i don’t get this theory. why does it have to be two distinct individuals ? when it says “gods spirit” or “god appeared” why are the appearances always unitarian /singular? when it says god spirit did x, why isn’t it an aspect of god ? why isnt it just the one yhwh /father appearing in different singular/unitarian forms?
Iskander Robertson said
i don’t get this theory. why does it have to be two distinct individuals ? when it says “gods spirit” or “god appeared” why are the appearances always unitarian /singular? when it says god spirit did x, why isn’t it an aspect of god ? why isnt it just the one yhwh /father appearing in different singular/unitarian forms?:6-11
Here is an example of a text that informed the “two powers theory” — which was, from a rabbicinal Jewish perspective, considered a heretical interpretation of the text:
Exodus 23:20-21
“Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.”
The New Testament scholar (who is also a Jewish rabbi), Alan Segal, has suggested that this text is echoed in the Philippines Christ hymn here:
“…though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name (i.e. yhwh /father), so that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:6-11).
Iskander Robertson said
“Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.”
this is an example of yhwh instrumenting an angel or yhwh is in the angel? what does it mean “my name” is in him?
The LXX reads: τὸ γὰρ ὄνομά μού ἐστιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ.
ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ is the preposition ἐπί + the dative, αὐτῷ which I take to indicate that the name of yhwh was “upon” him, not “in” him.
Iskander Robertson said
“do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression”this looks like some kind of being sent as executor who is unable to pardon transgression.
Ex. 23:20-22 Gives context for how the Name-bearing angel functioned:
“Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.”
The angel was sent not only to guard the wilderness generation and bring them to the promised land, but also to be an enemy to their enemies. As for not forgiving rebels (which seems too harsh to be taken as absolute, for surely there was some room for making amends), it seems that those who rebelled with enough persistence without trying to make amends became as enemies.
Robert said
Alan Segal had a very interesting perspective indeed. This particular debate has been moved forward, sometimes acrimoniously, especially by Daniel Boyarin and Peter Schäfer. What I particularly like about both of their perspectives is that neither of them treat Judaism and Christianity as completely separate religions, but rather are able to see likely debates going on between rabbis among various Jewish sects, including some sympathetic to Jewish Christianity. Once Boyarin was asked to teach a course on the parting of the ways of Judaism and Christianity, and he enthusiastically responded that he had always wanted to teach a class on the Middle Ages. Earlier this year Peter Schäfer published a new book on this issue, called ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Robert: Thanks for that background story.
I’m currently studying the use of Ps. 45:6-7 in the book of Hebrews:
But about the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God ( Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς),
endures forever and ever,
and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, Your God (ὁ Θεός, ὁ Θεός σου),
has anointed You (ἔχρισέν σε)
above Your companions with the oil of joy.” (Heb. 1:8-9)
Here “imagery and designations used of Wisdom (a second power in heaven) were also being used within the very different frame of reference of royal messianism applied to Jesus.” ** you do not have permission to see this link **
If you’re not already familiar with them here are two other works that have interesting applications to this discussion.
Charles Gieschen’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **
In Angelomorphic Christology author Charles Gieschen demonstrates that angel and angel-related traditions, especially those built upon the so-called “Angel of the Lord” figure in the Hebrew Bible, had a profound impact upon the origin, development, and shape of early Christian claims about Jesus.
James L Kugel’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The first third of this work is a discussion of the figure of the ‘Angel of the Lord’ in the Hebrew Bible.
Stephen said
If you’re not already familiar…Charles Gieschen’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **
James L Kugel’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen: No! I was not already familiar with these books, and indeed, I am interested in what they have to say. Already, via Google books I see that Gieschen’s book is relevant to my interest in exegesis of the Angelmorpic implications of Ps. 45.6 in Hebrews 1:8 (p.297, where, unfortunately, I think it is a mistaken citation that links Ps. 45:6, not to Heb. 1:8, where it is explicitly quoted, but to Heb. 1:2 where Ps. 45:6 is not explicitly quoted).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)