Does Genesis 15 refers to Abraham's seed qualitatively? Should we read like Paul?

2,724 Views | 51 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by codker92
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In Genesis 15, God says that Abraham's seed shall be like the stars. Most people take this to mean a quantitative description, since there are many stars. But, evidence suggests Paul was referring to stars in a qualitative sense. I.E. that Abraham's Seed would become a deity.

Citations:
Link to podcast episode on this.
Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5.2 (2015)

In commenting on Gen 15:5 in Who Is the Heir? 8687, Philo states: When the Lord led him outside He said "Look up into heaven and count the stars, if thou canst count their sum. So shall be thy seed." Well does the text say "so ( )" not "so many ()" that is, "of equal number to the stars." For He wishes to suggest not number merely, but a multitude of other things, such as tend to happiness perfect and complete. The "seed shall be ( )," He says, as the ethereal sight spread out before him, celestial as that is, full of light unshadowed and pure as that is, for night is banished from heaven and darkness from ether. It shall be the very likeness of the stars.

In a paraphrase of the Abrahamic promise as reiterated in Gen 22:17, the Greek text of Sir 44:21 states: "For this reason, God promised him with an oath to bless the nations through his seed, to make him numerous as the grains of dust, and exalt () his seed as the stars, giving them an inheritance () from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth."

It is important to note that we may find something similar in Rom 4:68. In the middle of an argument framed by Gen 15, Paul introduces David saying that he "also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works." Paul portrays David as though he were, like Abraham, being "credited righteousness," quoting from Ps 32:12, which speaks of the forgiveness of David's sins. In a relationship similar, and quite possibly parallel, to that of Sir 47:11, David's forgiveness is connected to his receiving the promise of exaltation, almost interchangeably with that of Abraham.

A similar tradition linking the Abrahamic and Davidic promises in astral terms can be found in Jer 33:1922, which shares its rhetorical and theological shape with the promise to Abraham in Gen 15: The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: "Thus says the Lord: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me." 14

In Apoc. Abr. 20.35, the Eternal Mighty One addresses Abraham: "'Look from on high at the stars which are beneath you and count them for me and tell me their number!' And I [Abraham] said, 'When can I, for I am a man.' And he said to me 'As the number of the stars and their power so shall I place for your seed the nations and men, set apart for me in my lot with Azazel'." 19 Here Abraham's seed is promised not merely the number of the stars, but their power, which is understood in terms of the rule over nations and men, which seem to have been allotted to the Eternal Mighty One or to Azazel and his company.

The aniconic discourse of Deut 4 surveys all the creatures under heaven, whose images Israel must abstain from fashioning into idols. After the creatures under heaven have been cataloged, the author directs Israel's attention to the heavenly beings. Deuteronomy 4:19 states: And do not lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven ( ), and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the Lord your god has allotted to all the nations under the whole heaven ( ). Here, the celestial bodies themselves are regarded as the "hosts (or ornaments) of heaven ( )" who have been allotted or assigned to () all the nations () under heaven.

The celestial bodies here are referred to as "gods ()." Likewise in 29:18 [17], 26[25], these beings are referred to as the gods of the nations: so that there will not be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our god, to go and serve the gods of those nations ( ) . . . they went and served other gods ( ) and worshiped them, gods whom they have not known and whom he had not allotted to them ( ).

In Philo's interpretation of the territorial law of Deut 19:14, we see an interesting explanation of the identity of the "fathers" () mentioned. In On the Posterity of Cain 89, he states: These boundaries were fixed not by the creation to which we belong, but on principles which are divine and are older than we and all that belongs to earth. This has been made clear by the Law, where it solemnly enjoins upon each one of us not to adulterate the coinage of virtue, using these words: "thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's boundaries (), which thy fathers () set up" (Deut. 19:14), and again in other words: "Ask thy father and he will show thee; thine elders and they will tell thee." When the Most High distributed nations ( ), when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set boundaries of nations ( ) according to the number of the angels of God, and Jacob His people became the Lord's portion, Israel became the lot of His inheritance () (Deut 32:79). (Philo, Posterity 89) Here, Philo sees the "fathers" () in Deut 19:14 not referring to human ancestral patriarchs but to the angels of God apportioned over the nations, citing Deut 32:79.

Here, Philo points out that every ruler () should act as a "father over his children ( )." Good rulers may be "truly called parents of the nations ()." 30 As the celestial bodies were called to mimic () the rule of the "Father of all ( )" in the cosmic government (; previously in Spec. Laws 1:1319), so too the human rulers must imitate () the rule of God and his "beneficent powers ()" (likely a reference the celestial bodies, or , referred to above in Spec. Laws 1:13) if they wish to be "assimilated to God ( )."

Sirach also appears to share in the deuteronomic vision. Sirach 17:17, speaking in context of Yahweh's election of Israel, states: "He appointed a ruler for every nation ( ), but Israel is the Lord's own portion ( )." Though the term is used frequently in the LXX of human rulers, there seems to be a clear echo of Deut 32:9 here in Sir 17:17, "but Israel is the Lord's own portion ( )"

The Wisdom of Solomon, a text scholars have mined for parallels to Romans, speaks of the vindication of righteous dead in 3:78: "In the time of their visitation they will shine forth (), and will run like sparks () through the stubble. They will govern nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them forever ( , )." 39 Later in 5:5, the unrighteous who are amazed at the unexpected salvation of the righteous say, "Why have they been numbered among the sons of God ( ), and their lot among the holy ones ( )?"

In early Judaism, it was widely accepted that in the resurrection or afterlife, the righteous were to in some sense become as the stars or angels. 41 In Dan 12:23, "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever." John Collins points out that the stars in Dan 8:10 are the host of heaven, which in comparison to Dan 12:3 implies that those raised from the dead in vindication will be associated with the angels

1 En. 104:26: "But now you shall shine like the lights of heaven, and you shall be seen; and the windows of heaven will be open to you . . . and you are about to be making a great rejoicing like the angels of heaven." In the Testament of Moses, we also find the affirmation of the astral immortality of the faithful, as it states in 10:9: "God will raise you to the heights. Yes, he will fix you firmly in the heaven of the stars."

When considering Paul's use of Gen 15:5 in Rom 4:18 in light of this early Jewish qualitative interpretation, we find fruitful and interesting exegetical results. When the evidence above has been taken into account, we are provided with a kind of narrative framework, out of which we arrive with a reading proposal that may provide a cogent answer to the interpretive problem this study sought to address. This proposal would provide us with a reading that links all the constituent parts (the inheritance of the cosmos, becoming a father of many nations, and the resurrection of the dead) of the one promise Paul understands to be given to Abraham in Gen 15:5 when he is told "so shall your seed be ( )," a reference to becoming as the stars.

Paul states in Rom 4:18, "In hope against hope ( ) he believed (), so that he might become a father of many nations ( ) according to that which had been spoken 'so shall your seed be ( ).'" When taken qualitatively, for Abraham's seed to become as the stars of heaven meant to become as the gods or angels, the celestial bodies, the "fathers () of the nations ()" who had been allotted to rule the nations (Posterity, 89; Spec. Laws 1.1319; 4.184188; Sir 44:21; Apoc. Ab. 20:35). "In hope against hope ( ) he believed ()" that he would attain the promise of astral glory (Rom 4:18; 4 Macc 17:56). For Paul, the faithful Abraham who had been credited righteousness was known now in astral glory as "the father of us all ( )," as it was written about him in Gen 17:5 (Rom 4:1617). As was common in Jewish expectation in Paul's day, he hoped in the god "who gives life to the dead," who would raise his seed in celestial glory, replacing the powers ( ), calling "into being that which did not exist ( )," or establishing a new cosmic polis (), a new creation (Rom 4:17; Spec. Laws 4.187; 2 Bar. 21:4; 48:8). This is what would be understood in Rom 4:13 when Paul states the promise to Abraham and his seed was to "inherit the cosmos ( )."

This reading may appear novel, but it has an ancient antecedent in one of the earliest commentaries on Romans. Origen believed that in Rom 4, Paul did in fact understand the Abrahamic promise of Gen 15:5 to become as the stars qualitatively. In his Commentary on Romans 4.6.4, he states: "Thus Abraham 'against hope believed in hope that he would become the father of many nations,' (Rom 4:18) which in the future would be like the stars of heaven, not only in terms of the greatness of number but also in splendor." 46 Here, Origen reads the quotation of Gen 15:5 in Rom 4:18 explicitly as qualitative. In 4.6.7, he speaks further on the nature of the Abrahamic promise, as he understands Paul's recounting of it.

In conclusion, it is necessary to restate the initial problem this paper sought to answer. Esler noticed the deficiency in the quantitative only interpretation of Paul's use of Gen 15:5, seeming far too unlikely that having numerous descendants would somehow be the equivalent of inheriting of the cosmos, becoming the father of nations, and the expectation of being resurrected from the dead. This paper proposes a possible answer to this problem. Reading Paul's use of Gen 15:5 in light of early Jewish deification traditions stemming from a qualitative as well as quantitative interpretation of the Abrahamic promise provides fruitful results. This proposal is supported by widely attested interpretive traditions from Paul's early Jewish historical context, whether Palestinian or Hellenistic (or diasporic), and is further received into the Patristic tradition, as seen in Origen, through Paul












Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Abraham's Seed would become a deity.

yikes
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also, if we're going to "read like Paul" we don't need to guess. St Paul tells us how he reads that in Galatians. Abraham's seed is Christ.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jesus wasn't born yet.
Pro Sandy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just because Jesus wasn't incarnate, doesn't mean He isn't God.

Jesus himself testifies to that, including when he specifically mentions Abraham, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Jesus didn't become deity 2000 years ago, He always was and always will be.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jesus the man was not a deity yet.

Luke 1:32.

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of His father David,

_____________________

Is Luke wrong here? It also says that Jesus WILL BE called the Son of the Most High.

Jesus did exist in another "dimension" so to speak. But in our world He did not exist yet.

In Ezekiel Jesus shares a throne with God in heaven, but not on earth.

Ever heard the expression "on earth as in heaven"?

Also, I guess God was lying to Abraham. His heir already existed. God was just making up the stuff about Abraham's heir existing in the future.


PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wow. Jesus was fully God and fully man. This is foundational Christian teaching. Just wow.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
*Gasps* The nerve I have to quote the bible.
Pro Sandy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The issue is with your word become. Jesus cannot become deity if he is God from eternity to eternity.
craigernaught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So when the Word became flesh, does that occur at birth, baptism, or sometime else?

It's almost as if Christians have thought about this before and argued about it for a long time.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ibm?
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
craigernaught said:

So when the Word became flesh, does that occur at birth, baptism, or sometime else?

It's almost as if Christians have thought about this before and argued about it for a long time.

It's interesting. Its an issue I have discussed with a couple pastor friends of mine.

The long short of it.

(While affirming the eternal sonship, and the hypostatic union)

Jesus took on a 100% fully human nature, (soul, body, etc) at the incarnation.

What the OP seems to be suggesting is some form of adoptionism, or maybe a poorly worded explication of the implications of the incarnation. We could rightly say, to some extent that some aspect of the humanity of Jesus did not exist until the incarnation. (Soul, body, human mind)
craigernaught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is my view as well. I'm not entirely sure how/when someone's "personhood" or humanity is fully realized between conception to birth (and I'm not looking for that argument either), but whenever and however that happens, the human Jesus is fully human and fully divine. "Incarnation" is the best term here.

I don't think of the second person of the Trinity as being "human" prior to the incarnation. There's no "beginning" for the Logos so necessarily the Logos must predate "humanity". Maybe I'm confusing things since the time I actually studied all this.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How could He die if He was an immortal God? The point is that Jesus set aside His deity and then picked it back up at resurrection. The miracle wasn't that a God was born or even died, the miracle was that Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. I appreciate your inquisitorial enthusiasm though.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How could He die if He was an immortal God? The point is that Jesus set aside His deity and then picked it back up at resurrection. The miracle wasn't that a God was born or even died, the miracle was that Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. I appreciate your inquisitorial enthusiasm though.
Pro Sandy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not sure where your argument is going.

You think Christ was not God when he was on the Earth? To use your line, was He lying when He claimed to be God?
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It occurred twice no? At birth and resurrection? Christians don't count the Angel of the lord as God usually so I won't mention that one.

Why does it have to be once?
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Which translation do you use?
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
codker92 said:

How could He die if He was an immortal God? The point is that Jesus set aside His deity and then picked it back up at resurrection. The miracle wasn't that a God was born or even died, the miracle was that Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. I appreciate your inquisitorial enthusiasm though.


Being fully God and and Fully man has implications. Man can die. And we should not fall into Nestorianism that over separates the human and divine natures of Christ. His death is a rejection of Monophysitism.

The incarnation of Christ was certainly a miracle. His resurrection, by his own power, was proof of his divinity.

And to be fair, you also implied a form of adoptionism as opposed to Kenosis.

Lastly the "Angel of the Lord" is a Chrstiphany. I think a couple of early church fathers mad that connection.

And they did it all without promoting the whole Jesus not "a
Deity yet" adoptionism.
craigernaught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So the Word became flesh then unbecame flesh then became flesh again?
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In a way yes. John is quoting Genesis 1:1. Gnosticism did not even exist when John wrote John 1:14. There is no reason to think that John is concerned with trinitarianism. The Nag Hammadi was not written until much later.

In the NT, Jesus tells the Pharisees, "Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, "I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute: (Luke 11:49). I do not know if Jesus is referring to a lost text or the whole OT, like Hebrews 11:33-38 does. But the parallel account says "Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in the synagogues and persecute from town to town. Matt 23:34. Comparing the two, Jesus sees himself as Wisdom, the one who revealed the future to us through prophecy and typology in the OT, the one who created the world. Proverbs agrees with this.

22 "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work,
the first of his acts of old.
23 Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth,
26 before he had made the earth with its fields,
or the first of the dust of the world.
27 When he established the heavens, I was there;
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 then I was beside him, like a master workman,
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the children of man.

Proverbs 8:22-31
The Wisdom of God always existed because a wise God could not create anything.
The Wisdom of God is the Word of the Lord is the Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord forgives sins in Genesis 48:15-16.
I have a question for you and a very special quotation from a church father. I know all of you on this site love your church fathers. I can't imagine why.

So, my question to you is: Which is greater, the death or the life of Christ? Is it the miracle that Christ died or was born? No, absolutely not. Every single human being is born and dies. Is it really a prophecy to say that some will be born in the future or die in the future? No, it is just a certainty. The miracle is that Christ came back from the dead. Did Jesus die? If so, then when He resurrected, He became one with flesh again. Because for a time He was in sheol, preaching doom to the spirits like Enoch. This is the parable of the wicked tenants. Jesus gave up His spirit and he was in sheol proclaiming doom to the enemy. 1 Peter 3: 18-21. He died to the flesh. But he came back to life. When he first appeared to the apostles after the crucifixion, He appeared as a man. The apostles did not recognize Him, He did not appear as God, but as a man. He was not glorified and shining like on the mount with Moses and Elijah. So, if you want to say that the verse in John 1:14 refers to Jesus' birth, fine. But you can't say that it does not refer to His resurrection also.

Here is the church father quote:
Origen assumes that the promise to Abraham and Sarah of an offspring would be "equal to heaven and its stars" in their "glory" is actually understood as the promise to "gain Christ," drawing on the language of Phil 3:8. Significant here is the immediate context of Phil 3:8 in which Paul is discussing becoming like Christ (3:10) and attaining the resurrection from the dead (3:11). See Phil 3:8-11. Also important to note here previously in Philippians in the context of a moral admonition in light of the coming "day of Christ ( ), which Paul seems to articulate here as an eschatological conflation Deut 32:5-9 with Dan 12:1-3, he describes the holy ones as "children of God ( )" who "shine as lights in the world ( )" (Phil 2:15).

https://drmsh.com/pauls-use-of-genesis-155-in-romans-418-in-light-of-early-jewish-deification-traditions-part-6-origens-commentary-on-romans-4-and-the-reception-of-the-qualitative-interpretation/


codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Angel of the Lord forgives sins. Genesis 48. But the Angel is also physical, not mere spirit.

There are several instances where the Angel of the Lord eats in the OT and NT.

  • We have Genesis 18. That's the Lord himself and then two angels. These "three men" come and visit Abraham and they have a meal.
  • If you go to Genesis 19, the first four verses, they eat. They have the meal.
  • You have Judges 13. This is the Samson story where, in this case, we don't have the items eaten, but Samson's mother brings food to the angel of God. So there's this gesture of a meal there.
  • And by the way, these kind of passages in the Old Testament are what's lurking behind Hebrews 13:2, that you entertain angels unawares. You should always extend hospitality because you never know.
  • Later in the New Testament with the post-resurrection Jesus, we have the Emmaus Road incident. There's food involved in that. He takes the bread and as soon as he breaks it, then they know who it is.
  • John 21:13, a reference to the meal by the sea.
  • And then of course Luke 24:42-43. In verse 43, Jesus is eating the fish. And then the honeycomb would be in verse 42 if that's the authentic reading.

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/NB-328-Transcript.pdf

It is also arguable that the Angel grabbed Abraham when He took Abraham outside in Genesis 15.

Read Joseph and Aseneth if you want to know why specifically Jesus ate honeycomb.

Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
codker92 said:

The Angel of the Lord forgives sins. Genesis 48. But the Angel is also physical, not mere spirit.

There are several instances where the Angel of the Lord eats in the OT and NT.

  • We have Genesis 18. That's the Lord himself and then two angels. These "three men" come and visit Abraham and they have a meal.
  • If you go to Genesis 19, the first four verses, they eat. They have the meal.
  • You have Judges 13. This is the Samson story where, in this case, we don't have the items eaten, but Samson's mother brings food to the angel of God. So there's this gesture of a meal there.
  • And by the way, these kind of passages in the Old Testament are what's lurking behind Hebrews 13:2, that you entertain angels unawares. You should always extend hospitality because you never know.
  • Later in the New Testament with the post-resurrection Jesus, we have the Emmaus Road incident. There's food involved in that. He takes the bread and as soon as he breaks it, then they know who it is.
  • John 21:13, a reference to the meal by the sea.
  • And then of course Luke 24:42-43. In verse 43, Jesus is eating the fish. And then the honeycomb would be in verse 42 if that's the authentic reading.

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/NB-328-Transcript.pdf

It is also arguable that the Angel grabbed Abraham when He took Abraham outside in Genesis 15.

Read Joseph and Aseneth if you want to know why specifically Jesus ate honeycomb.



Being able to effect the physical world does not mean that Angels must be corporeal and must eat to sustain a physical body. For example in Tobit, the Angel Raphael explicitly states " When you thought you saw me eating, I did not really eat anything; it only seemed so." (Tobit 12:19)
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That appears to only apply to Raphael. Did it say that it applied to the Angel of the Lord also? If that is what the writer wanted to convey and it was important for the writer to convey it, then why did the writer only make it apply to Raphael and not all angels?
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Rev. 1:1-2.

Could it be that God gave the information to Jesus and actually sent Jesus in the form of an angel? This is post-resurrection.

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/NB-328-Transcript.pdf
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Salvation for Jew and Gentile is only by faith. The seed is Christ and all those included in Him.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think all you're demonstrating is some very clumsy Christian typology in the Old Testament. Whether it's Genesis, Judges, or Daniel, some Christians like to say that every unnamed angel in the Old Testament was really Jesus Christ. But if that's true, we have Jesus putting on and discarding human bodies (or at least appearances of same) multiple times prior to his Incarnation.. This interpretation creates a lot of theological and Christological problems, one of which you have pointed out.

To me the obvious solution is to ditch the strained and clumsy practice of making every anonymous person in the Old Testament into a literal manifestation of Jesus. Let angels be angels. Let Jesus manifest as spirit prior to his Incarnation, like when speaking with Moses.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
codker92 said:

That appears to only apply to Raphael. Did it say that it applied to the Angel of the Lord also? If that is what the writer wanted to convey and it was important for the writer to convey it, then why did the writer only make it apply to Raphael and not all angels?


Rafael is the only one that explicitly states it, but it is clear that angels often will go incognito in the old testament. Therefore, would it not be reasonable to contend that all angels only "appear" to eat.? Also, are you implying that the writer of Tobit is also the writer of Genesis?
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ordhound04 said:

codker92 said:

That appears to only apply to Raphael. Did it say that it applied to the Angel of the Lord also? If that is what the writer wanted to convey and it was important for the writer to convey it, then why did the writer only make it apply to Raphael and not all angels?


Rafael is the only one that explicitly states it, but it is clear that angels often will go incognito in the old testament. Therefore, would it not be reasonable to contend that all angels only "appear" to eat.? Also, are you implying that the writer of Tobit is also the writer of Genesis?
Therefore, would it not be reasonable to contend that all angels only "appear" to eat.?
A. No. Because to hold that all angels only appear to eat means that Jesus did not eat. The bible actually calls Jesus an angel in the NT.

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw." Rev. 1:1-2.

It is important to note that the book of Tobit takes place after the exile. I don't know this for sure, but my guess is that Raphael appeared to Tobit due to the exile status. In other words, seeing an angel is not a sign that a party is righteous, but they are separated from God. This makes sense given that the Glory of the Lord left the temple before the events in Tobit. God was not on speaking terms with Tobit's community because of their idolatry. But, nevertheless, God still chooses to show mercy to righteous individuals. Lesser angels such as Raphael appear in exile situations in the book of Tobit and the book of Daniel.

Also, are you implying that the writer of Tobit is also the writer of Genesis?

No. Most of the parts of Genesis date before the book of Tobit.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I like how in the duration of two posts you went from posing an interpretive question to asserting it as fact. Very cool move.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Prove it wrong then.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's not how burden of proof works.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I already presented evidence weighing in its favor. You have nothing.

A scintilla of evidence is sufficient to support a finding that it's true.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You posted a question and a Bible verse. That's not evidence.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't care what you think. I'm not putting these posts for you.

I'm going to put it all in a new post since it's outside the scope of this post.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.