Kenneson,
By raising these questions I am playing Devil's Advocate. I fully appreciate that it is God we should Worship and this is what the scriptures say. However, it has been observed by many commentators that the English term WORSHIP is not really adequate to cover the range of meaning implied by the various hebrew and greek terms that are translated as worship in most english translations.
You quote Matt. 4 : 10 which is particularly pertinent because it uses two terms Proskyneo and Latreu.
"Proskyneo" ( generally translated as worship ) CAN be applied to men , angels and God. "Latreu" on the other hand specifically refers to God.
So when you say that there is not even an "inkling" that worship ( by which I take you to mean Proskyneo or the equivalent Histachawa in Hebrew ) could be directed to anyone but God , with respect, I think you are mistaken.
" The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Vol. 4 page 249 "....." histachavah.....the action can be performed before PERSONS as a greeting or as a token of RESPECT or SUBMISSION. "
It seems that histachawa or proskyneo means worship when APPLIED to God but means submission or obesience to men or angels. Thus it is not its use that makes the recipient GOD but rather who it is used of determines if it means worship or obesience in context.
Therefore because it is used of Jesus , it does not in my opinion mean automatically that Jesus is God.
Personally, I see Joshua's action as being one of respect and obesience to the authority of this angelic figure.
But to return to my main point of issue here, is Jesus the 'angel' who is speaking to Joshua ?
If so then it is not wrong to refer to him as being an angelic figure, an archangel in fact.
Commentary on Joshua 5 : 14,15 by John Calvin
"Joshua was then alone, whether he had withdrawn from public view to engage in prayer, or for the purpose of reconnoitering the city. I am rather inclined to think it was the latter, and that he had gone aside to examine where the city ought to be attacked, lest the difficulty might deter others. It appears certain that he was without attendants, as he alone perceives the vision; and there can be no doubt that he was prepared to fight had he fallen in with an enemy. But he puts his question as if addressing a man, because it is only from the answer he learns that it is an angel. This doubt gives more credibility to the vision, while he is gradually led from the view of the man whom he addresses to the recognition of an angel. The words, at the same time, imply that it was not an ordinary angel, but one of special excellence. For he calls himself captain of the Lord's host, a term which may be understood to comprehend not merely his chosen people, but angels also.
We have said that in the books of Moses the name of Jehovah is often attributed to the presiding Angel, who was undoubtedly the only-begotten Son of God. He is indeed very God, and yet in the person of Mediator by dispensation, he is inferior to God. I willingly receive what ancient writers teach on this subject, -- that when Christ anciently appeared in human form, it was a prelude to the mystery which was afterwards exhibited when God was manifested in the flesh".
footnote:
Several modern commentators, among others Grotius, have maintained that the personage who thus appeared was merely a created angel. In this they have only followed in the steps of the Jewish Rabbis, who not satisfied with holding that he was an angel, have gone the farther length of fixing what particular angel it was. With almost unanimous consent they declare it to have been Michael, though they are unable to support their opinion by anything stronger than the first verse of the twelfth chapter of Daniel, [Da 12:1] in which it is said, that "at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which stands for the children of thy people." The sounder view here advocated by Calvin, and generally adopted by the early Christian Fathers, is well expressed by Origen, who says, in his Sixth Homily on this Book, "Joshua knew not only that he was of God, but that he was God. For he would not have worshipped, had he not recognized him to be God. For who else is the Captain of the Lord's host but our Lord Jesus Christ?" It would make sad havoc with our ideas of divine worship to admit that the homage which Joshua here pays could be lawfully received, or rather could, so to speak, be imperiously demanded by one creature from another. -- Ed.
This qoute from one authority shows well the inconsistency I spoke of previously.
It shows that it has been long held by many trinitarians that it was Jesus appearing as an Angel !
They nonetheless state that he is still truly God because of the worship offerred by Joshua.
I think the misunderstanding of the use of the term histachawa has coloured the doctrinal understanding.
However, I think it is clear that some trinitarians clearly identify Jesus as an Angel !
I think this accords well with how the Book of Hebrews speaks of Jesus, as an angelic figure and 'Captain' of our faith. (Heb. 2 : 10 )
So what do you think Kenneson ?
Is Jesus an Angel ?
respect and regards,
Dean.
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10
by hooberus 126 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Dean Porter
-
hooberus
Micah 5:2 shows Christ to be from everlasting.
John 1:3 shows that Jesus is not a made thing. If all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that has been made, then he cannot be a made thing.
John 1:3 shows that since all things were made through Jesus then he must have pre-existed all things and hense eternal.
1 Corinthians 8:6 shows two eternal beings, the Father of whom are all things and the Son through whom are all things. The fact that all things are of the Father and through the Son (while showing different functions in creation), shows that both of them must have pre-existed the creation of all things; hense they are both eternal.
If the Father has always been the Father from all eternity then the Son must have existed from eternity, since a being does not exist as a father unless the being has a son; hense an eternal Father logically would have an eternal Son.
Re: Job 38 "the sons of God"
While created spirits were collectively referred to as "the sons of God," Jesus is not refered to in his divinity as "one of the sons of God" or "a son of God" (including him in the aforementioned group) but as "the Son of God."
Furthermore the Son of God is not an a created spirit angel (note the phrases "of the angels he saith," coontrasted with "But unto the Son he saith,")
"Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:" Psalm 104:1-4
"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, . . .
Not only is the Son not one of these "And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." but he is God.
"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 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." Hebrews 1:7-8.
-
hooberus
Just as an earthly son's relationship to his earthly father makes him equal to his father; Jesus' relationship with the Father makes him equal to the Father:
"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." John 5:18
Here John states that Jesus' claim to having God as his Father as a claim to being equal with God. I believe that from the sentence structure the phrase "making himself equal with God" is John's observation and not just him recordeing "the Jews opinion" as the WT claims. Note the previous verses:
16: And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
17: But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.Verse 16 is clearly John's words and not John merely giving "the Jews opinion"; likewise John 5:18 is also John's words and not John merely giving "the Jews opinion."
The WT attempts to try to use the rest of the dialogue starting at verse 19 to attempt to overturn the direct statement of equality in verse 18. However through out the rest of the dialogue Jesus continued to refer to God as his Father, thus he never denied the inspired statement of John in verse 18.
-
hooberus
"The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." John 19:7
Here the Jews did not interpret Jesus's claim to be the Son of God as being one of the class of "the sons of God" mentioned in Job, but instead as a claim to being God. Though here we have the Jews opinion and not an inspired statement, the fact remains that in ancient judiasm the phrase "the Son of God" was not interpreted as classing Jesus with the plural "sons of God" but instead was considered a claim to be God by nature.
-
Kenneson
Earnest,
On Philo and Gen. 1:26: doesn't Philo believe the "us" to be God and the Logos? I don't believe that Philo believed that angels made man. "Let us make man..."
More thoughts on first-born. The term does not necessarily mean the first one who was born or created? The term is also often used in Scripture to signify priority in importance or rank, rather than actual birth order. See 1 Samuel 16:11-13 and Psalm 89:27 King David was the last-born son of Jesse; he was the youngest. So, this could not refer to his birth order. Rather, he was elevated in rank, above his other brothers and above other kings, to the pre-eminent position.
The term is also used in this sense when speaking of Christ as the firstborn of creation in Col. 1:15. The context is actually a denial that Christ is the same in dignity, character, and origin as created beings (Col. 1:16-17), since it is in Him and for Him that all things were created. He is actually higher than all things. Verse 18 identifies Jesus as "the head of the church" and "the first born from the dead," and says that this is for the purpose "that in everything he might be pre-eminent."
-
Kenneson
P.S. Nor does firstborn always imply subsequent children. See Rom. 8:29 where Christ is called the firstborn of many brothers, meaning that he is the founder of the Congregation or Church, the adopted (not natural) children of God.
-
Kenneson
Dean,
You state: "Personally, I see Joshua's action as being one of respect and obeisance to the authority of this angelic figure."
If that is how Calvin and other early church fathers saw it, I doubt they would have concluded that an angel was Jesus. It was precisely because they understood worship to mean adoration and not merely homage that they opted for a different interpretation. Since, to them, this special angel receives adoration, it must signify someone other than an angel because no mere angel can be worshipped. Therefore, it must refer to Jesus, who is God, and can be worshipped.
At any rate, I think that I have consistently maintained that Jesus is not an angel, irregardless of what anyone says. Sure, trinitarians don't always see eye to eye. But does anyone? Just look at the blood issue amongst JWs. Isn't there a site maintained by a JW, who is trying to get the W.T. to reform its stance on blood transfusions?
If Jesus laid down his spirit nature, as Earnest maintains, to become a man, than how can the angel of the Lord still be present at Jesus' birth? See Luke 2:9-13. They are distinctly separate beings. Thus Jesus could not be the angel of the Lord of the Old Testament, nor of the New.
-
Dean Porter
Kenneson, How does a " special angel" become so special that it is no longer an angel ? Whether it is an ordinary angel or a special one it is still an angel. Joshua spoke to an angel and WORSHIPPED before him and received no rebuke. If this angel was not Jesus, as you argue, then why does he receive worship ? If this angel was Jesus , as MANY trinitarians argue, then Jesus is an angel in the O.T. The point I am trying to make is that the issue of whether Jesus is an Archangel is not the cut and dry matter that you and Hooberus have tried to say on this thread. Also, that the fact the angels worship Jesus does not necessarily prove he is actually Jehovah. The fact is, that for the trinitarian, the Joshua account presents the problem of Jesus being an Angel but at the same time being actually Jehovah. When he in fact CAN'T be both. Whereas for the non- trinitarian, there is no conflict or problem. If Jesus is this special angel , then he is not actually Jehovah but as Jehovah's "Shaliach" he can be worshipped as IF he was Jehovah. I have mentioned this term many times on this board because it is the Key to understanding all these controversial scriptures about Jesus identity. If Jesus is the Shaliach of Jehovah then LEGALLY he is Jehovah ( as his AMBASSADORIAL REPRESENTATIVE ) without actually BEING Jehovah. As was the Angel of the Lord ! I know we will never convince each other , but it is illuminating trying. cheers, Dean.
-
Kenneson
Dean,
Irregardless if the angel in Joshua is the Angel of the Lord , still does not make him Jesus. Actually, I believe the Angel of the Lord is Gabriel. And I don't believe Joshua actually worshipped the angel as this is forbidden to Jews. So if you "personally, ...see Joshua's action as being one of respect and obeisance to the authority of this angelic figure," how has it now become worship (adoration) of the Angel?
You ask, "If this angel was not Jesus, as you argue, then why does he receive worship?" I don't believe the angel was the recipient of worship and I thought you believed that way too. Nor do I believe that the angel is Jehovah anymore than the prophets were Jehovah. Now, you seem to be saying that the angel is receiving worship as IF he is Jehovah, yet he is not Jehovah. So, is it obeisance or is it worship?
Why does the Angel of the Lord have to be Jesus rather than Gabriel? Again, please re-read Luke 2:9-13. You have never commented yet on the passages in the New Testament that refer to the Angel of Jehovah still acting in Jehovah's behalf and yet distinct from Jesus. How, then, are they the same?
I'm fairly confident that we will not come to an agreement. Simply put, you see Jesus as an angel and I don't.
-
Dean Porter
Kenneson,
I hadn't commented on Gabriel as I was still looking at the scriptures in question but I'm happy to comment now.
I have continued to look at various internet sites via a Google search on " the angel of the lord " and have found some very interesting comments.
Whilst I don't believe that a majority view is always the right view - certainly the majority view of the pages I have read are by trinitarians and they almost all identify Jesus as The O.T. Angel of the Lord.
They seem to come to this view because of the "worship" that the Angel often receives and thus they simply trade off worship of Angels for the second member of the trinity being an Angel !
As I previously said the stumbling block to the correct understanding here is the SHALIACH principle and the of the terms Histachawa and Proskyneo.
Now, as regards Gabriel, the scriptures refer to him as Jehovah's angel. This at first reading appears to be the same as the Angel of the Lord but at a closer look it appears not to be.
A point that comes out of the various websites I looked at, was that the Angel of the Lord is the manifestation of Jehovah's presence. The angel is described as "the face of God" which is why Jacob, after he had wrestled with the Angel of the Lord, named that place Peniel, (Gen.32:29,30).
Note that he asked the angel what his name was ? The angel would not identify himself, why? because he was representing Jehovah and not appearing in his own identity.
The point being , Gabriel cannot be the O.T. Angel of the Lord or the Face of God, for the very reason that he identifies himself as Gabriel !
Gabriel is an exalted angel, perhaps one of the Seven Spirits surrounding God's throne ?
But he is not the Angel of the Lord for the reason stated and also Zechariah did not believe he had just seen God , he was aware it was an exalted angel but it was not God's presence before him !
The various sites I visited , to a one , all said that the Angel of the Lord does not appear in the N.T.
Could this be for the reason that the Angel of the Lord had divested himself and became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ ?
Having said that , I think the Angel of the Lord does make an appearance in the N.T.
For me this makes total sense when I read John 20:28 where Thomas sees the resurrected Jesus and realises this is the Angel of the Lord and states "My Lord and My God ".
Thomas realises he is in the presence of God by means of the Angel of the Lord standing before him just like the O.T. Theophanies.
Makes perfect sense to me.
regards,
Dean.