Tag Archives: Apocryphal Literature

Heavenly Worship in Second Temple Judaism, Early Christianity, and Gnostic Sects: Part 4

Part 4 of a series by guest blogger, Stephen Huebscher

——-

C. CONCEPTIONS OF HEAVENLY WORSHIP IN GNOSTIC GROUPS

This post deals with groups that are known as “Gnostics” from the Greek word gnosis = “knowledge.” They developed the century after Christianity. They are the darling of much of contemporary scholarship, which tends to trust them more as authentic christianities and distrust the NT—it is so backwards! One of the results of the problem these groups posed, is that early Christians developed their understanding of Christianity in order to show the distinction. But when you read these, you will see a sampling of how these groups derided and scorned followers of Jesus.

Some scholars are using the term “Gnostic” less these days, because we have come to see that there was a fair amount of diversity among these groups. But the term is still useful. To follow up on the previous point, the groups who drew on the mystical elements present in some streams of Judaism (e.g., Enoch) as well as middle-Platonism came to be known as “Gnostics,” though many scholars regard this as a fairly elastic, catch-all category. There were many different Gnostic groups, which have been divided into three major types, based on their liturgical practices: (1) Cults of Power—e.g., Simon Magus; (2) Groups originating from the Separation of Christianity from Judaism—and (3) ‘The Gentile Counter-Churches’—e.g., Valentinus, Marcion, and Tatian. (Although Montanus may be classed in this division, he and his Church cannot usefully be pushed into the same theological classification with the others as a ‘Gnostic’ phenomenon.) Look at some of the things they wrote. (Word that are between angle brackets show where there was a break in the text, and the scholar inserted their best guess.)

 Treat. Seth 60.16-29. It is an ineffable union of undefiled truth, as exists among the sons of light, of which they made an imitation, having proclaimed a doctrine of a dead man and lies so as to resemble the freedom and purity of the perfect assembly, (and) themselves with their doctrine to rear and slavery, worldly cares, and abandoned worship . . . .  [This Sethite text scorns Christians for imitating the heavenly world, but in the process admits belief in a perfect, heavenly assembly. Boldface added.]

 Ap James 15.13-23. And when we had passed beyond that place, we sent our mind(s) farther upwards and saw with our eyes and heard with our ears hymns and angelic benedictions and angelic rejoicing.  And heavenly majesties were singing praise, and we too rejoiced. [In this text, the disciples mentally ascend to heaven, where they join the heavenly worship.]

 Disc. 8-9, 56.22—57.9. Lord, grant us a wisdom from your power that reaches us, so that we may describe to ourselves the vision off the eighth and the ninth.  We have already advanced to the seventh, since we are pious and walk in your law. . . .  Lord, grant us the truth in the image.  Allow us through the spirit to see the form of the image that has no deficiency, and receive the reflection of the pleroma from us through our praise. [Here, the speakers pray for the ability to ascend to the eighth and ninth heavens so that they may have the heavenly vision of God.]

 Irenaeus AH 1.21.3. For some of them prepare a nuptial couch, and perform a sort of mystic rite (pronouncing  certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, and affirm that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the conjunctions above [italics mine].

 Irenaeus AH 1.21.3. After this [baptism] they anoint the initiated person with balsam; for they assert that this unguent is a type of that sweet odour which is above all things.

 Zost 8.10-14. And about this airy-earth, why it has a cosmic model?  And about the aeon copies, how many there are, and, why they are [not] in pain?

 These groups generally believed that there was one God, but many lower, divine beings in heaven, and that there were angels. Some also believed that the male God had a female consort.  Most references to worship in the realms above the earth are rather general, whether in the presence of God or merely in the Aeons between heaven and earth. There is not much material extant on what most of them did for liturgy, and even less on what they thought they were accomplishing by what they did. These references often only say that “x praised y” or that “x prayed for forgiveness.”  Generally, liturgical form is not implied.

Here are some more texts which refer to some kind of religious acts that might be called “liturgy” or “piety” or “worship.”

Origen, Comm John 13.114 – Heracleon thinks, however, that the expression “we worship” means the one who is in the aeon and those who have come with him, for these, he says, have known whom they worship, because they worship in truth. [Italics original.  Those who have already ascended and are in the aeon, one of the intermediary levels of heaven between the Father and earth, are presumed by Heracleon, a Valentinian, to worship the Father properly.]

 Val Exp 25.30—26.21 – [He is] . . .the [true] High Priest, [the one who has] the authority to enter the Holies of Holies, revealing the glory of the Aeons and bringing forth the abundance to . The East [. . . that is] in [him.  He is the one who revealed himself as] the primal [sanctuary] and [the] treasury of  [the All]. [liturgical terms and cosmology with heavenly paradigm—primal sanctuary—implied]

 Val Exp 39.20-22 – [The complete one glorifies] Sophia; the image [glorifies] Truth. [worship in the heavenly realms, but not worshiping Jesus]

 Val Exp 40.20-29 – And we [glorify] thee:  [Glory] be to thee, the Father in the [Son, the Father] in the Son, the Father [in the] holy [Church and in the] holy [angels]!  [glory to God among the angels]

 Gosp Truth 40.30—41.3 – For that very reason he brought him forth in order to speak about the place and his restingplace from which he had come forth, and to glorify the pleroma, the greatness of his name and the sweetness of the Father. [The Son was created to praise the pleroma (in heaven?)]

 Tripart Trac 64.20-22 – The one whom they hymn, thereby glorifying him, he has sons. [the beings created by the ?son sing hymns of praise to him]

 Tripart Trac 68.22 – Therefore, in the song of glorification and in the power of the unity of him from whom they have come, they were drawn into a mingling and a combination and a unity with one another.  They offered glory worthy of the Father from the pleromatic congregation, which is a single representation although many. . . .   Now this was a praise […] [the pleromas sing praise]

Some groups, such as the Valentinians, believed that the person’s soul passed through multiple heavens, each higher than the last, in order to gaze upon God and sometimes participate there in the angelic liturgy. (In the Valentinian form, one had to ascend first through thirty levels (Aeons). In other words, worship = ascending to heaven. A key difference from early Christian texts is that Jesus was not worshiped, either in heaven or on earth. After all, he was merely the human body that the heavenly Savior or Christ descended on.  There were many other heavenly beings who were much higher and much more important and glorious than the Christ.  For instance, in the Gospel of Philip, “the sacramental catechesis. . . insists that its rites transform the initiate into Christ in contrast to those of conventional Christians which merely lend the name Christian” (Pheme Perkins, “Identification with the Savior,” 183). Also, they believed it was an error to worship God as the Creator. This is because at least one group (the Valentinians) distinguished between God and the creator. The one who created the world was not God, but said was a lower being that resulted from a botched abortion by Sophia. This, of course, was a significant difference from OT and early Christian practice.

Not covered here are the mysterious references to the heavenly “bridal chamber,” about which little is known.

CHRISTIANITY COMPARED TO GNOSTIC GROUPS

  1. Christians worshiped Jesus. This was a big deal. Gnostics never did.
  2. Christians worshiped God as Creator. Gnostics never did.
  3. Some Gnostic groups (e.g., Valentinians) believed in ascending to heaven as a substitute for worship. They didn’t need Jesus, etc.

“We may not always know what we are reading in ancient documents.  We do not always know how a document is related to its own context, since the context is not always known.  In the final analysis, we can only do what we are mandated to do by the dominical institutions as we have them in the writings that the church canonized as sacred scripture.  We preach the gospel to all people and baptize in the triune name those who come to faith in Jesus.  We take bread and wine and give thanks over them.  There are models in the tradition that can instruct us in how to do these things.  But we must finally do them in a way that reflects our own obedience of faith and expresses our own devotion to the Giver of every good and perfect gift.” (Frank Senn, 327-28)

NOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

David H. Tripp, “‘Gnostic Worship’: the State of the Question,” in Gnosticism in the Early Church, Studies in Early Christianity 5, ed. David M. Scholer (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1993), 322-23; reprinted from Studia Liturgica 1 (1987): 210-20.

Margaret Barker, Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (London and New York: T & T Clark, 2003).

Robert A. Oden, Jr., “Cosmology, cosmogony,” Anchor Bible Dictionary 1.1170.

Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. by James Robinson, 3rd edition.

April D. Deconick, “Heavenly Temple Traditions and Valentinian Worship: A Case for first-Century Christology in the Second Century,” in Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis, Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism:  Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, SJSJ 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 308-41.

Pheme Perkins in “Identification with the Savior in Coptic Texts from Nag Hammadi,” in Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, ed. Newman, Davila, Lewis (Leiden: Brill, 1999).

Frank C. Senn, “Lutherans Are Natural ‘Splitters’,” Worship 79 (July 2005).

Gordon W. Lathrop, Holy Ground: A Liturgical Cosmology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003.

  1. K. Beale, NIGTC,Revelation(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999),

David E. Aune, WBC, 3 volumes: Revelation 1—5Revelation 6—16, and Revelation 17—22.

Read More

Heavenly Worship in Second Temple Judaism, Early Christianity, and Gnostic Sects: Part 3

Guest blogger, Stephen Huebscher
This is the third of five posts in this series.

B. CONCEPTIONS OF HEAVENLY WORSHIP IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Early Christian conceptions of heavenly worship drew heavily on the OT and, not surprisingly, show a similarity, though with some important differences.  Revelation and Hebrews are undoubtedly the most important NT books to gain an understanding of the heavenly liturgy and its significance for Christians on earth.

Revelation

Revelation 4—5 is the most comprehensive of all the worship scenes and hymns in the book.  It has a number of OT antecedents, including Exodus 19, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1—2, and especially Daniel 7:9ff, which Beale argues is the primary interpretive lens John uses to understand the visions he has seen (Beale 315, 366-69). The fact that Isaiah 6 forms a part of the understanding of the heavenly throne room in Revelation is a striking contrast to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice where this OT text is not even mentioned! (Davila 91). Rev. 4—5 presents a scene of heavenly worship around the throne of God, and in that sense is similar to what were later called the merkavah hymns in Jewish mystical texts of hekhalot literature.  David Aune correctly observes the connection between the heavenly worship scenes in Revelation and the divine council.  “The focus on the throne vision is God enthroned in his heavenly court surrounded by a variety of angelic beings or lesser deities (angels, archangels, seraphim, cherubim) who function as courtiers.  All such descriptions of God enthroned in the midst of his heavenly court are based on the ancient conception of the divine council or assembly found in Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and Phoenicia as well as in Israel” (Aune 277). Scholars have argued for a variety of sources for the liturgy portrayed here, ranging from Jewish synagogues to Christian churches.  However, I have been most persuaded by Beale’s arguments for a strong OT background for this passage (as well as the rest of the book), and I believe he is correct when he writes, “John intended the readers to see what is told of in the vision as a heavenly pattern that the church is to reflect in its worship rather than the other way around (just as the heavenly pattern of the tabernacle shown to Moses on the mountain was to be copied by Israel in the construction of their own tabernacle)” (Beale 312). Beale summarizes:

The concluding hymns of Rev. 4:11 and Rev. 5:9-13 bear out that this idea—that sovereignty in creation is the basis for sovereignty in judgment and redemption—is the main theme of the two chapters . . .” (Beale 369, italics original). One of the keys to seeing these chapters as a heavenly liturgical pattern for earthly worship comes at the end of chapter 5, where creatures on earth join the heavenly praise, and to which the elders add “Amen.”  Of the prayers of the saints that the elders hold in 5:8, the elders function as heavenly priests, according to Aune (356). The use of καινός (new) “associates Christ’s redemptive work with the beginning of a new creation . . .” (Beale 358).

In Revelation 6:9-11 (souls of the martyrs under the altar) Beale believes that the altar is to be identified with the throne of God, thereby showing divine protection (Beale 391-92). Although the importance of silence in Revelation 8:1-4 (silence in heaven) is probably to be found in Jewish writings, it may perhaps reflect “the practice of maintaining silence in the Jerusalem Temple while the priests went into the Holy Place to offer incense; it was during such a time that Zacharias had his vision of the archangel Gabriel” (James Roger Black, personal note).  Revelation 11:19 with its mention of the ark in heaven points to the “presence of God without a literal reappearance of the ark . . . which is expanded in 21:3, 22, where the establishment of the end-time temple is interpreted as God’s presence in the midst of his people” (Beale, Revelation, 619).

Revelation 19:9 mentions the wedding supper of the Lamb, which may be the (eschatological) wedding meal mentioned elsewhere in Scripture and Gnostic literature (Isa. 25:6-7; 65:13-17; Matt 22:1-10 = Gos. Thom. 64; Matt. 25:10; Luke 12:36; 14:8; Acts Thom. 4-5, 7, 13) (Aune, Revelation 17—22, 1032). If this is so, then it is the referent for Jesus’ statement at the Last Supper about drinking new wine in his Father’s kingdom (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; possibly Luke 22:18).  This, in turn, makes the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper an earthly type of the (future), heavenly worship. Other texts that could be added, though not specifically wedding texts, include Matt 8:11-12; Luke 13:28-29; 14:15; 22:28-30.

Hebrews. Hebrews 8—10 has a lengthy discussion of the application of Jeremiah 31 and the new covenant to the situation of Christians.  In it, the author repeatedly makes distinctions between the earthly “tent” of the Mosaic worship and the true, heavenly “tent” that Christ has entered to make atonement for sins once for all.  For our purposes, two observations by Attridge will suffice.  “The basic image with which our author operates is that of a paradigmatic sanctuary, probably with two parts, in heaven” (Attridge 223).  “The interior reality that the heavenly temple symbolizes is not a principle or virtue generally available to humankind, but a relationship made possible by Christ” (Attridge 224). Although the author of Hebrews makes much use of liturgical language, the application to Christians generally does not put a lot of emphasis on ritual act, but rather on prayer, public praise, and service (e.g., Hebr. 13:15).

Hebrews 12.22-23

You, however, have approached Mount Zion and a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem; and myriads of angles in festive gathering and an assembly of firstborn who are inscribed in heaven; and a judge, God of all, and spirits of the righteous who have been perfected. [This passage uses language that draws on the picture of the cosmic mountain in the OT and ANE (which is where God convenes the divine council), divine theophanies, and visions of the celestial court.  This text shows human Christians participating with heavenly beings in a festival gathering, which, by definition, has liturgical overtones.] (Attridge 371, 374-75).

Other NT. In other NT texts, the cosmology and population of heaven is usually very similar to that found in OT texts. For instance, Paul’s statement “I charge you, in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels,” (1 Tim 5.21) should be probably be understood as a divine council scene.  The differences in heaven are both cosmological and liturgical.  Cosmologically, Christ has been highly exalted.  The liturgical implication is that he therefore receives worship.  In other words, Christ now becomes the focal point of heavenly worship.  Unlike some of the DSS and later hekhalot texts, no angels, not even exalted ones, ever receive worship in heaven.  A second cosmological difference is that whereas OT Israelites would pray to the Name in the Jerusalem temple and God would hear in heaven, now Christians are to pray to Jesus in heaven, and the Father will hear them (e.g., 1 Kings 8; John 14:13-14). “Name” was still used as a reference to Jesus in some of the NT texts (Acts 5:41; 3 John 7). Other names or titles for Jesus include Law, Covenant, Beginning, and Day (Daniélou, 147-63).

The present identity of Christians is often referred to in the same terms used of celestial beings: sons of God, children of God, children of the Most High, saints/holy ones, stars, etc. The future identity of Christians seems to be celestial beings, and some texts seem to state that Christians will be on par with or part of God’s divine council (DC).

Some texts show joint human/angelic worship (e.g., Hebr 12:22-23), just as some OT texts show joint human/angelic combat (e.g., Judges 5:20 “the stars fought with Sisera”). This joint worship makes sense when we understand that God is present among worshipers, and that members of the heavenly host are present with him.  The fact that God is present accounts for the emphasis on the proper way of worshiping God.

The worship of angels in Colossae that Paul opposed “may represent a cultic practice of visionary ascent and deification,” a practice which has connections with the mystical views both in Jewish and Gnostic sects. (Perkins, 167)

This last quotation in this post is from Justin Martyr, and early Christian writer.

Justin, Apol. I, 65-66. On the day which is called Sun-day, all . . . gather in the same place.  Then the Memoirs of the Apostles or the Writings of the Prophets are read . . . .  The president speaks. . . .  Then we rise all together and pray (Deiss 25). [Basil some years later comments on his understanding of standing in prayer, which scholars believe to be reflected in the forgoing quotation from Justin. “We stand up when we pray, on the first day of the week (i.e., Sunday)… also because that day itself seems in some fashion to be an image of the world to come” (Deiss 25). This becomes significant when we realize that the phrase “stand before” is often used with the liturgical sense of “serve” in biblical and Jewish texts of angelic messengers who serve God.]

CONTINUITY AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OT & NT

There is a lot of continuity and overlap between OT and NT on this issue. The biggest difference is that the OT has a mysterious “second Yahweh” figure, whereas Jesus is part of the equation in the NT. Stay tuned for Part 4.

Read More

Heavenly Worship in Second Temple Judaism, Early Christianity, and Gnostic Sects: Part 2

By guest blogger Stephen L. Huebscher

 

STEP THREE: LOOKING AT THE THREE GROUPS INDIVIDUALLY

CONCEPTIONS OF HEAVENLY WORSHIP IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

The variety of groups and beliefs at this time was reflected in the variety of sacred texts used. It was common to believe in joint human/angelic worship. “The notion that the community in its prayer life participated in some way in the liturgy of the angels is well attested in first-century Judaism, and will later emerge as an element in Christian liturgical practice,” (Attridge 51). Also within this mix it is becoming more apparent to scholars that it was acceptable for Jews to believe in a “second power” in heaven who was worshiped along with Yahweh.

 

BIBLICAL TEXTS

Isaiah 6. One of the most influential of all texts during this period (roughly 500 BC—AD 300) was the vision and call of Isaiah in Isaiah 6.  The scene presented is that of the heavenly divine council (DC) (see the section on cosmology).  The key phrase, for our purposes, comes in v. 3:  “Holy, holy, holy, is Yahweh of hosts!  His glory shouts out, that which (always) fills the earth” (Wildberger 248). There are a number of significant liturgical implications found in this passage, beginning with God’s sitting, his throne, and his height, all of which imply that he is worthy to be worshiped.  The location is the hecal (“palace,” in v. 1) or bayit (“house,” in v. 4), terms which are used both of God’s heavenly dwelling and for the earthly temple.  The reason for this dual usage is that the earthly temple was conceived of as a model based on the heavenly one. “To try to distinguish between an earthly and a heavenly sanctuary attempts to make a distinction which the ancient person would never have attempted.  God dwells in heaven, but he is also present in the sanctuary…” (Wildberger 263). The actual location is thus somewhat ambiguous.  The heavenly attendants are specifically called “seraphs,” not mal’akim (“messengers”) or cherubim (“cherubs”).  In a DC scene such as this, we should probably understand there to be not just two attendants, but a great number of beings, as in 1 Kings 22 (Wildberger 264). These exalted beings do not receive worship in heaven—they cover their eyes so as not to look directly on God and praise him. His holiness is the focus of their praise.  This holiness “is not a static ‘quality.’  It is seen in action when it destroys all the opposition which human beings set up over against God” (Wildberger 266).

The adoration by the heavenly beings serves as a model for the adoration which the earthly community is to replicate, see Rev. 4:8; in the depiction of the adoration within the heavens there is also a call to the people of God on earth to follow suit.  As in a responsive liturgy, the praise from one seraph (or seraph-choir) is passed on further by the next one (Wildberger 265).

They also declare that the earth is filled with his kabod (“glory, honor, majesty, significance”).  The word kabod “expresses the fact that God’s kabod demands an appropriate response, an acknowledgment” (Westermann 596). Thus, the praise of the seraphs comes in response to the person of God.  God’s kabod is at times the visible representation of his holiness as well as his honor (e.g., Ex 29:43).

Ezekiel.  A second set of influential biblical texts is the call and throne visions of Ezekiel (1—3, 10). Ezekiel’s description of the throne-chariot (merkabah) of God was unparalleled in its time.  The influence of these visions can be seen in Dan 7:9 (the fiery throne and wheels) and 10:5-6 (shared vocabulary); Sirach 49:8; 1 Enoch 14:18; 4QBerakot (4Q286); Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice XI, XII; and Revelation 4:2-8a (see below for specifics). Ezekiel 10 also influenced Jewish understanding of the hypostases of God (see below).

 

EXTRA-BIBLICAL (SECOND TEMPLE) TEXTS

1 Enoch. 1 Enoch is a pivotal text in many ways.  In my understanding, it is a kind of liturgically and cosmologically mixed text, mixing literary motifs and descriptive elements from the biblical stream with cosmological elements from the stream later characterized by Platonism.  (Perhaps this is why, although it is quoted in the NT, it was not widely recognized as canonical.  Just a guess.)  First Enoch was also quite influential on other later Jewish works, such as the Testament of Levi.  It would also form an important transition to the later Hekhalot merkavah texts, which are characterized by the “worship = ascending to see God’s throne-chariot” view and by complex cosmologies complete with multi-tiered heavens and choruses of singing angels.

Historically, this reveals the section to be an important transition from the older Ezekiel tradition of the prophetic call to the much later tradition of Jewish Merkabah mysticism . . . . This active and subjective involvement of the seer in his vision differentiates our text not only from Ezekiel 1—2 but also from other prophetic calls” (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 259).

According to 1 Enoch, the real temple is in heaven, the heavenly palace where God dwells. 1 Enoch teaches that most angels cannot approach God’s throne.  Four holy ones seem to be the exceptions, and it is to these, who serve as intercessors and take those prayers to God, that prayer is to be made. Some of the angels serve as priests, including Michael, who serves as the eschatological high priest. In 14:23, some kind of worship activity may be suggested by three elements: (1) the adjective “holy, (2) the term “approach” (the throne of God), and the expression “day and night,” (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 265-66). In 15:3, the phrase “the sanctuary of the eternal station” occurs, and the word “station” can refer in the contemporary literature to a priestly course; thus we have a possible reference to angels acting as heavenly priests (Nickelsburg 271). However, “There are also important differences from the later mystical texts.  We have here no hymn of the angelic attendants [in 14.8-23].” (Nickelsburg 261).

Qumran. Included in the scrolls from Qumran are texts dealing with the covenanteers’ views of heaven and the practice of liturgy there. The two primary groups of texts are the Berakhot and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. A third group, the Songs of the Sage, also shows some interest in these matters. One of the striking differences from Revelation, however, is the absence of reference to Isaiah 6:1-3 from all three groups of texts.

Berakhot

These texts were used for communal recitation in the liturgy of the sectarian group’s annual covenant renewal ceremony. For our interests, several of the songs that show similarities both to the songs in Revelation and to the later Hekhalot hymns.  These are sometimes called merkavah (“throne”) hymns, though technically the term refers to post-biblical compositions.

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

The cosmology is similar to that of the Christian Gnostics. There are both similarities to and differences from the biblical texts.  There is great interest in the throne of God, such as is found in Revelation.  At times there is great noise in heaven from the worship, while at other times there is stillness or silence.  The beings of heaven (angels, cherubim, ophanim [“wheels” in Ezekiel], divinities) obey God and “psalm” him.  In several texts from Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, some of the fixtures of heaven are animate, reminiscent of the throne in Revelation that commands praise to God. The tradition of the sounds of the cherubim recorded in Song 12 was so pervasive that it was even included in the Targum of Ezekiel 1:24.

Most scholars have interpreted the thirteen texts in this group as being read by the human worshiping community to heavenly angels and elohim in joint worship. The humans ascend to heaven to join the worship there.  This is one form of the “worship = ascending to the presence of God” doctrine which is a recurring, though not constant, motif in those sources outside the biblical stream.

Songs of the Sage (4Q510, 4Q511)

These two texts, of which the second is significantly longer, are hymns to God that call on the righteous to praise him.  Frequently the unrighteous are denounced, along with unclean owls and Lilith.  They also deal more with theurgy and magic. Thus, these texts show more of a divergence from the biblical stream of thinking.

Philo. The concept of the heavenly tabernacle/temple was very important and explicit in some of Philo’s writings.  Philo’s view here, as with much of what he writes, reflects Platonic cosmology and philosophy, borrowing as he does at times from Plato’s Timaeus.   For instance, De Specialibus Legibus 1.66 views the universe as a whole as a temple when it says, “We ought to look upon the universal world as the highest and truest temple of God . . . .”  In other texts, he uses allegorical interpretation to draw correspondence between the parts of the tabernacle and the parts of the cosmos.  In still other texts, he relies heavily on a Platonic understanding of the ideal sanctuary being in heaven, and the copy being on earth.

 

IMPORTANT DOCTRINES

There were several important doctrines during the Second Temple period, though whether they preceded the second temple or not depends in part on how one dates the texts.  One doctrine was the belief that the righteous, cultic (e.g., worshiping) human community was also part of God’s sod (Ps 25:14; but even more Ps 111:1; also Prov 3:32). The sod seems to have been the primary ecclesiological model in post-exilic times (Fabry). The accompanying belief was that the worshipers were in some way and some sense divinized (i.e., the human worshipers became divine, just like the heavenly beings on which they were modeled, variously called qodeshim (holy ones), beney ’elohim (sons of God), kokabim (stars), etc.).

Another doctrine that was important during the second temple period was that of a second divine being separate from YHWH and yet equal to him in power and essence, even to the point of forgiving sin and receiving worship.  Daniel 7 is the most obvious text, but there are many other texts.  Again, just when these doctrines appeared and began to develop is not always clear, since many later texts find their exegetical basis in earlier ones.  (The monkey wrench that can be thrown in this assertion is that the earlier texts are often terse, and simply do not give the level of detail that later ones do.)  This second being was called by various titles, such as the Word, Wisdom, Name, and Glory.

“The Word” is used in Genesis 15:1-6. It also is used in Exodus, Philo, and the Targums. The Aramaic memra’ means “the word,” and it is used in the creation account and elsewhere, where the Memra creates the world. The Memra is closely associated with the Name (haššem), and is quite important.  It has been traced back to the second century B.C. in DSS texts by Robert Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra, 147-49.   The Name is used in Exodus 32, where God’s Name passes by Moses. In Lev 24:11, it occurs in an account of blasphemy. It is also used in 1 Kings 8, where Solomon’s prayer states that if anyone prays to Yahweh’s Name in the Temple, Yahweh in heaven will hear it.  Several of the psalms can also be read this way. Wisdom is found most obviously in Prov 8:22-31, as well as some apocryphal works and DSS. “Glory,” following Ezekiel 10 at the latest, also was significant. “The [Glory] here too is like an independent being, almost a hypostasis of God: the majesty of God represents God himself.  The usage in Ezek 1—3 is linked with that in 8—11 and 43—44 by this hypostatization . . . .  He is the first to depict the [Glory] as an independent being representing God and appearing in brilliant light”(Westermann 602). So in conclusion, by the second temple period at the latest, the Jews had common, orthodox traditions of a second divine being in heaven  who created the world and received worship both from humans and celestial beings.

 

SACRED MEALS

Sacred meals should also be briefly mentioned. Within the Bible, but pre-dating both the First and Second Temples, The sacred meal in Exodus 24 on Mount Sinai would possibly be an example of a blended situation, since God (heaven) came down on the mountain to eat with them. Like I mentioned before, even though this text was not written during the post-exilic Persian period (though mainstream scholars claim it is because it deals with themes related to the priesthood, which they argue was “late”)—this text and others formed the basis for the later texts, and it continued to be influential. Other texts that pick up this topic and develop it in terms of an eschatological meal include Isa. 25:6-7 and Isa. 65:13-17.

Exodus 24: 7-14 (from before the First Temple period)

 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!”

 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

 9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,

 10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.

 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank. (ESV)

 

Isaiah 25:6-8.

 6 The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine.

 7 And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which is stretched over all nations.

 8 He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken.

 

Isa. 65:13. Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, my servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty; behold, my servants shall rejoice, but you shall be put to shame; (Isa. 65:13 ESV)

 

At Qumran, 1QSa mentions mal’akim being present during a meal, but without further explanation. Because the word mal’akim means “messengers,” some scholars have argued that it merely refers to human messengers from outside the community. Other scholars, however, argue that these are heavenly messengers (e.g., “angels”). Basically, I think it probably was a reference to a heavenly messenger, but since there is no further development of this idea, the text is not very important.

Finally, there is another meal mentioned both in the Bible and at Ugarit, though with very little explanation. The marzeah is not generally regarded as a sacred meal any longer by scholars, since it seems that it was likely associated with private drinking clubs, at least at Ugarit.

 

 

NOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jean Daniélou, Theology of Jewish Christianity I.

K. Beale, NIGTC, Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999),

Daniel Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” in HTR 94 (2001) 243-84.

J. Krause, Psalms 1-59: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988)

G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001).

David E. Aune, WBC, 3 volumes: Revelation 1—5, Revelation 6—16, and Revelation 17—22.

Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1—12.

George Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia).

James Davila, Liturgical Works.

Claus Westermann, “kbdTLOT 2.

Robert Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra.

H. Ringgren, “עמד,” in TDOT 11.182-85.

Grundmann, “‘ίστημι,” TDNT 7.641, 43.

 

Read More

Heavenly Worship in Second Temple Judaism, Early Christianity, and Gnostic Sects: Part 1

By guest blogger, Stephen L. Huebscher

This series was originally written as an academic paper for presentation at a conference. At the time, we were doing research on the divine council for what ended up in Mike’s book The Unseen Realm. I had told Mike I was interested in worship. He helped me design a topic that was more likely to be included in the program, and this was the result! At the conference, I was assigned a time slot late in the day in a tiny room that was hard to find. Only a handful of people came. Nevertheless, there are some really interesting conclusions here (to me at least) that say, in the simplest terms: worshiping God with other believers in a church is important. There is more to worship than what is here, but there is not less. Someday, I hope to write a book on worship, and this will be part of it, somehow.

Ancient peoples often believed that heavenly (celestial) worship provided a normative or authoritative pattern for earthly worship. They also commonly believed in some kind of divine transformation (e.g., glorification) in the presence of the god or God. The biblical texts tended to belong to one stream (though not exclusively), while the texts with a platonic-like cosmology tended to belong to another stream (again, with exceptions).  Over time the divergence between the two became greater, and shows up most obviously later in the mystical Jewish hekhalot texts (which are not covered here). One of the difficulties of this study is that non-biblical texts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Gnostic manuscripts, are often highly fragmented and with little context, so most conclusions are tentative, whether explicitly stated or not.

STEP ONE: DEVELOPING A VOCABULARY

Here is a brief overview of some of the key words and concepts relating to worship, some of which are not obviously connected with worship at a first glance. Obvious worship words are the easy ones, words like “sing,” “worship,” “priest,” “sacrifice,” “incense,” and “pray,” especially when several of these are used together in phrases such as “sing the praise of x.”  Subtle worship words are a bit more tricky, like “congregation,” “assembly,” “stand before,” “serve,” “bow,” “remember.”  These words are more dependent on the context for their liturgical meaning.  For this study, I have coined or at least adopted terms to identify kinds of language that I did not otherwise have language for. There are several groups of this. For instance, what I will call exaltation words are not directly about worship, but often give the context where worship is implied. This includes phrases like “exalted above every name,” “exalted in the heavenlies,” etc.  There can be overlap with cosmological words.  Cosmological words are also not directly about worship, but often give the context where worship is implied.  This would include such things as “the highest heaven,” “the heaven of heaven,” “ascending,” etc. Architectural words include things like “temple,” “palace,” “tabernacle,” “house,” and “tent.”  All of these words can be used for the dwelling place of a god/God, and therefore also for the place of worship.

STEP TWO: RECOGNIZING THE BIBLICAL, HEAVENLY PARADIGM

Many of the key texts from the earlier part of the Old Testament continued to be influential. Contrary to what mainstream scholars hold, I believe that much of the Pentateuch is from the time of Moses. Look at the emphasis on the heavenly source for worship that we find in Exodus 25:9,40. (Actually, this idea of a heavenly pattern was fairly common throughout in the ANE.)

 Exodus 25:9, 40. Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it. (v. 9 ESV) And see that you make them after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain. (v. 40 ESV)

One of the last books written in the Old Testament was the book of Chronicles, along with others such as Ezra and Nehemiah. In Chronicles, at the end of the Old Testament period in the Persian times, we find that the biblical author repeated this same idea about the importance of the heavenly source and paradigm for Israel’s worship. Notice this text, which refers to the plans for Solomon’s temple:

 1 Chron. 28:19. All of this the LORD made clear to David directly in a document, including the plan for all of the work. (1 Chr. 28:19 CEB)

Later on, early Christian writers (both biblical and post-biblical) also used terminology that points to this kind of understanding, both in Scripture and in the first few centuries following.

 Luke 20:4. The baptism of John—was it from heaven or men? [The implication is that if it was based on a heavenly paradigm, then it should  be recognized as authoritative.]

 Hebrews 9:24. Christ has entered, not copies, but heaven. [The assumption is that earthly temples are copies of the heavenly sanctuary.]

 Ignatius Trall 3.1. Similarly, let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop, who is a model of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s council and as the band of the apostles.  Without these no group can be called a church. [This implies that the local church reflects in a physical way the heavenly council paradigm.]

 Ignatius, Magn 6.1. Be eager to do everything in godly harmony, the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbyters in the place [= Greek topos; variant, Greek typos = “after the model”] of the council of the apostles and the deacons . . . .  [Again, Ignatius is drawing a parallel between the local church as the visible representation of the celestial divine council.]

 Passion Perpetua & Felicitas 4. This was the vision I had.  I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person could climb up at a time. . . .  At the foot of the ladder lay a dragon of enormous size. . . .  I trod on his head and went up.  Then I saw an immense garden, and in it a grey-haired man sat in shepherd’s garb; tall he was, and milking sheep.  And standing around him were many thousands of people clad in white garments.  He raised his head, looked at me, and said: ‘I am glad you have come, my child.’  He called me over to him and gave me, as it were, a mouthful of the milk he was drawing; and I took it into my cupped hands and consumed it.  And all those who stood around said:  ‘Amen!’  At the sound of this word I came to, with the taste of something sweet still in my mouth. [In this important text, Perpetua, who was an early Christian martyr, reports a vision given to her in which God is pictured as an old man and the martyrs in heaven celebrate the Eucharist.  The implication is that these early Christians who recorded and handed this story on believed that they were worshiping the same way that those in heaven were worshiping.]

 Origen, Commentary on John 13.99. For just as the angels (as even the Jews would agree) do not worship the Father in Jerusalem because they worship the Father in a better way than those in Jerusalem, so those who can already be like the angels in their attitude will not worship the Father in Jerusalem but in a better way than those in Jerusalem . . . . [boldface added; Origen claims Jewish support for the idea that heavenly worship is superior to earthly worship, and then adds that Christians who are already like the angels in their attitude will worship God in a superior, i.e., a heavenly, way.  Thus, Origen holds that Christian worship is on par with the heavenly worship, and seems to reflect a belief in a heavenly paradigm.]

 Origen, Commentary on John 13.146. We want to honor God in truth and no longer in types, shadows, and examples, even as the angels do not serve God in examples and the shadow of heavenly realities, but in realities that belong to the spiritual and heavenly order, having a high priest of the order of Melchisedech as leader of the saving worship for those who need both the mystical and secret contemplation. [Origen believes that Christian worship, unlike Gnostic worship, participates currently in a real way in the celestial worship, thus reflecting belief in a heavenly liturgy of which Jewish worship was a shadow.]

 In the coming posts, we’ll look at OT texts, Second Temple non-biblical Jewish texts, NT and early Christian texts, and then drawing some general conclusions.

 

NOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

All quotations from the Apostolic Fathers are from the translation of Lightfoot, Harner, Holmes, 2nd edition.

All quotations of Origen’s Commentary on John 13-32 are from Ronald E. Heine, trans., FOTC, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John Books 13—32 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1993).  Thanks to Peter Martens for pointing out this passage to me.

“The Martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicitas,” in Acts of the Christian Martyrs, trans. Herbert Musurillo (London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1972), 111-13.

Read More

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 158: The Fate of the Ark of the Covenant

The Ark of the Covenant is well-known because of the popular Indiana Jones movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark. That pop culture film offers just one of over a dozen theories on what happened to the Ark of the Covenant. The question arises because the ark is not one of the artifacts taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the biblical account of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 586 BC, nor is it listed among the temple treasures returned to Israel in Ezra 1, the account of the release of the captive Judeans. This episode surveys the more interesting and important theories as to the fate of the ark.

The episode is now live.

Read More

Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in Light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions: Part 4: Becoming as the Stars and Inheritance of the Nations, Continued

This is Part 4 of David Burnett’s guest blogging series


 

Philo’s Spec. Law 4.187, 2 Baruch 21:4; 48:8, and Romans 4:17: Misconstrual and a Missing Link?

 

This passage is frequently cited by commentators on Rom 4:17, rightly recognizing the parallel language regarding God’s calling “the non-existent things into existence (μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι)” (Spec. Laws 4.187) and Paul’s recounting of the God of Abraham who “calls into existence the things that do not exist (καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα)” (Rom 4:17b). Most commentators on Rom 4:17 understand this particular passage in Spec. Laws 4.187 as a reference only to creatio ex nihilo while not taking into account the wider context of the citation as a reference to the establishment of God’s celestial government over the cosmos.1 In this particular context, Philo’s language of calling the non-existent into existence (μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι) has nothing to do with the creating of all things out of nothing, but with the creation (in the sense of establishing) of the order or government of the cosmos (κόσμου γένεσίς τε καὶ διοίκησις). This should be read and understood in light of what Philo has already stated earlier in Spec. Laws 1.13-19 (see above), that the κόσμος was created or established (γενητός) as the “greatest of commonwealths (πόλις ἡ μεγίστη),” where the celestial bodies were appointed as the delegated rulers (ἄρχόντας), Philo sharing the Deuteronomic vision. Calling “the non-existent into existence (μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι)” is connected to “bringing order out of disorder;” for Philo these are part of a long list of acts of cosmic beneficence that are not works of God alone, but of “He and His beneficent powers (δυνάμεσι)” who in their governance of the κόσμος, “ever make it their business to transmute the faultiness of the worse wherever it exists and convert it to the better (Spec. Laws 4.187).”

 

So then for Philo, the language of God’s calling “the non-existent things into existence (μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι)” in Spec. Laws 4.187 should be understood more in terms of the ancient near eastern archetypical idea of creation as bringing order to the chaos, withstanding the idea of the act of bringing things that do not exist into existence. The thrust of the reference to creation here is an establishing of the cosmic government, seeing the κόσμος as “the greatest of commonwealths (πόλις ἡ μεγίστη),” in which the celestial bodies, or powers (δυνάμεσι), are delegated to the nations of the earth as rulers (ἄρχόντας) who are to rule as a father over his children (πατέρα παίδων), imitating (μιμεισθαι) the rule of the Father of all (πάντων πατρός). It is through the mimicking (μιμεισθαι) of this rule that the earthly ruler (of any kind) may be “assimilated to God (ἐξομοιώσεωσ της πρὸς θεόν),” becoming like the celestial “fathers (πατέρας)” or even the “Father of all (πάντων πατρός).”2

 

The same argument as above can be made with regard to the commentators’ use of 2 Baruch 21:4 and 48:8 as examples of creatio ex nihilo in relation to Romans 4:17.3 2 Bar. 21:4 reads: “O, you who have made the earth, hear me, who has (fi)xed the (fi)rmament by the word, and have set the height of heaven in place by the Spirit, which has called from the beginning of the world things which did not previously exist, and they obey you.”4 Here, in context, the calling into being of “things which did not exist” speaks of the fixing of the “firmament” and “the heights of heaven” which are actually personified saying, “they obey you.” Reading a bit further into the context may make clear what is being discussed here. Immediately following in 2 Bar. 21:5-6, “You have commanded the air by your nod, and have seen the things which are to come as those which have occurred (already). You who rule the hosts that stand before you with great reckoning and who rules with indignation the countless holy beings which you created from the beginning with (fl)ame and (fi)re which stand around your throne.” In context, the language of the personified “heights of heaven” that “obey you” that “previously did not exist” (2 Bar. 21:4), are referring to the celestial bodies or the heavenly host; the countless holy beings that “he created from the beginning.”

 

Again, when 2 Bar. 48:8 is read in context, the “bringing to life of that which did not exist” takes on a new dimension. 2 Bar. 48:8-10 reads:

 

“With signs and fear and indignation you command the (fl)ames, and they change into spirits. And with a word you bring to life that which does not exist, and with mighty power you hold that which has not yet come. You instruct created things in your understanding, and you make wise the spheres so as to minister in their orders. Armies without number stand before you and minister in their orders quietly at your sign.” (2 Bar. 48:8-10)

 

What is brought to life that has not existed before in this text, like above, are the celestial bodies and their role in the ordering of the cosmic government. Once he has brought them into existence, he “makes wise the spheres so as to minister in their orders.” Both of the texts from 2 Baruch refer not merely to creatio ex nihilo, but to the establishment of the order of the cosmos, giving the celestial bodies wisdom to “minister in their orders.”

 

It is important to keep in mind this interpretation when considering how 2 Baruch later discusses the vindication of the righteous. After the dead are raised in 2 Bar. 50:1-4, the destiny of those that were righteous is discussed in 2 Bar. 51:

 

“their splendor will be glori(fi)ed in changes, and the appearance of their face will be turned into the light of their beauty, so that they may be able to acquire and receive the world which does not die, which is promised to them (51:3) … When, therefore, they [speaking of the unrighteous] see that those over whom they are now exalted, who will then be exalted and glori(fi)ed more than they, they will be transformed: the latter into the splendor of angels (51:5) … and time will no longer age them (51:9). For they will dwell in the heights of that world, and they will be made like the angels. And they will be made equal to the stars … and from light into the splendor of glory (51:10) … and there will then be excellence in the righteous surpassing that in angels (51:12).”

 

Here in 2 Baruch, the angelic transformation of the righteous is spoken of in terms of “being made equal to the stars” (51:10). Baruch’s reason for this is so that “they may be able to acquire and receive the world which does not die, which is promised to them” (51:3).

 

So in 2 Baruch 21:4 and 48:8, the language of being “called from the beginning of the world things which did not previously exist” referred to the establishment of the cosmic order and the celestial bodies who obey him, similar to that of Philo’s Spec. Laws 4.187. Later in 2 Baruch 51, the righteous after the resurrection must be changed into the likeness of the stars or angels so that they might be exalted and “be able to acquire and receive the world which does not die, which is promised to them” (51:3). In both Philo Spec. Laws 4.187 and 2 Bar. 21.5 and 48:8, the bringing into being of that which did not exist referred not merely to creatio ex nihilo in a general sense, but more specifically of the establishment of the celestial bodies and their orders, akin to that of the Deuteronomic vision. It is also important to note that in both texts there was the hope of deification (or angelomorphism), whether in terms of assimilation to God or to become like the stars or angels. This reading of Spec. Laws 4.187 and 2 Bar. 21.5 and 48:8 may provide a missing link with Rom 4:17b and the constellation of language and concepts found there.

 

Sirach’s Reception of the Deuteronomic Vision

 

Sirach also appears to share in the Deuteronomic vision. Sirach 17:17, speaking in context of Yahweh’s election of Israel, states: “He appointed a ruler for every nation (ἑκάστῳ ἔθνει κατέστησεν ἡγούμενον), but Israel is the Lord’s own portion (καὶ μερὶς κυρίου Ισραηλ ἐστίν).” Though the term ἡγούμενον is used frequently in the LXX of human rulers, there seems to be a clear echo of Deut 32:9 here in Sirach 17:17, “but Israel is the Lord’s own portion (καὶ μερὶς κυρίου Ισραηλ ἐστίν)” (see Deut 32:9, “καὶ ἐγενήθη μερὶς κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ Ιακωβ”).5 This is significant in light of Sirach’s understanding of the Abrahamic promise of Gen 22:17, as discussed above, that God would “exalt (ἀνυψῶσαι) his seed as the stars, giving them an inheritance (κατακληρονομῆσαι) from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth” (Sir 44:21). The reception of the Deuteronomic vision in Sirach makes clear how the author can read the promise God makes to Abraham in Gen 22:17, to “multiply your seed as the stars of heaven (πληθυνῶ τὸ σπέρμα σου ὡς τοὺς ἀστέρας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ),” as “exaltation (ἀνυψῶσαι).” In Sirach 44:21, the connection made between the Abrahamic and Davidic promises is that the inheritance (κληρονομήσει) of the “governments of your enemies (πόλεις τῶν ὑπεναντίων)” in Gen 22:17 is understood as receiving dominion (κατακυριεύσει) from “seas to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”6 In the Deuteronomic vision, the stars were understood as the “gods (θεοῖς)” or “angels of God (ἀγγέλων θεοῦ)” who had been “allotted (ἀπένειμεν)” to rule all the “nations under heaven (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν τοῖς ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ),” but Israel was to be ruled over directly by Yahweh as his own inheritance (κληρονομίας) (Deut 4:19; 17:3; 29:6 [25]; 32:8-9). It can be argued then that Sirach 44:21 reads the Abrahamic promise of Gen 22:17 qualitatively through the lens of the Deuteronomic vision, seeing the promise of celestial glory as usurping the rule of the gods or angels of the nations and exalting (ἀνυψῶσαι) the seed of Abraham as the stars to receive the inheritance (κατακληρονομῆσαι) of the all nations of the earth “from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.”7

 

Wisdom of Solomon’s Reception of the Deuteronomic Vision

 

The Wisdom of Solomon, a text scholars have mined for parallels to Romans, speaks of the vindication of righteous dead in 3:7-8: “In the time of their visitation they will shine forth (ἀναλάμψουσιν), and will run like sparks (σπινθῆρες) through the stubble. They will govern nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them forever (κρινοῦσιν ἔθνη καὶ κρατήσουσιν λαῶν, καὶ βασιλεύσει αὐτῶν κύριος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας).”8 Later in 5:5 the unrighteous who are amazed at the unexpected salvation of the righteous say, “Why have they been numbered among the sons of God (υἱοῖς θεοῦ), and their lot among the holy ones (ἁγίοις ὁ κλῆρος)?” In Wisdom, common to texts that share the Deuteronomic vision, the connection again is seen between heavenly shining (ἀναλάμψουσιν) in the afterlife and the rule of the nations (κρινοῦσιν ἔθνη) (Wis 3:7-8). The connection is only strengthened when it is recognizes that they are seen to be among the “sons of God (υἱοῖς θεοῦ)” and the “holy ones (ἁγίοις),” both commonly denotations for the angelic hosts of the heavenly court.9

 

 

  1. It will arguably result in an anachronistic reading of this text to use the language of later Christian doctrine such as creatio ex nihilo in attempting to articulate the thrust of the passage. For the common interpretation of the parallel language of Spec. Laws 4.187 and Rom 4:17b as referring only to creation ex nihilo, see e.g. Byrne, Romans, 159-60; Cranfield, Romans 1-8, 245; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 218; Jewett, Romans, 334; Käseman, Romans, 122.
  2. For further texts in Philo regarding celestial deification or assimilation, see Creation 144; Dreams 1.135-37, 1:138-145; Giants 7; QE 2.114; Moses 2.108.
  3. As with the frequent misconstrual of Spec. Laws 4.187, the same argument can be applied to commentators interpretations of 2 Baruch 21:4 and 48:8 as referring only to creatio ex nihilo, see e.g. Byrne, Romans, 160; Cranfield, Romans 1-8, 245; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 218; Jewett, Romans, 334; Käseman, Romans, 122.
  4. Translation of 2 Baruch is taken from Daniel M. Gurtner, Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text with Greek and Latin Fragments, English Translation, Introduction, and Concordances, JCTCRS 5 (New York: Continuum, 2009).
  5. See Di Lella, Ben Sira, 283.
  6. See also in the discussion above of the connection with the “exaltation (ἀνύψωσεν)” of David in Sirach 47:11.
  7. This interpretation of the covenant promise may have a narrative similar to that of Psalm 82 in the background.
  8. For recent comparative studies of Wisdom of Solomon and Romans, see e.g. Joseph R. Dodson, The ‘Powers’ of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans, BZNW 161 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008); Jonathan A. Linebaugh, God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Texts in Conversation, NovTSup 152 (Leiden: Brill, 2013).
  9. See Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 81-82.

Read More

Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in Light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions: Part 3: Becoming as the Stars and the Inheritance of the Nations

This is Part 3 of the series by David Burnett; see Part 1, Part 2


 Part 3 – Becoming as the Stars and the Inheritance of the Nations

 

The Deuteronomic Vision of the Celestial Bodies as the Gods (or Angels) of the Nations

The precedent for this assumed connection in early Jewish tradition between becoming as the stars and the rule of nations is rooted in the Deuteronomic portrayal of the celestial bodies as the gods or angels of the nations, members of Yahweh’s Divine Council.1 It is necessary to point out here the hermeneutical significance of Deuteronomy for Paul (especially 29-32) that colors much of his engagement with scripture in Romans.2 Lincicum rightly recognizes that Deuteronomy “has been received by Paul with a threefold construal of the book as ethical authority, theological authority, and a lens for the interpretation of Israel’s history.”3 It is precisely the theological authority of Deuteronomy and its function as a lens for interpretation for Paul and Early Judaism that will be necessary to keep in mind.

The aniconic discourse of Deuteronomy 4 surveys all the creatures under heaven, whose images Israel must abstain from fashioning idols. After the creatures under heaven have been catalogued, the author directs Israel’s attention to the heavenly beings. Deuteronomy 4:19 states:

“And do not lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven (πάντα τὸν κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the Lord your god has allotted to all the nations under the whole heaven (ἃ ἀπένειμεν κύριος ὁ θεός σου αὐτὰ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν τοῖς ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ).”

Here, the celestial bodies themselves are regarded as the “hosts (or ornaments) of heaven (κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ)” who have been allotted or assigned to (ἀπονέμω) all the nations (ἔθνεσιν) under heaven.4 Later in Deuteronomy, in the same vein, Israel is commanded to refrain from the worship of the heavenly host in Deut 17:2-3:

“If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the Lord your god is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your god, by transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshipped them (καὶ ἐλθόντες λατρεύσωσιν θεοῖς ἑτέροις καὶ προσκυνήσωσιν αὐτοῖς), whether the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven (ἢ παντὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), which I have forbidden…”

The celestial bodies here are referred to as “gods (θεοῖς)”. Likewise in 29:18 (17), 26 (25), these beings are referred to as the gods of the nations:

“so that there will not be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our god, to go and serve the gods of those nations (τοῖς θεοῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν)… they went and served other gods (θεοῖς ἑτέροις) and worshiped them, gods whom they have not known and whom he had not allotted to them (θεοῖς οἷς οὐκ ἠπίσταντο οὐδὲ διένειμεν αὐτοῖς).

Here in 29:25, we find similar language of the distribution (διένειμεν) of the gods of the nations akin to 4:19. Finally in the Song of Moses we see these ideas come together in the narratival recounting of Israel’s election:

“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam (ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθνη, ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς Αδαμ), he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God (ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ). For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the allotment of his inheritance (καὶ ἐγενήθη μερὶς κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ Ιακωβ, σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ Ισραηλ).” (Deut 32:8-9)5

In Deuteronomy, the celestial bodies are portrayed as the gods or angels allotted to rule the nations. While the Lord (YHWH in the MT) appoints the gods or angels to rule the other nations, he elects Jacob (Israel) as his own inheritance (κληρονομίας), ruling over them directly as their sovereign. It is important to note that the language of inheritance (κληρονομία) employed here in LXX Deuteronomy denotes the particular relationship between the divine sovereign and the nation to which He rules. With this relationship in mind, Israel’s election appears to be the reason why they call Yahweh father (πατήρ) (Deut 32:6).

The language of inheritance (κληρονομία) is employed in the same fashion in Ps 82:8. Sharing the Deuteronomic vision, Psalm 82 narrates a scene in the Divine Council where Yahweh passes judgement on the gods of the nations for their ruling unrighteously (κρίνετε ἀδικίαν, 82:2).6 Echoing the language of Deut 32:8 for the gods of the nations, Yahweh pronounces his judgment in 82:6-7 saying: “I said ‘you are gods (Θεοί), sons of the Most High (υἱοὶ ὑψίστου), all of you; nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the rulers (ἀρχόντων)’.” The psalmist then concludes with the following cry: “Arise, O God, judge the earth (ἀνάστα, ὁ θεός, κρῖνον τὴν γῆν)! For it is you who will inherit all of the nations (κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, 82:8).” Corresponding to Deuteronomy, Psalm 82 provides a narrative framework for early Judaism’s understanding of inheritance (κληρονομία) that includes the judgment of the gods of the nations and Yahweh’s restored rule over them.

Philo’s Reception of the Deuteronomic Vision and the “Fathers” of the Nations

In Philo’s interpretation of the territorial law of Deut 19:14, we see an interesting explanation of the identity of the “fathers (πατέρες)” mentioned. In On the Posterity of Cain 89, he states:

“These boundaries were fixed not by the creation to which we belong, but on principles which are divine and are older than we and all that belongs to earth. This has been made clear by the Law, where it solemnly enjoins upon each one of us not to adulterate the coinage of virtue, using these words: ‘thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s boundaries (ὅρια), which thy fathers (πατέρες) set up’ (Deut. 19:14), and again in other words: ‘Ask thy father and he will show thee; thine elders and they will tell thee. When the Most High distributed nations (διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθνη), when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set boundaries of nations (ὅρια ἐθνῶν) according to the number of the angels of God, and Jacob His people became the Lord’s portion, Israel became the lot of His inheritance (κληρονομίας) (Deut 32:7-9).” (Philo, Posterity 89)

Here Philo sees the “fathers (πατέρες)” in Deut 19:14 not referring to human ancestral patriarchs, but to the angels of God apportioned over the nations, citing Deut 32:7-9.

In The Special Laws 1.13-19 we find further explanation on Philo’s conception of the astral gods of Deuteronomy and their role in God’s cosmic πόλις:

“Some have supposed that the sun and moon and the other stars were gods with absolute powers (θεοὺς αὐτοκράτορας) and ascribed to them the causation of all events. But Moses held that the universe (κόσμος) was created (γενητός) and is in a sense the greatest of commonwealths (πόλις ἡ μεγίστη), having magistrates (ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα) and subjects (ὑπηκόυς); for magistrates (ἄρχοντας), all the heavenly bodies (οὐρανῷ), fixed or wandering; for subjects (ὑπηκόους), such beings as exist below the moon, in the air or on the earth. The said magistrates (ἄρχοντας), however, in his view have not unconditional powers (αὐτεξουσίους), but are lieutenants (ἄρχοντας) of the one Father of All (τοῦ πάντων πατρὸς ὑπάρχους), and it is by copying (μιμουμένους) the example of His government exercised according to law and justice (δίκην καὶ νόμον) over all created beings that they acquit themselves aright; but those who do not descry the Charioteer mounted above attribute the causation of all the events in the universe (κόσμῳ) to the team that draw the chariot as though they were sole agents. From this ignorance our most holy lawgiver would convert them to knowledge with these words: ‘Do not when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars and all the ordered host of heaven go astray and worship them- Deut 4:19.’  Well indeed and aptly does he call the acceptance of the heavenly bodies as gods going astray or wandering … in supposing that they alone are gods … So all the gods (θεούς) which sense descries in Heaven must not be supposed to possess absolute power (αὐτοκρατεῖς) but to have received the rank of subordinate rulers, naturally liable to correction, though in virtue of their excellence never destined to undergo it.” (Philo, Spec. Laws 1.13-19)7, then the celestial- sun, moon, and stars [Deut 4:19; 1 Cor 15:41]). Paul likens the resurrection body to that of the sun, moon, and stars (1 Cor 15:40-42), even going so far as referring to the resurrected ones as “those who are of heaven (οἱ ἐπουράνιοι, 15:48).” This Pauline complex of language fits the same background and pattern found in Romans 4 as argued in the present study. For a discussion of resurrection and astral immortality in Early Judaism, see below.]

Here, Philo describes the κόσμος as the “greatest of commonwealths (πόλις ἡ μεγίστη),” a kind of heavenly government akin to a Greco-Roman city-state where celestial rulers (ἄρχοντας) are delegated rule over subjects (ὑπηκόυς) that consist of all those who live below the heavens. Philo does not deny the divinity of the celestial bodies, but in his use of Deut 4:19, the logic given to not worship them is simply that they are not gods with “absolute powers (αὐτοκρατεῖς),” but are appointed rulers (ἄρχοντας) under the one God who is “Father of all (του πάντων πατρὸς ὑπάρχους)”. The celestial bodies are to carry out their rule by mimetic (μιμουμένους) participation in God’s own rule of the κόσμος in justice and law (δίκην καὶ νόμον).8 For Philo, the use of the appellation “Father of all (πάντων πατρός)” for God is predicated on his unshared, absolute sovereignty over the cosmic polis.

Later in Spec. Laws 4.184-188, we find the similar conceptual link between rulership and fatherhood described in detail, this time actually connecting these concepts with the potential for human rulers to be “assimilated to God (ἐξομοιώσεως της πρὸς θεόν)”:

“The ruler (ἄρχοντα) should preside (χρή) over his subjects (ὑπηκόων) as a father over his children (πατέρα παίδων) so that he himself may be honoured in return as by true-born sons, and therefore good rulers may be truly called the parents of states and nations (ἐθνῶν) in common, since they show a fatherly and sometimes more than fatherly affection. But those who assume great power to destroy and injure their subjects should be called not rulers but enemies (πονηρότεροι)9 … Now “rule” or “command” is a category which extends and intrudes itself, I might also say, into every branch of life, differing in magnitude and amount … For this is to follow God since He too can do both (for good or for worse) but wills the good only. This was shown both in the creation and in the ordering of the world (κόσμου γένεσίς τε καὶ διοίκησις). He called the non-existent into existence (μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι) and produced order from disorder … For He and His beneficent powers (δυνάμεσι) ever make it their business to transmute the faultiness of the worse wherever it exists and convert it to the better. These things good rulers (ἄρχοντας) must imitate (μιμεισθαι) if they have any aspiration to be assimilated to God (ἐξομοιώσεωσ της πρὸς θεόν).” (Philo, Spec. Laws 4.184-188)

Here Philo points out that every ruler (ἄρχοντα) should act as a “father over his children (πατέρα παίδων).” Good rulers may be “truly called parents of the nations (ἐθνῶν).”10 As the celestial bodies were called to mimic (μιμουμένους) the rule of the “Father of all (πάντων πατρός)” in the cosmic government (κόσμος) (previously in Spec. Laws 1:13-19), so to now the human rulers must imitate (μιμεισθαι) the rule of God and his “beneficent powers (δυνάμεσι)” (likely a reference the celestial bodies, or ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα, referred to above in Spec. Laws 1:13) if they wish to be “assimilated to God (ἐξομοιώσεωσ της πρὸς θεόν).”11


 

  1. For support of this idea and further discussion on the Divine Council in Deuteronomy, see Daniel I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, ETS 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000); Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Literature” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004), 68-89; idem, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BS 158 (2001): 52-74; Nathan McDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, FAT 2.1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Patrick D. Miller, “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol,” HBT 9.2 (1987): 53-78; idem, “God’s Other Stories: On the Margins of Deuteronomic Theology,” in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell Jr. at his Retirement, ed. P. Williams et al. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 185-94; idem, The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: SPCK, 2000), 23-28; Theodore E. Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, HSM 24 (Harvard: Scholars Press, 1980); Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford, 2001), 41-53; idem, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 193-214; Ellen White, Yahweh’s Council: Its Structure and Membership, FAT 2.65 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 34-38. Heiser’s work is of special importance to the present study as he demonstrates, quite persuasively, that “the pre-exilic Israelite belief in a divine council under the rule of Yahweh was maintained in Israel’s faith after the exile and survived in at least some strains of Judaism well into the Common Era (quote from 258).” For the full study, see Heiser, “Divine Council.” Following this line of thought, McDonald (Deuteronomy, 96), in a discussion of the gods mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8, says of the Apostle Paul: “Paul, it can be argued, is breathing the same spirit as Deuteronomy 32. Other gods exist, but in another sense they are ‘no-gods’ and ‘demons.’ It is only YHWH that is ‘God’. Paul too wants to express the theme in relational terms. There are indeed many gods that exist, but for us (ἡμῖν) there is only one God. The absolute terms are confessional, not ontological.”
  2. For Paul’s engagement with Deuteronomy and its importance for his interpretation of scripture and thought in general, see David Lincicum, Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter with Deuteronomy, WUNT 2.284 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); Per Jarle Bekken, The Word is Near You: A Study of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in a Jewish Context, BZNW 144 (Berlin: De Grutyer, 2007); Guy Waters, The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul, WUNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Wagner, Heralds; James M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition,” JBL 112 (1993): 645-65; Hays, Echoes.
  3. See Lincicum, Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter, 198.
  4. The term “κόσμον” as a gloss for the “host of heaven” appears 4 times in the LXX, twice in Deuteronomy (4:19; 17:3; both discussed here) and twice in Isaiah (24:21; 40:26). It may be important to note here that Isa 24:21 speaks of the day Yahweh will punish the “hosts of heaven (κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ)” as well as the “kings of the earth (βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς),” which is more than likely speaking of the judgment of the gods of the nations and the corresponding kings, sharing the linguistic and conceptual parallels with Deuteronomy and the narrative of Psalm 82 (see below).
  5. For discussions of the difficult text-critical problem in 32:8 regarding the “angels of God,” see Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BS 158 (2001): 52-74. This account is more than likely narrating the dispersing of the nations in Gen 11:1-9; the language of “separating the sons of Adam (ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς Αδαμ)” of Deut 32:8 reflecting the language of the dispersion in Gen 11:8-9, “and from there the Lord God scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth (καὶ ἐκεῖθεν διέσπειρεν αὐτοὺς κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ πρόσωπον πάσης τῆς γῆς).”
  6. The tradition of the portrayal of the celestial bodies as the gods/angels of the nations as seen in Deuteronomy will be simply referred to for the remainder of the study as the Deuteronomic Vision. The vision functions as a cosmic-political lens through which many Jews of the period understood their world, their unique relationship to their God with respect to their election, as well as their relationship to the other nations. See e.g. Miller, “Cosmology and World Order.”
  7. The web of connections in Philo’s language here (Spec. Laws 1.13-19) for the celestial bodies (οὐρανῷ) as the rulers or magistrates (ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα) and powers (δυνάμεσι, see Spec. Laws 4.184-188 below) of the cosmos (κόσμος) provides us with an important comparative map when considering Paul’s employment of a similar complex of language for the angels, principalities, and powers (ἄγγελοι, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, δυνάμεις, cf. Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 6:2-3; 15:24; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15) of the cosmos (κόσμος, cf. Rom 4:13; 1 Cor 6:2-3; 8:4-6). An important point for consideration in the present study is Paul’s parallel in 1 Cor 6:2-3 between the expectation that the holy ones will “judge the cosmos (ὑμῖν κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος),” connected with the idea that they will “judge the angels (ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν).” Later in 1 Corinthians 15, another important connection is found in the context of a discussion on the glory of the resurrection body. A survey is taken of the terrestrial creatures and then the celestial creatures, following the same pattern of Deut 4:16-19 (the terrestrial- humans, land animals, birds, fish [Deut 4:16-18; 1 Cor 15:39
  8. It is important to note that in Psalm 82, this is precisely why the gods of the nations are to be judged and lose their inheritance (κληρονομία), because they did not maintain the cosmic world order (see Miller, “Cosmology and World Order,” 438-39), but ruled unjustly (κρίνετε ἀδικίαν).
  9. See e.g. Psalm 82.
  10. This is particularly important in Rom 4:17-18 as Abraham is referred to as a “father of many nations (πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν).”
  11. For the proper context see above, Spec. Laws 1.13-19. For a helpful discussion on the meaning of “assimilation to God” in Philo, see George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, WUNT 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 181-98; Wendy E. Helleman, “Philo of Alexandria on Deification and Assimilation to God,” SPA 2 (1990): 51-71; David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, PA 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 341ff. It is surprising that van Kooten does not pick up on Philo’s qualitative reading of the promise to Abraham in Gen 15:5, as it may provide a rich exegetical source Philo could utilize in support of his Platonic notion of “assimilation to God.”

Read More

Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in Light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions: Part 3: Becoming as the Stars and the Inheritance of the Nations

This is Part 3 of the series by David Burnett; see Part 1, Part 2


 Part 3 – Becoming as the Stars and the Inheritance of the Nations

 

The Deuteronomic Vision of the Celestial Bodies as the Gods (or Angels) of the Nations

The precedent for this assumed connection in early Jewish tradition between becoming as the stars and the rule of nations is rooted in the Deuteronomic portrayal of the celestial bodies as the gods or angels of the nations, members of Yahweh’s Divine Council.1 It is necessary to point out here the hermeneutical significance of Deuteronomy for Paul (especially 29-32) that colors much of his engagement with scripture in Romans.2 Lincicum rightly recognizes that Deuteronomy “has been received by Paul with a threefold construal of the book as ethical authority, theological authority, and a lens for the interpretation of Israel’s history.”3 It is precisely the theological authority of Deuteronomy and its function as a lens for interpretation for Paul and Early Judaism that will be necessary to keep in mind.

The aniconic discourse of Deuteronomy 4 surveys all the creatures under heaven, whose images Israel must abstain from fashioning idols. After the creatures under heaven have been catalogued, the author directs Israel’s attention to the heavenly beings. Deuteronomy 4:19 states:

“And do not lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven (πάντα τὸν κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the Lord your god has allotted to all the nations under the whole heaven (ἃ ἀπένειμεν κύριος ὁ θεός σου αὐτὰ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν τοῖς ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ).”

Here, the celestial bodies themselves are regarded as the “hosts (or ornaments) of heaven (κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ)” who have been allotted or assigned to (ἀπονέμω) all the nations (ἔθνεσιν) under heaven.4 Later in Deuteronomy, in the same vein, Israel is commanded to refrain from the worship of the heavenly host in Deut 17:2-3:

“If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the Lord your god is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your god, by transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshipped them (καὶ ἐλθόντες λατρεύσωσιν θεοῖς ἑτέροις καὶ προσκυνήσωσιν αὐτοῖς), whether the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven (ἢ παντὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), which I have forbidden…”

The celestial bodies here are referred to as “gods (θεοῖς)”. Likewise in 29:18 (17), 26 (25), these beings are referred to as the gods of the nations:

“so that there will not be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our god, to go and serve the gods of those nations (τοῖς θεοῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν)… they went and served other gods (θεοῖς ἑτέροις) and worshiped them, gods whom they have not known and whom he had not allotted to them (θεοῖς οἷς οὐκ ἠπίσταντο οὐδὲ διένειμεν αὐτοῖς).

Here in 29:25, we find similar language of the distribution (διένειμεν) of the gods of the nations akin to 4:19. Finally in the Song of Moses we see these ideas come together in the narratival recounting of Israel’s election:

“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam (ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθνη, ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς Αδαμ), he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God (ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ). For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the allotment of his inheritance (καὶ ἐγενήθη μερὶς κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ Ιακωβ, σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ Ισραηλ).” (Deut 32:8-9)5

In Deuteronomy, the celestial bodies are portrayed as the gods or angels allotted to rule the nations. While the Lord (YHWH in the MT) appoints the gods or angels to rule the other nations, he elects Jacob (Israel) as his own inheritance (κληρονομίας), ruling over them directly as their sovereign. It is important to note that the language of inheritance (κληρονομία) employed here in LXX Deuteronomy denotes the particular relationship between the divine sovereign and the nation to which He rules. With this relationship in mind, Israel’s election appears to be the reason why they call Yahweh father (πατήρ) (Deut 32:6).

The language of inheritance (κληρονομία) is employed in the same fashion in Ps 82:8. Sharing the Deuteronomic vision, Psalm 82 narrates a scene in the Divine Council where Yahweh passes judgement on the gods of the nations for their ruling unrighteously (κρίνετε ἀδικίαν, 82:2).6 Echoing the language of Deut 32:8 for the gods of the nations, Yahweh pronounces his judgment in 82:6-7 saying: “I said ‘you are gods (Θεοί), sons of the Most High (υἱοὶ ὑψίστου), all of you; nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the rulers (ἀρχόντων)’.” The psalmist then concludes with the following cry: “Arise, O God, judge the earth (ἀνάστα, ὁ θεός, κρῖνον τὴν γῆν)! For it is you who will inherit all of the nations (κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, 82:8).” Corresponding to Deuteronomy, Psalm 82 provides a narrative framework for early Judaism’s understanding of inheritance (κληρονομία) that includes the judgment of the gods of the nations and Yahweh’s restored rule over them.

Philo’s Reception of the Deuteronomic Vision and the “Fathers” of the Nations

In Philo’s interpretation of the territorial law of Deut 19:14, we see an interesting explanation of the identity of the “fathers (πατέρες)” mentioned. In On the Posterity of Cain 89, he states:

“These boundaries were fixed not by the creation to which we belong, but on principles which are divine and are older than we and all that belongs to earth. This has been made clear by the Law, where it solemnly enjoins upon each one of us not to adulterate the coinage of virtue, using these words: ‘thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s boundaries (ὅρια), which thy fathers (πατέρες) set up’ (Deut. 19:14), and again in other words: ‘Ask thy father and he will show thee; thine elders and they will tell thee. When the Most High distributed nations (διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθνη), when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set boundaries of nations (ὅρια ἐθνῶν) according to the number of the angels of God, and Jacob His people became the Lord’s portion, Israel became the lot of His inheritance (κληρονομίας) (Deut 32:7-9).” (Philo, Posterity 89)

Here Philo sees the “fathers (πατέρες)” in Deut 19:14 not referring to human ancestral patriarchs, but to the angels of God apportioned over the nations, citing Deut 32:7-9.

In The Special Laws 1.13-19 we find further explanation on Philo’s conception of the astral gods of Deuteronomy and their role in God’s cosmic πόλις:

“Some have supposed that the sun and moon and the other stars were gods with absolute powers (θεοὺς αὐτοκράτορας) and ascribed to them the causation of all events. But Moses held that the universe (κόσμος) was created (γενητός) and is in a sense the greatest of commonwealths (πόλις ἡ μεγίστη), having magistrates (ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα) and subjects (ὑπηκόυς); for magistrates (ἄρχοντας), all the heavenly bodies (οὐρανῷ), fixed or wandering; for subjects (ὑπηκόους), such beings as exist below the moon, in the air or on the earth. The said magistrates (ἄρχοντας), however, in his view have not unconditional powers (αὐτεξουσίους), but are lieutenants (ἄρχοντας) of the one Father of All (τοῦ πάντων πατρὸς ὑπάρχους), and it is by copying (μιμουμένους) the example of His government exercised according to law and justice (δίκην καὶ νόμον) over all created beings that they acquit themselves aright; but those who do not descry the Charioteer mounted above attribute the causation of all the events in the universe (κόσμῳ) to the team that draw the chariot as though they were sole agents. From this ignorance our most holy lawgiver would convert them to knowledge with these words: ‘Do not when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars and all the ordered host of heaven go astray and worship them- Deut 4:19.’  Well indeed and aptly does he call the acceptance of the heavenly bodies as gods going astray or wandering … in supposing that they alone are gods … So all the gods (θεούς) which sense descries in Heaven must not be supposed to possess absolute power (αὐτοκρατεῖς) but to have received the rank of subordinate rulers, naturally liable to correction, though in virtue of their excellence never destined to undergo it.” (Philo, Spec. Laws 1.13-19)7, then the celestial- sun, moon, and stars [Deut 4:19; 1 Cor 15:41]). Paul likens the resurrection body to that of the sun, moon, and stars (1 Cor 15:40-42), even going so far as referring to the resurrected ones as “those who are of heaven (οἱ ἐπουράνιοι, 15:48).” This Pauline complex of language fits the same background and pattern found in Romans 4 as argued in the present study. For a discussion of resurrection and astral immortality in Early Judaism, see below.]

Here, Philo describes the κόσμος as the “greatest of commonwealths (πόλις ἡ μεγίστη),” a kind of heavenly government akin to a Greco-Roman city-state where celestial rulers (ἄρχοντας) are delegated rule over subjects (ὑπηκόυς) that consist of all those who live below the heavens. Philo does not deny the divinity of the celestial bodies, but in his use of Deut 4:19, the logic given to not worship them is simply that they are not gods with “absolute powers (αὐτοκρατεῖς),” but are appointed rulers (ἄρχοντας) under the one God who is “Father of all (του πάντων πατρὸς ὑπάρχους)”. The celestial bodies are to carry out their rule by mimetic (μιμουμένους) participation in God’s own rule of the κόσμος in justice and law (δίκην καὶ νόμον).8 For Philo, the use of the appellation “Father of all (πάντων πατρός)” for God is predicated on his unshared, absolute sovereignty over the cosmic polis.

Later in Spec. Laws 4.184-188, we find the similar conceptual link between rulership and fatherhood described in detail, this time actually connecting these concepts with the potential for human rulers to be “assimilated to God (ἐξομοιώσεως της πρὸς θεόν)”:

“The ruler (ἄρχοντα) should preside (χρή) over his subjects (ὑπηκόων) as a father over his children (πατέρα παίδων) so that he himself may be honoured in return as by true-born sons, and therefore good rulers may be truly called the parents of states and nations (ἐθνῶν) in common, since they show a fatherly and sometimes more than fatherly affection. But those who assume great power to destroy and injure their subjects should be called not rulers but enemies (πονηρότεροι)9 … Now “rule” or “command” is a category which extends and intrudes itself, I might also say, into every branch of life, differing in magnitude and amount … For this is to follow God since He too can do both (for good or for worse) but wills the good only. This was shown both in the creation and in the ordering of the world (κόσμου γένεσίς τε καὶ διοίκησις). He called the non-existent into existence (μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι) and produced order from disorder … For He and His beneficent powers (δυνάμεσι) ever make it their business to transmute the faultiness of the worse wherever it exists and convert it to the better. These things good rulers (ἄρχοντας) must imitate (μιμεισθαι) if they have any aspiration to be assimilated to God (ἐξομοιώσεωσ της πρὸς θεόν).” (Philo, Spec. Laws 4.184-188)

Here Philo points out that every ruler (ἄρχοντα) should act as a “father over his children (πατέρα παίδων).” Good rulers may be “truly called parents of the nations (ἐθνῶν).”10 As the celestial bodies were called to mimic (μιμουμένους) the rule of the “Father of all (πάντων πατρός)” in the cosmic government (κόσμος) (previously in Spec. Laws 1:13-19), so to now the human rulers must imitate (μιμεισθαι) the rule of God and his “beneficent powers (δυνάμεσι)” (likely a reference the celestial bodies, or ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα, referred to above in Spec. Laws 1:13) if they wish to be “assimilated to God (ἐξομοιώσεωσ της πρὸς θεόν).”11


 

  1. For support of this idea and further discussion on the Divine Council in Deuteronomy, see Daniel I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, ETS 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000); Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Literature” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004), 68-89; idem, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BS 158 (2001): 52-74; Nathan McDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, FAT 2.1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Patrick D. Miller, “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol,” HBT 9.2 (1987): 53-78; idem, “God’s Other Stories: On the Margins of Deuteronomic Theology,” in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell Jr. at his Retirement, ed. P. Williams et al. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 185-94; idem, The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: SPCK, 2000), 23-28; Theodore E. Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, HSM 24 (Harvard: Scholars Press, 1980); Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford, 2001), 41-53; idem, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 193-214; Ellen White, Yahweh’s Council: Its Structure and Membership, FAT 2.65 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 34-38. Heiser’s work is of special importance to the present study as he demonstrates, quite persuasively, that “the pre-exilic Israelite belief in a divine council under the rule of Yahweh was maintained in Israel’s faith after the exile and survived in at least some strains of Judaism well into the Common Era (quote from 258).” For the full study, see Heiser, “Divine Council.” Following this line of thought, McDonald (Deuteronomy, 96), in a discussion of the gods mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8, says of the Apostle Paul: “Paul, it can be argued, is breathing the same spirit as Deuteronomy 32. Other gods exist, but in another sense they are ‘no-gods’ and ‘demons.’ It is only YHWH that is ‘God’. Paul too wants to express the theme in relational terms. There are indeed many gods that exist, but for us (ἡμῖν) there is only one God. The absolute terms are confessional, not ontological.”
  2. For Paul’s engagement with Deuteronomy and its importance for his interpretation of scripture and thought in general, see David Lincicum, Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter with Deuteronomy, WUNT 2.284 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); Per Jarle Bekken, The Word is Near You: A Study of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in a Jewish Context, BZNW 144 (Berlin: De Grutyer, 2007); Guy Waters, The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul, WUNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Wagner, Heralds; James M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition,” JBL 112 (1993): 645-65; Hays, Echoes.
  3. See Lincicum, Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter, 198.
  4. The term “κόσμον” as a gloss for the “host of heaven” appears 4 times in the LXX, twice in Deuteronomy (4:19; 17:3; both discussed here) and twice in Isaiah (24:21; 40:26). It may be important to note here that Isa 24:21 speaks of the day Yahweh will punish the “hosts of heaven (κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ)” as well as the “kings of the earth (βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς),” which is more than likely speaking of the judgment of the gods of the nations and the corresponding kings, sharing the linguistic and conceptual parallels with Deuteronomy and the narrative of Psalm 82 (see below).
  5. For discussions of the difficult text-critical problem in 32:8 regarding the “angels of God,” see Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BS 158 (2001): 52-74. This account is more than likely narrating the dispersing of the nations in Gen 11:1-9; the language of “separating the sons of Adam (ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς Αδαμ)” of Deut 32:8 reflecting the language of the dispersion in Gen 11:8-9, “and from there the Lord God scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth (καὶ ἐκεῖθεν διέσπειρεν αὐτοὺς κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ πρόσωπον πάσης τῆς γῆς).”
  6. The tradition of the portrayal of the celestial bodies as the gods/angels of the nations as seen in Deuteronomy will be simply referred to for the remainder of the study as the Deuteronomic Vision. The vision functions as a cosmic-political lens through which many Jews of the period understood their world, their unique relationship to their God with respect to their election, as well as their relationship to the other nations. See e.g. Miller, “Cosmology and World Order.”
  7. The web of connections in Philo’s language here (Spec. Laws 1.13-19) for the celestial bodies (οὐρανῷ) as the rulers or magistrates (ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα) and powers (δυνάμεσι, see Spec. Laws 4.184-188 below) of the cosmos (κόσμος) provides us with an important comparative map when considering Paul’s employment of a similar complex of language for the angels, principalities, and powers (ἄγγελοι, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, δυνάμεις, cf. Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 6:2-3; 15:24; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15) of the cosmos (κόσμος, cf. Rom 4:13; 1 Cor 6:2-3; 8:4-6). An important point for consideration in the present study is Paul’s parallel in 1 Cor 6:2-3 between the expectation that the holy ones will “judge the cosmos (ὑμῖν κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος),” connected with the idea that they will “judge the angels (ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν).” Later in 1 Corinthians 15, another important connection is found in the context of a discussion on the glory of the resurrection body. A survey is taken of the terrestrial creatures and then the celestial creatures, following the same pattern of Deut 4:16-19 (the terrestrial- humans, land animals, birds, fish [Deut 4:16-18; 1 Cor 15:39
  8. It is important to note that in Psalm 82, this is precisely why the gods of the nations are to be judged and lose their inheritance (κληρονομία), because they did not maintain the cosmic world order (see Miller, “Cosmology and World Order,” 438-39), but ruled unjustly (κρίνετε ἀδικίαν).
  9. See e.g. Psalm 82.
  10. This is particularly important in Rom 4:17-18 as Abraham is referred to as a “father of many nations (πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν).”
  11. For the proper context see above, Spec. Laws 1.13-19. For a helpful discussion on the meaning of “assimilation to God” in Philo, see George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, WUNT 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 181-98; Wendy E. Helleman, “Philo of Alexandria on Deification and Assimilation to God,” SPA 2 (1990): 51-71; David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, PA 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 341ff. It is surprising that van Kooten does not pick up on Philo’s qualitative reading of the promise to Abraham in Gen 15:5, as it may provide a rich exegetical source Philo could utilize in support of his Platonic notion of “assimilation to God.”

Read More

Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in Light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions: Part 3: Becoming as the Stars and the Inheritance of the Nations

This is Part 3 of the series by David Burnett; see Part 1, Part 2


 Part 3 – Becoming as the Stars and the Inheritance of the Nations

 

The Deuteronomic Vision of the Celestial Bodies as the Gods (or Angels) of the Nations

The precedent for this assumed connection in early Jewish tradition between becoming as the stars and the rule of nations is rooted in the Deuteronomic portrayal of the celestial bodies as the gods or angels of the nations, members of Yahweh’s Divine Council.1 It is necessary to point out here the hermeneutical significance of Deuteronomy for Paul (especially 29-32) that colors much of his engagement with scripture in Romans.2 Lincicum rightly recognizes that Deuteronomy “has been received by Paul with a threefold construal of the book as ethical authority, theological authority, and a lens for the interpretation of Israel’s history.”3 It is precisely the theological authority of Deuteronomy and its function as a lens for interpretation for Paul and Early Judaism that will be necessary to keep in mind.

The aniconic discourse of Deuteronomy 4 surveys all the creatures under heaven, whose images Israel must abstain from fashioning idols. After the creatures under heaven have been catalogued, the author directs Israel’s attention to the heavenly beings. Deuteronomy 4:19 states:

“And do not lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven (πάντα τὸν κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the Lord your god has allotted to all the nations under the whole heaven (ἃ ἀπένειμεν κύριος ὁ θεός σου αὐτὰ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν τοῖς ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ).”

Here, the celestial bodies themselves are regarded as the “hosts (or ornaments) of heaven (κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ)” who have been allotted or assigned to (ἀπονέμω) all the nations (ἔθνεσιν) under heaven.4 Later in Deuteronomy, in the same vein, Israel is commanded to refrain from the worship of the heavenly host in Deut 17:2-3:

“If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the Lord your god is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your god, by transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshipped them (καὶ ἐλθόντες λατρεύσωσιν θεοῖς ἑτέροις καὶ προσκυνήσωσιν αὐτοῖς), whether the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven (ἢ παντὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), which I have forbidden…”

The celestial bodies here are referred to as “gods (θεοῖς)”. Likewise in 29:18 (17), 26 (25), these beings are referred to as the gods of the nations:

“so that there will not be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our god, to go and serve the gods of those nations (τοῖς θεοῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν)… they went and served other gods (θεοῖς ἑτέροις) and worshiped them, gods whom they have not known and whom he had not allotted to them (θεοῖς οἷς οὐκ ἠπίσταντο οὐδὲ διένειμεν αὐτοῖς).

Here in 29:25, we find similar language of the distribution (διένειμεν) of the gods of the nations akin to 4:19. Finally in the Song of Moses we see these ideas come together in the narratival recounting of Israel’s election:

“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam (ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθνη, ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς Αδαμ), he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God (ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ). For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the allotment of his inheritance (καὶ ἐγενήθη μερὶς κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ Ιακωβ, σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ Ισραηλ).” (Deut 32:8-9)5

In Deuteronomy, the celestial bodies are portrayed as the gods or angels allotted to rule the nations. While the Lord (YHWH in the MT) appoints the gods or angels to rule the other nations, he elects Jacob (Israel) as his own inheritance (κληρονομίας), ruling over them directly as their sovereign. It is important to note that the language of inheritance (κληρονομία) employed here in LXX Deuteronomy denotes the particular relationship between the divine sovereign and the nation to which He rules. With this relationship in mind, Israel’s election appears to be the reason why they call Yahweh father (πατήρ) (Deut 32:6).

The language of inheritance (κληρονομία) is employed in the same fashion in Ps 82:8. Sharing the Deuteronomic vision, Psalm 82 narrates a scene in the Divine Council where Yahweh passes judgement on the gods of the nations for their ruling unrighteously (κρίνετε ἀδικίαν, 82:2).6 Echoing the language of Deut 32:8 for the gods of the nations, Yahweh pronounces his judgment in 82:6-7 saying: “I said ‘you are gods (Θεοί), sons of the Most High (υἱοὶ ὑψίστου), all of you; nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the rulers (ἀρχόντων)’.” The psalmist then concludes with the following cry: “Arise, O God, judge the earth (ἀνάστα, ὁ θεός, κρῖνον τὴν γῆν)! For it is you who will inherit all of the nations (κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, 82:8).” Corresponding to Deuteronomy, Psalm 82 provides a narrative framework for early Judaism’s understanding of inheritance (κληρονομία) that includes the judgment of the gods of the nations and Yahweh’s restored rule over them.

Philo’s Reception of the Deuteronomic Vision and the “Fathers” of the Nations

In Philo’s interpretation of the territorial law of Deut 19:14, we see an interesting explanation of the identity of the “fathers (πατέρες)” mentioned. In On the Posterity of Cain 89, he states:

“These boundaries were fixed not by the creation to which we belong, but on principles which are divine and are older than we and all that belongs to earth. This has been made clear by the Law, where it solemnly enjoins upon each one of us not to adulterate the coinage of virtue, using these words: ‘thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s boundaries (ὅρια), which thy fathers (πατέρες) set up’ (Deut. 19:14), and again in other words: ‘Ask thy father and he will show thee; thine elders and they will tell thee. When the Most High distributed nations (διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθνη), when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set boundaries of nations (ὅρια ἐθνῶν) according to the number of the angels of God, and Jacob His people became the Lord’s portion, Israel became the lot of His inheritance (κληρονομίας) (Deut 32:7-9).” (Philo, Posterity 89)

Here Philo sees the “fathers (πατέρες)” in Deut 19:14 not referring to human ancestral patriarchs, but to the angels of God apportioned over the nations, citing Deut 32:7-9.

In The Special Laws 1.13-19 we find further explanation on Philo’s conception of the astral gods of Deuteronomy and their role in God’s cosmic πόλις:

“Some have supposed that the sun and moon and the other stars were gods with absolute powers (θεοὺς αὐτοκράτορας) and ascribed to them the causation of all events. But Moses held that the universe (κόσμος) was created (γενητός) and is in a sense the greatest of commonwealths (πόλις ἡ μεγίστη), having magistrates (ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα) and subjects (ὑπηκόυς); for magistrates (ἄρχοντας), all the heavenly bodies (οὐρανῷ), fixed or wandering; for subjects (ὑπηκόους), such beings as exist below the moon, in the air or on the earth. The said magistrates (ἄρχοντας), however, in his view have not unconditional powers (αὐτεξουσίους), but are lieutenants (ἄρχοντας) of the one Father of All (τοῦ πάντων πατρὸς ὑπάρχους), and it is by copying (μιμουμένους) the example of His government exercised according to law and justice (δίκην καὶ νόμον) over all created beings that they acquit themselves aright; but those who do not descry the Charioteer mounted above attribute the causation of all the events in the universe (κόσμῳ) to the team that draw the chariot as though they were sole agents. From this ignorance our most holy lawgiver would convert them to knowledge with these words: ‘Do not when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars and all the ordered host of heaven go astray and worship them- Deut 4:19.’  Well indeed and aptly does he call the acceptance of the heavenly bodies as gods going astray or wandering … in supposing that they alone are gods … So all the gods (θεούς) which sense descries in Heaven must not be supposed to possess absolute power (αὐτοκρατεῖς) but to have received the rank of subordinate rulers, naturally liable to correction, though in virtue of their excellence never destined to undergo it.” (Philo, Spec. Laws 1.13-19)7, then the celestial- sun, moon, and stars [Deut 4:19; 1 Cor 15:41]). Paul likens the resurrection body to that of the sun, moon, and stars (1 Cor 15:40-42), even going so far as referring to the resurrected ones as “those who are of heaven (οἱ ἐπουράνιοι, 15:48).” This Pauline complex of language fits the same background and pattern found in Romans 4 as argued in the present study. For a discussion of resurrection and astral immortality in Early Judaism, see below.]

Here, Philo describes the κόσμος as the “greatest of commonwealths (πόλις ἡ μεγίστη),” a kind of heavenly government akin to a Greco-Roman city-state where celestial rulers (ἄρχοντας) are delegated rule over subjects (ὑπηκόυς) that consist of all those who live below the heavens. Philo does not deny the divinity of the celestial bodies, but in his use of Deut 4:19, the logic given to not worship them is simply that they are not gods with “absolute powers (αὐτοκρατεῖς),” but are appointed rulers (ἄρχοντας) under the one God who is “Father of all (του πάντων πατρὸς ὑπάρχους)”. The celestial bodies are to carry out their rule by mimetic (μιμουμένους) participation in God’s own rule of the κόσμος in justice and law (δίκην καὶ νόμον).8 For Philo, the use of the appellation “Father of all (πάντων πατρός)” for God is predicated on his unshared, absolute sovereignty over the cosmic polis.

Later in Spec. Laws 4.184-188, we find the similar conceptual link between rulership and fatherhood described in detail, this time actually connecting these concepts with the potential for human rulers to be “assimilated to God (ἐξομοιώσεως της πρὸς θεόν)”:

“The ruler (ἄρχοντα) should preside (χρή) over his subjects (ὑπηκόων) as a father over his children (πατέρα παίδων) so that he himself may be honoured in return as by true-born sons, and therefore good rulers may be truly called the parents of states and nations (ἐθνῶν) in common, since they show a fatherly and sometimes more than fatherly affection. But those who assume great power to destroy and injure their subjects should be called not rulers but enemies (πονηρότεροι)9 … Now “rule” or “command” is a category which extends and intrudes itself, I might also say, into every branch of life, differing in magnitude and amount … For this is to follow God since He too can do both (for good or for worse) but wills the good only. This was shown both in the creation and in the ordering of the world (κόσμου γένεσίς τε καὶ διοίκησις). He called the non-existent into existence (μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι) and produced order from disorder … For He and His beneficent powers (δυνάμεσι) ever make it their business to transmute the faultiness of the worse wherever it exists and convert it to the better. These things good rulers (ἄρχοντας) must imitate (μιμεισθαι) if they have any aspiration to be assimilated to God (ἐξομοιώσεωσ της πρὸς θεόν).” (Philo, Spec. Laws 4.184-188)

Here Philo points out that every ruler (ἄρχοντα) should act as a “father over his children (πατέρα παίδων).” Good rulers may be “truly called parents of the nations (ἐθνῶν).”10 As the celestial bodies were called to mimic (μιμουμένους) the rule of the “Father of all (πάντων πατρός)” in the cosmic government (κόσμος) (previously in Spec. Laws 1:13-19), so to now the human rulers must imitate (μιμεισθαι) the rule of God and his “beneficent powers (δυνάμεσι)” (likely a reference the celestial bodies, or ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα, referred to above in Spec. Laws 1:13) if they wish to be “assimilated to God (ἐξομοιώσεωσ της πρὸς θεόν).”11


 

  1. For support of this idea and further discussion on the Divine Council in Deuteronomy, see Daniel I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, ETS 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000); Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Literature” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004), 68-89; idem, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BS 158 (2001): 52-74; Nathan McDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, FAT 2.1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Patrick D. Miller, “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol,” HBT 9.2 (1987): 53-78; idem, “God’s Other Stories: On the Margins of Deuteronomic Theology,” in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell Jr. at his Retirement, ed. P. Williams et al. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 185-94; idem, The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: SPCK, 2000), 23-28; Theodore E. Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, HSM 24 (Harvard: Scholars Press, 1980); Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford, 2001), 41-53; idem, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 193-214; Ellen White, Yahweh’s Council: Its Structure and Membership, FAT 2.65 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 34-38. Heiser’s work is of special importance to the present study as he demonstrates, quite persuasively, that “the pre-exilic Israelite belief in a divine council under the rule of Yahweh was maintained in Israel’s faith after the exile and survived in at least some strains of Judaism well into the Common Era (quote from 258).” For the full study, see Heiser, “Divine Council.” Following this line of thought, McDonald (Deuteronomy, 96), in a discussion of the gods mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8, says of the Apostle Paul: “Paul, it can be argued, is breathing the same spirit as Deuteronomy 32. Other gods exist, but in another sense they are ‘no-gods’ and ‘demons.’ It is only YHWH that is ‘God’. Paul too wants to express the theme in relational terms. There are indeed many gods that exist, but for us (ἡμῖν) there is only one God. The absolute terms are confessional, not ontological.”
  2. For Paul’s engagement with Deuteronomy and its importance for his interpretation of scripture and thought in general, see David Lincicum, Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter with Deuteronomy, WUNT 2.284 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); Per Jarle Bekken, The Word is Near You: A Study of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in a Jewish Context, BZNW 144 (Berlin: De Grutyer, 2007); Guy Waters, The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul, WUNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Wagner, Heralds; James M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition,” JBL 112 (1993): 645-65; Hays, Echoes.
  3. See Lincicum, Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter, 198.
  4. The term “κόσμον” as a gloss for the “host of heaven” appears 4 times in the LXX, twice in Deuteronomy (4:19; 17:3; both discussed here) and twice in Isaiah (24:21; 40:26). It may be important to note here that Isa 24:21 speaks of the day Yahweh will punish the “hosts of heaven (κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ)” as well as the “kings of the earth (βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς),” which is more than likely speaking of the judgment of the gods of the nations and the corresponding kings, sharing the linguistic and conceptual parallels with Deuteronomy and the narrative of Psalm 82 (see below).
  5. For discussions of the difficult text-critical problem in 32:8 regarding the “angels of God,” see Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BS 158 (2001): 52-74. This account is more than likely narrating the dispersing of the nations in Gen 11:1-9; the language of “separating the sons of Adam (ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς Αδαμ)” of Deut 32:8 reflecting the language of the dispersion in Gen 11:8-9, “and from there the Lord God scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth (καὶ ἐκεῖθεν διέσπειρεν αὐτοὺς κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ πρόσωπον πάσης τῆς γῆς).”
  6. The tradition of the portrayal of the celestial bodies as the gods/angels of the nations as seen in Deuteronomy will be simply referred to for the remainder of the study as the Deuteronomic Vision. The vision functions as a cosmic-political lens through which many Jews of the period understood their world, their unique relationship to their God with respect to their election, as well as their relationship to the other nations. See e.g. Miller, “Cosmology and World Order.”
  7. The web of connections in Philo’s language here (Spec. Laws 1.13-19) for the celestial bodies (οὐρανῷ) as the rulers or magistrates (ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα) and powers (δυνάμεσι, see Spec. Laws 4.184-188 below) of the cosmos (κόσμος) provides us with an important comparative map when considering Paul’s employment of a similar complex of language for the angels, principalities, and powers (ἄγγελοι, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, δυνάμεις, cf. Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 6:2-3; 15:24; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15) of the cosmos (κόσμος, cf. Rom 4:13; 1 Cor 6:2-3; 8:4-6). An important point for consideration in the present study is Paul’s parallel in 1 Cor 6:2-3 between the expectation that the holy ones will “judge the cosmos (ὑμῖν κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος),” connected with the idea that they will “judge the angels (ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν).” Later in 1 Corinthians 15, another important connection is found in the context of a discussion on the glory of the resurrection body. A survey is taken of the terrestrial creatures and then the celestial creatures, following the same pattern of Deut 4:16-19 (the terrestrial- humans, land animals, birds, fish [Deut 4:16-18; 1 Cor 15:39
  8. It is important to note that in Psalm 82, this is precisely why the gods of the nations are to be judged and lose their inheritance (κληρονομία), because they did not maintain the cosmic world order (see Miller, “Cosmology and World Order,” 438-39), but ruled unjustly (κρίνετε ἀδικίαν).
  9. See e.g. Psalm 82.
  10. This is particularly important in Rom 4:17-18 as Abraham is referred to as a “father of many nations (πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν).”
  11. For the proper context see above, Spec. Laws 1.13-19. For a helpful discussion on the meaning of “assimilation to God” in Philo, see George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, WUNT 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 181-98; Wendy E. Helleman, “Philo of Alexandria on Deification and Assimilation to God,” SPA 2 (1990): 51-71; David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, PA 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 341ff. It is surprising that van Kooten does not pick up on Philo’s qualitative reading of the promise to Abraham in Gen 15:5, as it may provide a rich exegetical source Philo could utilize in support of his Platonic notion of “assimilation to God.”

Read More

Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in Light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions: Part 2: Early Jewish Qualitative Interpretation of Genesis 15:5 and Related Texts

This is Part 2 of a series of guest pots by David Burnett. Part 1 is located here. – MSH


 

PART 2 – Early Jewish Qualitative Interpretation of Genesis 15:5 and Related Texts

Philo of Alexandria and the Saying “So Shall Your Seed Be”

In commenting on Genesis 15:5 in Who Is the Heir? 86-87, Philo states:

“When the Lord led him outside He said “Look up into heaven and count the stars, if thou canst count their sum. So shall be thy seed.” Well does the text say “so (οὕτως ἔσται)” not “so many (τοσοῦτον)” that is, “of equal number to the stars.” For He wishes to suggest not number merely, but a multitude of other things, such as tend to happiness perfect and complete. The “seed shall be (οὕτως οὖν ἔσται)”, He says, as the ethereal sight spread out before him, celestial as that is, full of light unshadowed and pure as that is, for night is banished from heaven and darkness from ether. It shall be the very likeness of the stars.”1

Here Philo argues from the grammar of the LXX of Gen 15:5 that the adverb οὕτως should be understood not merely quantitatively but qualitatively as well, suggesting that the promise to become as the very likeness of the stars was the original intention of the scribe. The promise of Gen 15:5 for Philo entails being transformed into beings full of light, being in the “very likeness of the stars,” and participating in their celestial life.2

In Questions and Answers on Genesis, Philo similarly comments on the patriarchal promise of star-like seed as it was retold to Isaac in Gen 26:4a:

“What is the meaning of the words, “I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven?” Two things are indicated, in which the nature of all things in general consists, (namely) quantity and quality – quantity in “I will multiply,” and quality in “as the stars.” So may (thy descendants) be pure and far-shining and always be ranged in order and obey their leader and may they behave like the luciform (stars) which everywhere with the splendour of ethereal brightness also illumine all other things.” (QG 4.181)

Philo here again sees implicit within the language “so may thy descendants be” the promise of the ethereal life of the stars. In Gen 26:5, Abraham’s seed will be multiplied as the stars of heaven and be given all these lands “because Abraham obeyed my voice.” For Philo, Abraham acts as the stars act who are always “ranged in order and obey their leader.” In both of these texts Philo seems to axiomatically employ the phrase “so shall your seed be (οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου)” as if it were to be taken as a kind of adage that was intended to denote celestial immortality.

 

Sirach, Exaltation as the Stars, and the Linking of the Abrahamic and Davidic Promises

In a paraphrase of the Abrahamic promise as reiterated in Gen 22:17, the Greek text of Sirach 44:21 states: “For this reason, God promised him with an oath to bless the nations through his seed, to make him numerous as the grains of dust, and exalt (ἀνυψῶσαι) his seed as the stars, giving them an inheritance (κατακληρονομῆσαι) from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.”3 The Greek text of Sirach limits the numeric aspect of the promise to the dust, while becoming as the stars is seen as referring to exaltation (ἀνυψῶσαι). Surprisingly, commentators on Romans 4 universally cite this text as a source for the expansion of the land promise in early Judaism in attempting to determine what it might mean for Paul to “inherit the cosmos,” yet without any reference to or discussion of the significance of the exaltation as the stars as it relates to the inheritance of the earth.4 This exaltation in Sirach 44:21 results in “giving them an inheritance (κατακληρονομῆσαι) from sea to sea,” linking the qualitative interpretation of the Abrahamic promise with the language of the Davidic royal inheritance of Psalm 72:8 (71:8 LXX), “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.”5 Later in Sirach 47:11, the link is strengthened all the more with the employment of the language of exaltation, this time speaking of David: “The Lord took away his sins and exalted (ἀνύψωσεν) his power forever; he gave him a covenant of kingship and a glorious throne in Israel.”6

It is important to note that we may find something similar in Rom 4:6-8. In the middle of an argument framed by Genesis 15, Paul introduces David saying that he “also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.” Paul portrays David as if he were, like Abraham, being “credited righteousness,” quoting from Ps 32:1-2, which speaks of the forgiveness of David’s sins. In a relationship similar, and quite possibly parallel, to that of Sirach 47:11, David’s forgiveness is connected to his receiving the promise of exaltation, almost interchangeably with that of Abraham.7

A similar tradition linking the Abrahamic and Davidic promises in astral terms can be found in Jeremiah 33:19-22, which shares its rhetorical and theological shape with the promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:

“The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: “Thus says the Lord: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.”8

The language of day and night coming at their appointed time is more than likely a reference to the greater and lesser lights (sun and moon) and the stars from Gen 1:14-18, where the celestial bodies were “set in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from darkness.” The constancy of the ruling order in heaven kept by the celestial bodies is likened here to the everlasting rule of the Davidic monarch. It is important to note here that instead of the term for “stars” normally used as the referent for the multiplicity of seed in the Abrahamic covenant formula, the author chooses to employ the term “hosts of heaven,” assuming their interchangeability.9

The source of this particular literary pattern of linking the rule of the celestial bodies to the rule of David (or his seed) is more than likely found in Balaam’s prophecy referring to David, and later in early Judaism to the coming Messiah: “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near: a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth” (Num 24:17).10 Here in Num 24:4 and 16 and Gen 15:1, the Davidic oracle and the Abrahamic promise are both described as a vision (מחזה), both speaking of their seed in astral terms, and both narrating the coming dominion over the land.11

 

Apocalypse of Abraham, the Power of the Stars, and the Rule of Nations

The late first century to mid second century CE text, the Apocalypse of Abraham, re-narrates Abraham’s counting of the stars from Gen 15:5 in the context of an ascent to heaven where he is welcomed above the stars.12 In Apoc. Abr. 20.3-5 the Eternal Mighty One addresses Abraham:

“‘Look from on high at the stars which are beneath you and count them for me and tell me their number!’ And I [Abraham] said, ‘When can I, for I am a man.’ And he said to me ‘As the number of the stars and their power so shall I place for your seed the nations and men, set apart for me in my lot with Azazel’.”13

Here Abraham’s seed is promised not merely the number of the stars, but their power, which is understood in terms of the rule over nations and men, which seem to have been allotted to the Eternal Mighty One or to Azazel and his company.

Taking into account the textual evidence cited above from early Hellenistic as well as Palestinian Jewish sources, I believe it is clear that there existed a tradition within Early Judaism of reading Gen 15:5 (and 22:17 and 26:4) qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Considering the wide diffusion of this particular tradition, it would be fair to assume Paul was not only aware of it, but may have also used it himself in his expounding of the Abrahamic promise in his corpus, and more particularly in Romans 4.

A commonly recurring feature in the qualitative interpretations of the Abrahamic promise is an apparent relationship between becoming as the stars and the rule of the nations.14 Sirach connects exaltation as the stars to the Davidic promise of the inheritance of the nations (44:21). Similarly, in the Apocalypse of Abraham, receiving the power of the stars is connected with being placed over the nations (20:5). At this point in the study it is necessary to pose the following question: How are we to understand the apparent relationship between becoming as the stars of heaven and inheriting the rule of the nations?

  1. All translations of Philo are taken from, Philo, trans. F.H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker et al., LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929-1987).
  2. For a tracing of the early Jewish tradition of transformation into light in the afterlife as astral symbolism, see Willem F. Smelik, “On Mystical Transformation of the Righteous into Light in Judaism,” JSJ 26.2 (1995): 122-44.
  3. Emphasis added. The reference to the stars is absent in Manuscript B from Qumran, and G and Syriac text also differs. See Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 504, n.21b-d.
  4. See for example Kenneth Bailey, “St. Paul’s Understanding of the Territorial Promise of God to Abraham,” TR 15.1 (1994), 61; James M. Scott, Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians, WUNT 84 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 62, 64, 130; Byrne, Romans, 157; Cranfield, Romans 1-8, 239; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 212; Fitzmyer, Romans, 384; Jewett, Romans, 326; Käsemann, Romans, 120; Wright, Romans, 495-96; idem. Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 366, 815, 1005.
  5. See also Zech 9:10. Scott makes an important observation here that in order to demonstrate the absolute sovereignty of the king, Ps 71 (LXX) draws from a list of nations from the table of nations tradition in Genesis 10; see Scott, Paul and the Nations, 62.
  6. The term ἀνυψόω is used elsewhere in Sirach in unrelated contexts, but the term specifically applied in the context of linking the Abrahamic promise of exaltation as the stars, the Davidic promise of inheriting the lands, and David’s reception of the covenant of kingship is significant.
  7. While Talbert rightly recognizes Paul’s use of the rabbinic interpretative practice known as gezerah shawah in connecting the language of “reckon (ἐλογίσθη)” from Gen 15:6 with the use of “reckon (λογίσηται)” in Ps 32:2, that does not rule out the possibility of Paul having a wider framework in mind when linking the Abrahamic and Davidic promises in Romans 4, as well as the letter as a whole. See Charles H. Talbert, Romans, SHBC 24 (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 118. This is not to say however that Paul is intentionally echoing Sirach 44 and 47, or even has them in mind, but that he could be drawing from a pre-existing tradition of reading the promises together in a similar way. An example might be found in Wagner’s observation of a possible link between Abraham in Romans 4 and Christ in 15:8-9, see J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 309 n 11.
  8. Emphasis added. While acknowledging that the authenticity of this doublet is in question (this section is not present in G), the interest in its citation here is merely to highlight early evidence of the astral connection of the Abrahamic and Davidic promise that appears in both parts of the doublet. Holladay places the addition in the post-exilic period and suggests it has a part to play in NT thinking; see William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26-52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 228-231.
  9. It is commonplace in the Hebrew Bible to understand the stars as the host of heaven, angels, or even the gods. See e.g. Deut 4:19; 17:3; Judges 5:20; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3-5; 23:4-5; 2 Chron 33:3-5; Neh 9:6; Job 38:7; Ps 148:3; Is 14:12-13; 24:21-23; 40:26; 45:12; 48:13; Jer 7:18; 8:2; 19:13; 32:29; 33:22; Dan 8:10; Zeph 1:5.
  10. E.g. T. Levi 18:3; T. Jud. 24:1; 1QM 11:6-7; 4QTestim 9-13; CD 7:18-20. For the messianic use of Num 24:17 in early Judaism, see the discussion of John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed., ABRL (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).
  11. The precedent for the literary links between the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 15 and the Davidic oracle of Numbers 24 is more than likely due to intentional composition or redaction. For the historical discussion regarding the formation of these texts in relation to one another see R. E. Clements, Abraham and David: Genesis 15 and its Meaning for Israelite Tradition (Naperville: A. R. Allenson, 1967); Bernard Gosse, “Abraham and David,” JSOT 34.1 (2009): 25-31; idem. David and Abraham: Persian Period Traditions (Pendé: Gabalda, 2010).
  12. Apoc. Abr. is presumed to be a Palestinian apocalypse with a Hebrew Vorlage. For the discussion on dating and provenance, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 285-288; Alexander Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham, TCSt 3 (Atlanta: SBL, 2004).
  13. Emphasis added. Translation of the Apocalypse of Abraham is taken from R. Rubinkiewicz, “Apocalypse of Abraham,” OTP 1:681-711. It is important to note that here in Apoc. Ab. 20:5, the author presupposes the allotment of the nations to the heavenly host as in the Deuteronomic vision: “the nations and men, set apart for me in my lot with Azazel.” For the discussion on the “Deuteronomic vision” in the present study, see below.
  14. This is the case as well with the reiterations of the Abrahamic promise of Gen 15:5 in 22:17 and 26:4, as referenced above.

Read More