Monday, September 18, 2017

Jude 14-15 and the Bride of Christ

Jude 14-15 does not have reference to the "saints" (Jesus' bride): it is a text that refers to the holy angels who accompany God when He destroys every last vestige of this ungodly age during his fateful day of vengeance (Isa. 34:1-8). hAGIAIS MURIASIN AUTOU does not refer to the Christian EKKLHSIA as such. From a literary-historical perspective, Enoch, who spoke this prophecy, knew nothing concerning any bride of Christ. At most, resurrected anointed Christians may be peripherally included in the formula recorded by Jude, but it is more likely that Jude 14-15 is talking about the holy angels of YHWH. Other usages of this linguistic formula seem to bear out this point. See Deut. 33:1-2; Habakkuk 3:3-4; Zech. 14:1-5.

Henry Alford applies Jude 14-15 to angels, and includes Heb. 12:23 as a reference.

Meyer's NT Commentary:

ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν] comp. Zechariah 14:5; Deuteronomy 33:2; Hebrews 12:22; (μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων) Revelation 5:11.

24 comments:

Duncan said...

Hab 3:3 God himself proceeded to come from the south, even a Holy One from hill of caverns. Se'lah. His dignity covered [the] heavens; and with his praise the earth became filled.

https://rastafarirenaissance.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/behaalotecha-parsha-wilderness-of-paran.jpg

LXX is interesting:- κατασκιου Φαραν

Compare Hebrews 9:5

Edgar Foster said...

See also NET Bible on Hab 3:3.

JW Apología Bíblica said...

Hi Edgar, I want to make a query about Romans 11:36 on the Greek preposition δι 'αὐτοῦ some Trinitarians have objected to me that this verse literally says "through him" indicating thus that all things were done through God which is Jesus What is the correct meaning of δι 'αὐτοῦ in that verse?

Edgar Foster said...

Hi Omar,

See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-etymological-significance-of.html

It is clear from the context that Rom 11:36 applies to the Father (Jehovah). Compare Heb 2:10.

From research I did years ago:

Here is what I found in BDAG Greek-English Lexicon under DIA (page 225):

"Of divine activity:-of God (Aeschyl., Ag. 1485; Pla., Symp. 186e hH
IATRIKH PASA DIA T. QEOU TOUTOU [Asclepius] KUBERNATAI; Ael.
Aristid., Sarap. [Or. 8 Dind. = 45 Keil] 14 K. PANTA GAR PANTAXOU DIA
SOU TE KAI DIA SE hHMIN GIGNETAI; Zosimus in CALG p. 143 and a magic
ring in introd. 133; EpArist 313) 1 Cor 1:9 DI'hOU EKLHQHTE (v.l.
hUPO s. KALEW 4); Ro 11:36 (s. Norden, Agn. Th. 240-50; 347f); Hb
2:10b (s. B 2a, below, cp. Ar. 1:5 DI' AUTOU . . . TA PANTA
SUNESTHKEN)."

Then the entry continues by giving references for Christ and the holy
spirit such as Rom 1:5; 5:9, 17f, 21; 8:37; 2 Cor 1:20; Ac 11:28;
21:4; Ro 5:5. But everything the lexicon said about Rom 11:36 appears
above word for word.

JW Apología Bíblica said...

thanks Edgar for the information, now I would like to ask you another question regarding the use of the δι + accusative preposition I have seen in dictionaries that define by REASON OR CAUSE, what I want to know is if that sense of CAUSE denotes an origin? For example in John 6:57 it says "I live for (CAUSE OF) the Father" (δι + accusative) INDICATES OR A CREATIVE ACT?

Edgar Foster said...

You're welcome, Omar. Like other words/prepositions, the meaning of δι + accusative is going to depend on context. The cause might refer to origin, but we cannot read too much into the construction. At Jn 6:57, it is my opinion that the verse does not explicitly teach that Jehovah created Jesus, but the verse does indicate his dependence on the Father.

JW Apología Bíblica said...


one last question, my friend Edgar

Do you think there is any text where CREATIVE ORIGIN or ACT is expressed with the δι + accusative construction somewhere in the bible?

Edgar Foster said...

Omar, I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head, but others might be able to answer your question. I will post separately on John 6:57, my friend.

Edgar Foster said...

Some thoughts on Jn 6:57:

So Jesus posits a "just as" relationship between the believer who feeds off the Son, and the Son who lives because of the "living Father." John 6:57 indicates that 6:56 does not have reference to the eucharist, but instead refers to the faith that followers of Jesus exercise in his ransom sacrifice.

J.R. Michaels thinks that 6:57 still applies to the Son: He still lives by virtue of the Father even after his resurrection. This understanding would be in harmony with John 5:26; 14:19.

The fact of the matter is that the Son depends on the Father for continued life, as John 6:57 confirms: "The meaning suggested by the context is that Jesus lives his life on earth from day to day in dependence on the Father, while the disciple, in turn, lives in daily dependence on Jesus" (Michaels, J. Ramsey. _John_ [NIBC Series] ). To reiterate, Jesus plainly said: "I live because of the Father" (John 6:57).

JW Apología Bíblica said...

yes, I would appreciate it

JW Apología Bíblica said...

Excellent! thanks for these references

Keefa Ben Yahchanan said...

Dr/Bro Foster
(Jude 14, 15) 14 Yes, the seventh one in line from Adam, Eʹnoch, also prophesied about them when he said: “Look! Jehovah came with his holy myriads 15 to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him. . .

Jude 1:14 Προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἑνὼχ λέγων, ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ (Jude 1:14 Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Revised Edition)

There are commentators who support the view that in Jude 14 " "holy myriads" refer to the angelic host.

Jude's reference is to the angelic host that accompanies Yahweh in his theophanies, the language [is] borrowed from the Hebrew text of Deut. 33:2.......-Jude and 2 Peter: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament by Gene L. Green, pg. 105


Green fails to understand that κύριος here is probably a reference to Jehovah himself. Jude never uses κύριος to refer to Jesus, but calls him, "κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν" (Jude 1:4) This would be the Lord[ of us], Jesus Christ. The use of κύριος in vs 9 and 14 more than likely refers to God our Father.

Traditional Jewish scenarios depict the parousia of God like the visit of a monarch, whose honor and status are expressed by the number and bearing his attendants and courtiers (Deut: 33.2, Zech 14.5) Hence, myriads of heavenly, powerful, glorious angels attend the Great God, who is often depicted as a warrior in triumphant procession (VanderKam, The Theophany of Enoch 3b-7, 9, 148-50). -2 Peter, Jude by Jerome H. Neyrey, pg 81

(1 En. 1:9 )He comes with his myriads and with his holy ones, to make judgment against all, and he will destroy all the ungodly, and convict all flesh about all works of their ungodliness which they in an ungodly way committed and the harsh words which they have spoken, and about all which the ungodly sinners have spoken evil against him. We read in 1 En. 1:2 "ἁγιολόγων ἁγίων. Here if I am correct, ἁγίων in the accusative is used as a substantive, holy one/s to refer to one of the angelic hosts. I include this reference: ..... Ethiopic text of Enoch 1:2 once included the phrase "word of the angels" -Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions
By Michael Anthony Knibb, pg 182

Therefore, your statement, namely, "hAGIAIS MURIASIN AUTOU does not refer to the Christian EKKLHSIA as such" is supported by scholarly consensus and ancient Jewish text.

Edgar Foster said...

Brother Keefa Ben Yahchanan,

Thanks for adding a substantive response to this thread. I agree that Jude probably is referring to YHWH (Jehovah) if his language comes from Deut 33:2. That is the most likely explanation.

κύριον in vs. 4 of Jude is the accusative form of κύριος. As you wrote, Jesus could be the Lord in vs. 4, but that is unlikely in vss. 14-15. If the quote is from 1 Enoch, that would make it even more likely that Jehovah is the referent in 14-15.

Thanks again.

Duncan said...

Deut 33:2 LXX interprets as myriads of kadesh.

Edgar Foster said...

Duncan,

That is true, although the LXX adds: ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

Also from NET Bible:

tc With slight alteration (מִמְרִבַת קָדֵשׁ [mimrivat qadesh] for the MT’s מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ [merivvot qodesh]) the translation would be “from Meribah Kadesh” (cf. NAB, NLT; see Deut 32:51). However, the language of holy war in the immediate context favors the reading of the MT, which views the Lord as accompanied by angelic hosts.

From the Targum on Deuteronomy (translated by J.W. Etheridge):

"Again did He reveal Himself upon Mount Sinai, and with Him ten thousands of holy angels"

Rashi on Deut 33:2:

"with some holy myriads: With God were only some of the myriads of His holy angels, but not all of them, nor [even] most of them. This is unlike the manner of a mortal, who displays all the splendor of his riches and his glory on his wedding day. — [Sifrei 33:2]"

Duncan said...

What about genesis 14?

14:7 in particular.

Also LXX : την πηγήν της κρίσεως αύτη εστί Κάδης.

Edgar Foster said...

Genesis 14:7 may/may not have some bearing on Deut 33:2 although NET is right, I believe, when it points to the context for disambiguating the referents in the versed. There is also the question of textual variation in 33:2 LXX that we have not discussed. How does the variant affect our understanding of the text?

See the commentary here (page 249) on the differences between MT and LXX: https://books.google.com/books?id=n6yoAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA249&dq=deuteronomy+33:2+cades+septuagint&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVkP6ly6PXAhUM1WMKHeVQC2oQ6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=deuteronomy%2033%3A2%20cades%20septuagint&f=false

LXX is treating Cades as a place name, but MT is not. However, getting back to the variant of Deut 33:2, see also http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/walters1.pdf

I'm having trouble with the search function right now, but there should be a discussion of the variant in this book.

Edgar Foster said...

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v19/TC-2014-Wearne.pdf

Duncan said...

Do you mean how the lxx varies from the mt or that the lxx has variants?

As far as the lxx I have references from the ABP goes, if it is from another Hebrew source then the use of "and" does not have to mean that two separate things are being referred to. Therefore, a translation of messengers could be apt.

Duncan said...

Your last post at the bottom of page 5 is very interesting for one of our old discussions.

Edgar Foster said...

Duncan,

if you mean the Heb 3:4 discussion in the past, then I agree.

The translation of Deut 33:2 could be messengers or angels. Context needs to determine how the verse is translated and understood. Of course, certain spirit beings are evidently messengers--that is their role. But the Judeo-Christian tradition historically has construed the messengers in Deut 33:2 (LXX) to be angels belonging to the heavenly realm.



Edgar Foster said...

https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/II/1/30/1679021?redirectedFrom=fulltext

http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/44-hebrew-dt-and-ugaritic-i-dym/file

https://www.academia.edu/17607985/%D7%93%D6%B8%D6%BC%D7%AA_and_%D7%A2%D6%B5%D7%99%D7%9F_Two_Verbs_Masquerading_as_Nouns_in_Moses_Blessing_Deuteronomy_33_2_28_

On the variant, Wevers has LXX volumes on the Pentateuch. I'll check to see if the Deut file is on my computer.

Edgar Foster said...

Wevers does have variants for Deut 33:2 LXX, but I'm not they're significant for this discussion. His work can be found here: https://rep.adw-goe.de/handle/11858/00-001S-0000-0022-C834-F

Duncan said...

Just wanted to come back to this in relation to quoting Rashi:-

https://www.quora.com/Is-Rashis-commentary-of-the-Tanach-a-reliable-commentary-for-non-Jews-to-use-and-to-learn-more-about-the-Tanach-from-a-Jewish-perspective

No argument - just looking at opinions from a Jewish perspective.