“For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name” (Isa 63:16).
There are various objections to the intercession of the saints. Turretin has a characteristically thorough discussion of the subject. Cf. Institutes, 2:38-51,385-90.
For now I’m going to focus my attention on one particular obstacle. Even if, for the sake of argument, we waive other objections to the intercession of the saints, this dogma presupposes that the saints are in a position to know the precise circumstances of the supplicant.
That, in turn, raises the general question of what the dead can know about the living. What, if anything, would be their source of knowledge?
The most obvious source of knowledge would be the newly departed. Men and women die every day, and go to heaven or hell. Presumably, they take their memories with them. In principle, then, that would furnish a lot of detailed, up-to-date information about earthly affairs.
However, that’s far from sufficient to deal with the case at hand. In order for a saint to intercede on behalf of the living, he would need very specific, timely information about that individual supplicant.
In theory, what specific information is available about any particular individual? Well, here’s one scenario. My granddad dies before I’m born. In the afterlife (whether heaven or hell) he knows nothing about me.
Say his wife (my grandma) dies 20 years later. At that point she can fill him in on what she knows.
Likewise, when my mother and father die (if they predecease me), they can update his information.
That’s roughly how it would go. Of course, that involves extended intervals of time when my granddad has no current information about me.
And there are other potential complications. Suppose he goes to heaven, but his wife goes to hell. Then he’s not privy to her information.
And, of course, Catholics don’t pray to their ancestors. Rather, they pray to some official saint who’s not even related to them. So, it’s not as if every decedent is debriefed by one of the saints as soon as he dies regarding the state of the survivors.
Indeed, given the sheer number of people who die every day (about 250,000 - 300,000) in relation to the number of official saints, it would be impossible to debrief every new arrival.
Suppose I pray to a saint about my job interview tomorrow. On the face of it, the saint has no source of information about my situation.
It is, of course, possible to conjecture makeshift news outlets. You could postulate that every Christian has a guardian angel who keeps track of everything we do.
Seems to me that this would be pretty voyeuristic. But the other problem is that it’s sheer speculation. Sure, it’s hypothetically possible, but shouldn’t you have some positive evidence that it’s true before you pin your hopes on praying to the saints? Otherwise, why have any more confidence in your prayers to St. Jude than Shinto prayers to the dead or Tibetan prayer-wheels?
Perhaps, at this point, a Catholic would say he does have good reason to believe it–and that’s because his church teaches it. But, from what I can tell, all his church did was to ratify a popular custom. The basis of the practice is not the dogma; rather, the basis of the dogma is the practice. A preexisting custom. A pious superstition.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteUnlike Abraham, who was in the "bosom of Abraham" when Isaiah was written, the departed saints since Christ's ascension now enjoy the beatific vision, in which they see God's essence, and by which they know the affairs of men on earth.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Hi Bryan,
ReplyDeleteYou’ve given us everything except an argument. To turn your claims into an actual argument, not to mention a sound argument, complete the following steps:
1.Document from one or more authoritative sources that the limbus patrum is formal Catholic dogma.
2.While you’re at it, specify the precise content of this dogma.
3.Document from one or more authoritative sources that the beatific vision confers virtual omniscience on the saints such that they can scan the mind of God for biographical information regarding the private lives of the living.
4.Assuming that you have completed (1)-(3), present a sound argument for why a Protestant should regard (1)-(3) as true?
I look forward to your argument.
You're so generous Steve. Always teaching. I love this about you.
ReplyDeleteSteve--
ReplyDeleteDo you think that angels are aware of at least some of what happens on earth?
Do you think that requests are ever made of angels by human beings in Scripture? Do humans ever ask angels to do anything?
What is your understanding of passages such as Revelation 5:8-10 or 8:3-4? Are these not examples of the awareness of the saints of what is happening on earth?
MG SAID:
ReplyDelete“Do you think that angels are aware of at least some of what happens on earth?”
Yes. However, the question at issue would require very detailed, up-to-the-minute information about every Christian. We have no evidence that angels monitor the lives of individual Christians to that extent. Therefore, we can’t justify a belief or practice on that groundless presumption.
“Do you think that requests are ever made of angels by human beings in Scripture? Do humans ever ask angels to do anything?”
i) As in what? If a prophet experiences a visionary revelation of angels, he might ask the angel to explain something he sees. But I don’t think that’s what you have in mind.
ii) We have an example in Dan 10 where Daniel prays for understanding (of the future). His prayer is impeded by a fallen angel. The demonic impediment is then removed by a heavenly angel.
Even though angels are involved in the answer to his prayer, Daniel is praying to God. He’s not praying to angels.
iii) In theory, a Christian could ask God to send an angel to assist in a situation. That’s not the same thing as praying to an angel. Rather, that’s praying for an angel.
On the other hand, I question the propriety of suggesting to God how he should answer our prayers. We leave the means up to God.
“What is your understanding of passages such as Revelation 5:8-10 or 8:3-4? Are these not examples of the awareness of the saints of what is happening on earth?”
In context, the supplicants are Christian martyrs. They call on God to vindicate them for the injustice they suffered at the hands of their persecutors (e.g. 6:9-11).
So, this doesn’t refer to what the departed know about the living. Rather, it has reference to their own experience while they were still alive. It’s autobiographical rather than biographical. It doesn’t mean St. Jude knows about my hernia.
Steve--
ReplyDelete1. Doesn’t angelic awareness of earthly events seem to follow from the idea that angels are joyous in heaven over our repentance, or that the apostolic ministry is a spectacle to them? Also, don’t you think that demons at least *try* to monitor Christians’ lives (in order to tempt, etc.)? Even if angels and demons aren’t aware of everything that goes on every moment, it may be possible for them to have enough awareness to the point where it makes some difference to make requests of them.
2. Prophetic requests to angels do seem to be real requests; but I'm not aware of what you're talking about, what were you referring to?
What I was specifically thinking of was the fact that the psalmist asks the angels to praise God (103:20-21). This seems to be a case of a human request (prayer) to a blessed created person (saint) that is not an embodied human. That’s the concept of a prayer to a saint, if I’m correct.
3. What is the bowl of incense containing the prayers of the saints that these elders are offering? Whose prayers are they?
Also, doesn’t the reference in 6:9-11 imply that the martyrs are aware that God’s will has not been vindicated yet?
MG wrote:
ReplyDelete"What I was specifically thinking of was the fact that the psalmist asks the angels to praise God (103:20-21). This seems to be a case of a human request (prayer) to a blessed created person (saint) that is not an embodied human. That’s the concept of a prayer to a saint, if I’m correct."
When the psalmists speak to the mountains (Psalm 68:16, 114:6), or somebody writes a message to a deceased person on his gravestone, that isn't equivalent to prayer. The psalmist isn't praying to the mountains, and the message on the gravestone isn't meant to be a prayer. To equate such rhetorical devices with prayer is erroneous. Nobody who goes to a Protestant graveyard and sees "rest in peace" addressed to a dead person, or who sees angels being addressed in a Protestant hymn, would conclude that Protestants must therefore believe in praying to the dead and angels. Such data would be inconclusive at best. You cite verses 20-21 of Psalm 103, but you don't cite the next verse, which tells all of God's "works" to bless Him. Should we conclude that it's acceptable to pray to all of God's works?
If praying to angels was considered an acceptable practice, we would expect to see it reflected in historical narratives, such as what we have in Genesis, Judges, 1 Kings, Acts, etc. Prayers to God are found in such contexts many times, under many different circumstances, from many sources. The fact that you have to go to a passage like Psalm 103 to find possible support for praying to angels is significant. It would be like overlooking the absence of prayers to animals and mountains in the sort of historical narrative portions of scripture I referred to above and pointing to passages like Psalm 114:6 and 148:7-10.
And I don't see how you can move from prayer to angels to prayer to deceased humans. Neither makes sense, but prayer to angels is less objectionable. At least angels are known to be around us and involved in human affairs more than deceased humans we believe to be in Heaven.
MG SAID:
ReplyDelete“Doesn’t angelic awareness of earthly events seem to follow from the idea that angels are joyous in heaven over our repentance, or that the apostolic ministry is a spectacle to them?”
i) You’re shifting ground. You originally cited some verses from Revelation. I replied to that citation. You are, of course, welcome to introduce other passages of Scripture, but let’s keep in mind that my previous reply was responsive to your previous questions.
ii) I don’t deny that angels have some awareness of earthly affairs. Indeed, I’ve explicitly affirmed that. So citing examples of such awareness does nothing to contradict or undermine what I’ve said.
iii) Also, keep in mind that the primary emphasis of my post had to do with the intercession of the saints. Praying to human beings who’ve passed into glory.
iv) Regarding your allusion to 1 Pet 1:12:
a) It isn’t clear to me that this has reference to direct angelic knowledge of past or present events (knowledge by acquaintance). Rather, it may well have reference to angelic knowledge of God’s redemptive plan (knowledge by description). Angelic anticipation of how God would one day fulfill his redemptive designs.
b) Pace (a), even assuming that it does refer to direct angelic knowledge of past or present events, the life of Christ was both a public event and a special event. Angelic interest in that particular event does not create any presumption regarding angelic curiosity vis-a-vis the private lives of individual Christians. And even if angels were curious, we don’t know that angels have free rein to satisfy their idle curiosity.
c) We also know for a fact that there was some angelic involvement in the life of Christ, so that is not in dispute.
v) Regarding your allusion to Lk 15:10, this is probably a synonym for heaven (v7) and a pious circumlocution for the name of God. Cf. C. F. Evans, 586; J. Fitzmyer, 2:1081; L. T. Johnson, 236; Stein, 404. So it’s not a literal reference to the angels, but a literary device to designate God or God’s abode.
“Also, don’t you think that demons at least *try* to monitor Christians’ lives (in order to tempt, etc.)?”
i) To some extent, yes, but to what extent I don’t know. I don’t know the ratio of demons to human beings.
ii) Possession is a cut-cut example of demonic agency. But, in many or most cases, we don’t require demonic agency to be tempted to sin.
“Even if angels and demons aren’t aware of everything that goes on every moment, it may be possible for them to have enough awareness to the point where it makes some difference to make requests of them.”
This is not a question of what is hypothetically possible, but what is morally permissible. The question at issue is whether we know enough about angelic awareness to justify certain religious practices.
Keep in mind that who you pray to is a big deal in Scripture. In the ancient world, pagans would pray to a whole host of beings. The Bible considers that idolatry. So there’s a standing presumption against praying to this or that being unless you have divine authorization to do so.
“Prophetic requests to angels do seem to be real requests; but I'm not aware of what you're talking about, what were you referring to?”
ReplyDeletei) Something like Rev 10:9.
ii) Yes, it’s a real request, but it’s based on a real encounter with a real angel, which is, in turn, predicated on a divinely authorized experience.
You can hardly extrapolate from that to generic prayers to generic angels.
“What I was specifically thinking of was the fact that the psalmist asks the angels to praise God (103:20-21). This seems to be a case of a human request (prayer) to a blessed created person (saint) that is not an embodied human. That’s the concept of a prayer to a saint, if I’m correct.”
i) You’re redefining what is meant by a “saint.”
ii) Do you seriously think heavenly angels need to be reminded by a Psalmist to praise God? Because angels and demons, heaven and hell are real entities, Christians need to cultivate realistic conceptions of these are really like.
iii) As Jason points out, this is just a literary device to show that God is praiseworthy or worshipful–expressed in poetic, hyperbolic terms.
“What is the bowl of incense containing the prayers of the saints that these elders are offering? Whose prayers are they?”
i) In context, these are the prayers of the heavenly saints. Christians who have passed into glory.
It does not refer to Christians on earth who pray to the heavenly saints.
ii) Also keep in mind that this is full of symbolic picture-language. It’s not a blueprint of heaven.
Finally, you have a habit, it seems to me, of beginning with liturgical practice, then casting about for a prooftext to rubberstamp your preexisting practice.
You need to cultivate the habit of exegeting your prooftexts in context. We have a religious duty to be painstakingly accurate in the way we interpret the word of God.
It would also be a good to thing to begin with Scripture rather than using Scripture to confer ex post facto validation on an extrascriptural agenda.
"Also, doesn’t the reference in 6:9-11 imply that the martyrs are aware that God’s will has not been vindicated yet?"
ReplyDeletei) They know the day of judgment hasn't arrived. That would involve some changes in heaven (e.g. the descent of the New Jerusalem).
Even if he had no knowledge of earthly affairs, a heavenly saint would still be in a position to know, from heavenly events, whether or not the day of judgment had arrived.
ii) Moreover, I never said the dead have no knowledge of earthly affairs. In fact, I discussed their obvious source of information, and the limitations thereof.
You're raising objections to issues I already dealt with in my original post.
I'd add that 1 Pet 1:12 actually speaks to the limitations of angelic knowledge. They are longing to know more, in which case they're not automatically in a position to know as much as they'd like to.
ReplyDeleteJason—
ReplyDeleteI understand what you’re saying, and acknowledge that it takes some force away from my argument from Psalm 103. However, addressing angels would be fundamentally different from addressing mountains. Angels are indeed conscious of what is happening on earth to a considerable degree. We know they are the kinds of beings that could, in principle, respond to prayer.
For any people who are in the vicinity when Psalm 148:11-14, it would make sense for them to take these as requests or instructions. When its read in Church, most people certainly take it that way. Yes, there is a poetic element, and it is exclusively poetic in verses like 7 and 8. But when we get to requests to actual people, things become a little different. So it seems to me the argument from these verses depends on whether or not we have reason to think that angels are aware of what is happening on earth. If we do, then the verses that tell angels to praise God can plausibly taken as requests to angels.
I think you might be assuming that prayer to angels is being thought of as a bigger deal than it actually is. Really, I’m not claiming such prayers are common or extremely important; I would assume they are comparatively rare, and comparatively unimportant. All I’m saying is that it happened. The same logic of “we don’t see any examples of that or explicit prescriptions in its favor” could be used to deny that women can take communion, for there are no clear cases of it in Scripture. The same logic of “where does that happen in the historical narratives?” could probably be used to deny that the name of David was ever invoked in prayer to God; but the Psalms do this (132:10).
Regardless, I think we have several other references to prayers to angels: Deut 32:43 (Septuagint), Psalm 97:7, Hebrews 1:6 (quoting Psalm 97:7) are the most explicit. In these verses, requests are being made to angels to praise God. I would add that it is a lot harder to write them off as examples of poetic device, as they are far removed from the context of “praise the Lord all ye his works” etc.
Steve—
ReplyDeleteAngels are called saints in Scripture, (Daniel 4:13) so I felt like it was related to the issue at hand.
I was actually referencing 1 Corinthians 4:9 (sorry, probably should just explicitly cite verses in the future). What do you make of it?
v) How do you move from the fact that “heaven” could be a placeholder for God’s name in the previous verse to the conclusion that the “angels” in verse 10 are not actually angels?
Granted that demons don’t always tempt us. But the point is that angels would probably play an analogous role, with an analogous amount of awareness. If so, surely they could hear our prayers.
All I’m doing is trying to undercut the objection that angels are not aware to us; I’m not saying that because they are aware, it necessarily follows that we must pray to them. That may follow, for other reasons, though (if objections to this view can be undercut).
Sure, who you pray to is a big deal. But if we can pray to other Christians (ie. make requests of them) then the issue seems to be one of allegiance, not whether God is your singular object of prayer. We should request (pray) that the people of God make prayers for us. This is what separates us from idolators—not a refusal to make requests of anyone else (namely God’s holy children), but a refusal to view idols as gods.
I hadn’t thought about Rev 10:9 before, but you’re right, it is in the context of a vision, which changes things somewhat.
I don’t think angels need to be reminded; but neither does Christ need to be reminded to intercede for us to the Father. Its not a question of who needs to be reminded about what, but whether or not God desires the interconnectedness and mutual dependency of people.
(see my response to Jason)
I was not assuming for the sake of the argument that the was Christians on earth praying to the heavenly saints. However, there was an assumption that you would say it was the prayers of Christians on earth that were being offered by the elders (though not by means of requests to the heavenly elders, but rather by simple repetition of the earthly saints’ requests to God). Apparently this assumption was incorrect, so the argument I was urging will not be persuasive to you.
As for the saints in heaven being aware that judgment has not yet arrived because the New Jerusalem has not descended, fair enough—that seems to be an explanation of how they could know that without being able to perceive (or be told by God about) earthly events.
I will keep in mind the need to be contextual in my interpretations of Scripture, as well as the fact that I shouldn't go fishing for prooftexts for the practices of my Church. That being said, I still think these arguments have some weight.
MG SAID:
ReplyDelete“Angels are called saints in Scripture, (Daniel 4:13) so I felt like it was related to the issue at hand.”
Several issues:
i) In reference to the intercession of the saints, a “saint” denotes a Christian who has passed into glory.
ii) In terms of Scriptural usage, yes, an angel can be denominated a “holy one.”
Normally, though, we use the term “saint” in a more specialized sense (i).
iii) And, even with respect to Scriptural usage, we have to determine (where possible) the identity of the referent based on contextual clues.
“I was actually referencing 1 Corinthians 4:9 (sorry, probably should just explicitly cite verses in the future). What do you make of it?”
i) Yes, this indicates that angels have some knowledge of earthly affairs–which I never denied.
ii) Again, though, petitionary prayer must presume the object of prayer knows the content of our prayer. That the scope of his knowledge is at least commensurate with (if not greater than) the scope of the prayer.
In prayers to God, that’s not an issue. The same cannot be taken for granted in the case of an angel–even assuming that it’s otherwise permissible to pray to angels.
iii) Angels know things about earthly affairs in part because they come to earth.
The same doesn’t hold true in the case of the deceased–unless we identify ghosts with the deceased. Even in that case, I’d say that ghosts are spirits of the damned. As such, they’re in no position to help us!
“How do you move from the fact that ‘heaven’ could be a placeholder for God’s name in the previous verse to the conclusion that the ‘angels’ in verse 10 are not actually angels?”
i) These are variant ways of expressing the same idea.
ii) Moreover, that’s not the only argument for construing v10 as a pious circumlocution for “God.” This is a distinctive feature of Lukan usage.
“Granted that demons don’t always tempt us. But the point is that angels would probably play an analogous role, with an analogous amount of awareness. If so, surely they could hear our prayers.”
Hear what prayers? Silent prayers? Or vocal prayers?
i) I don’t know the extent to which angels can read human minds. Maybe they can, maybe they can’t.
ii) Once again, this is not a question of what’s possible, but what’s permissible–as well as what’s reasonable.
Many things are hypothetically possible. That’s insufficient reason to act as if they’re true. It’s hypothetically possible that if I swim across a river lined with crocodiles on either bank, I’ll make it safely to the other side. That, however, is not a prudent reason for me to take the plunge. Indeed, I daresay that would be rather ill-advised!
“Sure, who you pray to is a big deal. But if we can pray to other Christians (ie. make requests of them) then the issue seems to be one of allegiance, not whether God is your singular object of prayer.”
If I ask another Christian to pray for me, that’s based on knowledge. Knowledge of what a fellow Christian is capable of doing–as well as permitted to do.
Whether Christians in heaven can hear me carries no such presumption.
“I don’t think angels need to be reminded; but neither does Christ need to be reminded to intercede for us to the Father. Its not a question of who needs to be reminded about what, but whether or not God desires the interconnectedness and mutual dependency of people.”
In terms of the Psalm you cited, it’s more a question of how that functions in the literary strategy of the Psalmist.
MG SAID:
ReplyDelete“Jason—__I understand what you’re saying, and acknowledge that it takes some force away from my argument from Psalm 103. However, addressing angels would be fundamentally different from addressing mountains. Angels are indeed conscious of what is happening on earth to a considerable degree. We know they are the kinds of beings that could, in principle, respond to prayer.”
You didn’t get all that from Ps 103. The question at issue is how “angels” function in that literary setting.
“For any people who are in the vicinity when Psalm 148:11-14, it would make sense for them to take these as requests or instructions. When its read in Church, most people certainly take it that way.”
The pertinent question is how ancient Jews would take it.
“But when we get to requests to actual people, things become a little different. So it seems to me the argument from these verses depends on whether or not we have reason to think that angels are aware of what is happening on earth.”
No, it depends on how this functions in the literary strategy of the Psalmist.
“Regardless, I think we have several other references to prayers to angels: Deut 32:43 (Septuagint), Psalm 97:7, Hebrews 1:6 (quoting Psalm 97:7) are the most explicit.”
i) Per Deut 32:43: you need to explain why we should prefer the Septuagintal gloss over the MT.
ii) Per Ps 97:7: that’s a prohibition against idolatry.
iii) Per Heb 1:6:
a) It's not clear which passage the author is alluding to. See Ellingworth and Lane for details.
b) More to the point, the author of Hebrews treats this as a divine command to the angels. As such, you can’t very well redeploy Heb 1:6 to justify human prayers to angels.
In Heb 1:6, it’s not a prayer, but a command. And the commander is God, not a human supplicant.
“In these verses, requests are being made to angels to praise God. I would add that it is a lot harder to write them off as examples of poetic device.”
You’re shifting gears. You originally said, “What I was specifically thinking of was the fact that the psalmist asks the angels to praise God (103:20-21).”
You seem to be introducing these other passages as a rearguard action after your original prooftext was shot down. You’re welcome to introduce other material, but it looks like a patch-up job.
MG wrote:
ReplyDelete"However, addressing angels would be fundamentally different from addressing mountains. Angels are indeed conscious of what is happening on earth to a considerable degree. We know they are the kinds of beings that could, in principle, respond to prayer."
The same can be said of believers who haven't yet died and the unregenerate who have died. I mentioned mountains, but I also mentioned other objects, such as "all you works of His" (Psalm 103:22). We wouldn't use that passage as a justification for praying to a Christian who lives in another country or praying to deceased unbelievers.
You write:
"For any people who are in the vicinity when Psalm 148:11-14, it would make sense for them to take these as requests or instructions."
Only by implication. I wouldn't think that the psalmist was expecting every entity he describes to perceive his request at the time he made it, nor would I expect angels to think that the psalmist was attempting to communicate with them.
You write:
"Yes, there is a poetic element, and it is exclusively poetic in verses like 7 and 8. But when we get to requests to actual people, things become a little different."
See my comments above regarding believers who haven't yet died and the unregenerate who have died, for example. And I've already cited the examples of a Protestant gravestone that's written as if addressed to the dead and a Protestant hymn that's written as if addressed to an angel. We know that people often write that way without any intention of communicating with the dead or angels. As I said earlier, such data is inconclusive at best.
You write:
"So it seems to me the argument from these verses depends on whether or not we have reason to think that angels are aware of what is happening on earth."
As Steve has explained, we don't have sufficient knowledge of what the angels know so as to justify prayer to angels. Our knowledge of what they know about earthly affairs doesn't extend to the point of justifying such prayers.
You write:
"I think you might be assuming that prayer to angels is being thought of as a bigger deal than it actually is. Really, I’m not claiming such prayers are common or extremely important; I would assume they are comparatively rare, and comparatively unimportant."
You've tried to include prayers to the dead in the discussion. And prayer to the dead is common in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, for example. Even prayer to angels is more common in such belief systems than the absence of it in scripture would suggest it should be. Why would prayer to the dead and angels be so "comparatively rare" that there are no examples of it in the sort of narrative portions of scripture I referred to earlier? Why would you have to resort to passages like Psalm 103?
(continued in next post due to Blogger space limitations)
(continued from last post)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"The same logic of 'we don’t see any examples of that or explicit prescriptions in its favor' could be used to deny that women can take communion, for there are no clear cases of it in Scripture."
Contexts in which people pray are far more common than contexts in which communion is discussed in such a way that the gender of the participant would be specified. Communion didn't even exist in the Old Testament era and most of the time covered in the gospels.
And there's no significant obstacle to taking female participation in communion as an implication of scripture, whereas there are significant obstacles to taking prayer to the dead and angels as implications of scripture, as Steve and I have explained.
You write:
"The same logic of 'where does that happen in the historical narratives?' could probably be used to deny that the name of David was ever invoked in prayer to God; but the Psalms do this (132:10)."
Some of the same principles I outlined above regarding female participation in communion are applicable here. And I didn't reject your reading of Psalm 103 just because it appears in a psalm. Rather, I cited the context (Psalm 103:22) and similar practices elsewhere (Protestant gravestones, Protestant hymns, etc.) to justify my reading. There is no such qualifying evidence with regard to Psalm 132:10. It's not as though we would expect people to repeatedly be appealing to David in historical narratives as Psalm 132 does. You're comparing two things that aren't comparable.
You write:
"Regardless, I think we have several other references to prayers to angels: Deut 32:43 (Septuagint), Psalm 97:7, Hebrews 1:6 (quoting Psalm 97:7) are the most explicit."
You'll have to explain why you're citing the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43 (a passage cited in Romans 15:10 without the implications you seem to be drawing from it). And you'll need to explain how you derive your conclusion from Psalm 97:7, a passage addressing idolatry. Hebrews 1:6 says "let all the angels of God worship Him". Not only is there no attempt to communicate directly with angels, but the phrase also is reminiscent of Psalm 97:1, which reads, "let the earth rejoice; let the many islands be glad" and verse 7, which reads, "Let all those be ashamed who serve graven images". Is the psalmist praying to the earth, the many islands, and those who serve graven images?
If those are your "most explicit" passages, then I think the dispute is settled.
You write:
"I would add that it is a lot harder to write them off as examples of poetic device, as they are far removed from the context of 'praise the Lord all ye his works' etc."
It's not as if there has to be such a phrase nearby in order for the sort of interpretation I've suggested to be reasonable. But there are such phrases nearby. See my comments on Psalm 97:1 above. See, also, Psalm 97:10 and 97:12. Should we use such passages to justify prayer to Christians living in other nations? Should I say a prayer to a Christian in Brazil and expect him to hear me and grant what I request?
Steve—
ReplyDeleteI agree that we have to determine what “saint” means by context. There was an attempt to offer a counter-example to the claim that there is no such thing as a request made to saints (other than embodied humans) in Scripture. Granted you were more focused on the permissibility of prayer to dead Christians, though. But these issues are related insofar as the permissibility of prayer to angels would make it more difficult to deny the permissibility of prayer to the departed.
I suppose that none of the verses I’ve cited prove that angels are aware of the prayers of Christians on earth. But it seems arbitrary in my opinion to deny, given the kinds of things they do know about, that they are aware of our prayers.
If Luke 15:7 is indeed expressing the same idea as 15:10, and heaven means “God”, wouldn’t it make more sense to see “heaven” in v7 then as corresponding to “God” in v10, instead of “presence of the angels of God” in v10? In this case, the verse would still be about angels.
If you really don’t think demons can read our minds at all, and yet are somehow able to psychically tempt us anyway, then okay—I can’t argue with that. Sure seems implausible, though.
If angels are sufficiently aware of our consciousness, or even our verbal utterances, this would mean they are the types of beings to which prayer could, in principle, be given. And if so, then invoking our agnosticism about angelic awareness as a reason not to think that various possible references to prayers to angels are indeed prayers to angels is undercut. The argument may still be bad if the inference is too weak or begs the question or whatever; but an objection would be removed to the very possibility of such exegesis.
You wrote:
ReplyDelete“In terms of the Psalm you cited, it’s more a question of how that functions in the literary strategy of the Psalmist.”
I’m not seeing how this is a response to my point about the fact that Christ does not need to be reminded to pray for us. You seemed to think that the fact that angels don’t need to be reminded to praise God is a reason to think that there couldn’t, in principle, be requests to angels to praise God. But by that same logic, there shouldn’t be any prayers to Christ to intercede to the Father for us. How does what you said address this (even if it is a good response to the argument from the reference in the Psalms, it doesn’t seem to be related to the point in question).
Would you deny that the Psalmist intends his words in Ps 103 to be a request to any relevant persons within hearing range of his words?
What passage other than Deut 32:43 or Ps 97:7 could the writer of Hebrews be referencing on your view? I’m curious, because I haven’t studied this issue in depth.
Yes Psalm 9:7 prohibits idolatry, but the Septuagint contains the added phrase “worship Him all you his angels”. If the NT references the Septuagint version of this verse, then that would be a reason to prefer that reading. So if Heb 1:6 references this verse by saying “worship Him all you his angels” that would imply we should take the Septuagint read.
We should prefer the Septuagintal gloss of Deuteronomy 32:43 because the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint version of that selection of Deuteronomy in Romans 15:10, it seems. It is also possible that Heb 1:6 is a reference to this verse; in which case that would be another reason to take the Septuagint version.
Saying that it is a command assumes that “he says” means “God commands”. But it could mean “God inspires the Scriptural text that says, using the voice of a human author”. In this case, the intent of the human author of the text would be to make a request of the angels (unless of course it is a poetic device).
I am introducing these texts to try and show that this practice (or at least a similar poetic device) exists elsewhere in Scripture. This is an attempt to offer an undercutting defeater for the claim that “if this were a real practice, we would expect it to show up elsewhere too, and it doesn’t—so it isn’t a real practice”. I don’t think my original argument has failed, or something like that. Although, I will grant that I was not aware of these texts until I decided (after starting this discussion) to examine the issue and cross-reference different translations of Scripture.
MG SAID:
ReplyDelete“But it seems arbitrary in my opinion to deny, given the kinds of things they do know about, that they are aware of our prayers.”
I don’t either believe or disbelieve that angels are aware of our prayers. I have insufficient evidence to form an educated opinion on that. I don’t know how many angels there are. I don’t know how many angels come to earth. I don’t know how often angels come to earth. I have no evidence that angels pair off with Christians in a one-to-one correspondence. And so on and so forth.
An oncologist knows a lot about cancer. He also knows a lot of cancer patients. That doesn’t create any presumption regarding his specific knowledge of a specific case.
“If Luke 15:7 is indeed expressing the same idea as 15:10, and heaven means ‘God’, wouldn’t it make more sense to see ‘heaven’ in v7 then as corresponding to ‘God’ in v10, instead of ‘presence of the angels of God’ in v10? In this case, the verse would still be about angels.”
No, it would be about God, using the “angels of God” as a metonymy. And that is quite common in in Scriptural usage about God.
For example, the “kingdom of heaven” is a metonymy for the “kingdom of God.” It’s a pious circumlocution to avoid uttering the sacred name.
“If you really don’t think demons can read our minds at all, and yet are somehow able to psychically tempt us anyway, then okay—I can’t argue with that. Sure seems implausible, though.”
i) You have a tendency to recast some of my statements in a more extreme or absolute form than I actually used. I try to choose my words with care. Verbal precision. Don’t alter what I said, impute your redacted version of what I say to me, then raise an objection.
I didn’t say whether or not demons can read our minds. Rather, I said I didn’t know one way or the other.
ii) Even if they can’t read human minds, it would be easy for a demon to temp a human sinner. Sinful temptations are very conventional. Observation of human behavior would be quite sufficient to predict in many situations what the average man finds tempting. You don’t have to read his mind to do that. Humans are good at tempting other humans without recourse to telepathy. Look at Las Vegas or TV commercials.
“If angels are sufficiently aware of our consciousness, or even our verbal utterances, this would mean they are the types of beings to which prayer could, in principle, be given. And if so, then invoking our agnosticism about angelic awareness as a reason not to think that various possible references to prayers to angels are indeed prayers to angels is undercut.”
i) You need to show how we turn your conditional statement into an indicative statement.
ii) Moreover, angelic knowledge is, at best, a necessary precondition for prayer to angels. It’s hardly a sufficient condition.
To take an extreme example, if I dabble in the occult, I may acquire occult powers. The fact that demons can empower me doesn’t begin to authorize the practice.
iii) I’d add that I’m not on a first-name basis with most angels. I only know the names of two angels (Michael, Gabriel).
More later.
MG SAID:
ReplyDelete“I’m not seeing how this is a response to my point about the fact that Christ does not need to be reminded to pray for us. You seemed to think that the fact that angels don’t need to be reminded to praise God is a reason to think that there couldn’t, in principle, be requests to angels to praise God. But by that same logic, there shouldn’t be any prayers to Christ to intercede to the Father for us. How does what you said address this (even if it is a good response to the argument from the reference in the Psalms, it doesn’t seem to be related to the point in question).”
i) Actually, I think that whether Christ or not does certain things for us is sometimes contingent on our asking him. Prayer makes a difference, in the sense that some things will take place as a result of prayer which would not take place absent prayer.
ii) By contrast, I hardly think that heavenly angels would cease to worship God if a Psalmist didn’t direct them to do so–even if we take that command literally. That’s one of the distinguishing features between heavenly angels and fallen angels. It would an act of apostasy for an angel to refrain from worshipping God.
I scarcely think that’s contingent on one verse of one Psalm.
“Would you deny that the Psalmist intends his words in Ps 103 to be a request to any relevant persons within hearing range of his words?”
As Jason pointed out, the same words are directed at both the animate and inanimate order. Therefore, it’s a literary device to express the worshipfulness of God–like the mountains and hills singing for joy while the trees clap their hands (Isa 55:12).
“What passage other than Deut 32:43 or Ps 97:7 could the writer of Hebrews be referencing on your view? I’m curious, because I haven’t studied this issue in depth.”
Ellingworth, in his commentary on the Greek text, lists and reviews the possible sources. I’m sure the library at Biola has a copy.
While I could manually transcribe his discussion, I have 24 hours in a day just like you. If you think this is an important issue, then it would behoove you to review the major commentaries on your prooftexts. That’s a practice you need to cultivate.
Commentaries aren’t the final word on the right interpretation of this or that passage, but major commentaries generally present the relevant data, from which you can then make your own assessment.
“Yes Psalm 9:7 prohibits idolatry, but the Septuagint contains the added phrase ‘worship Him all you his angels’. If the NT references the Septuagint version of this verse, then that would be a reason to prefer that reading. So if Heb 1:6 references this verse by saying ‘worship Him all you his angels” that would imply we should take the Septuagint read.__We should prefer the Septuagintal gloss of Deuteronomy 32:43 because the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint version of that selection of Deuteronomy in Romans 15:10, it seems. It is also possible that Heb 1:6 is a reference to this verse; in which case that would be another reason to take the Septuagint version.”
ReplyDeleteThat raises a number of complicated questions, at both a general and specific level.
i) Needless to say, our extant editions of the LXX are not identical with the 1C editions of the Greek OT which Paul or the author of Hebrews had at their disposal. Therefore, it’s anachronistic as well as inaccurate to simply correlate one with the other.
ii) Both Paul and the author of Hebrews feel free to reword their sources. Therefore, they don’t treat the wording of the Greek OT as inviolate.
iii) They use the Greek OT because they’re writing to Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles. For example the author of Hebrews is addressing Hellenistic Jewish-Christians. Therefore, as a practical necessity, he’s going to use a Greek version of the OT. That’s an unavoidable accommodation to his audience. An exercise in audience-adaptation.
Indeed, his use of the Greek OT may well be ad hominem. Answering them on their own terms by appealing to their own methods and sources.
iv) In Rom 15:10, Paul doesn’t quote the “Septuagintal” clause you’re referring to.
v) You can’t use Heb 1:6 to validate the “Septuagintal” rendering of the source unless you also accept the use to which he puts his source. If he assigns this quote to the lips of God, then it’s a divine command, not a human command.
It’s illicit to cite Heb 1:6 to authorize a text-critical preference unless you accept the authority of his interpretation in the same breath.
And keep in mind that that’s additional to other difficulties with your appeal (see above).
“Saying that it is a command assumes that ‘he says’ means ‘God commands.”
ReplyDeletei) No, the identity of the speaker is a separate issue from the (grammatical) mood of the statement. Depending on the context, human speakers can also issue commands, as you surely know.
I was raising two distinct objections to your appeal. These are not interchangeable objections.
ii) Likewise, a command is not synonymous with a request. These are distinct and often contrastive concepts. Commands are issued by superiors to subordinates.
That is not what we mean by prayer. Just the opposite, prayer is a request by a subordinate to a superior.
“But it could mean ‘God inspires the Scriptural text that says, using the voice of a human author’. In this case, the intent of the human author of the text would be to make a request of the angels (unless of course it is a poetic device).”
I don’t think Heb 1:6 is merely requesting the angels to worship the Son. Rather, the author’s point is to illustrate the divine superiority of Christ to the angels by indicating that even angels (the highest creatures) have a solemn duty to worship Christ.
“I am introducing these texts to try and show that this practice (or at least a similar poetic device) exists elsewhere in Scripture. This is an attempt to offer an undercutting defeater for the claim that ‘if this were a real practice, we would expect it to show up elsewhere too, and it doesn’t—so it isn’t a real practice.”
Up to a point, that’s a valid move in philosophy or philosophical theology. But that’s quite inadequate in exegetical theology. If you’re going to resort to prooftexts to justify your faith and practice, then it’s insufficient to merely float hypothetical alternatives. Instead, you must make a good faith effort to actually establish that your interpretation as the best interpretation of the text. You need to move beyond abstract possibilities to concrete probabilities. Since you’re young, bright, and studious, now is the time for you to form that discipline.