One Yahweh Too Many: Genesis 19:24

A number of major commentaries (mostly Trinitarian) recognize that the double use of the Divine Name in Genesis 19:24 is simply an emphatic Hebrew stylistic feature—repetition employed for emphasis—to underline that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a direct act of God, not some natural fluke.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers explains that “many commentators, following the Council of Sirmium, see in this repetition of the name of Jehovah an indication of the Holy Trinity, as though God the Son rained down fire from God the Father. More correctly Calvin takes it as an emphatic reiteration of its being Jehovah’s act.”

Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament calls the phrase “from Jehovah” an emphatica repetitio (emphatic repetition), and again cites Calvin to stress that it was not according to the usual order of nature, but a manifest, extraordinary act of God, ensuring no natural causes could account for it.

The Pulpit Commentary says:

Whether this Divinely-sent rain was "burning pitch" (Keil), of lightning which ignited the bituminous soil (Clericus), or a volcanic eruption which overwhelmed all the region (Lynch, Kitto), it was clearly miraculous in its nature....the phrase is regarded as "an elegancy of speech" (Aben Ezra), "an emphatic repetition" (Calvin), a more exact characterization of the storm (Clericus, Rosenmüller) as being out of heaven.

Matthew Poole's Commentary notes the phrase "From the Lord, i.e. from himself; the noun put for the pronoun, as Genesis 1:27 2 Chronicles 7:2. But here it is emphatically so expressed," and gives one of the reasons to "signify that it proceeded not from natural causes, but from the immediate hand of God."

Some English translations, like the NET, “streamline” the repetition into an explicit statement of divine causation—again, to remove any thought that this was just an unlucky natural disaster. This also explains why, in the parallel thought of Amos 4:11, some English versions use the first-person pronoun (“I”) instead of the word “God” (e.g., NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT).

Thus, this interpretation avoids reading two Yahwehs into the text (and thus any hint of polytheism) and instead follows a well-attested Hebrew idiom (cf. Hosea 1:6–7; Zechariah 3:2; 10:12). Nor is this usage reserved for the Divine Name: the same pattern appears with Solomon in 1 Kings 8:1 and 12:21. Similarly in Genesis 4:23, 1 Samuel 20:12–13; 25:22; 2 Samuel 3:8–9. In each case, the repetition of the personal name functions to heighten emphasis. So that Genesis 19:24 has nothing to do with introducing two Yahwehs, which would clearly break with the unitary Jewish creed of the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4.

Are the dead alive? Saul & the Witch of Endor

The story of Saul and the witch of Endor is frequently cited to support the idea that the dead continue as conscious, disembodied “souls” or “spirits” capable of communication with the living. However, a careful examination of the passage in its broader scriptural context points strongly in the opposite direction.

1 Samuel 28:8 says that Saul disguised himself and put on other clothing and left, accompanied by two of his men. They came to the woman at night and said, “Use your ritual pit to conjure up for me the one I tell you.” 9 But the woman said to him, “Look, you are aware of what Saul has done; he has removed the mediums and magicians from the land! Why are you trapping me so you can put me to death?” 28:10 But Saul swore an oath to her by the Lord, “As surely as the Lord lives, you will not incur guilt in this matter!” 11 The woman replied, “Who is it that I should bring up for you?” He said, “Bring up for me Samuel.” 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out loudly. The woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!” 13 The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid! What have you seen?” The woman replied to Saul, “I have seen one like a god coming up from the ground!” 14 He said to her, “What about his appearance?” She said, “An old man is coming up! He is wrapped in a robe!” Then Saul realized it was Samuel, and he bowed his face toward the ground and kneeled down. 15 Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul replied, “I am terribly troubled! The Philistines are fighting against me and God has turned away from me. He does not answer me – not by the prophets nor by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what I should do.”

Later, 1 Chronicles 10:13–14 states explicitly that Saul died “because he was unfaithful to the Lord and did not obey the Lord’s instructions; he even tried to conjure up underworld spirits.”

The NET Study Bible notes:

The text alludes to the incident recorded in 1 Sam 28. The Hebrew term אוֹב (’ov, “ritual pit”) refers to a pit used by a magician to conjure up underworld spirits. In 1 Sam 28:7 the witch of Endor is called a בַּעֲלַת־אוֹב (ba’alat-’ov, “owner of a ritual pit”).

This underscores the fact that Saul turned to forbidden occult means rather than to Yahweh, highlighting his unfaithfulness. In his desperation he was deceived by someone (or something) he believed was the dead Samuel, but in reality it was an elohim, a “god” (a title sometimes used for demons; see Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 95:5 LXX; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:20).

The Old Testament consistently portrays death as a state of unconscious sleep and silence, where the dead know nothing of earthly affairs, no longer praise God, and do not engage in activity (Psalm 6:5; 115:17; Ecclesiastes 9:5–6). Of note is Psalm 88:10–12, emphasizing the forgotten state of the rephaim (a word associated with “departed spirits,” demons in Isaiah 14:9; 26:14, 19). These are said to be in Abaddon; here it functions as a parallel concept to the pit or grave, i.e., Sheol—the destructive realm of death where God is no longer praised.

These texts rule out the possibility that the dead Samuel appeared as a conscious, disembodied spirit or soul from the grave.

Moreover, Yahweh repeatedly and severely prohibits necromancy and consulting mediums (Leviticus 19:31; 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:10–12, which lists such practices as abominations that defile the land; Isaiah 8:19–20, which urges people to seek God’s law and testimony rather than mediums and spiritists who whisper and mutter, as any word contrary to Scripture is darkness).

Given these clear prohibitions, it is theologically inconsistent for God to authorize or participate in such a condemned practice as a legitimate means of revelation—especially to a king already rejected for disobedience (1 Samuel 15:23, 26).

The narrative details in 1 Samuel 28 fit far more naturally with occult deception—likely demonic impersonation—than with a genuine, God-ordained prophetic encounter. The apparition rises “out of the earth” (v. 13), claims to be disturbed from the “rest” of the dead (v. 15), delivers a message of doom without hope or mercy (in contrast to God’s typical prophetic call to repentance and restoration), and aligns with Saul’s desperate rebellion rather than divine endorsement.

The story illustrates the peril of disobeying Yahweh and seeking the occult instead. Scripture consistently teaches that true revelation comes from God alone (Isaiah 8:20), that the dead await resurrection in unconscious rest (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28–29), and that any apparent contact with dead human persons is a dark delusion, contrary to God’s explicit commands.

Let us heed the warning: seek the living God, not the dead, with the resurrection of our Lord Jesus himself as the ultimate example:

Luke 24:1 At dawn on the first day of the week, the women went to the tomb, carrying the spices they had prepared. 2 They discovered that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb entrance, 3 so they went in, but they did not find the body of the lord Jesus. 4 As they were bewildered about this, suddenly two men in dazzling white clothes appeared. 5 The women were terrified and bowed down with their faces to the ground. They said to the women, “Why are you looking for the living among the dead?"

Luke 20:37 As to whether the dead will be raised, even Moses proved this at the burning bush when he called the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.”

Jesus is what the word became

“The logos of the prologue became Jesus; Jesus was the logos become flesh not the logos as such.” Leonhard Goppelt, The Theology of the NT (Eerdmans, 1992), Vol. 2, 297.

Literal preexistence Christology claims that in John 1:1 “the Word” is a second divine Person — the Son — who existed “with God” the Father and who later became a man. English translations continue to assume this reading by capitalizing “Word,” followed by personal pronouns like “he” and “him,” as if John were describing an already existing Person called “the Word of God.” But if “the Word” was a Person, then John 1:14 would mean that that Person “became flesh” — that is, became another person, a human being. Yet neither John nor any other NT writer ever says that a divine person was incarnated “as a man.” The text simply says that God’s “word became flesh.”

In the Old Testament, “the word of the LORD” is never a second divine Person alongside Yahweh. It is His speech, His creative power, His promise and purpose going out from Him and achieving His will.

“By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host…For He spoke, and it was; He commanded, and it stood” (Psalm 33:6, 9).

This word comes to the prophets as a message, not as a visiting second Person:

“Now the word of Yahweh came to me, saying…” (Jeremiah 1:4; cf. 1 Samuel 3:1).

And Isaiah tells us that this word is God’s plan and promise, just as rain waters the earth, “so will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I delight” (Isaiah 55:11).

This is the Hebrew background John 1 has in mind. John is telling us that God’s creative, saving word — His plan and promise described as life and light — has now taken concrete, human form.

“The word became flesh and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14).

God’s own self-expression has become embodied in a unique human person, “the man Messiah Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). God, who “in many parts and in many ways spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets,” has “in these last days spoken to us in a Son” (Hebrews 1:1–2). The Son is the climactic way God speaks, not some eternal second Person who has always existed “with God.” That would be polytheism — two Gods!

Simply put, Jesus is what the word of God became.

The New Testament never records Jesus saying, “I am the Word," i.e., "the preexistent Word who became flesh.” Instead, he consistently presents himself as the agent of God’s words.

“But now you are seeking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God” (John 8:40).

“My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 7:16).

He prays to the Father, “the words which You gave me I have given to them” (John 17:8). And he sharply distinguishes between himself and the message he carries:

“The person who does not love me does not obey my words. And the word you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me” (John 14:24).

John’s own first letter says that the apostles “heard,” “saw,” and “touched” “the word of life” (1 John 1:1) — that is, the life of the coming age as embodied in the human Jesus. The “word” there is not a second eternal Person, but the life-giving message now manifested in a human person. A "which" or "what was from the beginning," (1 John 1:1) not "he" or "who was from the beginning."

When we let the Hebrew Scriptures define “the word of God,” John 1 no longer supports a literal preexistence Christology. Instead, it harmonizes beautifully with the rest of the New Testament. The one God speaks, His word goes out, and in the fullness of time that word comes to expression in a uniquely procreated human Son in the womb, not from outside the womb (see Matthew 1:18–20; Luke 1:30–35). He now perfectly reveals the Father’s character and purpose.

Rather than reading later literal preexistence incarnation theories back into John 1, let us carefully read and understand John, who repeatedly echoes the unitary creed known as the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4).

John 5:44 “How can you possibly believe when you accept praise from one another, and you fail to seek the praise which comes from the only One who is God?” 

John 8:41–42 They said, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father – God.” Jesus said to them, “If God really was your Father, you would love me, because I came from God… I did not come on my own, but He sent me.” 

John 17:3 “This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus the Messiah whom you sent.” 

John 20:17 “I ascend to my Father and your Father and my God and your God.” 

1 John 5:19–20 “We know that we are from God and belong to God… And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding to know Him who is true. We are in Him who is true… This One is the true God and is the life of the age to come.”

Saturday study 1/31/26

 Part 6: On Purification laws

I posed the theme of this series in the form of a question:

Did Jesus actually change the Law of Moses?

• The point is to see whether Jesus came to merely repeat Moses or whether, as the New Covenant lawgiver, Jesus came to change Torah at certain points.
• Today we look to see if Jesus changed purification laws.

"You Have Heard it Said": Lev 13-14; Num 5; 19

• Illnesses like leprosy/skin disease; chronic discharges, including a woman with a flow of blood (Lev 15)
• Contact with corpses and other sick people (Num 5:1–4; 19)
• Purification laws required washing, sometimes offering sacrifices (e.g., being sprinkled with the red-heifer water)
• For a time the "unclean" had to be banished/excluded from the Jewish community and the Temple, i.e., the presence of God. 

"But I say": Matt 8; Luke 8:40-56

• He touches the sick, like lepers, paralytic and eats with "sinners" (i.e., Gentiles or bakcsiliding Jews, Luke 5:12-32; a woman with blood discharge, Mar 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-48).
• He touches a dead girl (Mark 5:35-43; Luke 7:11-17); raised Lazarus (John 11). 
• And although he could heal with a word at a distance (servant of the Roman soldier) he instead wilfully comes into contact with the so-called "unclean," including the dead. 
• NOTE: the Gospels never record Jesus following purification laws. 
• This only really makes sense if Jesus is functioning under a different Law than that from Sinai.

What About?

• Jesus sometimes seems to be under Torah:
• He tells the cleansed leper: “Show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded” (Matt 8:4). But don't stop there, "as a testimony to them," i.e., Torah-observant Jews.
• In other words, as a claim to show them of his Messianic ministry boinafide. 
• He is using their own Torah to verify his claims, without being under Torah. 

The early church: Hebrews 9-10

• Purification laws, e.g., about menstruating, corpse impurity, leprosy quarantines, etc., are not repeated to the church. 
• The whole Torah was but a single shadow (Heb 10:1) imposed only until the coming of Messiah, "he abolishes the first in order to establish the second." (Heb 10:9b)  
• As AB notes:

Just as in Col. 2:16-17 the Messiah, who has come, is the reality of which the calendar of “holy days, new moons and weekly sabbath” are a single shadow. 

• Note v.20 If you have died with Messiah to the elemental spirit forces of the world, why, as if you were alive in the world, do you submit to decrees 21 do not handle, do not taste, do not touch? 22 All these regulations refer to things that will perish with use; they are just human commands and doctrines. 23 These rules may seem to be wise with their invented religion, ascetic practices, and severe treatment of the body, but they are in reality of no value in stopping sinful indulgence.
• So "Obligatory vegetarianism would be an example of such teaching. Or total abstinence from alcohol which goes beyond the standard set by God and Jesus." AB footnotes
• The only “washing” emphasized is baptism, the metaphorical (non-literal) “washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26), and the inner cleansing of conscience (Heb 9–10).
• Heb 9:13–14: ashes of the heifer for the defiled now superseded; Christ’s blood purifies the conscience, not external corpse impurity. 
• Acts 9; 20: apostles handle the dead to raise them, with no corpse purification.
• James 5:14-16 says prayer not Temple purifications, take care for the sick by repenting, forgiveness—not a hint of the Apostles repeating purification laws for the church. 

Notice how “cleansing” language is redirected:

• Hebrews 10:22 speaks of our hearts “sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” and our bodies washed with pure water. 
• The focus is on conscience and heart, not avoiding corpse contamination or menstruating women or "eating with sinners."
• Paul constantly exhorts Christians to purity in terms of holiness and behavior(2 Cor 7:1; Eph 5:3–5; 1 Thes 4:3–7), not ritual washings or observing niddah(7-day menstrual impurity), corpse laws, etc. 
• If Torah purity laws were still binding, Paul's letters to mixed Jew-Gentile churches should be full of instructions about them. They aren’t.
• READ: the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10:17-35 it is crucial. 
• Peter says: “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone unholy or unclean." (Acts 10:28)
• Acts 10:34b-35: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism, but He welcomes from every nation the person who fears Him and does what is right." 
• This comes immediately after the vision with “unclean” animals. The apostolic conclusion is crystal clear:
• The old clean/unclean categories that barred Jews from Gentile fellowship are gone.
• People once considered “unclean” are now acceptable in Messiah, without first passing through Torah purification.

READ: Galatians 2

• Paul rebukes Peter for refusing to eat with Gentile Christians when “certain men from James” (i.e., Torah-observant Jewish-Christians) came:
• Paul says Peter “lives like a Gentile and not like a Jew”; compelling Gentiles to Judaize is hypocrisy.
• The issue is shared table fellowship (food law keeping) despite previous Torah barriers.
• If purification laws are still binding, Peter couldn’t “live like a Gentile” at all; yet Paul treats that freedom as the normal Christian stance.

But What About?

• In Acts 21 Paul joins four other Jews under a vow and participates in purification rites in the Temple. Some argue this proves continued obligation to Torah rituals.
• But following his letters, it looks like missionary accommodation, diplomacy not Torah-observance necessity: 1Cor 9:

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, so that I may win Jews. To those who are under the Law I became like someone under the Law — even though I myself am not under the Law — so that I may win those under the Law.  21 To those outside the Law I became like one outside the Law, not myself being outside the Law of God, but within the Law of Messiah, so that I may win those who are outside the Law. 

• Paul is willing, for the sake of being a witness to Jesus as the Messiah, to "become like a [Torah-observant] Jew." 
• Yet in his letters he insists that all Christians—whether Jew or Gentile—are not under the Law of Moses but are subject to the Law of Messiah. 
• These are two different, competing, and therefore contrasting sets of laws, just like there are two different covenants!

Summary

• Jesus changed temple purification laws therefore, didn't have to follow any prufication laws because he did not remain Torah-observant. 
• Jesus was the promised Messiah who was uniquely authiorized to establish a new covenant Law.
• Jesus was the spotless lamb of God and his own unique holiness overcomes impurity, where mercy outweighs ritual, and where Temple-based cleanness is replaced by cleanness through him.
• Hebrews describes the old covenant as having “various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation” (Heb 9:10), including the ashes of the heifer for defilement by the dead (Heb 9:13; cf. Num 19). 
• But now, “the blood of Messiah… cleanses your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb 9:14), granting us a new “boldness to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus… our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:19–22). NOTE centrality and importance of the cross! 
• For sickness, James instructs believers to call elders for prayer and anointing with oil, with no mention of Levitical uncleanness: “The prayer of faith will save the sick” (James 5:14–15).
• Contact with the dead (once a major impurity source, Num 19) requires no purification;
• Peter takes Tabitha by the hand and she lives (Acts 9:36–41); 
• Paul embraces Eutychus who fell from the window and seems to revive him (Acts 20:9–12).
• Regarding people, Peter declares, “God has shown me that I should call no person common or unclean” (Acts 10:28), and that God “cleansed their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9), calling the Law’s demands a “yoke… which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10).
• Paul confirms he is “not under the Law [of Moses]… but under the law of Messiah” (1 Cor 9:20–21) and calls Christians to “fulfill the law of Messiah” (Gal 6:2).

NEXT: Last Part 7, On food laws. 

Is this a salvation issue?

When discussing a biblical topic—especially one that’s disputed—someone will sometimes ask:

But is this a salvation issue?

In Scripture, salvation is consistently tied to the obedience of faith meaning, you believe what God says therefore, submit to His words. So the more biblical question to ask yourself is:

Will this affect my “obedience of faith” that is, my belief in what God has said?

The New Testament does not separate believing from obeying. In fact, it regularly contrasts faith, belief with disobedience. Jesus warns:

“The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

Note the contrast between faith—belief in the Son—and disobedience. The outcome is spelled out in sobering terms when Jesus adds:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)

Peter reminds Christians of God’s purpose in calling them:

“...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus the Messiah...” (1 Peter 1:2)

Paul opens and closes Romans with the same defining phrase, framing his entire gospel message:

“Through him we have received grace and Apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for his name.” (Romans 1:5)

“...following the command of the God of the ages, made known to all the nations, to bring about the obedience of faith...” (Romans 16:26)

That repetition is not accidental. Paul emphasizes saving faith as faith that obeys the gospel he delivered. He even describes conversion as becoming obedient “from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed” (Romans 6:17).

The apostle John gives a simple test of authenticity:

“By this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3)

Hebrews makes the same point, tying salvation directly to obedience:

“Although he was a son, he learned obedience through the things that he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him...” (Hebrews 5:8–9)

Anthony's note on Hebrews 5:9 summarizes it well:

"Obedience to Jesus is the condition of salvation. Faith without obedience is false faith and cannot save."

In other words, true faith is inseparable from obedience as properly understood in New Testament terms, and it serves as the foundation for salvation (again John 3:36; Hebrews 5:9, etc.).

Therefore, debates over “faith versus works,” or whether this or that is “a salvation issue,” are unnecessary once the biblical concept of the “obedience of faith” is understood as the unifying key to salvation. The biblical measure of whether something is a salvation issue is straightforward:

Does this teaching or practice affect my obedience of faith—so that I can continue in the obedience that flows from what I believe?