While I don't fully agree with his remarks, scholars like Heil normally rely on the context of 1:15 (i.e., Col. 1:16-17) to interpret the text's language. So he would argue that since all things came to be through Christ and in him, then he must transcend the created sphere. That's not a necessary inference, but assuming "creation" is the Genesis creation, then the language would imply preexistence even if not temporal priority.
We've discussed Col. 1:15-17 before and how ta panta can be used in an absolute or relative sense, depending on the context. Colossians 1:15-17 is also similar to John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2. But whatever ta panta means in Colossians, these things have their origin through and in Christ.
Another thing about ta panta is the difference between ta panta being created in arche versus ta panta being made subject to Christ now and in the age to come. They're not the same event/action.
And what about Wisdom 9:1; Sirach 18:1; 1 Enoch 9:4-5; Sib. Or. 3:20; Eph. 3:9; Didache 10:3; Dialogus cum Tryphone 55.2?
Of the references you have cited that matter, rhey are not qualified. God created all things. Zeus created all things. Even God created all things by his word which only means that God speaks into existence.
Qualified by εἴτε is my point. This is different.
"The ruler of the kings of the earth."
I have little doubt that Paul is telling us that everything changed for mankind in Jesus. Beginning a new phase in the order of things as far as we are concerned.
εἴτε . . . εἴτε is used to distinguish the earthly and heavenly things; the visible from the invisible. So his sphere of influence/dominion is not simply earth, although ta panta is likely qualified.
Ta panta is qualified in Colossians because of his reason for penning the letter and it's undoubtedly rhetorical. See Romans 8:35-39 and its correlative use of the negative conjunction. But I don't see why his use of εἴτε necessarily means ta panta is relative though.
Heinrich Meyer on Col. 1:16-The ἀόρατα are now more precisely specified disjunctively by εἴτε, sive … sive (put more than twice; comp. Plat. Rep. p. 612 A, 493 D Sirach 41:4).
Expositor's GT on Col. 1:16: εἴτε θρόνοι κ. τ. λ. This is not an exhaustive definition of τὰ πάντα, for Paul selects for mention those creatures to whom worship was paid by the false teachers. The names, as in similar lists, denote angels and not earthly powers. For some of them occur in Jewish angelology, and a reference to earthly dignities would be irrelevant to the polemical purpose of the passage.
The Son is the Agent in creation (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6); this definitely states the pre-existence of the Son and assumes the supremacy of the Father, whose Agent the Son is.— εἰς αὐτὸν.
A few thoughts from F.F. Bruce regarding Colossians 1:15ff:
Here, then, Christ is presented as the agent of God in the whole range of his gracious purpose toward the human race, from the primeval work of creation, through the redemption accomplished at history’s midpoint, on to the new creation in which the divine purpose will be consummated.
The idea of preexistence is not unknown in Jewish thought.⁹⁸ We meet it, for example, in later discussions about the Messiah⁹⁹ and in the preexistent Son of Man of the Enoch literature.¹⁰⁰ But such preexistent beings were, to the minds of those who discussed them, largely ideal; here preexistence is predicated of a man who had lived and died in Palestine within the preceding half-century.¹⁰¹ This is not the only place in the Pauline letters where the preexistence of Christ is asserted or implied.¹⁰² Nor is Paul the only NT writer to teach such a thing. The same teaching is found in Hebrews (Heb. 1:2; 10:5–9) and in the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–2; 8:58), while in the Apocalypse Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, David’s root as well as David’s offspring (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13, 16).
"In the face of this dilemma, many systematic theologians have found blessed relief in a growing tendency among biblical scholars to regard statements of pre-existence as relatively isolated and rare across the broad spectrum of the New Testament. What might be called a full blown notion of pre-existence—the belief that the one subsequently known as Jesus Christ somehow had a personal history with God prior to his human life—is regarded as more or less confined to the Johan-nine literature and other late documents. It is notably absent from the three Synoptic Gospels, the chief resource for the human history of Jesus, while the earliest documents, the authentic letters of Paul (Ro-mans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), if they contain the notion at all, feature it simply in the attenuated, figurative sense of Christ's pretemporal presence in the mind and purpose of God, without any implication of personal pre-existence. From this perspective the significance of the motif is severely relativized as regards the total witness of the New Testament and its right to exercise so dominant an influence on doctrinal formulations, as in traditional Christology, put in question."
I think that Romans 11 culminating in v38 causes significant problem for the Pauline concept of pre-existance. Being of a dating around 57CE. Assuming that Collossians is a genuine Pauline letter at about 62CE. Why weren't the Romans let in on a very significant point?
I am going to ignore evidence regarding 1 Enoch. It carries very little weight in the scheme of things and the dating of any segment not found in the DSS and other early witness now seems highly questionable.
I guess we could go round and round on this subject and get nowhere, but I must reply to a couple of points.
1) Gathercole strongly challenges the view of the Synoptics that you quote above. I'm not saying he's overthrown this insistence that the Gospels don't contain the notion of preexistence, but Gathercole has given NT scholars something to consider/reconsider.
2) Since when did Romans 11 culminate in verse 38?
3) Romans 9:5 might be potential evidence for preexistence in Romans and vss. 1:3-4.
4) D.A. Carson/D. Moo supply evidence for the authenticity of Colossians in their NT intro. They challenge the critical views of Colossians, ones like Petr Pokorny has.
5) I cited 1 Enoch for the linguistic point that it uses the language "all things" in relation to God's creative work. It is common (as you know) to cite apocryphal works to make linguistic/philological points.
Well human nature comes in here. If you look long enough and hard enough for something you already want, you will probably find it. If the synoptics contain a hint of wisdom literature I suppose it will end up being interpreted as pre existence by some.
The bulk of scholarship on Romans claims not even a hint of pre existence.
"3 concerning His Son, who was born of a [a]descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [b]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [c]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,"
You are claiming that this points to pre existence?
I find one of the problems with blogger.com is that I cannot view or edit my posts once sent. On wordpress type blogs I can revise a post prior to the blogger deciding to reject or making public.
No problem with any typos you make: I make them all the time. That is one disadvantage of blogger. I figured that's what you did; my question was asked for clarification more than anything else. I have to prepare for my classes today, but I will more carefully review your posts later.
Sorry, but I did not see a paper on the 2 Samuel 14:20 link. I did not know if you were trying to make a point about angels, however, see Gen. 3:24; Daniel 7:9-14; Rev. 5:11-14.
The passage may be self-explanatory, but the application is not. Angel can refer to a human or spirit messenger. Which one was Jesus? Furthermore, describing David as an angel was part of a ruse by Joab and it clearly functions rhetorically as a simile.
One mistake Dustin makes is that even if Matthew says nothing about Jesus' preexistence, that still does not mean Matthew did not believe in Christ's preexistence. That would be an ex silentio argument.
Here's a positive review of Gathercole's book: http://www.kerux.com/doc/2203R1.asp
That's why I posted the terms in Hebrew for "I have come". Sure the are used in Daniel by angels but the majority of usage is not by angels. So this is something else that is self evident.
"James T. Dennison, Jr. is a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, serving as professor of church history and biblical theology at Northwest Theological Seminary in Lynnwood, Washington. Ordained Servant, November 2008."
Do you really think the review you posted is on a par with the one I posted?
Your reviewer for example list Mark (1:24, 38; 2:17; 10:45).
What about GMat 1:7 of John the baptist:-
And he was preaching, and saying, “After me >>One is coming<< who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals.
But wasn't Jesus already alive and kicking? What was the age difference?
Note, Jesus only says "I have come" after his baptism.
Why would the reviewer list v24? What about 21 & 22:-
21 They *went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and >>began to teach<<. 22 >>They were amazed at His teaching<<; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
38 - He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that >>>I may preach<<< there also; for >>>that is what I came for.<<<”
2:17 - And hearing this, Jesus *said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to >>call<< the righteous, but >>sinners.<<”
10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, >>but to serve<<, and to give His [p]life a ransom for many.”
"As it is self-evident >>to any unbiased reader<<, such statements presuppose "preexistence Christology" (Part II of his study, 83-189). >>He then dismisses the theory that Christian preexistence Christology is derived from Jewish Wisdom Christology (193-227)<<, an origin popular with 20th century existentialists such as Bultmann and his disciples. "
I suggest that he needs to read the paper I posted. The survey is quite new & fairly comprehensive, even though he missed any mention of how "little children" are tied to Greek and Egyptian thought on wisdom.
Context helps us to see whether an angel is involved. It's also not clear that 2 Sam. 14:20 has any bearing on Jesus possibly being identified as an angel. The bulk of uses for the term in Tanakh refer to spirit beings. Did you see the link I posted from Bible Odyssey?
Per the context, 1 Kings 19 clearly refers to a spirit being much like the angel, who gave Jesus comfort and strength.
There are other positive reviews of Gathercole, which was my point. Not everyone views the book as your reviewer does. People comes to these books with their own biases.
When Dennison talks about wisdom christology, he's talking about Gathercole's view/discussion of it.
Little more pertaining to 1 Kings 19. Donald Wiseman (IVP Academic Comm.):
"Meanwhile the extraordinary provision would remind Elijah of what God had done at Cherith and Zarephath (17:2–16). The (specific) angel or messenger (malĕ’āk) is here an abbreviation for the angel of the Lord (v. 7; cf. Gen. 16:7). The white broom tree (v. 4, Heb. rōtem; Retama raetam Forssk. Webb) is common near Sinai and northwards. It grows to a height of about three metres."
August H. Konkel: Alone in the desert, Elijah desires nothing other than death. “No better than my ancestors” (v. 4) may recall Moses, who asks for death when the people grumble about their conditions in the desert (Num. 11:15). As with Moses, Yahweh intervenes at the critical moment. The “angel of the LORD,” the agent of divine presence, appears, as he did to Moses when he fled to Midian from the threats of Pharaoh in his journey toward Horeb (Ex. 3:2). Elijah is twice strengthened by divine provision of food and refreshed by sleep (1 Kings 19:5–7) before he continues his journey toward Horeb for forty days and forty nights (v. 8). Forty is a typical number for completion; Moses similarly spent forty days on the mountain at Horeb receiving the words of the covenant (Ex. 24:18; 34:28).
Albert Barnes: An angel touched him - The friendly ministration of angels, common in the time of the patriarchs Genesis 18:2-16; 19:1-22; Genesis 28:12; Genesis 32:1, Genesis 32:24-29, and known also under the Judges Judges 6:11-21; 13:3-20, was now extended to Elijah. Any other explanation of this passage does violence to the words. It is certainly not the intention of the writer to represent Elijah as relieved on this occasion by a human “messenger.”
Note the comment about the "messenger" made here: http://www.usccb.org/bible/1kings19:8#11019005-1
"After he arises, he is fed with a cake and water provided by an angel. The emphasis that this is the angel of the Lord clarifies for the reader that this is no ordinary messenger, unlike the messenger Jezebel who was sent to Elijah. Such clarification might be necessary for the reader, since both the Hebrew and Greek words for angel and messenger are the same, and Elijah had just been visited by a human messenger sent with a message of impending death."
Thus far Elijah has been responding only to Jezebel’s “messenger” (Hb. malʾāk, v. 2); God has been excluded from the arithmetic. And he has been behaving somewhat like the anti-hero Jonah—travelling to a far-flung place without a divine travel permit (Jonah 1:1–3); attempting to write his own contract for the job of prophet (Jonah 4). Now, however, it is God’s turn to take the initiative with a messenger of his own (Hb. malʾāk, vv. 5, 7; the NIV’s angel). It is his first move in trying to lead Elijah, as he tried to lead Jonah, back on to the path of faith from which he has strayed. His treatment of Elijah is, however, noticeably gentler than his treatment of Jonah (Jonah 1:4ff., though contrast 4:6ff.)! So softly does he creep back into Elijah’s life, indeed, that it is not at first clear that the messenger is God’s (v. 5). Only the unexpectedness of the provision in such a place suggests the identity of the donor (cf. 17:1–6). We are not told plainly that the angel is of the LORD, in fact, until the second occasion upon which Elijah is woken to eat (v. 7)—and now it becomes clear also that there is more to the divine plan than food and sleep.
12 Then Yehovah’s angel replied, “O Yehovah of Armies, how long will you not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which you have had indignation these seventy years?”
13 Yehovah answered the angel who talked with me with kind and comforting words. 14 So the angel who talked with me said to me, “Proclaim, saying, ‘Yehovah of Armies says: “I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy.
I have not got access to the other reviews yet but the last one does exactly what I expected:-
2. The early argument of the book is that Paul sees Jesus as pre-existent and thus why wouldn't the later gospel writers do so? This is a good argument. I myself don't think the pre-existence of Christ plays as great a role as Simon thinks it does in Paul's writings or Hebrews. It is usually evoked in poetic contexts where the language seems somewhat figurative. But the argument is very strong that Philippians 2:6-7 imply the literal, personal pre-existence of Jesus, so Simon's argument here probably stands.
(circular - outside of works)
4. On the other hand, to me, the strongest arguments for Jesus' literal pre-existence in the synoptics are not the "I have come" statements but a) the "how can the Messiah be David's son" passage, b) the Transfiguration, and c) Son of Man tradition.
(I have been dealing with some of this, but not sure how the transfiguration indicates this)
but note this:-
So I find the idea that Matthew has a wisdom Christology compelling (arguments relating to Sirach, Q, the book of Wisdom, and the Similitudes of Enoch), while Simon seems to downplay this idea. I wonder if the reason is because a wisdom Christology plays fairly easily into a more figurative sense of pre-existence, while Simon is arguing for a strongly literal sense of pre-existence. So I wonder if he downplays this line of argument for this reason.
One Bible verse is not going to tell you how an angel (or angels) normally communicates. Nothing also necessitates that Zecharian personally heard the entire conversation.
Malak YHWH certainly seems to be singular in 1 Kings 19:5ff. It doesn't matter if other verses give a different portrayal: that datum, if it were true, would not be relevant.
Jehovah (YHWH) is a name, but malak YHWH (IMO) is not, but that doesn't mean one spirit being did not assist Elijah. Why would the lack of a personal name mean the being helping Elijah was not a spirit?
It depends on how one defines supernatural. Any action undertaken by a being greater than humans is definitionally/analytically supernatural.
A miracle is a miracle & by definition supernatural. But it does not stop god getting a person to the right place and time to do something for another person, does it?
Since when do bible writers or prophets necessarily have to experience something in order to write it down? 😀
To answer your last question, no. But supernatural persons do supernatural things, whether through remote or proximate causes. If God strikes down his enemies by means of fire and brimstone, it's still a supernatural act.
"Then I went and dwelt at the oaks of >>Mamre<< which were in Hebron—more like to the northeast of Hebron—and >>I built an altar there<<. I offered on it a burnt-offering and a cereal offering to God Most High. >>I ate and I drank there<<, I and all the people of my household, and I sent for (and) invited >>Mamre, Arnem, and Eshkol,<< the three Amorite brothers (who were) my friends, and >>they ate together with me and drank with me.<<"
As your subsequent blog post says, the Jews started to attribute most things that Yehovah did in the bible to Angels as opposed to messengers. IMO this was the sadducee and pharisee dispute.
Duncan, the point I was making about fire/brimstone (maybe too quickly) is that God or an angel (spirit being) could use natural means (what Aquinas calls "secondary causes") and the act could still be called supernatural. Like giving bread to a prophet.
I don't see any reason to view 1 Kings 19 as a vision.
Malak YHWH could be interpreted in many ways, but the writer of 1 Kings seems to point to a supernatural being. As I also mentioned with 2 Kings 19:35, yeah disease could have wiped out 185,000 men, but the account still depicts a divine act one way or the other.
I would say being at the right place at the right time is the miracle.
Armies of soldiers carry gain (they march on their stomachs). Their are a number of possibilities as to how they died. The miracle is that they died before Jerusalem was taken.
I'm not saying just the act of giving bread to a prophet is supernatural: rather, it's when the bread is given to the prophet by a spirit being. That is what makes the act supernatural.
A miracle in the biblical sense is more than being at the right place at the right time. God performs miracles--they don't just happen by chance.
2 Kings 19:35 does not teach that the men died from natural circumstances: "And that night the angel of the LORD went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies." (ESV).
"And it came to pass that night, that the angel of Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when men arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies." (ASV)
Compare Exod 12:29-30; 2 Sam. 24:16.
Bob Utley on 2 Kings 19:35:
"Others have asserted from this that there may have been a bubonic plague. However, from the account of the Bible, it seems to have been a much more rapid demise that occurred silently in one night. I really think that the supernatural aspect of this is much more plausible from the biblical account than the theories of disease."
The “angel of the Lord” is the same angel that smote as המּשׁחית the first-born of Egypt (Exodus 12:23, compared with Exodus 12:12 and Exodus 12:13), and inflicted the pestilence upon Israel after the numbering of the people by David (2 Samuel 24:15-16). The last passage renders the conjecture a very probable one, that the slaying of the Assyrians was also effected by a terrible pestilence. But the number of the persons slain - 185,000 in a single night - so immensely surpasses the effects even of the most terrible plagues, that this fact cannot be interpreted naturally; and the deniers of miracle have therefore felt obliged to do violence to the text, and to pronounce either the statement that it was “the same night” or the number of the slain a mythical exaggeration.
The text does not say a sprit being. It says the messenger of yehovah and you are interpreting it as a sprit being. Does yehovah say that he is sending his messenger? In the next chapter it does say that yehovahs word comes to him as a separate instance.
But more importantly, as per our discussion of the sacrifices at Solomon's temple - how long would it take to count 185000 bodies. How would it be known that they were all dead on that night?
If you're talking about 2 Kings 19:35, then yes, I and others unde4rstand the verse to be about a spirit being: that is the most common use of the word angel/messenger in the Hebrew Bible. There can be spirit or human messengers. But how does 1 man strike down 185,000 soldiers? The spirit being approach best explains the account.
I admitted that the "angel" who helped Elijah did not have to be a spirit being, but he is called "the angel of YHWH" a few verses later. I've never seen a human referred to in that way by writers of the Tanakh. So a spirit being explanation is reasonable although 1 Kings 19:5ff could be explained differently. Not so with 2 Kings 19:35.
Please tell me how long it would take to count 185,000 bodies in Hezekiah's day, if you know. Things like that are not my concern: I endeavor to understand the text as it is written. 2 Kings 19:35 reports they all died that night.
"King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz prayed about this and cried out to heaven, and the Lord sent an angel who annihilated every brave warrior, leader, and commander in the camp of the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria returned in disgrace to his land. He went to the temple of his god, and there some of his own children struck him down with the sword" (2 Chron. 32:20-21 HCSB).
Granted, we don't know all the reasons/causes behind the scenes, but I accept the Bible as God's Word, then I work to understand it. As the saying goes, fides quaerens intellectum.
To be clear, I'm not advocating fideism. It took years of study to become convinced that the Bible is worth accepting "from lid to lid" as one old guy said.
Don't get me wrong I accept the Bible "from kivver to kivver". My difficulty is defining what "inspired" means in terms of interpretation and literalism.
The overlay of wisdom literature to GMat and many such literary devices could bring that into question.
These may not be histories in the way that moderns accept them.
1 Cor 1:30 But by His doing you are in christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, [b]and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
Okay, I guess you're looking at the Tunguska event counterfactually/imaginatively (and I mean no disrespect), but even if we adjusted the numbers for 2 Kings 19:35, you know only 3 people died in Tunguska versus 185,000 in the biblical account.
Like other matters, we don't know with 100% certainty that Malak YHWH is a single entity. Some think he's a creature at times and YHWH at other times: others believe he is the pre-incarnate Christ or YHWH's "alter ego." See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=zechariah+1%3A12
Almost everyone basically agree that Malak YHWH is a spirit entity--not human.
I don't think the Bible accounts are like modern history either; they cannot be. But that doesn't mean the events recorded therein are wrong or mistaken. Today's way of doing history primarily started with the European Enlightenment (Auklarung). That's why I say the Bible writers could not have been doing history as we know it.
At the very least, inspired has to mean that we can trust what's written. Why is it so hard to believe that God preserved his Word throughout history?
I also don't see the wisdom literature overturning the historical aspect of the Bible or its trustworthiness.
This book has an excellent chapter on biblical history: https://www.wtsbooks.com/products/foundations-of-contemporary-interpretation-moises-silva-9780310208280?variant=9842500108335
Only 3 people (reported) dead , but it is worth looking at epicenter location and general population in Siberia in 1908. We have 700 square miles of flattened trees. If humans had been in this area would they have survived?More importantly it left no crater, no specific evidence of how it happened.
In an earlier time could this have been interpreted as something like revelation 12:7-9?
"I also don't see the wisdom literature overturning the historical aspect of the Bible or its trustworthiness." If you mean that the texts has existed in all the history it claims to cover, then I agree. I also agree that wisdom is weaved throughout scripture so NT usage not out of the ordinary. What I do not agree with is the idea that no other human has had it applied to them and that GJohn is exceptional in that respect. I also have no problem with yehovah causing the death of a very large number of Assyrians. It is the understanding of malak Yehovah and malak elohim that is problematic.
His comment regarding "image of the invisible god" are pushed way beyond the bounds of the text in context.
ReplyDeleteJesus was and is what Adam failed to be.
While I don't fully agree with his remarks, scholars like Heil normally rely on the context of 1:15 (i.e., Col. 1:16-17) to interpret the text's language. So he would argue that since all things came to be through Christ and in him, then he must transcend the created sphere. That's not a necessary inference, but assuming "creation" is the Genesis creation, then the language would imply preexistence even if not temporal priority.
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder why "ta panta" needs any qualification at all?
ReplyDeleteEphesians 1:11 - a relationship?
ReplyDeleteAlso https://biblehub.com/lexicon/ephesians/1-21.htm
ReplyDeleteThis age and the age to come.
https://youtu.be/PGrHRwDhoME
ReplyDeleteAn interesting proposal.
https://www.academia.edu/27991741/10._Ephesians_Pauls_Letter_to_the_Laodiceans_Col_4.16_A_fresh_evaluation_of_the_evidence
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/text/ephesians/1-4.htm
ReplyDelete"Chose us before the foundation of the world"
We've discussed Col. 1:15-17 before and how ta panta can be used in an absolute or relative sense, depending on the context. Colossians 1:15-17 is also similar to John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2. But whatever ta panta means in Colossians, these things have their origin through and in Christ.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing about ta panta is the difference between ta panta being created in arche versus ta panta being made subject to Christ now and in the age to come. They're not the same event/action.
And what about Wisdom 9:1; Sirach 18:1; 1 Enoch 9:4-5; Sib. Or. 3:20; Eph. 3:9; Didache 10:3; Dialogus cum Tryphone 55.2?
Compare PGM IV.1709-10.
Of the references you have cited that matter, rhey are not qualified. God created all things. Zeus created all things. Even God created all things by his word which only means that God speaks into existence.
ReplyDeleteQualified by εἴτε is my point. This is different.
"The ruler of the kings of the earth."
I have little doubt that Paul is telling us that everything changed for mankind in Jesus. Beginning a new phase in the order of things as far as we are concerned.
εἴτε . . . εἴτε is used to distinguish the earthly and heavenly things; the visible from the invisible. So his sphere of influence/dominion is not simply earth, although ta panta is likely qualified.
ReplyDeleteTa panta is qualified in Colossians because of his reason for penning the letter and it's undoubtedly rhetorical. See Romans 8:35-39 and its correlative use of the negative conjunction. But I don't see why his use of εἴτε necessarily means ta panta is relative though.
Heinrich Meyer on Col. 1:16-The ἀόρατα are now more precisely specified disjunctively by εἴτε, sive … sive (put more than twice; comp. Plat. Rep. p. 612 A, 493 D Sirach 41:4).
ReplyDeleteExpositor's GT on Col. 1:16: εἴτε θρόνοι κ. τ. λ. This is not an exhaustive definition of τὰ πάντα, for Paul selects for mention those creatures to whom worship was paid by the false teachers. The names, as in similar lists, denote angels and not earthly powers. For some of them occur in Jewish angelology, and a reference to earthly dignities would be irrelevant to the polemical purpose of the passage.
The Son is the Agent in creation (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6); this definitely states the pre-existence of the Son and assumes the supremacy of the Father, whose Agent the Son is.— εἰς αὐτὸν.
Compare https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/05/murray-j-harris-and-colossians-116.html
A few thoughts from F.F. Bruce regarding Colossians 1:15ff:
ReplyDeleteHere, then, Christ is presented as the agent of God in the whole range of his gracious purpose toward the human race, from the primeval work of creation, through the redemption accomplished at history’s midpoint, on to the new creation in which the divine purpose will be consummated.
The idea of preexistence is not unknown in Jewish thought.⁹⁸ We meet it, for example, in later discussions about the Messiah⁹⁹ and in the preexistent Son of Man of the Enoch literature.¹⁰⁰ But such preexistent beings were, to the minds of those who discussed them, largely ideal; here preexistence is predicated of a man who had lived and died in Palestine within the preceding half-century.¹⁰¹ This is not the only place in the Pauline letters where the
preexistence of Christ is asserted or implied.¹⁰² Nor is Paul the only NT writer to teach such a thing. The same teaching is found in Hebrews (Heb. 1:2; 10:5–9) and in the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–2; 8:58), while in the Apocalypse Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, David’s root as well as David’s offspring (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13, 16).
"In the face of this dilemma, many systematic theologians have found blessed relief in a growing tendency among biblical scholars to regard statements of pre-existence as relatively isolated and rare across the broad spectrum of the New Testament. What might be called a full blown notion of pre-existence—the belief that the one subsequently known as Jesus Christ somehow had a personal history with God prior to his human life—is regarded as more or less confined to the Johan-nine literature and other late documents. It is notably absent from the three Synoptic Gospels, the chief resource for the human history of Jesus, while the earliest documents, the authentic letters of Paul (Ro-mans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), if they contain the notion at all, feature it simply in the attenuated, figurative sense of Christ's pretemporal presence in the mind and purpose of God, without any implication of personal pre-existence. From this perspective the significance of the motif is severely relativized as regards the total witness of the New Testament and its right to exercise so dominant an influence on doctrinal formulations, as in traditional Christology, put in question."
ReplyDeletehttp://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/58/58.2/58.2.5.pdf
I think that Romans 11 culminating in v38 causes significant problem for the Pauline concept of pre-existance. Being of a dating around 57CE. Assuming that Collossians is a genuine Pauline letter at about 62CE. Why weren't the Romans let in on a very significant point?
I am going to ignore evidence regarding 1 Enoch. It carries very little weight in the scheme of things and the dating of any segment not found in the DSS and other early witness now seems highly questionable.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/04-new.pdf
ReplyDeleteI guess we could go round and round on this subject and get nowhere, but I must reply to a couple of points.
ReplyDelete1) Gathercole strongly challenges the view of the Synoptics that you quote above. I'm not saying he's overthrown this insistence that the Gospels don't contain the notion of preexistence, but Gathercole has given NT scholars something to consider/reconsider.
2) Since when did Romans 11 culminate in verse 38?
3) Romans 9:5 might be potential evidence for preexistence in Romans and vss. 1:3-4.
4) D.A. Carson/D. Moo supply evidence for the authenticity of Colossians in their NT intro. They challenge the critical views of Colossians, ones like Petr Pokorny has.
5) I cited 1 Enoch for the linguistic point that it uses the language "all things" in relation to God's creative work. It is common (as you know) to cite apocryphal works to make linguistic/philological points.
This page examines the pros and cons of P:auline authorship for Colossians: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/colossians.html
ReplyDeleteFrom Conybeare's Grammar of the LXX:
ReplyDelete"Ta panta is comparatively common, occuring, e.g., in Gen. 1:31, 9:3:
Ex. 29:24: Lvt. 19:13: 2 Mac. 10:23, 12:22: 3 Mac. 2:3."
Well human nature comes in here. If you look long enough and hard enough for something you already want, you will probably find it. If the synoptics contain a hint of wisdom literature I suppose it will end up being interpreted as pre existence by some.
ReplyDeleteThe bulk of scholarship on Romans claims not even a hint of pre existence.
"3 concerning His Son, who was born of a [a]descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [b]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [c]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,"
ReplyDeleteYou are claiming that this points to pre existence?
Compare Romans 8:5,13
Your point 2) a typo on my part - v36.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/2997027/Review_of_Simon_Gathercole_The_Preexistent_Son_Recovering_the_Christologies_of_Matthew_Mark_and_Luke
ReplyDeleteThis reviewer hits a few nails on the head regarding the "I have come" sayings.
Preexistence in the synoptics is Eisegesis.
http://thehumanjesus.org/2019/07/31/yahweh-texts-to-jesus-matthew-2337/
Deuteronomy 29 is of particular note.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raCdsfoJgZQ
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/hebrew/yatzati_3318.htm
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/hebrew/bati_935.htm
ReplyDeleteI find one of the problems with blogger.com is that I cannot view or edit my posts once sent. On wordpress type blogs I can revise a post prior to the blogger deciding to reject or making public.
ReplyDeletehttps://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/19193357/Wisdom_in_the_Synoptic_Gospels.pdf
ReplyDeleteI have yet to read this.
One point highlighted in this paper is very interesting indeed:-
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/text/2_samuel/14-20.htm
https://biblehub.com/2_samuel/14-20.htm
No problem with any typos you make: I make them all the time. That is one disadvantage of blogger. I figured that's what you did; my question was asked for clarification more than anything else. I have to prepare for my classes today, but I will more carefully review your posts later.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I did not see a paper on the 2 Samuel 14:20 link. I did not know if you were trying to make a point about angels, however, see Gen. 3:24; Daniel 7:9-14; Rev. 5:11-14.
ReplyDelete2 Samuel 14:20 is a self explanatory passage. David compared to an angel so should it be unexpected for the son of David to be described this way?
ReplyDeleteThe passage may be self-explanatory, but the application is not. Angel can refer to a human or spirit messenger. Which one was Jesus? Furthermore, describing David as an angel was part of a ruse by Joab and it clearly functions rhetorically as a simile.
ReplyDeleteCompare Zechariah 12:8.
ReplyDeleteOne mistake Dustin makes is that even if Matthew says nothing about Jesus' preexistence, that still does not mean Matthew did not believe in Christ's preexistence. That would be an ex silentio argument.
ReplyDeleteHere's a positive review of Gathercole's book: http://www.kerux.com/doc/2203R1.asp
I've been reading it for myself.
The term "angel" chiefly refers to spirit entities in the Tanakh:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/angels-in-the-hebrew-bible
The kind of angel David is being likened to is also self explanatory.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I posted the terms in Hebrew for "I have come". Sure the are used in Daniel by angels but the majority of usage is not by angels. So this is something else that is self evident.
ReplyDelete"James T. Dennison, Jr. is a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, serving as professor of church history and biblical theology at Northwest Theological Seminary in Lynnwood, Washington. Ordained Servant, November 2008."
ReplyDeletehttps://hbu.edu/contact/daniel-streett/
ReplyDeleteDo you really think the review you posted is on a par with the one I posted?
Your reviewer for example list Mark (1:24, 38; 2:17; 10:45).
What about GMat 1:7 of John the baptist:-
And he was preaching, and saying, “After me >>One is coming<< who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals.
But wasn't Jesus already alive and kicking? What was the age difference?
Note, Jesus only says "I have come" after his baptism.
Why would the reviewer list v24? What about 21 & 22:-
21 They *went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and >>began to teach<<. 22 >>They were amazed at His teaching<<; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
38 - He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that >>>I may preach<<< there also; for >>>that is what I came for.<<<”
2:17 - And hearing this, Jesus *said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to >>call<< the righteous, but >>sinners.<<”
10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, >>but to serve<<, and to give His [p]life a ransom for many.”
When did he start to serve?
This is the Logos.
As for Angels, as an example see 1 kings 19:5-8. I see nothing here that demands that this has to be a spirit being.
ReplyDeleteBut in Davids case, I think he is being likened to a spirit being.
You reviewer also writes:-
ReplyDelete"As it is self-evident >>to any unbiased reader<<, such statements presuppose "preexistence Christology" (Part II of his study, 83-189). >>He then dismisses the theory that Christian preexistence Christology is derived from Jewish Wisdom Christology (193-227)<<, an origin popular with 20th century existentialists such as Bultmann and his disciples. "
I suggest that he needs to read the paper I posted. The survey is quite new & fairly comprehensive, even though he missed any mention of how "little children" are tied to Greek and Egyptian thought on wisdom.
I think I have made my point for the time being. I await you observations of Gathercole's book.
ReplyDeleteContext helps us to see whether an angel is involved. It's also not clear that 2 Sam. 14:20 has any bearing on Jesus possibly being identified as an angel. The bulk of uses for the term in Tanakh refer to spirit beings. Did you see the link I posted from Bible Odyssey?
ReplyDeletePer the context, 1 Kings 19 clearly refers to a spirit being much like the angel, who gave Jesus comfort and strength.
There are other positive reviews of Gathercole, which was my point. Not everyone views the book as your reviewer does. People comes to these books with their own biases.
When Dennison talks about wisdom christology, he's talking about Gathercole's view/discussion of it.
Here's another review behind a paywall:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1030570X0702000307?journalCode=paaa
https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=114502164396515;res=IELHSS
Dunn also reviewed Gathercole in JBL
Little more pertaining to 1 Kings 19. Donald Wiseman (IVP Academic Comm.):
ReplyDelete"Meanwhile the extraordinary provision would remind Elijah of what God had done at Cherith and Zarephath (17:2–16). The (specific) angel or messenger (malĕ’āk) is here an abbreviation for the angel of the Lord (v. 7; cf. Gen. 16:7). The white broom tree (v. 4, Heb. rōtem; Retama raetam Forssk. Webb) is common near Sinai and northwards. It grows to a height of about three metres."
August H. Konkel: Alone in the desert, Elijah desires nothing other than death. “No better than my ancestors” (v. 4) may recall Moses, who asks for death when the people grumble about their conditions in the desert (Num. 11:15). As with Moses, Yahweh intervenes at the critical moment. The “angel of the LORD,” the agent of divine presence, appears, as he did to Moses when he fled to Midian from the threats of Pharaoh in his journey toward Horeb (Ex. 3:2). Elijah is twice strengthened by divine provision of food and refreshed by sleep (1 Kings 19:5–7) before he continues his journey toward Horeb for forty days and forty nights (v. 8). Forty is a typical number for completion; Moses similarly spent forty days on the mountain at Horeb receiving the words of the covenant (Ex. 24:18; 34:28).
Albert Barnes: An angel touched him - The friendly ministration of angels, common in the time of the patriarchs Genesis 18:2-16; 19:1-22; Genesis 28:12; Genesis 32:1, Genesis 32:24-29, and known also under the Judges Judges 6:11-21; 13:3-20, was now extended to Elijah. Any other explanation of this passage does violence to the words. It is certainly not the intention of the writer to represent Elijah as relieved on this occasion by a human “messenger.”
Note the comment about the "messenger" made here: http://www.usccb.org/bible/1kings19:8#11019005-1
"After he arises, he is fed with a cake and water provided by an angel. The emphasis that this is the angel of the Lord clarifies for the reader that this is no ordinary messenger, unlike the messenger Jezebel who was sent to Elijah. Such clarification might be necessary for the reader, since both the Hebrew and Greek words for angel and messenger are the same, and Elijah had just been visited by a human messenger sent with a message of impending death."
ReplyDeletehttp://ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/53/24
A rather big assumptions are being made here, That malak yehovah is a single entity.
ReplyDeleteIs malak yehovah a name?
I go by his actions - is anything here supernatural?
Iain Provan (Understanding the Bible Comm):
ReplyDeleteThus far Elijah has been responding only to Jezebel’s “messenger” (Hb. malʾāk, v. 2); God has been excluded from the arithmetic. And he has been behaving somewhat like the anti-hero Jonah—travelling to a far-flung place without a divine travel permit (Jonah 1:1–3); attempting to write his own contract for the job of prophet (Jonah 4). Now, however, it is God’s turn to take the initiative with a messenger of his own (Hb. malʾāk, vv. 5, 7; the NIV’s angel). It is his first move in trying to lead Elijah, as he tried to lead Jonah, back on to the path of faith from which he has strayed. His
treatment of Elijah is, however, noticeably gentler than his treatment of Jonah (Jonah 1:4ff., though contrast 4:6ff.)! So softly does he creep back into Elijah’s life, indeed, that it is not at first clear that the messenger is God’s (v. 5). Only the unexpectedness of the provision in such a place suggests the identity of the donor (cf. 17:1–6). We are not told plainly that the angel is of the LORD, in fact, until the second occasion upon which Elijah is woken to eat (v. 7)—and now it becomes clear also that there is more to the divine plan than food and sleep.
Lastly, http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2007/02/book-review-pre-existent-son.html
ReplyDeleteZechariah 1:
ReplyDelete12 Then Yehovah’s angel replied, “O Yehovah of Armies, how long will you not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which you have had indignation these seventy years?”
13 Yehovah answered the angel who talked with me with kind and comforting words. 14 So the angel who talked with me said to me, “Proclaim, saying, ‘Yehovah of Armies says: “I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy.
Is this how a spirit angel communicates?
Did Zechariah hear the question & answer?
I have not got access to the other reviews yet but the last one does exactly what I expected:-
ReplyDelete2. The early argument of the book is that Paul sees Jesus as pre-existent and thus why wouldn't the later gospel writers do so? This is a good argument. I myself don't think the pre-existence of Christ plays as great a role as Simon thinks it does in Paul's writings or Hebrews. It is usually evoked in poetic contexts where the language seems somewhat figurative. But the argument is very strong that Philippians 2:6-7 imply the literal, personal pre-existence of Jesus, so Simon's argument here probably stands.
(circular - outside of works)
4. On the other hand, to me, the strongest arguments for Jesus' literal pre-existence in the synoptics are not the "I have come" statements but a) the "how can the Messiah be David's son" passage, b) the Transfiguration, and c) Son of Man tradition.
(I have been dealing with some of this, but not sure how the transfiguration indicates this)
but note this:-
So I find the idea that Matthew has a wisdom Christology compelling (arguments relating to Sirach, Q, the book of Wisdom, and the Similitudes of Enoch), while Simon seems to downplay this idea. I wonder if the reason is because a wisdom Christology plays fairly easily into a more figurative sense of pre-existence, while Simon is arguing for a strongly literal sense of pre-existence. So I wonder if he downplays this line of argument for this reason.
One Bible verse is not going to tell you how an angel (or angels) normally communicates. Nothing also necessitates that Zecharian personally heard the entire conversation.
ReplyDeleteThen who recorded the conversation?
ReplyDeleteZechariah (speaking of typos)
ReplyDeleteMalak YHWH certainly seems to be singular in 1 Kings 19:5ff. It doesn't matter if other verses give a different portrayal: that datum, if it were true, would not be relevant.
Jehovah (YHWH) is a name, but malak YHWH (IMO) is not, but that doesn't mean one spirit being did not assist Elijah. Why would the lack of a personal name mean the being helping Elijah was not a spirit?
It depends on how one defines supernatural. Any action undertaken by a being greater than humans is definitionally/analytically supernatural.
If you do not have supernatural actions then how do you know it's a super natural being?
ReplyDeleteIf God performs a miracle, but using "secondary causes," is the action supernatural?
ReplyDeleteA miracle is a miracle & by definition supernatural. But it does not stop god getting a person to the right place and time to do something for another person, does it?
ReplyDeleteSince when do bible writers or prophets necessarily have to experience something in order to write it down? 😀
ReplyDeleteTo answer your last question, no. But supernatural persons do supernatural things, whether through remote or proximate causes. If God strikes down his enemies by means of fire and brimstone, it's still a supernatural act.
Besides, I doubt one man struck down 185,000 Asyrrians. It was either a spirit creature or a direct act of God.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-how-mice-may-have-saved-jerusalem-2-700-years-ago-from-the-assyrians-1.6011735
ReplyDeletehttps://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-how-mice-may-have-saved-jerusalem-2-700-years-ago-from-the-assyrians-1.6011735
ReplyDeleteAs I said, malak yehovah could be many things.
http://www.electrummagazine.com/2019/08/paleopathology-and-the-destruction-of-sennacheribs-army-besieging-jerusalem-in-ii-chronicles-32-ii-kings-19/
ReplyDeleteBut would one call "fire and brimstone" an angel? Probably not, because no man was seen in this.
ReplyDeleteThe Genesis Apocryphon is suggestive of how some have understood Genesis 18:-
https://pages.uncc.edu/john-reeves/course-materials/rels-2104-hebrew-scripturesold-testament/translation-of-1q-genesis-apocryphon/
"Then I went and dwelt at the oaks of >>Mamre<< which were in Hebron—more like to the northeast of Hebron—and >>I built an altar there<<. I offered on it a burnt-offering and a cereal offering to God Most High. >>I ate and I drank there<<, I and all the people of my household, and I sent for (and) invited >>Mamre, Arnem, and Eshkol,<< the three Amorite brothers (who were) my friends, and >>they ate together with me and drank with me.<<"
As your subsequent blog post says, the Jews started to attribute most things that Yehovah did in the bible to Angels as opposed to messengers. IMO this was the sadducee and pharisee dispute.
1 Kings 19 and Zechariah 1 have a commonality (gentleness) but as you pointed out Zechariah 1 is in vision but is 1 Kings 19?
ReplyDeleteDuncan, the point I was making about fire/brimstone (maybe too quickly) is that God or an angel (spirit being) could use natural means (what Aquinas calls "secondary causes") and the act could still be called supernatural. Like giving bread to a prophet.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any reason to view 1 Kings 19 as a vision.
Malak YHWH could be interpreted in many ways, but the writer of 1 Kings seems to point to a supernatural being. As I also mentioned with 2 Kings 19:35, yeah disease could have wiped out 185,000 men, but the account still depicts a divine act one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteIs giving bread to a prophet supernatural?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=midxQhNIG2g
I would say being at the right place at the right time is the miracle.
Armies of soldiers carry gain (they march on their stomachs). Their are a number of possibilities as to how they died. The miracle is that they died before Jerusalem was taken.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4c8tev
There are many problems grain can cause.
I'm not saying just the act of giving bread to a prophet is supernatural: rather, it's when the bread is given to the prophet by a spirit being. That is what makes the act supernatural.
ReplyDeleteA miracle in the biblical sense is more than being at the right place at the right time. God performs miracles--they don't just happen by chance.
2 Kings 19:35 does not teach that the men died from natural circumstances: "And that night the angel of the LORD went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies." (ESV).
"And it came to pass that night, that the angel of Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when men arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies." (ASV)
Compare Exod 12:29-30; 2 Sam. 24:16.
Bob Utley on 2 Kings 19:35:
"Others have asserted from this that there may have been a bubonic plague. However, from the account of the Bible, it seems to have been a much more rapid demise that occurred silently in one night. I really think that the supernatural aspect of this is much more plausible from the biblical account than the theories of disease."
Keil-Delitzsch:
ReplyDeleteThe “angel of the Lord” is the same angel that smote as המּשׁחית the first-born of Egypt (Exodus 12:23, compared with Exodus 12:12 and Exodus 12:13), and inflicted the pestilence upon Israel after the numbering of the people by David (2 Samuel 24:15-16). The last passage renders the conjecture a very probable one, that the slaying of the Assyrians was also effected by a terrible pestilence. But the number of the persons slain - 185,000 in a single night - so immensely surpasses the effects even of the most terrible plagues, that this fact cannot be interpreted naturally; and the deniers of miracle have therefore felt obliged to do violence to the text, and to pronounce either the statement that it was “the same night” or the number of the slain a mythical exaggeration.
The text does not say a sprit being. It says the messenger of yehovah and you are interpreting it as a sprit being. Does yehovah say that he is sending his messenger? In the next chapter it does say that yehovahs word comes to him as a separate instance.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Fire-Rediscovered-Techniques-Wood-Fired/dp/1612121586/?tag=tsplent-20
ReplyDeletePutting a rock in a fire then removing it to cook a flat bread on is a normal nomad technique.
Have you heard of the Tunguska event?
ReplyDeleteBut more importantly, as per our discussion of the sacrifices at Solomon's temple - how long would it take to count 185000 bodies. How would it be known that they were all dead on that night?
https://www.mq.edu.au/about/about-the-university/faculties-and-departments/faculty-of-arts/departments-and-centres/department-of-ancient-history/ancient-history-for-schools/resources-for-teachers/resources/Sourcebook_Sennacherib_in_Judah.pdf
ReplyDeleteIf you're talking about 2 Kings 19:35, then yes, I and others unde4rstand the verse to be about a spirit being: that is the most common use of the word angel/messenger in the Hebrew Bible. There can be spirit or human messengers. But how does 1 man strike down 185,000 soldiers? The spirit being approach best explains the account.
ReplyDeleteI admitted that the "angel" who helped Elijah did not have to be a spirit being, but he is called "the angel of YHWH" a few verses later. I've never seen a human referred to in that way by writers of the Tanakh. So a spirit being explanation is reasonable although 1 Kings 19:5ff could be explained differently. Not so with 2 Kings 19:35.
Please tell me how long it would take to count 185,000 bodies in Hezekiah's day, if you know. Things like that are not my concern: I endeavor to understand the text as it is written. 2 Kings 19:35 reports they all died that night.
"King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz prayed about this and cried out to heaven, and the Lord sent an angel who annihilated every brave warrior, leader, and commander in the camp of the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria returned in disgrace to his land. He went to the temple of his god, and there some of his own children struck him down with the sword" (2 Chron. 32:20-21 HCSB).
Granted, we don't know all the reasons/causes behind the scenes, but I accept the Bible as God's Word, then I work to understand it. As the saying goes, fides quaerens intellectum.
To be clear, I'm not advocating fideism. It took years of study to become convinced that the Bible is worth accepting "from lid to lid" as one old guy said.
ReplyDeleteOuestion: how does Tunguska even remotely compare with 2 Kings 19:35?
ReplyDeleteIf the Tunguska event had been over a city or populated area?
ReplyDeleteI can only reiterate my question. How do we know that malak yehovah is a single entity of any kind?
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong I accept the Bible "from kivver to kivver". My difficulty is defining what "inspired" means in terms of interpretation and literalism.
ReplyDeleteThe overlay of wisdom literature to GMat and many such literary devices could bring that into question.
These may not be histories in the way that moderns accept them.
1 Cor 1:30 But by His doing you are in christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, [b]and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
ReplyDeleteWho became to us wisdom from god
Okay, I guess you're looking at the Tunguska event counterfactually/imaginatively (and I mean no disrespect), but even if we adjusted the numbers for 2 Kings 19:35, you know only 3 people died in Tunguska versus 185,000 in the biblical account.
ReplyDeleteLike other matters, we don't know with 100% certainty that Malak YHWH is a single entity. Some think he's a creature at times and YHWH at other times: others believe he is the pre-incarnate Christ or YHWH's "alter ego." See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=zechariah+1%3A12
Almost everyone basically agree that Malak YHWH is a spirit entity--not human.
I don't think the Bible accounts are like modern history either; they cannot be. But that doesn't mean the events recorded therein are wrong or mistaken. Today's way of doing history primarily started with the European Enlightenment (Auklarung). That's why I say the Bible writers could not have been doing history as we know it.
At the very least, inspired has to mean that we can trust what's written. Why is it so hard to believe that God preserved his Word throughout history?
I also don't see the wisdom literature overturning the historical aspect of the Bible or its trustworthiness.
This book has an excellent chapter on biblical history: https://www.wtsbooks.com/products/foundations-of-contemporary-interpretation-moises-silva-9780310208280?variant=9842500108335
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2019/06/29/for-more-than-111-years-scientist-puzzled-over-the-tunguska-event/amp/
ReplyDeleteOnly 3 people (reported) dead , but it is worth looking at epicenter location and general population in Siberia in 1908. We have 700 square miles of flattened trees. If humans had been in this area would they have survived?More importantly it left no crater, no specific evidence of how it happened.
In an earlier time could this have been interpreted as something like revelation 12:7-9?
"I've often heard some commentators say that the Malak YHWH is the "pre-incarnate" Christ." So have I. And the basis for this is?
ReplyDelete"I also don't see the wisdom literature overturning the historical aspect of the Bible or its trustworthiness." If you mean that the texts has existed in all the history it claims to cover, then I agree. I also agree that wisdom is weaved throughout scripture so NT usage not out of the ordinary. What I do not agree with is the idea that no other human has had it applied to them and that GJohn is exceptional in that respect. I also have no problem with yehovah causing the death of a very large number of Assyrians. It is the understanding of malak Yehovah and malak elohim that is problematic.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/4426250/The_Angel_in_the_Hebrew_Bible_from_the_Statistic_and_Hermeneutic_Perspectives._Some_Remarks_on_the_Interpolation_Theory
This website gives you plenty of information about the reasoning behind malak YHWH:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.preceptaustin.org/angel_of_the_lord
https://christswords.com/content/luke-727%C2%A0-%C2%A0he-whom-it-written-behold-i-send-my-messenger
ReplyDeleteThis continues the description of John the Baptist ("Dipper").