A Look Back at the Three "Men" Who Visited Abraham

In Genesis 18, we read that the Lord appeared to Abraham in Mamre, and also, in the same verse, that three “men” visited him.  This has to be one of the most debated scriptural passages of all time.  The big question is whether these three were divine beings (and if one of the three was the Lord, Yahweh), and if so, why are they described in these verses as “men” engaging in very human activities such as washing their feet and eating regular food (Gen. 18:4-8)? This is a very complicated matter, especially because the text is so vague, not providing the details that we would need to sort this out.  In fact, it is really impossible to come to a conclusion based on the biblical text. So why do I bother? Because divine theophanies are a serious matter and a correct understanding (or as close as we can get to it) of these narratives helps us understand the early Israelite beliefs concerning the nature of God.

This is a re-post of one of the most popular blog posts on Heavenly Ascents.  I am resurrecting it because I always like to hear people’s opinions on this topic and how we can best understand it. The solution offered here is definitely speculative, but hopefully something that will make you think — I would love to hear whether you agree or disagree or what your theory is. 

Back to the question of who visited Abraham — we are specifically told in Gen. 18:1 that the Lord (YHWH) appeared to him (Abraham) near the trees/oaks of Mamre.  The Hebrew makes it perfectly clear that Yahweh himself appeared, at least at some point in the story. The Greek translators confirm, albeit somewhat more generically, that it was God (ho theos) that appeared.

This seemingly random appearance of Yahweh to Abraham was not an isolated occurrence. God had appeared to him a number of times previously (see Gen. 12:7; Gen. 17:1-3, 22).  These theophanies are not described in any detail, but relate in a rather nonchalant fashion the idea that Yahweh descended from heaven to speak with Abraham (and then “went up” from him, Gen. 17:22).

So, in chapter 18, we are informed of another appearance of Yahweh to Abraham.  Many commentators make a point to distinguish this appearance from that of chapter 17.  The open (blank) space in the Hebrew text between the two chapters is an indicator that we are starting a new, unrelated narrative.  Some commentators identify this first clause of verse 1 as an introduction to the following chapters, which are characterized by their narrative of divine contact with mortals.  Although this may indicate that we should understand this line apart from the following verses — that perhaps this is just the “heading” and not the actual beginning of the story–we will have to answer more questions before coming to any conclusion.

After these words of introduction, we are told that Abraham, while sitting in his tent, looks up and beheld three “men” approaching. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek call them “angels” here, but use common words for mortal men.  However, in the next chapter, Gen. 19:1, two of the “men” are called angels (or “messengers”, in both Hebrew and Greek). If two of them leave for Sodom, then apparently the third is left behind. The way the narrative comes to us, the third visitor would seem to be the Lord, who is left by the other two and remains speaking to Abraham in the last part of chapter 18.

Many early Christians believed that this was an appearance of the Son of God with two angels.  Many argued in their apologetics (see, e.g. Justin’s dialogue with Trypho) that this must have been a pre-mortal appearance of Jesus Christ, since they believed that the Father did not visit people in this way.

Did Jesus Deny the Possibility of Heavenly Ascents? (John 3:13)

If so, then maybe I should change the name of my blog!! :)

A few people have been asking me whether I plan to do regular posts on New Testament Sunday School topics, as I had been doing with the OT.  I would have to say that my tentative answer is either “maybe” or “probably not.” While I would love to do so, this semester at school is proving to be my busiest ever and I can’t imagine myself having enough time to dedicate to writing anything that would be worthwhile sharing. However, I do hope to find relevant materials that I can point you to as often as possible.

The content of this post was prepared and sent to me by my friend Dean Hunsaker. I appreciate him taking the time to research this important question.

The Problem of John 3:13

John 3:13

NIV No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

NASB No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

NLT No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven.

NRSV No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

KJV And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Is Jesus saying that no one ever has ascended into heaven?

Psalm 24: Temple Gates and Guardians

I have written a new post over at The Millennial Star looking at Psalm 24 and the possibility that it describes an ancient temple ritual in which pilgrims to the temple engaged in a question-and-answer dialogue with priests that acted as gatekeepers at the temple gates.

If interested, please check out the post at: http://www.millennialstar.org/psalm-24-temple-gates-and-guardians/

On Divine Humanity

I found the following a while back and just recently looked at it again and thought it would be great to post here. British scholar Crispin Fletcher-Louis, in his book All the Glory of Adam, had the following to say about the early Jewish belief that all of humanity was meant to, and and eventually could, be divine:

Studies driven by New Testament concerns have tended to focus attention on the singular angelomorphic hero of old or the future messiah whose identity prefigures early Christian beliefs about Jesus. However, the fact that so often the angelomorphic identity is grounded in that of Adam before his exit from Eden, the existence of a continuity of angelomorphic identity through the generations of God’s elect and the focus on Israel as an angelomorphic people of God speaks for a theological perspective which should not be missed: there seems to be a claim which is usually implicit, but, as we shall see, is at other times explicit, that true humanity, as it is restored among the elect, is both angelomorphic and divine. In the rush to explain the origins of early Christian beliefs about Jesus sight can be lost of the fact that the peculiarly divine, angelic or exalted status of a particular righteous individual is fundamentally an expression of a universal theological anthropology. (Crisping Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 12)

(Note: angelomorphic = being or appearing in the form of an angel/divine being)

Later on, he begins to explore how individual human beings are described as angelic or divine in the texts, both biblical and extra-biblical:

There are many texts from the Second Temple period which describe the righteous in angelic or divine terms. Three figures stand out in the heroes gallery of angelic fame: the king, Moses and, above all, the priest. The characterization of humans in such angelic terms has its roots in the biblical text, but it is clearly being developed in the material from the 3rd-2nd centuries B.C. Many of the texts we have examined (e.g. Sirach, I Enoch) were read if not cherished at Qumran and these exhibit a particular interest in both Moses and the priesthood, which is entirely in accord with what is known of Essene interests. (Crispin Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 32)

This next one is really great. After he has analyzed a number of texts that attribute to humans an angelic identity, or that suggest a belief that humans could be transformed into angels, Fletcher-Louis notes that some texts go beyond granting select humans an angelic glory:

More startling are those statements to the effect that the transformed humanity are “gods”. This is a more persistent and widespread feature of the texts than would permit us to conclude such language is merely an accommodation to Hellenism in which some Jews on the periphery of “orthodoxy” indulged. Already in the biblical texts Moses is “as God [elohim, theos] to Pharaoh” (Exo. 7:1) and the king is hailed as (a) god in Psalm 45:6 (cf. Zech 12:8). Exodus is probably behind Sirach’s ascription of the [elohim] status to Moses in Sirach 45:2. In Jubilees Joseph is acclaimed “god, god, mighty one of God” and in Joseph and Aseneth Jacob is “a god [theos]” to Aseneth.

The existence of god language for humanity within Jewish texts is more remarkable than angel language because of the way in which in the Second Temple period angelology replaced the polytheism of the pre-exilic period. However, just as many biblical and post biblical texts continued to speak of many “gods” (elim, elohim, theoi) with the understanding that these were “angelic” beings on a distinctly lower level of reality than God himself, so it seems there remained the freedom to speak of human as “divine” in similar terms and in certain circumstances. In texts such as those gathered around Moses and Exodus 7:1 there is stressed the fact that Moses’ “divinity” is no independent of that of God himself but is strictly bestowed by the creator of all. This may offend traditional Jewish and Christian views of divinity as a strictly independent, uncreated reality, but it should be remembered that in the ancient world the begetting and creating of gods (theogony) was a much more acceptable notion then than it is now.

The presence of “god” language for humanity in texts as far apart as Sirach, Jubilees, Philo and the rabbis testifies to the degree to which such language was widely spread and accepted in late Second Temple Judaism. (All the Glory of Adam, 85-86)

What is even more significant, for Mormon Studies, is that Fletcher-Louis places the “principal socio-religious life setting” of these beliefs squarely in the theology of the Jewish Temple and its Priesthood (Ibid., 5). If you haven’t seen this book by Crispin Fletcher-Louis, you really should check it out (although the price tag is a bit prohibitive for most)!

Professor Jim Davila on Christology: Son of God and Son of Man

The title of this post may be somewhat misleading, as what I am posting here is actually Professor Davila’s brief response to Mark D. Roberts’ recent blog posts on Christology at Beliefnet.com.  However, although not extensive in length, his comments are insightful and I thought they’d be interesting to post here.  Following Davila’s comments, I provide some of my own brief thoughts on the matter.

The posts by Roberts that Davila is commenting on can be found here:

Echoes of Wisdom and the Divinity of Jesus: Part 1

Echoes of Wisdom and the Divinity of Jesus (Part 2)

Echoes of Wisdom and the Divinity of Jesus: Part 3

Davila addresses Roberts’ thoughts on Jesus as the Son of God:

Jesus as the Son of God

This piece takes the evidence in directions that I don’t think are entirely warranted, notably here:

If Jesus had openly proclaimed himself as Son of God, his contemporaries would not have thought of this as a claim to divinity. They might have understood only that Jesus was touting his own righteousness. More likely, they would have heard a claim to be the promised Messiah, the human being who would lead Israel to throw the Romans out of God’s land once and for all.

There is plenty of evidence that the phrase “son of God” could mean an angel or a divine being (cf. Job 1, Deuteronomy 32:8). And the assertion earlier in the essay that the Israelite kings were not divinized is debatable. Note that Solomon was enthroned on the throne of YHWH as king according to 1 Chronicles 29:23 and that the king is arguably addressed as God or a god in royal rites in Isaiah 9:5 (Evv 9:6) and Psalm 45:7 (evv. 45:6).

Davila’s comments regarding the Son of Man discussion are also very interesting:

Jesus and the Perplexing Son of Man

The Son of Man in the Judaism of Jesus

The treatment of the Son of Man is good, apart from the discussion of “the one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13:

While still dreaming, Daniel approached one of the divine attendants, asking for the interpretation of the dream. He learned that the four beasts represent four kingdoms that shall dominate the earth. But when the Ancient One finally executes judgment upon the all four beasts, the saints will be exonerated. In fact,

The kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them (Dan 7:27).

Therefore, the “one like a son of man” represents the faithful people of God who endure oppression and ultimately share in God’s rule over the earth.

The problem here is that the vision in chapter 7 comes in three parts: the allegorical vision of the four beasts in vv. 1-8 a second vision of the heavenly throne room consisting of God and his angels (who are evidently watching the first vision) in vv. 9-16; and the angel’s interpretation of the allegorical vision in vv. 17-17. The difficulty with Dr. Roberts’s interpretation is that the one like a son of man comes in the second part of the vision. He is a figure in the heavenly throne room, which is “real,” that is, not part of the allegory. The kingdom of God will be given to the Jewish people (“the people of the holy ones of the Most High” in v. 27), but the one like a son of man is not an allegorical representation of them. He is a heavenly figure in his own right, perhaps the angels Michael or Gabriel (who appear elsewhere in Daniel) or – my best guess – the glorified patriarch Enoch.

Daniel 7 is arguably based on Enoch’s ascent vision in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 14), along with Ezekiel chapter 1. In Enoch’s vision he ascends on the clouds and is brought before the throne of God, and it seems likely to me that Daniel had him in mind here. Confirming this, the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) explicitly says in chapter 71 that Enoch is the Danielic Son of Man.

(I am currently teaching a course on the book of Daniel and these matters are near and dear to my heart. For more details on the reading of Daniel 7 given in the previous paragraph, see the magisterial Hermeneia commentary on Daniel by John Collins.)

[…]

————————-

I would just add my own personal note here regarding Davila’s position on the Son of Man. I find his opinion refreshing and exciting — he asserts that the Son of Man figure should not be seen as representing the collective people of Israel (a common view), but as a specific character in the heavenly court. I totally agree with this. Davila chooses to identify this exalted human figure as the patriarch Enoch, which makes great sense in light of what is found in the Book of Enoch (at least parts of which are dated by scholars to have been written at roughly the same time as Daniel) — including, as Davila notes, the fact that Enoch may even be somehow identified with the Son of Man sitting on the throne.

I would, however, mention that, IMHO, it seems that Enoch only becomes identified with the enthroned figure at a certain point, and that the Son of Man figure is initially separate from Enoch until this “mystical union” is accomplished. But what is happening here is very debatable and seems to be interpreted in different ways in later texts. It seems to me that the “one like a son of man” that is enthroned in heaven is, in early Jewish literature, an ideal figure that was understood to be in heaven, having been seated on God’s throne. It appears that he was thought to be either an angel or an exalted human being (if there’s a difference!), but there wasn’t a consensus on who exactly he was. Throughout the literature (and over time), there are a number of different figures that are “plugged into” this Son of Man slot, including Enoch, Adam, Jacob, and others. Davila’s instincts are probably correct in thinking that Enoch would have been the most likely figure to fill this slot in the minds of many Jews at this time. However, I don’t believe that this imagery starts with the Book of Enoch. I think it goes further back to the time of the royal cult of the pre-exilic monarchy and before. Again, I can’t go into it here, but I think the idea that a human-like figure (Son of Man) could be enthroned on God’s throne as his vice-regent is a very ancient notion.

What Did the Authors of Isaiah 40-55 Really Know About Babylon: Dr Lena Sophia Tiemeyer

Yesterday I had the privilege of hearing from Dr Lena Sophia Tiemeyer, Lecturer in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible at the University of Aberdeen, as she presented a paper at our weekly Biblical Studies seminar.  Her study was entitled “What Did the Authors of Isaiah 40-55 Really Know About Babylon?” The timing of this presentation, for the purposes of this blog, is impeccable — if you happened to read it, I just briefly discussed, in my last post, some of the scholarly debates regarding the authorship of these chapters of the Book of Isaiah.  One of the major assumptions of this theory of “Deutero-Isaiah” is that the author(s) of this section were in Babylon. The references to Cyrus, Babylonian gods and religious practices, Akkadian loan words, etc., that are found in these chapters have lead scholars to conclude that this section must have been written during the Babylonian Exile by the Jewish community that was in Babylon. Dr. Tiemeyer’s purpose with this presentation was to show that the “evidence” for this assumption is not strong — leading her to conclude that these chapters of Isaiah were more likely written in Palestine, and not Babylon.  The implications of this study are important and suggest, as Tiemeyer herself noted, a possibility that there is more unity to the Book of Isaiah than scholars have assumed.

William Hamblin Update: Temple Themes in Isaiah 4-12

Have a look at Prof William Hamblin’s notes on temple themes in Isaiah 4-12:

On his blog: http://hamblinofjerusalem.blogspot.com/

On Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/document_collections/2635815

It’s all very insightful material, and I especially like the stuff on Isaiah 6.

Yom Kippur: The Day of Atonement

Today is Yom Kippur in the Jewish world.  Yom Kippur means “Day of Atonement.” In modern Judaism, it is a day for fasting and for repenting of sins.  The common greeting for this day is g’mar chativah tovah — “may you be inscribed for good (in the Book of Life)”!

There’s a lot that could be said about the Day of Atonement, but this time I wanted to post here something I wrote about the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I mean no offense to anyone of the Jewish faith that may be reading this, but I use this holiday to remind myself of the eternal and infinitely effective atonement performed by Jesus Christ on behalf of all mankind.  In remembrance of this event (although Christ died at Passover, not at Yom Kippur), I am reposting the following (originally posted 4 May 2009):

Before posting my rather lengthy statement, I want to make a few acknowledgements and explanatory notes.  First of all, this work was greatly influenced by the writings of Margaret Barker, especially her book Temple Theology and an article on the Atonement that she wrote entitled “Atonement: the Rite of Healing.” I also greatly benefitted from the thoughts and writings of others, such as LDS thinkers James Carroll, Blake Ostler, David Littlefield, Jacob Morgan, Jacob Baker, Donald Parry, and Dennis Potter.  My thoughts are not a complete statement, by any means, of what all the atonement is, how it works, and what it covers, but I tried to emphasis a biblical understanding as opposed to one informed primarily by philosophy or modern theological musings.  The statement is  limited in length, meant to be read and discussed in only six minutes, so there is obviously much about the atonement that I would like to have included, but could not.  Also, as my professor is Catholic, you may note that some of the terminology that I use is more of a Catholic flavor than I would normally employ. Anyways, without further explanation, here is what I came up with:

April DeConick: Seminar on "Mapping Death:Religious Preparation for the Afterlife Journey"

Looking back, I probably should have spaced these posts out over a few days to prevent you all from developing “information overload” syndrome.  But this last post today is a good one (at least I think so).

It has come to my attention (via her blog Forbidden Gospels) that Rice University Professor of Biblical Studies, April DeConick, will be a part of an extended research seminar that will be studying how different religions/cultures have prepared themselves for the “afterlife journey” that they anticipate having to traverse at death, including religious teachings and practices.

From her blog:

The semester is a week advanced and this year I am facilitating a Mellon Seminar. The topic? Mapping Death: Religious Preparations for the Afterlife Journey. The Seminar consists of myself, five graduate students from various departments (Religious Studies, French Studies, and Anthropology) and a webmaster. We are in the process of developing a webpage for the Seminar, so if you are interested you can track our progress.

Each student has an individual research project to work on, and then we are collaborating in terms of method and theory, sharing our approaches with each other. It is an exciting seminar and I am so pleased to be part of it. My own individual research project involves mapping ancient Gnostic metaphysics and praxis.

Here is a short description of the seminar:

This is a collaborative research seminar consisting of fellows working on cross-culturally mapping death journeys and religious preparations for them in order to investigate the relationship between the anticipated afterlife journey and the group’s metaphysics and praxis. The fellows will be engaged in the creation and cultivation of a rich interdisciplinary approach to the comparative study of traditions, a ‘new’ history-of-traditions approach that is conscious of the historical contexture of traditions, their referentiality, confluence, communal generation and conveyance, responsiveness, changeability, accumulative nature, and variability in transmission. Members will be working on individual research projects related to the seminar’s mission and their dissertations. At the end of the year, they will present their final projects in a roundtable symposium that also will feature invited papers from three external scholars who will visit the seminar at various sessions during the Spring semester. The papers from the symposium will be edited for publication in a volume.

I will be keeping a close eye on this seminar to see what they up with and look forward to the subsequent publication. This is an important topic and the research done will be significant for anyone interested in Temple studies (and Heavenly Ascents!) — preparation for the “afterlife journey” is one of the main purposes of the Temple, both ancient and modern.

I have met April DeConick and some of her graduate students and I highly respect the work that they do there at Rice University. You can expect it to be very professional and methodologically sound.

"I Will Betroth Thee unto Me in Righteousness" (OT Lesson 34)

I have to begin this post by apologizing for missing a lesson! My schedule last week didn’t allow me to comment on OT Lesson 33, covering the book of Jonah and sections from Micah.  It’s not that there is nothing interesting to say about these books — there certainly is — it’s just that I didn’t make time for it last week.  If your ward has not yet done this lesson, here are a couple of internet posts that I’ve seen on it:

• Yom Kippur and the Symbolism of Jonah’s Spiritual Journey — by Bored in Vernal (who wouldn’t be! Hey, I have family in Vernal!) — beautiful post with a stimulating and refreshing take on the topic
• OT Lesson #33: Sharing the Gospel with the World — by Nancy W. Jensen — more straightforward, but very well put-together commentary on the whole lesson
• Joel’s Monastery — Although his post on this lesson is not up yet, Gerald Smith’s site is always a good one to check for thorough and insightful treatments of the SS OT lessons

OT Lesson 34 — Hosea 1-3; 11; 13-14

Background

The Book of Hosea is placed first in our Bibles in a collection of twelve short books known as “the Minor Prophets” — called “minor” not because they were any less important or influential, but simply because what we have of their writings is much less than the writings of the “major” prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel.  The books of the Minor Prophets are supposed to be, traditionally, ordered chronologically, but an analysis of the texts reveals that this is not likely the case.  For example, although Hosea is placed first, this is likely due to an erroneous reading of the Rabbis of Hosea 1:2 (RSV): “When the LORD first spoke through Hosea”, which they took to mean that Hosea was the first of these prophets who was called to speak for the Lord. ((John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 296))  However, the text of Hosea (Hosea 1:1) puts the prophet in the days of Jeroboam, Uzziah, and up to King Hezekiah’s time.  Chronologically, then, his book should be placed after those of Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, and Amos. Hosea was a younger contemporary of Amos, ((Ibid.)) and also served as prophet at roughly the same time as Jonah, Isaiah, and Micah.

Hosea was a prophet of Israel, the Northern Kingdom (while Isaiah and Micah were in Judah), before the destruction and exile of those northern tribes.  We can’t be sure if he witnessed that destruction, as it is not mentioned in his book, but some of the turmoil of the times leading up to that event is evident.  Hosea’s name in Hebrew, Hoshea, means “salvation.”

The book of Hosea presents an overview of the history of Israel, how they were loved as God’s chosen people (his bride/children), how they proved unfaithful by loving other gods more than the Lord, how they consequently fell into error, apostasy, and destruction, but how they would finally repent and return to their true God and be restored to the blessed state of abiding in his everlasting love.

Woodcut Illustration. Hosea, Gomer, and three children. From Zurich Bible, 1531.