All things have been handed to me

by peacefulpete 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  On another thread the story about Jacob wrestling god and cliaming to have seen God face to face reminded me of an interesting point about Matt 11:27: "All things have been delivered to me (handed to me) by my father"; and noone knows the Son except the Father and none knows the father except the son and anyone whom the son choses to reveal Him."
  

  This verse is often lifted from context and used to support a number of doctrinal positions, however in context the stament alludes to Jesus being superior to previous prophets including Moses and Jacob because of his having seen God and had the associated full disclosure from Him.

  The connections between "seeing" god and having his full disclosure "knowing god" and his mind, is made at Ex.33:12-23 where Moses asks to "know"god's ways and the response is to allow him to "see" him though in a indirect way. Similarly Num. 12:6-8 where God says He has "entrusted his whole house" to Moses as shown by His allowing him to "look upon the form of Yahweh". Deut. 34:10 also associates "knowing" with seeing face to face. John 1:18 makes sense in this context, wherein the son is said to have uniquely "seen" god and therefore be able to make him "known".

  Anyway the Matt 11 passage seems to be countering the Jewish ( Bibical and Rabbinical) notion that Moses had elevated to near godship by his association with God by insisting he had NOT "seen" and "known" god but Jesus had. Verses 25,26 are speaking about revelation, not power or authority etc. and therefore verse 27 should be understood with this in mind.
• 

  Leolaia

  According to Gundry, there is also an allusion to Exodus 33:14 in the following verse: "And I will give you rest (kagó anapausó humas)" (Matthew 11:28). Cf. kai katapausó se "and I will give you rest" in Exodus 33:14 (LXX). The preceding portion of v. 28 is an allusion to Jeremiah 31:25, and v. 29 is a combined allusion to Sirach 51:23-27 and Jeremiah 6:16.

  I'm struck by the Johannine quality of v. 27 (= Luke 10:22). Cf. John 3:35 ("The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand") and 7:29 ("I know him, for I come from him and he sent me"), as well as John 5:20, 10:14-15, 13:3, 17:25. The preceding verse's reference to "hiding things" and "revealing" them in Jesus also has links to John and with the unique wisdom content in the early chapters of 1 Corinthians. I think there are parallels to the "Parables of Enoch" as well.

  About Moses seeing God, I believe Philo of Alexandria described Moses' soul as actually leaving his body and visiting heaven during the time he spent on Mount Sinai (Horeb).
• 

  Leolaia

  If you haven't reviewed it yet, Allison gives a very thorough analysis of this passage and its relationship with the Moses traditions in pp. 43-51 of his book.

  Most interesting is the repeated claims that Moses received a complete (or near complete) revelation of the cosmos (cf. Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagoge, 9.29; Jubilees 1:4; Epistle of Aristeas 139; 2 Baruch 59:4-11; Sifre 257 on Numbers 12:8; Midrash Ps. 24:5; Memar Marqah 5:1). Also interesting is the Ebionite conception of Moses in the Pseudo-Clementines, as the only genuine prophet in all Jewish history (influenced by Deuteronomy 34:10-12), whose revelation of the Torah was completed by Jesus.
• 

  Narkissos

  The OT traditions about seeing God are quite complex, if not confuse. At the very center of the covenant narrative, and, interestingly, after the sprinkling of the blood of the covenant sacrifices, is the apparent "exception" of Exodus 24:9ff:

  Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. God did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank.

  Exodus 33, on the other hand, makes a difference between "seeing Yhwh" and "seeing his face". After Moses obtained that Yhwh's own "face" (and not a lower representation, emanation, avatar, or "angel") would go along with Israel after all (v. 14), Moses asks to see Yhwh's glory and only the "face" is denied:

  And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you the name, 'The LORD'; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But," he said, "you cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live." And the LORD continued, "See, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen."
• 

  Narkissos

  Philo, as a good platonist, seems to value sight only as the best metaphor of cognition.

  Cf. On the Change of Names:

  (3) But do not thou think that this appearance presented itself to the eyes of the body, for they see no things but such as are perceptible to the outward senses; but those objects of the outward senses are compounded ones, full of destruction; but the Deity is not a compound object, and is indestructible: but the eye which receives the impression of the divine appearance is the eye of the soul; (4) for besides this, those things which it is only the eyes of the body that see, are only seen by them because they take light as a coadjutor, and light is different, both from the object seen and from the things which see it. But all these things which the soul sees of itself, and through its own power, it sees without the cooperation of any thing or any one else; for the things which the soul does thus comprehend are a light to themselves, (5) and in the same way also we learn the sciences; for the mind, applying its never-closing and never-slumbering eye to their doctrines and speculations, sees them by no spurious light, but by that genuine light which shines forth from itself. (6) When therefore you hear that God has been seen by man, you must consider that this is said without any reference to that light which is perceptible by the external senses, for it is natural that that which is appreciable only by the intellect should be presented to the intellect alone; and the fountain of the purest light is God; so that when God appears to the soul he pours forth his beams without any shade, and beaming with the most radiant brilliancy.

  II. (7) Do not, however, think that the living God, he who is truly living, is ever seen so as to be comprehended by any human being; for we have no power in ourselves to see any thing, by which we may be able to conceive any adequate notion of him; we have no external sense suited to that purpose (for he is not an object which can be discerned by the outward sense), nor any strength adequate to it: therefore, Moses, the spectator of the invisible nature, the man who really saw God (for the sacred scriptures say that he entered "into the Darkness,"{3}{#ex 20:21.} by which expression they mean figuratively to intimate the invisible essence), having investigated every part of every thing, sought to see clearly the much-desired and only God; (8) but when he found nothing, not even any appearance at all resembling what he had hoped to behold; he, then, giving up all idea of receiving instruction on that point from any other source, flies to the very being himself whom he was seeking, and entreats him, saying, "Show my thyself that I may see thee so as to know Thee."{4}{#ex 33:13.} But, nevertheless, he fails to obtain the end which he had proposed to himself, and which he had accounted the most all-sufficient gift for the most excellent race of creation, mankind, namely a knowledge of those bodies and things which are below the living God. (9) For it is said unto him, "Thou shalt see my back parts, but my face shall not be beheld by Thee."{5}{#ex 33:23.} As if it were meant to answer him: Those bodies and things which are beneath the living God may come within thy comprehension, even though every thing would not be at once comprehended by thee, since that one being is not by his nature capable of being beheld by man. (10) And what wonder is there if the living God is beyond the reach of the comprehension of man, when even the mind that is in each of us is unintelligible and unknown to us? Who has ever beheld the essence of the soul? the obscure nature of which has given rise to an infinite number of contests among the sophists who have brought forward opposite opinions, some of which are inconsistent with any kind of nature.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I have recently been growing skeptical about the Q hypothesis in favor of the Mark-Matt-Luke stream. This seems a perfect example of why. Luke seems to have deliberately abbreviated the matt 13:16,17 section and appended it on Matt 11 because of similar theme. Matt resonable flowed from 11:25-30. Yet the Q theory has some of it Q and some Mattean, breaking up the Ex. allusions in 27 and 28,29. As clumsy as I am with this stuff that seems a rather odd conclusion to draw.
• 

  Leolaia

  I understand the Q skepticism....I have questions myself, and am presently reading Goodacre. In this case, I think the Q explanation is not inherently implausible. Matthew 11:28-29 would represent a Matthean expansion of Q 10:21-22, and would thus extend the allusion to Moses and Exodus 33. Just looking at the allusions by themselves, one could possibly detect a seam at the end of v. 27; the preceding verses largely drew on the Moses tradition, but v. 28-30 instead draw largely on a combination of Sirach 51:23-27 and Jeremiah 6:16, 31:25. There is an allusion to Exodus 33:14 in Matthew 11:28, but it is worked into the allusions to Jeremiah and Sirach. The corresponding passage in Luke 10:21-22 ends just before the allusions to Jeremiah and Sirach begin. The Q explanation of this is that the original passage just had allusions to Exodus 33 and this was followed by Luke whereas Matthew in his own style has expanded the text by alluding to Exodus 33:14 and mixing it with allusions to other books. As for the beautitude in Luke 10:23-24, this flows nicely the context (e.g. the Father has hidden things from the wise / prophets and kings desired to see the things you can see but did not see them), whereas in Matthew it occurs in an expansion of Mark (cf. Matthew 13:10-17 = Mark 4:10-12; v. 14-17 are not paralleled in the Markan text). This displacement of the passage is understandable because the logion in Mark 4:12 is thematically related to Q 11:24 (cf. "so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand" in Mark), and both are allusive to Isaiah 6:9-10, so the author of Matthew put Q 11:24 into the Markan passage about interpreting parables and linked the two by directly quoting Isaiah (= Matthew 13:14-15).
• 

  peacefulpete

  I understand thta it is possible to suppose Q but it is certainly not immediately suggested much less required. If Matt at 13 was expanding upon Mark 4 (and I agree he was and did a eloquent job incorporating Isaiah ) then why postulate Q in that expansion just because Luke relocates it to another section where it only superficially fits. I do disagree that the Mattean expansion fits Luke's context well. He seams the Matthean expansion in with "Then turning to his disciples.... " to bridge it with the already strange 1rst/3rd person prayer.
• 

  hmike

  While Moses and others were said in the OT to have seen God, NT writers in John 1:18 and 6:46, and in I Tim. 6:15-16 take the position of Exodus 33:20 that no mortal has ever seen God, or at least not see Him and live.

  For those who did see God, he may have reduced the intensity of his glory, or they looked at him through some kind of filter or diffuser. Consider that people could not look at Moses due to the radiance he picked up from being in God's presence. If we consider Moses to be like phosphorescent material after exposure to light, and the intensity of the light from the source had been reduced, how bright that original source would have been. The ancient people might say Moses saw God through some kind of veil.

  Jesus, on the other hand, because he was holy and righteous, could have beheld the full glory of the Father without being evaporated. He had unique knowledge of the Father, but the Synoptic Gospels don't indicate when, or how, it was revealed to him. Since John writes about Jesus as the pre-incarnate Word, the implication is that at least much of the knowledge was already in him from birth. We are told that Jesus frequently went off by himself to pray, but we are never given insight as to what the Father replied or by what means he did (verbally, non-verbally, by angel, by vision, or just intuitively by the Holy Spirit).

  Keep in mind that Moses, the prophets, or any other mortal only knew as much about God as He revealed to them. The full revelation was never given to any mortal (the original "need-to-know" directive). Consequently, these people occasionally questioned and even argued with God about what He would do, or how, or why He was going to it. With Jesus, it was clear from the beginning of his ministry that he had unique knowledge of the Father. Somehow, Jesus knew the Father's nature and will far beyond what Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, or anyone else had. Consequently, he was able to speak authoritatively, not as teachers or even prophets did. The way Moses and the others saw the Father would be like one of us having to use filters to look directly at the sun. The filters enable us to look without strain or danger, but we miss details. As Paul wrote of knowledge of the coming kingdom, "Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face" (I Cor. 13:12, NIV)--the difference between partial, restricted knowledge, and full disclosure.

  While Matt. 11:25-27 and the parallel passage in Luke 10:21-22 speak of revelation, I think they also do speak of authority. In Matt. 11, Jesus transitions from his "woes" to cities where he was not well-received to praise to the Father for hiding truth from the wise and learned and revealing it to children ( the humble, trusting, and obedient--those not high up on the socioeconomic ladder who lord it over those beneath them). The Jewish leaders and teachers, many of whom did not accept Jesus as sent by God, considered God as their Father because they understood the Scriptures and kept the law (as evidenced by high socioeconomic status--a reward from God), unlike the common folk (whose struggles were evidence of their shortcomings before God). Verses 25-27 and Luke 10:21-22 seem to tie in well with John 6:44-46. To bring glory to the Son, the Father set up the requirement that the only way to truly know him is through the Son; only the Father fully knows the Son; the Father will bring people to the Son; and the Son reveals the Father to them as only he can do. When v. 27 states, "no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him," that says to me that the Son had the authority to make the choice of who would truly know the Father. We see this kind of thing happening when Jesus explains the parables to his disciples, but leaves the others wondering. In this sense, the Father has already turned the kingdom over to the Son, and the Son fulfills his responsibility in accordance with his Father's will.