Loading...I received an inordinate number of responses to my post discussing Christ as an angel in Paul, many of them suggesting to me that I had not provided enough background to make sense of this identification (Christ as angel), in light of ancient Jewish beliefs. So here a discussion from early in the book about that, taken from my chapter 2. There is more to be said about angels as both divine and in human form, and I’ll say more later in other posts. But this at least gives some background – that to some may be a bit surprising. If the followers came to think of Jesus as an angel, they may have had passages and views like the following in mind.
******************************************************************************************************************
Angels in ancient Judaism were widely understood to be superhuman messengers of God who mediated his will on earth. It is striking that various angels sometimes appeared on earth in human guise. More than that, in some ancient Jewish texts there is a figure known as “the angel of the Lord,” who is regarded as the “chief” angel. How exalted is this figure? In some passages he is identified as God himself. And yet sometimes he appears as a human. This is the Jewish counterpart to the pagan view that the gods could assume human guise to visit the earth.
The Angel of the Lord as God and Human
An example early in Scripture can be found in Genesis 16. The situation is this. Abraham had been promised by God that he would have many descendants: he would be the father of the nation of Israel. But he was childless. His wife Sarah handed her servant Hagar over to him so that he could conceive a child with her. Abraham willingly complied, but then Sarah became jealous of Hagar and mistreated her. Hagar ran away.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
Could the Book of Enoch also have been an influence on Paul’s view of angels?
It’s theoretically possible. I don’t know what the evidence would be one way or the other off hand.
Just for clarification…..When you use the term “the LORD” you are referring to Yahweh as opposed to the use of the term Lord…thus meaning God Almighty Himself?
Are there other uses of the term angel…both in the Hebrew texts and the Christian Canon and later in Church tradition and now days? It seem in popular thinking that angels are quaint creatures bringing messages to the faithful, or protecting humans as in “guardian angels” or beings who guide us in the right direction such as Clarence in “It’s a Wonderful Life” who receives his wings at the end of the movie when the Christmas bell rings.
Any thoughts on this?
Yup, LORD is the typical translation for YHWH. And yup, more on angels is coming….
Bart, thanks for the explanation. It clears up what you have been saying. I need to read the Nicene Creed again…and I am looking forward to buying and reading the book.
How do Jewish exegetes through the centuries interpret these passages about Angel of the Lord, that seem to dilute the uniqueness and oneness of God, a theme in Jewish theology that has been prominent in Judaism since the Rabbinic period?
I’m not completely sure. I *think* they see the Angel as a manifestation of God in some sense rather than as a separate being. Maybe someone else knows off hand?
Have Christian exegetes in the pre-modern period typically understood the Angel of the Lord to be the pre-incarnate Son? What then persuaded the exegetes this is anachronistic?
Yup, many apparently did. I think the view got surplanted as Christians began to think even more exalted things about Jesus. They continued to think that Jesus was the incarnation of God at these points of the text, but he was also much more than that.
HWL, one study that looks at the interpretations of “the angel of the Lord” in the history of Jewish thought is “The Messenger of the Lord in Early Jewish Interpretations of Genesis” by Camilla Hélena von Heijne
She says that “the aim of the present study is to explore the ambiguous relationship between God and His angel in early Jewish biblical intepretation and theology, focusing on sources from roughly 200 B.C.E. to 650 C.E. How did the early Jewish interpreters treat this perplexing phenomeon? Who is ‘the angel of the Lord’? how is he related to God and to other heavenly emissaries? How is the angel of the Lord depicted in the various sources? Was the angel understood as a manifestation/revelation of God Himself, or as an independent angelic being, a messenger distinct from God? A third alternative between these two extremes may be that ‘the angel of the Lord’ was regarded as a hypostasis of God, a personification/anextension of the divine will, possessing a certain degree of independent personhood but not completely separate from God.” (pp. 1-2).
This comment goes back to a previous post. I did a N.T. search using the BibleWorks program. I believe it’s safe to say that NO instances of the Greek phrase “aggelos(oi) of God” in the N.T. could be taken as “non-heavenly beings.” I looked at each instance with the NSRV as the parallel text, and I don’t think any examples would/could be considered ambiguous. Since BibleWorks allowed the search to include all case/number endings of aggelos and likewise with the word theos, I pretty sure my search was complete.
Looking forward to seeing you Wednesday night at Centre College!
I didn’t think I was going to like the recent Bible miniseries on the History channel, but I actually ended liking the OT part, especially because of the cool Ninja angels. They were actually exciting characters. So often we tend to theologize or speak of the mythological character of these stories in the abstract and forget that they are some pretty good stories. Jesus’ contemporaries would be quick to imagine the the exciting or mysterious angelic messengers when trying to understand who Jesus really was once they believed that he had been raised from the dead.
sounds like “how Jesus became god” will be grt read. may i suggest you seriously consider writing a book specifically looking at the resurrection from a sceptics point of view. there has been so much said from the apologists and so little credible responses. almost all of the responses are from non new testament specialist (carrier, barker, hitchens ect) who dont really know what they are talking about and dont specifically deal with the points raised by the likes of licoa, craig and co (the empty tomb, women as witnesses, visions, pauls conversion, the rapid growth of Christianity ect). most NT scholars dont seem to want to get to involved with the resurrection even if they seem sceptical prob cos they would sympathise with Christianity (Dale Martin) but i would think there is a big market for a quality text.
I’ll have two chapters on the resurrection in How Jesus Became God. I think it’s enough for now!
gavm, may wanna check out gerd ludemann’s The Resurrection Of Christ: A Historical Inquiry …
Here’s an interesting text to discuss from the gospel of Thomas:
(13) Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like.”
Simon Peter said to him, “You are like a righteous angel.”
So Lambdin, but other translations are also possible, eg, Patterson’s ‘a just messenger. (If it’s not already in your book, footnote me!)
“Sheeply” is my new favorite word.
No mention of ‘the Angel of Death’ aka ‘The Destroyer’ actually being God himself (Exodus 11)?
Interesting…
Interesting in what sense … ? And you surely must have been aware of this before?
Actually, never thought of it!
Oh, ok. Well, glad I could offer an additional example of God acting as an angel, especially as an Angel of Death … Additionally, doesn’t this mean that if the Trinitarians got it right then Jesus/The Son was that Destroyer as well? 😉
I still can’t help thinking that in *some* of these situations, the intent may have been that God was speaking *through* the “angel.”
Seriously off topic…the idea of “end times” or “end of the world” seems to be on the minds of the religious and non-religious…seen with the rise of sensational best-selling books and movies. Have you ever considered writing a trade book on the the Bible’s diverse views on the subject? There seems to be alot out there from a dogmatic or sensationalist point of view, but I think a trade book that discusses views of scholars on end time views in the Bible has the potential to lead to a best seller!
http://www.christianpost.com/news/left-behind-movie-poster-revealed-tim-lahaye-weighs-in-on-script-90347/
Great idea!
The new left behind movie coming out in 2014 has some well-known actors in it…great!! more people who don’t know much about the Bible are going to think the Bible (and “the original” christians) teaches the left behind version/interpretation of the future, esp if it makes itself in the theatre! The 65 million people who bought the left behind novels need to buy a book written by you on the subject!
My previous comment about angels with halos and feathery wings was a (too) cute way of asking whether Paul would have considered all angels to be equal in nature or that there were degrees of power or exultation or whatever. It appears from your reference in another post (can’t put my hand on it?) there was a concept of a chief angel.
Yes indeed!
Bart,
When Peter had his bereavement vision of Jesus and concluded Jesus was resurrected up to heaven, do you think at the same time Peter also drew on traditions like those found in the Parables of Enoch to conclude that Jesus was God’s divine chief agent and judge for the general resurrection, or do you think this latter belief took some time to develop?
I doubt if the historical Peter had ever hear of the Parables of Enoch, let alone read them (among other things, he almost certainly couldn’t read).
I agree, but couldn’t Peter have generally *heard* about divine chief agent traditions (the Parables of Enoch being just an example of the concept) and, if so, wouldn’t it have been a short step for Peter to conclude the resurrected up to heaven Jesus (who would return) might be God’s divine chief agent and judge for the general resurrection?
I don’t know whether he thought of the exalted Jesus as God’s *chief* agent but he appears to have thought he was the future king to rule..disabledupes{33dee3b12c8578fae15a07ce2d1f1dda}disabledupes
If Paul didn’t think the heavenly Jesus was a *chief* agent of God, I think you would at least agree that Paul thinks the heavenly Jesus is *some kind of agent* of God that at his return would judge the dead (1 Cor 15:24; 2 Cor 5:10). So Paul or someone before Paul seems to have drawn on some tradition(s) somewhere that gave them that idea about the heavenly Jesus. If the suspect traditions are not like those found in the Parables of Enoch (even if not that specific work), then 1) what traditions were drawn on, and 2) why couldn’t Peter have drawn on those same traditions the day after having a bereavement vision of Jesus and concluding Jesus was resurrected up to heaven?
Something like 99% of all writings from teh ancient world no longer survive (probalby more). So it’s rarely the case that we can say that if two authors have a similar idea, necessarily one of them got it from the other. The ealry Christians were not simply reading the writings that we have today, so we usually can’t say which of the ideas they themselves came up with and which they got from where.
If 99% of ancient writings have been lost, then wouldn’t it follow that there were probably more divine agent traditions floating around that were similar to those in the Parables of Enoch and, if so, wouldn’t that increase the chances that Peter and other followers of Jesus heard these traditions/speculations and, if so, wouldn’t it be somewhat reasonable of them to apply this kind of tradition to the resurrected up to heaven Jesus, resulting in the belief that Jesus would judge the dead at his return? I’m basically wondering where you think Jesus’ followers got the idea that Jesus would judge the dead at his return. It seems unlikely they would come up with the idea themselves out of thin air.
That would be probable only if we knew what was in the 99%. That’s precisely the problem. Maybe all writings connected to the issue disagreed with the views of Enoch. We don’t know. All we have are teh texts/traditions we have.
So where do you think Jesus’ followers got the idea that the heavenly Jesus would judge the dead at his return? If you think they came up with the idea themselves, what would be their motivation?
Jesus taught the Son of Man was coming from heaven in judgment, as a divine figure sent from God. His followers believed that at his resurrection he himself had been taken up to heaven to live with God. They concluded that he himself was the Son of Man, coming in judgment, the Second Coming.
When Peter reflected on his thirty second bereavement vision of a mute or barely speaking Jesus, one option for Peter would have been to conclude that his mind just played a trick on him like many people throughout history have concluded from these experiences. Do you think Jesus’ teachings about a Son of Man figure coming from heaven in judgment could have contributed to Peter concluding from a bereavement vision of Jesus that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven, i.e., these teachings gave Peter a prism through which Peter could retain his belief that Jesus was the Messiah despite his death — Jesus himself was the heavenly Son of Man figure he spoke of– thereby resolving the cognitive dissonance he felt after Jesus’ death?
I’m afraid we don’t know how long the vision lasted, whether he believed Jesus talked to him, or much anything else, including if there were some psychological dynamics (and if so, what) that led to it.
My reason for thinking there is probably a significant psychological factor causing the rise of the belief that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven is that there was a *doubling down* that Jesus was still the Messiah despite his death, there was a *do-over* with Jesus’ return, and it was to an *invisible* realm that Jesus was resurrected, all basic approaches taken by other groups who have rationalized their disappointments. What do you make of these parallels?
There was a doubling down, but there was not a do-over on Jesus’ return, since there had been no expectation of a “return,” and the entire point of the resurrection narratives of the NT and the stories they are based on is that Jesus was bodily, physically, and tangibly raised from the dead, not in some kind of invisible non-bodily/physical form.
1] I said Jesus’ earliest followers thought Jesus was resurrected to an invisible *realm* (heaven), not that Jesus was resurrected in some kind of invisible non-bodily/physical form, i.e., I agree with you that Jesus’ earliest followers thought Jesus was bodily, physically, and tangibly raised from the dead up to heaven…which is a realm that cannot be readily observed, which basically makes it invisible. Agree or disagree?
2] What exactly do you mean “there was not a do-over on Jesus’ return, since there had been no expectation of a “return””? Are you saying that initially, after the bereavement vision of Jesus, Peter concluded Jesus was resurrected up to heaven with no return, and then the return part came later when Jesus’ followers concluded Jesus was the Son of Man who would come from heaven in judgment?
“Invisible” means CANNOT be seen, not “not easily seen.” So no, I don’t think ealry Christians thought heaven was invisible. In fact, some of them visited and tell us what it looks like. 2. You can’t do something over if you haven’t done it at all yet. Jesus hasn’t returned yet, so he can’t do the return over again.disabledupes{06be520da6d7f89e02192b26d286a1f6}disabledupes
1] Ok, I acknowledge your attention to detail, Paul thought he traveled to heaven and maybe he even thinks he saw Jesus there, but for the vast vast vast vast majority of Jesus’ followers and people who heard the claim that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven, heaven was for all practical purposes a place that was uncheckable and therefore invisible, i.e., it was basically the same as the Millerites claiming Jesus’ second coming occurred in heaven instead of on earth. Agree or disagree?
2] I didn’t mean a *do-over* in the sense of a second return, I meant a do-over in the sense of another chance for the Messiah to reign, which Jesus’ return would provide. Agree or disagree?
If you mean we can’t see it from down here, sure. If you mean people in heaven couldn’t see anything, then no.
Jesus isn’t coming back hoping to be able to reign in this tradition. He is coming back to reign. He didn’t misse out the first time. It was all accorrding to plan.
1] Correct, I mean people on earth can’t see heaven, so the earliest belief was that Jesus was resurrected to an *invisible* place for everyone not privy to a trip to heaven like Paul, which was basically everyone else. Agreed?
2] The belief that Jesus would reign as the Messiah when he returned from heaven was a *do-over* of the failed pre-death expectation that Jesus would reign as the Messiah before experiencing death. Agree or disagree?
1. No. “Invisible” does not mean “not seen” but “unable to be seen”
2. Ah, put like that, probably yes.
1] Heaven was an invisible place (“unable to be seen”) for everyone not privy to a trip to heaven like Paul. And since Paul joined the movement late, and we don’t know of anyone else privy to a trip to heaven, isn’t it reasonable to say that the earliest belief was that Jesus was resurrected to an *invisible* place, similar to the Millerites who concluded Jesus’ second coming occurred in heaven, a place that was invisible to them?
I think I’ve already replied to this a number of times. You’re certainly welcome to consider it invisible if you want!
Ok, I’ll stay away from the term “invisible”. Do you agree with this statement?: Jesus’ followers believed Jesus was resurrected up to heaven, a place that was *inaccessible* to everyone not privy to a trip to heaven like Paul.
No. It was accessible to anyone after death.
I feel like your messing with me but you don’t seem like the type of person to do that. I’m trying to capture the nature of the belief that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven from the perspective of Jesus’ live followers and those alive on planet earth who heard their message. For these people, the place to which Jesus was resurrected was *inaccessible* (unless you were privy to a trip to heaven like Paul), so the belief/claim could not be checked.
The above fits into a larger pattern about earliest Christian belief. After Jesus’ death, Jesus’ followers 1] *double downed* that Jesus was still the Messiah despite his death, 2] they believed he was resurrected up to heaven, a place that was *inaccessible* to everyone (who was alive and not privy to a trip to heaven), and 3] they believed Jesus would reign on earth when he returned from heaven, which was effectively a *do-over* of their pre-death expectation that Jesus would reign as the Messiah.
This doubling down, do-over, and concluding something happening in an inaccessible realm basically matches what we sometimes see in other groups who rationalize their disappointments. That’s why I originally asked you a while back: Do you think Jesus’ teachings about a Son of Man figure coming from heaven in judgment could have contributed to Peter concluding from a bereavement vision of Jesus that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven, i.e., do you think these teachings gave Peter a prism through which Peter could retain his belief that Jesus was the Messiah despite his death — i.e., Jesus himself was the heavenly Son of Man figure he spoke of — thereby resolving the cognitive dissonance he felt after Jesus’ death?
I’m not trying to mess with you. I’m just now agreeing with statements that I don’t think are correct. As to whether Jesus’ teaching that the Son of Man coming contributed to Peter having a vision, I’d say there is no way to know what specific psychological processes were at work. My general sense is that he had the vision for whatever psychological reasons (the two most common reasons known to psychology are visions of deceased loved ones and of highly regarded religious figures, and Jesus was both to Peter) and concluded that Jesus must be now in heaven, therefore a divine being, and still the future king, and therefore the coming Son of Man.
1] Your response “I’m just now agreeing with statements that I don’t think are correct” seems self-contradictory. Did you mean to write, “I’m just now agreeing with statements that I didn’t previously think were correct”?
2] I wasn’t proposing that Jesus’ Son of Man teachings *contributed* to Peter having a vision of Jesus (bereavement would be the sole reason for the first vision of Jesus). I was asking if you think Jesus’ Son of Man teachings could have contributed to Peter being able to *interpret* from a bereavement vision that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven, i.e., do you think these teachings gave Peter an *interpretive prism* through which Peter could retain his belief that Jesus was still the Messiah despite his death (thereby resolving his cognitive dissonance brought on by Jesus’ death) by imagining that Jesus himself was the heavenly Son of Man figure that he spoke of when alive? The reason I ask this question is because the conclusion of early Christians mimics the doubling down, do-over, and something happening in an inaccessible realm of other groups who have rationalized their disappointments, and I have a hard time imagining a bereavement vision of Jesus, by itself, producing the belief that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven. Everyone today who rejects a spiritual realm where the soul goes after death is able to fairly easily dismiss these experiences as a figment of their imagination after a few moments of reflection after the event.
I’m not sure. As I said, I don’t think we can reconstruct the psychological processes in any depth.