The late Cardinal Jean Danielou was known as one of the foremost authorities on the ante-Nicene fathers. His landmark study of Greek, Jewish and Latin Christianity--while being justly criticized in some respects--is well worth the read. It is from his work on Jewish Christianity that I will now quote.
Discussing the Shepherd of Hermas, Danielou points out that this early Christian work plainly identifies Michael the archangel with the LOGOS. He writes:
"A characteristic feature of the theology of _Hermas_ is to call the Word 'glorious (ENDOXOS) angel' or 'most venerable (SEMNOTATOS) angel.' He distinguishes very clearly the angel who visits him, whom he calls variously 'shepherd' and 'angel of repentance' from the supreme being, whom he also calls an angel, but who is quite different from the other since it is he who sends that other" (Danielou 119).
Danielou here hints at the fact that the LOGOS is identified with Michael in Hermas although angel, according to the late Cardinal, in this case evidently means one who bears the very substance of God. Regardless of whether Danielou is correct here, the main point I am concerned with is what he has to say about Michael.
Quoting from the Fifth Similitude of Hermas, Danielou informs us that "the holy angel and the Kyrios are placed on the same footing" (Danielou 119). This conclusion seems warranted by Similitude 5.4.4 which reads in part:
"thou who hast been strengthened by the holy one (hAGIOS) angel, and hast received from him such powers of intercession . . . wherefore dost thou not ask understanding of the Lord? (KURIOS)."
Another part of Hermas that also points to Christ as Michael is Similitudes 8.2:1-3:
"the angel of the Lord commanded crowns to be brought, made as it were of palm-branches; and he crowned the men that had given up rods which had shoots and some fruit, and sent them away into the tower. And the others also he sent into the tower, even those who had given up rods green and with shoots, but the shoots were without fruit; and he set a seal (SFRAGIS) upon them. And all they that went into the tower had the same raiment, white as snow."
See also Similitudes 9.12.
From both the eighth and ninth Similitude, Danielou views Michael as being synonymous with the LOGOS in Hermas. The relevant passages from his book are as follows:
"The designation of Christ as the seventh day may be compared to another, which comes in Hermas, in which Christ is identified with the archangel Michael" (Danielou, 123).
"The comparison of the two texts [Similitudes 78.1 and 8.3.3.] shows
that it is really the Word who is called Michael" (124).
"Paul contrasts with this [the promulgation of the OT by angels] the new Law communicated by the Word himself (Gal. 3:20; Heb. 2:3). In Hermas this function is performed by Michael. This name must therefore be regarded as a name of the Word" (124).
"The assimilation of Michael to the Word is not, however, peculiar to Hermas. It occurs in other Jewish Christian texts which show up still more clearly the unskillful christianisation of the Jewish theme" (124).
The aforementioned quotes do not mean that Danielou rejects the Trinity doctrine. My point is simply that he supplies evidence that at least some early professed Christians regarded the LOGOS as Michael the archangel.
These quotes were taken from A History of Early Christian Doctrine: The Theology of Jewish Christianity (Jean Danielou).
Regards,
Edgar
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Cardinal Jean Danielou on the Identification of Michael in the Shepherd
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Galatians 4:14
Berean Literal Bible
And of your test in my flesh, you did not despise me nor reject me with contempt, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
New American Standard Bible
and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.
Quote:
"In the context of the verse [Gal 4:14], Paul is reminding the Galatians of how they first received him when he was ill in their midst and they helped restore him to health ... 'Even though my bodily condition was a test for you, you did not mock or despise me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.'
"I had always read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself. In fact, however, the grammar of the Greek suggests something quite different. As Charles Gieschen has argued, and has now been affirmed in a book on Christ as an angel by New Testament specialist Susan Garrett*, the verse is not saying that the Galatians received Paul as an angel or as Christ; it is saying that they received him as they would an angel, such as Christ. By clear implication, then, Christ is an angel."
Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher
Thanks for the interesting quote.
Cardinal Jean Daniélou's analysis of the Shepherd of Hermas and his suggestion that the Logos is identified with Michael the archangel presents a complex interpretation, but this reading of the text does not necessarily hold up under scrutiny. While the Shepherd of Hermas does use the term "angel" in reference to different figures, the word ANGELOS (Greek for "messenger") is used in a broader sense than just referring to angelic beings. In the context of early Christian writings, ANGELOS can also mean a messenger or one who acts as an emissary on behalf of God. When Hermas speaks of the "angel of the Lord" or the "holy angel," these could simply be references to messengers with authority from God, without implying that they share the nature of angels in the traditional sense.
The Shepherd of Hermas often uses symbolic language, and the presence of figures like the "holy angel" or Michael in these texts should be understood in light of this symbolism. The text speaks in parables, and many of the figures represent various aspects of God's plan for humanity. Michael's role as a protector or leader does not imply that he is to be equated with the Logos or that he shares in the divine nature in the same way that Christ does.
The Shepherd of Hermas consistently presents the Son of God, or the Logos, in a distinct and unique role that goes beyond that of any angelic being. For instance, in Similitude 9, the "rock and the gate" are explicitly identified with the Son of God, emphasizing that He is older than all creation and was a co-creator with the Father. This clearly positions the Son of God in a divine role that transcends the role of angels, including Michael. Michael, while important, is never described as co-creator or as eternal in the way that the Son of God is.
Additionally, in Similitude 9, the Son of God is the "gate" through which all must enter to attain salvation, which underscores His unique mediatory role. The function of Michael is that of a protector and leader of God's people, but he does not assume this role of mediation or divine authority. Thus, any attempt to equate Michael with the Logos overlooks the vast difference in their functions within the narrative of the Shepherd of Hermas.
While Daniélou suggests that Michael may be identified with the Logos in Hermas, this interpretation is not representative of the mainstream early Christian thought. Justin Martyr, for instance, in his First Apology makes it clear that while the Son of God may be called "Angel" (in the sense of a messenger), He is not to be understood as a created being like the angels. Justin emphasizes that the Son of God is divine, and He only takes on the role of a messenger in order to reveal God's will. Therefore, the use of the term "angel" in reference to the Son of God should not be confused with an ontological claim that He is of the same nature as angels.
In early Christian theology, the distinction between Christ as the divine Logos and angels is maintained. The New Testament itself, particularly in the book of Hebrews, establishes this distinction. Hebrews 1:5 states: “For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'? Or again, 'I will be his Father, and he will be my Son'?" This passage clearly differentiates the Son of God from all angels, including Michael. Therefore, any attempt to conflate Michael with the Logos must account for this clear biblical teaching that places Christ in a category entirely distinct from angelic beings.
While Daniélou explores Jewish Christian themes and interpretations of the Logos, he does not advocate that these views are consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine. He is simply providing historical analysis of various early Christian texts. The fact that some early Christian writers or groups may have conflated Michael with the Logos does not imply that this was the universally accepted belief, nor does it align with orthodox Christian doctrine, which affirms the full divinity of Christ.
Orthodox Christianity has always maintained a clear distinction between Christ as the incarnate Word of God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and angels, who are created beings. This is affirmed in the Nicene Creed and subsequent Christian tradition, which rejects any notion of Christ as a mere angel or created being.
To identify Michael with the Logos risks undermining the unique divinity of Christ and His role in salvation. The Bible presents Christ as the eternal Son of God, involved in creation (John 1:1-3), who took on human nature to redeem humanity. Michael, on the other hand, is presented as an angelic being who serves God. While Michael has a significant role, especially in apocalyptic literature such as Daniel and Revelation, his function is clearly that of a created being who serves God's purposes. Equating Michael with Christ introduces confusion and diminishes the unique and uncreated status of the Son of God.
Cardinal Jean Daniélou’s work provides an interesting historical perspective on how some early Christian texts may have been interpreted by certain groups. However, his suggestion that Michael the Archangel is synonymous with the Logos in The Shepherd of Hermas is not supported by a thorough reading of the text within the broader context of early Christian theology. The Shepherd of Hermas does not equate Michael with the Logos in the ontological sense but rather uses symbolic language to illustrate the roles of various figures within God's salvific plan. Orthodox Christian teaching, as affirmed by Scripture and the early Church Fathers, maintains a clear distinction between Christ, the divine Logos, and angels like Michael.
https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-galatians4-14.htm
In Galatians 4:14, Paul is not making a Christological statement about Jesus' nature as an angel. Instead, Paul is emphasizing the extraordinary way the Galatians received him, despite his physical infirmities. The point is about the reception of Paul himself, not about the nature of Christ.
Paul's words could be understood as him expressing gratitude for how the Galatians treated him with great honor, akin to how they might have welcomed an angel or even Christ. This does not imply that Paul is equating Christ with an angel; rather, it reflects the high esteem the Galatians had for Paul. They treated him with the same reverence they would have extended to a heavenly messenger or to Christ.
The suggestion that the Greek grammar implies that Christ is being referred to as an angel ("as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus") does not necessarily hold. The phrase can be understood in a way that separates "angel" and "Christ Jesus." In Greek, the word "as" (ὡς) can be used to indicate a comparison without necessarily identifying the two subjects as identical. The Galatians received Paul with the same reverence as they would have shown to both an angel and Christ, not because Christ is an angel, but because both are highly revered figures in their faith.
Paul’s own writings elsewhere, particularly in the book of Hebrews, make it clear that Christ is superior to angels and is not an angelic being. Hebrews 1:3-4 says, "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word... So He became as much superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is superior to theirs."
Furthermore, Hebrews 1:5 reinforces that no angel has ever been called God’s Son in the unique way Christ is: "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'?" This passage clearly distinguishes Jesus from angelic beings, placing Him in a category far above them. If Christ were merely an angel, Paul’s argument in Hebrews would not make sense, as the entire point is to show Christ's superiority over all angels.
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is identified as the divine Logos (Word) in John 1:1, who was "with God" and "was God." His role as the eternal Son of God and as the second person of the Trinity sets Him apart from any created beings, including angels. While angels are created messengers of God, Christ is uncreated and shares in the divine essence of God the Father. This distinction is crucial in Christian theology and is reaffirmed in passages like Colossians 1:16-17, where Paul explicitly states that ALL things, including angels, were created THROUGH Christ and FOR Him.
Equating Christ with an angel would have significant theological ramifications that contradict orthodox Christian teaching. The early church, including early Church Fathers, consistently affirmed Christ’s divinity and distinction from created beings, including angels. Figures like Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus all argue for Christ’s unique status as God incarnate, rather than as an angel.
Ehrman’s interpretation, as well as those of Gieschen and Garrett, may arise from a desire to trace a historical development in early Christology, but they are not reflective of the consensus in early Christian thought or the broader biblical witness. The idea that Christ is an angel conflicts with the overall teaching of Scripture, which presents Jesus as the divine Son of God, distinct from and superior to all angelic beings.
Post a Comment