I received a private message on youtube from a friend who found Mike
Heiser's(biblical scholar and author of "Two Powers in Heaven")arguments
for Yeshua being the Angel of Yah in the OT(and hence somehow God
himself because the Angel is sometimes called "Yahweh") compelling and
worthy of consideration.I tried to reason with this friend about
Heiser's arguments.Though I haven't read Heiser's book,I did watch a
recommended youtube video so that I could gather his views.They were
typical of everyone else's who believe Christ was the Angel of Yah and
God at the same time in the Old Testament.This is how I first
responded:
An interesting question does arise when I
watch(and read) people like Heiser.Does he not know about the Hebrew law
of agency?How could he not since he seems to be an expert?Why doesn't
he address it or acknowledge it?I suppose he just doesn't think it's
possible for someone to bear God's name and be treated like God would be
treated and that be ok.But that's exactly what the Hebrew agency
principle is.If I were to entertain a binity or trinity from typical
arguments for one such as those from Heiser ,I would have to completely
ignore this well-established principle.Whereby agents in those times not
only bore the name of their senders,but also were treated as if they
WERE the sender himself.I don't really see a good reason to fail to
acknowledge this Hebrew reality.
If you're scratching
your head wondering what in the world I am talking about,hopefully this
will sum up the Hebrew reality at the time(by which we should assess the
bible given that it was written with those ancient Hebrew
thoughtforms,as opposed to our modern ones):
As The
Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion notes:
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the
dictum,"a person's agent is regarded as the person himself."(Ned
72B;Kidd,41b)Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is
regarded as having been committed by the principle." ~R.J.Z. Werblowski
and Geoffrey Wigoder
To quote author Greg Deuble(on pp.64-64 in his book "They Never Told me THIS in Church"):
"A
common feature of the Hebrew Bible is the concept (some even call it
the "law") of Jewish agency. All Old Testament scholars and commentators
recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an
agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person
himself."
I won't get into other bible examples(and
yes,they are sprinkled throughout) of this principle at work at this
time(though I will provide links at the end for further studies).
My friend decided to email Heiser about this Hebrew principle and this was Heiser's response:
"This
"law of agency" is a slippery thing (of convenience in this instance).
Prophets had the authority of Yahweh on them, but are not called Yahweh.
Same for apostles (they were likewise commissioned in the prophetic
tradition). Consistency in these respects and others must be avoided to
hold that view. This also does not explain Exod 23:20-23, where God
specifically distinguished the angel by saying "me name [presence] is in
him" and then later he is simultaneously present with that angel
(Judges 6). Since Yahweh is present in Judges 6, there's no need for him
to "put authority on" another figure -- his own presence should be good
enough if that was the point. Also, how would this explain ideas like
bringing sacrifice and offerings to the Name in the temple? That would
mean another being besides Yahweh receives *legitimate* Israelite
sacrifice. The language of the text just isn't congruent with the
"agency" position. And the JW view simply ignores the NT writers' tactic
of inserting Jesus into OT passages that have Yahweh as their subject.
Also, did you ever try the "a god" translation for theos
through ALL of John 1 (not just the first three verses)? Absolutely
absurd."
Mike
I won't be addressing Heiser's John ch. 1 and Jehovah's Witness complaints as they are utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Though
Mike brings up a good point about consistency(on the surface anyway),I
think you have to consider that not all agents and prophets of God had
God's FULL authorized gifted authority.In the NT,for example,Christ
ALONE is said to "have ALL things put under his feet"(1 Cor. 15:27)and
"all authority in heaven and on earth" given him.(Matt 28:18)What other
agent/representative/image of God/Son could say that in the NT?I think
the evidence shows that,though Christ took this role in the NT,in the OT
Yah also had a designated individual(or individuals,possibly I suppose)
through whom he reached out to mankind because he was too holy and
glorious to to be seen and heard himself.How and why would Yah send
another individual equally holy and glorious?Not only would that be
utterly nonsensical,it would also be impossible given the principles
Yahweh himself set.Namely,that Yahweh the Most High God IS/WAS too holy
and glorious to be seen by fallen mankind without them perishing.Notice
the common sense biblical precedent here that has to go completely
ignored by those who propose that a supposed "coequal" and
"consubstantial" Yahweh WAS actually seen?!Has anyone ever seen God at
any time?(1 John 4:12,John 1:18)Can you answer that without seriously
nonsensical qualification that ignores God's own biblical principles?
I can't help but notice,also, that Mike doesn't say that the Hebrew law of agency isn't
a genuine biblical principle.Only that it should be
consistent.However,there is no inconsistency at all in reality because
most of God's agents weren't designated with the FULL AUTHORITY
that would be conducive to their bearing of Yah's name.Apostles and
prophets are generally said to be given only "measures" of God's spirit
and authority,as opposed to FULLNESS thereof...The fact that God's name
was in his Angel says to me,from what I hope is intelligible
inference,that he DID have a full measure of spirit and authority to
speak and act on God's behalf as God.(according of course to the Hebrew
agency principle from which I also garner the idea that there doesn't
have to be more than one Yahweh when this legitimate principle is simply
acknowledged and not arbitrarily shunned to uphold a theological
bias)So there's no "inconsistency" and "slipperiness" at all.
Not
only does Mike have to ignore some of the intricacies of the agency
principle(whereby most were never given FULL authority with an unlimited
measure of spirit and hence didn't have to bear God's name),but he also
has to dismiss some of his trinitarian contemporaries' opinions to
uphold the stance that he does.(though admittedly I'm unsure how
dogmatic he is in his stance)Yes,the best testimonies to the lack of
stellar solid "proof" for Christ being the second person of a so-called
"triune homoousios" are the trinitarians one is bound to find for every
"proof text" denying that it's necessarily "proof" at all.In this
case,we find some claiming that the Angel of Yah may not have been a
pre-existent Christ.
The NIV Study Bible (which,if
anything,should be quick to assume,like Heiser,that the angel of Yah is
Christ because of doctrinal bias) notes:
"Since the angel
of the Lord speaks for God in the first person and Hagar is said to
name "the Lord who spoke to her: 'You are the God who sees me,'" the
angel appears to be both distinguished from the Lord (in that he is
called "messenger"—the Hebrew for "angel" means "messenger") and
identified with him. Similar distinction and identification can be found
in 19:1,21; 31:11,13; Ex. 3:2,4; Judges 2:1-5; 6:11-12,14;
13:3,6,8-11,13,15-17,20-23; Zech. 3:1-6; 12:8. Traditional Christian
interpretation has held that this "angel" was a pre-incarnate
manifestation of Christ as God's messenger-Servant. It may be, however,
that, as the Lord's personal messenger who represented him and bore his
credentials, the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified
with) the One who sent him. Whether this "angel" was the second person
of the Trinity remains therefore uncertain."
Hmm..looks like this Hebrew agency principle is acknowledged by more than just unitarians!
Similarly, the NET Bible notes:
"Some
identify the angel of the Lord as the preincarnate Christ because in
some texts the angel is identified with the Lord himself. However, it is
more likely that the angel merely represents the Lord; he can speak for
the Lord because he is sent with the Lord's full authority. In some
cases the angel is clearly distinct from the Lord (see Judg 6:11-23). It
is not certain if the same angel is always in view. Though the proper
name following the noun "angel" makes the construction definite, this
may simply indicate that a definite angel sent from the Lord is referred
to in any given context. It need not be the same angel on every
occasion. Note the analogous expression "the servant of the Lord," which
refers to various individuals in the OT (see BDB 714 s.v. עֶבֶד)."
So
not only does the trinitarian-bias NET Bible note that the Angel may
not be Yeshua, it goes so far as to say it "more than likely"
isn't.Significant,huh?Not only that,the NET admits that more than one
agent could have been this "Angel" on any given occasion.True,it can't
even be proven that there was only one sole individual that was the
Angel of Yah.Perhaps there were various ones that had his name if they
were vested with full authority when they were appearing on his behalf.I
tend to think it was probably only one,but that can't be
presupposed,only deduced from assumption.
As for making
sacrifices to the "name" of the LORD,who's to say "name" of the LORD
isn't another way of saying ,well,the "LORD"?Fact is,even if the "Name"
is referring to a separate entity(and that would certainly be a leap of
serious & unwarranted assumption),it would be worship to Yah
ultimately just like worship to the king was ultimately worship to
Yahweh in 1 Chronicles 29:20,where it plainly says:
"And
David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all
the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down
their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.."
There
may be some for all I know,but I couldn't find a commentary that
identifies the "name" of Yahweh being the second person of Yahweh's
substance.What an inference!I suppose it's possible that the Hebrews of
the time spoke of the "Name" similar to how they spoke of the "Word."Not
to describe a separate entity from God,but rather was a way of
describing the father's outreach to & presence with man without
compromising his transcendence.This is certainly not to say that when he
reaches out to men through the agency of others that they can't then be
termed God's "word","name"etc.They would then be vehicles/emissaries
through whom God reaches out and speaks to the world.
The
Angel in question even said,in Judges 13:16:
"If thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the
LORD",distinguishing himself from the One true Lord.(& isn't there
only one?Deut. 6:4)I know trinitarians recognize the distinction in the
"persons" of their tripersonal God,but the big difference between
"person" and "being" in their philosophy is imagined,made up to
accommodate their belief.
There should also be hesitance
to presuppose the Angel of Yah wasn't *really* an angel at
all.(ontologically speaking)This is yet another questionable assumption
made simply to accommodate a speculative dogma.If the trinitarian creed
was explicitly stated in scripture,there would have been no need for men
to have councils to put it in writing.
Also worthy of
note,in contemporaneous- to- the- bible extrabibical Hebrew literature
at the time,there are other heavenly figures called "God",proving that
Hebrews at the time recognized this principle and did apply it to others
besides the Angel of Yah.The dead sea scrolls take texts applied to Yah
and apply them to exalted agents,like the heavenly Melchizedek in 11Q13
where Ps. 7:7-8 is used of him.(Yes,the name Yahweh is in the psalms
there.)This gives us a good idea of true Jewish thoughtforms,whereby
they didn't hesitate to use texts applied to Yahweh and also apply them
to his exalted agents.
According to the Jewish
targums,the name of the Angel of the LORD was Michael the archangel.(in
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,Gen. 32:24)These are the folks(the early Jews
that is) Heiser claims thought this angel was a second Yahweh.(not sure
he'd word it that way because trinitarians are VERY sensitive about
saying there's more than one understandably!)But I don't think Yahweh is
the archangel Michael nor do I believe unholy fallen mankind can behold
his glory without instantly dying.That's why he had to assign someone
else,precisely.Keeping in mind that most trinitarian scholars are not
keen on claiming the Angel was Christ(if they think so..they hesitate to
say it for good reason),I can't take Heiser very seriously myself.
I
think one of the purposes of Hebrews chapter one is to defeat the
heresy that Christ was an angel from OT times.iIf he was clearly God
himself,it would be absurd for the writer of Hebrews to try and prove
his superiority to angels.The bible doesn't say whether or not the Angel
of Yah was an angel ontologically,so for trinitarians to say he wasn't
just demonstrates a bias and bold assumption.Most agents aren't God's
mediator between him and men in the respect this Angel(or angels) and
his Messiah were.As those vested FULLY with his spirit and
authority,unlike others who only had measures of his spirit and were
limited in what power and function they performed.
Another
thought that comes to mind,briefly,are the numerous occurrences in the
NT where an "angel of the Lord" shows up.Though usually the article
"ho"(the) isn't used,it is on at least one occasion.Regardless,it would
be impossible to prove any of these instances couldn't be the "Angel" in
question from the OT.(Matt. 1:20,24,2:13,19,28:2,Luke 2:9)Only
presupposed that it wasn't,which is far from an honest unbiased
assessment.
Just to sum up a few of the main problems with Mike's view:
1.He thinks tons of people have seen God tons of times.
2.He
has to ignore the foundational milk and explicitly revealed identities
and math of God(where I'm sure he qualifies simple words from the mouths
of God and His Son to the point of butchering them)
3.He has to presuppose the Angel of the LORD was only ever one individual and that he wasn't an angel.
4.He
has to assume that if the agency principle were valid for Yah that
every agent could bear his name when he has yet to prove this.(not sure
that anyone could ever prove such a thing since agents bearing the
principle's name have to be vested with FULL authority)Why can't God
designate specific ones(namely,the angel and Christ) with a FULL measure
of his spirit and authority like no one else has ever had?
5.If
God's "persons" are coequal and consubstantial,how come only one of
them is too holy to be seen without people perishing?Why is one of them
able to be fully seen,heard,touched and felt without the consequences
God made clear would actually occur if the true God was REALLY seen?
6.He
has to ignore as drivel the musings of his trinitarian contemporaries
who aren't confident at all in identifying the Angel of Yah as a
pre-existent Christ.Some of whom have gone so far as to say the Angel
probably wasn't Christ at all.
7.If Mike's correct,he
would have to admit there's more than One Yahweh if mathematics and
common sense mean anything at all.(denial is futile and desperate though
rampant on this point)This,of course,would defy the unitarian creed of
Israel by which even Christ lived and breathed when he said " "WE
worship what we know."(Jn. 4:22)Who did he know as God?A tripersonal
essence?Obviously not.God doesn't worship anyone,though his sons worship
him.As did Christ profusely.(As if we shouldn't follow Christ's example
but should instead imagine a new God,one that isn't "the God and
father" of Yeshua.Scary thought,but that's what many do.)
8.Heiser
would have to also presuppose that none of the instances where an
Angel(or "the angel") of the Lord shows up in the New Testament could be
the one in question from the Old Testament.Convenient,but VERY
assumptive,again.
In conclusion,Moses was one of the
greatest servants of Yahweh who ever walked this earth.Yet people like
Heiser expect us all to believe that God would allow a bunch of people
besides Moses,but definitely NOT Moses, to behold his glory.Even though
the bible says no one ever did.Period.Another nonsensical notion to be
sure!Lets examine what REALLY happens when the worthiest man alive(at
the time) asks to behold the majesty of the One True God(and this is
from my other blog about this subject):
Exodus 33:17 And
Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “This thing, too, of which you have
spoken, I shall do, because you have found favor in my eyes and I know
you by name.” 18 At this he said: “Cause me to see, please, your glory.”
19 But he said: “I myself shall cause all my goodness to pass before
your face, and I will declare the name of Jehovah before you; and I will
favor the one whom I may favor, and I will show mercy to the one to
whom I may show mercy.” 20 And he added: “You are not able to see my
face, because no man may see me and yet live.”21 And Jehovah said
further: “Here is a place with me, and you must station yourself upon
the rock. 22 And it has to occur that while my glory is passing by I
must place you in a hole in the rock, and I must put my palm over you as
a screen until I have passed by. 23 After that I must take my palm
away, and you will indeed see my back. But my face may not be seen.”
Listen
to Yahweh!How could you EVER read an account like that and think MANY
saw God face to face and proceeded to live?The only explanation that
makes sense and keeps the integrity of God's word intact is that this
biblical agency principle as evidenced throughout all of scripture is
applicable theologically to Yah and his Angel,in whom he invested his
authority.Just like the other scriptural examples where agents are
identified as and treated as their senders even though they didn't exist
in the same "substance."
For further study and contemplation,feel free to visit the following
helpful links:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47287
http://torahofmessiah.com/shaliach.htm
http://torahofmessiah.com/theophanies.html
http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia-2012/1-articles/re-shaliah-introduction_law_of_agency.html
http://evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2573
http://adonimessiah.blogspot.com/2007/01/jesus-is-no-angel.html
No comments:
Post a Comment