A number of the writers who contributed to the writing of the canon of scripture referred to as the 'Holy Bible' obviously thought their own word of more value than those testimonies of angels which are likewise included in the same canon. The apostle Peter's rebuff of the word of the angel, Gabriel, (in regard of who and what Jesus is) comes to mind.
The aforementioned Gabriel, in submitting the (OPERATION): "JESUS" OPORDER to the Blessed Virgin, said of the prognosticated one: "32 He… shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:... 35 …also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God [Luke 1:32 - 35]." The operative words in the preceding three- verse citation are, "his father [is] David," at the end of verse 32; and "he shall be called [take your pick of godly monikers]." That is to say: the angel said Jesus is David's son, no matter what "they" shall call him.
Peter obviously takes exception to this word from Gabriel, as testified to by him in 2 Peter. Peter, in his “more sure word of prophecy [2 Peter 1:19a]” hailing Jesus as the Son of God, says “we [unlike the Blessed Virgin, who believed the angelic ‘fable’] have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you [unlike the Blessed Virgin, who kept her mouth shut] the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty…. when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[2 Peter 1:16 & 17].” This voice, Peter alleges, came from “God the Father [verse 17a, ibid.].” How would Peter know what “God the Father’s” voice sounds like? This reviling of angels is the rule rather than the exception in the Bible.
In the book of Judges, the scribe who wrote the third chapter of the book (in verse three of the same) lists the nations the Hebrews were not able to drive out of their own lands. In doing so, he claims to speak for the LORD: without citing any occasion upon which the LORD allegedly told him to do so. Again, the word of this anonymous scribe contradicts a testimony of angelic origin.
In verses 1 & 2, the scribe writes, "1 Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan; 2 Only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof [Judges 3:1 & 2];" obviously alleging the ”only” reason the LORD didn't drive the previous inhabitants of the land out of their own lands was to “teach [the Hebrews] war.” As previously stated, this assertion contradicts an earlier testimony uttered by “an angel of the LORD.” The record of this angel's prophecy is found one chapter and many years earlier, in Judges 2.
Judges 2 begins by telling us that, at some time while Joshua was still extant (verse 6, ibid.) “an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim,” and goes on to say this angel credited the disobedience of the Hebrews– not their inexperience of war– with their inability to take the land from it’s previous inhabitants, saying, “1 ...I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. 2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you [Judges 2:1 - 3]."
It may be of negligible consequence whether the scribe or the angel lied, in Judges 2 & 3. They may have both been lying. The whole canon of scripture might be nought but fable, after all. But, if the Bible is to be accepted as– at least in part– true, the fact that the writers were so averse to the testimonies of angels which they allow as factual occurrences is of no small import. After all, the same angel who told the Blessed Virgin that Jesus is the son of David (not the Son of God) also said Jesus' kingdom is “the house of Jacob [Luke 1:33a]” (not the universe): meaning he is not the king of any Gentile, great or small; and what he does with his kingdom is of little or no consequence to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment