Heaven and Earth – Next Step Bible Study

The Monotheistic Revolution: Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1

“In the beginning, (the) Mightiest created the heavens and the earth.”
Jr#a*h^ ta@w+ <y]m^V*h^ ta@ <yh!l)a$ ar*B* tyv!ar@B=

The format of this series (at least initially) will be to begin with a verse from the Genesis Creation account (1:1-2:4a). Before relating the verse to the polytheism of the ancient Near East, it will be examined on its own terms. Each word or phrase will be considered as part of this exegesis.

tyv!ar@B= “in (the) beginning” —The opening word of Gen 1:1 is the feminine noun tyv!ar@, and related to the root noun var) I (“head”). The idea of the head can also be understood in the more figurative sense of “top”, and from there to the more abstract concepts of “first, chief,” as well as its use in the temporal sense of “beginning, start”. The feminine noun tyv!ar@ properly captures this abstract usage, especially the temporal or foundational aspect of a beginning.

Some commentators read the noun here as being in the construct state (i.e., “in the beginning of…”), and that verse 1 should be understood, not as an independent sentence, but as a temporal clause, subordinate to what follows in verses 2-3: “In the beginning (when) God created the heavens and the earth…” Cassuto (pp. 19-20) argues that, if this were the intended syntax, then the verb would precede the noun at the start of verse 2. The examples he cites (Jer 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; Hos 1:2) do, in fact, provide the closest grammatical parallels to our verse.

Overall, it is best to understand the opening word (with prefixed preposition), tyv!ar@B=, as a subordinate temporal phrase: “In the beginning, God created…”. It was specifically, at the very beginning—i.e., before anything had yet come to be in the universe—that God created.

ar*B* (“created”)—This is a common verb, similar in meaning to rx^y` (“form, fashion, shape”), with the basic meaning “make,” or, in the case of an artist or artisan, “create”. God thus makes (creates) the universe, and all of the Creation account (1:1-2:4a) is essentially a declaration of YHWH as the Creator (cf. below).

<yh!ýa$ (“[the] Mightiest”)—I translate the plural form <yh!ýa$ (°§lœhîm, “mighty [one]s”) as an intensive plural (i.e., “mightiest”). It is related to the common Semitic word for deity la@ (°¢l, “mighty [one]”). On El as the Creator deity for the ancient Semitic peoples, cf. below. I discuss the names/titles El and Elohim in more detail in prior articles.

Jr#a*h^ ta@w+ <y]m^V*h^ ta@ (“the heavens and the earth”)—The direct object of the sentence, and the thing that God creates, is represented by this pair of nouns (“the heavens” and “the earth”). This will be discussed further in the next study. Here, I wish to focus on the first three words of the verse only:

<yh!l)a$ ar*B* tyv!ar@B=
“In (the) beginning, (the) Mightiest created”

The Creator in Near Eastern Polytheism

Let us begin with the Semitic-speaking world, since it is closest to ancient Israel, both linguistically and culturally. The word la@ (°¢l), which generally corresponds to “God” in English, is an ancient Semitic word which was well-established and in wide use by at least the early Bronze Age (third millennium B.C.), attested in every part of the Semitic-speaking world—in Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, south into Arabia and N. Africa, as well as in the Phoenician (Punic) colonies much further afield. It doubtless belongs to the earliest Proto-Semitic vocabulary, and has a basic meaning and usage similar to the early terms dingir () in Sumer and netjer (n¾r, ) in Egypt. The precise etymology remains uncertain, but the fundamental meaning of la@ would seem to be “mighty” or possibly “great, exalted”. It is often thought to be derived from the root lwa (°awl), but it seems more likely that it stems from a primitive biconsonantal root la.

As applied to the power (or powers, i.e. deities) which were thought to govern the universe, the term would literally mean “mighty (one)”, with plural <yl!a@ (°¢lîm) as “mighty (one)s” —that is to say, “God” or “gods”. The main difference between °¢l and the corresponding terms from Sumer and Egypt is that °¢l was commonly used as the name of the chief (Creator) Deity of the Semitic-speaking peoples. The range of usage does generally match that of “God” in English:

- of Deity generally—”God”
- to refer to any particular deity (or deities)—”god(s)”
- as a name when addressing or referring to the Creator Deity—as “God”

There is reasonably well documented evidence for the chief Creator God being named °E~l (“Mighty [One]”), for both the Amorites in Mesopotamia and Canaanites in Syria-Palestine. As pronounced (vocalized) at the time (c. 2000-1400 B.C.) it would have been °Il(u). The most extensive information comes from the religious texts and myths uncovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in Syria.

The principal role of °E~l was as Father—both of gods and human beings—or, more concretely, as Creator. This is seen in the famous episode in Genesis 14, in which Abraham encounters Melchi-Zedek, the (Canaanite) priest-king of Salem. There °E~l (using the compound name °E~l ±Elyôn) is referred to with the formula-title “creator [hn@q)] of heaven and earth” (v. 19). This passage will be discussed further in upcoming studies.

Multiple Creators?

One aspect of ancient polytheism that can be perplexing to modern readers and students is the overlapping attributes and characteristics of certain deities. Sometimes more than one deity will share the same basic role, and have (in many respects) the same fundamental identity. In part, this has to do with the nature of deity itself, as understood within a polytheistic framework.

For example, consider the idea of a “fertility deity”. There are many parts of the natural world where we see fertility taking place—in the fields and trees, among the animals and human beings, and so forth. Since there were deities who were thought to embody and govern each of these parts, there were thus many different “fertility deities”. The same may be said of “Creator deities”, since creation—the production and generation of life—takes place in many different parts of the natural world.

It is perhaps helpful to distinguish between this common sense of creation and that performed “at the beginning” (as in Gen 1:1). A deity who existed “at the beginning”, and who brought into being the other deities, can be referred to as a Primeval Creator. Clearly, El-Yahweh is a Primeval Creator; indeed, as a whole this characterizes the Semitic °E~l, who was understood to be “father of (all the other) deities”. It is important to remember that, from the polytheistic standpoint, the God who creates the universe, creates (at the same time) all of the powers (i.e., deities) that are manifest in the universe; the two cannot be separated.

Even so, there can be multiple Primeval Creators within certain developed polytheistic systems of thought. While this may seem completely contradictory, we can begin to explain it once we have clearly in mind the nature of ancient polytheism. The complexity of the universe (and how it is understood) means that there can be multiple aspects to the same basic phenomenon; and these different aspects can be conceived as distinct deities. With regard to the Creation, let us consider these illustrative examples from human experience, where a creator can be understood in terms of: an artisan or craftsman, a speaker, a planner/designer, a father bearing seed, a mother giving birth, and so forth. In addition to this, there are the various syncretic (and syncretistic) tendencies in ancient polytheism; these will be discussed at various points throughout this series.

Sumer and Mesopotamia

As noted above, the Sumerian term for deity was dingir (), the precised meaning and derivation of which remains uncertain. By all accounts, it was never used as the name or title of a specific High Deity, such as °¢l / °il(u) was by the Semitic peoples. These Semitic-speakers include the eastern territories extending into Mesopotamia. The Amorites certainly worshiped the Creator God °E~l, while the Akkadians were more directly influenced by the Sumerians, inheriting and adapting many of their fundamental religious beliefs and conceptions of deity.

Among the Sumerians, the deity An held a place comparable to °E~l. The word essentially means “heaven, sky”, referring to the entire upper half of the universe. He was the great High God of the Sumerians, and generally regarded as the Creator of the deities. An (“heaven”) coupled with Ki (“earth”) to produce the various other deities. The universe as a whole was called an-ki (“heaven-earth”), much as we see in Genesis 1:1 and 14:19 (cf. above). This will be discussed further in the next study.

However, the role of Primeval Creator more properly belongs to the goddess Nammu, a name written with the ideogram for “sea”. Embodying the primeval waters which were thought to have preceded the creation of the universe, Nammu was conceived of as a great Mother who gives birth to An-Ki (Heaven and Earth). On a tablet that gives a list of Sumerian deities, Nammu is specifically described as “the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth” (Kramer, p. 39). Thus, while An and Ki created the deities, they themselves were first created by Nammu. The ancient Near Eastern cosmology, upon which these beliefs are based, will be discussed in the upcoming studies; the primeval waters, especially, will be discussed in association with Gen 1:2.

Ancient Egypt

As I mentioned in the Introduction, the polytheism of ancient Egypt was especially rich and complex. Its complexity is partly due to the fact that we have more information and knowledge about it, thanks to the wealth of surviving artifacts, texts, and inscriptions. At the same time, the Egyptian people also seem to have developed their polytheistic ideas and structures in ways that went beyond those of the surrounding cultures. The syncretic tendencies were especially elaborate and sophisticated, providing a highly detailed depiction of the phenomena of the natural world. It is like a painting that was made with 100 colors instead of 20. As a result, the names and forms of many more deities are known to us from ancient Egypt, than elsewhere.

Over the long history of ancient Egypt, a number of different Creator deities took on prominence. They were not mutually exclusive, but could exist in the religious thought and practice of the people simultaneously. To some extent, they were combined syncretistically, but they also can be seen as representing different aspects of Creation. The following deities can be characterized as (Primeval) Creator gods, and are the most prominent:

- Atum—the name means something like “the All” or “the undifferentiated [One]”; Atum is alone in the dark primeval waters (Nun) where he brings forth (creates) the first deities out of himself.
- Ra (R)—the precise derivation of this name remains in dispute, but could mean something like “(the) rising/ascending (one)”. Ra fundamentally represents the creative, life-giving power manifest in the sun; however, he came to be recognized as the Primeval Creator, especially through the syncretic combination Ra-Atum (i.e., Ra identified as the Creator Atum). The primary religious/cult center for Ra was the city of Iunu (On in the Old Testament, Heliopolis in Greek [“city of the sun”]).
- Amun (°mwn), “[the] Hidden [one]” —this deity may have represented the ‘hidden’ power in the sky (the air/atmosphere); however, in at least one line of cosmological tradition, he is associated with the primeval darkness that preceded the Creation, representing (together with a female consort) one of four deity-pairs embodying aspects of this Primeval state. He came into special prominence when the Egyptian capital was located at Wasit (Thebes), and he was identified (syncretically) with the Creator as Amun-Ra, the great High Deity throughout much of Egyptian history.
- Ptah—a Creator deity worshiped especially at the ancient capital Men-nefer (Memphis), and conceived primarily as a craftsman/artisan, who brought the world into existence as a work of art. In many ways, Ptah corresponds with our basic concept of God as Creator better than the other deities mentioned above. The famous cosmological text on the Shabaka Stone is an especially developed theological work (the so-called “Memphite Theology”) affirming Ptah as the supreme Deity and Creator of the world.

Summary

As Creator, YHWH (= Elohim in Genesis 1:1ff) holds a place in Israelite monotheism similar to that of the Primeval Creator-deities in ancient Near Eastern polytheism. The main difference is two-fold: (1) in creating the universe (heaven and earth), YHWH does not create any comparable deities; and (2) He proceeds to create all aspects and components of the universe Himself. Both of these points are fundamental to the distinction between monotheism and polytheism. Since the various “powers” (= deities) are related to the various parts of the universe, they come into being with the universe; this is essential to the polytheistic worldview. Similarly, as the universe takes shape, in stages, the first created deities, in turn, create more deities—the coming-to-be of world (cosmogony) is also a coming-to-be of all the deities in the world (theogony). This will be discussed in more detail in upcoming studies.

By contrast, in the Genesis Creation account, there is cosmogony, but no theogony. God (YHWH) alone creates all the different parts of the universe. To be sure, the Israelite and (later) Jewish worldview included other divine/heavenly beings (Angels, etc) who were created by God. This idea is comparable, in certain respects, with Near Eastern polytheism; however, there is not the slightest mention of it here in the Genesis Creation account.

References above marked “Cassuto” are to Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I: From Adam to Noah (1944), transl. by Israel Abrahams (1961) (Magnes Press: 1989).
References marked “Kramer” are to Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C. (1944) (Harper & Bros.: 1961).

November 19: Colossians 1:20c

Colossians 1:20c

[di’ au)tou=] ei&te ta\ e)pi\ th=$ gh=$ ei&te ta\ e)n toi=$ ou)ranoi=$
“(all this is) [through him], whether the (thing)s upon the earth or the (thing)s in the heavens”

This line concludes the second stanza, and also forms the conclusion to the hymn as a whole.

The first point to address is text-critical. The initial words di’ au)tou= (“through him”) are absent from a relatively wide range of textual witnesses (B D* G 81 1739 and among the Latin, Coptic [Sahidic], Armenian, and Ethiopic versions). However, they are present in an equally wide range of witnesses (Ë⁴⁶ a A C D^c 614, and portions of the Syriac and Coptic versions, etc). The external (manuscript) evidence is rather evenly divided. Internal considerations are also far from decisive. Since the same expression occurred earlier in the verse (cf. the prior note on v. 20a), it could easily have been deleted here as superfluous, or by accident (haplography); or, on the other hand, it may have been repeated as a mistake in copying (dittography). The inclusion of the words would seem to represent the more difficult or unusual reading, and so perhaps should be retained on the principle of lectio difficilior probabilior (“the more difficult reading is probable”, i.e., is more likely to be original). The Nestle-Aland critical text retains the words, but in square brackets to indicate their uncertain or disputed status; this is probably the wisest approach, and I have adopted it above.

If the words di’ au)tou= are original, their repetition from 20a must be considered emphatic (but note their place in the outline below). They give special emphasis to the fact that the transformation, even of all things in creation, is brought about by God through Jesus the Son. This cosmic aspect of the hymn is expressed in a number of ways, most notably by the repeated use of the comprehensive adjective pa=$ (“all”)—8 times in the hymn, including five instances of the objective plural ta\ pa/nta (“all [thing]s”). The pre-existent Son of God played a central role in the original creation of “all things” (the subject of the first stanza), and now the exalted Jesus plays a similar role in the new creation (second stanza).

As the second stanza makes clear, it is the death and resurrection of Jesus that brings about the transformation of the cosmos. But how should this be so? The removal of the effects of sin and impurity on humankind can reasonably be derived from the significance of the sacrificial ritual in the ancient covenant setting. But how would this apply to the cosmos as a whole, without the context of a personal relationship (covenant-bond)? Here the unique theology developed by Paul provides an explanation. Three passages can be mentioned: chapters 5 and 8 of Romans, and the discussion on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.

In Romans 5 the parallel is clearly drawn between human sin and the corruption of the created order. The effect of sin is undone (or reversed) by Jesus in his role as a ‘second’ Adam. This focus is soteriological, but it expands to include an eschatological dimension in chapter 8. All of creation, personified as a human being, groans under the bondage (of sin, evil, and death) in the current Age, awaiting its liberation. And, just as believers in Christ have been freed from bondage to the power of sin, so all of the cosmos will one day be liberated. The sequence is clear: first, Jesus is raised from the dead; second, those who trust in him participate in the same life-giving power (of God’s Spirit); third, at the end of the current Age, this resurrection will be realized when believers are raised from the dead, after the pattern of Jesus; and, finally, all of creation will be ‘reborn’, in the pattern of the resurrection of Jesus the Son (and believers as the sons/children of God). The New Age will involve a “new heaven and a new earth”, just as human beings (believers) are changed in to a “new creation”. The transformation of the cosmos in terms of resurrection is an important theme of 1 Cor 15 as well (vv. 20-28, 42-56).

There is a similar corollary between humankind and the cosmos here in the Christ hymn, and could be used as a reasonably strong argument in favor of Pauline authorship of the hymn. In my view, the line of thought and imagery resembles that expressed by Paul in the passages noted above—especially Romans 5. There, in the first half of that passage (in vv. 8-11), Paul describes the effect of sin in creating hostility between humankind and God; but the death of Jesus has restored the relationship. Similarly, in the more famous second half, it is narrated how sin has corrupted the world, so that, in the current Age, sin now rules as king (v. 14). The power of sin and death is itself undone by Jesus’ death (and resurrection), transformed into a reign of righteousness and life (vv. 18-21). However, this transformation will not be realized until the end of the current Age; for the moment, it is experienced only by believers, through the presence of the Spirit.

The New Age for believers, in union with Christ, was expressed in the hymn through the head-body (‘body of Christ’) idiom of v. 18a. Then, in the second stanza proper, this central theme is expounded within the same matrix of cosmology-soteriology-eschatology we find in the Pauline passages cited above. Let us see how this may be expressed in terms of the syntax and thematic structure of the stanza:

“who is” —Jesus (the Son) is the one who is
- “the beginning” —that is, of the new creation, defined as
- “the first (one) brought forth out of the dead” —resurrection
  - “so that” —the purpose of the resurrection/creation is
    - “he should be (the one who is) first in all (thing)s” —the exaltation of Jesus
  - “(for it was) that” —what brings about his resurrection/exaltation is that
    - “in him” —in the person of Jesus the Son
      - “(God) considered it good (for) all the fullness to put down house” —the incarnation, Jesus filled with the Presence/Spirit of God
    - “through him” —through the work of Jesus
      - “(for God) to make all things different (again)” —the power to restore/transform creation
        
        “unto him” —according to the pattern and goal of Jesus the Son
      - “making peace” —undoing the effect of sin, restoring the bond with God
    - “through the blood of his cross” —through his death
  - “[through him]” —all of this takes place through the person of and work of Jesus, so that
- “the things upon and earth and the things in the heavens” —the complete transformation of the new creation

The strands of thought running through the stanza are complex and powerful. In some ways the cosmological aspect is primary—that is, both stanzas deal primarily with creation. The first stanza focuses on the first (original) creation, the second on the new creation. The resurrection of Jesus ‘restores’ him to his exalted place alongside God the Father in heaven (cp. the descent/ascent paradigm in the Philippians hymn), but it also transforms him into the life-giving Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 15:45). Through the exalted Jesus, God gives life to the new creation, even as He did in the original creation. From his exalted position, Jesus is first, ruling over all things in creation.

While these themes are not unique to Paul in early Christianity, it is his writings which gave to them their finest and definitive expression, and the splendid, ever-provocative hymn of Colossians 1:15-20—whether composed by Paul himself, or simply adapted by him—may fairly be said to represent the high point of this expression.

November 4: Colossians 1:16a

Colossians 1:16a

o%ti e)n au)tw=| e)kti/sqe ta\ pa/nta
e)n toi=$ ou)ranoi=$ kai\ e)pi\ th=$ gh=$
ta\ o)rata\ kai\ ta\ a)o/rata
“(for it is) that in him were founded all the (thing)s,
in the heavens and upon the earth,
the (thing)s seeable and (thing)s unseeable…”

The complex clause of verse 16 is subordinate to v. 15, and epexegetical. It further explains what it means to say that Jesus is the “likeness/image of God”, and also the “first-born” of all that has been created; indeed, it gives us the reason why it is right to speak of Jesus this way. The conjunctive particle o%ti, is explicative, with causal force—i.e., “(for it is) that…”.

There is a clear and carefully constructed symmetry to this statement in v. 16, with a framework governed by prepositional expressions which relate back to the initial relative pronoun. These prepositional phrases enclose the remainder of the verse, so that we may outline the structure of vv. 15-16 as follows:

- “who is [o%$ e)stin]…”
  - “in him [e)n au)tw=|]…”
    …….
  - “through him [di’ au)tou=]
    and unto him [ei)$ au)to/n]…”

The three expressions, utilizing three different prepositions, are: “in [e)n] him…through [di/a] him and unto [ei)$] him”. This is similar to triadic formulae with a cosmological-existential orientation in contemporary Greek philosophy (cf. the Areopagus speech by Paul, Acts 17:28). The particular triad here is comparable to that used by certain Stoic philosophers and authors, one of the most notable being Marcus Aurelius, in his Contemplations (4.23). Closer in time and religious background to our hymn is the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher-commentator Philo of Alexandria (cf. On the Cherubim 125). The entire subject has been documented in E. Norden’s classic study Agnostos Theos (1913), esp. pp. 240-50, and cf. also M. Robinson, “A Formal Analysis of Colossians,” 1:15-20, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 76 (1957), p. 276; R. M. Grant, “Causation and ‘the Ancient World View,'” JBL 83 (1964), p. 35 (Barth/Blanke, p, 197).

Here, the three expressions are not presented as a simple triad; rather, they are divided into two parts, involving two parallel statements:

“in him all (thing)s were founded…
all (thing)s have been founded through him and unto him“

Both of these statements involve the verb kti/zw, related to the noun kti/si$ in v. 15. The verb has the basic meaning “found, establish, build”, and here clearly refers to the founding (i.e. creation) of the cosmos by God. The passive form of the verb is an example of the so-called “divine passive” (passivum divinum), with God as the implied subject—i.e., “…were founded (by God)”. The initial occurrence here is an aorist form, the second a perfect form; the aorist typically is used for an event or action which occurred in the past, while the perfect often refers to a past action or condition which continues into the present.

As previously noted, Paul uses the noun kti/si$ (and the verb kti/zw) in two ways: (1) in reference to the original creation of the universe (and human beings) by God, and (2) for the new creation, realized (presently) by believers in Christ. The new creation is patterned after the original (first) creation. When looking at the structure of the hymn as a whole, it becomes clear that the two stanzas relate to these two aspects (or stages) of God’s work of creation; moreover, the same dual-aspect is present in the intervening pair of couplets of v. 17. That the first creation is in view here in vv. 15-16 is confirmed by two other factors: (a) the aorist passive e)kti/sqh, as something done by God in the past, and (b) the substantive adjective ta\ pa/nta (“all things”), as a short-hand for the (current) created order.

Paul frequently uses the substantive plural of pa=$ (“all”), in a general and comprehensive sense (“all things”), though less frequently in a cosmological context (cf. 1 Cor 15:28; 2 Cor 5:18). Here the reference is to ‘everything in the cosmos’, especially ‘every living, intelligent being’, as the central phrases of v. 16 make clear. The first two (of the four) central phrases are:

“in the heavens and upon the earth,
the seeable (thing)s and the unseeable (thing)s”

“Heaven and earth” is a conventional shorthand for referring to the cosmos (the world/universe) as a whole, and ultimately relates back to the basic bipartate (geocentric) cosmology of the ancient Near East. Even by the mid-1st century, in the Greco-Roman world, when a somewhat more sophisticated geocentric cosmology had developed, “heaven and earth” still served as a simple shorthand for the universe. The adjective a)o/rato$ was used in v. 15, in reference to God as “unseeable”, unable to be seen by human beings; other divine/heavenly beings (Angels, etc) are similarly understood as ‘invisible’, unable to be seen by humans in ordinary circumstances. The adjective o(rato/$, without the privative prefix a)-, naturally represents the opposite: what is visible and can be seen normally by human beings (with their eyes). Divine/heavenly beings tend to be located in “the heavens”, while human beings are on “the earth”; thus, the two phrases are generally synonymous, and in parallel, for a comprehensive description of the cosmos—esp. the inhabitants of the cosmos.

What does it mean to say that the cosmos and its inhabitants were created “in” Jesus (e)n au)tw=|, “in him”)? The contemporary Roman philosopher Seneca provides an explanation of the (Stoic) existential-cosmological triad (cf. above), and the various prepositions used (Epistle 65.8, cf. Barth/Blanke, p. 197-8). In this context, the preposition e)n (“in”) refers to the pattern or model used (by God) in creation. The closest New Testament parallel is in the Prologue of the Gospel of John (1:4): “in him was life” (e)n au)tw=| zwh\ h@n)—a parallel that would even be closer if the prior two words were included in the phrase, i.e. “that which has come to be in him was life”, but the precise reading (and punctuation) of vv. 3-4 remains in dispute. In any case, the expression “in him” in that passage is clearly related to the creation of the universe (“all things came to be”, “that which has come to be”), just as it is here in Colossians.

This will be discussed further in the next daily note, as we continue the study of v. 16.

References above marked “Barth/Blanke” are to Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians, transl. by Astrid B. Beck, Anchor Bible [AB] 34B (1994).

August 23: Exodus 15:12

Exodus 15:12

“You stretched (out) your right (hand),
(and the) earth swallowed them.”

Verse 12 is not a stanza as such, but a single (2-beat) couplet that brings the first part of the Song to a close. The terse synthetic parallelism of the couplet serves as a dramatic climax to the poetic account of the miracle at the Sea. The “right (hand)” (/ym!y`) of God was mentioned earlier in verse 6 (stanza 3), at the beginning of the poetic narration proper. As a symbol it emphasizes both YHWH’s power and the fact that victory was achieved by He alone, without reliance upon any human intermediary (or military technology). The “stretching out” (vb hf*n`) of His hand suggests the divine power in action.

YHWH, as the Creator, does not simply command human armies, but rather the forces of creation itself. The natural world responds to His command and does battle against the enemies of God (and of His people). Typically, this is understood in terms of the forces in the sky (heaven)—sun and moon, wind and storm, etc. However, here it is the earth (Jr#a#) that responds to the command of God’s outstretched hand. From the standpoint of the ancient Near Eastern cosmology, the universe could be divided simply into two parts—the heaven(s) above, and the earth below. The latter includes not only the flat disc (or cylinder) of the earth itself, but all of the space below the earth as well—that is, the underworld, conceived of primarily as the realm of death and the dead. This comprehensive meaning of Jr#a# (°ereƒ, Akkadian erƒetu) is well attested, for example in the Canaanite texts from Ugarit, but also at various points in the Psalms and Old Testament poetry, etc.

While the Sea may allude to the primeval waters, the actual “Reed Sea” where the nature-miracle took place is a body of water in/on the earth. When the waters, which the great wind had piled up, fell back upon the Egyptians (cf. the previous note on stanza 4), it may fairly be said that the earth “swallowed” (vb ul^B*) them. At the same time, as they were drowned to death, they were taken down into the realm of the dead below the earth (Sheol, the underworld); thus, they were “swallowed” by the earth in a double sense.

Coming as it does after the antiphon-response of stanza 4 (verse 11), it is worth considering this couplet in light of that response. The specific point of emphasis in those lines is on how the power of YHWH (over creation), manifest in the miracle at the Sea, separates Him from the other gods worshiped by the nations. There is no sense here of an absolute monotheism, but rather the (rhetorical) question posed reflects the relative monotheism of the early Israelite period. The point is not that no other deity exists, but that YHWH is far superior to all other deities, and that He alone is the Creator. His control of the forces of nature marks Him as the Creator.

The wording of the first two lines, each of which begins with the interrogative “Who (is) like you…?” (hk*m)k* ym!), needs to be considered carefully. The first line reads:

“Who (is) like you among the Mighty (one)s, YHWH?”

The expression “mighty (one)s” is a literal translation of the plural <l!a@ > <yl!a@. It is thus a plural of the noun la@ (°¢l), “mighty (one)”, which is the common Semitic term for deity, and can be used either as a general noun or proper name/title, much like “god/God” in English. None of the “mighty ones” (i.e. gods) worshiped by the other nations can compare with YHWH, the Creator worshiped by Israel. YHWH is to be identified with °E~l, the Creator and Mighty One of ancient Semitic belief. The question in the second line essentially repeats that of the first:

“Who (is) like you, so magnificent among the Holy (ones)?”

This question goes a bit further, suggesting that only YHWH is truly deserving of worship. The passive participle of the verb rd^a* (“be great, mighty, majestic”) connotes the honor that is due to YHWH. As previously noted, the (abstract) noun vd#q) is best understood as a collective term (“holy [ones]”), parallel with “mighty ones” in the first line. It emphasizes the religious/cultic environment in which the deity is revered and worshiped. The root vdq fundamentally implies a distinction, whereby one thing (or person) is separated (or set apart) from another. A sacred space and apparatus is set up for the worship of a particular deity—but YHWH is deserving of worship far more so that any other deity worshiped by the nations.

The contrast between Israel and the nations continues into the second half of the Song, becoming one of its major themes. This will be discussed in the next note.

Saturday Series: Deuteronomy 32:1ff

In recent weeks, we have examined various areas of Biblical Criticism, using the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 as a case for study. We have looked at:

- Textual Criticism—Analysis of the Hebrew text, including variant readings, attempts to determine the most likely original form of the text, and how it may have been shaped during the course of copying and transmission. For the Hebrew Old Testament, the Scripture manuscripts from Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) are especially important, when they differ from the Masoretic Text.
- Form Criticism—Study of the specific form and genre of the passage, as far as it can be determined. What type of material are we dealing with, what are its characteristics, and how is it distinguished from other portions elsewhere in Scripture or in the same book? Specific issues are involved when dealing with ancient Hebrew poetic or psalm/hymn forms, as in the case of Deut 32.
- Source Criticism—How did the passage come to be incorporated into the book as a whole? Did the writer(s) make use of an existing document or line of tradition? If so, how might it be distinguished from other material in the book?
- Historical Criticism—Consideration of the (original) historical setting and background of the book, and how it came to be composed. A separate issue involves analysis of the historical accuracy of the material, whether dealing with specific traditions or literary (and narrative) sections. The latter is not merely a question of whether the Scripture is historically reliable (from a particular standpoint), but of how the content of a passage relates to its composition.

We shall now apply these to an examination of the Song of Moses as it has come down to us, looking at specific selected verses or lines of the poem. This will help us to see just how criticism relates to interpretation—here in the case of a famous and influential piece of ancient Hebrew poetry within an Old Testament Scripture. Broadly speaking, this sort of study may be referred to as literary criticism—analysis of the distinct literary form and structure, i.e. the book and passage of Scripture, as it has come down to us.

Before proceeding, it will be helpful to consider the thematic outline of the Song. Such an outline normally would follow the sort of study we are doing, being the result of it; however, in this instance it will help things along to include it here beforehand.

- 1-3: Opening (exordium)—Call to Creation (heaven and earth)
- 4-18: God’s covenant with His people Israel, and their violation of the covenant
  —The Creator God (YHWH) as their Father (vv. 4-6)
  —His choice of Israel as His people, becoming their God (vv. 7-9)
  —His protection and guidance during the Exodus and wilderness travels (vv. 10-14)
  —His people turned away from Him, worshiping foreign gods (vv. 15-18)
- 19-42: God’s punishment of His people, and their subsequent deliverance
  —Punishment for violation of the covenant (vv. 19-25)
  —Concern for how this will be perceived by Israel’s enemies (vv. 26-31)
  —Plans to bring punishment on Israel’s enemies in turn (vv. 32-35)
  —Ultimate justice/deliverance for His people, and judgment on His enemies (vv. 36-41)
- 43: Conclusion—Call to the Nations

We start with the first verse (and line) of the Song.

Deuteronomy 32:1

The Song begins with a call (by the poet) to all of creation—”the heavens and the earth”:

“Give ear, O heavens, and I will open to speak,
And hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.” (v. 1)

This first line (bicolon) demonstrates the parallelism, common to much ancient Near Eastern (and Hebrew) poetry, which runs throughout the song. We examined this in the study on Form Criticism. It is not simply a stylistic device; it also allows the poet to emphasize certain themes and ideas, giving two (or more) variations of a basic motif, the second restating or building upon the first. Here the dual-concept of the universe (creation) as consisting of the pair “heaven and earth” serves to establish the parallelism in the line. This sort of opening is actually a traditional literary (and rhetorical) device, seen in other places in the Old Testament—Isa 1:2-3; Jer 2:4ff; also Psalm 50:4; Mic 6:1ff. It draws upon ancient religious and cultural traditions, including certain conventions associated with establishment of binding agreements (covenants) and treaties, etc. In establishing such an agreement between parties, it was customary to call on deities as witnesses, as way of “hallowing” the agreement, and, in a quasi-magical manner, to bring down divine judgment if it should ever be violated by one of the parties. We see a faint vestige of this sort of practice today in our continued use of oaths in official legal proceedings and public ceremonies.

Of course, in the context of early Israelite monotheism, Yahweh was the one called upon in oaths and the like. In the case of the covenant between God (YHWH) and Israel, the typical custom (of calling upon deities as witness) could not be applied in the same way, nor was it entirely appropriate. Nothing of the sort is found in the early covenant traditions (in Gen 15, 17; Exod 24, etc) which we examined in earlier studies. However, it does appear several times in the book of Deuteronomy: 4:26; 30:19, and at 31:28, just prior to the Song. Though “heaven” and “earth” as such were viewed as deities in the ancient Near East, they are not treated this way here. Rather, they represent “all of creation”—i.e. the universe, the created order. The poet, following God’s own word, calls on heaven and earth to hear the words of the Song. According to 31:19, the Song itself serves as witness of the covenant, to which heaven and earth join, according to the traditional motif. This enhances the importance of the Song and its message. Verse 2 extends the idea of creation as witness, hearing the words of the Song, through the natural imagery of rain and dew—i.e., water from heaven, which, drawing upon sky/storm theophany, has God as its source. God’s word—that is, the inspired message of the Song—comes down from heaven to the earth.

Commentators sometimes refer to the call to heaven and earth in verse 1 (and similar passages) as part of a “covenant lawsuit” tradition, whereby one calls upon the (divine) witnesses to deliver a complaint that the binding agreement (treaty or covenant) has been violated. Such violation will result in divine judgment, often understood in military terms—attack upon the party who violated the covenant. While verse 1 almost certainly draws upon such a tradition, it must be said that there is no real sense in the Song of a legal proceeding. It is, however, present more decidedly in Isa 1:2-3ff and Jer 2:4ff, passages which were doubtless influenced by Deut 32; indeed, there are a number of rather clear parallels between Isa 1:2-31 and the Song of Moses. For examples of heaven/earth taking a more active role in the proceedings, see Mic 6:1-2; Jer 4:28; 6:19; 51:38. Natural disasters and other phenomena were typically understood as manifestations of divine judgment.

This last point is significant, and can easily be overlooked in a casual reading of vv. 1-3. By injecting a developed (later) form of monotheism into these early Scriptures, there is also a tendency to exaggerate a separation between the transcendent Creator God (YHWH) and the Creation. In early Israelite thought and expression, God and the Creation (heaven and earth) were much more closely connected than is often realized by Jews and Christians today. While not “gods” in the sense found in ancient Near Eastern religious lore, heaven and earth, along with all of the natural phenomena contained within them, obeyed YHWH and worked/acted on His behalf. As witnesses to the covenant, they also would “act” against the violators of the agreement, as indicated in the passages cited above. We already saw in the Golden Calf episode (Exod 32), how natural features and phenomena were utilized to bring judgment on the people (vv. 20, 35), presented in tandem with attack by military forces (“the sword”, vv. 25-28), and this could be repeated numerous times from similar passages in the Old Testament. Here in the Song, upon violation of the covenant, the earth itself, which was at first fruitful (vv. 13-14), would turn against the people, through the burning fire of God’s anger which consumes the earth’s produce and fertility (v. 20). Along with this, there will famine, plague, disease and attacks by wild beasts (v. 24)—all natural disasters which will strike the people, even as they will also be attacked by the sword of invading military forces (v. 25). This is all very much part of the traditional language of divine judgment in the Old Testament.

It is also especially significant in light of the primary theme which runs through the Song: the contrast between YHWH as Israel’s God, and the foreign deities which the people came to worship, thereby violating the covenant. This will be discussed in our study on subsequent verses in the Song, but it is important to note how the theme is established here in the opening. We have seen how the call to heaven and earth draws upon ancient Near Eastern tradition whereby the gods were called upon as witnesses to a covenant or treaty. Thus there is here an implicit reference to the religious distinction, from the Israelite standpoint, between the one true Creator God (El-YHWH) and all of the other deities recognized by the surrounding nations. In early Israelite monotheism, this distinction was not as sharp as it would later become. The “sons of God” had not yet been reduced to “angels”, and could refer to various sorts of divine and/or heavenly beings. In the context of the traditional language of verse 1, heaven and earth are obedient servants of YHWH, and their natural activities (rainfall, etc) parallel God’s own word being spoken (v. 2). This unifying sense of purpose is emphasized by the declaration which follows in verse 3:

“For the name of YHWH I call out—
Give greatness to our God [Elohim]!”

Note again the parallelism here, where the second half-line builds upon the first (an example, I would say, of synthetic parallelism). The poet calls out “the name of YHWH”, a way of acknowledging that Yahweh is his God, and that he is serving a prophetic, oracular role in making Him known (His word and will) to the people. In the second half-line, the poet calls upon the people to respond in kind, acknowledging and declaring “the greatness of our God”. The word translated “God” is the plural noun °§lœhîm, which, when applied to the Creator El-Yahweh, is perhaps best understood as an intensive plural, meaning something like “Mightiest (One)”. When used as a true plural, of course, it would refer to other “Mighty Ones”—deities or divine beings, such as those worshiped by the surrounding nations. The Song plays heavily upon this dual meaning and use of the word.

In the next study, we will move ahead to verses 5-6, and then touch again on verses 8ff, to see how the theme of the Creator YHWH as Israel’s God is developed, being central to the very idea of the covenant (and its violation) that is at the heart of the Song. This we will do, God willing, when we meet here again next weekend.

March 8: Matthew 6:10b

Matthew 6:10b

In the previous notes, we examined the first two petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, which are the same in both Luke and Matthew. In the Lukan version, these two petitions form a clear and definite pair—syntactically, thematically, and conceptually. In Matthew’s version of the Prayer, however, there is a third petition not found in (what must be regarded as) the original text of Luke:

genhqh/tw to\ qe/lhma/ sou
w($ e)n ou)ranw=| kai\ e)pi\ gh=$
gen¢th¢tœ to thel¢ma sou
hœs en ouranœ kai epi g¢s
“May your will come to be—
as in heaven (so) also upon (the) earth”

NOTE: The majority of witness here in Luke include this petition, including important uncials such as A C D W D Q. However, it is missing from a diverse range of witnesses, including some of the earliest and best manuscripts (Ë⁷⁵ B L f¹ 1342 etc), a fact that is nearly impossible to explain if the longer text in Luke were original. Almost certainly the longer text is secondary, representing the kind of harmonization between Gospels that we find frequently in the manuscript tradition.

The inclusion/addition of this line gives a different structure and rhythm to the Prayer. Some commentators who regard the shorter Lukan version as representing the (original) historical tradition (or, at least closer to it) consider the line to be an addition by the Gospel writer, perhaps drawn from early liturgical tradition. However one judges its status at the historical level, the petition in Matt 6:10b is vital to the Prayer as it appears in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. This point must be discussed.

In an earlier note, I mentioned how the expression “(our) Father the (One) in the heavens” in the Matthean invocation is distinctive of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel of Matthew, and, in particular, the Sermon on the Mount. It is part of a dualistic contrast that runs through the Sermon—between (a) the religious behavior of the majority of people on earth, and (b) the behavior of Jesus’ followers which should reflect the character of God the Father in heaven. It is just this contrast which underlies the expression in verse 10b.

As in the first petition, we have here a 3rd person (aorist) passive imperative (“it must [be]…”) rendered as an exhortative request (“may/let it [be]…”). The Greek verb used is gi/nomai (“come to be, become”)—”May it come to be…”. Five of the seven occurrences of this imperative are in the Gospel of Matthew (also 8:13; 9:29; 15:28; 26:42), the other two are in citations from Scripture (LXX); thus, it reflects a distinctive Matthean vocabulary.

The traditional rendering “may your will be done” is somewhat misleading, since there is no actual mention of doing God’s will; rather, the request is that God would see to it that His will comes to pass on earth. This touches upon the complex philosophical/theological question of the will of God. If God is sovereign and all-powerful, then by its very nature His will always comes to pass in all things. At the same time, there is clear and abundant evidence that all things on earth do not always (or often) conform to the declared will (or wish) of God; in particular, human beings typically do not act according to His will. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus does not address this philosophical dimension directly, but the very point of his teaching throughout is centered on the idea that human beings must (choose to) live and act in a way that conforms with God’s own nature and character (including His will). Thus, there is implicit in this request the concept of doing (or fulfilling) the will of God the Father.

As mentioned above, this continues the contrast of heaven and earth which runs through the Sermon (cf. the previous notes). God’s will is done in heaven, but it is often not done by people on earth. Again, the will (qe/lhma) here refers to something which God has declared for people—i.e., his word or instruction (Torah) which reveals his intention for humankind, to act and think in a way that corresponds with his own character and example. This is unquestionably how qe/lhma is used in most of the occurrences in the Gospel, in the sayings/teachings of Jesus. Most notable in this regard is the Synoptic saying in Mark 3:35 (par Matt 12:50, the Lukan form is rather different):

“Whoever would do the will of God, this (one) is my brother and sister and mother.”
i.e. Jesus’ true family consists of his followers who do the will of God; Matt 12:50 reflects the distinctive Matthean wording:
“For whoever would do the will of my Father the (One) in the heavens, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Three other occurrences of qe/lhma in Matthew express the same basic idea (7:21; 18:14; 21:31); the first of these is also from the Sermon on the Mount:

“Not everyone saying to me ‘Lord, Lord…’ will come into the kingdom of the heavens, but (only) the (one) doing the will of my Father the (One) in the heavens.” (Matt 7:21)

Also noteworthy is the parable of the two sons (Matt 21:28-32 par), which draws upon a similar dualistic contrast: those who do the will of God the Father (i.e. followers of Jesus) and those who do not (i.e. conventional/false religious behavior). In many ways, the closest parallel to the petition in Matt 6:10b is found in Jesus’ prayer in the garden at the beginning of his Passion. In Mark, this (Synoptic) saying reads:

“Abba, Father, all (thing)s are possible for you: (please) carry along this drinking-cup (away) from me! But (yet), not what I wish [qe/lw], but what you (wish).” (Mk 14:36)

In Matthew’s version of this scene, this saying is preserved, generally following the Markan phrasing (Matt 26:39); however, words from the second session of prayer are also included which match more closely the petition in the Lord’s Prayer (the words in italics are identical):

“My Father, if it is not possible (for) this (cup) to go along (from me) if I do not drink (it), may your will come to be [genhqh/tw to\ qe/lhma/ sou] .” (v. 42)

It would appear that the Gospel writer, noting the similarity to the petition in 6:10b, shaped this particular tradition to match it. This would seem to be confirmed by the fact that Luke records essentially the same saying by Jesus, but with different wording:

“Father, if you wish, carry along this drinking-cup (away) from me! (But all the) more—may not my will, but yours, come to be.” (Lk 22:42)

The best explanation for this apparent blending of details is that Matt 26:42 represents a “Q” tradition which Matthew and Luke have each combined with the Synoptic saying (Mk 14:36) in different ways. The Gospel of John, though drawing upon an entirely separate line of tradition, also records numerous statements by Jesus describing how he, as Son, does the will (qe/lhma) of the Father—Jn 4:34; 5:30; 6:38-40. The one who follows Jesus likewise does the Father’s will even as he himself does (Jn 7:17; 9:31).

Thus there is a well-established basis in the Gospel tradition, and particularly in Matthew, for the idea that Jesus’ disciples (believers) are to obey the will of God the Father, as expressed especially in the teaching and example of Jesus (the Son). This is the central principle in the Sermon on the Mount. By this faithful obedience of the disciple, God’s will is done on earth, even as it is done in heaven—i.e reflecting the nature and character of the Father who is in the heavens. Somewhat surprisingly, the petition in 6:10b uses the singular (ou)rano/$) instead of the plural (ou)ranoi/). Most likely, this simply reflects the fact there is little difference in meaning between singular and plural forms of this noun in Greek. The singular in 6:26 refers to the (physical) skies, as probably also in 5:18, while v. 34 may have the primitive (cosmological) meaning of the vault of heaven; however, in 6:20 it refers to the realm or domain of God, much as the use of the plural does elsewhere in the Sermon. The traditional pairing of heaven and earth may explain the specific use of the singular here (cf. in 5:18, etc).

As noted above, the third petition contains and envelops the first two. As the disciples of Jesus follow him faithfully, the will of God is fulfilled on earth—a foreshadowing or beginning of the eschatological moment when the declared will of God comes to pass and is realized for all on earth, when his Kingdom is established truly over all humankind, and people everywhere treat Him with sanctity and honor.

For parallels to Matt 6:10b in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, cf. Psalm 103:21; 135:6, and especially 1 Macc 3:60 (“as the will might be in heaven, so shall it be done”). In Rabbinic literature, note b. Ber. 17a, 29b; t. Ber. 3.7; Pirke Abot 2.4; Abot R. Nathan (B) 32. For these and other references, cf. Betz, Sermon, pp. 392-6.

These notes on the Lord’s Prayer commemorate the start of the new feature “Monday Notes on Prayer” on this site.