus of being Satan, thus committing the “unpardonable sin.” Others place it at Jn 19:30, when Jesus, on the Cross, said, “It is finished.”

The Davidic Covenant (2Sam 7:11-16) Though at first glance this is a Covenant with the House of David alone, God told David, “Your house and your kingdom will be made secure forever before you” in verse 16. My conclusion is that it therefore falls into line with all the other Covenants I am covering here in being unilateral, unconditional, and unending.

Dispensationalists, in general, don’t see a new dispensation here.

The New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34 and elsewhere). As stated very clearly in vs 31, this Covenant is with the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel. It is not a Church Covenant, though the Church also benefits.

Note well: The Mosaic Covenant was never a failure! It did no less—and no more—than God intended. Without the internalization of the Holy Spirit there was never a chance that God’s people could live up to His demands and standards, but it taught them His nature, and what those demands and standards look like.

What the New Covenant added for Israel includes an internalized Holy Spirit; national regeneration; universal Jewish salvation ate the end of Tribulation; regathering to the Land; restoration of the Kingdom; and a return of God’s Sh’kinah to a glorious Millennial temple. Plus, a breaking down of barriers between Messianic Jews and non-Jews in the Church.

For Israel, the New Covenant is, like the others, unilateral, unconditional, and unending. For believing non-Jews, the benefit is a grafting into Israel, as part of God’s New Testament Church.

The period between the Acts 2 Pentecost and the Rapture is considered by Dispensationalists to be the Dispensation of Grace. This term is an obsolete holdover from the days when most Christian theologians considered the Church to be “under grace” and pre-Christian believers to be “under law”. Paul did frequently mention being “under law”, but he was most surely not talking about people being saved by keeping “the Law”. Rather, the precepts, or commandments, of the Mosaic Covenant were to be a response of obedience by a righteous Jew. Keeping the Law to appear righteous was, and is, hypocrisy. Some Dispensationalists are now calling the present age the Dispensation of the Church.

The Millennial Reign of Messiah is not defined by another Covenant but is instead the culmination and combination of all the Covenants. Since there will be a new Temple, as described by Ezekiel, and since there will be sacrifices in that Temple, some theologians assume that the Mosaic Covenant will be reinstated during this thousand-year period. My own belief is that the Mosaic Covenant never came to an end and is still in effect today. I believe that ethnic Jews, even as members of Christian churches or Messianic Congregations, should be “observant”, or “keeping the Law.” Few are, and since this doctrine is basically unknown today, I’m not critical of righteous Jews who ignore it.

To Dispensationalists, the seventh and final dispensation is appropriately called, the Kingdom Dispensation, or alternatively, the Messianic Dispensation.

Moses, Paul, Sinai, Midian and Arabia

Many amateur archaeology enthusiasts now believe that the “true” Mt. Sinai is the volcanic peak Jebel al Lawz, in northwest Saudi Arabia. This view was popularized by another amateur, Ron Wyatt, who left his day job as a nurse anesthetist in Tennessee, traveled to the Middle East, and fraudulently proclaimed himself to be an “archaeologist”. Most of the “proofs” for this location are in the nature of superficial visual appearance, not scientific investigation and analysis. But that’s a story for another day.

Sinai in Arabia?

In this post, I want to concentrate on Biblical statements regarding Arabia and Midian that Wyatt enthusiasts, and even some doubters, regard as indisputable proof. The most common that I’ve heard, one that is supposed to quash all dissent, is

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
—Galatians 4:25 ESV (emphasis added)

The theological context of this verse is beyond my scope here, but we have to ask what Paul meant by “Arabia” in that verse, and in Gal 1:17, where he speaks of going away to Arabia. If you think he meant “Saudi Arabia” then think again, because that country was not born until the 20th Century. Nor do I think that the concepts of “Arabian Peninsula” or “Arabian sub-continent” were known until much, much later. Mentions of Arabia and Arabian Kings in the Old Testament and contemporary writings refer to scattered independent petty sheikdoms and bands of nomads inhabiting the desert areas shown in brown on the map below. No borders are shown on the map because neither Arabia nor Midian, which I’ll discuss below, were unified political entities.

Arabia in the Ancient Near East. ©Accordance Software

What originally made the region Arabia was not a political, or even a geographical connection, but rather the fact that it was populated predominantly by Arabs. The Arabs are a genealogically diverse mixture of largely Ishmaelite tribes. Some historians tie the term “Ishmaelite” specifically to Arabs that lived around the Hijaz, or western coast of the subcontinent, but I use it here to refer to all descendants of Abraham’s son, Ishmael. The term, “Arab“, is derived from a Hebrew root ערב (‘arab), meaning “to crisscross or traverse”, referring probably to their nomadic movement from place to place. As herdsmen and traders, they ranged throughout regions encompassing today’s western Arabia, certainly, and up into modern Jordan, Syria, eastern and southern Sinai and the Negev in Israel.

in the context of the New Testament, the most likely meaning of “Arabia”, is the area then known as the Nabataean Kingdom, shown below roughly outlined in orange, consisting of the modern northwest corner of Saudi Arabia, most of modern Jordan, and all of the Sinai Peninsula east of the present Suez Canal. Note that this area contains both Jebel Musa (the traditional site in Sinai) and Jebel al Lawz (Wyatt’s site east of the Gulf of Aqaba).

The Nabatean Kingdom circa AD 85, ©**Villeneuve Nehme**.

Nabataea became a formal kingdom at around the middle of the 3rd Century BC. In general, it was friendly to Hasmonean Judea. Nabataean independence ended when they were finally conquered by Rome, under Trajan, in AD 106. Under Roman administration, they were split into two districts, Arabia Petraea in the west And Arabes Nabataei in the East (see next map, below). Both Jebel Musa and Jebel al Laws are located in Arabia Petraea.

Detail from Wikipedia map of the Roman Empire, circa 125 AD, ©Andrein

Paul in Arabia?

After Paul’s “road to Damascus” encounter, he went to Arabia for some unstated reason and duration. Perhaps he “camped out” in the Wilderness to pray and commune with God. Perhaps he lived for a while with Bedouins to learn the tent-making skills that provided his financial support during his missionary journeys.

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;
nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
—Galatians 1:15–17 ESV (emphasis added)

The wording of the passage quoted above implies to me that he purposely avoided the apostles for the time being. My assumption is that he wanted his instructions to come directly from God, since God had chosen him to reveal the mysteries of the new Church. Some commentators suggest that he traveled to Petra for some type of religious or geographic training, but I think his knowledge in those areas needed no further enhancement. If he spent time in any city during this period, I think that Philadelphia (ancient Rabbath Ammon and modern Amman, Jordan) was more likely.

Philadelphia in the time of the Apostle, Paul. By Nichalp – Own work, CC BY-SA 2.5

Moses in Midian?

The Midianites were a nomadic tribe descended from Midian, a son of Abraham by his wife Keturah. They were a warlike people who engaged in herding, trade, and banditry. Like Arabia, Midian is a region, not a formal geographic or political entity. Most maps of Midian will show it as in the map below—east of the Gulf of Aqaba, but with no borders. Archaeology has little to say about the location. There is some sparse artifactual evidence, mainly pottery, in the area shown and north of that region, in the southern Lavant. Some literary evidence indicates a Midianite presence also in eastern and southern Sinai. This “rural spread” makes perfect sense. The entire region was arid. Nomadic herders tended to establish temporary homes that could be moved from place to place as pastures become depleted by overgrazing. There were also caravan routes connecting the furthest extents of the region (see the first map, above), an obvious enhancement to both trade and banditry.

Sinai and Midian, per Atlas of the Bible Lands

Many of Wyatt’s supporters will say that the Sinai Peninsula could not have been used by Midianite herdsmen because it was part of Egypt. Once again, borders were fluid in ancient times, where they existed at all. Egypt’s interests were primarily along the Nile. Their interest in the Sinai was limited. The roads in and out, especially the Way of the Sea, were fortified and patrolled for defensive purposes. Otherwise, only the mining areas along the Gulf of Suez coast were of significant value to them.

Roads to Salvation?

What is the best way to lead people to salvation in this modern age? I don’t want to offend folks in the churches I attended for years, but my opinion has changed as I’ve aged. I have come to agree with those who say that a scripted approach, using a recipe of verses pulled out of context and a magic, “follow after me” prayer, is not the most effective solution.

When I was in college, some of my Christian friends were handing out “Four Spiritual Laws” tracts and using those as talking points during personal evangelism.

Before that, as a teen, and for many years thereafter, I was taught to “witness” using the “Romans Road to Salvation“.

There is nothing wrong with these tracts or using them for talking points. They are certainly well-intentioned, and they present legitimate Scripture. But I’m an old guy now, and looking back on my life, I don’t know for sure if I ever won a single convert with these methods. I heard professions of faith, certainly, but my efforts to disciple these people were always rebuffed. I don’t think I can name or even picture a single one who demonstrated Biblical salvation afterwards.

What did show positive results was driving busloads of kids to church every week and simply chatting with them about Jesus. That makes sense in light of my own experience as a child. I was taught all the “Bible stories” by Godly parents and teachers, and I have never doubted them. By the time I was eight I belonged to God.

Even as a youth, though, I often wondered why God, in His infinite wisdom, would hide the recipe for salvation by scattering it around Romans like that. Why not just come out and say it? Well, He did, actually! For example, from the “faith” chapter:

“And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”
(Hebrews 11:6 ESV)

I didn’t need a cookbook to find Jesus. God drew me to Himself and put me in an environment where I would learn about right and wrong, repentance, and Jesus.