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

[Josheb]

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

Which is longer than the video.

I'm glad the time for typing that post was stated because while it may be considered as a reason for posting the shorter video it also serves as evidence of your willingness and ability to post your own povs and to take the time to do so, however long that may be. The video is good. Appreciated. But I could have looked up that video myself. Having viewed it I still know very little about your views. Certainly if you are a fan of Kierkegaard then the importance and validity of subjective truth is understood and how that is best attained through experience and community.

I believe I have written to you about the importance of both content and method before. Here we are doing, not merely talking about knowing. It is digressive so I will leave you to return to your op. Please consider the importance of how our diversity is explored as just as important as the desire for exploration. So to is what we do with what we discover.

1 Corinthians 13:2
"If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."​

We gotta operationalize all that knowledge, understanding and wisdom or we're nothing. No matter from whom it comes .

 

[Josheb]

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

The question was about why another's view is shown rather than your own articulated and the consequences for discourse pertaining to that decision and practice. Surely an existentialist understands the relevance. The BibleProject video is good but it doesn't tell me much about you. It is another fellow's ship with whom I am fellowshiping. I read the report the video "approximates, even if in no exact terms for myself, a few of my own perceptions and conceptions on this topic," but I do not know what those few perceptions and conceptions are or are not. I don't have that fellowship with you and I cannot fellowship with a video author who is not present in the discussion. Nothing wrong with posting videos but videos do not facilitate fellowship. The discussion of that content does.

At least to the degree that posters are authentic and forthcoming.





I'd also encourage you to consider the possibility that at lease some of the posters here have done what you are doing in this op and they have done it all their Christian lives and as a consequence of exploring the diversity and praxis of thought they have reached some conclusions (Tim Mackie might be one of them ) and labeling them concrete-thinking fundamentalist-protocol following thereby evidenced the exact opposite of an interest in diversity and praxis of thought. It was a particularly curious label given my op-reply asserted diversity and the need to examine text and context to understand that diversity. If you haven't done so already I encourage you to read some Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, Francis Schaeffer's trilogy.

 

[Josheb]

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

Not just me.

I doubt anyone would appreciate a stranger labeling them concrete-thinking fundamentalist-protocol followers, especially if those terms are not intended as edification and all the more so if/when inaccurate. Post, not posters.

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.

I am a fan of existentialism. As existentialists go, I prefer Camus. I find him among the most authentic even if inconsistent and misguided in the end. I find the philosophers have great questions but few answers. Christ has the answers (Ecc. 12:11-13; Jn. 16:23) and to that end perhaps Kierkegaard was closer than many, given the particular problem he was confronting. Neither Pascal, Kierkegaard, nor Camus (nor any other that might be named) had it all correct. I do, however, firmly believe the only true power we humans have is that of God-given choice.

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

Before the incarnation was the Word of God. The Word becoming flesh is the person Jesus (fully God and fully man) The Word of God is still the Word of God he is just enfleshed.

We know in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and through him all things were made. This doesn't uniquely describe a fleshly version of God but what is important is it establishes the Word as a mediator between the Father and creation since the beginning as all things created was through him.

Christ is also spoken in Col 1:15 saying "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." This is an odd verse and is used to suggest by non-trinitarian that Christ may is a created being but perhaps what it is saying is enfleshed or materialized Word of God was first, then all things flowed through the Word and was created.

So what was first? Light was first, and it was light without an explicit source as the celestial objects (Sun, Moon, stars, etc...) were created on day 4th. So Day 1 light is is materialized and the light was separated from the darkness and called good. We also see in Rev. 21:23 "The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp." So the glory of the Lord is shining through the Lamb (which is Christ). Christ is not a sun or burning star so there may be something to this that the Word is manifested first through the light and all things go through him, spirit world to carnal world,. to be created.

but in the end it simply is a maybe or it sounds nice. a disembodied light might not be a sound answer so it is perhaps uniquely the Word bridging the two worlds togethers being the first born of creation (light) to accomplish this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not just me.

I doubt anyone would appreciate a stranger labeling them concrete-thinking fundamentalist-protocol followers, especially if those terms are not intended as edification and all the more so if/when inaccurate. Post, not posters.

I am a fan of existentialism. As existentialists go, I prefer Camus. I find him among the most authentic even if inconsistent and misguided in the end. I find the philosophers have great questions but few answers. Christ has the answers (Ecc. 12:11-13; Jn. 16:23) and to that end perhaps Kierkegaard was closer than many, given the particular problem he was confronting. Neither Pascal, Kierkegaard, nor Camus (nor any other that might be named) had it all correct. I do, however, firmly believe the only true power we humans have is that of God-given choice.

You are correct! Neither Pascal, Kierkegaard, nor Camus had it all correct, and I'm so glad we agree on that point. However, I'd probably just add in that I also don't think any theologian has had 'it all correct,' not even Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, or Francis Schaeffer. The downside to all of this is, of course, that this includes both me and you, too. (Whaaaaaah!!! )

 

[Josheb]

You are correct! Neither Pascal, Kierkegaard, nor Camus had it all correct, and I'm so glad we agree on that point. However, I'd probably just add in that I also don't think any theologian has had 'it all correct,' not even Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, or Francis Schaeffer. The downside to all of this is, of course, that this includes both me and you, too. (Whaaaaaah!!! )

Yes, of course. I recommended the presuppositionalists because they help to understand Pascal, Kierkegaard, Camus and all others. I recommended the Schaeffer book because he surveys philosophy, art, and history to help form a Christian worldview applicable to all areas of life. Aside from the Bible, I think it a book that every Christian should read. I encourage you to do so. I don't agree with everything he writes but I don't know anyone who has done what he has done and nearly every Christian author in the last fifty years was influenced by him so you may as well go to the impetus. Since you live in the US, I'll send you a copy general delivery (to your local post office) if you'll promise to read it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, of course. I recommended the presuppositionalists because they help to understand Pascal, Kierkegaard, Camus and all others. I recommended the Schaeffer book because he surveys philosophy, art, and history to help form a Christian worldview applicable to all areas of life. Aside from the Bible, I think it a book that every Christian should read. I encourage you to do so. I don't agree with everything he writes but I don't know anyone who has done what he has done and nearly every Christian author in the last fifty years was influenced by him so you may as well go to the impetus. Since you live in the US, I'll send you a copy general delivery (to your local post office) if you'll promise to read it.

Which book specifically? Because I already have ... a few.

 

[Josheb]

Which book specifically? Because I already have ... a few.

The Francis Schaeffer trilogy. If you have it read it. If you don't have it then get it and read it. It is really quite important and given the stated interest in philosophy I believe you'll enjoy it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Francis Schaeffer trilogy. If you have it read it. If you don't have it then get it and read it. It is really quite important and given the stated interest in philosophy I believe you'll enjoy it.

Some of that I've already read ...

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

I do believe there is scriptural evidence to support Jesus being the one present when God came down and talked with man. I think these two are probably the strongest evidence that I’m aware of.

“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:13‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Here Jesus says He has already ascended into heaven before His resurrection and that no one else has descended.

“Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:46‬ ‭NASB‬‬

This leads me to believe that it’s is very possible that Jacob actually wrestled with Jesus and Abraham actually prepared food for and talk to Jesus instead of The Father.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Francis Schaeffer trilogy. If you have it read it. If you don't have it then get it and read it. It is really quite important and given the stated interest in philosophy I believe you'll enjoy it.

Since you seem to be knowledgeable about Schaeffer, and for the sake of this thread, do you have anything from him about his ideas as to the identity of the O.T. Angel of the Lord?

 

[Josheb]

Since you seem to be knowledgeable about Schaeffer, and for the sake of this thread, do you have anything from him about his ideas as to the identity of the O.T. Angel of the Lord?

What a great question. That's not a question of Schaeffer's concern but he might have written something on the matter. His chief concern was the development of a Christian worldview that could stand victoriously and persuasively above all in the competing marketplace of ideas that ensued as a consequence of existentialism and postmodernism. He considered himself an evangelist, not a theologian. But he might have said something about the Lord's angel. I'll peruse what I have when I have the time and post what I find if I find.... He came from the Presbyterian end of theology so I suspect he's going to agree with the view the angel of God is Christophany.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I created a thread on this a long while back. Here is what I wrote:

Important Note so that there is no confusion:

Christ is the Eternal God who is the creator (John 1:1 KJV), uncreated, and second person of the Godhead (i.e. the Word) who was made flesh (John 1:14 KJV). For the Lord our God is one God who exists in three distinct persons (i.e. the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit) (1 John 5:7 KJV). Jesus Christ is God Almighty in the flesh and He is not a created angel. In the KJV: the word "angel" in reference to the title "Angel of the Lord" is actually translated as "Messenger" in the Hebrew. So the words as we would understand it today would say "Messenger of the Lord". So, no. Jesus is not an angel. It is merely a title or a name only! Anyways, I believe this "Messenger of the Lord" is a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ (Who is God) in the Old Testament. Again, these pre-incarnate appearances are called "Theophanies" or "Christophanies".​

Jesus (Who is the Eternal God) is the Messenger of the Lord in the OT:

It is quite astonishing to discover that Jesus Christ appears not only in the prophecies and typifications within the Old Testament but He also actually makes real pre-incarnate physical appearances in the Old Testament, as well. Many of these appearances are under the title of the "Angel of the Lord" in the KJV. Yet, we clearly know that Jesus is not a created angel or being but He is God Almighty Himself (or the second person in the Godhead).

Anyways, please take the time to look up the origin of the word "angel" at etymonline. While you are there, you will discover that it can also be defined as "messenger".

Online Etymology Dictionary

In other words, Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament!

Now, where does our Lord Jesus appear as a messenger in the Old Testament?

1. The Story of Hagar -

Genesis 16:7-13

The angel of the LORD promised to do something that only God can do (see v.10). Hagar knew that it was the Lord who spoke to her (v. 13) and she identified the angel of the LORD as God: "Thou God seest me" (v.13).

Genesis 21:17-20

The angel of the Lord promised to do something only God can do (see v.18). This angel is identified as God (v.19).

2. The Story of Abraham & Sarah -

Genesis 18:1-33

Although the title of the "angel of the Lord" is not used here, it is clear within this chapter that is Jesus Christ. First, "the Lord appeared unto him (i.e. Abraham)" (v. 1) followed by the immediate appearance of three men (v. 2). Abraham and Sarah both call him Lord, as well (v. 3) (v. 12). The Lord also knew Sarah had laughed at God's promise when she was not present (v. 15).

3. The Story of Abraham & Isaac -

Genesis 22:15-18

The angel of the Lord is speaking (verses 15-16) and yet verse 16 makes it clear that it is God who is speaking ("saith the LORD")! In verses 17-18 the angel of the Lord promises to do what only God can do.

4. The Story of Jacob -

Genesis 31:11-13

The angel of God (v.11) identifies Himself as God: "I am the God of Bethel" (v.13).

Genesis 32:24-32

Jacob wrestles with a man who he later identifies the place with the name "Peniel", which means he had seen God face to face (v. 30).

5. The Story of Joseph -

Genesis 48:14-16

When Jacob was blessing Joseph and his sons he mentions :The Angel which redeemed me from all evil" (v. 16). Now, last time I checked, but angels do not redeem anyone. They are simply guardians.

6. The Story of Moses -

Exodus 3:2-7

The angel of the Lord appeared to Moses out of the midst of a burning bush and identified Himself as God (verses 4 and 6) and as Lord (verses 4 and 7). See also Acts 7:30-32 where the angel of the Lord is identified as the Lord God.

Exodus 14:19-21

The angel of God does what only God can do (verses 19-20) and is identified with the glorious manifestation of God in the pillar of the cloud (verses 19-20). In verse 21 this angel is identified as "the LORD".

Exodus 23:20-23

This passage makes it clear that the Lord’s angel is much more than a mere angel; this angel is closely identified with God: Lord’s "name is in Him" (v.21, "name" referring to Lord's nature and character) and God’s people must "obey His voice" (v.21). Indeed, He has the authority to "pardon your transgressions" or not to pardon them, and who can forgive sins but God alone? Notice that the angel is distinct from God and sent by God. The LORD said, "Behold, I send an angel before thee." We are reminded of New Testament parallels as the Son was distinct from the Father and sent by the Father (John 3:17; etc.) and yet equal to the Father (John 5:18) (John 10:30).

7. The Story of Balaam -

Numbers 22:20-35

Now in the story of Balaam, we begin with God speaking directly to Balaam, then a transition from God to "angel of the Lord" So guess who was standing before Balaam? None other than Jesus Christ. The "angel of the LORD" is used many times in verses 23-26, and verses 31-35 and the LORD in verses 28-31. Then continuing in Chapter 23 God meets Balaam in verse 4 and the LORD is mentioned in verses 5 and 16. These titles are being used interchangeably.

8. The Story of Joshua -

Joshua 5:13-15

Again, although the "Angel of the Lord" is not mentioned here, Jesus did appear to Joshua in the form of a man. This man was worshiped by Joshua (v. 14) and this man declared that Joshua was standing on Holy ground (v. 15).

9. The Beginning Story of the Judges -

Judges 2:1-3

The angel of Lord says things that only God could say. God is the One who brought them into the land which He swore to give unto their fathers (v.1). God is the One who promised to never break His covenant (v.1).

10. The Story of Gideon -

Judges 6:11-24

As you follow this passage, pay close attention to who is speaking to Gideon: in verse 12 the angel of the Lord is speaking; in verse 14 the Lord is speaking; in verse 16 the Lord is speaking; in verse 20 the angel of God is speaking. Lord and the angel of Lord are one and the same.

11. The Story of Samson's Birth -

Judges 13:3-23

Note especially verses 17-18. Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, "What is Thy Name?" (v.17) and the angel of the Lord said, "Why asketh thou thus after My Name, seeing it is secret?" The word "secret" may be translated "wonderful." It is the same Hebrew word found in Isaiah 9:6 – "His Name shall be called wonderful." In Isaiah 9:6 the term is used as a name of Christ who is also called "the Mighty God." The fact that the Lord's angel was God was certainly known by Manoah. After the angel of the Lord appeared to him Manoah said, "We have seen God!" (v.22).

Conclusion:

The Angel of the Lord is also mentioned in the story of David, Isaiah, the Psalms, and Zechariah. So it is amazing to see how Jesus Christ being our eternal God was always present in the past, even revealing Himself within the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, too.


Post source:
Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.

 

[friend of]

I always thought it was a superpowered angel charged with performing a certain role.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The only verse that this appears to contradict the idea that Jesus took on the nature of angels in the Old Testament is Hebrews 2:16. For it says,

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels;
but he took on him the seed of Abraham. " (Hebrews 2:16).

While this appears to be a contradiction at first glance, the focus here is the Incarnation or Christ coming to this world to pay the price for our sin. It is saying He did not take on the nature of angels in the Incarnation but He took on him the seed of Abraham (a physical flesh and blood body). This does not discount that Jesus might have taken on the nature of angels beforehand in the Old Testament (in being the "Angel of the Lord" or the "Messenger of the Lord.").

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh, and "Angel of the Lord" is an accurate description or title for Jesus in the Old Testament as stated in the KJV (King James Version).

Now, while Jesus was NOT an actual created being like an angel or anything silly like that, Jesus did have to hide His glory as God (who is spirit and who is eternal and uncreated). For just looking at the face of God would kill a flesh and blood human being (as Scripture says).

So Jesus put on an empty soulless shell of a body that comes from angels. Think of it like an angel suit. Jesus did not possess an angel in existence (who had a soul). No, no,no. Nor did Jesus create a new sentient being so as to co-mingle his mind with. Certainly not! Jesus is eternally God! Jesus's mind is His own! Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity (Who is eternal and spirit and uncreated).

Anyways, God hiding His glorious presence is not a new thing in Scripture. God was within the pillar of fire by night and the pillar of cloud by day.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I always thought it was a superpowered angel charged with performing a certain role.

There's always that possibility, but as many of us on this thread have already investigated, it seems there is an enigmatic "something more than just an angel" about ... The Angel of the Lord in the O.T.

But you're correct. At the least, we know that the Angel of the Lord wasn't just another angel, or even the same 'kind' of angel as is Michael or Gabriel, or any others whose names we know not.

So, thank you for your comment, brother!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Those who disregard the "Messenger of the Lord" as Jesus need only read and believe the following passage.

1 Cor 10:1 "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1 Cor 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1 Cor 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1 Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
(1 Corinthians 10:1-4).​

Verses 1-2 are referring to the Israelites (who were delivered out of Egypt) who cross through the red sea.

Verse 3 refers to the Israelites eating of the quail (which they had as meat) in the evening (See: Exodus 16:8, Exodus 16:13), but it makes a greater spiritual parallel or point followed up in the next verse.

Verse 4 refers to the Israelites drinking of the water from the split rock (Exodus 17:6) (Numbers 20:10) (Psalms 78:15-17) (Psalms 105:41), and makes a parallel with the spiritual point about how Christ (the spiritual Rock) followed the Israelites, and that they drank of Him (Christ).

What is interesting is that 1 Corinthians 10:4 says that the Rock followed the Israelites, and that this Rock was Christ.

Behold the scene at the cross of the Red Sea:

"And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:" (Exodus 14:19).​

Who followed the Israelites?

At the crossing of the red sea: The angel of God and the pillar of cloud followed them. The "angel of God" was the "angel of the Lord" or Jesus. This was the Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. Well, either that or Christ was in the pillar of the cloud. Take your pick. Either way, this proves that Christ was in the Old Testament.

Side Note:

Again, Jesus is not literally an angel. I believe this was a title to signify either "messenger" and or to show that Christ put on a soulless skin suit of angels to cover Christ's glory as God (Note: For Christ is the eternal Word, and He is second person of the Godhead or Trinity).

 

[lsume]

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,
I cast my vote but felt obligated to share that thou Christ was with God from the beginning, even Christ doesn’t know when the end will be. The word of God throughout the Old Testament is Christ.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you have something you wanted to share with us, @lsume ?