["AJ" is in italics.]
“John 5:37 & John 6:46 make it clear that the only logical person in the trinity who could have been the Angel of the Lord is the Son. No man has seen the Father and the Scriptures never speak of the Holy Spirit being incarnated. 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15 go on to state that Christ is the image of the invisible God. While the Father and the Holy Spirit are not seen, Christ is the expressed image of God meant to be seen. No, these verses do not rule out angel(s) but they do rule out the Father and the Holy Spirit as being the Angel of the Lord.”
I think with your first paragraph, you are starting to show why it is a good idea to consult the Fathers, because you are starting to make some theological missteps.
First, it is not necessarily the case that the Holy Spirit has never been “incarnated.” In the Baptism of the Jordan, the Holy Spirit descends upon Christ in the form of a dove. (Luke 3:22). That is certainly one time when the Holy Spirit took a visible form. Moreover, according to Aquinas, that was not a mere “vision”; rather, the Holy Spirit was embodied in the form of a dove.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 5, Article 1), it was unbecoming that the Son of God, who is the Truth of the Father, should make use of anything unreal; wherefore He took, not an imaginary, but a real body. And since the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Truth, as appears from John 16:13, therefore He too made a real dove in which to appear, though He did not assume it into unity of person. Wherefore, after the words quoted above, Augustine adds: "Just as it behooved the Son of God not to deceive men, so it behooved the Holy Ghost not to deceive. But it was easy for Almighty God, who created all creatures out of nothing, to frame the body of a real dove without the help of other doves, just as it was easy for Him to form a true body in Mary's womb without the seed of a man: since the corporeal creature obeys its Lord's command and will, both in the mother's womb in forming a man, and in the world itself in forming a dove."
And you should admit that that is a pretty surprising – and pretty cool – position to take. I know I was surprised by the bravado of this statement when I first read it. I believe that this position is intended to be anti-gnostic; namely, if the Holy Spirit was embodied in the form of a dove, how much stronger is the Christian claim that Christ was really incarnated.
Perhaps reasonable minds can differ on this point, but it’s going to be hard for you to argue for the idea that there is no dispute as to whether the Holy Spirit was ever embodied
Second, and I think more important, is that your argument devalues the Incarnation. Until the Incarnation, Jesus was never “incarnated.” If he was embodied or corporeal, that would seem to detract from the uniqueness of the Incarnation in salvation history in some, perhaps minor, way. A fortiori, according to your argument, the Holy Spirit was not embodied prior to the Incarnation.
Now, perhaps you can distinguish these prior “embodiments” from the Incarnation, but once you start down that road, you are beginning to whittle away at the most important of Christian doctrines, namely the Incarnation. We can see this in the fact that you describe the Old Testament epiphanies as “incarnations,” which shows that there is a tendency to confuse them with the Incarnation, and that can only detract from the exalted status of the Incarnation.
Third, you say that no man has seen the Father, which is absolutely true. No one, for that matter, has ever seen the Holy Spirit or the Son in their divine nature, because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all spiritual beings and human beingscannot see spiritual beings with our natural senses. Our eyes are able to perceive only corporeal reality; not spiritual essences. For us to see the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit with our eyes would require that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit take on a material form. However, what we would be seeing would not be the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit, but a form which is NOT the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit because such material form – such as the dove – has parts and is changeable. Here is Augustine describing the issue:
It has been established by all rational probability as far as man—or rather as far as I—can work it out, and by firm authority as far as the divine words of scripture have declared it, that whenever God was said to appear to our ancestors before our savior’s incarnation, the voices heard and the physical manifestation seen were the work of angels. They either spoke and did things themselves, representing God’s person, just as we have shown that the prophets used to do, or they took created materials distinct from themselves and used them to present us with symbolic representations of God; and this too is a kind of communication which the prophets made use of, as many cases in scripture show. But now, when the Lord was born of the virgin, and when the Holy Spirit came down in bodily form like a dove, or in visible fiery tongues and a sound from heaven on the day of Pentecost after the Lord’s ascension, what appeared to the bodily senses of mortals was not the very substance of the Word of God in which he is equal to the Father and co-eternal, nor the very substance of the Spirit of the Father and the Son in which he is co-equal and co-eternal with them both, but something created which could be formed and come into being in those ways. So it remains for us to see what the difference is between those Old Testament demonstrations and these proper manifestations of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, even though these too were achieved through the visible creation.
Saint Augustine of Hippo; John E. Rotelle; Edmund Hill (2011-01-23). The Trinity (The Works of Saint Augustine) (p. 146). New City Press. Kindle Edition.
Here is what Augustine has to say about the appearance of God to Moses on Mt. Sinai, when God showed Moses his “back”:
However all this may be, some such interpretation of the story about Moses is required;57 for we must not allow ourselves to be so befogged by literal-minded materialism that we imagine the Lord’s face to be invisible and his back visible. Both of course were visible in the form of a servant; in the form of God—away with the possibility of such thoughts! Away with the idea that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God has a face on one side and a back on the other, like the human body, or that it undergoes any local movement or periodic change in appearance whatever!
Saint Augustine of Hippo; John E. Rotelle; Edmund Hill (2011-01-23). The Trinity (The Works of Saint Augustine) (pp. 123-124). New City Press. Kindle Edition.
This underscores a fundamental theological issue. For orthodox Christians – unlike Mormons – God is not embodied. God is a spirit. When people saw the epiphanies they were not seeing God; they were seeing a created being used by God.
If we start confusing that, we find ourselves heading, perhaps, in the direction of Mormonism. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that apart from the fact that we aren’t Mormons.)
I contend that Galatians 4:4 does not rule out OT christophanies. Colossians 1:16-17 makes it clear that Christ did have an active role in the world before being incarnated in the flesh. I would say that He was sent in the flesh at the fullness of time, which I believe is what Galatians 4:4 is getting at when stating that He was “made of a woman”, and not that it was his first appearance in the world.
Your interpretation is not implausible, but here is the counter:
How then before the fullness of time (Gal 4:4), which was the right time for him to be sent, how could he be seen by the fathers before he was sent, when various angelic demonstrations were shown them, especially considering that he could not even be seen, as he is in his equality with the Father, even after he had been sent? Why, otherwise, should he say to Philip, who of course saw him in the flesh just as those who crucified him did, Am I with you all this time and you do not know me? Philip, whoever has seen me has seen the Father (Jn 14:9).84 Does this not mean that he both could and could not be seen? He could be seen as made and sent; he could not be seen as the one through whom all things were made (Jn 1:3). Or what about his saying, He that has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me; and whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I shall love him and shall manifest myself to him (Jn 14:21)? But there he was, manifest before their eyes; surely then it can only mean that he was offering the flesh which the Word had been made85 in the fullness of time86 as the object to receive our faith; but that the Word itself, through whom all things had been made (Jn 1:3), was being kept for the contemplation in eternity of minds now purified through faith.
Saint Augustine of Hippo; John E. Rotelle; Edmund Hill (2011-01-23). The Trinity (The Works of Saint Augustine) (p. 179). New City Press. Kindle Edition.
Here is the point – even after the Incarnation, there is a sense in which the Son is not totally present for his followers to see. That missing part would be his divine nature. So, the Son was “sent” to the same extent that he was “made of woman,” which implies that he was not sent before he was made of woman. (Let me point out that I think Augustine eventually decides that the term “sent” actually means “procession,” but I’m not unraveling that right now.)
Hence, no Christophanies.
I believe Justin Martyr addresses this well in his First Apology (Ch.63)
“Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, He that hears Me, hears Him that sent Me. Luke 10:16 From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, And the Angel of God spoke to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of your fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people. Exodus 3:6 And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, And the angel of God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe”
Further…. “ For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe in Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death.”
Justin Martyr rules out the Father as being He that spoke to Moses. He also states the Christ appeared in the likeness of an angel in the OT. Justin goes on to state that Christ appeared in various forms (fire, likeness of angels, and finally as a man). In essence, the form in which He appeared is irrelevant to the fact that He appeared physically in the OT as well as the NT.
Here is my difficulty with giving Justin Martyr a greater persuasive authority than Augustine. Justin wrote before the Council of Nicea, i.e., before the time that the consubstantial nature of the Son and the Father was defined as de fide for orthodox faith. Justin had a confused understanding of the relationship of the Father and the Son, and even went so far as to describe the Father and the Son as different “gods.” This doesn’t mean that Justin was a polytheist or heretic, but it does mean that he didn’t think through the issue of the relationship of the Father and the Son and what it meant for the equality of the persons to have the Father sending the Son as if the Son were inferior.
The point is that if you jump on Justin’s point of view, you may run the risk of gradually lapsing into Arianism, adoptionism, Mormonism or subordinationism.
Also, did Justin deal with the objections raised by Augustine? I don’t know, but knowing that would be important in trying to come to some conclusion vis a vis Justin and Augustine’s views.
“Proskynesis” is the Greek word for worship used in many of the verses involving the Angel of the Lord and worship in the LXX. The original Hebrew is Shachah.
#7812, Shachah (Strong’s definition)
bow self down, crouch, fall down flat, humbly beseech, do reverence, worship A primitive root; to depress, i.e. Prostrate (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God) -- bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.
"Shachah" is applied to the worship of God many times. Yes, “shachah” can also be applied in certain instances as making obeisance to person(s) other than God, but we still must answer the question of why the Angel of the Lord accepted worship. I would say that Judges 13 is an example of this.
Manoah assumed the Angel of the Lord was a man in Judges 13:16 (based on Judges 13:8-15). The Angel of the LORD equivocates in the same verse (Jesus makes a similar type of equivocation in Matthew 19:17). Later we see the Angel of the Lord ascending in the flame of the alter and then Manoah (and wife) falling on his face to the ground (Judges 13:20). Manoah then states that it was the Lord who accepted the offering (Judges 13:23). Fire is symbolic of the presence of God in many instances (example: Exodus 40:38). The fact that the Angel of the Lord ascended in this flame leads me to believe that He was accepting the offering and thus accepting worship.
Again, it depends on what we mean by “worship.” In various languages, “worship” covers both worship of the divine and humbling oneself before a social superior. Think of how some English judges are called “Your Worship” or how different cultures have people kneel or genuflect in the presence of royalty.
We also have the example of Lot “worshipping” what are clearly angels. If we say that Lot is showing deep reverence in that case, then it is inconsistent to say that Manoah and his wife were not showing a similar reverence to an angel in their case.
I also think it is significant that the angel tells them his name is “wonderful” or “abundant.” Is that a name of God? I don’t think so.
Also, I notice that it is Manue who says that they have seen God. The fact that Manue says it doesn’t make him inerrant. In fact, we know he is in error because he says that he and his wife will surely die, and she sensibly points out that that is not likely. She’s right; he’s not.
Various arguable OT epiphanies do involve fire – the burning bush, the pillar of fire – but this is getting the cart before the horse. It isn’t clear that those epiphanies definitely involve the appearance of God, rather than an angel. So, arguing from fire to God is begging the question.
Angels, however, do not accept worship. I base this assertion on Revelation 19:10 and Revelation 22:8-9.
Let’s look at Revelations 22:8-9
And I, John, who have heard and seen these things. And after I had heard and seen, I fell down to adore before the feet of the angel, who shewed me these things. ap.22.9 And he said to me: See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the words of the prophecy of this book. Adore God.
God-inspired (2010-01-10). Kindle Catholic Bible (D-R) (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 50006-50008). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.
And Revelations 19:10:
And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
God-inspired (2010-01-10). Kindle Catholic Bible (D-R) (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 49912-49913). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.
I think that the significance in these passages is that the angels are telling John not to show “proskynesis” because he is their equal because he is a fellow servant of God through being baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ. The useful comparison is with the example of Lot in Genesis where the angels permit Lot to “worship” them. Here is Augustine on that passage:
22. There is the point, though, that Lot would not have worshiped with his face to the ground if he had not recognized them as angels of God. So why does he offer them board and lodging as though they were in need of such human treatment?
Saint Augustine of Hippo; John E. Rotelle; Edmund Hill (2011-01-23). The Trinity (The Works of Saint Augustine) (p. 116). New City Press. Kindle Edition.
Again, “worship” meaning showing the appropriate respect for a superior. Angels are ordinarily superior to men – they see God face to face, they are spiritual, they are of awesome power, etc. So, the significance of the John’s action is not that he starts to “worship” them – i.e., engage in proskynesis – but that the angel tells him that John is now an equal to the angel in Christ.
That, of course, is entirely consistent with the meaning of the Incarnation which redeemed the human body, will and soul.
On the whole, I think I find Augustine’s perspective more fitting because it exalts the importance and uniqueness of the Incarnation, which is the core Christian doctrine, and is more consistent with other Christian teachings, such as the spiritual nature of God. Augustine’s teachings are also consistent with scriptural passages, which are clearly ambiguous.
That is not to say that these "theophanies" were not Christophanies – that is within the permissible range of opinion – but if I had to choose, I think I’d go with Augustine’s opinion.
Posts
