...because somebody notices something in the Bible, gets excited and runs away with a brand new doctrine, entirely innocent of the fact that their discovery has been considered "no big deal" for 2,000 years.
A case in point from Facebook -
I have been studying the old testament and I believe I have come to the conclusion that "The Angel of the Lord" is the third person in the trinity (pre-incarnated Jesus).Various responses:
"The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give your forfathers. I said, 'I willo never break my covenant with you." Judges 2:1
The interesting thing here is that he speaks in the FIRST PERSON.
You see similar strange incidences in Genesis 16:7,9-11; 13; Genesis 31:11,13 and Exodus 3:2-6
What are your thoughts? Is this just an 'Angel' of the Lord or is it a person in the tTtrinity?
"Angels are messengers and agents of the divine will, so you could say it was both."My response:
"my seminary president, Dr. Paige Patterson held this view. He believed the Angel of the LORD was a christophany theophany because Melchazisldek in the OT and in the Book of Hebrews."
"I believe that the Angel of the Lord was/is Jesus too. I was actually getting ready to write a series about this on my blog. I can send you a link once I have some of these articles up."
"The Arians/Unitarians try to claim that all of these theophanies are just "office of agency", perhaps some are but others are clearly not that."
"I think those were Christophanies, but you can't prove it."
"It would be a mistake to imagine that "the angel of the Lord" has to be "an angel," exactly. The word is "malach," a form of the same word used to designate a king. Hebrew does not have a rich vocabulary. The same word would refer to anything that's powerful and other-worldly -- a demon, and angel, a space alien, God Himself, or whatever. I think if the Lord appeared in any form, the Hebrews would have used "angel" to describe Him."
"*Sigh*
This is why you guys need to get away from "private interpretation."
Seriously, your discovery has been known for about 2,000 years, and thre has been an explanation during that time. Read Book 2 of St. Augustine's "On the Trinity" and note that St. Augustine recognizes that "angels of the Lord" speak as God:
"23. But when Moses was sent to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, it is written that the Lord appeared to him thus: Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the back side of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is here also first called the Angel of the Lord, and then God. Was an angel, then, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?"
In Book 3, Augustine explains the quandary of an angel speaking in the first person as God (in the case of the burning bush to Moses) as follows:
23. But some one may say, Why then is it written, The Lord said to Moses; and not, rather, The angel said to Moses? Because, when the crier proclaims the words of the judge, it is not usually written in the record, so and so the crier said, but so and so the judge. In like manner also, when the holy prophet speaks, although we say, The prophet said, we mean nothing else to be understood than that the Lord said; and if we were to say, The Lord said, we should not put the prophet aside, but only intimate who spoke by him. And, indeed, these Scriptures often reveal the angel to be the Lord, of whose speaking it is from time to time said, the Lord said, as we have shown already. But on account of those who, since the Scripture in that place specifies an angel, will have the Son of God Himself and in Himself to be understood, because He is called an angel by the prophet, as announcing the will of His Father and of Himself; I have therefore thought fit to produce a plainer testimony from this epistle, where it is not said by an angel, but by angels.I was honestly surprised to find that the so-called "theophany" of the Moses and burning bush involved an angel. St. Augustine actually suggests - tentatively - that all theophanies prior to Christ's incarnation - involved angelic appearances.
So, no reason to redefine the Trinity."
Posts
15 comments:
I can agree with this statement:
"...because somebody notices something in the Bible, gets excited and runs away with a brand new doctrine, entirely innocent of the fact that their discovery has been considered "no big deal" for 2,000 years."
But as far as the Angel of the Lord... I guess St.Augustine is the ultimate authority on the interpretation of scripture? Hmmmm.
It is not irrational to believe that the Angel of the Lord was indeed the pre-incarnate Christ. Many of the early Church Fathers held that the Angel of the Lord was indeed the Son of God Himself.
To name just one, Irenaeus (a pre-nicene church father who predated Augustine!)states:
"the Son of God is implanted everywhere throughout his writings: at one time, indeed, speaking with Abraham, when about to eat with him; at another time with Noah, giving to him the dimensions [of the ark]; at another; inquiring after Adam; at another, bringing down judgment upon the Sodomites; and again, when He becomes visible, and directs Jacob on his journey, and speaks with Moses from the bush. Exodus 3:4, etc. And it would be endless to recount [the occasions] upon which the Son of God is shown forth by Moses."(Against Heresies Book IV Ch.10)
That's some private interpretation huh? I suggest doing more research into "theophanies" before you write them off. In no way does holding them to be true "redefine the trinity"; in fact it does the opposite, it strengthens the definition of the trinity.
A Jehovah's Witness would be more that ecstatic with your "private interpretation" of angel(s)in place of the Angel of the Lord. Just something to think about...
Interesting blog. I can't say I agree with everything, but I can see where you are coming from.
God Bless
So, as long as we are burning straw men today, are you saying we should ignore Augustine?
Note, that I pointed out that Augustine's position was "soft." Augustine was not being didactic about his suggestion that the theophanies we usually think of - e.g., the burning bush - were actually non-divine messengers. Nonetheless, Augustine is not without some textual justification for his position since the text does say "angel."
I'm sure that Irenaeus suggests that these events were not just Theophanies, but Christophanies. However, as Augustine points out, even if one takes the theophany suggestion seriously, it isn't clear which person of the Trinity made the appearance, or, for that matter, if it was not all three. Irenaeus may be right, but if he is right, he is not right because the text compels the conclusion he affirms.
A further point is that Irenaeus predates Augustine, but he predates Arius also. Arianism sharpened up the issue of whether the Son was inferior to the Father. Nicene Christianity had defined the persons of the Trinity as being equal in power, dignity and substance. Prior to the Council of Nicea - substantially prior to Nicea, such as during Irenaeus' time - there could be confusion about whether the Son was inferior to the Father, but after Nicea, this was not a licit option.
Postulating the Old Testament epiphanies as Christophanies implicates the problem of Arianism because it seems to suggest that the Son is sent by the Father. That implies that the Son is inferior to the Father. That conclusion simply will not do if we want to avoid reducing Christ to a demi-god or "greatest creature" status as we see in Arianism and Mormonism.
Ultimately, I have an open mind about these issues, although I'm willing to give Augustine's view some weight because he has anticipated (or actually dealt with a live issue) a problem that I didn't see.
What I have contempt for is people whose total contribution on the subject is something like "I really believe that those epiphanies were Christ."
Mmmm...ok...and why?
The "why" is usually "because it makes me feel good" or "it would be really cool."
That kind of thing is the problem.
So, how am I doing? How much more "research" would you suggest I do before you will permit me to offer my view on the subject without denigrating me as obviously ignorant?
I mean, jeepers, if I've read "On the Trinity," wouldn't you suspect that I've read other texts on the subject?
Yes, we should look at what Augustine has to say but not assume that he is the only Bible scholar with a view point. You give very little reasoning for giving more weight to what Augustine has to say other than "he anticipated a problem [you] didn't see". Wow! Really? That's eating a big piece of humble pie.
Showing "contempt" for someones viewpoint is uncalled for, especially when their view point can be arrived at rationally upon studying the scriptures. How does beliving in OT theophanies/christophanies make anyone feel good? Are you sure you truly have an open mind? It seems that anyone who holds a different viewpoint than you is suddenly "inferior" and you deduce them to being a person led by purely emotional reasoning.
John 5:37 and John 6:46 make it clear that no man has seen the Father at anytime. It is more than obvious which person in the trinity could be the Angel of the Lord in the OT. It could have only been the Son.
It seems that you are caught up on the word "Angel". You seem to believe the title "Angel of the Lord" given to the Son assumes that the Son is "inferior" to the Father (Arianism). The Council of Nicaea reduced confusion over this matter. Its intent was not to define or even redefine the trinity. Why? Because the correct view of the trinity had already been held by the church before 325AD. This is more than evident when looking into the apologies and writings of the pre-nicene church fathers.
It is completely possible for persons in the OT to have at first believed they had seen an angel calling him the "Angel of the Lord" when they truly saw the Son of God. An example of this is in Judges 13. Judges 13:21-22 states "But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God." Tell me, did Manoah have two conflicting revelations in the same exact instance?
"Arianism sharpened up the issue of whether the Son was inferior to the Father."
Really? Do heresies "sharpen up" any doctrinal issue? Or do they bring more confusion? What was the point of the council of nicaea again?
I'm not trying to "denigrating [you] as obviously ignorant". On the contrary, this is what you have done to people who hold a different view point than you. No, I don't believe anyone that is honestly looking into the Word of God is ignorant.
AJ,
What you've just done is a classic bit of sophistic argument strategy called "changing the argument."
The issue originally was St. Augustine's view of epiphanies in the Old Testament. I pointed out that the issue is not closed and that there were reasons offered by Augustine for believing that the OT epiphanies were not epiphanies.
Your response was (a) to assert a strawman claim that I was holding Augustine up as the only authority, (b) to assert that I had not factored in Irenaeus and (b) to suggest that I needed to research more before I could "write off" epiphanies.
My response was to tell you (a) I was not holding up Augustine as the only authority, but rather that he shouldn't be written off as an authority, (b) to explain that Irenaeus views may not be as authoritative as Augustine in light of his situation before the Arian controversy, and (c) to challenge your implicit claim that I was not well-read.
Your last response consists of a major shift from a discussion of Augustine to an intricate analysis of my personality. You assert by passive-aggression that I am narrow-minded, that I view people who disagree with as being "inferior" and led by emotional arguments. You also assert that I believe that the title "angel of the lord" denotes an inferior position on the part of the Son and that of the Father. You then question the role of heresies in sharpening up doctrine.
Dealing with the issues you raise in the order you raise them -
First, I never raised Augustine as the only authority. That is a straw man argument. It is a bad argument, and it would have been equally as bad if I had accused you of claiming that Irenaeus was the only authority. I - unlike you - know you made no such claim, and I would appreciate you showing me the same courtesy.
If you don't understand my point here, I would be happy to unpack it for you.
Second, your claim that I view people who disagree with me as "inferior" is a strawman. You can't point to anything that says any such thing.
I do think that people who make bad arguments are people who make arguments that are inferior to my arguments. I think that people who make statements without support - or statements that amount to an assertion of that they think - or who make strawman arguments - make bad arguments.
Third, I am not the person who said that doctrines that assert that the Son was sent threaten to make the Son inferior to the Father. I was citing St. Augustine, who - believe it or not - was dealing with people - Arians - who were making that very argument!
continued...
So, to be clear, I didn't say it. St. Augustine didn't say it. Arians said it.
Your ascribing this position to me is yet another strawman argument, and one which prevents your from addressing my real argument, which was that Irenaeus' position had to be rethought after the Arian controversy.
Now, Irenaeus may be right, and he may be wrong, but that's just the conundrum that Christianity faces when it has three persons and one God.
Fourth, obviously the formulation of heresy sharpens Christian doctrine by forcing Christianity to explore its beliefs in order to be able to articulate why some heresy is wrong. You can and should read Robert Louis Wilkens “The Spirit of Early Christian Thought” or Alister McGrath’s “Heresy” on this point. The claim that heresy hasn’t caused orthodoxy to sharpen its definitions is belied by the Arian controversy and the first four ecumenical councils.
Fifth, and finally, yes, people sincerely looking into the word of God can be ignorant. That’s only to be expected. Everyone is ignorant before they learn. Ignorance is 100% curable, but it is curable only be effort. A problem that we have in our culture is our peculiar belief that people are somehow naturally wise and knowledgeable and that if we just let them express themselves they would somehow express a natural wisdom. That’s nonsense and has led to one of the most ignorant generations in the history of the world – a generation that thinks it is knowledgeable but knows very little.
People need to be encouraged to interact with the geniuses who went before them because, quite frankly, the great bulk of people are not geniuses. That is not going to happen if every discussion degenerates into people quoting themselves as their highest authority.
Now, I understand that you think that what I have written is too harsh and too judgmental, and it is certainly the case that what I have written is completely antithetical to our cultural mores by which I should suggest that everyone’s views are equal to everyone else’s. But that more is wrong and it is causing us to raise sophomores with good self-esteem.
I would also challenge yourself to compare what you wrote with what I wrote. Although I have expressed myself in firm tones, I haven’t said anything about you – as opposed to your arguments. You, in contrast, have felt free to psychologically diagnose me repeatedly, even insinuating that I’m ignorant inasmuch as I need to “research more.” (Yet, when pushed on this point, you don't demonstrate where I'm ignorant; rather you resort to the tactic of decrying my "tone.")
"Your response was (a) to assert a strawman claim that I was holding Augustine up as the only authority, (b) to assert that I had not factored in Irenaeus and (b) to suggest that I needed to research more before I could "write off" epiphanies."
A. You obviously never quoted or even gave recognition to any other Bible scholar in your original post. You quoted Augustine in order to back up your view without giving any recognition to any scholarly dissenting opinion.
B. (same answer as A)
C. (same answer as A)
"My response was to tell you (a) I was not holding up Augustine as the only authority, but rather that he shouldn't be written off as an authority, (b) to explain that Irenaeus views may not be as authoritative as Augustine in light of his situation before the Arian controversy, and (c) to challenge your implicit claim that I was not well-read."
A. I never wrote him off as an authority. In fact I said we should look at what he has to say, but not assume that he is the end-all.
B. Irenaeus "may not be as authoritative" as Augustine? Please explain what you mean by Irenaeus' "situation before the Arian controversy".
C. Your own implicit claim was that those who hold that the Angel of the Lord is Jesus Christ are not well read themselves. You said "This is why you guys need to get away from "private interpretation."
Seriously, your discovery has been known for about 2,000 years, and thre has been an explanation during that time." This is obviously a passive aggressive attempt at discrediting dissenters by asserting that they are ignorant of what has been "known for 2,000 years". You are inditing me of something you've done yourself.
"Straw man" is a cute little phrase isn't it? It always seems to show up when one side in an argument gets a little to eager to shut the other side up.
You said and I quote "What I have contempt for is people whose total contribution on the subject is something like "I really believe that those epiphanies were Christ."
Contempt???!!! Contempt is defined as "The feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn" To hold some one in contempt is to believe they are inferior to yourself. I merely address your assertion, this isn't my argument.
"I do think that people who make bad arguments are people who make arguments that are inferior to my arguments. I think that people who make statements without support - or statements that amount to an assertion of that they think - or who make strawman arguments - make bad arguments."
Here you go again holding people in contempt/ inferior to yourself.
"Now, Irenaeus may be right, and he may be wrong, but that's just the conundrum that Christianity faces when it has three persons and one God."
Does this mean you are unsure of yourself?
No I don't think what you have written is either harsh or judgmental, rather its a reflection of the elevation you intend to give to your own opinion by insinuating that others are not knowledgeable of the past 2,000 years. As you stated "[your] discovery has been known for about 2,000 years". You then go to give me analysis of the current culture and generation. That's all well and good, but I thought we were talking about the Angel of the Lord/theophanies/christophanies? You accused me of throwing out "straw men" while all the while you threw out the biggest of them all. I never said that everyone's views were equal to anyone elses. I'm not the culture.
I believe that any heresy that causes people to fall away from sound doctrine is evil and doesn't "sharpen up" doctrine on the personal level. Looking in hindsight, yes heresies have caused the church to strengthen its stance on doctrinal issues but it has always been a detriment to those it has led away from the Truth.
I can't tell that you believe yourself to be above ignorance. As you say "you don't demonstrate where I'm ignorant". However, this was never my intent.
If we intend to continue our conversation I suggest that we leave behind accusing each other of holding others in contempt or to be inferior (after your rebuttal to this post of course). And perhaps we can try to refrain from changing the subject to the culture, the current generation, etc. I gave you an example from Judges 13 and verses from the book of John, you still haven't addressed them.
AJ,
Re citing only Augustine -
I cited only Augustine because he is the only person I know that has addressed the issue of angels speaking in the first person as God. If you know someone else who has addressed the issue, let me know, and then we’ll both know.
Here’s my problem with what you are doing. You have from the beginning attributed either ignorance or bad faith to me, when – as I have repeatedly established – I am not ignorant and I’m not acting in bad faith.
Then you go all passive-aggressive by accusing me of being arrogant, when, in fact, you somehow have appointed yourself as my judge with respect to my breadth of knowledge, tone and demeanor.
Does that not seem just a little bit hypocritical to you. Motes and beams, and all that.
Re Irenaeus and Augustine and the Arian controversy, I’ve already explained my thoughts on that. You can read it in this thread and respond to it. You haven’t yet, which suggests that you actually haven’t read what I wrote.
Re “private interpretation” –
Did you fail to notice the “irony tag” that follows the “private interpretation” quip?
The use of the word “seriously” is meant to imply that the prior statement was not meant “seriously.”
Re indicting people for ignorance –
Isn’t it interesting how we are dealing with the same issues today that were raised 1,600 years ago? Don’t you find that fascinating? I know I do. It’s almost as if there is nothing new under the sun…
Re Strawmen –
When you accuse me of saying something that I didn’t say in order to refute it, that’s a “straw man.” It is palpably clear that you did exactly that when I accused you of doing that. You don’t deny it, but you accuse me of simply trying to “shut you up.” Au contraire, I told you what you were doing so that you would stop doing it. It seems I may have been successful.
Re contempt –
Yup. If someone wants to be treated as an adult they ought to act like an adult. If they want to participate in an apologetics website, then they ought to be willing to make arguments, rather than simply defining their belief as being self-evidently true because it is their belief. If someone on an apologetics website makes a statement, they ought to be able to back up their position with something that looks like an appeal to reason or authority, otherwise they shouldn’t clutter up – and shut down – the conversation by telling us what they feel without telling us why they think it’s true.
Me, personally, I find that attitude arrogant and unproductive. So, yea, contempt is a good word for what I feel.
Oh, lookie-there, I actually supported what I said with an argument. Good me.
Re “Unsure of myself” –
No, actually, I’m not unsure of myself. I am absolutely sure that Christianity has an inherent tension built into it by having one God and three persons. What am unsure of is whether these theophanies were christophanies, something which I have repeatedly said.
And you know what? I’m ok with that uncertainty.
Re “my high opinion of myself”
Right, because the real issue has always been about my arrogance, and once I realize that I should accept your judgment of me as being arrogant and realize that you are obviously a better person than I am because you obviously have the moral authority to judge me, then all will be good.
Excuse me, but doesn’t this strike you as just a teensy bit of a “motes and beams” problem on your part.
I notice, for example, that I didn’t go to your blog and tell you that you had made a nice first try but you should spend more time researching before you dared to offer an opinion.
Some people – not I, lord knows – might call that a bit “arrogant.”
Re heresies –
Thank you for understanding my point. It should have been a non-controversial point, but I think that you are reacting emotionally to points that are not emotional.
Re accusations of arrogance –
By all means, stop accusing me of arrogance and ignorance. I have made no such charge about you. When I do – which will never happen – you can call me on it.
As for your Judge's point, I’ll get right on that on my next break.
Your rebuttal is well taken. I will make my response short and sweet then proceed with my argument.
RESPONSE
1. I never called you ignorant or arrogant. Please cite me if I did. I'm not attacking you personally.
2. You are using "straw man" accusations as an evasive tactic. You took elements from my critique of the assertions you made in your original post and attribute them the whole of my argument. In essence, you have created a straw man an are proceeding to knock it down while neglecting the real argument. Your use of "straw man" is nothing more than an ad hominem attack intended to halt discussion and make dissenting opinion look foolish.
3. As to my "reacting emotionally", this is the same trick you tried earlier. Attributing emotional reasoning dissenting opinion.
ARGUMENT
1. Many Bible scholars including some of the early Church Fathers believed that the Angel of the Lord is indeed the pre-incarnate Christ. (I quoted Irenaeus as one)
2. There is scriptural basis for the belief that the Angel of the Lord is indeed the pre-incarnate Christ. (I quoted from Judges and John)
3. It is perfectly rational to conclude that the Angel of the Lord is indeed the pre-incarnate Christ based on scripture and scholarly opinion.
Perhaps we can start communicating instead of attacking. You have yet to substantiate why Augustine takes precedent over Irenaeus or address the scripture references.
AJ
You write –
“John 5:37 and John 6:46 make it clear that no man has seen the Father at anytime. It is more than obvious which person in the trinity could be the Angel of the Lord in the OT. It could have only been the Son.”
Obviously, this argument does not rule out the possibility of the OT epiphanies being angelic appearances.
As to why, we might prefer to think that the OT epiphanies were angelic appearances, then – apart from the fact that many of these epiphanies say that the appearances were by angels – here are the issues that Augustine raises -
“But then we went on to ask why in fact the Father was not sometimes said to have been sent, if he was signified by those bodily manifestations which were shown to the eyes of men in the Old Testament. If on the other hand these manifestations signified the Son, then why was he only said to have been sent when the fullness of time came for him to be born of woman (Gal 4:4)—seeing that on this supposition he would also have been sent before, when he appeared physically in those various guises. If, however, you argue that he cannot properly be said to have been sent until the Word became flesh, then why is the Holy Spirit ever said to have been sent at all, seeing that he had no such incarnation? If, finally, those Old Testament manifestations indicated neither Father nor Son but Holy Spirit, why should his being sent be confined to the New Testament, seeing that he had been previously sent in these ways in the Old?”
Saint Augustine of Hippo; John E. Rotelle; Edmund Hill (2011-01-23). The Trinity (The Works of Saint Augustine) (p. 129). New City Press. Kindle Edition. Book III, #3
Notice the citation to Galatians 4:4. If we are simply swapping bible verses, then that would seem to rule out these epiphanies as christophanies inasmuch as the Son was only sent in the fullness of time, i.e., at the Incarnation.
AJ wrote –
“It is completely possible for persons in the OT to have at first believed they had seen an angel calling him the "Angel of the Lord" when they truly saw the Son of God. An example of this is in Judges 13. Judges 13:21-22 states "But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God." Tell me, did Manoah have two conflicting revelations in the same exact instance?”
The text you cite goes as follows:
jdg.13.19 Then Manue took a kid of the flocks, and the libations, and put them upon a rock, offering to the Lord, who doth wonderful things: and he and his wife looked on. jdg.13.20 And when the flame from the altar went up towards heaven, the angel of the Lord ascended also in the flame. And when Manue and his wife saw this, they fell flat on the ground. jdg.13.21 And the angel of the Lord appeared to them no more. And forthwith Manue understood that it was an angel of the Lord, jdg.13.22 And he said to his wife: We shall certainly die, because we have seen God.
God-inspired (2010-01-10). Kindle Catholic Bible (D-R) (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 10175-10180). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.
Here is a counter-example from Augustine
But we must keep carefully in mind what it is I have undertaken to demonstrate; it is that Abraham was talking to three, and called him Lord in the singular. But perhaps, you say, he recognized one of the three as the Lord, and the other two as his angels. Then what does the scripture mean when it goes on to say, The Lord departed after he stopped talking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his own place; but the two angels came to Sodom in the evening (Gn 18:33)? Perhaps one of them, who had been recognized as the Lord, departed—is that it?—and sent on the two angels he had with him to destroy Sodom. Well, let us see what follows: The two angels came to Sodom in the evening. And when Lot saw them, he rose to greet them, and worshiped with his face to the ground, and said, Come, my lords, turn in to the house of your servant (Gn 19:1). Here it is plain that there were two angels, that he offered them, in the plural, hospitality, and that he called them lords out of respect, taking them perhaps for men.
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.
So, it seems that we get a lot of “angel-worshipping” confusion going on.
Here is a possible take.
First, “worship” probably means “proskynesis” or reverence less than that due to God.
Second, in the early books of the Bible, the presence of God is a dangerous thing. Mt. Sinai is hedged about lest anyone die by touching the sacred mountain. People die when they touch the Ark of the Covenant. No one enters the Holy of Holies, except on special days. Having Manue, talk about fearing death for having seen “God” when he saw an angel seems to fit in that context. The angel is a messenger of God. Seeing the angel exercise supernatural powers is an awesome thing. In many ways the angel stands in for God and, if the proskynesis example of Lot means anything, is accorded a status not unlike that of God because of that association.
So, I don’t think that the Manue example rules out Augustine’s interpretation. Augustine doesn’t address that example, however, and it would have been interesting to know what he would have said.
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 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.
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.
“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.
Angels, however, do not accept worship. I base this assertion on Revelation 19:10 and Revelation 22:8-9.
I conclude that the Angel of the Lord was no mere “angel”, but rather the Son of God who is worthy of worship (Philippians 2:8-11).
The examples of Abraham and Lot are also worth noting and also your example of the presence of God in the OT and its implications. I would also like to bring up an example in Joshua 5, but I will leave it at this for now. I’ll let you reply first.
AJ,
My response is posted as a blog post.
Post a Comment