I'll comment on an interesting post by Bnonn:
I believe that to a great extent, Bnonn is channeling Michael Heiser in this series. Bnonn makes some interesting connections with the Book of Job.
Regarding the identity of the Temper in Gen 3, I agree with Bnonn, but I'd like to anticipate an objection. The OT sometimes uses "folk etymologies" or puns.
Some people might object that "folk etymologies" are incorrect, but that misses the point. It's like saying a pun is incorrect. But the function is to trigger associations. That communicates. The meaning we attribute to word is arbitrary, in the sense that words mean whatever the linguistic community assigns to certain phonemes. The objective is successful communication.
Now I'd like to comment on Bnonn's position that the Garden of Eden was the meeting place for the divine council. He offers the following corroborative evidence:
- A garden. Most obviously, the divine council was thought to meet in a garden—which is what Adam was created in.
- Rivers. In Genesis 2, we learn that Eden was the source of four rivers. If you recall the codewords I listed in the previous installment, this was another common motif for divine council meeting places; in Ugarit, for example, El’s divine council met in a lush garden at the source of two rivers.
- A holy mountain. This garden meeting-place was also held to be on a holy mountain; and the Bible explicitly names Eden as such [Ezk 28:13-17).
Here I'm afraid I must demur.
1. Although I think OT scholars like Heiser and John Walton can be useful, I disagree with their liberal use of comparative mythology. I favor realistic interpretations of OT historical narratives.
2. Apropos (1), what exactly is the divine council? Michael Heiser says:
The term divine council is used by Hebrew and Semitics scholars to refer to the heavenly host, the pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs of the cosmos.
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/
Unfortunately, that's ambiguous. Is the heavenly host synonymous with angels?
In a previous installment, Bnonn says:
The Old Testament seems to distinguish angels—mere messengers—from the sons of God—the royal family; and in doing so it follows Ugarit, which had two tiers of gods: the sons of El, who ruled certain districts and provinces, and a larger group of lesser gods who acted as messengers and warriors.
So this suggests that the divine council consists of aristocratic angels.
i) In a pagan context, the "sons of God" would the literal offspring of high gods and goddesses. Divine princes.
Now, that might be tolerable as mythopoetic picture language, but it can't be more than that in OT monotheism.
ii) Apropos (i), why would God have a terrestrial meeting place with angels? It's understandable that God appears to Adam and Eve on terra firma. That's because Adam and Eve are earthlings. But surely God doesn't need a physical meeting place to communicate with angels. In the case of Ugaritic mythology, that might well be taken literally, just like Greek mythology locates the dwelling place of most high gods in a palace on the summit of Mt. Olympus. But surely that's not a realistic interpretation of OT historical narration. At best, that would be using human social metaphors which depict God as a king with his retinue of princes and courtiers.
iii) It's possible that Ezekiel's mountainous depiction of Eden is figurative. That may trade on the Mt. Zion motif.
However, it's possible or even probable that Eden was actually located in the high country. For one thing, there's a natural link between rivers and mountains inasmuch as mountains are a major source of rivers. The melting snowpack produces mountain streams which swell into rivers. Moreover, Eden is located somewhere in Mesopotamia. Possibly the highlands of Armenia.
But in that event, Eden isn't associated with a mountain because that's the location of a divine council. Rather, it's based on physical logistics. Mountains and rivers naturally go together.
iv) Apropos (iii), that, in turn, dovetails with a river and a garden. It's logical that man's ancestral home would be a garden with fruit-trees. That's supplies a natural human foodstuff. Likewise, the garden provides grazing land for livestock (and possibly game animals). So, once again, Eden isn't associated with a garden because that's the location of a divine council. Rather, it's based on provision for human subsistence.
v) Apropos (iii-iv), that pans into the riverine locale. Humans typically settle near bodies of water–a spring, well, lake, river, ocean. Rivers are especially valuable because humans can do so many things with a river:
• Irrigation for farming
• Fruit trees and garden plots along the moist river banks
• Fishing
• Waste disposal
• Transportation
• Bathing water
• Cooking water
• Drinking water (for humans)
• Watering hole for livestock and game animals
• Driftwood
So, once more, Eden isn't associated with a river (or rivers) because that's the location of a divine council. Rather, that's for the benefit of human inhabitants. The implicit rationale is very practical, very down-to-earth. Providing for the physical needs of human creatures. That's of no earthly use to a divine council. Angels don't need a mountain retreat or garden resort to hang out with God. Angels don't need bodies of water to survive and thrive. If you push that, it pushes you into a mythological conception.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSince you're so well read I am curious as to the rest of your view on Heiser's divine council? I have not heard of it but, I have heard of his Two Powers in Heaven, which I am partial to because of the affirmation of Jesus being God.
I had a lot of freebie material on his Divine Council website.
DeleteI agree that comparative mythology can be taken too far; Walton is undeniably guilty of this, and I would never recommend him for general readers precisely because he treats the Bible as basically one myth among many. But your comment that the function of certain words or stories is to trigger associations seems to create a tension with your desire to see a purely logistical explanation of Eden's location here, because the words used to describe it are so commonly associated with divine council imagery.
ReplyDeleteEden isn't merely described as "a mountain" in Ezekiel; it is a holy mountain and the mountain of God. What kinds of associations would that trigger to an ancient Israelite? I think the most immediate would be to Zion, as you suggest; but that misses the point, because the reason God could appropriate language like that for Zion itself was that there was already a broader cultural motif of mountains as places of divine presence. Indeed, the temple itself images the divine council meeting place by depicting cherubim surrounding the throne of God amidst palm trees, lilies, fruit and budding flowers (1 Kings 6-7). It was based on the heavenly model revealed to Moses on the mountain (Exodus 29:5, 40; Hebrews 8:1-5).
I think your analysis of the practical reasons for Eden being a well-watered location in high country are good. But in what way do they contradict the mythological associations? Indeed, to some extent this objection fails to anticipate the very point I made in my initial setup: that the physical world images the spiritual in various ways. At least some of the functional benefits you mention are images of spiritual realities, so not only is there no contradiction, but my view would predict at least some of these sorts of of physical benefits. Trying to drive a wedge between the logistical and the mythological explanations strikes me as akin to an atheist trying to drive a wedge between mundane and extramundane causes when he uses a God of the gaps objection.
Angels don't need a mountain retreat or garden resort to hang out with God. Angels don't need bodies of water to survive and thrive.
Of course not; but why take this as an implication of the divine council view? Angels take on embodied form to interact with embodied people. As long as only spiritual beings like God and his divine council existed, they would logically meet in their natural state: a disembodied form perhaps akin to a shared dream, as you have suggested in the past. But if God wished to add Adam to his council, and do so in a way that intersected with Adam's normal mode of existence, then the whole council would need to be physically perceptible at a physical location, where Adam could interact with them.
If the council was not present in Eden, it is odd that Eve's initial response to the serpent wasn't more along the lines of, "Aaah, who and what are you?!" Moreover, God's plural remarks must find some other explanation—and the only contenders are rather awkward.
"I think the most immediate would be to Zion, as you suggest; but that misses the point, because the reason God could appropriate language like that for Zion itself was that there was already a broader cultural motif of mountains as places of divine presence."
DeleteNo, I think in that case the reason is the direct association between Mt. Zion, Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount. All in the same town, with thematic cross-pollination.
Which is not to deny a broader cultural motif.
"But if God wished to add Adam to his council, and do so in a way that intersected with Adam's normal mode of existence, then the whole council would need to be physically perceptible at a physical location, where Adam could interact with them."
But there's no textual evidence that Adam had regular contact with angels. Indeed, there's no evidence that Adam had regular contact with God.
"Moreover, God's plural remarks must find some other explanation—and the only contenders are rather awkward."
I agree with Clines that the Spirit of God is a good contender.
"If the council was not present in Eden, it is odd that Eve's initial response to the serpent wasn't more along the lines of, 'Aaah, who and what are you?!'"
Actually, I think the Divine Council view makes the temptation morally problematic. If Adam and Eve associated angels with the good guys, then they'd be caught off guard by a fallen angel.
No, I think in that case the reason is the direct association between Mt. Zion, Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount. All in the same town, with thematic cross-pollination.
DeleteThis is unresponsive to the cross-cultural themes that the temple mount itself played off. As I've documented, the temple itself imaged the garden throne-room of God, and depicted cherubs as present.
But there's no textual evidence that Adam had regular contact with angels. Indeed, there's no evidence that Adam had regular contact with God.
This is completely question-begging against the case I make in part 3. If you're looking for a direct, explicit statement, I agree that no such thing exists. But the circumstantial, implicit evidence is there—especially when you connect Genesis to Revelation and see the symmetry (which I haven't yet gotten to in my series). Once the cumulative case is complete, it is very compelling. Especially since alternate explanations for the circumstantial evidence are either awkward (Kline notwithstanding) or amount to, "We just can't know for sure" (a vexing evasion I get from my pastor whenever these kinds of passages come up).
Actually, I think the Divine Council view makes the temptation morally problematic. If Adam and Eve associated angels with the good guys, then they'd be caught off guard by a fallen angel.
Could you explain the difficulty in more detail? I'm not sure how the presumption that the angels were good would mitigate Adam's sin once the serpent tipped his hand by calling God a liar. Moreover, the presumption that angels were good would better explain why Eve was deceived, and is consonant with 2 Corinthians 11:14.
"This is unresponsive to the cross-cultural themes that the temple mount itself played off. As I've documented, the temple itself imaged the garden throne-room of God, and depicted cherubs as present."
DeleteMt. Zion is simply a hill. It's not a spectacular eminence, even by modest Palestinian geographical standards.
If Zion wasn't located in the political and religious capital of Israel, it wouldn't acquire this emblematic status and significance. There are more impressive mountains in the region.
That, combined with the fact that the Temple was built on Mt. Zion, so it has added status and significance by association.
The connection between Mt. Zion and the Garden of Eden is quite oblique. You can say Eden foreshadows the tabernacle, Eden is the archetypal sanctuary. Therefore, the Temple is a counterpart to the garden of Eden. But even by that chain of reasoning, the Temple Mount is associated with Eden by two degrees of separation. So I think your inference is a stretch.
"This is completely question-begging against the case I make in part 3."
One problem is that you and Heiser seem to be mixing categories. The role of cherubim/seraphim isn't administrative, but defensive. They don't rule districts and provinces. They aren't territorial spirits. Rather, they function like the palace guard. They block intruders from trespassing into sacred space.
So they don't fit into the Divine Council paradigm. But in that event, Adam wouldn't have occasion to encounter them.
Indeed, they only appear on the scene after Adam and Eve are banished from the garden to enforce the expulsion–which indicates their absence from the garden prior to that event. That's a second reason Adam wouldn't have occasion to encounter them.
"Could you explain the difficulty in more detail?"
Assuming that Adam and Eve had contact with the Divine Council, they'd associate angels with good angels. Heavenly angels.
That would give them reason not to suspect the Tempter. Rather, the presumption would be that he was one of God's representatives or emissaries–like other angelic members of the Divine Council.
We perceive that he's calling God a liar, but from their perspective, maybe they view that as a divine test–like God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which seems to conflict with God's promise that Isaac will be the progenitor of a vast posterity. If God himself has introduced them to the Divine Council, what reason would they have to be suspicious of the Tempter's overtures? Just the opposite.
Mt. Zion is simply a hill. It's not a spectacular eminence, even by modest Palestinian geographical standards.
DeleteI'm afraid I'm not tracking your argument. High places didn't need to be spectacular to represent a meeting point between earth and heaven.
But even by that chain of reasoning, the Temple Mount is associated with Eden by two degrees of separation. So I think your inference is a stretch.
It was your inference. I was simply agreeing that, in terms of "holy mountains," the logical connection from Ezekiel 28 would run in a straight line to Zion (as opposed to any other mountain that happened to be used for worship; viz Zaphon, Gerizim etc).
If God himself has introduced them to the Divine Council, what reason would they have to be suspicious of the Tempter's overtures? Just the opposite.
This is, by nature, a subjective evaluation; I'm afraid I don't see the plausibility of your argument. If the tempter had presented himself as an emissary, sent to change or rescind the command, then one could see that Adam and Eve had, at the very least, reduced culpability. But given the way he frames the question ("did God really say…?"), and given what he asserts about the tree, they certainly had reason to at least double-check with God before breaking the one commandment he had expressly given them. Moreover, as I've said, it better explains why Eve was deceived if she had prima facie reason to trust the serpent.
Btw, I'm agnostic on the regularity of Adam's contact with the divine council. Indeed, I don't see that anything I'm saying commits me to thinking he had yet been introduced to it. The council is present when he is created (Genesis 1:26); but that doesn't mean he was immediately inducted into their ranks. Why not suppose that his time in the garden was a probationary period, to see whether he was worthy of consummating, via "inauguration" into the council, the rulership he had been given?
On the role of cherubs, I'll respond in a post on my blog since it's a bit longer.
"I'm afraid I'm not tracking your argument. High places didn't need to be spectacular to represent a meeting point between earth and heaven."
DeleteWhich is a premise of my argument. Since, by your own admission, many high places could fill that role, what was it about Mt. Zion that singled it out for the development of a whole Mt. Zion theology? That would be the additional connection to Jerusalem and the Temple. Not a mountain in itself.
"It was your inference. I was simply agreeing that…"
Actually, I was replying to your statement that "This is unresponsive to the cross-cultural themes that the temple mount itself played off. As I've documented, the temple itself imaged the garden throne-room of God, and depicted cherubs as present."
Given the number of available mountainous candidates in the region, what makes Mt. Zion special? Not just the generic association of mountains with a "meeting point between heaven and earth". I'm demonstrating the inadequacy of your criteria.
"This is, by nature, a subjective evaluation; I'm afraid I don't see the plausibility of your argument."
Well, that's a two-way street. Your plausibility structure isn't my standard of comparison. We may simply disagree. Generally, debates don't changes the minds of debaters; rather, they are for the benefit of onlookers.
"Why not suppose that his time in the garden was a probationary period, to see whether he was worthy of consummating, via 'inauguration' into the council, the rulership he had been given?"
Okay, but you previously said: "But if God wished to add Adam to his council, and do so in a way that intersected with Adam's normal mode of existence, then the whole council would need to be physically perceptible at a physical location, where Adam could interact with them."
Now, however, you're saying the divine council wouldn't normally be visible to Adam and Eve. Indeed, you seem to be saying that Adam and Eve never saw the divine council, because Adam would only be inducted into the divine council if he successfully completed his probationary period.
Another difficulty with your position is that some of the major prooftexts for the divine council come from visions. But in that event it isn't necessary for the divine council to be physically perceptible at a physical location. Instead of the council coming to the human subject, he could go to the council by observing the council in a dream or vision. Indeed, Heiser gives examples of that very thing. The council needn't pay a visit the human subject to make contact; rather, the human subject can be a virtual visitor.
You initially said:
Delete"If the council was not present in Eden, it is odd that Eve's initial response to the serpent wasn't more along the lines of, 'Aaah, who and what are you?!'"
The implication being that Eve wasn't surprised by the Tempter because it wasn't the first time she'd seen his like. Because the council was present in Eden, she already knew what angels looked like. She knew they were rational agents who could communicate in a common language. That sort of thing.
But in the latest response to me, you say:
"Btw, I'm agnostic on the regularity of Adam's contact with the divine council. Indeed, I don't see that anything I'm saying commits me to thinking he had yet been introduced to it. The council is present when he is created (Genesis 1:26); but that doesn't mean he was immediately inducted into their ranks. Why not suppose that his time in the garden was a probationary period, to see whether he was worthy of consummating, via 'inauguration' into the council, the rulership he had been given?"
But that's an about-face from your previous argument. You seem to be improvising responses which are mutually inconsistent.
Since, by your own admission, many high places could fill that role, what was it about Mt. Zion that singled it out for the development of a whole Mt. Zion theology? That would be the additional connection to Jerusalem and the Temple. Not a mountain in itself.
DeleteI'm still not tracking the actual argument you're making here. Mount Zion was significant not because it was a high place, per se, but because it was the high place that Yahweh chose to presence himself on. It was the mountain of God; his holy mountain. The same terminology used in Eden. So if the temple images divine council motifs in its trappings, how does this undermine my view, or support yours...?
Well, that's a two-way street. Your plausibility structure isn't my standard of comparison. We may simply disagree. Generally, debates don't changes the minds of debaters; rather, they are for the benefit of onlookers.
Sure. I tend to assume the same. That said, you've changed my mind before. I don't interact with criticisms that I don't take seriously—at least, not outside Facebook ;)
Now, however, you're saying the divine council wouldn't normally be visible to Adam and Eve. Indeed, you seem to be saying that Adam and Eve never saw the divine council, because Adam would only be inducted into the divine council if he successfully completed his probationary period.
I guess I wasn't clear. I think Adam and Eve were obviously aware of the divine council. What I am agnostic on is what their relationship was to it at the time of the fall.
You're reading a lot more into what I'm saying than is actually there. Aside from my believing that there's compelling evidence to see Eden as a divine council meeting place, and Adam as the first member, I have no position on how it all worked because the text simply doesn't say. It's like trying to pin me down on a view of what it will be like to rule with Jesus. I just don't know. I am convinced we will because the Bible says so. But, is there, like, a daily meeting? How do billions of Christians rule together? How does that work? How does it work with the divine council scene in 2 Kings? And would the same thing have been going on in Eden? What would they even have talked about before there were nations and so on? I have no idea. All I'm committed to saying is that the divine council was present there in a way that Adam would be able to interact with.
The council needn't pay a visit the human subject to make contact; rather, the human subject can be a virtual visitor.
Agreed. Perhaps it was purely visionary. I don't think that's especially destructive to my view; it's just kind of strange. On the basis of parsimony, along with the fact that God appears embodied in Genesis 3 (and arguably 2), I would assume the council was embodied also.
Another thing that occurs to me is that it might be anachronistic to refer to the divine "council" in Eden. That implies bureaucratic function. But there's no particular reason to think the sons of God had any administrative roles prior to the creation of the world; nor that they had any as long as Adam was doing his job. Putting an excessive focus on the council aspect makes us myopic; we forget that this is also God's family. If Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38), and if the archangels are sons of God, it is very awkward to posit that they had nothing to do with each other—or didn't even know of each other's existence.
DeleteI'd also add that if the divine council wasn't administrative prior to Adam, and if they were part of the same family as Adam, and if Adam was ruling the world, and if they could interact with the world, then perhaps Satan was perturbed not just at not getting rulership, but at the possibility that Adam would have administrative oversight over him. Can you imagine Satan taking orders from Adam? Doesn't really fit his character.
Sorry, the reference above should be Exodus 25:9, 40. Dyslexia strikes again.
ReplyDeleteTo expand on my point about logistical versus mythological (or, more accurately, representational) explanations, consider the nature of the garden itself:
ReplyDeleteLogistical explanation: Eden was a sanctuary because Adam needed a safe starting-point from which to begin the project of subduing the world.
Representational explanation: Eden was a sanctuary because it imaged the peace and protection afforded by the presence of God.
It seems very obvious that these are categorically distinct, but complementary explanations. There is no reason that if one is true, the other must be false; rather, the truth of the one supplements the truth of the other.
One of the issues in using background studies in general is whether the text itself makes the cultural referents that one sees within them. If the text itself does not refer to a divine council meeting in the garden, then one is left to speculate about Eve's reaction to the serpent (actually, the Hebrew aph ki may indicate that we are joining in on the middle of the conversation, not its beginning), or what the plural means when God says, "the man has become like one of us." I don't find the former compelling, but the latter could have some weight to it if one does not see a connection the plural in Chapter 1, which cannot refer to a divine council.
ReplyDeleteThe only other way around finding details in the text that correspond to one's speculative background is to apply what would have been universally understood by the reader, and therefore, implied by the author. Yet, this is the crux of the issue. Is Israelite literature using these cultural images as language that no longer carry their implicatures in a monotheistic context, or is it adopting all of the implicatures and meaning to communicate something like the divine council? I would think a more explicit referent would be needed in order to answer this question, and yet, there isn't one.
B. C.: Why do you think the plural in chapter 1 cannot refer to the divine council? If the plural in 1:24 doesn't, then I can't see why the plural in 3:22 should.
DeleteBecause an image represents one deity, not many. The point of making man as God's image is that he functions as an idol in the cosmic temple, representing the deity's dominion over chaos. Hence, the plural cannot refer to multiple deities, even if in subjection to the greater one, as an image represents only one deity in the ANE, not many. If the point is to read the text in its cultural context, it would be a novel reading to see the image as representing a divine council. It's simply runs counter the religious function of an idol.
DeleteI don't see how Genesis 1:26 implies that we are made as the image of other deities.
DeleteWhy could it not imply that those other deities were also made as the image of God?
Your point only seems to work if you force "image" to mean "idol," but that's not the standard usage as far as I know. The semantic range is far greater than that. Why can Genesis 1:26 not be trading on multiple levels of meaning?
Because the man is made "as our image," which implies that the image represents Elohim in the text, who is identified in parallel to "our" as "Him" and "His." You wouldn't say that one is made as the image of an image, so the "our" does not include other images. An image of a god or a king represents the domain of a single deity or king in the ANE. To say otherwise is simply to add an anachronistic idea back into the word.
DeleteTo say that image here would not conjure up the idea of an idol, or even a weakened understanding as a representative image of a king (both of which represent one individual, not many), is to negate the very point of reading this in its cultural context. The only other use of image that I am aware of besides that of religious or royal representation, again, of a single individual, is of a physical picture of an object, which would not be the point in the passage. Instead, there are numerous reasons to see temple imagery in Gen 1 and 2, and making man as the image of Elohim in that context would mean little else.
Hence, it is the standard usage in these types of contexts. Can you think of a use of an image of a deity in the ANE that means something else other than an idol?