Cremación y Entierro en la Biblia

por carlos@thehumanjesus.org

Para la Biblia, la manera preferida de disponer de los muertos es el entierro, mientras que quemar o cremar con frecuencia se asocia con prácticas paganas y/o con la ira y el juicio de Yahvé, el único Dios de Israel. Sin embargo, esto no significa que la cremación sea un pecado en sí misma, mucho menos que determine tu salvación personal en el día de la resurrección.

En el AT, la práctica bíblica normal para el pueblo de Dios era el entierro: Abraham, Sara, Isaac, Jacob, José, Moisés, David y otros fueron sepultados. En cambio, quemar un cuerpo o huesos suele asociarse con el paganismo o con el juicio divino. Por ejemplo, Acán y su familia fueron quemados después del juicio (Josué 7:25). Josías quemó los huesos de sacerdotes idólatras sobre altares paganos como acto de profanación y juicio (2 Reyes 23:16–20). Y en Amós 2:1, Yahvé condena a Moab:

“Por tres transgresiones de Moab y por cuatro no revocaré su castigo, porque quemó hasta convertir en cal los huesos del rey de Edom.”

Una posible excepción aparece después de que Saúl y sus hijos fueron muertos y sus cuerpos maltratados por los filisteos. Los hombres de Jabes de Galaad recuperaron los cuerpos, los quemaron y luego enterraron sus huesos (1 Samuel 31:11–13). Pero esta es una excepción al patrón bíblico habitual del entierro.

El fuego y el acto de quemar también tienen una fuerte asociación bíblica con el juicio divino, especialmente en el lenguaje profético y apocalíptico.

Uno de los ejemplos más fuertes y claros se encuentra en Isaías 66:15–16, 24. Yahvé viene “en fuego” para ejecutar juicio, y los rebeldes son descritos como cadáveres cuyo “fuego no se apagará”. En Malaquías 4:1–3, “viene el día, ardiente como un horno”, y “todos los soberbios y todo el que hace maldad” serán quemados como rastrojo. Después, los justos heredarán la bendición de la era venidera. Y en Sofonías 3:8, Yahvé dice que reunirá a las naciones para juicio y que “toda la tierra será devorada por el fuego de Mi celo”. Imágenes semejantes de juicio aparecen en Daniel 7:9–11 y Salmo 21:8–9.

De manera similar, 2 Pedro 3:10–13 advierte que en el Día del Señor “los cielos pasarán con un estruendo terrible, los cuerpos celestes se derretirán con intenso fuego, y la tierra y todo lo hecho en ella quedará al descubierto. Puesto que todas estas cosas han de derretirse de esta manera, ¡qué clase de personas deben ser ustedes en una conducta santa y piadosa, mientras esperan y apresuran la venida del Día de Dios! Ese Día hará que los cielos ardientes se disuelvan y que los cuerpos celestes se derritan con intenso fuego. Pero, conforme a Su promesa, esperamos con anhelo cielos nuevos y una tierra nueva, donde habitará la justicia”.

Más adelante, Apocalipsis 20:14–15 dice que la muerte y el Hades, es decir, la tumba, son arrojados al lago de fuego, y que todo aquel cuyo nombre no fue hallado en el libro de la vida también es arrojado allí. Apocalipsis 21:8 igualmente relaciona el lago de fuego con el destino de los malvados.

Estos ejemplos no prueban que la cremación común sea en sí misma pecaminosa, mucho menos que una persona cremada esté condenada para siempre. Las imágenes de fuego y de quemar hablan del juicio de Dios sobre los malvados, mientras que la cremación hoy en día es simplemente uno de los métodos para disponer de un cuerpo muerto. El patrón bíblico da buenas razones para preferir el entierro, pero no debe convertirse en una doctrina de condenación donde la propia Escritura no lo hace.

Burning and Burial in the Bible

 by carlos@thehumanjesus.org

For the Bible, the preferred way of disposing of the dead is burial, while burning or cremation is frequently associated with pagan practices and/or divine judgment. Nevertheless, this does not mean cremation is a sin in and of itself, let alone that it determines your personal salvation on resurrection day.

In the OT, the normal biblical practice for the people of God was burial: Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, and others were buried. By contrast, burning a body or bones is often associated with paganism or divine judgment. For example, Achan and his household were burned after judgment (Joshua 7:25). Josiah burned the bones of idolatrous priests on pagan altars as an act of desecration and judgment (2 Kings 23:16–20). And in Amos 2:1, Yahweh condemns Moab:

“For three transgressions of Moab and for four I will not turn back its punishment, because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime.”

One possible exception comes after Saul and his sons were killed and their bodies abused by the Philistines. The men of Jabesh-gilead recovered the bodies, burned them, and then buried their bones (1 Samuel 31:11–13). But this is an exception to the otherwise standard biblical burial pattern.

Burning and fire also carry a strong biblical association with divine judgment, especially in prophetic and apocalyptic scripture.

One of the strongest and clearest examples is found in Isaiah 66:15–16, 24. Yahweh comes “in fire” to execute judgment, and the rebels are pictured as corpses whose “fire will not be quenched.” In Malachi 4:1–3, “the day is coming, burning like a furnace,” and “all the arrogant and every evildoer” will be burned like stubble. The righteous then inherit the age of blessing. And in Zephaniah 3:8, Yahweh says He will gather the nations for judgment, and “all the earth will be devoured by the fire of My jealousy.” Similar judgment imagery appears in Daniel 7:9–11 and Psalm 21:8–9.

Similarly, 2 Peter 3:10–13 warns that on the Day of the Lord, “the heavens will pass away with a terrific noise, the heavenly bodies will melt in intense fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be laid bare. Since all these things are to melt in this way, what sort of people should you be in holy and godly living, as you look out for and hasten the coming of the Day of God? That Day will cause the burning heavens to be dissolved, and the heavenly bodies to melt with intense fire. But, according to His promise, we are expectantly waiting for new heavens and a new earth, where uprightness will live.”

Later, Revelation 20:14–15 says that death and Hades, the grave, are thrown into the lake of fire, and anyone not found in the book of life is thrown there as well. Revelation 21:8 likewise associates the lake of fire with the fate of the wicked.

These examples do not prove that ordinary cremation is itself sinful, let alone that a cremated person is permanently condemned. The fire and burning imagery speaks of God’s judgment on the wicked, whereas cremation today is simply one method of disposing of a dead body. The biblical pattern gives good reason for preferring burial, but it should not be turned into a doctrine of condemnation where Scripture itself does not do so.

Does God Ever Change His Mind?

 By Anthony F. Buzzard

The art of Bible study is not to find one verse and use it to silence all the others. People say, “Well, there’s my verse, and that’s the only one that counts.” That’s not the way to study the Bible. The task is to let all the relevant passages speak and then harmonize them. Scripture can express truths in different ways, depending on the context.

Numbers 23:19 says, “God is not a man, that He should lie,” and, “Nor a son of man, that He should repent.”

Absolutely.

God never lies.

Does He speak and then fail to act?

No.

In the context, Balaam is saying that when God has determined to bless Israel, Balaam cannot reverse that blessing. The very next verse says that God has blessed and Balaam “cannot revoke it” (Num. 23:20). That’s absolutely clear. However, it’s not the whole truth on this subject, because other passages say that God regretted something or relented from what He had said He would do. So don’t start pitting one verse against another. Simply harmonize them.

There are situations in Scripture where Yahweh regretted that He had made man and was grieved in His heart. He determined to wipe mankind from the earth, while Noah and his family were preserved—eight people in all (Gen. 6:6–8; 7:13; 1 Pet. 3:20).

There are also verses where God relented in response to what human beings did. After Moses interceded for Israel, “Yahweh relented concerning the harm which He said He would do to His people” (Exod. 32:14). 

Nineveh turned from its evil and God relented from the judgment He had announced (Jonah 3:10). 

Jeremiah 18:7–10 actually gives this as a principle: if a nation turns from its evil, God may relent concerning the calamity He had planned.

Remarkably, you even get both ways of speaking in the same chapter. Yahweh says, “I regret that I have made Saul king” (1 Sam. 15:11), and yet later Samuel says that the Eternal One of Israel “will not lie or have regret; for He is not a man” (1 Sam. 15:29). So clearly we have to pay attention to context rather than making one verse cancel out another.

That’s the kind of biblical material open theism takes seriously. God does not make vague promises and then simply fail to keep them. That’s absolutely out of the question. He speaks the truth. But there are situations where He can respond differently when human beings respond differently. And so free will is everything here. None of us has free will to do absolutely anything. For example, I’m not free to be the President of the USA; I’m not even a citizen. There are certain things outside the realm of free will. I cannot decide to be God. That’s out of the question.

Calvin was horribly wrong, I suggest, in teaching a system in which all events are governed by God’s decree—in effect, set in concrete from the beginning. That’s a horrible doctrine. Calvin explicitly taught that all events occur by God’s ordination, so this is a fair summary of the position being criticized rather than a quotation from Calvin himself.

We must allow, then, for genuine choice, because Jesus says it, Paul says it, and the Old Testament says it. Jesus speaks of people being unwilling (Matt. 23:37). Paul speaks of people presenting themselves in obedience (Rom. 6:16). And Moses says plainly, “I have set before you life and death” and then, “choose life” (Deut. 30:19; cf. Josh. 24:15).

You make a choice. That’s free will. You choose, and God can then react to what you do, which may, in some cases, involve a change in His announced course. I don’t think that’s a difficulty.

A beautiful example of this is Isaiah 38. Hezekiah becomes seriously ill, and God sends Isaiah to tell him, “Thus says Yahweh, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live’” (Isa. 38:1).

Hezekiah then turns his face to the wall, weeps, and prays to Yahweh (Isa. 38:2–3). Before Isaiah has gone far, God sends another word to him. In effect, the announced outcome changes: “I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life” (Isa. 38:4–5).

That’s a marvelous example. Go back to the beginning of the passage. Yahweh had said, “You shall die and not live.” But after Hezekiah prayed, Yahweh added fifteen years to his life.

Did God lie?

Of course not. God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). God responded to Hezekiah’s prayer and changed the announced outcome. That’s a beautiful story.

Relax, I say to people. Have a life. Enjoy the Bible. Let the whole Bible speak. Don’t make one verse fight another. Read the context, hold the passages together, and let Scripture harmonize with Scripture.

Credos conciliares que cambiaron el cristianismo

De mi entrevista con el Dr. Richard E. Rubenstein, historiador judío, autor y Profesor Emérito Universitario de Resolución de Conflictos y Asuntos Públicos en la George Mason University, quien posee títulos de la Universidad de Harvard, la Universidad de Oxford (como Becario Rhodes) y la Harvard Law School.

Si contamos únicamente los concilios relacionados con la controversia arriana —antes de considerar siquiera todas las controversias posteriores estudiadas por historiadores como Philip Jenkins—, calculé que hubo aproximadamente sesenta y cinco concilios entre los años 325 y 380. Eso significa que hubo más de sesenta concilios en un período de sesenta años. ¿Cómo llegaron esos concilios a sus conclusiones?

Mucho dependía de quiénes asistían al concilio, quién lo había convocado y, lo más importante, quién era el emperador en ese momento.

El emperador Constantino, quien convocó el Concilio original de Nicea en el año 325 d. C., fue sucedido por su hijo Constancio, quien favorecía la posición arriana. Constancio fue sucedido posteriormente por un emperador que apoyaba la posición nicena. Como resultado, el respaldo imperial alternaba entre las partes enfrentadas.

Finalmente, Teodosio apareció hacia el final de la controversia como un cristiano niceno bastante militante. Sin embargo, inmediatamente antes de él, el emperador había sido Valente, quien apoyaba la posición arriana.

Valente estuvo relacionado con el que probablemente fue el concilio más grande y representativo de aquel período. Se celebró simultáneamente en Rímini, Italia, y en Seleucia, Asia Menor. Asistieron cientos de obispos, y el credo resultante reflejó una posición arriana o no nicena. Fue el concilio con mayor asistencia de toda la controversia.

Si se combina la asistencia de Rímini y Seleucia, es posible que estuvieran presentes entre seiscientos y setecientos dirigentes de la Iglesia.

Lo que sucedió entonces fue que, al principio, los líderes eclesiásticos buscaron una fórmula doctrinal que pudiera satisfacer de algún modo a todos. Sin embargo, llegado cierto momento, dejaron de preocuparse por complacer a todos. Cada partido quería que sus propias opiniones fueran oficialmente aceptadas y legitimadas.

El propio Concilio de Nicea no fue verdaderamente ecuménico en el sentido moderno de la palabra. Casi todos sus delegados procedían de la parte oriental del Imperio y de un número relativamente reducido de regiones. No fue un concilio particularmente numeroso, y muchos obispos ni siquiera asistieron.

Una fuente calcula que entre trescientos y cuatrocientos obispos participaron en los concilios combinados de Rímini y Seleucia. Cualquiera que haya sido la cifra exacta, el mayor de los concilios conocidos de aquel período adoptó un credo no niceno, es decir, uno que no afirmaba que Jesús fuera “plenamente Dios” o “Dios verdadero” en el sentido trinitario posterior.

He oído que hubo más de doscientos concilios de diversos tamaños durante el desarrollo más amplio de la controversia. Aunque quizá no conozcamos el número exacto, ciertamente hubo cientos de concilios.

Por ejemplo, el artículo de Wikipedia que analiza el Concilio de Rímini contiene una afirmación interesante. Describe aquel concilio como una derrota para el trinitarismo y luego cita las famosas palabras tradicionalmente atribuidas a Jerónimo:

“El mundo entero gimió y quedó asombrado al descubrirse arriano”.

Esa cita es bien conocida, aunque resulta un tanto engañosa.

Difícilmente podría haberse sorprendido el mundo, puesto que el arrianismo ya era una tendencia importante y ampliamente extendida dentro del pensamiento cristiano. Por lo tanto, su éxito en un concilio tan numeroso no debería haber resultado completamente sorprendente.

Unequally Yoked

 In 2 Corinthians 6:14, Paul commands: 

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers. For what partnership does right have with wrong? What fellowship does light have with darkness?” 

Paul reminds Christians that they are “a temple of the living God,” and concludes, “Let us purify ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit.”

Although Paul nowhere uses the word “marriage” in this passage, it is commonly applied to marriage because of the context, the biblical usage of “yoke,” and Paul’s marriage teaching elsewhere.

First, the imagery comes from animals being joined under one yoke to pull together. In Deuteronomy 22:10, God commands Israel: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” That is not because donkeys are useless let alone evil, but simply because two unequal creatures joined in one harness cannot pull properly together. Marriage is one of the clearest examples of such a binding yoke. Genesis 2:24 says: “They shall become one flesh.” In Matthew 19:6, Jesus repeats this and adds: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Second, in 2 Corinthians 6, Paul asks about “partnership,” “fellowship,” and “agreement.” He applies the principle of unequal partnership to the believer and the unbeliever, who do not walk in the same obedience of faith. Marriage is certainly a partnership and fellowship. So if Paul warns Christians not to enter binding spiritual partnerships with unbelievers, marriage cannot be excluded from  the passage.

Third, Paul gives a similar rule in 1 Corinthians 7:39 when he says that a widow is free to remarry, but “only in the lord.” That means a Christian’s marriage choice should remain within loyalty to the lord Messiah Jesus. 

While it is right to say that 2 Corinthians 6 can be used to exhort Christians to marry within the biblical, New Testament faith, that does not mean Christians may never speak with, work with, or love their unbelieving neighbors. For example, earlier in 1 Corinthians 7:12–16, Paul says that if a Christian is already married to an unbeliever, and the unbeliever is willing to live with the believer, the believer should not leave. That means Paul is not saying, “Run away from every unbeliever.” He is warning against voluntarily entering a binding unequal yoke. After all, he adds that we would have to “go out of the world” to avoid all such contact (1 Cor. 5:10). The issue, then, is the “yoke” of marriage as a binding arrangement in which two lives must pull in the same direction. This is the most obvious case because marriage joins worship, monogamy, money, home life, children, and, of course, one’s religious priorities.

Yet reality shows that mixed marriages are certainly common. A recent 2023–24 Pew study found that 26% of married U.S. adults have a spouse with a different religious identity, including Christians. Earlier data also found that among people married since 2010, 39% had a spouse from a different religious group. But the existence of mixed marriages does not prove that they produce better parents, more fulfilling spouses, or more successful professionals. In fact, the data does not support the claim that religiously mixed marriages strengthen Christian foundations. Couples in mixed marriages tend to be less religious than those married within the same faith. Other research links religious service attendance with stronger marital bonds, happiness, stability, and lower divorce or separation risk in some cases.

But even if a mixed marriage is loving, educated, financially stable, and raises well-adjusted children, that still does not answer Paul’s question: “What partnership does right have with wrong? What fellowship does light have with darkness?” 

The world may measure success by careers, income, and well-adjusted children. In contrast, the New Testament measures Christians by their obedience to the faith.

El Yugo Desigual

En 2 Corintios 6, Pablo ordena: 

14 No formen alianza con los incrédulos. ¿Qué tienen en común la justicia y la maldad? ¿O qué comunión puede tener la luz con la oscuridad? 15 ¿Qué armonía tiene Cristo con Belial? ¿Qué tiene en común un creyente con un incrédulo? 16 ¿En qué concuerdan el templo de Dios y los ídolos? Porque nosotros somos templo del Dios viviente.

Aunque Pablo no usa en ningún lugar de este pasaje la palabra “matrimonio”, comúnmente se aplica al matrimonio por el contexto, el uso bíblico de “yugo” y la enseñanza de Pablo sobre el matrimonio en otros lugares.

Primero, la imagen proviene de animales unidos bajo un mismo yugo para tirar juntos. En Deuteronomio 22:10, Dios ordena a Israel: “No ararás con un buey y un asno juntos.” Esto no se debe a que los asnos sean inútiles, mucho menos malos, sino simplemente a que dos criaturas desiguales unidas en un mismo arnés no pueden tirar correctamente juntas. El matrimonio es uno de los ejemplos más claros de tal yugo vinculante. Génesis 2:24 dice: “Serán una sola carne.” En Mateo 19:6, Jesús repite esto y añade: “Por tanto, lo que Dios ha unido, no lo separe el hombre.”

Segundo, en 2 Corintios 6, Pablo pregunta acerca de “compañerismo”, “comunión” y “acuerdo”. Él aplica el principio de la asociación desigual al creyente y al incrédulo, quienes no caminan en la misma obediencia de la fe. El matrimonio ciertamente es una asociación y una comunión. Por tanto, si Pablo advierte a los cristianos que no entren en asociaciones espirituales vinculantes con incrédulos, el matrimonio no puede ser excluido del pasaje.

Tercero, Pablo da una regla similar en 1 Corintios 7:39, cuando dice que una viuda es libre de volver a casarse, pero “solo en el señor”. Eso significa que la elección matrimonial de un cristiano debe permanecer dentro de la lealtad al señor Mesías Jesús.

Aunque es correcto decir que 2 Corintios 6 puede usarse para exhortar a los cristianos a casarse dentro de la fe bíblica del Nuevo Testamento, eso no significa que los cristianos nunca puedan hablar, trabajar o amar a sus vecinos incrédulos. Por ejemplo, antes, en 1 Corintios 7:12–16, Pablo dice que si un cristiano ya está casado con un incrédulo, y el incrédulo está dispuesto a vivir con el creyente, el creyente no debe abandonarlo. Eso significa que Pablo no está diciendo: “Huye de todo incrédulo.” Está advirtiendo contra entrar voluntariamente en un yugo desigual vinculante. Después de todo, él añade que tendríamos que “salir del mundo” para evitar todo contacto de ese tipo (1 Cor. 5:10). Entonces, el asunto es el “yugo” del matrimonio como un acuerdo vinculante en el que dos vidas deben tirar en la misma dirección. Este es el caso más obvio porque el matrimonio une la adoración, la monogamia, el dinero, la vida del hogar, los hijos y, por supuesto, las prioridades religiosas de cada uno.

Sin embargo, la realidad muestra que los matrimonios mixtos son ciertamente comunes. Un estudio reciente de Pew de 2023–24 encontró que el 26% de los adultos casados en Estados Unidos tiene un cónyuge con una identidad religiosa diferente, incluyendo cristianos. Datos anteriores también encontraron que, entre las personas casadas desde 2010, el 39% tenía un cónyuge de un grupo religioso diferente. Pero la existencia de matrimonios mixtos no prueba que produzcan mejores padres, cónyuges más satisfechos o profesionales más exitosos. De hecho, los datos no respaldan la afirmación de que los matrimonios religiosamente mixtos fortalezcan los fundamentos cristianos. Las parejas en matrimonios mixtos tienden a ser menos religiosas que aquellas casadas dentro de la misma fe. Otras investigaciones relacionan la asistencia a servicios religiosos con vínculos matrimoniales más fuertes, felicidad, estabilidad y menor riesgo de divorcio o separación en algunos casos.

Pero incluso si un matrimonio mixto es amoroso, educado, financieramente estable y cría hijos bien adaptados, eso todavía no responde a la pregunta de Pablo: “¿Qué compañerismo tiene la justicia con la injusticia? ¿Y qué comunión tiene la luz con las tinieblas?”

El mundo puede medir el éxito por carreras, ingresos e hijos bien adaptados. En cambio, el Nuevo Testamento mide a los cristianos por su obediencia a la fe.

Wednesday Zoom study 6/24/26

 Psalm 89 by Ethan the Ezrahite

This Psalm captures the whole biblical story: creation, covenant, exile, lament, and final restoration through God’s chosen king. It teaches us how to remain faithful when God’s promises appear delayed or even lost.

Despite judgment, suffering, and the apparent collapse of the Davidic throne, Yahweh’s word—His covenant—will not fail. His Kingdom purpose will be fulfilled through His anointed king.

Opens with the typical theme, AB has reminded us: prophetic lament of doom and gloom mixed with hope and vindication.

1. Hope and vindication

The psalm celebrates and remembers the Davidic covenant: God’s promise to David that his seed, throne, and kingdom would be established forever (cp. 2 Sam. 7:4–16).

2. Doom and gloom

The psalm also mourns Israel’s rebellion, God’s wrath, the humiliation of the Davidic king, and the apparent collapse of the kingdom during the exile and wandering.

The theme reflects the nature of the gospel message: telling of the bad news, calling us to repent, followed by the good news of restoration by the Davidic promise, the KOG.

The opening verses set up the main theme: the Davidic covenant.

• Key texts: 2 Samuel 7:8–16; Psalm 132:11–12; Luke 1:32–33.

“The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his Kingdom there will be no end.” Luke 1:32–33

1. The Davidic Covenant: Psalm 89:3–5

• Vv. 3–4, God says:

“I have cut a covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to David My servant, I will establish your seed forever and build up your throne from generation to generation.”

• The word “seed” in the LXX is sperma, meaning descendant. Cp. protoevangelion, Gen 3:15;
• This points to the one seed, the Messiah, Jesus, cp. Gal 3:14-18

• AB footnote on "Abraham": The blessing of Abraham is property (the land), prosperity and progeny (Gen. 28:4, 13; 35:12; 50:24; Ex. 6:4). The land promise to Abraham is repeated in the New Covenant as the blessing of inheriting the land and the world, and the Kingdom of God (Mt. 5:5; Rev. 5:10, etc).

2. A Unitarian Doxology: Psalm 89:2, 5–13

• Yahweh alone is praised as Creator and sovereign ruler, compare Isaiah 44:24:

“I, Yahweh, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself. And spreading out the earth all alone.”

• God alone created the world by His word, meaning He spoke and it was so: Key text: Psalm 33:

6 “By the Lord’s decree [His "word"] the heavens were made; by a mere word from his mouth all the stars in the sky were created. [Heb. “and by the breath of his mouth all their host.”]

9 “For he spoke, and it ["all the earth" this "world"] came into existence, he issued the decree, and it stood firm."

• In the Old Testament, “the word of the LORD,” i.e., Yahweh is His speech, command, self-expression, and creative power.
• From Genesis 1, “God said” the Hebrew equivalent to “the word of God" in John 1. 
• God did not create through or by another person, Yahweh alone created by His word.
• In the OT LXX, logos is never a “he” or "him" a separate person apart from YHWH.

3. The Assembly of the Holy Ones: Psalm 89:5–7

• Some view these “holy ones” as parallel to the “sons of God” angels of God in texts such as: Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Psalm 29:1; Job 5:1; Job 15:15; Zechariah 14:5.
• Cp. the angelic host in Ps 148:2: “Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts.”
• The point: Yahweh is incomparable, even among the heavenly beings.

4. The Raging Sea: Psalm 89:9

• In Scripture, the sea often symbolizes chaos, danger, rebellion, i.e., destructve forces.
• Psalm 74:12–15 God defeats the sea monsters and Leviathan:

“God is my King from of old, Working salvation in the midst of the earth.

You divided the sea by Your strength; You broke the heads of the sea monsters in the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan.”

• The sea is also associated with monsters such as Rahab, Leviathan, and Jonah’s great fish. Again symbolizing forces hostile to God and His Creation.
• God’s control over the sea shows His power over chaos and destruction.
• Other key texts: Proverbs 8:29; Job 38:1–11.
• In Gen 6 God uses the Flood waters in judgment against human and angelic rebellion. 
• In texts such as Job 26:5, the Rephaim are pictured beneath the waters. The LXX and later Jewish texts associate these beings with the Giants whose bodies were destroyed, while evil spirits remain.
• In the NT the “Evil Sea” theme to showcase Jesus’ authority over them.

Mark 4:35–41 Jesus calms the storm.

Mark 6:45–52 Jesus walks on the water.

Mark 5:13 Legion is cast into the pigs, which rush into the sea.

• Integral to showing Jesus as God’s anointed Messiah and God-like, delegated divine authority over chaos and demonic power.
• In Revelation 12; 13:1; 20:13; 21:1, the sea is associated with the Beast, Satanic power, death, and chaos.
• In the end  "there is no longer any sea.” Revelation 21:1
• Meaning: the powers of Satan, death, chaos, and rebellion are finally broken.

6. Tabor and Hermon Psalm 89:12

• Tabor and Hermon symbolize Yahweh’s worldwide power and supremacy.
• Tabor is also traditionally associated by some with the Transfiguration.
• Tabor is in the west and is used as an image of majesty. Compare Jeremiah 46:18:

“Surely one shall come who looms up like Tabor among the mountains.”

• Hermon is in the east. Compare Psalm 133:3:

“It is like the dew of Hermon. Coming down upon the mountains of Zion.”

• Hermon was associated with many pagan temples and, in some Second Temple Jewish traditions, with the demonic outbreak connected to Genesis 6.
• The point is not to glorify these mountains, but to show that even they will praise YHWH.