Elohim is the name by which God is most commonly called in the Old Testamant. The Hebrew word elohim is also used in other contexts, including the description of the heavenly hosts and man in Psalm 82:1 and 6.

As Christians, we often use the plural name of God, Elohim, as a mysterious proof of the Trinity. And this may be so. However, elohim is the same word that is used when referring to royalty and leaders in the ancient Near East. This means that Genesis 1:26, “Then Elohim said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…’” can be a reference to the Trinity, and it could just as simply be a reference to the heavenly hosts or royalty of heaven. To make man in the image of Elohim would be to make man to resemble heavenly royalty and leadership, in contrast to mere earthly creations, such as the animals.

The latter definition is further confirmed by other ancient Near Eastern writings. ”…the ruler of Mesopotamia and Egypt was described as the image or likeness of a god. In Mesopotamia we find the following salutations: ‘The father of my lord the king is the very image of Bel (salam bel) and the king, my lord, is the very image of Bel’; ‘The king, lord of the lands, is the image of Shamash’; ‘O king of the inhabited world, you are the image of Marduk.’ In Egypt the same concept is expressed through the name Tutankhamen (Tut-ankh-amun), which means ‘the living image of (the god) Amun,’ and in the designation of Thutmose IV is ‘the likeness of Re’” (JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, 12).   

Although there is no biblical reason to doubt the existence of the Trinity, there is no definite proof that the plural name of God, which is used in the Old Testament, is a reference to the Trinity. After all, if we were to use a more literal translation of Psalm 82:1 and 6, we would read, “Elohim presides in the great (divine) assembly; he gives judgment among the “elohim” (divine beings)…I said, ‘You are “elohim”; you are all sons of the Most High.’”

God saw fit to create human beings (Heb. adam) in the image of royalty, to be placed in charge of the earth and all of its inhabitants as stewards. As elohim, it is our responsibility, privilege, duty, and honor to imitate the Elohim above all elohim.

In His dust,

Johnny

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

TIME magazine recently published an article titled “Ten Ideas That Are Changing The World.” In that article, the tenth idea is “Re-Judaizing Jesus.” This is what Marvin R. Wilson calls the Hebraic Wave.

Many scholars, professors, pastors, and even Sunday school teachers are beginning to see the desperate need for Christians to recognize the Jewishness of Jesus. In the TIME magazine article, New Testament scholar Amy-Jill Levine is quoted to say, “If you get the [Jewish] context wrong, you will certainly get Jesus wrong.”

In a previous article I wrote, “I believe that going back into the history of first-century Palestine will help the church deliver a clearer message and erase centuries of misunderstandings… As long as we rely on the intellectual Western mindset rather than the practical wisdom of the Eastern mind we face the danger of misinterpretation. As more research is done, and more study of first-century Jewish culture is undertaken, we are learning that the influence of Greek thought has sometimes clouded, or even twisted, the Christian message.”

Reading the ancient Jewish thoughts on the Tanakh (what Christians call the Old Testament) opens new windows into the world of Jesus. When those Jewish and Hebraic perspectives are absent, much is lost in the way of understanding the depth of the Scriptures.

Let’s look at one passage from the Jewish perspective, which will at least give us a clearer view of the text. Genesis 6:2 has always been a passage that is surrounded by mystery and many opinions. Usually, the sons of God and the daughters of men are thought to be angels (or angelic beings) and women (your average female variety of the human species). Or they are thought to be the men of God (the faithful) and the pagan women (those who didn’t follow God).

Now, let’s look at this passage from the ancient Jewish view from the 12th-century Jewish rabbi, physician, and philosopher, Moses Maimonides, also known as Rambam. According to Maimonides, the Jewish word adam has many meanings. Among them is the name of the first man who is created from adamah (earth), ”mankind” (which includes females), “the multitude,” or “lower-classes” (bene adam), which is in contrast to the high or distinguished classes (bene ish).

“It is in this third signification that it occurs in the verses, ‘The sons of the higher order (Elohim) saw the daughters of the lower order (adam)’” (Moses Maimonides the guide for the perplexed, 25). Here Maimonides couples the passage with Psalm 82, where people are referred to as “‘gods’; sons of the Most High.” By using scripture to confirm scripture, and with this Jewish understanding, it is very likely that the writer of Genesis interpreted the sons of God and the daughters of men to be the children of God and the pagans of the world.

Although there is much to be valued in non-Jewish biblical commentaries, I am in agreement with Professor Levine, and would have to say that if you get the Jewish context wrong, you will surely be missing out on the depth of biblical truths.

In His dust,

Johnny

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

“…as if humility, chastity, poverty, in a word holiness, had not done incalculably more harm to life hitherto, than any sort of horror or vice…As long as the priest, the professional denier, calumniator and poisoner of life, is considered as the highest kind of man, there can be no answer to the question, what is truth? Truth has already been turned topsy-turvy, when the conscious advocate of nonentity and of denial passes as the representative of ‘truth’” (Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, 10).

Is holiness the denial of pleasure?

To an archaic monastic individual, maybe so. But I would argue that there are many falsehoods inserted into post-Roman Christianity, which have led to the incensed attitude of such people as Nietzsche.

It was not Jesus, the one who turned water into wine, hung out with prostitutes, and partied with sinners who told us that sex is sinful, alcohol is a Devil’s brew, and Christians should not hang out with sinners. Indeed, Jesus would tell us that alcohol in moderation is advisable, sex within marriage is the God-way, and the ungodly should take a great deal of our personal time. And none of these are offensive to God. He made all of them, and even the most vile human is His child.

If drinking wine and hanging out with drunks and hookers makes a person a sinner, then Jesus died for his own sins.

Holiness is a life that is pleasing to God in accordance with His will. Denial of pleasure is not the gateway to holiness, but to self-righteousness. I would agree with Abraham Cohen that holiness is apartness from everything that defiles. Unfortunately, the people of God often feel that it is their responsibility to define that which is offensive to God based on what is culturally offensive to them.

We may be awed and satisfied by our own opinions of holiness, but it is God’s vocabulary that truly defines what it is to be “set apart.” And God’s Word is filled with that definition.

“If God is alive, then the Bible is His voice. No other work is as worthy of being considered a manifestation of His will. There is no other mirror in the world where His will and spiritual guidance is unmistakably reflected” (Abraham Joshua Heschel, God In Search of Man, 245).

If holiness is the act of pleasing God, then, for the Christian, a life of holiness is that of obeying Jesus’ commands, which are encapsulated in Matthew 25:31-46. It is not the outward and personal appearance of personal piety that is most pleasing, but the outward service to others that brings true pleasure to Christ.

In His dust,
Johnny

Check out Too Godly for God for further support of this article.

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

One of my favorite movies is “City Slickers.” Billy Krystal’s character is so funny, and he really knows how to play up the whole mid-life-crisis behavior. In the movie, he is having his thirty-ninth birthday, and he is having a few regrets about how his life has turned out.

Life is really short. Can that be understated? I don’t think so. My oldest son just turned eighteen, and I am almost thirty-nine.

(A side note)Tell me if any of you have experienced this: It seems that the older I get the younger old people look. Yikes!

None of us want to waste our lives. We want to have meaning, and leave something behind that proved that we made some contribution to better the world before we left.

Among Aesop’s fables is the story of “The Miser.” I will quote the story form Brad H. Young’s writings in his book, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation.

“A miser sold all his property and bought a mass of gold, which he buried in a secret place to which he made frequent visits of inspection. Someone who had noticed his coming and going found the treasure and carried it off, and when the miser returned and discovered his loss he wailed and tore his hair in a frenzy of grief. Someone who saw him agonizing, after learning the cause, said to him, ‘Don’t grieve, my friend, just take a stone and bury it in the same place and think of it as gold in a vault. Even when the gold was there you made no use of it.’”

We all waste so much of what God has given us. Too many of us hide our best talents, and present only our average gifts to the world, while the best of what we are and have is often shielded for fear that it will be wasted or taken. As many have stated, even shyness is a form of pride and self-preservation; it is the fear of not presenting one’s self, gifts, or talents as perfect. Hording our treasures is not a benefit to anyone including ourselves.

In a recent study at a University, of which I can’t remember the exact school, college students were asked if they think they would be happier spending money on themselves or buying something for someone else. The great majority said that they would be happier if they could buy something for themselves. The students were then given a sum of money, ranging from five to twenty dollars. Half of the students were instructed to spend the money on themselves, and the other half were told to buy something for someone else. At the next class, the students who spent the money on themselves were not any happier than they were before they received the money. Those who used the money to buy something for someone else were considerably happier than they were before they received the money.

If I had it all to do over, would I change some things? ABSOLUTELY! But, as Lucile Ball has been quoted to say, “I would rather regret the things I have done than the things I have not.”

I want to share more with the world, and spend less time and treasures on me.

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved