That YHWH was indeed seen as having such great size may also be illustrated by Isaiah’s vision of YHWH in his temple surrounded by his divine courtiers in Isaiah 6.  Isaiah 6:1 states that the hem of YHWH’s robe fills the entire (Jerusalem) temple.  Moreover, the cosmic setting of Ezekiel’s vision in Ezk. 1:26-28, to be discussed below, also suggests superhuman size for YHWH, even while attempting to qualify its anthropomorphic language.  Further, Ex. 33:21-23 suggests that YHWH’s hand is able to entirely envelop Moses so as to protect him from the divine theophany which would otherwise cause his death.  Mark Smith states that “[a]ll of these visionary descriptions imply not only great size but also body and gender.”[3]

However, as just alluded to above concerning Ezk. 1, there were movements in ancient Israel that attempted to qualify or reduce anthropomorphic language for YHWH.  Priestly avoidance of anthropomorphic descriptions of YHWH is a typical example of this phenomenon.  It must be stressed, however, as Mark Smith rightly notes, that “Israelite anthropomorphism hardly ends with the monarchy…The anthropomorphic language of Yahweh, other divine beings, and their heavenly realms never disappeared from Israel.  Accordingly, it may be regarded as quite traditional in ancient Israel.”[4]

These issues may be illustrated best perhaps by considering Genesis 1-2:4.a, the Priestly (P) account of creation. In this text the god of Israel is seen as a transcendent deity who creates not by direct interaction with the world, but by merely speaking a word from the heavens. This may be viewed in contrast to the god of the Yahwistic (J) account of creation, probably to be dated a couple of centuries before the P account, in Genesis 2.4b ff., who creates by shaping and molding with his own hands. In this account, YHWH forms man from the dust of the ground, breathing into his nostrils the “breath of life” (Gen. 2:7), plants a garden (Gen. 2:8), walks around in the garden (Gen. 3:8), surgically removes a rib from man in order to create a woman (Gen. 2:21-25), and then makes clothes for them (Gen. 3:21). In contrast, according to P in Gen. 1:26-27, “God said, ‘Let us make humanity [’adam] in our image [tselem] according to our likeness [demut]‘…and god created humanity in his image, in the image of god he created it, male and female he created them.” The Priestly god merely creates humanity in the divine image by his word; but what exactly does this mean? It is clear from other usages of the word tselem in the Hebrew Bible that connotations of physicality are implied,[5] yet being made in the divine image obviously has other implications in this context: probably including notions of authority and dominion over the natural world, just as a king rules over his own realm.

Other Priestly authors, however, such as the prophet Ezekiel, clearly continue to use traditional anthropomorphic language to describe YHWH, yet at times it is reduced in an effort to preserve the transcendence of the deity. Thus Ezekiel 1:26-28 reads:

…and upon the likeness of the throne was a likeness, like the appearance of man upon it…and I saw…from the appearance of his loins and upwards; and from the appearance of his loins downward I saw as though it were fire, and he had a radiance all around. Like the appearance of the bow which is in the cloud on a rainy day, thus was the appearance of the radiance all around. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of YHWH.

This reduction in anthropomorphic language might be profitably contrasted, in turn, with the vivid anthropomorphic language used by Isaiah to describe his vision of the divine referred to above: “…I saw my Lord, exalted, sitting upon a throne, and the hem of his robe [shul] filled the temple…and I said, ‘Woe is me!’…because the king, YHWH of Hosts, my eyes have seen!” (Is. 6:1, 5). Moreover, Exodus 33:21-23, mentioned above, describing a conversation between Moses and YHWH at Mount Sinai, reads:

And YHWH said, ‘Look, there is a place near me (where) you shall station yourself upon the rock. And when my glory passes by, I will set you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. And (then) I will remove my hand and you will see my back, but my face will not be seen.

However, despite the continued use of anthropomorphic language used by Priestly and later authors (e.g., Dan. 7; Zech. 3), and in spite of the physical connotations of the words tselem and demut in Genesis 1:26-27, nevertheless the Priestly authors of the creation account in Genesis 1-2.4a have clearly shaped a new understanding of the divine, giving expression to a form of YHWHism that went against the grain of traditional understandings and depictions of YHWH.[6] In what was perhaps a separate poetic piece that once referred to YHWH and his divine consort, Genesis 1:26-27 has been inserted into this prose narrative and has reshaped the popular notion of a divine family by expressing the view that humanity, both male and female, are in the image and likeness of the deity YHWH alone, and no other. True, this passage does refer to the divine council—for nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible is the cohortative used by YHWH except when addressing his heavenly court (c.f. 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Is. 6:8)[7]—however, this particular verse has been (re)manufactured to state, not that the gods created humanity in their image, but that the god of Israel created humanity in the divine image.[8] By this act the Priestly authors have accomplished what Ezekiel failed to do through his hedging to describe the physical appearance of YHWH, namely to create a sense of divine transcendence in physicality by attributing to humanity a divine shape and authority, rather than merely reducing god to human shape and likeness.[9] This text, while still affirming the transcendent physicality of the deity, suggests that humanity is in god’s image because of their divinely given governance over the natural world and through their ability to create (see Gen. 1:26, 28-30). It is the difference between god becoming anthropomorphic, and humanity becoming theomorphic.

Such reduction in anthropomorphic language in Priestly circles may perhaps also be supplemented by aniconic tendencies in ancient Israel.[10] Although it is certain that ancient Israelites made use of physical representations of their deity/deities (as noted in the discussion of Asherah in part IV of this series), nevertheless there is a marked lack of images representing YHWH that have been archaeologically recovered. This dearth of recovered physical images for YHWH is also supplemented by certain anti-anthropomorphic comments in the biblical texts. For instance, Psalm 50:12-13 asks, “If I were hungry, I would not tell you. I possess the world and all that is in it. Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” Moreover, Exodus 20:3 famously states, “You will not make for yourselves an image/idol…” However, Israel’s alleged aniconism is highly debated in modern scholarship, resting largely on an argument ex silentio (i.e., that few sculptured images that can be conclusively identified with YHWH have been found), and on disregarding the cultic significance of already recovered statuary and figurines. The evidence on this issue at present seems inconclusive, although it does seem likely that popular notions of divine beings, including YHWH, were traditionally anthropomorphic in ancient Israel. Indeed, Mark Smith notes the irony in that “priestly avoidance of anthropomorphism indicates that divine corporeality was a general expectation of what a deity was.”[11]

The reduction in anthropomorphic language of YHWH by Priestly circles calls into question whether YHWH was generally considered in ancient Israel as sexually male or female,[12] sexless, or perhaps even androgynous. It is clear, in our view, that for many of the biblical authors, as well as the vast majority of ancient Israelites, YHWH was clearly considered a sexually male deity. YHWH possessed the profile of a typical male deity, and the vast majority of imagery attributed to YHWH is male. For instance, YHWH is revealed as a martial deity, literally a “man [ish] of war” (Ex. 15:3). YHWH’s body would also have been commonly considered sexually male, given that, according to traditional and royal theologies, he had a divine consort, Asherah. However, it is also obvious that female imagery is at times attributed to YHWH, especially in later texts such as Second and Third Isaiah (e.g., Is. 42:14; 46:3; 49:14-15; 66:9, 13), although there are other instances of this as well. For instance, Deuteronomy 32:18 reads, “The Rock who gave birth to you, you neglected; and you forgot the god who bore you.” Nevertheless, it seems relevant that all grammatical indicators for YHWH in Hebrew are masculine including those within these passages that attribute female roles and imagery to YHWH. Thus, the available evidence seems to suggest that YHWH was considered neither androgynous nor sexless (nor sexually female for that matter). Rather, YHWH most likely appears to have been a male deity to whom female imagery was sometimes applied; a deity who possessed a body but who was also transcendent (a notion expressed, perhaps, by his great size, as discussed above).

Additional arguments in favor of such a reconstruction are several. First, there is no instance in the ancient Near East of an androgynous deity; the claims for such parallels in Ugaritic and other ancient Near Eastern sources remain specious.[13] Moreover, there are numerous examples from the ancient Near East of sexually male deities to whom female imagery is applied, and sexually female deities to whom male imagery is attributed.[14] Such divine attributions have a long history in the ancient Near Eastern world and are not an Israelite innovation. For instance, such reversals of imagery can be seen in proper names, such as ’il‘nt, “Anat is (a) god,” or ummi-šamaš, “Shamash is my mother,” as well as in prayers. A Hittite prayer to Istanu (a sun-god), for instance, recounts that, “Thou, Istanu, art father and mother of the oppressed, the lonely (and the) bereaved person.”[15]

Further, because it is clear that YHWH possessed a body, it seems almost certain to think that YHWH also would have had sex. Although it is true that some circles stripped YHWH of his consort Asherah, nevertheless this does not necessarily mandate that YHWH was also seen as being stripped of his sex, even among these minority groups. There is no notion in the Bible of a “castrated” YHWH, for lack of a better term. Rather, the dominant image in popular, family religion of a divine couple heading a family of gods was replaced over time in ancient Israel by the image of a royal sovereign or king ruling a (divine) court.[16] This motif shaped the ways in which YHWH was described in his heavenly abode, and provided a clear theoretical model for explaining YHWH’s sovereignty and supremacy while also eliminating the need for reference to a divine consort (as no queen would be needed to sustain this motif [c.f. Ps. 82]).Thus I believe Mark Smith is correct in his conclusion that:

Biblical texts show a variety of strategies in handling divine gender.  In Deut. 32:18, Psalm 22:9-10, and Isaiah 46:3, 66:9, and 13, Yahweh was not considered female, either separately or in conjunction with male language for Yahweh.  Rather, these passages treat Yahweh as a male deity to whom female imagery was occasionally attributed on a metaphorical level.[17]

[2] The following discussion is drawn from Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 84-86.

[3] Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 86.

[4] Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 89.

[5] Brettler, How to Read the Jewish Bible, 43-44 and notes.

[6] For the following analysis of Genesis 1, I am indebted to Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 89-90.

[7] For this observation, see Brettler, How to Read the Jewish Bible, 42-43 and notes.

[8] As noted by Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 90.

[9] Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 90.

[10] For the following discussion on the notion of Israelite aniconism and its problems as an accurate historical reconstruction of the situation in ancient Israel, see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 89 and notes.

[11] Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 89.

[12] Although I will distinguish between sex (which is biological) and gender (which is a social construct) in many instances in this paper, ancient Israelites likely did not distinguish the two so neatly.

[13] Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 90.

[14] Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 91-92.

[15] For citations and discussion of the names and prayers used as examples here to indicate switches in gender roles of ancient Near Eastern deities, see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 91.  The translations are those found in Smith’s discussion.

[16] Smith, The Early History of God, 37-39, and Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 22.

[17] Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 90.

Someone conquered some of the cities that the Bible claims Joshua conquered[, but] it is difficult to discern who conquered them (we know that the Sea People, including the Philistines, were also settling the area at this time and taking over population centers)[.] One reason that the conquerors’ identity is obscure is because Israelite artifacts are practically the same as those of other local groups living at this time; [and] of the cities that according to Joshua were conquered in the period, archaeological evidence for many of these sites show no signs of conquest[. T]his period meanwhile shows a remarkable upsurge of new settlement in the central hill or highland area of the country. . .What would the archaeological record look like if the Book of Joshua were factual?  We would expect to find a complete destruction of the major Canaanite cities datable to the same time period. In addition, we would expect to find Canaanite material culture (pottery jugs, housing styles) replaced by totally new styles, most likely with Egyptian motifs or styles, reflecting the origins of the conquering people.  However, such evidence eludes us even after a large number of excavations and surveys (mini-excavations). What have archeologists found instead?  Some evidence of destruction, but significantly more evidence for new settlement patterns at previously uninhabited sites in the highlands. This suggests to many that the main claim in Joshua—a complete and total conquest by Israel—is false; rather many Israelites originated as Canaanites. Archeologists in general now doubt that the people Israel arose predominately outside the land of Israel.[7]

Thus it seems that Ezekiel was right after all when he stated, “Thus says my Lord, YHWH, to Jerusalem: your origin and your birthplace are of the land of the Canaanites, your father an Amorite, your mother a Hittite” (כֹּה־אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה לִירוּשָׁלִַם מְכֹרֹתַיִךְ וּמֹלְדֹתַיִךְ מֵאֶרֶץ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי אָבִיךְ הָאֱמֹרִי וְאִמֵּךְ חִתִּֽית; Ezek. 16:3).  In contrast to the later historiographical picture given in much of the Hebrew Bible, worship of El, Asherah, and other divinities was not a matter of Israelites adopting foreign cults and practices into their own YHWHistic religion—that is, it was not a syncretistic process—but rather it was a matter of continuing ancient, traditional practices inherited from Israel’s own Canaanite heritage.  I conclude, therefore, with Mark Smith that:

. . . the evidence that the Canaanite deities, El, Baal, or Asherah, were the object of Israelite religious devotion separate from the cult of Yahweh in the period of the Judges is scant.  Both of these claims are largely extensions of biblical historiography. . . However, in various ways, El, Baal, and Asherah (or at least the symbol named after her, the asherah), were integrally related to Yahweh and the cult of this deity during the period of the Judges.[8]

[2] See Smith, The Early History of God, 20, and the literature cited there.  See also Frank Moore Cross, Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic studies, no. 51 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003); and  J. Naveh, “The Scripts in Palestine and Transjordan in the Iron Age,” Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century (ed. by Nelson Glueck and James A. Sanders; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970), 277-283.

[3] Smith, The Early History of God, 22-24. For a detailed analysis of cult, ritual, and ritual texts at Ugarit, see Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit.

[4] Smith, The Early History of God, 6-7, 21, 27.  For a mainstream introduction to issues pertaining to the archaeology of ancient Israel, see William Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites, and Where Did They Come from? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).  See also James Maxwell Miller and John Haralson Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006).

[5] Some scholars argue, however, that some of these features, such as four-room house architecture, are distinctive of Israelite sites.  See, for example, Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites, and Where Did They Come from?, 102-107.

[6] See Miller and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah; and Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites, and Where Did They Come from?

[7] Marc Zvi Brettler, How to Read the Jewish Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 95-96.

[8] Smith, The Early History of God, 31.

As YHWH came to assume the titles, imagery, and functions of El, he also appropriated El’s consort Athirat, and this fact seems to be further underscored by the close relationship that existed between the Asherah cult object and YHWH from early on. The most commonly cited biblical passages that mention Asherah herself include Judges 3:7; 1 Kings 14:13; 18:19; and 2 Kings 21:7; 23:4. For instance, Asherah is mentioned between the divinities Baal and “all the host of heaven” (לְכֹל צְבָא הַשָּׁמָיִם) in 2 Kings 23:4 as worshiped in the Jerusalem temple during Josiah’s reforms. Additionally, 2 Kings 21:7 condemns king Manasseh for putting “the molded image of Asherah” (אֶת־פֶּסֶל הָאֲשֵׁרָה) in YHWH’s temple. This attestation most likely refers to Asherah herself and not her cult object, since it would seem quite strange to have an image made for what was already a symbol.[2] Furthermore, 1 Kings. 18:19, although probably a later addition to the text, indicates by paralleling the names Asherah and Baal (probably an attempt by the biblical authors to discredit Asherah by association with Baal, since there is no significant evidence from antiquity outside of the Hebrew Bible that portrays Baal and Asherah as consorts[3]), that a knowledge of Asherah existed in Israel down to the exile c. 586 B.C.E.[4] Additionally, archaeological, iconographic,[5] and inscriptional evidence indicates that ancient Israelite worship of Asherah alongside YHWH was very common, and that her cult object stood in a special relationship to YHWH. Although there is not space here to discuss in depth many of the issues surrounding each relevant discovery,[6] one point that must be mentioned are the many hundreds, if not thousands, of terracotta female figurines that have been unearthed throughout Israel, and especially in domestic contexts, all the way down until the exile.[7] As archeologist William Dever has cogently argued along with many other prominent biblical scholars, these figurines (often will “pillar bases,” perhaps representing trees in accordance with the fact that Asherah was represented by stylized trees) are most likely Asherah, and were probably used by Israelite women as talismans, or perhaps as votive offerings, to assist in the processes of safely conceiving, bearing, and raising children.[8] Since Asherah could be seen as a fertility goddess,[9] this does indeed make good sense.

I agree, therefore, along with most modern biblical scholars, that Asherah was worshiped in ancient Israel and typically was perceived as the consort of YHWH. This conclusion makes the most sense of the biblical, archaeological, iconographic, and epigraphical evidences, which strongly suggest that Asherah and her symbol were considered an important part of the cult of YHWH, including the royal, so-called “official,” cult in the Jerusalem temple, except perhaps during the reigns of Hezekiah (whose reforms ultimately failed, probably in part because he was seen as overturning centuries of deeply held religious tradition[10]) and Josiah.

[2] As noted in Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 43-44.

[3] See Saul Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 14; and Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 48, 60-61.

[4] As noted by Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Godesses of Canaan, 44-45.

[5] For a terrific volume on iconographic evidences pertaining to deities in ancient Israel, see Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998).

[6] Note must be made, however, of the important inscriptions found at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom which refer to “YHWH and his A/asherah.” For the issues surrounding these heavily debated inscriptions, see Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 49-52; and Smith, The Early History of God, 118-125.

[7] For the discussion which follows concerning the figurines, see William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 176-196; and Raz Kletter, The Judean Pillar Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (Oxford: BAR International Series, 1996); “Between Archaeology and Theology: The Pillar Figurines fro Judah and the Asherah,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, (ed. A. Mazar; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).

[8] Dever, Did God Have a Wife?, 187-189, 194.

[9] Dever, Did God Have a Wife?, 192-195.

[10] Dever, Did God Have a Wife?, 212.

The Masoretic Text has “sons of Israel.” However, the Septuagint and the manuscript 4QDeut from the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as several other ancient versions and witnesses, support the alternate reading of “sons of god/gods.”[1] The Masoretic Text thus appears to be a later revision adopted in order to change what was probably seen by an ancient scribe as a reference to the existence of other (real) gods.  The text most naturally seems to indicate, therefore, that the god referred to as עֶלְיוֹן, “the Most High” (c.f. the title El-Elyon, “El, the Most High [god],” in Gen. 14:18-19, 22), divided the nations of the earth and appointed a national deity for each one, and in the case of Israel this national deity was YHWH.  This is additionally compelling because from KTU² 1.4.VI.46 we learn that El and Athirat (i.e., Asherah), the consort of El, had seventy divine sons, and in the table of nations in Genesis 10 we learn that the ancient Israelites perceived the earth as divided among exactly seventy nations.  Why is this important?  Because, as we saw in Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the nations of the earth are divided among the sons of god/gods, each of whom is given their own dominion or stewardship (c.f. Ps. 82). Later Jewish tradition also asserted that there were seventy nations in the world, and other later texts confirm that there were seventy guardian angels that watched over them (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 32:8-9; 1 En. 89:59-77; 90:22-27).  This later Jewish tradition is clearly dependent on these earlier notions found in Genesis 10 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9 concerning the number of the nations and the sons of god/gods appointed over them.  Thus, by combining the information gleaned from these two biblical texts, it is further made clear that the writings of these Israelite texts were familiar with older traditions associated with the texts discovered at ancient Ugarit.

There are two other texts in this vein of tradition that deserve mention here as well, namely Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 33:26-27.  Psalm 82 recounts how Israel’s god (YHWH?) rose to prominence in the divine council.  Verses 1-4, 6-8 read:

Here we see the god of Israel in the divine council setting.  The gods of the other nations (c.f. Deut. 32:8-9 discussed above) are condemned to the underworld for having improperly fulfilled their stewardship over the nations by judging unjustly.  The final verse then requests Israel’s god to take possession of each of these nations.  What is further significant about this passage is that it describes these gods as “sons of Elyon/the Highest,” which appears as a title of El in Genesis 14:18-20.  It seems quite possible, therefore, that at the earliest stage of this poem’s composition YHWH was seen not as the chief god of the pantheon, but rather as a son of (El) Elyon (as in Deut. 32:8-9), who originally possessed only Israel but was then granted responsibility over all nations.[2]

But what exactly is the divine council over which YHWH (and El) ruled?  YHWH’s heavenly council is commonly described in the Hebrew Bible in terms analogous to that of a royal court of a king or monarch.[3] Thus, just as a king presides over a body of counselors and administrators, so too YHWH was surrounded by an assembly of divine beings to whom he issued decrees.[4] For this reason the god of Israel (whether this be YHWH or El) is designated as אֵל עֶלְיֽוֹן, “the Most High god” (e.g., Gen.14:18-19; Ps. 78:35; cf. Ps. 82:6), because there are other lower gods in his pantheon.  These gods obey and pay deference to YHWH because he is the supreme god of the pantheon.  YHWH is the “god of gods” ( אֵל אֱלֹהִים), i.e., the “greatest god” (Josh. 22:22), just as Artaxerxes was the “greatest king” (מֶלֶךְ מַלְכַיָּא; Ezra. 7:12) or Canticles is the “greatest song” (שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים; Song of Songs 1:1).[5]

Deuteronomy 33:27 also contains mythic imagery suggestive of theomachic strife or discord among the gods. Deuteronomy 33:26-27, as traditionally translated in the NIV, reads:

There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides on the heavens to help you and on the clouds in his majesty. The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, ‘Destroy him!’[6]

However, the key phrases, translated here as “The eternal God is your refuge” (מְעֹנָה אֱלֹהֵי קֶדֶם) and “and underneath are the everlasting arms” (וּמִתַּחַת זְרֹעֹת עוֹלָם), are under serious question.  As some scholars have noted, by simply re-pointing the original Hebrew consonantal text, these two phrases read, “(he who) oppresses the ancient gods [lit. “gods of old”], and subdues the eternal powers [or perhaps, “subdues the arms/powers of the underworld”].”[7] Thus the passage can be read as describing YHWH’s rise to supremacy in the divine realm through subduing “the gods of old.”  This translation has been followed in such modern scholarly translations of the Hebrew Bible as the NRSV.  In conclusion, this passage may retain archaic Israelite notions of ancient theogonic or theomachic struggles.

Numerous texts in the Hebrew Bible indicate that the ancient Israelites believed there was a divine council of gods and/or that other nations had their own (real) gods.  Besides Exodus 15:11, referred to above, which read, “Who is like you, O YHWH, among the gods?,” Psalm 95:3 states, “For YHWH is a great god, and a great King above all gods”  (כִּי אֵל גָּדוֹל יְהוָה וּמֶלֶךְ גָּדוֹל עַל־כָּל־אֱלֹהִֽים). Psalm 29:1 further says, “Give to YHWH, O sons of gods, give to YHWH glory and strength” (הָבוּ לַֽיהוָה בְּנֵי אֵלִים הָבוּ לַיהוָה כָּבוֹד וָעֹֽז). Moreover, Psalm 89.7 reads, “For whom in the skies can be compared to YHWH? Who among the sons of god/gods may be likened to YHWH…?” (כִּי מִי בַשַּׁחַק יַעֲרֹךְ לַיהוָה יִדְמֶה לַיהוָה בִּבְנֵי אֵלִים).  Finally, Job 38.4-7 (cf. Genesis 1.26-27; 3.22; 11:7) states:

Such texts confirm that the majority of ancient Israelites believed there were other gods in existence besides YHWH.  Moreover, this fact helps make sense of Deuteronomistic polemic against other gods, since there would be no need to try to discredit these deities so vehemently otherwise.  Moreover, the fact that the biblical authors themselves believed that other deities were real and interacted with the world may be seen in such texts as 2 Kings 3.  This text recounts a story in which the  kings of Israel (in the north) and Judah (in the south), along with Edom, ally together to attack king Mesha of Moab after receiving a favorable prophecy of victory from the prophet Elisha (vv. 18-20).  However, as they are pursuing after the fleeing Moabites, Mesha sacrificed his first-born son and “great wrath” came upon Israel and they withdrew to their own land.  The text most naturally seems to indicate that the Moabite deity had some power or puissance that was claimed via human sacrifice.

[2] For further discussion of this passage see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 142-145; The Early History of God, 32-33; and Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 15-17.

[3] Smith, The Early History of God, 37-39; Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 22.

[4] Smith, The Early History of God, 37-39; Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 22.

[5] For this point and further discussion, see Smith, The Early History of God, 34.

[6] Kenneth L. Barker and Donald W. Burdick, The NIV Study Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985).

[7] See Baruch Halpern, From Gods to God: The Dynamics of Iron Age Cosmologies (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 29.

[8] Quotation taken from Michael D. Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, The New Oxford Annotated Bible New Revised Standard Version (Oxford: Oxford Univ Press, 2009).

In accordance with this affirmation we find a number of El epithets in Genesis, such as El-Shaddai (probably to be understood as “El of the (divine) Mountain,”[4] Gen.17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 49:25), already mentioned above in Exodus 6:2-3 and ostensibly P’s preferred title for god before the revelation of the divine name at Sinai,[5] El-Elyon (“El, the Most High [god],” Gen. 14:18-19, 22), El-Bethel (“El of Bethel [i.e., “the temple of El], Gen. 31:1; 35:7), and El-Olam (“El of Eternity,” Gen. 21:33, here in the J source identified with YHWH).

Nevertheless, the historical reconstruction that El was the chief god of the Israelites is not indebted only to the testimony of the (rather late) biblical witness of P.    Numerous biblical texts attest to the fact that the titles, functions, and the imagery associated with the Canaanite god El, as revealed by the Ugaritic texts and the Canaanite myth of Elkunirša, were assimilated into the profile of the deity YHWH.  According to the Ugaritic texts, El was known for his wisdom (e.g., KTU² 1.4.V.65[6]) and great age (’ab šnm, “Father of Years,” and drd<r>, “Ageless One,” in KTU² 1.4.IV.24 and 1.10.III.6, respectively),[7] his compassionate nature (lţpn il dp’id, “Kind El, the Compassionate One,” e.g.,  KTU² 1.16.IV.9), his role as father of the gods and humanity (’ab ’adm, “father of humanity,” KTU² 1.14..III.47, and bny bnwt, “creator of creatures,” KTU² 1.17.I.24) and creator of the cosmos.[8] El was the divine King (e.g., KTU² 1.2.III.5-6) and the head of the pantheon or divine council (referred to variously as the dr ’il, “circle of El/Family of  El,” KTU² 1.15.III.19; mpħrt bn ’il, “the assembly of the sons of El,” KTU² 1.65.3; bn ’il, “the sons of El,” KTU² 1.40.33, 41; pħr kbbm, “assembly of the stars,” KTU² 1.10.I.3-4; ‘dt ’ilm, “assembly of the gods,” KTU² 1.15.II.7; cf. KTU2 1.2.I; 1.3V; 1.4 IV-V) which met at the sacred mountain.  His consort was the goddess Athirat who bore him seventy sons (šb‘m bn ’atrt, “the seventy sons of Athirat,” KTU² 1.4.VI.46).  El was also known for his divine patronage and blessing of progeny to humans (as in the Epic of Kirta; see, for example, KTU² 1.14.III.46-51), for his appearances to humans in dreams (e.g., KTU² 1.14.I.35-37), as being a healer (KTU² 1.16.V-VI), and for his dwelling at the sacred mountain (e.g., KTU² 1.2.III.5-6) at the sources of the mythical rivers (KTU² 1.2.III.4; 1.3.V.6; 1.4.IV.20-22; 1.17.V.47-48) in a tent (KTU² 1.2.III.5; 1.3.V.8; 1.4.IV.24; 1.17.V.49; c.f. the Canaanite myth Elkunirša which describes El’s abode as a tent[9]).[10]

Many of these features of the god El will sound remarkably familiar to the astute reader of the Hebrew Bible because of their application to YHWH, the god of Israel.  The Ugaritic corpus, which predates the vast majority of the writings of the Hebrew Bible by at least several centuries, is perhaps the most illuminating body of literature for the study of the Hebrew Bible because of its close thematic, linguistic, and stylistic connections to that corpus.  Furthermore, the Ugaritic texts are the only texts from the ancient world that give us direct, native insight into the religious worldview of a society that worshiped many of the gods polemicized against in the Hebrew Bible, and most especially the god Baal and the goddess Asherah (Ugaritic Athirat).  In this case we are able to see that the ancient Israelites, as disclosed through the Hebrew Bible, appropriated a number of terms, themes, and titles from the god El in their portrayals of YHWH.

To underscore the fact that terminology and imagery originally used for the god El was adopted by the Israelites in their descriptions of YHWH, the following brief summary might be placed in comparison to the discussion of El above:  YHWH is an aged, patriarchal deity (Ps. 102:28; Job 36:26; Is. 40:28; Dan. 7.9-14, 22), a father (Deut. 32:6; Is. 63:16; 64:7; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9, etc.), merciful and gracious (Ex. 34:6; Jon. 4:2; Joel 2:13; Ps. 8615; 103:8; 145:8, etc.), a divine patron who bestows the blessing of progeny upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, often manifesting himself in dreams or visions, a healer (Gen. 20:17; Num. 12:13; 2 Kgs. 20:5, 8; Ps. 107:20, etc.), who dwells in a tent (Ps. 15:1; 27:6; 91:10; 132:3) amidst the heavenly waters (Ps. 47:5; 87; Is. 33: 20-22; Ez. 47:1-12, etc.), the creator of the cosmos, who is enthroned as heavenly King in the divine council (1 Kgs. 22:19; Is. 6:1-8; cf. Ps. 29:1-2; 82; 89: 5-8, etc.) on the sacred mount of assembly (e.g., Is. 14:13).  Additionally, in much Israelite religious practice throughout the monarchic period, YHWH had a divine consort, the goddess Asherah, the Hebrew equivalent of Ugaritic Athirat.[11] This issue will be discussed more fully below.

The question thus arises, were YHWH and El originally separate gods worshiped in Israel, with YHWH being El’s son or chief vizier (perhaps analogous to the way in which Baal functioned in relationship to El in the Ugaritic texts), or was YHWH just another name, or perhaps better, title, of the Canaanite god El?  As noted above in Exodus 6:2-3 (c.f. Ex. 3:13-15), certain biblical texts specifically identify El with YHWH.  Nevertheless, despite the many similarities noted above between El and YHWH, there are also some significant discrepancies.  For example, unlike El, YHWH’s temperament in many texts in the Hebrew Bible can be quite fierce or hostile.  For instance, Exodus 15:3, from the same ancient poetic chapter quoted above that exalts YHWH above all other gods, states, “YHWH is a man of war; YHWH is his name” (יְהוָה אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה יְהוָה שְׁמֽוֹ).  Such passages, both in verse and prose, could be multiplied considerably.  In contrast, there is no significant evidence that El was imagined as a warrior god like YHWH or Baal.  Moreover, like Baal, but entirely unlike El, YHWH is frequently associated with storm imagery.  For instance, Judges 5:4-5, perhaps the oldest text in the Hebrew Bible, states:

The Hebrew Bible is simply replete with storm imagery for YHWH (c.f. the theophanic manifestation of YHWH at Sinai in Ex. 19:16-20).  Finally, YHWH does not appear to have been a native Canaanite deity, as reflected, for example, in the fact that he is not mentioned in the deity lists discovered at Ugarit.[12]

That YHWH was not originally a Canaanite deity may also be deduced from several other interrelated pieces of evidence.  For instance, as related in Judges 5:4-5 just previously cited, YHWH was seen as coming from the south where Seir, Edom, and Sinai (probably the northwestern Arabian Peninsula and not the Sinai Peninsula itself) are located.[13] Moreover, this same chapter mentions connections with the Amalekites (Judges 5:14; cf. Gen. 36:16; Num. 13:29), a southern group, and the Kenites (Judges 5:34; cf. 1:16; 4:11; 1 Sam. 27:10; 30:29), a group that is also known to have been to the south of Judah.[14] Other biblical texts support this reconstruction.  Thus Deuteronomy 33:2 and Habakkuk 3:3 and 7 state:

It seems quite likely, therefore, that YHWH originated as a warrior storm god in the south near Edom.[15] Indeed, the biblical story of Moses meeting with YHWH in Midian in Exodus 6:2-3 (when, according to P, YHWH supposedly declared his name for the first time) itself suggests that YHWH’s home was originally in the south, and only later was he imported into the land of Canaan.  Further, there are certain non-biblical texts which also suggest YHWH’s origins are to be located to the south of Israel in this region.  For example, certain Egyptian texts make mention of a Shasu YHWH alongside the Shasu Seir (to the east of Egypt), and an epithet of YHWH in one of the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions reads, “YHWH of Teman.”[16] Finally, although not a conclusive argument on its own, it might also be mentioned in conjunction with the foregoing analysis that most names in the oldest texts of the Hebrew Bible have ’l as their theophoric element (as in the case of the name Israel), as opposed to a YHWHistic element.[17] I conclude, therefore, along with such scholars as Mark S. Smith and John Day, that El and YHWH were originally two distinct deities in ancient Israel, and that they were amalgamated at a fairly early stage in the development of Israelite religion, perhaps sometime in the Late Bronze Age, although traces of an El cult seem to appear in Israel even into the Iron I period.[18]

[2] For a popular introduction to source criticism of the Pentateuch, see Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1987).  See also Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003); and Michael

Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (New York: Oxford

University Press, 2006), 26-27, 92, 138-151, 173-17, and 405-407.

[3] Of course this claim may be placed in tension with the fact that the J source in Genesis (probably to be dated a couple of centuries earlier than P) declares that the name YHWH was known even in primeval times!  See, for example, Genesis 4:26.

[4] Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 32-34.

[5] As noted by Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 32.

[6] KTU² refers throughout to M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín,  The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: Second Enlarged Edition) (Muenster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995) (2^nd edn of M. Dietrich, O. Leretz, and J. Sanmartín, Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976]).

[7] Note the references in the Ugaritic texts to El’s grey hair and beard, e.g., KTU² 1.3.V.2, 24-25; 1.4.V.3-4.  It is also worth noting that iconographic evidence often depicts El as an elderly bearded figure.  See Smith, The Early History of God, 35, and the literature cited there.

[8] Note the title of El in the myth Elkunirša: ’l qny ’rş, “El, Creator of the earth” (c.f. Gen. 14:19!). The translations of Ugaritic texts in this paper follow the suggestions of Mark Smith, The Early History of God, 32-43; and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 135-148.

[9] See the translation of this text by Albrecht Goetze in J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3^rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 519.

[10] For a fuller discussion of these titles and depictions of El, see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 135-145; The Early History of God, 32-43; and Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 13-34.

[11] For these points and other issues in the comparison of YHWH and El, see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 135-145; The Early History of God, 32-43; and Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 13-34.  Smith, in turn, is advancing the original discussion set up by Frank Moore Cross in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic.

[12] Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 15; Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 142-145.

[13] Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 145.

[14] Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 145.

[15] Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 140, 145-146; The Early History of God, 32-33; and Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 15-17.

[16] Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 15-16.

[17] Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 16-17; Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 142-143, 147.

[18] Smith, The Early History of God, 7-8; Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 14.

Western Society is perhaps more indebted to the Hebrew Bible than to any other book, and arguably the most famous teaching associated with the Hebrew Bible is that of absolute monotheism.  This position famously affirms that there is only one god in existence and no other(s).  For example, Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, has often been cited since antiquity as supporting this understanding of monotheism.[1] It declares, “Listen, O Israel, YHWH is our god, YHWH alone [lit. YHWH (is) one]” (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד). This understanding of ancient Israelite faith, found in both popular and scholarly circles, purportedly traces itself in the biblical narrative to at least the time when YHWH revealed himself at Sinai to Moses and Israel,[2] if not all the way back to the creation of the world in Genesis 1 when God alone created the world by his word.[3] Naturally, this view has been held to be in direct opposition to the Mesopotamian theogonic and cosmogonic myths, such as the infamous Enuma Elish,[4] which recounts the creation of the gods and the world through fierce battles and rivalries between the personified primal elements of nature and the many gods who eventually tame them.

As familiar as this description might sound, it nevertheless has been severely critiqued by modern Biblicists and Assyriologists, especially for the time of pre-exilic Israel.[5] All along, it seems, Israel believed in the existence of a multiplicity of divine beings, as numerous biblical texts reveal.  Thus, for example, after the miraculous escape of the Israelites from Egypt through the divine power of YHWH, Exodus 15:11, part of one of the oldest poems in the Hebrew Bible, simply asks, “Who is like you among the gods, O YHWH?” (מִֽי־כָמֹכָה בָּֽאֵלִם יְהוָה). Of course, for the author of this text, YHWH is supreme among the gods, yet the question implies that there are other gods in existence, just as Exodus 20:3 assumes that there are indeed other gods that the Israelites might worship at YHWH’s expense.[6] Nevertheless, such texts might seem to be paltry evidence that Israel was polytheistic in any meaningful sense of the word, even in its earliest periods.  Yet for the ancient historian the evidence is significant enough to warrant further examination of the biblical, epigraphical, and archaeological evidences that might be brought to bear on the issue of determining whether or not ancient Israel was truly monotheistic.

[2] Perhaps the most articulate proponent of a unique Israelite monotheism dating to the time of Moses is Yeḥezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: from its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960).  Also note the conservative views of Jeffrey H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, HSS 31 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); and W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: An Historical Analysis of Two Conflicting Faiths (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968).

[3] Although other divinities appear to be present during the creation of the world in Genesis 1 (see, for instance, Gen. 1:26-27; cf. Gen. 3:22; 11:7).

[4] For a good translation of ancient Mesopotamian myths, including Enuma Elish, see Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).  For Ugaritic and Canaanite myths, see Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle 1, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1 – 1.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1994); Smith, Mark S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle 2, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3 – 1.4 (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Mark S. Smith and Simon B. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); and Michael Coogan, Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978).

[5] Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. The Biblical resource series. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Journal for the study of the Old Testament, 265 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001); and Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1973).

[6] Cyrus Herzl Gordon and Gary Rendsurg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1997), 148-149.  Also note the title of J. Tigay’s book, You Shall Have No Other Gods.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is God’s power for salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first, as well as the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith(fullness) for faith(fullness), as it has been written, ‘(and) the Righteous One/righteous will live through faith(fullness).’  -Romans 1.16-17 [1]

Few passages in the New Testament have elicited more debate throughout the centuries than Romans 1.16-17 and its explanatory corollary passages in Romans 3 and 5. Standing towards the beginning of perhaps Paul’s greatest letter, Romans 1.16-17 is the formulaic prelude to a dense discussion which follows in subsequent chapters. It is the author’s contention that the most adequate understanding of Paul’s writings follows from the recent insights of what has been termed the “New Perspective on Paul” (hereafter NPP).[2] Although not a univocal movement, the NPP is a revolution in Pauline scholarship which began in the late 1970′s following E.P. Sander’s major publication Paul and Palestinian Judaism, seeking to place Paul and his writings back in their proper historical context: namely that of first century Judaism(s).[3] Dislodging Paul from later Augustinian and Reformed interpretations that portray Paul as though he were fighting against Pelagius, Erastus, or the Catholic Church, the NPP has brought to the fore important components of Pauline thought that have been previously neglected—or simply misunderstood—not least of which is Paul’s discussion the dikaiosune theou, the “righteousness of God.”

To understand Paul’s writings, one must first understand his personal background and the socio-historical context of his writings. Paul was born a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised on the eighth day of his life, belonged to the Pharisaic party, and claimed to have followed the “traditions of my fathers” more passionately than any of his contemporaries, even stating that he was “blameless” according to the “righteousness” that could be found under the Torah/Law (Philippians 3.4-6; Rom. 9.1-5; Gal. 1.14; 2.15). His zeal for Torah led him to fight against the “church of God” (Gal. 1.13). However, he abruptly became its greatest advocate after he received “the benefaction of God”[4] (1 Cor. 15.8-10) when God “[revealed] his Son” (Gal. 1:16), the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, to him in a revelatory vision (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1-2). Following this vision Paul became a powerful advocate for Gentile Christianity, often combating within early Christianity alternative viewpoints that tried to disavow Gentiles Christians full admittance into the Church unless they first followed Torah proscriptions, such as circumcision and dietary laws.[5]

However, despite his revolutionary change from strict Torah observance to his new-found Christian “freedom” (Gal. 2.4), much of Paul’s personality and religious worldview remained the same.[6] Scholars now almost universally recognize this point,[7] which is foundational for all further discussion. For instance, Paul quotes often from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, displaying his underlying assumption that they are still authoritative texts for interpreting the God of Israel’s past and present will and actions. He likens his call as an apostle to a prophetic calling (Gal. 1.15-16; cf. Isa. 49.1; Jer. 1.5);[8] in fact, he appears to understand his mission as apostle to the Gentiles as shaped around passages in Isaiah that display the Gentiles coming to worship the God of Israel (Rom. 15.21; cf. Isa. 52.15).[9] His devotion for Torah has now become his devotion to the proclamation of the Christian gospel.[10] His worldview remains dominated by the Jewish mentality of division between Jews and Gentiles, between the God of Israel and the pagan gods of corrupted humanity (Rom. 1.16; 9.24; 1 Cor. 1.22-25; 10.32, etc.).[11] His religious thought is dominated by an apocalyptic understanding of the Messiah (the Messiah being a decidedly Jewish eschatological hope), and the future judgment of the world (e.g., 2 Cor. 5.10; Rom. 2.3-11).[12] His theology is constructed around the understanding that God’s relationship with humanity is founded upon covenant agreements, especially God’s covenants with Abraham.[13] In fact, his arguments in Galatians and Romans are primarily shaped around explicating this covenant and its present purposes (see for instance, Gal. 3-5; Rom. 4-11). Many other such points could be listed. Simply, Paul’s concerns are the concerns of first century Judaism, but have been uniquely reformulated in result of his revelatory vision that prompted his newfound understanding that in Jesus of Nazareth God revealed his saving plan to the entire world, not just to those of Jewish heritage.[14]

With this basic understanding of the man who penned the letter to the Romans, our first question should thus be: What would a first-century Jew or Jewish Christian have understood by the phrase “the righteousness of God”? This phrase occurs throughout the Septuagint (LXX), and typically refers to God’s covenant faithfulness—especially within the Psalms and Isaiah, both of which were frequently quoted or alluded to by early Christians, including Paul.[15] That is, it is typically employed to express God’s own faithfulness to his covenants. According to Richard Hays:

God’s righteousness is manifest in his resolute faithfulness to the covenant with Israel. Indeed, in the lament Psalms, the Psalmist can frequently appeal to God’s righteousness as a way of invoking the…covenant blessing (cf. Ps 31:1; 71:2)… [God's righteousness] characterizes not merely an abstract attribute of God, but [a specific] aspect of the divine character made manifest in the action of claiming and delivering Israel.[16]

Before proceeding further, however, it must be understood that “righteousness language” as a theological concept within biblical literature (including Paul) and Second-Temple Judaism has its roots in the metaphor of the law courts of ancient Israel.[17] In ancient Israel, the law court was where the plaintiff or defendant would be vindicated, or declared “righteous,” after the trial had been heard by a judge. The righteousness at stake for the defendant or plaintiff is that of a status (not necessarily a judgment of the moral state of the individual) after the trial has concluded which declares them to be in the right.[18] The righteousness at stake for the judge, however, is not a status, but a quality of impartiality and commitment to fairness that he uses in deciding the case.[19] It is clear within this context that when calling the judge “righteous” or the defendant or plaintiff “righteous,” two quite different meanings are being posited. It is a conflation of usage to suggest that the judge has imputed or imparted his own righteousness to the defendant or plaintiff after a case has been decided, as if righteousness is a substance that can be transferred from one to another; nor does it make any sense to say that the judge has a status of righteousness after the trial has been concluded. Simply, the judge’s “righteousness” and the plaintiff’s or defendant’s “righteousness” are different categorically.[20] This point will become important when analyzing the history of interpretation of Paul’s use of dikaiosune theou in Romans.[21]

One more critical point must also be understood concerning “righteousness/justification” language (both “just” and “righteous” in English [and their other related forms] translate just one word [and their related forms] in Greek and Hebrew) and the theological metaphor of the law court—it only makes sense when the understanding of God’s righteousness (as judge) is firmly fixed within the understanding of the covenant with Israel.[22] For it is within the analogy of the law court that the apocalyptic judgment of God upon the nations (Gentiles) will occur, and within which God’s vindication of Israel is often portrayed within the biblical texts (especially Isaiah and Psalms).[23] For instance: Israel has been constantly oppressed throughout her history by the gentile nations (whether depicted as the Assyrians, Babylonians, or, for first century Judaism, Rome), and seeks vindication in God’s metaphorical law court by bringing a suit against them (in some alternative instances, interestingly, it is instead YHWH who brings a suit against Israel for unfaithfulness; this “covenant lawsuit” motif is found often in biblical literature. [see Hosea 4.1-3; 12.2; Isaiah 3.13-15; Micah 6.1-8]).[24] Often in this scenario Israel (as plaintiff) seeks to be acquitted—declared “righteous” or vindicated—as God’s true people on the grounds of God’s own faithfulness to the covenant that he had graciously made with them. If Israel truly is God’s chosen community as he has promised and declared, then his righteousness—his resolute faithfulness to this covenant to deliver Israel and honor his covenant with them—they believe, will assure them their victory in court.[25]

As mentioned, however, Israel has been oppressed by foreign nations throughout her history. Has God, therefore, been unfaithful to his covenant? Has the honor of his name been destroyed for withholding his judgment on the Gentiles and allowing his own people to be oppressed? Prophetic interpreters, such as Hosea and Jeremiah, stated that Israel had often been allowed to be afflicted because of her sinfulness—for having been unfaithful to the Mosaic Covenant charter, the Torah.[26] The question thus arose following the annihilation of the Israelite monarchy and state in 586 BCE: would Israel ever be vindicated? Had God permanently abandoned Israel on account of her metaphorical “adultery” (for the analogy of Israel’s unfaithfulness to YHWH as adultery in biblical literature, see Hos. 1-3; Jer. 2.2; 3.1-5, 19-20; Ezek. 16; Is. 5.1-7; 62.5)? According to Richard Hays, following the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, the question of the continuing validity of God’s prior covenants with Israel became of paramount importance to explain, and it was to “God’s [own] righteousness”—the dikaiosune theou—that Israel’s hopes would appeal: “…In Deutero-Isaiah, God’s righteousness becomes the ground and content of an eschatological hope for the setting right of human historical experience: despite present appearances to the contrary, God will reveal his righteousness in a way which will vindicate Israel’s trust in him, thus leading all nations to acknowledge his cosmic lordship.” [27]

It is within this context of the metaphor of the law court and the hope of Israel’s future vindication on account of God’s own righteousness that Paul’s purposes for Romans should be grounded. Second Temple Judaism (including what would become the Christian movement) often expressed their future hope for the vindication of Israel through their eschatological views of the coming Messiah.[28] But if Israel already had a hope for the future deliverance of Israel (a hope based upon God’s righteousness and covenant promises, and which would manifest itself in a deliverer Messiah), what is Paul then seeking to defend God’s righteousness and the covenant against in Romans? Here we encounter head on Paul’s contention with those in the early Christian movement who sought to make Gentile converts conform to Torah obligations before allowing them full participation within the Christian community.[29] If Paul’s position is that Gentile converts do not need to follow Torah restrictions to be allowed full fellowship/table participation in the covenant community, has God been unfaithful to ethnic Israel which had been historically defined around the Mosaic covenant and its subsequent Torah obligations? It is to explain how God has both been faithful to the Mosaic covenant contracted with Israel and yet allowed Gentiles into the covenant community without first conforming to Torah obligations that much of Paul’s argument in Romans is focused according to the NPP.[30] For Paul, God’s honor and faithfulness to the covenant with Israel is not in question, for he has not abandoned her or his covenants with her, but has now instead reconstituted the true people of God—the true “Israel”—in the new Christian community, whose covenant charter is the “Torah (nomou) of faith” (Rom 3.27), not the Mosaic Torah.

God’s righteousness—his resolute covenant faithfulness to assure Israel’s hope of vindication—has been manifested apart from the Law (Rom. 3.28)—that is, the Torah—by sending Jesus to redeem all humanity (thus destroying Israel’s true oppressors, not Babylon or Rome, but sin and death) and to redefine God’s chosen community. For Paul, Israel had missed her vocation, namely to be that of a light to the world and to declare to the Gentiles through her example that the God of Israel’s dominion is all pervasive.[31] They had misunderstood all along the original covenant with Abraham (a covenant which, importantly, did not function under later Mosaic Torah obligations), which was destined to redeem all of humanity—not just ethnic Israel.[32] God, according to Paul, has acted to do just that in Jesus the Messiah. God’s righteousness is now apart from Torah, for it is not Torah that now defines or identifies who is truly member of “Israel.”

Before proceeding further, it might be helpful to clarify the Torah’s relationship to the covenant. This is another place where the NPP has helped to shed significant light on Pauline studies. As E.P. Sanders originally stated:

The all-pervasive view [of Judaism] can be summarized in the phrase ‘covenantal nomism’. Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression…obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such. It simply keeps an individual in the group which is the recipient of God’s grace.[33]

Sanders summarizes:

…covenantal nomism is this: (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God‟s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God’s mercy rather than human achievement.[34]

Simply stated, Torah obligations were not usually viewed by early Jews, including Paul, as a means of earning salvation; rather one kept the Torah as the proper response to the salvific covenant offered by God to Israel. Unfortunately, later interpreters such as Augustine and Luther have misunderstood this crucial point, and in so doing have often presented Paul as antagonistic to the Torah, or as refuting (anachronistically) some form of moral legalism that seeks to earn God’s salvific favor. Rather, Paul is arguing that Torah obligations are no longer the means of maintaining the covenant and identifying who is already a part of true Israel.[35] The true community is no longer identified and no longer maintains the covenant based upon Mosaic Torah obligations as a proper response to God’s covenant love, but now instead keeps the “Torah of faith” (Rom. 3.27).

This foundational discussion of God’s righteousness and the relationship of Torah to the Mosaic Covenant will now allow us to understand properly what Paul’s use of another technical term—“justification”—meant. In Romans, as has been noted, Paul’s main purpose is to explain how God has accepted Gentile Christians as part of the true community of God without having to maintain Torah regulations. Paul’s point is that the true covenant community is no longer outwardly defined or identified only by those who are of Jewish ethnicity and practice strict Torah obedience—for God has now redefined the community around those who believe through “Christ’s faith(fulness)” (Rom. 3.22, 25-26). “Justification” as a technical term is about explaining how one is identified as a member within the collective covenant community (i.e., the Christian church, the new Israel); it is not used to denote how an individual somehow receives their future “salvation” in the present, or forgiveness of sins for that matter.[36] Paul is not using “justification” as a technical term to explain how a sinner is ultimately found to be worthy to dwell in God’s presence, and he is certainly not using “justification” as a term to explain how one is saved by God’s grace as opposed to those who try to “merit” their own future salvation and right standing with God. For both Paul, and Jews at large, earning ones salvation was not a concern. However, defining who God’s true people were in the present was always a pressing issue for both Jews and early Christians.[37] “Justification” as a technical term is concerned with identifying/defining those who are in the present members of God’s true corporate covenant community, those who can anticipate God’s future vindication conditional upon their continuing faithful obedience to the covenant and their future eschatological judgment. And for Paul it is those who “believe” through “Christ’s faith(fulness)” that have this covenant identification. Christian “faith” for Paul is, as N.T. Wright has stated, a “badge” identifying them as a member of God’s people, just as faithful adherence to Torah prescriptions had been in the past a means of identifying God’s chosen group.[38]

Returning now to the original phrase under discussion, it is quite clear that when dikaiosune theou is taken as referring to God’s own righteousness, Paul quickly becomes dislodged from later Augustinian and Reformed readings that make his discussion of the “righteousness of God” in Romans the antidote to Pelagianism or the teachings of the medieval Catholic Church which (according to Luther) stressed “works righteousness,” seeking to merit God’s salvific favor and grace. Rather, by placing Paul’s writings in their proper first century context, it becomes clear that the dikaiosune theou is a subjective and/or possessive genitival construction referring back to God himself—it is God’s own righteousness that is being discussed in Paul’s writings in terms of his covenant faithfulness (possessive genitive) and his closely related acts of covenant faithfulness (subjective genitive).[39] Because Lutheran, Reformed, and Augustinian readings have most often erroneously taken Paul’s discussion of the righteousness of God as the terminology for how a human can come to stand in God’s holy presence, they have instead turned the phrase “righteousness of God” into a genitive of origin (making “righteousness” an “imparted” or “imputed” status given to humans that declares them “righteous”) or an objective genitive (denoting righteousness as a “quality” that some humans have [or are given from God] that God recognizes as effectual).[40] However, Paul is simply not addressing how an individual sinner is accounted as “saved” when he discusses the “righteousness of God” (or when he uses “justification” language for that matter). God’s righteousness (as judge) simply is not a transferable substance or  legal fiction that is “imparted” or “infused” for/to/into humans to make them worthy to dwell in God’s heavenly presence. As N.T. Wright has stated, “The Jewish context…creates such a strong presumption in favour [sic] of [righteousness as referring to God himself] that it could only be overthrown if Paul quite clearly argued against it.”[41] As Richard Hays has summarized the situation:

Once it is recognized that “the righteousness of God” in Romans is deliberately explicated in terms of this covenant conceptuality, it becomes apparent that the term refers neither to an abstract ideal of divine distributive justice nor to a legal status or moral character imputed or conveyed by God to human beings. It refers rather to God’s own unshakable faithfulness…Insofar as “righteousness” may be ascribed to human beneficiaries of God’s grace…this righteousness should be interpreted primarily in terms of the covenant relationship to God and membership within the covenant community…”Righteousness” refers to God’s covenant-faithfulness which declares persons full participants in the community of God’s people. This declaration has a quasi-legal dimension, but there is no question here of a legal fiction whereby God juggles his heavenly account books and pretends not to notice human sin. The legal language points rather to the formal inclusion of those who once were “not my people” in a concrete historical community of the “sons of the living God” (Rom. 9.25-26)[42]

Romans is thus a nuanced explanation of how God has been faithful in his own righteousness to his past covenants to redeem the world, and how one defines the true” Israel”, or community of God. It is not an argument for how to combat those who try to approve themselves worthy of a right relationship with God through works. Rather, the works Paul discusses are those of the Mosaic Torah, by which devoted Pharisees—and Paul had said he had been a “blameless” Pharisee—identified who was truly a member of the covenant community in the here and now.[43] By admitting that Paul’s primary concern is how Gentiles can have full table fellowship with fellow Jewish Christians and be considered “Abraham’s children” (Gal. 3. 29; cf. Rom. 4-8) the depths of Paul’s writings are released.

[2] Many of the world’s foremost biblical scholars are major proponents of the NPP. See: E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns in Religion (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1977); Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 1983); James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990); The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998); N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said: Was St. Paul the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997); “The Letter to the Romans.” New Interpreters Bible, Volume X. Ed. Leander E .Keck. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002); Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philidelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976).  See also Ben Witherington’s Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004).

[3] For a simple introduction to historical scholarships’ views on Paul as well as the beginning of the NPP and its aims, see N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 7-23. That we can only really speak of first century Judaisms, see pg. 78 specifically.

[4] Here I have followed the suggested translation of Zeba Cook in “The Divine Benefactions of Paul the Client,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 2 (2001-05): 9-26 (as cited in Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of Go, Volume 2 (SLC, UT: Kofford Books, 2004), 293, 306), whose explanation of the translation of 1 Cor. 15.10 is as follows: “The typical translation of charis as “grace” obscures the clear connection that Paul draws between the reception of the vision and the charis that makes him what he is. While, as a translation, “grace” has pleasant theological nuances, it hardly reflects the meaning the word has in the context in which it functions, namely that of divine patronage. Instead, translating charis in a way that Paul’s contemporaries would have understood the term brings this verse into startling relief: “By the benefaction of God I am what I am, and his benefaction which was given to me was not in vain, but I toiled beyond all of them, not I but the benefaction of God which is with me”(1 Cor. 15.10).”

[5] Although this point is likely obvious from a simple reading of Galatians and Romans, see anyway Bart Ehrman’s introductory discussion of the Letter to the Galatians in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 331-340.

[6] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 293-301; N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 25-37; and John W. Drane’s article “Paul” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Eds. Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), 576-579.

[7] Ibid. So specifically claims N.T. Wright in What Paul Really Said, 20.

[8] Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 87-93. Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philidelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976), 7-23.

[9] Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93; N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 78.

[10] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 39-40.

[11] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 29-35, 79-94; Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 293-301; and Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93.

[12] Ibid. For the role of the Messiah among various Jewish and early Christian groups see Bart Ehrman The New Testament, 68.

[13] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 29-35; Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 293-301; and Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93.

[14] For a fuller discussion of Paul’s Jewishness as laid out here, see Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93. Such works are of course heavily indebted to the foundational studies of W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism; Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London: S.P.C.K., 1955), and E.P. Sanders revolutionary work Paul and Palestinian Judaism. For a good, although brief, introduction into Paul’s pre-Christian background and the affects it had upon his subsequent Christian life and thought, see again N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 25-37, as well as the subsequent chapters which systematically flesh out Paul’s modified Jewish views and mentality in light of his revelatory experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus. See also Bart Ehrman’s discussion of Paul’s newfound views in consequence of his vision in The New Testament, 293-301.

[15] At least 107 direct quotations of the Hebrew Bible appear in Paul’s writings, many of which belong to the Psalms and Isaiah. See M. Silva, “Old Testament in Paul,” in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, Eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 631.

[16] See Richard B. Hay’s article “Justification” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 3. Ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), 1129. See also the discussion of Ben Witherington in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 52-56.

[17] For a discussion of the metaphorical law court in which righteousness language is couched, see: N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 96-99.

[18] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 98-99.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] For how this plays out in the history of interpretation, see N.T. Wright in What Paul Really Said, 100-103, 113-117, 118-120, 125-133.

[22] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pgs. 95-99.

[23] Ibid. Also, see Richard B. Hays, “Justification,” pg. 1129-1133.

[24] See Michael Coogan’s The Old Testament A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 323; also pgs. 321-325.

[25] For a discussion of the biblical eschatological judgment and the analogy of the law court as described in this paragraph, see again N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pgs. 96-99.

[26] For and introduction to Hosea and Jeremiah see Michael Coogan, The Old Testament, 321-325 and 366-376, respectively.

[27] Richard B. Hays, “Justification,” 1129.

[28] For the role of the Messiah among various Jewish and early Christian groups see Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 68. For instance, the Qumran community had hopes of two future Messiah’s, one political and the other priestly. Their own conception was that their community was actually the true Israel. Much of their literature also expresses the apocalyptic view of the coming eschatological judgment of the nations. See the lengthy introduction of Geza Vermes in The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Classics, 2004).

[29] Ben Witherington on page 3 in Paul’s Letter to the Romans has correctly noted, however, that there are no direct indications that Paul is critiquing specific Jewish Christians in Rome who are trying to make Gentile Christians follow Torah laws, and that, therefore, this letter is not a polemic against them, but rather simply an explanation or exhortation based on God’s righteousness. Even though this letter is not necessarily directed against Jewish Christians at Rome and shouldn’t be regarded as a polemic against them as such, it is of course important to note that much of Paul’s thought expressed in this letter certainly developed in such engagements (cf. Galatians) and clearly cannot be completely divorced from such contexts.

[30] Again, see representative NPP scholarship on Paul’s historical context and Romans in such works as: James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle; N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said; “The Letter to the Romans,” in the New Interpreters Bible, Vol. X. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002); Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles.

[31] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 33, 84-85, 106.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 75, 420. Emphasis in the original has been removed.

[34] Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 422.

[35] Ibid.

[36] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 118-133.

[37] See the discussion in N.T. Wright in What Paul Really Said, 25-30, 31, 32-35. Wright convincingly argues that proper keeping of Torah was seen as the way in which many Jews in the present could be identified (or self-identified) as part of the true Israel, as those who could anticipate future vindication conditional on their continuing faithfulness to the covenant obligations as defined by the Torah. Divisions within Judaism(s), therefore, often centered on what constituted proper “Torah keeping,” and not about how one is to enter the covenant.

[38] N.T. Wright,What Paul Really Said, 132.

[39] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 100-103.

[40] Ibid.

[41] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pg. 103.

[42] Richard B. Hays,”Justification,” 1133.

[43] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 118-133.

Until 1935, when Otto Eissfeldt published his volume Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen, und das Ende des Gottes Moloch,[4] it had been presumed that there was an Israelite cult which performed human sacrifices to a god named Molech/Molek.  However, Eissfeldt argued that there never was a deity Molech (and thus there was no cult devoted to him), and that the term mlk was not the name of a deity at any rate, but a term used for a sacrifice—in this case a human sacrifice—cognate with the Phoenician/Punic mlk sacrifice.  Eissfeldt’s thesis won a large number of adherents and is still accepted by many scholars today, although notable scholars such as John Day and George Heider have disagreed with him in certain instances.  For instance, they argue that although there are times in the Hebrew Bible when this word does indeed indicate a type of sacrifice, there was yet a god named Molech and a cult dedicated to him in ancient Israel, and that this deity was a Canaanite underworld deity.[5] In support of this conclusion[6], Day has argued that it is clear that the alleged god Molech is not to be equated with either YHWH, the Ammonite god Milcom, Baal, nor the Aramean deity Adad-milki; rather, a god mlk is known from the Ugaritic texts, as well as from Akkadian sources.  Further, he argues that the fact that there was a separate cult area where the sacrifices were performed (the topheth south of Jerusalem, as opposed to the Jerusalem temple) argues against the identification of Molech with YHWH.  Moreover, Day believes that the Hebrew Bible has not misunderstood what was originally a term for a sacrifice with a name for a deity, because this would have had to happen in a variety of biblical sources, a fact he feels strains credulity.

What are we to make of these disagreements amongst scholars?  Most scholars today, including Day, agree on at least several points: there was a cult of child sacrifice in ancient Israel, and that this practice is of Canaanite origin; that this type of sacrifice, contra some older scholarship, does indeed refer to the practice of actually sacrificing children, and not simply of dedicating them to a deity;[7] that there are a number of instances in the Hebrew Bible where the term mlk is most certainly a term for a (human) sacrifice–just as in the Phoenician/Punic sources–and not a god, as Eissfeldt originally brought to light; and that, although this term may be used for a sacrifice, there are yet instances in the Hebrew Bible where the term more naturally refers to an alleged deity named Molech.  The central questions therefore remain: was there a deity named Molech to whom an Israelite cult was dedicated and for whom human sacrifices were performed, as Day and Heider have argued?  And if so, what can be known about this deity?

There are a number of points that might be marshaled against the arguments put forth by Day.  Day goes to great lengths to suggest that certain biblical texts (e.g., Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35) do not indicate that the Israelites were sacrificing their children to YHWH.[8] It seems more likely, however, given other passages in the Hebrew Bible that refer to these sacrifices being performed for YHWH or at YHWH’s command, that these passages in Jeremiah do intimate or imply that human sacrifices were being performed for/to YHWH.  For instance, Jeremiah 32:35 (a part of the Deuteronomistic redaction of the text[9]) reads, “And they built high places for Baal, which are in the valley of ben Hinnom in order to make their sons and their daughters pass through the fire as a mlk sacrifice.  This I did not command them, nor was it in my heart (for them) to do this abomination…”  The other passages in Jeremiah are similar.

However, even if these passages in Jeremiah are not conclusive as to whether human sacrifices were performed in YHWH’s name or at YHWH’s behest, other biblical passages confirm this fact.  For instance, Ezekiel 20:25-26 directly indicates that YHWH actually commanded such sacrifices: “I [YHWH] also gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they could not live.  I caused them to sin by their (own) gifts, by causing (them) to pass through (the fire) all who open the womb [i.e., the firstborn], in order that I might horrify them, in order that they might know that I am YHWH.”  Moreover, the imagery of the mlk sacrifice in Isaiah 30:27-33 (esp. verse 33) clearly indicates that such offerings were performed for/to YHWH.  Micah 6:6-7 is also of note, as it condemns child sacrifice, not because it is immoral, but because, in absence of covenant fidelity and justice, it is an excessive and unnecessary form of worship, just as are sacrifices to YHWH of, for instance, thousands of rams.[10] I therefore agree with Mark Smith that “These passages indicate that in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh…In [Isaiah 30:27-33] there is no offense taken at the tophet, the precinct of child sacrifice.  It would appear that Jerusalemite cult included child sacrifice under Yahwistic patronage; it is this that Leviticus 20:2-5 deplores.”[11] This is of significance for another reason: because the topheth was seen as operating under YHWHistic patronage, Day’s argument that, because there was a separate place from YHWH’s Jerusalem temple for human mlk sacrifices to take place (namely the topheth) and this therefore indicates that YHWH must have been a separate deity from the alleged god Molech, is unconvincing.

The somewhat opaque references in Jeremiah referred to above have additional implications for evaluating Day’s argument that the Deuteronomists and other biblical authors, who lived at a time when (or soon after) such sacrifices were actually being performed, would not have confused the sacrificial term mlk with the name of a deity.  Saul Olyan has cogently argued that this is not a case of the Deuteronomists’ misunderstanding the terms and their references; rather it is a matter of the Deuteronomists purposefully distorting the terminology and their references in order to criticize what were otherwise native Israelite practices that they deemed illegitimate.  Just as they distorted the original nature of Asherah/the asherah in Israelite religion by associating her/it with Baal instead of YHWH,[12] so too the Deuteronomists, as seen in the passage quoted from Jeremiah above, associated human sacrifice, otherwise a traditional Israelite practice in certain circles, with Baal—a polemical distortion, as human sacrifice is nowhere else attested in Canaanite religion for Baal.[13] Rather, human sacrifice in Canaanite religion was associated with El (with whom YHWH was identified at an earlier period in Israelite religion).[14] That the Deuteronomists have distorted the factual reality behind the mlk sacrifice and the deity/deities for whom it was intended, one might also note that the Deuteronomists also (mis)identify Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, with Molech in 1 Kings 11:7; however, as Day himself has argued, human sacrifice was a Canaanite phenomenon, and it seems unlikely that Molech is to be equated with the Ammonite god Milcom.[15] Finally, it also seems from Deuteronomistic polemic that such sacrifices were  known to take place at the bamot, or “high places,” and this again points to a purposeful dissimulation, as the bamot, contra the Deuteronomistic historiographic presentation, were a common feature of traditional Israelite religion and the worship of YHWH (although, as will be noted below, there is apparently no extra biblical evidence for such sacrifices actually taking place at the bamot).[16] For these reasons I conclude that Day has misunderstood the real problem: it is not a matter of the Deuteronomistic (and other, later) authors misunderstanding the real nature of the sacrifices and for whom they were performed (indeed, several authors know exactly for whom they were intended: YHWH); rather, it is a matter of the Deuteronomistic agenda to discredit practices which they deemed illegitimate, as in the case of Asherah/the asherah.

Other problems with Day’s analysis remain.  For instance, although Day cites evidence that there was a god mlk in both Ugaritic and Akkadian sources, there is no evidence linking the god mlk with human sacrifice or with the Hebrew and Phoenician sacrificial term mlk.[17] In fact, as Day argues, the sacrificial term mlk originates from the root hlk, meaning “to go,” and in this way is similar to other sacrificial terms in Hebrew, such as ‘olah and qorban.[18] Nor is it certain that the god mlk in the Ugaritic texts pertains to the cult of the dead,[19] although it seems likely that, whoever this deity actually was, he did have some connection with the underworld.[20] These complications, in turn, may call into question the biblical evidence that might be mounted for associating veneration of the dead at the high places with child sacrifice—at any rate, there is no extra biblical evidence that child sacrifice ever even occurred at the high places[21] (and this may indicate that child sacrifice was actually not a very common practice in ancient Israel[22]). Finally, Ugarit does not even attest to the practice of child sacrifice, a serious issue for Day’s suggestions.[23]

Although mentioned above, it is worth reiterating the fact that child sacrifice in the ancient Near East was primarily the province of El (=Baal Hamon=Baal Addir=Addir Melek=(later) YHWH; cf. 2 Kings 17:31), not biblical Baal (=Hadad=Baal Shamem)—in fact, as Olyan has argued at length, there is no evidence that Baal was ever the recipient of human sacrifice in Canaanite religion (although there may be a few references for such sacrifices being dedicated to Baal among non-Canaanites[24]).[25] This is significant, because, if true, it would further undermine the credibility of the Deuteronomistic presentation of human sacrifices being performed for Baal.

Finally, it is worth discussing other ancient Near Eastern sources concerning human sacrifice.  As recounted by Philo of Byblos, and as we have seen in our discussion of an alleged Molech cult in ancient Israel, there were apparently a number of deities to whom a human mlk sacrifice could be offered, including El (=Kronos), Ouranos, YHWH, and other deities.  What other evidence do we have from the ancient Mediterranean world regarding such sacrifices, and to whom were they offered?  As mentioned above, it seems clear that human sacrifice was an indigenous Canaanite (and hence Israelite) practice, frequently associated with El (later identified with YHWH in Israelite religions).  Mark Smith has an excellent discussion of the relevant evidence, including textual, epigraphical, archaeological, and iconographic materials.[26] All I offer here is a brief summary of the most pertinent evidences.

Both Phoenician and Punic materials designate multiple recipients for the mlk sacrifice, just as Philo attests.  These deities include Eshmun, Baal Hamon and Tannit (=El and Asherah[27]).[28] Other classical sources, including Diodorus Siculus, also indicate that such sacrifices were performed for Kronos (=El).[29] New Kingdom war reliefs in Egypt also depict Levantine peoples performing child sacrifices during times of war.[30] Archaeological evidence from Punic Carthage also attests to child sacrifice and burials, although some scholars have argued that the practice of human sacrifice was still quite rare there, contrary to popular polemic in the ancient world.[31] Other sites of child sacrifice are known from the ancient Mediterranean world, all the way from Spain, to Sicily, to Sardinia, and possibly Tyre.[32] Additionally, there is archaeological evidence in Late Bronze Age Ammon in Transjordan of burned children’s bones, probably indicating a cult of human sacrifice there.[33] This fact, in turn, lines up well with the biblical account of 2 Kings 3, where the kings of Judah, Israel, and Edom ally together and attack king Moab of Mesha, driving him back to his city.  In verse 27 king Mesha sacrifices his son upon a wall bringing “great wrath” on Israel—presumably because the god of Moab was summoned to Mesha’s defense via the sacrifice—and they (the Israelites) fled back to their own land.  This story is also of note because it agrees with Philo of Byblos and Porphyry, as well as what we saw in Egyptian war reliefs: namely that these sacrifices were offered by the royal or ruling classes during times of great trouble, including war.

In conclusion, therefore, it seems quite likely that, contrary to biblical polemic and Deuteronomistic historiogrpahical distortion, human (child) sacrifice was a traditional Canaanite (and hence Israelite) practice, and that mlk sacrifices were indeed devoted to YHWH, even among royal (so-called official) circles.

[2] See, for example, Smith, The Early History of God, 171-181, as well as Saul Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 11-13 and notes.

[3] For this point see Baumgarten, The Phoenician History, 248-249.

[4] Otto Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen, und das Ende des Gottes Moloch (Halle: Niemeyer, 1935).

[5] Day, Molech, 84.

[6] For what follows, see Day, Molech, 82-85.

[7] It is worth noting that the term does not inherently refer to human sacrifice.  In Punic materials it simply refers to a sacrifice of some sort and the following word in construct with mlk specifies the type of sacrifice.  Hence, mlk sacrifices of animals are known in our sources.  However, for the biblical authors, this sacrifice seems to specify human (child) sacrifices in most instances.  See Day, Molech, 4-13.

[8] Day, Molech, 85.

[9] Day, Molech, 85.

[10] Olyan, Asherah, 13.

[11] Smith, The Early History of God, 172.

[12] Olyan, Asherah, 13-14, 38-61, 74.

[13] Olyan, Asherah, 12 and notes, 68.

[14] Olyan, Asherah, 12 and notes, 62-68.

[15] Day, Molech, 84.

[16] Smith, The Early History of God, 9, 11, 12, 180-181.

[17] Smith, The Early History of God, 178-179.

[18] Day, Molech, 7-8, 82.  This may therefore undermine the argument put forth by those who suggest that the term mlk necessarily indicates that the origins of this sacrifice lie in human sacrifices performed by the king, or that it was a sacrifice performed for the king deity of the pantheon (whether El, YHWH, etc.), contra Smith, The Early History of God, 178.

[19] Smith, The Early History of God, 179.

[20] For a full discussion, see Smith, The Early History of God, 178-181, and the literature cited there.

[21] Smith, The Early History of God, 181.

[22] Smith, The Early History of God, 181.

[23] Smith, The Early History of God, 179.

[24] Olyan, Asherah, 68, n. 20.

[25] Olyan, Asherah, 12 and notes, 62-68.

[26] Smith, The Early History of God, 172-178.  The following discussion is based on his analysis.

[27] As argued at length by Olyan, Asherah, 62-69.

[28] Smith, The Early History of God, 172-173.

[29] Smith, The Early History of God, 173.

[30] Smith, The Early History of God, 177.

[31] Smith, The Early History of God, 173-174.

[32] Smith, The Early History of God, 173 and notes.

[33] Smith, The Early History of God, 177-178.

Perhaps no text has influenced current gender roles and concepts of sexuality in Western culture more than the biblical Yahwist (J) account of creation found in Genesis 2-3. [1] This familiar story of the creation of Eve and Adam (the archetypal woman and man) in the Garden of Eden has a long and varied history of interpretation within the Christian tradition, having very often been used as a prooftext to demonstrate that women are inferior and/or subordinate to men socially, morally, and religiously. Such patriarchal and subordinating interpretations of Eve (and hence woman) to Adam (and thus man), in fact, are found in some biblical texts themselves. For instance, 1 Timothy 2.11-15 (NRSV, alternate translations in brackets), uses the story of Eve an Adam in an attempt to show why woman (or specifically wives) are not to teach but to keep silent in public worship and to fully submit to the authority of man (or her husband). According to the author of 1 Timothy (who is most likely not Paul, but a later disciple of Paul writing in his name), this is because Eve was created secondarily to Adam, and because she was the transgressor who was deceived by the serpent, while the man was not deceived. This passage reads:

Let a woman [wife] learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman [wife] to teach or to have authority over a man [her husband]; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

However, are such patriarchal interpretations of the Eve and Adam story correct? Is the text itself patriarchal–bent on demonstrating the inferiority and inequality of women to men–or is it simply that the text has been interpreted patriarchally throughout its history of interpretation (on account of the fact that it has most often been interpreted by male elitists), when in fact the text itself is actually egalitarian, underscoring the equality of the sexes?

The Yahwist account of Eve and Adam has received a number of (re)interpretations in modern feminist biblical scholarship. Feminist biblical scholarship, recognizing that gender is a social construct, and hence “a matter of power” [269], and that all writing is gendered in perspective, generally seeks to (re)discover the history and voices of women–whose written records are typically very limited and who have often been erased or ignored from historical memory–and to “expose the culturally based presuppositions in classic discourse.” (270) Here I will present several critically informed feminist interpretations of the story of Eve and Adam found in Genesis 2-3.

Phyllis Trible

Trible suggests that it is not until after the “fall” that hierarchical distinctions between man and woman come about; rather, before Eve’s and Adam’s banishment from the garden there is a high degree of equality between the sexes that is evinced in the text. She notes that God first made the human (adam) without gender, since, although a masculine pronoun is used for the new creature, it is not until the woman is made from this creature that the sexes are differentiated. Appealing to binary logic (the ability to establish difference[s] based on opposites), the male cannot really be distinguished without the female, and vice versa. Moreover, Trible suggests that woman is really the pinnacle of creation, and that it is significant that she is described as man’s “help(er)” (Hebrew ‘ezer), since this word is often used elsewhere as a descriptor of God–clearly a superior being to the man. Finally, she notes that woman is the active and assertive agent in the story, while the man is passive.

Mieke Bal

Bal develops Eve as “a character of great power” (271). Eve’s act of eating the fruit is truly humanity’s first act of human independence, making humanity, now possessing a real knowledge of good and evil, more like God/the gods (Gen. 3.22). It is by this act, Bal suggests, that humanity and divinity can truly enter into a genuine relationship. Eve did not “sin” (no such word is found in the story), but rather chose reality, and “her choice marks the emergence of human character” (271).

Carol Meyers

Meyers seeks to interpret the story of Eve and Adam within its historical-cultural context of ancient Israelite (pre-monarchical) agrarian society. For Meyers, the emphasis on food and sustenance, which would have been of the utmost importance in the context of an ancient agrarian society, overrides the themes of disobedience and its effects. The garden is well watered; there is no need for the toils of plowing, planting, and harvesting field crops. “For Meyers, Genesis 2-3 is not a story of “the fall” (no word for “fall” or “sin” is ever mentioned) but a wisdom tale dealing “with the meaning of the paradoxes and harsh facts of life”" (272). Meyers, based on her own translation of Genesis 3.16, suggests that God’s judgment for woman is not pain in childbirth but rather multiple pregnancies, and, like her husband Adam, increased agrarian toil. Her translation of Genesis 3.16 reads:

I will greatly increase your toil and your pregnancies; [along] with travail shall you beget children. For to your man is your desire, and he shall predominate over you.

Thus female subordination after Eve’s and Adam’s departure from the garden is limited to the domain of sexual activity, and is not concerned with general social hierarchy.

However, other commentators have been less optimistic that the character of Eve (and hence of woman in general) may be so equally rehabilitated. As mentioned, all writing is gendered, and “Genesis 2-3, as a story of origins, is, among other things, in the business of constructing gender roles…” The man “names both genders–and according to him, the woman is derivative of the man,” which is further underscored by the fact that God “relates woman to the man as his “helper”.” The man suggests that the woman’s primary role is to be the “mother of all living.” God assigns each sex their own specific duties. Thus “the narrative establishes a particular kind of life style for men and women” (273).

Susan Lanser

“Susan Lanser, applying the principles of speech-act theory to the text, argues that inference and context are as important to the production of meaning as the formal characteristics of language.” (273) Thus the man (Hebrew ha’adam), when first introduced into the story, would be assumed to have a masculine gender. Moreover, when the man calls the new creature “woman,” this is an act that defines her (and not simply a recognition of sexual difference), just as the man’s naming the animals defines them. Lanser argues that the accusatory formula of Genesis 3.14 that is directed to the serpent is carried over into Genesis 3.16, and so this statement is, in fact, a divine punishment, and not a simple descriptive statement.

David Clines

Clines, contra Trible, argues that the word “helper” attributed to Eve does not (necessarily) indicate her superiority to the man, and at any rate she is still secondary to the man and his status, roles, and function(s). For Clines, Eve is still only essential to the man for the act of procreation.

Phyllis Bird

Bird, although recognizing that the story of Eve and Adam is clearly androcentric in nature, nevertheless finds more to salvage than Lanser or Clines. For Bird the first human is certainly male (contra Trible), but the man does not fully represent humanity. Bird comments that “Although the help which the woman is meant to give to the man is undoubtedly help in procreation, the account in Genesis 2 subordinates function to passion. The attraction of the sexes is the author’s primary interest, the sexual drive whose consummation is conceived as a re-union” (274). For Bird, the subordination of woman to man is not a part of God’s original creation. Human sexuality, originally meant as a means of happiness and fulfillment, can be turned into a weapon of oppression.

David Jobling

Jobling, utlizing structuralist analysis informed by Marxist and feminist ideology, seeks to find meaning in the text by highlighting its own tensions. For Jobling, there is tension in the presentation of Eve. Although the story blames Eve (the woman) for the negative vicissitudes of life, nevertheless she is, as Trible pointed out, an active and intelligent character while the man is passive. Jobling observes that “at the deepest level of the text, where the fall myth as a whole is in tension with “a man to till the earth,” the possibility is evoked that the human transformation in which the woman took powerful initiative was positive, rather than negative, that the complex human world is to be preferred over any male ideal,” although he notes that this is not occasioned by an ancient feminist perspective, but rather by a patriarchal insecurity which attempts to both legitimize its power and make sense of “femaleness” (276).

Who Has Been “Deceived”?

As has been seen, there have been many different interpretations and applications, from ancient times until the present, of the story of Eve and Adam in Genesis 2-3. These interpretations bring a number of important questions to the fore: Is Eve truly equal to Adam, or is the biblical story of Eve and Adam irretrievably patriarchal? Or is there perhaps some middle ground? Simply, of what significance is the biblical story of Eve and Adam for informing a modern understanding of human sexuality and gender, and especially among those Judeo-Christian traditions (including LDS Christianity) that accept the Bible as an authoritative religious text in some sense? What interpretations of the story seem most valid to you, and why, and how can or should this text be appropriated in today’s society (or societies)?

Notes

[1] The following discussion is from Danna Nolan Fewell’s article “Reading the Bible Ideologically: Feminist Criticism” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), pgs. 268-282. All quotes (including those of other authors) and page numbers refer to this article.

Mark, however, consistently portrays the twelve as misunderstanding Jesus’ identity, his “suffering messiahship and his call to suffering discipleship,” and the altruistic “ministerial service” that is required in the community of disciples. (319)  After Judas betrays Jesus, the remaining eleven eventually forsake Jesus during his passion and flee for safety.  Even Peter, the leading member of Jesus’ inner circle of the twelve, denies him.

However, Jesus is followed during his passion by certain women followers.  The discipleship of these faithful women who are willing to suffer and endure persecution–and perhaps even death given their association with Jesus–powerfully contrasts with Jesus’ abandonment by the twelve.  It is the female followers of Jesus who take up the cross and follow him to his death (Mark 8.34; 10.28).  Mark presents these women as exemplifying true Christian discipleship over and against the twelve.  This is because these women have genuine “faith,” the power, according to Mark, that is necessary to enable one to persist amidst suffering and persecution for Jesus and the gospel. Mark 15.41 stresses the true discipleship of these women by utilizing two verbs used elsewhere in the gospel to characterize faithful discipleship.  In this verse these women “followed” him (cf. Mark 8.34; 10.28) and “ministered” to him (c.f. Mark 10.41-45; this verb, in fact, underlies the entirety of Jesus’ ministry, as well as the type of leadership required among God’s community).

The presentation of women as true disciples in the Gospel of Mark is further evidenced at the beginning and end of the passion narrative.  I conclude with the following quote by feminist biblical scholar Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza:

It is a woman who recognizes Jesus’ suffering messiahship and, in a prophetic-sign action, anoints Jesus for his burial, while “some” of the disciples reprimand her.  Further, it is a servant woman who challenges Peter to act on his promise not to betray Jesus.  In doing so she unmasks and exposes him for what he is, a betrayer.  Finally, two women, Mary of Magdala and Mary (the mother) of Joses, witness the place where Jesus was buried (15:47), and three women receive the news of his resurrection (16:1-8).  Thus at the end of Mark’s Gospel the women disciples emerge as examples of suffering discipleship and true leadership. They are the apostolic eye-witnesses of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection…They preserve the messianic identity of the crucified and resurrected Lord which is entrusted to the circle of the disciples…Those who are the farthest from the center of religious and political power, the slaves, the children, the gentiles, the women, become the paradigms of true discipleship. (321, 322, 323)

Notes

[1] The following analysis is based on the work of  feminist biblical scholar Elisabeth Schusser Fiorenza.  See her book entitled In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Co., 1988), pgs. 316-323.