News

The divine council material is useful when talking to Mormons (at least it has been in my experience). Since Yahweh is not just one among equals, that means Jesus (the incarnate Yahweh) isn't either -- which means Jesus and Satan aren't brothers. Mormonism focuses on divine plurality to make points like this, but it isn't clear thinking. I'm actually published in a Mormon theological journal critiquing their view of Psalm 82 (this was at the editor's gracious invitation). A Mormon scholar then replied to my article, and then I got to reply to him. A very profitable exchange. Below is the link to my article, which you may find useful when talking about the Bible with Mormon friends and acquaintances, but you can find all the articles online:

I'd also like to add a few thoughts about Jesus and the Angel of the Lord -- another question I get frequently. The angel of the Lord (Yahweh) in the OT is Yahweh in human form. Some of the things said about that angel (who is Yahweh) are applied to Jesus in the NT, thereby linking Jesus to Yahweh. The angel of Yahweh = the second person of the Trinity made visible as a man in the Old Testament. The man Jesus was  = the second person of the Trinity *become incarnate” as a man. The Angel of the Lord was not the second person incarnate (conceived in the womb and born of a woman). So, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord are related, but still distinct concepts — but both were God in human form. But only one was incarnate.

One question I get a lot is that the New Testament says "no one has ever seen God (father)" but in my "two powers" discussion in TUR about  "Yahweh" & "angel of the Lord," the angel (whom I argue was Yahweh embodied) appears and speaks with people.  How are these two ideas to be reconciled? It's very obvious that the Bible says that no one could see the face of God and live (Exod 33:20; Deut. 5:24), but it's equally obvious that it reports that people did indeed see the God of Israel Gen 16:13; Exod 24:10, 11; Judg. 6:22; 13:22; Isa. 6:5). All these verses are from the Old Testament. Many Christians don’t think about this apparent contradiction because it seems to disappear after the incarnation—that God became a man, born of the Virgin Mary, in Jesus Christ. But the Old Testament doesn’t contradict the New Testament. Appearing as a man (sometimes in a physical body, as in Genesis 18, where Yahweh eats a meal) is not the same as incarnation, but is related to what happened in the case of Jesus. God did indeed appear as a man in the Old Testament, and that isn’t contradictory to what the Old Testament says about seeing the “face” of God. The key is understanding the Hebrew term “face” (panim) can refer to the Presence of God. The same Hebrew term (panim) may be translated “face” or “presence.” The Old Testament passages we’ve studied make it clear that the true presence of God—what God really is—cannot be witnessed. God’s panim has to be filtered, or mediated, in some way, both so that humans can process what (or who) they are experiencing, and also so they do not die. One of the ways the panim was filtered was human embodiment. God came as a man to people—a man they were allowed to see and speak to. Even when Moses asked to see God’s glory (Exod 33:18), God’s permission resulted in Moses seeing him embodied (Exod 34:5-9). But to reinforce the point that the panim was off limits, Moses could only see the back parts of the embodied Yahweh. The Old Testament writers make this point elsewhere. When people see the God of Israel, the writer omits saying they saw the “face” (Exod 24:9-11; Ezek 1:26 [cp. Ezek 10:18-19]) to convey the idea that no one could see the "direct presence" of God and live.

Some of you will know I've been online since 2001 debunking nonsense about the ancient world -- stuff like ancient astronaut myths, wacky Bible interpretation, Bible codes, and Jesus myther stuff. The link below may be of interest. A lot of Christians out there think Wormwood (Rev 8:10-11) must be something like a killer asteroid. Nowadays, that idea is getting married to "Planet X" mythology. I was recently interviewed by a Christian show that embraces that stuff. You can have a listen at the link below, or read the content -- drawn largely from Greg Beale's Revelation commentary. Believer it or not, "Wormwood" has an OT and 2nd temple Jewish context we might want to consider before drawing any conclusons.

Many of you will know that there's a lot of chatter online about how the nephilim factor into biblical prophecy via Matt 24:38. I reject that view. I don't believe in any sort of nephilim presence beyond the biblical period, and don't believe that has anything to do with eschatology. Here's an email I got recently about this and my reply. It provides my reason for rejecting this idea. >> Question: What source is Jesus referencing in Matthew 24:38 when he says marriage? You point out in UR that the ANE polygamy theorists or wrong because the text never says marriage or wives. But then we get Jesus saying it was marriage. Is He referencing Enoch "wives" in the Hermeneia translation? Or is He clarifying what actually went down? >> My answer: >> The language in Matt 24:38 is not the LXX for Gen 6:1-4, so Matthew isn't referencing Gen 6:1-4. Here are the relevant passages with relevant English and Greek material. Mat 24:38 38 ὡς γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις [ἐκείναις] ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες, γαμοῦντες καὶ γαμίζοντες, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν, The phrase for "marrying and giving in marriage" is γαμοῦντες καὶ γαμίζοντες (these terms do not appear in LXX; the lemmas are gameo and gamizo, respectively). LXX Gen 6:1-4 (esp. vv. 2, 4) 1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἡνίκα ἤρξαντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ θυγατέρες ἐγενήθησαν αὐτοῖς. 2 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν, ὧν ἐξελέξαντο. 3 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεός Οὐ μὴ καταμείνῃ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας, ἔσονται δὲ αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτῶν ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ἔτη. 4 οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ μετʼ ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῖς, ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες οἱ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος, οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί. Septuaginta: With Morphology (electronic ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), Ge 6:1–4. Translation: *And Noah lived five hundred years, and Noah fathered three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And it happened, when humans began to become numerous upon the land, and ⌊they had daughters⌋, 2 the angels of God, having seen the daughters of humans, that they were beautiful, took for themselves women from all whom they picked out. 3 The Lord God said, “⌊My breath will not at all reside⌋ in these humans ⌊for very long⌋ because they are flesh, but their days will be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 Now giants were upon the land in those days, and after that, ⌊whenever⌋ ⌊the sons of God visited⌋ the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants who were from long ago, the people of renown.  Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Ge 6:1–4. 1 Enoch 6:1-2 6 1* In those days, when the children of man had multiplied, it happened that there were born unto them handsome and beautiful daughters. 2 And the angels, the children of heaven, saw them and desired them; and they said to one another, “Come, let us choose wives for ourselves from among the daughters of man and beget us children.” 7:1 And they took wives unto themselves, and everyone (respectively) chose one woman for himself, and they began to go unto them James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol. 1; New York; London: Yale University Press, 1983), 16. The above Enoch passages in Greek: 6:1-2   1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅταν ἐπληθύνθησαν οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐγεννήθησαν θυγατέρες ὡραῖαι καὶ καλαί. 2 καὶ ἐθεάσαντο αὐτὰς οἱ ἄγγελοι υἱοὶ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἐπεθύμησαν αὐτάς, καὶ εἶπαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· Δεῦτε ἐκλεξώμεθα ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ γεννήσομεν ἑαυτοῖς τέκνα. 7:1   1 Καὶ ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκες· ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἐξελέξαντο ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας, καὶ ἤρξαντο εἰσπορεύεσθαι πρὸς αὐτὰς καὶ μιαίνεσθαι ἐν αὐταῖς· καὶ ἐδίδαξαν αὐτὰς φαρμακείας καὶ ἐπαοιδὰς καὶ ῥιζοτομίας, καὶ τὰς βοτάνας ἐδήλωσαν αὐταῖς. Ken Penner and Michael S. Heiser, “Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology” (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008). The point: Greek Enoch also does not have the lemmas of Matt 24:38. Consequently, Matthew isn't using a source (either LXX or Greek Enoch). There is no way to tell (much less prove) if he had Gen 6:1-4 or the Enochian tradition in his head when he wrote Matt 24:38. There is no textual evidence upon which to base that assumption. Linking Matthew 24:38 to the nephilim is not a text-based interpretation.

I don't know if this content will show up correctly here. If not, go to http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/?page_id=10. Another question I get all the time is about how John 10:34-35 undermines my view of elohim. That is, people who argue that the plural elohim of Psalm 82 are humans attempts to utilize the quotation of Psalm 82:6 by Jesus in John 10:34. I would suggest that this text has been fundamentally misunderstood by New Testament scholars who approach it with little or no background knowledge of the divine council. Their view *undermines* Jesus / John's claim to his/Jesus' deity in John 10. Mine doesn't -- and honors the OT / Israelite worldview context of the psalm to boot. For a full treatment of this issue, listen to the episode (#109) I devoted to it on my podcast: http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-109-john-10-gods-or-men/ Briefly, the context of Jesus’ quotation is crucial. In John 10:30 he has just told his audience that he and the Father were one. Jesus isn’t going to follow that statement by essentially saying “I get to call myself God because you mere mortals do it too by virtue of Psalm 82.” That approach undermines John’s presentation in this chapter of the deity of Jesus, yet this is precisely the trajectory one finds of all the published material on John 10:34 and its use of Psalm 82. This backdrop is important for interpreting the significance of Jesus’ quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34-35. I have never come across the view I have of this issue in print, and so it seems best to give the full context of Jesus’ quotation in order to make my thoughts clear (John 10:22-42): 22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said to him, “How long are you going to make us doubt? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. 26 But you believe not, because you are not of my sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give to them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and my Father are one.” 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, saying, “For a good work we would not stone you; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.” The quotation of Psalm 82:6 follows: 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law: ‘I said, you are gods?’ 35 If he [God] called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 do you say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme!’ because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though you don’t believe me, believe the works: that you may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, 40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. 41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. 42 And many believed on him there. Here is what we can glean without interpretive disagreement: Jesus’ prefaced his quotation by asserting that he and the Father were one (10:30).  This claim was regarded as blasphemy in that Jesus was making himself out to be God (10:33).  In defense of his assertion, Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6. That is, to establish his claim to be God, Jesus went to Psalm 82:6.  He follows the quotation with the statement that the Father was in him, and he was in the Father. The consensus view of this quotation is that Jesus was endorsing the human אלהים view and thereby arguing, “I have every right to call myself divine—you guys can do it as well on the basis of Psalm 82:6.” The problem, of course, is that this amounts to Jesus saying “you mere mortals can call yourself gods, so I can, too.” If this is what John intends to communicate to go along with verse 30 to put forth the idea of Jesus’ deity, it’s an inept strategy. I propose that Jesus knew the elohim of Psalm 82 were not human, and that Jesus was in fact asserting his own unique ontological oneness with the Father.[1] The human elohim view derives from two assumptions brought to the text: (1) that it is required by the assumed impossibility of there being other elohim because of Judeo-Christian monotheism; and (2) that the phrase “to whom the word of God came” refers to the Jews who received the law at Sinai (i.e., the Pharisees’ forefathers).   I would suggest that what first needs to be done is to come to terms with what is meant by “the word of God” and who it is that receives that word in Psalm 82:6-7: I said, ‘You are gods (elohim ), even sons of the Most High (beney-'elyon), all of you; nevertheless, like humans you will die, and fall like any prince.’ The speaker (“I”) in the passage is the God of Israel, the God who is standing in the council in 82:1 among the elohim . God announces that the elohim of the council are his sons, but because of their corruption (vv. 2-5), they will lose their immortality. I believe that Jesus was referring to this utterance itself when he quoted the psalm, not the Jewish nation receiving the law at Sinai or the revelation that would become the Old Testament. To illustrate the difference in the views:   Common Interpretation /Jesus’ strategy assumes elohim are HUMAN:     The “word of God that came” = revelation from God at Sinai, or the entire OT “to whom the word of God came” = the Jews at Sinai, or the Jews generally. Result = the Jews are the “sons of the Most High” and elohim— so Jesus can call himself an elohim as well, since he’s a Jew, too.     My view / Jesus’ strategy assumes elohim are DIVINE: The “word of God that came” = the utterance itself in Psalm 82:6 – the pronouncement from God“to whom the word of God came” = the elohim of the divine council in 82:1Result = The Jews are not elohim, and Jesus reminds his enemies that their Scriptures say there are other elohim who are divine sons—and this on the heels of declaring himself one with the Father (John 10:30) puts him in the position of not only claiming divinity as a son of the Most High, but by claiming to be above the sons of God since he is one with the Father. In other words, Jesus appeals to sons of God who are MORE THAN HUMAN as his prooftext for defending his claim that, by calling himself the son of God he is more than a man (and that's very obviously the way the Jews took what he said). But by ALSO saying he was equal with the father (John 10:30) and that the Father was "in him" (see my discussion of the Name theology in Exod 23:20-23 for the backdrop to that phrase) and he was in the Father, he goes beyond claiming to be more than a man on equal par to the elohim of the divine council. He casts himself as Lord of the council -- God himself. As far as the consensus view, nowhere in Psalm 82 do we have any hint of the Mosaic Law, Sinai, a Jewish nation, or the canonical revelation given to the Jews. Every element in the commonly held view must be inserted into the passage. My view is that Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6 to put forth the idea that he was more than human. He reminds his Jewish audience that there were in fact other elohim besides the God of Israel, and those elohim were God’s sons. Because he calls himself the son of God and has in fact just claimed to be one with Yahweh, not only puts himself in the class of the sons of the Most High of Psalm 82:6—divine elohim—but implies that he is Lord of the council. This particular son of the Most High is one with the Father. The Jewish authorities got the message, too—they charged him with blasphemy. Now ask yourself, why would they do that if all Jesus was saying was “you mortal Jews get to call yourselves sons of God, and elohim, so I can, too.” That makes no sense at all. Again, for more. please listen to the podcast episode. http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-109-john-10-gods-or-men/