This is an oldie but a goodie as they say, and can be found on numerous other sites and throughout the literature. I will keep to my procedure of stressing that such contradictions are the result of an editorial process that brought together different textual traditions written over a period of 1,000 years, each expressing divergent and contradictory beliefs, worldviews, and theologies.
In fact, contradictory traditions now preserved side-by-side in the Bible yield divergent responses to this question. In the Yahwist narratives of Genesis, Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob see Yahweh face-to-face, and Abraham even prepares a meal for Yahweh and two angelic guests, and eats with them (Gen 18:1 ff.).
In an Elohist text, Jacob encounters the god of Penuel, from whom he wrestles a blessing (#62): “And Jacob called the place’s name Penuel ‘because I’ve seen God face-to-face, and my life has been delivered’” (Gen 32:30). Tradition also accredits Moses with seeing Yahweh face-to-face (Ex 33:11; Deut 5:21, 34:10—a J text), and on one occasion accredits Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of Israel’s elders with seeing and eating with the deity on mount Horeb! (Ex 24:9-11). This is generally acknowledged as an Elohist text, so the tradition itself may bear witness to contradictory theologies.
For example, Exodus 33:20, which is also tentatively taken as an Elohist text seems to be the only passage in the Torah from these older traditions that asserts the opposite. Immediately upon asserting that “Yahweh would speak to Moses face-to-face, the way a man speaks to his fellow man” (Ex 33:11), the text then claims the contrary: “And Yahweh said ‘You won’t be able to see my face because a human will not see me and live’” (33:20). The fact that Moses sees only the god’s glory in this verse might indicate that it is an editorial insert by the later Priestly writer in an attempt to rectify this earlier image of the deity’s visibility.
At any rate, the passage negates what we find in the majority of cases throughout the older Yahwist and Elohist traditions—namely that a select few do indeed see, converse, and eat with Yahweh face-to-face. Again this anthropomorphic conception of the deity only becomes problematic, and thus disappears, in later textual traditions (see Conflicting portraits of Israel’s deity).
Accordingly, the youngest traditions in the Bible, those stemming from the New Testament canon, adamantly deny that God can be seen (Jn 1:18, 5:37; 1 Tim 6:16). Obviously these denials were targeted against older biblical traditions that had indeed claimed otherwise.
This particular contradiction also exhibits another phenomenon that I am interested in—namely how later and new theological positions are presented in the guise of older tradition. The fact is that over millennia the portrait of the biblical god, or God if you prefer, has changed. These changes reflect ever-changing worldviews, cultural values, and beliefs. So when later NT writers adamantly claimed that their god could not be seen—in direct contradiction to the Bible’s older traditions—it was mainly because the image and concept of ‘God’ evolved, and no longer supported these earlier portraits and concepts.
Furthermore, the Yahiwst who carved the image of an anthropomorphic Yahweh, or the Deuteronomist who declares that Yahweh is solely the god of the Hebrews, is the sole god, the god that protects the exploited, orphans, poor, and heavily condemns the wealthy and profiteers, the god that prohibits the making of covenants/treaties with other peoples/nations, and the god that declares that faith in Yahweh for all military acts, health, and agricultural sustenance be unyielding, etc…. This portrait of the deity will obviously collide with later ideas and concepts of the god, or God.
I would even venture to argue, but here’s not the space for that, that our culture’s ideas and concepts of God are vastly different than those of the biblical writers, that we too have created new gods, or a God, and identified it as the biblical god. This is how interpretive traditions build off of earlier authoritative texts. It is what we are studying here, and this will become more clear as we progress. I cannot find much in common, for example, between the god of America and the values he stands for on the one hand and Yahweh and the values he stands for as crafted by our biblical authors on the other hand. They both stand for radically different ideas, beliefs, and worldviews. And frankly this is to be expected, and perhaps is quite natural.
There is another verse I didn’t see you mention in the article where Samson’s parents sit and eat with YAHWEH whose name is Wonderful. Judges 13:3-6, 10-21
On a personal note I have seen YAHWEH or at the least I was in His presence. I never saw His face only the back of Him. It occurred in a vision while I was writing a letter to my mom 10/12/13. In the vision I was kneeling in front of a television screen and next to me was a huge figure in a red robe. (Rev 19:12-13) On the screen it showed me writing a letter then staring off into nothing. At that moment I realized He has been watching my life with me the whole time. I instantly got embarrassed because I thought of all the stuff I had done that I thought only I knew about. He bends down and whispers in my ear “It’s okay I already forgave you, let’s just keep watching.” At that moment I was overwhelmed with the Holy Spirit. I finally understood what it meant to be saved and I knew what love, power, compassion, mercy and grace truly were.
Two powers in heaven. Two characters called Yahweh. There’s a book on this subject. Not a difficult contradiction to resolve for Christians who believe Jesus was/is God.
if you have two powers then you have two persons conscious of the powers they have that would mean that each person has its own power which would indicate 2 gods.
Are you not aware of the Christian concept of the trinity? What if there are two beings representing one Godhead, both of whom have the same name and same power? Your comment hardly makes a difference.
The point is, David, as with your other theologically, reader-oriented responses, is that the contradiction is “resolved” by acknowledging our authors!! These were two once separate texts or traditions or tellings of the same story that were later edited together to create as it were these contradictions. Your approach to the texts—well, in actually there is little attention being made by you toward these ancient documents—denies the authors of these texts their messages and beliefs! Rather, as the case in hand clearly exemplifies, you impose your beliefs, forged centuries after these texts were written, onto the texts with no knowledge of nor care about the text itself, its authors, and understanding his beliefs and messages on his terms and from within his cultural context. You apply exterior theological frameworks in order to manipulate the texts to confirm and conform to your beliefs about the texts! In short, these ancient texts could be anything. It is YOUR theology, or that of later readers, that defines the meaning and message of these texts. This is to be grossly negligent and disrespectful towards these texts, their authors, and their beliefs and messages.
Your MO seems to be responding to the titles of my posts, rather than reading them, reading the biblical texts in question, and learning how to acknowledge and understand these ancient texts and their authors. My posts are meant to shed light on these texts’ authors’ competing beliefs, messages, worldviews, ideologies, theologies, etc. as expressed through their texts—they are not yours—and from within their historical and literary context—-not those of later readers.
I would also draw your attention to my recent post on what it means to Be Honest to these Ancient Texts, Their Authors, and Their Beliefs
Unfortunately though you too could be said to be borrowing from your own beliefs to make your assumptions as to the authors intent by applying your own exterior theological framework. (I despise the utter absurdity of post-moderism so I’m not making any silly assertion such as “how can we even know we exist, or that our thoughts are really our thoughts, and not just a simulated experience”, just stating the obvious that your views are also subject to your own perspective and experiences).
You seem to imply (perhaps not intentionally) that all who follow Judeo-Christian beliefs have been breaking God’s Commandment repeatedly through the ages by making and worshiping gods in our own images. Rather than the assertion that God, being divine and omnipotent, would be able to direct authors (no matter their circumstances, environment, or time frame) to paint a clear representation of his Godhead. At least a representation to the best of our mental capacity to understand a being that we have never been ourselves, and so can never fully comprehend.
To be clear, I could make assumptions as to the various aspects of being a dog. I could make guesses as to what a dog is thinking or experiencing based on my own physical facilities having some similarities to a dog (nerves, heart, lungs, skin, eyes, etc.) and also having some of the physical and psychological needs of a dog (hunger, thirst, excitement, fear, companionship). However, I can never fully understand what it is to be a dog, because I have never been one.
I could write a paper on what it’s like to be a dog. Another person could offer other insight into what it is like to be a dog. Both of us could simultaneously be right in the same, but seemingly contradictory aspects only because we both have never been dogs, but our insight into a dogs existence may offer differing, equally valid aspects of a dogs being.
For instance I could have a dog I play with, that is good with children, and friendly with all. The other author could have a dog that is raised as a fighting dog. It’s beaten, mistreated, and raised to kill and so dangerous and unpredictable near children. Our papers would paint the picture of two seemingly very different creatures, though the same canine being.
Now being humans and us all being able to relate to aspects of a dogs physical, mental, psychological being, and able to draw from our own experience of dogs, we would be able to determine that the seeming contradictions are in fact just two different natures of a dog.
How much more complex does the situation become when we deal with a divine being that is largely beyond our comprehension excluding what aspects of His Godhead He is willing to reveal to us?
Therefore I propose that God could simultaneously exist both in form that would destroy mortals, in His full unveiled glory. Or a form that could sit and eat with us at the table. Also, keeping in mind that God’s being exists outside creation, being the Creator. Therefore, He can, and at times has appeared within others and spoke through others. Those speaking with God in this form would have identified that they were dealing with God. Writing such an account you may state, accurately, that you were speaking with God. Yet the form that they were dealing with was angelic, of spirit, of natural forms (cloud, bush, Christ, etc) or indwelling in many others simultaneously while outside of them speaking with them in the form of a cloud as in Numbers 11:25.
I think God is much more powerful, incredible, and incomprehensible than many Judaeo-Christians are willing to believe. We often try to stick him in a box based on a few scriptures here and there, but I think ultimately that only serves to deviate and distract from God’s true purpose in the revelations He provides of Himself and His being.
This “boxing” seems comparable to, or perhaps it actually is, a psychological defense mechanism called compartmentalization. It is something we all do to try and make things more comprehensible to our minds and, in simplest terms, avoid conflating things that may ultimately lead to stress or confusion.
It reminds me of Job. Demanding of God answers. God blows His mind in return with a tiny glimpse of what God is dealing with in creation.
Job 38:4–7 God focuses on the earth: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.” You weren’t there, Job, and you don’t know how I did it.
38:8–11 God focuses on the sea: “Who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth from the womb?” It was I, Job, I set its limits not you. You weren’t there and you don’t know how I did it.
38:12–15 the Lord focuses on the dawn: “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place?” You never did it. You can’t do it. You don’t know how to do it. I have always done it. I always will.
38:16–18 God focuses on the depth and breadth of the sea and land. Job, you have never even been to the bottom of the ocean or around the world. And you think you know enough to argue with God.
It seems you seek to overlook humanities limited understanding of Godhead in favor of a more singular and humanistic view of a god that is bound by only what you can see, feel, taste, or touch. While relying on a claim for the fallibility of the authors as a reason for the differences in aspects provided of God.
Again, trying to put God in a box by stating there must be contradictions, rather than different aspects of Godhead revealed to mankind on different occasions.
Personally I prefer the assertion of God that we know only what He chooses to reveal, and He can’t reveal all to us because we are incapable of comprehension in our current form and limitations as mortals.
Ecclesiastes 8:16-17
John 16:12-15
Nobody can have a full picture of a being that exists largely outside our full understanding, and our limited physical presence. Unless that being chooses to reveal itself to us on it’s own terms.
It would be like trying to explain what it would be like to create all in existence, the statement God used to challenge Job. Only God has done it. Only God can fully comprehend it. We have been truly blessed with wonderful incredible imaginations, but imagination and reality are two vastly different things.
I know it may not seem it, but I agree with you that the finer details of this topic, being entirely outside our ability to verify (we can’t go to these times and observe for ourselves, speak with the authors to gain clarity, and then ask God to explain all the details of His existence). So it may indeed have been subject to the authors interpretations based on their environment and cultural influences of the time.
But, ultimately, I feel that God is bigger than that.
I ‘await with bated breath’ the day when all these questions may become known, and we can stand in the presence of God, made whole, and able to observe Him in all His glory.
Anyway, interesting site and article. I’ll have to examine more if I get the time (this absorbed far more free time that I had intended hah!)
God bless and keep you all!
“What if there are two beings representing one Godhead, both of whom have the same name and same power? Your comment hardly makes a difference.”
what if there are 6 in this godhead? if they have “same name” and “same power” how are they a different person? if there is a difference then one person lacks what the other person has.
Exactly. To be 2 persons is to be different from each other in terms of consiousness, knowledge or power. God doesn’t have a definite form, so 3 or 15, 20 or 25 “persons “being co-equal with zero difference in knowledge or power would actually mean there is only 1 god.
“Two powers in heaven. Two characters called Yahweh. There’s a book on this subject.”
so yhwh sends yhwh while yhwh is not the yhwh who sent yhwh?
this looks like a company of gods doing activities for each other and the name of the company is “yhwh”
Genesis 19:24
to hell with gen 19:24
admit that you are a polytheist and you want to see your polytheism in the torah because it is possible that the jews too were polytheists 2, 3 ,4 ,5 6 “powers in heaven ” worshipers
i have some puzzling questions for you
1. did ALL god get over powered by death ?
2. if one power in trinity got over powered by deah/satan then an unseen being over powered one of your gods. this would mean besides yhwh there is a power which rivals his unseen son so you have father, son , spirit and SATAN 4 powers in heaven
3. satan /death overtook the unseen son person in trinity. god the son got beaten the shit out of by satan
so you have 4 powers in heaven
Rob,
You invented my position all by yourself. I don’t remember declaring what I believe. I merely recognize the Christian Godhead as valid with reference in the Old Testament.
Rob, I’m afraid you’re probably wasting your own time. I’ve noticed that this site has a tendency to attract people who could be called non-denominational Christians. Since they belong to a Church of One, there’s no larger benefit for other readers if you debate scripture with them, and it’s difficult to even get to the bottom of what they believe because their beliefs are based on a feeling of having personal insight into the “real” meaning of the Bible. Ultimately this is the opposite of what this site is trying to accomplish by considering all scriptures equally, and only the text of those scriptures.
Whenever you have text, context is indispensable. Whenever you have text, a working knowledge of the language it was written in is inescapable. Anything less will end up in error that is inevitable.
Qimba’s comment is right on the money. It always shocks me that so many “students of the Bible” don’t consider original context in their discussions or desire to learn or examine the language behind their Bibles.
Hello, I really enjoy your site and articles and I also like to check every reference you mention for myself to get a good understanding of the topic. However, in this article and title, I think the mention of Deut 5:21 is out of place?
Deut 5:21 ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.’
Yes, this does not fit.
More than likely his reference was to people fearful of God’s presence in Deuteronomy 5:23-27
(N.K.J.V.):
23 “So it was, when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, that you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders. 24 And you said: ‘Surely the Lord our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire. We have seen this day that God speaks with man; yet he still lives. 25 Now therefore, why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God anymore, then we shall die. 26 For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? 27 You go near and hear all that the Lord our God may say, and tell us all that the Lord our God says to you, and we will hear and do it.’
On this topic, the four original Biblical sources can, according to Professor Benjamin Sommer, be divided into fluidity/anti-fluidity and sacred space/no sacred space.
Humans could see the Divine countenance per “Rabbi J” and “Rabbi E” because they had no conceptions of sacred space, plus the Deity could occupy multiple bodies at any given time.
Humans could not see the Divine countenance per “Rabbi P” and “Rabbi D” because they did have conceptions of sacred space, plus the Deity could occupy only one point in the space-time continuum.
Torlek, I haven’t read Prof. Sommer’s work but looking over his plug on the my jewish learning site, he makes it sound like his fluidity idea is something very heterodox in Jewish thought? If you’ve got a good handle on his ideas could you maybe summarize his ideas on fluidity (or multiple bodies)? It seems to me he may be presenting other ideas in new terms, syncretism, spiritual possessions, and impersonations, avatars and so on. These ideas are fairly understandable in polytheism but are typically seen as more problematic in monotheism.
Thanks.
Bart I would like to read this work by Prof. Summer. Would you please give more detail of where to locate it or his site for reference.
“The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel” is sold on Amazon. More importantly, Google Books has a “Preview” version online.
Damn, my first reply didn’t get posted, but my second one did.
Yes, the idea is heterodox, as it challenges Saadia Gaon and Maimonides on incorporeality.
Sommer’s assertion on fluidity is his secondary assertion, but is one based on the avatar, in particular.