The Torah and Angels

Josephus tells us that the Sadducees were a sect that limited their inspired Canon to only The Torah, the Five Books of Moses, (he also says they believed in no Ressurection or After Life and had a very extreme belief in human Free Will).  The New Testament doesn't tell us that directly but it's inferred in how Jesus stayed within the Torah to prove the Resurrection to them in Matthew 22.

In Acts 23:6-9 we get a further elaboration on what the Sadducees believed.

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."  And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.  For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, "We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God."

They didn't believe in the Resurrection, angels or spirits.  Now based on this scene alone Paul only explicitly sides with the Pharisees on the Resurrection, we have to go elsewhere to try and figure out his (and the rest of The New Testament's) positions on the other issues. 

What I want to talk about here however is how I've seen a lot of online scholars say this can't be accurate, that a sect which upholds The Torah can't possibly have any grounds to reject the existence of Angels.  And indeed the modern Torah only people you'll encounter online tend to fit every aspect of Paul's description of the Sadducees except the part about Angels, like The Desert Tabernacle Wordpress blog or the Remember the Commands Youtubde channel.

The thing is, I as someone who's very unconventional, have looked into the possibility of rejecting the doctrine of Angels as it's traditionally understood.  I've concluded that many passages both within The Torah and elsewhere we assume to be referring to Angels can potentially be interpreted differently when you remember things like the word "angel" in the Greek and Hebrew being their word for messenger and definitely does refer to human prophets sometimes.  However I feel unable to fully reject the idea because of certain passages, but none of those passages are in The Torah.  If I decided to become a Torah Only person, I might very well reject the doctrine of angels as it's traditionally understood.

First of all I have already decided I believe the Sethite view of Genesis 6.  In fact I talked about this very issue briefly in that post, though I may in the future edit that section out since I now have this post.

Second, the majority of the time the word "Angel" appears in the KJV of the Torah, indeed every time it does so in singular form, it is referring to The Angel of YHWH or The Angel of God, an entity which even many Pharisees (like Trinitarian Christians) view as being a manifestation of YHWH Himself (The Word of YHWH) not a completely separate Angelic being.  Remember the Voice in the Burning Bush is technically called an Angel.

The Seraphim or "fiery serpents" from Numbers I believe originally refereed to a type of serpent or reptilian animal indigenous to the region (I lean towards the Pterodactyl aka Ropen), it is Isaiah alone who places some in the Throne Room of God, and those I think if they are "Angels" are Angels taking the form of that Animal, or appearing like them to Isaiah's three dimensional eyes.

Now I'd like readers to stop for a minute and read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8.  Now imagine if that story had been recorded from the Eunuch's POV rather then Philip's?  It could very conceivably seem to readers generations later like an encounter with an Angel.

We know that during the time of the Patriarchs of Israel there were people worshiping YHWH in other places, like Salem ruled by Melchizedek or the Kenite Priesthood of Jethro.  So the two "Angels" of Genesis 18-19 could possibly have been Human Prophets that YHWH assigned this task to.

Likewise in Genesis 31:1-2 the "Host of God" could be a camp of believers sent to greet Jacob when he returned to the Land.  In fact if we translated "Malakim" consistently in Genesis 32, it becomes plausible the "messengers" Jacob sent to Esau in verse 3 came from among these "angels".  The Hebrew word for "Host" here isn't the same one used in verses about the "Host of Heaven". It's a word elsewhere translated Camp including when referring to the Camp of Israel in the Wilderness and when the Red Heifer is described as being slain "without the camp".  So this Camp could have been of people from Isaac's household.

Genesis 28:12 is something Jacob saw in a dream and therefore iffy to build literal doctrine on. The point was to show this place as a "Gate of Heaven".

The "Host of Heaven" is simply a term for the stars, and no verse in The Torah can be taken to insinuate the stars are living sentient beings.  The worship of the stars is compared to the worship of Idols, inanimate objects.

That just leaves Genesis 3.  In the KJV of verse 14 Cattle is a mistranslation, Behemah I have come to view as simply the broadest Hebrew word for Animal.  The English grammar of verses 1 and 14 of Genesis 3 leave more room for interpretation, but in the Hebrew it is actually unambiguous that the Nahash/Serpent is a Behemah and a Beast of the Field.  Making it one of the Beasts of the Field created in Genesis 2:18-20.

The Beasts and Fowls created in Genesis 2:19-20 are a separate creation from the animals created before Adam was in Genesis 1.  These must be beings who were a bit more sentient since they are, as weird as we may find it, presented as potential Mates for Adam.  Frankly I think the Cherubim (as well as the Seraphim Isaiah saw in the Throne Room) could also be among the creatures created here.

You could define such creatures as Angelic, but that isn't the traditional view of Angels.

The problem is some may seek to use that origin for the Serpent against identifying it with the Satan, which identification the Book of Revelation clearly makes.  But I don't view it as a conflict, Satan is never called an Angel, only said to appear as one.

The verses outside the Torah that are the real obstacle to rejecting the traditional view of Angels are Psalm 8 (which seems to imply the Angels existed before Adam), 2 Kings 6:17, Daniel 10 (and perhaps other Daniel material), and then lots of New Testament stuff, but some New Testament Angels I think are OT Saints Resurrected soon after Jesus was based on Matthew 27:52-53.
[Update: I just realized Psalm 8:5 uses Elohim not Malakim, so we could translate that "a little lower then God" thus removing it from the equation.  I believe Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew so no I don't think Greek texts of it's quotation using Angels proves anything.]

So I still believe Angels exist, but people who limit their Canon to the Torah can easily decide otherwise if they want to.

Though I think it's also plausible that the Sadducees were influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle (and/or Epicureanism) who could be described as the original Deist as well as the first Materialist, Antigonus of Sokho may have been the key middle man in that transmission.

Some have mistakenly compared the Saduccess to Platonic Philosophy, but that's based on how within Christianity denial of a bodily Resurrection usually comes via allegorizing it away into a Spiritual rather then physical one.  The Sadducees didn't just deny the Resurrection but any notion of an After Life, they were Jewish Materialists.

So I'm not saying you have to reject the idea of Angels if you limit your Canon to just The Torah, or even that doing so is the most natural conclusion, but it is possible if for whatever reason you wanted to.

Did C.S. Lewis believe in Universal Salvation?

The answer is, probably not.  But I'm far from an expert on Lewis as my recent Prince Caspian post makes clear.

What I do know is that he clearly didn't consider George MacDonald a heretic and therefore would not consider belief in Universal Salvation inherently heretical.  And I know that attempts to label Lewis a Calvinist require ignoring The Great Divorce where it's clearly the sinners own Free Will keeping them in Hell.

I don't think the after life works how it's presented in The Great Divorce.  But I consider that cosmology to be perhaps a descent allegory for how I view the New Heaven and New Earth, where there are people outside New Jerusalem, but the Gates are always open.

I read this article attempting to show how Lewis couldn't possibly be an ally of Universal Salvation, but in so doing strawmans the doctrine.
https://www.equip.org/article/c-s-lewis-hell/

Now, if Emeth had politely asked Aslan to direct him to the Tash part of heaven, and if Aslan had sent him on his way to spend eternity with his god, then critics of Lewis would be justified in accusing him of teaching universal salvation. But that is not at all what happens! As Emeth stands before Aslan, he realizes that Tash and Aslan are not two different names for the same God, but that they are complete opposites. Rather than learn that all religions are the same, Emeth learns that Aslan alone is the true end of his pagan longings. “Beloved,” Aslan explains, “unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.”

Evangelical Universalists, like Robin Parry, Peter Hiett and myself do NOT teach that all religions are equally true.  I don't think all religions lead to God because in my view NO religion leads to God, only Jesus leads to God.  In The New Testament "religion" is the greatest obstacle to finding God.

This article admits that Lewis was open to post-mortem Salvation.  But the thing is Universal Salvation is kind of inevitable once you allow that.

Frankly what I disapprove of about the situation with Emeth is how much Lewis makes it about good works.

So Lewis does not seem like someone who's Soterology was the same as mine, but he doesn't line up perfectly with traditional Calvanism or Arminianism either.

Here is a Universalist Forum discussing Lewis.
https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/why-wasnt-c-s-lewis-a-universalist-how-close-did-he-get/1183/12

And indeed here I learned Lewis was of the opinion that Paul taught Universal Salvation but Jesus did not.  Well I've already demonstrated that Jesus and Paul are in fact consistent on this issue.