Answering questions from Johnathan regarding the angel of the Lord.

jamesh

Well-known member
Hi Jonathan, good questions? Just so you know the second I saw you reference Acts 7 I knew this was about Stephen and him mentioning the angel of the Lord. Regarding your point #1 I would say that your making an "argument from silence". I cannot demonstrate what God has not done or said. No one can. Only things that actually occur can be expected to leave any evidence of themselves. For example, the book of Ester does not mention God by name, should we conclude that God does not exist?

Getting back to Stephen, specifically Acts 7:30, "And after forty years had passed "AN" angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning thorn bush." Over the years I have had many people say Jesus Christ is an actual angel based on the little word "a or an". Stephen uses the word "an" at vs30. If you continue reading Stephen quotes from vs30 much of Exodus 3 to vs 38 describing what the angel of the Lord stated.

At vs38, "This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with "THE" angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai etc. Here is the "kicker" in all of this? Many people are unaware of the difference between the little words, "a/an and the word "the." The chief grammatical function of "a or an" is to connote a thing NOT previously noted or recognized, while "the" connotes a thing PREVIOUSLY noted or recognized. So this would mean that there is no "breakdown" between "a/an" and "the."

Now, it should be noted that "the" angel of the Lord/Jesus Christ never appears as the angel of the Lord in the New Testament, although He is mentioned by Stephen. You brought up Matther 1:24, "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as "the" angel of the Lord commanded him etc. Yes, "the" is used and like you said it makes sense "grammatically" based on Matthew 1:20 and the word "an".

You then made this statement: "2) Doesn't the activity of "the angel of the Lord" at the same time Jesus is incarnated suggest they are different beings? To illustrate the concern underlying this question I'll turn from Luke's writings to Matthew's:"

No! Your "assuming" the angel of the Lord is active in the New Testament as the angel of the Lord and there is no way one can prove that assumption. And speaking of two different beings you might find the following interesting in the Old Testament.

The angel of the Lord first appears as the angel of the Lord at Genesis 16:7. "Now the angel of the Lord found her/Hagar by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. Vs8 (I'm going to highlight the main points instead of typing all the verses out). He wants Hagar to return to Sarai,. Verses 8,9. Vs10, "Moreover, the angel of the Lord said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they shall be too many to count."

Vs11, The angel of the Lord said to her further, "Behold, you are with child, And you shall bear a son; And you shall call his name Ishmael, Because the Lord has given heed to your affliction. Skipping to vs13, "The she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, "Thou art a God who sees"; for she said, Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" Now for Genesis 17:1-3. "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord APPEARED to Abram and said to him, (This was a physical appearance). I am God Almighty; Walk before Me and be blameless. Vs2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly. Vs3, "And Abram fell on his face and God talked with him, saying."

So here is my question? Is the same being who multiplied Hagar's descendants the same being who multiplied Abram's descendants? And the reason I know this was a physical appearance if from Genesis 17:22. "And when He/God finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham." It is also noteworthy that at verse 1 of Genesis 18, "Now the Lord APPEARED to him/Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day."

If one reads the whole chapter the Lord appears to Abraham along with to actual angels. And at vs33, "And as soon as He/the Lord had finished speaking to Abraham the Lord departed; and Abraham returned to his place. What about the two angels? Genesis 19:1, "Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom."

Here are some of the questions that people have asked me, especially from Genesis 22.12, It says, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him, for now I know you fear God etc. In this case it is not unusual for God to speak in the third person. A good example is at Job 1:8. Another question that is raised, why does God have the angel of the Lord speaking from heaven when there are verses where God Himself speaks out of heaven? Exodus 20:22, "Then the Lord said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, "You yourselves have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven." And there is in the New Testament Matthew 3:17, "and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Lastly, and in summary we have Judges 2:1, "Now the angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you." Please read verses 2-5. And speaking of swearing an oath! One person may not take an oath or affirmation for another, this act is a highly personal commitment of conscience.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
I don't think there is any implication "the angel of the Lord" always has to be the exact same singular angel.

And since angel just means messenger of some kind, this messenger could perhaps at times be Christ.

In cases like the following, we have a very direct correlation between the messenger and the Lord himself:

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. (Mal. 3:1 NKJ)
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Hi Jonathan, good questions? Just so you know the second I saw you reference Acts 7 I knew this was about Stephen and him mentioning the angel of the Lord. Regarding your point #1 I would say that your making an "argument from silence". I cannot demonstrate what God has not done or said. No one can. Only things that actually occur can be expected to leave any evidence of themselves. For example, the book of Ester does not mention God by name, should we conclude that God does not exist?

Getting back to Stephen, specifically Acts 7:30, "And after forty years had passed "AN" angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning thorn bush." Over the years I have had many people say Jesus Christ is an actual angel based on the little word "a or an". Stephen uses the word "an" at vs30. If you continue reading Stephen quotes from vs30 much of Exodus 3 to vs 38 describing what the angel of the Lord stated.

At vs38, "This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with "THE" angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai etc. Here is the "kicker" in all of this? Many people are unaware of the difference between the little words, "a/an and the word "the." The chief grammatical function of "a or an" is to connote a thing NOT previously noted or recognized, while "the" connotes a thing PREVIOUSLY noted or recognized. So this would mean that there is no "breakdown" between "a/an" and "the."

Now, it should be noted that "the" angel of the Lord/Jesus Christ never appears as the angel of the Lord in the New Testament, although He is mentioned by Stephen. You brought up Matther 1:24, "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as "the" angel of the Lord commanded him etc. Yes, "the" is used and like you said it makes sense "grammatically" based on Matthew 1:20 and the word "an".

You then made this statement: "2) Doesn't the activity of "the angel of the Lord" at the same time Jesus is incarnated suggest they are different beings? To illustrate the concern underlying this question I'll turn from Luke's writings to Matthew's:"

No! Your "assuming" the angel of the Lord is active in the New Testament as the angel of the Lord and there is no way one can prove that assumption. And speaking of two different beings you might find the following interesting in the Old Testament.

The angel of the Lord first appears as the angel of the Lord at Genesis 16:7. "Now the angel of the Lord found her/Hagar by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. Vs8 (I'm going to highlight the main points instead of typing all the verses out). He wants Hagar to return to Sarai,. Verses 8,9. Vs10, "Moreover, the angel of the Lord said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they shall be too many to count."

Vs11, The angel of the Lord said to her further, "Behold, you are with child, And you shall bear a son; And you shall call his name Ishmael, Because the Lord has given heed to your affliction. Skipping to vs13, "The she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, "Thou art a God who sees"; for she said, Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" Now for Genesis 17:1-3. "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord APPEARED to Abram and said to him, (This was a physical appearance). I am God Almighty; Walk before Me and be blameless. Vs2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly. Vs3, "And Abram fell on his face and God talked with him, saying."

So here is my question? Is the same being who multiplied Hagar's descendants the same being who multiplied Abram's descendants? And the reason I know this was a physical appearance if from Genesis 17:22. "And when He/God finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham." It is also noteworthy that at verse 1 of Genesis 18, "Now the Lord APPEARED to him/Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day."

If one reads the whole chapter the Lord appears to Abraham along with to actual angels. And at vs33, "And as soon as He/the Lord had finished speaking to Abraham the Lord departed; and Abraham returned to his place. What about the two angels? Genesis 19:1, "Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom."

Here are some of the questions that people have asked me, especially from Genesis 22.12, It says, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him, for now I know you fear God etc. In this case it is not unusual for God to speak in the third person. A good example is at Job 1:8. Another question that is raised, why does God have the angel of the Lord speaking from heaven when there are verses where God Himself speaks out of heaven? Exodus 20:22, "Then the Lord said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, "You yourselves have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven." And there is in the New Testament Matthew 3:17, "and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Lastly, and in summary we have Judges 2:1, "Now the angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you." Please read verses 2-5. And speaking of swearing an oath! One person may not take an oath or affirmation for another, this act is a highly personal commitment of conscience.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
Thanks... I should have some time tomorrow to respond to this.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
For the benefit of those coming across this thread, it was prompted by discussion elsewhere about Jesus being "the angel of the Lord" --- the OP takes the affirmative and my challenge was couched in two lengthy questions reposted below to provide proper context for discussion here.

*********************

(1) If Jesus was thought of as "the angel of the Lord" by early Christians, why is this equation not made explicit in passages where one would expect it to be? For example, whether one understands the bulk of Acts 7 as Luke's rhetoric within the conventions of the time or the actual content of a speech delivered by Stephen, there is no hint that the mediator that appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai in the Exodus tradition was Jesus:

Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush. (Acts 7:30)
It was this Moses whom they rejected when they said, 'Who made you a ruler and a judge?' and whom God now sent as both ruler and liberator through the angel who appeared to him in the bush. (Acts 7:35)
He is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living oracles to give to us. (Acts 7:38)

If Jesus was conceived as the mediator between the invisible deity (the Father in Christian theology) and Moses, why wouldn't Luke just say so? Reference to an angel here would be superfluous if not misleading. If Jesus is to be identified with anyone within the speech, it is the Lord for whom the angel is speaking (cf. 7:31, 33)... indeed, Luke's favorite titular designation for Jesus throughout his gospel and in Acts is "the Lord" --- so in Luke's particular Christology, to designate Jesus "the angel of the Lord" would be to downgrade his exalted divine status. Indeed, to cast the net wider within Luke's writings, consider the following:

Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. (Luke 1:11)

This mediator identifies himself as Gabriel (1:19) and while it would be correct to point out the anarthrous form of the phrase (αγγελος κυριου; ie. "an angel of {the} Lord"), the same is true for the corresponding text in LXX for the appearance of the angel to Moses:

Now an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a fire of flame out of the bush... (Exod 3:2)

Attempting to draw a distinction between an angel of the Lord and the angel of the Lord thus breaks down. They are interchangeable within the biblical corpus or the phrase is articulated for grammatical reasons within sentences. This is important for my second question...

(2) Doesn't the activity of "the angel of the Lord" at the same time Jesus is incarnated suggest they are different beings? To illustrate the concern underlying this question I'll turn from Luke's writings to Matthew's:

But just as he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." (Matt 1:20)

Here Jesus is understood to be in his mother's womb when this angel appears to Joseph... then Matthew writes:

When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife... (Matt 1:24)

In this case the phrase is articulated (ο αγγελος κυριου) as leaving it anarthrous would make no sense grammatically, however, if safeguarding Jesus' identity as the angel of the Lord was important to this writer, the phrase could have been modified to this angel of the Lord (ο αγγελος κυριου ουτος or one of several other ways this could be expressed) to infer such a distinction, but it isn't.

I look forward to your engagement with these questions. My suggestion is that attempting to equate Jesus with "the angel of the Lord" does not seem compatible with either of these writers' theological programs --- angelic mediators are conceptualized within both as subordinate beings of the deity who speak on his behalf to humans --- and that such is unnecessary in building the case for early Christians' understanding of Jesus as divine, which is predicated upon his unique identity as God's son, rather than as a (or even the) messenger from the divine...

*********************

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
I look forward to your engagement with these questions. My suggestion is that attempting to equate Jesus with "the angel of the Lord" does not seem compatible with either of these writers' theological programs --- angelic mediators are conceptualized within both as subordinate beings of the deity who speak on his behalf to humans --- and that such is unnecessary in building the case for early Christians' understanding of Jesus as divine, which is predicated upon his unique identity as God's son, rather than as a (or even the) messenger from the divine...

Just to clarify a point of theology: Jesus is considered subordinate to the Father and his Messenger as an incarnated Divinity.

It seems also to me that prophets and such are sometimes called "angels," or messengers, of God, as well.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
My question is why would the Word continue on as the Angel of the Lord in the NT after he became a human? Doesn't Hebrews 1 play down the role of angels in comparison to God's Son. Maybe Angel of the Lord was a temporary manifestation of YHWH in the OT.

Hebrews 1:1-4 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for[c] sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
My question is why would the Word continue on as the Angel of the Lord in the NT after he became a human?

Angel has more than one meaning here, it can be a bit confusing.

Jesus is not a "ministering spirit" in the sense of what we call angels, but the original word "angel" just means messenger.

Even demons and prophets are sometimes called angels.

Doesn't Hebrews 1 play down the role of angels in comparison to God's Son. Maybe Angel of the Lord was a temporary manifestation of YHWH in the OT.

One kind of angel. Jesus was still a messenger and representative of YHWH, and it seems quite amazing that YHWH would send himself.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Regarding your point #1 I would say that your making an "argument from silence".
Arguments from silence are not inherently flawed... they are valid when -- as I previously phrased it -- one should expect to find the evidence that happens to be lacking. My point is that if the authors of the New Testament documents understood Jesus as "the angel of the Lord", one would expect to find some explicit assertion of such in a context where this being is mentioned (ie. Acts 7). The problem for the affirmative position you have taken is we do not find this equation being made... it is instead cobbled together using inferences, which at the very least needs to be acknowledged as a relatively weak argument if not abandoned altogether.

I cannot demonstrate what God has not done or said. No one can.
This reflects a canonical reading of biblical texts understood to be divinely inspired, which approach only accentuates the problem highlighted above... if the equation of Jesus as "the angel of the Lord" was valid and important for reading posterity down through the centuries since, surely somewhere it would have been made explicit and not left to mere inference.

Only things that actually occur can be expected to leave any evidence of themselves.
I agree, which is precisely why I am pointing to a lack of explicit evidence within the biblical corpus equating Jesus with "the angel of the Lord" as a significant datum for the present conversation.

Getting back to Stephen, specifically Acts 7:30, "And after forty years had passed "AN" angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning thorn bush." Over the years I have had many people say Jesus Christ is an actual angel based on the little word "a or an". Stephen uses the word "an" at vs30.
This statement reflects an engagement with English translation, not the underlying Greek... in this language there is no word for "an" --- it is supplied in English because the word is anarthrous --- that is, it lacks an accompanying definite article, thus rendering it indefinite (an angel) rather than definite (the angel). If you are not engaging the grammar at the level of the original Greek (and, as we'll explore below, Hebrew), I highly recommend you build the requisite skill set to do so...

If you continue reading Stephen quotes from vs30 much of Exodus 3 to vs 38 describing what the angel of the Lord stated.
Based on a comparison to LXX Exodus, Luke's version of events is abridged, reworded, rearranged and supplemented for his own rhetorical purposes, but the source in Greek translation is evident enough:

Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush. (Acts 7:30 NRSV)
Greek: και πληρωθεντων ετων τεσσερακοντα ωφθη αυτω εν τη ερημω του ορους Σινα αγγελος εν φλογι πυρος βατου

Now an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a fire of flame out of the bush... (Exod 3:2a NETS)
Greek: ωφθη δε αυτω αγγελος κυριου εν πυρι φλογος εκ του βατου

The difference between φλογι and φλογος above is the case (dative in Acts and genitive in Exodus LXX) --- it is the same Greek noun φλοξ (flame) in both passages. Pertinent for present purposes is the anarthrous "angel" (αγγελος)... a point to which I'll return shortly.

At vs38, "This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with "THE" angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai etc. Here is the "kicker" in all of this? Many people are unaware of the difference between the little words, "a/an and the word "the." The chief grammatical function of "a or an" is to connote a thing NOT previously noted or recognized, while "the" connotes a thing PREVIOUSLY noted or recognized. So this would mean that there is no "breakdown" between "a/an" and "the."
There are several interrelated problems here... first, despite the explanation above, you draw attention to Jesus' identity as "the" angel of the Lord by stressing the article (see at the beginning of the next quote box), as if to distinguish him from simply "an" angel of the Lord --- this purported usage adds a confusing and indefensible layer to the grammatical argument, which as I noted earlier needs to be made based on the ancient languages involved, not English. Second, the above is not always true... this can be seen, for example, in your comment concerning the first appearance of such a being in Israel's sacred texts:

The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur...
(Gen 16:7 NRSV)

There is a definite article supplied in English translation here (more on why momentarily) in contradistinction to what would be predicted based on your grammatical explanation above. This "problem" repeats in all other cases the deity's messenger is first introduced into a book's narrative, here are the other two examples in the Pentateuch:

There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush... (Exod 3:2a NRSV)
God's anger was kindled because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the road as his adversary. (Num 22:22 NRSV)

The corresponding Hebrew of MT reads מלאך יהוה in all three places and the definite article is supplied in English based on the particular grammar of construct chains in Hebrew... that is, they are definite when the final (absolute) noun of the chain is (1) articulated (ie. prefixed with the definite article), (2) suffixed with a pronoun or (3) a proper name, which is the case here. In other words, one cannot convey the idea of "an angel of YHWH" using the conventional way genitives are expressed in Hebrew. If one goes strictly on this grammar, there could only ever be one such angel, yet it is clear that the Israelite deity has many angels (cf. Gen 32:1)... this destabilizes any argument putting undo emphasis on "the" in this phrase. "The angel of YHWH" is a title used by whichever messenger among many is presently speaking on behalf of the deity... indeed, this seems to be the understanding of the Greek translators of Israel's sacred writings, who felt free to deviate from the strict definite form of the clause --- sometimes adhering to and sometimes deviating from your grammatical argument above --- by making it anarthrous in the target language at times, simply "an angel of the Lord". I've already pointed out Exod 3:2 as an example of this, but there are many others I'll provide in an addendum to this post later today or tomorrow... of most importance is the Exodus passage since it is the source text for Acts 7:30 and reference to "an angel" who appeared to Moses.

Now, it should be noted that "the" angel of the Lord/Jesus Christ never appears as the angel of the Lord in the New Testament, although He is mentioned by Stephen. You brought up Matther 1:24, "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as "the" angel of the Lord commanded him etc. Yes, "the" is used and like you said it makes sense "grammatically" based on Matthew 1:20 and the word "an".
As noted above, you stress the definite article as a means of designating Jesus as a special type of this figure, but it is unclear whether that is rhetoric for this thread or an actual argument from the source texts. If not the latter, it is unclear why you then proceed to appeal to my comments about the grammar of Matt 1:24 as an explanation for an exception that apparently proves your "rule" --- the problem is that Matthew is following a pattern laid down by Greek translators of Israel's sacred writings (see addendum to follow), thus his use of this figure constitutes continuity with "the angel of the Lord" in Hebrew Bible narrative... this is not the "assumption" you label it as, but a concrete argument based on shared terminology. You shoulder a burden of proof to demonstrate some means of differential that does not reduce to circularity in your argument...

I'm going to stop here since the rest of your post is about the content of speeches attributed to figures designated "the angel of the Lord" and before we explore any of that (ie. I'll come back to this as it is important), issues regarding terminology need to be dealt with... in summary of above: (1) lack of explicit equation between Jesus and "the angel of the Lord" anywhere in the biblical text constitutes a serious obstacle for your contention, and (2) from a terminological standpoint, there is no means of differentiating "the angel of the Lord" in Israel's sacred writings from the "the angel of the Lord" who functions in New Testament narrative --- this constitutes another serious obstacle for your contention.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
"The angel of YHWH" is a title used by whichever messenger among many is presently speaking on behalf of the deity... indeed, this seems to be the understanding of the Greek translators of Israel's sacred writings, who felt free to deviate from the strict definite form of the clause --- sometimes adhering to and sometimes deviating from your grammatical argument above --- by making it anarthrous in the target language at times, simply "an angel of the Lord". I've already pointed out Exod 3:2 as an example of this, but there are many others I'll provide in an addendum to this post later today or tomorrow...
Here is the promised addendum exploring more examples of anarthrous "angels of the Lord" --- these are by no means exhaustive:

Now an angel of the Lord God found her at the spring of water in the wilderness... (Gen 16:7a)
Note that *the angel of the Lord throughout 16:8-11 is in conformity with the initial "an" and subsequent "the" pattern you suggest.

And an angel of {the} Lord called {to} him out of the sky... (Gen 22:11a)
And an angel of {the} Lord called {to} Abraham a second time out of the sky... (Gen 22:15)
Here the aforementioned pattern is not adhered to, resulting in the oddity of perhaps a second angel... arguably, however, it should be translated "{the} angel of {the} Lord" both times, understanding the translator of this section of text as deploying αγγελος κυριου as a stereotype for מלאך יהוה, a slavish adherence to the two-term Hebrew parent text resulting in an awkward Greek text.

And an angel of {the} Lord went up from Galgal to Weeping and to Baithel and to the house of Israel... (Judg 2:1a)
Note that *the angel of the Lord in 2:4 is in conformity with the initial "an" and subsequent "the" pattern you suggest.

"Curse Maroz," said an angel of {the} Lord... (Judg 5:23a)
This is the reading of the text tradition designated B in Rahlfs... the reading of text tradition A is "said the angel of {the} Lord" --- the relationship of these text traditions to the Old Greek is complicated and arguments could be marshalled for the priority of A with B then representing a stereotyped revision or the priority of B with A then representing a grammatical revision. With most scholars, I understand A as closer in most places to the Old Greek and I'll be making a case for this later in the thread when we get to the content of the angel's words in Judges 2, which read quite differently in the two text traditions.

And an angel of {the} Lord came and sat under the oak, which was at Ephratha... (Judg 6:11a)
This is again the reading of the B text tradition where *the angel of the Lord in 6:12, 20-21 is in conformity with the initial "an" and subsequent "the" pattern you suggest, but with verse 22 reading as follows:
And Gedeon saw that this was an angel of {the} Lord and Gedeon said, "Ah, ah, my Lord, Lord! For I have seen an angel of {the} Lord face to face."
The A text tradition is an intriguing mix of stereotypes (6:11-12) and definite phrases (6:20-21) culminating in this same alternating pattern within the same verse:
And Gedeon saw that it was an angel of {the} Lord and Gedeon said, "Ah, ah, Lord, Lord! For I have seen the angel of {the} Lord face to face." (Judg 6:22)

And an angel of {the} Lord appeared to the woman... (Judg 13:3a)
Note that *the angel of the Lord in 13:13,15,16a,17,18,20,21a is in conformity with the initial "an" and subsequent "the" pattern you suggest with the exception of two verses thematically linked:
For Manoe did not know that it was an angel of {the} Lord (Judg 13:16b)
Then Manoe knew that it was an angel of {the} Lord (Judg 13:21b)
The A and B texts both read the same with respect to either the definite or indefinite rendering of the underlying Hebrew throughout this chapter of Judges.

And an angel of {the} Lord spoke to Elijah... (4 Rgns 1:3 = 2 Kgs 1:3)
And an angel of {the} Lord spoke to Elijah... (4 Rgns 1:15 = 2 Kgs 1:15)
Given the deviation from the pattern above in the second passage, the case could be made that in these Kaige sections of Reigns the anarthrous forms constitute stereotypes and ought to be rendered "{the} angel of {the} Lord" in both cases... also possibly for the following later in the book:
And an angel of {the} Lord went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians... (4 Rgns 19:35 = 2 Kgs 19:35)

and an angel of {the} Lord destroying in all Israel's inheritance (1 Suppl 21:12 = 1 Chr 21:12)
This is the punishment that David chooses in the story and when narrated in the Greek (as well as in Hebrew), there is reference to God sending "an angel" and later to "the destroying angel" (21:15a), later still to the Israelite deity ordering "the angel" to sheath his sword (21:27) --- the rest of the story is punctuated by references to this agent of YHWH's destruction as "the angel of {the} Lord" (21:15b,16) mixed with stereotypes (ie. "{the} angel of {the}Lord"; 21:18,30).

This is a sampling from narrative sections in the Torah and Former Prophets to see the complexities of translation involving "the angel of the Lord" that the early Greek-speaking Christians inherited in translations of Israel's sacred writings... the pattern found in Matthew 1 was also found in places such as Genesis 16 and Judges 2 alongside stereotypes in Genesis 22 and mixtures of translation techniques in 1 Supplements 21, a post-exilic text that stressed the distinction between the Israelite deity and his destroying angel. Any argument based on a meaningful distinction between articulated and anarthrous phrases involving "angel of the Lord" will run into plenty of difficulties based on the above analysis...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
Jesus is fully man and fully God.

Man can not be an angel.

Angel is a spirit. Man is a soul.

The Angel of Jehovah no longer appears after the incarnation.

The Angel of Jehovah was God the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself in bodily form as an angel.

Just as Jesus is fully God and fully man = Deity + Soul (as a human soul).

Likewise: The Angel of Jehovah was fully God and fully spirit like an angel. Deity + Spirit (as an angel's spirit).

Jesus is humanity. Humanity can not be an angel.

Holy Spirit as Deity manifested in angelic bodily form = The Angel of Jehovah. Fully God fully angel.

Is not the Holy Spirit God?

The Son of God is soul and Deity in union.

Like Christ, the Holy Spirit is two natures in union. An angel's spirit and God in union.

grace and peace ............
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
What?!

That's a new one for me.
It was for me, too. Took me a while to think with the facts and to stabilize.

I had some fear and trepidation when posting that.

Fact #1 - Humanity can not be an angel. Angels are spirits. Humanity is a soul.

The Angel of Jehovah (who is called God) can not be humanity.

The Holy Spirit = Deity and spirit. The same kind of spirit as an angel's. Just like the Lord's soul is just like a soul of a man.


Take your time. Ask questions!

grace and peace.......
 

jamesh

Well-known member
Jesus is fully man and fully God.

Man can not be an angel.

Angel is a spirit. Man is a soul.

The Angel of Jehovah no longer appears after the incarnation.

The Angel of Jehovah was God the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself in bodily form as an angel.

Just as Jesus is fully God and fully man = Deity + Soul (as a human soul).

Likewise: The Angel of Jehovah was fully God and fully spirit like an angel. Deity + Spirit (as an angel's spirit).

Jesus is humanity. Humanity can not be an angel.

Holy Spirit as Deity manifested in angelic bodily form = The Angel of Jehovah. Fully God fully angel.

Is not the Holy Spirit God?

The Son of God is soul and Deity in union.

Like Christ, the Holy Spirit is two natures in union. An angel's spirit and God in union.

grace and peace ............
Thanks for your answer but your misunderstanding the issue here. First of all, your right, Jesus is fully God and fully man, "WHEN" He fully incarnated. Read John 1:14 or Hebrews 1:1-3. The Hebrews word for angel is "malak." The word means "messenger" and depending on the context of how it is used it can refer to an actual angel or a human being.

In one of my post I brought up Malachi 3:1, "Behold, I am going to send My "malak/angel/messenger" and he will clear the way before Me." The person who will prepare the way of the Lord is John the Baptist who is not an angel but a human being. Read Mark 1.

The person from Malachi 3:1 who will come to His temple is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is also the "messenger of the covenant." It is true that actual angels are spiritual beings but it does not preclude God having them take the form of a man, which happened at Genesis 18. In like manner, God can take the form of a man as well, which He did in the Old Testament as the messenger of the Lord in many places.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
Thanks for your answer but your misunderstanding the issue here. First of all, your right, Jesus is fully God and fully man, "WHEN" He fully incarnated.

He has always been fully Soul and Deity! Not only at the Incarnation. His soul was always existing before Abraham was being.

The following passages speak of the Lord God of Israel!

Two natures in union, even before indwelling a human body. Two natures of the Son of God.


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

There was have the Lord Jehovah of Israel being two natures in union. No body yet. Deity and Soul IN UNION!

Read them again, please. Two natures!

The Incarnation simply had the Soul of Jehovah enter the body provided through Mary. He made Himself become as a man by denying Himself of his right to be as God. (Philippians 2:6-8)

Jesus made it clear.

God is not soul. God is spirit in essence! Not soul!

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father
in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit,
and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
John 4:23-24


If this is going to be understood?

We need to shake the dust off of what had been covering for it while it was not yet being properly understood.

Questions welcome. Negativity, not.

grace and peace ........
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
The person from Malachi 3:1 who will come to His temple is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is also the "messenger of the covenant." It is true that actual angels are spiritual beings but it does not preclude God having them take the form of a man, which happened at Genesis 18. In like manner, God can take the form of a man as well, which He did in the Old Testament as the messenger of the Lord in many places.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
Angels can look like a man.

But, if we read the fullness of Genesis 18 we will discover that two who appeared to be men turned out to be the angels that went to rescue Lot in Sodom. And, we see Abraham standing before the third "man" who turned out to be the Lord Jehovah.

Keep in mind. The Holy Spirit is just as much God, as the Son is God. We tend to relegate the Holy Spirit to being less than the Son and Father. Its not the case.

Once the Son was RESURRECTED AND GLORIFIED...Then the Son is to have preeminence (in our thinking) over all creation.

Before then? The Angel of Jehovah was how God often appeared many times in the OT.

Jesus told men:
"To see me is to see the Father."

The Angel of Jehovah used to tell angels:
"To see men is to see the Father."


grace and peace .........
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The Angel of Jehovah no longer appears after the incarnation.
According to New Testament narrative, an "angel of the Lord" (or an "angel of God") was visiting Joseph in his dreams both when Jesus was in Mary's womb (Matt 1:20) and when he was an infant/young child (Matt 2:13,19; cf. Luke 2:9), as well as being active among the early followers of Jesus (Acts 5:19; 8:26; 10:3; 12:7; 27:23).

The Angel of Jehovah was God the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself in bodily form as an angel.
No, but thanks for reinforcing my point concerning inference... when things are left to this, there are no controls and people will invariably infer just about anyone or anything depending on their own interpretive whims.

Are there any other contenders out there for the job of "angel of the Lord" beside Jesus and the Holy Spirit? :rolleyes:

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
According to New Testament narrative, an "angel of the Lord" (or an "angel of God") was visiting Joseph in his dreams both when Jesus was in Mary's womb (Matt 1:20) and when he was an infant/young child (Matt 2:13,19; cf. Luke 2:9), as well as being active among the early followers of Jesus (Acts 5:19; 8:26; 10:3; 12:7; 27:23).

That was yet before the Incarnation. The body was not yet born...
 
Top