by hooberus 126 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Dean,
If Angel of the Lord cannot be applied to Gabriel because he is identified, why do Jehovah's Witnesses apply it to Michael? Both Gabriel and Michael are not named and identified until the Book of Daniel. Please note that Michael is named as one of the foremost princes; there is more than one. Daniel 10:13. Gabriel stands before God and certainly can be the Angel of the Lord. Luke 1:19 Jesus was born as a man and was no angel of the Lord, neither in his humanity nor in his divinity.
P.S. So when Jesus became a man, what happened to the Angel of the Lord? Did he remain in heaven? Now, if Jesus' angelic nature remained with the Father in heaven while he was on earth, what was it that was resurrected? Could it be his glorified and exalted human body?
Dean,
Moses saw the Angel of the Lord in Ex. 3:2, yet could not see the face of God and live in Ex. 33:20). Why could Jacob do what Moses could not? (Gen. 32:30)
The Angel in that Genesis passage is identified as Jehovah (if you take it literally). Yet, interestingly, he is conceived in no other form than human (Gen. 32:26). Does that make Jehovah a man? Moreover, Moses is also identified as God to Pharaoh (Ex. 7:1) Was he literally God? If he is not, then neither is the angel messenger who is merely an emissary sent by Jehovah to speak in His name or to work wonders in His name.
I also find it quite interesting that you are willing to identify Jesus with the Angel of the Lord, but are not willing to take the further step of those Trinitarians by equating him to Jehovah.
Kenneson,
I see the questions you have raised in reply , but I think you are skirting around the point.
I could argue further on the identity of the Angel of the Lord but it is not my concern to convince you of anything ( although it would be nice to ).
My point was merely to show that despite what has been argued on this thread about how Jesus could not be viewed as an Angel ; the fact is that the majority of all trinitarian commentaries I have read actually ARGUE that Jesus WAS the Angel of the Lord. Thus it is not improper to refer to Jesus as an Angel.
I am not particularly interested anymore in what the J.W.'s say on the matter, and maybe you are not interested in what other trinitarians may say either !
However, I would like to reply to your last question as to why I don't go the rest of the way with the trinitarians reasoning.
Well I think I already alluded to the point that I think their reasoning is flawed. Certainly there is other grounds of reasoning that we haven't discussed here yet that suggests Jesus was the Angel of the Lord and with which I would agree. However, I depart from them when they say this Angel is ACTUALLY GOD because of the worship it receives.
This is flawed for two reasons.
1) The whole point of having an Angel is that a Principal sends an agent on their behalf to represent them.
So you don't send a representative if you actually go yourself !
2) The worship received by the angel is not directed at that angel personally but rather to God who the
angel represents. The angel is not appearing for itself but rather as the emissary of God. Here comes
that word again SHALIACH. The angel is God's Shaliach i.e. it carries God's name, his authority and
speaks as if it is God, and yes even receives worship ( histachawa / proskyneo ) on behalf of God.
But it is NOT LITERALLY God.
So all that is required is a correct understanding of the bible terms for WORSHIP and SHALIACH and we arrive at the correct understanding.
By the way, before anyone trys to use the arguement about God not sharing his worship with anyone.
By me saying the Angel recieves worship for God , I am not saying God is sharing worship. The Angel is to all intents and purposes God in this role as the Shaliach Angel of God. So the worship is God's no one else's.
It is a FINE point but one which needs to be seen for what it is.
regards to you,
Dean.
Dean,
I thank you for sharing your views, even if I don't espouse them. I know you don't mine either. So, I guess we will just leave it at that, although I enjoyed the exchange of thoughts. I part friends with you.
Kenneson
Kenneson,
I appreciate and echo your comments. It has been a very enlightening and fruitful discussion.
I have been able to look at and study certain scriptures that I wouldn't have otherwise.
I'm sure we will exchange comments on other threads too.
It is good to have the interchange of thoughts and still remain amicable.
respect and best wishes,
Dean.
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..." - Kenneson, 13-Nov-03 03:49 GMT
Kenneson, I based my statement that Philo and others interpreted "Let us make man..." as dialogue between God and the angels on the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, Briggs, 1929, p.43a, sec.3 where it discusses the meaning of elohim and states:
1b divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels [Psalm 8:5] (Franz Delitzsch, T.K.Cheyne, C.A.Briggs; but angels LXX, Syriac Version, Targum, H.Ewald; God, RV and most moderns) [Genesis 1:26] (if with Philo, Targum, Jerome, Franz Delitzsch, T.K.Cheyne we interpret asah ["Let us make"] as God's consultation with angels; cf. Job 38:7).
On further investigation I found that Philo wrote a commentary "On the Creation" (De Opificio Mundi) in which he recognises that God had helpers in the work of creation.
It is on this account that Moses says, at the creation of man alone that God said, "Let us make man," which expression shows an assumption of other beings to himself as assistants... (chapter XXIV)
It is actually quite instructive to read what Philo taught because there is no doubt in my mind that the Jews were prepared to accept the idea of the Logos at God's right hand by the time the Christian congregation was established.
So, for example, in "On the Confusion of Tongues" (De Cofusione Linguarum) he writes:
And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel. - chapter XXVIII.
In "On Dreams" (De Somniis) he writes:
For just as those who are unable to see the sun itself see the gleam of the parhelion and take it for the sun, and take the halo round the moon for that luminary itself, so some regard the image of God, His angel the Word, as His very self. - chapter XLI.
In "Who is the Heir of Divine Things" (Quis rerum divinarum Heres sit) he writes:
And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. - chapter XLII.
A regards your comments that first-born "does not necessarily mean the first one who was born or created", I would agree that there are examples of those who are not first-born being given the rights of the first-born (as happened with Esau and Jacob). But unless it is very clear that it is referring to the rights of the first-born rather than the first-born himself, I think the scripture should be taken at face value. And I see no reason that Colossians 1:15 should be read any differently.
You also suggest that "firstborn" does not always imply subsequent children. That simply goes against reason as I discussed previously. You do not refer to a firstborn son if there are not others to contrast him with. Romans 8:29, which you give as an example, speaks of God's Son as the firstborn "among many brothers". In verse 17 of the same chapter Paul makes the point that as children of God they are heirs, "heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ". Christ and his disciples are God's sons (vs 14), are joint heirs, are brothers.
Earnest
