Announcement

**Ou Sanna** · 26 May 2009, 14:28

Elohim and the Son of God

Elohim and the Son of God - Part 1

by David Sielaff, October 2007

Text of Psalm 82:1?8

Parties involved: (Psalm 82:1): Elohim stands in the congregation of El; He judges among the Elohim.

a. Complaint: (verse 2) How long will you

judge unjustly, and
accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

b. Commission violated:

(verse 3) Defend the poor and fatherless;
do justice to the afflicted and needy.
(verse 4) Deliver the poor and needy;
rid them out of the hand of the wicked. ¹⁵

c. Result to people of failure:

(verse 5) They know not,
neither will they understand;
they walk on in darkness.

d. Result to earth of failure;

all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

e. Judgment/doom pronounced: (verse 6) I have said, You are Elohim; and all of you are children [sons] of the most High. (verse 7) But

you shall die like men [like adam], and
fall like one of the princes [like human rulers].

f. Reassignment of covenant to another: (verse 8) Arise, O Elohim, judge the earth: for you shall inherit all nations.

The ?sons of the most High? had limited sovereignty and dominion delegated to them to judge the nations under their charge justly. Psalm 82 is a Davidic Psalm.
That dominion was proclaimed to be taken from them some time during David?s reign. Later, during the time of Jeremiah, the judgment of Psalm 82 was put into
effect. Guess who verse 8 (?You shall inherit all nations.?) is talking about? Sovereignty is taken away from the Sons of God and then it is given to ?the Son of God?
who is Christ.

Conclusions from Psalm 82: Verse 6: Elohim are equated with ?the Sons of the Most High (Hebrew, ?elyon),? and they are being judged. ¹⁶ Verse 6:
the Elohim who are those ?the Sons of the Most High? can die! Elohim can die! ¹⁷ ?The Sons of the Most High? are not humans (or so-called judges). ¹⁸
?The Sons of the Most High? are not angels by virtue of Hebrews 1:5, a key verse.

The Greek Old Testament mistakenly applies the term ?angels? when it should not when it is talking about the Sons of God and they get mixed together. They are
mixed in the Book of Enoch, they get mixed in the Book of Jubilees, they get mixed in Josephus, and in the writings of Philo. Things got so mixed up that the author
of the Book of Hebrews, Paul, took it upon himself to correct the text and went against what, in some cases, the Greek Old Testament says.

John Chapter 10, Jesus Quotes Psalm 82

At the Temple in Jerusalem during the Feast of Dedication Jesus was asked:

?Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, ?How long do you make us to doubt?
If you be the Christ [Messiah], tell us plainly.??

John 10:24

Jesus answers and refers them to His sheep and His works as testimony whether He was the Messiah.

??My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my
Father's hand. I and my Father are one.? Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Jesus answered them, ?Many good works have I showed you from my Father [which they saw and
acknowledged]; for which of those works do you stone me??

The Jews answered him, saying, ?For a good work we stone you not [admitting He did good works];
but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God [Greek, theos].??

[Jesus answered them] Is it not written in your law, ?I said, You are gods?? [citing Psalm 82:6] If he
called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say you
of him, whom the Father [1] has sanctified [makes holy], and [2] sent [sends] into the world, ?You
blaspheme?; because I said, ?I am THE Son of God???

John 10:29?36

They understood there were other Sons of God. They knew exactly what He was quoting in Psalm 82:6.

??If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you believe not me,
believe the works: that you may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.? Therefore
they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand.?

John 10:37?39

Observations: Jesus statement that He was ?the Son of God? was defended by His quoting Psalm 82, He was referring to all of it. ¹⁹ Jesus?
reference to the ?gods? meant ?the Sons of the Most High? in Psalm 82:6. The Jews understood this. Jesus identifies Himself with the Elohim
in Psalm 82:8! Jesus was saying that He was to be given all the authority taken from the other Sons by God the Father. This is the reason they
sought to stone Him.
Compare these verses:

?Arise, O Elohim, judge the earth: for you shall inherit all nations [goyim, the nations].?

Psalm 82:8

?Ask of me, and I shall give you the heathen [goyim, the nations] for your inheritance, and the uttermost
parts of the earth for your possession.?

Psalm 2:8 [a messianic psalm]

?The seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, ?The kingdoms of this
world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ [Messiah]; and he shall reign for ever
and ever [eons of the eons].??

Revelation 11:15

The Book of Hebrews

?God, ? has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

whom he has appointed heir of all things [cf., Psalm 82:8],
by [through] whom also he made the worlds [eons];
Who being the brightness of his glory, and
[being] the express image of his person, and
upholding all things by the word of his power,

when he [the Son] had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Being made so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance [allotment ²⁰ ]
obtained a more excellent name than they.?

Hebrews 1:1?4

Here is the sequence of events: God took away the inheritance from the Sons of God in Psalm 82:8. He did not assign it to Jesus Christ right away. It was
not given to him until later, as it says in Hebrews. Who was running things in the meantime? The Prince of Persia, the Prince of Grecia, other angels, the
King of Tyre (a cherub). You see this reflected in the pagan writings. The lesser gods did not respond like the older gods did, like the ancient gods did who
went away about 600 B.C.E. using our timeframe. There is a radical shift in history and religion during the time of Jeremiah.²¹

?See, I have this day set you over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down,
and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.?

Jeremiah 1:10

This involved everything and all nations in the world. At that time those Sons of God had their sovereignty taken away and the pronouncement of Psalm 82:8,
which was announced in the time of David, was enforced. God gave them quite a long waiting period before He enacted the punishment. Like most, if God
delays judgment they think nothing will happen. Israel did, Judah did, probably so did the Sons of God. There are accounts, which I will not go into here,
where there are distinctions between the idols which are seized and the gods, the Elohim, who are taken captive. Does that mean that if they are going to
die like men then they are limited to the physical? Maybe. Maybe they were stuck in the physical realm and they cannot get out of it, and that they are subject
to death. God pronounced their death in Psalm 82:6. They have to die somehow. It does not mean God will just zap them. What does it mean for an Elohim to die?

?Being made so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance [allotment] obtained a more
excellent name than they. ²² For unto which of the angels said he at any time,

?You are my Son, this day have I begotten you?? And again,
?I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son??

Hebrews 1:4?5

Jesus as the Son of God

Jesus was a Son of God, but more importantly He was the Son of God (with the definite article).

?But unto the Son he says, ?Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever [the eon of the eon]: a
sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God,
even your God, have anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.??

Hebrews 1:8?9 [quoting Psalm 45:6?7]

The author of Hebrews is talking about the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and in verse 8 he calls the Son ?God? (using the common term Greek for God, theos).
Let us look at Psalm 45:6?7 (cited in Hebrews 1:8?9):

?Your throne, O Elohim, is for ever and ever [olam and beyond]: the sceptre of your
kingdom is a right sceptre.

You love righteousness, and hate wickedness: therefore Elohim, your Elohim, has anointed
you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.?

Psalm 45:6?7

Observations:

The Son is an Elohim, comparing Hebrews 1:8 with Psalm 45:6; this conclusion is inescapable.
If the Son did not exist (did not have consciousness) until His incarnation, then WHEN did the Son become an Elohim?
If the Son did not exist (did not have consciousness) until His incarnation, then who were His ?fellows? talked about in Psalm 45:7 and in Hebrews 1:9?
What then is the relationship between the Son of God, the Sons of God, and these ?fellows??
WHEN were they ?His fellows,? because the Sons of God existed and died (most of them) before the Son was incarnated? At the time of Psalm 82 most
were sentenced to death and I maintain that was carried out during the time of Jeremiah. There is no problem if Christ, the Son of God was the means
whereby God the Father created the other Sons of God. ²³
Comparing Hebrews 1:9 with Psalm 45:7, the ?fellows? could only be the other Sons of God told about in Genesis 6, Deuteronomy 32, Job, Psalm 29:1,
Psalms 82 and 89, et al.

Henotheism

What then is the true characterization of the Godhead? Martin P. Nilsson, in his article ?The High God and the Mediator? ²⁴ talks about henotheism,
quoting a passage from a pagan Greek philosopher, Maximus of Tyre who wrote in 2nd century C.E. several decades after New Testament times:

?In spite of all the dissension (on other matters),
one finds in the whole world a unanimous opinion and doctrine that there is one God, the king
and father of everything, and many gods, who are the co-regents of God.

So says the Greek, so says the barbarian.?

Dissertation 11.5 ²⁵

You also get this concept in the writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo, and you get this somewhat in Josephus. This is not unique idea in ancient times.
So then, what or who are Elohim? Once again, going through the list:

YHWH is an Elohim (Psalm 95:3, 7)
Pagan gods are Elohim (Deuteronomy 6:14)
Angels are Elohim (Psalm 8:4?5, Hebrews 2:9)
Cherubim are Elohim (Ezekiel 28:14)
Sons of God are Elohim (Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Psalms 82, 89)
Jesus Christ as the Son of God is an Elohim (Hebrews 1:8?10, Psalm 45:6?7)

Human beings are never identified as Elohim in the Old Testament, but they are given authority of Elohim, i.e. Moses (Exodus 7:1), and there are
comparisons made using ?as? or ?like? Elohim.

Let us define then the terms of the various concepts about God:

Monotheism ? ?The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.?
Polytheism ? ?The worship of, or belief in, more than one god.?
Henotheism ? ?Belief in [worship of] one god without denying the existence of others.?

The American Heritage Dictionary

Henotheism is exactly what Israel was commanded to do, worship YHWH alone while acknowledging that other gods existed. Look at the example of Solomon.
Solomon had no problems until he started worshipping the foreign gods and building temples for them (see 1 Kings 11:1?40). He had no problems at all until
that time. He could acknowledge the other gods as the Phoenicians.

Israel always acknowledged YHWH, even when they built the golden calf to represent the ?gods? that brought them out of Egypt (Exodus chapter 32). This also
shows that Israel knew there were gods other than YHWH. It was all right for Israel to acknowledge that other gods existed, but they were only to worship
YHWH and no other gods. That is what they were commanded to do by God and Moses.

Henotheism in my view describes best the biblical reality, but all such terms have a limited application including binitarianism, because they are all non-biblical.
Of course, YHWH is not a trinity, nor is God the Father part of a trinity!

Dixon Cartwright, ²⁶ when I spoke with him a while back, tried to put labels on me, and he said, are you this or are you that? I said, well, I believe
YHWH is one God the Father, and there is one Lord Jesus Christ. That would make me a monotheist. There are other Elohim that I understand are out there and
are real gods (small ?g?), but they are Elohim. That would make me a polytheist.

I would only worship one God, yet I acknowledge the existence of other gods, that would make me a Henotheist. You can call me what you like: a monotheist, a
polytheist, a henotheist, a binitarian, just don?t call me late for lunch. I would take offense at that.

David Sielaff, October 2007

Note another example, Joshua 22:22 where the phrase ?El of Elohim? is used. The ?El? is singular of the plural Elohim. Once this concept is understood then much of the Old Testament doctrine about God begins to clear up and make perfectly good sense.
Here Elohim is used as a singular, yet other peoples and nations other than Israel have different Elohim.
If other Elohim did not ontologically exist, if they were not real beings, then why would YHWH get upset about Israel worshipping fantasies? Why would God care about nonexistent beings? He could explain to Israel that these gods are not real and do not exist. But, if other Elohim did exist (and they do exist), then there is a real reason that God warns Israel and even the ekklesia against idolatry. First Corinthians 10:14 and 1 John 5:21 are just two New Testament examples.

The term ?United States? is a collective noun (like Elohim). British author Christopher Hitchens notes the following about the use of ?United States? as a compound noun gives an explanation:

?President Madison?s words on this occasion could scarcely be bettered: ?It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, [they] will buy peace with none.? [Then Hitchens comments:] (The expression ?the United States is? [as a singular] did not come into usage until after Gettysburg.)?

Christopher Hitchens, ?Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates,? City Journal, Spring 2007

?Unlike the great States of Europe and Asia and many of those of America, these United States are wasting their strength neither in foreign war nor domestic strife.?

President Franklin Pierce, 1855 Inaugural Address

These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions.?

President Ronald Reagan, 1981 Inaugural Address

I differ with the majority view: ?Contrary to Greek and many Western languages, compound nouns are not characteristic of Hebrew. The Hebrew plural is formed by adding -im to masculine nouns (seraphim, cherubim), and modifying the feminine ending to ?oth.? See Walter Elwell, ed., Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), S., p. 334. Elsewhere this Encyclopedia indicates that Elohim, although plural in form is singular. This is definitionally characteristic of a compound noun according to usage.
It is frustrating that most English translations render the important and basic titles for God by terms that obscure their full meaning for the reader. This is done by using different type faces, or styles, or capitalizations to somehow ?distinguish? the titles for God. For example, consider the use of LORD (YHWH) and Lord (Adonay) in Psalm 110:1 as one example in the King James Version. If translators would simply use the transliterated terms YHWH (or Yahweh), El, Elohim, Elohi, Eloah, and Elim then the use and familiarity of those terms would reinforce their meaning in context. This applies to the Old Testament only.
The Sons of God ?saw? and ?took? (Genesis 6:2) the women just like Eve, the first woman, ?saw? the tree and ?took? fruit from it in Genesis 3:6.
Nor is there any indication anywhere in Scripture of this incident being a matter of fornication. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 are talking about angels, not Sons of God. The incidents are completely different.
See Michael S. Heiser, ?Deuteronomy 32 and the Sons of God? in Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January 01), pp. 52?74. This article is available online at http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_...-Deut32-BS.htm, and on Dr. Heiser?s website (see note below).
While both angels and Sons of God are Elohim, Scripture distinguishes each from each other.
For a thorough analysis of the textual issues of this passage and its implication, see the works of Dr. Michael S. Heiser regarding the Divine Council of YHWH at http://www.thedivinecouncil.com. See particularly the explanation in his article ?Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God? at note 9 above.
Begin with E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Other aspects of the Divine Council can be found in Michael Heiser?s ?Divine Council 101: Lesson 2: The elohim of Psalm 82 ? gods or men?? at http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/. Go there for a full list of the major technical sources.

This is due to a misdating of the Ugaritic history and archival documents. Note the close similarity of terms and concepts:

Psalm 82:2	Ugaritic CTA 16. VI. 45?54 spoken to Kirta
²How long will you judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.	You do not judge the case of the widow, Nor do you judge the case of the wretched.
³ Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.	You do not drive out the oppressor of the poor! You do not feed the orphan before you, Nor the
⁴ Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.	widow behind you.
⁵ They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.	You have become a companion of the sick-bed, You have become a friend of the bed of sickness! Descend from the kingship that I might reign,
⁸ Arise, O God, judge the earth: for you shall inherit all nations.?	From your dominion that I might sit enthroned over it!

Translation in Mullen, Divine Council, p. 235. In Ugarit Kirta is the son of Ilu, the equivalent of El, the chief god. ?the offspring of the Gracious and Holy One. Do gods die? [yes], Does the offspring of the Gracious One not live? [yes]? in William W. Hallo, K. Lawson Younger, et al., The Context of Scripture. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997, S. 339.

?The concept of the divine council, or the assembly of the gods, was a common religious
motif in the cultures of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaan, Phoenicia, and Israel.?

Mullen, Divine Council, p. 113

For background on God?s covenant lawsuits against Israel (there were several), see J. Carl Laney, ?The Role of the Prophets in God?s Case against Israel? in Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 138. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981; 2002, S. 138:313?324. ?The most vivid depiction of the pronouncement of judgment within the assembly itself is found in Psalm 82? (Mullen, Divine Council, p. 228).Covenants had penalties which were adjudicated in a formalized manner. Psalm 82 is a ?courtroom scene? of judgment against violators of a covenant between YHWH and some (probably most) of His sons. See the information and sources in my article ?Idolatry and God?s Punishment? at http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d070301.htm.
This is what all judges are supposed to do, but in Old Testament times there was a format and a formula for redress. God as King is talking to these violators, these unjust judges. The result to the people as a result of the failure in part c. above. The violators were to do justice for those that were subordinate and in their charge.
The result is in part d. above.
The phrase ?Most High? and ?adam? are distinguished from each other in Deuteronomy 32:8, which together with Psalm 82:6, together show that the ?sons? cannot be humans.
This at first seems shocking, but Jesus Christ was an Elohim before His incarnation. He could and did die. Only He has been resurrected.
Clearly Israel lived in a death cult society. Death was all around. To placate God at Israel?s cult they had to sacrifice and kill animals all the time as substitute for their own death. They knew that everything died. There is no way that a human judge in Israel would think that he could not die and that God needs to come along and pronounce a death sentence on a human being.
Understand that in the Book of Hebrews and in much of the New Testament when a verse is cited it refers to the larger context containing that verse. There is an old joke about comedians who sit around and just speak punch lines of jokes. People listening did not know what they are laughing about. One comedian would say a punch line and all the other comedians would laugh and laugh because they all knew the story leading up to the punch line. Likewise the Scribes, the Pharisees, and even the common people in the Temple knew exactly what Jesus was referring to. He quoted a particular portion but He was referring to all of Psalm 82. By saying ?You are gods,? Jesus identified Himself with the Sons of the Most High. He could do this as ?the only begotten Son of God.? He was different. He was totally unique. He was ?begotten.? The other Sons were not.
Which God assigned and gave to Him in Psalm 82:8.
See Dr. Martin?s article ?Prophetic Birth of Our Civilization? at http://www.askelm.com/prophecy/p020701.htm.
What allotment? The inheritance allotment of Psalm 82:8. What name was given to Him? What is the ?more excellent name? that He has than angels?
The problem is this: beings called the Sons of God did exist before the creation of God. This is undeniable from Job 38:7. Many proponents of the One God concept hold that Jesus did not exist until His incarnation. If the Sons of God were created, lived, were punished, and were gone and dead some 500 years before Jesus was incarnated, then who are the ?fellows? referred to in Psalm 45:7 and Hebrews 1:9? Angels cannot be those ?fellows? because angels are not Sons as shown by Hebrews 1:5. They are not on His level. He is far, far above them. The purpose of Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 is to distinguish the Son from angels.
Harvard Theological Review 56/2 (1963), p. 106.
Occasionally the pagan philosophers understood the true nature of the Godhead, although we should not go to them for information. Whether they are informed by the Old Testament (as Christian historian Eusebius believed) or by observation of nature, as the apostle Paul speaks about in Romans chapter 1, cannot be determined.
Editor and publisher of The Journal, News of the Churches of God (www.thejournal.org).

Continue on Part 2.1

**Ou Sanna** · 26 May 2009, 14:32

Elohim and the Son of God - unique Son of God among other sons of God

Elohim and the Son of God - Part 2

by David Sielaff, October 2007

In this portion I emphasize that Jesus was unique in all ways. He was a unique Son of God among other sons of God (just as we who believe, are sons and daughters of God, John 1:12). He was also the unique Son of Man among other sons of men. Jesus states that He ?saw? God the Father but that could only have taken place before His incarnation. 1 I will show that Jesus was present (not in a figurative or spiritual way but existentially) at the time of the exodus from Egypt and in the wilderness. I explain that human beings can only be called Elohim in the Old Testament when they are delegated to that office and title by God the Father, but they are not Elohim naturally. Legally at present we are children of God, we are considered Elohim, and will be our final state when we have attained to our intended glorious state in the resurrection. Then I discuss the concept of eternity and that it does not really exist in Scripture. I will show that Jesus accepted worship and that clearly He existed before He ?was made flesh? (John 1:14). Finally I will show that, like Christ, you are a child of God, now.

Jesus Christ as the Son of the God

There are reasons definite articles are used. Sometimes the reasons are overlooked. Sometimes the reason is very important such as when the definite article is used with the phrase ?Son of God.?

?And the high priest answered and said unto him, ?I adjure you by the
living God, that you tell us whether you be the Christ [the Messiah], the
Son of [the] God.?

Jesus said unto him, ?You have said [agreeing with the high priest]:
nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall you see the Son of man
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.?

Matthew 26:63?64 (see also Mark 14:61?62 and Luke 22:70)

Jesus is citing an Old Testament passage here. There are other gods (Elohim), and other Sons of God than Jesus Christ, but they have no right to contact anyone, to claim authority over you or anyone at any time. They have no right to be worshipped anymore, not even by the nations. They have no right to be around. As a matter of fact there is a death sentence upon them. Whether some removed themselves from earth to somewhere else, who knows? Who cares?

Analysis: Jesus does not deny He is ?the Christ, the Son of [the] God? and ?the Son of Man.? The usage the High Priest uses is with the definite articles: ?the Christ the Son of[the] God.? [o` cristo.j o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/]. In this single passage Jesus identifies Himself with the titles: ?Messiah? = ?Son of God? = ?Son of Man.? They considered that blasphemy because if He was correct then they were putting to death God?s Messiah, God?s anointed.

If He was wrong then God would punish them for not punishing heretics and endangering their nation. They were in a very difficult situation. They could hope that if they were wrong that God would forgive them, but I do not think they cared about that. They were empowered by the Law to do what they had to do to fight blasphemy and anyone who would claim they were divine, or God, or the Messiah. Jesus quotes the Messianic verse, ?sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven? (combining Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13). Look who else called him ?the Son of God.?

John the Baptist calls Him ?the Son of [the] God? in John 1:34.
Evil spirits call Him ?the Son of [the] God? in Mark 3:11.
Peter calls Him ?the Son of the living God? in Matthew 16:16.
Nathaniel calls Him ?the Son of [the] God? in John 1:49.
At a Jerusalem feast Jesus refers to ?the Son of [the] God,? meaning Himself in John 5:25.

Many times the New Testament has simply the phrase ?Son of God? without an article. Sometimes it is ?the Son of God.? Sometimes it is ?Son of the God.? Sometimes it is ?the Son of the God.? I have not worked through the significance to all of the meanings, but I bet they are precisely and intentionally used by God. The writers all knew what they were saying when they wrote these words. Let us look at John 5:25 more closely:

?Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of [the] God: and they that hear shall
live.

For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life
in himself;

And has given him [the Son] authority to execute judgment also, because
he is the Son of man.?

John 5:25?27

Once again in this passage, as in John chapter 10, Jesus connects ?the Son of the God? with ?the Son of Man.? Most of you know this material, but I hope I am approaching it from a different direction:

At Lazarus? resurrection Jesus refers to Himself as the ?the Son of [the] God? in John 11:4.
The woman at the well in Samaria calls Him ?the Christ, the Son of [the] God? in John 11:27. She is a Gentile.
Paul ?preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of [the] God? in Acts 9:20.
Paul refers to ?the Son of [the] God? in Galatians 2:20.

Jesus as ?the Son of [the] God? makes excellent sense because there are other Sons of God.

?But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ
[Messiah], the Son of [the] God; and that believing you might have life
through his name..

John 20:31

[1] For the perfecting of the saints,
[2] for the work of the ministry,
[3]for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of [the] God, unto a perfect man, unto the
measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

Ephesians 4:12?13

I do not want to make too much of ?the Son of the God,? but it is there for a reason.

?Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the
heavens, Jesus the Son of [the] God, let us hold fast our profession.?

Hebrews 4:14

?And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the
Savior of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of [the]
God, [the] God dwells in him, and he in [the] God.?

1 John 4:14?15

Other verses that use ?the Son of the God? in Greek (besides those already cited) are in Hebrews 6:6, 7:3, 10:29; 1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 12?13, 20; and Revelation 2:18. All those verses show that Jesus is ?the Son of the God,? among other Sons of God. Jesus? distinction is that He was sent from God as the ?only-begotten? Son of God. You see that appellation upon Him frequently. The other gods were created, but He is the ?only begotten? Son of God. He was the only one who became flesh permanently through His birth to Mary. Finally, the other Sons of God sinned. Jesus never did. Human beings from Adam who believe will also become Sons of God:

?But as many as received him, to them [He] gave the power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which [sons of
God] were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of
man, but of God [of the will of God].

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth?

John 1:12?14

?No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he has declared him.?

John 1:18

Significance of ?Only-begotten?

Notice what these passages are saying. Christ being identified as ?the only-begotten? Son of God demands that there were other Sons of God who were not begotten. Otherwise why make that distinction at all?

?For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting [eonian]
life. ?

John 3:16

Remember, the Book of Enoch was known all over Judea (and Enoch is even mentioned in the Book of Jude). It was a popular work. This was the common understanding that the angels were the Sons of God, etc., etc. That was wrong according to the Book of Hebrews. John is also making a distinction for his audience, which also has that same background of information in their worldview:

He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is
condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only
begotten Son of God.?

John 3:18

Ordinary humans can also be ?only begotten.? How many of you realized that? But ordinary humans cannot be ?only begotten? as Sons of God:

The ?only begotten? son uses the same term in Luke 7:12, in the Greek.
Jairus had an ?only begotten? daughter in Luke 8:42 in the Greek.
The man?s ?only begotten? son had a demon in the Greek of Luke 9:38.
Isaac was said to be Abraham?s ?only begotten? son according to the Greek of Hebrews 11:17.

All these instances use the same Greek term for ?only begotten? but when it is attached to ?Son of God,? then the phrase ?only begotten? takes on a whole different meaning. ?Only begotten Son of God? is communicating something specific and definite. Jesus was unique as ?the only begotten? Son of God the Father.

Christ was the Son when He was sent:

?For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh.?

Romans 8:3

?But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman, made under the law.?

Galatians 4:4

Christ was ?the Son? before He was sent. He existed before He was sent. All things came through Christ, who, Scripture shows existed before His incarnation. Now all the verses in Colossians, Philippians, and 1 Corinthians 8:6 make sense, and one does not have to come up with creative wordplay or exegesis to explain these verses:

?But to us there is but
one God, the Father,
of whom are all things, and WE
in him; and
one Lord Jesus Christ,
by [dia, through] whom are all things, and WE
by [dia, through] him.?

1 Corinthians 8:6, KJV

Christ is an active agent in both ?all things? and also an active agent ?in us.? There is no doubt that we have our salvation ?through Him.? Likewise, we have creation ?through Him.? He is the prime contractor of God the Father. We are not merely passing through Him without Him touching us. He is active. We come through Christ just as all things came through Christ. Let me break down this passage so it will be clearer:

?But nevertheless for us there is

one God, the Father,
out of Whom [the] all is, ⁵ and we
into for Him,

and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through Whom [the] all is, and we
through Him.?

1 Corinthians 8:6, Concordant Version

You can also take that first part of this verse and coordinate it with the second part. It is not anything esoteric or fancy. Remember, everything that was read in ancient times was read out loud, so it had a response to the ear. Even when people read to themselves, they read to themselves aloud. People who read silently were considered strange and even mentally ill, even unto the 3rd century C.E. until people began to read silently. But in ancient times everyone read aloud.

Jesus ?Seeing? God

Jesus makes some intriguing statements about ?seeing? God in the Gospel of John. This is by no means a trivial matter. Jesus is said to be ?the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person? (Hebrews 1:3). That could be known only by revelation or by ?seeing? God. When did Jesus ?see? the Father after His incarnation? (Remember that it is claimed by some that Jesus is not divine, that YHWH is the only Elohim, and that Jesus did not exist prior to His incarnation, except as the Word of God (a plan). But Jesus Himself says:

?No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he has declared him.?

John 1:18

?? Not that any man [no man] has seen the Father, save he which is of
God, he [Jesus Himself] has seen the Father.??

John 6:46

Questions: When did Jesus ?see? the Father? I see no indication in the New Testament narratives or Gospels that Jesus at any time ?saw? the Father anytime after His incarnation and before His death, do you? Flesh and blood cannot see God. We know that from John 1:18 from commentary by the apostle John. We know that Jesus saw the devil because He was tempted by him. 6 Did Jesus ?see? the Father AFTER His incarnation, when He was flesh and blood? If so, then show me.
In fact, there is no evidence from scripture that Jesus ever ?saw? the Father either after His incarnation or before His resurrection. Christ heard God the Father speak at His baptism (Matthew 3:17). At His Transfiguration (which was a vision, Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35; Acts 13:33; 2 Peter 1:17) there is no indication anyone ?saw? the Father. ?Angels came and ministered unto him? (Matthew 4:11) after the temptation. I presume He saw them at that time.
There was never any theophany in vision in the Gospels such as occurred in Isaiah 6:1, 5 7; Ezekiel 1:1, 28; or in Daniel 7:9. This is important because nowhere in the Gospels is there described an occasion when Jesus saw God the Father. Yet Jesus specifically states He ?saw? the Father:

I [Jesus] speak that which I have seen with [para, beside] my Father: and
you do that which you have seen [Greek, heard (not seen)] with your father [the devil].

John 8:38

It says that Jesus saw the Father but He does not describe it. There are no details. There is no instance or occasion mentioned when this happened. So, therefore it is proper to ask the following questions: When did Jesus see with His Father? When was Jesus beside [Greek, para] His Father?

Was it after His incarnation?
Was it after He achieved maturity?
Was it after His baptism?
Was it after His ministry began?

You might say, well, these are trivial questions. Consider another passage:

?Jesus said unto [Philip]? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, ?Show us the Father???

John 14:9

How did Jesus know that He looks like the Father, unless He saw the Father? Again, when did Jesus see the Father?

Was it after His incarnation?
Was it after He achieved maturity?
Was it after His baptism?
Was it after His ministry began?

These legitimate questions have only one answer: Jesus saw the Father before His incarnation.

[BOX2]?And this is life eternal [eonian], that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have glorified you on the earth: I have finished the work which you gave me to do. And now, O Father, glorify you me with your own self with the glory which I had with you [Greek, ?beside you?] before the world was.?

Now this passage makes perfectly good sense. When did Jesus have that glory with His Father, ?the only true God?? When was Jesus beside [para] His Father?

After His incarnation?
After He achieved maturity?
After His baptism?
After His ministry began?

None of the above. Jesus, as ?the Son of God,? had that glory with His Father ?before the world was,? when He was with or beside His Father.

Now let us see that Jesus Christ was active at the Exodus. He did not have the name Jesus at that time.

Christ Was Active at the Exodus

?? you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered
unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in ?

denying the only Lord [despotas] God, and
[denying] our Lord [kurios] Jesus Christ.

I will therefore put you in remembrance, though you once knew this, how
that the Lord [kurion, referring to Jesus], having saved the people out of the
land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.?

Jude 3?5

It would be rather remarkable for the second occurrence of ?Lord? (kurion) to refer to something else that is not in context when immediately above it you have ?Lord? (kurios) referring to Jesus Christ. Note that Christ was active as ?the Rock? when Israel was in the Wilderness:

?all our fathers were under the cloud, and
all passed through the sea; And were
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did
all eat the same spiritual meat; And did
all drink the same spiritual drink: for they
[all]drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them:

and that Rock was [the] Christ [the Messiah].

But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were
overthrown in the wilderness?

1 Corinthians 10:1?5

They were overthrown ?in the wilderness? when the Rock was there present. What was going on there? If the Rock was a metaphor completely, then the Rock itself is a metaphor and it is a metaphor for the Spirit, for the water, which itself is a metaphor because the water came out of the rock and sustained the people physically, and the spirit sustained them spiritually. So you have a metaphor on a metaphor on a metaphor. It gets a little messy after a while. It is meaningless.
However, if Christ was really there as Jude says, and as Paul seems to indicate, then there is no problem. It all makes perfectly good sense. Note what is said in Hebrews:

?For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our
confidence steadfast unto the end; While it is said, ?To day if you will
hear his [Christ?s] voice, ??

For some, when they had heard [Christ?s voice], did provoke: howbeit
not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he
[Christ] grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned,
whose carcasses fell in the wilderness??

Hebrews 3:14?17

It seems to indicate that ?He? was grieved and ?He? was there. If you put these three passages side by side it seems that you have a reality that is not metaphorical or a metaphor on a metaphor. Metaphors only work when A represents B, not when A represents B represents C represents D. That is meaningless.

Christ was extremely active in the Wilderness period after the Exodus from Egypt:

Jude 3?5	1 Corinthians 10:1?5	Hebrews 3:14?17
??contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Forthere are certain men crept in unawares, ?and denying the only Lord [despotas] God, and our Lord [kurios] Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though you once knew this, how that the Lord [kurion], having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.?	?? all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.?	?For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end; While it is said, ?To day if you will hear his voice, ??For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he [Christ] grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness??

Jesus did all those things:

He ?saved the people out of the land of Egypt.?
He ?destroyed them that believed not.?
He was ?that Rock? literally, not metaphorically.
His voice spoke (?hear his voice?).
He ?grieved forty years? with those that sinned.

He was living and present at that time. If He was not present, if He did not do all those things, and if all those actions Paul and Jude attributed to Christ were merely figurative, then why should anyone consider those actions important? If those actions are merely figurative then the warnings become meaningless. However, if those actions took place because Christ was present and performed those actions as described, then the writings of Paul and Jude have immense significance and the warning is real, relevant, and present.

Continue on Part 2 of part 2

**Ou Sanna** · 26 May 2009, 14:35

Elohim and the Son of God - what are Elohim?

Part 2 of Part 2

Can Humans Now be Elohim?

So back to this idea of ?what are Elohim?? Human beings are never identified as Elohim in the Old Testament! ⁸ However, human beings are given authority of Elohim (i.e., in Moses, Exodus 7:1), and are compared to Elohim, just like the ?angel of the Lord? is given the authority of, the power of attorney for YHWH Himself, and can use the name of YHWH. ⁹ The angel of the Lord is not YHWH, but he is the angelic being who Moses talked to, who Jacob wrestled with. These distinctions and classifications must be maintained. We love to classify things in the western world, and they do not do so as much in the non-western world, yet I believe God is very precise in choosing His words. His Word cuts like a two-edged sword, very precisely (Hebrews 4:12).

?And YHWH said unto Moses, See, I have made you Elohim to Pharaoh:
and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.?

Exodus 7:1

There is a comparison being made here. Moses was to be like an Elohim to Pharaoh. He was compared to Elohim in Pharaoh?s eyes. Moses was not to be an Elohim. In the future the House of David will be like an Elohim:

?In that day shall YHWH defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that
is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of
David shall be AS ELOHIM, as the angel [messenger] of YHWH before
them.?

Zechariah 12:8

There are two comparisons here. The House of David will be like an Elohim and also like an angel, a messenger, of YHWH. It is not equating Elohim and messenger in this instance, it is comparing the house of David with Elohim or with an angel of YHWH. Comparisons are being made here. ¹⁰

Eternity?

The idea is put forth that Jesus did not exist ?from eternity.? This is true, not because Jesus did not exist prior to His birth from Mary but because eternity does not exist as a concept in Scripture. The nouns olam in Hebrew and eon in Greek never mean ?eternity,? and the adjectives never mean ?eternal.? ¹¹ Eons, the ages, had a beginning (Hebrews 1:2). Eons have a conclusion (Hebrews 9:26). Time has a beginning (and an end). God is outside of time. There is also a relationship between chronos and eons, although both are Greek terms for time. There is a relationship between cosmos and eons. Eons deal with time, cosmos deals with the physical real, although they interrelate and interact.
Christ had a beginning and He was created before time began, and in fact He made the eons. The ages (which together constitute ?time? as we know it) were created by the Son:

?Has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he has
appointed heir of all things, by [di, through]whom also he [God] made the
worlds [eons, ages].?

Hebrews 1:2

The term translated ?worlds? is the Greek eons which is plural for ?ages,? which talk about time. The ages were made by God through the Son. The Father is the eonian God according to Romans 16:26, and not the ?everlasting? God as mistranslated by the King James Version. He is King of the eons (Revelation 15:3).
Again, I must ask these same questions: When were the eons made ?through? the Son? If Jesus did not exist until after His incarnation, then when did He make the eons?

Was it after His incarnation, as an infant, or as a young child?
Was it after He achieved maturity?
Was it after His baptism?
Was it after His ministry began?

These same questions relate to the question of the eons which clearly were made by God the Father through the active agency of the Son. These are valid questions.
If Jesus existed before His incarnation as the first creation of God through which everything else came, including the other Sons of God, the angels, the foundation of the earth, Adam and Eve, and all the physical realm, including time, the eons, then everything makes perfectly good sense according to the plain meanings of the passages we have looked at, and many others.

Worship of Christ

I found this website on the internet. I disagree with a lot that this author has in this website, but his concise remarks regarding the worship of Christ make some good points:

?For an Israelite, to worship anything other than the Father was idolatry, a wicked sin. For any man to accept worship would be to set himself up a God. Yet in the Bible we have multiple accounts of Christ accepting the worship of other men. If Jesus Christ were merely a ?good teacher? He would have rebuked these men instantly for their error, but no such rebuke ever came. (Peter in Acts 10:26 is a good example of refusing such worship). Men worshipped Jesus and He did not refuse [worship]:

From the wise men (Matthew 2:11),
From the leper (Matthew 8:2),
From the ruler (Matthew 9:18),
From His disciples in the boat (Matthew 14:33),
From the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:25),
From the man born blind (John 9:38),
From the women and other disciples following His
resurrection (Matthew 28:9, 17),
From the disciples following His ascension (Luke 24:52).?

10 Claims in the Bible on the Deity of Christ, emphasis mine ¹²

Some have said that the Greek terms translated as worship in these and other passages should be understood as giving honor or veneration and not worship, as unto God. They claim these occasions of ?worship? were examples of reverence. But Jesus did not refuse worship. As Peter came into the house of Cornelius, the centurion in Acts 10:25?26, Cornelius met him, fell down at Peter?s feet, and ?worshipped? (proskuneo, the same Greek term used in the passages quoted above). Peter took him up and told him ?Stand up; I myself also am a man.? Peter demonstrates that a ?mere man? like himself was not worthy of such worship, but Jesus, who was a man ? and so much more ? was worthy of such worship, and He accepted that worship.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged in 1 Volume (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995, c1985), p. 948, says this about the word proskyn?ō in the Greek Old Testament where it is used for divine worship:

?The LXX uses the term for various words meaning ?to bow,? ?to kiss,? ?to serve,? and ?to worship.? Most of the instances [of proskyn?ō] relate to veneration of the God of Israel or of false gods.?

In the New Testament proskyn?ō is used in the same way, the veneration (or worship) of someone who has a relationship to divinity. Christ accepted such worship (or veneration) because of who He was ? the Son of God.

Note what Matthew said in his Gospel:

?Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where
Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped
[prosekunaesan] him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke unto
them, saying, ?All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.??

Matthew 28:16?18

This would be a highly unusual thing to say immediately after receiving worship from one?s disciples, unless Jesus Christ had authority from His Father to receive such worship.

Jesus? Existence before His Incarnation

Some deny that Jesus existed before His incarnation. This is necessary for their consistency of message. If Jesus existed before His incarnation then He would be more than just a human being anointed by God. This idea, however, diminishes the concept of Jesus as the Son of God. We need to consider various actions that could only have happened before Christ was incarnated.

?[God] has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he has
appointed heir of all things, by [di, through] whom also he [God] made the
worlds [eons, ages].?

Hebrews 1:2

As noted above, the Father created time, the ages, through His Son who existed before Christ (the Son) created time. God also saved us ?in Christ Jesus? before the world began. This occurred not just as part of the Father?s plan, but as a reality, with Christ?s being present, agreeing to that plan, and being active in that plan before His incarnation:

?[God] Who has saved us, and called us with an holy calling, ? according
to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before
the world began [chronon aionion, before ?times eonian?].?

2 Timothy 1:9

Christ was an active agent. More questions: When did God save us and call us? It was done before time itself was created. When was God?s ?purpose and grace ? given us in Jesus Christ?? It was done before time existed.

?Jesus said unto them, ?Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham
was, I am.? Then took they up stones to cast at him.?

John 8:58?59

Jesus existed before Abraham. This was not a metaphorical, spiritual, or poetic statement by Jesus. We can know this because of the reaction by His audience. They understood exactly what He said and they reacted violently and wanted to kill Him. He had identified Himself with God and they thought that was blasphemy. This yields more questions to those who deny Jesus existed before His incarnation: When was Jesus ?before Abraham?? When did Jesus assume authority of precedence over Abraham?

Was it after His incarnation, as an infant, as a young child?
Was it after He achieved maturity?
Was it after His baptism?
Was it after His ministry began?

These questions all have to be answered. Christ in Philippians chapter 2:

?Who [Christ], being in the form [morphe] of God, thought it not robbery to
be equal with God:?

Philippians2:6

Still more questions: When was Christ ?in the form of God? ? ever ? before His incarnation? How is that possible if, as some say, He did not have existence or consciousness before His incarnation?

Did Jesus have ?the form of God? after His incarnation, as an infant, as a young child?
Was it after He achieved maturity?
Was it after His baptism?
Was it after His ministry began?

Was Jesus? ?form of God? merely a poetic form of comment by the apostle Paul? How does that morphe differ from our likeness of God? We are created in the image and likeness of God. What is unique about that word morphe? It has a unique meaning. Morphe is different than ?likeness.? It is different than ?image? in Greek. When did Jesus have ?the form of God?? Also, when did Christ think to be ?equal with God?? Obviously, for those who deny Jesus? pre-incarnation existence, it would have to be some time after He was an infant. Did it just occur to Jesus one day, or what? The same questions apply to Jesus being ?equal with God?:

Did Jesus have ?the form of God? after His incarnation, as an infant, as a young child?
Was it after He achieved maturity?
Was it after His baptism?
Was it after His ministry began?

?But [1] made himself of no reputation, and [2] took upon him the form of
a servant, and [3] was made in the likeness [schema, different from
morphe] of men:?

Philippians 2:7

Note: Jesus ?made HIMSELF of no reputation.? When did He do that? When did He have any ?reputation? in the flesh? We know what the result was (no reputation), but from what did He ?make Himself of no reputation?? Again, the questions must be asked:

When did Jesus make ?Himself of no reputation??
- Was it after His incarnation, as an infant, as a young child?
- Was it after He achieved maturity?
- Was it after His baptism?
- Was it after His ministry began?
When did Jesus take ?the form of a servant??
When was Jesus made ?in the likeness of men??

All these three events must have taken place before His incarnation. Note also that He ?made himself of no reputation.? This means that He emptied Himself. ¹³ What did He empty Himself of? He took ?the form of a servant? means that He ?took? that form upon Himself. He was the sole active agent in that action. It was not done for Him or to Him.

Philippians 2:6?7 indicate that Jesus existed before He emptied himself of his reputation, before He took the form of a slave, and before He obtained ?the likeness of men.? Look at the next verse:

?And being found in fashion as a man, [1] he humbled himself, and
[2]became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.?

Philippians 2:8

Questions: When did Jesus find Himself ?in fashion as a man??

Was it after His incarnation, as an infant, as a young child?
Was it after He achieved maturity?
Was it after His baptism?
Was it after His ministry began?

When did Jesus ?humble himself?? He humbled Himself all through His life, after His incarnation through His sufferings. But note that all the actions of Philippians 2:6?8 were done by Christ Himself! They were not done to or for Him by God the Father. Note this passage by Paul.

?For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was
rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty
might be rich.?

2 Corinthians 8:9

Questions: When was Jesus rich, and what did that mean? Rich in glory? When did He have that glory?

Was it after His incarnation, as an infant, as a young child?
Was it after He achieved maturity?
Was it after His baptism?
Was it after His ministry began?

Was He rich in power? Yes, He was rich in power derived from God the Father. He never became poor in that power. He always healed when He needed to. When the woman touched His robe and she was healed (Matthew 9:20?22; Mark 5:25?34; and Luke 8:43?48), it says He lost power but He got it back because He was filled with the Holy Spirit. So, when was Jesus rich? When did Jesus become poor, and in what sense? It seems obvious that He was rich before His birth and incarnation. He became poor after Hn. The acof 2 Corinthians 8:9 were done by Christ Himself.

?And the Word [logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full
of grace and truth. John [the Baptist] bore witness of him, and cried,
saying,

?This was he of whom I spoke, He that comes after me
[1] is preferred before me [in authority]:
[2] for he was before me [in time].??

John 1:14?15

Remember that Jesus was 6 months younger than John. The apostle John relates that the Baptist repeated his statement of John 1:15 with almost the same words. The next day the Baptist sees Jesus coming unto him again, and says:

?Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.
This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man which
[1] is preferred before me:
[2] for he was before me.?

John 1:29?30

The relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist is clear when the two verses are put side by side when in almost identical words, they are saying the same thing. The first aspect is authority and power, and the second aspect is time. Jesus was pre:

John 1:15	John 1:30
?He that comes after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.?	?After me comes a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.?

Two different things are specified by John?s usage of ?before me.? Clearly Jesus was ?preferred before? John in status and authority, but He also ?was before? John in time. This is repeated for emphasis.

You Are a Child of God Now!

Jesus was not the only Son of God in the past (Psalm 45:7). Jesus is not the only Son of God now. Jesus was not the sole ?only-begotten? human, but Jesus was ?THE only-begotten Son of God.? YOU are a son (child) of God NOW if you have God?s Spirit within you. Read what the apostle John says what we should be called and who we are:

?See what love the Father has given us, that
we should be called children of God; and so WE ARE. ... Beloved,
WE ARE God's children now;
it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he
[the Son] appears
we shall be like him; for
we shall see him as he is.?

1 John 3:1?2, RSV

Salvation has appeared from God our Savior. ¹⁴ Who will be the one who will appear? Read Titus:

?? that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things. For
the grace of God that brings salvation HAS APPEARED [evpefa,nh] to all men,
...

Looking for that blessed hope, and THE GLORIOUS APPEARING [evpifa,neian]
of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, ...?

Titus 2:10?11, 13?14

The Father will not appear at the coming, but Christ will appear at His Second Coming. He will have the name of the Father appropriated to Him (Isaiah 9:6 where the Messiah is also called ?The mighty God [El]?). That sounds Godlike to me.
Conclusion

Christ is first in two important areas. He is God?s first creation and He is God?s firstborn from the dead:

?Who [THE Son] is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of every creature:
For by [in] him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by [dia, through] him [the Son], and for him: ??

Colossians 1:15?16

Paul is speaking with expansive language as comprehensively as he possibly can. As the firstborn all things were created by the Son ?

in Him (on account of Him).
through Him, and
for Him

?And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: [He] who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the
preeminence [be first].

Colossians 1:17?18

He is before all things
All things consist in Him
All things come after Him
NOTE: He is firstborn of every creature (verse 15), just as
He is firstborn from the dead (verse 18)

[/INDENT]

Does the firstborn from the dead have preeminence in rank? Yes. Does He also have preeminence in time? Yes. ?He is before all things.? All things consist in Him. All things come after Him. He is the firstborn of every creature (in verse 15) and He is the firstborn from the dead. You will be part of those next born from the dead.

1 Some object to the non-biblical term ?incarnation? referring to Jesus. True, it is non-biblical but it refers exclusively to Jesus and the noun is derived from the Latin incarnātus, past participle of incarnāre which means ?to make flesh? (American Heritage Dictionary, 3^rd ed., 1992). This non-biblical term accurately describes the concept that the Word ?was made flesh? (John 1:14).
2 That is how it is in the Greek with two definite articles. I put [the] in brackets to indicate the definite article is in the Greek.
3 This verse is talking about spirit-filled human beings who are now Sons of God.
4 The words in parentheses are generally, and correctly, considered to be John?s commentary on the event.
5 The definite article is there, meaning ?the all? in Greek.
6 In my lecture I wrongly stated Jesus saw Satan during the temptation (see Matthew 4:1?11; Mark 1:12?13; and Luke 4:1?13). However, Jesus did see Satan fall from heaven:[BOX]?And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, ?Lord, even the devils
are subject unto us through your name.? And he said unto them, ?I beheld
Satan as lightning fall from heaven.??

Luke 10:17?18

[/BOX2]
7 Note the verse:

?In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also YHWH sitting upon a throne,
high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. ?
Then said I, ?Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean
lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes
have seen the King, YHWH of hosts.??

Isaiah 6:1, 5

8 I should have emphasized this point more strongly and more often: in the Old Testament humans are never called Elohim except by comparison.
9 See Dr. Martin?s Chapter 2, from his book The Essentials of New Testament Doctrine, ?The Law Was Given by Angels? at http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess004.htm, which explains who this ?angel of the Lord? was in terms of power and authority.
10 In the extended passage of Zechariah chapters 12, 13, and 14 the phrase ?house of David? actually refers to the Tomb of David. See ?The Location and Future Discovery of King David?s Tomb? at http://www.askelm.com/temple/t061001.htm for the evidence.
11 Eon has an indefinite but limited duration. Among several works that explain this teaching (and which Dr. Martin taught for decades as part of the biblical teaching of universal reconciliation) is the work by Dr. Heleen Keizer, Life Time Entirety (Univ. of Amsterdam, 1999). This was Dr. Keizer?s dissertation. She is a leading scholar on the Greek works of Philo Judaeus and Professor at the University of Milan, Italy. She was the first scholar to use the ?Thesaurus Lingua Graeca? to examine and analyze every instance of eon in Greek literature, 800 B.C.E. to 600 C.E. Her conclusion: Eon never meant eternity until theology inserted that meaning into the word in late antiquity. Later the Gnostic Christians made eon into the title of a being, a god.
See also the articles by Dr. Ernest Martin and C. Gary Reid ?The Time Periods of Salvation, Part 1? at http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d041101.htm, Part 2 is at http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d041201.htm and the third article in the series ?The Doctrine of the Ages in the Bible? by Dr. Martin alone at http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d050101.htm. See also the book Time and Eternity: A Biblical Study by G.T. Stevenson at http://tentmaker.org/books/time/index.html.
12 See the internet article ?10 Claims in the Bible on the Deity of Christ? at www.crossandthrone.com/2006/07/28/10-claims-in-the-bible-on-the-deity-of-christ.
13 The Greek of Philippians 2:7 actually means ?emptied Himself.? This is vastly superior to the King James rendering ?of no reputation.?
14 John 1:12?13:

?But as many as received him [the Word], to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which
were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God.?

Continue on Part 1 of Part 3

**Ou Sanna** · 26 May 2009, 14:38

Elohim and the Son of God - Unique Son of God among other sons of God

Elohim and the Son of God Part 3

In this portion I emphasize that Jesus was unique in all ways. He was a unique Son of God among other sons of God (just as we who believe, are sons and daughters of God, John 1:12). He was also the unique Son of Man among other sons of men. Jesus states that He ?saw? God the Father but that could only have taken place before His incarnation. ² I will show that Jesus was present (not in a figurative or spiritual way but existentially) at the time of the exodus from Egypt and in the wilderness. I explain that human beings can only be called Elohim in the Old Testament when they are delegated to that office and title by God the Father, but they are not Elohim naturally. Legally at present we are children of God, we are considered Elohim, and will be our final state when we have attained to our intended glorious state in the resurrection. Then I discuss the concept of eternity and that it does not really exist in Scripture. I will show that Jesus accepted worship and that clearly He existed before He ?was made flesh? (John 1:14). Finally I will show that, like Christ, you are a child of God, now.

One God Conference Q & A:

Below is the transcript of the Questions and Answers session of the ?One God Conference,? June 9, 2007, that contains valuable material. Words in ?[brackets]? are my clarifications after the event. Listen to the Audio ?Q & A Audio? while you read:

MP3 Audio Track for Part 3: (9MB)

Questioner 1: What I perceive to be internal problems or contradictions that at least seem to be when you went through your presentation. I do not know if you meant them to be, but I will tell you about them. You stated that Elohim never called God ?Father.? And you say that the Sons of God are not angels, but are these Elohim. Is that right?

SIELAFF: Repeat that?

Questioner 1: You stated that the Elohim never called God ?Father,? but the Sons of God are not angels but Elohim. That doesn?t seem to work because ...

SIELAFF: Angels are Elohim. Sons of God are Elohim, [both are] of the class Elohim.

Questioner 1: Okay, but you also did say that they don?t call God ?Father? and Sons seem to explicitly state that they should call someone Father.

SIELAFF: They [angels] might lie and take that appellation, but they do not have a right to call Him their Father, and He will not acknowledge them as their being sons.³

Questioner 1: Furthermore, if Jesus is an Elohim as I believe is your conclusion, according to that He can?t call God Father, which He does repeatedly

SIELAFF: Yes, He can. As a Son of God. The Sons of God can call God ?Father.? They had the title Son.

Questioner 1: I am just stating that in your presentation you said Elohim don?t call God ?Father.? Okay. Then that was my fault.

SIELAFF: I may have misspoken; I would not be surprised.

Questioner 1: That is why I am trying to let you know. Maybe you could sharpen it up a little. You also say that humans are never called Elohim, and then you presented a verse in which Moses, a human, was called Elohim and you mention some transfer of authority but the verse didn?t explicitly say a transfer of authority, God plainly called him Elohim. God also calls Abraham Elohim, and the New Testament clearly states that Jesus is a man, yet you say humans are never called Elohim.

SIELAFF: Jesus is definitely a man.

Questioner 1: It seems then that you suffer from a variation of a trinitarian dual nature problem.

SIELAFF: I don?t know about that, but ...

Questioner 1: He is either an Elohim or a man. If He is an Elohim and Elohim are never called men, then He?s not a man. If He?s a man then He?s not an Elohim.

SIELAFF: He [Jesus] is totally unique. Absolutely. There is only one image [of God]. There is only one Word [of God], There is only one Mediator. There is only one ?only begotten Son of God.?⁴

Questioner 1: Right. It seems you stated that the people of the time would have understood as you presented, what the claim to be Son of God meant in your presentation, but it seems that you are assuming a lot about that worldview of those people. You say they knew it, yet the Sadducees didn?t even believe in angels, much less what you presented here.

SIELAFF: The Sadducees were a minority and you have it from Josephus and Philo, you also have what people believed, you do have it in the Dead Sea Scrolls about the Sons of God were considered angels. You also have the Sons of God are translated as angels [in the Septuagint].

Questioner 1: Right, which is my next point ...

SIELAFF: That is why they [the Jews of the time] went wrong and you also have Hebrews correcting ? it is making a trajectory correction of ? the way everybody was understanding angels in relationship to God.

Questioner 1: I am not sure it is but as you did state the Septuagint regularly replaces Elohim when God is not being spoken of with aggelos [angels in Greek]. Don?t you think this was how the Jews of the time understood their own language, and how could we just overturn their own language saying we know better?

SIELAFF: I?m not. I am saying that they ...

Questioner 1: You are saying that it was wrong?

SIELAFF: The Greek Old Testament is not their original language. It is not the Hebrew.

Questioner 1: No, but the Hebrew is, and they understood aggelos, messenger, angel ...

SIELAFF: Right, they got confused as are most ...

Questioner 1: That is all I wanted to point out. So you are saying they did not know how to translate?

SIELAFF: They did the best they could, and they were wrong. Otherwise Hebrews would not have corrected them.

Questioner 1: It seems that you?re missing a cultural context of the time period of the New Testament. One example, ?Son of Man? in the Old Testament is used very infrequently, [but] often in Ezekiel when God speaks to him, when God speaks to the judgment figure in Daniel, and again in Daniel to the Son of Man walking in the fire. However, in the intervening time period up until the New Testament the phrase ?Son of Man?⁵ takes on an entirely different meaning in that culture, mostly due to other Jewish writings of which we believe to be non-canonical.

However, it still impacted the culture, the thinking, the literature, the people. In light of this would it not be better to find out what ?Son of God? means in the context of Jesus in the New Testament before you impart such a work upon Him. John 1:49 is pretty plain, ?Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.? It seems to be pretty clearly equating ?Son of God,? ?King of Israel,? David, Solomon, men. It seems pretty clear to me.

SIELAFF: David?s greater Son. Absolutely.

Questioner 1: Yeah, but a man nonetheless.

SIELAFF: Yes, that is how He is termed. But He was in the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not have sinful flesh.⁶[/URL]

NEXT Questioner 2: What I would say a very simple syllogism. You said that men are not Elohim, correct?

SIELAFF: If they are then what was the objection to Jesus calling Himself the Son of God? ⁷ What is the big deal?

Questioner 2: You said that Jesus was an Elohim, correct?

SIELAFF: Yes.

Questioner 2: Then by definition Jesus cannot be a man, correct?

SIELAFF: He is a man because Scripture calls Him one.

Questioner 2: It is very simple logic. If is an Elohim, and a man cannot be an Elohim, then Jesus is not a man. There are a couple verses of Scripture that we now have to look at in light of that because if you say Jesus is not a man, which is what you are saying, then ...

SIELAFF: I?m not saying that.

Questioner 2: Quoting 1 John 4:2?3:

?Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesses
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.?

1 John 4:2?3

So if He is not a man, then you are speaking of the spirit of antichrist?

SIELAFF: He is a man.

Questioner 2: Secondly, if He is a man, then we are breaking the Shema and we are worshipping something other than the Father.

SIELAFF: Do you acknowledge that there were other gods?

Questioner 2: Yes, I will. There are indeed Titans that, if you will. I should have prefaced that. I think you did a good job of presenting that. I don?t think that you can say that Jesus was one of those. I don?t think you did a good job. Let me put it this way. If you did do a good job in doing that, then you are speaking from the prospect of [the book of] 1 John. And if you didn?t do a good job of doing it, well, you didn?t establish that He is one of these Elohim.

SIELAFF: He is one of them but He did not participate in what went on in Genesis 6.⁸ He did not participate. There is no evidence He participated and He is not judged or anything else. He is above that.

Questioner 2: He is an Elohim?

SIELAFF: Sure He is.

Questioner 2: [garbled]

SIELAFF: You are. You have the Spirit of God within you. What does Elohim mean?

Questioner 2: [garbled]

SIELAFF: When you are resurrected you will be Elohim. You will still be a man. Jesus Christ in His resurrected state, He is still a man. Is He a God now?

Questioner 2: You?re waffling.

SIELAFF: An Elohim? Now you are waffling in a sense.

Questioner 2: No I am not.

SIELAFF: In a sense that Moses was God. He [Jesus now] has all the rule and authority in heaven and in earth that has been given to Him.⁹ He has not exercised it yet.

Questioner 2: ... very straightforward logic [garbled]

SIELAFF: Scripture labels Him both ways. That is not my problem.

Questioner 2: Your problem is answering 1 John.

SIELAFF: He came in the flesh.

Questioner 2: No, He didn?t if He was an Elohim [garbled]

SIELAFF: No. You are creating a distinction that it is either man or god, small ?g.? Small ?g? can be included within man because everyone who has the Spirit of God is engendered with the sperma of God.¹⁰

Questioner 2: Then we are gods?

SIELAFF: Not yet. In the resurrection you will be like a god. You will be on the same status as these other Sons of God, which were able to approach the throne. You will approach the throne of God. ¹¹ You are a little lower than the Elohim now. That is what the original verse meant in the Psalms [Hebrew, Elohim in Psalm 8:5 cf., Hebrews 2:7?9], but the specific application was to Christ Himself.

Next Questioner 3: David I have a question. At the beginning of your presentation you, at least from my perspective tied Jesus Christ and Psalm 82:8. You link those two things.

SIELAFF: Right.

Questioner 3: The trouble that I generally have, and I?ve done the dispensationalist route, is that we can often tie prophecy that is yet unfulfilled, to be fulfilled. It certainly is my impression then, Psalm 82:8 is talking about the Messiah. But the question I have in relation to where we are at right now in this time line, it is very clear to me from 2 Corinthians 4:4 that there is another Elohim then, is in control of the earth.¹²

SIELAFF: Yes. I would agree that Satan is an Elohim with a very minor power, controlled by God. That is made clear by Job.¹³

Questioner 3: I think Jesus Christ Himself when He was here as man recognized that and acknowledged that.

SIELAFF: Yes. He is the theos [Greek] of this world [that] Paul talks about.

Questioner 3: Given that, how can we say with great authority that the Messiah through the beginning of your presentation that Psalm 82:8 in our time line right now is referring to Christ rather than the god of this age.

SIELAFF: Because all power and authority has been given to Him, but He has not exercised it, and will not begin to exercise it until ? He has it resident within Him. Why does it apply to Him?

OTHER Questioner 3: No, no. [garbled]

SIELAFF: At His Second Coming that will begin with our resurrection, as we begin to participate. God delegates. His first delegation was through Christ to create everything else. He was the prime contractor. I am sure that many people in the room here do not like that, but that is how I read it.

Questioner 3: You are attributing future things to present time. I do not think we can do that. There is much prophecy yet unfulfilled.

SIELAFF: Yes.

Questioner 3: The Kingdom is not yet on earth, therefore the attributes that we need to apply to those yet unfulfilled prophecies, we cannot do that right now. That is the trouble I have with that part of your presentation.

SIELAFF: I used to think that Psalm 82:8 referred to the Father taking back control of all the nations, and then He apparently delegated that to Satan and to the angelics.

OTHER Questioner 3: [unintelligible comment]

SIELAFF: Absolutely. But I read Psalm 82:8 now, actually recently, is that He delegated it to Elohim, which I see as the Son, because it takes about the power and the authority, and the allotment and the inheritance which He took from them [the Sons of Elim] and gave to somebody else. That has to be Christ because He now possesses all power and authority, not yet exercised.

NEXT Questioner 4: Thanks for the time you put into this, even by your slides alone I can see that you have worked hard on this. Let me just make sure I understand what you are saying. Elohim is never used for man?

SIELAFF: We can argue about some of those supposed instances, there is a passage in Genesis¹⁴ in which it seems from the King James Version as if it is talking about ?take it to the judges.? The Jews take it that way in their commentaries. So do most Christian commentators because they do not want to deal with Psalm 82:8. I guarantee it. It is only the technical scholars who want to, because it causes all sorts of problems. Especially the Jews do not want to because there are other Elohim out there and it will violate the Shema. But it does not because the Shema talks about YHWH. It is not talking about that YHWH is the only Elohim. That is absurd because in the next verses [from Deuteronomy 6:4?5] it talks about other Elohim.

Questioner 4: I was just taking that point from one of your slides in particular because my question and it hopefully ...

SIELAFF: I did not have time to get into those instances ...

Questioner 4: Right. Well in Psalm 82 you would say that it is not talking about men, it is not talking about the judges of Israel and something like that. My question in light of John 10:34?35:

?Jesus answered them, ?Is it not written in your law [Psalm 82:6], I said, You are gods???

John 10:34

My question is,
?If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken. ...??

John 10:35

... I would understand that as the Word of God in the sense of the Law being given ...

SIELAFF: Came to the Jews. ¹⁵

Questioner 4: ... to the Jews. So calling gods, these same individuals to ?whom the Word of God came,? so I was wondering how you would understand that.

SIELAFF: The Greek word there is nomos, which just means ?law? in the Greek. There is nothing unusual about it, nothing specific. It is the application that Christ applies on there, to Himself. He applies that to Himself as the result.

If Psalm 82 refers to human judges, then what is the argument about? What are they [the Jews] upset about? There is no reason to be upset. The Jews today have to consider Psalm 82 as referring to human judges. They have no choice because of John [chapter] 10. They open themselves up to [the argument of] John 10.

Questioner 4: So that could be ...

SIELAFF: Human judges do not have to be told they will die like men. They do not have to be told they will fall like the princes.

Questioner 4: I think it is obvious that men will die, but I think a lot of times people may forget that, you know what I mean, that they?re not going to be judged, that they are going to be able to rule for ever. In light of that, would you say that these Sons of God, from your perspective, were immortal until these sins specifically from Psalm 82, and so He tells them ?you will die like men??

SIELAFF: I would say probably. They were not immortal in eternity past. They were created. But for all intents and purposes, they maybe ate manna. I don?t know what manna is, but it feeds and nourishes somebody, and apparently it is the angelics. Whether there is something equivalent in the tree of life, I do not know.¹⁶

Questioner 4: Okay, so had they not ...

SIELAFF: There is a tree of life in the New Jerusalem, we know that.

Questioner 4: Had they not sinned, they would not have died? Perhaps?

SIELAFF: Right. I would say. I do not know.

Questioner 4: If Jesus is the Son of God, according to this perspective, the Son of God, how does the cross relate to that in light of His death. I?ll let you go on.

SIELAFF: In conjunction with the Father He gave up His life at the tree of crucifixion, a term I prefer, but He is the only one (I hesitate to say this because I do not have a verse) who was important enough and sinless and righteous in order to work salvation for everybody and everything.

NEXT Questioner 5: Just a quick question that these two gentlemen brought up, and I just wanted to ask. Your belief on the nature of Christ. He was fully man?

SIELAFF: Yes.

Questioner 5: But He was also an Elohim?

SIELAFF: Yes.

Questioner 5: So it is possible for a man to be Elohim?

SIELAFF: In Christ, as Christ was, yes.

Questioner 5: That is all to make the logic complete.

SIELAFF: But He still came in the flesh.

Questioner 5: If He was Elohim He could never be man. There was one at least.

SIELAFF: Yes, He is absolutely unique.

NEXT Questioner 6: David, that was very thorough, exhaustively prepared, and well presented. Thank you.

SIELAFF: Thank you for enduring it.

Questioner 6: There is a lot there. It is challenging and very thought provoking. My question is, some of these concepts echo things that I hear about associated with some of the beliefs that are categorized as Gnosticism. I was wondering if you could take a little time, if it can be done in a short time, to elaborate as to what, if anything, is reflected in Gnosticism that might be accurate in your view, and how did they may have distorted some of it. Is that a fair question?

SIELAFF: It would be like asking me about Mormonism. I am not that familiar with it. Gnosticism has to do with dreams and visions in my understanding and it is actually quite useless, any type of form, of any of that stuff. We will see tomorrow¹⁷ that was how the Temple [location] was lost and probably the Tomb of David too, because of Christians, Muslims, and Jews having dreams and visions that overcame the truth of the location of certain things. The same with spiritual matters. It is just a useless endeavor.

Gnosticism I believe was developed essentially from Simon Magus who was a Samaritan and it is the Babylonian religion.¹⁸ Details of [Gnostic] doctrines, I am not really that interested in them.

NEXT Questioner 7: Thank you for coming in a roomful of people.

SIELAFF: Now leave ... [laughter]

Questioner 7: Thank you for coming in a room full of people that disagree with you and being able to handle your cool. It is a virtue that not everyone has, and it is a good example to all of us. I had six questions ...

SIELAFF: That?s fine with me, we have time.

Questioner 7: I?m not going to ask six questions because I?m also thinking that there is a break coming up soon and I am looking forward to that, so I will just ask you a couple of questions.
The statement where it says, ?Never is a human called Elohim? which you made, I just wanted to bring to light Exodus 22:8?9.¹⁹[/URL] Maybe it is a verse you have not come across in your studies of Elohim, but it is where the judges are specifically called Elohim. Maybe you have come across it, in the NASB and most modern translations it does not say ?Elohim,? it says ?judges.? Likewise with Exodus 21:6, and of course Exodus 7:1 which you brought up. So there would be three specific instances that at least the translators would say, these are judges. I know it is Elohim but we are translating it judges here.

Another point and then you can respond to it.

SIELAFF: Take it to Elohim, it is saying, which would be those priests and whatever procedure was set up earlier in that book to take care of this matter.

Questioner 7: That would be the Exodus 21:6. Exodus 22:8?9 is a little bit of a different scenario. I would suggest. You mention Hebrews 1:5 as a critical text to understanding that the Sons of God are not angels.

SIELAFF: Right.

Questioner 7: But at the same time you did mention that it?s always important to get the Old Testament pericope and have that straight in mind before we apply a New Testament quotation. And in Hebrews 1:5, the two quotes as you know are from 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2:7. In both of those pericopes there is clear messianic language and implication of a human descendant who would be the Davidic king. So the pericope in those cases would be the angels are not that Messiah. It is not necessarily making a categorical statement about no Elohim are allowed to call God their Father. Obviously if He created everything. He is the Father.²⁰

SIELAFF: No.

Questioner 7: But rather to the specific reference to the Messiah, if you take it to the pericope.

SIELAFF: Christ would not be the Father.

Questioner 7: Right.

SIELAFF: In any case. Now we have got to understand, from our point of view as we look toward the Father, the only one we see is Christ. When we hear the Father, whether it is through the written word, we only get that through Christ. Everything that we relate to the Father has to go through the prism, if you will, of Christ. There is just no other way. He is the sole Mediator. That obviously makes Him unique. When God looks at us, and He sees and looks at us through Christ, what does He see? He sees a man. When we look at God through Christ, what do we see? We see God. But He [Christ] is unique, and to put a label on that, and I do not blame you, I do not think that is fair because Scripture does not explain it. I see those verses and to me it is quite clear that He is Elohim.

Questioner 7: Yeah, I agree, that Jesus is Elohim.

SIELAFF: And He is obviously in flesh.

Questioner 7: Yeah.

SIELAFF: He is a man, because Scripture calls Him a man. I do not have to solve that problem.

Questioner 7: I think my point is that the definition that you have for Elohim is a substance-oriented definition. You are trying to say that Elohim is a superior nonhuman substance, whereas it is clear from the Exodus verses, Exodus [chapters] 7, 21 and 22, and Psalm 82 if you take it that way, that Elohim is an authority word that is applied to men who represent God, so that the judges represent God and that is why they can be called Elohim, not because they are actual spirit beings.
One last thing and then I will give this precious microphone to the next questioner, interrogator. You mentioned that the Sons of God in Genesis [chapter] 6 are not angels, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude, which of course, I would think is a difficult line of reasoning because all commentators would disagree with you there. ...

SIELAFF: I know.

Questioner 7: ... but your reasoning for that was that it?s talking about fornication in 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude, and yet in Genesis 6 it is talking about marriage. I would submit that fornication does not necessarily mean sex between non-married people, but just illicit or forbidden sex. So for example gay marriage would be fornication. It would be marriage but between, in a sexual activity in an unlawful way. So if angels and humans are having sex, married or not, it is fornication either way. That would be my response to that.

SIELAFF: God makes the definition of ?wife? not us. Likewise marriage. God defines marriage, not what I want.

NEXT Questioner 8: [unintelligible]

SIELAFF: That is not marriage according to God. Another aspect is the Sons of God, the Sons of Elim were not punished in Psalm 82 for what they did in Genesis 6, which I found, when that hit me, I found it incredible to accept for a long time. The results of Genesis 6 were just horrendous and terrible. It contributed to the flood although obviously the evil of mankind, they were all individually and collectively responsible. But there is no punishment for the Sons of God for marrying the women that they did.

Remember Christ said that as in the days of Noah so shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man. When you talk about the days of Noah, and Christ refers to marrying and giving in marriage, what type of marriage is mentioned in Genesis 6. That is the only place that marriage is mentioned before the flood in regard to [a way] that would attract the reader?s attention.

Ken Westby, Moderator of the Conference: One last question.

NEXT Questioner 9: First I would really like to commend you for really giving us a full-bodied model hypothesis and that?s exactly how you work in the sciences and in the world of ideas. All too often people come with some statements that can neither be proved or disproved. So with this full-bodied, full risky model you do stand a chance of being refuted, of course.

But nevertheless, you have said so much and put so much out there, I hope it is available for us to read and look at the web. It is hard to digest everything in this quick period here. It will give us a lot to chew on. I have just a couple of little things that I thought might be interesting.
You do not want to slight all of the literature of the Pseudepigrapha, the Apocrypha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the vast oral Torah of the Jews, and so on. There are things, for example, I just ran into the other day, in Wisdom of the Apocrypha, has a whole section where it defines the Sons of God or a Son of God as those who keep the Law, the Torah. So [that is] a Son of God in the thinking, at least of that time.

Another interesting thing I ran into recently Symachus calls Bar Kochba, whom they thought was a Messiah a monogenes [Greek, ?only-begotten?]. You have to deal with that, the ?only-begotten,? what does that mean? Another one interesting thing, even as late as the Koran. I am no expert on this but it is often said that in the Semitic world plurality might have a little different meaning to it than it does to us today. For example, in the Koran God, it is the most austere monotheism you can imagine, yet God always speaks in the plural.

SIELAFF: And He has Jinn [genies, spirits] around Him.

Questioner 9: He says ?We? always, and ?us.? You have probably have done a great deal of thinking about that and have an answer for everything, but nevertheless it is okay to come up with a model of understanding that nobody has ever had in the history of the world, because that is how science is. But ...

SIELAFF: I could have reiterated and put out what Dr. [Ernest] Martin put out in his books, but I am looking to go in addition to what has done. His material is available and I am proud to be associated with it, but I do not mean because I did not quote and cite him ... The whole idea of Hebrews 1:5 that angels are not the Sons of God, I have not seen that anywhere else, but to me it seemed so dumb obvious that once I understood it, when he [Dr. Martin] came out with that in 1985 or 86 or 87.

Questioner 9: I don?t want to belabor it but I appreciate the talk.

Ken Westby: Thanks a lot David for that work. ... That was stimulating, was it not? I appreciate it, and the good spirit here. We are not trying to beat up on people. We are trying to learn. The best way to learn is to stretch your mind. Every time I pick up one of these commentaries (that is what I read for entertainment), you get all these opinions from this person, from that person, and a lot of good stuff, and then some stuff you really disagree with. Isn?t that kind of like-life?

It was previously published as a Commentary at http://www.askelm.com/news/n071018.pdf.
Some object to the nonbiblical term ?incarnation? referring to Jesus. True, it is nonbiblical but it refers exclusively to Jesus and the noun is derived from the Latin incarnatus, past participle of incarnare which means ?to make flesh? (American Heritage Dictionary, 3^rd ed., 1992). This nonbiblical term accurately describes the concept that the Word ?was made flesh? (John 1:14).
Clarification: Sons of Elohim are certainly sons of God the Father. However, angels are never called sons (Hebrews 1:5). Angels are not Sons of God. Sons of God are not angels. However, both angels and Sons of God are of the class of beings that the Old Testament calls ?Elohim.?
Being unique, Jesus was a Son of God, an Elohim before His incarnation and a man during His incarnation.
He may have meant ?Son of Man.?
Consider Romans 8:3: ?For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.?
In John 10:34?36.
Nor did Jesus participate in the punishment meted out to the Sons of Elim in Psalm 82:6?7. He was, however, the Elohim who received the allotment in Psalm 82:8.
Regarding Christ?s present authority, see Psalm 110:1, 6; Matthew 28:18; John 5:22?27; Acts 17:31; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 1:20?23; 1 Peter 3:22.
1 John 3:9: ?Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed [Greek, sperma] remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.?
Legally you are seated ?in Christ Jesus,? with Him at the right hand of God the Father, at the present moment (Ephesians 2:6).
He is referring to 2 Corinthians 4:4, speaking of Satan: ?In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.?
However, Satan is not a Son of God.
The actual verse I was referring to was Exodus 21:6: ?Then his master shall bring him unto the judges [Hebrew, ?the Elohim?]; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.?
I was agreeing with the Questioner that most commentators of Psalm 82 consider the unjust judges to be human beings.
About manna, see Exodus 16:15, 31, 33, 35; Numbers 11:6f, 9; Deuteronomy 8:3, 16; Joshua 5:12; Nehemiah 9:20; Psalm 78:24; John 6:31, 49, 58; Hebrews 9:4; and Revelation 2:17.
I was invited and gave a presentation the next day about the correct location of the Temples in Jerusalem and about the Tomb of King David of Israel.
It is the Babylonian religion with a biblical gloss and veneer.
The verse in question, Exodus 22:8?9: ?If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges [Elohim], to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challenges to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges [Elohim]; and whom the judges [Elohim] shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.?
The specific point I made in my presentation, and that Hebrews 1:5 makes, is that God does not call them, the angels, by the term ?sons? at any time, either individually or as a class.

**Die Ou Man** · 26 May 2009, 14:39

History and Tradition in Early Israel

Ek plaas die inleiding tot die Boek soos weergegee op die agterblad daarvan.

History and Tradition in Early Israel offers a reconstruction of Israelite tradition based upon a new master paradigm. It is build upon the opservation that El and Yahweh were different gods, belonging to two religions and venerated by two peoples living in different regions of Palestine (Israel and Judah).

The northern tribes were originally called Jacob after their Aramean patriarch. They worshipped the high god El and took him as their namesake deity with their adoption of the corporate name, Israel ("El rules"). Their neighbors to the south were Hebrews who worshipped the Bedouin war god Yahweh Sabaoth who inhabited the desert regions of Edom, Midian and Sinai.

The distictiveness of the two groups was purposely obscured by various mechanisms intended to unite them under a new collective identity. Based upon this understanding of the socio-religious components of ancient Israel, History an Tradition in Early Israel offers a lucid survey of the history and traditions of Israel's early period (c. 1380 - 1000BCE).

Announcement

Elohim and the Son of God

Elohim and the Son of God

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment