Dates for Some of Tertullian's Works (According to FL Cross)

From F. L. Cross, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Penguin, 1993), 141-142.

1. Adversus Marcionem (circa 208-211 CE)

2. Adversus Hermogenem (circa 200 CE)

3. De Carne Christi (210-213 CE)

4. De Carnis Resurrectione (210-212 CE)

What Does the Hebrew Word "Azazel" Mean?

See http://books.google.com/books?id=7Vh1Ozo3QHMC&pg=PA126&dq=leviticus+16+azazel&cd=1#v=onepage&q=leviticus%2016%20azazel&f=false

Clicking on the title will also take you to the relevant Google Books page.

Regards,

Edgar

PROS in John 1:1b and Divine Personhood

Knowing that PROS implies "being with" or "toward" or even in proximate communion with someone else, certain theologians have tried to explain Jn 1:1b-c by resorting to a priori categories of person and substance. However, John McKenzie has pointed out that John did not differentiate between the divine substance and divine Persons who are identical with the divine substance. John simply used QEOS to describe the Being he identified as the only true God (John 17:3). This Being is distinct from the man who was called Jesus Christ on earth, and He is also set apart from the LOGOS who was with the only true God before the world was (John 17:5).

The problem that has not been satisfactorily addressed by Trinitarian theology accordingly involves in what sense the Son and Spirit are Persons. To be sure, theologians have endeavored to cut the Gordian knot of this troublesome antinomy. Nevertheless, not one thinker has satisfactorily explained how Persons who are not Persons in the Cartesian sense (COGITO ERGO SUM) can subsist with (PROS) one another
and enjoy meaningful communion or love one another.

G. R. B. Murray says that PROS TON QEON (Jn 1:1b) means: "in the presence of God" or "in the fellowship of God." He probably is suggesting that God the Son communed with God the Father. B.M Newman and E.A. Nida reject the "in the presence of God" understanding for this construction and opt for the notion of "a kind of interactive reciprocality between the Word and God."

None of these explanations make sense to me within the context of a non-social Trinity doctrine. Of course, if one posits a social Trinity, then tritheism must be avoided or the idea that there are three "I thinks" within God. Trinitarians, please don't multiply antinomies beyond necessity. With apologies to Ockham!

Best,
Edgar

Another Response to Philippians 2:6-7 Questions

Some years ago, this question came my way:

The second question is in reference to Philippians 2:6-8. You seem to follow the standard approach of the kenosis happening in eternity past or at least at the time of Jesus' birth. Is there anything in the text itself which requires the emptying of Jesus to be then? There is only one time specific reference in the whole passage, as I see it, and that is the reference to Jesus' death. Is it not possible for the emptying to have taken place in the Garden of Gethsemane or even on the cross (stake)?

My response:

I personally think that it is possible Paul could have been referring to the Christ Event [Jesus becoming human] or to the death of Jesus when he spoke of the Messiah emptying himself. But I do not find that interpretation [i.e. the death of Jesus representing his emptying] as compelling for the following reasons.

(1) Phil. 2:5-11 seems to be modeled after Isa. 52-53, where we read about the preexistent Messiah (the Suffering Servant of YHWH) who humbles himself and is subsequently exalted. See L. Gregory Bloomquist's excellent and detailed treatment of Phil. 2:5-11 in The Function of Suffering in Philippians (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 160-168.

(2) EN MORFH QEOU appears to be a dative of indirect object that describes "an exalted heavenly figure very close to God," but not one who possesses absolute divinity (Osiek, Carolyn. Philippians, Philemon. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000). See page 60. Furthermore, "This interpretation is enhanced by the rest of verse 6: he did not consider it a hARPAGMOS, something to be seized or exploited, to be ISA QEWi, equal or of equal status to God" (Osiek 60). The semantic value of MORFH in relation to QEOU may also strengthen the connection with preexistence. [That is, the term probably means "external appearance" or "shape." I.e., the Son appears to reflect the divine glory in his preexistence.]

(3) EN MORFH DOULOU seems to be contrasted with EN MORFH DOULOU. EN MORFH DOULOU appears to juxtapose Christ's earthly mode of being with his heavenly heavenly manner of existence.

(4) Phil 2:5-11 also appears to bear some resemblance
to Col 1:15-16 and Heb 1 & 2 as well as Jn 1:1-18,
which also speak to Christ's pre-existence and his
katabasis as well as his subsequent anabasis.
Moreover, the katabasis/anabasis themes in Second
Temple Judaism normally involve a heavenly figure
becoming human (e.g., the Son of Man).

But, I will concede that the text could be read in the
way that you suggest. I just do not think that is a
likely reading when one considers all of the relevant
exegetical factors, however.

Best regards,
Edgar

More on hARPAGMOS (Philippians 2:6-7)

The following is taken from my book Christology and the Trinity:

To attribute a passive sense to harpagmos appears to be unwarranted. Exploring this issue further before coming to any definite conclusions, however, we will note the exegesis of Moises Silva:

The ambiguous phrase in v. 6, [ouch harpagmon hegesato], has created a literature far more extensive than it probably deserves. In particular, one is impressed by the futility of trying to reach a decision regarding Jesus' preexistence and deity on the basis of whether harpagmon has an active meaning or a passive meaning . . . if one opts for the passive idea, is the nuance positive ("windfall, advantage") or negative ("booty, prize")? Further, if it carries a negative nuance, we must decide whether it speaks of a thing already possessed, which one is tempted to hold on to . . . or a thing not possessed, which one may be tempted to snatch. (Silva 117)

In the end, Silva concludes that a sense of retaining may be the most likely meaning of harpagmos in Philippians 2:6ff. But he is forced to admit that such a conclusion is uncertain and not central to the "hymn" of Philippians 2:6-11 (117). Furthermore, he adds that the few instances of harpagmos outside of Christian literature are all active and not passive (as is the case with harpagma). Consulting Abbott-Smith also reveals that "there is certainly a presumption in favour of the active meaning here" since the apostle does not use the LXX form harpagma. Paul thus speaks of an act of seizing: not a thing seized or a prize (A-S 60).

Though being a firm advocate of Trinitarianism, Greek Professor Daniel B. Wallace also openly admits that while it may be theologically "attractive" to construe harpagmos as having a passive sense (in Phil. 2:6), "it is not satisfactory" (Wallace 634). Wallace convincingly demonstrates that we must interpret the verse in the light of the phrase heauton ekenosen. He concludes that the only translation harmonious with Philippians 2:7 is "a thing to be grasped" (an active meaning for harpagmos). We can thus see that an objective look at the usage of harpagmos in the NT leads one to conclude that harpagmos in Phil 2:6 evidently carries the active meaning of snatching (i.e., a usurpation). This apostolic passage therefore appears to be affirming the fact that Jesus did not aspire to equality with God. To the contrary, completely antithetical to the first Adam, the one who existed en morphe theou contentedly subjected himself to his Father in heaven: "What Christ emptied himself of was his right to be served, his privileged position as the Son of God, and his visible glory [morphe] by taking the form of a slave" (Wannamaker 188).

Notes on Philippians 2:6-7 (MORFH, Participles, etc)

From the first century, the evidence is overwhelming that μορφή denoted the outward shape or form of an entity. LSJ (a Classical Greek resource) provides examples of how μορφή meant "shape" or "form" in Homer and Plato. Homer uses the word to signify "beauty, grace" (Cunliffe), and even in Aristotle, we may find the meaning "form or shape."

Richard R. Melick Jr (NA Commentary on Philippians, Colossians and Philemon) points out that ὑπάρχω once meant "to exist originally." However, the term later came to signify "really exist" (102). BDAG contains pretty much the same information. It just adds that ὑπάρχω eventually became a "widely used substitute" for εἶναι in Hellenistic Greek "[with] a predicate noun." Moreover, ὑπάρχω occurs quite frequently "in the [participle with] a predicate noun."

I would say that ἁρπαγμὸν carries an active sense in Philippians: better to understand it as "grasping" or "snatching." But see BDAG under ἁρπαγμός and ὑπάρχω.

Keep in mind that words change in time. So while etymologically, ὑπάρχω may have (at one time) meant "under beginning," it eventually came to denote "existence."

I might just add that there is a debate in Biblical scholarship over whether ἁρπαγμός/ἁρπαγμὸν is passive or active (RES RAPTA vs. RES RAPIENDA) in Philippians. If it is active, it would probably imply grasping after that which one does not already possess. The word may also imply a violent seizure (as in a robbery) though it does not necessarily refer to the act of robbery at all times.

(1) Remember that ὑπάρχων is probably a concessive participle in 2:6. So you might render it as "although he was existing" or something to that effect.

(2) ὑπάρχω, by NT times, does not simply refer to a beginning or coming to be.

(3) Although μορφή is anarthous, I would be inclined to definitize "external appearance" since there is only one form of God.

(4) The phrase "taking by force an equality with God" might also be a little awkward. Maybe you should construe ἁρπαγμὸν as a direct object (i.e., he did not consider "a seizure" or "snatching").

See http://www.thegoodbookblog.com/2012/sep/11/in-the-form-of-god-phil-26/

The phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ presents the first crux in our passage. Μορφή (here dat. sg. fem.) is best trs. “form” (most EVV; BDAG 659c). The NIV’s “in very nature God” (“truly God” [CEV]; “God” [NLT]; “possessed of the very nature of God” [H-M 114]) constitutes an interpretation that is neither well supported by the usage of the term in HGk. nor particularly suitable to the surrounding context. Although the term can be used substantially (Plato Phaed. 103e; Resp. 381c; Aristotle Met. 11.1060b; Phys. 2.1.193b; Plut. Quaest. plat. 1003b; Def. orac. 429a; Philo Spec. 1.327–28), there is no semantic component in μορφή that necessarily involves a corresponding “nature” (NIV) or ontology (pace Fee 204; H-M 114). The great majority of instances where μορφή and its cognates occur in HGk. mean simply “outward appearance” (Dan Fabricatore, Form of God, Form of a Servant: An Examination of the Greek Noun μορφή in Philippians 2:6-7 [University Press of America, 2009]; “form, outward appearance, shape” [BDAG 659c]; that “which may be perceived by the senses” [J. Behm, TDNT 4:745-46]).

The comments from the linked blog have been written by J. Hellerman.

Tertullian's Use of the Latin Term "Substantia"

(1) Aristotle makes a distinction between PRIMA SUBSTANTIA and SECUNDA SUBSTANTIA. Think of the former as an individual substance (i.e. a dog, cat or lamb) and the latter as a reference to an essential classification of being (i.e. essences). However, as Joshua Hoffman and Gary S. Rosenkrantz point out in The Divine Attributes (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), pages 23-24, it is probably more accurate to think of Aristotle's developed theory of SUBSTANTIA as a delineation of form and matter.

(2) Tertullian's use of SUBSTANTIA in Adversus Praxean is fraught with many conceptual difficulties. Harnack proposed juristic definitions for SUBSTANTIA and PERSONA that have pretty much been rejected by modern scholars. One of the best studies I consulted for my M.Th. thesis was George Stead's "Divine Substance in Tertullian," JTS N.S. 14 (1963): 44-66. Another writer who addresses Tertullian's use of SUBSTANTIA is Eric Osborn. See Tertullian: First Great Theologian of the West (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003). In my thesis, I argued (based on Tertullian's De Anima 32) that the apologist utilizes SUBSTANTIA vis-a-vis the Godhead to mean "a concrete particular." That is to say, Tertullian is primarily conscripting the Stoic notion of SUBSTANTIA, as opposed to the Aristotelian concept of PRIMA or SECUNDA SUBSTANTIA. Stuart G. Hall writes that Tertullian uses "substance" (in the context of Adversus Praxean) to mean "a being." See his study Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).

My thesis later became the book Angelomorphic Christology and the Exegesis of Psalm 8:5 in Tertullian's Adversus Praxean. I hope that it contributes to an understanding of Tertullian's use of substantia, among other things.

The NIV Rendering of Luke 18:14

Luke 18:14 (NIV) reads: "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God" rather than the wording "justified by God."

But knowledge of the NIV's theological orientation suggests that the NIV is not trying to say the tax collector was proved righteous by his actions. With all due respect, I believe that the NIV is trying to convey the idea that God (as the implicit agent of the verb DEDIKAIWMENOS) justified the tax collector. I also checked my commentary on Luke written by Alfred Plummer and he writes concerning the Greek wording KATEBH hOUTOS DEDIKAIWMENOS: " 'This despised man went down justified in the sight of God,' i.e. 'accounted as righteous, accepted'" (see p. 419).

Studying this verse has also helped me to understand what the NWT is doing in Luke 18:14: it is treating DEDIKAIWMENOS as a passive used reflexively whereas other translations appear to be treating it as a passive simpliciter. The comparison of the passage in Luke with Genesis 44:16 and Revelation 22:11 is interesting. The KJV and the NWT both render Genesis 44:16 in a way that suggests the brothers of Joseph want to know how they might justify themselves or prove themselves righteous. But see BDAG for Genesis 44:16 and Luke 18:14.

I have no real problem with the NWT rendering. However, it helps to review translational possibilities for this verse.

Translating Greek (2 Corinthians 3:16-17)

There is hardly one way that a text must be understood in Greek. There are usually numerous options given to one who translates ancient Greek. For example, A.T. Robertson (in his big grammar) argues that both substantives (κύριος and πνεῦμα) in 2 Cor 3:17 are definite and interchangeable. He bases his remarks on the fact that the subject and predicate in this passage both have the definite article. However, as Maximilian Zerwick says concerning the way he understands 2 Cor 3:17, that is only one interpretation of this construction.

Zerwick thinks that both articles in 2 Cor 3:17 are anaphorical, speaking of that which precedes rather than what follows. Therefore, he views ὁ δὲ κύριος as continuing the thought expressed in 2 Cor 3:16, whereas τὸ πνεῦμά references the spirit mentioned in the preceding context. But he notes that this is one way of many to interpret the Bible verse. See section 169 of Zerwick's Biblical Greek.

Petr Pokorny on Colossians 1:16

"This is a confession-like formula that describes in good Jewish fashion the one God as the only creator, but who, from the Christian perspective, created everything through Jesus Christ. The purpose of the accumulation of prepositions, which is elsewhere documented as a linguistic phenomenon accompanying Stoic pantheism, is to emphasize creation's total dependence upon the creator, whose purpose Jesus Christ represents. Since God the Father is the initiator of creation, the preposition 'from' is not used here. Otherwise it is difficult to distinguish the functions of the various prepositions from one another. They, as a whole, are to have a cumulative effect. 'In' (instrumental EN) and 'through' mean almost the same thing; only the phrase 'for him' is capable of pointing to the eschatological goal of creation (cf. Rom. 11:36)."

See Pokorny, Colossians: A Commentary. Trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), p. 78-79.

Questions on the Gospel of John

A reader poses these questions. If anyone can provide some helpful input, it would be appreciated. I'll try to do the same. She writes:

Can anyone answer these questions for me please. Thanks

What was it that Jesus had said or done that caused the Pharisees to say that He was claiming to be God in John 10:33?

What was it about what Jesus said in John 8:58 that caused the Pharisees to want to kill Him?

From the New World Translation perspective, what is it about saying, "I have been" (John 8:58) that would motivate the Jews to want to kill Jesus?

Do we see any prior account of anyone in the Bible being killed for claiming to pre-exist if Jesus was merely claiming pre-existence?

Could you please explain what it was the Pharisees misunderstood and what they were misunderstanding to cause them to say what they did about Jesus' claim?

Jane
sorry for choosing anon but i do have a facebook account

DIA in Colossians 1:15-17 Rather Than hUPO

One of my favorite books is Emil Brunner's Dogmatics (Volume I) entitled "The Christian Doctrine of God."
On page 308 of his work, Brunner writes concerning Colossians 1:15-17:

"In this connexion the truth which we have already seen acquires new significance, that the world, it is true, was created THROUGH--DIA--the Son, but not BY--hUPO--the Son, that it has been created IN Him and UNTO Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator. It has pleased God the Creator to create the world in the Son, through the Son, and unto the Son. The fact that between the Creator and the Creation there stands the Mediator of creation means that the world is an act of the freedom of God, that it does not proceed from the Logos."

While Brunner thinks that the Son of God is "eternal," he does not reason that Christ is ever called "Creator" in Scripture. He argues that the LOGOS is the mediate agent of creation or the one through whom God brings forth the KOSMOS. But the Son is never referred to as Creator in Scripture. Furthermore, not only does the apostle Paul describe the role of the LOGOS in passive verbal terms at Col 1:15-17--he does not employ hUPO to delineate the LOGOS' office vis-à-vis creation.

Brunner insists the Greek preposition hUPO demonstrates that Christ is not being identified as the Creator in Col 1:15-17. I concur with his assessment and suggest that a comprehensive study of Greek literature will support this specific point. If Paul had wanted to identify Jesus as the Creator in Col 1:15-17, it seems that he would have employed hUPO instead of DIA.

Kermit Titrud on the Granville Sharp Rule

Hi everyone,

Based on Rev. 2:8, Kermit Titrud offers the following "modification" to the
Granville Sharp rule:

"If two substantives are connected by KAI and both have an article, they refer to two different persons or things unless the immediate or even broader context strongly suggests that they refer to the same person or thing [Rev. 2:8; 2:26]. In this case, we are to understand that different aspects of that which is being described are being stressed. If the first substantive has an article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person or thing as the first unless the context suggests otherwise. In this case, we should understand that they are being considered as a unit in some sense. (This could also be applied to a series of three or more.)" (Titrud's article is found in D.A. Black's (Ed.) Linguistics and NT Interpretation pp. 249-250).

Although he modifies Sharp's rule thus, Titrud still believes that 2 Pet. 1:1 identifies Jesus as God (even though the context suggests otherwise!). Interesting indeed.

Best regards,

Edgar

Was Justin Martyr in Ephesus?

Greetings,

Some have wondered whether Justin Martyr was ever in
Ephesus. Testimony concerning this matter is given by
Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History 4.18.6:

"He [Justin] composed also a dialogue against the
Jews, which he held in the city of Ephesus with
Trypho, a most distinguished man among the Hebrews of
that day. In it he shows how the divine grace urged
him on to the doctrine of the faith, and with what
earnestness he had formerly pursued philosophical
studies, and how ardent a search he had made for the
truth."

Was Clement of Rome a Trinitarian?

An Interlocutor once wrote:

'Saint Clement of Rome and his Letter to the
Corinthians [c. 80-96 AD]: “The Apostles received
the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and
Jesus Christ was sent from God…they went forth in
the complete assurance of the Holy Spirit…Do we not
have one God, one Christ, and one Holy Spirit poured
out upon us?...For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus
Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit…”. Clearly, in
the mind of Clement there is a firm conviction of the
distinction of Persons, and yet the interrelatedness
of each of these 3 Persons'

My Reply:

One thing that is "clear" from reading this electronic
submission is that the person who wrote this piece
allows his/her biases to shine forth distinctly. The
comments from Clement of Rome do not demonstrate his
belief in a triune or tripersonal God. Granted, he may
refer to God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. But mere
mention of these ascriptive designata does not prove
that Clement is a trinitarian qua trinitarian.
Moreover, notice that he speaks of "God," Christ and
the Holy Spirit. He does not use language such as God
the Son or God the Holy Spirit. For Clement of Rome,
the Father is the one true God (i.e. the maximally
excellent being).

JND Kelly analyzes a number of early church writers to
ascertain their perspectives on the divine triad in
his magisterial _Early Christian Doctrines_.
Concerning Clement of Rome, Kelly notes that "little
can be gleaned from the first" of the Apostolic
Fathers (page 90). Then, after he alludes to a few
passages found in Clement's work, he writes: "The Holy
Spirit Clement regarded as inspiring God's prophets in
all ages, as much the Old Testament writers as
himself. But of the problem of the relation of the
Three to each other he seems to have been oblivious"
(page 91). Hence, according to this authority, Clement
is not concerned with how the Three Persons relate one
to another. Little pertaining to the Trinity can be
gleaned from his work.

While Edmund Fortman thinks the divinity of Christ and
the Holy Spirit are "implied" in Clemens Romanus and
that there is a "clear trace of trinitarian belief" in
1 Clement, he concludes nonetheless:

"There is, however, no stress on the three. The stress
is on Christ, and only rarely are the three mentioned
together. There is obviously no doctrine of the
Trinity, no explicit affirmation of the divinity of
the Son and Holy Spirit but only an echo of the data
of Scripture" (_The Triune God_, page 38).

Notice that neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit are
called QEOS by Clement. Rather, the relationship
between God and His Son is delineated thus:

1 Clement 42:1:

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord
Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God."

1 Clement 42:2:

"So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from
Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the
appointed order."

How Long Was Christ in the Tomb?

The following quote is taken from Albert A. Bell Jr.'s
Exploring the New Testament World (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 13-14:

"Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church
of God and Ambassador College and publisher of the
Plain Truth magazine, argued that Jesus could not have
been crucified on Friday and resurrected on Sunday
because three days won't fit between Friday and
Sunday. Any grade-school child can see that his
arithmetic makes sense. Given the way we count, from
Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is a day and a
half, at most. But not if you count like Jesus and the
Romans did. They lacked a zero in their mathematical
systems: the zero was not used as a numeral until the
early seventh century A.D., by an Indian mathematician
named Brahmagupta (cf. 1.85:69-72). Without a zero,
the Jews and Romans counted the day on which something
occurred as the first day. In Luke 13:32, Jesus counts
in exactly this fashion: 'Listen, I am casting out
demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on
the third day I finish my work.' Furthermore,
a portion of a day was counted as a whole day.
So, if Jesus spent any part of a day in the
tomb, it would count as a full day. He was placed in
the tomb before sunset on Friday, and the day began on
sunset. Thus, by the counting system in use in New
Testament times, Friday was the first day, Saturday
the second, and Sunday--which began at sundown on
Saturday--was the third, no matter how small a part of
each day Jesus was in the tomb."

Regards,
Edgar

Pauline PERIODOI

Hi everyone,

The long sentences that sometime appear in the Apostle Paul's letters is one reason that I am led to believe that he intentionally employs rhetorical devices in his theopneustic missives. For instance, long "sentences" in Greek are called PERIODOI. Rhetoricians and orators use them liberally in Classical treatises. Aristotle also provides explicit details on PERIODOI in his famed work, _Rhetoric_.

Richard A. Lanham (_A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms_, pages 112-113) discusses Classical and Renaissance views on periodic sentences. He notes that there are two kinds of periodic sentences (per Quintilian), namely, structured and unstructured types. We usually find PERIODOI that are more loosely structured in dialogues and letters. This could well explain why Paul's epistles often contain protracted SENTENTIAE.

According to Aristotle, PERIODOI must contain whole thoughts and avoid being too short or too long. The usual parts of a PERIOD are called COLA. That is because the colon is the basic constituent of a PERIOD. Lanham has much to say about the PERIOD that is of interest. I particularly like Cicero's remark that a PERIOD must not be longer than "four iambic trimeters." I'm sure that you poetry buffs will immediately apprehend the gist of Tully's thought.

Finally, the reason for a PERIOD is to suspend syntax. In other words, a reader doesn't know the writer's complete thought until he/she arrives at the end of the PERIOD.

A Little More on Michael the Archangel

"Not only did several of the references to angels in the Shepherd evidently mean the preexistent Christ, but Christ was also identified with the archangel Michael, 'who has the power over this people and is their captain. For this is he that puts the law into the hearts of believers'" (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 1:183).

Pelikan is quoting from Similitudes 8.3.3.

"The counterpart to this is afforded by an identification of Christ with the archangel Michael, an identification which is made in the Shepherd of Hermas, if not in a wholly consistent manner (Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, 135).

"In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy', and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael . . . There is evidence also, as we observed in the preceding paragraph, of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel; here the influence of Jewish angelology is discernible" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 95).

Cardinal Jean Danielou on the Identification of Michael in the Shepherd

The late Cardinal Jean Danielou was known as one of the foremost authorities on the ante-Nicene fathers. His landmark study of Greek, Jewish and Latin Christianity--while being justly criticized in some respects--is well worth the read. It is from his work on Jewish Christianity that I will now quote.

Discussing the Shepherd of Hermas, Danielou points out that this early Christian work plainly identifies Michael the archangel with the LOGOS. He writes:

"A characteristic feature of the theology of _Hermas_ is to call the Word 'glorious (ENDOXOS) angel' or 'most venerable (SEMNOTATOS) angel.' He distinguishes very clearly the angel who visits him, whom he calls variously 'shepherd' and 'angel of repentance' from the supreme being, whom he also calls an angel, but who is quite different from the other since it is he who sends that other" (Danielou 119).

Danielou here hints at the fact that the LOGOS is identified with Michael in Hermas although angel, according to the late Cardinal, in this case evidently means one who bears the very substance of God. Regardless of whether Danielou is correct here, the main point I am concerned with is what he has to say about Michael.

Quoting from the Fifth Similitude of Hermas, Danielou informs us that "the holy angel and the Kyrios are placed on the same footing" (Danielou 119). This conclusion seems warranted by Similitude 5.4.4 which reads in part:

"thou who hast been strengthened by the holy one (hAGIOS) angel, and hast received from him such powers of intercession . . . wherefore dost thou not ask understanding of the Lord? (KURIOS)."

Another part of Hermas that also points to Christ as Michael is Similitudes 8.2:1-3:

"the angel of the Lord commanded crowns to be brought, made as it were of palm-branches; and he crowned the men that had given up rods which had shoots and some fruit, and sent them away into the tower. And the others also he sent into the tower, even those who had given up rods green and with shoots, but the shoots were without fruit; and he set a seal (SFRAGIS) upon them. And all they that went into the tower had the same raiment, white as snow."

See also Similitudes 9.12.

From both the eighth and ninth Similitude, Danielou views Michael as being synonymous with the LOGOS in Hermas. The relevant passages from his book are as follows:

"The designation of Christ as the seventh day may be compared to another, which comes in Hermas, in which Christ is identified with the archangel Michael" (Danielou, 123).

"The comparison of the two texts [Similitudes 78.1 and 8.3.3.] shows
that it is really the Word who is called Michael" (124).

"Paul contrasts with this [the promulgation of the OT by angels] the new Law communicated by the Word himself (Gal. 3:20; Heb. 2:3). In Hermas this function is performed by Michael. This name must therefore be regarded as a name of the Word" (124).

"The assimilation of Michael to the Word is not, however, peculiar to Hermas. It occurs in other Jewish Christian texts which show up still more clearly the unskillful christianisation of the Jewish theme" (124).

The aforementioned quotes do not mean that Danielou rejects the Trinity doctrine. My point is simply that he supplies evidence that at least some early professed Christians regarded the LOGOS as Michael the archangel.

These quotes were taken from A History of Early Christian Doctrine: The Theology of Jewish Christianity (Jean Danielou).

Regards,

Edgar

Michael the Archangel as Christ?

The information below was once submitted to a yahoogroup that I used to moderate which is now inactive. I have changed the names of those who participated in this discussion; however, I have not edited the material itself.

To help you appreciate the context, a question had been asked regarding Michael's possible identity with Christ.

[BEGIN DIALOGUE]

Quadratus said:

Aurelius, I'd like to take your second question. I don't know of anyone who
says that the Bible EXPLICITLY calls the Christ, Michael.

However, I believe that there are a number of lines of evidence that point
to this conclusion. Here is one.

1) The Resurrection: ONLY ONE VOICE CAN COMMAND THE DEAD TO RISE

a) There is only ONE VOICE that can raise the dead in the coming
resurrection. This authority has been given to the Christ by
his Father. (John 5:25-28).

b) It is the VOICE of an ARCHANGEL that raises the dead during
the unique SINGULAR act of the resurrection at the time of
the end. (1Th 4:16; cf Da 12:2 ).

c) Since the archangel shares the unique characteristic that only
Christ posesses, the authority to raise the dead with his voice,
Christ is an archangel.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words -- Topic:
Archangel says regarding the character of the Lord Jesus' voice

"In 1 Thess. 4:16 the meaning seems to be that the voice of the
Lord Jesus will be of the character of an 'archangelic' shout."

1Th 4:16 NWT
"because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a
commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's
trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will
rise first."

Vines assigns the voice of Jesus with the character of
the archangel, because the grammar demands it.

Thayers calls the voice that raises the dead at John 5:28 "the
Resurrection-Cry" and "Christ's voice that raises the dead" at
1Th 4:16 as "an awakening shout". The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice'
is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative case.

In all other occurences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it
describes the voice of the subject in the clause.

TO ATTRIBUTE THE VOICE OF A LESSER BEING TO CHRIST WOULD NOT HONOR HIM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is only logical that the voice expressing this commanding call be
described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great
authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of
lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14). If the designation "archangel" applied,
not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to "an
archangel's voice" would be describing a voice of lesser authority
than that of the Son of God.

Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurence at
Daniel 12:1:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of
Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as
standing forward for the defense of his elect people." J. Calvin,
COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.


John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3,
page 2048 states:

"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael
with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view,
not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel
in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl"