The Genesis Flood Narrative & Biblical Exegesis

The Genesis Flood Narrative & Biblical Exegesis

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Biblical Flood: Universal or Local?

Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal

reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its

passages as historically accurate; they use

the Bible's internal chronology to place the

Genesis flood and the story of Noah's Ark

within the last five thousand years.

Scientific analysis has refuted the key

tenets of flood geology. Flood geology

contradicts the scientific consensus in

geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics,

paleontology, biology, anthropology, and

archaeology. Modern geology, its sub-

disciplines and other scientific disciplines

utilize the scientific method. In contrast,

flood geology does not adhere to the

scientific method, making it a

pseudoscience. — Wikipedia

According to Bible scholarship, Noah is not a historical figure. And we also know that the legendary flood story of the Bible was inspired by an earlier epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia, namely, “The Epic of Gilgamesh." Moreover, if we zero in on the mythical details of Noah’s Ark, the story has all the earmarks of a legendary narrative.

The Bible is an ancient eastern text that uses hyperbolic language, parables, and paradox as forms of poetic literary expression, akin to what we today would call “theology.” In the absence of satellites or global networks of communication, any catastrophic events in the ancient world that were similar to our modern-day natural disasters——such as the 2004 tsunami that killed 228 thousand people off the coast of Indonesia, or Hurricane Katrina, one of the most destructive hurricanes in US history——would have been blown out of proportion and seen as global phenomena. This would explain the sundry flood myths and stories that have come down to us from ancient times. And, according to Wikipedia:

no confirmable physical proof of the Ark

has ever been found. No scientific evidence

has been found that Noah's Ark existed as

it is described in the Bible. More

significantly, there is also no evidence of a

global flood, and most scientists agree that

such a ship and natural disaster would both

be impossible. Some researchers believe

that a real (though localized) flood event in

the Middle East could potentially have

inspired the oral and later written

narratives; a Persian Gulf flood, or a Black

Sea deluge 7500 years ago has been

proposed as such a historical candidate.

Bible Exegesis: Literal versus Allegorical Interpretation

My primary task, here, is not to weigh in on the findings of science as to whether or not a historical flood took place but rather to offer an exegetical interpretation that is consistent with the Biblical data. Taking the Bible literally——as a standard method of interpretation——can lead to some unrealistic and outrageous conclusions. For example, in Mark 9.50 (ESV), Jesus says:

Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its

saltiness, how will you make it salty again?

Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace

with one another.

Question: is Jesus literally commanding his disciples to carry salt with them at all times? In other words, is Jesus talking about “salt” (Gk. ἅλας) per se in a literal sense——the mineral composed primarily of sodium chloride——or is he employing the term “salt” as a metaphor to mean that his disciples should *preserve* their righteousness in this life of decay?

Obviously, Jesus is using the term “salt” as a metaphor for preserving godliness in the midst of a perishing world. This proof-text shows that there are many instances in the Bible where a literal rendering is completely unwarranted.

The Judgment of the Flood: There’s No Judgment Where There’s No Law

If one re-examines the flood story, one would quickly see that it doesn’t square well with history, science, or even the theology of the Bible. For example, Paul says in Romans that human beings became aware of sin only when the law was given to forbid it. But there is no judgment where there is no law. Romans 5.13 says:

for sin indeed was in the world before the

law was given, but sin is not counted where

there is no law.

So, my question is, if the law was given after Noah’s epoch, and if there was no law during Noah’s time, how could “sin … [be] counted [or charged against anyone’s account] where there is no law.”?

How, then, could God “judge” the world during the Pre-Mosaic law period? It would appear to be a contradiction in terms.

What is more, if we know, in hindsight, that no one is “saved” by simply following the law (Galatians 2.16) or by sacrificing animals (Hebrews 10.1-4), how could people possibly be “saved” by entering a boat or an ark? It doesn’t make any theological sense at all. But it does have all the earmarks of a mythical story.

The Flood as Apocalyptic Judgment

There’s no scientific evidence for a world-wide flood (Noah’s flood). Moreover, the Book of Revelation predicts all sorts of future catastrophic events and natural disasters that will occur on earth, where every island and mountain will be moved from its place, coupled with earthquakes, tsunamis, meteors, etc. The frequency & intensification of these climactic events is referred to as the “birth pangs” of the end times. In fact, it will be the worst period in the history of the earth! Matthew 24.21 puts it thusly:

For then there will be great tribulation,

such as has not been from the beginning of

the world until now, no, and never will be.

And since it is possible that Old Testament allegories may be precursors of future events, so the flood account may be alluding to an apocalyptic judgment. For example, if we examine and compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon *Egypt* with the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place: see e.g. Locusts: Exod. 10.1–20 (cf. Rev. 9.3); Thunderstorm of hail and fire: Exod. 9.13–35 (cf. Rev. 16.21); Pestilence: Exod. 9.1-7 (cf. Rev 6.8); Water to Blood: Exod. 7.14–24 (cf. Rev. 8.9; 16.3-4); Frogs: Exod. 7.25–8.15 (cf. Rev. 16.13); Boils or Sores: Exod. 9.8–12 (cf. Rev. 16.2); Darkness for three days: Exod. 10.21–29 (cf. Rev. 16.10). Apparently, the darkness lasts 3 symbolic days because that’s how long the “great tribulation” will last, namely, three and a half years (cf. Dan. 7.25; 9.27; 12.7; Rev. 11.2-3; 12.6, 14; 13.5). All these “plagues” are seemingly associated with the Day of the Lord (Mt. 24.29):

Immediately after the suffering of those

days the sun will be darkened, and the

moon will not give its light; the stars will fall

from heaven, and the powers of heaven will

be shaken.

In the same way, the Old Testament flood narrative may be representing a type of **judgment** that is actually repeated in the New Testament as if taking place in the end-times (cf. Luke 17.26-30): “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man” (Luke 17.26)! In the Olivet prophecy, Mt. 24.39 calls the flood “a cataclysm” (κατακλυσμὸς) or a catastrophic event. And as 1 Pet. 3.20-21 explains, Noah’s flood is a “type” of the endtimes, and we are the “antitype” (ἀντίτυπον). As a matter of fact, in reference to the end-times destruction of Jerusalem, Dan. 9.26 says “Its end shall come with a flood.” In other words, there will be utter destruction and devastation, the likes of which the world has never seen before (Gen. 6.13; Dan. 12.1; Mt. 24.21).

Creation in 6 literal 24-hour days?

In Genesis 1.5, we are told that “there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” By comparison, Genesis 1.8 says “there was evening and there was morning, the second day.” What is puzzling, however, is that God made the moon & the sun on the 4th day (Genesis 1.14-19). How do you explain that?

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a literal 24-hour day model is inexplicable and does not seem to be part of the authorial intent. How could you possibly have mornings and evenings (or 24-hour “days”) if the sun & moon were formed on day 4? Obviously, they are not meant to be literal 24-hour days (see e.g. Gen. 2.4 in which the Hebrew word “yom,” meaning “day,” refers to the entirety of creation history). The creation days are therefore symbolic or figurative in nature.

Part of the internal evidence is that there are *allegorical interpretations* that are applied to scripture from within the text, such as 2 Peter 3.8, which reminds us of the following Biblical axiom:

But do not forget this one thing, dear

friends: With the Lord a day is like a

thousand years, and a thousand years are

like a day.

Similarly, Paul instructs us to interpret certain parts of the Bible **allegorically.** For example, Paul interprets for us certain Old Testament passages **allegorically,** not literally! Paul says in Galatians 4.22-26:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons,

one by a slave woman and one by a free

woman. But the son of the slave was born

according to the flesh, while the son of the

free woman was born through promise. Now

this may be interpreted allegorically: these

women are two covenants. One is from

Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery;

she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in

Arabia; she corresponds to the present

Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her

children. But the Jerusalem above is free,

and she is our mother.

So, as you can see, there are not necessarily 6 literal days of creation, or 6,000 years in earth’s history, or a global flood, nor are there any talking donkeys holding press conferences and doing podcasts, there’s no evil that is caused by eating fruits, there are no trees of immortality on earth, no human angels wielding futuristic laser guns, and there are certainly no mythological beasts with seven heads walking around on park avenue in Manhattan. Proper Biblical exegesis must be applied.

But it’s equally important to emphasize that this allegorical approach to scriptural interpretation in no way diminishes the reliability of the Bible, its inerrancy, its divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3.16-17), or its truth values! The reason for that will be explained in the next two sections.

Biblical Genres Require Different Methods of Interpretation

The Bible has many different genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force **parables and metaphors** into a **literal interpretation,** which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking serpents and talking donkeys, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. For example, the “beasts” in the Book of Daniel, chapters 2, 7, and 8, are interpreted by scripture as being symbolic of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Similarly, the so-called “locusts” and “scorpions” in the Book of Revelation, chapter 9, seemingly allude to modern-day warfare. No one in their right mind would dare say that the beasts of Daniel or those of Revelation are **literal beasts.** Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.

Just as Ancient Philosophical Inquiry Was Discussed Through the Language of Poetry, So too Theological Truth Was Expounded Poetically in Sacred Scripture

It’s important to stress that a refutation of the historical flood narrative is not equivalent to a refutation of the “truths” of the Bible. The scriptural “truth values” work on many different levels. Truth can be presented in poetic form without necessarily compromising its validity.

For example, Lucretius’ only known work is a philosophical *poem* that is translated into English as “On the Nature of Things,” in which he examines Epicurean physics through the abundant use of poetic and metaphorical language. Similarly, the single known work by the Greek philosopher Parmenides——the father of metaphysics and western philosophy——is a *poem* “On Nature” which includes the very first sustained argument in philosophical history concerning the nature of reality in “the way of truth."

What is of immense interest to me is that both of these ancient philosophers explored their “scientific” and philosophical “truths” through the richly metaphorical language of *poetry*. So, why can’t the ancient books of the Bible do the same? Is modern science and literary criticism correct in dismissing biblical “truths” on historical grounds simply because of their richly poetic or metaphorical language? Perhaps our modern methodologies can be informed by the ancient writings of Lucretius and Parmenides!

ACCORDING TO DANIEL’S PROPHECY, THE ANTICHRIST IS THE 11TH HORN (THE 11TH KING)

By Eli Kittim 🎓

(Click on the link below to read the post):

https://www.instagram.com/p/BqRDTWHgOIQ/?utm_medium=copy_link

How Should Christian Scholars Respond to Attacks and Insults?

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Now these people were more noble-minded

than those in Thessalonica, for they

received the word with great eagerness,

examining the Scriptures daily to see

whether these things were so.

——- Acts 17:11 NASB

Should We Believe What Others Say Or Should We Investigate the Scriptures for Ourselves?

People believe in historical Christianity. They believe that if Christianity is not historical then nothing else about the Bible is true. They cannot interpret it in any other way. They can only see it backwards; never forwards. But what ever happened to Bible prophecy? Take, for example, the idea of questioning the historicity of a Biblical event, wondering whether it happened in the past or if it will happen in the future. Isn’t that ultimately a question of faith?

People believe in a historical Jesus and in the so-called “historical” gospel narratives. Believers think that if Jesus didn’t exist——or if he didn’t die and wasn’t resurrected in the past——then everything else in the New Testament is complete and utter fiction, fabricated out of whole cloth, and therefore false. For them, it’s all about past history. But future history (aka Bible prophecy) is just as valid! The notion that Jesus came in the flesh *at some point in human history* somehow seems to escape their hermeneutical purview. It never really occurred to them that if these incidents in the life of Jesus are prophesied to take place in the future, then the Bible is just as valid and just as reliable as if these events had happened in the past. Why? Because the Bible is ultimately not a historical chronicle but a Book on Faith!

People believe what they hear. But sometimes that’s just fake news or long-held assumptions that are based on *wrong interpretations* of the facts. The story of Jesus’ past death and resurrection is a story that has been told millions of times at the dinner table, on television, during Christmas, Easter, in all churches and denominations, it’s heard from preachers in the pulpit, it’s repeated by missionaries, taught in seminaries, and has generally been reiterated by pastors and teachers throughout the culture for thousands of years. So, it’s as if it is written in stone. It’s a foregone conclusion. It’s considered to be an undeniable fact. But what if a thorough Biblical investigation challenged any of these points? What then? Mind you, this type of inquiry would only be challenging *the man-made interpretations,* not the actual words of the Bible per se!

——-

A Biblical Consensus Is Always Evolving

In science, the role of agreement is paramount in establishing empirical facts, and it’s only through verifiable evidence that an epistemic agreement can be reached. However, the body of empirical knowledge is constantly changing. New information is constantly assessed and prior conclusions are always re-examined. What appeared to be a fact yesterday may not be so today. And the methodology is constantly improving and evolving. Today, we have better criteria and more knowledge at our disposal to understand the Bible than ever before. Therefore, our biblical findings can certainly change our previous assumptions and presuppositions. The Biblical consensus has changed considerably over time. With new interdisciplinary evidence at our disposal, our conclusions about Biblical authorship and composition have gradually changed. New evidence in lower and high criticism has prompted new questions that require a new set of criteria and more advanced methodologies to address them. So, as a rule, new findings replace older “facts,” thereby changing the previous consensus!

For example, advances in textual criticism have shown that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch. The date of the Pentateuch’s composition is also not as early as once believed. In fact, the scholarly consensus is that Moses probably never existed and that the Exodus never happened: it is a foundation myth. As it happens, no archaeological remains have ever been found in the Sinai Peninsula regarding the exodus or the Israelites.

But try telling that to Orthodox Jews who hold these “truths” to be self-evident, sacred, and non-negotiable. For them, history, archaeology, textual criticism, and Biblical studies are a “demonic” attempt to undermine their faith. But is that true? Of course not! On the contrary, many who are involved in these scientific and Biblical disciplines are themselves faithful Jews and Christians.

Then there was the emergence of other academic disciplines and methods that investigated the historical precursors of the biblical texts. Some of these were “source criticism” and “form criticism,” from which “redaction criticism” was derived. Finally, literary criticism added a new way of looking at the authorial intent via such methods as narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, and canonical criticism. These emerging methods of biblical criticism, which did not previously exist, ultimately changed how we view and understand the Bible.

For example, the idea that the New Testament authors quoted predominantly from the Greek Old Testament rather than from the Jewish Bible must have certain important textual ramifications. Also, without the understanding of “intertextuality”——the literary dependence of the New Testament on the Old Testament——we would not know what literary material was borrowed from the Hebrew Bible. All you have to do is pick up a chain-reference Bible and you’ll see how much of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament, and how many words, speeches, and events that are attributed to Jesus are actually modelled on these earlier stories. These academic disciplines pave the way for a deeper understanding on various levels that heretofore were untraversed and unknown.

But how, then, can one explain to a believer that Jesus didn’t really say or do that? That it was just a literary narrative in which the evangelist put Jesus in a certain theological context in order to show that he is the prophesied Messiah of Hebrew Scripture. So, it seems that one must put away their emotional component when involved in this type of inquiry. One must leave their ego at the door. That is to say, one must temporarily suspend faith and atheism in dealing with Biblical studies. That’s because, just as in science, pure objectivity is strictly required. Once a person has gathered all the necessary evidence, they can then try to ascertain how it might fit with or be relevant to his/her faith, or how it may further inform it.

There are also many cross-reference and concordance studies that reveal Biblical *meanings* by focusing on certain repetitive linguistic idiomatic expressions, as they’re found throughout scripture. Parallel passages and verbal agreements help to further identify certain *meanings* that are consistently found across the text. Then there are the Biblical languages. Studying the original Biblical languages in Paleo-Hebrew and Koine Greek help us to create faithful and competent translations, which involve a more accurate knowledge and understanding of scripture’s details about timing, location, and authorial intention. Moreover, parsing (or syntax analysis) helps us to further understand the grammar and morphology of the Biblical languages! These methodologies are invaluable in providing a solid foundation that may not always be consistent with previous assumptions. Discoveries in these areas are obviously worthy of serious consideration.

But how do you explain these facts to a simple layperson who may think otherwise? In their eyes, you are seen either as a traitor to the faith, at best, or guided by the deceiver, at worst. To a believer——who is not engaged in these types of studies but reads the Bible literally and superficially——writing about these findings and complex issues may be interpreted as preaching godless heresies. In his/her mind you are simply a false teacher. . . And despite Jesus’ appeal for unity in the church (John 17:21), there have always been fights and quarrels among Christians (James 4:1). It has also become a fashion lately to slander Bible teachers. Many are quick to point fingers at each other and accuse other Christians of wrongdoing. This is antithetical to scripture!

In this case, the only thing a Bible scholar can do is to remind the reader that objectivity rather than fanaticism is more fruitful in biblical interpretation, and that name-calling is not biblical evidence. In fact, scholars welcome the opportunity for peer-review and academic criticism!

Is 1 John 5:20 Indicating a Past Event?

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🇬🇷 🇺🇸

Inaccurate Bible Translations

It appears that most English translations of 1 John 5:20 say that the Son of God “has come” or “is come” when referring to Jesus Christ. Specifically, they say “that the Son of God has come” (see e.g. NIV, NLT, ESV, BSB, NKJV, NASB, CSB, HCSB, GNT, ISV, LSV, NAB, NET Bible, NRSV, NHEB, WNT, WEB). The rest of the Bible versions use the variant “is come,” which is an archaic form of English. This construction employs the term “come” as an unaccusative intransitive verb. Essentially, to say “that the Son of God is come” (e.g. BLB, KJV, ASV, DRB, YLT) not only implies the state of “having come” but also of “now being here” as well. The meaning of this construction is that “the Son of God” didn't simply come but that he is here right now! As you will see, the “is come” construction is actually closer to the original Greek text than “has come.” The worst Bible version is the AMP which makes explicit and ambitious statements that the Greek text does not make, while also adding foreign elements that are not found in the original. It’s the least faithful English translation. It reads:

And we [have seen and] know [by personal

experience] that the Son of God has

[actually] come [to this world].

Grammatical Parsing & Concordance Studies

In 1 John 5:20, the key word in this sentence is the Greek verb ἥκει (hēkei), which is a present indicative active, 3rd person singular (Strong's 2240: meaning, “to be present”). The term ἥκει is derived from the verb ἥκω, which can mean “to come,” “I am present,” “to be present,” or “will come” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/2240.htm).

As a present active indicative verb, ἥκει describes a linear (ongoing) action, as opposed to a punctiliar (complete) action. Thus, ἥκει as a primary tense expresses the present & future times, whereas secondary or historical tenses (aorist, imperfect, pluperfect) express past time. So, present active indicative verbs show that the action happens in the present time. Therefore, the verb ἥκει, in 1 John 5:20, should be understood in the sense of an “ongoing present” action (in a transhistorical sense), otherwise the translation is not entirely accurate but rather misleading for the reader. Moreover, the fact that ἥκει describes an ongoing action in the *present tense* indicates that it should not be read as referring to an event that transpired in the past, during the writing of this letter, but rather to all generations of readers, that is to say, in the temporal context that they find themselves in. In other words, the term ἥκει in 1 John 5:20 should be equally read in the *present tense* whether a person is living in the Middle Ages or in the 21st century. It should not be understood as a completed event that took place in the past.

In cross-reference studies, e.g. in Luke 15:27, notice that ἥκει is translated as “is here” (now)! See the Christian Standard Bible & Holman Christian Standard Bible translations:

Your brother is here, he told him, and your

father has slaughtered the fattened calf

because he has him back safe and sound.

And in John 2:4 ἥκει is rendered as referring to the future: “My hour has not yet come” (οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου).

English Standard Version:

And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does

this have to do with me? My hour has not

yet come.’

Conclusion

As you can see, the translation “has come”——which gives the false impression of an event that happened and was completed in the past——is obviously misleading and not faithful to the original Greek text!

The more I research the Bible, the more evidence I find of corruptions and mistranslations. Similar to the way in which almost all translations of Acts 1:11 wrongly render the Greek term ἐλεύσεται as “come back,” most translations of ἥκει in 1 John 5:20 wrongly render it as “has come.” That’s why I parsed it for you. So that we can analyze the sentence into its various components and thereby define their syntactic roles.

Another key word in 1 John 5:20 is δέδωκεν (dedōken), which is a verb, perfect indicative active, 3rd person singular. It comes from δίδωμι, which means “give.” So, all in all, when you consider the intricate workings of this sentence you will have a better appreciation of the fact that the present active indicative verb ἥκει describes a linear (ongoing) action, as opposed to a punctiliar (complete) action. Here, then, is my rendition of 1 John 5:20 (SBLGNT):

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει, καὶ

δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν

ἀληθινόν· καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ

υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ

ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

Eli Kittim translation (Formal equivalence):

We know, then, that the son of God comes

and gives to us intelligence so that we

might know the true——and we are in the

true, [if we are] in his son——Jesus Christ.

This is the true God and life eternal.

—

BIBLE EXEGESIS RESOURCES LIST (ONLINE)

Compiled by Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Critical Bible Commentaries

https://libguides.twu.ca/religiousstudies/ecommentariesNT

Bryan College Library - Bible Study Resources - Compiled by Kevin Woodruff, M. Div, MS

https://library.bryan.edu/christian-studies-subject-guide/bible-study-resources

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX)

https://archive.org/details/InterlinearGreekEnglishSeptuagintOldTestamentPrint/page/n5

Internet Archive

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX)Does not include the deuterocanonical books. New Testament is here...

Hebrew---English Interlinear Bible (Old Testament)

https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/interlinear_ot1.htm

Greek—English Interlinear Bible (New Testament)

https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/interlinear_nt.htm

Academic Bibles: The Hebrew OT, the Greek NT, the Septuagint, and the Latin Bible—which scholars prefer to use for research and publications—share the same link:

1) Hebrew Old Testament following the text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

2) Greek New Testament following the text of the Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Nestle-Aland), 28. Edition and the UBS Greek New Testament 5. Edition.

3) Greek Old Testament following the text of the Septuagint (ed. Rahlfs/Hanhart)

4) Latin Bible (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) following the text of the Vulgate (ed. Weber/Gryson)

5) King James Version

6) English Standard Version

7) NetBible

8)Luther-Bible 1984

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/

Are the So-Called “gods” of the Old Testament Angels or Men?

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

“Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are

gods'? “ (Jn 10.34).

Are the gods Human?

First, whatever the exegesis might be, and regardless of the diverse interpretations, it is certainly NOT the case that we’re all gods, equal to Jesus and God the father, the co-creators (Jn 1.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2).

That is not the authorial intent of the term “gods” in Jn 10.34, nor Jesus’ explanation of it, where he actually appeals to the Old Testament terminology regarding the “sons of god” (vv. 34-36) in order to apply it to his particular status as the unique Son of God (Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ SBLGNT).

Second, the notion that the term “gods” refers to men is refuted by both the Masoretic and LXX texts which suggest that these are rulers and powers in God’s kingdom, namely, the angelic host. For instance, in Genesis 6.2, “the sons of god” (בְנֵי־ ḇə·nê הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm) are clearly fallen angels.

Third, Ephesians 3.10 speaks of “rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians 6.12 says:

our struggle is not against flesh and blood,

but against the rulers, against the

authorities, against the powers of this dark

world and against the spiritual forces of evil

in the heavenly realms.

Ephesians 1.21 differentiates Jesus (God) from all other heavenly powers, indicating that he’s “above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.” These then are the rulers and powers in high places, the sons of Elohim who are called “gods” in Ps 82.6, not men.

Psalm 82

The Greek text of the Septuagint from the LCL Brenton edition/“translation” of Psalm 82 (Ps. 81 LXX) reads as follows:

1 Ο ΘΕΟΣ ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρινεῖ. . . . 6 ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ῾Υψίστου πάντες· 7 ὑμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνήσκετε καὶ ὡς εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων πίπτετε. 8 ἀνάστα, ὁ Θεός, κρίνων τὴν γῆν, ὅτι σὺ κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι.

NRSV translation

1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: . . . 6 I say, "You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince." 8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth; for all the nations belong to you!

First, notice that just like the angelic host who are called “sons of God” in Gen. 6.2, in Ps. 82 the term “gods” does not imply deity but rather being “children of the Most High” (v. 6) or υἱοὶ ῾Υψίστου (LXX). Second, if they are in fact “gods,” divine as it were, why then will they “die like mortals” (v. 7)? That would contradict their divine status. What is more, the text DOES NOT say that they ARE mortals, but that they will die AS IF they were mortals. The text seems to be addressing the evil angelic host that rebelled against God the most high. Besides, if they were in fact mortals, why would they die “like” mortals? The analogy only works if they were something other than mortals and are being compared to mortals. You don’t say to a mortal that you’re going to die like a mortal. That’s a given if he’s a mortal. You can only use this language if the person is something other than a mortal.

Question: So if these beings are neither divine nor mortal, then what are they?

Answer: part of the angelic hierarchy of rulers and powers.

The clue is given in the very first verse of Psalm 82:

Ο ΘΕΟΣ ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ

δὲ θεοὺς διακρινεῖ (LXX).

Translation:

God has taken his place in the divine

council; in the midst of the gods he holds

judgment.

Question: When did God Almighty ever summon the judges & rulers of Israel in his presence for a divine council?

Answer: Never!

The phrase συναγωγῇ θεῶν (divine council; in the midst of the gods) can only refer to heavenly places. Thus, the idea that the term “gods” refers to men is unwarranted and without merit!

It’s also important to note that the use of the word “gods” as a reference to human beings in the Old Testament is rare.

God versus gods: Elohim versus elohim

The language of 1 Chronicles 5.25 is one which pits “God” against “gods,” which in the Hebrew language is actually Elohim versus elohim. Since Biblical Hebrew is an “aspectual” language, it’s the *context* that determines the meaning:

But they transgressed against the God

[Elohim] of their ancestors, and prostituted

themselves to the gods [elohim] of the

peoples of the land, whom God [Elohim]

had destroyed before them.

The Septuagint sets it up as the God of their fathers (ἐν Θεῷ/ὁ Θεὸς πατέρων αὐτῶν) versus the gods of the peoples of the earth (θεῶν τῶν λαῶν τῆς γῆς).

In 2 chron. 32.17, “the Lord the God of Israel [Yahweh Elohim]” or the “God [Elohim] of Hezekiah” is pitted against the “gods [elohim] of the nations.” The LXX distinguishes the terms as the Lord God of Israel/God of Hezekiah (Κύριον Θεὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ/Θεὸς ᾿Εζεκίου) versus the gods of the nations of the earth (οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς γῆς). So despite the fact that identical words are used for both one God and many gods, the difference is clear based on the context. For example, in Deuteronomy 12.31, “the Lord your God [Yahweh Elohim]” is distinguished from “their gods [elohim].” Similarly, the LXX differentiates the terminology as your God (Θεῷ σου), which refers to the true God, versus their gods (θεοῖς αὐτῶν), which is elsewhere depicted as the false gods or idols. Notice that the designation “gods” in all these examples is not a reference to humans.

Another way to distinguish Yahweh Elohim from all the other elohim is that he is addressed as the “God of gods” (Θεὸς θεῶν LXX) in Dan 2.47, and elsewhere as the “creator” or the “most high” (Deut. 32.15; Gen. 14.22). Even though the Hebrew term elohim is sometimes translated as “judges” in Exodus 22.8, 9, nevertheless the LXX clarifies that those who are said to judge do so in the presence of God (ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ). Hence the reference is to God, not men.

Eloha Versus El

Eloha could refer to a True or a false god. To determine which is which, it all depends on the context. For example, Deut. 32.15 is clear that this is a reference to (אֱל֣וֹהַ ’ĕ·lō·w·ha), the God of Israel, the creator who made him (עָשָׂ֔הוּ ā·śā·hū). The LXX clarifies this Eloha as the God who made him (Θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτὸν), as well as the God of his salvation (Θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ). In Deut 32.17 there’s a difference between Eloha (אֱלֹ֔הַ God) and elohim (אֱלֹהִ֖ים gods). The Septuagint presents the dichotomy as one God (Θεῷ) versus many gods (θεοῖς). Although in 2 Chronicles 32.15 ’ĕ·lō·w·ha (אֱל֙וֹהַ֙) is used as “god,” but not as the true God, in Nehemiah 9.17 ’ĕ·lō·w·ah (אֱל֨וֹהַּ) is now the true God (Θεὸς LXX). In fact, in Ps. 114.7 ’ĕ·lō·w·ah (אֱל֣וֹהַּ) is the God of Jacob (τοῦ Θεοῦ ᾿Ιακὼβ LXX). So context is king!

El, on the other hand, is usually a reference to the Almighty, but the term could also be used to refer to both God or god. For example, in Gen. 14.18 Melchizedek is priest of God (לְאֵ֥ל el) most high (עֶלְיֽוֹן׃ el·yō·wn), which in vv. 19-20 is associated with the God of Abram (Αβραμ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ LXX). But in verse 22 he is identified as יְהוָה֙ Yah·weh God (אֵ֣ל el) most high. The Septuagint confirms this viewpoint as it says in v. 18 that Melchizedek is a priest of God most high (Μελχισεδέκ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου). In verse 22, the LXX calls God, the most high, the creator of heaven and earth (τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ὕψιστον, ὃς ἔκτισε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν). In Gen. 16.13, Yahweh (yhvh is the proper name of the God of Israel) is also the el (which depending on the context can be interpreted either as sg. God or pl. gods) or the true God (ὁ Θεὸς LXX). In Gen 17.1 Yahweh appeared to Abram and said I am el Shadday (the almighty). However, the LXX renders it simply as your God (ὁ Θεός σου). Gen. 21.33 renders *Yahweh el olam* as Yahweh God the eternal (Θεὸς αἰώνιος LXX).

So, we should not be confused by the terms used for God simply because they’re sometimes used to refer to false gods. The context will always indicate which is which. The name Yahweh especially differentiates God most high from all other gods. But, as you can clearly see from our brief study, the term “gods” can only be applied to the heavenly host, not to human beings!

——-