Reconsidering Christophanic Possibilities in the Hebrew Scriptures

Posted by expedition44 on February 19, 2026

Angel of YHWH, Theophany, and Divine Council Motifs within an Ancient Near Eastern Context

Introduction

The question of whether the pre-incarnate Christ may be discerned within Israel’s Scriptures has occupied interpreters from the patristic period to the present. Classical Christian theology affirmed that the Son participates in divine self-revelation prior to the incarnation (cf. John 1:1–18; Col 1:15–17), while modern historical-critical approaches have urged caution against retrojecting later doctrinal developments onto earlier texts. The task, therefore, is not to force an anachronistic Christology onto the Hebrew Bible, but to ask whether its textual and theological patterns provide conceptual space for such a reading within a canonical and intertextual framework.

This study proposes that a constellation of phenomena—especially the figure of the malʾakh YHWH (“Angel of YHWH”), embodied theophanies, and divine council imagery—generated a conceptual grammar within Israelite religion that later Jewish and early Christian interpreters could develop into more explicit mediatorial or Logos-theologies. This is not advanced as a historical-critical certainty that “Jesus is explicitly present” in the Old Testament, but as a theologically and textually plausible reading grounded in the layered development of Scripture and its reception.

The Angel of YHWH and the Problem of Divine Agency

The figure designated as מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה (malʾakh YHWH) presents a persistent exegetical puzzle. While the term malʾakh ordinarily denotes a messenger, a number of passages collapse the distinction between messenger and sender in ways that exceed normal ANE emissary conventions.

In Genesis 16:7–13, the Angel of YHWH speaks to Hagar and is subsequently identified as YHWH himself: “So she called the name of YHWH who spoke to her, ‘You are El-roi.’”¹ The narrative neither corrects nor qualifies this identification. Similarly, in Exodus 3:2–6, the narrative begins with the Angel of YHWH appearing in the bush but quickly shifts to YHWH speaking directly, with Moses instructed to remove his sandals before the divine presence.²

Scholars have described this phenomenon as a form of “hypostatic agency”, in which the agent embodies the authority and presence of the sender.³ Yet, as Benjamin Sommer has argued, Israel’s theology also permitted a more fluid conception of divine embodiment, in which “God could be present in multiple bodies or forms simultaneously without compromising divine unity.”⁴

Within an ANE framework, royal emissaries could speak in the voice of the king; however, the biblical texts frequently intensify this pattern by attributing worship, divine titles, and covenantal authority directly to the Angel. As Margaret Barker notes, “the Great Angel traditions of Israel present a figure who is both distinct from and identified with YHWH.”⁵ This ambiguity creates a conceptual tension that later Jewish and Christian theology sought to articulate more precisely.

Theophany and Embodied Divine Presence

Closely related to the Angel of YHWH are theophanic narratives in which YHWH appears in visible, localized, and at times anthropomorphic form. Genesis 18 depicts YHWH appearing to Abraham as one among three visitors, yet speaking with singular divine authority.⁶ Exodus 24:9–11 describes Moses and the elders seeing “the God of Israel,” while Exodus 33:20 insists that no one may see God and live. Such tensions suggest differentiated modes of divine visibility rather than contradiction.

The Hebrew concept of כָּבוֹד (kābôd, “glory”) often denotes this visible manifestation. The Septuagint renders this as δόξα (doxa), a term later applied christologically in John 1:14. As Richard Bauckham observes, the New Testament’s claim that Jesus reveals the divine glory is not an innovation ex nihilo but a development rooted in Israel’s traditions of visible divine presence.⁷

From a Second Temple perspective, such manifestations were increasingly conceptualized through intermediary categories. Philo of Alexandria, for instance, describes the Logos as the “image of God” and mediator of divine revelation.⁸ While Philo’s framework is Hellenistic, it demonstrates that Jewish thought of the period could accommodate distinctions within divine manifestation without abandoning monotheism.

Divine Council Motifs and Plurality within Divine Identity

The Hebrew Bible contains a number of passages that reflect a divine council worldview. Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make humanity in our image”), Psalm 82 (“God stands in the council of El”), and 1 Kings 22:19 all depict YHWH in the midst of a heavenly assembly.

Such imagery parallels ANE conceptions of a high god presiding over a council of lesser divine beings, yet Israelite texts reconfigure this structure within a strict monotheistic framework. Mark S. Smith notes that Israelite religion exhibits “a monotheistic theology articulated through the language of an earlier polytheistic cultural matrix.”⁹

Within Second Temple Judaism, this conceptual framework expanded into discussions of exalted mediatorial figures—Wisdom (Prov 8), the Memra of the Targums, and angelic vice-regents such as Metatron. Alan Segal’s seminal study Two Powers in Heaven demonstrates that some strands of early Judaism entertained a “principal angelic figure who bore the divine name and exercised divine authority.”¹⁰

Early Christian Christology emerged within this environment. Larry Hurtado argues that devotion to Jesus as Kyrios represents “a mutation within Jewish monotheism,” rather than a departure from it.¹¹ The identification of Jesus with the divine name and functions attributed to YHWH suggests that early Christians interpreted him within these pre-existing categories of divine mediation.

Linguistic Considerations: Hebrew and Greek

The linguistic texture of the biblical text reinforces these theological dynamics. In Exodus 23:20–23, YHWH promises to send an angel “in whom is my Name.” The Hebrew phrase שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ (šĕmî bĕqirbô) implies not merely delegated authority but a sharing in divine identity.¹²

The Septuagint’s translation of YHWH as κύριος (kyrios) provided the linguistic bridge by which early Christians could confess Jesus as Lord while drawing directly on Israel’s Scriptures. As Bauckham argues, the application of kyrios to Jesus places him “within the unique identity of the one God of Israel.”¹³

Similarly, the New Testament’s use of λόγος (logos) in John 1 reflects both Jewish Wisdom traditions and Hellenistic philosophical vocabulary. James Dunn notes that the Logos Christology of John should be understood as “a re-expression of earlier Jewish ways of speaking about God’s self-expression in creation and revelation.”¹⁴

Patristic Reception: Early Christian Readings of Old Testament Theophanies

The early Church Fathers frequently interpreted Old Testament theophanies as manifestations of the pre-incarnate Christ. Justin Martyr argued that “the Word of God… appeared to Moses and to the other prophets in the form of fire and of an angel.”¹⁵ Irenaeus likewise maintained that “the Son, being present with his own handiwork from the beginning, revealed the Father to all.”¹⁶

These readings were not mere allegorical impositions but attempts to reconcile the scriptural witness to an unseen Father with narratives in which God is seen and heard. The Son, as Logos, became the mediating presence through whom God was encountered.

Modern scholarship may question the historical-critical validity of these interpretations, yet they testify to how early Christian communities—closer in time and culture to the biblical texts—understood the patterns of divine manifestation within Israel’s Scriptures.

Hermeneutical Synthesis

A responsible approach must hold together multiple interpretive layers:

First, the historical-critical layer situates each text within its ANE context and Israelite theology. Second, the Second Temple interpretive layer demonstrates how these texts were reread within Jewish traditions of divine mediation. Third, the early Christian layer reads these traditions christologically in light of the resurrection.

Rather than collapsing these perspectives into a single claim, a layered hermeneutic allows for both historical integrity and theological continuity. The Old Testament need not explicitly articulate Nicene Christology in order to provide the conceptual resources from which it later emerged.

Conclusion

The Angel of YHWH, theophanic manifestations, and divine council imagery together form a constellation of motifs that complicate any overly rigid conception of divine singularity in Israel’s Scriptures. While these texts do not explicitly identify Jesus of Nazareth, they generate a theological and linguistic framework in which early Christians plausibly discerned the presence of the pre-incarnate Logos.

To read these passages christologically is therefore not to impose a foreign structure upon them, but to participate in an interpretive trajectory already present within Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. Yet such readings must be offered with appropriate humility, recognizing the distinction between theological interpretation and historical demonstration.

Footnotes

Gen 16:13.
Exod 3:2–6.
John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 114–18.
Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 12–18.
Margaret Barker, The Great Angel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 23.
Gen 18:1–3.
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 239–45.
Philo, On Dreams 1.215.
Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 32.
Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 159–81.
Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 98–110.
Exod 23:21.
Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 182–87.
James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 213.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 60.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.20.7.

Bibliography

Primary Sources and Ancient Texts

The Hebrew Bible / Old Testament (BHS; BHQ editions)
Septuagint (LXX). Edited by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart.
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. Translated by Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich.
The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Michael W. Holmes.
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho.
Philo of Alexandria. On the Creation; Allegorical Interpretation.
Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews.
Targum Onkelos and Targum Neofiti (for Memra traditions)
Ugaritic Texts (KTU 1.1–1.6 Baal Cycle)

Old Testament Theology and ANE Context

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Walton, John H., and J. Harvey Walton. The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.
Walton, John H. The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2017.
Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.
Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002.

Divine Council and Heavenly Mediators

Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015.
Heiser, Michael S. Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host. Bellingham: Lexham, 2018.
Parker, Simon B. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1997.
Cook, John J. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Mach, Michael. Angels in Early Judaism. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992.

Angel of YHWH and Theophany Studies

Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Meier, John P. “Angel of the Lord.” Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:248–53.
Haggai, Mazor. “The Messenger of YHWH.” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013): 1–16.
Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985.
Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.
Kugel, James L. The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible. New York: Free Press, 2003.

Second Temple Judaism and Intermediary Figures

Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin. Jesus Monotheism Volume 1. Eugene: Cascade, 2015.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.
Orlov, Andrei. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
Collins, John J. Apocalyptic Imagination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.

New Testament Christology and Divine Identity

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Hurtado, Larry W. One God, One Lord. London: T&T Clark, 1988.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
Bird, Michael F. Jesus the Eternal Son. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.
McGrath, James F. The Only True God. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

Logos Theology and Jewish Wisdom Traditions

Philo of Alexandria. On Dreams; On the Confusion of Tongues.
Winston, David. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1985.
Boyarin, Daniel. The Jewish Gospels. New York: New Press, 2012.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making, esp. Wisdom Christology sections.
Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

Patristic and Early Christian Interpretation

Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies.
Tertullian. Against Praxeas.
Origen. On First Principles.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation.
Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Hebrew and Greek Linguistic Resources

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB).
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. HALOT.
Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT).
Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT).

Hermeneutics and Method

Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003–2009.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016.
Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God. New York: HarperOne, 2013.

Balanced / Critical Voices (for methodological caution)

Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.
Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge, 2009.
Kugel, James L. How to Read the Bible. New York: Free Press, 2007.
McGrath, James F. The Only True God. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

“Love Beyond Cards and Candy: A Biblical and Socio-Rhetorical Reflection on Valentine’s Day”

Posted by expedition44 on February 15, 2026

Every February 14 many Christians and non-Christians alike pause to celebrate love—often through candy, flowers, heart-shaped cards, and candlelight dinners. But beneath the commercial veneer lies a rich tapestry of history, cultural adaptation, and theological meaning that invites careful reflection for the church—one rooted not simply in sentiment, but in Scripture and the long witness of Christian faith.

1. The Historical Palimpsest of Valentine’s Day

Some scholars would identify at least three such figures known in martyrologies, with one tradition holding that a Roman priest named Valentine in the third century defied an imperial edict against Christian marriage to marry couples in secret—a testament to his defense of Christian marriage and pastoral courage.

By the fifth and sixth centuries, February 14 was established in the liturgical calendar as the feast of St. Valentine, though the medieval church did not associate this date with romantic love until much later. In time, festivals of courtly love and poetic traditions such as Chaucer’s Parliament of Fowls would fold romantic symbolism into the date long after its ecclesiastical origins ended.

It is essential sociologically to recognize that Valentine’s Day—as celebrated today—is a layered cultural artifact: part hagiographic remembrance, part medieval romance, part commercialized modern ritual. None of these layers originate in biblical revelation, yet all reflect ways humans seek to articulate love within their cultural context.

2. Scripture and the Semantics of Love

Most people are aware that the Bible does not mention Valentine’s Day; nowhere is it regarded as a holy day per se. Its absence places the observance in the category of Christian freedom described in Romans 14:5–6, where Paul writes that believers may regard certain days differently, and whether one observes them or not, it should be “in honor of the Lord.”

What Scripture does offer is a rich, nuanced theology of love. In biblical Greek there are multiple terms for love—agapé (self-giving, covenantal love), philia (brotherly affection), eros (romantic desire, depicted especially in Song of Songs), and storge (familial love). While eros itself does not appear in the New Testament theological lexicon, the Song of Songs—a book of the Hebrew Bible—celebrates sensual and relational love within the covenant of marriage.

The apostle Paul’s famous discourse in 1 Corinthians 13 reframes love as a moral and spiritual virtue defined not by transient feeling but by patient covenantal commitment, self-giving service, and endurance. Jesus Himself states the core of the law: to love God with all one’s heart and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:30–31).

This emphasis locates the core of biblical discourse not in romantic expression alone, but in covenantal fidelity, sacrificial love, and the self-giving love revealed supremely in Christ’s death and resurrection.

3. Early Church and the Appropriation of Culture

From a socio-rhetorical perspective, the early church was adept at incarnating its message within existing cultural frameworks without compromising its core message. The apostle Paul became “all things to all people” to win some to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:22).

Christian appropriation of certain dates or customs has always been contested. The church’s decision to commemorate saints and martyrs on specific feast days was not intended to canonize secular customs, but to sanctify memory in ways that pointed beyond worldly spectacle to Christ’s kingship and the communion of saints.

In this light, Valentine’s Day can serve as a cultural locus for Christians to articulate biblical love — not simply by embracing its commercial trappings uncritically, nor by rejecting all contact with culture out of fear of syncretism, but by discerning how Christ’s love reshapes human practices. As Paul counsels, “Test everything; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

4. Theological Reframing: Love as Witness

Rather than delegating Valentine’s Day to either celebration or avoidance, Christians can use the occasion as an invitation to reflect on biblical love as witness—not only within marriage, but within the body of Christ and the broader world.

A socio-rhetorical reading invites us to see Valentine’s Day less as an externally mandated Christian feast and more as a rhetorical opportunity—a moment when society’s focus on love can be redirected toward the love that God enacts in Christ. Such love is measured not by roses and chocolates, but by the sacrificial gift of Christ and the mutual love of believers that testifies to His presence (John 13:35).

Conclusion: Love in Context

Valentine’s Day is not inherently Christian because it emerged from early church commemoration or medieval romantic tradition. Nor is it inherently pagan because of its layered history. It is imperatively a moment for Christians to practice discernment, to ask how the gospel reframes the season of love, and to embody sacrificial, covenantal love in ways that reflect God’s love for the world.

As we remember St. Valentine—a figure united by courage and fidelity to Christ—and reflect on the biblical narrative of love from Genesis to Revelation, may our practice of love be shaped by agapé above all else, rooted in Scripture and enacted in service.

Discussion Questions

How does an awareness of the historical development of Valentine’s Day influence (or not) how we celebrate love as Christians?
In what ways does the biblical concept of agapé challenge modern expressions of romantic love?
How can Christians use cultural observances like Valentine’s Day as platforms for gospel witness without syncretizing their faith?
What does Song of Songs teach us about the place of romantic love within God’s broader design for relationships?
How might Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 apply to disagreements within the church over celebrating Valentine’s Day?

Bibliography

Armstrong Institute. “Valentine’s Day—in the Hebrew Bible?” (ArmstrongInstitute.org)
BibleInspire.com. “Valentine’s Day Biblical Meaning: What Christians Need to Know.”
“Valentine’s Day.” Wikipedia (overview of historical development).
Song of Songs. Wikipedia (literary and canonical context).

Faithful Exegesis – Teaching a better Hermeneutic

Posted by expedition44 on November 9, 2024

Wait what? All that in the one word? -I don’t think so!

Just about every day I scroll through a “BIBLE” meme on Facebook that makes me cringe. I used to comment but I no longer do largely because I think sometimes people don’t interpret the comments as useful, or teaching better theology but as some kind of self-promotion, or “I think I am better than you” type of thing. I think that is unfortunate. I believe part of shepherding and discipleship is a Mars Hill or rabbinical teaching method of being open to constantly learning and working through a better understanding of the test with the giftings of those around you. To keep each other Biblically sharp and accountable to be faithful to the text. Letting people get really loose with the text has led to alot of bad theology and ditch diving. I believe the Bible greatly encouraged textual exploration together within the body. That is what the body of Christ is supposed to do. I have 40 years of deeply studying the Bible under my belt and God has gifted me with a certain learned spiritual intuition of exegesis. I hope it comes as a gift to those that have a learning posture towards the scripture. To those more interested in fighting or finger pointing, or making internet dumpster fires, I am not interested.

THE MEME:

At first glance this probably looks pretty neat. It’s challenging, it looks at the original language rather than an English glossed translation, it comes off as going deeper. So, what’s the problem? Well, it isn’t faithful.

A faithful translation means you let the text speak for the text. You don’t read your own desire into the text. This commonly referred to as good exegesis.

In this case, here are some issues:

One word? Sort of. The text is Genesis 3:9. Start by typing that into a browser followed by the word interlinear. The first link will be the Bible Hub, click it. The word is ’ay·yek·kāh and you will see the [are] is in parentheses. It technically isn’t in the text but linguistically it is- but it is understood such as an understood “YOU” in English. Click the word and you are going to find there is only one occurrence of this “word” or conjunction of words in the Bible. This is called a Hapax Legomenon. The basic hermeneutical law or idea of any Hapax Legomenon is because it is rare don’t read too much into it. See if you can find how it is used outside of the Bible to give you a better understanding of how the text uses it. But in this case, it isn’t a “TRUE” Hapax Legomenon in the sense that if you click the root word above which is Strong’s 335 you will see the root is “ay” in Hebrew which occurs 36 times in the Old Testament. We have a pretty good idea of what it means! There are some words or phrases in the Bible where we don’t even have the root anywhere else and that is a better example of a Hapax Legomenon, but they are both technically considered Hapax Legomenon’s. This one we can see essentially means “where or how” which makes sense in the English translation “where are you?” I would encourage you to read the usage and cultural notes below the word. These are theologically very basic and at times arguable, but still give you a better start. In this case it notes that the word can come with distress or lament. Seems true to this text! It also notes that this particular word is often noted of spiritual locations within the cosmos. Again, true to the text. Most of the time these notes don’t get too controversial and are written by well noted scholars. This is sort of important because there are other similar words in Hebrew that could have been used without a sometimes-spiritual emphasis. We see this importance in Deuteronomy 32 when the text asks “Where are there gods.” It is also used in 1 Samuel 9:18 in regard to the SEER. It is used in 2 Samuel 15:2 in regard to the city which is interesting and could be signified as one of the reasons I believe in ancient times cities were gatherings of fallen spiritual beings and people aligned to their ways and rival to Yahweh. In Job 2 it is used to ask where “the satan” came from. The problem is (as you can see to the column on the right of all the verses using this Hebrew root) there are at least a few texts that don’t seem to take on “spiritual spatial” significance, it just means where? So that tells us we can’t read too much into a sense of cosmic space every time we see the word used. Hermeneutically it may or may not have spiritual bearing. Therefore, we have to determine from the rest of the text whether it does or not. In other words, we don’t have the “RIGHT” to attribute a spiritual significance to the simple text “where” unless something in the rest of the text gives it to us for certain. If the text doesn’t grant it, then we have to determine if we the ability to say it could go that way, but we don’t know for sure. It may or may not have spiritual spatial implications. In this text we already know they are in Eden, so the context gives us the sacred space.

To say that it is one word is accurate (I would have said the same thing), but it’s a bit complicated as in Hebrew bits of different words form one word. This is actually really helpful in determining what one word can mean because we can break the word up and study the microcosm of it. In this case you would think all the things the author of that post says the word means would be great if the word could have been textually broken up that way. The problem in this case is it doesn’t say all those things. We get “where” which (as we already noted) may or likely implies a spiritual search-find. You could take away from the text exegetically that God is “searching us out” or “looking for us” or perhaps even noting that the space is spiritual as I already alluded to. All of those things could be good exegesis. That is what the text gives us. Next, we have the understood {ARE}. We don’t really get anything magical from that. Then we have “you” essentially as formed into the singular word. There is really not much to exegete there either. He is talking to a certain person. DO we have the right to insert our name here? Well, the genre of this text is a historical narrative. Simply telling the story. So no, we don’t really have the right to insert our name. Because God was seeking out Adam in the garden doesn’t give us the textual ability to say He searches us out the same. He may or may not, but the text doesn’t give us that warrant. So here you see the author of the meme breaking some huge theological and hermeneutical laws. He takes a text that isn’t about him and tries to make it about him or us. This is called reading into the text. Using the Bible to twist it into saying what you want it to say without the merit of the text giving you that. Now could it mean that later God will act the same towards you? Yeah, later the text may do that but here it doesn’t. However, if you read the text doing that for others in the story over and over and over you might come to an ontological conclusion that if there are 26 examples of God acting this way in the narrative, we have then maybe he acts this way towards me too! (But to be clear, the text still wouldn’t give us that for certain.) Sometimes people take a lot of latitude to say the scripture means something that the text never gave or intended to give. That seems to be the case here. It simply isn’t good theology or maybe even theology at all. It is saying the Bible says something in a text that doesn’t say that.
“God’s first words after the fall” – We don’t know this either. The Bible doesn’t give us the full account. There may have been other words. Perhaps these are the first words in the Bible after the fall. But making the statement that the author makes in the way that he does isn’t true. Does this seem nitpicky? Maybe but there is a difference, and it matters in biblical interpretation and textual criticism.
This is classic for someone trying to make a doctrine or in the authors words, “a whole theology” over something the text doesn’t say. The text says nothing of the lost. Was Adam lost? We aren’t told that he was. Was he asking for a confession. Later scripture tells us that when we sin, we need to confess, but that isn’t in the text here. What about restoration and redemption? Well, everyone knows God wants restoration and redemption, right? But this text doesn’t go here either. Are you following me? There are texts that talk about redemption and restoration but not this one. In fact, maybe the opposite. This text leads to exile from the garden, that is the opposite of restoration. So what it does tell us is exile may come before restorative acts. That could be a more faithful takeaway than what the author of the meme comes up with. The author improperly says the text means something that isn’t given to us. It is as if the author is trying to write his own Bible and proof text the word to say what he wants it to say. The real problem is that we are saying the word says something that it isn’t. Maybe other places say that, but a better hermeneutic is to only exegete what the text says. Don’t add or fill in anything. There is no context for the takeaways the author asserts over the text.

CONCLUSION

A Faithful reading of the text means we only take away what the text gives us. We can’t read anything else into it. I can’t tell you how many times in a sermon I hear a pastor say “the Bible says this” and goes on to quote a verse that doesn’t say anything close to what the pastor says it said. In many cases we have become all too comfortable with accepting things like this, and it has led to a lot of bad consequences. It seems there are so many people are using the Bible for their own gain saying what they want it to ay and that is unfaithful to the text.

NOTE; The Bible Hub is free, easily accessible and works well. LOGOS is better but is $$$.

Dr. Will Ryan

King David and Donald Trump? Maybe more than you realize, but that’s not good for anyone!

Posted by expedition44 on November 8, 2024

If you haven’t read this article on King David, Start here.

There is a lot about this popular 2024 post-election MEME that doesn’t sit well with me.

DAVID AS A PURE HEARTED PERSON

To be clear, I do think David had a heart postured after the Lord in his youth before he became king. I LOVE young David and the writings of his heart. They are some of my favorite parts of the Bible and have motivated me to be more holy than likely any other texts in the Bible. I do believe he was one that God intended to use to return all of Israel and eventually the world to be reconciled back to Yahweh. David seemed to have a heart postured towards the Lord in his early days, but the power, the lust, the flesh and the pride of life not only led him way, but likely all of Israel away from the LORD. David was “chosen” by God to be His tool to bring redemption back but accomplished the opposite.

He became the anti-hero of the world’s doing rather than the hero that God intended him to be.

As I have made the statement previously, I do not feel that a faithful reading of the Hebrew in 1 Sam 13:14 says that “David had a heart after God’s own heart” per the usual interpretation. John Walton convinced me that the expression doesn’t describe the inclination of the king but describes the sovereign choice of God. The claim is not that David pursues the heart of God as a spiritually mature person rather than pursuing his own ends; instead, David is the man that God has pursued with his own criteria in mind rather than Saul, who was someone who met the criteria of the people. It is a statement about God’s sovereignty, not about David’s spirituality or piety. John Walton has alluded then that it is therefore not something that we can aspire to in our own lives, and I would agree. Eventually David becomes the very image of Israel, fallen and completely idolatrous. To most theologians he is the Biblical archetype of the one who was intended by God to bring Israel back to Yahweh yet accomplished the exact opposite and led Israel away from God towards utter sinfulness and idolatry giving weight to the powers and principalities that had overtaken the rest of the ancient world at that time.

WAS DAVID REPENTANT?

David, when confronted with sin does sometimes seem authentically repentant (Psalm 51; 2 Sam 12:13-20), but then often continues to go on sinning. That isn’t the fruit of a truly repentant heart. In most cases if someone committed murder and said they repented but then goes on to do it again, I think we would come to the conclusion they didn’t genuinely repent when they said they did. Which seems actually worse; to put on a show of repentance (in the name of the LORD) but not really have a heart of repentance. It’s just an act.

DAVID AS A WARLORD

Scholars debate whether David’s destructive actions represent justice or unnecessary power mongerering. Did he feel “commissioned by God” in his somewhat empirical pursuit that started with Canaan or did this become a push for personal power and fame? Some argue David was playing the part of God’s hand of retributive justice, others criticize David for excessive continual violence opposite to that which God had sanctioned. Either way, much of it seemed contrary to God’s ways. Some try to justify the actions saying it was simply the culture, but I don’t see that theologically, as it seemed quite contrary to the character of God and what He had given them in the law. It seems David was doing what David wanted, not what Yahweh wanted. David’s kingship paints a picture of a powerful warlord who engaged in much bloodshed to establish and maintain control of the kingdom of Israel.

Here is a snapshot of those David personally killed or had killed:

Goliath 1 Samuel 17:49-51
Goliaths Brothers. David chose five smooth stones because Goliath had four brothers based on 2 Samuel 21:15–22. That passage lists four very large Philistines who were related to Goliath in some way: Ishbi-benob, Saph, Goliath, and an unnamed giant with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. “These four were born to the giant in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Samuel 21:22).
When David heard the news about Saul and Jonathan’s deaths from an Amalekite messenger, he had the man executed (2 Samuel 1:1-16).
Baanah and Rechab presented Ish-Bosheth’s head to David hoping for a reward. However, David ordered them killed.
After becoming king, David executed seven of Saul’s sons. (2 Samuel 21:1-14)

THE WAR MONGERER

There are some tell tale signs of David’s movement away from God, this will surprise many, but David had served as a mercenary soldier for the Philistine king of Gath (see 1 Samuel 27:2-4), it took seven years of fighting for David (who had been anointed King of Judah) to defeat Saul’s son Ishbosheth and establish the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah in c.1004 BC (see 2 Samuel 2:8-11, 3:1-39 & 4:1-12). David quickly consolidated his position by capturing the Canaanite city of Jebus (Jerusalem) and establishes his new capital there, the City of David (2 Samuel 5:6-10). Having agreed on an alliance with the Phoenician king of Tyre (see 2 Samuel 5:11), David was able to turn against his former patrons, the Philistines, and defeat them in the Valley of Rephaim (see 2 Samuel 5:17-2). Over the next few years, David succeeded in completely subjugating the Philistines and taking control of the southern coastal plain cities of Gaza, Gath, Ashkelon, Ashdod and Ekron (see 2 Samuel 8:1). Any red flags yet?

As I mention earlier, David’s son, Solomon, seemed to follow closely in David’s ways (or be used by him) and was able to complete the downfall of the Philistines by negotiating a dynastic marriage with the Egyptian pharaoh Haremheb’s daughter in c.970BC (see 1 Kings 3:1) and taking on the role of Egypt’s former ally. By building a chariot city at Gezer to defend the trading route from Egypt to Syria and Mesopotamia he was able to secure the support and protection of Egypt – one of the ‘superpowers’ of his day (see 1 Kings 10.26-27). Any other red flags?

Meanwhile, David had turned his attention to the northern frontier, and in an amazing series of military campaigns beyond the River Jordan, succeeded in defeating the people of Moab, the Arameans of Damascus, the Syrian King of Zobah, and the Edomites in the Valley of Salt (near the Dead Sea) (2 Samuel 8:1-14). In just under thirty years, David had succeeded in transforming a small kingdom in the central highlands of Judaea into a major empire stretching from the border of Egypt to the lowlands of Mesopotamia. In the process did he trade God’s kingdom for a personal pursuit of power and fame?

As you can see, this is a lot of bloodshed. 30 years of continual bloodshed. There is a good deal of deceit and lies between rulers and intermarriage. Idolatry was rampant. He named a city after himself and countless other things that seem to point back qualities that are rival to Yahweh, not in alignment with God but rather self serving initiatives.

THE RAPE OF BATHSHEEBA

Well into this bloodbath we read the story of Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11:1-27 during the siege of Rabbah (Amman) in c.997BC. I have made the statement a few times that I wouldn’t leave my kids alone in the same room with the “David of latter life” and this story is one of the reasons why. By 2 Samuel 5 God seems to still be with him, but within a few short chapters (2 Samuel 12) the LORD was not pleased with David because of his sin and neglect for God’s holiness and sends the prophet Nathan to confront him. You may have never considered the whole “Bathsheba problem.” As we examine the details, we see that it is actually sexual abuse of power, in other words, rape. Neither the text nor the context supports the conclusion that it was an affair between two consenting adults. People who think Bathsheba seduced David by bathing outside his window may not realize the Hebrew verb rachats, used for Bathsheba’s action here (2 Samuel 11:2), literally means “wash” which is how it is translated elsewhere in this narrative (2 Sam. 11:8; 12:20). There is no reason to assume that Bathsheba was naked, or that she was aware that the king, who should have been with his army, would have been watching from his rooftop like a peeping Tom (2 Sam. 11:1-2). This “kingly” act was common in other cultures where evil ran rampant. It was a fatal sign that David was leading Israel to be more like the fallen pagan-evil nations around them than the “set apart under Yahweh nation” that was called to be holy unto the LORD. It was detestable to the LORD at many different levels.

David’s rape-adultery and murder is described biblically as “despising the word of God by doing what is evil,” and “total contempt for the Lord,” (2 Samuel 12:7-9). David’s rape-adultery, murder, and abuse of power was not rewarded by God with more power. It actually resulted in many consequences such as division and violence in his family and those he was leading. Also, it resulted in a child dying, and his denial to build the temple. God is no longer with him.

THE CONSEQUENCE OF SIN

The consequences of David’s sin are lasting and far-reaching. From Rape and incest with Amnon and Tamar, to the murder of Amnon by Absalom for the rape of his sister, the war among the Israelites leading to David fleeing Jerusalem in shame for fear of his life from his own son. We watch the downward spiral as eventually David is part of an illegitimate census that seemingly stirs the anger of the Lord against the Israelites and seventy thousand Israelites die from a pestilence allowed (and perhaps caused) by the LORD. David was a violent man in a violent world, a polygamist, an adulterer, and a murderer. There just isn’t any way to avoid seeing that if we read and believe the Bible. The progression in David’s sin reveals a callousing of his heart.

It has always seemed strange to me that the mainstream church doesn’t want to read the text as it is both plainly and deeply read here. It is as if they are covering him up and putting him on a pedestal. This is in part why the modern evangelical church has trust issues. Doing this seems so contrary to the character of God – attempting to cover up continued evil acts and promote David into something that God approves of. That isn’t the intention of the text nor a faithful rendering of it.

GOD’S FAVOR AND SPIRIT LEFT DAVID AND ISRAEL

As in the wilderness the cloud signified the Spirit of the Lord coming and going, we see that after Israel went on a bloodthirsty empirical pursuit led by King David, the spirit of the LORD is no longer with them which Nathan warned. One way to see this is to harmonize the Psalms. A theologically daunting task is to figure out when David wrote the Psalms. When you do this and carefully read them, I will challenge you to discover that after the encounter with Bathsheba the Lord was no longer with him, or perhaps looking onto him with favor. There are times we read from David’s perspective of crying out to the Lord, but it comes from a sort of tone of a drunk alcoholic asking why their friends have left them, which is likely exactly what it is. David wrote 73 of the 150 Psalms in the Bible, and carefully studying the ones he wrote and the dating of them will help you see what I propose in terms of his downward spiral taking Israel down with him in terms of a spiritual nation.

HARMONIZING THE PSALMS & HERMENEUTICS

After the death of Absolom if you harmonize the scriptural narrative (2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 1 Chronicles) with the Psalms this is what we find. Remember a great part of theology is in determining the narrative. What are the voices? What is simply the story given for our interpretation and where is God in it. What do we read as being the thoughts of the characters involved, verses how God may have viewed the ongoings. That is as much for our interpretation as the red letters are, but the red letters are decisively clearer. Too many people read the entire Bible as a “thus saith the Lord” statement rather than understanding the literary narrative as it is presented. Not understanding the voices in the text has led many towards poor theology. It is vital for literary scholarship to apply literary criticism and textures of interpretative law to the narratives of the Bible for faithful reading.

2Sam 21 Famine and Gibeonites → Ps 29, 65
Last war with Philistines → Ps 36
2Sam 22 Song of deliverance → Ps 18, 144
2Sam 24 David dedicates Temple → Ps 30, 33, 131 (32)
1Kings 1 Solomon anointed King → Ps 47
1Chr 28 David‘s address → Ps 145
Concerning building Temple → Ps 104, 133, 86
1Chr 29 David‘s Thanksgiving Prayer → Ps 72
2Sam 23 David‘s last words → Ps 37 (138)

If you care to dive in deeper, Don Stewart and Blue Letter Bible have a rather deep post on this here. As I don’t agree with BLB on several topics, I do respect their mission and believe they are doing good things. I think what they have given us here is a worthy tool.

Again, I will challenge you to read the narrative. Where is God in it? He isn’t there any longer. The spirit has left the encampment.

Coming back to the meme…

We are not called to celebrate or try to “be like David” or even celebrate those who act like him, we are called to be like Jesus. And yes, Jesus works through fallen people but usually the ones on the road to transparent sanctification, not the ones that continue to live in sin. David’s story is a man who started out well and did not end well. He still carried a warring and vengeful spirit into the grave. From His kingship to death, we have a person that possibly had a chance to do more for God than any other person yet failed miserably accomplishing the near opposite leading Israel into idolatry that would give way to a return to slavery in exile. On his death bed he asked Solomon to kill Shimei, who confronted David on his bloodshed and abuse of power. (1 King 2:9, 2 Sam 16:8).

If you are making illusions that President trump resembles King David, well you might be right; but you’re actually making a statement more for Trump being far removed from God than you are that He is aligned with God. I hope that is not the case. My heart is that Trump as president is aligned with God not “rival” to Him as we see David was.

However, this isn’t all negative. I like the way the Bible project frame’s the early life of David. Jesus saw his role as Israel’s messiah was to patiently wait for God to exalt him as king, just like David waited. He anticipated persecution from his own people would come, just as it did for David. The stories about David provided the template of Jesus’ messianic vocation, and they epitomized the upside-down value system of God’s kingdom that Jesus was always talking about. It’s a kingdom where the poor and persecuted are the most exalted, and the powerless are God’s chosen ones (go and re-read the famous beatitudes in Matthew 5:1-7 and think about them in light of the story of David). When Jesus read the stories of David, it wasn’t to learn interesting facts about Israel’s history. Like the prophets, Jesus read His Bible as a prophetic history that was pointing towards the future hope of the messianic Kingdom of God. These stories about David were designed to foster that very hope, in Jesus’ day, and in our own.

But there was also a double meaning as Jesus often implied with such amazing rabbinical tact, there was a contranym within the narrative. David led Israel away from God and Jesus would lead the entire world back to God. It was the anti-hero next to the real hero. Luckily, we don’t need to make David into something he wasn’t a lifelong great pillar of faith – we have Jesus. David’s story and writings still gives us a great deal to glean from. Keep your eyes focused on Him and learn what you can from the rest of the story! The world wanted another Warlord David type to overthrow Rome, but instead they got a lamb to the slaughter. This is Jesus!

Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Matt Mouzakis.