The Divine Council and Orthodox Theology: The Communion of Saints 

Similar here. Got received into the Orthodox Church this year

@@yvoennsche congrats! I'm a catechumen.

Same material is on both for Tier 1. Beyond that it's only available on Patreon. So if you're just interested in the regular posts, I recommend Substack. If you're interested in more than that, I would recommend Patreon.

@@Seraphim-Hamilton ok great, thank you very much!

It is important to understand how the original language was used and how the original writers understood what was being written. This is key to clarifying or rediscovering concepts that are not immediately clear to a society 2000 years removed. We cannot make the mistake of thinking that we have everything correct

I think that depends on how you frame the question. It's not a matter of simply reconstructing an archaic view of the world. The heavenly council is a reality which penetrates our world now. So there are many sources of information that could be said to contribute to a theology of the divine council that aren't historical. But I think the utility of Near Eastern texts in interpreting the Bible is sometimes overblown. Sometimes it's not the text providing context, but an historical reconstruction only superficially linked to the ancient text being cited.

@@Seraphim-Hamilton I’m in agreement with you on the near east incorporation going too far. But it’s not nothing is it? I’m blessed with every hour of study but the more you learn the more questions and then you go on your way to be mayor of crazy😊

No the fathers were/are members of the divine council. If not then the divine council is just an abstract theory and not a lived reality

@@jacob6088 If they are/were than so are you and I. When Jesus rose we all went from “sons of Adam/man” to “sons and daughters of God” like the heavenly beings are called in the Old Testament. Are you saying it’s all of us or just the “fathers?”

@@calebstone22 both but the fathers perceive things more clearly than we do

Yes, I agree with that. Genesis 1:2 describes the condition of the earth at its initial creation, and sets the stage for the acts of forming, filling, and brightening in creation week. I do think there is sequence, however, between 1:1 and 1:3. Perhaps that's where we disagree. C. John Collins has defended this reading in his commentary on Genesis 1-4 from a grammatical point of view, but my own reasons for holding it pertain to the innerbiblical exegesis of the passage.

@@Seraphim-Hamilton Does Collins delve into the Masoretic text in regards to his points of argument? I mentioned the waw disjunction because a reverse of a waw consecutive verb pattern is seen in Genesis 1:2. A waw conjunction is placed on a noun that begins verse two, interrupting the sequence of the waw plus the verbs. A writer does this to indicate to the reader to not ascertain a sequence. There also isn't a definite article at the beginning of Genesis 1:1 it has an indefinite article. So instead of B'reishit it is Bereishit, ultimately producing a different flavor when read. The first two verses are dependent clauses leading to verse three. Conditions that already exist are being described before God actually creates anything. The Hebrew syntax indicates the first created act is in verse three. Consecutive verb structure is present from Genesis 1:3 onwards. What I'm trying to communicate is that Hebrew grammar explicitly rules out a linear chronology or linear sequence of events. Although, Isaiah 40:21 may defend the traditional view of creation because there isn't a definite article present either. It's possible Isaiah perceived Genesis 1:1 as "THE" beginning despite the syntax and grammar. Ambiguity is present.

Deuteronomy 10:14 and Nehemiah 9:6 both state all three decks of Creation. the Belief in Heaven of Heavens is also present in Psalm 149 and 1 Kings 8:27 which distinguish the Heaven of Heavens, or Highest Heaven (which is sometimes too called Heaven), from simply Heavens, or visible Heavens, similar to Deuteronomy 10:14 and Nehemiah 9:6. Why come up with something new, when belief in multiple Heavens is already present in the text and that it would only make sense, if Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:8 are talking about two different acts of creation. the first creation of masculine and feminine couple of Heavens and the Earth in Genesis 1:1 (Adam is said to be the "generations" or offspring of Heaven and the Earth through the marriage of the Spirit of Life and dust of the Earth (feminine adamah) in Genesis 2:4) corresponds to the last creation of God, couple of male and female. This is also proven by the three-fold structure of the Tabernacle (the blueprint of which in Exodus 25-31 is described in 7 speeches corresponding to 7 days of creation (7th speech is all about the Sabbath for instance); the building and erection of the Tabernacle in Exodus 35-40 is also described in terms of Genesis 1-2; In Exodus 39, Moses "Sees" and evaluates the "finished" (same word as in Genesis 2) work of sons of Israel according to God's commandment, just as God "sees" and evaluates the creation in Genesis 1 as "very Good". and Moses in Exodus 40 "finishes the work" and God proceeds to rest in his dwelling place upon the ark-throne with his uncreated glory) and the Temple (built in 7 years corresponding to 7 days of creation of the world) both of which are Microcosms of creation. Holy of Holies symbolizes the Heaven of Heavens (notice the link between the Names). the creation of it is described in Psalm 104 which poetically recaps the creation week (day 1 - Psalm 104:1-6; Day 2 - Psalm 104:7; Day 3 - Psalm 104:8-18; Day 4 - Psalm 104:19-23; Day 5 - Psalm 104:24-26; Day 6 - Psalm 104:27-30 (giving of food on day 6 is emphasized); Day 7 - Psalm 104:31-35 (God comes and rests upon his throne in Sabbatic evaluation and judgment by which God ends one era and gives start to another. The Language comes from Genesis 3 (where the Lord came in "the Spirit of the Day") and Exodus 19 (which parallels Genesis 3)). and it is also alluded to in Job 38 where it is said that the sons of God rejoiced when God laid the foundation of the Earth. the Heavenly beings of the Highest Heaven were already there (hence the Cherubim in the Throne-room of God in the Tabernacle and the Temple which symbolize the members of the Heavenly council). Holy Place symbolizes the Heavens of Genesis 1:8 with there being Menorah inside of it - same word used for the Luminaries of day 4 - 7 lamps of Menorah symbolize the 7 celestial bodies visible with a naked eye. (and in the creation week recap of Exodus 25-30:10 (the first speech out of seven) the 4 slot is taken by Menorah. Second slot is about the Ark (the Covering (sea of crystal mentioned in Exodus 24, Ezekiel 1 etc.) separates the ark itself (earth) from the Cherubic Throne, hence the ark of the covenant is a miniature Tabernacle and a dwelling place of God) first slot describes the gathering up of all raw material needed for the creation of the Tabernacle (hence gathering up of all material in Genesis 1:1) which is then organized in the subsequent slots "according to the pattern" seen on the Mountain Top (Mountain is divided in 3 zones in Exodus 24, each of them corresponding to 3 zones of the Tabernacle and Creation in their description. in Exodus 15:17, Mountains are symbolically identified as Sanctuaries, or Temples). Mountain Top is Holy of Holies, hence the Highest Heaven. Moses beheld the Heavenly blueprint to bring down Heaven to Earth. This is why there is a contrast between the Heavens and the Earth in Genesis 1:1-2. Heaven is not formless, dark and void, but the Earth is which is to develop according to its Heavenly model). the holy objects of Holy Place correspond to more glorious objects of the Holy of Holies. Lampstand (Luminaries "rule" in Genesis 1; Lampstand is described in terms of almond and a Tree) --> Rod of Aaron (the symbol of the legitimacy of the AUTHORITY of Aaron and it blossoms and bears "almond" in Numbers 17); Table of Showbread with 12 showbread --> Manna in a golden jar (Manna has a taste of bread and honey in Exodus 16); the incense altar with the ascending incense cloud --> the ark-throne with the Glory-Cloud of God (Leviticus 16:2). Hence this is why in Scriptures the angels and exalted people are called stars and are compared to them as in Job 38 and in Orthodox hymns. the visible Heavens is the visible and less glorious portrait of the invisible Heavens. Thus its Name is derived from the Name of Heavens created in Genesis 1:1. and the Courtyard symbolizes the Earth of day 3. It has an Altar, a three-decked (for example, the materials of the Tribute found on grate are also found in the Holy place. Horns are peaks and its foot is the Courtyard) the Miniature holy mountain (Mountain in described in terms of an altar in Exodus 19) by which the worshipper ascends to the Heavens to the Highest Heaven in the Ascension offering, or olah of Leviticus 1. the basis of this idea comes from day 3 of creation where the Earth literally ascends from the waters to serve as a point of contact between the celestial and terrestrial spaces and as a place of liturgical worship. There is no ambiguity present.

@@OrthosAlexandros There is no ambiguity if you ignore the Masoretic text. My points of argument pertain to Hebrew grammar and syntax. You did not address Hebrew grammar and syntax. What you did elaborate is all fine and dandy. I'm able to perceive and acknowledge the patterns that are present in scripture. But it would behoove everyone to be as well versed as possible in all matters of scripture. Why are you not addressing the Hebrew grammar and syntax which pertain to my points of argument? If you are unable to understand how to analyze the Mazoretic text, then go out of your way and learn Hebrew.

It is pretty contradictory to state that Isaiah 40:21 (even Isaiah 46:10) can give a basis for reading Genesis 1:1 as an absolute beginning and then turn around and state that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 aren't sequential events "because grammar". It is perfectly normal to omit the definite article ה after the prefixes ב, ל, and כ. This is stated explicitly in the wikipage on Hebrew prefixes. Furthermore, while the prefix ב can be used to mean “when,” this requires a bare infinitive verb (according to Wiktionary), and ראשית is a noun. There are two known constructs for introductory clauses in Hebrew (one of them is the conjunction va) and neither of them are used here. Genesis 1:1 uses verb-subject-object syntax that's more typical of independent clauses. And I wouldn't think that the LXX would mess up the first verse of the Bible, since the Torah in the Septuagint is the highest quality translation of the LXX Bible in relation to other books which were translated later. I already showed you through the exegetical arguments that everyone in the Bible read Genesis 1 as describing the creation of Highest Heaven and the Image of that Heaven inside the Earth created in Genesis 1:1 (Moses himself states all three decks of creation in Deuteronomy 10:14 (in cumulative relationship with the structure of the Tabernacle in the Torah) and it is he who wrote Genesis 1:1. It is more reliable to trust these consistent patterns in the text than a mistaken vocalizaiton of a Masoretic Scribe, if there even was one) and even through the structure of the Tabernacle (the first day slot Exodus 25-30:10 describes the literal gathering up of all raw material in order to then form and organize that material into the Tabernacle-Cosmos. That corresponds to the creation of matter in Genesis 1:1. It's is a literary recapitulation of creation week) and the Temple (Genesis 1-2:3 describes the Creation in Temple imagery). So, the Tabernacle and the Temple are fully suffused with the imagery of Genesis 1 and Genesis 1 has nothing to say about the Heaven of Heavens that the Holy of Holies symbolizes? Total nonsense. There is no basis to read a possible reading of Genesis 1:1 over against the whole Biblical text and evidence. It does not matter that everyone is not well-versed as much as possible in all matters of scripture, since the Bible wasn't designed to be read only once, but to be meditated day and night (Joshua 1:8).

Jesus after his incarnation is from then on and forever more the Theantropos (Godman) where he is in his deified (Theosis) form and Glory. It is how Christ unified the universal human nature to his Divine nature and healed it from death. So yes Jesus sits in his deified Theanthropic form on the throne, however Jesus being God is still not limited or bound to our "natural laws" as is evident by his movement after the resurrection and his appearances testified to by the Apostles and others. As when the Apostles Thomas finally touches His Lord and finally believes he has returned from death and proclaimed "My Lord and my God".

@@godsaveskyrieeleison5859 I am referring to the Father. He mentions that Isaiah saw God sitting upon his throne.

@@cabarete2003 No one has seen God the father at any time. Scripture tells us this. The one we do see is Christ. So who Isaiah saw was Christ sitting on the throne.

@@godsaveskyrieeleison5859 Stephen might disagree. So, if one can see Christ and not the Father, wouldn’t that make you a bit polytheistic? Clearly, they are not one being. They are two separate being seen separately.

@@cabarete2003 Absolutely not. You are presuming to know Gods essence in your question. Tell me then since you seem to know. What is the essence of the trinity? We know God is triune because it is all over the new and old testament, God tells us this with no uncertain terms. This is part of Orthodox Theology. That God is a trinity we do know, what God´s essence is like we do not know and we do not claim to know. You see you assume to know Gods essence like he is some kind of playdough or something. Like he has mass of some kind and thus you impose division into God where there is none. God clearly states he is ONE in one sense and that he is triune in the personal sense. This is not something that we make up, it is in scripture that each one of the triune forms of God are personal and they act in unison. Where one is in an act, so are the other two. Everything is done by the will of the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. They never act separate of one another because they are of one essence and of one and the same will. To anyone who would be so silly as to say that three persons can´t share the same will, I feel bad for your relationships in life. Can´t have been easy. There is nothing polytheistic about our theology or the scripture which is the basis for it. The only way you get to make it polytheistic is if you read into it things which aren´t there. Such as your assumption that God follows the same laws of the universe he created, aka he has the same essence as the building blocks of the universe itself. Then you have a pagan God, a mortal God because everything in the universe moves towards entropy. Fundamentally when you assume a knowable, tangible essence to God within your mind, you are imagining a God who can´t possibly be the God of the Bible. I´m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven´t read scripture much. Had you read it, then you would know for sure how God refers to himself (trinity, unity, multiplicity, love, beyond creation) are just some of the things scripture lets us know about God, through the prophets and through Christ himself. To finally give a scriptural reference to this whole thing: John 17:1-15 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17%3A1-15&version=NKJV This is part speaks of the Glory of God and how Christ has the same as the Father from all eternity, it also states that the two are one from eternity and finally it also lets us know how we humans can become part of God in holy council. It promises that very thing for those who belong to Christ. There is ZERO polytheism. It will only appear if YOU force it in there from out of nowhere.

In the Christian tradition, "angel" both signifies the totality of the celestial hierarchy *and* the lowest order of that hierarchy- i.e. those who solely minister on behalf of upper degrees of authority. Yes, in one sense, there is an infinitely complex celestial hierarchy. In another sense we call every member of that hierarchy an "angel."