Jewish Traditions of Angels Bringing Prayers to God

And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. (Rev 8:3-4)

In the book of Revelation, there are a few passages where heavenly beings, whether angels or the disembodied spirits of the “elders” are said to offer prayers to God. While they were not the recipients of prayers (that is, people were not praying to/through them), evidenced by their also said to being in possession of orbs containing the wrath of God (Rev 15:7), it does show God's use of instruments in prayer, salvation, and judgment. Indeed, in Jewish traditions, angels help bring prayers of believers on earth to God. As Howard Schwartz wrote:

God’s Crown of Prayers

Three times each day the prayers of Israel ascend on high. When all of Israel has finished praying, what happens to their prayers? They thread their way to Paradise, to the highest heaven, where they are gathered by the angel Sandalphon, the angel appointed over prayers. Sandalphon collects all the prayers that have been offered in all the synagogues, and waves them into garlands of prayer that he places upon the head of God, to wear on His Throne of Glory. That is why it is said that God is crowned with the prayers of Israel.

The idea that God wears a crown is a natural development from the concept of God as king. Since kings were the highest, most powerful human figures, God was viewed as the ultimate king. So too does God have a throne, the Throne of Glory, and a crown. The notion of God wearing a crown is also reinforced by the biblical verse; and a splendid crown upon Your head (Ezek. 16:12).

Here, though, the crown is formed in a wonderful way. The angel Sandalphon, charged with gathering the prayers of Israel, first collects the prayers and then weaves them into crowns of prayer. In some versions the angel puts the crown directly on God. In others, the angel pronounces an adjuration that causes the crown to rise on its own and settle on God’s head.

Sources:

B. Hagigah 12a, 13b; Exodus Rabbah 21:4; Pesikta Rabbati 19:7; Beit ha-Midrash 1:58-61; Midrash Konen in Beit ha-Midrash 2:26; Sefer ha-Komah; Seder Tkhines u-Vakoshes 3.

Studies:

Keter: The Crown of God in Early Jewish Mysticism by Arthur Green (Howard Schwartz, Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], )

Howard Schwartz on the Primordial Elements in Genesis in Jewish Traditions

Commenting on the primordial elements in the Genesis creation and how it supports, not creation ex nihilo but ex materia, Howard Schwartz wrote:

The Primordial Elements

God drew upon six elements in creating the world: light, darkness, chaos, void, wind (or spirit), and water. But when were these elements created? Some say these elements pre-existed, and that God drew upon them in the Creation. Others say there were created in an earlier creation. Still others say that they too were created on the first day, along with heaven and earth.

The very existence of pre-existing elements, such as light, darkness, chaos, void, water, wind, and the deep, raise doubts about the singularity of God’s accomplishment. Yet there is no explicit mention of the creation of these elements in the account of Creation.

To demonstrate that God did indeed create these elements. Rabbi Gamaliel in Genesis Rabbah provides prooftexts to show that all seven were created, such as in Isaiah 45:7, where God says, “I form light and create darkness.” However, this proof raises as many questions as it resolves. The use of the verb “form” (yotzer) for the creation of light and “create” (boret) for the creation of darkness is significant. Something that is formed already exists, while something that is created is brought into being. This seems to hint that light pre-existed.

Sources:

Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 3. (Howard Schwartz, Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 73)

Further Reading

James Patrick Holding refuted on Creation Ex Nihilo

Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought

Samael being the Father of Cain in Various Jewish Traditions

Many 19^th century Americans held to a rather (racist and abhorrent) view of Cain’s paternity and his relationship to blacks, and, alas, many early Latter-day Saints adopted such traditions. Interestingly, many Jews held to a view that Samael, the prince of the demons, not Adam, was the father of Cain:

How Cain was Conceived

Samael was the great prince in heaven. After God created the world, Samael took his band of followers and descended and saw the creatures that God had created. Among them he found none so skilled to do evil than the serpent, as it is said, Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts (Gen. 3:1). Its appearance was something like that of a camel, and Samael mounted and rode upon it. Riding on the serpent, let the angel Samael came to Eve in the night and seduced her, and she conceived Cain. Later, while Eve was pregnant by the angel, Adam came to her, and she conceived Abel.

Others say it was the serpent himself who seduced Eve, for after he saw Adam and Eve coupling, the serpent conceived a passion for her. He even imagined killing Adam and marrying Eve. So he came to Eve when she was along and possessed her and infused her with lust. That is how the serpent fathered Cain, who was later to slay his own brother. And that is how Eve was infected with his impurity. As a result, all of Israel was impure from that time until the Torah was given on Mount Sinai. Only then did Israel’s impurity cease.

When Cain was born, Adam knew at once that he was not of his seed, for he was not after his likeness, nor after his image. Instead, Cain’s appearance was that of a heavenly being. And when Eve saw that his appearance was not of this world, she said, I have gained a male child with the help of Yahweh (Gen. 4:1).

It was not until the birth of Seth that Adam had a son who was in his own likeness and image. From Seth arose all the generations of the righteous, while all the generations that descended from the seed of Cain are wicked, until this very day.

This myth is a response to the enigmatic verse in which Eve says, I have gotten a man with the aid of Yahweh (Gen. 4:1). Targum Pseudo-Yonathan translates this verse as “I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord.”

One reading of this verse in the Talmud (B Shab. 146a) suggests that Eve had intercourse with the serpent: “When the serpent consorted with Eve, he cast impurity into her.” This interpretation is echoed in the Zohar: “From the impurity with which the serpent infected Eve emerged Cain.” Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer builds on the talmudic interpretation but changes it in an essential way. Here the true father of Cain is the angel Samael, who came to Eve riding on the serpent. Indeed, in this passage the angel and serpent are closely linked, created a satanic figure and suggesting that Eve had intercourse with the serpent, a powerful phallic symbol.

In Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, the Torah upbraids Samael as he rides upon the serpent like a camel: “The Torah began to cry aloud, saying, ‘Why, O Samael, now that the world is created, is it time to rebel against God? Is this the time to lift yourself on high? God will laugh at the horse and its rider.’” This establishes the role of the Torah as the defenders of the human race against the evil intentions of Samael.

Zohar 1:36b explains that two came upon Eve, the serpent and Adam, and that she became pregnant from both of them, and bore two sons. The son of the serpent is, of course, Cain. In order to explain why Cain was evil and Abel was good, Zohar 1:54a explains that Cain was conceived from the side of unholiness and Abel from the side of holiness. As a result, Abel was in the likeness of God’s image, as stated in the verse And God created man in His image (Gen. 1:27). But Cain was of the likeness of the nether image. Just what this is isn’t clear, although one commentary, Ziv ha-Zohar, identifies the nether image as that of an ape. Because Cain was from the side of the Angel of Death (another possible explanation of the “nether image”), he killed his brother.

The idea that Eve was infected by the impurity of the serpent when she had intercourse with it attempts to portray women as not only impure, but also untrustworthy. It is part of an extensive antifeminine bias found in some rabbinic texts. However, in other texts, Eve is portrayed in a very favorable manner. She is regarded as the mother of all generations, and she is called a life-giver, who nursed the whole world (B. AZ 43a).

The serpent of Genesis becomes transformed in kabbalah into a principle of evil, the primal serpent who makes its home in the darkness of the Sitra Ahra, the Other Side. It is a serpent by the road, a viper by the path (Gen. 49:17). It comes down from above, swims across bitter waters, and descends in order to deceive, lying in wait to ambush mankind with sins. The Sitra Ahra is the realm of evil. It is said to be ruled by Samael and Lilith. The primal or primordial serpent is an archetype of evil, based upon the serpent in the Garden of Eden. In this realm it functions as a force of evil, an exaggerated version of the Yetzer ha-Ra, the Evil Impulse in every person. Here this impulse is understood to be an underlying principle in the concept of an evil realm. Evil, however, flourishes only in the absence of good. The Zohar describes the serpent as “eternal death, on the left side, that enters into a man’s innermost secret parts” (Zohar 2:52a). (Howard Schwartz, Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 447-48)

The Importance of Correct Doctrine in the Teachings of Jesus

There is a false (nay, blasphemous) belief among many, including some Latter-day Saints, that relegate true doctrine to a secondary, if not tertiary, place of importance. However, this ignores the explicit teachings of Jesus Himself, as one author noted:

Correct belief holds a central place in Christianity. It is far from being the only important thing, of course (Jas 2:19). But Jesus felt it was significant enough to devote much of his own ministry to the subject. Early in the Gospel of Mark, we see how the crowds are already “astounded” at Christ’s authoritative teachings, well before he performs any miracles. And even after he has literally worked wonders among them, the people are still talking excitedly about having heard “a new teaching—with authority!” (Mark 1:21-27). Evidently, these were people eager for true doctrine; who better to hear it from than “the truth” (John 14:6) himself? In the Gospel of John, Jesus gives a number of highly theological, doctrinal talks to various audiences (e.g., John 3:1-21; 6:25-65; 14:1-16:33), which even some of his closest followers find “difficult” to follow (6:60). Toward the end of his time on earth, Christ commands his Church to teach the new “disciples of all nations . . . to obey everything that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20). So essential is this task, that he sends the Holy Spirit as a kind of guarantor of the Church’s orthodoxy: he will “teaching you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” (John 14:26). (Stephen Bullivant, The Trinity: How Not to be a Heretic [Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 2015], 3)

John McIntyre on the Problems Facing Scriptural Interpretation

Commenting on some of the problems of scriptural interpretation attendant to the Reformed tradition (which, in part, can be transposed to other traditions, including a Latter-day Saint framework), John McIntyre, a leading Christologist, wrote:

First, as it is doubtful whether anyone operates with the whole of Scripture as his given, so that this form of the given as authoritative would be valid only for someone who was a completely consistent fundamentalist. As soon as we allow any principle of selection to operate, and there are few people who do not, then we have departed from allegiance to the total givenness, and the single prescriptiveness of Scripture. On this ground, it is not to be assumed that Scripture may not turn out to be the given in some other sense already defined.

Secondly, it has always been an essential part of the Reformed view of Scripture that its true meaning is only rightly discerned through the testimonium spiritus sancti. Whatever else this fairly complex doctrine may mean, it does at least imply that the meaning of Scripture cannot be simply ‘read off’, as one would rightly expect it to be were one dealing with an immediately intuitable and authoritative given. Thirdly, it is very doubtful whether any one of us can now read Scripture except through the medium of the numerous interpretative symbols which the Church has constructed to ensure our right understanding of Scripture. The function of the confessions formulated by the Reformers has not always been fully appreciated in this connection. The confessions have been, of course, correctly regarded as short summaries of the faith to be used as a basis for instructing the young and confuting heretics or unbelievers. But they also had initially a further purpose, namely, that of providing the interpretative structure for the right understanding of Scripture. It is here that our present lack of confessional clarity is proving to be most harmful, in that it deprives our contemporaries, and particularly those who have to teach the young, of the adequate means of catechetical interpretation of Scripture. If, then, we wish to persist with the view that the Scripture is the given, then we have in honesty also to acknowledge that it is a given, which comes to us in an extremely confused mixture of credal, confessional and modern theological additions. (John McIntyre, The Shape of Christology: Studies in the Doctrine of the Person of Christ [2d ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998], 15-16)

Live Tweeting General Conference this Weekend!

As you know (or should know!) this weekend (6-7 April) is General Conference weekend, which means I will be "live tweeting" most of the sessions with serious and not so serious comments. My twitter feed can be found here.

Mark Gregory Karris on the healing of the Centurion's Servant

After Jesus had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy of having you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us." And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and the slave does it." When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health. (Luke 7:1-10, NRSV)

Commenting on Jesus’ healing of the centurion’s servant, Mark Gregory Karris wrote the following insightful note:

[W]e cannot assume Jesus heals the servant unilaterally without the cooperation of the servant. The centurion is a man of great faith. Since he is friends with Jewish elders, he is most likely a God-fearing gentile who has a relationship with God. He has such a good reputation with the Jews that the elders say to Jesus, “This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue” (Luke 7:4-5). High praise indeed! Because the centurion is close with God and also appears to be close to his servant, it is likely that the servant has a relationship with God too. In Luke’s account, Jesus is on his way to the centurion’s home to heal the servant but is stopped on the way by the centurion’s friends, who tell Jesus that the centurion believes he is not worthy to have Jesus enter his home (Luke 7:6). Since the centurion knew Jesus was coming, we can assume that the servant must have been aware too and that he must have demonstrated faith. In the moment Jesus said the healing word, the servant who was open to healing cooperated with God and therefore experienced a miraculous recovery. (Mark Gregory Karris, Divine Echoes: Reconciling Prayer with the Uncontrolling Love of God [Orange, Calif.: Quoir, 2018], 113)