Narkissos....I was thinking the same thing about Hebrews. Of course, there was the concept in Daniel, 1QH 3:21-22, Revelation, and so forth that the faithful dead go to heaven and join the heavenly assembly (cf. Hebrews 12:22), or that in the resurrection they are clothed in angelic bodies and "become like the angels" (cf. 2 Baruch, 1 Enoch, Matthew, etc.) or receive incorruptible heavenly bodies (1 Corinthians 15). But while qdshym or hagión "holy ones" is a term that can refer to both "angels" and dead faithful people (and later, living people) in certain sources, the same isn't the case with the word "angel" altho N. T. Wright argues that the author of Acts uses the word in this way (= people in their pre-resurrection intermediate state) in Acts 12:15, 23:8. I'm not clear as to whether Joseph is claiming that the angels are all dead Israelites/Jews (or ancient Israelites/Jews from the standpoint of the present) or only some of them. The former idea is just not appropriate for many biblical texts (e.g. 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6), and I know of no ancient text that clearly presents such an idea. As for the text about "judging angels" (1 Corinthians 6:3), this is just the kind of obscure passage that can receive any arbitrary interpretation outside of the broader literary context but which is enlightened by statements elsewhere about the pre-Flood fallen angels being judged (cf. 1 Enoch 5-6, 13-14, Jude 6) or "angels from heaven" being "condemned" for misleading Christians or sinning (Galatians 1:8). As for Hebrews, in addition to referring to them as "spirits" and "flames of fire" (v. 8, 14), it also says that Jesus set free from slavery and took to himself "those descended from Abraham" and "not the angels" (hence, angels are probably not "descended from Abraham") in 2:16. The reference to "the promise that was made through angels" in 2:2 is not referring to "Jews of times past" as being the ones who made the promise of the Law but the mediation of the Law through angels as Galatians 3:19 and Acts 7:38, 53 (cf. 7:30, 35 which refers to the "angel" that spoke to Moses in the burning bush).
Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?
by twinkletoes 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
JosephMalik
Narkissos, The theme is established right from the beginning. OT Jews are being discussed and their qualifications are compared to our Lord like this: 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Not one of such prophets or ancestors qualified as savior. Only the Son does for the reasons given. That is the point being made in this introduction. Calling the fathers and prophets angels is correct because that is exactly what they were. They were messengers (angels same word) of the Law covenant and there is nothing wrong in designating them like this. But the Son, what about this human being that came along later? 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Who is they? Spirit Beings? No! the fathers and prophets under discussion. How can anyone make such a wild leap from such a simple word like messenger? Even translation cannot be blamed since we more enlightened than that. Now among them were powerful men such as Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon and such. But did God select one of them to be His Son like Adam was? No! So we learn: 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? No spirit beings here either. This is not the purpose of Hebrews. No qualified humans other than the Son. It was written for Jews mainly Christian Jews like James still observing the Law and depending on it for salvation. So now that they have learned who is who from out of all their history they are now informed of their responsibility to such a Son. 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. How? Because such angels (messengers) will be resurrected at such an event. Why because all authority has now been given to Him and He is serving as mediator to His Father here on earth. But were not such fathers and prophets loyal and zealous in their service to God? Yes! 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. Yet this was only what was expected of them. They were not only ministers of the Law (spiritual sources of information) but they also served as in a zealous way some even as warriors for the faith. Wonderful credentials to be sure but: 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Which fellows? The fathers and prophets under discussion. Do you get the idea? This Son inherited David's throne to rule in a coming Kingdom. He was anointed above such fellows like Abaham Moses and such. This was written for Jews, stubborn ones still holding on to the Law and tradition. They needed a kick in the pants and Hebrews does that for them. Joseph
-
JosephMalik
I mean, why Michael? Why emphasise one of the archangels?
Hellrider,
Because when Daniel wrote the human identity of this person was still secret. His non-human identity is clearly given by Daniel but no one was to know that it would apply to Jesus after such a Michael became human. That came later and now we know the rest of the story. So is this topic important? Can we identify false teachers by it. I think so but you can decide for yourself.
Joseph
-
TresHappy
NO! That's one of the dumbest things I once believed in...
-
Narkissos
Joseph,
Thanks for the commentary. Too bad you stopped at 1:8 instead of going on (down to 2:9). I still wonder how you would have dealt with the rest (where the "angels," as "spirits," are opposed to "man," and Jesus is said to have been provisionally made inferior to them).
But, as you said, that may be enough for the reader to decide.
-
JosephMalik
Too bad you stopped at 1:8 instead of going on (down to 2:9). I still wonder how you would have dealt with the rest (where the "angels," as "spirits," are opposed to "man," and Jesus is said to have been provisionally made inferior to them). Narkissos, Not every instance of aggelos should have been translated as angels. Sometimes messenger is much better. But where angels is more in context with the message then angels would be the best choice. Translators are all over the ballpark in dealing with this word. Take 2:9 then: What is the point being made? Can anyone see it? 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Can this be a reference to prophets such as Elijah. Could be. But on the other hand could this be a comparison between the immortality of such angels and this Jesus who gave up this immortality to become a sacrifice? Jesus used a similar comparison of immortality and angels regarding the recreation and Jews should have understood it at the time. Lets look around a little to see if we can pin this down. The verses in this area of Hebrews are on a different theme than the introduction. Notice: 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Humanity is being compared to non human kind. The reference makes this comparison point blank. This humanity would be wonderful if it were not for death itself. So the verse continues: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. And what are such all things? Death for one. The very thing our Lord had to suffer in our behalf. So it can be a tough call as to how aggelos should be viewed. Each appearance must be considered separately and verses cannot be strung together carelessly. The meaning can toggle back and forth. I have discussed such verses the way I see them and that is all I can do. What any of us believes or teaches is our responsibility and we cannot put the blame for error on someone else. What I must face as a result is: Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. This is why I do not trust such ancient writers or commentaries. They are too inaccurate and biased and the stakes are too high.
Joseph -
Narkissos
Joseph,
Thanks for your kind response.
Can this be a reference to prophets such as Elijah. Could be. But on the other hand could this be a comparison between the immortality of such angels and this Jesus who gave up this immortality to become a sacrifice? Jesus used a similar comparison of immortality and angels regarding the recreation and Jews should have understood it at the time. The verses in this area of Hebrews are on a different theme than the introduction. Notice: 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Humanity is being compared to non human kind. The reference makes this comparison point blank. This humanity would be wonderful if it were not for death itself. So the verse continues: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. And what are such all things? Death for one. The very thing our Lord had to suffer in our behalf.
I heartily agree with the highlighted sentences: that's exactly what I was trying to point out. Now, of course, that " the verses in this area of Hebrews are on a different theme than the introduction" depends on your interpretation of the introduction. To me, the whole passage is very clearly "the Son vs. aggeloi" and nothing indicates a sudden shift in meaning in what aggeloi means (i.e. non-human spirit creatures).
verses cannot be strung together carelessly
Please notice I just left them as the author strang them. That's what context is usually about. If " the meaning can toggle back and forth," there is usally some clear indication of that in the immediate context. I believe the shift of meaning you read into (or discern in) the text actually depends on an extra-textual consideration, namely that in your own theological synthesis the Son has to be an angel.
But there is no problem in agreeing to disagree.
-
Leolaia
Joseph...Thank you for giving the detailed verse-by-verse discussion; I think understand your interpretation better. It depends critically on your view of v. 1-2 (in which the mode of divine revelation is contrasted between the Son and "our ancestors through the prophets") as setting up the Son vs. hoi aggeloi contrast in v. 4-14, rendering the hoi aggeloi as human "messengers", not divine "angels". However there are some significant problems with such an interpretation. One, as Narkissos pointed out earlier, is that v. 8, 14 refers to hoi aggeloi as "spirits" (pneumata) and "flames of fire (puros phloga), and while you offer an allegorizing interpretation ("serving in a zealous way"), the language is certainly more appropriate for "angels" rather than human "messengers" (cf. aggelos "angel" as pneuma in Acts 23:9, and the fiery nature of the seraphim in the OT, for instance). The second is that there would be an unmotivated shift in meaning of aggelos in ch. 2 (since v. 9 refers to the Son's brief status as "lower than the angels", v. 16 explicitly contrasted hoi aggeloi with "those descended from Abraham", etc.), despite no discontinuity in topic and the continuation of the "aggeloi are/were NOT as X" theme of ch. 1 (e.g. "God never said to any angel" 1:5, "God never said to any angel" 1:13, "He did not appoint angels to be rulers of the world" 2:5, "It was not angels he took to himself" 2:16), as well as the continued pattern of allusion to the Psalms (ch. 1: Psalm 2:7, 45:6-7, 97:7, 102:25-27, 104:4, 110:1; ch. 2: Psalm 8:4-6, 22:22) to establish the same contrast between the Son and hoi aggeloi. Moreover, the allusion to the Son being "made superior to the angels" in 1:4 is clearly complementary to the Son being "made lower than the angels" in 2:9. What is more, these two statements are strongly reminiscent of the christological liturgies of Philippians 2, Colossians 1 and the parallel in Ephesians 1 which refer to heavenly beings over whom Jesus is set:
Hebrews 1:2-4, 2:8-9: "He has spoken to us through his Son, the Son he has appointed to inherit all things (pantón) and through whom he has made the universe (di hou epoiésan tous aiónas). He is the radiant light of God's glory and the perfect copy of his nature (kharaktér tés hupostaseós), sustaining all things (pherón ta panta) by his powerful command; and now that he has destroyed the defilement of sin, he has gone to take his place in heaven at the right hand of divine Majesty. So he is now far superior to the angels (tosoutó kreittón genomenos tón aggelón) as the name (onoma) which he has inherited is higher than their own (hosó diaphoróteron par autous) name....All things have been subjected to him (autó panta hupotetagmena), we do see that Jesus is the one who was for a short while made lower than the angels (par aggelous élattómenon) and is now crowned with glory and splendor because he submitted to death".
Ephesians 1:20-23: "His power is at work in Christ, when he used it to raise him from the dead and make him sit at his right hand in heaven, far above (huperanó) every Sovereignty, Authority, Power, or Domination, or any other name (pantos onomatos) that can be named, not only in this age but in the age to come. He has subjected all things (panta hupetaxen) under his feet and made him over all things (huper panta), the head of the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all things (en pasin)".
Colossians 1:15-20: "He is the image of the unseen God (eikón tou theou aoratou) and the firstborn of all creation (pasés ktiseós), for in him were created all things (ektisthé panta) in heaven and on earth, all things visible and everything invisible, Thrones, Dominations, Sovereignties, Powers, all things were created through him (panta di autou ektisthai) and for him. Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things together (ta panta en auto sunestéken)...He is the firstborn from the dead so that he should be first in every way, because God wanted all perfection to be found in him and all things to be reconciled through him and for him, everything in heaven (ta en tois ouranois) and everything on earth, when he made peace by his death on the cross".
Philippians 2:6-11: "Although he was in the form of God (en morphé theou), he did not cling to his equality with God (einai isa theó) but emptied himself (heauton kenósen) to assume the form of a slave (morphé doulou labón), and became in the likeness of men (homoiómati anthrópón genomenos), and being as all men are, he was humbler (etapeinósen) yet, even to accept death, death on a cross. But God raised him high (huperupsósen) and gave him the name (to onoma) which is above all other names (to huper pan onoma), so that all beings in the heavens (epouranión), on earth and in the underworld should bend the knee at the name of Jesus and that every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of the Father".
The wealth of mutual parallels in these exaltation-of-Christ passages shows that Hebrews 1 is talking about pretty much the same thing, the Son is "made lower than the angels" in the similar way he "assumes the form of a slave" and takes on "the likeness of men", he "submits to death" as he "accepts death on a cross", he is "now far higher than the angels" just as "God raised him high" and "placed him over all things ... far above every Sovereignty, Authority, Power, and Domination" (titles of heavenly, supernatural, or "invisible" beings, cf. Acts 8:11 "divine Power that is called Great", Romans 8:28 "angels and Sovereignties", 1 Corinthians 15:24, Colossians 1:16, 2:10, 14-15, 2 Enoch 61:10, and especially 1 Peter 3:21-22: "Jesus Christ who has entered heaven and is at God's right hand now that he has made the angels (aggelón) and Dominations and Powers his subjects"), such that the superior "name" he receives that is higher than the "angels" in Hebrews 1 is paralleled closely by the "name above all other names" in Philippians 2 and being "far above every Sovereignty, Power, Authority or Domination, or any other name" in Ephesians.
In light of the above, I find it exceedingly unlikely that heavenly angels are not meant in ch.1 of Hebrews. Angels or all heavenly beings are mentioned explicitly in the other passages, and the idea is that Jesus Christ has superiority and dominion over everything in the universe, including all supernatural powers who now serve him, so if we were to choose whether hoi aggeloi in Hebrews 1 refered to mere human "messengers" or heavenly angels, the contextual and conceptual evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the latter.
There is still the remaining issue of the apparent contrast between the revelation of the Son and the revelation of "our ancestors through the prophets" in 1:1-2. I do not think the only valid interpretation is that this is setting up the same contrast between the Son and hoi aggeloi in v. 4-14. On my reading, it looks rather that the contrast is really between "various times in the past" (polumerós palai) and "these last days" (ep eskhatou tón hémerón toutón) in v. 1-2; the critical juncture that divides these two periods is his exaltation "at the right hand of Majesty". The contrast between the Son and hoi aggeloi that is the subject of the rest of ch. 1 is introduced in v. 1 by the allusion to "our ancestors through the prophets".... not because the "ancestors" and "prophets" are themselves the angels, but because FORMERLY God had spoken (lalésas) in a "different way" (polutrópos) (v. 1), that is revelation mediated by angels, whereas NOW God has spoken (elalésen) to us through his Son (v. 2). The angelic mediation of the FORMER revelation is explicitly stated in 2:2: "a promise that was made through angels" (di aggelón lalétheis), and statements elsewhere in the NT of angelic revelation of the Law and prophecy can be found in Acts 7:35, 38, 53 and Galatians 3:19, and interpreting angels of prophetic visions and dreams can be found in Daniel, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, Hermas and so forth in Second Temple Judaism.
So the point in refuting the idea that angels still reveal God's word (e.g. refuting the idea that the Son is not an angel and is far greater than the angels) is to underscore the idea that NOW things are different following the exaltation of Christ and NOW God speaks to his people in a different way, through the One who now rules over everything. The aim is quite close to that of Paul in Galatians, who contrasts the old Law with the new justification from sin through Christ Jesus. The old Law was "promulgated by angels assisted by an intermediary (i.e. Moses)" whereas the new faith is "only through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:12, 3:19). Moreover, Paul even allowed for the possibility that angels may STILL deliver revelation, but he insisted that angelic revelation is NOW false revelation: "If anyone preaches a version of the good news different from the one we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven (aggelos ex ouranou), he is to be condemned" (1:8). This wording is quite explicit that heavenly angels are here meant. Chapter 3 of Hebrews continues along a similar thread, that Christ is superior to Moses, and thus his revelation (1:2) is superior to that spoken "to our ancestors" (1:1), and the emphasis on NOW over the PAST is underscored as well: "Every day, as long as this 'today' lasts, keep encouraging one another so that none of you is hardened by the lure of sin, because we shall remain co-heirs with Christ only if we keep a grasp on our first confidence right to the end" (3:13-14; cf. 13:8 on the enduring present condition with Christ). And since Christ's revelation is superior to that of Moses, his role as "high priest" is vastly superior and more perfect than the levitical priesthood established through the revelation of Moses (ch. 7-10). So the contrast between Jesus and the angels is vitally relevant to the contrast between the old and present revelation because angels were formerly the source of divine revelation whereas now the Son himself is the channel of God's revelation. The way the author tries to prove his case in ch. 1-2 is also quite ingenious. To establish that the old revelation is inferior to that of Christ, he builds his case almost entirely through quotes and citations of inspired Scripture; he basically uses the words of the former revelation to establish Christ's superiority, and thus the superiority of his revelation over that of the angels.
-
hmike
I've always understood the name Michael means one who is like God, but I've also seen it stated as messenger of God. Can someone tell me what it actually means, what the origin of the meaning is, and how the meaning would have been understood by the ancient Jews? Thank you.
-
Narkissos
one who is like God, but I've also seen it stated as messenger of God.
Or, more probably, "who is like God?" since mi- is primarily an interrogative. Actually "who is like El?" (cf. Micaiah = "who is like Yhwh?"), but at the apocalyptic stage "El" is just another name of "God". Note that all archangel names are of the -El type.
The name was most probably formed from the common praise formula, "who is like you...?" (mi kamokha, Exodus 15:11 etc., cf. mi ka-Yhwh, Psalm 113:5; mi-kamoni, "who is like me...?" Isaiah 44:7 etc.).
Messenger (or "angel") would be mal'akh (as in "Malachi").