How did God test the angels?

Vivificat - From Contemplation to Action ^ | 25 January 2012 | TDJ

[Teófilo]

The Reformers have their own views but I can do no better than Christ when he said, “It is written”.

The Lord did say those words, but the context doesn't support your implied contention. A text out of context is a mere pretext.

Go well.
-Theo

[count-your-change]

“Out of context!” Ah yes, these illustrious writers and their half baked musings must be given preeminence of authority.

But I will stay with, “It is written”.

[Teófilo]

These illustrious writers will precede us both in the Kingdom of Heaven.

+JMJ,
-Theo

[guitarplayer1953]

angels are spoken of haveing three and four faces and multiple eyes. I do not see that in man.

[Teófilo]

angels are spoken of haveing three and four faces and multiple eyes. I do not see that in man.

Such descriptions are either literary devices, or symbolic revelations meant specifically to the seer's awareness that communicate a deeper reality regarding their nature. The meaning of these symbolic manifestations must be found in the collective "exegesis" of these symbols in ancient Israel, and in the greater cultural and religious context of the ancient Middle East at the time the revelation was granted.

Angels, being spiritual beings, don't need eyes, heads, or multiple faces. These are symbolic of the speed and depth of angelic perception, as well as their speed (when it comes to "wings".

God is also described in Scripture as having a "back", as well as "wings" and "pinions." He does not, but these literary artifacts are descriptive of aspects of God's reality who, in His Being, has not and needs not any of these appendages.

+JMJ,
Theo

[guitarplayer1953]

The seraph and cherubim are said to have multiple wings and are depicted as such on the ark.

[Teófilo]

The seraph and cherubim are said to have multiple wings and are depicted as such on the ark.

And on Eastern Christian iconography also:

Again, we must not forget the symbolic element here: wings represent to the seer the power, the swiftness, and the other-worldy character of angels, unlike anything else in material creation.

In fact, the Christian view is not far off - I believe identical - with the biblical view found in the Old Testament, like this one expressed in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Angels appear to man in the shape of human beings of extraordinary beauty, and are not at once recognized as angels (Gen. xviii. 2, xix. 5; Judges, vi. 17, xiii. 6; II Sam. xxix. 9); they fly through the air; they become invisible; sacrifices touched by them are consumed by fire; they disappear in sacrificial fire, like Elijah, who rode to heaven in a fiery chariot; and they appear in the flames of the thornbush (Gen. xvi. 13; Judges, vi. 21, 22; II Kings, ii. 11; Ex. iii. 2). They are pure and bright as heaven; consequently they are formed of fire and are encompassed by light (Job, xv. 15), as the Psalmist says (Ps. civ. 4, R. V.): "Who maketh winds his messengers; his ministers a flaming fire." Although they have intercourse with the daughters of men (Gen. vi.), and eat heavenly bread (Ps. lxxviii. 25), they are immaterial, not being subject to the limitations of time and space.

Theo

[guitarplayer1953]

and they appear in the flames of the thornbush

I beleive that was God in the bush not an angel.

[Teófilo]

and they appear in the flames of the thornbush

I believe that was God in the bush not an angel.

Having watch The Ten Commandments repeatedly I would also prefer to believe that it was God in the bush.

However, the traditions entwined in the narrative differ: the J Tradition has God manifesting himself to Moses; the P Tradition has an Angel, God's surrogate, appeared to Moses to save God's transcendence.

The early Fathers explain that it was indeed God, the Word pre-Incarnate, who appeared to Moses, which "jives" because the Son proceeds from the Father from all eternity and therefore is relatively "subordinate" to the Father; He is the Son from all eternity who speaks for the Father as his "messenger" (which is what "angel" means) being in fact, God's own pre-existent, eternal Word.

I find the Patristic view the best Christian interpretation of the text.

-Theo

[Teófilo]

and they appear in the flames of the thornbush

I believe that was God in the bush not an angel.

Having watch The Ten Commandments repeatedly I would also prefer to believe that it was God in the bush.

However, the traditions entwined in the narrative differ: the J Tradition has God manifesting himself to Moses; the P Tradition has an Angel, God's surrogate, appeared to Moses to save God's transcendence.

The early Fathers explain that it was indeed God, the Word pre-Incarnate, who appeared to Moses, which "jives" because the Son proceeds from the Father from all eternity and therefore is relatively "subordinate" to the Father; He is the Son from all eternity who speaks for the Father as his "messenger" (which is what "angel" means) being in fact, God's own pre-existent, eternal Word.

I find the Patristic view the best Christian interpretation of the text.

-Theo

[guitarplayer1953]

Exodus 00051 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here [am] I.

It says that God spoke out of the burning bush.

[rollo tomasi]

Basic standardize testing with No. 2 pencils.

All the Angels whose names ended with EL took the advance tests.

[Teófilo]

Two verses before:

There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

Like I said, two traditions were intertwined by a redactor to form our inspired, canonical text; two traditions with two different points of view on the same event.

+JMJ,
-Theo

[guitarplayer1953]

As I said in Ex it says that God spoke from the bush. Do you beleive that the bible is the inerrant word of God? that it was inspired by God written by mans hand? Without any errors?

[Teófilo]

And I’m telling you that two verses before, Exodus 3:2, it says the “Angel of the Lord” and that the usage between the “Angel” and “Lord” seems to be interchangeable.

I told you, and I shared with you how the double-usage could be explained, and how the Church Fathers (Jerome and Origen specifically) harmonized it.

I told you that I accepted their explanation, the God himself in the person of the pre-Incarnate Word (you know, the one mentioned in John 1:1) was the one who, as messenger (which is what “angel” means) and Word of the Father, appeared to Moses in the burning bush.

I don’t see why you push a disagreement when there’s none.

-Theo

[koinonia]

Thanks for the post. Fr. Maximilian Dean addresses this whole discussion from a scriptural persepective (especially based on Colossians 1:15-20) and the Franciscan school (especially Bl. John Duns Scotus). The pertinant links are here:

Christ’s headship over the Angels - http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/?page_id=33

And in the Blog section, for example - http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/?p=390

How one can say, with the Church, that the Angels are under the headship of Christ and deny that they had to submit to Him (the “test”) is beyond me.