Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Worshipping a Merely Human Jesus Is Wrong No Matter How Exalted
The following is a copy and paste of my comments at Triablogue's blogpost: Dale Tuggy's Da Vinci Code
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.- Rom. 1:23
Unitarians are so committed to their presuppositions that they're willing to deny the core Jewish and Christian ethic against creature worship based on the 1st & 2nd Commandments. Jews and the early Christians condemned 1. the Pagan use of idols along with the Pagan principle that they weren't worshipping the idols themselves but the gods they image/represent. 2. rejected Pagan Kings claiming to be gods (e.g. the latter Caesars). 3. rejected worship of humans exalted via apotheosis. The Jews & Christians understanding that to promote those would fall into the very lie of the serpent of Genesis that it's possible, regarding humans, that "ye shall be as gods/God/elohim."
The Jews complained to God that they didn't have a human king from among their people like the surrounding nations. God told Samuel, "...'Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them' " (1 Sam. 8:7). In many (not all) forms of Unitarianism Jesus is neither fully God nor fully man (or remains a man). Whereas in the Trinitarian incarnation both are fulfilled in that 1. the Jews do have a Jewish human Messiah as their King, and 2. God himself (the second person of the Trinity) rules over them (and the rest of the world) in a direct theocracy at the eschaton.
In fact, God literally walks among them (via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Christ in the flesh) as Paul quotes the OT in 2 Cor. 6:16, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Similar to how Jehovah/Yahweh was wont to walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8), or as He talked with Abraham in bodiy form (Gen. 18:22-33). Solomon said, "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!" (1 King. 8:27). Yet we know that God's presence entered that temple. Christ the New Temple of the New Covenant is greater than the old temple (Matt. 12:6) because God Himself literally dwells in the body of Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9).
Rev. 21:3 states, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God." Notice that the dwelling place of God is a HE. Who else can that "HE" be but Christ who is "God with us" (Matt. 1:23). The Divine Logos Himself become flesh and taburnacling as God among us (John 1:14). According to 2. Thess. 2:3-4, Satan, wanting to mimic Jesus, attempts to set up a lawless man who proclaims himself to be Almighty God in God's temple (whatever that temple might be, whether a building or within the Church). If the man of lawless is mimicking Jesus by claiming to be Almighty God, then Jesus must be Almighty God. This might be further corroborated if the man of lawless is an or (even THE) anti-Christ. Since, "anti" here most likely means "in the place/stead of" rather than "against" the true Christ.
I mentioned three basic types of pagan idolatries. Most versions of Unitarianism commit one or more of those errors but instead of a pagan God with a pagan image, they attempt to worship the Christian God with Christ as the image. The problem is, unless Jesus is truly God, he would be a false image of God rather than the VERY image of God. Only God can truly and perfectly reflect and reveal God. The whole purpose of the prohibition of creating physical images of Yahweh is that they don't adequately convey the glory, majesty and transcendence of God. This isn't the case under Trinitarian incarnation.
15 "Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.19 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them....- Deut. 4:15-19a
Monday, November 9, 2015
My Last Remarks to Dale Tuggy on Triablogue's blogpost "God over all, forever blessed"
I had a long discussion with Dale Tuggy on Triablogue's blogpost "God over all, forever blessed." Dale posted his closing remarks and I wanted to leave closing remarks as well. However, by then the combox was closed so that I couldn't post my closing comments. So, I've decide to post them here. Dale's comments are in blue italics.
[Update: My comments on Triablogue were approved. The following is a reproduction of those comments with only minor changes and additions. I've tried to indicate the changes and additions using the color purple. Though, I don't think I've completely tracked all the changes]
Just a few last points:
Thanks for taking time to interact with me and my arguments. Dialoguing with you has always been intellectually stimulating. These next posts will also be my last. I wish God's blessing be upon you too.
The "two minds" approach to the incarnation is relatively new, is not what was meant by the catholic tradition...
My allegiance is to Scripture and truth, not to Catholic tradition. I go along with Catholic, Protestant (et al.) tradition only to the degree that it's Scriptural.
If you want to cast that as one of Jesus's minds, the human one, being subject to the Father....
My appeal to the two minds view was not specifically to deal with how Jesus could have a God over Him since I don't even think it's necessary to appeal to the incarnation in order to field that objection. Rather, I appealed to the two minds view to anticipate the possible objection that if all three persons of the Trinity are God, then the human Jesus would have to have each person of the Trinity over Him and be obedient to each of the three INCLUDING HIMSELF!
If you want to cast that as one of Jesus's minds, the human one, being subject to the Father, the problem is the God-subject relation is an I-Thou one, a person to person one.
I'm open to William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland's neo-Apollinarian Christology. They make an interesting case that the traditional view is itself Nestorian in that it posits the person the Son having a human soul. If I understand them correctly, it's the human soul itself what makes a human a person. By replacing the human soul with the mind of the Logos that safeguards against Nestorianism.
Thus the bizarre claim that the incarnate Jesus is "man" but not "a man."
I have no problem calling Jesus "a man." Just not "a MERE man."
BTW, your exegesis of John 17:1-3 simply ignores that an identity claim is being made, not a mere description.
But what of the apparent identity claim of 1 John 5:20? Though, admittedly, it's not clear that Jesus is there called the "true God." But a good (not great) case could be made he is.
In brief, John never says that the eternal Logos is Jesus, and 1:14 doesn't say or imply that they are the same person.
True, John never EXPLICITLY states the Logos is Jesus. Though, I think 1:18 [typo corrected] does imply it in light of John 17:5 and the other verses I cited (e.g. John 1:14; 3:13, 31; 6:38, 62; 8:14, 23, 42; 10:36; 13:3; 16:28; 17:4-5 etc. [cf. 1 John 4:9-10, 14]). These verses don't explicitly state that Jesus was personally preexistent, but I think it's a fair (even strong) inference since there are so many such passages, and because the context often wouldn't make sense if Jesus' wasn't claiming personal preexistence. As you know, my theology is very abductive. Also, scholars in Greek have said that the word "pros" in John 1:1 implies a personal and intimate relationship that's "face to face" (so to speak). While John 1:18 doesn't specifically refer to a preincarnate relationship, it might include it. Christ being in the "bosom" of the Father also implies intimacy and relationship. Think of how the beloved disciple was leaning on Jesus' bosom (John 13:23). Jesus' statement in John 8:56-58 that "Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad" better makes sense if Abraham actually did see/interact with the preexistent personal Christ (probably in reference to the incident in Gen. 18). Otherwise, it wouldn't make much sense for Jesus to say before Abraham was I am (or however you'd translate it)" in response to the Jews' question "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" If "Jesus" was only the plan of God conceived in God's mind when Abraham rejoiced to see his day, then there would have been no sense in a before and after. Abraham's very knowledge of a coming messiah would itself be his seeing it. Yet, Jesus distinguishes Abraham's past expectation and his latter experience.
The many "I have come" statements of Jesus in the Synoptics suggests a personal preexistence. The fact that 1. so many passages in the NT (from the Synoptics, John, Pauline corpus, Hebrews) suggest a personal preexistence and 2. that no NT passage tells us that Jesus was NOT personally preexistent should lead us to favor a personal preexistence (it's the natural reading of those passages). In what other instance in the the Bible is there a preexistence that's not personal? And especially since a strong case could be made that one of the angels of the Yahweh was a very special Angel (messenger) who is probably Christ Himself. This Angel is treated like Yahweh (if not as actually Yahweh) in the OT in a similar fashion as Christ is in the NT. See for example this excerpt of E.W. Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament on the topic of the Angel of Yahweh
The Word is something like God's plan or wisdom, by which, the OT says in a couple of places, God created.
I'm not sure where those places in the OT that state that Wisdom was created other than Prov. 8. Prov. 8 BTW, was one of the major obstacles in my becoming a Trinitarian over 20 years ago. It's not clear that the impersonal "Jesus" is being referred to in Prov. 8. And even if it has Christological significance, wisdom is personified in a way that would suggest an actual personal preexistence as Prov. 30:4. Also, the NT comes on the heels of the intertestamental apocrypha and pseudepigrapha that many times implies the eternality of personified Wisdom, and so counts against a created Wisdom. Scholars dispute whether Micah 5:2 implies an eternal past preexistence of Christ (personal or impersonal). Nevertheless, at the very least the words are consistent with an eternal past. Also, earlier you seemed to agree that John presents the impersonal Logos as eternally with (pros) God. At least that's how many Greek scholars interpret the word "en" in "en arche en o logos." As one scholar put it, "...as far back as you wish to push 'in the beginning,' the Word is already in existence. The Word does not come into existence at the 'beginning,' but is already in existence when the 'beginning' takes place."
The "form of God" needn't be having the divine essence, but can be read as a paraphrase of "made in God's image and likeness."
You seem to be saying that the phrases "form of God" and "form of a servant" are both postpartum. However, it's only after Paul uses the phrase "form of a servant" that he says, "being born in the likeness of men." Paul seems to be making a contrast of the two phrases with "being born" the transition point.
Whereas Adam tried to grab at equality with God, Jesus declined to. Remember the ethical thrust of the whole thing (see the start of the chapter); Jesus is being held up as our example based on his actions during his human life.
In context Paul is talking about humility before equals, not humility before a superior. He's talking to Christians in general and how they should treat each other. Christ not grabbing/grasping for God's position which He doesn't inherently possess isn't an act of humility. Refraining from doing that is an act of obedience and submission, not of humility. Only if Jesus actually was equal with God would it be an act of humility. Paul wrote in verse 3, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." He didn't say, acknowledge others more significant than yourself. To make Paul's analogy work, either 1. Jesus and God are equals, just as fellow Christians are equals; OR 2.God is superior to Jesus, just as some Christians are superior to other Christians.
No doctrine is *essential* in the sense of you must believe it to be saved unless it is preached to unbelievers in Acts....
I don't believe that one must believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. However, I think as Christians grow in their understanding of the Gospel and Scripture that the truly regenerate among professing believers will naturally tend to accept the Trinity.
That you accepting this reading of "homoousios" is why, I think, you go along with the confused evangelical tradition of identifying Jesus with his God (i.e. asserting them to be numerically identical).
I identify Jesus with God because of both NT and OT reasons. If it weren't for the OT evidences for a plurality in Yahweh, I wouldn't hold to (the meaning) of monoousios. I've collected the OT evidences in my blogpost:
Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God [cf. also my blogposts HERE and HERE. Though, now I suspect the "watchers" in Daniel are members of the Divine Council along with the "us" [in "Let US make man in OUR image"] in the opening chapters of Genesis.
No, these writers assumed that somehow some angels can influence a wide area.
Agreed. However, influencing others by broadcasting subliminal thoughts, temptations, fears etc. is one thing. Reading thoughts, hearing silent prayers, answering such prayers simultaneously, upholding the universe by the Word of His power (as Christ does in Heb. 1:3) is something else. Moreover, "in [Christ] all things hold together" (Col. 1:17) and "through [Christ] we exist" (1 Cor. 8:6). The exploits of demons in the book of Daniel, Job, Colossians, Ephesians and the Gospels pale in comparison.
So Satan is the "god of this world," and they held that angels were put over countries.
Agreed. But Satan works through his demonic cohorts in military or gang-like hierarchical fashion. I don't find Scripture to teach he's globally omnipresent. On the contrary, when asked "From where have you come?," Satan replied, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it" (Job 1:7).
So Jesus, exalted to a higher position than any angel, must also have such powers. Presumably the upgrade in position came with the needed abilities. We may be curious quite how this works, but I guess they were not.
I agree that God can give extraordinary powers to creatures. My citation of Jesus' ability to do the things He does isn't meant to directly prove He's God. I cite them as indirect evidence since everywhere else in the OT and NT such powers are reserved for Almighty God Himself. They are used as a means of identifying and describing God. Often directly or indirectly saying ONLY God can do those things. In which case, when the NT applies such powers, characteristics, attributes to Jesus, it's only natural for the original recipients of the books (who presumably were steeped in OT theology) to infer Jesus' full divinity. Otherwise that would confuse the original recipients since it would result in a contradiction between OT & NT explicit statements and theology.
It's interesting that Unitarians will cite the express and explicit statement in the Old Testament that "God is not a man" and insist that we stick by the exact words of Num. 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29. Yet, when the Bible specifically states only God can "know the hearts of all the children of mankind" (1 Kings 8:39) Unitarians change their tune and say (without New Testament justification) that Jesus can share this attribute of God without being God contrary to the express and explicit statement of the Old Testament. Whereas there's no contradiction in saying God can incarnate as a human being. Since that would involve an extrinsic change and not an intrinsic change. The doctrine of the incarnation doesn't teach Christ's divine nature was somehow transubstantiated into human flesh. Rather, that Christ took on human nature without ceasing to be God, and without His divine nature in anyway changing from a divine nature to a human nature. Thus preserving the doctrine of Divine Immutability and Infinity.
Friday, August 21, 2015
The Trinity At the Beginning of Creation
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.- John 1:1-3
Some Unitarians have denied a connection between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. Robert M. Bowman gave 5 reasons why such a connection makes sense.
1. The words en arche occur at the beginning of each book;
2. The name God (ho theos) occurs in the opening sentence in each book, and frequently thereafter as well;
3. Both passages speak about the creation of all things;
4. The name given to the preexistent Christ, "the Word," reminds us of the frequent statement in Genesis, "And God said, 'Let there be...'"—that is, in Genesis God creates by speaking the word, in John he creates through the person of the Word;
5. Both passages in Greek use the words egeneto ("came into existence"), phos ("light") and skotos or skotia ("darkness"), and both contrast light and darkness.
These point of similarity taken together constitute a powerful cumulative case for understanding en arche to be referring to the same beginning in John 1:1 as that of Genesis 1:1—the beginning of time itself.
-Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ & the Gospel of John, pp. 21-22 [The Greek transliterations are not exactly reproduced here]Once the connection is accepted, some Unitarians might object and say, if the doctrine of the Trinity is true, "Why isn't the Holy Spirit mentioned in John 1:1?" Bowman wrote:
It is extremely common for JWs [Jehovah's Witnesses] to ask with reference to this text why the Holy Spirit is not mentioned as another person who was also with God. The answer is that John was concerned at that point to write about the Word, not the Holy Spirit. The JWs reason that if the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in John 1:1, then the Holy Spirit either (a) was not there; or (b) was not a person; they opt for the latter explanation. But there is a third explanation: John simply did not care to mention the Holy Spirit at that point.John not caring to mention the Holy Spirit at this point is consistent with his decision to reveal the person, work and divinity of the Holy Spirit later in his Gospel (chapters 14-16). He did the same with respect to the Father and Son as witnesses who personally authenticate the message of Jesus. Early in the Gospel Jesus appeals ONLY to the testimony of the Father and Son (John 8:16-18; 5:31-32, 37) apart from the Holy Spirit. But then later on additionally appeals to the testimony of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26).
-Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ & the Gospel of John, pp. 24
See my blogpost titled "The Witness of the Holy Spirit" for why the Holy Spirit's delayed witness is evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity:
The Witness of the Holy Spirit
But more can be said in response to the objection that the Holy Spirit either wasn't at creation or, if present, wasn't a person. When we look as Genesis chapter 1 we see in verse 2 "the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters".
When we combine John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1-3 all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned.
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.God (either as the Trinity or at the very least the Father) is mentioned in verse 1.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.- Gen. 1:1-3
The Holy Spirit is then mentioned in verse 2 as "the Spirit of God"
The Word is implicitly alluded to in verse 3 when God SPOKE. In fact, once the doctrine of the Trinity is accepted, it could be argued that the "God" mentioned in verse 3 is the Word Himself (the pre-incarnate Jesus) who spoke the world into existence (cf. Heb. 1:3b; 2c; Col. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 8:6b; John 1:3 etc.)
Psalm 33:6 is probably a remez by God hinting at the doctrine of the Trinity. The word for "breath" in Hebrew can also be translated "spirit" or "Spirit."
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.
David H. Stern in his Jewish New Testament Commentary wrote:
(2) Remez ("hint") — wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p'shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware. - page 12
(1) P'shat ("simple") — the plain, literal sense of the text, more or less what modern scholars mean by "grammatical-historical exegesis,"...- page 11See Wikipedia's article on PaRDeS
If the remez is accepted, then Psalm 33:6 includes all three persons of the Trinity 1. IN ONE VERSE, 2. and that IN THE OLD TESTAMENT NO LESS!
That the Holy Spirit creates is taught in the following Old Testament passages: Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 104:30.
Again, if Ps. 33:6 hints at the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in creation, then it makes sense that the Holy Spirit is a person since "the word of the LORD" would refer to Jesus and the "LORD" of the "word of the LORD" would refer to the Father. If both "the word/Word" and "the LORD" are personal, why wouldn't "the breath of his mouth" be personal too? The word for spirit/breath/wind are all the same in both Hebrew (ruach) and Greek (pneuma). This argument doesn't assume or depend on the truth of Trinitarianism. Even a Unitarian could see a veiled reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in this verse. Trinitarians would just see more. There are many other such triadic passages in both the Old and New Testaments (See HERE for documentation).
That the Holy Spirit is the (or also along with the Father and Son) Source of Life is seen in the following verses: John 6:63; Rom. 8:2, 6, 10, 11; 2 Cor. 3:6; Job 33:4; John 3:5-8; Gal. 4:29; 5:25; 6:8; 1 Pet. 3:18 [assuming the "water of life" refers to the Holy Spirit then the following verses also apply John 4:10-14; 7:37-38; Rev. 7:17; 21:6; 22:1, 17]. Compare with God the Father being referred to as "the Living God" (Matt. 16:16 and many other passages) and Jesus referring to Himself as "the Living One" (Rev. 1:18; compare the phrase, "El Chai" ("the Living God"), at Joshua 3:10, Psalms 42:3, 84:3).
The fact that both the Holy Spirit and the Word (the pre-incarnate Jesus) was involved in creation would be evidence of their full deity with the Father by the fact that Jehovah [or Yahweh] stated in Isaiah 44:24
Thus saith JEHOVAH, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am JEHOVAH, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth (who is with me?);- Isa. 44:24 ASV
Thus says the LORD [Yahweh], your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD [Yahweh], who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,- Isa. 44;24 ESVUnitarians are therefore caught in a dilemma. Either Yahweh/Jehovah had no one who aided Him in creation, in which case the Word and the Holy Spirit were not involved [contrary to direct and explicit Biblical teaching]; OR the Word and the Holy Spirit are themselves Yahweh along with the Father.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
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.
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
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Christology of the Old Testament by E.W. Hengstenberg
Hengstenberg's classic work that deals with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, the Angel of the LORD and other related topics. These volumes contain nuggets in defense of the full deity of Christ.
Like all older defenses of the doctrine of the Trinity, the following works by Hengstenberg have some deficiencies and problems which I point out in my blog:
Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity
Volume 1
https://archive.org/details/christologyoldt00meyegoog
https://archive.org/details/christologyofold01heng
https://archive.org/details/christologyoldt04meyegoog
https://books.google.com/books?id=S-Y-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Volume 2
https://archive.org/details/christologyofold02heng
https://archive.org/details/christologyoldt03henggoog
https://archive.org/details/christologyoldt02meyegoog
Volume 3
https://archive.org/details/christologyofold03heng
https://archive.org/details/christologyoldt03meyegoog
https://archive.org/details/christologyoldt04henggoog
Volume 4
https://archive.org/details/christologyoldt01meyegoog
https://archive.org/details/christologyofold04heng
https://books.google.com/books?id=9xVgT20M80UC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=9xVgT20M80UC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
From Project Gutenberg
Volume 1
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30410
Volume 2
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30608
From http://grace-ebooks.com/ [all four volumes linked]
http://grace-ebooks.com/library/index.php?dir=E.%20W.%20Hengstenberg/
NON-SCANNED VERIONS!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)