Most Christians read their Bibles as if the spiritual realm contains exactly three categories: God, angels, and demons. It’s a tidy system. It fits neatly onto a whiteboard.
And it’s wrong. Not completely wrong, but certainly incomplete. Let me show you how.
Hello! Agree with you about the importance of the context of Elohim where it is used.
Also appreciated the clarity of Exodus 21:6 as i remembered wondering about "judges" translation in the KJV, because it does seem to denote divine judgement in that place. . The word studies have been such a blessing for me even in my own studies.
So interesting and fun that you understand that the LXX gave you MORE, in regards to Deut..32:8 . This is how i understand that too! I studied Michael Heiser's paper on Deut.32:8 years ago and then got to read his other books. He really brought to the front
the "heavenly spiritual" things that are throughout the Bible. Very helpful to get a hold of for clarity, in "rightly dividing" the kingdom of God and His eternal purpose in Christ.
1 Cor.15:20-28, Eph.1:10. Though i don't agree with him for doctrinal things today.
His work was wonderful to shew the "supernatural" nature of the Bible. 🤗 God is AWESOME!! Was a blessing for me when i first got saved.
There is a lot of discension about the Septuagint today...sadly enough. Was thinking
it certainly testified to me that there are verses in the NT that match the LXX translation more than like the KJV, and other translations. This IS TRUE.
May God bless all in revealing HIS TRUTH! (Eph.1:15-23, 5:1) 🙌🙏🌅
Definitely get that. I always had a supernatural view of the world so when I was saved it was natural and normal for me to read the Bible through a lens that takes the supernatural seriously.
I have my own disagreements with Heiser, but I'll be eternally grateful for his illuminating a framework for what I always sensed was true.
That's very true about the LXX. I've had people come at me trying to argue that the whole thing is a fraud, which just blows my mind.
Of course not, but there are things outside of God's character that we can count on Him never doing. And that's what we mean when we say He "cannot" do something.
Your ‘take’ is pretty good. Shows work in the original languages and the LXX. I would just add: the LXX is not considered normative, not normally used as key to understanding Hebrew or Koine. Sometimes I use it to try to understand why Jewish authors of the NT would choose a particular Koine word to translate their OT Hebrew thought. It can be helpful, but not normative. Further, Jews were pretty good at resisting Hellenization. These translators, though, were thoroughly hellenized. So, it would be understandable that they would take the one Hebrew word with its conflicting constellation of meanings and try to reduce and/or differentiate into multiple, more precise words. That IS the process of hellenization. So, kudos for the work. Keep going. Keep us posted. Maybe ‘spiritual authority’? Or a being given spiritual authority from the One Lord over all? Finally, remember, that every thing and being other than the One God-godhead is created, contingent, finite, while he alone is self-sustaining, forever, distinct.
Thank you for your comment. I do appreciate the pushback. I have just a few things.
First, normative does not mean correct.
Second, I've never suggested the Septuagint should be used to understand Hebrew. However, I would argue that it absolutely should be used to help understand koine. It's the basis for the theological transformation of koine that was used in the NT. Without a thorough understanding of the LXX one will struggle to interpret the NT.
And third, the LXX is a witness to forms of Scripture that were later changed or lost. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that.
And let's not forget that our extant LXX manuscripts pre-date our Hebrew manuscripts by almost 700 years.
So while it may not be considered normative, it still has tremendous value to the modern believer.
And frankly, the calling to attempt to bring the LXX into a more normative place within western Christianity is the whole reason my publication exists.
Glad you have that calling. I've seen the need but don't have the calling. From my fairly limited knowledge I agree with most of what you write. Perhaps you were rash re: dating? The Great Isaiah scroll at least predates the LXX, and probably no extant Hebrew manuscript is 700 years younger than the LXX. The inter-testamental period is so little documented it is almost impossible to get an accurate picture of what was happening to the Hebrew canon and the story of the development of the LXX has lots of myth. Well, anyway, not something to argue over. Keep up the good work!
Oh, I'm well aware of the mythical status of many of the stories. I put little stock in anything I can't verify. But we do have approximate information just based on our extant manuscripts and specifics in the linguistics of how it was translated.
But regarding the dating, no, I meant what I said.
If we exclude the fragmented manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then yes, 700 years. Give or take. Especially if we're talking complete or nearly complete manuscripts, which I am.
Our oldest complete or nearly complete manuscripts of the LXX (which would be Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) date to (experts vary, but) around 300-350 AD.
The oldest complete Hebrew manuscript is the Leningrad Codex from about 1008 AD. It used to be the Aleppo Codex from about 930 AD but that was partially destroyed in a fire in the '40s.
So even if we're comparing nearly complete to nearly complete, that's still a gap of about 600 years.
Nice comparison of texts, I enjoyed the scholarship a great deal.
I feel, though, that the word 'elohim' is actually slightly different from your definition; or perhaps I'd like to tighten the definition up a bit.
First, I feel like Elohim is the opposite of δαίμων (daimōn).
Both refer to a spiritual being (as you pointed out, Elijah and Enoch don't count until Enoch is transformed into essentially a spiritual being) who channel or direct authority. Daimōn/demon of course means a spiritual being which is part of Satan's governance structure which has the authority to 'divide' or 'allot,' painting a picture of some kind of gatekeeper or ration-giver who has all the resources (or good fate) and will dole it out to whomever he chooses. Thus, Demon is really a title given to a member of Satan's government, rather than a species.
Elohim however don't horde resources or good fortune and divide it out -- instead they actively direct streams of God's own power and authority in order to make things come to pass.
I was really expecting you to get into the fascinating use of the word in the creation sections of the Bible, where for example in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3, the God who is creating everything is 'Elohim' in general, and doesn't become specifically YHVH Elohim until 2:4. That suggests to me that He might have been the overseer of a project, but honestly he could have been using the Elohim as part of the creation construction crew. Thus they would not just be directing God's authority, but actual creative power as well. When God said 'Let there be light,' He might have been giving orders rather than directly making light appear by speaking alone. This would make them (elohim) not just authoritative or powerful in an administrative sense, but in an real and let us say 'sculptural' sense as well. An Elohim is one who has delegated power to carve the world or parts of it into something else, in any various way, from physical to social. A ruler, but more than a ruler; a workman.
This would also explain to me why the original fallen angels fell... they had been part of creating the world and thought the power they'd used was their own, that they were in fact actual gods, and that this Creation/world which they'd help make was actually their own handiwork and therefore belonged to them.
This (that God might have used angelic helpers) is an old theory; specifically I am thinking of J.R.R. Tolkien who dug deep into some pretty esoteric histories and folklore and the ancient writings of his Catholic faith to come up with his fantasy world; and he believed the existence of these 'elohim' sub-creators so much that he had a falling out with C.S. Lewis over it (among other issues). However, it is hinted at in the Bible where wisdom, in a female guise, claims that she helped God create the world: "When he established the heavens, I was there… when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman." If this female is in fact an Elohim herself, that would track.
First, it's a fascinating theory, but the problem is it's just that. A theory. Nothing in Scripture that I've seen points to that in anything more than an extremely slight nod that allows us to make interpretive leaps.
And the truth is, I don't find the possibility compelling.
God didn't need a "construction crew." He spoke and reality responded.
Second, I disagree with the position that Enoch ever becomes a spiritual being. There are variant readings that suggest he becomes the Son of Man but those are in error and I don't put and stock in the claims of 3 Enoch that have him becoming the angel Metatron.
And while your assertion that elohim simply direct streams of God's own power is interesting, I didn't think it had a lot of scriptural support. In fact I would argue than Daniel 10 directly contradicts it.
Third, your definition of demon has difficulties that really cannot be overcome without changing it.
Here's the problem. If a demon is a title in Satan's governance structure, that means they are created spiritual beings, falling squarely within my definition of elohim. If that's true then why do they crave embodiment? Why do they hate the living? Why do they seem to gravitate to places of the dead?
The easy fix has already been handed to us. 1 Enoch clearly shows that the demons are the disembodied spirits of the dead nephilim, and Jubilees tells us that 90% of them were imprisoned while the remaining 10% were left to roam the earth under the control of Mastema, who is frequently interpreted as being Satan.
A very interesting read: your interpretation seems sound to me.
Thanks!
And somehow I got to have the first comment! (Strange, isn't it?)
Hello! Agree with you about the importance of the context of Elohim where it is used.
Also appreciated the clarity of Exodus 21:6 as i remembered wondering about "judges" translation in the KJV, because it does seem to denote divine judgement in that place. . The word studies have been such a blessing for me even in my own studies.
Grace and BLESSING!
I'm so grateful my work has blessed you!
So interesting and fun that you understand that the LXX gave you MORE, in regards to Deut..32:8 . This is how i understand that too! I studied Michael Heiser's paper on Deut.32:8 years ago and then got to read his other books. He really brought to the front
the "heavenly spiritual" things that are throughout the Bible. Very helpful to get a hold of for clarity, in "rightly dividing" the kingdom of God and His eternal purpose in Christ.
1 Cor.15:20-28, Eph.1:10. Though i don't agree with him for doctrinal things today.
His work was wonderful to shew the "supernatural" nature of the Bible. 🤗 God is AWESOME!! Was a blessing for me when i first got saved.
There is a lot of discension about the Septuagint today...sadly enough. Was thinking
it certainly testified to me that there are verses in the NT that match the LXX translation more than like the KJV, and other translations. This IS TRUE.
May God bless all in revealing HIS TRUTH! (Eph.1:15-23, 5:1) 🙌🙏🌅
Excellent.
Definitely get that. I always had a supernatural view of the world so when I was saved it was natural and normal for me to read the Bible through a lens that takes the supernatural seriously.
I have my own disagreements with Heiser, but I'll be eternally grateful for his illuminating a framework for what I always sensed was true.
That's very true about the LXX. I've had people come at me trying to argue that the whole thing is a fraud, which just blows my mind.
"God cannot lie" - is anything impossible for GOD?
Of course not, but there are things outside of God's character that we can count on Him never doing. And that's what we mean when we say He "cannot" do something.
Yeah - A house against itself cannot stand!
I love this. Psalms 82 opened up the entire Bible to me (along with Genesis 6).
Thank you for writing this.
It's my pleasure. I'm glad it was helpful to you.
Your ‘take’ is pretty good. Shows work in the original languages and the LXX. I would just add: the LXX is not considered normative, not normally used as key to understanding Hebrew or Koine. Sometimes I use it to try to understand why Jewish authors of the NT would choose a particular Koine word to translate their OT Hebrew thought. It can be helpful, but not normative. Further, Jews were pretty good at resisting Hellenization. These translators, though, were thoroughly hellenized. So, it would be understandable that they would take the one Hebrew word with its conflicting constellation of meanings and try to reduce and/or differentiate into multiple, more precise words. That IS the process of hellenization. So, kudos for the work. Keep going. Keep us posted. Maybe ‘spiritual authority’? Or a being given spiritual authority from the One Lord over all? Finally, remember, that every thing and being other than the One God-godhead is created, contingent, finite, while he alone is self-sustaining, forever, distinct.
Thank you for your comment. I do appreciate the pushback. I have just a few things.
First, normative does not mean correct.
Second, I've never suggested the Septuagint should be used to understand Hebrew. However, I would argue that it absolutely should be used to help understand koine. It's the basis for the theological transformation of koine that was used in the NT. Without a thorough understanding of the LXX one will struggle to interpret the NT.
And third, the LXX is a witness to forms of Scripture that were later changed or lost. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that.
And let's not forget that our extant LXX manuscripts pre-date our Hebrew manuscripts by almost 700 years.
So while it may not be considered normative, it still has tremendous value to the modern believer.
And frankly, the calling to attempt to bring the LXX into a more normative place within western Christianity is the whole reason my publication exists.
Glad you have that calling. I've seen the need but don't have the calling. From my fairly limited knowledge I agree with most of what you write. Perhaps you were rash re: dating? The Great Isaiah scroll at least predates the LXX, and probably no extant Hebrew manuscript is 700 years younger than the LXX. The inter-testamental period is so little documented it is almost impossible to get an accurate picture of what was happening to the Hebrew canon and the story of the development of the LXX has lots of myth. Well, anyway, not something to argue over. Keep up the good work!
Oh, I'm well aware of the mythical status of many of the stories. I put little stock in anything I can't verify. But we do have approximate information just based on our extant manuscripts and specifics in the linguistics of how it was translated.
But regarding the dating, no, I meant what I said.
If we exclude the fragmented manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then yes, 700 years. Give or take. Especially if we're talking complete or nearly complete manuscripts, which I am.
Our oldest complete or nearly complete manuscripts of the LXX (which would be Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) date to (experts vary, but) around 300-350 AD.
The oldest complete Hebrew manuscript is the Leningrad Codex from about 1008 AD. It used to be the Aleppo Codex from about 930 AD but that was partially destroyed in a fire in the '40s.
So even if we're comparing nearly complete to nearly complete, that's still a gap of about 600 years.
Nice comparison of texts, I enjoyed the scholarship a great deal.
I feel, though, that the word 'elohim' is actually slightly different from your definition; or perhaps I'd like to tighten the definition up a bit.
First, I feel like Elohim is the opposite of δαίμων (daimōn).
Both refer to a spiritual being (as you pointed out, Elijah and Enoch don't count until Enoch is transformed into essentially a spiritual being) who channel or direct authority. Daimōn/demon of course means a spiritual being which is part of Satan's governance structure which has the authority to 'divide' or 'allot,' painting a picture of some kind of gatekeeper or ration-giver who has all the resources (or good fate) and will dole it out to whomever he chooses. Thus, Demon is really a title given to a member of Satan's government, rather than a species.
Elohim however don't horde resources or good fortune and divide it out -- instead they actively direct streams of God's own power and authority in order to make things come to pass.
I was really expecting you to get into the fascinating use of the word in the creation sections of the Bible, where for example in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3, the God who is creating everything is 'Elohim' in general, and doesn't become specifically YHVH Elohim until 2:4. That suggests to me that He might have been the overseer of a project, but honestly he could have been using the Elohim as part of the creation construction crew. Thus they would not just be directing God's authority, but actual creative power as well. When God said 'Let there be light,' He might have been giving orders rather than directly making light appear by speaking alone. This would make them (elohim) not just authoritative or powerful in an administrative sense, but in an real and let us say 'sculptural' sense as well. An Elohim is one who has delegated power to carve the world or parts of it into something else, in any various way, from physical to social. A ruler, but more than a ruler; a workman.
This would also explain to me why the original fallen angels fell... they had been part of creating the world and thought the power they'd used was their own, that they were in fact actual gods, and that this Creation/world which they'd help make was actually their own handiwork and therefore belonged to them.
This (that God might have used angelic helpers) is an old theory; specifically I am thinking of J.R.R. Tolkien who dug deep into some pretty esoteric histories and folklore and the ancient writings of his Catholic faith to come up with his fantasy world; and he believed the existence of these 'elohim' sub-creators so much that he had a falling out with C.S. Lewis over it (among other issues). However, it is hinted at in the Bible where wisdom, in a female guise, claims that she helped God create the world: "When he established the heavens, I was there… when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman." If this female is in fact an Elohim herself, that would track.
What do you think?
First, it's a fascinating theory, but the problem is it's just that. A theory. Nothing in Scripture that I've seen points to that in anything more than an extremely slight nod that allows us to make interpretive leaps.
And the truth is, I don't find the possibility compelling.
God didn't need a "construction crew." He spoke and reality responded.
Second, I disagree with the position that Enoch ever becomes a spiritual being. There are variant readings that suggest he becomes the Son of Man but those are in error and I don't put and stock in the claims of 3 Enoch that have him becoming the angel Metatron.
And while your assertion that elohim simply direct streams of God's own power is interesting, I didn't think it had a lot of scriptural support. In fact I would argue than Daniel 10 directly contradicts it.
Third, your definition of demon has difficulties that really cannot be overcome without changing it.
Here's the problem. If a demon is a title in Satan's governance structure, that means they are created spiritual beings, falling squarely within my definition of elohim. If that's true then why do they crave embodiment? Why do they hate the living? Why do they seem to gravitate to places of the dead?
The easy fix has already been handed to us. 1 Enoch clearly shows that the demons are the disembodied spirits of the dead nephilim, and Jubilees tells us that 90% of them were imprisoned while the remaining 10% were left to roam the earth under the control of Mastema, who is frequently interpreted as being Satan.
This explanation answers each of those questions.