The Deity In His/Her house

In this post I will be discussing the nature of the Ark of Yahweh, and the Temple in light of the function of images and temples in the Ancient Near East. Of course most would think that idolatry would not have occurred within the context of the worship of Yahweh in the Old Testament; however, as we begin to look at some of the evidence, it does appear that the Ark of Yahweh did indeed fill a role very similar to that of the cult image throughout the Ancient Near East. I will first attempt to examine the role of deity statues and temples throughout Mesopotamia and Egypt. We will then look at the Biblical text to see if there is any similarity between the two.

The cult image within Mesopotamia and Egypt served the purpose of housing the 'spirit' of the deity while at the same time, not actually becoming the deity. The statue was "imbued with (but did not in any way restrict) the divine presence" (Black, pg. 56). These statues would often undergo what is called an opening or washing of the mouth ritual which would prepare the statue to become indwelled by the deity.

Sacrifices and offerings (see my previous post on this topic) would be made to the cult image and often the images would be clothed. There is even evidence for clothing being of a gold color offered to the cult statue. There is a mention of golden garments in the Epic of Gilgamesh, plate 36. "I gave four talents of reddish gold for a garment for Marduk and Sarpanitum and clad Marduk and Sarpanitum in a gala-garment of reddish gold." (Oppenheim, pg. 172)

Archeological evidence indicates that these cult images were first carved from wood and then overlaid with gold or silver. Occasionally they would first be carved from stone. Often the face, hands and feet of the statues were covered with silver or gold leaf and the body would be covered with silver. There is textual evidence indicating as well, that the statues were regularily repaired and recovered with silver or gold.

These images would also periodically venture forth from their abodes in the temples. The statues would have their own boat/barge or their own chariots. During the New Year's Festival in Babylon, Marduk and Nabu's statues would make their way on wagons to the quay and then would go upstream on their barge to the bit akiti outside of the city. There is also an Egyptian story called the Princess and the Demon in which Khonsu journeys to Bekhten. "Then King Rameses gave command, and Khonsu, the Expeller of Demons, was placed in the Great Boat; and around the Great Boat were five small boats, with chariots and horses, numerous and splendid, on the right hand and on the left. The retinue of Khonsu, the Expeller of Demons, was the retinue of a king. For a year and five months they journeyed until they reached Bekhten." (Murray, pg. 4) It is generally thought that where it is documented that a certain god overlooked a battle, that the cult image was brought in its chariot (or barge) to oversee the battle.





It was also common practice among the rulers in the Ancient Near East to carry off the gods of their subservients whom they conquered along with the other plunder. "In my sixth campaign the rest of the people of Bît-Yakin, who had run off before my powerful weapons like wild asses, who had gathered together the gods of their whole land in their shrines, had crossed the great sea of the rising sun and 36in Nagitu of Elam had established their abodes; in Hittite ships I crossed the sea. Nagitu Nagitu-di'bina, together with the lands of Hilmu, Billatu and Hupapanu, provinces of Elam, I conquered. The people of Bît-Yakin, together with their gods, and the people of the king of Elam, I carried off; not a rebel escaped. I had them loaded in vessels, brought over to this side, and started on the way to Assyria. " (Sennacherib prism, column 4) Taking the gods of the conquered was a sign of dominance, and also showed the superiority of the conquering nation's god.

Temples in Mesopotamia were nothing less than the abode of the god. Each deity had their own specific temple in which they would reside. This is made very clear even by the names of the temples. Here are a couple of examples of names of the temples (first in sumerian, then their akkadian version, and finally in translation).

e.pa.ul.he, bit nin-gublag, house of nin-gublag (a deity)
e.babbar.ra, bit shamash sha sippar, house of shamash (deity) of sippar (city)

As you can see, in these two examples, the meaning is literally the house of a specific deity. Often the temples would also have a more ceremonial name as well, such as the house of the 50 anzu birds, which was the abode of the deity Ningursu.

The structure of the temples was generally of a rectangular shape with an inner shrine containing the cult image and an altar. In Eridu, the oldest city of southern Mesopotamia, a sequence of mud-brick temples was excavated which were rebuilt over top of each other through the fifth to fourth millenium B.C.E. The earliest is a small shrine about 3 square meters. This small shrine contains all the elements of the later temples within a small area. "An altar in a niche set opposite the doorway and a small offering table in front of it. In Later periods the plan was elaborated but retained its essentials. The shrine was lengthened and numbers of rooms added on either side." (Black, pg. 174) A Kassite temple at Uruk was the first to introduce relief figures modelled into the brickwork. These are thought to be magically protective in some form.

As the Sumerians continued to build on top of each successive temple, the mound grew and grew until it soon began to tower above the surrounding area, which has given rise to the belief that this mound inspired the Ziggurats. These ziggurats soon became the characteristic feature of Mesopotamian temples.

There continued to be both kinds of temples within Mesopotamia, those built on the ground in rectangular fashion with an inner shrine containing the cult image, as well as those built on mounds or in the fashion of the Ziggurat. It has been postulated that the two temples had different functions. The rectangular temple built on the ground functioned as the housing of the god, whereas the ziggurat tower fulfilled the role of a portal that the deity would use to visit the earth.

We will now move into the Israelite religion and look at the nature of the Ark of Yahweh. Let's first look at the physical construction of the Ark as described in Exodus 25.

10"They shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, and one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high.
11"You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and out you shall overlay it, and you shall make a gold molding around it.
12"You shall cast four gold rings for it and fasten them on its four feet, and two rings shall be on one side of it and two rings on the other side of it.
13"You shall make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold.
14"You shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry the ark with them.
15"The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be removed from it.
16"You shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give you.
17"You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and one and a half cubits wide.
18"You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat.
19"Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends.
20"The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat.
21"You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you.

The construction of the ark is very similar to that of the cult image. It was first made from wood and then overlaid with gold. This could be mere coincidence or a result of a common method of construction of these religious objects throughout the Ancient Near East. Obviously this evidence is somewhat circumstantial and alone is not enough to establish that the Ark served the same function as the cult image in Mesopotamia.

It can be seen that God inhabited the Ark in the same manner that the deity inhabits the cult statue. There are several examples of this in the Biblical text.

Exodus 25:22 There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.

It seems from this piece of text that God sits upon the mercy seat. It does not say that God lived inside the Ark; however, it would seem that his presence is very much associated with the Ark. We can see examples of this from other texts.

Judges 20:26, 27

Then all the sons of Israel and all the people went up and came to Bethel and wept; thus they remained there before the LORD and fasted that day until evening. And they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD.
The sons of Israel inquired of the LORD (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days).

The fact that the ark of the covenant of God was among Israel seems to be a definitive point as to why the sons of Israel could inquire of God. It implies that the presence of God is, at the very least, dependant upon the presence of the ark. We can see another example of the belief that God's presence was with the ark in 1 Samuel 4.

1Thus the word of Samuel came to all Israel. Now Israel went out to meet the Philistines in battle and camped beside Ebenezer while the Philistines camped in Aphek.
2The Philistines drew up in battle array to meet Israel. When the battle spread, Israel was defeated before the Philistines who killed about four thousand men on the battlefield.
3When the people came into the camp, the elders of Israel said, "Why has the LORD defeated us today before the Philistines? Let us take to ourselves from Shiloh the ark of the covenant of the LORD, that it may come among us and deliver us from the power of our enemies."
4So the people sent to Shiloh, and from there they carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts who sits above the cherubim; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God.
5As the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth resounded.
6When the Philistines heard the noise of the shout, they said, "What does the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews mean?" Then they understood that the ark of the LORD had come into the camp.
7The Philistines were afraid, for they said, "God has come into the camp." And they said, "Woe to us! For nothing like this has happened before.

As was discussed earlier, it was common practice for the cult image to be carried into battle. In this example we see the Israelites bringing the ark into battle where Yahweh is presumed to sit upon the mercy seat. Certainly we see that the Philistines recognized this as the God of Israel coming into the camp. The attribute of the omnipresence of God does not seem to be a belief among the Israelites. It seems that here in this passage, his presence is tied directly to the presence of the ark in the same manner as the deity's presence in Mesopotamia is tied to the cult image.

Also in true Ancient Near Eastern fashion, in this same chapter we see that the Philistines carry off the ark (in the same manner as the kings of the Mesopotamia would carry off the cult image) after their defeat of the Israelites.

10So the Philistines fought and Israel was defeated, and every man fled to his tent; and the slaughter was very great, for there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers. 11And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died.

With the ark now gone, we see that God has left with it.

21And she called the boy Ichabod, saying, "The glory has departed from Israel," because the ark of God was taken and because of her father-in-law and her husband. 22She said, "The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of God was taken."

In an article in the American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, H.G. May seeks to give evidence of the ark as a miniature temple. He does this through physical remains as well as textual evidence. The archaeological evidence consists of two miniature shrines found in Megiddo which are representations of actual buildings and in particular, models of temples.

"The proto-Ionic volutes in the upper corners of the faced in Figure 1 were made to suggest pilaster capitals. Five voluted pilaster capitals were found associated with the Megiddo temple. The row of holes above the windows of this model shrine represent the openings for the dovecote of the sacred doves of the mother-goddess who was worshiped at the Megiddo sanctuary...on the former, which is in part reconstructed, there are four cherubim:the two on the facade are female and those on the side are male." (May, pg. 218)

From the description, as well as the pictures of the items which can be seen above, are very reminiscent of the temple as built by Solomon. "Then all the walls of the house round about he carved with carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and opening flowers, within and without" (1Kings, 6:29). It is these miniature shrines shaped like temples which lead May to believe that the Ark, which also seems to display some of the same architecture of the temple, was intended to be a miniature temple. If this was the case, this only strengthens the case of the presence of God indwelling the Ark, as the temples of the ancient near east (as well as Israel), as we have already pointed out, were the abode of the deity.

Many scholars also believe that there were originally many arks, not just one, that were used in various worship centers. Along with this there is evidence that originally in the documents of the Old Testament it was written that there were many arks, but later editors substituted the Ephod (or Ephod may be a synonym) for the arks in these cases.

Since we have broached the topic of the temple in regards to the Ark, we will now continue on to that subject. The function of the temple (excluding the ziggurats) within the Ancient Near East as we discussed earlier, is that of the dwelling place of the deity. The temple built by Solomon was no different in its role.

1 Kings 8:12, 13

Then Solomon said, "The LORD has said that He would dwell in the thick cloud. 13"I have surely built You a lofty house, A place for Your dwelling forever."

It is also similar in structure to the temples of the Ancient Near East with regards to the placement of the Ark. As we saw earlier, the cult image was placed in an inner shrine within the temple. The Ark, serving as the cult image, and the 'embodiment' of the presence of Yahweh is also brought into the inner shrine.

1 Kings 8:6 Then the priests brought the ark of the covenant of the LORD to its place, into the inner sanctuary of the house, to the most holy place, under the wings of the cherubim.

Thus from the textual evidence we can see that the temple functioned as the dwelling place of the Lord, through the presence of the Ark being placed in the temple as well as through the very words of Solomon himself who claimed it as the house of God.

In 1 Kings 8:11 we see the glory of Yahweh entering the house. "10 It happened that when the priests came from the holy place, the cloud filled the house of the LORD,
11 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD." The last phrase of the verse is literally, bit yahweh, or the house of yahweh. This is the exact same format verbatim used to name the temples of the ancient near east.

Therefore we have seen that the ark of God performed the same functions as that of the cult image of Mesopotamia and Egypt within Israelite religion. As well, the temple of God had many of the same attributes as those of the temples of the surrounding cultures of the time with respect to structure, function, and even name.

In the next post, I will be looking at some of the items in the temple such as the Cherubim, the stands made by Hiram, and the 'Sea' - for these items as well had very specific meanings in the Ancient Near East that could be considered "pagan" in nature.

Sources

The Travels of the Ark: A Religio-Political Composition Author(s): G. W. Ahlström Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Apr., 1984), pp. 141-149 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/545088

The Temples of Babylonia and Assyria Author(s): D. D. Luckenbill Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Jul., 1908), pp. 291-322 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/527646

The Golden Garments of the Gods Author(s): A. Leo Oppenheim Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Jul., 1949), pp. 172-193 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/542839

The Ark. A Miniature Temple Author(s): H. G. May Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jul., 1936), pp. 215-234 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529185

THE HEAD OF KURA—THE HEAD OF ªADABAL Author: Alfonso Archi
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 64 no. 2 (2005), pg.81-100
Published by: The University of Chicago Press

The Early History of God
Mark S. Smith
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2002

Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia,
Jeremy Black and Anthony Green
Fifth University of Texas Press printing, 2003

House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia
A.R. George
Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1993

Legends of Ancient Egypt
M.A.Murray
General Publishing Company, Toronto, Canada, 2000

A Bloodthirsty God, or an Adaptable God

I am what most people would classify as an animal lover, and as an animal lover, it is troublesome and problematic for my faith to look at the Israelite religion and see the ritualistic sacrifice of animals which God seemingly required from his followers. There is of course the argument that God required these sacrifices because he is a Holy God and cannot tolerate sin, and the punishment for sin is death. However, if God is indeed God, doesn't he make the rules? This arguement somehow binds God to some Holiness Code that was created by somebody else. But if he is indeed God, then it would stand to reason that he created said Holiness Code. It would seem to me that holiness denotes all that is good, and if God was indeed so good, why would he require that the punishment for sin be so bloody? It doesn't really seem to add up.


Another option could be that these ritualistic sacrifices didn't originate as an idea of God's, but rather as the construction of humans. Perhaps the Israelite rituals had their roots in the religions of their time. It is this option that I would like to explore in this post.


I will start by looking at the general view of the Mesopotamians in regard to their role in the world, and how they related to the gods. Humanity was created by the gods to serve and obey them. The only means by which humanity could influence the gods was through prayer and sacrifice, or in other words persuasion and gifts. It is also attested in many texts that the gods had to be sustained or fed by humanity. When a sacrifice was made, it was for the purpose of being eaten by the god to whom it was offered. An example of this is seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh Flood Episode in the eleventh tablet where Utnapishtim, after exiting the boat makes an offering to the gods.


Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed (a sheep). I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat. Seven and seven cult vessels I put in place,and (into the fire) underneath (or: into their bowls) I poured reeds, cedar, and myrtle. The gods smelled the savor,the gods smelled the sweet savor,and collected like flies over a (sheep) sacrifice.


In the older sumerian version of the flood, after all of humanity has been destroyed the gods are seen lamenting their decision as there was nobody to provide them with food and drink. In the Genesis account of this we see God also enjoying the smell of the sacrifice. Although it does not indicate that he eats the sacrifice, it does seem to play a role in his decision to never again destroy the earth.


20Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.


Although it does appear in the previous passage that God does indeed consume the sacrifice, in Psalm 50:9-13, Yahweh specifically denies eating the sacrifices. "I shall take no young bull out of your house Nor male goats out of your folds. 10For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. 11 I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine. 12 If I were hungry I would not tell you, For the world is Mine, and all it contains. 13 Shall I eat the flesh of bulls Or drink the blood of male goats?" However, we have already seen in previous postings that the Bible is fraught with seeming contradictions. This is likely an example of a progression in thought and ritual. If we look at several examples in Leviticus it seems quite obvious that it was believed that God did consume at least a portion of the sacrifice.


3: 16'The priest shall offer them up in smoke on the altar as food, an offering by fire for a soothing aroma; all fat is the LORD'S.


21: 6'They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God, for they present the offerings by fire to the LORD, the food of their God; so they shall be holy.


21: 8'You shall consecrate him, therefore, for he offers the food of your God; he shall be holy to you; for I the LORD, who sanctifies you, am holy.


21: 17"Speak to Aaron, saying, 'No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the food of his God.


Therefore, like their mesopotamian neighbours, the Israelites also believed that the offerings they made were consumed by God. It never goes so far as to as to say that God required this food, but it is obvious that the nature of some offerings were sustenance for God.


It is also attested in Sumerian literature that the offer of a sacrifice should be a perfect animal. There are several examples in the Gudea cylinders which detail the building of the temple of Ningursu.


When the night fell, he went to the old temple to pray, so that the inclination of the one from the dais of Ĝir-nun (i.e. Ninĝirsu) would become favourable for Gudea. When day broke, he took a bath and arranged his outfit correctly. Utu let abundance come forth for him. Gudea left Iri-kug a second time; he sacrificed a perfect bull and a perfect kid. He went to the house and saluted it.


Like Utu, he rose on the horizon for the city. He wound (?) a turban (?) on his head. He made himself known by the eyes of holy An. He entered the shrine of E-ninnu with raised head like a bull and sacrificed there faultless oxen and kids. He set bowls in the open air and filled them full with wine. Ušumgal-kalama was accompanied by tigi drums, and ala drums roared for him like a storm. The ruler stepped onto the outer wall (?) and his city looked up to him in admiration. Gudea ……. (6 lines missing)


In Mesopotamian religion, the reason for the flawless animal is generally that it is more acceptable to the god (perhaps more tasty), whereas in Israelite religion, the flawless animal is often interpreted as being innocent (thus the blood of an innocent is spilt for the guilty) which is theologically more convenient when it is reconciled with salvation through Christ. However, the reason for the perfect animal may very well be in line with the mesopotamian reason for the sacrifices.

Motivation for performing these rituals for their respective deities seems to have been the same in both Israel and their neighbouring cultures. This was the prospect of reward. If one performed the rituals and served the gods, they would be rewarded by the gods. Examples of this can be seen in Babylonian wisdom literature. One proverb even goes so far as to say that one can control their god by witholding sacrifice.


"Do not sacrifice, sir, do not sacrifice. You can teach your god to run after you like a dog."

If one wishes to see the rewards that were promised to the Israelites who obeyed Yahweh, simply look at Deuteronomy 28.


1"Now it shall be, if you diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.
2"All these blessings will come upon you and overtake you if you obey the LORD your God:
3"Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country.
4"Blessed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground and the offspring of your beasts, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock.
5"Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.
6"Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out.
7"The LORD shall cause your enemies who rise up against you to be defeated before you; they will come out against you one way and will flee before you seven ways.
8"The LORD will command the blessing upon you in your barns and in all that you put your hand to, and He will bless you in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
9"The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways.
10"So all the peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they will be afraid of you.
11"The LORD will make you abound in prosperity, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your beast and in the produce of your ground, in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you.
12"The LORD will open for you His good storehouse, the heavens, to give rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hand; and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.
13"The LORD will make you the head and not the tail, and you only will be above, and you will not be underneath, if you listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, which I charge you today, to observe them carefully,
14and do not turn aside from any of the words which I command you today, to the right or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.


There is another type of sacrifice that is not quite so bloody, but was also required by the gods and by Yahweh. This is an offering of worship. Take a look at a couple of Psalms.


Psalm 6
4Return, O LORD, rescue my soul; Save me because of Your lovingkindness. 5For there is no mention of You in death; In Sheol who will give You thanks?


Psalm 30
8To You, O LORD, I called, And to the Lord I made supplication: 9"What profit is there in my blood, if I go down to the pit? Will the dust praise You? Will it declare Your faithfulness? 10"Hear, O LORD, and be gracious to me; O LORD, be my helper."


It is clear from these verses that the psalmist is indicating that if God doesn't answer his plea, he is in danger of losing a worshiper. It also implies that God desires, if not needs the worship of his followers. If God didn't require worship, why would the psalmist use this as a bargaining chip?


In these very few examples (there are many many more), I have attempted to demonstrate how the ritualistic sacrifices of the Israelites were not unique in their practice. Rather, they were one religion amongst many that practiced ritualistic sacrifice to their respective deities. Even their reasons behind the sacrifices are very similar. Both used sacrifices to feed the gods as well as used them to obtain blessings and the help of their god in this life.


This leads us to the conclusion that in all likelihood, God did not mandate this sacrificial system of the Israelites, but rather the popular religion of the time involved these bloody practices and the Israelites naturally adopted this system inserting their own theological ideas into it. If this was the case, why would God have allowed such brutal pagan practices to occur amongst his people?


One option that I have come up with to reconcile this is quite simple. Here we see an example of how God comes into the culture of the time and adapts to that culture in order to reach humanity. If one looks at this passage in Hebrews 10 in light of this conclusion it takes on a kind of fresh light.


5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, O God.' " 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


This is quite the contrast from the God we see in the the early OT who seems to delight in the smell of the savoury sacrifices.


If we take this idea a step further, Jesus' death seems to be even more sacrificial on his part as he steps into the culture of the time and dies (perhaps needlessly) in order to fulfill a theological idea of a sacrificial system created by the Israelites and their surrounding pagan cultures. Of course this is just one idea of how to reconcile this seemingly brutal example of religious syncretism in the Israelites. It does however provide some comfort to myself to think that perhaps God is not a bloodthirsty God, but rather one who is so desperate to help humanity and to reach us, that he will even adapt and use our hellish rituals and cultish practices in order to have a relationship with us.

Do You Believe in Ghosts? (A Halloween Post)

Seeing as how this is the Halloween season, I thought it appropriate to talk about the topic of Necromancy, or the ability to contact the dead. Naturally, most Christians' response to this is that it is impossible, and that the act of contacting the dead is demonic, and that the dead being spoken to are just demons.

The basic questions that I will be looking to answer are: whether or not Necromancy occurs in the Biblical text, whether it is condemned by God, whether it was used by God, and whether the Bible rejects the power and existence of spirits or ghosts.


I think that if we look at Deuteronomy 18:9-13, it seems pretty obvious where God stands on this issue of necromancy.


9 When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you. 13You shall be blameless before the LORD your God.


This insinuates that the Canaanites did indeed practice these types of detestable acts and that the Israelites were not to imitate them in this. Suffice it to say that there is evidence within the Ugaritic texts for the practice of necromancy/consulting the dead (KTU 1.124; 1.161). Now, there are two different views on this commandment. One is that the practice of necromancy among the others in the list is by nature an abhorrent practice according to normative Yahwistic religion. The second option is that these practices were a form of inquiry that competed with prophecy. Either way, it seems that God did not want people to consult the dead for advice.


However, there is one instance in the Bible where necromancy was used and it seems that God used the event to speak. I am referring, of course, to Saul and the witch of Endor. Later sources even interpret this as prophecy (Ben Sira 46:20) Here is the text (1 Samuel 28):


3 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in his own town of Ramah.


(This sounds an awful lot like the beginning to Dickens "A Christmas Carol" to me, which reads: "Marley was dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner. Scrooge signed it. And Scrooge's name was good upon 'Change, for anything he chose to put his hand to. Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. .")


Saul had expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land.
4 The Philistines assembled and came and set up camp at Shunem, while Saul gathered all the Israelites and set up camp at Gilboa. 5 When Saul saw the Philistine army, he was afraid; terror filled his heart. 6 He inquired of the LORD, but the LORD did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets. 7 Saul then said to his attendants, "Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her." "There is one in Endor," they said.
8 So Saul disguised himself, putting on other clothes, and at night he and two men went to the woman. "Consult a spirit for me," he said, "and bring up for me the one I name."
9 But the woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?"
10 Saul swore to her by the LORD, "As surely as the LORD lives, you will not be punished for this."
11 Then the woman asked, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" "Bring up Samuel," he said.
12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!"
13 The king said to her, "Don't be afraid. What do you see?" The woman said, "I see a spirit coming up out of the ground."
14 "What does he look like?" he asked. "An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said. Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.
15 Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" "I am in great distress," Saul said. "The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do."
16 Samuel said, "Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy? 17 The LORD has done what he predicted through me. The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors—to David. 18 Because you did not obey the LORD or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the LORD has done this to you today. 19 The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines."


It is this passage that we are going to analyze for this post, as it is the most explicit example of necromancy being used by God to deliver his message. There are a wide range of options of interpretation for this passage. Was it by God's power that the woman raised Samuel or was it by her magical/demonic abilities that he was raised? Was the spirit really Samuel, or some other spirit that was allowed to take his form? Or maybe the woman never did see Samuel but was deliberately trying to deceive Saul. It is my opinion that the text should be taken somewhat at face value. By whose power Samuel was raised is not really an issue for what we are looking at today. My concern is the fact that he was raised - displaying that necromancy, in the Bible, was seen as having legitimate power and could indeed be used for consulting the dead.



Why would Saul choose to have Samuel brought up to speak to him? Saul had sought answers to his problem via the normal acceptable yahwistic practices such as prophets, urim, and dreams. However, after receiving no advice through these means, Saul turns to necromancy. But again, why Samuel? Some suggest that it is an issue of legitimacy of kingship. It was Samuel that anointed Saul in the first place, and he could again give him advice and provide legitimacy to his kingship. While his kingship is not the direct cause of him going to the necromancer, it is definitely a major theme in this passage. Samuel in his oracle even addresses this issue in the negative.


An extra-biblical example of necromancy being used in association with the legitimization of kingship is found in a letter to king Esarhaddon dated 672 B.C.E. The question was sought regarding whether or not Ashurbanipal should have been awarded the position of crown prince. The question is answered in the affirmative by consulting Esarhaddon's recently deceased wife Esharra-hamat.


(The crown prince) explained (it as follows): "The gods Ashur and Shamash ordained me to be the crown prince of Assyria because of her (=the dead queen's) truthfulness." And her ghost blesses him in the same degree as he has revered the ghost: "May his descendants rule over Assyria!" (As it is said), fear of the gods creates kindness, fear of the infernal gods returns life. Let the (king, my) lord give order.



We can see that the practice of necromancy to legitimize kingship was indeed used in the Ancient Near East. This could be one of the reasons why Saul has called upon Samuel. Another reason simply could be that Samuel was a prophet during Saul's time who helped guide him, and Saul, having been left in a prophetic node, is seeking the person who has helped him in the past. In all likelihood, both of these reasons probably play a part in the choice of Samuel.



What is also interesting about this passage is that it is apparent that Saul cannot see the apparition; only the woman who is performing the ritual can. This is consistent with Mesopotamian necromantic rituals. Mesopotamian necromancer texts describe how a magic ointment must be smeared on the necromancer's face in order to allow them to see the spirit of the dead. "One must rub (ointment) on one's face and then one is able to look at the ghost and he will speak." Thus it would seem that necromancy had some semblance of congruence throughout Mesopotamia, including Israel, in regard to the methodology of bringing up the dead.


There is more evidence for this which involves a lot of tedious language analysis regarding the term 'lohim,' referring to what the woman sees coming up from the ground. Without going into the details, this could refer to the god or gods which fetch the spirit up from the netherworld, and not to the spirit of Samuel himself. This again would be consistent with other Ancient Near Eastern texts surrounding this subject.


Thus in a very short amount of time (much shorter than usual), we can come to our conclusions and answer the questions we put forth at the beginning of the post. Does necromancy occur in the Biblical text? Why, yes it does, as we have seen. Next question. Is necromancy condemned by God? Yes it is, but the reason behind this is in question (competition with prophecy, or simply abhorrent). Was necromancy used by God? The answer is 'yes'. It is apparent from 1 Samuel 28 that God used the practice of necromancy to deliver a message to Saul. Lastly, does the Bible reject the existence and power of the spirits of the dead. The answer is 'no'. Although in many places the Bible condemns the practice, it most certainly does not say that the ability to communicate with the dead does not exist, nor does it deny the existence of spirits. In fact, we saw an example of that very power being used with success in the Saul account.


So, do you believe in ghosts? If you believe in the Bible then your answer to this question must ultimately be 'yes'. This is an example of one of those uncomfortable aspects of the Bible that doesn't exactly mesh with most Christians' actual belief system. I was basically brought up to believe that there are no such thing as ghosts or spirits but only demons masquerading as such. For example, Ouija boards do not consult the dead, but consult demons who masquerade as the spirits of the dead. Although this may be true, the Bible would not necessarily say that these are demons, but that they may very well be spirits of the dead.


Of course, I'm not recommending that you go out and consult a medium to talk to your deceased ancestors, as this is obviously not condoned by the Bible. Rather, what I am suggesting is that possibly our ideas about the spirit world as we know it (such as the non-existence of ghosts and the ability to contact them) are not entirely supported by the Biblical text. There is so much that we can't possibly know about the after-life and the spirit world that one can't make blanket statements about these things (such as 'ghosts are just demons'). For example, I know some people find great comfort in the thought that a deceased loved one is still keeping an eye on them and helping to watch over them. I personally would never say that their deceased loved one is not still watching out for them, as I could never prove otherwise.


This is kind of a different subject, but being Halloween, I thought it appropriate. If you want your child to have a spooky costume that's biblical, dress him/her up as the ghost of Samuel rising up from the bowels of Sheol!


Happy Halloween!