Comments on: Reading Nephi – 3:31-4:3

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 23:12:18 +0000

Terry, I think part of the problem is that those texts date to after the exile. At least in the key parts. So most sources I have suggest the hierarchy and more significant angelology date to after the exile with heavy Babylonian influence. The earlier strata (although this may be reading too much into it) seems much more like how Mormons conceive of angels typically.

By: Terry H

Terry H — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:37:47 +0000

Clark, some of the differences are more fully described in the “Interpreting Angel Motif” I’ve described in other posts. I’m also going to look more closely at “Angel Veneration and Christology” by Loren Stuckenbruck (Mohr Sebeck, 1995). As a start, I’d also recommend the entry “Angels” in the Eerdman’s Dictionary of Early Judaism, Eds. Collins and Harlow. Its written by Archie T. Wright, pp. 328-331 (Eerdmans, 2010). It has a section on the “Bene (ha) Elohim), not really applicable here, also on Malak/Angelos which is a good summary and says it can be human or heavenly. Then it talks about the angels in Job and Zechariah, Daniel, and other Jewish Literature. The article describes their roles as being “Surrogates for God”, “Intercessors”, “Teachers and Tour Guides” and that they have a distinct hierarchy. The bibliography alone provides some heavy-duty additional reading.

By: James Olsen

James Olsen — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:23:27 +0000

Clark this is a fascinating point, though I think — as you ultimately conclude here — that this was an angel of the heavens. I’ve always particularly appreciated how close malak is to melekh — on multiple levels.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:38:28 +0000

This Tyndale article on "Angel of the Lord" seems helpful.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:31:48 +0000

I did a brief search. Admittedly I’m no expert on this so I can’t judge the quality of analysis. The Jewish Encyclopedia says, “in the earlier Biblical writings the term “Malak YHWH” (messenger of the Lord) occurs chiefly in the singular, and signifies a special self-manifestation of God. … At times the angel clearly distinguishes himself from the Lord who sends him ” (Interestingly there’s some ambiguity in some of the early sections of 1 & 2 Nephi on who is actually manifesting — such as the Spirit of the Lord in Nephi’s merkabah vision) It then says that’s it’s during the exile that there’s a big shift in angelology. I suspect many would argue with their notion that the divine counsel or pantheon is purely an exilic evolution. They argue that it’s this evolution from Babylon that provides the more human like malak yhvh. Suddenly angels are more human. They point in particular to the book of Zechariah for this. Even there though while there’s a certain ambiguity it appears these “men” are divine in some sense. But perhaps (according to the article) due to influence of the Babylonian pantheon.

Anyway most of the sources agreed that “angel of the Lord” are divine. I couldn’t find an example of a human in that role. So that’d imply 1 Ne 3:29 fits that usage.

By: Ben S.

Ben S. — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:59:38 +0000

Right, mal’ak is not necessarily divine, glorious etc. It simply means “messenger” which becomes “divine messenger” which mutates into our current cultural ideas of “angel” as white, glowy, appearing suddenly, etc.
I’m not sure off the top of my head if there’s ever clearly a human mal’ak yhwh, though.

By: Ivan Wolfe

Ivan Wolfe — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:57:00 +0000

Clark, it’s interesting how often in the Old Testament, people don’t recognize angels as divine beings. For example, I was just reading in Judges (chapter 13), and Samson’s parent’s treat the “angel” as a “man of god” but not really a divine being, until the angel ascends to heaven, at which point they realize what this messenger really was.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:02:08 +0000

I should have added in the last section on the angel (29-31) how odd this section is. I’ve often wondered if there’s a translation issue here. Is this an angel in all its glory appearing as a divine being to Laman and Lemuel? Or is this angel in the broader Hebrew sense of malak simply as messenger. In most places the word pops up it’s not a divine angel. (For instance in 2 Sam 5:11 it’s translated as “messenger.”) My understanding is that even malak yhvh (messenger of God) needn’t be a divine being.

Hopefully Ben S, who actually knows Hebrew, will chime in here.

I just wonder how much of this might be Joseph’s context affecting the translation. Note I’m not saying it wasn’t an angel. Just that if it was an angel Laman and Lemuel’s actions always seemed quite strange to me. I sometimes wonder if this wasn’t an other prophet like Lehi acting as a diving messenger. This would explain Laman and Lemuel’s murmuring much better. Of course one can also read Nephi i 4:3 as himself amazed they don’t believe after seeing something so amazing.

But if it was a prophet I can see Laman and Lemuel saying, “well if the prophet’s words were so great, how come we already had an invasion that put Zedekiah on the throne and ransacked Jerusalem? Doesn’t seem to me God’s too inclined to protect people from armies.” (I’m here assuming Laban is an appointed figure – probably by Nebuchadnezzar II which may explain some of the later actions with Nephi)

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 21:28:01 +0000

I’m grateful for your last sentence.