ESV: "And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, 'By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,'"
ASV: "And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,"
Besides demonstrating the notion of agency when it comes to speech by Jehovah, these verses also illustrate how malak, which can be rendered "angel" or "messenger," may refer to a human or spirit messenger (angel). Compare Gen. 22:11.
Surely it was a spirit creature (an angel) who called out to Abraham--notice that he called a first and second time from/out of heaven.
62 comments:
Exodus 24:-
9 Then Moses went up [e]with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet [f]there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, [g]as clear as the sky itself. 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.
https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/24-10.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/24-7.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/24-11.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/18-8.htm
No vision & no mention of a messenger?
I have done the research on this verse before and tracked its history of interpretation in Judaism. There is a good basis for understanding the verse as a vision. Secondly, messengers/angels can presumably be present, yet not be mentioned. Third, the point of my entry was to show a case where it's clearly a spirit messenger.
See https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/under-gods-feet/
Yes,I know how Jews "interpret it" - but that is not what it actually says, is it?
When it say that we "cannot see", how about attempting other interpretations of that verse instead?
So anywhere in that text does it say that they saw this messenger, or did they just here a voice because it seems that Yehovah did not need an angel at 22:1.
Deuteronomy 4:12-15. John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; Revelation 4:1-4.
We can't just go by what a text says on the surface: surface structure and underlying meaning are not the same thing. We cannot just consider surface structure, then stop there. Language is composed of metaphors, idioms, and colloquialisms.
There have been many interpretations advanced for the verse about not seeing God: plenty of lit on the subject. But any interpretation needs to jibe with Deuteronomy 4.
As I said earlier, we have reason to believe that angels can be present without being mentioned. Jehovah has various ways of communicating and that includes dreams or inward utterances. It's likely that he always communicates indirectly to imperfect mortals. This he would speak through finite spirits.
3 times from Johannine texts only.
The verses from Deuteronomy do not tell us much at all.
If god speaks out of a fire does that make it an angel and not god?
https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.24.10?lang=bi&with=Rashi&lang2=en
So not all Jews see it the same way.
"It's likely that he always communicates indirectly to imperfect mortals. "
So are you implying that Yehovah did no speak directly to Moses?
Is exodus 33:11 implying communication through a messenger?
Deuteronomy is referring to Yehovah speaking to the whole nation, not to these specific individuals. In any case is does not say that they heard, but rather that they saw.
If it is a vision or a metaphor why does it specifically say:-
https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/24-11.htm
Not laying his hands on them?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvscxtck
https://www.gorgiaspress.com/seeing-the-god
https://www.academia.edu/251126/Old_Light_on_Moses_Shining_Face
In "Jesus As God," Murray J. Harris documents numerous statements in Judaism where authors claim no one can see God, and I believe that includes Philo. Granted, like other texts, Jewish opinion about the text has varied. However, you initially asked whether we have reason to think the men did not literally see God. My answer is yes, even if that position is debatable.
The verses from Deuteronomy tell us that it's unlikely the men actually saw God or his form. Are we to believe that Deut. 4:15-16 applies to every Israelite living then, except the men of Exod. 24:10-11? Moses said Israel "saw" no form of God at Horeb lest they become idolaters.
Do you have access to HALOT? I think it takes the position that Exod 24:10-11 is a vision.
BDB states that what the men apparently saw was a theophany, which is the position advanced by John Durham. He argues that the men never looked up, they never saw God's face, but were in a prostrate position beholding the concrete. They had a theophany but did not literally see God. Theophanies were normally fearful events.
From Rashi:
"He did not lay His hand: This indicates that they deserved that a hand be laid upon them."
"and they perceived God: They gazed at Him with levity, while [they were] eating and drinking. So is the [interpretation of] Midrash Tanchuma (Beha’alothecha 16). Onkelos, however, did not render [this clause] in this manner. אִצִילֵי means great ones, like [in the phrases:] 'and from its nobles (וּמֵאִצִילֶיהָ) I called you' (Isa. 41:9); 'and He magnified (וַיָּאצֶל) some of the spirit' (Num. 11:25); 'six large cubits (אַצִּילָה) ' (Ezek. 41:8)."
[END QUOTE]
I don't take Exod. 33:11 to be saying a messenger was required. If anything, I would say it indicates the opposite by the "face to face" language.
I'm not being dogmatic about Jehovah and Moses, but the early Christians seem to have believed that Jehovah did not even speak to Moses directly at Sinai/Horeb and possibly on other occasions.
At any rate, the angel of YHWH in Genesis seems pretty well defined, particularly in Gen. 16 & 22.
Robert Alter's comments from The Five Books of Moses:
And they saw the God of Israel. The boldness with which this immediate vision is stated is startling, especially against a biblical background in which humans repeatedly fear that they cannot see God and live (compare the next verse, “But against the elect of the Israelites He did not send forth His hand”). Such collective vision is reserved for this unique event. A symptom of how shocking this frank anthropomorphism could be is Onkelos’s evasive substitution in his Aramaic translation: “And they saw their sacrifices that had been accepted favorably as though they had eaten and drunk.” Pace Onkelos, the eating and drinking after the beholding (verse 11 employs a verb of visionary experience) are a communion feast enjoyed by the elders at God’s feet.
and beneath His feet was like a fashioning of sapphire pavement. Mere flesh and blood cannot long sustain the vision of God, and so the visual focus immediately slides down to the celestial brilliance beneath God’s feet. Even for this zone touched by the divine, direct linguistic reference is not possible, and so the writer uses a doubled simile—“like a fashioning of…,” “like the very heavens….”
In the previous footnote alter uses the term epiphany. The term vision has more than one meaning and he does not define.
"Language is composed of metaphors, idioms, and colloquialisms." - agreed, but how do we know when they are or are not being employed. Later texts like Ezekiel may be using similar terms on that basis but does that prove an initial usage had that thinking?
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/kemaaseh_4639.htm
Epiphany, as you know, comes from the Greek. What I'm calling a theophany--he's probably calling an "epiphany." Slight difference between the term; however, they could be fairly synonymous. See 2 Thess. 2:8. There are 6 occurrences in the GNT of epiphaneia--also used in 2 Maccabees.
Admittedly, vision has more than one definition: Alter might purposefully be vague.
My point was that Exod. 24:10-11 could be an idiomatic way of discussing a theophany or vision; it could be metaphorical too, depending on the context and other texts. I don't categorize the usage as a colloquialism: I was just pointing out why we can't just read the bare text and accept it at face value. The chief test for metaphor is now thought to be context. Idioms normally are established and appear with some regularity like they do in English: "that's par for the course" or "beat around the bush" or "a stitch in time saves nine." How do we know these are idioms, not to be taken at face value? Greek has many idioms too.
I'm not trying to make a connection with later texts. Remember that my initial post was about Genesis 22:15-16. :-)
https://frame-poythress.org/theophanies/
Theophanies
Well all I can say is, within the context of ch.22 Abraham hears a message two times from heaven but that does not account for his communication in verse 1.
Not on thread but related to Alter, an interesting dialogue:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dcWURgySyc
As an example:-
"The origin of the idiom 'beating around the bush' is associated with hunting. In medieval times, hunters hired men to beat the area around bushes with sticks in order to flush out game taking cover underneath."
So for the hunter, what was the meaning?
Whereas:-
"First recorded in 1732 as 'a stitch in time may save nine,' it is later found in 1797 as the more confident 'a stitch in time saves nine'. It comes from the literal meaning that sewing one stitch is easier than sewing nine stitches."
So it was never a precise description as a stitch in time may or may not save any number.
The way that scripture is normally written, we can't rule out an angelic messnger for Gen. 22:1, but the passage does not specifically tell us how God spoke to Abraham. At any rate, my point was that "angel" manifestly refers to spirit beings at times.
Again, my point about the English idioms is that they're idioms and we can't read them at the surface level only or we'll misunderstand their sense. An idiom can be defined as "the sum of the statement is greater than its parts." If anyone has ever tried to help somebody learn English, he/she knows that idioms are one of the most confusing tasks for such students. Learning Greek poses similar challenges due to the language's idioms.
One of my old flatmates from another country once told me that "It's par for the course" was one of the most confusing statements for him. If a person knows next to nothing about golf, I could imagine the confusion.
Despite their differences, I was trying to say that "stich in time" and "beating around the bush" are both established idioms.
There is also "Idioms in Biblical Hebrew" by CM Van Den Heever.
The works argues: "It will be possible to obtain the meaning of most of the idioms identified by referring to context, translations (ancient and modern), lexicons . . .," etc.
Additionally, "beating around the bush" was not an idiom for the hunters, but that is beside the point. Statements may later become idioms, but at first, they could be used literally (matter-of-factly). The idiom then becomes derivative on the "literal" utterance. Happens quite often.
Don't have a problem with any of that when you know you are dealing with an idiom.
I have pointed out before that angel does not necessarily = spirit being in every case. I am also not talking about a human messenger. What we have here is a voice.
Some biblical idioms seem debatable; however, others seem to be well established. NET Bible also has plenty of notes for Exodus 24:10-11 that deal with the vision issue. All this has helped me understand better why NWT uses "vision." As I said earlier, HALOT defines the language this way and BDB says it's a theophany. Here's Gesenius: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7200&t=KJV
Riddle me this. If the elders of Israel truly saw the God of Israel, then why does the account speak of God's feet and this mysterious pavement? It doesn't seem that God really has feet or a pavement beneath them: he's certainly not a mortal (Numbers 23:19) and he does not need a footstool. If anthropomorphic language is being used in this account, why take the seeing literally? Compare Ezekiel's account and Job, who spoke of seeing Jehovah with his eye. Why people insist on thinking men really saw God baffles me.
We agree that angel doesn't mean spirit in every case. No argument there.
Yes, there's a voice in Gen. 22:1, but that voice could be inner or outer. It doesn't have to be audible to the human ear. If audible, it doesn't have to be God directly speaking. I'm reminded of the bath qol.
Abraham wa sno ordinary man: he was a prophet, one of Jehovah's anointed.
See https://biblehub.com/topical/b/bath_kol.htm
There is still much to learn as the high priest was anointed but God spoke to/through moses.
Did you pick up the point in the paper regarding the horns of moses indicating the he was no longer an ordinary man? Like the discussion we had about who stands before who and what it indicates. This example also does not have to be about appearance.
My point about voice was really regarding when it does say angel, as per your post. Its still not tell us it is a secondary being. That it how many interpret it.
My statement about being "anointed," was with reference to Abraham. 1 Chronicles 16:22. But I acknowledge that Moses was not anointed with oil like Aaron was.
I've granted previously that Moses' face doesn't have to be about appearance, but the glowing view just seems most convincing to me personally. See Alter's remarks in his translation of Exodus 34.
First, I wanted to establish that the messenger was not human, if the voice came from heaven twice. Whether the angel is to be identified with YHWH or not is a separate issue. Of course, we know that angels worship YHWH in scripture: so in those cases, they can't be the same as God. They go forth doing his will and praise him. We have further evidence that the malak YHWH most certainly is portrayed as distinct from YHWH or at least, it's his doppelganger.
Judaism took the trouble to give the angels personal names: these increased as time went on. Saul Olyan's book about the angels is extremely valuable for this reason. Read also Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.
Worth finding out what alter thinks about Job 38:7. Not read his commentary but in interview he did not think it was talking about angels.
I posted these comments to the blog in the past, but maybe he changed them in his finished product of the Heb. Bible.
Here's Robert Alter's comments regarding Job 38:7:
when the morning stars sang together. The verb for singing, ron, is from the same root as renanah “glad song,” which Job (3:7) wished to expunge from the night he was conceived. The morning stars are also a counterpoint to the stars of dawn on the night of conception that Job wished never to appear. This splendid vision of the celestial beings joining in joyous song in celebration of creation is not intimated in other biblical accounts of how God created the world
[END QUOTE]
No mention of angels, just "celestial beings." Who does he think thse beings are?
Maybe this book will help: https://www.academia.edu/40370735/The_Art_of_Biblical_Poetry
See page 122ff of The Art of Biblical Poetry. It might shed light on the issue.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=TujOn209Ts8C&q=Devine+council#v=onepage&q=Celestial%20entourage&f=false
Pg 12, now in his book he does associate the "celestial entourage" with the angels. I am still trying to backtrack through all the lecture videos on YouTube but some one in a Q&A directly ask him the question - Does he think that they are angels and he directly says not. So he makes a demarkation between the celestial entourage or divine council and angels.
We have been through this before and I still maintain that a hierarchy of "angels" is not present in the OT. Angel(messenger) is a function of delivering information from God, not a being. A messenger may be a being by function but a being is not mandatory. If a divine being is not a messenger by function then I would not call them angel as far as the OT goes.
I'm not claiming that the OT/Tanakh sets out a hierarchy of angels per se, but it does seem to teach that spirit creatures exist and do the will of YHWH. This is a teaching of both Judaism and Christianity. Is there universal consensus? Certainly not. But the great mass of Jews and people in the church have assented to belief in angels.
How does a function worship and praise God or talk to him? How did a function give Jesus strength? There are cases in the Bible where angel must refer to a being, not to a function.
Okay, we can distinguish cherubs and seraphs from "angels" (spirit messengers), but even those beings identified as "angels" show indications of agency, intelligence, and relative autonomy. In any event, the Judeo-Christian tradition generally has seen fit to call all spirit beings "angels," whether they technically function as messengers or not.
I always liked this Hurtado article about angels
https://www.academia.edu/26460224/Monotheism_Principal_Angels_and_the_Background_of_Christology
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1464919?seq=1
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hCmeBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=persian+m%C4%93n%C5%8Dg&source=bl&ots=1TV5bXrlKW&sig=ACfU3U26fWPQLgtTBqQRCmKYYnXl4WbN2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiD8dmr-6noAhUMM8AKHdV6BDsQ6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=persian%20m%C4%93n%C5%8Dg&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zQNcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=persian+m%C4%93n%C5%8Dg&source=bl&ots=euG7aO8O8F&sig=ACfU3U1tW4l5cH5KrH74NQ2yByJc7f_cJw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiD8dmr-6noAhUMM8AKHdV6BDsQ6AEwBHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=persian%20m%C4%93n%C5%8Dg&f=false
I view it as a separate issue, but the evidence for Persian influence on Hebrew angelology is scanty at best. I've studied the question before and was surprised to find out the speculative nature of the whole enterprise
Is it something one would expect to find direct evidence for? This type of osmosis which is probably a two way street.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25183679?seq=1
Informative regarding osmosis.
From the historian's perspective, yes, one would expect to find some evidence for the exchange, development or growth/sharing of ideas. For example, we see evidence for Greco-Roman philosophy influencing the early church. Not only do we see evidence for these ideas, but the church fathers and later theologians admitted the influence.
While some argue for the influence running both ways or one way, I think about how counter-cultural movements interact with their respective milieus/Zeitgeisten. No matter what the prevailing Zeitgeist is, counter-cultural movements tend to resist being squeezed into their mold.
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. II:
According to Kuenen,2 as well as many other scholars, the Jews derived their view of angels especially from the Persians after the Babylonian exile. But this hypothesis is grossly exaggerated. In the first place, even Kuenen recognizes that belief in the existence and activity of superior beings was present in [preexilic] ancient Israel. In the second place, there is a big difference between the angelology of the canonical writings and that of Jewish folk religion. And finally, there is still so much uncertainty about the interrelationship between Judaism and Parsism that James Darmesteter in his work about the Zendavesta (1893) claimed, in opposition to the prevailing theory, that the Persian doctrine of angels was derived from Judaism.
Also see the paper by AS Sitali published in 2014. It's entitled "Jewish Monotheism."
Note the caution expressed in this paper: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1010-99192017000200010
https://www.academia.edu/1026516/Persian_influence_on_Daniel_and_Jewish_Apocalyptic_Literature
I still don't buy the Persian connection: if you read the sources I posted, you'll find critiques of the whole idea. See also https://books.google.com/books?id=r3BYCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=dobroruka+persian&source=bl&ots=iGitB1tiZi&sig=ACfU3U0jAEigfzF0smbW8p5a_iDqPRncnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKyrXB_6zoAhVrg-AKHRpFCx0Q6AEwCHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=dobroruka%20persian&f=false
Compare https://books.google.com/books?id=1cPeBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA364&lpg=PA364&dq=zoroastrian+and+jewish+angelology&source=bl&ots=1AL7cS_-1h&sig=ACfU3U35SFNt4ouNduG8GZ6jVtWxBaHICQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbw76Dg63oAhXkYN8KHdLkAPw4KBDoATAJegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=zoroastrian%20and%20jewish%20angelology&f=false
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiris#Tr
Aggelos.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiras_(sage)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiras_(sage)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiras_(sage)
Note, 7 of these.
https://dharmawiki.org/index.php/Angirasa_(%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%99%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%83)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SzLTWow0EgwC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Angira+rigveda+mediator&source=bl&ots=twJvt78m3q&sig=ACfU3U2CZPFrPXw9lZZFjA5qxbDRKb2B-w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUwMGiu7DoAhXcQxUIHQ4fA3AQ6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Angira%20rigveda%20mediator%20fire&f=false
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.859.7959&rep=rep1&type=pdf
In conclusion:-
"Although in recent years a lot of studies have been dedicated to the study of biblical imagery and the use of metaphor in particular, biblical scholarship could benefit from further investigation into this area."
I think here's a big difference between Hinduism and Judeo-Christianity. The notion of seven angels originated later in Judeo-Christian thought, but can we seriously draw a line between Hinduism and Judaism/Christianity in this respect?
What about the fact that Jainism has 24 Jinas/Thirtankaras and Revelation discusses 24 elders? Who would connect those two things?
Scholars have warned us about letting parallelomania run wild.
https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com/2016/05/parallelomania.html
tirthankaras
This is not parallelomania,t is progression. It looks like a linguistic connection exists between the indo European term and the Greek for angel and the function of intermediary seems the same along with the fire aspect and sacrifice. This is not a casual connection to the Greek. Not nessicarily to the Hebrew but it fore runs the Persian which we already know has links to northern India and Sanskrit. So I don't think Persia got much from the Jews.
Duncan, I only gave the warning about parallelomania if and only if you were trying to link Hinduism with Judeo-Christian angelology. I didn't necessarily say you were guilty of parallelomania.
I can believe that the linguistic connection is there because that's the case in many instances between Sanskrit and Greek or Latin--even when it comes to Greco-Roman deities. A linguistic connection doesn't establish a conceptual link, and eve if terms are cognate, their usages can play out in greatly divergent ways.
As this conversation started out, I still think it's speculative to argue for Jewish dependence on Persian ideas for the development of Jewish/Christian angelology.
Exodus 10:28 & Esther 4:11
Post a Comment