In City of God, Book XIII, Ch. 1, Augustine wrote,
Having disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death. For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die. He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence—which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book.
Any scriptural basis for these types of conclusions?
Reply: I disagree with Augustine on many levels (Trinity, predestination, ecclesiology, etc.) and don't try to defend his theology. However, I wonder which part of this quote raises questions in your mind. That the world originated by means of divine creation and that the human race had a start is not controversial to me, and Genesis 3 details the Fall while Paul confirms this position in the NT (Romans 5:12ff; 1 Cor. 15).
Angels are possibly differentiated from men in Ps 8:4-5ff, but the Bible never predicates immortality of the angels, to my knowledge, unless someone interprets Lk 20:34-6 that way. As for human eternality upon obedience, that could be an implication from Gen 2:16-17 and the last portion of Gen. 3.
107 comments:
Thanks for responding to this question. It is the life span of angels that is of interest. Luke 20:38 is another point of enquiry. All are living. I have read many interpretations of this statement but they seem then to ignore the comments about angels.
Augustine is not the only church father to contend that angels are immortal. We do not have to understand Luke 20:36 that way, and frankly, much depends on what we mean by immortality. What exactly does it mean to be immortal?
Another father, who says the angels are immortal, is Lactantius (Divine Institutes). According to Catholic teaching:
"Angels are immortal spirits; their existence had a point of origin, but will have no point of termination. Human souls are also immortal spirits. However, angels are pure spirits, i.e. they have no bodies (material component), whereas humans are embodied spirits – body-soul composites."
See http://www.hbgdiocese.org/2012/08/06/catholic-teaching-on-angels/
The deeper I look into angelology the less it seems a scripturally based idea, as most seem to understand it today. Is the Gabriel in Daniel the same as the one in the NT bearing in mind that he is specifically called a man in Daniel and the name itself means a valiant man of god (Geber being used for men - exodus 10:11) which is rather generic. The NT understands Michael as the archangel which I have no problem with but we do have other Michaels in chronicles.
Duncan,
a few quick thoughts since it's been a long day. All citations are from the ASV.
Dan. 8:15-16 speaks of someone who "stood before me [Daniel] as the appearance of a man." Not necessarily a man, but having the appearance of one. In vs. 16, Daniel hears "a man's voice between the banks of the Ulai," a voice that beckons Gabriel to make Daniel "understand the vision." So Gabriel is not called a man there, is he? He listens to one, who looks like a man.
However, we read later in Dan. 9:20-21:
"And while I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before Jehovah my God for the holy mountain of my God; yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation."
While he's described as a man, the ASV says he was being made to fly quickly. However the 2013 NWT says at 9:21: "yes, while I was yet speaking in prayer, the man Gaʹbri·el, whom I had previously seen in the vision, came to me when I was extremely weary at about the time of the evening gift offering."
So Daniel is having a vision. Furthermore, even if we understand Gabriel to be a man in the vision, angels sometimes materialized and appeared to be human.
One note for Dan. 9:21 (NET) states: tn The Hebrew expression בִּיעָף מֻעָף (mu’af bi’af) is very difficult. The issue is whether the verb derives from עוּף (’uf, “to fly”) or from יָעַף (ya’af, “to be weary”). Many ancient versions and modern commentators take the first of these possibilities and understand the reference to be to the swift flight of the angel Gabriel in his coming to Daniel. The words more likely refer to the extreme weariness, not of the angel, but of Daniel. Cf. 7:28; 8:27; 10:8-9, 16-17; also NASB.
Dan. 10:13 and 12:1 make me doubt that Michael is human. Those verses along with Jewish tradition seem to portray him as an angel.
Let's bring acts 1:10 into this - men or appearance of men?
In white, the same as many visions.
Jewish tradition has an engelolgy that is well beyond the scope of scripture & this is probably the bone of contention for the Sadducees.
There seems to be a difference between Dan 8:15-16 and Acts 1:10. The Danielic account emphaiszes that the figure had the appearance of a man, and the account is visionary and eschatological. However, Acts 1:10 does not use the same language: they are two men standing alongside the apostles--not simply having the appearance of humans. Commentators normally infer that the "men" are really angels, based on other accounts. Recall that Jacob also wrestled with a "man," who is alternatively called Elohim or an angel.
The white could have priestly significance or represent holiness (i.e., sanctity and purity).
I only mention Jewish tradition about Michael the archangel because most of that tradition is probably consistent with scripture's delineation of Michael. The way Daniel portrays him makes it likely that we should understand Michael in Daniel to be the same figure that appears in Revelation and Jude.
I like to take scripture at its word unless there is a compelling reason not.
Michael in Daniel is called mighty prince and we have a prince of Greece and Persia. Compare Esther 3:12. Archeology demonstrates that not all the princes were Persian/Babylonian and that disputes between princes were not nessacarily something that the king would interfere in as long as the tribute continued to flow.
The name Michael is not unique, are you suggesting that he was already known and that the persons in chronicles were named after him?
There is no getting away from the influence of fist Enoch and it seems that Jude is filled with extra biblical accounts, any other argument is from silence.
The Aramaic of 21 called Gabriel a man.
Inferring that the men are angels is just as baseless as changing the object in Daniel 9:21. Cannot a messenger become tired? Why does fly equate to angel and tired to Daniel ?
Jewish encyclopedia article on Michael: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10779-michael
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jMlNAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=demuth+aramaic&source=bl&ots=cIWmGKr6ax&sig=04g0zONPzprh27rnMma_fi7V7SE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx5ei1kaDKAhWB7xQKHQNCD4w4ChDoAQgcMAE#v=onepage&q=demuth%20aramaic&f=false
I cannot attempt to answer all of your queries now. Maybe others can provide feedback too. What's so problematic about calling Michael a prince? Aren't angels sometimes called "princes" or something to that effect? Compare Eph 6:11-12
Furthermore, Daniel is having a vision. The statements about the princes must be placed in that context. And why would the "man" (probably an angel) find such successful resistance from a human? Why not view these princes as angels? After all, Michael is the great prince that will deliver God's people in the great "time of distress." That language does not seem to fit a human champion. Compare also Dan 8;25, which uses princely speech regarding Jehovah.
No, I am not suggesting that those in Chronicles were named after the archangel or prince of Daniel. Why does the name have to be unique? Many men were named "Jesus," but our Messiah and Savior still bears the nomen.
Referring to Gabriel as a man isn't a difficulty for me. The inference that you mention is reasonable because angels are sometimes called men in the Tanakh. Additionally, their functions in Daniel reveal that they're likely angels.
Yes, a messenger could obviously become tired. But the issue for Dan 9:21 has to do with etymology. What is the genuine root for the word, and then which party would be the most likely referent of the term?
Ellicott: The marginal version “with weariness” finds supporters, and, if adopted, must be taken to refer to the bodily condition of Daniel (Daniel 8:17-27). The former translation [i.e., flight] is most in accordance with the context. The “flight” of angels is implied in Isaiah 6:2, and should not be regarded as an idea foreign to the Old Testament.
Barnes Notes: Being caused to fly swiftly - Margin, "with weariness," or "flight." On the difficult Hebrew expression here - ביעף מעף mu‛âp bı̂y‛âp - Lengerke may be consulted, in loc. The words, according to Gesenius, are derived from יעף yâ‛ap, to go swiftly, and then, to be wearied, to faint, either with running, Jeremiah 2:24, or with severe labor, Isaiah 40:28, or with sorrows, Isaiah 50:4. If derived from this word, the meaning in Hophal, the form used here, would be, "wearied with swift running," and the sense is, that Gabriel had borne the message swiftly to him, and appeared before him as one does who is wearied with a rapid course. If this be the idea, there is no direct allusion to his "flying," but the reference is to the rapidity with which he had come on the long journey, as if exhausted by his journey. The Latin Vulgate renders it cito volans - quickly flying; Theodotion, πετόμενος petomenos - flying; the Codex Chisianus, τάχει φερόμενος tachei pheromenos - "borne swiftly." The Syriac, "with a swift flying he flew and came from heaven." It cannot be determined with certainty, from the words used here, that the coming of Gabriel was by an act of "flying" as with wings. The common representation of the angels in the Old Testament is not with wings, though the cherubim and Seraphim (Isaiah 6:2, following.) are represented with wings; and in Revelation 14:6, we have a representation of an angel flying. Probably the more exact idea here is that of a rapid course, so as to produce weariness, or such as would naturally produce fatigue.
Duncan, I posted the link you provided--the last one--but I could not read the page to which you linked. I like to visit the links before posting them to make sure that the material contributes to the thread. So if you don't see a link poisted in the future, it likely means that I either could not read the page or I thought it might better contribute to another subject.
I am at a loss to understand why you would point me to an article that begins - One of the archangels.
The Jewish take on Michael has no problem using first Enoch.
What about the Deuteronomy 32:8 lxx controversy?
None of this is scripture & it is this that the Sadducees had dispute with, IMO. They were Torah observant so it is not logical to think that they discarded all forms of angelology but rather the heavily Babylonian influenced. So when you point me to the Jewish interpretation you point to one Pharisaical as opposed to karaite.
Very good study on Michael: https://books.google.com/books?id=qKtXVU9EQTIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=michael+the+archangel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJhpf3nqDKAhVGYiYKHQhmCmA4ChDoAQg7MAU#v=onepage&q=michael%20the%20archangel&f=false
First, just because I recommend a link/book does not mean that I (fully) endorser its contents. The article just helps you to see how Jews, especially rabbis, have understood Michael as an (arch)angel. That's the main reason I suppled the link: for informational purposes.
Second, I think reading the non-canonical works of Enoch are profitable. I don't accept the works as scripture, but they still contain some valuable information. For example, Enoch helps us to make sense of Gen 6:1-4 and what the NT states about that account.
You can study the whole of Jewish history, and it would be hard to find many, who seriously doubted that Michael was an/the archangel or an angel, period. I also don't see how the Michael of Daniel's prophecy could be anything but an angel. No human has the inherent power to resist wicked angelic forces.
As for Deut 32:8, we're learnign that the LXX sometimes trumps the MT. This verse may be one such place where the LXX should take precedence over the MT. NLT, NET, ESV all side with LXX, whereas NWT 2013 goes along with the MT.
I will look through your links tomorrow but isn't "No human has the inherent power to resist wicked angelic forces." Circular reasoning if you are referring to the prince of Greece and Persia ?
http://biblehub.com/daniel/10-13.htm
See pulpit commentary.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/angels.html
This is far from comprehensive but a good start.
I'm just wondering why Michael--the defender of Israel--needed to intervene because of the resistance. What about the fact that we're told Daniel is having a vision?
Pulpit takes the position that 10:13 is probably referring to angels, right? I'll read the Jewish virtual lib article later. I think Joshua 5:14 is also helpful.
In Pulpit:-
"The angelology of later Judaism is a very complicated, not to say confused, subject. The angelology of one age is not that of another;" and onward
Vs jewishvirtuallibrary.org
"Silence of the Prophets
The prophets, except Ezekiel and Zechariah, say almost nothing about angels. In all pre-Exilic prophecy, there are just two passages in which angels are mentioned. One is the rather obscure reference to the Jacob story in Hosea (12:5–6; contrast v. 14). It has been explained as a satirical attack on the cult of the angel (or divinity) Beth-El (see Ginsberg , in: JBL, 80 (1961), 343–7; cf. Gen. 31:11–12). The other is Isaiah's initial vision (6:1 ff.), in which the winged seraphim have a prominent part. Thereafter, Isaiah makes no mention of angels (33:7 is obscure and probably not Isaianic). Jeremiah is completely silent on the subject; so is (according to the critical theory) the roughly contemporaneous Book of Deuteronomy. In the Exilic period, Deutero-Isaiah does not mention angels (Isa. 63:9 does mention the "angel of His presence," but the Greek reads – probably correctly: "No messenger or angel; it was His presence that saved them"). Special significance is attached to the fact that Haggai calls himself (1:13) "the messenger of the Lord with the message of the Lord" (malʾakh ʾElohim be-malʾakhut ʾElohim) – apparently to stress the thought that God's emissary to man is a prophet, not a supernatural being. Malachi's attitude is not entirely certain. His name (meaning "My messenger") may be a pseudonym, and he asserts that the priest is the malʾakh of the Lord of Hosts (Mal. 2:7). The malʾakh of the Covenant (ibid. 3:1–2) may, however, be an angel, though the phrase might also refer to the returning Elijah (ibid. 3:23–24). Finally, it should be noted that the priestly code (regarded by many scholars as post-Exilic, though others consider it very ancient) does not allude to angels, except for the provision that cherubim are to be depicted on the Ark cover. This array of facts cannot be dismissed as mere accident, especially since angels appear so often in the narrative portions of the Pentateuch, in the historical books, and in the prophetic writings of Ezekiel and Zechariah. Perhaps David Neumark overstressed this disagreement as a major issue of biblical thought (see: e.g., his Essays in Jewish Philosophy (1929), 104 ff.). But the issue was certainly not unimportant."
I think the link i provided that you should not open was for :-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Misunderstood-Stories-Theological-Commentary-Genesis/dp/1625640072/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452506439&sr=1-1
Pg 37 regarding demuth
The image of a man in rebellion to the image of a god?
Regarding Isaiah 6:2 neither seraphim (not for that matter cherubim) are by functional definition - angels.
Keruvim comes from the same root and is related to sword (gen 3:24) - compare this addition to the Hittite pantheon:-
http://www.heroicage.org/issues/15/malcor.php
and seraphim being a transliteration of the term normal translated serpent or dragon.
Also from Pulpit on Dan 10:13:
"We must understand, then, that Gabriel left Michael to maintain the conflict against the angelic 'Prince' of Persia, while he came in obedience to Daniel's prayer. We can have but little idea of what is meant by this conflict in the heavenlies between angelic beings."
As for Deut 32:8 this page makes some interesting observation that I do need to verify or discard:-
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/daniel10.html
Granted, neither seraphim nor cherubim are "angels" in the technical or etymological sense. But that depends on what we mean by angels. However, compare how both classes/kinds of beings are mentioned in scripture. YHWH rides or sits upon the cherubim and the seraphim dutifully attend his glorious throne.
Here are commentaries/studies on Dan 10:13 or Dan 12:1:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/daniel/10.htm
See http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/daniel/12.htm
http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=672&journal=1&type=pdf
Another commentary worth considering is Lange:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/lange/daniel/10.htm
This is generalisation. Cherubim in one book is not nessacarily the same as cherubim in another.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4311-cherub
Ezek. xxviii. 13-16 is manifestly a true account of a popular tradition, distinct from that in Gen. ii., iii.
Also
See etymology relating to gryphin or garuda - the winged one that carries. This work does not mention the possible relationship to sword.
I see no good reason to doubt that the occurrences aren't linked, whther from the Psalms, Genesis or Exodus or Hebrews, Ezekiel or Revelation. What about Ezek 1:1-28 and Ezek 10:1-22? Why not think they belong to the same class of beings as Genesis or Revelation mention? Where are cherubim even mentioned in Gen 2?
Rashi's note on Gen 3:24: "the cherubim: Angels of destruction. — [from Exod. Rabbah 9:11]"
"Cherub" is probably being used metaphorically in Ezek 28:13-16 per the context (i.e., addressed to the King of Tyre).
The Jewish Encyclopedia article confirms that the cherubim and seraphim were commonly (almost universally) viewed as angels in Jewish history. But the etymology is obscure and not all that helpful.
Another good article dealing with Jewish angelology, etc: http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/choirmaster2.pdf
Third Enoch is distinctly different and much later than first enoch.
I do not doubt what the tradition has to say but most of it is perceived as coming from Persian influence. Later on today hopefully I will get time to post links on subject.
Enoch metraton has no basis in scripture and is never mentioned.
Gen 2 & 3 is contextually the account where the keruvim are mentioned, why are you trying to make it seem like shoddy scholarship?
Okay ab out the links, and it's true that 3rd Enoch is later, although its contents likely existed well before it was written. A scholar named D. Bock has provided evidence for this claim along with others. But the point is that throughout the Jewish tradition--at different periods--the cherubim are identified as spirits or angels. And I'm not saying that Enoch Metatron does have a basis in scripture, but again, we're able to learn something about Jewish thinking and history from 3rd Enoch or the reflections on metatron.
Yes, Gen 2-3 is the overall context, but the cherubim techncially don't appear until after the Fall. My comment was definitely not meant to question the scholarship. I just wanted to be factually correct in terms of references to the cherubim.
Excuse the typos, but it's getting late here, and I'm getting sleepy. Later, Duncan.
This one is probably getting due for a new edition but see Persian influence.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hQ5eCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=seraphim+persian&source=bl&ots=Za_a9G2SH2&sig=T-pEEOaFMpi36_1EtqA3vzv7YJc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi90bO9yaHKAhWBOBQKHd8DBusQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=seraphim%20persian&f=false
Obviously this site below will carry significant biases but the page still makes some points of significance.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bible-ii
As an example the term demon is only used twice in the LXX (to my knowledge) at Psalms 91:6 & Isa 65:11 (later translations) and starts to adopt a meaning hot found in the Greek. We know what keruvim meant to the Persians in the time of Daniel just as we know what seraphim probably meant.
The Greek historian Herodotus noted these observations during the 5th century BC.
“There is a place in Arabia, situated very near the city of Buto, to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of the water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat.[Herodotus, Historiae, tr. Henry Clay, 1850, pp. 75-76.]”
I don't have time to develop an argument for this position now, but I often think the Persian influence on Judaic thought is overwrought and not proved. Secondly, we know with a high degree of certainty that Herodotus relates many tall tales, not grounded in fact.
Firstly see Isaiah 30:6 MT & LXX.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKlTz4dhZRc
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H0HRhUDKrlwC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=persian+influence+on+hebrew&source=bl&ots=YIAXLy7zxh&sig=u_vOuyZKvKDYz2rGpkxmYBy2BJk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCg_qixqTKAhXL7BQKHTXuAEI4ChDoAQgkMAE#v=onepage&q=persian%20influence%20on%20hebrew&f=false
For Eph 6:11-12 compare 1Sa 16:16 LXX
This link you provided:-
http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/choirmaster2.pdf
Needs to be thought about in light of Islamic early tradition which sees Enoch as the earliest prophet & they are not the only ones to speak of the preaching of Enoch.
Seen as an Angel (not a prophet "messenger") in tradition as you see it - Now think about Hebrews chapter 1 again, especially the opening verse.
Enoch might be an early prophet in Islam, but he's not the earliest, right? Adam is the first prophet recognized by Islam (I think) and others then form the line that precedes Allah's final prophet, but I haven't exactly said that I agree with Jewish tradition in toto, and I don't. I'm only trying to make the point that the Jewish tradition exemplified in Enoch and other documents suggests that Michael and Gabriel are (arch)angels--they are viewed as spirit beings throughout Jewish history, and I think there are good reasons why we should understand the "angels" of Heb. 1 to be spirit or heavenly beings--not human prophets. Reams have been writen about Heb. 1. Most of the scholarship will likely argue that the angels are non-human entities.
Sir Anthony buzzard argues that that Hebrew chapters 1&2 rules out Jesus being Michael or any kind of angel but I see his argument as a straw man since it is not talking about spirit beings. The quantity of commentaries that argue in one direction is of no concern to me unless they have solid arguments to back up there conclusions especially when the vast majority of scholarship argues in favour of a trinity that when examining each detail of the argument in isolation falls apart quite easily.
Angels can be non human entities, but get the terminology translated correctly - messengers, and it is only context that tells which is which. Acts 12:15 a spirit being that the men are referring to with a lack of response to the call ??? Would someone of the status of Paul not have messengers even when imprisoned.
Opinion vary as to the earliest prophet in Islam.
This site
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_(prophet)
Sees enoch as the second other sites as the third, but the first to write.
From the wikipedia link you provided: "He is considered to be the second prophet in Islam after Adam."
So, based on other sources I have, there seems to be no doubt that Adam is normally viwed as the first prophet in an absolute sense or the earliest (according to Islam), even if Enoch is considered to be the first prophet who writes.
See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_in_Islam
I'm not trying to make an argument based on the number of commentaries that favor an idea, but most quality commentaries are filled with pages upon pages of serious research and references to primary texts that illuminate the biblical text. Angel means "messnger," that much is true. Like you say, context helps us to determine whether the messnger is human or not.
In Acts 12:15, it was Peter who was imprisoned, rather than Paul. Which explanation best accounts for what happened to Peter? Compare Acts 12:6-11.
Cf. Acts 5:18-20.
Yes it was peter but this does nothing to change my point. The men of the house new nothing of what had just happened with an spirit angel. They are referring to a messenger at the door. If it is peter then the messenger could well be a friend of his supplying him with meals etc. There are two messengers in this account unless you think that first century Christians were expecting to see angels everywhere?
Acts 12:7 is likely a spirit being, in view of the descvription: ἄγγελος Κυρίου . . .
Furthermore, a miraculous act occurs as the angel manifests himself.
Acts 12:10-another wondrous act occurs presumably because of the angel.
Acts 12:11 uses the expression, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Κύριος τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ, which no doubt hearkens back to the OT language about the malak YHWH. Compare Dan 3:28; 6:22.
In answer to your objection concerning the men, see Acts 12:17-19. Peter corrected their understanding, and I only see room for one angel in the verses we've been discussing.
Granted, another angel of Jehovah appears in Acts 12:23. He may or may not be the same angel referenced earlier in the account; however, I don't see why it necessarily has to be another angel.
What I mean is that the men of the house would not be rushing to open the door to what they think is a messenger at night. There is a very interesting section in the book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/ANCIENT-people-Height-SOCIETY-EDITION/dp/B002XE6GPY
About how people tended to effectively barricade the door at night and would be very reluctant to open it. I think this would apply to most cities and towns of the time. The parable at mat 25 of the 10 virgins would really have struck a chord at the time.
Some comments on Acts 12:11:
"Here again we find the tone of a personal reminiscence. He finds himself at night, free, in the open street. It was no dream. As before (Acts 5:19), his Master had sent His angel to deliver him" (Ellicott).
Craig Keener's commentary on Acts links the angel in 12:7ff to the malak YHWH also.
See https://books.google.com/books?id=oqTHAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT864&dq=acts+12:7+angel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUhNX6zKzKAhXL4yYKHQ_kDwcQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=acts%2012%3A7%20angel&f=false
Mat 11:9,10
9 prophet
10 messenger
This book might also be helpful: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DcIiAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP7&dq=john+weaver+epiphanic+syntax&ots=Lvnxg2riEo&sig=ynbGb5DHFr18oCzLwx7zS9Wofbc#v=onepage&q=john%20weaver%20epiphanic%20syntax&f=false
Acts 12:15 is the point. And some translations saying "its his angel!" is just not consistent with the fact that the men knew nothing of what had just been going on with peter. They were saying to Rhoda that it could not possibly be peter but rather his "messenger".
The book you posted goes into my point from about page 175 but it misses the obvious and over complicates matters and the parts that I can see do not even attempt to eliminate the possibility that it is just talking about a messenger.
Just read the acts exegetical commentary which is just the same, no mention of a messenger at the door even to eliminate the possibility. Looks like these commentators see only angels and assume that these ancient people were so emersed in the angelology that they only see messengers as spirit beings. It's sad really that they get two wrapped up in the world of philo and the "learned" to forget the everyday common possibilities.
All these sources are quoting from one single source
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3137406
I do not have access to but would really like to read since I think it will be very unbalanced in its approach.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ig_E7gC46dYC&pg=PA306&lpg=PA306&dq=first+century+rome+messenger+angelos&source=bl&ots=3Edw3xv-pc&sig=7gTo06CuZiJPN9xPCr6YscpiYnU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwialtWa86zKAhVHvhQKHeZuBAQQ6AEIJDAE#v=onepage&q=first%20century%20rome%20messenger%20angelos&f=false
I don't think any commentator denies that angel can refer to a human messenger. It's just that context helps us determine when spirits are meant.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uyO5AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=malak+angelos+misinterpreted&source=bl&ots=JNn3Nl1Pts&sig=Jc69bFvfj1zF4xMfkoNVer_ImbM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3gKCIgK3KAhVELhoKHWh5Ddg4ChDoAQghMAM#v=onepage&q=malak%20angelos%20misinterpreted&f=false
Prophet as malak
Regarding the last two links that you posted: I have no disagreement with the idea that angel can have more than one referent or more than one kind of referent. For reasons that have already been mentioned, along with others, it seems that a spirit being freed Peter from bondage--not a human messenger.
And I never suggested that he was freed by anything other than a spirit being. My point is that there is enough usage of prophet and angel to question the normal interpretation of Hebrews chapter 1 with its opening verse referring to prophets. It could be saying that Jesus is not just another prophet. Sitting at the right hand of God on the throne of God which all echo king david. I think a Jew would make this kind of connection rather than a angelology. It is verse 4 that points to the act that made him superior to the prophets. The connection to psalm 2 which says “I have installed my king
on Zion, my holy mountain.” & 2 Samuel referring to Solomon being the son who will build the temple. A king vs a prophet. Psalms 104:4 is one possibility but in regards to prophets is is more likely Elijah and his chariot of fire.
So all I am saying is there is the possibility of another interpretation that is not even being discounted in the literature.
Let me clarify a little further. I do not think that the men in the house with Rhoda thought there was Paul's guardian angel at the door. If they did their actions and response are quite puzzling.
I've checked a number of commentaries/studies over the last two days, and have yet to find anyone who doubts that the angel in Acts 12:7 (and so forth) was a spirit being. Now that doesn't mean the interpretation is correct, but I think that understanding of the text is justified by the description of the angel, OT parallels, and the context of Acts 12.
Again, most interpreters/commentaros say that Jesus is not just another prophet. Trinitarians say he is God, Witnesses teach that he is God's created Son (a preexistent angel, the firstborn of all creation). Either way, Christ is not just another prophet.
While I'm not denying the connection between right hand of God and the Davidic line, it's hard for me to believe that's all the saying means in view of other NT verses, which associate Christ's position with the heavenlies (as it were). We also have to consider the use of that expression "right hand of God" in Second Temple Judaism.
Mention of the angels does not occur until 1:4-6, as you note. I don't believe Heb 1:4 is stating that Christ merely become superior to the prophets. Compare Heb 2:5-9.
But he becomes better than the angels because he sits at God's right hand. Compare Ephesians 1:20-23; 1 Pet 3:22.
To say that he just becomes better than the human prophets just seems anticlimactic, and does not appear to be supported by the context. If he exceeds the angels in 1:4, how fitting the reference to spirit beings in 1:5-6. Additionally, 1:6 is taken from Deuteronomy and Ps 97. Are we to believe that God commands all of his prophets to perform obeisance toward the Son rather than commanding the spirit beings in the heavens?
From Vincent's Word Studies:
And let all the angels of God worship him (καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ)
Προσκυνεῖν to worship mostly in the Gospels, Acts, and Apocrypha. In Paul only 1 Corinthians 14:25. Very often in lxx. Originally, to kiss the hand to: thence, to do homage to. Not necessarily of an act of religious reverence (see Matthew 9:18; Matthew 20:20), but often in N.T. in that sense. Usually translated worship, whether a religious sense is intended or not: see on Acts 10:25. The quotation is not found in the Hebrew of the O.T., but is cited literally from lxx, Deuteronomy 32:43. It appears substantially in Psalm 96:7. For the writer of Hebrews the lxx was Scripture, and is quoted throughout without regard to its correspondence with the Hebrew.
That understanding of Ps 104:4 is possible, but not very probable IMHO. Context (the surrounding verses) and the hymnic setting for Ps 104 should dictate how we understand the psalm. ESV might agree with your understanding though.
I am sorry but I must not be communicating my point about acts 12:15 correctly. I am in nom way disputing you points about 12:7.
The KJV says at 12:15:-
And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.
Note, no exclamation mark inserted here but I go further than that - then they said, it is his messenger.
As verse 16 says-
But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished.
Astonished it wasn't an angel !?! Or astonished it was not just his messenger ?
I hope you can get my point from this when I said two angels, I meant the spirit being plus the human messenger assumed by those men in the house since they new nothing of what had been happening to Paul that night.
Hebrews 2:5-9 is tied to psalms 8:5
A little lower than elohim - gods. El or eloah in the plural.
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Psalm_8_verse_5.html#.VpqzBSKnxpU
On Acts 12;15, the statement is kind of vague, but could easily be understood as a spirit being, even if you translate "messenger" instead of angel. I would submit that the context favors angel/messenger = spirit being, which is why I've worked hard to establish what the word means in Acts 12:7, etc. But I now understand what you meant by two messengers. Originally, I was confused about that point.
My point is also that Heb 2:5-9 is related to Heb 1:2-6 as well. We've discussed elohim before, so I'm not going to repeat what's already been written or said. I understand the word as a reference to angels in Ps 8:4-5 and Heb 2:5-9. "God" or "gods" and the other renderings are possible, but I prefer "angels" or something to that effect. See NIV.
Targum for Ps 8:6: "And you have made him a little less than the angels, and you will crown him with glory and brightness."
See http://targum.info/pss/ps1.htm
Rashi for Ps. 8:6: "Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty."
Concerning this same psalm, John Gill writes: "since the word is rendered 'angels' by the Chaldee paraphrase, the Septuagint interpreters, the Jewish commentators, Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, and Ben Melech, and in the Arabic, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, and above all by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, it is best to interpret it of them"
11Q13
11Q13 is a noted text, and I've written about it, and posted information on this blog that deals with the text. But it does not mean that elohim can't refer to angels in the Tanakh. The word could apply to the one true God, to false gods, to angels, to human judges--we have to examine context when trying to understand how it's being used. Please see http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2010/08/maurice-casey-on-term-god-in-second.html
From the wikipedia link for 11Q13:
Richard Bauckham Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and other studies on p222 "(1) Melchizedek: In 11QMelchizedek, Melchizedek is the name of a principal angel, probably to be regarded as another ... angels (called 'elim in 2:14, as frequently in the Qumran literature), from the power of Belial and his evil angels."
But the entire article merits reading.
Acts 12:15 if this is thought to be a guardian angel by the men then what evidence is there of accounts of people seeing guardian angels. I know there is a tradition of the existance of guardian angels but what other accounts in jewish litturature ever claim of seeing one?
I am having difficulty believing that the men thought that an angel would be at the door when they are only ammazed to see peter.
If the account is vague why assume angel at the door over messenger. This is one problem I have with most biblical interpretation - the common assumption of supernatural phenomenon over the norm. Not to remove all supernatural from the accounts, obviously.
Just found this page and it is clear that I am not the first person to find the standard interpretation of this verse puzzling.
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2418/who-what-is-peters-angel
Some argue that it is not that important but I think it is very important when speaking of how a certain author uses an ambiguous term generally as this can start with a general assumption of the other instances.
To make it clear, I am not arguing that Peters guardian angel was at the door; an angel (spirit being) maybe, but not a guardian spirit.
The Hebrew Bible makes a general statement about the malak YHWH guarding Jehovah's people (Ps 34:7); Matthew later seems to echo this point (18:10), but I would not say that these verses support belief in guardian angels. In any event, Lange understands Acts 12:15 rightly, IMO, with the exception of his belief that the guardian angel of Peter was possibly at the door.
If the men thought the "angel" (messenger) was human, and he stood at the door, then why did they not go see what he wanted or invite him to enter the house? They obviously thought it could not be Peter since he was in jail, but it would not been that difficult to believe Peter sent a human messenger. Lange writes:
But the meaning of their language is less clear, when they said: ὁ ἅγγελος αὐτοῦ ἑστίν, on receiving the repeated assurances of the girl that the fact was as she had stated. It is not credible that they should have supposed the person to be a messenger [ἄγγελος, e. g., Mt. 11:10] sent by Peter; for how could they assume that he had sent a messenger from the prison, whose voice, moreover, had a deceptive resemblance to that of the apostle? And another conjecture has been offered, which is also entirely unsupported, viz.: the Christians surmised that an angel had intended to announce by the voice and by knocking, that Peter’s death was now at hand, or, in other words, that it was a so-called presentiment, On the contrary, the most probable supposition is the following: the Christians believed that Peter’s guardian angel had assumed his voice, and was standing before the door. But when Peter continued to stand there, and to knock, all the brethren approached, and opened the door, in order to ascertain the nature of the fact; and when they really saw him, they were filled with astonishment. [Alexander remarks: “Their wonder has been sometimes represented as a proof of weak faith, since they could not believe the very thing for which they had been praying. But their prayers may not have been exclusively for Peter’s liberation; or they may, to use a natural and common phrase, have thought the tidings too good to be true.”—TR.]
I stress the point that guardian angels are not my thing. But one source offers a few references you might find helpful. From the Expositor's GT:
Ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, cf. Matthew 18:10, Hebrews 1:14. According to Jewish ideas they would believe that Peter's guardian angel had assumed his form and voice, and stood before the door, see Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, ii. 748–755, especially 752; “Apocrypha” (“Speaker’s Commentary”) “Angelology,” i., 171 ff.; Weber, Jüdische Theol., pp. 170, 171 (1897); “Angels,” B.D., 12, Blass, Nösgen, J. Lightfoot, in loco. We may contrast the reserve of the canonical books of the Jews with the details of their later theology, “Engel,” Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judentums, i., 2 and 3.
Another pertinent text is Gen. 48:15-16.
John Calvin's remarks concerning Acts 12:15 appear sober to me, He understands the angel to be a spirit, but apparently rejects the idea of a guardian angel.
If this angelology is so ingrained in first century Jewish culture then where are other examples that claim similar experience?
http://jesushistoryproject.com/jewish-holy-men/
whether true or not surely some would claim such experiences of angels.
1) If the men thought the "angel" (messenger) was human, and he stood at the door, then why did they not go see what he wanted or invite him to enter the house?
As I already stated from the evidence of Rome in the first century - people generally would not open the door at night to anyone. What is strange is that a woman would go to the door in the first place.
2)The Hebrew Bible makes a general statement about the malak YHWH guarding Jehovah's people (Ps 34:7); Matthew later seems to echo this point (18:10),
Protect them from what exactly as the men know nothing of what has just transpired.
3) for how could they assume that he had sent a messenger from the prison, whose voice, moreover, had a deceptive resemblance to that of the apostle?
Gill's Exposition, surmised, opinion - And when she knew Peter's voice,.... often heard him preach and converse in the family - nothing like my surmise that he said - "it's me, peter, let me in" ?
There is no substance to these kind of arguments. As I said the supernatural is being assumed over the everyday occurrence, unless we have comparative examples that the culture should expect a certain response.
Duncan,
The scholarship dealing with Jewish angelology from all periods is abundant. I referenced a work by Hannah earlier (on Michael the archangel), Loren Stuckenbruck also has written on angels. I assume you've read places in the NT, where men claim to see angels; they even minister to Jesus in the Gospels. Checking out the references in this link might be helpful: https://books.google.com/books?id=BJTXBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=first+century+judaism+angelology+seeing+angels&source=bl&ots=HxGh27D-I-&sig=WPzvtlTVu-QjbZPYDvcf2bues9Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSmsWyvrPKAhWIOiYKHZx2DPUQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&q=first%20century%20judaism%20angelology%20seeing%20angels&f=false
I cited ps 34 and Mt 18 to show that while Peter didn't have a guardian angel, it's not a stretch to see a spirit being protecting and delivering him from prison. The apostles already knew how the angels worked (see Acts 5:18-20, etc). So I wasn't saying that the men in the house needed to be protected: they reasoned that Peter would have someone guarding him (possibly)--someone not human.
There's plenty of material to read on early angelology in Judaism. Some of it is worth consulting, IMO.
As I said before, I am not questioning the existence of spirit beings & I have read many such works including ones who's conclusions based on first century culture come to different conclusions:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KqsvBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT1053&lpg=PT1053&dq=Acts+12:15+jewish+culture&source=bl&ots=0U92hWj6uQ&sig=BOvAieQD6DDNmG9dby_CF1Itapg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihgOuKs7PKAhXCzxQKHQcBC4QQ6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=Acts%2012%3A15%20jewish%20culture&f=false
Psalms 34:7 combined with 34:20 compared with Mat 4:6 & John 19:36. Does this lead you to believe that all were protected or just one - again where are the first century anecdotes?
Psalms 34:7 must also be understood in light of 34:13-19.
Your referencing Acts 5:18-20 leads me to an entirely different conclusion. Why would the men be now surprised that it is peter at the door if this kind of deliverance has happened before?
Whichever way I look at it I find problems of logic but maybe it's just the way my mind works. I see no productive reason to discus this one any further at the moment and I will do further research. Particularly looking for anecdotes.
Thank you Edgar for your patience and perseverance again.
On a different point see exodus 31:18 and compare with acts 7:53. So who are the angels?
I have just found this which is very interesting.
https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~testsm/Angels_Intermed.html
Not sure of the implications of this.
More on the angel of YHWH.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L9mqH-rmpg8C&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=hirth+gottes+boten+angel&source=bl&ots=WVkRzbDaIX&sig=42CzeO8xWUK-3qqMo0001h4uncc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP2LilrbTKAhVD1RQKHRCjCcIQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=hirth%20gottes%20boten%20angel&f=false
I believe all of God's people were protected in antiquity, and still are shielded in our day (physically and spiritually, although we're not guaranteed physical safety). Now I'm not therefore claiming that angelophanies were common in the first century nor that angels manifest themselves visibly today. Nor do I believe in guaradian angels. As for anecdotes, I'm sure there are plenty of reports about spirit beings by ancient Jews and Christians. Bultmann observed that the ancient world was thought to be peopled by spirit beings.
Who else would the angels be? Although Exodus 31:18 doesn't mention spirit beings mediating the law, that fact really should not surprise us. See Ps 68:17; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2.
Does Exodus say angels dispensed the ten plagues on Egypt? Yet compare Ps 78:49.
Angelophanies are reported in the Maccabees. See https://books.google.com/books?id=L9mqH-rmpg8C&pg=PA192&dq=angelophanies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQmpaLsbTKAhWJ3SYKHfFdDV8Q6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=angelophanies&f=false
Galatians 3:19 without earlier direct connection could still be interpreted as meaning prophets.
I see no reason why the messengers in psalms 78:49 cannot be the plagues themselves.
Psalms 68:17 is being interpreted through the lense of the lxx and Targum's.
I just wonder why Paul would mention prophets mediating the law, or why talk about prophets in Heb 2:2? The LXX has "angels" in Deut 33:2 (a verse that deals with Moses receiving the law). Angels are also implied, however, in 33:2 MT. Compare Acts 7:38.
רָעִֽים׃ is an adjective that seems to modify מַלְאֲכֵ֥י
So any attempt to explain this verse has to account for the Hebrew syntax here. Cf. Exod 12:23. Your understanding is possible, but all these factors must be considered.
You're welcome, Duncan. I think they were urprised to see Peter because they knew he was supposed to be in jail, and would not likely be released by Herod. Furthermore, James had just been executed.
But I hope you get a chance to read some of the works I recommended, including Hannah and Stuckenbruck. The work on angelic warriors looks good too.
One other thought: the Dead Sea Community frequently discusses and claims to interact with angels according to DSS.
Best,
Edgar
One last thought about the angel for now. Acts 7:35 most certainly seems to reference a spirit being; so does 7:38 and 7:53, which we've already batted around.
Deuteronomy is from a different time period and must be seen as such.
Exodus 19:31 - wilderness of Si'nai.
Num 1:1 And Jehovah proceeded to speak to Moses in the >>wilderness of Si'nai<<, **in the tent of meeting**
True Lev 27:34 is translated [in] mount sinai but the word does allow for :-
a mountain or range of hills (sometimes used figuratively): - hill (country).
The LXX interprets as "on mount sinai".
The hill country of the wilderness of sinai?
So in this instance I do not necessarily see a contradiction - ten of the words (the fundamental) direct from Jehovah - but how did they arrive at the interpretation "in the land" (the 613 as it is understood today http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm)?
What kind of angels were involved?
Of course a very important clause in Acts 7:38 is "and with our ancestors".
Acts 7:35 the burning bush but with regards to the 10 words I think Deuteronmy interprets it in a different way:-
(Deuteronomy 5:4) Jehovah spoke face-to-face with you in the mountain, out of the fire.
This point in Jubilees (DSS) is most telling, angels have a hierarchy and different tasks, and at least some of the angels are created circumcised.
Ancient Hebrew - function over form - that which delivers a message. An Event, A Sign, A Person, A spirit.
Act 7:38 This is the one being among the assembly in the wilderness with the angel, the one speaking to him on mount Sinai, and of the ones of our fathers; who received [oracles living] to give to us
Ellicott's Commentary
The lively oracles.—The noun was used by the Greeks for the solemn utterances of the Pythian oracles, and thus came to be used by the LXX. in connection with the Urim and Thummim of the high priest (Exodus 28:30), and so for any answer from God (Numbers 24:4). In the New Testament it appears again in Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1Peter 4:11.
Which messengers dispense the oracles of god.
Contextually, I don't see how the "angel" in Acts 7 can be anything but a spirit being: they delivered oracles too. But Acts 7:30 supplies further evidence that the angels mentioned in that chapter are spirit beings.
Also see Ellicott on Hebrews 2:2
one comment regarding Psalm 78:49: http://archive.org/stream/commentaryonpsal00alex#page/342/mode/1up
From the pulpit commentary concerning spalms 78:49.
Most modern critics regard this clause as in apposition with the preceding one, and consider the "wrath, indignation, and trouble" to be themselves the "evil angels" spoken cf. Some, however, as Hengstenberg and Kay, interpret the passage of spiritual beings - not, however, of spirits of evil, who are never said to be ministers of God's wrath, but of good angels, who on this occasion were "ministers of woe."
So i am not alone in my opinion, but these are all just opinions. Usually if I post part of a commentary it is so I do not take credit for collating the related scripture references, the opinion that comes with it is not my reason for quoting.
One thing I'm trying to practice myself and encourage others to do, is to look at why a commentary takes a certain stance on a matter. My statement applies to books and journal articles too. When someone provides evidence, we're not just limited to opinion. Furthermore, if we analyze the reason why a certain position is taken and find it seriously wanting, we can possibly discount that judgment or "opinion" as you say.
So I'm not trying to rely on authority or argue from authority. The sources I quote are for comparison purposes, to help you see that it's not just me making a statement, and to show evidence for this position or that one. I've also conceded that it's possible to understand "angel" as messenger--even a human messenger--in some instances although I don't find that usage likely in Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2 or Acts 7:53 (etc).
Here's the honest to goodness last comment I'm posting on this thread. We've reached 100 comments. From Alford's GNT:
The law was introduced by the mere subordinate messengers of God, but was enforced with strict precision: how much more shall they be punished who reject that Gospel, which was brought in by the Son of God Himself, and continues to be confirmed to us by God’s present power) if the word which was spoken by means of angels (i. e. the law of Moses: not as mentioned by way of alternative in Chrys., Œc., Thl., and adopted by Calv., al., all commands in the O. T. delivered by angels (excluding the law: or as Chrys., including it). For this would more naturally be οἱ.… λόγοι: and besides, in similar exhortations in our Epistle, the law and the gospel are so prominently set against one another, that there can be little doubt the same is the case here: see ch. 3:1 ff., 7 ff.; 4:2, 11; 10:28, 29; 12:18-25. This will become even plainer still, when we enter on the consideration of διʼ ἀγγέλων λαληθείς. These words seem to point especially at the law, which was διαταγεὶς διʼ ἀγγέλων, Galatians 3:19, where see note: cf. also Acts 7:53, and Deuteronomy 33:2, κύριος ἐκ Σινὰ ἥκει καὶ.… κατέσπευσεν ἐξ ὄρους Φαρὰν σὺν μυριάσι Καδής· ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετʼ αὐτοῦ: on which see Ebrard’s note: and Psalm 68:17, E. V. The co-operation of angels in the giving of the law at Sinai was not merely a Rabbinical notion, but is implied in both the Old and New Testaments. There can consequently be little doubt that the Writer, in mentioning ὁ διʼ ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος, had reference to the law of Moses, and not to the scattered messages which were, at different times in O. T. history, delivered by angels. And so Origen, in Matt. tom. xvii. cap. 2, vol. iii. p. 767: Thdrt., δείκνυσιν ὅσον ὑπέρκειται τῶν νομικῶν διατάξεων ἡ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν διδασκαλία. τῇ γὰρ θέσει τοῦ νόμου ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν κ.τ.λ. It has been sometimes supposed that the ἄγγελοι spoken of here are not angels, but merely human messengers. Chrys. says, τινὲς μὲν οὖν τὸν Μωυσέα φασὶν αἰνίττεσθαι· ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἔχει λόγον· ἀγγέλους γὰρ ενταῦθα πολλούς φησι. And Olearius, Analys Ep. ad Hebr. § v., says, “Per ἀγγέλους hic maxime intelligi existimem προφήτας, doctores et Sacerdotes: qui sunt ἄγγελοι θεοῦ, et ita passim vocantur.” But this latter point wants proof. The difficulty as to whether God Himself, or an angel, is to be understood as giving the law in Exodus, raised by Cameron (see also Schlichting in Bleek), hardly seems legitimately to arise here, where the words are διʼ ἀγγέλων λαληθείς, and the angels may manifestly be considered as the inferior agents, acting and speaking in God’s name. Bl. remarks that the Writer would hardly have used this argument of depreciating contrast, had he regarded the law as given either to Moses or to the people by the direct ministry of the Son of God Himself)
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/alford/hebrews/2.htm
Thanks Edgar,
This is a bit of a record I must admit but it is a very important subject as it influences the understanding of so many things.
As time permits I will look through the commentaries and books you have posted but I would just like to point out one thing that I have been researching but information is much more difficult to access (as is most that is perceived as not of biblical relevance). That is just how common were messengers (since we tend to talk in biblical terms of the kind commanded by kings. I am just starting to find a few morsels and here is one of them:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Vzy0urF2KIAC&pg=PA436&lpg=PA436&dq=biblical+non+thinking+messengers&source=bl&ots=uAWtAwlzJh&sig=OsaqVF1srzijZJkQ24Njc445Lj0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifrKibirjKAhWDPhQKHSFwAowQ6AEIQjAG#v=onepage&q=biblical%20non%20thinking%20messengers&f=false
Another good discussion of some issues you've broached. It discusses Heb 1:5-14, Gal 3:19 (and others) and angels. See https://books.google.com/books?id=8hViBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&dq=stuckenbruck+angels+acts+of+apostles&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilxqruk77KAhXGYyYKHWCkBnUQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=stuckenbruck%20angels%20acts%20of%20apostles&f=false
Thanks Edgar, this has some interesting points.
I think that something else is in need of examination.
Exodus 18.15-16
Mat 23:2-3
The history of the Moses seat and what it,s implications are.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QjzX6EykYbwC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=canaanite+empty+thrones&source=bl&ots=wBFm77E8TD&sig=lk6BVQVegzFVcDH-t33tvgc229I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpuMOsoL7KAhWD0h4KHUurAEw4ChDoAQgeMAI#v=onepage&q=canaanite%20empty%20thrones&f=false
https://www.academia.edu/2117979/Hebrews_angelology_in_the_light_of_early_Jewish_apocalyptic_imagery
https://www.academia.edu/2117917/Addressing_an_angelomorphic_christological_myth_in_Hebrews
http://thegemara.com/enochs-walk-with-god-ends-badly-in-babylonia/
Post a Comment