Looking at Genesis 28:11-12 again, it's funny how new details become salient each time and things become clearer with one more read. The word normally translated "ladder" (sullam) in that account could be rendered "stairway" or ramp. Moreover, the ladder/stairway could have been made from stone steps.
Another important detail is that Jehovah (YHWH) possibly was at the top of the ladder on which angels ascended and descended (Genesis 28:13) or others understand the text to say YHWH was beside Jacob. The Hebrew allows for different renderings, but I still have my reservations about the idea that Jacob beheld a heavenly sanctuary at the top of the ladder. Of course, he was having a dream/vision, which is another thing to keep in mind.
62 comments:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/leithart/2015/09/ascending-and-descending/
Brenton LXX 12 and dreamed, and behold a ladder fixed on the earth, whose top reached to heaven, and the angels of God >>ascended and descended<< on it.
https://www.academia.edu/103043412/Going_Up_and_Going_Down_A_Key_to_Interpreting_Jacobs_Dream_Gen_28_1022_?rhid=28970304496&swp=rr-rw-wc-14439344
Does the word really have any theological implications- don’t they all essentially mean the same thing?
Some might find theological significance in the potential meanings, but my concern with these verses is chiefly philological. Of course, there are different shades of meaning between ladder, stairway and ramp--plus some perceive sanctuary overtones and other themes in the account.
Comes back to - what are angels? At least in this instance.
In that this might be making something out of nothing - https://www.logos.com/grow/sons-of-israel-or-sons-of-god-in-deuteronomy-32-8-9/
Duncan, I was more focused on sullam than the angels, but I wouldn't be surprised if the scholarly consensus is that the angels here are spirit creatures. Otherwise, one might have to posit human messengers ascending and descending from above.
See https://www.academia.edu/14025406/A_Narrative_Analysis_of_Genesis_28_10_22?hb-sb-sw=35695175
https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Genesis.28.12.1?lang=bi
John 1:51
As a philological discussion I would not have thought that GJohn or Rashi have any real bearing on the conclusions.
Also, if we are looking at John 1:51, which doe not really tell us anything on its own, let's not forget John 1:30.
The paragraph on page 5 of that paper basically side steps the issue of ascending coming before descending and is still highly ambiguous as to what "angel" signifies other than to mention god's involvement, that I have no problem with.
I don't really think any discussion on philology has much point if we are just going to say what the current consensus is. Why bother?
Matthew 28:2 don't angels descend first?
John ch.3:30,31NKJV"He must become greater; I must become less.” h
31The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all."
John ch 3:13NKJV"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. e "
John ch.8:23NKJV"But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world."
My comment about philology was referring the sullam, which was supposed to be the main focus of this post. I did not put the emphasis on angels.
GJohn 1:51 is probably an allusion to Gen. 28 and Rashi, like many others, thinks the angels in the verse are spirit beings.
Servant, so was John the dipper from heaven too?
Servant, John ch 3:13 - so you think this is taking about time coming from a place called "heaven" as opposed to coming from god.
https://biblehub.com/text/john/18-36.htm
Note that unlike the NIV there is no mention of "place".
Sullam and the ascension to "mount" Zion. Most likely steps or path. Not ladder.
JPS - He had a dream; a stairway *stairway Or “ramp”; others “ladder.” Heb. sullam. was set on the ground and its top reached to the sky, and messengers of God were going up and down on it.
Jesus would not be unique in simply coming from God. All men Come from God. Jesus was talking about something that distinguished him from every other man that has ever lived including the first Adam.
Rashi - עלים וירדים ASCENDING AND DESCENDING — It states first ascending and afterwards descending! Those angels who accompanied him in the land of Israel were not permitted to leave the Land: they ascended to Heaven and angels which were to minister outside the Land descended to accompany him (Genesis Rabbah 68:12).
A little confused but he recognises the problem in the text.
What did John say about himself that would warrant the conclusion that he taught he was from heaven?
Matthew ch.11:11NKJV"“Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
A number of interesting points are brought out in this article concerning sullam and angels, including Rashi's perspective: https://www.thetorah.com/article/jacobs-dream-why-do-gods-angels-ascend-and-descend
Servant - "What did John say about himself that would warrant the conclusion that he taught he was from heaven?"
Nothing.
And that is my point when on looks at John 1:30. Coming before John 1:51 and jesus first miracle of note.
The benchmark for coming from heaven/god? - John 10:41
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_God#:~:text=Moses%20is%20the%20only%20person,(Leviticus%20Rabbah%201%3A1)
https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/0195161238/studentresources/chapter6/#:~:text=Matthew%20uses%20%22fulfillment%20citations%22%20to,give%20the%20(new)%20law.
Search moses.
https://honorscollege.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/YDG-Final.pdf#page=16
Preexistence and GJohn.
See also https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Jv-AEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT39&dq=John+1:30+preexistence&ots=gg2o0nxF7u&sig=1JpnVADz9fsgZuoSMODJ0jYmgrc#v=onepage&q=John%201%3A30%20preexistence&f=false
See C. Westermann for some incisive remarks about sullam (Genesis 12-36 in the Continental Commentary). He makes this additional point about "angels" in Genesis 28:11-12:
"It is essential that the stairway linking heaven and earth in Jacob's dream is set (Jl~) in the ground at the place where he is sleeping, thereby making him aware that it is a holy place. The second part, also beginning with :1l:1, says nothing new but explains the function of the stairway more clearly by the vision that Jacob has of the ':JN7~ C':17N going up and down on it. These are heavenly beings, sharply distinct from the singular :1,:1' 'N7~ but like the C':17N 'lJ of Job 1:6; 2: I, who by means of
their ascent and descent underscore the link between heaven and earth already described by the stairway. Heavenly beings are also present in Is. 6 in connection with God enthroned in his sanctuary."
Sorry that the Hebrew characters don't show clearly.
Lol - the red dragon, are you kidding?
It's not even the original Welsh publication.
I see it includes then appeal to Ehrman fallacy (like he is the goto expert).
Is that the only place it could get published?
Contextually this whole John 8:58 argument is no longer tenable as the context shows it to be demonstrably false. John may have a misunderstanding motif but that is for the Jews NOT Jesus.
Let him keep promoting commonality for all of the gospels. More fuel for the mid second century group authorship.
Duncan, I love how you go for the trees instead of the forest. 😁
Plus you totally ignore Westermann.
Last I checked, I did not favor the Trinitarian John 8:58 argument. So we agree there.
Westermann is just another opinion to which I disagree based on the overall context.
John 17:5 - "and now glorify me You Father alongside you to that glory I had before the the world to be alongside you"
You go ahead and keep arguing that John 1:30 is temporal.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm#:~:text=The%20first%20known%20Gospel%20commentary,Biblical%20exegetes%20of%20his%20day.
It could refer to temporal precedence or superiority of position or to both. John evidently means above and again when he uses anothen in chapter 3.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/48f8a22328fd972d4901acb5f88a9e52/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y
John 1:51 and Genesis 28:12-doctoral dissertation.
If the second Adam's human origin was his only origin then his origin would not be exceptional . Indeed the first Adam's origin would be the exceptional origin and he would more fittingly be worthy of the title of monogenes, or of descending from heaven if an an exceptional human origin is all that is being alluded to by those terms.
I am not going to spend to much time on this. "Although the direct phrase “the angels ascending and descending” is not used," and I think I already referenced revelation with descending angels. Incidentally, where does jesus say - "I am the son of man"?
First Corinthians 15:42-47
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: [15:42] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: [15:43] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. [15:44] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. [15:45] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. [15:46] The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. [15:47]
Epiphanius quotes from most of v. 15:42, altough he uses the plural:
(e) But it will be ended entirely after "the resurrection of the dead," since “They are sown in corruption, they are raised in incorruption,” doing evil no longer, dying no longer. (Elenchus 3 and 11)
Tertullian also quotes from v. 15:42, followed by v. 15:43-46
"So also," says he, "is the resurrection of the dead." ... because "it is sown in corruption," (but "is raised) to honour and power." Likewise, "although it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." ... as he says further down, "That was not first which is spiritual." For to this effect he just before remarked of Christ Himself: "The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
Tertullian then notes that Marcion had altered v. 15:45:
Our heretic, however, in the excess of his folly, being unwilling that the statement should remain in this shape, altered "last Adam" into "last Lord;" because he feared, of course, that if he allowed the Lord to be the last (or second) Adam, we should contend that Christ, being the second Adam, must needs belong to that God who owned also the first Adam.
He continues with references to v. 15:47:
In like manner (the heretic) will be refuted also with the word "man:" "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." ... It is, however, quite enough for me, that in his Gospel he admits the Son of man to be both Christ and Man; so that he will not be able to deny Him (in this passage), in the "Adam" and the "man" (of the apostle).
BeDuhn reports that in v. 15:45 Adamantius confirms the reading in the Apostolicon, and then states: "P46 likewise omits 'Adam' in this clause, but does not have 'Master' instead. Cf. 15.47 for a parallelism in phraseology"
See https://www.jstor.org/stable/43712003
However any on can argue anyway they like regarding P46. A proof manuscript when it suits or evidence of a corruption, even though they have ho earlier witness to back that up.
Oh, so Jesus now has to say "I am the Son of Man" for us to know that he meant himself? Such language is not necessary for us to realize that Jesus identified himself as the Son of Man: just check the NT references where the title is used. For instance, Mark 2:9-11: "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.”
Compare Matthew 20:28.
I guess Jesus was talking about some other guy in Matthew 26:2 :-)
The resurrection would be an ascending not a descending, first he descends then he ascends. He is not unique in his descent if his descent refers to human origin. The first Adam and his spouse were the only two people who were not born of a woman. Secondly his resurrection was to superhuman perfection, he descended to a status beneath the angels,but he ascended to a status above them,
Hebrews ch.2:9NKJV"But we see Jesus, who was made [f]a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone."
For the death he died to be truly substitutionary it must be permanent re:his humanity the wages of sin is a permanent death not death for three days, or Lazarus's death for parts of four days would be sufficient to redeem him from sin.
The human Christ is permanently dead,the superhuman/transhuman Christ lives forever.
Galatians ch.1:1NKJV"Paul, an apostle (NOT from MEN nor through MAN, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), "
So, who then is "like a son of man", Daniels term usually associated with "angels"?
https://www.dburnett.com/?p=814
Put another way - John 14:12
https://brentnongbri.com/2022/06/19/a-new-article-on-the-contents-of-p46/
"The resurrection would be an ascending not a descending" - ?????
I am not going into what Hebrews and Galatians have to say. That's a whole other discussion.
https://brentnongbri.com/2022/07/15/a-model-of-p46/
Duncan, the article you posted from Burnett does not necessarily exclude Jesus from being the "new temple" or the Son of Man. Numerous passages in the NT would make little to no sense if one took the position that Jesus is not being identified as the Son of Man in the Gospels.
Verses that mean ! in one context can mean B in another. For example, Habakkuk 1:5-6 originally applied to the Babylonians, but Paul applies the text to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This kind of thing happens often throughout the history of Judeo-Christianity.
John 16:28
Things also don't have to be either/or. Son of Man can apply to more than one entity. Secondly, NT scholars are not sure what informed the SOM sayings in the Gospels; Daniel is the most likely source, but some think Ezekiel or 1 Enoch backgrounds the sayings.
The point is that nothing discussed in the scriptures you highlighted would be unique to him if his human origin was his total origin. Not his being born without a human father,not his sinless state upon entering the world as a human being not even his resurrection to superhuman perfection,would be unique to him.
Servant, I will no go any further with the things I could say, You would not like it.
I know you reject the authority of scripture so I've come to expect pretty much any contrivance from you, I neither like nor dislike your unfounded claims,they are what they are.
Post a Comment