Is the O.T. Angel of the Lord the Pre-incarnate Jesus?

[2PhiloVoid]

Dear Christian Brethren of all stripes and denominations,

For the sake of information, I'd like to know what your view is on the identity
of the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament, and more specifically, if you think
He was/is a pre-incarnate expression of Jesus before Jesus' Advent (as we have
it in the New Testament writings).

Please know that this discussion is simply for the purpose of understanding, and I myself don't
think this is a salvation issue. But it would be interesting to see how many of
you either share or don't share a certain view about the O.T. "Angel of the Lord."

Thank you for your time,

2PhiloVoid

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

Addendum: After seeing the contributions by fellow Christians on this topic, I'm adding in a representation of my own current views on the subject about "The Angel of the Lord." My views are always under development and pressed into the Hermeneutical Circle, and my choice of this video is not meant to provide some kind of 'trump' over what others are writing here, but rather yet another supplementary (and brief) view within the boundaries of our common Faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Hammster]

I tend to fall into the camp that states the angel is a Christophany

 

[Josheb]

I'd like to know what your view is on the identity
of the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament, and more specifically, if you think
He was/is a pre-incarnate expression of Jesus before Jesus' Advent...

My view is that we would do well to translate the word "angel" as "messenger" or possibly "heavenly messenger" so as to discriminate what is reported from ordinary human messengers. My view is that not all mentions of the "angel of the Lord" or "heavenly messenger of the Lord" are identical (despite the use of the word, "the"). There are likely many angels or messengers. It is my view at least some of those occasions were Christophanies.

It's like the word "death," or "raised." Not all mentions of "dead" or "death" are identical. Physically dead is not the same as dead in sin and either is the same as dead in Christ. Dead, dead-dead, and dead-dead-dead. The text and context inform correct interpretation and understanding.

 

[BobRyan]

Dear Christian Brethren of all stripes and denominations,

For the sake of information, I'd like to know what your view is on the identity
of the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament, and more specifically, if you think
He was/is a pre-incarnate expression of Jesus before Jesus' Advent (as we have
it in the New Testament writings).

Please know that this discussion is simply for the purpose of understanding, and I myself don't
think this is a salvation issue. But it would be interesting to see how many of
you either share or don't share a certain view about the O.T. "Angel of the Lord."

Thank you for your time,

2PhiloVoid

I believe that on a number of occasions it most certainly is God the Son - the pre-incarnate Christ.

As do some other Bible students we may know of -

good thread

Which I could not help but point out here

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - author Bob McCabe


Example 1

Ex 3:1-2 Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

"The first passage is found in Exodus 3:1–14. While tending the flock of his father-in-law at Horeb, Moses saw that a burning bush was not being consumed by the fire. As he approached the bush, v. 2 clearly states that the angel of the LORD appeared to him in the flames of the bush. It is stated in v. 4 that the LORD spoke to him from within the bush. In v. 6 the Being in the bush further identifies that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As the conversation continues between these two, the Being in the bush announces His name, “I AM WHO I AM” (v. 14). Thus, this passage indicates that the angel of the LORD mentioned in v. 2 is clearly identified by Himself and accepted by Moses as the infinite God.

Example 2

Zechariah 3:1–10... the antecedent of “he” is the interpreting angel (he is referred to in 1:9, 14, 19; 2:3; 4:1, 3, 5; etc.; in light of 1:9 the interpreting angel was apparently present to explain some of the details of these visions to Zechariah), the antecedent of “me” is Zechariah, the angel of the LORD, and Satan. In this verse Joshua is described as standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan is pictured as standing at the right hand of the angel of the LORD to resist him. With this introduction to the vision we should note that the angel of the LORD is the focal point around which the following context revolves.

"The first half of v. 2 reads like this: “The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan!’” In light of the participants mentioned in v. 1, we could read this verse in this fashion: “And the LORD, that is the angel of the LORD, said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan.’” Therefore, v. 2 identifies the angel of the LORD as the LORD and indicates that there is a distinction between the angel of the LORD and the LORD. This identification is further substantiated in v. 4. If we follow the context of vv. 2–4 carefully, we should notice that it is the angel of the LORD who forgives sin in v. 4. Since God is the only one who forgives sin, it is readily apparent that the angel of the LORD is God. Consequently, this passage provides solid support for both the deity of the angel of the LORD and his distinctiveness from the LORD.

Who is both deity and yet a distinct person from the LORD? Since no one has ever seen God the Father (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16) and since the Holy Spirit never takes on bodily form, this suggests that the supernatural Being to which this expression refers is the second member of the Trinity (also compare Exod 3:14 with John 8:58). Therefore, the angel of the LORD was a temporary manifestation of the LORD Jesus Christ in a preincarnate form
"
=========================end quote


As for the scholarship agreeing with Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - author Bob McCabe

Some examples:

Friday at 10:53 PM #19

...


Adam Clarke Commentary
Exodus 3 Verse 2

The angel of the Lord - Not a created angel certainly; for he is called יהוה Jehovah, Exodus 3:4, etc., and has the most expressive attributes of the Godhead applied to him, Exodus 3:14, etc. Yet he is an angel, מלאך malach, a messenger, in whom was the name of God, Exodus 23:21; and in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Colossians 2:9; and who, in all these primitive times, was the Messenger of the covenant, Malachi 3:1. And who was this but Jesus, the Leader, Redeemer, and Savior of mankind? See Clarke's note on Genesis 16:7.

=================

James Burton Coffman
Ex 3 Verse 2-3

"And the angel of Jehovah 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 turn aside now, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt."

"The angel of Jehovah ..." As the context proves, "The Angel of Jehovah is not a created angel but Jehovah himself in his act of self-revelation."[10] This is merely another name for God, of which there are many in the Bible. Although this verse does not indicate it, there is reason to believe that the Angel of Jehovah should be identified with our Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead; he is also called the Angel of the Covenant.[11]


=================================
Jamieson Fausset Brown
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Verse 2-3

the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire — It is common in Scripture to represent the elements and operations of nature, as winds, fires, earthquakes, pestilence, everything enlisted in executing the divine will, as the “angels” or messengers of God. But in such cases God Himself is considered as really, though invisibly, present. Here the preternatural fire may be primarily meant by the expression “angel of the Lord”; but it is clear that under this symbol, the Divine Being was present, whose name is given (Exodus 3:4, Exodus 3:6), and elsewhere called the angel of the covenant, Jehovah-Jesus.


=========================================

So then two opinions --

here is one -


Albert Barnes Commentary

Exodus 3
Ex 3:1-2 Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

vs 2
What Moses saw was the flame of fire in the bush; what he recognized therein was an intimation of the presence of God, who maketh a flame of fire His angel. Compare Psalm 104:4. The words which Moses heard were those of God Himself, as all ancient and most modern divines have held, manifested in the Person of the Son

=========== and here is another list of those who agree

Albert Barnes
James Burton Coffman
Adam Clarke Commentary
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Bob McCabe

R.C.Sproul
The Angel of the LORD
Verse 7 tells us “the angel of the Lord” found Hagar at the spring. This angel is no mere messenger of God, even though royal messengers in those days were treated with the same respect as the sender. When the angel of the Lord appears elsewhere in Scripture, people fall down in worship (see Judg. 6:22–24). After seeing the angel, Hagar addresses him as God (Gen. 16:13). This angel appeared mainly during the period recounted in Genesis and Judges, and, while the New Testament does not explicitly identify the angel with the Son of God, many in church history have identified this messenger as the pre-incarnate Christ.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I'd like to know what your view is on the identity of the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament, and more specifically, if you think
He was/is a pre-incarnate expression of Jesus before Jesus' Advent (as we have
it in the New Testament writings).

We really have next to NO REAL UNDERSTANDING of the details of God's existence. His understanding is DIFFERENT than ours, His WAYS are different than ours, and HE is WAY BEYOND human ability to imagine, or even begin to attempt a quantification of. Consequently questions of this type belong in the "We'll ask later" category. The was no such thing as a "Pre-incarnate Jesus" - there was THE WORD who was with God, and who WAS God (John 1). There's also an Angelic hoard - any member of which can be "an Angel (Messenger) of the Lord".

SO my opinion is that "Angel of the Lord" is simply an Angelic being, assuming the proper appearance, and state of solidity/visibility to interact with, and minister two whomever God desired to contact, for whatever purpose.

 

[HTacianas]

Dear Christian Brethren of all stripes and denominations,

For the sake of information, I'd like to know what your view is on the identity
of the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament, and more specifically, if you think
He was/is a pre-incarnate expression of Jesus before Jesus' Advent (as we have
it in the New Testament writings).

Please know that this discussion is simply for the purpose of understanding, and I myself don't
think this is a salvation issue. But it would be interesting to see how many of
you either share or don't share a certain view about the O.T. "Angel of the Lord."

Thank you for your time,

2PhiloVoid

You'll find varying opinions on it. Some say there are angels of the Lord in the old testament who appeared for specific purposes, but that "the word of the Lord" who came to the prophets was the pre-incarnate Word. But then the Nicene Creed has it that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets.

There is an encyclopedia article on Philo of Alexandria's concept of theology, including his views of the Word of God as the first begotten son at the link below. Somewhere in there you'll find a lot of useful information.

Philo, John, and Paul all used the same language and concepts to describe the idead of the Word. The epistle to the Hebrews may have been written by, or at least influenced by Apollos of Alexandria, who was something of a contemporary of Philo.

Philo of Alexandria | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Barney2.0]

Yes, he is the pre incarnate Christ, I was actually going to write a long post about this and how it details the multiplicity of God in the Old Testament, anyhow if you read Exodus you’d see this Angel is called Yahweh and has his authority:

Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Exodus 23:20-21

The Angel is worshipped as God by Joshua:

Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in His hand. Joshua approached Him and asked, “Are You for us or for our enemies?” “Neither,” He replied. “I have now come as Commander of the LORD’s army.” Then Joshua fell facedown in reverence and asked Him, “What does my Lord have to say to His servant?” The Commander of the LORD’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

Joshua 5:13-15

Please stay here,” Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “and we will prepare a young goat for you.” And the angel of the LORD replied, “Even if I stay, I will not eat your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, offer it to the LORD.” For Manoah did not know that it was the angel of the LORD. Then Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes to pass?” “Why do you ask my name,” said the angel of the LORD, “since it is beyond comprehension?”Then Manoah took a young goat and a grain offering and offered them on a rock to the LORD. And as Manoah and his wife looked on, the LORD did a marvelous thing. When the flame went up from the altar to the sky, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell facedown to the ground. And when the angel of the LORD did not appear again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it had been the angel of the LORD. “We are going to die,” he said to his wife, “for we have seen God!”

Judges 13:16-22


Now some here may say such as the Jews and Unitarian heretics that the Angel of the Lord is merely a creature that represents Yahweh or God and comes with his authority that however is simply ludicrous, you are not the same person you represent even if you have his authority. The Vice President of America never is referred to as the President when he takes control in cases of emergency. Also God says the following for those who make this claim:


"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.

Isaiah 42:8

For My own sake, My very own sake, I will act; for how can I let Myself be defamed? I will not yield My glory to another.

Isaiah 48:11

So we see here that God does not give his name or glory to creatures, thus it is impossible for the Angel of the Lord to be a mere creature representing God or acting on his behalf, also if the Angel is a mere creature representing God, then Joshua and Manoah violated the second commandment by worshipping it and offering it sacrifice which cannot be given to mere creatures as per the Old Testament and second commandment. So the Angel or Messenger of the Lord seen in Old Testament is none other than a theophany of the pre-incarnate Christ, Yahweh himself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@Hammster; @Josheb; @BobRyan; @Bob Carabbio ; @HTacianas ; @Al Masihi

To each of you who has so far answered this topic for this thread, I thank YOU! It is appreciated! Interestingly enough, it seems that even though we have some variable insights in our respective responses, each of your responses provides an authentic expression of the faith and I will not criticize any of them but rather, as a kindred brother in the Spirit, take what you've offered and contemplate it all prayerfully.

To add to this, I'll post a brief video above from Tim Mackie which approximates, even if in no exact terms for myself, a few of my own perceptions and conceptions on this topic.

Again, I thank you all, and I look forward to any other comments you might wish to provide, and I look forward to any additional brethren [brother and sisters] who would like to chime in on this significant subject.

Blessings to you all!

2PhiloVoid

 

[Josheb]

To add to this, I'll post a brief video above from Tim Mackie which approximates, even if in no exact terms for myself, a few of my own perceptions and conceptions on this topic.

Why post others' views when it would do you and us both well to have you articulate your perspectives in your own words?

What is each of us had posted a video from various others in response to this op? You'd have a bunch of other folks' views to which we subscribe to one degree or another. We would then be left only with the option to discuss the views of those who could not respond to assert, clarify, defend, affirm, or change their views.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why post others' views when it would do you and us both well to have you articulate your perspectives in your own words?

What is each of us had posted a video from various others in response to this op? You'd have a bunch of other folks' views to which we subscribe to one degree or another. We would then be left only with the option to discuss the views of those who could not respond to assert, clarify, defend, affirm, or change their views.

I quite understand that some folks, like yourself, are more 'concrete' thinkers, i.e.you conduct your thinking more along "Strong Foundationalist" type protocols as you work to assert, clarify and justify your points of view in regard to our commonly held Christian beliefs. (And if you feel I have misperceived your actual thought processes and misrepresented them through too much simplicity, please correct me).

However, being that I'm more inclined toward the praxis of thought found within both Pascalian and Kierkegaardian lines of Existentialism, along with applications of the field of Philosophical Hermeneutics, I have a different tact on the ways and wherefores of how I will lay out my understanding of Christian Theology. Moreover, there are a few facts that are inherent to my praxis:

1) My wife and my job limit my time for writing, so I sometimes have to keep things short as I rush out an idea.

2) I always like to do research first, reading the bible and then various scholars and hearing from various voices among my Christian brethren in the world, and then I deliberate more about what I 'think' the Bible is telling me.

3) In this case, I've resourced a video because I like finding sources among the many that I study that condense and concisely get to the main points; besides, I don't believe I need to 'rearticulate' the theological bicycle when some aspect of it, such as what is in the video, has already been built for the purpose for which I need it in order to facilitate a small discussion.

4) When I have a discussion with other Christians, I do not seek to 'challenge' them as much as I seek to draw out of them their own unique insights as they've gotten them through their own spiritual lives. I quite enjoy and think useful that interaction we all can have among all of us in ecumenical synergy.

So, those are just a few, quick reasons why I utilize things like a video or an article here and there. Besides, I'm not trying to trump other Christians ... I'm trying to have camaraderie and mutual fellowship.

Of course, I'm always open for anyone to question me about the various sources or inspirations from whence I've drawn my own views on Christian Theology. In the case of this thread, I was tickled to death to find a reasonable amount of local similarity in our conceptions about The Angel of the Lord, and I'm glad you added your own view in there, too.

 

[Josheb]

I quite understand that some folks, like yourself, are more 'concrete' thinkers, i.e.you conduct your thinking more along "Strong Foundationalist" type protocols as you work to assert, clarify and justify your points of view in regard to our commonly held Christian beliefs. (And if you feel I have misperceived your actual thought processes and misrepresented them through too much simplicity, please correct me).

You may consider yourself corrected. In the future.... when asked about yourself I encourage you to resist the urge to start the response labeling and defining others. That practice is the antithesis of Pascalian and Kierkegaardian Existentialism and it completely avoids the inquiry..

Very odd.

 

[Josheb]

However, being that I'm more inclined toward the praxis of thought found within both Pascalian and Kierkegaardian lines of Existentialism, along with applications of the field of Philosophical Hermeneutics, I have a different tact on the ways and wherefores of how I will lay out my understanding of Christian Theology. Moreover, there are a few facts that are inherent to my praxis:

1) My wife and my job limit my time for writing, so I sometimes have to keep things short as I rush out an idea.

2) I always like to do research first, reading the bible and then various scholars and hearing from various voices among my Christian brethren in the world, and then I deliberate more about what I 'think' the Bible is telling me.

3) In this case, I've resourced a video because I like finding sources among the many that I study that condense and concisely get to the main points; besides, I don't believe I need to 'rearticulate' the theological bicycle when some aspect of it, such as what is in the video, has already been built for the purpose for which I need it in order to facilitate a small discussion.

4) When I have a discussion with other Christians, I do not seek to 'challenge' them as much as I seek to draw out of them their own unique insights as they've gotten them through their own spiritual lives. I quite enjoy and think useful that interaction we all can have among all of us in ecumenical synergy.

So, those are just a few, quick reasons why I utilize things like a video or an article here and there. Besides, I'm not trying to trump other Christians ... I'm trying to have camaraderie and mutual fellowship.

Of course, I'm always open for anyone to question me about the various sources or inspirations from whence I've drawn my own views on Christian Theology. In the case of this thread, I was tickled to death to find a reasonable amount of local similarity in our conceptions about The Angel of the Lord, and I'm glad you added your own view in there, too.

I trust the irony of writing a lengthy post explaining yourself as an explanation for why personal content wasn't posted is recognized; especially since a single sentence would have sufficed and the substance of the inquiry is neglected.

 

[Josheb]

I'm trying to have camaraderie and mutual fellowship.

Fellowship with another fellow's ship .

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You may consider yourself corrected. In the future.... when asked about yourself I encourage you to resist the urge to start the response labeling and defining others. That practice is the antithesis of Pascalian and Kierkegaardian Existentialism and it completely avoids the inquiry..

Very odd.

I shall double my efforts to not label you in the future.

And I'm glad to see another fan of Pascal and Kierkegaard on board here at CF! Strange, though, because I kind of got an opposite impression in my reading of them than you apparently have ... but we can talk about that elsewhere.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I trust the irony of writing a lengthy post explaining yourself as an explanation for why personal content wasn't posted is recognized; especially since a single sentence would have sufficed and the substance of the inquiry is neglected.

Actually, that post took me about 8 minutes to write ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fellowship with another fellow's ship .

I'm not sure what that could even mean, but I'm just going to assume it must be something profound.

 

[public hermit]

Great post! The OP video makes a convincing argument that it is the pre-Incarnate Son. Plus, if memory serves, which isn't always the case, a good many early Christian commentators believed the same. So, I'm almost convinced.

My only hesitation is that a heavenly messenger (angel) is an emissary who has the authority to speak on behalf of the one who sends the messenger. So, the words of the messenger are to be recieved as the words of God. So, both positions seem to fit the circumstances, but I'm defintely leaning to one side.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great post! The OP video makes a convincing argument that it is the pre-Incarnate Son. Plus, if memory serves, which isn't always the case, a good many early Christian commentators believed the same. So, I'm almost convinced.

My only hesitation is that a heavenly messenger (angel) is an emissary who has the authority to speak on behalf of the one who sends the messenger. So, the words of the messenger are to be recieved as the words of God. So, both positions seem to fit the circumstances, but I'm defintely leaning to one side.

So, do we want to say that your checkmark in the poll would at least fall into the 'maybe' category? (...which is fine by me if it does. I wouldn't want anyone to jump to erroneous conclusions simply because I showed up and blurted out a few sparse lines of my own form of exegesis ... )

But for the sake of further investigation, and to build upon or supplement what some of our friends have already said above, I'll just add in the following diverse bits for additional consideration:

1) A general reference about angels on the whole, which includes a few Jewish comments about the Angel of the Lord [...and I start off with this because the non-Christian Jewish view isn't so chummy with that of Christians on this topic, so I think it needs to be considered for balance ...]

ANGELOLOGY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

2) A general reference about angels on the whole, which includes a few Catholic comments about the Angel of the Lord

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Angels

3) Here's a little piece from the late R.C. Sproul's ministry [Presbyterian], Ligonier Ministries, which briefly hones in on one of my favorite passages from Joshua in the Old Testament

Commander of the Lord's Army

4) Here's a few extra considerations on this OP topic from Walter C. Kaiser that coalesce with my leanings so far ...

Jesus in the Old Testament

5) And, last but not least, a nice little blog article from the "off the beaten path" fellow, Michael Heiser; I think he does a good job of focusing in on the OP topic more specifically (which isn't to say he's decisive for us in this matter ... )

The Name of Yahweh and the Angel of the Lord - LogosTalk

PH, if you have some additional sources you'd like to add, of any sort that are pertinent either way, feel free to step up to the plate, bro!

 

[public hermit]

So, do we want to say that your checkmark in the poll would at least fall into the 'maybe' category? (...which is fine by me if it does. I wouldn't want anyone to jump to erroneous conclusions simply because I showed up and blurted out a few sparse lines of my own form of exegesis ...

I went ahead and voted, "Yes." At least, if my back was against the wall, that's what I would say. Fascinating subject.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I went ahead and voted, "Yes." At least, if my back was against the wall, that's what I would say. Fascinating subject.

I appreciate you're having responded to the poll, PH. Thanks, brother!