Job said, "My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you." (Job 42:5)
So it was specified that he saw YHWH with his eyes, although this was likely a poetic device, not meant to be taken literally. Compare Isa. 6:5; 30:20; 33:17; Revelation 1:7.
For the fear of potential death resulting from "seeing God," compare Gen. 32:30; Judges 6:22-23; 13:22; Isa. 6:5 (which is a vision).
Despite these accounts, the good Jewish Christian, John, could still write (NASB):
"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
It makes little sense to claim the elders saw God as he is. See also 1 John 3:2.
Are we going to believe that God has feet and pavement under said feet? Plus, how should we correlate men never having seen God with them supposedly beholding him? How could they take all that glory? Ezekiel 43:2.
I think Umbert Cassuto's remarks on Exod 24:9-11 are worth reading. I post only a portion of what he writes:
And on the nobles of the children of Israel on those men who were the noblemen and chosen ones of the children of Israel, and were worthy that God should reveal Himself to them, He put not forth His hand; and they beheld God (here, too, we have the generic designation 'Elohim, that is, they saw a Divine vision), and, nevertheless, they ate and drank at the sacred meal of the peace offerings when they returned to the camp. Perhaps there is an allusion here to the fact that Aaron and his sons and the elders did not attain to the spiritual level of Moses, who was privileged to come nearer than they to the sphere of the Godhead and to rise higher than they above normal human life; for during the forty days of his stay on Mount Sinai 'he neither ate bread nor drank water' (xxxiv 28; compare Deut. ix 9, 18).
"We can also learn about God's qualities by studying the Bible and meditating on what we read, especially on what his Son, Jesus, said and did. (John 1:18; Romans 1:20)"
See 1 Kings 19:13 - now the real question is, has there ever been a recorded death due to seeing gods face? Is seeing gods face even possible? Moses saw his back and the chiefs saw his feet from a distance, whatever that means.
No recorded deaths far as I can tell. Exod 33:20 indicates death for those mortals who see God's face, but God does not have a literal face like a human. That point aside, it is not possible to see God's face, and John 1:18 could not be more emphatic.
Moses asked to see God's glory but was allowed to see the back of His glory. Jehovah does not have a literal back or feet; not does He need pavement to support his feet He is not a mortal man.
I'm not fully sure why the warning about seeing the face of God are given, and if they were redundant, that would not be a problem because redundancies are found throughout the Bible: pleonasm is a well-known literary device. But is the warning merely redundant? After all, Jacob, Manoah, Gideon, and Isaiah (among others) felt genuinely fearful because they saw God or his face. However, did they really see God?
As for hyperbole, it's possible, but the explanations I've read normally discuss other factors that include the authentic ontological inadequacy of man to see God. See https://books.google.com/books?id=YVtijNRoacAC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=ontological+inadequacy+westphal&source=bl&ots=Ba0OaEEt43&sig=ACfU3U3tt4ZNtjLf1KHsGZYCmIOHleP2vQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzvYaEyr3oAhXIVN8KHb_pAicQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=ontological%20inadequacy%20westphal&f=false
In a sense, as proved by Jacob, humans can see God's "face." In another sense, they cannot. It's like being alive in one sense, but dead in another sense. Such a case would not violate the law of non-contradiction. Exod 33:20 seems to be dealing with personally beholding the face of God as opposed to seeing God's face in a visionary or representative way.
I was thinking that Exod 33:20 also sets what might be called "a boundary limit." In other words, you may go this far and no further. You might also remember the article that Andrei Orlov wrote about this subject.
I don't know if we can call their fear a superstition, but the funny thing is that Exodus 20:19-20 is parallel to Deut. 5:24-27. In fact, 5:24 recounts Exodus 20.
Jehovah God clearly said that if anyone saw his face, they would die; so that part did not emanate from superstition.
Exod 20:20--"And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not."
In both Exodus 20:19-20 and Deuteronomy 5:24-25, the people say they will die, right? In Exodus 33:20, Moses is told that he'll die if he beholds God's face. So it's different, but Exodus and Deuteronomy resemble one another.
If someeone wants to believe the Israelite belief emanated from superstition, there's not much I can do to dissudae them. However, from a biglical perspective, I think it's difficult to argue that Israel was superstitious for believing they would die if they heard God's voice or saw his face. The fear of God's voice for imperfect humans started with Adam and Eve, who knew they were in trouble when they heard the deity speaking to them after they sinned. Israel rightly feared God's voice as Deuteronmy indicates and later, so does Heb. 12, because that experience could have resulted in their death. Furthermore, it wasn't just God speaking at Sinai, but how he spoke that made them quake.
I hate typos, but I admit that the comment above was hastily typed, not checked afterwards. So I apologize for the typos and just wanted to add that Jehovah informed Moses that no one could see God's face and yet live.
It would seem that "seeing" in Hebrew is describing an active process. Compare Genesis 34:1 & the similar term https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7200.htm which carries one definition of:-
d. look after, see after, learn about, with accusative of thing Genesis 37:14 (J), with accusative of person = visit (go to see) 1 Samuel 15:35; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Samuel 13:5,6; 2 Kings 8:29 2Chronicles 22:6; 2 Kings 9:16, compare Ezekiel 20:28, עֵין רֹאִי Job 7:8 (Di Bu and others)
Thanks, Duncan. I don't have a problem with this way of understanding one aspect of sight in the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, we have Numbers 24:4, 16, 17, which describes another kind of seeing.
I just have one more thing concerning the beholding/seeing of God:
"Accordingly, Deuteronomy closes narrative gaps. It is careful to clarify that while Israel saw YHWH, they did not see him in se (pp. 138–39). Hence the book is not aniconic, as often assumed; it is simply determined that readers do not misunderstand prior theophanies (p. 157)."
See https://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/theophanic-type-scenes-in-the-pentateuch-visions-of-yhwh/
33 comments:
Seeing with the eyes is nowhere specified in any instance. Why should it be?
So a false dichotomy is present here.
Yehovah did not lay his hands on them - why say this unless normally perceived as a consequence for this type of action?
Search:-
The Anuna, the seven judges, look of death
Job said, "My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you." (Job 42:5)
So it was specified that he saw YHWH with his eyes, although this was likely a poetic device, not meant to be taken literally. Compare Isa. 6:5; 30:20; 33:17; Revelation 1:7.
For the fear of potential death resulting from "seeing God," compare Gen. 32:30; Judges 6:22-23; 13:22; Isa. 6:5 (which is a vision).
Despite these accounts, the good Jewish Christian, John, could still write (NASB):
"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
It makes little sense to claim the elders saw God as he is. See also 1 John 3:2.
Are we going to believe that God has feet and pavement under said feet? Plus, how should we correlate men never having seen God with them supposedly beholding him? How could they take all that glory? Ezekiel 43:2.
Nahum Sarna also claims the presence of hzh in Exodus 24:11 indicates the experience was not ocular, but visionary (Exodus, page 153).
I think Umbert Cassuto's remarks on Exod 24:9-11 are worth reading. I post only a portion of what he writes:
And on the nobles of the children of Israel on those men who were the noblemen and chosen ones of the children of Israel, and were worthy that God should reveal Himself to them, He put not forth His hand; and they beheld God (here, too, we have the generic designation 'Elohim, that is, they saw a Divine vision), and, nevertheless, they ate and drank at the sacred meal of the peace offerings when they returned to the camp. Perhaps there is an allusion here to the fact that Aaron and his sons and the elders did not attain to the spiritual level of Moses, who was privileged to come nearer than they to the sphere of the Godhead and to rise higher than they above normal human life; for during the forty days of his stay on Mount Sinai 'he neither ate bread nor drank water' (xxxiv 28; compare Deut. ix 9, 18).
https://biblehub.com/text/john/14-7.htm
Explained him?
John 1:18 teaches that the only begotten god/Son explained or exegeted God. How did he explain God?
See John 14:9; 18:36.
Not sure what 18:36 has to do with this?
14:9 also says seen, not explained.
1) John 18:36 should have been 18:37. Mea culpa.
2) I brought up John 14:9, because you mentioned John 14:7.
14:7 speaks about knowing Jesus, knowing the Father, and seeing him. Well, how would they see and know the Father? John 14:9
Or did you mean another verse besides 14:7?
Jesus explained the Father in more than 1 way.
"We can also learn about God's qualities by studying the Bible and meditating on what we read, especially on what his Son, Jesus, said and did. (John 1:18; Romans 1:20)"
5/15/12 WT
See 1 Kings 19:13 - now the real question is, has there ever been a recorded death due to seeing gods face? Is seeing gods face even possible? Moses saw his back and the chiefs saw his feet from a distance, whatever that means.
No recorded deaths far as I can tell. Exod 33:20 indicates death for those mortals who see God's face, but God does not have a literal face like a human. That point aside, it is not possible to see God's face, and John 1:18 could not be more emphatic.
Moses asked to see God's glory but was allowed to see the back of His glory. Jehovah does not have a literal back or feet; not does He need pavement to support his feet He is not a mortal man.
The language in Exodus 24:9-11 suggests it was a vision like Isaiah 6.
That's fair enough. But if we cannot see God then "see God and live" or die seems redundant language or it is just hyperbolic.
I'm not fully sure why the warning about seeing the face of God are given, and if they were redundant, that would not be a problem because redundancies are found throughout the Bible: pleonasm is a well-known literary device. But is the warning merely redundant? After all, Jacob, Manoah, Gideon, and Isaiah (among others) felt genuinely fearful because they saw God or his face. However, did they really see God?
As for hyperbole, it's possible, but the explanations I've read normally discuss other factors that include the authentic ontological inadequacy of man to see God. See https://books.google.com/books?id=YVtijNRoacAC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=ontological+inadequacy+westphal&source=bl&ots=Ba0OaEEt43&sig=ACfU3U3tt4ZNtjLf1KHsGZYCmIOHleP2vQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzvYaEyr3oAhXIVN8KHb_pAicQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=ontological%20inadequacy%20westphal&f=false
In a sense, as proved by Jacob, humans can see God's "face." In another sense, they cannot. It's like being alive in one sense, but dead in another sense. Such a case would not violate the law of non-contradiction. Exod 33:20 seems to be dealing with personally beholding the face of God as opposed to seeing God's face in a visionary or representative way.
I was thinking that Exod 33:20 also sets what might be called "a boundary limit." In other words, you may go this far and no further. You might also remember the article that Andrei Orlov wrote about this subject.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FIYiil96ZXAC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=ancient+kings+%22face+to+the+ground%22&source=bl&ots=y0jFIY7AyZ&sig=ACfU3U0PV-VaLWDwAqfmpsYT9yLw9-yE_w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAztDcg8PoAhWLbsAKHWhtAFgQ6AEwA3oECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20kings%20%22face%20to%20the%20ground%22&f=false
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/5-25.htm
Compare Genesis 3:8-10; Exodus 20:19
Relevant verses, but the one I chose tells us that they did hear and did not die regardless of there superstition.
καὶ νῦν μὴ ἀποθάνωμεν ὅτι ἐξαναλώσει ἡμᾶς τὸ πῦρ τὸ μέγα τοῦτο ἐὰν προσθώμεθα ἡμεῗς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν φωνὴν κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἔτι καὶ ἀποθανούμεθα
LXX 25 But now let us not die. For this great fire will consume us; if we continue to hear the voice of the Lord our God any longer, then we will die.
I use the LXX as the terms are easier to verify.
I don't know if we can call their fear a superstition, but the funny thing is that Exodus 20:19-20 is parallel to Deut. 5:24-27. In fact, 5:24 recounts Exodus 20.
Jehovah God clearly said that if anyone saw his face, they would die; so that part did not emanate from superstition.
Exod 20:20--"And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not."
Deut 5:26 indicates their survival was exceptional, not that Israel was superstitious.
Exodus 20:19-20 has the people saying they will die. Not the same as being told.
As for Deut 5:26, who else had ever heard god speak out of fire?
To say it's not superstition you need to demonstrate both sides.
In both Exodus 20:19-20 and Deuteronomy 5:24-25, the people say they will die, right? In Exodus 33:20, Moses is told that he'll die if he beholds God's face. So it's different, but Exodus and Deuteronomy resemble one another.
If someeone wants to believe the Israelite belief emanated from superstition, there's not much I can do to dissudae them. However, from a biglical perspective, I think it's difficult to argue that Israel was superstitious for believing they would die if they heard God's voice or saw his face. The fear of God's voice for imperfect humans started with Adam and Eve, who knew they were in trouble when they heard the deity speaking to them after they sinned. Israel rightly feared God's voice as Deuteronmy indicates and later, so does Heb. 12, because that experience could have resulted in their death. Furthermore, it wasn't just God speaking at Sinai, but how he spoke that made them quake.
See http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-08532013000100014
I hate typos, but I admit that the comment above was hastily typed, not checked afterwards. So I apologize for the typos and just wanted to add that Jehovah informed Moses that no one could see God's face and yet live.
It would seem that "seeing" in Hebrew is describing an active process. Compare Genesis 34:1 & the similar term https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7200.htm which carries one definition of:-
d. look after, see after, learn about, with accusative of thing Genesis 37:14 (J), with accusative of person = visit (go to see) 1 Samuel 15:35; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Samuel 13:5,6; 2 Kings 8:29 2Chronicles 22:6; 2 Kings 9:16, compare Ezekiel 20:28, עֵין רֹאִי Job 7:8 (Di Bu and others)
Thanks, Duncan. I don't have a problem with this way of understanding one aspect of sight in the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, we have Numbers 24:4, 16, 17, which describes another kind of seeing.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NG-mDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=godly+fear&ots=GOyi1-GBSc&sig=vnFMc930v9pPbMCJ-QSf5MpaB5Y#v=onepage&q=godly%20fear&f=false
godly fear
I see numbers 24 differently to many. The term shaddai combined with what verse 6 is telling us.
I just have one more thing concerning the beholding/seeing of God:
"Accordingly, Deuteronomy closes narrative gaps. It is careful to clarify that while Israel saw YHWH, they did not see him in se (pp. 138–39). Hence the book is not aniconic, as often assumed; it is simply determined that readers do not misunderstand prior theophanies (p. 157)."
See https://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/theophanic-type-scenes-in-the-pentateuch-visions-of-yhwh/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
I have taught the law of excluded middle before, and have an intro logic class scheduled for fall 2020.
The Medievals later refined another logical concept: de re and de dicto.
See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-reports/dere.html
One consequence of the de re/de dicto distinction is that a sentence could be false de re, but true de dicto.
Post a Comment