Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus 126 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Earnest

  Kenneson,
  

  Here are some of the passages that Dunn referred to in his book, Christology in the Making :

  As "the Spirit of God" however, and "the Power of the Highest", can He be regarded as lower than the angels, he who is verily God, and the Son of God? Well, but as bearing human nature [dum hominem gestat], he is so far made inferior to the angels; but as bearing angelic nature [dum angelum gestat], he to the same degree loses that inferiority. -

  Tertullian, De carne Christi (On the flesh of Christ) 14.5

  For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these He hath appointed angels as princes. But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God. - pseudo-Clement, Recognitions II. 42

  [The shepherd] sat down beside me, and said to me, "I have been sent by a most venerable angel to dwell with you the remaining days of your life." - Shepherd of Hermas: Visions V.1

  Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, (of the truth) of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things - above whom there is no other God - wishes to announce to them." - Justin, Dialogue 56.4

  You will note that Justin says he is called an angel because he conveys God's message to men. You probably know that the word (in Greek) for 'angel' and 'messenger' is the same and I expect you would agree that he who is called "the Word" is God's chief messenger.

  If you substitute the word 'messenger' for 'angel' in the scriptures it puts them in a completely different light, one with which readers of the original language would be familiar.

  So he [God's Son] hath become better than the messengers [aggelon], as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the messengers [aggelon] 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? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the messengers [aggeloi] of God worship him. - Hebrews 1:4-6

  Simply because 1 Peter 3:22 says that "messengers [aggelon] and authorities and powers" are made subject to him does not in any way preclude Jesus from being a messenger, an authority or a power. And to say that Jesus is the Word does not in any way detract from his being the Son. It enhances it.

  Earnest

  Multiple formattings were attempts to include the reference in the Tertullian quotation...without success.
• 

  Kenneson

  Earnest,

  "You will note that Justin says he is called an angel because he conveys God's message to men."

  Where in Scripture does it say that? Prophets also conveyed God's message to men and are nowhere called angels, nor do they have angelic nature.

  And on Dunn: "Well, but as bearing human nature (dum hominen gestat), he is so far made inferior to the angels; but as bearing angelic nature (dum angelum gestat),he to the same degree loses inferiority."

  I have no problem with the former (Jesus' human nature being inferior to angels) as that thought is conveyed in Heb.2:5-11 and Phil. 2:5-8. However, no where do I read that Jesus had angelic nature. Angels were made by Jesus, but where does it say Jesus was made an angel? Rather, he has God's divine nature. See Col. 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."

  Since you like to quote from the church fathers, here is one for you from St. Augustine on angels:

  " 'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit,' from what they do, 'angel.' " S. Aug., En in Ps. 103, 1,15:Pl 37, 1348.

  Since the angels belong to Jesus he has MADE them MESSENGERS OF HIS SAVING PLAN. Heb. 1:4 and verse 14. They are Jesus' messengers. But Jesus doesn't have angelic nature because he never was an angel.
• 

  Kenneson

  P.S. The passage Augustine was alluding to is found in the New World Translation in Ps. 104:4: "Making his angels spirits, His ministers a devouring fire."
• 

  Earnest

  Kenneson,

  Earnest : You will note that Justin says he is called an angel because he conveys God's message to men.

  Kenneson : Where in Scripture does it say that? Prophets also conveyed God's message to men and are nowhere called angels, nor do they have angelic nature.

  If you accept that Jesus, the Word, is God's chief messenger then you are speaking of him in biblical terms as an angel [Heb. malakh, Grk aggelos]. The Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Brown,Driver,Briggs, OUP,1929) gives three primary meanings of malakh as messenger, angel (as messenger of God) and the theophanic angel. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words gives the derivation of angel as angelos meaning "'a messenger' (from angello, 'to deliver a message'), sent whether by God or by man or by Satan". In fact, the special meaning of angel "is apparently a reversion to the oldest signification, for in Homer the aggelos is often a messenger of the gods" (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Part I, Moulton & Milligan, p.3). How do translators decide which word to use (angel or messenger)? The book, Aid to Bible Understanding, says "When spirit messengers are indicated the words are translated 'angels,' but if the reference is to human creatures, the rendering is 'messengers'." In other words, it's just a matter of context and translators' discretion.

  There are, of course, several scriptures that refer to the prophets as malakh / aggelos [LXX] e.g. Isaiah 44:26; 2 Chronicles 36:15,16; Haggai 1:13, but the context suggests the translation as 'messenger' rather than 'angel'.

  However, Malachi 3:1 could just as easily read:

  "Look! I am sending my angel [malakh / aggelos (LXX)], and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenly there will come to His temple the (true) Lord, whom you people are seeking, and the angel [malakh / aggelos (LXX)] of the covenant in whom you are delighting.

  Of course, the identification of the first malakh with John the Baptist (Matthew 11:10; Luke 1:76; John 1:6) would make "messenger" a more accurate translation. Don't know about the other one though (cp. Acts 7:38).

  Your reference to Augustine confirms (in Augustine's view) that Dean's suggestion ("IF the Son, the LOGOS was a High Ranking Angel like a Seraphim then he would be superior to the Angels who are the lowest ranked Bene Ha Elohim") is correct :

  " 'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit,' from what they do, 'angel.' " S. Aug., En in Ps. 103, 1,15:Pl 37, 1348.

  Jesus holds the highest office at the right hand of God. However, when it comes to the army of angels it is reasonable to believe he adopts his role of archangel (Revelation 12:7-12), as the leader of a nation is also commander-in-chief in a time of war.

  Earnest
• 

  Kenneson

  Earnest,

  The Bible mentions Michael the archangel five times (Dan. 10:13; Dan. 10:21; Dan. 12:1, Jude 9 and Rev. 12:7) Which of these passages state that Michael is Jesus? None! Scripture is clear that all angels: Seraphims, cherubims, archangels, angels were created by the Son (Col. 1:16) How could Jesus be a part of his own creation?

  According to the New World Translation at Heb. 1:3 the Son is the reflection of the Father's glory and the exact representaion of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power." Now, I ask you, what angel (including Michael) could do that?

  Moreover, you never acknowledged why all the angels are commanded to worship the Son (an archangel according to you)? Heb. 1:6 How could an archangel receive worship? No matter how high a position they occupy, creatures are never to be worshipped. Worship only goes to God. I have already pointed out that the worship of angels is condemned in Scripture (Col. 2:18 and Rev. 22:8-9)
• 

  hooberus

  The hebrew word malakh, has the primary meaning of "messenger." It can be applied to humans as well as other beings.
  

  The Hebrew word malakh is translated into Greek manuscripts as the greek word aggelos. The greek word aggelos also has the primary meaning "messenger." It can be applied to humans as well as other beings.

  Though all malak/aggelos were messengers, not all were "created spirit creatures" (as the term angel is commonly aludes to today.) However, malak/aggelos can at times refer to created spirit creatures (As it does in Hebrews Chapter 1 and 2).

  Hebrews chapter 1 Shows the superiority of Christ to the angels /Greek aggelos (here aggelos obviously refers to created spirit creatures), by showing that He is the Lord of the Old Testament (ie: YHWH). He is the one whom the angels worship.
• 

  Dean Porter

  Earnest,
  
  I am fully with you on this matter, we are clearly 'on the same wavelength'. You have expressed in your quotations and your reasoning , the same thoughts I was having , but you have expressed them more eloquently than I could.
  
  I have much appreciated your input here.
  
  With regard to Kenneson's quote from Augustine; I read it and thought , this actually upholds what WE are saying rather than refute our position.
  
  As I see it , the book of Hebrews shows that God 'speaks ' to man via MESSENGERS or AGENTS. It contrasts the use of the Angels with the Son. But the point is that both the Angels and the Son are MESSENGERS or MEDIATORS or AGENTS that represent God to Man.
  
  The very fact that the Son speaks for God shows he is an ANGEL or MESSENGER or AGENT. The Role that Jesus has as the Word or Logos is to represent to men the Message / Revelation / Mind of God.
  
  He is the SENT ONE or SHALIACH of God. He is the authoritative AGENT of the Father and has thus been given a Greater name than the other BENE HA ELOHIM.
  
  But again , the point is He and the Angels are by ' NATURE' both SONS OF GOD but his Sonship is GREATER by virtue that he is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON.
  
  They are both Aggelos / Shaliach in their roles but he is the LOGOS and therefore the Father's primary AGENT.
  
  Regards,
  
  Dean.
• 

  Dean Porter

  Kenneson,
  
  
  your quote regarding ' roles' and ' office ' seemed to lend support to what Earnest was saying rather than refute it.
  
  
  It made me think of the passage in LUKE 20: 9-17. There Jesus gives the parable of the vineyard owner who sends his Servants to his Tenants. The Servants are Sent ones i.e. Shaliachs; they are authoritative agents of the Owner and thus represent him when they deliver his message. They are Messengers or Angels in the true sense of the greek term.
  
  
  When the Tenants don't listen to them , the Landlord sends his Son as his Shaliach or authoritative Messenger or Angel.
  
  
  Thus we see that whilst the Son was the greater by virtue of his Sonship he nevertheless shared in the same role or office as a Messenger that his fathers servants had also.
  
  
  You mention worship being directed to the Son in Hebrews but as expressed elsewhere in scripture the worship is to the Glory of God the Father. Remember the Son is the Agent or Apostle of God. As the Psalms says " Kiss the Son ( i.e. prostrate oneself ) lest God be angry".
  
  
  Did you know that in the Jewish mindset, there were DIVINE MEDIATORS who acted as Angelic intermediatories for God. Wisdom ; Logos ; Son of Man; Melckizedek ; Enoch etc. The writings like Sirach and the Book of Enoch as preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that these figures were thought of as being Angelic and received worship as representatives of God.
  
  
  So with this in mind a first century reader of the book of Hebrews would see Jesus as the Ultimate Angelic Mediator.
  
  
  By the way in the gospel of John, Jesus continually says that what he speaks is not of his own originallity but what the father speaks he tells us. In other words he is passing on a message from someone other than himself- thus he is an AGGELOS.
  
  
  Some interesting comments I found on the web from theologian Martin Werner seem pertinent here :
  
  
  Then, to, notwithstanding its fervently sustained insistence upon monotheism, upon the belief that the only true God was the transcendental God of the Jewish Scriptures, Judaism, the cradle of christianity, sometimes went surprisingly far in applying divinizing terms to angels, to the personalized concepts of Wisdom and the Logos and even to men. Angels could carry the designations "son of God," "lord" and even "god"- the Qumran documents have brought further evidence of this. Jewish writing about Wisdom, the Logos and the Torah(the Law of Moses)contains close parallels to the New Testament description of Jesus Christ as God's image, the effulgence of God's glory, his firstborn, God's agent in the creation of the world and so on.
  
  
  Noteworthy first of all is the fact that, in his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared to God, he appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God's heavenly court, just as the angels were- though as God's Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far above them. Small wonder, then, that angel christology was a prominent strand of early christological thought, as Martin Werner has emphasised and other scholars have recognised.[Werner, op.cit.pp.120-41. Cf, too, Grillmeier, op.cit.pp.52-62.]Werner further argued that in calling Jesus "Lord"("Kyrios"), Paul and the early church meant that Jesus "was a high heavenly being of an angelic kind", the designation "Lord" being a particular instance of the designation and invocation of angels as "lords"("kyrioi") in late Judaism.[Werner, op.cit.p.124.]
  
  
  regards,
  
  
  Dean.
• 

  LittleToe

  There are several Seraphs, yet Jesus is the "only-begotten" son.

  Regarding Archangels, why would 1Thess.4:16 describe the Lord's voice as being likened to an archangel's, if there were only one archangel, and he was it?

  Further, what kind of angel was Gabriel?

  As for angels receiving worship - in every case I see, the angels refuse to be worshipped (except for Satan, who desired it).
• 

  hooberus

  In the Scriptures there are three types of beings by nature.

  1. uncreated God

  2. spirit creatures

  3. humans

  John the Baptist was a category 3 individual (human) by nature.

  He also functioned as a human "messenger"

  "Behold, I will send my messenger [Hebrew malakh] , and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to this temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts."

  "For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger [Greek aggelos] before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." Matthew 11:10

  He was thus a human "messenger" [Hebrew malakh, Greek aggelos]

  In these specific scriptures (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 11:10) the words malakh and aggelos have to do with function and not nature. Though we could technically possibly call John the baptist an "angellic" being because he functioned as a messenger, this would cause confusion to most people (especially if we were discussing his nature.) The fact that malakh and aggelos are applied to John the Baptist in malachi 3:1 has nothing to do with his nature. In the same way though Jesus is said to be a "messenger" Malachi 3;1 [Hebrew malakh]. The term does not necessarily have to do with his nature.