I understand what you are saying but I respectfully disagree.
I would understand "gave up that angelic image" as a reference to simply no longer manifesting in that form but rather in another (ie. the "human image"). Aside from being purely speculative, the "angelic" and "human" images are indistinguishable to observers in Hebrew Bible narrative... for example, the two angels who lead Lot and his daughters out of Sodom are thought to be men by both the mob (Gen 19:5) and Lot (19:8), as well as referred to by the narrator as men (Gen 19:10,12,16). They also have corporeal form like humans, able to seize Lot's family and lead them out of the city by hand (19:16) and earlier they ate what Abraham's wife and servant prepared for them (18:8) --- the author of the article even slips up and refers to the third guest at that meal as "YHWH appear[ing] to Abraham ... in the form of a human being." He repeats this self-contradictory claim several times in the article so if he is (now?) trying to differentiate them or split hairs between "form" and "image", he would need to rewrite it and add sections to justify all this.
While I can appreciate you've made no overt attempt to differentiate, such seems to be embedded even in your comments above... you refer to YHWH having "the angel of the LORD as a temporary manifestation in the OT until the Son of God was born" --- would you be comfortable substituting that YHWH appeared as "an angel of the LORD" in your sentence and, turning attention to the New Testament, that "the angel of the LORD" appeared to Joseph in dreams and likewise that "the angel of the LORD" appeared to shepherds, both following the birth of Jesus? If so, fair enough, we can forgo any further discussion revolving around the an/the differential. If not, why not?
Based on a thorough analysis of the narratives in which angels speak and act on behalf of the Israelite deity, which we will explore all in good time.
I don't suspect you're going to (Sunday) school me in this thread, but you are certainly welcome to try!
I look forward to your response... feel free to take your time, I'm in no rush.
.... Your opinion reigns...
The human image of God, Jesus, is eternal now. The angelic image no longer exists as far as I can tell. Unless God used the angelic form as a temporary manifestation and not an incarnation as a angel. I suppose it is simpler to understand the OT angel of the Lord as an angel from the Lord who had authority to speak in his name.
The angels that visited Joseph in dreams and appeared to the shepherds did not speak to them as YHWH in the first person. They sounded like they were angels delivering messages to them.
I'm not sure about that...
Indeed... no hermeneutical contortions necessary.
Um, no... he claimed "the angel was YHWH's visible form" and "[t]he angel of YHWH must be YHWH Himself in a human-like form." If he has now gone on to differentiate human and angel forms/images, my latest criticism stands along with my previous ones.
In other words, the evidence points in different directions... you seem to have either (1) a deity with a penchant for sometimes talking about himself in the third person or (2) a subordinate who sometimes delivers his master's script as it was dictated to him while acknowledging from time to time he is only the messenger, which is literally what the Hebrew מלאך (mal'ach) means. There is, of course, the third option that the rhetoric of (2) or less likely (1) is at the level of the various authors of these texts rather than verbal reminisces of the characters therein.
Such is your prerogative, though failure to answer my question is duly noted.
You are denying the truth and taking pleasure in the influence you hold over some. Enjoy your vanity while you can.
Not in human like form. In angelic form.
The מלאך of this text is a (human) prophet, not an angel:
While I can appreciate the comparisons drawn, caution is warranted since different authors can draw on similar language to say different things... within the context of Malachi, the messenger is a human priestly figure, an interpretation supported by early Christian exegesis as it appears in the New Testament gospels, Luke for the example I provided.
I understand the messenger of 1a and the messenger of 1b to be 2 different messengers. Messenger 1a = John the Baptist (Matt 3:1-3) who is preparing the way for Messenger 1b, Jesus Christ, who is bringing in the new covenant in his own blood. Heb 10:29
Malachi is a double fulfillment prophecy.
It's the same Messiah in the first and second prophecy, correct? Just different messengers.? Who do you think is the messenger of the covenant?
You are not alone in understanding the second messenger to be a reference to Jesus (or, minus the specifically Christian lens, to the Lord who comes to his temple), but it does infer an author whose end result is at best confusing and at worst misleading... it is far more natural to take the two references to a "messenger" as the same individual, who is contextually a Levite priest:
The same Messiah. But, with two different purposes to fulfill. Two different messengers to herald each arrival.
John the baptist prepared the way before the LORD's arrival, even the arrival of Jesus Christ and not a renewal of the Mosaic covenant. Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi. The context you are using in Malachi 2:4-8 only applies to the Mosaic covenant and does not apply to the new covenant that Lord Jesus purchased with his own blood. Therefore Jesus is messenger #2, imo.