Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jlhetrick | 184175 | ||
Hello jonp, This is a little off topic perhaps, but I have a question about a statement in your post. You wrote: "just as the angelic court are assumed in God's words 'Let us make man in OUR image' (Genesis 1.26). We are given a recognition that such spiritual beings exist but not given the details." I too have heard it taught that God was speaking to the angels when He said "let us make man in OUR image", but I have always struggled wtih this teaching. Perhaps you can shed some light on it for me. Where in Scripture are we to draw the conclusion that God was speaking to angels. I guess the questions that need to be answered are; 1. where does Scripture state that angels were created in God's image? 2. where in Scripture does it state that man was created in the image of angels; or the image of God and angels? Help with this please. I have also heard this passage taught as referring to the Trinity and having heard this accepted it as being scriptural. Thanks in advance for any help you can give here. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
2 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184179 | ||
Hi Jeff. I had no intention of bringing up such a delicate question in order to cause controversy. I believe in the tri-unity of God like you do. And clearly the triune God was speaking in Genesis 1. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is why God said 'us'. We must ask, would a writer who was very concerned continually to stress the oneness of God (Deuteronomy 6.4-5; Exodus 20.3 - note the 'Me') be so careless as to use 'us' in a polytheistic world. It would immediately number him among the polytheists. And this is especially so as in a creation account we should expect to find some indication of where the Cherubim in 3.24 came from. So there is nothing unlikely in their being introduced here. Any early reader of this account would tend to read it like this. The alternative is that it is an intensive plural, a plural of grandeur. Moving on to your questions about God's image. We must ask, what is the image of God in man. It is surely 'that in man that makes him different from all other creatures'. It is the breath of life that God breathed in to man (Genesis 2.7). See Job 33.4. It is the spirit within man that can have contact with God and can worship God. And the angels have the same. Now in fact Genesis 1 says that man was created in 'the image of ha-elohim'. Now regularly ha-elohim means God. Ha-elohim always means God when it is used with a singular verb. But it can also mean 'heavenly beings' when used with a plural verb. Thus the spirit raised up by the witch of Endor that appeared to Saul was called 'one of the elohim' (1 Samuel 28.13). The angels are also called 'sons of the elohim' (bene ha-elohim) that is in most translations 'sons of God' (Job 1.6; 2.7; 38.7). This is a clear indication of 'the image of God' in the angels. They too could know God, worship God and love God. Something of the triune God is revealed in the Old Testament in that we have the Angel of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord. But it is only with the coming of Jesus that the idea of the triune God is made apparent. In polytheistic days it was important first to establish the unity of the Godhead. For God is not three gods but One God in threeness of personality. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
3 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jlhetrick | 184186 | ||
Thanks Jonp, You did not bring up the question in order to cause controversy. I brought up the question. And not to cause controversy but for the very reason I stated in my post. I have heard the passage explained both ways; referring to the angels and referring to the trinity. You have given a lot of information in response but the questions remain as they have not been answered here. It is not an issue of controversy so please don't feel the need to be defensive. This is the way of the Forum. When someone posts something very specific that is questionable and does not offer biblical support for it, another will often ask for clarification and/or biblical support. In my case, on this topic, I simply don't know the answer and was hoping that you might help. In the interest of trying to weigh this all allow me to comment on some points you made. you wrote: "The issue here is why God said 'us'. We must ask, would a writer who was very concerned continually to stress the oneness of God (Deuteronomy 6.4-5; Exodus 20.3 - note the 'Me') be so careless as to use 'us' in a polytheistic world." I honestly don't know, but my first thought was that the writer DID use the word US and DIDN'T offer an explanation. That would appear to make your question irrelevant. You also wrote: "And this is especially so as in a creation account we should expect to find some indication of where the Cherubim in 3.24 came from." Yet we do not find it in this creation account...? "So there is nothing unlikely in their being introduced" But they are not..? "Moving on to your questions about God's image. We must ask, what is the image of God in man. It is surely 'that in man that makes him different from all other creatures" Would you include the created angels in this statement; I mean, that we are "different" from all other creatures? That seems to take us back to square one here. Anyway, I hope my response serves to show that I truly do not know which is right on this topic and my questions were my questions, not attempts to discredit you or cause controversy. By the way, you do have my email so if you are able to answer the question from Scripture I'm still searching and would appreciate your input. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
4 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184206 | ||
Hi Jeff, A good principle in Scripture is to commence with what is clear, and then to move on to what is not clear, and finally to interpret what is not clear by what is clear. So much false teaching arises because people speculate on what is unclear without measuring it against what is clear, and then try to fit what is clear into it. Let us now apply this principle to the Genesis 1.26. Of course if this verse stood on its own we would not have too much to go on. But the Scriptures in fact do provide us with another similar verse where the issues are much clearer. If you turn to Genesis 3.22 you will find another reference to ‘us’. And in a similar way to 1.26 the ‘us’ remain unidentified. So by all laws of reasonable exegesis, being in the same general context, we must surely see it as referring to the same ‘us’. However I would suggest that in this example the situation is clearer. In 3.22 God says, ‘Behold the man has become like one of us knowing good and evil. And now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever --’ therefore the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim --- to guard the way to the tree of life.’ Here there is specifically a reference point for ‘us’. It is the Cherubim to whom He gave the task of preventing access to the tree of life. But we do not just have to rest on that connection, although it helps. We can also consider God’s words. Here a change has taken place in man. He has now begun ‘to know good and evil’, and the verb used suggests to know by experience. And furthermore by this he has become ‘like one of us’. Now we can of course argue that the triune God knows good and evil, having experienced it not in Himself, but in His wider creation. And that is true. But ‘like one of us’ here gives a decided suggestion of plurality far in excess of what we would expect to find in a book which emphasises the oneness of God, if God alone was in mind. Indeed if its reference is to God alone then it leaves itself wide open to being interpreted as signifying more than one God. And it would surely be a really strange way of speaking. For the Hebrew is very clear and specific. It is not ‘like us’ which could just possibly be explained as signifying the triunity of God, but ‘like ONE of us’. So we must ask, who else ‘knows good and evil’?. Clearly not someone in this world for up to this point good and evil were experientially unknown. Thus it makes us look to those beings who had seen for themselves what evil as evidenced in the behaviour of the sinister figure who lay behind the snake. They had seen Heaven rent by good and evil. Thus I would suggest to you that in this case the ‘us’ clearly has in mind those heavenly beings who surround the throne of God, including the Cherubim who are at each corner of His throne (note the cherubim on the Ark, which represents the throne of God, and the Cherubim who accompanied the throne of God in Ezekiel 1. See also the four living creatures in Revelation 4). And when we see its connection with the Cherubim in what follows the answer appears to be even more certain. But if this unusual and unexpected ‘us’ means the angelic hosts in 3.22 I personally do not see how it can mean any other in 1.26. That would be to make two mysteries, and to fail to accept the guidance of Scripture. For it is my experience that if we look carefully Scripture always explains itself. Thus we now come to Genesis 1.26 with a recognition that ‘us’ in the opening chapters of Genesis has in mind the heavenly court. But Genesis 1.27 makes clear that it was God Himself Who was involved in creating man, just as He alone created all things. Why then a reference to His court? I would suggest that the answer is because He wanted them to feel involved in what He was doing, for once He had done it He had a special purpose for them in it. They were to serve the heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1.14). And every now and again throughout the Old Testament and then throughout the New we find them performing those services. Who was it who guarded the prophets? Elisha’s answer was that it was the hosts of God (2 Kings 6.17). Compare also Joshua 5.14. Often as a father I have said to my children, ‘let us do this’, even though I know that it is I who am going to do it, simply because I want them to be involved in what I am doing. And it gives them a far greater interest in it. They feel as though they have a part in it. And that is what God wanted His court to feel. Thus to me this verse in 1.26 indicates the graciousness of the Creator in involving in His creation, those beings who surround His throne, so that they have an interest in what He is doing. For He wants them to be involved in it and to be interested in it and His final purpose is the unity of all things. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
5 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jlhetrick | 184217 | ||
Brother Jonp, Thanks for the response. Bare with me as I do my best to respond to some of what you have said here. I will do my best to stick to the point. "A good principle in Scripture is to commence with what is clear, and then to move on to what is not clear, and finally to interpret what is not clear by what is clear." I agree with this statement yet I do not see this happening in this particular case. It seems that you have taken a few verses, and, based on your presumptions about Gen. 1:26, assigned those same presumptions. Pointing to Gen 3:22 doesn't begin to present a clear example that would sufficiently clarify 1:26 as referring to Angels. "But ‘like one of us’ here gives a decided suggestion of plurality far in excess of what we would expect to find in a book which emphasises the oneness of God, if God alone was in mind. Indeed if its reference is to God alone then it leaves itself wide open to being interpreted as signifying more than one God." When considering the trinity, I simply don't agree with this premise. Switching the focus to the "knowledge of good and evil" statement and presenting the argument that the angels knew both good and evil does not support the argument in my opinion. I would like to here from others regarding how they see this. The rest of your post does give some good examples of how angels operate, but still does not point to support your position in any way clear to me. I do believe that if there is anything you have written that should serve to bring question to your own argument it should be your comment on verse 27. You wrote. "But Genesis 1.27 makes clear that it was God Himself Who was involved in creating man, just as He alone created all things." To clarify, I believe you meant it WAS GOD who created.. vs. "who was involved in creating..." If you do not mean/believe this please correct me. But the value of your statement is in it's pointing back to vs. 26. If the "US" and "OUR" refers to both God and the angels, then how could we possibly interpret this verse as saying anything other than man was created by BOTH God and the angels? If God said "let us make" and was speaking to the angels, then the "us" being God and the angels did in fact create man. I'm of the opinion that either of us believe that. What we have agreed on is the importance of context and the only proof positive interpretation method is that of Scripture interpreting Scripture. With those things agreed on I would add that the best "context" is the immediate context (though that is my opinion and certainly open to debate). What where there is immediate context that apparently speaks to the point, my thought is that that should be considered with the heavier weight. Where it stands, vs. 27, "God created man in His own image..." (NASB) seems a better and more immediate reference to clarify the preceding vs 26. We're not only dealing with a "our image" issue, we're dealing with a "us create" issue. Otherwise we tend to rewrite vs 27 in such a way as to say "God and the angels created man in their own image..." There would be a false teaching. And jonp, please sir. To present the theory that God simply wanted the angels to "feel involved in what He was doing" is an extreme stretch in the least case. As parents, you and I may in fact mislead our children into believing they are more involved with a task than they are in order to involve and encourage them. But even if it's something as small as bringing daddy the hammer from the tool box, the fact is that the child did participate in the completion of the task. I stress caution in this way of thinking. I find nowhere in Scripture where God misleads His creation in order to make them feel involved. I hope my response is sufficient to cause some alarm and caution at least. It is likely that we all have been guilty of interpreting scripture based on preconceived ideas based on early taught experiences and denominational biases. The work of growing in the knowledge of Him is in that we allow the scriptures themselves to fine-tune our understanding and what we believe. God bless, Jeff |
||||||