The Person of Jesus Was the Son of God Before His Earthly Conception and Birth

 

In response to someone denying Jesus was the Son of God before His conception in Mary's womb, I the wrote the following contrary to his claim that Jesus only became the Son of God after His birth to Mary.

The Bible says God sent His SON INTO the world [John 3:17]. He was the Son of the Father BEFORE being conceived in Mary's womb. Isaiah says in 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a SON is given..." 

John 3:17 LSB

[17] For God did not SEND THE SON ***INTO*** THE WORLD to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 

1 John 4:9 LSB

[9] By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten SON INTO THE WORLD so that we might live through Him. 

Notice that He was the Son before being sent into the world. 

Jesus was the Father's firstborn before being sent into the world: 

Hebrews 1:6 LSB

[6] And when He again BRINGS THE FIRSTBORN INTO THE WORLD, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.” 

Proverbs 30:4 LSB

[4] Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? WHAT IS HIS NAME? AND WHAT IS HIS SON ’s NAME? Surely you know! 

Proverbs 30:4 reveals God had a Son in the Old Testament. The verse asks what is God's name, and what is His Son's name. Meaning can you FULLY grasp God's nature, or the nature of His Son? The answer to the rhetorical question is that while you can APPREHEND God truly, no one can COMPREHEND God [and His nature] exhaustively. Nor that of His Son [cf. Matt. 11:17; Luke 10:22]. The word "name" can mean nature, as in Ps. 9:10, where to know God's name is to know His faithful and trustworthy nature. 

Psalms 9:10 LSB

[10] And those who know Your name will put their trust in You, For You, O Yahweh, have not forsaken those who seek You. 

Hebrews 10:5 LSB

[5] Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; 

Hebrews 10:5 shows Jesus' conscious personal preexistence. 

Galatians 4:4 LSB

[4] But when the fullness of the time came, God SENT FORTH HIS SON, born of a woman, born under the Law, 

Hebrews 1:2 LSB

[2] in these last days spoke to us in His SON, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds, 

Hebrews 7:3 LSB

[3] Without father, without mother, without genealogy, HAVING NEITHER BEGINNING OF DAYS NOR END OF LIFE, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest continually.

Notice it doesn't say that Jesus was like Melchizedek. Rather, that Melchizedek was like the Son of God who has no beginning of days or end of life.

//And please get this clear...God who is OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT AND OMNIPRESENT...why would he WALK// 

Read Gen. 3:8 AGAIN It EXPLICITLY says Adam and Eve heard the sound/voice of Yahweh God walking in the garden. Yahweh is portrayed as taking on human form many times in the Old Testament. See for example Gen. chapters 18-19. There I believe it was the pre-incarnate Jesus.

Answering the Unitarian Use John 17:3 from a Trinitarian Perspective

 By Artison Rex from Facebook 

John 17:3— in Trinitarian Light

Answering John 17:3 from a Trinitarian Perspective

📖 John 17:3 – “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

Unitarians often cite this verse to argue that Jesus excludes Himself from being God by referring to the Father as "the only true God." However, from a Trinitarian perspective, this passage does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, it aligns with it when properly understood in context.

Contextual Considerations:

1. Jesus’ Statement Affirms Monotheism, Not Unitarianism

🔹 Jesus, as a Jew, affirms monotheism—that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

🔹 Trinitarians also affirm one God, but understand that the one divine essence is shared by three Persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

🔹 Jesus calling the Father “the only true God” does not exclude Himself from divinity, just as saying “Jesus is the only true Lord” does not exclude the Father from being Lord.

💡 Parallel Argument:

✅ 1 Corinthians 8:6 – "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things... and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things."

• If calling the Father "one God" excludes the Son, then calling Jesus "one Lord" would also exclude the Father.

• But Trinitarians understand this as distinguishing persons, not denying deity.

2. Jesus is Included in the Identity of the "Only True God"

🔹 Jesus is described throughout the Gospel of John as fully divine and one with the Father:

• John 1:1 – "The Word was God."

• John 10:30 – "I and the Father are one."

• John 20:28 – Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God."

🔹 Since Jesus is the divine Son of the Father, acknowledging the Father as "the only true God" does not exclude Jesus but affirms their relationship within the Trinity.

💡 Key Point:

✅ John 17:3 does not deny Jesus' deity—it defines eternal life as knowing both the Father and the Son.

3. The Context: Eternal Life Requires Knowing Both the Father and the Son

🔹 Jesus does not stop at saying "that they may know You, the only true God." He adds:

• "and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

🔹 If Jesus were merely a human prophet, it would be blasphemous to put knowing Him on the same level as knowing God.

🔹 In contrast, throughout Isaiah (e.g., Isaiah 43:10-11), God alone is the source of salvation—yet here, eternal life depends on knowing both the Father and the Son.

💡 Conclusion:

✅ If knowing Jesus is essential for eternal life, then Jesus must be divine, not merely a created being.

4. Jesus Shares the Father's Glory (John 17:5)

📖 John 17:5 – "And now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed."

🔹 Jesus speaks of a shared eternal glory with the Father—something that no mere human or created being can claim.

🔹 Isaiah 42:8 – God says, "I will not give My glory to another." Yet, Jesus asks to be glorified alongside the Father.

🔹 This confirms that Jesus shares in the divine nature.

💡 Key Point:

✅ Jesus is not separating Himself from the Father’s deity—He is affirming His eternal relationship with the Father.

Conclusion: John 17:3 in a Trinitarian Framework

✔ Jesus calls the Father "the only true God" in distinction of person, not exclusion of essence.

✔ Jesus is included in the identity of the one true God throughout John’s Gospel.

✔ Eternal life depends on knowing both the Father and the Son, affirming Jesus’ divine status.

✔ Jesus claims preexistent glory with the Father, confirming His divine nature.

John 17:3, when read in context, supports rather than contradicts the Trinity. The context supports the Trinitarian understanding of the passage!

Answering Unitarian Objections and Argument:

Refuting Unitarian Grammatical Arguments

A. The "Appositional Phrase" and "only" Argument

Unitarians claim that "the only true God" in John 17:3 is an appositional phrase, meaning they suggest, that it restricts divinity exclusively to the Father.

Why This Argument Fails

• Greek Syntax Does Not Demand Exclusivity

• The phrase "the only true God" (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν) does not necessarily exclude Jesus.

• In Greek, an appositional phrase simply identifies the subject but does not automatically exclude others from also being true God. It simply identifies or explains the subject more precisely.

• Similar Constructions Exist Without Exclusivity

• Jude 4: Jesus is called "our only Master and Lord" (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν)

• But God the Father is also called "Lord" throughout Scripture (e.g., Luke 1:32, Matthew 11:25).

Conclusion: Just as Jude 4 does not exclude the Father from being Lord, John 17:3 does not exclude Jesus from being the true God.

B. The Use of "Only" (μόνον) Restricts Divinity to the Father

• The Greek word for "only" (μόνος) is an exclusive term, meaning "alone, without another."

Since μόνος modifies "the true God" (τὸν ἀληθινὸν θεὸν), it means that the Father is the only true God, excluding Jesus from this category, Unitarians would argue. But is this so?

• Parallel Uses of "Only" in Greek

• Mark 2:7 – "Who can forgive sins but God alone (μόνος)?"

• Matthew 4:4 "live by bread alone, (μόνῳ) but by every word"

• Matthew 12:4 "for them which were with him, but only (μόνος) for the priests"

• In these passages, "only" Gr. μόνος doesn't always exclude all else, clear exceptions are made in the immediate context. Men do not "only" "live by bread," for example, they eat fish, fruit, and vegetables. These passages, just as Jude 4, have clear exceptions to the word "only" made elsewhere. (See also Bengel's Gnomen cited below *¹)

• Likewise, in John 17:3, we should not take the passage to exclude Jesus Christ from the "only true God" phrase, rather we should accept the passage as Jesus Christ rightly pointing to the Father as the true God as opposed to the false gods of the heathen.

🔷️John 17:3 in Light of 1 John 5:20

A. John 17:3 Does Not Exclude Jesus from Being the True God

"And this is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3)

Unitarians claim that Jesus is distinguishing the Father as "the only true God," thereby denying that He Himself is God. However, this interpretation is flawed because:

• John 17:3 does not say "the Father alone is God"—it only affirms that the Father is the true God, without denying Christ’s divinity.

• 1 John 5:20 explicitly calls Jesus "the true God and eternal life," which completes the picture of John 17:3 by showing that both the Father and the Son share the divine identity.

• Eternal life requires knowledge of both the Father and the Son, meaning that Christ is essential for salvation (cf. John 5:23).

B. 1 John 5:20: Jesus Is Also the "True God"

"And we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)

Since 1 John 5:20 directly applies "the true God" to Jesus, the Unitarian interpretation of John 17:3 collapses. Instead of contradicting John 17:3, 1 John 5:20 shows that both the Father and the Son are included in the divine identity. (See Barnes and Matthew Poole at the bottom who also make this parallel*²)

🔷️Hebrews 1:8-10: The Father Calls Jesus "God" and "Lord"

One of the most striking affirmations of Jesus' deity comes from the Father Himself:

"But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever’." (Hebrews 1:8)

"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning." (Hebrews 1:10)

Key Points:

• The Father explicitly calls Jesus "God."

• Jesus is called "Lord" in the sense of YHWH, since Psalm 102:25-27 (applied here) refers to YHWH creating the heavens.

• No one argues that Jesus is above the Father, yet the Father Himself calls Jesus both God and Lord.

🔷️ Other Arguments of Exclusivity Favor the Trinitarian Perspective

• The Bible in numerous places adamantly teaches Monotheism-the belief in only one true God. For example: Deut 4:35, 6:4, 32:39, Isa 44:6, 45:5, 6. It is also taught in the NT just as strongly: 1 Cor 8:4; Eph 4:6, 1 Tim 1:17, John 17:3. Lest there be doubt that there is one, and only one, true God, according to the Bible. For example, Isa 45:5, "I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God." Despite the above, the NT repeatedly calls Jesus God, Matt 1:22, 23; John 1:1, 18, Col 2:9, and not just any god, but uses the phrase, "ho theos" so that there can be no doubt, John 20:28, Heb 1:8. The implication here is that both God the Father and Jesus are the one true God.

• We have the same situation with the title, "Creator". For example in Isa 44:24, "I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself" See also Isa 45:18. Yet in the NT we have similar assertions that Jesus created all things, John 1:3, Col 1:16, 17. Again, the implication is that both Jesus and God constitute the One true creator.

• There is an almost identical situation with Saviour and Redeemer; for example, Isa 43:11 says: "I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior." See also Isa 43:3, 45:18. Yet in the NT we often have Jesus referred to our true Saviour and Redeemer: Matt 1:21; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4, 2:13, 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11. Once more, the implication being that both God the Father (YHWH) and Jesus constitute the One True Saviour of mankind.

• The same is true of the One "Rock" as per Isa 44:8, "Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." See also Deut 32:3,4,15; Ps 92:15. In the NT we find that 1Cor 10:4 says, "for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." The implication is that both God the Father and Jesus constitute the One true Rock.

• Another point, for example, is God the Father does not share His glory (Isa 42:8, 48:11) yet we find in John 17:5, 24 Jesus shares the Father's glory.

• In Isa 41:4; 44:6 The Father (YHWH, LORD) is called, "First and Last" and so is Jesus, Rev 1:17, 18; 22:13

• Jehovah is the declared the only One who is deserving of worship in Ex 20:3, 34:14; Deut 8:19; 2 Kings 17:35-38; (see also Matt 4:10; Acts 10:25, 26; Rev 19:10, 22:8, 9), yet the NT records numerous times when Jesus was worshipped Matt 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 4:8; 24:52; John 9:38; Rom 10:9; Heb 1:5, 6; Phil 2:10, etc.

🔷️Patristic Considerations and Arguments from the Saints

John 17:3 was used by Arius to maintain that Jesus Christ was not of the same nature as the Father; however this objection was resolved.

St Thomas excellently writes in his commentary on the Gospel of John (17):

Secondly, we should explain the phrase, you the only true God. It is clear that Christ was speaking to the Father, so when he says, you the only true God, it seems that only God the Father is true God. The Arians agree with this, for they say that the Son differs by essence from the Father, since the Son is a created substance, although he shares in the divinity more perfectly and to a greater degree than do all other creatures. So much more that the Son is called God, but not the true God, because he is not God by nature, which only the Father is.

Hilary answers this by saying that when we want to know whether a certain thing is true, we can determine it from two things: its nature and its power. For true gold is that which has the species of true gold; and we determine this if it acts like true gold. Therefore, if we maintain that the Son has the true nature of God, because the Son exercises the true activities of divinity, it is clear that the Son is true God. Now the Son does perform true works of divinity, for we read, "Whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise" (5:19); and again he said, "For as the Father has life in himself," which is not a participated life, "so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself" (5:26); "That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" [1 Jn 5:20].

According to Hilary, he says, you the only true God, in a way that does not exclude another. He does not say without qualification, you the only, but adds and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. It is like saying: that they know you and Jesus Christ whom you have sent to be the one and only true God. This is a pattern of speaking that we also use when we say [in the Gloria]: "You alone, Jesus Christ, are the most high, together with the Holy Spirit." No mention is made of the Holy Spirit because whenever the Father and the Son are mentioned, and especially in matters pertaining to the grandeur of the divinity, the Holy Spirit, who is the bond of the Father and Son, is implied.

Or, according to Augustine in his work, The Trinity, he says this to exclude the error of those who claim that it is false to say that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; while it is true to say that the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit are one God. The reason for this opinion was that the Apostle said that "Christ [is] the power of God and the Wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24). Now it is clear that we cannot call anyone God unless he has divine power and wisdom. Therefore, since these people held that the Father was wisdom, which is the Son, they held further that the Father considered without the Son would not be God. And the same applies to the Son and the Holy Spirit.

In summary:

• Hilary’s Response:

• Something is "true" based on its nature and power (e.g., true gold has both the properties and actions of gold).

• Since the Son performs divine works (John 5:19, 5:26), He possesses the divine nature and is true God.

• 1 John 5:20 states: “This is the true God and eternal life,” referring to the Son.

• Jesus’ phrase "you the only true God" does not exclude the Son but includes Him as sharing in the one divine essence.

• Hilary’s Linguistic Argument:

• The phrase "you the only true God" is structured in a way that does not exclude Jesus.

• Example: In the Gloria, we say, "You alone, Jesus Christ, are the most high, together with the Holy Spirit," implying shared divinity.

• The Holy Spirit is not mentioned explicitly but is always implied when the Father and Son are referenced.

• Augustine’s Explanation (from The Trinity):

• The phrase guards against a misunderstanding that denies the distinct persons of the Trinity.

• Some falsely claim that only the Trinity as a whole is God, rather than the individual persons being fully God.

• Since Christ is called the Wisdom and Power of God (1 Cor 1:24), and only a being with divine wisdom and power can be God, both the Father and Son must be fully God.

• Thus, the Father is not God apart from the Son, and vice versa, preserving Trinitarian unity.

🔷️ Commentator's on John 17:3

🔅Bengel's Gnomen (*¹)

μόνον, the only, the alone) The Son and Holy Spirit are not excluded by this word. Comp. μόνος, ch. John 8:9, “Jesus was left alone, and the woman.” But those meant to be excluded are the false gods, with the idolatrous worship of which the world was crowded.

🔅Barnes writes: (*²)

The only true God - The only God, in opposition to all false gods. What is said here is in opposition to idols, not to Jesus himself, who, in 1 John 5:20, is called "the true God and eternal life."

🔅Matthew Poole writes: (*²)

the only true God. But divines answer, that the term only, or alone, is not to be applied to thee, but to the term God; and the sense this: To know thee to be that God which is the only true God: and this appeareth from 1Jo 5:20, where Christ is said to be the true God, which he could not be if the Father were the only true God, considered as another from the Son. The term only, or alone, is not exclusive of the other two Persons in the Trinity, but only of idols, the gods of the heathen, which are no gods; so 1 Timothy 6:15,16, and many other Scriptures: so Matthew 11:27, where it is said, that none knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any the Father, save the Son; where the negative doth not exclude the Holy Spirit. Besides, the term alone is in Scripture observed not always to exclude all others, as Mark 6:47. Our Saviour saith, it is life eternal to know him who is the only true God, that is, it is the way to eternal life, which is an ordinary figure used in holy writ. He adds,

and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent; by which he lets us know, that the Father cannot be savingly known, but in and by the Son.

🔅Pulpit Commentary

The life eternal, of which Jesus has just spoken, is this (cf. for construction, John 15:12; 1 John 3:11, 23; 1 John 5:3), that they might know - should come to know - thee, the only veritable God. All ideas of God which deviate from or fall short of "the Father" revealed to us by Christ, are not the veritable God, and the knowledge of them is not life eternal. The Father is here set forth as the fens Deitatis. This does not exclude "the Son," but is inconceivable without him. The Fatherhood expresses an eternal relation. The one element involves the ether as integral to itself: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me."

🔷️ Conclusion: John 17:3 Does Not Deny Christ’s Deity

• 1 John 5:20 explicitly calls Jesus "the true God and eternal life."

• Greek syntax does not exclude Jesus from being God.

• Unitarians misinterpret "only" (μόνος), ignoring exceptions like Jude 4.

• The Father and Son share divine attributes.

• Hebrews 1:8-10 shows that the Father calls Jesus "God" and "Lord."

Thus, John 17:3 does not contradict Christ’s deity but affirms the unity of the Father and Son. Jesus Christ is truly the True God and Eternal Life.

Job's Redeemer and the Lord Jesus Christ. "Agency" can't answer this one either!

 By Artison Rex From Facebook 

Job's Redeemer and the Lord Jesus Christ. "Agency" can't answer this one either!

The Book of Job anticipates a final, personal encounter with YHWH as the cosmic judge, and Job insists that no other—meaning, no intermediary or agent—will fulfill this role. Yet, in the New Testament, Jesus claims that all judgment is given to Him (John 5:22). This creates a powerful theological connection: if only YHWH is the final judge, and Jesus is the one who judges, then Jesus must be YHWH.

Let's break this down step by step.

1. Job’s Expectation: Seeing YHWH as the Final Judge

In Job 19:25-27, Job expresses his deep conviction that, at the end of time, he will see YHWH himself—not through another, but with his own eyes:

“For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that at the last He will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!”

(Job 19:25-27, ESV)

Key Points:

• YHWH is the one Job expects to see.

• "Not another" rules out the possibility that Job is expecting a mere angel, agent, or prophet.

• This happens "at the last", indicating an eschatological, end-times fulfillment.

• Job refers to YHWH as his "Redeemer," a term later applied to Jesus.

2. Jesus as the Exclusive Judge in the New Testament

Now, compare Job’s statement with John 5:22-23, where Jesus makes a staggering claim about judgment:

“The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”

(John 5:22-23, ESV)

Key Points:

• The Father does not judge anyone.

• Jesus is given all judgment.

• Honoring Jesus is equal to honoring the Father.

3. Implications: Jesus Must Be YHWH

A. Only YHWH Is Judge

• The Old Testament consistently affirms that YHWH alone is the cosmic judge:

• Isaiah 33:22 – “For YHWH is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver, YHWH is our king; He will save us.”

• Psalm 9:7-8 – “But YHWH sits enthroned forever; He has established His throne for justice, and He judges the world with righteousness.”

If YHWH is the only judge, and Jesus says all judgment has been given to Him, then Jesus is not a mere agent—He is YHWH.

B. Job Expects to See YHWH, and the NT Says We Will See Jesus

• Revelation 22:3-4 – “The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His servants will worship Him. They will see His face.”

• Matthew 25:31-32 – Jesus describes Himself as the Son of Man who sits on His glorious throne and judges all nations.

If Job expected to see YHWH as judge, and the NT affirms that Jesus is the one we will see and be judged by, then Jesus is YHWH.

4. Parallels Between Job’s Redeemer and Jesus

Job calls his final hope his "Redeemer" (גֹּאֲלִי, Go'ali), a term used for YHWH as Israel’s savior in the Old Testament:

• Isaiah 44:6 – “Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, YHWH of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God.’”

• Psalm 19:14 – “O YHWH, my rock and my Redeemer.”

Yet, in the New Testament, Jesus is explicitly called Redeemer:

• Titus 2:13-14 – “…our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness.”

If Jesus is the Redeemer whom Job longed for, and if Job expected this Redeemer to be YHWH Himself, then Jesus is YHWH.

5. Jesus, the Judge of All Nations, Fulfills the Day of YHWH

The Day of YHWH in the Old Testament describes the final judgment of the world by YHWH:

• Joel 3:12 – “Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side.”

• Zechariah 14:5 – “Then YHWH my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him.”

In the New Testament, this role is given to Jesus:

• Matthew 25:31-32 – “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. Before Him will be gathered all the nations, and He will separate people one from another.”

• "Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:28-29, ESV)

• While Job says clearly that his eyes will behold Yahweh in the Resurrection and "not another." The Bible clearly relates that it is Jesus Christ the Lord who will be present and visible in the "last day." 

• Speaking of Jesus Christ the NT says, that "every eye will see Him."

• "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." (Revelation 1:7, ESV)

This verse emphasizes the visible and undeniable nature of Christ’s Second Coming. Since Job prophecies that he would behold God and "not another" and since the Bible relates the dead are raised by Christ and it is Him they behold.

 Agency is refuted! It is impossible to reconcile "agency" with Job's words.

Moreover, Revelation 1:7 references Zechariah 12:10, which prophesies that those who pierced Him [God] (a reference to His crucifixion) will mourn when they see Him again.

Thus, it becomes impossible; considering the words on the page to argue that Jesus is anything but God. Or, else Job's prophetic words are devoid of truth.

6. Conclusion: Jesus Is the YHWH Job Longed to See

• Job expected to see YHWH Himself as Judge and Redeemer.

• The Old Testament says YHWH alone is the Judge.

• Jesus says the Father judges no one, but all judgment is given to Him.

• Jesus is the Redeemer, the one whom Job longed to see.

• Jesus is the one who judges the nations in the NT, fulfilling the "Day of YHWH."

Thus, if Job expected to see YHWH as judge and no other, yet Jesus is the judge of all, then the only conclusion is that Jesus Christ is YHWH, the Cosmic Judge and Redeemer.

Nazareth to Nicaea with scholar Michael Bird

 

Here's a YouTube video playlist to the series: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyfMfjN8gM&list=PL_4rhC0z_G8s3HDg9XDcw4gUNA09bKyrg

How To Find Jesus in the Old Testament [Video Playlist] by Mike Winger

 

 Even though Mike Winger isn't a trained scholar like the kind of experts I usually like to link to in this blog, the following playlist of videos has pastor Mike Winger showing the places in the Old Testament where he believes Jesus is found in prophecies, types, shadows, emblems etc. I don't agree with everything he says, but most of what he does say are things most Trinitarians like myself would say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWlpQauXiTU&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHsHyvMtfgOgSPU6zEnCvxUO

Exegesis of Samuel 3 and the Word of Yahweh/Yehovah/Jehovah

The following is a comment I made in a discussion I had in a Facebook group regarding the distinct person of the Word of the LORD/YHVH/Yahweh/Yehovah/Jehovah in the Old Testament as well as His visible form. Unitarians sometimes deny the personal preexistence of Jesus in the Old Testament. Trinitarians generally believe that the Word of the LORD/YHVH in the Old Testament along with the specific Angel of the LORD/YHVH is the preexistent Jesus (i.e. a Christophany of Jesus). Some Unitarians will deny that the Word of YHVH was a person and that He had a visible form. They claim it was just an audible voice. The following is an exegesis of Samuel chapter 3 that supports the Trinitarian view.

[In the course of the discussion, I wrote:]

That doesn't do justice to what the OT says regarding the Word of YHVH. Because he could be seen at times (e.g. as He did to Abram [in a vision] Gen. 15:1).

In Samuel 3 it says that "And the word of the LORD was rare in those days; there was no frequent V̲I̲S̲I̲O̲N̲" (v. 1).

After Samuel is called by YHVH twice and twice Samuel goes to Eli thinking Eli called him, verse 7 says, "Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and t̲h̲e̲ ̲W̲o̲r̲d̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲L̲O̲R̲D̲ had not yet been *̲*̲*̲R̲E̲V̲E̲A̲L̲E̲D̲*̲*̲*̲ to him." Implying a visible form. Notice that the Word of the LORD is also simply identified as YHVH in the passage too.

Then in verse 10 it says, "And the LORD C̲A̲M̲E̲ ̲A̲N̲D̲ ̲S̲T̲O̲O̲D̲, calling as at other times,". Notice that it wasn't just an audible voice, but a visible form STOOD before Samuel.

Then in verse 15b it says, "...And Samuel was afraid to tell the V̲I̲S̲I̲O̲N̲ to Eli." Again, not merely an audible voice.

Finally, in verse 21 it says, "And the LORD A̲P̲P̲E̲A̲R̲E̲D̲ again at Shiloh, for the LORD R̲E̲V̲E̲A̲L̲E̲D̲ himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD."

Similarly in Jeremiah chapter 1 the Word of YHVH is sometimes referred simply as YHVH and is apparently in a visible form. Jeremiah says the Word of YHVH came and spoke. In fact, in verse 9 it says of YHVH (evidently the same person as the Word of YHVH) "Then the LORD P̲U̲T̲ ̲O̲U̲T̲ ̲H̲I̲S̲ ̲H̲A̲N̲D̲ ̲A̲N̲D̲ ̲T̲O̲U̲C̲H̲E̲D̲ my mouth." Indicating it wasn't merely an audible voice but a visible form that had a hand that could touch Jeremiah.
These are just some places in the OT that I could cite to document this phenomena. Another would be the encounter of Moses at the burning bush. And others.

There is no evidence that the sign above Jesus' cross was an acrostic for YHWH

As a Trinitarian I like the idea that the sign above the cross of Jesus formed the acrostic YHWH (or YHVH). BUT, there's just no evidence for it from the New Testament (even if it may have had that acrostic). The following is a good video demonstrating that the evidence just isn't there.

We Trinitarians shouldn't use bad arguments to support our views. Because once they've been debunked, it tends to inoculate people from considering the plausibility of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Jesus' Omniscience

The following is an expanded re-posting of comments I left at Steve Hay's blogpost titled: What does Jesus know? In that blogpost Steve interacts with Dale Tuggy's podcast where he interviewed Lee Irons on the doctrine of Christ's divinity. I HIGHLY recommend reading Steve's blogpost (and preferably also Dale's podcast) before reading the following blogpost of mine.

[update: Steve continued his discussion on the topic in other blogposts. For example HERE and HERE]

---

Then there's the cumulative evidence for Jesus' omniscience being taught by Scripture

We (along with the Jews) know that the Messiah would know and reveal a lot of things:

John 4:25 The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things."

John 4:29 "Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?"

Jesus had (or was acknowledged to have) preternatural knowledge that was consistent with omniscient, but doesn't necessarily entail omniscience:

Mark 2:8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts?

Mark 13:23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.

Matt. 9:4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?

Luke 9:47 But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts...

John 1:46 Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!"

John 2:24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

John 5:42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you.

John 6:64  But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)

John 18:4 Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?"

Jesus displayed knowledge (or acknowledged to have knowledge) that was consistent with omniscience and which may have been meant by the Scriptural authors to be interpreted as teaching divine omniscience upon later reading and theological reflection:

John 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God."

John 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), "I thirst."

John 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Matt. 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.- John 10:15

Luke 10:22 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Both Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22 coupled with John 10:15 should, upon theological reflection, suggest Christ's omniscience since no finite creature can exhaustively know the infinite Father, yet Jesus is said to so do. Hence, Christ is divine and omniscient. Additionally, the statement that "no one knows the Father..." is supposed to affirm the divine incomprehensibility and transcendence of the Father. If so, then when it also says that "no one knows the Son...", that should also suggest His divine incomprehensibility and transcendence as well. Only another divine person can fully know a divine person. Hence, Jesus is fully God, along with the Holy Spirit who searches the deep things of God (1 Cor. 2:10) [cf. my blogpost HERE for the Holy Spirit's Omniscience].


There are scriptural passages that indirectly and (seemingly) directly teach Christ's divinity and omniscience:

Acts 1:24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen

In Acts 1:24 a good case can be made that Jesus is the one being prayed to [cf. Putting Jesus in His Place by Bowman and Komoszewski]. If so, then Jesus is said to know the hearts of all humans (as Rev. 2:23 states). Moreover, in Acts 1:24 Jesus is being prayed to as God similar to how Paul prayed to Christ in 2 Cor. 12:8.

Col. 2:3 states that in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." That would be consistent with the omniscience of the eternal Word and Son of God.

Jesus is repeatedly said to be the Wisdom of God in the New Testament. Presumably the same Wisdom of God personified in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Luke 11:49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,'

When one combines Luke 11:49 with Matt. 23:34 (and their surrounding contexts), it's clear that Jesus is claiming to be the Wisdom that was personified in the Old Testament. For more see my blogpost HERE.

Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

In Heb. 4:12-13 the phrase "word of God" is traditionally interpreted to refer to the Holy Scriptures (which is the most likely meaning). However, there are a minority of commentators who interpret the verses to refer to the Son of God who is also called the (Eternal) Word of God. If that's the correct interpretation, then Jesus is said to not only 1. discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart, BUT ALSO 2. to exhaustively know all things such that no creature (or all creation) is exposed to (what amounts to) divine omniscient scrutiny.

Rev. 2:23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.

Jer. 17:10 "I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds."

1 King 8:39 then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind), [cf. 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9]

In Rev. 2:23 Jesus alludes to Jer. 17:10 and essentially states He is that same being described in Jer. 17:10 who searches hearts and rewards according to deeds. Something which 1 Kings 8:39 states only Yahweh/Jehovah can do. The original context of Jer. 17:10 is referring to Yahweh/Jehovah. Therefore, the most natural interpretation of Rev. 2:23 is that Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah and to possess the attribute of omniscience that Jehovah alone possesses.

It also follows that all the other external arguments and evidences for Jesus' full deity as Jehovah, if sound, would also imply Jesus' omniscience.

How does one address Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36 which seem to teach Jesus is not omniscient? There are various ways Christians have addressed this problem down through the centuries. Here's a link to a video that I don't find convincing or persuasive. My preferred way of dealing with the problem is by appealing to Thomas Morris' concept of two minds view of Christology. Basically, it teaches that Jesus has a human and a divine mind in such a way that doesn't commit the heresy of Nestorianism.

J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig briefly describe it this way:

Some Christian philosophers, such as Thomas Morris, have postulated an independent conscious life for the incarnate Logos in addition to the conscious life of Jesus of Nazareth, what Morris calls a “two minds” view of the Incarnation. He provides a number of intriguing analogies in which asymmetrical accessing relations exist between a subsystem and an encompassing system, such that the overarching system can access information acquired through the subsystem but not vice versa. He gives a psychological analogy of dreams in which the sleeper is himself a person in the dream, and yet the sleeper has an awareness that everything that he is experiencing as reality is in fact merely a dream.
Morris proposes that the conscious mind of Jesus of Nazareth be conceived as a subsystem of a wider mind which is the mind of the Logos. Such an understanding of the consciousness of the Logos stands in the tradition of Reformed theologians like Zwingli, who held that the Logos continued to operate outside the body of Jesus of Nazareth. The main difficulty of this view is that it threatens to lapse into Nestorianism, since it is very difficult to see why two self-conscious minds would not constitute two persons.
If the model here proposed makes sense, then it serves to show that the classic doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ is coherent and plausible. It also serves religiously to elicit praise to God for his self-emptying act of humiliation in taking on our human condition with all its struggles and limitations for our sakes and for our salvation.....
-J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig in chapter 30 of their book The Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview

See William Lane Craig's description in a debate Here (at 1 hour, 9 minutes, 21 seconds):

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWaPA52sa2Q&feature=youtu.be&t=1h9m21s)

See also Steve Hays' blogpost Dreaming and dual consciousness

In Steve's blogpost I posted the following comments (slightly modified and curtailed):

I independently came to the same conclusions as Steve Hays and Thomas Morris due to various types of my own dreams, including lucid dreaming. Some instances came from dreams in which I was talking to other people in deep dialogue. In one instance one of the persons told a joke that was so funny I laughed out loud and woke up. Then I thought, "Who really told the joke?" Barring demonic, angelic or divine communication, I must have told the joke to myself with me simultaneously knowing and not knowing the punchline.

I've also had dreams that ran like a movie where everything previous in the dream perfectly lead up to the denouement. It surprised me even though I must have concocted the intricate storyline subliminally.

Here's an example from a lucid dream. About 22 years ago as a teenager I found out about lucid dreaming and realized I'd experienced it a few times before. So, I decided that the next time I had a lucid dream I would fly. Soon afterwards I experienced a lucid dream and found myself in a house. I decided to fly through the roof like Superman. I did so and flew over the countryside enjoying the scenery (especially since I dream in color). After flying for a while I slowly started flying faster and faster and faster. Eventually I flew so fast that it started scaring me to the point that I couldn't take it anymore, so I decided to wake myself up.

What's interesting about this incident (and other lucid dreams I've had) is that in one sense *I* was in control, but in another sense *I* was not in control, it was the subliminal *Me* that was in control and was frightening *Me*. 

A counter argument might be that Jesus specifically said "ONLY the Father knows". That would exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, in my other blogposts I've argued for the full deity of Jesus, and the personality and full deity of the Holy Spirit. Along with the Holy Spirit's omniscience.

Statements should never be interpreted outside of its context. That's called "Quote Mining". The fact remains that Jesus didn't include or exclude the Holy Spirit. Either because the Holy Spirit is neither a person nor Divine OR because Jesus was limiting His statements to creatures. That's why He refers to men, angels and Himself as a human being (with a finite human mind). The two minds view has Jesus having an omniscient divine mind and a finite non-omniscient human mind. Jesus' statement in Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36 was in the context of whether CREATURES can know something which God has hidden from creatures. Jesus as God, and as to His divine mind, could and would know.

Genesis 22:12 says, "He [i.e. God] said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, FOR NOW I KNOW that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” Did God not really know this beforehand? Of course God knew because He is omniscient. This is an athropomorphism God used to speak to us at our level. It's His way of accommodating to us. But IF TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT one can abuse it and teach God isn't omniscient.

Also, it's ironic whenever a Muslim quotes this passage to deny Jesus' divinity because Jesus refers to Himself as the "Son" as well as referring to God as His Father. Traditionally Muslims have strongly avoided calling God Father because it contradicts their conception of Allah's transcendence. However, nowadays many Muslims don't even shy away from it but have accommodated it, acccepted it, and so have watered down their traditional beliefs. If Muslims insist this Jesus saying is authentic because it allegedly denies Jesus' full deity, they must also accept the consequence that this authentic Jesus tradition also has Jesus declaring and teaching He was "the Son". The context seems to be "the Son of Man" in both passages. However, Jesus could have been alluding to both concepts of being "the Son of God" and "the Son of Man". Even if we limit Jesus reference to only the "Son of Man", it is nevertheless a veiled claim to deity as I've argued HERE.

---

I have argued for Jesus' full deity in many of the blogposts in this blog. But there's another argument that may support Jesus' omniscience in another way. I argued at another blogpost HERE that Revelation 22:12-13 is speaking about Christ. If so, then Jesus is being described as "Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Elsewhere in the book of Revelation Jesus is called the "first and last", which was a title of God in the Old Testament. Compare Rev. 1:17 and Rev. 2:8 with Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12. Since Jesus is called "first and last" (if not also "Alpha and Omega and the beginning and the end") that teaches Jesus' full deity in a way that may also imply or highlight the divine attribute of omniscience. The idea being that the three descriptors point to both God's omnipotence in creation and His exhaustive knowledge of His own creation, just as He knows Himself fully. In other words, God's exhaustive self-knowledge is included in the phrase "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and end". If Jesus is "the first and last", then Jesus must be omniscient according to the book of Revelation. It's almost certain that the phrases "Alpha and Omega" and "the beginning and end" are just two other different ways to say and teach the meaning of "first and last".

Some might object by saying that the book of Revelation was one of the last books in the New Testament to be written. In which case it's not as reliable a source regarding the beliefs of the earliest Christians. However, the earliest New Testament books are the Pauline epistles and they have a very high Christology that teaches Jesus' full deity. Moreover, the early Gospel written (Mark) also has a very high Christology that (I have argued) teaches Jesus' full deity as well. See my blogpost:

Markan Christology

Christophaneia, or The Doctrine of the Manifestations of the Son of God Under the Economy of the Old Testament by George Balderston Kidd

Like all older defenses of the doctrine of the Trinity, the following work by Walsh has some deficiencies and problems which I point out in my blog:

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

Click on the following link to view Christophaneia, or The Doctrine of the Manifestations of the Son of God Under the Economy of the Old Testament by George Balderston Kidd   https://archive.org/details/doctrinemanifes00dobbgoog

The Angel of the Lord; or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by W. Pakenham Walsh

The author lived from 1820 to 1902. This is NOT the same person as W. S. Pakenham-Walsh who lived from 1868 to 1960.

Like all older defenses of the doctrine of the Trinity, the following work by Walsh has some deficiencies and problems which I point out in my blog:

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

Click on the following link to view The Angel of the Lord; or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by W. Pakenham Walsh

https://books.google.com/books?id=RKICAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Angel of the LORD by E.W. Hengstenberg

The following is an excerpt from E.W. Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament. The text below is copy and pasted from the version HERE. All four volumes available HERE.

I've highlighted some passages that I felt should be emphasized using two colors. Yellow for passages that would be more consistent with Trinitarianism. Light Purple for passages that would be more consistent with Unitarianism.

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN THE PENTATEUCH, AND THE BOOK OF JOSHUA.

The New Testament distinguishes between the hidden God and the revealed God—the Son or Logos—who is connected with the former by oneness of nature, and who from everlasting, and even at the creation itself, filled up the immeasurable distance between the Creator and the creation;—who has been the Mediator in all God's relations to the world;—who at all times, and even before He became man in Christ, has been the light of [Pg 116] the world,—and to whom, specially, was committed the direction of the economy of the Old Covenant.

It is evident that this doctrine stands in the closest connection with the Christology,—that it forms, indeed, its theological foundation and ground-work. Until the Christology has attained to a knowledge of the true divinity of the Saviour, its results cannot be otherwise than very meagre and unsatisfactory. Wheresoever the true state of human nature is seen in the light of Holy Scripture, no high expectations can be entertained from a merely human Saviour, although he were endowed even with as full a measure of the gifts of the Spirit of God as human nature, in its finite and sinful condition, is able to bear. But unless there exist in the one divine Being itself, such a distinction of persons, the divinity of the Saviour cannot be acknowledged, without endangering the unity of God which the Scriptures so emphatically teach. If, however, there be such a distinction,—if the Word be indeed with God, we cannot avoid ascribing to God the desire of revealing Himself; nor, in such a case, can we conceive that He should content Himself with inferior forms of revelation, with merely transitory manifestations. We can recognise in these only preparations, and preludes of the highest and truest revelation.

The question then is, whether any insight into this doctrine is to be found as early as in the Books of the Old Testament. Sound Christian Theology has discovered the outlines of such a distinction betwixt the hidden and the revealed God, in many passages of the Old Testament, in which mention is made of the Angel or Messenger of God. The general tenor of these passages will be best exemplified by the first among them,—the narrative of Hagar in Gen. xvi. In ver. 7, we are told that the Angel of Jehovah found Hagar. In ver. 10, this Angel ascribes to Himself a divine work, viz., the innumerable increase of Hagar's posterity. In ver. 11, He says that Jehovah had heard her distress. He thus asserts of Jehovah what, shortly before. He had said of Himself. Moreover, in ver. 13, Hagar expresses her astonishment that she had seen God, and yet had remained alive.—The opinion that these passages form the Old Testament foundation for the Proemium of St John's Gospel, has not remained uncontroverted. From the very times of the Church-fathers it has been asserted by many, that where the [Pg 117] Angel of the Lord is spoken of, we must not think of a person connected with God by unity of nature, but of a lower angel, by whom God executes His commands, and through whom He acts and speaks. The latest defenders of the view are Hofmann in "Weissagung und Erfüllung" and in the "Schriftbeweis" and Delitzsch in his commentary on Genesis.—Others are of opinion, that the Angel of Jehovah is identical with Jehovah Himself,—not denoting a person distinct from Him, but only the form in which He manifests Himself. We shall not here discuss the question in its whole extent; we shall, in the meantime, consider only what the principal passages of the Pentateuch and of the adjacent Book of Joshua teach upon this point, and how far their teaching coincides with, or is in opposition to, these various views. For it is only to this extent that the inquiry belongs to our present object.

In Gen. xvi. 13, these words are of special importance: "And she called the name of the Lord who spoke unto her, Thou art a God of sight: for she said, Do I now (properly here, in the place where such a sight was vouchsafed to me) still see after my seeing?" "Do I see" is equivalent to, "Do I live," because death threatened, as it were, to enter through the eyes. (Compare the expression, "Mine eyes have seen," in Is. vi.) רֹאִי is the pausal form for רֳאִי; see Job xxxiii. 21, where, however, the accent is on the penultimate. Then follows ver. 14: They called the well, "Well of the living sight;" i.e., where a person had a sight of God, and remained alive.

Hagar must have been convinced that she had seen God without the mediation of a created angel; for, otherwise, she could not have wondered that her life was preserved. Man, entangled by the visible world, is terrified when he comes in contact with the invisible world, even with angels. (Compare Dan. viii. 17, 18; Luke ii. 9.) But this terror rises to fear of death only when man comes into contact with the Lord Himself. (Compare the remarks on Rev. i. 17.) In Gen. xxxii. 31—a passage which bears the closest resemblance to the one now under review, and from which it receives its explanation—it is said: "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, for I have seen God face to face, and my life has been preserved." In Exod. xx. 19, the children of Israel said to Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear; and let not God speak with us, [Pg 118] lest we die;" compared with Deut. v. 21: "Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die." (Compare also Deut. xviii. 16.) And it is Jehovah who, in Exod. xxxiii. 20, says, "There shall no man see Me and live." Israel's Lord and God is, in the absolute energy of His nature, a "consuming fire," Deut. iv. 24. (Compare Deut. ix. 3; Is. xxxiii. 14: "Who among us would dwell with the devouring fire? who among us would dwell with everlasting burning?" Heb. xii. 29.) It is not the reflected light, even in the most exalted creatures, nor the sight of the saints of whom it is said, "Behold, He puts no trust in His servants, and His angels He chargeth with folly,"—but the sight of the thrice Holy One, which makes Isaiah exclaim, "Woe is me, for I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."

So much then is clear,—that the opinion which considers the Angel of the Lord to be a created angel is overthrown by the first passage where that angel is mentioned, if the exposition which we have given of vers. 13, 14—an exposition which is now generally received, and which was last advanced by Knobel—be correct. But Delitzsch gives another exposition: "Thou art a God of sight," i.e., one whose all-seeing eye does not overlook the helpless and destitute, even in the remotest corner of the wilderness." Against this we remark, that ראי never denotes the act of seeing, but the sight itself. "Have I not even here (even in the desert land of destitution) looked after Him who saw me?" "Well of the living one who seeth me," i.e., of the omnipresent divine providence. In opposition to this exposition, however, we must remark, that God is nowhere else in Genesis called the Living One. But our chief objection is, that these expositions destroy the connection which so evidently exists between our passage and those already quoted,—especially Gen. xxxii. 31; Exod. xxxiii. 20. (Compare, moreover, Jud. xiii. 22: "And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.")

It has been asked. Why should the Logos have appeared first to the Egyptian maid? But the low condition of Hagar cannot here come into consideration; for the appearance is in reality intended, not for her, but for Abraham. Immediately [Pg 119] before, in chap. xii. 7, it is said, "And the Lord appeared unto Abraham;" and immediately after, in chap. xvii. 1, "And when Abraham was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to him;" the appearance of the Lord Himself is mentioned in order that every thought of a lower angel may be warded off. The passage under consideration, then, contains the indication, that such appearances must only be conceived of as manifestations of the Deity Himself to the world. Just as our passage is preserved from erroneous interpretations by such passages as Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 1, so these receive from ours, in return, their most distinct definition. We learn from this, that wherever appearances of Jehovah are mentioned, we must conceive of them as effected by the mediation of His Angel. There is no substantial difference betwixt the passages in which Jehovah Himself is mentioned, and those in which the Angel of Jehovah is spoken of. They serve to supplement and to explain one another. The words, "In His Angel," in chap. xvi. 7, furnish us with the supplement to the succeeding statement, "And Jehovah appeared to him" (so, e.g., also in chap. xviii. 1), just as the writer in Gen. chap. ii. iii. makes use of the name Jehovah-Elohim, in order that henceforth every one may understand that where only Jehovah is spoken of. He is yet personally identical with Elohim.

Let us now turn to Gen. xviii. xix. According to Delitzsch. all the three men who appeared to Abraham were "finite spirits made visible." Hofmann (Schriftb. S. 87) says: "Jehovah is present on earth in His angels, in the two with Lot, as in the three with Abraham." We, however, hold fast by the view of the ancient Church, that in chap. xviii. the Logos appeared accompanied by two inferior angels.

Abraham's regards are, from the very first, involuntarily directed to one from among the three, and whom he addresses by אֲדוֹנָי, O Lord (xviii. 3); the two others are considered by him as companions only. But Lot has to do with both equally, and addresses them first by אֲדוֹנַי, my Lords.—In chap. xviii., it is always one only of the three who speaks; the two others are mute;^[1] while in chap. xix. everything comes from the two [Pg 120] equally. He with whom Abraham has to do, always, and without exception, speaks as God Himself; while the two with whom Lot has to do speak at first, as λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα, distinguishing themselves from the Lord who sent them (compare ver. 13); and it is only after they have thus drawn the line of separation between themselves and Jehovah, that they appear, in vers. 21, 22, as speaking in His name. They do so, moreover, only after Lot, in the anxiety of his heart and in his excitement, had previously addressed, in them, Him who sent them, and with whom he desired to have to do as immediately as possible. The scene bears, throughout, a character of excitement, and is not fitted to afford data for general conclusions. We cannot infer from it that it was, in general, customary to address, in the angels, the Lord who sent them, or that the angels acted in the name of the Lord. In chap. xviii., from ver. 1, where the narrative begins with the words, "And Jehovah appeared unto him," Moses always speaks of him with whom Abraham had to do as Jehovah only, excepting where he introduces the three men. (He with whom Abraham has to do is called, not fewer than eight times, Jehovah, and six times אֲדוֹנָי.) But in chap. xix., Jehovah, who is concealed behind the two angels, appears only twice in the expression, "And He said," in vers. 17, 21, for which ver. 13 suggests the supplement: "through His two angels."—Even in ver. 16, the narrative distinguishes Jehovah from the two men,—and all this in an exciting scene which must have influenced even the narrator. If he who spoke to Abraham was an angel like the other two, we could scarcely perceive any reason why he should not have taken part in the mission to Sodom; but if he was the Angel of the Lord κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the reason is quite obvious; it would have been inconsistent with divine propriety.—In chap. xviii. Moses speaks of three men; it is evidently on [Pg 121] purpose that he avoids speaking of three angels. In chap. xix. 1, on the contrary, we are at once told: "And there came the two angels." (Compare ver. 15.) The reason why in chap. xviii. the use of the name angels is avoided can only be, because it might easily have led to a misunderstanding, if the Angel of the Lord had been comprehended in that one designation along with the two inferior angels, although it would not, in itself, have been inadmissible.—If we suppose that he, with whom Abraham had to do, was some created angel, we cannot well understand how, in chap. xviii. 17 seq., the judgment over Sodom could, throughout, be ascribed to him. He could not, in the name of the Lord, speak of that judgment, as not he, but the two other angels who went to Sodom, were the instruments of its execution. Hence it only remains to ascribe the judgment to him as the causa principalis.—If the three angels were equals, it would be impossible to explain the adversative clause in chap. xviii. 22: "And the men turned from thence and went to Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before the Lord." Jehovah and the two angels are here contrasted. It is true that, in the two angels also, it is Jehovah who acts. This is evident from xviii. 21: "I will go down and see"—where the going down does not refer to descending to the valley of Jordan, the position of which was lower (thus Delitzsch); but, according to xi. 7, it refers to a descent from heaven to earth. That Jehovah, though on earth, should declare His resolution to go down, as in xi. 7, may be explained from the ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ in John iii. 13. God, even when He is on earth, remains in heaven, and it is thence that He manifests Himself. Moreover, the words immediately following show in what sense this going down is to be understood,—that it is not in His own person, but through the medium of His messengers. The resolution, "I will go down," is carried into effect by the going down of the angels to Sodom.

By the Jehovah who, from Jehovah out of heaven, caused brimstone and fire to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah (xix. 24), we are not at liberty to understand the two angels only,^[2] but, [Pg 122] agreeably to the views of sound Christian expositors generally, Christ,—with this modification, however, that the two angels are to be considered as His servants, and that what they do is His work also. It is true that the angels say, in xix. 13, "We will destroy," etc.; but much more emphatically and frequently does he with whom Abraham has to do, ascribe the work of destruction to himself. (Compare xviii. 17, where Jehovah says, "How can I hide from Abraham that thing which I am doing?" vers. 24-28, etc.) If in xix. 24 there be involved the contrast between, so to speak, the heavenly and earthly Jehovah,—between the hidden God and Him who manifests Himself on earth,—then so much the more must we seek the latter in chap. xviii., as in ver. 22, compared with ver. 21, the angels are distinctly pointed out as His Messengers.

Delitzsch asserts that in Heb. xiii. 2, the words, ἔλαθόν τινες ξενίσαντες ἀγγέλους, clearly indicate that "all three were finite spirits made visible." This assertion, however, which was long before made by the Socinian Crellius, has been sufficiently refuted by Ode de Angelis, p. 1001. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews intends to connect the events which happened to Abraham and Lot equally—τίνες; and for this reason he did not go beyond what was common to them both. Moreover, the Angel of the Lord is likewise comprehended in the appellation "angels," for the name has no reference to the nature, but to the mission.

---

 ^[1] The words in ver. 9, "And they said to him," are to be understood only thus:—that one spoke at the same time in the name of the others; in the question thus put, it is, in the first instance, only the general relation of the guests to the hostess that comes into consideration. That such is the case, appears from ver. 10, where the use of the plural could not be continued, because a work was on hand which was peculiar to the one among them, and in which the others were not equally concerned. If the words in ver. 9 were spoken by all the three, then the one in ver. 10 ought to have been singled out thus: "And one from among them thus spoke." On account of the suffix in אחריו, "And the door was behind him," the ויאמר in ver. 10 can be referred only to the one, and not to the Jehovah concealed behind all the three. This shows how the preceding, "And they said," is to be understood.

^[2] Delitzsch says: "As the two are really sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, it is evident that Jehovah, in ver. 24, who causes brimstone and fire to rain from Jehovah out of heaven, is viewed as being present in the two on earth, but in such a manner that, nevertheless, His real judicial throne is in heaven."

---

Of no less importance and significance is the passage Gen. xxxi. 11 seq. According to ver. 11, the Angel of God, מלאך האלהים, appears to Jacob in a dream. In ver. 13, the same person calls himself the God of Bethel, with reference to the event recorded in chap. xxviii. 11-22. It cannot be supposed that in chap xxviii. the mediation of a common angel took place, who, however, had not been expressly mentioned; for Jehovah is there contrasted with the angels. In ver. 12, we read: "And behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it." In ver. 13, there is another sight: "And behold Jehovah stood by him and said, I am Jehovah, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed."

[Pg 123]

This passage is also in so far of importance, because, agreeably to what has been remarked in p. 119, it follows from it that even there, where Jehovah simply is mentioned, the mediation through His Angel is to be assumed.

---

He with whom Jacob wrestles, in Gen. xxxii. 24, makes himself known as God, partly by giving him the name Israel, i.e., one who wrestles with God, and partly by bestowing a blessing upon him. Jacob calls the place Peniel, i.e., face of God, because he had seen God face to face, and wonders that his life was preserved. The answer which Elohim gives here to Jacob's question regarding His name, remarkably coincides with that which in Judges xiii. 17, 18, is given by the Angel of the Lord to a similar question. In Hosea xii. 4 (comp. the remarks on this passage in the Author's "Genuineness of the Pentateuch," vol. i. p. 128 ff.), he who wrestled with Jacob is called Elohim, as in Genesis; but in ver. 5, he is called מלאך, a word which is more distinctly defined by the preceding Elohim; so that we can, accordingly, think only of the Angel of God. As it was certainly not the intention of the prophet to state a new historical circumstance, the mention of the Angel must be founded upon the supposition, that all revelations of God are made by the mediation of His Angel,—a supposition which we have already proved to have its foundation in the book of Genesis itself.

Delitzsch says, S. 256, "Jehovah reveals Himself in the מלאך, but just by means of a finite spirit becoming visible, and therefore in a manner more tolerable to him who occupies a lower place of communion with God." And similarly, Hofmann expresses himself, S. 335: "It is quite the same thing whether it be said, he saw God, or an angel, as is testified by Hosea also; and nowhere have we less right to explain it as if it were an appearance of God the Son, in contrast with the appearance of an angel."

But since it is an essentially different matter, whether Jacob wrestled with God Himself, or, in the first instance, with an ordinary angel merely, we have, as regards this opinion, only the choice between accusing the prophet Hosea, who brought in the angel, of an Euhemerismus, or of raising against sacred history the charge that it cannot be relied on, because it omitted so important [Pg 124] a circumstance. The name Israel, by which, "at the same time, the innermost nature of the covenant-people was fixed, and the divine law of their history was established" (Delitzsch), is, in that case, a falsehood. Jacob has overcome omnipotence, and, in this one adversary, all others who might oppose him,—as he is expressly assured in ver. 29: "Thou hast wrestled with God and with men, and hast prevailed." Can God invest a creature with omnipotence? Jacob would certainly not have gone so cheerfully to meet Esau, if in Him over whom he prevailed with weeping and supplication, he himself had recognised only an angel, and not Jehovah the God of hosts, as Hosea, in ver. 6, calls the very same, of whom in ver. 5 he had spoken as the angel. The consolatory import of the event for the Church of all times is destroyed, if Jacob had to do with a created angel only. With such an one, Jacob had not to reckon on account of his sinfulness, and it is just the humiliating consciousness of this his sinfulness which forms the point at issue in his wrestling. Moreover, with such a view, the New Testament Antitype would be altogether lost. Jesus, the true Israel, does not wrestle with an angel,—such an one only appears to strengthen Him in His struggle, Luke xxii. 43—but with God, Heb. v. 7.—The occurrence would, according to this opinion, furnish a strong argument for the worship of angels: "He wept and made supplication unto him," Hos. xii. 5 (compare Deut. iii. 23). The ἀγωνίζεσθαι ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, mentioned in Col. iv. 12, in allusion to our passage, would, in that case, besides God, have the angels for its object.

If an ordinary angel were here to be understood, we must likewise believe that an angel is spoken of in Gen. xxxv. 9 seq. For, of the same angel with whom Jacob wrestled, Hosea says that Jacob found him in Bethel: "And he wrestled with the Angel and prevailed, he wept and made supplication unto him; he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us." (Tarnov: "Nobiscum qui in lumbis Jacobi hærebamus.") Then, it must have been a common angel, too, who appeared to Jacob in Gen. xxviii. 10 ff.; for chap. xxxv. 9, compared with ver. 7, does not allow us to doubt of the identity of him who appeared on these two occasions. But such an idea cannot be entertained for a moment; for in chap. xxviii. 13, Jehovah is contrasted with the angels ascending and descending on the ladder.

[Pg 125]

In Gen. xlviii. 15, 16, we read of Jacob: "And he blessed Joseph, and said, The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, and the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads."

In this passage, God first appears, twice in the indefiniteness of His nature, and then, specially, as the Angel concerned for Jacob and his posterity.

By the Angel, we cannot here understand a divine emanation and messenger, because no permanent character belongs to such; while here the whole sum of the preservations of Jacob, and of the blessings upon Ephraim and Manasseh, is derived from the Angel. And just as little can we thereby understand a created angel, according to the view of Hofmann, who, in S. 87, says: "Jacob here makes mention of God, not thrice, but twice only; first as the God of his fathers, and then as the God of his own experience, but in such a way that in ver. 16 he names, instead of God, the Angel who watched over him; and he does so for the purpose of denoting the special providence of which he had been the object."

The analogy of the threefold blessing of Aaron in Num. vi. 24-26 would lead us to expect that the name of God should be three times mentioned. No created angel could in this manner be placed by the side of God, or be introduced as being independent of, and co-ordinate with, Him. Such an angel can only be meant as is connected with God by oneness of nature, and whose activity is implied in that of God. The singular יברך is here of very special significance. It indicates that the Angel is joined to God by an inseparable oneness, and that his territory is just as wide as that of Elohim.^[1] If by the angel we understand some created one, we cannot then avoid the startling inference, that God is, in all His manifestations, bound [Pg 126] absolutely to the mediation of the lower angels. In the history upon which Jacob looks back, the inferior angels do not appear at all as taking any part in all the preservations of Jacob. Twice only are they mentioned in his whole history,—in chap. xxviii. 12, and xxxii. 2. Lastly,—The angel cannot well be a collective noun; for we nowhere meet with the ideal person of the angel, as comprehending within himself a real plurality. (Compare remarks on Ps. xxxiv. 8.) We should therefore be compelled to think of Jacob's protecting angel. But this, again, would be in opposition to the fact, that Scripture nowhere says anything of the guardian angels of any individual. Moreover, it is a plurality of angels that in xxviii. 12, xxxii. 2, serves for the protection of Jacob, and we nowhere find the slightest trace of one inferior angel being attached to Jacob for his protection.

---

^[1] This significance of the singular was pointed out as early as in the third century by Novatianus, who, de Trinitate c. xv. (p. 1016 in Ode), says: "So constant is he in mentioning that Angel whom he had called God, that even at the close of his speech he again refers, in an emphatic manner, to the same person, by saying, 'God bless these lads.' For had he intended that some other angel should be understood, he would have used the plural number in order to comprehend the two persons. But since, in his blessing, he made use of the singular, he would have us to understand that God and the Angel are quite identical."

---

In Exod. xxiii. 20, 21, Jehovah says to the children of Israel: "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; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions: for My name is in him."

As the people are here told to beware of the Angel, because he will not pardon their transgressions, so Joshua xxiv. 19 warns them as regards the most high God: "Ye will not be able to serve Jehovah: for He is a holy (i.e., a glorious, exalted) God; He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins." The energetic character of the reaction proceeding from the angel against all violations of His honour, is founded upon the words, "For My name is in him." By the "name of God" all His deeds are understood and comprehended, His glory testified by history, the display and testimony of His nature which history gives. (Compare the remarks in my commentary on Ps. xxiii. 2, xlviii. 11, lxxxiii. 17-19, lxxxvi. 11.) "My name is him;" i.e., according to Calvin, "My glory and majesty dwell in him." Compare here what in the New Testament is said of Christ: ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ, John v. 19; ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα, John v. 23; ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν, John x. 30; ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κᾀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, [Pg 127] John x. 38; οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστι, John xiv. 10; καθὼς σὺ πάτερ ἐν ἐμοὶ κᾀγὼ ἐν σοί, John xvii. 21; ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, Col. ii. 9.—It is impossible that the name of God could be communicated to any other, Is. xlii. 8. The name of God can dwell in Him only, who is originally of the same nature with God.

---

After Israel had contracted guilt by the worship of the golden calf. He who had hitherto led them—Jehovah = the Angel of Jehovah—says, in Exod. xxxii. 34, that He would no more lead them Himself, but send before them His Angel, מלאכי: "For I (myself) will not go up in the midst of thee, for thou art a stiff-necked people, lest I consume thee in the way;" xxxiii. 3, compared with xxiii. 21. The people are quite inconsolable on account of this sad intelligence, ver. 4.

The threatening of the Lord becomes unintelligible, and the grief of the people incomprehensible, if by the Angel in chap. xxiii. an ordinary angel be understood. But everything becomes clear and intelligible, if we admit that in chap. xxiii. there is an allusion to the Angel of the Lord κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, who is connected with Him by oneness of nature, and who, because the name of God is in Him, is as zealous as Himself in inflicting punishment as well as in bestowing salvation; whilst in chap. xxxii. 34, the allusion is to an inferior angel, who is added to the highest revealer of God as His companion and messenger, and who appears in the Book of Daniel under the name of Gabriel, while the Angel of the Lord appears under the name of Michael.

On account of the sincere repentance of the people, and the intercession of Moses, the Lord revokes the threatening, and says in xxxiii. 14, "My face shall go." But Moses said unto Him, "If Thy face go not, carry us not up hence."

That פנים, face, signifies here the person, is granted by Gesenius: "The face of some one means often his personal presence,—himself in his own person." A similar use of the word occurs in 2 Sam. xvii. 11: "Thy face go to battle" (Michaelis: "Thou thyself be present, not some commander only"); and in Deut. iv. 37, where בפניו means in, or with, his personal presence: "He [Pg 128] brought them out with His face, with His mighty power out of Egypt."

The state of things has in xxxiii. 14, 15, evidently become again what it was in xxiii. 20, 21. The face of the Lord in the former passage, is the Angel of the Lord in the latter. Hence, we cannot here admit the idea of some inferior angel; we can think only of that Angel who is connected with the Lord by oneness of nature.

The connection between the face of the Lord in xxxiii. 14, 15, and the Angel in whom is the name of the Lord, in xxiii., becomes still more evident by Is. lxiii. 8, 9: "And He (Jehovah) became their Saviour. In all their affliction (they were) not afflicted, and the Angel of His face saved them; in His love and in His pity He redeemed them, and He bore and carried them all the days of old." The Angel of the face, in this text, is an expression which, by its very darkness, points back to some fundamental passage—a passage, too, in the Pentateuch—as facts are alluded to, of which the authentic report is given in that book. The expression, "Angel of the face," arose from a combination of Exod. xxiii. 20—from which the "Angel" is taken—and Exod. xxxiii. 14, whence he took the "face." To explain "Angel of the face" by "the angel who sees His face," as several have done, would give an inadequate meaning; for by the whole context, an expression is demanded which would elevate the angel to the height of God. Now, as in Exod. xxxiii. 14, "the face of Jehovah" is tantamount to "Jehovah in His own person," the Angel of the face can be none other than He in whom Jehovah appeal's [typo correction: should read "appears"] personally, in contrast with inferior created angels. The Angel of the face is the Angel in whom is the name of the Lord.

---

When Joshua was standing with the army before Jericho, in a state of despondency at the sight of the strongly fortified city, a man appeared to him, with his sword drawn; and when he was asked by Joshua, "Art thou for us or for our adversaries?" he answers, in chap. v. 14, "Nay, for I am the Captain of the host of Jehovah, שר צבא יהוה, now I have come." This Captain claims for himself divine honour, in ver. 15, precisely in the same manner as the Angel of Jehovah in Exod. iii., by commanding [Pg 129] Joshua to put off his shoes, because the place on which he stood was holy. In chap. vi. 2 he is called Jehovah. For it is evident that we are not to think of another divine revelation there given to Joshua in any other way—as some interpreters suppose; because, in that case, the appearance of the Captain, who only now gives command to Joshua, would have been without an object. In chap. v. the directions would be wanting; in chap. vi. we should have no report of the appearance.

There can be no doubt that, by the host of the Lord, the heavenly host is to be understood; and Hofmann (S. 291) has not done well in reviving the opinion of some older expositors (Calvin, Masius) which has been long ago refuted, viz., that the host of the Lord is "Israel standing at the beginning of his warfare," and in asserting that the prince of this host is some inferior angel. The Israelites cannot be the host of the Lord, that explanation is excluded by the comparison with the host of the Lord mentioned at the very threshold of revelation, in Gen. ii. 1; that which is commonly (Gen. xxxii. 2; 1 Kings xxii. 19; Neh. ix. 6; Ps. ciii. 21, cxlviii. 2, compared with 2 Kings vi. 27) so called, infinitely surpasses the earthly one in glory, and of it the Lord has the name Jehovah Zebaoth. It is only in two isolated passages of the Pentateuch that the appellation which properly belongs to the heavenly hosts of God is transferred to the earthly ones; and that is done in order to point out their correspondence, and thereby to elevate the mind. In the first of these passages, Exod. vii. 4, the "host of the Lord" is not spoken of absolutely, but it is expressly said what host is intended: "And I bring forth My host. My people, the children of Israel." The second passage, in Exod. xii. 41, is similarly qualified, and refers to the first. According to this view of Hofmann, the words, "now I have come," are quite inexplicable.^[1] The Captain of the host of the Lord expresses Himself in such a manner as if, by His coming, everything were accomplished. But if he was only the commander of Israel—an inferior [Pg 130] angel—his coming was no guarantee for success, for his limited power might be checked by a higher one. But if the Captain of the host of Jehovah be the Prince of angels, we cannot by any means refer the divine honour which He demands and receives, to Him who sent Him, in contrast with Him who is sent; the higher the dignity, the more necessary is the limitation. If the honour be ascribed to Him, He must be a partaker of a divine nature.

Jesus not at all indistinctly designates Himself as the Captain of the Lord's host spoken of in our passage, in Matt. xxvi. 53: Ἢ δοκεῖς ὅτι οὐ δύναμαι ἄρτι παρακαλέσαι τὸν πατέρα μου, καὶ παραστήσει μοι πλείους ἢ δώδεκα λεγεῶνας ἀγγέλων; This passage alone would be sufficient to refute the view which conceives of the Angel of the Lord as a mere emanation and messenger. It also overthrows the opinion that he is an inferior angel, inasmuch as the Angel of the Lord here appears as raised above all inferior angels.

Thus there existed, even in the time of Moses, the most important foundation for the doctrine concerning Christ. He who knows the general relation which the Pentateuch bears to the later development of doctrine, will, a priori, think it impossible that it should have been otherwise; and, instead of neglecting these small beginnings, appearing, as it were, in the shape of germs, he will cultivate them with love and care.

It is only at a late period, in Malachi iii. 1, that the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord is expressly brought into connection with that of Christ. But a knowledge of the divine nature of the Messiah is found at a much earlier period; and we can certainly not suppose that the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord, and that of a truly divine Saviour, should have existed by the side of each other, and yet that manifold forebodings regarding their close obvious connection should not have been awakened in the mind.

---

^[1] Seb. Schmid says: "I have now come with my heavenly host to attack the Canaanites, and to help thee and thy people. Be thou of good cheer; prepare thyself for war along with me, and I will now explain to thee in what manner thou must carry it on;" vi. 2 ff.

---

---

---

---

---

---

See also the following blogposts:

The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser

Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God

Proving That There Is A Plurality In The Godhead

Quotes from "Of A Plurality In The Godhead" by John Gill

Concerning the Magnificent and August Names and Titles of the Messiah in the Old Testament by John Gill

Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels

The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective

Regarding Jewish Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity

The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One? [The Trinity in Early Judaism]

Quotations from the Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern