Answering questions from Johnathan regarding the angel of the Lord.

Others do not agree....

Note the third paragraph.
It is difficult to focus simply on the third paragraph and ignore the rest of the blog so my response engages with what you linked to more comprehensively. The author, it should be noted, is an apologist for Eastern Orthodoxy who has, it would seem, published two books, neither of which are academic... indeed, the idea that John's father was a high priest garners no serious scholarly discussion.

Your source begins with the claim that Zechariah was, "[a]ccording to the entire tradition of the Church ... [a] High Priest who entered the Temple in Jerusalem on the Day of Atonement." By "Church" is meant that of Eastern Orthodoxy and he proceeds to explain the origin of various celebratory dates within this tradition that depend on the claim concerning Zechariah, appealing to the authority of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite. Your source then claims that the "early" Protoevangelium of James "testified" to Zechariah being a high priest... in other words, he takes this obvious forgery seriously --- no scholar thinks it was actually written by James, a (step)brother to Jesus, but rather by someone writing around the middle of the second century CE at the earliest. That said, he is correct that Zechariah is therein referred to as the high priest:

The chief priest (ο αρχιερευς) went in, taking the robe with twelve balls into the Holy of Holies; and he prayed about [Mary]. And behold, an angel of the Lord appeared and said to him, "Zacahrias, Zacharias, go out and gather the widowers of the people, and have each of them bring a rod; she will become the wife of the one to whom the Lord God gives a sign." (Prot. Jas. 8.3) --- Translation is that of Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše in The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford University Press, 2011)

Now, as Ronald F. Hock correctly notes, the Protoevangelium of James "assumes, reworks or develops both Matthew's and Luke's stories at many points throughout the narrative" (The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas [The Scholars Bible 2; Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1995], pp. 4-5) and, specific to the claim above, that "this mention of Zechariah is the first instance in which the Infancy Gospel of James reveals knowledge of the canonical birth accounts, although there Zechariah is not the high priest, but only a priest (see Luke 1:5)" (ibid, 5-6). This was my initial response to your claim, prompting you to link to this blog... so I will now turn to the evidence your source provides to bolster the embellishment of this second-century pseudepigraphic document, though that origin for the tradition ought to be sufficient to discredit it.

Your source claims that other high priests were called simply priests, citing first Lev 13:2 where Aaron, assumed to be the high priest at the time is referred to simply as "the priest". The problem here is that the office of a "high priest" infers a succession of such figures and a well-established priestly class... indeed, Aaron is nowhere referred to in the Pentateuch by the Hebrew equivalent of this title (הכהן הגדול). It appears only once in Leviticus within a phrase rather than a title:

The priest who is exalted above his fellows (הכהן הגדול מאחיו), on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been consecrated to wear the vestments, shall not dishevel his hair, nor tear his vestments. (Lev 21:10)

This is ostensibly an instruction not for Aaron but for his sons (see 21:1), which correctly views the idea (not yet even the title) of a "high priest" as a future development applicable to Aaron's descendants. This holds true for the only actual occurrences of the title as such in the Pentateuch... it appears three times in the law concerning the future cities of refuge in the land of Israel (Num 35:25, 28). That your source fails to cite this cluster of occurrences is perhaps telling since they establish a pattern and a circumstance whereby a "high priest" could be referred to as simply a "priest" --- it occurs in 35:32, but this is only possible because this figure has already been introduced as being the "high priest". This does not hold for the text of Luke 1:5 since Zechariah is introduced as simply a priest. The other examples your source appeals to in Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7 (not written by Paul, a false attribution your source naively passes along) are irrelevant, addressing a symbolic Melchizedek order rather than an actual office within the Levitical order. Similarly irrelevant is "tradition of the Church" concerning priests and bishops... and, as for claim that "it is assumed by many that the Gospel of Luke was written to the High Priest Theophilus (37-41 A.D.)" and he would already know of Zechariah's high priestly duties, its pure speculation rests on the equally dubious provenance proffered by a small handful of fringe interpreters (not many!) positing a ridiculously early date for the gospel and suggesting an absurd intended reader among the hostile priestly aristocracy.

Your source next tackles the "objection" that the angel Gabriel appeared beside an altar used for the burning of incense that was outside the most holy place, which is not where censing was supposed to take place on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev 16:12-13). Aside from the fact your source appears blissfully unaware of the alternative tradition that situates the incense altar inside the most holy place (cf. Heb 9:3-4), this "objection" already assumes something critics of the claim would not grant in the first place, namely that Zechariah entered the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement... there is nothing whatsoever in the text of Luke to suggest this solemn date --- indeed, the text refers to Zechariah's priestly order participating in their rotation of duties (Luke 1:8, 23; cf. 2 Chr 13:11) and that he enters the sanctuary to burn incense after being chosen by lot (1:9). Your source weakly suggests this lot refers rather to his selection as high priest "at some point in time" (ie. in the past), ignoring what the text actually says and the temporal phrase of 1:8 that anchors the casting of lots to when the priestly order is already on duty.

In any case, the high priests at this time were not chosen by lot... they were appointed, which brings us to your source's attempt to explain away the absence of Zechariah's name from the "Hebrew and Roman records" --- he refers to "a gap between the High Priests from 3 B.C. to 6 A.D.", presumably during which Zechariah could have served. The blog author is correct that who was serving as high priest during this period is not clear since our only source (Josephus) refers to Jesus the son of Sie replacing Eleazar son of Boethus, who was appointed by Archelaus (Ant. 17.339, 341), in 4 BCE but failing to note when Joazar son of Boethus was reappointed, reemerging in the narrative in 6 CE in connection with the assessment of property by Quirinius (Ant. 18.3). The problem with invoking this gap in order to slip in Zechariah as high priest is that it is irrelevant since we know exactly who the high priests were through to the early reign of Archelaus as ethnarch, but Luke situates the narrative during the earlier reign of Herod (1:5), who died in 4 BCE --- indeed, if your source takes the Protoevangelium of James seriously on its claim to Zechariah being the high priest, then to remain consistent, he would accept its claim that Herod ordered Zechariah killed (Prot. Jas. 23.1-3)! As I already noted in an earlier post, the high priest at this time would most likely have been Simon son of Boethus, who was in office from around 24/22 to 5 BCE. For all the high priests who served at the end of Herod's reign through that of his son Archelaus, consult James C. VanderKam's From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004), pp. 406-19.

Your source's final point concerns the worry surrounding Zechariah's delay inside the sanctuary (Luke 1:21), proceeding to connect this with musings in rabbinic sources about what might happen if the high priest died while inside the most holy place that no one else could enter on the Day of Atonement... this assumes the solemn setting nowhere articulated and overlooks the simple and obvious narrative cue that Zechariah has been delayed by the angel's visitation, it matters not one iota what day it was or how far deep inside the sanctuary he was! This is the extent of your source's "proof" that Zechariah was the high priest... all easily refuted.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Last edited:
It is difficult to focus simply on the third paragraph and ignore the rest of the blog so my response engages with what you linked to more comprehensively. The author, it should be noted, is an apologist for Eastern Orthodoxy who has, it would seem, published two books, neither of which are academic... indeed, the idea that John's father was a high priest garners no serious scholarly discussion.

Your source begins with the claim that Zechariah was, "[a]ccording to the entire tradition of the Church ... [a] High Priest who entered the Temple in Jerusalem on the Day of Atonement." By "Church" is meant that of Eastern Orthodoxy and he proceeds to explain the origin of various celebratory dates within this tradition that depend on the claim concerning Zechariah, appealing to the authority of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite. Your source then claims that the "early" Protoevangelium of James "testified" to Zechariah being a high priest... in other words, he takes this obvious forgery seriously --- no scholar thinks it was actually written by James, a (step)brother to Jesus, but rather by someone writing around the middle of the second century CE at the earliest. That said, he is correct that Zechariah is therein referred to as the high priest:

The chief priest (ο αρχιερευς) went in, taking the robe with twelve balls into the Holy of Holies; and he prayed about [Mary]. And behold, an angel of the Lord appeared and said to him, "Zacahrias, Zacharias, go out and gather the widowers of the people, and have each of them bring a rod; she will become the wife of the one to whom the Lord God gives a sign." (Prot. Jas. 8.3) --- Translation is that of Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše in The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford University Press, 2011)

Now, as Ronald F. Hock correctly notes, the Protoevangelium of James "assumes, reworks or develops both Matthew's and Luke's stories at many points throughout the narrative" (The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas [The Scholars Bible 2; Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1995], pp. 4-5) and, specific to the claim above, that "this mention of Zechariah is the first instance in which the Infancy Gospel of James reveals knowledge of the canonical birth accounts, although there Zechariah is not the high priest, but only a priest (see Luke 1:5)" (ibid, 5-6). This was my initial response to your claim, prompting you to link to this blog... so I will now turn to the evidence your source provides to bolster the embellishment of this second-century pseudepigraphic document, though that origin for the tradition ought to be sufficient to discredit it.

Your source claims that other high priests were called simply priests, citing first Lev 13:2 where Aaron, assumed to be the high priest at the time is referred to simply as "the priest". The problem here is that the office of a "high priest" infers a succession of such figures and a well-established priestly class... indeed, Aaron is nowhere referred to in the Pentateuch by the Hebrew equivalent of this title (הכהן הגדול). It appears only once in Leviticus within a phrase rather than a title:

The priest who is exalted above his fellows (הכהן הגדול מאחיו), on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been consecrated to wear the vestments, shall not dishevel his hair, nor tear his vestments. (Lev 21:10)

This is ostensibly an instruction not for Aaron but for his sons (see 21:1), which correctly views the idea (not yet even the title) of a "high priest" as a future development applicable to Aaron's descendants. This holds true for the only actual occurrences of the title as such in the Pentateuch... it appears three times in the law concerning the future cities of refuge in the land of Israel (Num 35:25, 28). That your source fails to cite this cluster of occurrences is perhaps telling since they establish a pattern and a circumstance whereby a "high priest" could be referred to as simply a "priest" --- it occurs in 35:32, but this is only possible because this figure has already been introduced as being the "high priest". This does not hold for the text of Luke 1:5 since Zechariah is introduced as simply a priest. The other examples your source appeals to in Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7 (not written by Paul, a false attribution your source naively passes along) are irrelevant, addressing a symbolic Melchizedek order rather than an actual office within the Levitical order. Similarly irrelevant is "tradition of the Church" concerning priests and bishops... and, as for claim that "it is assumed by many that the Gospel of Luke was written to the High Priest Theophilus (37-41 A.D.)" and he would already know of Zechariah's high priestly duties, its pure speculation rests on the equally dubious provenance proffered by a small handful of fringe interpreters (not many!) positing a ridiculously early date for the gospel and suggesting an absurd intended reader among the hostile priestly aristocracy.

Your source next tackles the "objection" that the angel Gabriel appeared beside an altar used for the burning of incense that was outside the most holy place, which is not where censing was supposed to take place on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev 16:12-13). Aside from the fact your source appears blissfully unaware of the alternative tradition that situates the incense altar inside the most holy place (cf. Heb 9:3-4), this "objection" already assumes something critics of the claim would not grant in the first place, namely that Zechariah entered the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement... there is nothing whatsoever in the text of Luke to suggest this solemn date --- indeed, the text refers to Zechariah's priestly order participating in their rotation of duties (Luke 1:8, 23; cf. 2 Chr 13:11) and that he enters the sanctuary to burn incense after being chosen by lot (1:9). Your source weakly suggests this lot refers rather to his selection as high priest "at some point in time" (ie. in the past), ignoring what the text actually says and the temporal phrase of 1:8 that anchors the casting of lots to when the priestly order is already on duty.

In any case, the high priests at this time were not chosen by lot... they were appointed, which brings us to your source's attempt to explain away the absence of Zechariah's name from the "Hebrew and Roman records" --- he refers to "a gap between the High Priests from 3 B.C. to 6 A.D.", presumably during which Zechariah could have served. The blog author is correct that who was serving as high priest during this period is not clear since our only source (Josephus) refers to Jesus the son of Sie replacing Eleazar son of Boethus, who was appointed by Archelaus (Ant. 17.339, 341), in 4 BCE but failing to note when Joazar son of Boethus was reappointed, reemerging in the narrative in 6 CE in connection with the assessment of property by Quirinius (Ant. 18.3). The problem with invoking this gap in order to slip in Zechariah as high priest is that it is irrelevant since we know exactly who the high priests were through to the early reign of Archelaus as ethnarch, but Luke situates the narrative during the earlier reign of Herod (1:5), who died in 4 BCE --- indeed, if your source takes the Protoevangelium of James seriously on its claim to Zechariah being the high priest, then to remain consistent, he would accept its claim that Herod ordered Zechariah killed (Prot. Jas. 23.1-3)! As I already noted in an earlier post, the high priest at this time would most likely have been Simon son of Boethus, who was in office from around 24/22 to 5 BCE. For all the high priests who served at the end of Herod's reign through that of his son Archelaus, consult James C. VanderKam's From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004), pp. 406-19.

Your source's final point concerns the worry surrounding Zechariah's delay inside the sanctuary (Luke 1:21), proceeding to connect this with musings in rabbinic sources about what might happen if the high priest died while inside the most holy place that no one else could enter on the Day of Atonement... this assumes the solemn setting nowhere articulated and overlooks the simple and obvious narrative cue that Zechariah has been delayed by the angel's visitation, it matters not one iota what day it was or how far deep inside the sanctuary he was! This is the extent of your source's "proof" that Zechariah was the high priest... all easily refuted.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Kind regards? ..... Its a form letter, human good.

There is no conversation with you. Its a one way mini lecture of pseudo academic feed back.

Academically, I must be your inferior. And that is an order. Right?

Can you converse?

Everything has to be torn down by you, leaving you on top of a heap of paper work.

I am cutting off. No edification.

That's my way of not wasting time.

:coffee::coffee::coffee:bye.
 
There is no conversation with you.
I converse with plenty of people on this forum... if the conversation has come to a halt, that's all on you. Indeed, let's review what transpired here: You made a claim that Zechariah was the high priest. I countered that claim by citing from the biblical text and presenting who would have been high priest at the time. You responded with a link. That is typically a conversation stopper, but I asked you to summarize or copy/paste the paragraph to which you linked. While you were prevented from doing the latter, you could have done the former but apparently couldn't be bothered. Again, typical conversation stopper, but I capitulated and reviewed what you linked to, then responded to it point by point. You are the one bailing out on further conversation...

Its a one way mini lecture of pseudo academic feed back.
What you linked to was pseudo-academic, not what I posted in response.

Academically, I must be your inferior.
If you say so. Speaking for myself, I am academically inferior to lots of people who are experts either in other disciplines or on specific topics within my discipline. I love being in their presence and learning from their expertise, particularly when their findings challenge my own or they present material I thought I understood well enough already in a fresh and illuminating way. That seems a wise approach to me...

Can you converse?
Can you? You dropped a link, refused to summarize a single paragraph of it in your words, then tucked tail and ran away after I responded to the content...

Everything has to be torn down by you...
Erroneous claims such as you made should be torn down, after which something better and more solid can take its place... that you walk away from the potential of the latter is your loss, not mine.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
What if Luke crafted John's preaching according to what John actually preached? Since he wasn't there personally perhaps he had heard first hand stories of JB and what he preached as he traveled with Paul.
As you may recall, I date Luke to the early second century... the suggestion that he traveled with Paul and heard first-hand accounts about John's preaching is therefore not something I can entertain, though I can appreciate, given your earlier dating, that this would be a possibility for you. Since the dating of Luke is a topic too large to explore here, we'll have to agree to disagree on the plausibility of what you outline above.

It sounds like your are saying that Luke (who was possibly a gentile) cherry-picked from some of what he had heard that John had taught to mimic the text of Malachi. If Luke was a gentile wouldn't he have to have had knowledge of the writings of the Jewish prophets? Would that be a stretch for a gentile to have such knowledge during that time?
No. There were Gentiles known as "God-Fearers" who were attracted to Jewish piety, solidarity and their worship of one deity and, while not officially converting (which for males meant undergoing circumcision), they affiliated with Jews, attended synagogue, participated in some rituals and immersed themselves in Jewish sacred texts. Luke seems particularly attuned to this group of Gentiles, introducing specific people who are described as or inferred to be such and including them among Paul's audience at a synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia:

A centurion [in Capernaum] 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." (Luke 7:2-4)

In Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Cohort, as it was called. He was a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God. (Acts 10:1-2)

They answered, "Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say." (Acts 10:22)

So Paul stood up and with a gesture began to speak: "You Israelites, and others who fear God, listen..." (Acts 13:16)

"My brothers, you descendants of Abraham's family, and others who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent." (Acts 13:26)

That Luke was a god-fearing Gentile convert to Christianity is certainly possible and this is the conclusion of the scholar who wrote the section on Luke's gospel in the Oxford Bible Commentary... it is worth quoting, particularly for its last sentence in answer to your query above, though it can be extended to John's role, as well:

Luke himself was almost certainly a Gentile and was most probably one of that group of Gentiles -- the Godfearers -- who, though greatly honouring the Jewish faith, shrank from circumcision and therefore remained excluded from the covenantal people of God. In Christ he found that inclusiveness which had previously been denied him, and it was this that determined his own picture of God's redemption in Jesus. A student of the Scriptures, he presented Jesus as the fulfillment of their promises.
Eric Franklin, "Luke" in The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton and John Muddiman (Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 925

But Luke does have the quote from Isaiah and if Luke was an intimately related to the text of Malachi as you suggest then I think it is reasonable that Luke could put the similar texts of Malachi 3 and Isaiah 40 together to draw other corollaries and conclude that Jesus is, indeed, a messenger of YHWH.
I'm still struggling to understand what you feel Isaiah 40 adds to your suggestion that Jesus was understood by Luke and other early Christian authors as "the messenger of the covenant" in Mal 3:1.

The first would be that a voice/messenger who is preparing the way of the LORD.

The second would be that in each text a messenger is preparing the way for YHWH to come and that the people will see YHWH.
And this voice/messenger of the respective texts was understood by early Christians as a reference to John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus, who is equated with the Israelite deity... I believe we are agreed on this point.

The third would not be a corollary but a difference in punctuation between the NSRV and the NET bible. The NSRV put a period between the Lord coming to his temple and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight but the NET bible did not put the punctuated it differently. I think without the period, the passage is easily understood that the LORD whom you seek 1. will appear in his temple and 2. is the messenger of covenant in whom they delight.
The full stop in the NRSV is an attempt to convey in English the force of the disjunctive vav in Hebrew prefixed to the word for "messenger" (ומלאך), which reinforces the interpretation I offered that distinguishes this messenger from the Lord just mentioned. Here is how JPS renders the passage, also using capitalization on pronouns to distinguish the divine speaker and Lord from the being that follows:

Behold, I am sending My messenger to clear the way before Me, and the Lord whom you seek shall come to His Temple suddenly. As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, he is already coming.
Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (eds), The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 1273

This translation actually infers three different individuals... (1) a human messenger who clears the way for (2) the deity who will come to his temple plus (3) "Israel's tutelary angel" according to the editors. I don't agree with this, but it goes to show that there are at least two alternative interpretations to the one you and my other interlocutor are committed to. I cite it primarily to show another translation beside NRSV that is sensitive to the Hebrew syntax, which is difficult to reconcile with your understanding that the Lord and second messenger are one and the same being.

John the baptist isn't the messenger of the covenant neither is he someone in whom the nation of Israel had their hopes pinned on. They are anticipating the Messiah to show up just as was Herod around the time Jesus and John were both born.
The LORD is the one who is the messenger of the covenant and the one the nation is longing for. Luke 3:15
While I can appreciate your attempt to find one-to-one correspondences for everything in the Malachi passage, it is important to note that none of the New Testament authors extend their citation of 3:1 beyond the first clause and even then it is a loose paraphrase... their focus was on identifying John as the messenger who prepares the way --- what exactly they thought of the "messenger of the covenant" clause is unknown. I suspect they understood it in the way I've proposed, but if not, that does not impact the interpretation I have provided, which is based on the context of Malachi rather than imposing ideas from centuries later onto the text. In any case, the Baptist bringing people back to the Lord their God (Luke 1:16) implies fidelity to the Mosaic law and thus the "covenant of Levi" referred to in Malachi 2... such is thus not an obstacle for the veracity of my interpretation.

Lastly the disciples see the Lord Jesus in just about everything in the OT. The entire OT is about Jesus Christ to them. They would surely understand Malachi 3:1 as I do.
By seeing John the Baptist in Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3 there is clearly room in their hermeneutic for seeing people and events connected to Jesus, not just Jesus himself, in the words of Israel's sacred writings.

In Luke 1 both Mary and Zechariah mention the promises that God made to their ancestors and are now announcing its fulfillment in the baby that will be born. Moses spoke of a promise YHWH made that the Lord would raise up a prophet like himself. Deut 18:15-18
Jesus was that prophet and just like Moses, Jesus would be involved in forming a covenant with the nation of Israel. The disciples knew all of these things and understood them as fulfilled in Jesus. And later in Luke 20 Jesus states that the glass of wine they drink is symbolically "... the new covenant in my blood."
Be all this as it may, there is still no positive evidence these early Christians author understood Jesus to be "the messenger of the covenant" referred to in Mal 3:1.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Last edited:
If you say so. Speaking for myself, I am academically inferior to lots of people who are experts either in other disciplines or on specific topics within my discipline. I love being in their presence and learning from their expertise, particularly when their findings challenge my own or they present material I thought I understood well enough already in a fresh and illuminating way. That seems a wise approach to me...
I pointed you to such an expert and you diminished him to an attention seeking pastor with a web cite. Obviously, you never gave him a chance and only sought your own subjective outcome to avoid what could have been truly helpful. That is the moment when I decided you are not worth the effort. Men who study Hebrew and Greek have listened to him and have benefitted.

Lewis Sperry Chafer wanted Dallas to teach Hebrew and Greek because they was his area of weakness and saw its importance.

Look one more time? https://www.rbthieme.org/index.html#tabs-3+

He was recommended to me by retired Harvard professor Stan Ashby who taught ancient languages at a Bible college. RBT was no slouch. He taught (by demand) six nights a week and earlier morning lessons as well. Was invited by some of the student at MIT.. and also taught by invite at other universities.

To say what you did about him made you sound closed minded, arrogant and too full of self importance.

What you said? Nothing could be further from the truth.

But? So be it....
 
Don't ever just accept something, make sure to think for yourself!
I still disagree with En Hakorre about the second messenger. I don't find his argument equating the covenant to the first messenger convincing. John wasn't pointing at a return to the Mosaic/levitical covenant even though he was a levite. He was pointing to Christ, even the one who would baptize with the Spirit which is part of the new covenant in Acts 2. That was his mission. John wasn't trying to get the crowd to repent and return to the covenant of their fathers but to the one with the new covenant whose sandals he wasn't worthy to loosen. The messenger with a covenant to present was Jesus not John.
It also think the link with isa 40 and Mal 3:1 about making a way for the Lord is enough of a prophetic connection. The NT disciples would have caught onto that in a heartbeat.

Sometimes, I know this will be hard for you to believe, I just getting tired of arguing a point when the other person doesn't get it. But I really appreciate the time and the well thought out answers that En Hakorre presents.
 
Can Jesus Christ, being fully man and fully God? Be an angel?

Can an angel be a man? He can look like a man outwardly, but inwardly he will be a spirit, not a soul.

The Holy Spirit is "spirit." Not, soul.

The Angel of Jehovah was being God, not simply speaking for God.

It could have happened only before the birth of Christ. The Angel of Jehovah was the Holy Spirit manifested in bodily form. Fully angel, and fully God.

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian,
and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain
of God. There the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush.
Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will
go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the
bush, “Moses! Moses!”
And Moses said, “Here I am.”
“Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are
standing is holy ground.” Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid
to look at God."
Exodus 3:1-6​


I realize that many have stumbled over the meaning of the Angel of Jehovah...
I did not seek to force an answer. It tapped me on the shoulder and said..."Here I am."

Quite frankly. I frightened me a bit. I took me months to stabilize with the reality.

I did not like the understanding of it at first. For I knew it would open me up for criticism and possibly scorn from traditionalists.

But, in spite of that? I was simultaneously surprised me and made me glad to know I was made capable (by God's grace) to see it.
 
Last edited:
I still disagree with En Hakorre about the second messenger. I don't find his argument equating the covenant to the first messenger convincing.
Could you try something for me? Set aside any notion of fulfillment in the first century CE and read the text as someone in the 5th century BCE, the scroll still fresh with ink from the author's hand. What "covenant" would you think he's talking about in 3:1 after reading through chapter 2 and its numerous references to a covenant connected to Levi? Also, would you not assume the two references to a messenger in 3:1 are referring to the same individual and the one introduced in the previous chapter?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Could you try something for me? Set aside any notion of fulfillment in the first century CE and read the text as someone in the 5th century BCE, the scroll still fresh with ink from the author's hand. What "covenant" would you think he's talking about in 3:1 after reading through chapter 2 and its numerous references to a covenant connected to Levi? Also, would you not assume the two references to a messenger in 3:1 are referring to the same individual and the one introduced in the previous chapter?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I will try but I won't have time to get back to you this evening.
What do you mean by the bolded portion? Are you asking me not to assume that the 2 references to a messenger in 3:1 are referring to the same individual or are you asking if after reading the text the way you have asked me, then I should assume that the messenger in all three instances is one person ?
 
Last edited:
I will try but I won't have time to get back to you this evening.
What do you mean by the bolded portion? Are you asking me not to assume that the 2 references to a messenger in 3:1 are referring to the same individual or are you asking if after reading the text the way you have asked me, then I should assume that the messenger in all three instances is one person ?
The latter as the negation was rhetorical... and feel free to take your time, no rush.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
I will first admit it's hard to set aside bias. Inspiration does change the way I naturally treat Scripture. I simply believe it contains revelation.

But even taking the book all on its own, I don't think the natural interpretation is to equate all the messengers, it doesn't make logical sense.

Another verse, that for someone who believes in inspiration, weights against theophanies in the messenger of the Lord, is this one:

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. (Gal. 3:19 NKJ)

If Christ were one of the angels I'm sure Paul would seize at the chance to bring that out and support the rest of his points.
 
I will first admit it's hard to set aside bias. Inspiration does change the way I naturally treat Scripture. I simply believe it contains revelation.

But even taking the book all on its own, I don't think the natural interpretation is to equate all the messengers, it doesn't make logical sense.

Another verse, that for someone who believes in inspiration, weights against theophanies in the messenger of the Lord, is this one:

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. (Gal. 3:19 NKJ)

If Christ were one of the angels I'm sure Paul would seize at the chance to bring that out and support the rest of his points.
Jesus is fully human (soul) and fully God.

The Angel of Jehovah needed to be fully angel (spirit) and fully God.

The Angel of Jehovah ceased to be manifested once the new dispensation began of the Incarnation.
 
Jesus is fully human (soul) and fully God.

The Angel of Jehovah needed to be fully angel (spirit) and fully God.

The Angel of Jehovah ceased to be manifested once the new dispensation began of the Incarnation.
Not a real angel but a temporary manifestation as an angel?
 
Jesus is fully human (soul) and fully God.

The Angel of Jehovah needed to be fully angel (spirit) and fully God.

The Angel of Jehovah ceased to be manifested once the new dispensation began of the Incarnation.

God has a soul and a spirit, Scriptures tell us this clearly. Angels and demons would also follow this format.

Humans have a spirit, soul and a body, the body is the extra part that pure spirits don't have.

Nowhere does God join the nature of the angels, this is condemned:

For, not surely of messengers, is he laying hold, but, of Abraham's seed, he is laying hold. (Heb. 2:16 ROT)
 
Not a real angel but a temporary manifestation as an angel?
No.. Was as a real angel. Not, a make believe angel. Why is this so hard to accept?

Even if it was temporary.. it was a real angel in function.

Just like...

Jesus came as a real man in limited power (Phlpns 2:6-8).

Yet as a real man in limitation of power it was temporary. He is now fully God in power, as well as a man in his second nature.

He is is now glorified and fully God in His expression....

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." Col 2:9​
 
Last edited:
The latter as the negation was rhetorical... and feel free to take your time, no rush.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
This is what I will aim to do "Set aside any notion of fulfillment in the first century CE and read the text as someone in the 5th century BCE, the scroll still fresh with ink from the author's hand.". I will ignore your attempts to influence me.
 
God has a soul and a spirit, Scriptures tell us this clearly. Angels and demons would also follow this format.

Humans have a spirit, soul and a body, the body is the extra part that pure spirits don't have.

Nowhere does God join the nature of the angels, this is condemned:

For, not surely of messengers, is he laying hold, but, of Abraham's seed, he is laying hold. (Heb. 2:16 ROT)
Only the Lord God of Israel was said to have a soul. Its revealed in the Torah.


'You will eat the old supply and clear out the old because of the new. Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you.'I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people." Lev 26:10-12



And they began to remove the foreign gods from their midst and to serve Jehovah, so that his soul became impatient because of the trouble of Israel. Jdges 10:16



Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one, and anyone loving violence his soul certainly hates." Ps 11:5



“Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them.. Isa 1:13-14


Keep in mind. God's essence is not 'soul.' Having two natures in union = the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:23-24


grace and peace.........
 
This is what I will aim to do "Set aside any notion of fulfillment in the first century CE and read the text as someone in the 5th century BCE, the scroll still fresh with ink from the author's hand.". I will ignore your attempts to influence me.

Man said, DRAWWW? DRAAAW?!

 
Back
Top