by androb31 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Narkissos:
"The only named archangel in the Bible is Michael (Jude 9; see Da 10:13). In Scripture, Gabriel is simply called an angel (Lk 1:19,26)."
Thanks! That does make a certain sense although Daniel 10:13 strikes me as more problematic than helpful in connection with that viewpoint. (Leolaia's observations regarding Jude are also interesting)
...in that case without a christological agenda of course...
To reiterate my original point, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not say that the phóné arkhaggelou "voice/sound of an archangel" is produced by Jesus himself. The three prepositional phrases (i.e. en + dative noun) in the verse indicate the attendant circumstance or state of affairs accompanying the action indicated by the main verb. They indicate what sounds will be heard during the Lord's descent from heaven. The sense is clearer if we translate en by "amid" rather than "with":
1 Thessalonians 4:16: "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven amid a cry of command (en keleusmati) — amid the sound of an archangel and amid the trumpet call of God (en phóné arkhaggelou kai en salpiggi theou)".
Another possible way of understanding the passage is to take the attendant circumstance as temporal, i.e. "The Lord himself will descend at a cry of command — at the sound of an archangel and at the trumpet call of God". In neither of these are the sounds to be construed as necessarily produced by the Lord. For a biblical text describing a very similar situation with the same preposition, consider the following:
Psalm 47:5 LXX: "God has ascended amid shouts of joy (anebé ho theos en alalagmó), the Lord amid the sounding of trumpets (kurios en phóné salpiggos)".
One could similarly translate "God has ascended with joyful shouting, the Lord with the sounding of trumpets," but this does not mean that God is the one who is shouting and blowing on a trumpet. The verses that follow (v. 6-8) show that it is the King's subjects on the earth who are joyfully praising him. The joyful shouting and trumpets are attending circumstances of God's ascent to his heavenly throne, just as the cry of command and the sounds from the archangel and trumpet are attending circumstances of the Lord's descent from heaven in 1 Thessalonians. There are several other references in the OT to the sounds of cries and trumpets as attendant circumstances of events (though not necessarily employing the same syntax as Psalm 47:5 LXX and 1 Thessalonians 4:16). In Amos 1:14 LXX, the walls of Rabbah burn in fiery blazes "amid cries (meta kraugés)", and in 2:2 LXX, Moab "shall die powerless amid shouting and the cry of a trumpet (meta phónés kai kraugés salpiggos)". In Joshua 6:20 LXX, the walls of Jericho fall flat during the "sounding of trumpets (tén phónén tón slapiggón)" and a "great shout (alalagmó megaló)". Other attendant sounds are mentioned as well, such as the sound of bells heard when Aaron entered into the sanctuary (Exodus 28:35). Paul also used en prepositional phrases to indicate attendant circumstance elsewhere in his letters. Earlier in the same epistle to the church at Thessalonica, he wrote:
1 Thessalonians 1:6: "You became imitators of us and of the Lord amid much tribulation (en thlipsei pollé), welcoming the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit".
1 Thessalonians 2:2: "But after we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition (en polló agóni)".
Here Paul writes that his previous preaching in the city of Thessalonica occurred in a context of persecution that he was suffering, and that the Thessalonican Christians accepted the gospel amid this persecution. The most interesting example however is in Paul's similar use of three en phrases to refer to the moment of resurrection in 1 Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 15:51-52: "Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — in a brief moment of time (en atomó), in a twinkling of an eye (en rhipé ophthalmou), at the last trumpet (en té eskhaté salpiggi). For the trumpet will sound (salpisei), the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed".
Here the attendent circumstance (the blowing of the last trumpet) is more clearly temporal than in 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Paul believes that the bodies of Christians alive at the time of the resurrection will be "changed" into incorruptible bodies at the brief, instantaneous moment when the last trumpet (the same one in 1 Thessalonians 4:16? or is the "last trumpet" the final member of a series?) is blown; both events coincide in time. A final example can be found in 2 Thessalonians, which describes a similar scenario of the Lord being revealed from heaven at the end times:
2 Thessalonians 1:7-8: "This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven amid blazing fire (en puri phlogos) with his powerful angels (met' aggelón dunameós autou)".
The parousia is frequently described in the NT (and in 1 Thessalonians itself) as involving angels accompanying the Lord (cf. Mark 8:38, Matthew 13:41, 16:27, 24:31, 25:31, Luke 9:26, 1 Thessalonians 3:13), so the reference to the sound of an archangel should not be a surprise. What is unclear in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is whether just one sound is being described, or two, or three. This is because only the latter two sounds described are grouped together with kai "and", and these also have genitival modifiers unlike the first described sound (the keleusmati "commanding call"). Many commentators believe that the second and third sounds are intended to be epexegetical to the first, i.e. they explain in detail what the "commanding call" is supposed to be. But even if so, is the "sound of the archangel" a different sound from the "trumpet call of God", or are they one and the same? In favor of the latter is the fact that phóné tends to go together with salpigx "trumpet"; cf. Joshua 6:20 LXX,Psalm 47:5 LXX, and other similar passages in the OT. Paul himself refers to the "sound of the trumpet" (salpigx phónén) in 1 Corinthians 14:8. So instead of "voice of an archangel," Paul may be indicating a sound made by an archangel with God's trumpet. In Revelation, we frequently read of angels blowing trumpets (e.g. Revelation 8:2, 6, 13, 9:14, 10:7, 15:2). Outside of the canon, we readily find archangels sounding trumpets: "And in the same hour we heard the archangel Michael sounding his trumpet and calling the angels (tou arkhaggelou Mikhaél salpizontos kai kalountos tous aggelous)" (Greek Life of Adam and Eve 22:1). Conversely, we also find the "voice" of angels sounding like trumpets in Revelation (1:10, cf. 4:1, 5:2). But against the idea that the "sound of the archangel" is the same as the trumpet call is the fact that frequently in the OT, the trumpet call accompanies a vocal shout or cry. So in Amos 2:2 LXX, the "cry of a trumpet" (kraugés salpiggos) occurs alongside "shouting" (phónés). Compare also Joshua 6:20 and 2 Samuel 6:15. But it is not even clear that the latter two sounds are supposed to explain the nature of the "commanding call". It is possible that this constitutes yet another sound.
At any rate, even if we were to suppose that the Lord is the archangel referred to in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, and that there is only one archangel, the wording in the passage still strikes me as especially strange. It would be like saying that on one particular occasion God sounds like the Most High or that Jesus Christ sounds like the Son. Understanding the passage as implying that the Lord has the voice of the archangel only makes sense if the Lord isn't already an archangel but on this occasion assumes the voice of one.
The use of John 5:25 in reniaa's post on the last page is particularly revealing. It is used as a clincher to prove that the Son of God is an archangel, even though no such idea is found in John (which in fact has very little of the parousia traditions found in the synoptics and in Paul) and is not the point of the passage. References to the parousia throughout early Christian texts invariably differ in the details and it is hazardous to assume features from one text's description of the parousia should be assumed by another. But let's assume a canonical approach and press all these disparate statements (from such works as Matthew, the epistles of Paul, and Revelation) into a single harmonized eschatological narrative What reason is there to assume that the Son must be the archangel of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 on account of what is written in John 5:25? There are a host of unstated assumptions in reniaa's argument, which depends on her own very particularistic harmonization. One could instead say that Paul has omitted the reference to the Son's voice in 1 Thessalonians just as the author of John has omitted the reference to the trumpet. Maybe the keleusma "commanding cry" (a word that implies action on the part of those who hear it) in 1 Thessalonians corresponds not to the command to the dead in John 5:25 but to the announcement to the disciples on earth that the Lord approaches (corresponding to the cry announcing that the bridegroom approaches and commanding the disciples to meet him in Matthew 25:6). Also one could suppose that the keleusma "commanding cry" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is a separate sound from the "voice of an archangel", and that the former is uttered by the Son and the latter uttered by an archangel. Or one could question whether the events related in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 occurs at the same moment as the events of John 5:25. Maybe the Son utters his voice to the dead after the sounding of the trumpet; after all, the dead have to be resurrected first to "hear" his voice, right? Do we even know if the "last trumpet" of 1 Corinthians 15 is the same trumpet call mentioned in 1 Thessalonians? Maybe the resurrection itself occurs many trumpet calls after the the trumpet call announcing the descent of the Lord; after all, there are many, many different trumpet calls related in Revelation. The trumpet call in 1 Corinthians 15 is directed to the dead whereas the trumpet call in Matthew is directed to the angels, directing them to begin gathering the elect. Spike Tassel pointed out an important point that there isn't just one moment referred to in John 5:25, for it says that the time the dead would hear the Son's voice has already come. This is an obvious foreshadowing of the story of Lazarus in John 11: "Jesus cried out in a loud voice (phóné megalé), 'Lazarus, come out!'. And the dead man came out" (v. 43-44). But let's assume that the main resurrection of the dead in John 5:25 coincides perfectly with the events of 1 Thessalonians 4:16, and even assume that Jesus is speaking with the "voice of an archangel". Does that prove that Jesus is in fact that archangel? Again, this ignores the frequent motif in the Bible that God as well as the Son speak through angels. In Revelation, we frequently encounter the fact that the revelation of Jesus is, in fact, delivered by an angel who speaks for Jesus and God (cf. 1:1-2, 22:6-20). Similarly, Moses heard the voice of God on Mount Sinai amid heavenly trumpets and in the tabernacle (Exodus 19:19, Numbers 7:89, Deuteronomy 4:33, 36), but in the NT it is claimed that what Moses heard was angels who mediated for God (cf. Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 1:1, 2:2). So one could similarly argue that the Son speaks in John 5:25 through an angelic mediator. And if we don't take such a canonical approach and assume that Paul and the author of John had the exact same scenario in mind, there is again no reason to conclude from John 5:25 that the Son is the same person as the archangel mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.
---Agree Leo. Your point is well made.
It is easy for an English reader to misundertand in what sense "With" is used by translators. The archangel in 1 Thess. 4:16 is part of the Lord's retinue.
I think a similar, but not identical motif occurs in the OT theophanies as well. (Deut 33:2-3) This imagery also occurs in 1 Enoch 1:4-9
Now, if only these clarifications could become part of an updatable translation online.
I think a similar, but not identical motif occurs in the OT theophanies as well. (Deut 33:2-3) This imagery also occurs in 1 Enoch 1:4-9
Indeed. Deuteronomy 33:2-3 is a direct source for 1 Enoch 1:4-9, which in turn is a direct source for Jude 14-15.
It seems to me that the Greek language, from what I've seen so far in the bible, is a very interesting phenomenon - it combines the conveyance of info together with the experience of it. So we get the drama and the feelings and the actions all together and this is highly motivating and revealing - a very living vivid language.
edit: unfortunately the WTS jargon only seems to focus on the info part in their interpretations
hi leolaia
Your saying amid is better but why have none of the translation used amid? because none of them have so I would probs like a second opinion on that .
You say Jesus speaks through angels but in the bible that never happens even with Pauls conversion he came himself. And with the Revelation of John he talks himself again.
There is a strong argument that Jesus is the 'Angel of Lord' that God talks through hense why he is called 'The word'
So if we have no biblical instances of Jesus himself talking through angels isn't that an assumption on your part?
Reniaa
Your saying amid is better but why have none of the translation used amid?
Like here?
So if we have no biblical instances of Jesus himself talking through angels isn't that an assumption on your part?
Sure sounds like it Revelation 22:6-20.
hi leolaia
this translator ( i think he supports the Jw position) completely disagrees with you and can cite biblical examples were 'en' is 'with' especially when saying with a voice.
"A reasonably close parallel to ' εν φωνη αρχαγγελου, en phone archangelou' (with an/the archangel's voice) in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is at 2 Peter 2:16: “the dumb ass speaking with man's voice”. Here we have ' εν φωνη, en phone' (with the/a voice) together with a genitive. The donkey was speaking with a man's voice - but it was the donkey that was speaking, not a man nearby. Likewise, in all other cases where 'en phone' is used in the NT, the voice in question always belongs to the subject of the sentence, not some unspecified third person. - See Revelation 5:2; 14:7, 9; 18:1"
When the archangel's voice is heard, “the dead in Christ shall rise first” (1 Thessalonians 4:16). But John 5:28, 29 tells us: “all that are in the graves shall hear his [Christ's, not just any angel's] voice and shall come forth.” Both verses use the Greek word φωνη phone - once for the archangel's voice, once for the Son of Man's voice, following which the resurrection takes place. One voice, not two, is heard. Logically, then, we must conclude that there is one voice because there is one person.
Reniaa
Leolaia (Post 13363)
So if we have no biblical instances of Jesus himself talking through angels isn't that an assumption on your part?
Sure sounds like it Revelation 22:6-20.
Spike Tassel (Post 1998) The wording at Revelation 22:6 is just like Revelation 1:1, which is why the angel (who can't be Jesus) commands that John not bow in order to worship the angel.
Revelation 22:16 inescapably says "I, Jesus, sent my angel …".
