Pages

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

The celestial bureacracy

I'll comment on this:


To draw a division between administrative and defensive functions is not only logically unwarranted, but positively contradicted by the nature of those functions in an ancient Near Eastern context…Even if the former point were not the case, the Bible never sets out an “angelic taxonomy” where cherubs are placed into the single category of palace guards.

i) We can only work with the information at our disposal. The Bible doesn't have a whole lot to say about cherubim/seraphim. I wouldn't call it an argument from silence or ignorance to draw conclusions from the available evidence. Surely that's preferable to beliefs that aren't supported by the evidence.

ii) Moreover, isn't the divine council theory require a taxonomy of distinct angelic roles?

In the divine council in Israelite religion, Yahweh was the supreme authority over a divine bureaucracy that included a second tier of lesser elohim ("sons of God") and a third tier of malakim ('angels'). 
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/HeiserIVPDC.pdf 
The Old Testament seems to distinguish angels—mere messengers—from the sons of God—the royal family; and in doing so it follows Ugarit, which had two tiers of gods: the sons of El, who ruled certain districts and provinces, and a larger group of lesser gods who acted as messengers and warriors. 
http://bnonn.com/what-is-the-kingdom-of-god-2/

Now, however, Bnonn is blending what he previously distinguished. In the quoted paragraph, he differentiates the administrative role of the top-tier angels from the defensive or revelatory role of lower-tier angels. So it looks like the original argument is undergoing ad hoc adjustments when challenged. But in that case, the distinctive assignments in the celestial bureaucracy or hierarchy seem to be arbitrary or interchangeable. 

As for the "counterevidence":

i) Keep in mind that all these representations are anthropomorphic. It's not as if God is literally a white-haired man in royal vestments in a throne room surrounded by sentinels and courtiers. God projects that imagery into the minds of seers. So the question is the significance of the symbolism. I think the point is that God is holy, so that creatures ordinarily need to be shielded from direct contact or the Beatific Vision. The cherumbim/seraphim function as "hazard" signs. If you trespass on sacred space, it's like walking into a radioactive chamber. 

That's a common theme in Scripture. It's not that God needs to be protected. Rather, creatures ordinarily need to be protected from God's incinerating holiness. I never suggested that their role is to protect God from trespassers, but to protect trespassers from God. 

It's a graphic, anthropomorphic way to drive home a point about the relationship between sinners and God. And that's underscored by the literary device of even making the seraphim shield their eyes. In effect, the seraphim need to wear visors. Unfiltered vision of Yahweh is fatal. This is all rather picturesque.

ii) We need to distinguish between cherubic statuary and actual angels or visions thereof.

iii) Some OT theophanies take the form of a portable throne. A mobile, miniature throne-room. In that respect, cherubim/seraphim reprise their role as the outer vanguard to screen unwary eyes from seeing Yahweh directly. That's symbolism. 

iv) I never suggested that angels are distinct from cherubim/seraphim. Rather, "angel" is a generic designation, whereas "cherub" or "seraph" is a specific designation. A special case or distinctive role for some angels. 

Moreover, Heiser and Bnonn are the ones who propose an angelic hierarchy in which top-tier angels have different bureaucratic roles than second-tier angels, and vice versa. 

v) As for Rev 4, that's different from, say, Isa 6, because the saints in heaven are holy in a way that Isaiah (or Moses, Exod 33) is not. They don't need the lead shielding to avoid a fatal dose of divine radiance. 

The depictions are flexible because this is picturesque imagery that varies according to the context. It's not that angels naturally have wings or tetramorphic bodies. 

1 comment:

  1. Now, however, Bnonn is blending what he previously distinguished. In the quoted paragraph, he differentiates the administrative role of the top-tier angels from the defensive or revelatory role of lower-tier angels. So it looks like the original argument is undergoing ad hoc adjustments when challenged. But in that case, the distinctive assignments in the celestial bureaucracy or hierarchy seem to be arbitrary or interchangeable.

    Erm, you are quite mistaken. In part 1, I explicitly introduced spiritual rulers under Satan by noting that, "In Daniel 10 we learn of the prince (or ruler) of Persia (v 13), and the prince of Greece (v 20): these are obviously spiritual beings who are engaged in battle with the spiritual being who visits Daniel—and with Michael, who is one of the chief princes, apparently the prince of Israel under Yahweh (Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1)."

    One assumption I think you do rightly challenge (or at least, I took it as challenged) is the idea that the term "sons of God" implies that the rest of the heavenly host are not members of the divine family. I'm not sure there's warrant for saying that. "Sons of God" seems to be idiomatic of archangels—angels in charge—but that doesn't mean other angels are not members of the dynasty. Indeed, the divine council scene in 2 Kings may suggest that the entire, virtually uncountable heavenly host was involved in the discussion (physical logistics not being a problem, I don't see why not).

    I also have not taken any position on the ontological distinctions between archangels and angels. Are they archangels because they are ontologically superior? Are they archangels by something analagous to familial association? Are they archangels merely by God's fiat? Who knows.

    The cherumbim/seraphim function as "hazard" signs. If you trespass on sacred space, it's like walking into a radioactive chamber.

    That's a good point. If they are a palace guard, they are not there for God's protection. That was a naive inference from the analogy on my part. That said, nothing in my view hangs on that nuance.

    We need to distinguish between cherubic statuary and actual angels or visions thereof.

    Sure. My point about statuary is that it is intended to image and evoke the heavenly archetype, which involves real spiritual creatures.

    I never suggested that angels are distinct from cherubim/seraphim. Rather, "angel" is a generic designation, whereas "cherub" or "seraph" is a specific designation. A special case or distinctive role for some angels.

    I agree. I don't think I meant to suggest you took angels to be distinct from cherubim/seraphim.

    The depictions are flexible because this is picturesque imagery that varies according to the context. It's not that angels naturally have wings or tetramorphic bodies.

    Again, I agree. I think that goes without saying given that cherubim and seraphim seem to be the same things, yet seraphim are associated with serpent imagery and cherubim are associated with bulls, lions, eagles and men. I would assume that angels can take whatever form they like, and that their visionary form tends to be whatever suits God's purpose for the seer.

    ReplyDelete