From a conversation dated 1/10/2000:
MY ORIGINAL QUESTION: In Zech. 1:12, 13, God is said to address His angel with "comforting words." The angel shows that he is ignorant of how Yahweh's purposes will work out and he even poses a question to God (Zech. 1:12).
How does this tie in with NT theology? Well, I've often heard some commentators say that the Malak YHWH is the "pre-incarnate" Christ. If this is true, then would not the angel in Zech. 1:12, 13 be the pre-existent Messiah? Would this not also mean that prior to his "self-emptying" the Son of God was not Omniscient? This question has been on my mind for a while. I'm just wondering how those who believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man(VERE DEUS ET VERE HOMO) deal with it.
INTERLOCUTOR RESPONSE: Edgar's question is puzzling because I don't know of any commentator that identifies the ML)K-YHWH in Zech. 1:12 as a theophany.
MY REPLY AT THAT TIME:
Here are what some theologians and commentators say about this issue.
In the Word Biblical Commentary, Ralph Smith writes that "the angel of Yahweh [in Zech. 1] is not to be identified as Yahweh in this case" (p. 190). Smith does not say why this is the case and I was not aware that a theopany must occur for the Malak YHWH to be identifed as YHWH, but Smith does believe that because the angel intercedes in Zech. 1: "he may represent a forerunner of Michael, the patron angel of Israel" (p. 190).
Charles Ryrie has this information from his Basic Theology:
"As discussed in chapter 40, the Angel of Yahweh is a Christophany, a preincarnate appearance of Christ. The Angel speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the prerogatives of God" (p. 130).
To support his statements, Ryrie lists Zech. 1:12 and applies it to Christ. To me, Ryrie evidently believes that Zech. 1:12 is a Christophany. Later he writes, "Clearly the Angel of Yahweh is a self-manifestation of Yahweh, for He speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and claims to exercise the prerogatives of God."
Again he cites Zech. 1:12--but he adds that "He is distinguished from Yahweh
(Gen. 24:7; Zech. 1:12, 13)" because he is the second Person of the Trinity.
So Ryrie observes that the Angel in Zech. 1:12 is a manifestation of the
"pre-incarnate Christ." His words are in harmony with Eric Myers of Duke, who
calls the Malak YHWH in Zechariah, Yahweh's "alter ego" (See the Anchor Bible Commentary on Zech. 1-8).
The Complete Word Study: Old Testament also claims:
"This is the first of Zechariah's night visions (Zech. 1:7-6:8) and is significant because the 'angel of the LORD' (a phrase throughout the Old Testament) is a reference to a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ" (ftn. on Zech. 1:7-17).
Best regards,
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteI agree, but there's only one messenger identified as "angel of Jehovah [YHWH]" by the narrative, right?
Great exchange culled from the archives.
ReplyDeleteVery good question about this angel's identity and understanding.
The Nelson Study Bible has this comment:
"The prophet overhears a conversation between the Angel of the LORD and God. This may be a conversation between the pre-incarnate Jesus and the first Person of the Trinity, God the Father (see Ps. 110). It is certainly an allusion to Jesus’ role as Intercessor. As the author of Hebrews states, Jesus lives to make intercession for us (Heb. 7:25) at the right hand of the Father."
Additionally, the KJV Bible Commentary (p. 1797) says:
"This verse records a most wonderful truth—the intercession of the angel of the LORD (the Second Person of the Trinity) with the LORD of hosts (the First Person of the Trinity) on behalf of His people, Israel!"
How interesting it is that the Trinitarian scholar(s) responsible for this comment overlooked the obvious problem of how the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinitarian Godhead was ignorant of the modus operandi of the First Person of the Trinitarian Godhead and needed comforting from Him. (And later during the incarnation needed comforting from angels even though he in reality never ceased being the Second Person of the Trinity.)
Thanks again, Jim. Your post illustrates how commentators tend to interpret the Malak YHWH as the preincarnate Christ, yet they do not seem to perceive a difficulty here with the angel's nescience although he existed in a
ReplyDelete"preincarnate" state, so that they cannot appeal to his humanity in order to account for his apparent lack of knowledge.
Great point! Trinitarianism "cannot appeal to his humanity in order to account for his apparent lack of knowledge," and need for comfort as well.
ReplyDeleteIf this Malak YHWH is the prehuman Christ, then there is a documented case when he was nescient about his Father's will and needed comforting.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne Hebrew grammar makes this point about the construct state:
ReplyDelete"The meanings expressed by the construct relationship are
similar to English 'of'".
Examples include:
‘the word of YHWH’ = ‘YHWH'S word' (Ezek 1:3)
(Prov 1:7) ‘the fear of YHWH.'
the garments of holiness = ‘the holy garments’ (Exod 29:29)
A similar ambiguity exists in Greek and English. For example, "the love of God" or "the love of the Christ." Is it the love God/Christ have for us, or the love we have for God/Christ?
We have to determine the meaning by appeal to context. The Angel of YHWH is likely the messenger [angel] belonging to YHWH (i.e., his representative).
The grammar gives another example: the word of the king (i.e., the word belonging to the king).
ReplyDeleteOr the word spoken/uttered by the king.
Thanks again, Jim. I also like your latest entry and the picture that accompanies it. :)
ReplyDeleteGood night, all.
Well thank you for the intellectual stimulation!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/4521213/Hebrew_Construct_Nominals
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Duncan,
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how I'm not getting the point since all the examples that I gave illustrate the grammatical function of constructs.
The "fear of Jehovah" in context obviously means our reverence for God as opposed to being fear that he has for another personage/entity.
To be clear, I only said the ambiguity exists in English, not that English has a construct state.
Could you point out what the difficulty with Prov 15:33 is?
CEV translates the verse:
"Showing respect to the Lord
will make you wise,
and being humble
will bring honor to you."
That seems to be the thrust of the passage.
I read both sources that you provided, Duncan, and nothing I see discounts "fear of Jehovah" being reverence that we have for YHWH. Even the pdf mentions the objective genitive, "the mourning of an only son."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteI gave examples to illustrate how the Hebrew construct can function subjectively or objectively. So while "the fear of YHWH" could be subjective which would mean "fear that YHWH has," it's likely objective instead (i.e., the fear that God's worshipers have for him).
You've read what tyhe NET Bible says about the matter; I would also recommend Gesenius' grammar and its discussion of the Hebrew construct state. He too says the construct could be used subjectively or objectively. There are also plenty of interpreters who understand "the fear of YHWH" to be awe that God's worshipers have for him.
As for Hebrew lexicons, I would recommend BDB, Gesenius and the more updated HALOT.
I'll consider alternative views like the link you supplied, but I wonder about the evidence for understanding "fear of Jehovah" or the underlying Hebrew as you suggest. The understanding is possible, but is it probable?
Here is Gesenius: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3374&t=KJV
Gesenius lists Ps 19:10 [Ps 19:9] as an example of metonymy, so that it does not refer to the dread that God's people have for him: a number of others follow him here. But Prov 1:7 (and other texts) apparently refer to our fear toward God as object. It goes back to the construct functioning subjectively or objectively.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeletethe question is an interesting one, but I guess we've ventured far from the issue raised by the OP. There are plenty of areas where we undoubtedly part ways.
I'm not as certain about the roots of Hebrew words as you are; it's also my understanding that synchronics trumps diachronics in linguistics and Bible studies.
Furthermore, when I consult multiple Jewish sources, I find that they understand yirah as meaning "fear," "piety" or reverence. To be honest, I'm very skeptical about the "flow" understanding--but I try to keep an open mind.
Regards,
Edgar
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I mainly dabble in Hebrew: it's not my expertise although I enjoy reading studies about ancient Judaism and like articles that deal with Hebrew exegesis.
Culture is the sine qua non of understanding a language. I fully agree with an approach that realizes culture's importance in learning a tongue.
These discussions sharpen me too.
Thanks,
Edgar
Eccesiastes12:13HCSB"When all has been heard,the conclusion of the matter is:FEAR God and keep His commands,because this is for all humanity."
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome.
ReplyDeleteOne more:deuteronomy2:25ASV"this day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the peoples that are under the whole heaven,who shall here the report of thee,and shall tremble,and be in anguish because of thee."
ReplyDeleteThe Keil and Delitzsch commentary claims:
ReplyDeleteThe circumstance that the angel of Jehovah addresses an intercessory prayer to Jehovah on behalf of Judah, is no more a disproof of his essential unity with Jehovah, than the intercessory prayer of Christ in John 17 is a disproof of His divinity.
By saying this though, they must overlook the blindingly obvious fact that this is their pre-incarnate Christ who didn't have the benefit of his week and ignorant human nature.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you included the remark by K & D. It seems to be an example of question begging or ad hoc explanation. Like you say, the Incarnation cannot be used for the account in Zechariah: the two situatioins are not analogous.
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteI'll let aservant address your questions if he wants, but I would urge caution regarding Hebrew roots/etymology. The Jewish sources I check seem to have no problem understanding yirah as fear.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Duncan I was in the main attempting to address your point about sentence structure and what it may imply with regard to the subject or object of the verse.The verse is fairly self explanatory the Hebrews were to be come the object of the dread and fear(yira)spoken of here sentence structure not withstanding.I likewise find the common rendering of"yira" as "fear or reverence"at ecclesiastes12:13 appropriate,eagerness for the approval of the object of our reverence motivates us to loyal obedience.As for Ezekiel30:13-15 one can play those kinds of word games using any root term in any language or for that matter any word.As was said before context is king.
ReplyDeleteHi aservantofJehovah, I appreciate your contributions here, but I meant my compliment of intellectual stimulation for Edgar. :-)
ReplyDeleteI prepared a blog post on this subject for any who are interested:
Who was the Interceding Angel?
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/01/who-was-interceding-angel.html
[MODERATOR NOTE: FROM DUNCAN]
ReplyDeleteaservant,
As has been my point with most of my discussions on this point with Edgar you cannot play these kind of word games in just any language. These are concrete terms which Jeff Benner has done a fairly good job at demonstrating at least some of the basic principles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtUQTGjnr6g
The symbols are a reflection of the culture. The symbols are words in themselves. The word strings are constructs in a very ordered fashion. As someone who programs low level machine code I can see the beauty of its efficient structure. It is absolutely nothing like comparing the etymology of oxford English, to London English, to middle English, the Germanic, Celtic, Britannic etc.
This language stems from no other language & is not abstract in the way that languages born from other tongues are. This is no arbitrary collection.
Going back to Ezekiel 30:15
H2534
חמא / חמה
chêmâh / chêmâ'
BDB Definition:
1) heat, rage, hot displeasure, indignation, anger, wrath, poison, bottles
1a) heat
1a1) fever
1a2) venom, poison (figuratively)
1b) burning anger, rage
This root is "separate water" in the making of ancient cheeses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfPx3A56R3s
This was also done in a bag from the heat of the sun.
sun (heating the content of the bag)
cheese
black (colour of wood when burned)
heat (Natural body heat as well as the time of heat when animals mate)
(But we have a word using the same root characters
H2346
חוֹמָה
chômâh
kho-maw'
Feminine active participle of an unused root apparently meaning to join; a wall of protection: - wall, walled.
Strongs recognizes that this has no root connection & this makes this an re-adoption from another language branch.)
The general root meaning is heat & this is where we see the poetic nature of the Hebrew saying the same thing two different ways, into verse 16
H784
אשׁ
'êsh
BDB Definition:
1) fire
1a) fire, flames
1b) supernatural fire (accompanying theophany)
1c) fire (for cooking, roasting, parching)
1d) altar-fire
1e) God’s anger (figuratively)
from the root - "a strong pressing down". A fire is made by firmly pressing a wooden rod down onto a wooden board and spinning the rod with a bow drill. Wood dust is generated from the two woods rubbing together and is heated by the friction creating a small ember in the dust. Small tinder is then placed on the ember and is blown ignited the tinder. (eng: ash - as the product of fire)
Form this root comes
Furnace (fire)
Foundation (pressing down of the ground)
Rasin cake (pressed down into a cake)
Despair (pressing down on the person)
Black (charring from the fire)
Pillar (a strong pressing down on something).
So verse 15 heat & verse 16 fire.
To translate as anger & fire loses some of this connection.
As Edgar seems to agree, one cannot work without culture. Even with the divide in time between genesis & Ezekiel the culture changed very little - so why should the understandings?
If you feel that the context dictates a translation of fear as opposed to reverence (with it's difference of connotation) then I have no way of arguing otherwise but I must strongly disagree that all languages are the same.
@Duncan 1)I have no problem with much of what you're saying we only differ in your insistence that examples of the same or similar kinds of constructions from ancient roots cannot be found in English or other languages.If that is the point you are trying to make you need to try a different approach.
ReplyDelete2)I have never seen any reference list fear and reverence as antonyms having said that,I of course make no claim to having seen every such reference work perhaps you can cite one where such a list is published.If you would return to my post and read a bit more carefully you will note that I stated that either fear or reverence would be acceptible renderings at ecclesiastes12:13 'reverence' falls within the semantic range of 'fear'3)Proverbs2:5 refers the knowledge of God (i.e Jehovah),in your opinion does this pertain to what we know of Jehovah or to what Jehovah knows about everything.
@Jimspace,Naturally I'm disappointed to learn that you do not find my contributions 'intellectually stimulating',but am nonetheless consoled by your 'appreciation' for their other virtues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteServant,
ReplyDeleteYour question about Proverbs 2:5 is a difficult one & this video might give a kind of answer:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J84zSeKaDkU
Sorry, it cannot be more clear.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1)I was referring to the english words that are used to render 'yira'If you examine any good english dictionary you are likely to find 'reverence'listed as falling in the semantic range of 'fear',So we ought not to be surprised that both terms used as renderings of 'yira'
ReplyDelete2)Sorry to say Duncan but that video does not even obliquely address my question re;proverbs2:5
3)Synonymous does not mean identical in meaning a synonym need only fall within the range of its counterpart.As has been stated before 'reverence' would fall within the spectrum of 'fear' and hence is synonymous to fear
Definition two of G5401 could fittingly be used in reference to God who is called husband of the his congregation of sanctified worshipers.The only 'problem'is that Jehovah God can never experience 'Yira'or'phobos'assuming that these renderings are accurate.But this would only be a problem for those who share your theory.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor φόβος, BDAG states that the word has the sense, "panic flight" in Homer, then it could mean (depending on the context or referent), "intimidating entity," "intimidation" (1 Pet 3:14)
ReplyDelete"someth. terrible/awe-inspiring, a terror" (Rom 13:3)
"fear, alarm, fright" (John 7:13; 19:38; 20:19)
"specif. of slavish fear" (Rom 8:15)
"reverence, respect" (toward God or humans)
See Acts 9:31; Phil 2:12; 2 Cor 7:1; 1 Pet 2:18
Compare the verbal use of the word in Lev 19:3 (OG/LXX)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily see the command as a veiled threat, although the Sabbath inclusion is noteworthy. It's not the only time that God's people are commanded to fear humans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA few more remarks on Jewish "fear" of God:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oceansidejewishcenter.org/rebmark/TORAH_TABLE_TALK/5770/TTTvayetzei70.pdf
@Duncan:you claimed that the semantic range of English terms would be irrelevant to a translator of Hebrew to English;I submit that it would depend on how precise a translation said translator had in mind.To take our present discussion as an example 'fear' is a rather broad term while 'awe' is bit narrower in its range of meaning.So if our hypothetical translator was satisfied that the context was sufficient to make the sense of the broader term clear to the target audience he might op to use it.If on the other hand our translator was minded to do all possible to avoid misunderstanding he might op for the rendering with the narrower range of meaning.
ReplyDelete2)You said that a single referrent could be both subject and object of a given statement;Only if the verb in question was reflexive.i.e the subject were acting upon/toward itself.The most common examples of this involve inflections of the verb 'to be'.So then is it your position that Jehovah God is both the subject and object of the 'yira'mentioned at proverbs2:5 and of course he would fully know himself but is that the knowledge of God to which this verse refers in your opinion?
3)It is noteworthy that the ancient scribe much closer in time to the culture of the bible writer chose a rendering so close in its range of meaning to 'fear'
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'd say that 'fear' as commonly used implies apprehension re:imminent peril of some sort whether real or imagined.Awe on the other hand is that sense of smallness/vulnerability inspired by an encounter with something grand even transcendent see exodus3:6.The apprehension in this case is not due to any specific threat,but due to the feeling of utter defenselessness/vulnerability/admiration. such an encounter would inspire in the one experiencing it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteI've started the spring semester, therefore my time is minimal at this point. But Crawford Howell Toy directs our attention to Proverbs 22:4 to elucidate Prov 15:33. Michael Fox and Brother Rolf Furuli (from Norway) might both have interesting things to say about these passages.
See Toy's work at http://books.google.com/books?id=33Z6EL5eIBkC&pg=PA318&focus=viewport&output=html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo (if we go with your theory) then a loose english paraphrase of proverbs15:33 might read "The reverential awe that an intimate relationship with Jehovah inspires(breathes into[one])is the foundation of true wisdom,and the foundation of true exaltation is humility." or the substance.The fear would be his possession in that he is its source although he is not subject to it.Likewise the humility and the exaltation have Jehovah as their source and so can be spoken of as his possessions although he is neither the one humbling himself nor being exalted in this context.
ReplyDeleteInteresting.Although the lack of a corroborating reference can be invoked as a difficulty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHebrews7:7nrsa"It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior." It shouldn't surprise us that jehovah is nothing like the self important human rulers of the present age.He is the ideal of servant lesdership personified.
ReplyDeleteSo would you say The angel of the Lord or The angel of Jehovah was the same person Joshua encountered at Joshua 5:13-15? Or was the angel of Jehovah multiple angels Jehovah used at a given time?
ReplyDeleteIf the angel of Jehovah was the one Joshua encountered at Joshua 5:13-15, would that mean Michael the archangel was the angel of Jehovah?
I don't think we can say for certain that the angel of Jehovah was always the same person, but it could have been. Both the Hebrew and Christian-Greek Scriptures talk about this angel in definite terms, but the angel in the GNT could not have been the Logos, because he appears when the Logos had emptied himself.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I think it's possible that Michael is the angel in Joshua 5:13-15, but we cannot be dogmatic.