Freelance Theology » Bible (Old Testament)

Divination in the Old Testament

Jon the freelance theologian — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:04:37 +0000

Question 152, from Roger H, United Kingdom

Does ‘divination’ in Leviticus chapter19, verse 26 mean ‘Water divining’ or ‘Dousing’?

The Hebrew text makes no distinction about the means of divination – it just says ‘You shall not divine.’ The means by which you divine the future appears to be immaterial. The word used – ‘na-khash’ – can mean to ‘observe omens’ or ‘tell fortunes’. It can also be translated as something more mundane as to ‘learn by experience’.

The context of this instruction is a list of magical practices that the Israelites are prohibited from doing, mainly because the practices are linked to Canaanite religion. Leviticus chapter 18 forbids various sexual practices that were common in contemporary fertility cults, while chapters 19 and 20 identify and forbid various other religious practices, including idolatry.

Divination – seeking to know the will of a god – in Old Testament times included reading the entrails of a ritually slaughtered animal, shamanistic trances, attempts to conjure spirits, and various other methods. It seems the ancient Israelites had some divination tools that were sanctioned by Yahweh, for example the ‘Urim and Thummim’ used by the High Priest to determine God’s will.

The Urim and Thummim may have been two stones, one black and the other white, which would be drawn from a pocket by the high priest, or cast on the floor to ‘divine’ an answer to an enquiry made of Yahweh. In Exodus chapter 28, verse 30, Aaron is instructed to wear the Urim and Thummim in a pocket of his ‘ephod’, the garment worn by the high priest, so that the two stones would be carried into the presence of Yahweh and blessed. Once the stones had been carried like this, they were regarded as an authoritative way to determine God’s will.

The banning of divination, except through sanctioned use of the Urim and Thummim, was a way of centralising (and controlling) the worship of Yahweh. As only the levitical priesthood were permitted to enquire of Yahweh, it meant Israelite religion was less likely to continue in small localised cults.

While modern practitioners of ‘water divining’ or ‘dowsing’ maintain they are continuing an ancient tradition, there is no attested source that dates current practices before the 16th century. As such, this particular activity is not mentioned in the Old Testament. However, as a means of discovering information supernaturally, modern-day dowsing has generally been met with distrust by many Christians who regard it as a form of magic.

Cain and Abel may have been twins

Jon the freelance theologian — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:07:06 +0000

Question 151, from George P, USA
Genesis chapter 4, verses 1-2 records the birth of Cain and Abel. I notice there is only one conception but two births. Were they twins?

There is no real tradition in either Judaism or Christianity that Cain and Abel were twins. However, a direct translation of the original Hebrew text would read as follows:

“And the man knew Eve his wife. And she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man of Yahweh.” And she continued [yacaph] to bear his brother Abel.”

The use of the word ‘yacaph’ is interesting as it can also mean ‘to increase’ or ‘to add to’. This usage may support the idea that Cain and Abel were twins, with Abel added to Cain, his older brother almost immediately.

However, it’s worth remembering that after the birth of Abel, the narrative then immediately says that Abel became a shepherd, while Cain tilled the ground. Obviously an unspecified period of time must have elapsed, but this is not stated in the text. There could equally have been an unrecorded time lapse between Cain and Abel being born.

It would also be odd that the twin-ship of Cain and Abel isn’t mentioned, as later in Genesis a great emphasis is put on Esau and Jacob being twins. One of the main themes in the book of Genesis is the inharmonious relationship between brothers – Cain and Abel being just one such pairing. The sons of Noah are separated by Noah’s curse on Ham. Jacob cheated Esau out of his birthright. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, and so on.

Cain is also warned by Yahweh not to let his anger with his brother lead him into sin. After Cain’s crime is discovered he in banished in very similar language to that used to banish his father, Adam, from Eden. Like Adam, Cain is cursed to work for food and to live East of Eden. This story thus highlights an important element of Jewish, and later Christian, theology – that all human beings sin and therefore deserve to live under the curse of Adam.

Those who do not read the book of Genesis literally, see the tale of Cain and Abel as a symbolic explanation for the existence of antisocial crime, and possibly representing hostility between farmers and nomadic herders in prehistoric times.

Finally, although there is no clear reason given why Yahweh favoured Abel’s offering over Cain’s, this story may well have formed the root of the tradition of animal sacrifices in the worship of Yahweh in ancient Israel. While grain offerings were made by the Israelites, these were regarded as inferior to the sacrifice of animals, perhaps because of this ancestral story that indicated Yahweh’s pleasure with Abel’s sacrifice. Among evangelical Christians, the ‘reason’ God favoured Abel is often attributed to Abel’s worshipful attitude, but there is no evidence for this in the text.

The effect of the Flood on human life-spans

Jon the freelance theologian — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:27:00 +0000

Question 124, from SF

The average life-span of people written about in the Old Testament was hundreds of years, yet after the flood life spans dramatically declined. I have heard somewhere that the cause of this is related to a change in the earth’s atmosphere after the flood. Where might I go to find out more on this theory?

The only time average human life-spans are recorded as notably longer is before the story of the great flood. Although there was a much lower life-expectancy in Old Testament times, for the vast majority of the Old Testament, a life-span of 70 years was considered a good age (see, for example Psalm 90, verse 10).

The theory mentioned in the question is often found in creationist literature produced by people who seek to ‘prove’ there is a scientific basis to the stories found in Genesis. Within the creation accounts there is a reference to the waters being divided between the sea and the sky (Genesis chapter 1, verse 6). The theory goes that this layer of water acted as a filter, cutting out harmful solar rays and enabling humans to live longer.

The flood is explained as a sudden collapse of this watery layer, which fell like rain. There is a long tradition, based loosely on references in Genesis, that there was no rain before the flood (see previous article on freelance theology). In 2 Peter chapter 3, verses 5-6, the flood is described as being the result of the waters in the sky returning to earth.

It is however worth noting that the long life-spans referred to in Genesis may be the result of textual problems relating to translating numbers in Hebrew, or the life-spans may have been ‘lengthened’ by the writers of Genesis so the ancestors of the Hebrew nation were accorded greater honour. A recent article on freelance theology addresses this issue in more depth – please click here.

This freelance theology answer doesn’t have a sponsor – yet. To find out how you could sponsor a question, email freelance theology using the button on the sidebar.

Long lives in Genesis

Jon the freelance theologian — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:58:11 +0000

Question 121, from Luci, Canada

Our current system of dates was devised by Dionysus Exiguus in about 525 AD. I know that prior to adopting this ‘modern’ system many western cultures measured time by the reigns of their leaders. Today (as it was in the book of Genesis) days are measured by periods of light and darkness. What I wonder is who decided what an hour was, and who decided a day had 24 hours and the year was 365 days? Is it possible that the people who are marked as being centuries old in Biblical times actually had the same life spans that we do now but the method of measurement was different?

There are basically three different explanations for the long lifespans recorded in Genesis, before the account of Noah and the Flood. The first, adhered to by those who would argue that Genesis is literally true is that they did live those lengths of time. Various theories relating to the state of the world before the Flood are put forward to explain this.

The second explanation is that there has been some kind of counting error. This might be because of confusion over dating, due to time being measured in a variety of ways, or it could be because Hebrew ‘numbers’ are easy to misread and misinterpret (see this previous article). The third explanation is that the long lifespans were invented to imbue a certain kind of semi-mythical ‘hero status’. It has been commented that in many cultures the ‘ancestors’ of a particular people group are described as having lived unfeasibly long lives. For example, Babylonian records claim a succession of ten kings ruled for an incredible combined total of 432,000 years [cited in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, p.143].

In terms of Biblical ‘time’ and ‘dating’, it seems only by Roman times are ‘hours’ used, and then only during daylight, when the ‘day’ was divided into twelve periods. In earlier traditions, a Jewish ‘day’ began at sunrise (see, eg, Leviticus chapter 7, verses 15-17), but once Judaism was established, some time after the period described in Leviticus, the day was considered to start at sunset and end at the following sunset. This explains the description in Genesis chapter 1 of “there was evening, and there was morning” – followed by the number of the day.

This detailed description of a ‘day’ means the ‘days’ in Genesis are actual 24-hour periods when translated literally. However, they are sometimes interpreted as being figurative descriptions of geological eras.

Generally among Biblical scholars it is recognised Genesis contains a number of very old stories, but the book itself, particularly the early chapters seems to have been compiled after the Israelite people returned from Babylon, from c.400BC onwards. This explains why the later version of what constituted a day is used in Genesis. Babylonian influence may also lend credence to the idea that these lifespans were deliberately lengthened by the writers of Genesis, although they may be genuine errors which occurred when much older stories were written down centuries after the events they describe.

The type of fruit Adam and Eve ate

Jon the freelance theologian — Sun, 20 May 2007 21:52:32 +0000

Question 120, from LLG, USA

I have a question about the tree of knowledge? Was the tree an apple tree or a fig tree? I was told that Adam and Eve did not eat from an apple tree because an apple tree can not grow in the Middle East due to the climate, but that they ate from a fig tree instead. Also I was told that Adam and Eve came from Africa. Is any of this factual from a scientific viewpoint?

The account of the ‘Fall’ in Genesis chapter 3 where Adam and Eve disobey God by eating from ‘the tree of knowledge of good and evil’ is probably best understood as being metaphorical. The type of tree (or fruit) isn’t referred to in the text.

The idea that Adam and Eve ate an apple has certainly taken hold in popular Western thought. Possibly this can be traced to times of very low literacy, when most Christian stories were transmitted in pictorial form. Apples as a recognisable fruit appear in Christian art which survives from the dark ages, and have remained a contextual icon in art ever since.

The location given for Eden in Genesis is firmly within the ‘fertile crescent’ of Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq and surrounding areas). Rivers such as the Tigris and Euphrates are mentioned as bordering it (Genesis chapter 2, verse 14). The existence of Mesopotamian names relating to Eden are some of the characteristics of the story which show its origins in Babylonian myths, which may then have been adapted by the authors of Genesis.

If the ‘fruit’ Adam and Eve ate was more than just a literary construct, and Eden was located in Mesopotamia, then it would certainly be far more likely to be a fig, rather than an apple.

As to the African origins of Adam and Eve, there have been claims amongst evolutionary scientists that the human race is descended from one original ‘prime ancestor’ in Africa. In an odd twist to the story, the matrilineal most recent common ancestor has been referred to as Mitochondrial Eve, with all mitochondrial DNA in human beings currently alive being derived from this one woman. In terms of its Biblical location, however, ‘Eden’ was not in Africa.

Acceptable animals to sacrifice (and why donkeys don’t make the list)

Jon the freelance theologian — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:26:25 +0000

Question 115, from SD, United Kingdom

This answer is sponsored by star in a jar

I have a question about Exodus chapter 34, verse 20. Why doesn’t God want first-born donkeys as a sacrifice? I can understand why he’d want us to redeem our first-born son, but donkeys…?

Exodus chapter 34 recounts God making a new covenant with the Israelite people after the Ten Commandments were inscribed on new stone tablets. Exodus chapter 32, verse 19 records that the original stone tablets were smashed by Moses when he returned to the Israelite camp and saw the people worshipping an idol in the shape of a golden calf.

The covenant in Exodus chapter 34 is a reaction to the Israelite idolatry. Verses 31 and 14 contain a command to destroy the idols of other races; verse 17 explicitly states “Do not make cast idols.” As part of this campaign against apostasy, all the first-born are to be given over to Yahweh (verse 19), except for donkeys and children.

Children were sacrificed in religious rites of the cultures surrounding the Israelites and so this explicit command not to sacrifice children is an important way of distinguishing between worship of Yahweh and worship of idols.

This injunction is an almost word-for-word repetition of Exodus chapter 13, verse 13, where the reason for sacrificing the first-born is to remember the deliverance of the Israelite first-born sons on Passover night (Exodus chapter 12, verse 29).

Animals that were sacrificed as an act of worship were generally then eaten, either by the priests, or by the family who offered the animal for sacrifice. The main function of sacrifice in the region of Arabia (where the events of Exodus are located) was to drain the blood, which was thought to contain the life of the animal. Once this was done, and token parts of the animal were burned on the altar, the meat was eaten.

In a nomadic society where meat was a luxury, this meant important meals were sacred events too. The consumption of the sacrificed meat also strengthened the bond between the god it was sacrificed to and the worshippers. This connection between those who eat the flesh and the god to whom it was sacrificed has, of course, been taken into Christianity through the practice of communion (also known as Mass; Eucharist; the Lord’s Supper), with ‘bread’ replacing meat.

Although donkeys are not mentioned by name on the prohibited list of food in Leviticus chapter 11, it may be that there was a general aversion to eating donkey meat. Donkeys were useful as pack animals, and were used in farming (Deuteronomy chapter 22, verse 10). In Numbers chapter 18, verse 15, the priests are ordered to redeem every firstborn male of unclean animals. Only oxen, goats and sheep were to be sacrificed and eaten (verses 17-18).

If a donkey was not redeemed it’s neck was to be broken. This was to underline that as a firstborn male it belonged to Yahweh. Presumably this command was given to ensure that people did offer the lamb instead (or the money mentioned in Numbers chapter 18). The order is simple – pay Yahweh his due or lose the use of the donkey.

Thanks for your question, SD

This answer was sponsored by star in a jar – professional design at an incredible price.

To find out how you can support freelance theology by sponsoring an answer, please write by using the ‘ask your question’ button.

Diabolic music

Jon the freelance theologian — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:20:29 +0000

Question 106 – from LM, USA

Where in the bible is Lucifer referred to the angel of Music?

There is no Biblical reference to Lucifer as the ‘angel of music’. Other articles on freelance theology have covered the development of various beliefs about the devil, although the origin of this particular idea seems to be obscure.

Certainly the popular idea that Lucifer was a prominent angel in the heavenly court, who then rebelled and was cast out of Heaven, has been embellished over the centuries. It is certainly possible that one of these additions to the basic story is that Lucifer was the director of music. This could be because of the many Biblical references to angels singing worship to God. In Job chapter 38, verse 7 the ‘morning stars’ or are identified with ‘sons of God (often translated as ‘angels’).

‘Lucifer’ is actually the Latin for ‘lightbringer’ and was a word used for Venus, the Morning Star, which often shone out shortly before dawn. When Isaiah ironically used the Hebrew term ‘daystar’ to describe the ambitious King of Babylon in Isaiah chapter 14, this was then translated as ‘Lucifer’ in the Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate). There has been a long history of associating Isaiah’s ‘Lucifer’, who is ‘cast down from heaven’, with Satan’s ‘fall from Heaven’ that Jesus claimed to have seen in Luke chapter 10, verse 18. If the singing angels in Job are all ‘morning stars’ it follows that Satan/Lucifer is the morning star, i.e. the leader.

The stories that have grown around the troubling character of Satan in Christian theology are varied and complex. While there are many who would still adhere to a belief in a literal personal being called Satan, this mythological belief system has been heavily criticised for lacking a Biblical basis. It’s popularity owes more to the pre-modern superstitious world that Christianity grew up in and eventually outgrew.

It is interesting though that Satan’s involvement with music is also ingrained in popular culture. The devil is said to ‘have all the best tunes’, although this comment can actually be traced to the founder of the Salvation Army, William Booth, who firmly believed in appropriating the ‘devil’s tunes’ and setting Christian evangelistic hymns to them. Of course, it would be facetious to add that anyone who really believes that the devil has the best tunes only needs to listen to some ‘death metal’ to be disabused of that notion fairly quickly!

Thanks for your question, LM.

Back to Genesis 2

Jon the freelance theologian — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 02:33:41 +0000

Question 105 – from DW, USA

God says in the Bible “It’s not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis chapter 2, verse18).
I have three questions about this passage
a) “It’s not good” Was God capable of creating a situation that was not good?
b) “Man to be alone” I thought God walked in the garden with him, can you be alone while in the presence of God?
c) “A helper suitable for him” What did Adam need help with? Tending the garden? Or naming the animals? He wasn’t under a time constraint was he? As far as companionship, remember we were created for Jesus’ good pleasure, and purpose, there is no marriage in heaven or eternity, if there is something more that we need than Jesus, there is a problem.

This is actually a refined version of a question DW asked previously, and some points are worth reiterating. It would seem that the creation story found in the first few chapters of Genesis is a merging of two accounts. The first describes, in general terms, the creation process that brought the world into being in seven days. There is then an abrupt shift in emphasis in Genesis chapter 2, verse 4, which introduces “the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” This second version deals with the specific creation of named human beings, Adam and Eve, their subsequent Fall and loss of a Golden Age.

Some people go to great lengths to prove the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account. There has been some speculation recently whether the story of Eden is an ancient folk memory concerning the fall of civilisations in ancient Africa and the Near East due to sudden climate change approximately six thousand years ago, which coincides roughly with the Biblical chronology (see ‘Why Deserts will Inherit the Earth’, The Independent, 5 June 2006). Or it may be a myth, in the technical sense of the word, i.e. a true story that has been explained supernaturally because the writers lacked the scientific language necessary to objectively describe it.

Whatever the case, these early chapters of Genesis do present some seeming contradictions. Taking the accounts at face value, it is probably best to approach these three questions individually.

a) If two different stories were merged into one (as seems to be the case from textual evidence) it would explain why God terms everything as “good” in Genesis chapter 1, verse 31, but then later on there can be an aspect of this ‘completely good’ creation, which is ‘not good’. Additionally, from later chapters, it seems that God has allowed creatures an element of independent free will, meaning that even if God’s initial creation was perfectly good, it contained within it the possibility of falling away from that initial state and become less than perfect.

Adam’s loneliness is the only thing described as ‘not good’ before the account of the Fall. One explanation for this is that: “Humanity is created as a social being, and is meant to exist in relation with others.” [Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, 1994, p.235]. Being made in the image of the God (Trinity) naturally presupposes this. It could be assumed that Adam would want to relate to others like him, in the same way that God, within the Godhead, exists in interpersonal relationship. Adam need not have wanted this, but once he did, this unmet need would have made the situation ‘not good’.

Alternatively, it may just be the phrasing. There is an old joke that God made Adam first and then got started on an upgrade – Eve. In a sense this may have a grain of truth in it. God’s ongoing interaction with the world is shown by the attempt to improve creation that is already good, as God seeks to bring about the best world possible. While this image of God giving creation a ‘tweak’ is over-anthropomorphic, the creation of both Adam and Eve as individuals has already occurred after God’s ‘sabbath rest’ from creation (chapter 2, verse 2), implying that creation did continue after the six days of Genesis chapter 1.

b) In the account, God put Adam into Eden, but did not necessarily live there with him. In chapter 3, verse 8 (after Adam and Eve disobeyed God by taking the forbidden fruit), God is said to be ‘walking in the garden in the cool of the day’. The use of a specific time of day implies that God was not always walking in the garden with Adam. The story itself implies God is absent when the serpent has its fateful conversation with Eve in chapter 3, verses 1-6.

This is an interesting phrase though, with God depicted almost like a country landowner, inspecting his estate in the early evening when strolling around it is cool and enjoyable experience. The anthropomorphism of God at this point is another reason why many people regard this story as an allegory and not literal truth.

c) If these creation accounts are read as allegory, then they seek to explain, in non-scientific terms, why humanity takes the form of two genders. ‘Helper’ is a very interesting choice of word here, and possibly reflects later religious thought being ‘read back’ into the account of origins. Most primitive religions of the Middle East revolved around fertility practices and reverence of the ‘life-bearing mother’. As Israelite religion sought to establish worship of the ‘male’ Yahweh, it would be natural to promote this creation account where the female is subordinate to the male, a ‘weaker’ gender introduced as a ‘helper’ to the ‘stronger’.

The idea that human beings exist solely for God’s pleasure has entered into popular theology in many churches. This idea has been particularly highlighted by the book The Purpose Driven Life, written by American pastor Rick Warren, where it is explicitly spelled out as the first of five purposes for every human being (op. cit., published by Zondervan 2002, pp 63ff). There is a good Biblical basis to this point of view, but it does not necessarily mean that God is selfish about creation.

To put it another way, being made for God’s pleasure does not limit the actions and activities of human beings, as long as those activities bring pleasure to God. Again the phrase ‘created in the image of God’ crops up. Human beings, as image-bearing creatures are designed to be relational and as such need other creatures that they can relate to, so that they do not feel ‘alone’.

God could have created every human being the same way Genesis records him creating Adam. Asking why God introduced sex into the equation by creating a new gender leads to pure speculation. Perhaps it was to introduce a random ‘chance’ element into things. Maybe it was a necessary part of allowing free will. It is impossible to know, but Adam’s relational need for a helper does not contradict the idea that all human beings exist because of God’s creative actions and for God’s pleasure.

Thanks for your questions DW.

Falling star

Jon the freelance theologian — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:20:12 +0000

Question from BG, USA

The two primary accounts of the Devil before the Fall that I have been able to find are in Isaiah 14 and Ezekial 28. In John Gill’s commentary on Ezekiel 28, he equates The King of Tyrus (or the Prince of Tyre) as being a form of Antichrist and compares him with the Catholic Pope. Matthew Henry believes Ezekiel 28 is a kind of ‘allegory’ for the devil. My translation of the Bible actually uses the word ‘Lucifer’ in Isaiah 14, but other translations do not. In neither chapter is any reference to the Devil even made outside of that one word, Lucifer, which only appears in the translation that I use and none other that I’ve seen. One could also legitimately suggest all Isaiah is referring to is the fall of Nebuchadnezzar. So the main question is why are those two chapters even used to explain the pre-fall existence of the Devil when the Devil isn’t otherwise mentioned but an actual human King? I realise that I am questioning a common interpretation of scripture, but it’s hard to understand ‘how’ one could come up with these interpretations. Any help in this area would be appreciated.

The ‘career of Satan’ is a term used to describe the theological development of a belief in a literal devil, or adversary. In A Theology of the Dark Side [published by Paternoster Press in 2002], British scholar Nigel G. Wright notes that the ‘Satan syndrome’ seeks to explain evil in terms of a personal entity. “The powers of negation and death at loose in the world are never quite overcome by Yahweh… This sense of a powerful adversary to God’s creation become sharpened and honed in the New Testament. It exists in the world as an objective reality, as the devil, or Satan, or the ‘prince of this world’.” [Wright, op. cit. p.2]

The simplest explanation for the reason these Old Testament references to earthly kings are linked with Satan’s downfall is that the story of Lucifer, an angel of light, overstepping his authority, and being cast out of Heaven as a result, is a very potent myth. There is no doubt that in the gospel accounts, Jesus referred to Satan as an objective reality during his earthly ministry. Given this it was natural for early Christian theologians to try and find previous references to Satan in the Old Testament, just as they sought to find references to Jesus Christ. Sometimes these are fairly obvious, other times a certain amount of flexibility and imagination is used in interpreting the older texts as references to Satan.

The reason the reference in Isaiah chapter 14, verse 12, is often seen as a reference to Satan’s fall, is because it is echoed by Jesus in Luke chapter 10, verse 18. When the disciples Jesus sent out in chapter 11, verse 1, returned to him they told him that “even the demons submit to your name” (verse 17). Jesus replies “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (verse 18). It is fairly easy to see the logical connection between Jesus’ description of Satan’s fall, and the reference in Isaiah. Babylon is frequently associated with opposition to God’s divine rule, e.g. in Revelation, and regularly in later Christian thought, so putting the ‘King of Babylon’ and Satan together makes some sense.

A different interpretation of Jesus’ words is that, instead of referring to a prehistoric angelic fall from grace, Jesus saw Satan overcome by the actions of the disciples on their ministry tours. If Satan was popularly believed to be the “ruler of the Kingdom of the air” (as Paul refers to him in Ephesians chapter 2, verse 2), then it may be that Jesus was referring to the disciples’ victory over Satan causing him to fall from his place of dominion (i.e. the air/‘heaven’), not to an event in the far distant past.

The idea of a prehistoric fall of individual angels from among the angelic host is widely held even today in many churches. However, it does seem to be based on an interpretation of key Biblical passages that enables the interpreter to read certain things back into the text.

Matthew Henry’s comment linking the oracle against the King of Tyre in Ezekiel chapter 28 with Satan’s downfall, shows how much this story of an angelic fall has permeated the consciousness of Christian tradition. There is no reason from the text to believe that this is allegorically referring to Satan. The definite Old Testament mention of Satan, as a personal being, in the prologue to Job does not reflect the idea of a fallen angel cast out of heaven (see Job chapters 1 and 2). Here Satan is an ‘accuser’, but still a being with access to the Heavenly court. It is worth pointing out, as well, that Satan is listed alongside the angels (chapter 1, verse 6, and chapter 2, verse 1) as a separate and distinct entity.

In Jewish interpretation the ‘serpent’ of Eden is identified with humanity’s lower nature, with Adam and Eve succumbing to ‘base desires’. It is only in Christian thought that the serpent is routinely identified with Satan (see Wright, op. cit. p.56), mainly because in Revelation chapter 20, verse 2, Satan is described as “that great serpent”.

The serpent or snake was symbolic of chaos in ancient Middle Eastern theology, so it may be that the serpent’s appearance in the Genesis story alludes to the idea that God brought order out of chaos. Sin and evil are therefore the lingering effects of chaos that somehow impinge on God’s world. But it remains easier for human beings, as personal beings, to envision a personal Enemy, and it would seem that many people find that Enemy written about in the Old Testament, mainly because they have gone looking for him.

Thanks for your question BG.

Tower builders v astronauts

Jon the freelance theologian — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:25:57 +0000

Question from VP, USA

In Genesis chapter 11, verse 6, the Lord says that nothing the people propose to do will be impossible. They were building a tower to reach the heavens. I find it strange that he prevented them from building a tower because it would reach the heavens, yet today we fly in space. Did God move? What is your opinion of this?

One important aspect of the book of Genesis, which echoes most ancient stories, is that there is a nostalgic sense of a ‘golden age’ that has been lost. The story about the Tower of Babel in Genesis chapter 11, indicates two things about early humanity’s ‘golden age’. Firstly, that human beings were powerful enough to ‘worry God’, and secondly that originally humans all spoke the same language. These are common motifs in ancestral myths that hark back to a better time.

The specific problem with the Tower of Babel was not so much that it would reach into the heavens, but by reaching into the heavens, human beings were seeking to set themselves up on a par with God. This is an etymological myth, which seeks to explain a number of things – notably why people are scattered across the world, particularly if they all descend from common ancestors found earlier in Genesis, and why people in different places speak different languages, again hard to reconcile with the idea of a common ancestor.

There is undoubtedly a possibility that the original author of Genesis could have borrowed from Babylonian myth here. The ‘plain of Shinar’ (verse 2) is in Mesopotamia. Babel and Babylon are perhaps interchangeable. As the author tried to fit these myths, drawn from a number of traditions, together into a coherent story, the Tower of Babel naturally provides a reason for both the spread of humanity and the many languages. If it’s not enough that humanity has lost its special Eden-relationship with God, now besides mortality, the day-to-day power of human beings is also reduced and the human race is divided into many scattered peoples and a ‘confusion’ of languages.

In conclusion, it was not the height of the Tower of Babel that was a problem; it was the purpose. Contemporary space exploration has not generally been conducted in the same sense of trying to establish humans as gods. Although it is interesting that space exploration has deepened the convictions of those who have travelled beyond the atmosphere. Many astronauts, looking towards Earth have attested to a sense that such a fragile and beautiful thing must be the work of God. One cosmonaut, however, famously remarked that, as he looked out to the stars, he could not see God anywhere.

Thanks for your question, VP.