Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism

 

Pharisees … asked Him a question … “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said … “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.”

(Matthew 22:34-38)

 

Matthew 5:20 (NKJV) records Jesus’ warning: “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” If one would have righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees (and righteousness can be defined as “fulfilling the commandments”), it is prudent to begin with what both Jesus and the Pharisees agree is the greatest commandment. Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, and Luke 10:27 all record the saying of Jesus cited at the first of this post. While the saying of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is truncated from the full command from Deuteronomy, Mark and the Jews emphasize the full text of what they call the Shema. The term Shema is translated “Hear!” and the entire Shema is as follows: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5 NKJV). Jews believe that their righteousness with regard to this command exceeds the righteousness of Christians because of the emphasis of the Shema on monotheism: The LORD our God … is one. They suggest that Christian teachings of the Trinity set up three Gods, rather than just the one. Before we consider how to fulfill the greatest commandment, we need to, first, tackle the question of who God is.

 

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

 

Henry Fischel, my (Jewish) major professor of Hebrew at Indiana University pointed out to me that the word “Trinity” appears in neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament. Nevertheless, the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” do appear together in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 (NKJV): “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” On the day of Pentecost, Peter, however, used a somewhat different baptismal formula: “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). Paul was told by Ananias in Acts 22:16 (NKJV) “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” And, Paul simply mentions baptism into “Christ Jesus” in Romans 6:3-4 (NKJV): Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore, we were buried with Him through baptism into death.” It seems to me that any of these baptismal formulas is acceptable—so long as it is Jesus into whom one is baptized. Acts 19:1-5 recounts Paul’s rebaptism of twelve individuals in Ephesus who were baptized only with John the Baptist’s baptism—a baptism of repentance, with no reference to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Paul baptized them “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Then Paul (an apostle) laid hands on them and they received gifts of the Holy Spirit—tongues and prophecy. Spiritual gifts were conferred only by the laying on of the hands of apostles (Google: “Stan.Point Logic of Christianity 17”). Yet, all Christians who are baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ … receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). What exactly that “gift of the Holy Spirit” is will be considered momentarily.

Another passage that uses the words meaning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together is actually not in the earliest texts; it is a later textual addition—1 John 5:7 (NKJV): “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” Although Christians often cite this passage as evidence of a doctrine of Trinity, the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit” are not in the earliest texts of 1 John. The vast majority of recent translations recognize this fact by excluding the terminology from this passage--Holman Christian Standard Bible, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard, American Standard Version, Common English Bible, The Complete Jewish Bible, The Darby Translation, Good News Translation, GOD'S WORD Translation, Lexham English Bible, New Century Version, New International Reader's Version, Revised Standard Version, World English Bible, and Weymouth New Testament. The SBL Greek New Testament and even The Latin Vulgate have also eliminated the language.

As cited above, the New King James Version retains the language, as it seeks to remain close to the old King James Version, published in 1611 (before modern textual criticism demonstrated that the words were a late addition). Other old translations--Wycliffe published from 1382 to 1395, Tyndale published c. 1522–1535, the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible published 1582, and the Webster Bible published 1833—have the Trinitarian language, along with lesser known recent translations--Jubilee Bible 2000, Third Millennium Bible, and Young's Literal Translation. One should not base one’s Trinitarian doctrine on the 1 John 5:7 passage. It was not in the original text.

 

The Holy Spirit

 

It is not blasphemous to suggest to a Jew that the Holy Spirit exists. There are more than sixty passages in the Hebrew Old Testament explicitly mentioning the Holy Spirit (aka the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the LORD, Your [i.e., God’s] Spirit, the Spirit, My [i.e., God’s] Spirit, Your [i.e., God’s] good Spirit, a new Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord). These passages mentioning the Holy Spirit begin in Genesis 1:2 with the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters at the beginning of Creation. Furthermore, Jews understand that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy. That means the Holy Spirit is that which God placed in His prophets to deliver His messages to humans. The Pharisees believed that the operation of God’s Holy Spirit to inspire prophecy ceased with Malachi—which they assumed to be the last inspired book of the Bible. For this reason, they could not accept John the Baptist as a prophet, let alone accept the early Christian prophets. Nevertheless, they still believed that God could speak to humans through the occasional words of children and the mentally handicapped (indelicately called “fools” by the Jews). This was still the Holy Spirit operating. Jesus alluded to this phenomenon on Palm Sunday in Matthew 21:15-16 (NKJV): “But when the chief priests and scribes saw … the children crying out in the temple and saying, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David!’ they were indignant and said to Him, ‘Do You hear what these are saying?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Yes. Have you never read, “Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise” [Psalm 8:2]?”

Pharisees also believed that God’s spirit continued to speak to humans through what they called a Bat Qol (or Bat Kol: a mysterious voice from Heaven). According to “Bat Kol: A Divine Voice | My Jewish Learning”:

 

[B]at kol, literally “daughter of a voice,” refers to a heavenly voice that proclaims God’s will or a divine judgment in a matter of legal dispute. The term itself doesn’t appear anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, though God’s voice is heard frequently in the Bible. Later sources indicate that there were bat kols in biblical times that were not recorded in the text, as in the Talmud’s declaration that a bat kol announced the death of Moses. The clearest statement of the nature of the bat kol is the Talmud’s declaration that the bat kol served as a means of communication between God and humankind after the end of the prophetic era. Though this teaching clearly connects a bat kol to the prophecies of the Bible, instances of the latter indicate explicitly in the text that it is God speaking, while the language of “daughter of a voice” concerning a bat kol suggests it is some sense a lesser (yet still divinely originating) voice. The Tosafot, commenting on a passage concerning a bat kol in Tractate Sanhedrin, distinguishes it from a voice that descends directly from heaven (which might refer to traditional prophecy), comparing it instead to an echo, a voice that emerges from within another voice. 

The term appears only twice in the Mishnah, but it is found frequently in the Talmud.

 

Bottom Line:  Pharisees also believed that God’s Spirit was/is active in the Bat Qol. Christians will note: a Bat Qol occurs at Jesus’s baptism and another at his transfiguration. Furthermore, a Bat Qol of Jesus’s voice speaks to Saul of Tarsus at his conversion. The fact that Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is still active (though, like the Jews, believing that the age of prophecy is now ceased) does not suggest that Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is blasphemous or even inferior to the views of the Pharisees. The Jews have no problem believing that the existence of the Spirit of God does not compromise their doctrine of monotheism. Why should they contend that Christian belief in the Holy Spirit would compromise a doctrine of monotheism?

The “Talmud’s declaration that the bat kol served as a means of communication between God and humankind” (emphasis mine) is a fair description of all activity of the Holy Spirit (not just the Bat Qol). The Holy Spirit spoke through prophets, children, the Bat Qol, angels, the written word, and directly (from God to humans). Jewish scholar G. F. Moore links three terms together in his chapter entitled, "The Word of God:  The Spirit," Moore states, "God's will is made known or effectuated in the world not only through personal agents (ANGELS), but directly by his WORD or by his SPIRIT" (emphases mine). The Apostle Paul, in Ephesians 6:17 (NKJV), is in agreement with Moore’s observation: “And take … the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Although the English is confusing, the word “which” in this passage cannot be referring back to the term “sword,” since, in the Greek, “sword” is a feminine noun and “which” is a neuter pronoun. The only neuter noun “which” could refer back to is the neuter noun “Spirit.” The Spirit is the word of God, just as Moore demonstrates. (Incidentally, the Greek word for “word,” here, is not logos, but rhēma, from the same root as “rhetoric.” This might indicate that in the armor of God, His Spirit of persuasion is the sword we wield; whereas, God’s Word/Logos in John’s Gospel might refer more to His powerful spoken fiats of creation. (Since my Ph.D. is in Communication, I pay close attention to such distinctions.)

Since Jesus emphasizes that God is spirit (John 4:24) and the facts that the “Spirit of God” is hovering over the face of the waters and God is speaking “words” are all found in Genesis 1:1-3, the possibility of the Word/Logos of John chapter 1 being identified as the Spirit of God is a distinct possibility.  God and His Word are one and the same. There is no threat to the doctrine of monotheism when God and His Spirit are mentioned as existing together any more than there would be the implication that my words when uttered are somehow different from me as a single human being. Later in the first chapter of John, the Logos-becomes-flesh (as Jesus) and dwells among us.

The fact that God (His Spirit) speaks to the darkness (creating light), to the waters (creating a firmament and, later, creating sea creatures, birds, beasts, cattle, and creeping things), to the land (creating vegetation), etc., does not preclude God from communicating with humans, as well, through His Holy Spirit. 2 Corinthians 13:13 (NKJV) states: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” While Jesus purchased “grace” for us, and God so “loved” the world that He gave Jesus to us, the Holy Spirit offers us “communion with Him.” The word translated “communion” is the Greek word koinōnia (frequently, translated “fellowship”). It means, sharing or having things in common. The English words “common,” “communion,” and “communication” have the same root. As a professor of “communication,” I can assure you that you will have great difficulty in “communicating” with another human, unless you have things in common with that individual (especially, a common language). Japanese-speaking and English-speaking individuals have great difficulty communicating until they learn each other’s language. In John 14:16-18 (NKJV), Jesus promises: “I will pray the Father and He will give you another Helper [paraclete, literally: one whom you call alongside you, such as a friend or companion], that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth … you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” This is what Peter meant on the day of Pentecost, when he promised that those who are baptized will receive the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). God doesn’t need to give you miraculous gifts of prophecy, healing, miracles, tongues, etc. for you to simply enjoy His company and communicate with Him. Everything you would hope to find when communicating with your best friend—liberty, righteousness, peace, and joy—you will find in God’s companionship through His Holy Spirit. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17 NKJV). Romans 14:17 (NKJV) states that there is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Galatians 5:22-23 (NKJV) even adds to the benefits of being the companion of the Holy Spirit: “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” The words of the genie in the Disney movie “Aladdin” should more accurately be applied to the Holy Spirit: “You ain’t never had a friend like me!” Not only is He our friend, He is our teacher, the One who reminds us of things God has commanded us. “He will teach [us] all things, and bring to [our] remembrance all things that [Jesus] said to [us].” (John 14:26 NKJV). He will guide us “into all truth” (John 16:12). That’s true communication. That’s communion. That’s the Holy Spirit.

 

The Father and the Son

The Pharisees would have no problem believing in God the Father. Several Old Testament passages—Deuteronomy 32:6, Isaiah 64:8, Jeremiah 3:19, Psalm 68:5, Jeremiah 31:9, Isaiah 63:16, and Malachi 2:10—all refer to God as Father. Several other passages refer to (especially Israel as) His son/s. To say that Christians believe in God the Father is not problematic, although, most frequently, the father-son relationship of God in the Old Testament is with Israel as His son. Perhaps, the reason some Jews might shy away from the “Father” language—except to say that Abraham is their father—is that Christians use the terminology in connection with His relationship to Jesus. This is the stumbling block over which two millennia of Jews have tripped. When the New Testament refers to Jesus as the Son of God, Jews consider that to be polytheistic rather than monotheistic. This Pharisaic thought process is encapsulated in John 10:33-36 (NKJV):

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

 

Jesus is, here, defending Himself for claiming to be the “Son of God.” To defend Himself, Jesus cites Psalm 82 (NKJV):

 

God stands in the congregation of the [gods, re: LXX];
He judges among the gods.

 How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? …

I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are [sons] of the Most High.

But you shall die like men.

 

Michael S. Heiser (2008, page 3) states: “many scholars consider Psalm 82 to be either a vestige of polytheism overlooked by monotheistic redactors or perhaps a deliberate rhetorical use of Israel’s polytheistic past to declare the new outlook of monotheism. After the exile, so it is put forth, the gods of the nations are relegated to the status of angels.” Jesus and John, apparently, did not get that memo. Even “angels” is not an appropriate translation for “gods” in this passage for Jesus, John, and, implicitly, their Jewish audience. I discuss both the John 10 and Psalm 82 passages in my book Angels and Demons (page 82):

 

Jesus is quoted in John 10:33-36 as clearly implying that the term “sons of the Most High” (from Psalm 82:6 …) refers to “human judges.” Human judges are even called “gods/ELOHIM” in both Psalm 82:6 and Exodus 22 ... Jesus was making the point that it was not blasphemous for him to be called “god” or “son of God,” if even humans (judges) could be called “gods” and “sons of the Most High.”

 

Those whom God has called “gods” and “sons of the Most High” in Psalm 82 will “die like men.” There are no accounts in the Bible of gods or angels dying.” Isaiah 14:15 does say that Lucifer will die, but Lucifer is not an angel or any kind of divine being. In Angels and Demons (page 96), I observe: “Granted, if we begin reading in the middle of [Isaiah chapter 14], at verse 12, Lucifer can appear to be a powerful angel who has fallen because of his attempt to rebel against ‘the Most High.’ That is, until we reach verse 16 (where it is clear that Lucifer is a man): ‘They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?’  Verses 18-20 (KJV), furthermore, point out that Lucifer is a ‘king.’”

On page 108 of his book, Bauckham states: “Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions … always accepted the existence of … [other] supernatural beings: angels … demons.” Without further belaboring this point, I will direct any interested readers to my book Angels and Demons, where I dispute the unambiguous existence of fallen angels in the Bible and point out that the Gospel representations of demons are misunderstood. Fallen angels and demons exist in non-canonical writings between the Old and New Testament and (later) in the patristic writings, however. Jewish scholar Bernard Bamberger admits that point, but concludes in his book Fallen Angels (page 55): “The astounding thing is that, after some centuries of experimentation with this idea, [by the first century AD] the authoritative teachers of Judaism dropped it altogether.  … The main line of Jewish thought returned to an uncompromising monotheism in which there was no room for satanic rebels.”

Certainly, according to Jesus and John, the 82^nd Psalm is not to be taken to suggest that there are other “gods”—the various gods of the nations who meet from time-to-time in congregation with God Almighty. Such an interpretation is polytheistic; it also would make absolutely no sense for Jesus to use such a passage (with such a doctrine) to defend himself against a charge of blasphemy. From Jesus’s statement in the John 10 passage, alone, one might even infer that Jesus saw Himself as a mere human (judge?) and not as a divine being at all. However, John who records the event, sees something quite beyond a mere human judge in Jesus. John chapter 1 will be discussed momentarily.

Another tack one might make concerning a Christology of Jesus is found in Revelation 4-5. While Jesus identifies Himself as the “Son of God” to the church at Thyatira in Revelation 2:18, typically Revelation refers to Him as the Lamb. (Note that Revelation 14:1 refers to the Lamb and His Father.) Just looking at Revelation 4-5, however, Jesus is presented as newly worthy of praise along with the Father—a new development in Heaven. I point out on pages 116-118 of my book Apocalyptic Apologetic:

 

No Jew would object [to Revelation chapter 4] … All are agreed that all creation should “worship” the Lord God Almighty because of his creation of all things. The Baruch Atah prayer of the Jews from the time of the Mishnah (Ber. 6:1) unto the present time attests to that. The Shema of Israel attests that the Lord our God is One.

Then comes Jesus, in chapter 5 … the great stumbling block for many Jews. Chapter 5 has the audacity to explain how Jesus, like the Lord God Almighty, is now also “worthy” of praise and worship and blessing. … “every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea” [Revelation 5:13] … say: “Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb forever and ever” (KJV).

…

What made him worthy? He “was slain and … redeemed us to God by [his] blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation” (verse 9). Therefore, … angels, living creatures, and elders … proclaimed: “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing” (verse 12).

Jesus and God are, thus, now both worthy of worship. This is what Jews stumble over. Christians worship both God and Christ.

 

Even so, perhaps, these two chapters could be taken to suggest that God Almighty is the only God. In my book Revelation: The Human Drama (page 127), I point out: “Jesus is never referred to as pantokratôr (the Almighty)” in Revelation. Perhaps, it could be argued that Jesus (as a man) is worthy of worship because He “was slain and … redeemed us to God by [His] blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). God is worshiped as Creator. Jesus is worshiped as our supreme sacrifice who redeemed us.

On the other hand, Jesus is explicitly identified as the “beginning (archē) of the creation of God” in Revelation 3:14. Some translators interpret this passage to suggest that Jesus was the first being whom God created. Possibly, sensing that viewing Jesus as the “beginning” of the creation of God, in Revelation 3:14, presents problems for Christology, G. K. Beale (p. 298), elaborately takes archē in the verse as the equivalent of prōtotokos [first-born] of all creation in Col 1:15 and prōtotokos [first-born] from the dead in Col 1:18). Beale admits that “most commentators think … the titles in 3:14 … link Jesus to the original creation.” Nevertheless, Beale argues, that the beginning of God’s creation in Rev 3:14, instead, designates “Christ as the sovereign inaugurator of the new creation … not over the original creation.”  However, the terms archē/beginning and telos/end, are used by Revelation to refer to both God and Jesus (21:6, 22:13). In 21:6, the archē and the telos is a title for God. In 22:13, the archē and the telos is a title for Jesus. Since Revelation would never suggest that God had a “beginning/efficient cause” or an “end/final cause,” John is probably referring in these archē and telos formulas, instead, to a process that has a beginning/efficient cause [archē], namely, God’s creation (3:14).

Jesus is not just a man—He is the archē of creation, for John. What does that mean? Craig Koester tries a translation taking archē to mean “ruler” (of creation), but that does not work, because John’s word for “ruler” is archōn (see Revelation 1:5), not archē. Furthermore, since John employs the polar opposites archē and telos in 21:6 and 22:13 in parallel with the polar opposites alpha and the omega, plus in parallel with the polar opposites first and last in 22:13, John’s use of archē as “ruler” does not make sense. What would be the polar opposite of ruler? Servant, perhaps, but not telos/end.

Some New Testament passages suggest that Jesus was the creator of the universe. Related to 1 Corinthians 8:6, Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 29) sees something entelechial in his discussion of Rom 11:36a, wherein “from him, and through him, and to him [are] all things”  “refers to God.” Yet, “in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul has divided it between God and Christ, applying to God two of the prepositions that describe God’s relationship as Creator (“from” and “for” or “to”) and the third of these prepositions (“through”) to Christ. …That God is not only the agent or efficient cause [understand: archē]  of creation (“from him are all things”) and the final cause or goal [understand: telos] of all things (“to him are all things”), but also the instrumental cause [which also figures in entelechy] (“through him are all things”) well expresses the typical Jewish monotheistic concern that God used no one else to carry out his work of creation, but accomplished it alone, solely by means of his own Word … Paul’s reformulation in I Corinthians 8:6 includes Christ in this exclusively divine work of creation by giving to him the role of instrumental cause.” Similar language is also used in Colossians 1:16-17, with the agent or efficient cause (understand: archē), the instrumental cause, and the final cause (understand: telos) all being applied to Christ.

Furthermore, that most important Logos Hymn of John states that all things were made by the Logos. As discussed earlier in this blogpost and quite frequently in several of my previous posts, I am inclined to understand Logos as the Holy Spirit or Word of God. But God’s Holy Spirit also took on flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus (John 1:14). How is it possible that Jesus took on flesh somewhere around 4-6 BC and yet was present en archē to create the universe? Through the principle of entelechy:

 

1.      Consider the way that one-celled amoeba/protozoa reproduce by simply dividing themselves. There is no way of knowing which of the two “daughter cells” thus produced is the parent and which is the child, and yet both of them were active in the actions of the original amoeba/protozoa. If God and Jesus were active together “as one” en archē, they both participated in creation, even if Jesus took on flesh at a later date.

2.      Consider the various passages that suggest that children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and beyond are active in the loins of their fathers (John 3:3-4, Hebrews 7:1-10, Romans 5:12-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:22). If all of Adam’s offspring preexist in the loins of Adam and are somehow held accountable for the actions of their father Adam, because they participated in his sin, then God and Jesus were active together “as one” en archē, as they both participated in creation even if Jesus took on flesh at a later date.

3.      Consider that, mystically, when they become husband and wife, two individuals—man and woman—become one flesh. In like fashion, when Jesus’s life in the flesh is completed, He returns to God and becomes “one” with Him again (John 10:30, 14:10-11, 20).

 

Since entelechy observes that all endings (telos) are implicit in their beginnings (en archē), and since the Father and Son are both called archē by John in Revelation, and the Logos is present en archē  in John 1, verses such as the following are much easier to understand from the perspective of entelechy: 

 

•      Eph 1:4: “He chose us ἐν [en] Him before the foundation of the world.”

•      John 17:24: “You loved Me before the foundation of the world.”

•      1 Pet 1:20: “He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times.”

•      Matt 25:34: “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

•      Matt 13:35: “I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

•      2 Tim 1:9: “grace which was given to us ἐν [en] Christ Jesus before time began.”

•      Heb 9:26: “He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”

•      Acts 15:18:  "Known to God from eternity are all His works.”

 

Not only are all of God’s works known to Him from eternity, but they are also known to Logos and Logos-become-flesh. If, therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit know absolute truth, concerning everything, there is no point of disagreement between them concerning anything.  People do not disagree about things that are considered “known facts.”  (The only room for rhetoric—the art of persuading someone that something is “probably or possibly” true, as opposed to simply stating that something is “definitely” true—is if there are questions that have at least two possible-but-unknown answers.) If people have trouble understanding how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can rule the universe, without any conflict among them, it is because they never argue; they never disagree, they don’t have differing opinions, because they know “absolute truth” for certain. The great theological danger of polytheism is not the idea that God has a Son and a Spirit (explainable by entelechy). It is that he had a divine rival, an opponent, a Lucifer, a Beelzebub. This is where one’s theology begins to approach committing the “unforgiveable sin” (Matthew 12:24-32, Mark 3:22-30, Luke 11:15-20).  This is a very important area in which one’s righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. More on that in my next post: “How to Love God.”

Angels & Demons 33: Revelation and Aggadah Concerning the Origin of Demons

Bernard Bamberger, in his book Fallen Angels, pages 22-23, summarizes the story of how demons originated, as that story is presented in the Ethiopic book of Enoch, a second century B.C. work:

“One passage states that the giants [who were the offspring of the fallen angels and the daughters of men] became evil spirits; another, that the fallen angels became evil spirits, leading men astray to sacrifice to demons, while the women they married became sirens. But the usual view is that when the giants were slaughtered, in accordance with the punishment decreed for them, the evil spirits emerged from their bodies. In any event, the demons, once they made their appearance, remain at large until the final judgment.”

John, the author of Revelation uses this “usual view” of the origin of demons as a literary allusion, to describe the connection between the Roman Emperor Nero (the last of the Caesarean family) and the three primary Roman emperors who followed him (from the Flavian Dynasty): Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. Revelation 16:12-13 states:

“And the sixth angel poured out his bowl onto the great river Euphrates. And its water was dried up so that the way of the kings from the land of the rising sun might be prepared. And I saw out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits coming out as frogs. And they are spirits of demons doing signs, which go forth to the kings of the land—even of the whole inhabitable world to gather them together to the war of the great day of God Almighty.”

For a thorough analysis of the identities of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, I refer the reader to my book, Revelation: The Human Drama. Nevertheless, in the interest of brevity, I will summarize:

• All scholars agree that the Dragon is Satan.
• The vast majority of scholars agree that the Beast is Nero.
• Ford and others agree that the false prophet is the Jewish High Priestly Family in Jerusalem.

In my book (pages 41-42, and others), I discuss why the Roman Emperor Vespasian and his two sons who followed him as emperors (Titus and Domitian) are the clear referents to John’s literary allusion concerning the origin of demons. With G. B. Caird, I agree that Vespasian, Nero’s general whom he sent to wage war on Jerusalem in 66 A.D. is the easiest and clearest understanding of the Beast (Nero) who received a death blow and then came back to life. Nero committed suicide in 68 A.D., but in 69 A.D. his Jerusalem general Vespasian became Emperor. Vespasian then promptly sent his son Titus as general to Jerusalem to finish the devastating war on the Jews. Titus became Emperor after Vespasian, and then his brother Domitian became Emperor after Titus. It was as if the Beast died, but these three “demons” came out of his mouth (and the mouth of Satan and the mouth of the anti-Christian Jewish High Priest). John is able to tie a very negative connotation to Satan, Nero, the Jewish High Priesthood, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian by the very force of a demonic literary allusion.

While the story of the origin of demons in the Ethiopic book of Enoch is certainly Aggadah (Jewish folklore), John is not using the Aggadah as Homiletic Aggadah, as did I Peter, II Peter, and Jude (See Angels & Demons 10). John is not preaching a sermon as Peter and Jude were doing. Neither does the fact that John is alluding to this Aggadah suggest that John believed the Aggadah to be a true account of the origin of demons. As I pointed out in my previous commentary, Revelation 9:20 appears to agree with Paul—that demons (like idols) are nothing. John writes of unrepentant men who worshiped the “works of their hands”—“demons and golden idols, and silver, and bronze, and wooden, which are not able to see, nor hear, nor walk.” If demons are the works of men’s hands--neither able to see, hear, nor walk—demons do not exist as super-human forces that can take over the bodies of humans.

John is also illustrating the fact that one needs not believe in the historical truth of the stories from the various books of Enoch in order to use them for literary purposes. Likewise, Peter and Jude could use Fallen Angel stories from the various books of Enoch as sermon illustrations without believing them to be true historical accounts.

With this commentary, I conclude my series of commentaries on Angels and Demons. Perhaps, owing to my own scholarship in the field of Communication, I have a perspective on the nature of angels and demons that not many other scholars have. I can see that it is sometimes necessary to “personalize” our communication. We give “names” to our books, speeches, and literary documents and endow them with powers that make them seem to stand alone as separate from those who wrote the documents or spoke the words. Hence, the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence exercise authority over us as if they were actual people—even super-human people. The false teachings that are broadcast over our airwaves may have even demon-like power to possess the minds and behaviors of those who listen to and believe these falsehoods. Let listeners and readers beware! Angels and demons (in the form of godly and false communications) are floating in the air all around you. Be careful about those communications that possess you!

In my next series of commentaries, I will be exploring the “hidden” messages in the films of the Walt Disney Corporation. You may even find some angels and some demons lurking in the messages of those films!

Angels & Demons 18: God Commanded Angels to Worship Jesus, but Not Adam

In my two previous commentaries, I considered the pseudepigraphal Book of Adam and Eve, in which angels were expected to worship Adam, because he was the “image of God.” Satan and his angels supposedly “sinned” because they refused to worship Adam, thus rebelling against the will of God. There was never, however, any “law” or “command” given to angels that they must worship Adam. The New Testament is consistent with the writings of the Jewish rabbis in the period following the New Testament, in this regard. Although Satan is certainly considered the adversary of mankind in the New Testament, nowhere is he presented as the adversary of God. I Peter 5:8 warns the readers: “Be on guard! Your adversary, the Devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” Nevertheless, I Peter calls him YOUR adversary, not the adversary of God. Revelation 12:10 calls him the “accuser” of the “brothers,” but does not paint him as a challenger to God. Instead, he seems to be doing exactly what God allows him to do: He “accuses them before our God, day and night.”

That is, until God has a justification for ending the accusing and casting “Satan out of his presence. Jesus’ blood secured forgiveness for those whom Satan was accusing: “And they overcame him by reason of the blood of the Lamb and through the word of their testimony, and they loved not their life unto death.” Unlike Adam, who disbelieved God’s warning, rebelled against God, and thus lost his life, Jesus and his followers (the martyrs) believed God, voluntarily gave up their lives, and defeated Satan, their accuser. Adam, although he was made in the “image of God,” never fulfilled the role. It remained for one of Adam’s offspring or “seed” (Genesis 3:15) to perfect the role of the true “image of God.”

Here is what the Jewish rabbis had to say about Adam-worship. Kohelet Rabbah 6.10 offers a parable of a king and a governor who were riding together. The people wanted to address the king with respect, but did not know which of the two men was king. The king therefore pushed the governor out of the chariot. Therefore, the people knew they should pay respect to him, rather than to the governor. Kohelet Rabbah was offering this as a parable pertaining to the question of whether angels should worship God or God’s image (Adam): “At the time when the Holy One—Blessed be He—created the first man, the ministering angels were mistaken in him and they wanted to pronounce before him, ‘Holy!’ What did the Holy One—Blessed be He—do? He caused a sleep to fall upon him. And [the angels] recognized that he was man. And [God] said to [Adam], ‘For dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return’” (Genesis 3:19). This story also occurs in Bereshit Rabbah 8:10, where it is attributed to Rabbi Hoshaya. Bernard Bamberger, in Fallen Angels, page 94, says that this account “seems to be directed against this [Adam-worshipping] . . . legend.” Bamberger states: “This tale rules out the notion that the angels had to worship Adam.”

Of course, one will not find anywhere in the writings of the Jewish rabbis a suggestion that God commanded angels to worship Jesus! Jewish rabbis did not believe Jesus was the Christ. But, even Moslems (who DO believe that Jesus was the Christ) are unwilling to make him the object of worship. Both Jews and Moslems reject the doctrine of Trinity. My Jewish major professor of Hebrew at Indiana University, Henry Fischel, pointed out to me that NOWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT DOES THE WORD “TRINITY” OCCUR. What both Jews and Moslems may find interesting, however, is that the Book of Revelation does NOT RELY ON ANY DOCTRINE OF TRINITY to make Jesus worthy of worship. Revelation chapter 4 describes the scene in Heaven in which all the universe (including angels) worshipped the ONE Lord God Almighty, pronouncing the very word Kohelet Rabbah and Bereshit Rabbah employ in worship: “Holy!” Then, in chapter 5 of Revelation, the Lamb is also deemed worthy of worship (but not by using the word “Holy!”). This is a stunning development. Now, in a sense similar to the (incorrect) pseudepigraphal Book of Adam and Eve, someone besides God is declared worthy of worship by the angels. But, the Lamb is not presented there as a divine being. He is seated “at the right hand” of the One seated on the throne (5:1). He is presented as the “conquerer” (5:5). His conquest is associated with the shedding of his “blood” (5:9). Like God, he is “worthy” to receive praise (5:13). But, throughout the book of Revelation, although the word “almighty” is used several times to refer to the One God, it is never applied to Jesus. I comment, on page 120 of my book Revelation: The Human Drama:

Jesus is “known as ‘the first and the last, the beginning and the end,’ in 3:14; he is called ‘the [beginning] of the creation of God.’ (Similarly, 1:5 calls him the ‘first-born . . . from the dead.’) In 22:13, John provides another formula describing Jesus as [beginning and end]: ‘I am the alpha and the omega.’ Jesus, as ‘the Lamb who was slain’ (5:6,12) would serve as the archetype for John's concept of human . . . perfection. . . . Jesus as the . . . ‘Lamb who was slain’ can stand . . . for all perfect conquerors (martyrs). Hence, . . . he represents the proper response to Rome for every Christian. Jesus is never referred to as pantokratôr (the Almighty) or as the one ‘who was and who is and who is coming.’ However, John connects the phrase ‘ [the first and the last]’ with Jesus in language about his being ‘dead’ and now being ‘alive’ (a similar notion) in 1:17-18 and 2:8.

. . . Not unexpectedly, ‘God’ is also linked with such perfectionist language. In 21:6, apparently God is the self-designated ‘alpha and the omega, the [beginning] and the [end].’ And in 1:8, the phrase just quoted is applied to God along with another equal phrase: ‘who was and who is and who is coming,’ plus ‘the Almighty.’ Likewise, 1:4 identifies God as the one ‘who was and who is and who is coming.’ 4:8 and 11:17 repeat this identification of God and include [almighty.] Other verses which identify God as [almighty] include 15.3, 16:7,14, 19:6,15, and 21:22.”

While these parallels indicate a close resemblance between God and Jesus, so does the terminology “the image of God” as it is applied to Adam. If John were trying to advance a picture of the Trinity, it seems strange that he does not include an extra chapter dedicated to worshipping the Holy Spirit. There are only TWO in Revelation who are worthy of worship--not three. I am reminded of the fact that Revelation does not promote the doctrine of Trinity every time I sing the song “Holy! Holy! Holy!” The lyrics of the song surely come from Revelation 4 and 5, and yet they offer the conclusion: “God in three persons, Blessed Trinity.” This is not found in Revelation.

Any Jew or Moslem who objects to the Doctrine of Trinity need not be offended by the approach of the Book of Revelation. Certainly, Jesus is worshipped by angels (and all other creatures), as is God. But the logic of why Jesus is so worshipped seems not to be related to a doctrine of Jesus’ divinity. It seems closer to the view that the “image of God” should be worshipped. Adam did not fully fit the bill for deserving worship, because Adam sinned and brought death upon mankind. Jesus—Adam’s seed—more clearly fits the bill, because he did not sin and yet shed his blood to nullify the role of Satan in heaven. Satan was cast out because his job as accuser had been outmoded. Jesus' blood defeated the Satan/accuser.

Angels & Demons 14: Can Angels Rebel Against God?

While some Christians are familiar with the notion of angels marrying human women, and while that Fallen Angel Story is the most prevalent one in the period preceding the New Testament, most Christians are more inclined to link the fall of the angels to some rebellion of angels. Specifically, Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12-14 (who many Christians believe is Satan) is thought to have led an angel rebellion against God.

The motif of lesser gods rebelling against Zeus is the basis for the “Clash of the Titans” in Greek mythology. Therefore, the motif of angels rebelling against God made a good deal of sense to Jews who were living in the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great and his successors (between the Old and New Testaments). Furthermore, although the Isaiah 14 account has Lucifer “die like men” and be, thus, shown to be far inferior to God, many Christians view this Lucifer/Satan who led the supposed angelic rebellion against God to be almost equal to God in his strength and power. They believe that God and Lucifer/Satan are currently at war with one another, and some even believe it is possible that Lucifer/Satan will win. This motif of a Good God who is locked in struggle with an Evil God is neither Greek nor Jewish/Hebrew; it is Persian. (See Angels & Demons 4: “The Great Satan” of Iran.) Both the New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism from the New Testament period reject the view that angels can rebel against God.

Bereshit Rabbah 27:4, a passage to which I referred in an earlier commentary, presents evidence that angels were incapable of rebellion against God. There, in his exposition of Genesis 6:6 (in which God repented that He had made man), Rabbi Judah, from the second century A.D., quotes God as saying regarding MAN: “For behold, (if) I had created him from above, he would not have rebelled against Me.” The point of Rabbi Judah’s remark is that, if man had been created out of the same substance as heavenly beings, he would have been incapable of rebellion against God. Even if one accepts the view of Rabbi Nehemiah, also from the second century A.D., in the same Bereshit Rabbah passage, that if God had made man in Heaven, he would have caused the heavenly beings to rebel against God, one still finds the same basic conclusion: that heavenly beings have never rebelled against God. Otherwise, Rabbi Nehemiah would not have presented God as “relieved” that he had made man “on the earth.”

In Tanhuma Book I, page 30 (an account that parallels Bereshit Rabbah 27:4), the common term for “angels” is used instead of the term “heavenly beings.” Rabbi Judah is quoted as saying that angels do not sin. Rabbi Nehemiah says that God was consoled that He had not made man in heaven, because he would have caused the angels to rebel. Here, then, as in Bereshit Rabbah 27:4, angels remain non-rebellious.

The authoritative Judaic teaching of the period under consideration is in line with this Bereshit Rabbah passage. Angels did not rebel against God. However, we should hasten to add that this was not the position of the Church Fathers—those Christians who wrote in the centuries following the New Testament period. As I mentioned in an earlier commentary, in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho a Jew, Dialogue 79, Trypho accuses Justin of blasphemy, because Justin says that angels sin and rebel against God. Here, it is clear that the Church Father taught that angels rebel, and it is equally clear that Judaism rejected that teaching.

The Jews of this Post-New Testament Period even REWROTE the Book of Enoch. The Hebrew Book of Enoch, written by various authors of this time, contains NO FALLEN REBEL ANGEL STORIES. It contains no account of rebellious fallen angels, such as the versions of the Book of Enoch written BETWEEN the Old and New Testaments do.

According to Bamberger (p. 94), “nowhere in Talmudic sources is Satan depicted as a rebel against God.” Neither is any account of Satan rebelling against God to be found in the New Testament. According to the New Testament, the account of Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12-14 is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FALL OF SATAN. Lucifer is NOT SATAN. I will discuss Lucifer and who he is in my next commentary.

Angels & Demons 12: Angels Cannot Engage in Sex

By far, the most famous Fallen Angel Story in all of literature is the story of angels who married human women and had children. In his article on angels in Judaism in the Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, volume V, page 80, J. Michl reports that, in Judaism, the angels were created free of moral decision-making capacity. He does however point out that they were fallible, citing Job 4:18 and 15:15. These two passages do not charge angels with sin, but they do charge angels with making mistakes—suggesting that they were not infallible. Was having sex with humans one of those areas in which angels were fallible? The literature between the Old Testament and New Testament certainly seems to make that claim. Michl lists the following texts that claim that some angels sinned--as the authors of these texts formed their opinions, based on Genesis 6, that angels had sexual unions with human wives:

Jubilees 4.22, 5.1, 7.21, and 10.5,
I Enoch 6f., 12.4, 15, 69.2-4, 84.4, and 86.1-6,
II Enoch 18.3-5, and (possibly) 7.1-3,
Testament of Ruben 5.6,
Testament of Naphtali 3.4,
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 56.12,
Damaskusschriften 3.4,
Philo, On the Giants 6,
Josephus, Antiquities 1.31, and
The Testament of Solomon 5:3.

As is easily seen, the story of sexual angels was a popular one, in the Hellenistic Period. There is an abundance of literature written after the Old Testament on this subject—so much, in fact, that the composer of the “Innocent Fallen Angel Story” I have been citing in these commentaries was, no doubt, familiar with the subject. That composer found it important enough to include the idea of sexuality in his Fallen Angel Story. It is not quite clear in the “Innocent Fallen Angel Story” whether, if the young girl were willing to consummate the sexual union, it would have even been possible. The proceedings never reached that stage, and (so far as this account is concerned) the angels were never again accused of making such a proposal. Herein lies part of the ingenuity of the “Innocent Fallen Angel Story.” Without totally disavowing the potential for angelic-human sexual intercourse, it nevertheless concludes that such an occurrence never came about. It appears to be a link between the popular (legendary) Fallen Angel Story and the official angelology of the rabbis. The Jewish rabbis of the New Testament period, on the whole, stood solidly on the contention that the “Fallen Angel Story” from I Enoch and others cited above was unacceptable, because angels had no sexual capacity.

The Testament of Solomon, the final text listed by Michl, was actually written sometime between 100 and 400 a.d. That work claims that all angels (not just fallen ones) have sexual capacity. It alludes to the Sexual Fallen Angel Story when it says: “You, on the one hand, are the son of a man, but I, of an angel, and by a daughter of man was I born.” Louis Ginzberg comments: “The Testament of Solomon, though containing a great many Jewish elements, is on the whole of a strongly syncretistic character. The pagan element is obvious in the fact that the angels (not only the fallen ones) are made to have offspring.” This is neither Jewish nor Christian, but pagan.” The rabbis and the New Testament writers stayed away from this teaching.

As Bamberger points out on page 90 of his book Fallen Angels: “The Talmud NEVER speaks of fallen or rebel angels. This is no accident; nor were the rabbis ignorant of the legend. They knew and suppressed it.” In other words, the Sexual Fallen Angel Story was intentionally subverted by the rabbis. Only a few brief references to the Sexual Fallen Angel tradition remain. In the New Testament, as I have indicated in previous commentaries, three of the gospels quote Jesus as teaching that angels neither marry nor give in marriage. Even in the LONE New Testament passage that suggests that angels could have “sinned” (II Peter 2:4), the idea is only presented in a CONDITIONAL clause—“IF God did not spare sinning angels.” And EVEN THERE, there is no mention of the SEXUAL Fallen Angel Story. Like the rabbis, the author of II Peter (along with his audience) knew the legend, and the writer suppressed it. In the parallel passage in Jude 6, the angels are NOT EVEN ACCUSED OF SINNING. They are accused only of “abandon[ing] their proper dwelling.” Like the rabbis, the author of Jude (and his audience) knew the legend and the writer suppressed it. So intent upon suppressing the Sexual Fallen Angel Story were the New Testament writers and early scribes that the name Enoch may have even been intentionally expunged from I Peter 3:19, as I discussed in a previous commentary. Neither the rabbis nor the New Testament writers support the Sexual Fallen Angel Story. But, does the Old Testament support the Sexual Fallen Angel Story? I will discuss the Genesis 6 passage on its own merits, next week.

Angels & Demons 3: Where Have All the Fallen Angels Gone?

Although I never met him, Bernard Bamberger is the author of the most authoritative book from the late 20th century on Fallen Angels written from a Jewish perspective. I have a few things in common with him:

• Bamberger was the Rabbi of Temple Israel of Lafayette, Indiana, from 1929-1944; I was a member of the West Lafayette Christian Church that met temporarily in the Temple Israel building in West Lafayette from 1979 to 1981, when I was there.
• I had gleaned a great deal of information from Bamberger’s book throughout the 1970s, as I wrote my master’s thesis on Anamartetous Fallen Angels in partial fulfillment of my Master’s in Hebrew from Indiana University.
• Bamberger reached very nearly the same conclusions with regard to official Jewish literature that I reached with regard to New Testament literature as these literatures dealt with the issue of Fallen Angels.

Here is Bamberger’s conclusion from page 55 of his book: “The astounding thing is that, after some centuries of experimentation with this idea, the authoritative teachers of Judaism dropped it altogether. . . . The main line of Jewish thought returned to an uncompromising monotheism in which there was no room for satanic rebels.”

In the Old Testament, there were no fallen angels. Then, right after the Old Testament, hundreds of fallen angels emerged. Then, by the New Testament, the fallen angels have disappeared again! That’s amazing. In light of the flood of literature on fallen angels from the period between the Old and New Testaments, the obvious disqualification of the bulk of the fallen angel material from the official/codified scriptures of Judaism and the literature surrounding them is striking. The Hebrew Bible is silent on the subject and the official Jewish literature from the early Christian era is virtually silent on the subject. Furthermore, with the exception of a few very brief references to the story (which I shall explain in future commentaries) the New Testament is virtually silent on the subject. Where have all the fallen angels gone?

One possible explanation is as follows. Judaism did not get along with their Roman rulers in the years following Jesus’ death and resurrection, as they had gotten along with their Greek rulers in the early Greek Empire. They experienced a devastating seven year war with the Romans that included the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. Many Jews were taken into captivity; all of Israel was crushed by the Romans. It may well be that the increased tensions between the Jews and their Roman rulers provided the rationale for the abrupt discontinuation of many of these Hellenistic themes in Jewish angelology. In fact, it is interesting that the Church Fathers were the first to restore some of these Greek and Roman religious concepts of fallen angels. Christianity was fast becoming the new religion of the Roman Empire. There would be no real obligation on the part of the Church Fathers to divorce these western concepts from their theology. Rather, the opposite (attempts to show the reasonably close resemblance) would appear to be beneficial to the Church’s cause.

However, I think that early rabbinic Judaism and New Testament Christianity just became apprehensive about the dangers of Persian, Greek, and Roman religions and how these pagan religions had been instrumental in producing the fallen angel stories during the time Jews had been under the control of these cultures. Whatever the reason, the fallen angel stories are virtually gone by the time of the New Testament. We are hard-pressed to produce any material from the tannaitic-amoraic period of Judaism (the period just after the New Testament) or from the New Testament itself to support the Greek, Roman, or Persian themes in the fallen angel stories.

Since the Roman gods are, more often than not, just renamed Greek gods, I will not spend time discussing Roman religion. Next time, however, I will address Persian religion as it affected fallen angel stories. As we consider Greek and Persian religion, I think you will see how erroneous concepts of Satan and Fallen Angels developed, and how the New Testament and rabbinic Judaism countered these developments.