Don -
I think that the phrase "in the beginning" is a reference to the "beginning" of the ministry of John and Jesus. The main reason for this is because this is clearly what "the beginning" means in Mark 1:1 and Luke 1:1-3, as well as 1 John 1:1-5 (which is the closest parallel to John 1). All the gospels "begin" the ministry of Jesus with the appearance of John the baptizer.
The other thing is the "creation" terminology in John 1. This is where I think there is confusion. People see "in the beginning" and they think that it must refer to Gen 1:1 because of the "light" and "darkness" and "all things" language in the subsequent verses. However, I think the whole passage should be understood to be comparing the "new covenant" that Jesus "created" when he appeared and fulfilled the scripture. The "creation" language is just an allusion to Genesis because Jesus is the creator of the "new heavens and new earth."
It's no different than the NT calling Jesus the "lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world." The point is not that Jesus "preexisted" as an animal (a "lamb"), but that his death was analogous to the atoning sacrifice in the OT. Jesus is the "creator" of the "new heavens and new earth" in an analogous sense to the way God the Father originally "created" the Land of Israel (or "universe" - in Gen 1). The "beginning" of Jesus "creating" was when he was baptized and began to announce "the kingdom of God is at hand." This is where all the Gospels begin his ministry.
When the rest of the NT talks about Jesus being the maker of "all things" (like in Col 1 and Heb 1) it is referring to the "all things" of the "new covenant" that was being revealed at that time. Notice that Paul says in 2 Cor 5:16-18 that "old things have passed away, ALL THINGS have become NEW, there is no more Jew, nor Greek ... but there is a NEW CREATION." He says the same thing in Gal 6:9-16.
In Heb 1-2, the writer is comparing the ministry of Jesus "creating" the new covenant, to the old covenant rulership of the angels. The angels were the ones who delivered the "old covenant" (the "old creation" - the Law). Jesus is the superior messenger who brings about the "new covenant" (the "new creation"). He is the "Son," the final revelation of God.
I think Jesus uses the same figure of speech in John 8:58 when he says "before Abraham was, I am." The point is not that Jesus "preexisted" Abraham, but that Jesus is more important than Abraham (who the Jews regarded as their "father"). When Jesus tells the Pharisees (in John 8) that "Abraham rejoiced to see my day" he is saying that he is the one that was to be greater than Abraham because he would fulfill the covenant.
I thought that we could start our discussion with John 1:1-3 since it is probably the most significant "proof-text" for the "preexistence" and "deity" of Christ. I also want you to know that I am willing to agree that your "Trinitarian" interpretations are certainly "possible." I was a Trinitarian for many years, and I am familiar with most of the logical arguments used to infer the "deity" of Christ.
If you don't change your mind, I hope that what I have to offer will at least make you realize that there are other possible (and, perhaps, more probable) interpretations of passages like John 1:1-3 than just the traditional Trinitarian view. After doing a great deal of research into counter-Trinitarian arguments, I decided to change my faith because I learned that no view can be proven conclusively from what we have in scripture. I'm just trying to realize what is the most probable interpretation of what the apostles taught about Jesus.
Here are a couple things to consider about John 1:1-3. First of all, most interpreters assume that "in the beginning" is a quotation or allusion to "in the beginning" in Gen 1:1. This is possible. However, John does not EXPLICITLY state that he is quoting from Gen 1:1. Therefore, I would like you to consider another possibility.
You will notice in Mark 1:1 that the writer says "The BEGINNING of the gospel of Jesus Christ." You will also notice that in Luke 1:2, the writer refers to the apostles as "those who from THE BEGINNING were eye witnesses ..." Also notice that both of these writers "BEGIN" their Gospels with the appearing of John the baptizer and Jesus. Isn't it plausible to think that maybe John is also referring to the same time (''the beginning" - when John the baptizer and Jesus appeared on earth) since you will also notice that John devotes almost the entire first chapter of his gospel to the story of John the baptizer (John 1:1-50). I would suggest to you that "the BEGINNING" is referring to the "beginning" of the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom and not "eternity past" where Jesus supposedly "preexisted."
You will also notice that although Matthew does not use the word "BEGINNING," his Gospel also begins with the details pertaining to the appearance of John the baptizer and Jesus. I think that the Gospels are parallel on these points. I think that the Gospel writers all understood the "BEGINNING" of their "faith" to be the time when John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness preaching the "gospel of the kingdom." Again, please notice that, especially in John's Gospel, the main subject of "the BEGINNING" is the details about John the baptizer.
If you want to consider a similar statement, see Acts 1:21-22 where Peter says that "the Lord Jesus went in and out among us (the apostles)" and says that it was "BEGINNING with the baptism of John."
Finally, there is the passage that is most "parallel" to John 1:1-3 which is I John 1:1-5 (presumably written by the same "John" as the Gospel of John). Consider that in the epistle John says that "from THE BEGINNING" the apostles "had heard" and "had seen with the eyes" and "handled with their hands" the "Word of Life." It seems plausible to me that John's own interpretation of "THE BEGINNING" is when Jesus ("the Word") appeared and was present and fellowshipping with the apostles.
As I see it, according to all the Gospels and Acts and 1 John, "the BEGINNING" was the time when John the baptizer and Jesus appeared "preaching the kingdom of God" and lived "among" the apostles. I don't think you could argue that John and the other apostles "preexisted" with Jesus in "the beginning" if that is the meaning of John 1:1-3.
Dear Steve -
Thanks for you reply ... you didn't comment on anything from my previous statements, so I really don't know if you understood what I was trying to show you. You're reply raises many more questions. I will just try to respond to the one that pertains to John 1:1-3, since I can relate it to what I wrote before.
You asked about John 1:3 which says that "all came to be through it (the Word), and apart from it (the Word) not even one thing came to be which has come to be" (CLV) ...
Let me tell you what I think is a plausible explanation of this statement that is not according to Trinitarian presuppositions about the "preexistence" of Christ. Again, I want you to know that I think it is certainly "possible" that this is an allusion to the "creation" of Genesis 1-2, however, I think that there is a more probable way to understand John's statement. This may not change you mind, but I hope that you will at least come to see that there is more than one way to interpret these passages.
Remember, from my previous statements, that I showed you that "the BEGINNING," as it is found in the Gospels and the Acts, can often refer to the "BEGINNING" of the apostolic ministry (see Mark 1:1; Luke 1:1-3; Acts 1:20-21). John DOES NOT explicitly say that he is quoting Genesis 1:1 ("in the beginning") in John 1:1-3, so I think it is fair to consider that when he says that "all came to be through it (the Word)" that John may be referring to something other than the "creation" of Genesis 1:1. After all, most interpreters understand John 1:3 to be an allusion to Genesis 1:1 because they have already assuming that "in the beginning" refers to Genesis 1:1. As you know, I do not think that this is the most probable understanding of "in the beginning" so I am going to explain "all things came to be through it (the Word)" in a different sense.
Notice again the similar statement that John makes in 1 John 1:1-2. He says literally "THAT WHICH WAS from the beginning, THAT WHICH we have heard, THAT WHICH we have seen with our eyes, THAT WHICH we gaze upon and our hands handle concerning the Word of Life." I have emphasized the "THAT WHICH" parts of the verses to help you see the pattern that is evident in the Greek text. The significance of this repetition of "THAT WHICH" may be that John means to identify "THE BEGINNING" as the SAME TIME that the apostles were living. Afterall, the apostles could not have "seen" and "heard" and "handled" Jesus "FROM THE BEGINNING" unless "THE BEGINNING" refers to the time that they were with Jesus on earth. I don't think that anyone would try to argue that the apostles "preexisted" with Jesus, whether they are Trinitarian or not!>
If I am right, and John is identifying "THE BEGINNING" as the time when the apostles began to follow Jesus, then this is consistent with all the Gospel records devoting most of their content to the public ministry of John the baptizer and Jesus. As far as the apostles are concerned, the was "THE BEGINNING" of their faith. Like Mark 1:1 says, "This is THE BEGINNING of the gospel of Jesus Christ ...."
Now, this is the sense in which we could answer your question. First of all, John is probably writing his Gospel after the earthly ministry of Jesus had been completed. This also seems to be the case with all of the epistles. By the time the NT documents were written, the apostles understood that Jesus was the messiah who came to bring the "kingdom of god/heaven" and "the new heavens and earth." I think that it is important to understand the perspective of the apostles because they were writing about the situation that was PRESENT to them. When John or Paul, for example, refer to "all things" they can be understood to be referring to "all things" that were happening from their perspective.
Let me explain this further. By the time the apostles wrote their books, Jesus had already inaugurated the "new covenant" and the "kingdom" was already "at hand." Now, notice that Paul reflects upon the ministry of Jesus and says "so that if anyone is in Christ, THERE IS A NEW CREATION, the former things are passed away" (2 Cor 5:17). Notice the similar statement that Paul makes in Gal 6:15, where he says "for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but THERE IS A NEW CREATION." Notice that Paul understands the present circumstances of the "new covenant" established by Jesus to be a "NEW CREATION." I would suggest to you that Paul and the other apostles understood Jesus to have inaugurated a new state of affairs (the "body" or "church") that was "new" in that it changed the relationship between Jew and Gentile.
Look at Colossians 1:3-29 where Paul also speaks of "all things" bein "created" and "held together" by Jesus. Notice that the context of this whole chapter (not to mention most of the book) of Colossians pertains to an explanation of the relationship of Jesus to the "church." In Col 1:13-15, he is talking about having been "translated into the kingdom of the Son" and having "deliverance" and "forgiveness of sins." These are all things that pertain to the time PRESENT to Paul and the Colossians. I don't see any indication (in the context) that Paul is suggesting that any of these things were present at the time of Gen 1:1. Notice also in Col 1:18-20, Paul goes on to talk about the "church" and the "body." These are also things that were not present during the "creation" in Gen 1:1.
Now, isn't it at least plausible to consider that in Col 1:16-17 when Paul says "all is created for him (Jesus)" and "all is created by him (Jesus)" and "all things hold together in him (Jesus)" that he is still talking about the "kingdom" and "the body" and "the church" that are the subject of the entire context? Isn't it true that the ministry of Jesus was the "BEGINNING" of the "kingdom" and the "body" and the "church" and ALL THINGS as far as Paul and the Colossians were concerned?
This is the sense in which I think we could understand John 1:3. I think John was saying that what started in "THE BEGINNING" (when John the baptizer and Jesus were preaching) resulted in the "ALL THINGS" that the apostles understood (from their experience many years later when they wrote their books) were taking place in the church. In other words, Jesus "created" the "new covenant" state of affairs that then existed. By his death and resurrection, Jesus inaugurated the "NEW CREATION" in which the "church" now lived "in Christ."
I would understand the statement in Rev 3:14 in the same sense. Jesus is "THE BEGINNING of the creation of God" in the sense that his "coming" inaugurated and established the new "CREATION" which is the "church" (in which there is no Jew or Greek - all are one). I don't think that this passage has anything to do with when Jesus himself "existed" as a person.
Again, that is why John talks about "THE BEGINNING" in John 1:1-3 and then spends the next 50 verses explaining how John the baptizer came and announced the arrival of Jesus and the beginning of his ministry.
Well, this has been a long note ... I only hope that it answers that one question and helps you to understand what I am thinking ... I would appreciate your comments too ...
CHRIS
Ward -
Here is a reply to Point I of your article (See Ward Fenley's article "The Deity of Christ"
). In this point, you seem to be concluding that "Jesus is Yahweh" based upon the use of similar terms in the translation of certain OT and NT passages that refer to "beginning, created, heavens, and earth." As I see it, you are making a number of unsubstantiated assumptions that make your conclusion improbable at best.
First, with respect to Gen 1:1 and John 1:1-3. You are assuming that John is quoting from Gen 1:1 when he uses the phrase "the beginning." John does not explicitly say this, however. Therefore, you have to substantiate this assumption with exegesis, which you do not do. "The beginning" could just as well be "the beginning" of the public ministries of John the baptizer and Jesus, since this is the subject of the rest of John, chapter 1. Also, you can find the other NT writers explicitly identifying the "baptism of John" as "the beginning" (see Mark 1:1; Luke 1:2; Acts 1:20-21). Even more difficult for me is the very similar reference to "the beginning" and "the Word" in 1 John 1:1-5 where John says that he "saw" and "heard" and "handled" Jesus "from the beginning." Using your "logic," I could just as well conclude that John participated in the creation of Gen 1:1.
Second, you are assuming that "all things" in John 1:3 is a reference to the geophysical creation, which you are also assuming to be the correct understanding of Gen 1:1. John does not say this and you do not substantiate your assumption with any exegetical evidence. Again, anyone could take a concordance and find a number of occurrences of "all things" in the NT that does not require a Gen 1:1 allusion. Whenever there are other possible uses of words (which is provable with a concordance), you cannot restrict the semantic range of the words in an (at least somewhat) ambiguous context and "prove" a certain interpretation. This is fallacious, and not according to sound exegetical and logical principles.
Third, you are assuming that "heaven and earth" and "create" and "all things" in Col 1:13-17 refers to the OT texts. Again, Paul makes no explicit identification of his terms with particular OT texts. Therefore, you must substantiate your assumptions and allow for other conclusions. Using your "logic" again, I could conclude that the "new creation" and the "all things" that Paul talks about in 2 Cor 5:17-21 and Gal 6:15 refer to your OT texts. Did Jesus "recreate" everything in the geophysical universe on account of what Paul says in those passages? I could also draw the same conclusion about "heaven and earth" in Matt 5:17-18. I've read your preterist books and articles, and I know that you would not draw such conclusions. Again, you are "proving" nothing with this in Point I because you are using your own selective semantics to prove your own conclusions. This is circular reasoning, and not sound exegesis.
Fourth, in Col 1:13-17, Paul is also explicitly talking in the "present tense" throughout the whole of chapter 1 and the rest of the epistle. You cannot simply assume again that what is "present" to Paul in Col 1:13-17 is referring back to the "past" in Gen 1:1. Since Paul is writing "after" Jesus had appeared to him, it is certainly plausible to suggest that Paul is writing about things that were "presently" true without the requirement that Jesus did them in Gen 1:1. In other words, Jesus could very well have "created" and "sustained" the "all things" in "heaven and earth" that Paul mentions at any time in the "past." All I am saying here is that Paul does not explicitly say WHEN or WHAT Jesus "created" the things that he is writing about, and you cannot simply assume that he is referring to Gen 1:1. Paul himself uses these same terms in 2 Cor 5:17-21 and Gal 6:15 to refer to things that explicitly occurred after Jesus' death ... why can't Col 1:13-17 also be referring to this "new creation?" Afterall, the context of Col 1 is the "church" and the "kingdom" and "the body" which are things that were not "present" or revealed or revealed to the Colossians until after Jesus appeared to the apostles.
Fifth, in Hebrews 1:3-10 you are again simply assuming that the "creation" language refers to Gen 1:1. On the contrary, the writer of Hebrews explicitly places these "creation" events AFTER (1:1) the prophets spoke, IN THE LAST DAYS (1:2) when Jesus spoke, and WHEN Jesus "made purification for sins" (1:3) and "sat down at the right hand of God" (1:3). The writer also explicitly says that these things occurred WHEN Jesus was "came into the world" (1:6). All of this would seem to put the context of the "all things" in Heb 1:4 into the time frame that was "present" to the apostles, and not Gen 1:1. Again, if I were to follow your "logic" through this passage, I would have "the fathers and prophets" (1:1) existing before Jesus was appointed "heir of all things" since the same verse tells us that this happened in "the last days" (1:2).
In conclusion, Ward, I'm not saying that my comments "prove" that you are "wrong." However, it seems very improbable that your conclusion that "Jesus is Yahweh" (at least based upon these NT verses) is the correct one. I can think of a number of other conclusions that could be drawn from the same comparison of verses.
Unfortunately, you never establish with any exegesis in Point I that the NT passages are talking about the SAME "things" or the same "time" as the NT verses. Yet, this is the whole crux of your comparison of the similar terminology. You simply assume that because the words are the same, that the meaning is the same. If you drew these same conclusions in eschatology, you would also undermine your whole preterist hermeneutic.
I do not know of any passage in the NT or OT that EXPLICITLY says that "Jesus IS Yahweh." You do not refer to any such statement either. Therefore, you are doing nothing more than inferring this conclusion and, therefore, you must try to prove the probability that your conclusion is the most likely by presenting conclusive evidence. I just don't think you have even substantiated your definition of the terms, let alone proved the conclusions you imply by making the semantic comparisons.
Well, have I misunderstood how you are forming your argument? I don't think that I have ... maybe you are just making an oversimplified good-intentioned effort to "let the scriptures speak for themselves." I've read many counter-Trinitarian writers who do the same thing to prove their conclusions too.
I will work on Point II tomorrow ...
Sincerely, CHRIS
Ward -
You are right, it doesn't matter what one's definition of "beginning" is, "the Word (Jesus) was God" or literally, "God was the Word (Jesus)." This is stated emphatically in John 1:1-3.
However, when you assert the "deity of Christ" from this text, you are simply assuming that the term "God" can only refer to "Yahweh." On the contrary, if you consult any concordance (in order to find the semantic range of the word "God" - which is defined by its usages), you should notice that the word "God" is applied to many other beings other than "Yahweh." For example, "Yahweh" Himself called Moses "Elohim" (God/s).. I think we must be "sound" in our exegesis and allow for the possibility that John may have intended us to understand "the Word (Jesus)" to be "God" in the same sense. Otherwise, I think that you should defend the "deity of Moses" along with the rest of the Trinity. There is ample evidence in scripture to show that the word "God" does not require "equality of essence and nature" with "Yahweh." Jesus himself points this out to the Jews in John 10:34-36, when they "accused" him of claiming to "be equal with God." Psalm 82:6 explicitly uses the term "elohim" (gods) to identify beings not included in the Trinity doctrine.
As you know, Ward, I don't care if you chose to believe in the Trinity doctrine, I just wish I had the impression that you were tempering your zeal with careful consideration of the pertinent evidence, or at least that you were aware of the somewhat arbitrary nature of some of the assertions you are imposing on those who admire you ...
CHRIS
Hi Ward -
Thanks for the reply ...
The intent of my remarks about your "outline" is not to make you "more convinced" that you were before! Obviously, I'm leading you in the wrong direction. :)
I don't know you, and I have no idea where you are at spiritually or intellectually, so I guess I was just taking a stab in the dark to see if any of the pertinent semantic and linguistic evidence could broaden your perspective at all. I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and my endeavor is just to keep my "faith" and "theology" consistent with the expressions that the biblical writers used to reveal the truth. I think it is very important to express our views in terms that are consistent with God's own words.
For example, if you ask me, "Do you believe that Jesus is God?" I would answer, "yes," because I can show you that he is God from the perspective of Heb 1:8 (where he is explicitly called "God"). If you ask me, "Do you believe that Jesus is a man?" I would answer, "yes," because the scripture explicitly says that he is a "man" in 1 Tim 2:5. We agree on this.
However, if you ask me, "Do you believe that Jesus is the God-man?"
I would answer you with this question, "Why should I believe that Jesus is the "God-man?" The reason that I would answer you with this question is to see if you can show me where the biblical writers explicitly give him this title, or where the meaning of "God-man" is explained anywhere in the words of God. If you can't do this, why should I believe it? I can certainly find a reason to believe in the "God-man" in lots of extra-biblical writings, but these are not the word of God.
The reason that I try to be careful about this is because ultimately "interpretation" is not a matter of terminology. It is a matter of the "sense" or "meaning" that is conveyed with words. All I was trying to do with the comments about the first two points of your "outline" is to try to show you that you are basing your "christology" on an over-simplified comparison of mere terms (like "beginning" and "God") that can have different shades of meaning and can be understood in different senses depending upon context.
If you ask me "Do you believe that Moses is God?" I would answer, "yes," because the angel of the Lord explicitly calls him "God" (elohim) in Exodus. If you ask me "Do you believe that Yahweh is the only true God and there is no other God?" I would also answer, "yes," because this is explicitly stated in scripture. On the contrary, if you simply "compare" these two passages in an "outline" like yours, you would be constrained to conclude that "Moses is Yahweh." We both agree that this is not true because we know that Moses and Yahweh are "God" (elohim) in different "senses."
Well, I hope this helps you to better understand where I'm coming from ... you have to make up your own mind.
CHRIS
Ward -
Thanks again for the reply ...
Ok ... if you assert that "Christ is Yahweh," then why should I believe this categorical statement when it is not scriptural (in the sense that it is not explicitly stated in the OT or NT)? Is it in keeping with the words of God to make this assertion.
The passages that you cite do indeed state that Yahweh and Christ "know the hearts of men." But, it doesn't logically follow that "Christ is Yahweh," any more than "Moses is Elohim" and "Jesus is Elohim" requires that "Moses is Jesus." All I am saying is that the "comparison" argument is not always a valid proof. If there was an emphatic statement of "Christ is Yahweh" you would be able to prove your point, and it would be in keeping with the scripture to believe this.
Someone (on the discussion list) asked about "worshipping Jesus" if he is only a "creature" (i.e. "man"). I do not have a problem with this because the scripture explicitly states that Jesus is a "man" and Paul explicitly tells us that after Jesus "humbled himself" God "highly exalted him ... that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." If God has exalted "the man Christ Jesus" to such a position of worship, then I believe it is appropriate to worship this man. To me, this is in keeping with what the scripture explicitly teaches. Perhaps Yahweh demanded exclusive worship in the context of the OT, but it seems clear that God has since revealed that he has exalted "the man Christ Jesus" to a position worthy of worship also. As far as I know Paul does not explicitly qualify this worship on the basis that "Christ is Yahweh" which is an assertion that is not categorically stated by any biblical writer.
All I'm trying to explain here is that I'm willing to go as far as revelation goes, but I want to be cautious about believing in theological assertions that are merely extra-biblical interpretation. This is the primary reason that I'm reluctant to espouse doctrines like the Trinity which are not categorically defined or explained by the biblical writers.
If we are going to grasp the meaning of the original authors, I think we need to understand their language. And, I also think that we must be careful to use their language to state our propositions.
You probably already know that I am a "full preterist." However, if someone were to ask me if the Bible teaches that Jesus returned in AD 70, I would have to concede that this is not a "biblical proposition." I have to accept that the parousia occurred when the temple was destroyed, because this is what Jesus and the apostles explicitly teach. However, I cannot go any further than that and be in keeping with "sound words."
Here is another thought. I believe that God was "in the beginning" when the "heavens and the earth" were "created." This is what Moses tells us. But if you were to ask me if "God is eternal" or if "God has existed forever" or if "God had a beginning" I would not be able to answer that question, because these are not the words of God. I would rather only go as far as what is revealed and not speculate about such questions. I only know that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" because this is where "history" begins.
Again, I hope this helps you to understand where I'm coming from.. my remarks about "the beginning" were only supposed to suggest to you that there is more than one plausible "time frame" that defines the semantic range of this term as it is used by the biblical writers. I just wanted you to think about the possibilities, so that at least you might see that simply "comparing" the John 1:1-3 passage with the OT texts does not make an "air-tight" argument that proves the "preexistence of Christ" doctrine. I certainly can't "prove" that my interpretation is the "only" possibility either ...
Sincerely, CHRIS
Don -
Concerning the "Word became flesh."
We know from 1 John 1:1-5 that the apostles had "seen" and "heard" and "handled" the "Word of Life" in "the beginning."
What I think John 1:14 is saying is the same as Heb 1:1-2. God "spoke" (i.e. word) "in a son" (Jesus) in the last days. Jesus was the "word" in the sense that God "spoke" through him to the apostles. This is also the sense in which I think we should understand "the Word was God." I see Heb 1:1-2 as a parallel to John 1:1-3.
Also, in 1 John, the "antichrists" are the one who "deny that Christ has come in the flesh." This has nothing to do with "incarnation." All this means is that they denied that "Jesus" was the "word made flesh." In other words, they were simply denying that Jesus was THE promised Messiah of the OT. "Came in the flesh" or "made flesh" simply means that the true Messiah had really come as a man.
Chris
Don -
Here is where I see "Elohim" and "Yahweh" and "men" and "angels" all used to speak of the three who came to Abraham.
The following verses all see to refer to the same incident. In Gen 18:1-2, it says that "the Lord (Yahweh) appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mare." Gen 18:13 also says that "the Lord (Yahweh)" asked "Why did Sarah laugh." The visitors are called "men" in 18:20-22. Then, in 19:1, they are called "angels" when they came to Sodom. And, then, in 19:12-13 the "angels" say that "Yahweh" sent them to destroy Sodom. Finally, in 19:29, it says that "elohim destroyed the cities of the plain."
Also, in Amos 4:11, it is "Yahweh" who says that "I have overthrown some of you (Israelites) just as elohim (angels?) overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah."
CHRIS