I know that some of you will be thinking "whatever happened to this blog?" But, putting that question aside, I would like to raise some questions about the identity of the angel of the Lord, and the neglect of emphasis on his role in the OT.
He is present in the Pentateuch; known to the patriachs, and the protector and deliverer of the Israelites from their captivity in Egypt. He is distinguished from the LORD, and yet identified with the LORD.
He speaks to Hagar (Genesis 16:6-13), to Abraham (Genesis 22:2, 11-12), wrestles with Jacob (Genesis 32:30), identifies himself to Jacob as the "God of Bethel" (Genesis 31:11-13), redeems Jacob (Genesis 48:15-16), speaks to Moses (Exodus 3:1-6), testifies to Israel that he brought them out of Egypt and into Canaan (Judges 2:1-4, which God said that he had done in Joshua 24:2-8). The angel of the Lord identifies himself as God, speaks as God, and does the works of God.
And yet the angel of the Lord is also sent by God:
"But now go, lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to you; behold, my angel shall go before you." (Exodus 32:34)
"Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him." (Exodus 23:20-21)
Doug Kelly has an interesting appendix on this in his Systematic Theology (vol. 1). He writes:
Most Old Testament scholars for the last century (even conservative ones) have been considerably...restrained in definitely identifying all appearances of the angel of the Lord as the pre-incarnate Christ.He makes the point that this was not so among the church fathers, medieval scholastics, and sixteenth-century Reformers. I have to say that when I trace out the influences upon my own understanding of the Old Testament they have been muted on this point, and more insistent on the lack of conscious faith in Jesus as the mediator in the OT.
Why has this happened?
Is it as a result of the books we read? Are our Bible overviews, which have helped so much in stressing the importance of the OT, not been detailed enough? We've seen the big picture but missed some important details perhaps?
Does this really matter?
Rightly interpreting Scripture always matters. The person and work of Christ always, always matters.
How do these passages mesh with your understanding of Christ in the OT? And your doctrine of God?
Let's make this an on-topic-stick-to-the-text type of discussion.
202 comments:
If, the angel is Christ that would be something of a Bible Overview oversight, but then having spent a lot of time in Genesis in the last six months I'm inclined to think we miss some pretty important stuff in our overviews, not least relating to the geography and genealogy of God's promises...
..and how come many overviews stop in Exodus for the ten commandments but not The Passover and The Tabernacle?
...and why spend time in Romans 3 but not Galatians 3/4 and Hebrews?
Thanks for resurrecting the blog.
You are welcome.
And of course there is this from Joshua 5:13-15:
When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?" And he said, "No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, "What does my lord say to his servant?" And the commander of the LORD’s army said to Joshua, "Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so.
It is strange: I've always thought of the Angel of the LORD as the pre-incarnate Word, for all the reasons you give. Forms some great Trinitarian revelation, if I remember rightly. But praise God I had a good Sunday School teacher (my Mum)! I've been puzzled since at the reluctance of books / preachers to identify the Angel of the LORD with the Word - after all, angels insist they're fellow servants not to be worshipped, but TAOTL receives worship. Judges is very clear on it - 2.1-5 He says, "I brought you up from Egypt," etc., and then you have 6.11-18 (which the Septuigint changed - for obvious reasons!) And 13.15-22!
But as to why this has happened, I'm puzzled. Perhaps our Bible overviews have us looking forward to Christ so much that we've been blind to when he appears in advance!
I agree, I think we miss Jesus all the time in the OT. For some reason I got all obsessed about 'shadows', and missed the times that He was actually there.
I think I may have created a new theological phrase (are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin). I call it 'functional modalism': this is the error that people act as though God is only God the Father in the OT, come in the Son in the NT, and is now with us by His Spirit.
Although no evangelical would assert that position, I do believe many people function like that in their OT exegesis.
Hence our unease over the Christophenies (or however you spell that).
Just on this topic, it's amazing how often in sermons etc people refer to "the Angel of the Lord" as being the One who comes at Passover & does the killing & the passing over...
You'll have to listen out for it - having been corrected by someone on it myself, I now make it my job to mention (lovingly, of course!) that the passages say it is the Lord, rather than the Angel of the Lord.
Been thinking we must resurrect this blog... and been feeling slightly guilty for not yet contributing to it having been invited yonks ago.....
I think this discussion is very interesting. I had also, as Rosemary, grown up understanding the Angel of the Lord as a theophany, a pre-incarnate Christ, and though i have heard/read some such as the Donster himself say there is no real merit for this, I have never felt comfortable with that. I tend to think he is the Word, and have never heard a convincing reason NOT to think so. Especially in the light of striking passages such as you quoted in the comment above Martin. Arguments against only seems to go as far as 'there is no NEED to see the Angel as the Lord himself'. There are (sadly) fashions in theology as much as in anything. Perhaps this is one view that is 'out of fashion'. Worth hammering out.
good to be back around the table.
having had no Sunday school background I was asked pointedly by the late great Nigel Lee who I thought the Angel of the LORD to be? He is the angel (messenger) of the LORD who speaks from and as the LORD (Abram/Abraham, Hagar, Jacob/Israel, Joshua...).
For me - the NT designation of Jesus as the final/incarnate Word and The Apostle (sent one/messenger) of the Gospel (Heb 1-3) alongside the contrast against 'angels' (who mediated a message from God) is the thing which clinches the deal.
Jesus is the One who completes and fulfills the salvific work/Word which the Angel of the Lord foreshadows, anticipates and reveals. What we see in TAOTL is precisely a shadow (Heb 8) of what is to come. He is the historical backcast shadow of the Final Word, the great messenger, Jesus: this shadow helps us to see the solid centrality of Jesus in history.
Are our overviews lacking - OF COURSE they are: they are sweeping passes of history and a historical account which God painstakingly crafted over time, geography and cultures so that we might see Jesus for who He is (or at least for as much as we need to believe in order to be awestruck in salvation!).
Are our overviews unhelfpul? ONLY if we think they are the message of the Bible 'distilled' rather than a starting point, a bare skeleton, which we are to dress in the full clothes (a thorough-view) of the Biblical accounts.
Is the whole of Scripture about Jesus? Well if the whole of the universe is, I think so.
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." Col 1.15-20
Andy,
Just so that I have got the right end of the stick:
1. Is the Angel of the Lord the pre-incarnate Son of God? Is he his own shadow?
2. Given that he appears so much in Genesis (and therefore is associated with the gracious covenant made with Abraham) can we describe him as a shadow?
I don't understand why we are under obligation to think of it as Christ? Why can it not simply be an angel of the Lord?
I was a little unsure in the OP about including the "Bible Overview" bit. Bible overviews are, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. You stress what you think is important chronologically/thematically etc. as well as with regard to unifying themes (kingdom or covenant, or a kingdom administered through covenants). You also present your presuppositions about the knowledge of the person and work of Christ and the Spirit pre-incarnation and Pentecost.
Mo,
I guess because he is too closely identified with God to be a created being.
The thing is, would a merely created being accept worship as the Angel of the LORD does? I would expect a mere angel to tell them not to bow down in worship.
well Martin, you've certainly blown the cobwebs off this blog!
OK - yes, I do think I'd talk about Him being His own shadow: but only in the sense that Heb 8 and Phil talks about shadow. Insubstantial in comparison, alluding to the reality that is to come - a fore-shadow of the Incarnate Son in the reality of pre-incarnational history.
He who would condescend to flesh, appears in a shadow of the flesh, as The Angel of The LORD to enact and foreshadow salvation in the events that herald and flesh-out the contours of The Salvation He would bring in His flesh at the right time through the incarnation, cross, resurrection and ascension.
And Mo (now being really pedantic) I'd want to be specific and talk of the preincarnate Son rather than Christ - the Christ being a designation of the humanity of the incarnate Son as a descendant of David, rather than a function/title of his divine nature.
Nice to be chatting again. ;o)
Ok. So what we're saying that working out that he is the pre-incarnate son is a process of deduction from things he does and people do towards him?
At the very least, then, it seems that the OT writers knew much less than we do by calling him "the angel of the Lord" which suggests he is, you know, an angel.
If that is the case, then why?
No it suggests that he is "sent," not that in his nature and dealings with the OT saints that they confused him with created angels.
Every text where he appears and deals with people shows no confusion as to his identity (look at Gideon's reaction in Judges 6:21-23; and Manoah's reaction when he finally realises that the angel of the Lord has appeared to them in Judges 11:21-22)
Ok. Fair enough. It was only the OT writers who didn't know.
Didn't know what Mo?
Gen 48:15-16:
"Then Jacob blessed Joseph and said, "May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm — may he bless these boys."
Either Jacob correctly identified the Sent One as the God of Abraham or he is an idolater. This is not about reading back Christ into the narrative - it's about Jacob's conscious faith in the Angel.
(btw - even the NIV capitalizes Angel in this passage - the context simply won't let you get away with thinking He's *an* angel)
Glen
signing into comments, just in case...
interesting to link back to the Blackham/Goldsworthy dicussion... though I'm not sure I want to line up with everything Paul Blackham had to say on this (though I should probably re-read that link you posted Mike... I'm only going from memory). I don't see a problem with believing that the Angel of the Lord was the pre-incarnate Son, BUT that this was not fully understood by those at the time. So there is overlap with the Blackham thingy, but it is not entirely the same discussion. There are obviously many things the OT believers did not fully comprehend, which have been more fully understood later. I would count this as another of those. They did understand that in some sense this was God appearing to them, but did not yet have any developed understanding of the Trinity as Father, Son and Spirit. But they recognised him as God as he spoke in the first person, and thus they responded to him as such. Is it not similar to the way the Spirit was active in the OT; people knew he was the Spirit of God, but did they have a developed view of the Trinity as a result? With hindsight as NT believers, that too becomes clearer.
I have sometimes wondered about the propriety of judging what OT believers did or did not understand, or what they could or could not understand. All our access to this information is found in the revelation given to them, and the articulation of that revelation in their own inscripturated words.
If they speak of the oneness and the plurality of God on what principle are we able to speak about them not understanding the trinity? One thinks in this regard of Psalm 45:6-7 and Psalm 110:1 and Isa. 63:9-10
Of course the number of OT references to plurality and distinct persons are fewer in number and more broadly distributed than in the NT, but they are surely substantially of the same nature.
I agree that the Angel of the Lord is the preincarnate second person of the Trinity. I don't think the average OT saint would have had a view as precise as the Athenasian creed though.
On the subject of why even evangelical OT scholars are hesitant about making the identification, I remember Tim Keller somewhere making the comment that OT commentators are generally wary of pointing forward to Christ, for fear of accusations of antisemitism. He encourages preachers to always look at OT scripture indexes at the back of NT commentaries.
Glad to see this conversation being conducted gracefully thus far!
I agree that there are two separate points at issue: (i) whether the Word appears and exercises ministry in the OT, and (ii) to what extent the OT saints knew who he was and knew the gospel as we do.
It seems to me that whatever you think about (ii), (i) is quite difficult to avoid from the text. The section from Genesis Glen mentions is handy, as is Judges 13:18-22
'And the LORD did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched: As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD. "We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!"'
As Ant says, this point is a slightly different one to the debate over the nature of revelation, and the continuity or otherwise of the content of the gospel.
My motivation in posting on this subject was to isolate a particular strand of OT material that has much wider ramifications. We could of course add into the mix:
* The divine-human messiah (Ps. 45, 110 etc.)
* Daniel's vision of the Son of Man with the clouds being the insignia of deity
* Isaiah's language about the exaltation of the Servant to the level reserved for God (Isa. 52)
And much much more.
As Dan notes, the tone here is worthy of comment.
Hi all,
I was going to write a whole series of points on revelation in Christ but then realised it was getting off topic. These conversations happen best when they're focused. And Martin's picked an excellent starting point - the Angel.
Posts 2-4 here are on this very topic.
But let's just keep it very specific: Why did Jacob want the Angel to bless his boys unless the Angel really was the God of Abraham? Is this not conscious understanding that the Sent One is also God and the Source of blessing?
@ Steven: do you have a source for this comment, "Tim Keller somewhere [made] the comment that OT commentators are generally wary of pointing forward to Christ, for fear of accusations of antisemitism." ? Do you know if Keller himself cited any particular sources?
@ Mike: I like the distinction between knowing truly and knowing fully. 1 Peter 1:10-12 seems crucial here.
Am glad to see this blog has been resurrected!
I find Schaeffer's separating of the 2 questions is helpful:
"what is the least this must mean?" and "what is the most this could mean?"example: "walking before God" (Gen 48 above). Kings were often said to walk before God (or not). It's a theme of Genesis, Psalms & Proverbs and especially Ephesians but none of those are necessarily physically with a theophany. If Jesus is the word made flesh then surely the word of God lived out (eg Boaz) is all pre-incarnate son? John sees Jesus is full of grace & truth/unfailing love & faithfulness - Ex 34, and concludes that the word has tabernacled among them.
As I'm studying Daniel at the moment, Daniel 10 is my main point of contact here.
v4-6: clearly Jesus, right? Rev 1, and v7 could be something odd about being "pre-incarnate" (whatever that means!)...but hold on,
v11-14: actually, this reminds me more of Dan 10:11-14 sounds like Heb 1:13-14 - "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?".
I guess the question is whether Hebrews 1 warrants an "only" - has God [only?] spoken by his Son in these last days? Without calling his Trinity into question, the angel in Dan 10 could *just* be another like Michael, fighting the princes & powers of Gentiles in the heavenly realms (I'm thinking Eph 2), perhaps more than that...but I'm tempted to agree with Schaeffer, that the bible is a very efficient book! It doesn't tell me everything. So I'm more into asking "what is the least this must mean?" than "what is the most this could mean?".
Galatians 3:19 asks, "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come". And then clarifies: "The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator". So personally, I link angels with the law and with old covenant. I've been pondering Glen's suggestion that his view focuses incarnation for salvation notsomuch for revelation. I think that has some mileage, but Hebrews seems to say the lesser to greater is not just about the salvation delivered, but about who delivered it.
"We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what WE have heard, so that WE do not drift away...For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation...which was first announced by the Lord.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for mentioning Gen 48. That link with the kings is very interesting, thanks for that. For now I don't really mind what interpretation of 'walked before God' a person has. My real interest is in Jacob's ability to articulate the name of the God of Abraham as 'the Angel'. Either Jacob is an idolater or he knows that the Angel is God.
I could have focused on any number of Angel passages. There are many, many others that amply prove His deity.
(In fact it's probably true to say there are far more OT Scriptures to prove the deity of 'the Angel' than NT Scriptures to prove the deity of 'Jesus'. Which is a stark way of saying there is ample evidence for the Son's divinity in both testaments. But at the same time, vagueness over the identity of the Angel is odd!)
I focus on Gen 48 for now because it demonstrates that the Angel's deity was understood by the patriarchs themselves.
Accepting this has 'wider ramifications' as Martin has said. But let's let the Scriptures push us.
Thanks to Martin and Mike correctives which have made me think. Assuming we know how much the OT guys understood is risky... either way. And I love that principle of them understanding truly, if not fully. That is a better way to put it.
Re Genesis 48, Glen, I agree. It would seem to underline the deity.
Thanks. I definitely want to let the scriptures push me, so I'll have a think over the next few weeks.
2 worries aside from Schaeffer's.
- I'm hesitant about getting this reading out of soundbites & "proof" texts. There's questions about "interpreting the murkier texts in terms of the clearer, not vice versa".
- Why does the NT make so little of it? (you'd think Acts 7 etc would do so...), especially when Hebrews, Galatians etc would to address the issue head on.
Hi Chris,
Why would these verses be "proof-texts"? Why would you consider them to be murky?
Jude 5 (ESV) addresses thge deliverance of Israel from Egypt by Jesus.
And of course Jesus makes a big deal of Psalm 110 (as do the apostles given the double figure frequency of NT citations) and Heb 1 makes a big deal of Psalm 45.
John's gospel is also very pertinent, expecially the language about Jesus being the sent One and the relevance of 1:18 to the OT theophanies (compare it with Judges 13 and Jacob in Gen 32).
We have to be careful not to presume that the NT writers ought to have addressed these texts in a particular way.
Hi Chris, let me mischievously suggest your problem with Gen 48 is not its murkiness but its clarity :)
Ditto the other Angel texts. There really is nothing murky about them.
We could discuss an infinite number of broader issues but in my opinion that's the real threat to clarity in this current conversation. In the spirit of Martin's "on-topic-stick-to-the-text" desire, I won't be drawn.
Hmmm. I'm still not convinced. Neither the NT nor OT writers say "the angel of the Lord, that was me" about Jesus. (Actually, the angel of the Lord appears to Mary when Jesus is the womb, which raises an interesting question.)
What's more - what DO we make of Hebrews 1 - which does seem to say that there was a qualitative difference between the way God revealed himself pre-and post Jesus' actual incarnation?
just a quick one, not got long -
re Mary, wasn't that Gabriel, not TAOTL?
re Hebrews, I would say there was a qualitative different pre and post actual incarnation. Any OT appearances were lesser in terms of the final revelation and fulfilment of OT shadows.
Sorry. Ant, you are quite correct - it is Joseph to whom the angel of the Lord appears.
...or rather *an* angel.
No-one denies that there are many sent ones of the LORD. But THE Sent One is a divine title.
I'm interested in how a passage like Genesis 48 is interpreted under the assumption that the Angel of the Lord isn't actually the Lord Himself.
It does appear that Jacob thinks that the Angel is the God of Abraham and Isaac, and the shepherd of his own life. Is the Angel accepting Jacob's prayer on God's behalf? Does Jacob know that the Angel is not actually the God of his fathers? Does he understand the relationship between God and the Angel, or is it just Genesis being 'murky'?
Cheers!
Dan
Mo, Glenn's right - the text is 'an' rather 'The' angel.
There is a good and relevant question raised by Mo though in regard to the LXX treatment of TAOTL - could some of the Greek linguists among us enlighten us to the LXX and TAOTL and how it squares with Mtth 1 & 2?
However, I'm with Glenn - The Messenger of the Lord in OT passages is a Divine title. However how do we temper our certainty by the lack of explicit identification (a la Mo's assertion) in NT? Do we resist the designation of the preincarnate second Person of the Trinity and leave TAOTL as clearly Divine but undefined wrt Trinitarian Personhood? How else might we respond?
GREAT discussion!
I am in agreement with Andy here, that I don't think there is enough exegetical warrant to insist that this has to be the pre-incarnate Christ. Some of the arguments often presented sound to me a little like people forcing the text to say something to make a certain systematic work. Maybe I am just being woolly but when there is no explicit textual identification I think we should accept that there isn't and that had the Lord wanted to be more explicit he would have been. Frustrating, perhaps, to someone like me who likes all loose ends tied up, but I would rather this than have systematics that go some way beyond what text actually says. Always beware a systematic that looks like it depends solely on logical extension from the text without strong intra-textual warrant.
But I think there is another, more important question. Which is what do people hang on the understanding that TAOTL is always the pre-incarnate Christ. It seems to me that the argument is often made that therefore people in the OT knew all about Jesus and salvation through Jesus. Two thoughts (both un-nuanced for sake of space):
1. This makes mockery of the NT saying that the mystery of Christ that was previously hidden and not made known to those in other generations has now been revealed to God's holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit (Eph 3). (This mystery is that Gentiles are fellow heirs).
2. This gospel was eagerly searched about by the prophets BY THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST (1 Peter 1:10ff). SO we do have Christ operative, by the Spirit in the OT. But note what follows. It was revealed that they were serving us, not themselves (ie by indicating the subsequent suffering and glory of Christ). Did the OT believers know much explicitly therefore, via the TAOTL? I don't think so because it says that these things are what has been announced to us now (not previously) by those who preach the good news. Finally note that angels long to look into these things (1 Pet 1:12)
Slightly cynically I often think that the TAOTL invariably = Christ argument is an Anglican worldview (ie there is only one covenant) searching for a textual justification. Which I think is methodologically flawed.
So there is my happorth:
1. Don't go beyond the text
2. The mystery of Christ was hidden in ages past but is now brought to light through the gospel
3. The NT affirms that there is more revelation in the NT than in the OT
Basically what Marcus said. I guess I have no objection to us saying TAOTL is the pre-incarnate Christ, but don't see why we must insist he is.
Incidentally in Matthew, in the English it says "an angel of the Lord" in some verses but "the angel of the Lord" in 1:24. My Greek isn't good enough to tell if this is just an foible of English grammar to refer to the same angel.
Marcus - isn't the mystery less that Christ is Abraham's seed and more that Gentiles are fellow heirs in him?
apologies, seems "murky" is causing all sorts of problems. I use it mainly because the NT doesn't really go there. Psalm 45 is about the King & his bride, and Hebrews applies it precisely by "to which of the angels did God ever say...but of the Son he says...". Jude 5 is hardly a clincher - it could be read either way. I don't see how Psalm 110 is about an angel, but I guess it could show a way forward - namely by identifying Christ with the Lord of the OT, a priest for ever like Mel C, all together - like Joshua, the Branch in Zech 6:9-15, the Christ is identified with a number of different offices - obviously theologically he's the messenger par excellence, just as he's the Son, Priest, King, Branch, Joshua, Prophet, Shepherd...par excellence. All in one person.
The reason I say "murky" about "the" angel texts is because NT tells us the Word is a person who later became flesh, but nowhere says the angel became flesh. In fact, when we read Zechariah 6, (another book where "the angel" is called "my lord" - and again, this could mean more but doesnt have to - cf Sarah calling Abraham "lord"), we meet "the angel" from ch.1-6, but and it also says "the word of the Lord came to me" (6v9). Is this the same person? Is it an echo? Could messenger/word be parallel phrases? Is angel/word a definition or a description? a label or a name?
I'm still hunting for parallels with Gen 48, but thought it'd be worth mentioning my reserves about this "pre-incarnate": namely, what on earth does that mean? flesh-less? invisible? Special revelation is still Christ, but if the OT reveals the character of God, then the whole OT is pre-incarnate Son in some sense? Otherwise this seems like the Barthian version of a red-letter OT.
ps Amusingly, the word verification I've got to type is "nonces". Maybe it's prophetic - "fools rush in where angels fear to tread".
Really helpful Marcus thank you.
Re Marcus's second paragraph, I do think its true - it is too much of a jump to say that OT believers had a developed Christology, a la Paul Blackham. I think he goes too far. And I accept that it is going beyond the text itself to say absolutely definitively that he is the Son - though I do think its implied - but Marcus, is it going beyond the text to say he is actually God appearing in some way, as a messenger in human-like form? That he is divine? The conversation and worship given is all within the text and not being read into it. Not quite sure if you are saying you think that's right or not. What do you think?
Chris - re what does pre-incarnate mean... how about simply an appearance of the Son prior to his physical birth into the world as a human. I don't analyse the physical question too much, any more than I do of other messengers of God like Gabriel, who are visible yet not human flesh and blood.
FWIW, not an Anglican, or a Blackham-ite. Just have always thought that the natural reading of these texts shouts 'divine visitor'.
Just a quickie.
Chris- 'pre-incarnate' is surely pretty starightforward. It's only to say that Christ had dealings with humanity before he took our flesh at the incarnation. If TAOTL is him, he's obviously not invisible.
Also, who mentioned Barth?! Let's keep him out of it. We could simply be dealing with Justin or Irenaeus, Luther or Owen.
Matt 1:24 is a 'resumptive' use of the article. Is that the right name? Anyway the name is unimportant, the concept is. We have it in English: "A martian came to earth bringing ice cream... The martian said..." You use "the" in the second sentence to indicate that you're talking about the one you mentioned earlier. So: 'An angel of the Lord appeared... The angel said...'
But yes there is more complicated stuff about LXX and the use of articles and whether the definiteness of 'LORD' is automatically tranferred to 'angel' and/or whether the definiteness of 'God' is automatically transferred to 'angel' or whether the article needs to be added. Then there's the whole issue of inconsistency in how LXX translates the Hebrew. I've written a paper on it which I'll dig out. If there's anything useful or comprehensible there I'll share...
On mystery - surely Gentile inclusion is the new thing. (Eph 3 spells this out). Christ *is* the mystery of God. But then if Christ has only been a newly revealed mystery the OT saints never knew God full stop.
And here lies the heart-beat of this discussion for me. We can talk about the difference between knowing God truly and knowing God fully - but the real issue is can you know God at all apart from Christ?
I'm all for progress. You can posit as much progress as you like from Genesis to Malachi but the issue is - Can progress get off the ground without Christ, the Mystery of God, the Image of God, the Word of God etc. No-one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him (Matt 11:27).
As for 1 Pet 1 - it's the time and circumstances that the prophets are unsure of. They are looking forward to the sufferings and glories of Christ! To use 1 Pet 1 to say they didn't know Christ is a bit baffling.
As for Scripture not identifying the Angel. Isn't the OT Scripture? And when the OT identifies the Angel *as* the LORD are we going to ignore this? When Jacob identifies the Angel as the God of Abraham, what do we say? When Hosea (in ch12) reflects back on Genesis 32 and is able quite confidently to say it was the Angel who wrestled with Jacob and the LORD Almighty is His name, what do we say? When Isaiah (in ch63) says the Angel of His Presence saved the people out of Egypt, does he not show a remarkable understanding? And when Malachi 3:1 says that the Lord Whom the people seek will come to His temple and he names Him as the Angel of the Covenant - doesn't that reflect a very mature understanding of who the Angel is?
Also - just a little test: Replace the word Christ in every comment with the word Messiah and see if you're still happy with it.
;-)
Chris- apologies if I jumped on you slightly for the Barth comment! I'm just wary as he's sometimes wheeled out in these discussions as the ultimate smackdown.
'You belive that, and so does X, and he likes Barth, and Barth was a universalitist. BOOM! I win!'
That's clearly not what you were doing, so sorry if I was slightly premature!
Yet certainly discussions over the identity of the Angel and the issue of divine revelation in the OT are very much pre-C20th, and in a sense the Barth/Barthianism angle is kind of irrelevant if you see what I mean- even if there are linkages.
Cheers,
Dan
Glen - thanks for opening up the issues of grammar and text (I would say clarifying but I'm not sure I understand everything you've said).
Gentile inclusion can't be the mystery can it? What with Rahab, Ruth etc being included in the people of promise through faith in promise. Isn't the mystery that the gospel of God is not for the included few but for ALL (Jew first and then the gentile) who would have faith in Jesus. ANYWAY.. back to topic.
TAOTL - personally I believe him to be the not-yet-enfleshed second Person of the Trinity, precisely because of his actions in saving people and revealing/enacting God's righteous judgement and because he is identified as The LORD in the unmodified response of God's people. However, Textually we are not granted a clarity of revelation on the identity of TAOTL in relation to the Persons of the Trinity. Certainty witout clarity?
On the (side) issue of the depth of understanding of the knowledge of the coming Messiah could it not be a(nother) case of knowing with certainty but not in detail: much as we now 'know' the hope of heaven/New Creation without understanding what we are hoping for (other than it will be above and beyond that which we currently can comprehend)?
Glen said:
"And here lies the heart-beat of this discussion for me. We can talk about the difference between knowing God truly and knowing God fully - but the real issue is can you know God at all apart from Christ?"
With respect, I don't think this is the question. This is a sleight of hand!
In reality, I think the issue is, can you know God at all without knowing that it is through Christ he has revealed himself?
So, for example, Psalm 19 and Romans 1 say that we can know something of God through creation. I know that is Christ revealing God, as he was God's agent of creation, but it would be wrong to say that people who don't know about Christ don't know anything of God. They CAN see something through creation without knowing that it is Christ who is doing the revealing.
I don't think we can be committed to a theology that says unless you know Christ personally you don't know anything about God.
I do feel sometimes people who take your view Glen do, in a good attempt to get us to see all theology as trinitarian, try to push people to your POV using this sleight of hand. Its quite possibe Christ was revealing something of God without those who encountered this revelation knowing it was the second person of the trinitarian God.
Mo,
I think the point is whether we know God savingly without Christ, and not whether we have any knowledge of him at all.
I feared that the Blackham/Goldsworthy thing would come up. I think that makes the debate far too parochial both geographically and historically.
The discussion gets better!
Ant: I am perfectly happy with the idea that some descriptions indicate a visitor with divine prerogatives and characteristics. I am actually pretty happy with the idea of epiphany. Except that it doesn't actually say so. And therefore, for my money, the arguments by extension place just a little more epistemological burden on individual texts than they ought to be expected to bear. As per Mo's comment, I have no objection to the fact that TAOTL may well be the pre-incarnate Christ, but don't see that we have to insist. Unless we wish to use it as the basis for making other theological cases that stand or fall on that foundation. (In which case we shouldn't make cases on anything quite so exegetically shaky, anyway).
Chris: you will note that I said exactly that the mystery is that Gentiles are co-heirs. My point was that there is additional revelation in the NT by NT apostles and prophets that wasn't given before. The argument from TAOTL that I have heard is that revelation is not progressive. I don't buy it. Too many NT text speak to things now revealed that were previously hidden.
Ditto Glen: my point wasn't that they knew nothing in the OT. It was that they didn't have full revelation. In the sweep of scripture that waits until Jesus Christ is revealed. The argument that progress can't get off the ground without Christ is not nuanced enough. It gets off the ground with Christ through promise. We have to be very careful before we say, for example, something like: "Abraham believed God - (and that can only be because because he knew about Jesus, as per my systematic) - and it was credited as righteousness to him." This is to take exegesis into systematic in a way that is textually unacceptable in my view.
Martin said:
"Mo,
I think the point is whether we know God savingly without Christ, and not whether we have any knowledge of him at all."
I have no problem with that. But if we are talking about SAVING knowledge then you can't make the argument on the basis of "The problem is that some people don't believe that Christ is God's agent of revelation"!
Believing that Christ is the agent of revelation does not commit one to the whole shebang.
Chris,
Just to clarify some things from earlier. When I mentioned Psalms 45 and 110 it was in connection with the more general issue of the divine-human Messiah, promised in the OT, confirmed by Hebrews 1, and personally believed in by David. I didn't mean to imply that they were about the angel of the Lord. That said it is intriguing that David calls the Messiah his Lord, and that he is in the place of supreme divine authority.
To all,
And on TAOTL...surely immediate contextual considerations confirm his divine identity and not the use, or absence, of the definite article. When he speaks as God, receives the worship of God, saves his people from Egypt, and is identified as God (even though he can be distinguished from the invisible God) are we not to say that we are dealing with a non-created being? Why would we be straying into systematics at this point by speaking about the presence of the Son of God in the OT? Since we call Jesus Son of God, Son of Man, Immanuel etc. on the basis of the NT, what rules out us recognising him as the Angel of the Lord, the Messenger of the Covenant, Immanuel, Son of Man, and the Commander of the Lord's army in the OT?
Why does Exodus rule out seeing God, and yet Genesis and Exodus both carry references to people seeing God (TAOTL) and being amazed they didn't get toasted?
Hey Mo,
Perhaps I missed something in an earlier comment of yours, or Glenn's.
Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick.
Marcus:
'I am perfectly happy with the idea that some descriptions indicate a visitor with divine prerogatives and characteristics. I am actually pretty happy with the idea of epiphany. Except that it doesn't actually say so.'
...I think I just want to push that further though. If someone refers to seeing God, and worshipped the person they saw, it would surely be hard to be MUCH clearer in the text that this was God himself. Thats not reading things into it. Its what is there isn't it?
Even if we accept that saying its the pre-incarnate Son is implied rather than stated, how would saying it is an appearance of God, be going beyond the text? This WOULD seem to require us to insist on seeing these events as not just an appearance of someone with divine prerogatives and characteristics, but someone who actually IS divine, even if you want to stop short of saying he's the second person of the Trinity.
Dear Ant,
I think they had a christology if by christology we mean: Hagar knew that the Sent One was the God of seeing who spoke for the LORD but was Himself the God of seeing. Jacob knew that the Sent One of the LORD was also LORD and the Source of blessing. Or that Malachi knew the Angel of the covenant was the Lord whom He hoped in.
Dear Mo,
Do you really want to say that the "OT / NT" relationship is something akin to the classical "general / special revelation" relationship?? Danger ahead!
I'm sure you'd agree that the believer (in either testament)knows God through creation in a markedly different way than the unbeliever. We *believers* (in either testament) know that the sun is like the Bridegroom, Champion, Light of the world (Ps 19). Or as Paul put it - we know it to be proclaiming 'the word of Christ' (Rom 10:17-18)
So really the issue is, as Martin put it, Do "we know God *savingly* without Christ"?
I know that all sides of this debate want to answer "Yes!" But I submit that my POV requires a lot less 'sleight of hand' to say it!
Dear Marcus,
I'm sorry if the arguments you've heard about TAOLT have simply involved people saying 'Revelation never progresses.'
Let me say again: Progress is NOT the issue! Conscious trust in Christ is. If you read Justin, Calvin, Owen, Edwards and yes even Blackham on this you'll see that an affirmation that the Angel is Christ goes hand in hand with affirmations that we know more by Galatians than we did by Malachi and more by Malachi than we did by Exodus. To boil the argument down to 'Is there some kind of progress?' is reductionist in the extreme - and it's debating a position that doesn't really exist! But if that's what people have *really* said and meant when speaking with you, I'm sorry. But don't let that divert you from the real issues.
As for the idea of systematics driving exegesis... Tell me your assumption-free hermeneutic that neutrally reads the OT text.
The truth is none of us have a theologically neutral interpretation of either the OT or NT. And bringing up the Angel verses is a brilliant way of showing this.
No-one has refuted that Jacob calls the Angel 'the God of Abraham' and trusts that He is the Source of blessing for his kids. Now Chris is a very clever guy, much cleverer than me. And he's been thinking about it for a while now. And no-one else has offered an alternative explanation. Zechariah chapters 1-6 have been brought up in which the Angel is called LORD, speaks as LORD and says explictly that He - the LORD - has been sent by the LORD. (Zech 2:9) In short no-one has faced the Angel verses head on and come up with any other convincing explanation.
So the question comes to my mind: What sytematic assumptions are stopping a person from seeing what I think is as plain as daylight?
Now systematics is not necessarily the driving factor in this debate. I think you can argue Christ-centred conscious faith in three ways:
1) From the OT forwards (just teaching the Angel verses would be a terrific start).
2) From the NT backwards (Jesus and the Apostles thought the OT saints knew Christ)
3) Systematically (Christ is the Image, Word, Way, Truth and Life of God).
I'm comfortable arguing it through any of these. But it's worth knowing that everyone has a systematics. In fact it's probably the underlying systematics that causes the 'clash' over the Angel verses.
Here again is the text of Gen. 48:15:
And he blessed Joseph and said,
"The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,
the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys"
And here, FYI, is what Calvin says about it:
"He so joins the Angel to God as to make him his equal. Truly he offers him divine worship, and asks the same things from him as from God. If this be understood indifferently of any angel whatever, the sentence is absurd. Nay, rather, as Jacob himself sustains the name and character of God, in blessing his son, he is superior, in this respect, to the angels.
Wherefore it is necessary that Christ should be here meant, who does not bear in vain the title of Angel, because he had become the perpetual Mediator.
(Incidentally Calvin goes on to say that Christ is more clearly exhibited to us than he was to those who were under the law, yet he still says that the faith of the fathers was fixed on his future mission)
Glen said:
Do you really want to say that the "OT / NT" relationship is something akin to the classical "general / special revelation" relationship?? Danger ahead!
No. You have misunderstood me. Martin has too, so I am obviously not being clear.
I am basically saying the choice you are giving us is too binary. It is not a choice between "accept Christ is the agent of God's revelation AND accept the Angel of the Lord is him" and "reject both" which was what you seemed to be presenting us with. There are clearly categories of knowledge about God which depend on Christ revealing without the knower knowing Christ. That's all.
I can't be clearer - so I won't try it again!
Hi again guys
Ant: point taken about this individual is seen and worshipped in some texts. But I have a further issue which is that not all the appearances do the same thing or use the same phrase TAOTL. Take Gen. 32 where we are explicitly told that it was the Lord, but the individual is referred to as "a man" not TAOTL. Jacob specifically identifies the man as God, shocked that he can see the face of God and live.
This shock is interesting. Posts on this blog have been assuming that: (a) nobody can see the face of God and live; (b) therefore whoever it was, it wasn't the Father but the Son, because you can see his face and live.
So what do we do with Jacob's shock? There are two options: (1) Jacob thinks this is Yahweh, who is making some kind of exception to the usual "see my face and die". Which would account for him being shocked. (2) Or Jacob doesn't think this is Yahweh but some-other-agent-who-is-also-God. But this doesn't account for his shock at still being alive. He knows that can happen from his family history. It seems to me that the text remains ambiguous. From this passage alone it would seem to suggest the former. Perhaps bringing other passages to bear would seem to prefer the latter. I suspect we are likely to prefer one option over the other according to extra-textual considerations.
Are we to identify this man/God with TAOTL in other passages. Maybe. Probably even. My problem, however, is in building a theology on conflating various accounts, none of which are directly propositional and all of which are slightly mysterious, into one single discourse which says "we insist that every instance we see must be the pre-incarnate Christ. To the point where we are confident building other theological edifices on this premise". I just think this is unnuanced theological method
Glen: I must confess to being an interloper in the debate who doesn't keep quite as up to date on current reading as I should. Nevertheless I have certainly heard people make the case that revelation is not at all progressive, recently.
To all: we certainly want to make the case that the second and third person of the Trinity are active before 2000 years ago as the agency of God. Definitely in creation and definitely as the splendour of the Father's glory from before the world. I hope that isn't up for grabs. The question is not "were they?" It is "how clearly was that known and recognised, and why does it matter?"
An analogy: I know folk who I believe to be saved but whose theology of how one gets saved is either ill-formed so they can't yet vocalise it much more than "by Jesus." Or in some cases is wrong, notably people who still think they are under the Law but nevertheless seem to trust Christ. This is a little like Mo's point above. You don't have to know Christ is the agent for Christ to be the agent. You don't have to grasp the theology of only being saved by grace to be saved by grace (there were certainly believers in Acts 15 who thought you weren't).
Therefore I come down with Mo when he worries that the argument is a sleight of hand because God can reveal himself through Christ without us necessarily knowing that it is through Christ that he has done so. hence we can't commit to a theology that says unless you know Christ personally you don't know anything about God. And its con-commitment "therefore anyone who knows anything about God knows Christ personally." Its a false syllogism.
Mike Partridge: nice to see you are still alive! Warm good wishes.
Marcus: I stand corrected. Thanks.
Mo: Well said.
Martin: I'm trying hard to keep this about "the Angel", as we were asked, hence raising Daniel & Zechariah and questioning your Psalms references.
Glen: you seem to be translating "angel" as "sent one", not "messenger". Is this deliberate? Also, where in Zechariah is the angel called "LORD", not "lord"? (I don't know if you can really tell the difference in LXX, but in NIV I couldn't see it). My point in Zechariah was that the angel is there, but the word of the LORD also comes. If we're reading as new testament believers, surely if anything we'd say that was a pre-incarnate Son, because the word became flesh; it nowhere says the angel became flesh(a) "From the OT forwards". Problem is, I'm hesitant precisely because of NT, eg Gal 3 & Hebrews 1. Hebrews gives us a theology of Old Covenant revelation, and like I said: the lesser to greater is not just about the salvation delivered, but about who delivered it: not "the message spoken by angels" but "this salvation, first announced by the Lord"
(b) "From the NT backwards" - If you want us to stay away from theological arguments & on the biblical ones, I presume you mean to centre this discussion on the Angel. Talking about Knowing Christ isn't exactly on topic, if we're talking about "the angel". Again, John 1:18 & Hebrews 1-2 are clinchers for me. "To which of the angels did God ever say...[Ps 110]? Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?"
Dan: thanks. I wasn't being pejorative about Barth, I was being pejorative about this being a red-letter OT and what we're implicitly saying about God's revelation (*somehow not in Son?) in the rest of the OT - if we can only see/hear a "pre-incarnate Son" in an angelic agent. I take 2 Cor 3:18 to tell me that the whole of Moses is "pre-incarnate Son", not just a particular character.
Marcus,
If I may, on this bit:
"Ant: point taken about this individual is seen and worshipped in some texts. But I have a further issue which is that not all the appearances do the same thing or use the same phrase TAOTL. Take Gen. 32 where we are explicitly told that it was the Lord, but the individual is referred to as "a man" not TAOTL."
Hosea speaks of the man who is God being the angel that Jacob strove with.
Could you perhaps unpack, briefly, what you mean by "not all the appearances do the same thing or use the same phrase"? I'm not sure why that would be an issue.
I'm guessing that like John, and Jacob before him, we might well fall at His feet as though dead, and still be allowed to see his face and live.
Can anyone not persuaded by TAOTL being identified as Christ the Mediator please explain how/why in those very mysterious encounters and prayers the Angel is identified with Yahweh and yet also distinguished from Yahweh (as sent from him)? It is the combination of identification and distinction in the same textual units that is crucial.
And if you think there is mileage in pursuing this subject we could take the texts in Gen, Exod and Judges (in turn) and argue for and against the idea that TAOTL is the second person of the Godhead.
Hi Marcus,
I'm really glad your analogy with contemporary shaky believers did not include 'those who don't know Jesus but they seem to understand some kind of gracious covenant God.' You couldn't bring yourself to posit a bottom line more fundamental than 'knowing Jesus.' There may be some hope for you yet! ;)
Really for me that is a bottom line that must not be lost. My fear is that certain views of the OT concede ground that should not be conceded. Jesus gave no exceptions to Matt 11:27 or John 14:6. The context of Col 1:15 is not incarnation but creation and John 1:18 is explicitly about Christ-centred *OT* revelation.
Pretty much the whole reason I weigh in on these debates is that I fear underlying assumptions like the ones you've articulated. If you're interested in historical quotes that emphatically oppose your position you could click href="http://www.christthetruth.org.uk/quotes.htm" here. For starters Calvin - not an Anglican ;-) - may get you to think again.
Mediation is by definition a two-way concept. Lose the two-way-ness you lose mediation.
Hi Chris, in href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zech%201-2;&version=31;"Zechariah 1-2 just follow who's saying what. It's the Angel saying everything from 2:4-13. Incredible verses on the deity but also distinction of the Angel. And He is in 2:10 the One about Whom Jerusalem should shout aloud for He comes as One sent to live among them (2:9,11). Notice the deliberate allusions to Zech 9:9 the King riding on the donkey.
And "sent one" was something I learnt at college. Can't remember where but I just found href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malakh" wikipedia is on my side, so - case closed :)
Yes conceptually 'messenger' and 'word' are close and I for one see Gen 15:4-7 and Jer 1:4-19 also as clear Christophanies. But I also see 'word of God' as having flexibility (just as it does in the NT). Most often it doesn't mean Christ but sometimes it does (just like in NT).
Hi Martin - sorry for going off topic! You're right to reign things back.
Glenn,
Pandora's box has now been opened, but I thought that we could at least stick to the Angel and then move on to the Captain of the Lord's Army, the Son of Man etc.
Sorry - finally worked out how to encode a link!
Martin, why blame Pandora - there was only one goody in her box of tricks but in this debate there is a whole host of goodness? ;o)
Have we come to a point in the discussion where are assumptions are speaking louder than the text? We are each thinkers, students of the Word and brothers/sisters in Christ. Our assumptions (should) have been fashioned by our study and transformed & tempered by Salvation. But, and I suspect we all agree, we should be willing to lay down frameworks in order to be refreshed in the text.
It may well be the textual nature of the chat which means that some of the levity is taken out of the it but some of the comments (accompanied by exclamation marks!) are cutting close to the bone and heading toward divisiveness rather than asking for clarity. Or am I being unfair?
So Glen, on "Sent One" I think you need to be clearer on the textual weight that allows this shift in talking of TAOTL. Message/Messenger is transparent but Sent One isn't. Sent One is clearly a title of Jesus (and that alongside High Priest in Heb) but we can only apply it as a complementary title of Jesus rather than a substitute for TAOTL. Or am I missing something in the text?
Mo, I'm with you - I think the division of the argument into "you either agree wholly with me or you totally disagree with me" is too bald and reductionistic. As I've said I do believe TAOTL to have been the pre-incarnate Son BUT I think the evidence for a 'full' understanding of the details of the gospel in the OT saints is shaky.
An OT/NT intersection on this is the High Priest in Jn12. He speaks prophetically in saying "it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish". John's comment on it is: "He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." The analogy is partial but it should introduce caution in those who would argue vehemently that Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, et al understood in detail everything they spoke. We cannot KNOW that this is the case; nor can we argue it wasn't.
I still think the that shadow analogy which occurs in several NT epistles & Hebrews (not really an epistle is it?) in understanding the OT's relation to the New Covenant is one that works for our understanding of TAOTL. Both the back-cast Shadow of the Incarnate Son, The Word Made Flesh and the foreshadow of the Word (message) made flesh: as the High Priest and Apostle of the Gospel.
Under the previous covenant He is known only in part, but now in the New Covenant we see Him with clarity. Even if we are uneasy about the direct correlation of Him as the Son revealed: we must accept (musn't we) that the text forces us to see TAOTL as God in the outer likeness of humanity, akin to angelic messengers but distinct from them? This is where I guess I'd be asking Marcus to look at assumptions and text. In a friendly, light hearted way, of course...
ooops! that should be John 11 above, slip of the fongers ;o)
btw - fongers was deliberate.
Andy,
Thank you for such a helpful post.
I want to throw into the mix a bit of Francis Turretin (Calvin's successor at Geneva, well not his immediate successor). Interesting to see how one of the great post-Reformation divines approached the broad issue of Christ in the OT:
It is also falsely alleged that the words “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12) refer only to the time in which Christ was manifested and cannot be extended to the past.
...since no salvation can be granted to the sinner without a mediator (and there is no mediator except Christ), it follows either that the fathers had no salvation or that they were saved by Christ. (5th Q: XII)
Peter testifies, “To Christ give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43). Nor can it be objected that the faith of the ancients was general in God, not special in Christ (the Saviour), because the opposite is evident from many considerations.
(a) No faith can be saving unless founded upon Christ.
(b) He speaks of the faith by which they looked to God as their God (Heb. 11:16) and to heaven as their native country. Now this cannot be done without Christ.
(c) Of the faith by which they looked to Christ himself and preferred his reproach to all treasures (Heb. 11:26).
(d) Not only a general but also a special command of faith in Christ is found in the Old Testament (Exod. 23:20-21; Deut. 18:18; Ps. 2:12; Is. 53:1, 5). If the faith of the ancients were not the same as ours, it would be improperly proposed for our imitation (Heb. 12:1, 2; Rom. 4:12). Paul could not argue with sufficient strength from the faith of the father of believers and his justification to ours (Gal. 3:6, 7; Rom. 4:16). (5th Q: XIV)
Hmmm.
Must admit, I get rather tired of wheeling out the "big hitters" in arguments like this. Who is Calvin? Who is Blackham? Gentle nod in the direction of 1 Cor 3:5
I think (i skim read the last 20 or so posts, so sorry if i missed anything) we are still waiting for those who don't think the Angel is the pre-incarnate Son to show us how they would exegete these Angel texts.
So... come on then :-)
More to the point who is Rich Owen? Calvin I know, and Turretin I know (haven't they shaped Reformed theology for 500 years), but who are you?
Now Martin, play nice. :o)
Rich, you're welcome to the table but sitting down and joining in without introducing yourself (esp. when you jarr against the flow of the discussion - which may well be needed), or having a blogger profile we can at least peek at could seem a bit rude. :o)
The reason why we'd listen/consider historical figures is that just because they are dead doesn't mean they don't have something positive to say in the argument. We're not following 'Paul' or 'Apollos' - we're just including the voices of the saints of the past in our conversation because they are relevant in their insights. The authority here - and we're all aware of it - is Scripture alone.
So, pull up a seat and join in the conversation and, note to self, join in in a friendly manner.
Thank you ;-)
Andy, what do you think about the Angel of the Lord first being introduced in the context of the gracious Abrahamic covenant? Any significance in that given the shadowy/promissory nature of the Mosaic legislation? I'm a Westminster boy on these points.
btw Hello everybody, I'm Glen. (Probably should have said that before! Sorry).
It might not count since I'm also a new boy, but I vouch for Rich - he's a good man!
Hi Andy,
Really helpful comment. And a good example of your point. Perhaps you blogged better than you knew when you quoted John 12. Surely John 12:40-41 is a much better example of how OT prophecy worked than the unbelieving Christ-killer Caiaphas? Isaiah saw Jesus' glory and wrote about Him. That's more my model of OT prophecy. And I would say it's by far the more sensible and more widely attested model given in the NT.
On 'malaakh' as 'sent one' - I in no way set myself up as a Hebrew scholar (my Hebrew teacher would be appalled at the idea!) but with my introductory grammar open in front of me, it seems that 'malaakh' is the participial noun form of the verb 'lak' which means 'go or send'. So pretty literally it means 'sent one'. And FWIW wikipedia agrees.
It's easy to see therefore why it would be the word for 'messenger'. In fact it's exactly the same in English - think of 'missive' and 'mission'. This site tells me that 'message' and 'sent' go back to the latin 'missus' and 'mittere' and are from the same root.
Interestingly Justin speaks of Christ as the Angel and Apostle in almost interchangeable ways (apostle also meaning 'sent one').
But even if etymology aint your bag (and it aint mine to be honest) look at how often TAOLT is said to be sent. He's always on mission!
Which makes 'Sent One' the perfect title for Jesus to use in John's Gospel.
Ok, sorry if I gaffed on the blog etiquette. Andy – thanks for being helpful. I don’t have a blog of my own – only signed up to blogger so that I could post here because it was an interesting thread – hence no profile either. So, sorry about my Pythonesque entrance. Thanks for vouching for me Glen. Have we met? ;-)
Having read from the start, what is conspicuous by its absence is the exegetical response from those who are NOT convinced that the Angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Christ. Please can you exegete those passages cited above and show us how you would deal with them, and/or point out the actual problems in the exegesis which has been offered – just where is it becoming stretched – how are they doing that?
We are brothers who love Jesus and need the nourishment of the word, so discussions like this must be exegetically driven so that the focus remains on the objective Word –for our nourishment, to keep the peace and to avoid it becoming partisan. Our desire is to get it right and to take it in rather than to win. I know we all know that, but as Dan hinted at earlier, discussions can degenerate into church history top trumps (that is my idea, so if anyone runs with it, I want my cut). It was starting to feel that way to be honest with more and more quotes and names being dropped and so on. So I guess I did intend to jarr against the flow of things. Obviously there is a great deal to learn from church history and much which is relevant to this discussion, but I think it was maybe becoming a distraction.
(a) No one seems particularly troubled by Hebrews 1-2, which seems to me to be a definitive NT answer: in these last days he has spoken by his Son, or to which of the angels did God ever say...?", or "are not all angels...", pay attention not to "the message spoken by angels" but "the salvation first announced by the lord". NB I'm not undermining a Trinitarian theology of revelation - far from it (see my analogy with a red-letter OT & 2 Cor 3:18 - isn't all scripture "pre-incarnate Son", not just a particular character?)
(b) Zechariah 2: first time I read this, I read it as you did, Glen. But as with the prophets (is it Hosea? Is it God?, etc), it's also very difficult to tell voices in a text. I still take it as an enthralling ambiguity, a hint, a clue, which makes me smile about Jesus, in fact, I'll always ask the question in a bible study, but the NT makes NOTHING of it. Nothing. I guess there's a regulative/normative analogy going on in our discussion?
(c) "John 1:18 is explicitly about Christ-centred OT revelation" - before I rush in with questions, have you read/heard Don Carson's exposition of that verse? [Exodus 33-34 fulfilled. Law revealed God's covenant character, his glory: hesed (steadfast-love/grace+truth), but not liveably. I think Jesus is to scripture as HDTV is to sketch-storyboard . The word became flesh.]
I'm still wondering if angel could be an office (what's an evangelist if not an angel of the ev-angel-ion?), fulfilled par excellence in the Word made flesh? That would relegate the category to a role.
Hi Chris,
a)
I think Heb 1:1-2 is something like:
In the OT it was go-between prophets who proclaimed the unchanging message of the Lord but now the Son has come as His own Prophet to declare to the people that same unchanging message.
The incarnation represents a major change. In the OT Christ (under the name of Angel or LORD or Word or Commander or any other name) never addresses the people at large (except for five verses in Judges 2). He always goes through intermediaries. But in incarnation He publicly speaks His own word in His own Person.
And then Hebrews 1 goes on to deal with His superiority to angels. Now it's very important to understand the significance of angels. Angels are particularly associated with the pre-incarnation set of affairs. Pre-incarnation 'man is for a little while lower than the angels' (Heb 2:7) So angels are top dogs pre-incarnation. No wonder then that one of the chief titles for Christ was THE Angel (the Best of the best - bit like King of kings). Angels are also strongly linked to the law - which the recipients of this letter were tempted to exalt above Him who fulfilled it.
And so, naturally, Hebrews sets about saying Christ is superior to all things associated with law. First cab off the rank: angels. Christ is superior to the angels. Just as Christ is superior to the priests, the prophets and the kings. But of course this doesn't mean He is not THE Priest, THE Prophet, THE King - nor does it prevent Him from being THE Angel. In fact it would be most appropriate if He was. THE Angel became THE Man to exalt humanity above its previous station. (Please understand I am saying nothing about physics or biology here, any more than John did when speaking of the Word becoming Flesh. When I say Angel don't think 'creature' think 'Messenger' or 'Sent One'.)
The recipients of this letter can be assumed to know the difference between priests and the Great High Priest. Similarly they can know the difference between angels and THE Great Angel.
From 1:5 Hebrews sets about unpacking the superiority of the Son. This is a title that Hebrews fixes on for Christ because of the obedience connotations and the link with the children, sons and seed that will pay off later. But to prove His superiority he quotes Psalms assuming that they are intentionally 'about the Son'. (NB: he does not say "The Psalms were about earthly kings but we can re-read them as referencing the Son." He just says this OT revelation is straightforwardly about the Son.)
b) On Zechariah 1-2 - It's really not that ambiguous Chris! The One speaking as LORD also says He's 'sent'. No matter how many readings a person invented for chapter 2, that would have to be a common theme to all of them.
And Zech 9:9 is clearly parallel to this text. And clearly picked up in the NT
c) On John 1:18 - Given Don Coarsons prior commitments on this question, I'm not surprised he shies away from the interpretation of so many in church history - Calvin and Edwards to name two prominent ones. No-one has ever seen God, the Son has made Him known. Implication: the appearing LORD is the Son. That's the most straightforward interpretation and the one followed by virtually everyone a good guy theologian wants on their side.
And I fully agree that Angel is an office. An eternal office. But right from the outset (Gen 16) - The Angel of the LORD is identified as God. It's not a case of lesser beings preparing for the full-blown divine version. Right from the beginning the Angel is introduced as God.
And we're still waiting for that assertion to be refuted...
and apologies to Rich for using both ancient languages and church history super trumps in one day. I know how you love that!
yikes. That's a lot.
"that same unchanging message"? - that's a little flattening for Hebrews, don't you think?
"in the OT, Christ (under...any other name) goes through intermediaries" - I thought the whole point of your reading of Gen 2 (LG walked with man in the garden) or Gen 48 was that it was direct? Now it sounds like you're trying to squeeze Galatians 3 into that.
"No wonder one of the chief titles for Christ was THE Angel" - That's begging the question, and ad hoc.
"pre-incarnation 'man is for a little while lower than the angels'" - Sorry, there I totally disagree. That's why I don't buy speculative theodicies about fallen angels...Adam could and should have overruled the serpent. Post fall, we do not see man in Psalm 8 rule BUT at present we do not see him (namely Adam) but we see him (namely Jesus) - the true human being, righting the cosmic reversal of Gen 3 (God-man-creature), and destroying the works of Satan.
"Angels are strongly linked to the law". Amen. I think that's the point. In the past, old covenant, elementary things.
"Christ is superior to the angels. Just as Christ is superior to the priests, the prophets and the kings. But of course this doesn't mean He is not THE Priest, THE Prophet, THE King" - Precisely. Isn't this Goldsworthy's point? But you've set up another false alternative, between him being THE Angel (ie par excellence, like I've been suggesting), and "the angel in Daniel 10, or Zechariah 2" ... We might as well say he's "the Joshua the priest in Zechariah 3, the or the priest king in Zec 6"
"THE Angel became THE Man to exalt humanity" - Again, I think that's fine, as long as you have this par excellence fulfilment, but if you're saying the angel of Dan 10/Zec 2 became the man Jesus Christ, that's precisely a speculation, not a text.
"Zechariah 1-2 is not really that ambiguous" - please be a bit more generous. Voicing a text is really hard. It's not always obvious whose voice is speaking in Isaiah, Hosea, or even in John's gospel - when is it John, when is it Jesus? But it's ALL the Spirit declaring the Son revealing the Father's glory (John 16, 2 Cor 3).
I don't get what Zechariah 9:9 says about an angel. If I remember rightly, Zech 1-6 is a chiasm of its own, so ch2 goes with ch5 if anything.
"Given Don Coarsons prior commitments on this question, I'm not surprised he shies away from the interpretation of so many in church history" - Ad Hominem. From this comment, I'm still not sure you've read/heard what he's said. I don't want to go into it until I know we're comparing the same notes.
"Right from the beginning the Angel is introduced as God. And we're still waiting for that assertion to be refuted..." - This is getting a little antagonistic. A few of us are trying hard to engage while setting out why we might be hesitant.
Rich,
Having been gently admonished by Andy for my grumpy response, and seeing as you are not a drive by commenter, let my add, a little more sweetly, that as the author of the OP I made a remark there about the history of interpretation concerning the identity of TAOTL.
The intention behind the OP was to look at the texts, to look at our practice, and to reflect on that in the light of church history. The point of the latter being that there is a well documented wealth of interpretation on these passages that affirms that TAOTL is the pre-incarnate Christ. That's all really. Apologies for the gruffness.
Can I be a cheeky chappy and ask that out of the current coffee-drinking Bible-lovers present who don't think that the Angel is the pre-incarnate Word, somebody exegete Genesis 48, or say Genesis 16.
I think that until we have this, we are arguing a different point about revelation (which is a good thing to talk about- it's really interesting- but it's not the original aim of the post!)
I'd love us to get to the bottom of this one...
To be honest, I haven't responded to this, because in exegeting Genesis 16, I wouldn't feel the need to make any comment on the indentity of the Angel, the Trinity, or any other point on whether it is a theophany or Christophany. The point of the passage is about what God says, whether through a mediator or not. In fact, if you used this passage to make some sort of point about the Trinity, surely you would be reading your framework so heavily into the text so as to miss the actual point (as Marcus suggested might be the risk of the approach.)
Mo,
If you don't mind me asking, would you pass over commenting on the identity of the Angel of the Lord, if you were preaching through Genesis or Exodus, in every text where he appears? And if someone asked you after a sermon "who is the angel of the Lord?" what would you say?
To all,
I couldn't resist pulling a few commentaries of the shelf. Derek Kidner says "A study of 'the Angel of the Lord' passages...leaves no room for doubt that the term denotes God Himself as seen in human form; what should be added is that 'Angel', by its meaning 'messenger', implies that God, made visible, is at the same time God sent."
And Wenham's contribution to the New Bible Commentary has "Hagar met the Angel of the Lord, God in human form who most often appears in dire personal crises to bring assurance of salvation."
Hi Chris,
Sorry for being strident especially in my previous post. The keys were clattering a little too heavily and I'm sorry for making it an uncomfortable tone.
To put things far more briefly: I don't see that Heb 1-2 precludes Christ from being The Angel. The fact He is 'Angel par excellence' does not necessitate some kind of progression from lower beings inhabiting the Angel-role until Christ Himself stepped into those shoes. The OT verses speak directly about the divine identity of The Angel from the outset.
I would say that Christ and only Christ has always been THE Angel and 'angels' have always been created beings. And so the Son is certainly not just one of 'the angels'! And so Heb 1-2 makes perfect sense on my understanding. You might think I'm assuming what I'm setting out to prove. All I'm trying to do is to say that my understanding of the OT texts is consistent with this NT passage.
Second, if you can imagine a voicing of Zech 2:8-11 in which you do not have 'The LORD' being Himself 'sent' I'd like to hear it.
I've tried to engage with Scriptures that you've thought are "a definitive NT answer". Well I think passages like this are a definitive OT answer - but you've not engaged them. If I've come across as aggressively insistent, I apologise. But really the debate requires an engagement here or we're just shadow boxing in our respective corners.
I'm not bowing out at this stage, but I do want to express ny gratitude to all of you who have contributed to this discussion. It has certainly mad me think.
The conversation so far has stimulated me to go away and to construct the case from the NT that the Angel of the Lord must be Christ. Obviously this is by necessary implication and not direct assertion. But that of course is a time honoured and proper method of interpretation.
Obviously with those typos I need to go to bed.
On the back of Martin's challenge, let me tell you about an experience similar to the 'after-sermon-questioning' he describes, but quite a lot more pointed:
Last year I returned to Speakers Corner after years of absence. Two Muslims were on the ladder proclaiming that the Old Testament name "LORD" meant nothing. Who cares if Jesus is called "Lord" because the name "LORD" is even applied to angels.
"Really?" I objected from the crowd. "Where?" With glee they read out Exodus 3:2-6.
I said "You said 'angels' were named 'LORD' - I only heard about one angel called THE Angel of the LORD. Where are all these other angels called LORD?" The one with the bible happily pulled up Genesis 16. (They had several other Angel verses up their sleeve. The Angel stuff had apparently been a rich seam of material for them in previous weeks).
"Again," I said "That's the Angel of the LORD. And you know the word Malak from Arabic - it means messenger doesn't it?" They agreed. "So what we have here is The One Sent from the LORD who is also the LORD. He is the Divine Messenger. He is from God and He IS God.
The more I harped on at this point the more the Muslims were riled and the Christians were cheering (I've never known a moment like it at Speakers Corner).
I continued "So He is LORD from LORD, God from God, Light from Light, True God from God, Begotten not made..." The Christian cheering and Muslim consternation were so loud now that I was bellowing out the entire second article of Nicea.
"And so," I said, "'Lord' is the very best name for Jesus. And so is 'the Sent One' - For Jesus is the Messenger of the LORD who is also our LORD who is the God of the burning bush and the God of Hagar AND THE GOD OF ISHMAEL."
It was the most enjoyable ruckus I've ever been a part of.
My question is to Mo, Marcus, Chris and anyone else hesitant over the identity of the Angel. Muslims know these verses and use them in apologetics. They know that the Angel of Ex 3:2 is the God of Ex 3:6 - they simply laugh at Christians who suggest there is a switch within the bush. If they raise these verses with someone from my POV it is an own goal - pure and simple. But from your perspective what would you say to them?
Morning all!
Martin - "Obviously this is by necessary implication and not direct assertion" - I'm happy with that. I think that's progress, but implication depends on broader theology than texts. It depends on how you string things together. To say "necessary" implication is very strong.
Martin - "if someone asked you 'who is the angel of the Lord?', what would you say?" is a bit like saying "if someone asked you what the star was above Jesus' stable", you'd probably ask why they were asking, because it wasn't quite the point. Or if someone asked about the "6 days", or "1000 years", or the moon standing still... I know I'm taking liberties there, so that said, I'd ask them questions, to see why they're asking. It may be that they're muslim for instance. But if they're reading it closely, like Glen, they may see it an enthralling hint, a clue, which makes me smile about Jesus, I'll happily ask that question in a bible study, but the NT makes NOTHING of it. Nothing. Like I said, there's probably a regulative/normative question rumbling on.
Glen - if a Muslim came to you citing Hosea 11, and said "there, God doesn't need the cross - he says his heart is changed within him, and will not come in wrath", what would you say?
I personally think that Blackham's theology came from such a heavy interaction with muslim apologetics. Muslims aren't supposed to be interested in knowing God (course, they can't suppress the longing, whence Sufism). It's about obeying. God himself is unknowable. He is only describable, which brings problems of analogy - he is unlike any other. Because their God is never immanent, Muslim theology (kalam) is mainly about apologetics - on the hereafter, final judgment and why we're not Christians. I'm not sure that's the best starting point for discussion, nor for reading the bible properly. But I can sympathise with the power of being able to hole their arguments.
I would ask, as I always do with muslims, if they know who God is. They can never tell stories, they can only ever describe his attributes - "God is the all knowing, all powerful, all merciful etc" . I'd stop them and say "who is?", and keep pushing to personal encounter. And I'd encourage them to see that if their God truly is only transcendent, unlike anything, then to say "he is merciful" is meaningless. Jesus can tell a story of mercy (2 men with debts cancelled), and we can say ahh - I know what mercy is, and that's what God's like.
and well done for your boldness brother, celebrating Jesus at speakers' corner! let's not get distracted from commending him to others today.
Morning Chris,
Thanks for the response. By "necessary implication" I really mean "by good and necessary consequence can be deduced from Scripture." It is possible to have such a reductionistic biblicist hermeneutic that is more akin to anti-trinitarian approaches.
On this bit:
"if someone asked you 'who is the angel of the Lord?', what would you say?" is a bit like saying "if someone asked you what the star was above Jesus' stable", you'd probably ask why they were asking, because it wasn't quite the point.
Really? It is nothig like asking questions about the star. Really, not even close. Take a look at Exodus 23:20-21. I would regard that as a somewhat evasive answer ;-) So let me be specific. A Christian believer asks you that question.
On the Blackham front, take a glance at Jonathan Edward's A History of Redemption and see how much he has to say about TAOTL being Christ.
Chris – are you suggesting that a theology strengthened or formed through evangelism is not a good method? I don’t quite get what you mean in that statement. Perhaps you could clarify. If you do mean that Blackham’s being influenced through his Muslim evangelism is not a good thing for theology, would you not then have a problem with Paul’s being influenced by Gnostics or the Circumcision is not a good thing for theology?
Mo, I do think it would be worth seeing from you how you would exegete Exodus 3. You surely cannot escape having to comment on who is present, why Moses responds as he does, His identity, the relations He had with Abraham Isaac and Jacob and so on.
Chris, you say in relation to the question “Who is the Angel of the Lord” that “the NT makes NOTHING of it. Nothing”. In relation to my question to Mo above, would you not say that Jesus makes something of this in John 8?
Hi Chris,
On Hosea 11 - I would study the verses with them and press each syllable of its wondrous grace on them. And if they'd let me, I'd go back with them to the start of Hosea and how the people are like a whoring wife who the LORD redeems through payment. And how the LORD actually promises punishment (2:13) before restoration (2:14ff). Therefore the heart-rending love of ch11 is not opposed to sacrifice and atonement, it is the very love that provokes Him to pay the ransom price (see e.g. 13:14) - to bear the cost. These passions don't obviate the need for The Passion, they necessitate it.
So I would look intently at the Scripture brought to me and I would seek to press deeper into its meaning. In doing so my aim is to uncover an inner logic of atonement that helps me proclaim Christ.
And that's precisely what I'd do with the Angel verses - thank them (and thank God) that they've raised them, press deeper into them, draw out the inner logic informing them and allow them very plainly to proclaim Christ.
This is *markedly* different to your approach. We still don't know how you handle them (93 comments!) and we're Christians.
Hi Mo,
You accuse our POV of "reading [our] framework so heavily into the text so as to miss the actual point." Maybe that accusation had some credibility about 50 comments ago. But 93 comments in and your POV refuses to read these texts at all!
To decide in advance what the 'point' of these texts might be without ever addressing them in *any* detail smacks of exactly that 'framework-driven-ness' you accuse us of. How can you know that these texts will not teach you about mediation, or about the trinity? You only 'know' this because your framework tells you.
Wouldn't it be a fair exegetical question of Gen 48 or Ex 3 to ask "Who is the God of Abraham?" It's an absolutely crucial theological question today. And it demands a level of textual engagement that you cannot or will not give to it because your framework disallows detailed enquiry into the Angel who IS the God of Abraham.
And final thing (probably).
I've had it confirmed from an excellent Hebrew scholar - "Malaak" is definitely 'sent' in participle form. The Angel simply is "The Sent One".
I reckon the NT picks up on this!!
The identity of the Angel is surely quite important in us being able to claim the OT as a revelation of anything like our faith.
If the patriarchs worshipped created angels, crediting them with the covenant or the redemption from Egypt; or if they had some kind of pantheon before moving to worship of the LORD (as many have suggested!), then the NT collapses too.
It's me!
LOL. You'll need to be more specific than that!
Sorry!
I'll give you some clues:
Abraham saw my day and rejoiced- Gen 18.
Moses considered me worth more than the fleeting pleasures of sin- Ex 3.
Isaiah saw me and spoke of my glory- Is 6.
But what is your name?
Well being as Paul called me 'Christ Jesus' in Philippians 2:5 in reference to a decision I made before the incarnation, I'll let you off with the same.
Glen said:
You accuse our POV of "reading [our] framework so heavily into the text so as to miss the actual point." Maybe that accusation had some credibility about 50 comments ago. But 93 comments in and your POV refuses to read these texts at all!
Excuse me? I just gave what you asked for - an exegesis of the text from the POV of someone who isn't convinced that Jesus is the TAOTL. Are you seriously saying that you'd preach a sermon on that passage making the point who is mediating the revelation than what the Angel (whoever he is, and I am genunely not sure) actually says?
This is madness, surely?
I don't really understand your accusation that I haven't really looked at the text? How about you respond to the exegesis, rather than simply asserting "you don't agree with me therefore you haven't read the text." On this issue, I am actually perfectly ready to be persuaded - but by persuausion, not assertion!
I was thinking about this on a long car journey today, and I think I am much more likely to proclaim Christ from Genesis 16 from Hagar's response to the word of God. That, at least, has the merit of a direct connection to Christ in the NT: the personification of God's promising word.
Hi Mo,
I don't mean to pick on you. There are others refusing to engage the texts too. But unless I've missed a comment, the only thing approaching exegesis has been a single sentence:
"The point of the passage is about what God says, whether through a mediator or not."
It is sandwiched between two sentences asserting what the passage is *not* about.
Now unless I've missed something (great apologies if I have), all you've done is tell us that Gen 16 involves God speaking (somehow) and then you've asserted that this and only this is what's important.
Now you and I both know that's not exegesis. And it's nothing like what's been called for by Martin.
Let's look at the passage:
Here is the first use of the title 'Angel of the LORD'. The full title 'Angel of the LORD' comes in v7, v9, v10 and v11. You might have thought a pronoun would have done but instead the repetition is insistent.
In v11 the Angel speaks of the LORD in the third person. He has come on the LORD's errant.
And so the shift in v13 is marked: "Hagar called the name of the LORD who spoke to her" - here is an emphatic declaration. He is LORD, God and One who sees / One
who pastors. Three divine titles are given to this character in quick succession. Hagar clearly is impressed by the identity of this Figure. And from v14 we see that His identity is very important - that place is called Beer Lahai Roi - Lahai (Living One) being yet another divine title given to the Angel.
Is the Angel's identity the only thing that's important here? No. But it is presented as important - Hagar's reaction says nothing about the Angel's words but everything about His Person.
The identity of this Person is extremely important. To say that the Angel's identity is unimportant is the most unpersuasive assertion imaginable when you actually pay attention to what is being said.
Mo, You're not ready to be persuaded. You're really not. You've ruled out in advance any possibility that the passage teaches you the Angel's identity or about mediation or the trinity. You've asserted this very starkly.
Don't know what else to say.
Hello Mo.
I would agree that if you or anyone preached Genesis 16 and ONLY made the point that the Angel was mediating the Unseen Lord, that they wouldn't have preached the passage. No argument. Nobody wants that.
But would it really be "madness" for a preacher to comment on Hagar's response in verse 13 where she says she has seen God? Did she really see God? Why does the place get named? In what way does God see her and she him? And how can she see God anyway? Would it not be fair to go up to verse 11 and cross reference?
Would you really not feel the need to comment on verse 13?
Rich
OK, don't want to be the conversation police but sentences like "you're not ready to listen" is such a HUGE accusation that it can't go unchallenged.
Let's not let commitment and conviction of our position turn into accusations of sin (which is what the above is): it closes discussion down. You may not feel listend to, you may even feel like the other person isn't listening: but we have to be adult enough to recognise that someone may have heard us, have listened well, but still may disagree. This is NOT a point on which salvation our rests and so we need to ease off a bit in tone.
Let's focus on the texts and in a textual discussion we need to phrase our questions in ways that are more appropriate to being read than being heard. Especially where we may not know each other in person and so cannot know the tone/feel with which the words are written.
(SMILE)
OK, plough on.
Thanks Andy
To anticipate our future discussion of further texts, and in recognition that there is a body of material about TAOTL, I want to draw our attention to one point.
In Exodus 3:1-6 TAOTL appears to Moses, speaks to Moses as the LORD, and instructs Moses to get his sandals off because he is in God's presence (I suggest sandals on is the best idea when in the company of creaturely angels).
The thing is, TAOTL identifies himself as the God of Abraham, and as I AM. Given Jesus' identifying himself as I AM in John 8, we ought to see a NT connection to TAOTL. It would surely be pedantic to demand that the NT re-state that Jesus is TAOTL in those precise words.
This approach also reinforces the wording of Hebrews 11:26 "He [Moses] considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward."
If Moses didn't know Christ what is the writer to the Hebrews on about?
Thanks Andy,
I'm sorry Mo. It was presumptuous of me to phrase it as a statement. Let me phrase it as a question:
When your exegesis is far more about asserting without evidence what the passage *cannot* mean, when you call it 'madness' to draw attention to the Angel's identity, are you really "perfectly ready to be persuaded"?
Ok.
Thanks Andy, and sorry to let things get heated.
I'll come to how I would teach Genesis 16 in a second. But can I just state my position: I think TAOTL might be Christ. I'm just not sure we need to know that he is to understand what is going on in any of the TAOTL passages. My concern is insisting that this is what these passages are there to prove may make us miss the point of the passages: hence I have some sympathy with Chris's point that reading them through the lens of dialoguing with Muslims means we are pushing them into a box in which they do not fit.
So Genesis 16: I would honestly make the point of this sermon about what God says to Hagar: because the response to God's words is faith throughout this section of Genesis,and because if (at this point) we know anything about the God who she encounters it is that he is "The God who spoke to her" v13 (and Abraham)
And the point is that she, having genuinely encountered God (through him speaking to her) responds by remembering and obeying.
Who is the angel then? I don't know, and I am wary of the question because I don't think you can answer it from the passage. I think saying that she is ascribing the divine titles to the Angel is not clear: she is giving the titles to the God who spoke to her, however he did that.
I don't think the fact that she says God has spoken to her through the Angel means it is not "an angel" - after all there are many other examples in the Bible of people treating what "normal" angels say as what God says to them.
And what does she mean that she has seen God - well as I understand it the word she uses for seen is difficult, and somewhat vague - and I am by no means denying that she had a real enocunter with the living God.
The question of the passage is, I think, "who is the God Hagar has encountered" and the answer "the same living speaking God who has also spoken to Abraham so far". (inidentally, not through TAOTL as far as we are told) I think the question of the means by which God speaks to her and a long discussion thereof would drag us away from the point. I am trying not to make any accusations about framework: but this would be the point at where they would come if I was going to!
So you see I am ready to persuaded that TAOTL is Christ. I guess where I am less open to persuasion is where it becomes necessary to know that to get to the apparent meaning of the passage.
Here's a question for those with whom I am disagreeing: why does the Lord not speak to Abram through TAOTL thus far? Is he given lesser or less direct communication? Did Hagar know Jesus before him?
Morning Mo,
On this bit that you wrote:
"I don't think the fact that she says God has spoken to her through the Angel means it is not "an angel" - after all there are many other examples in the Bible of people treating what "normal" angels say as what God says to them."
Is it not the case that TAOTL is not merely the bearer of the promise to Hagar but the promise maker?
Time permitting I will do some more spadework on her response to TAOTL. It seems to me that her words are very much about his person, his appearance. She has seen the One who sees her.
With regard to Abram. We have been told that the LORD appeared to him and spoke to him back in ch 12, although we are not told about the form of the LORD's appearing. We are later told about TAOTL addressing him as God in Gen 22. Gen 12 is tantalising given the later trauma of how people feel, and what they expect will happen, when God appears to them. I would be comfortable with the suggestion that this was in fact TAOTL appearing in Gen 12--and that due to the significance of passages like Ex. 3 and Judges 6 where LORD and TAOTL are used interchangeably. Glen may have other views on this.
I would also suggest that the promise making words of TAOTL to Hagar really do give away that this is the One who has previously spoken to Abram.
There appears to be no qualitative difference at all between these accounts in terms of revelation.
That'll do for starters!
Thanks Mo.
I would agree that a lengthy excursus on revelation or Doctrine of God would distract from the main point of the passage. I would also agree that insisting that these passages are there to prove the Trinitarian nature of God would be a bad move. So far as I am aware, there are no passages in all scripture, Old Testament and New, which are there with the intention of proving the Trinitarian nature of God. That the Living God is Trinity is just there, underpinning all scripture as its foundation. Would you agree?
You say in your response that the Angel delivers God's words, and you see that it is important to know who's words they are because of the demand of faith and obedience, but you ALSO say that it is not important to our understanding the passage to know who the Angel actually is. The former is an exegetical derivation, but the latter is not.
You say that all we know "about the God who she encounters it is that he is "The God who spoke to her" v13 (and Abraham)". But that is not all there is to know - you have been selective. We also know from verse 13 and 14 that God appears and is visible to Hagar. She says she saw the God who sees her. It seems to me that you have made a good go at understanding this in epistemological categories, but you overlook the ontological. Your talk of genuine encounter therefore rings a little hollow to me, since you don't address any of the ontological concerns because you have decided that it is not significant. Hagar sees God!
Rich
Mo thank you very much for engaging the Gen 16 text and proving me wrong. You have been willing to flex on this and I appreciate that a great deal.
You said:
"The question of the passage is, I think, "who is the God Hagar has encountered""
This is a tremendous improvement on what I understood to be your earlier position: Namely that only the content of His words were important and that it was "madness" to make assertions about the identity.
Clearly what Hagar takes away from this encounter is the identity of the Speaker. (v13) Clearly what contemporaries took from the encouter was the identity of the Speaker (v14). And so what does this passage tell us about the identity?
"So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God of seeing," for she said, "Truly here I have seen him who looks after me." (ESV, v13)
Both Hagar and Moses (the author) are stating emphatically that the Speaker of verses 8-12 who is expressly from the LORD and who is expressly seen by Hagar is also Himself LORD and God. It is the LORD who spoke to Hagar and who was seen by her who she names with divine titles. And the Speaker is quadruple underlined in the passage as the Angel of the LORD.
Now that you've admitted that the identity of the Speaker is important, these are the kinds of details you must account for.
As for the LORD appearing in Gen 12ff. It has never been my contention that TAOLT is the *only* title under which Christ appears in the OT. He also appears as simply 'the LORD' (in which case His *appearing* is usually made much of) or the Word of the LORD (Gen 15:4-7) or El Shaddai (Gen 17).
For myself I focus on TAOLT (for one reason among many) because it proves that both the OT authors and saints had and correctly used a 'God-from-God' conceptual framework about revelation. "They had and knew Christ as Mediator." As Calvin said.
Martin - I'll leave those analogies, they were unhelpful distractions, sorry. Perhaps a better analogy would be, whenever it says "the word of the LORD came to me saying...", why don't we ask "who is that?"? If we ask, "what is the word of the LORD", we would get another answer, namely [whatever was said...]. If we ask "who is the word of the LORD?", then we're doing NT implication from John 1, where it turns out that the word of God eventually become flesh in Jesus. But does that mean we could have seen him back then? I don't think so - he hadn't become flesh. To do the same with angel is already one step removed from scripture to speculation (and I'm not necessarily against speculative theology - but it mustn't get normative status).
Thanks for 2 more suggestions for NT warrant:
Martin - on Heb 11:26 - isn't the whole point of Hebrews that faith waits/holds on? And Hebrews 11 is about the assurance of things "not seen" (ie yet). Like Noah, like Abraham, like all the rest, what Moses was waiting for he couldn't yet see - namely, the cross, so Hebrews 12:1 - surrounded by a great cloud, let US FIX OUR EYES on Jesus, the author & finisher of our faith...
Rich - I haven 't got my bible on me, but what does John 8 say Abraham "saw"? I may be wrong but isn't it my day", or "looked forward to my day", or "rejoiced to see my coming"?
For the many people who are wanting me to answer "so how would you exegete...", I hope the above comparison "Who/What is the Word" helps, but my answer is: I don't know...but that's kinda the point. To demand an alternative exegesis is engaging a straw man.
I've said in an in depth bible study, I'd raise the question but wouldn't elevate it to dogma on pain of some modal heresy. I'd not make much of it because I still maintain that for whatever reason, the NT doesn't make anything of it - in fact, in places you'd perhaps expect it to, like Acts 7. In fact, John 1, Hebrews 1, & 2 Cor 3 seem (to me) to lean the other way. So I admit that it's enthralling and suggestive, but if the NT controls how God wants to affect me in the OT, I'll apply it like this: even in the case of messengers of dazzling, overpowering glory, e.g. Dan 10, I'll go to Revelation 1 & Hebrews 1 - if that's angels, just imagine Jesus. I might even mention CS Lewis comment, "remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship", and yet the angel says to John, "you must not do that - worship God".
We're all reading one set of passages through another. I think I'm trying to read OT through NT (all means all in Hebrews, and we shouldn't ask "which of the angels is the Son?"), nomatter how strange the OT passages. I think you're trying to read NT through OT (all must mean all except one, because we know TAOTL must be the Son). That's what I mean by strange & enthralling.
Hope that makes sense. Chris
Studying Colossians 2 with a student this afternoon, I've just stumbled across v17-19.
"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow."I'm not using that to be pejorative, but given that the worship of angels was clearly a live issue in NT times, I wonder which texts they would have gone to...which makes the absence of anything but contrast between Christ & angels in the NT even more conspicuous by its absence, don't you think? Now I think of it, Galatians 1 comes to mind - "even if I or an angel from heaven comes with a different gospel...let him be accursed...I was not taught the gospel, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ". (cf ch3 a different gospel leaves you cursed because Christ redeemed us became a curse...the curse of the law...the law put into effect by angels). Or again, Hebrews seems to imply that if the Son was an angel (the), anthropology is undermined - man is the image of God, but "surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants" (Heb 2:16). The only NT justification I can possibly see is Galatians 4:14, but that's hardly convincing, in the context of Galatians 1-3. In fact, it almost seems ironic.
Chris,
I will respond to the bits directed at me later (if I get the chance).
We find it easy to distinguish between Jesus being the Son of God and ourselves being sons of God. We don't get hooked up on the notion that sonship for Jesus is the same as ours ontologically (He's God's Son therefore he must be created). Why get hooked up on TAOTL (the Sent One) being confused with created angelic beings just because they and he have been "sent."
I don't think we are saying that TAOTL has a created angelic nature, I don't think that has formed part of our argument.
Hi Chris
The text says "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." "You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him (TNIV)
Jesus said that Abraham saw his day, and was glad. You could argue that Jesus meant that Abraham looked forward in the same sense that you and I look forward to resurrection morning - by faith we see and know that it is coming and feel glad. He thought about the promises he received and looked forward to when they would be fulfilled, and in a spiritual sense, he did see that day come.
But that would be bad exegesis. In fact it wouldn't be exegesis at all.
Nobody understood it that way at the time. They immediately see what Jesus is claiming - you aren't even fifty buddy and you reckon you've met Abraham?!
Then he goes and claims that he is the I Am. Yikes. Not only is he saying he met Abraham, but he is now saying that he is the I AM from Exodus 3. They then try to stone him for blasphemy.
Is that not clear? I dunno what else to say here Chris. Jesus says he met Abraham. He says that Abraham knew it was him too - not an apparition of Divinity, not promises about 'a seed', but the Lord himself - my day was his hope, my day was seen. MY day. If that is wrong, then you must be able to offer an alternative exegesis - not a straw man in sight.
You say that we all come at texts with our understandings from other texts. Fine. My understanding is that there is a sent Lord who mediates the Unseen Lord, and the Spirit of the Lord who possesses the people and that these are the One Lord.
None of the biblical authors *intend* to teach a doctrine of the Triune God. None in all scripture - both testaments. But Trinity is the fact which underpins all scripture and all theology, derived from scripture as a whole. Trinity is just there, inescapably, foundationally and wonderfully. Chris, Mo, Marcus - do you agree with that?
As a result I ask the same exegetical questions and have the same assumptions about our Trinitarian God whether reading the OT or NT and yet I am made out to be doing something which is quite wrong.
For example, when I look at a passage like Genesis 16, or Genesis 19 or whatever, I come to the text with that Trinitarian understanding of God, derived from all sorts of scriptures. I make no apology for that. When I come to Matthew 4 when Jesus calls the fishermen, I come to the text with a Trinitarian doctrine of God derived from all sorts of scriptures. Even though Matthew 4:18-22 has no explicit claims to divinity, I take it that the person speaking, demanding faith and obedience has the right to ask for it, and is himself significant. I apply my doctrine of God. Don't you? When I see someone speaking to Hagar in Gen 16, demanding faith and obedience, I apply this same doctrine of God. Don't you? In fact, in some ways it is much easier because Hagar calls the speaking Angel God.
Rich
PS - sorry if tone not good above - in a hurry.
Hi Chris,
(P1) The bible condemns 'angel worship' in passages like Col 2.
(P2) The bible condones 'angel worship' in passages like Gen 48.
Conclusion - there must be a *very* significant difference between the Angel who is clearly and irrefutably worshipped in the OT and the angels who we're forbidden from worshipping in both testaments.
Hence our position.
To my mind no-one on your side has been able to cast the least bit of doubt that divine titles and honours are consciously given to the Angel in the OT. At this point Dan's challenge becomes very pointed: Either the OT saints are idolaters and we should become Marcionite or there is an Angel worthy of worship.
For the umpteenth time I urge you to engage the Angel texts. Unless you can show that the Angel is not given divine titles and honours then everything else you say only proves our point. No-one from our POV disagrees that 'angels' are never to be worshipped. The more you press this point, the more you strengthen our position. Because you're only showing that *this* Sent One is very different.
hi Rich. Even if the Jews were right, Jesus saw Abraham, but Abraham only rejoiced "at the thought of seeing my day". What is Jesus' "day" in John's gospel? What do you think it means to "see" it? You seem to be hearing "it's not obvious Jesus is the-angel-of-Zec 2/Gen 16/Dan 10" as "it's not obvious Jesus is not necessarily the LORD tabernacled among us".
Again, the tone of a lot of this conversation seems odd. Correct me if I'm wrong here, Glen/Rich/Martin, but it seems as if you're saying "I know who this is - it MUST be the pre-incarnate Son (*in a way the rest of scripture isn't) on pain of modal heresy" and elevating it to the level of dogma (properly understood). I think Mo & I are just a little more hesitant, saying "I don't know who this strange figure is". Glen - did you see my analogy with "who/what is the word"
above? It's like Schaeffer's distinction between "the most this text could possibly be saying" and "the least it must be saying".
*If you want to talk doctrine of revelation, I think 2 Corinthians 3 motivates a trinitarian revelation in all scripture - the whole OT is "pre-incarnate Son". Otherwise, what are you saying about the revelation of God in the rest of scripture?
Hi Glen - I appreciate that, I really do. The tension between P1 & P2 is exactly what I meant when I said "I'm trying to read OT through NT (all means all in Hebrews, and we shouldn't ask "which of the angels is the Son?"), nomatter how strange the OT passages. I think you're trying to read NT through OT (all must mean all except one, because we know TAOTL must be the Son)"
Hi Chris,
If you appreciate the tension then why do you not rush to defend Jacob from the charge of idolatry?
Instead you leave a giant question mark over him (and many others who worship the Angel). Given your perspective they remain idolaters until you vindicate them.
We're not asking you to read the NT through the OT. We're simply asking you to read the OT in its own context and release Jacob from the charge of idolatry implicit in your position.
Don't feel that your discourse is heeded; I just want to try to help build bridges by (perhaps) moving the question.
**
Perhaps we are so used to thinking about God in an ontological way, i.e. asking questions about who exactly he is, that we have lost the sense of the rawness and unsophistication of God's revelation of himself, where we mostly learn about what he does.
To put it bluntly, Scripture happens like this: God's people see what he does and then they think about it a bit. The result is Hagar's praise: "You are the God who sees me." In this sense, asking exactly who TAOTL is is arguably the wrong question. In the wild, philosophically uninitiated world of the OT, people encounter God and think about it. An encounter with some Being who they can talk to but can't explain strikes the fear of God into their souls and they confess that JHWH has visited them. We don't charge Jacob with idolatry, but hear his testimony and worship. The God who they have experienced as a people is the God who comes near, who comforts and rescues, who sometimes appears, yet who sometimes sends prophets and leaders. Somehow he remains in "heaven" while his "Name" or his "Glory" dwells in the temple - God is somehow near and far.
If you were a Jew in the First Century, pre-Incarnation, then I think you would be happy with that holy mishmash of expectations and themes, not systematised, but stirring hope and trust in JHWH who will act.
That post-Christ we confess and see that the God who was in Christ is exactly the God who revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is clear.
But to then go identifying which person of the Trinity was doing which stuff in which biblical story seems to miss the main point: JHWH was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. He is the same God in all ages: the God who sends, the God who comes, the God who encounters, the God who rescues, who comforts, who dwells.
I'm guessing the "hesistant" are following me in this... I'm wondering if a question like "is TAOTL the second person of the Trinity" makes it all seem incredibly technical, obscuring the fact that we all want to (joyfully) confess that JHWH was in Christ, and that he has always been the God who is near.
Totally, thanks Sam. In our culture, to name someone is to label, and no wonder personal identity is in crisis - we might say "that is Chris", but not "he is Chris". For many people it's just a way of picking out a bundle of attributes. So "Who is the God of Abraham" is a fantastic question - we're touching on really deep questions of "naming God" - this is the question Islam cannot answer. God is a concept, definable only in terms of his attributes. If you ask a muslim, who is God? They will say something like "God is the all merciful, the all powerful, the all knowing". The problem is you might as well replace the word "God" with the word "blip". God is a word, not a name. A person can be powerful, merciful, knowing...but in Islam, any person behind the attributes remains unknown. A good argument can be made that trinitarian revelation is the only kind by which we could know God.
When we ask "Who", we're not asking "what" is God - In Kevin Vanhoozer's article on naming God, he links Paul Ricoeur's idem/ipse identities with Robert Jenson's remaining-from-the-beginning and faithful-to-the-end identities of God. The former is much more about "what", the latter about "who". What does it mean to see the LORD, if not his character and glory? Thankfully, I can see him in the love of church (1 Cor 14, 1 John 4). The whole concept of a theophany changes, right? Likewise, to call the ground "holy" in the OT doesn't imply a theophany in a different sense. As I've said before, by the Holy Spirit, I now see the whole OT as the pre-incarnate theophany, not one character in it. Does that make sense?
What's in a name? It links someone's past to their future. Both Moses & Pharaoh ask that question, in Ex 3-5. I think the name of the LORD "I will be who I will be" essentially means, "watch & learn". The story of Exodus progressively reveals the answer to that question, culminating in Ex 33-34 - which is a strange name. I think his name is "gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love(hesed)/unfailing love and faithfulness...", and whoever this LORD is keeps speaking and keeps saying "remember the Exodus - ie watch and learn", and finally the word becomes flesh and tabernacles among a people who reject him, a la Exodus, and he reveals his glory, finally on the cross.
Hi Sam and Chris,
Let me ask a clarificatory question:
Do you think it was ok for Jacob to name the God of Abraham as the Angel?
From my understanding of Chris's position, I thought he would be very reluctant to say so. This is because of the 'Reading OT thru NT' and the emphatic nature of Col 2 etc.
From my understanding of Sam's position, he thinks it's ok for Jacob to say this in the primitive state of OT revelation?
Perhaps I've completely misunderstood you both, but for now I see you actually differing on this question.
s
That question shows the nuance well - I dont think it's right, biblically or theologically, to say that Jacob names God as an angel. He might talk about God and angel relatively loosely/interchangeably, but I'm saying have a think about what a name is. God and angel are not names, biblically speaking. LORD is, and we can know/see/meet the LORD in many ways, eg his faithfulness across time. While I have plenty unanswered questions, for that I'm grateful. sleep well, c
hi guys
really sorry - shotgun mode again, would love to give more time to careful wording, but have so much to do. apologies in advance if any of this sounds tetchy - i really don't mean it to be. cigars are on me :-)
@Chris re john 8 - good comment - thanks. Jews - you must be very old, Jesus says I AM indeed. the jews did understand what he meant, and jesus pushes them even further by expressly claiming to be the I AM. simply following the flow. will think about what "the day" means in John - thanks.
@Sam - hello, rich here. please explain the following:
1. where in scripture do you get the idea that God's revelation of himself is unsophisticated?
2. re trinity person identification - this is the last time i'll say this so as to whack that red herring on the head. Nobody, not me, not Glen (hi Glen) nor Martin (hi Martin) would ever want to preach a passage like Genesis 16 and make Angel identification the main point of the sermon. It is something we would do AS PART of a sermon. A bit like you might identify which members of the trinity are doing what at jesus baptism. not the point, but good to mention.
3. what on earth do you mean by "JHWH was in Christ"?
@Chris again - believe me mate, on attributes, you are preaching to the converted! :-D
might not get much from me tomorrow guys, but i'll be back as both the terminator and abraham famously once said.
blessings,
rich
Glenn - I don't think anyone who is showing hesitancy about identifying TAOTL in specific is simply equating Him with other angelic beings: so no one is accusing Jacob of idolatry. I'm a bit confused by your insistance that a defense should be given for a position no one is holding to. What are you seeking to critique, what do you think people are saying that requires such a robust rebuttal?
Rich - Jn8. Let's be careful that our systems are not speaking louder than the Text; but rather subject to it. I do think the 'day' in question is not entirely clear in the text. It may seem self evident to us all that what we believe is clearly present - but isn't that the danger that this discussion has unearthed? The crowd who 'clearly understand' what Jesus has said have denied their history as slaves and rejected Jesus as the source of truth and named Him a son of satan in the very narrative in which you assume they understand him. Their offense seems to be that He self-identifies with YHWH/JHWH (latter for the benefit of clarity with Sam who is studying in a German context and the Y/J interchange is linguistic) rather than his chronological age. He does self-identify with YHWH/JWHW and does so boldly BUT that does not NECESSITATE that TAOTL is Him. We have to concede that - we just have to. Therfore it should round the ages of our confidence with humility.
Chris - again on system and Text: what is the excess that you are seeking to avoid? Is it really a leaning to angelolatry? Again I don't think ANY one here is even in the borderlands of that, do you? What is the nuance that the NT passages (if they are relevant in addressing the ID of TAOTL) bring to this discussion?
There are shades of confidence in identifying TAOTL even among those of us who are most confortable/confident in doing so. BUT what does the absence of explicit identification within the NT do to our confidence in exegesis here? Surely it must actively function in our private convictions and public preaching/teaching? Should we be as insitant as some of us have been? How do we speak of this without going too far? Again - we have to see that our confidence in Jesus as the promised Christ/Messiah, and that as the Divine Incarnate Son of the Father, cannot be phrased in relation to TAOTL with the same insistance can it? Or are we saying that those who don't hold to the identification of the Son and TAOTL are heretics - if we are, that goes too far and beyond the permissable insistance of NT clarity.
Andy,
Thanks again. No one here is denying that the trinity is a biblical doctrine...but if there is any heresy be sure that I will find it :)
I came across the following statement about the faith of the OT saints at Dallas Theological Seminary. I wondered how much it resonates with certain interpretative approaches that have been voiced here:
We believe that it has always been true that “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6), and that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. We believe also that they did not understand the redemptive significance of the prophecies or types concerning the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 1:10–12); therefore, we believe that their faith toward God was manifested in other ways as is shown by the long record in Hebrews 11:1–40. We believe further that their faith thus manifested was counted unto them for righteousness
Explicit identification, IMHO, is not necessary. We have to be committed to a more sophisticated method of interpretation if we intend to remain trinitarian.
hi Andy
If the Angel is God, as Jacob says, then He is the Sent One who is Himself divine. Reluctance to identify Him then as the eternal Son who has always mediated the business of the unseen Father seems very odd to me. (btw if you think I'm strong on this, just read Calvin, Owen and Edwards. In comparison I'm a pussycat, trust me).
Therefore my question is: If Jacob actually does call the God of Abraham 'the Angel', is he:
a) Wrong - but that's ok because OT folk were unsophisticated. It would be a sin for us to invoke the blessings of angels but fine for them.
b) Wrong - and therefore he's an idolater
or
c) Right - and therefore the Sent One is God and OT saints *were* sophisticated enough to trust in the Sent Mediator who is Himself divine.
Does anyone have a d)?
@Glen: To this question: ... Do you think it was ok for Jacob to name the God of Abraham as the Angel?
a hearty yes! Jacob isn't sitting there with Aristotle's concept of the "unmoved mover" and testing his experience against that - he is experiencing "God" and then testifying to what "God" has done. The inverted commas are so that we don't read our version of God into Jacob's experience.
I get the impression that we're all agreed that TAOTL = the LORD, or have I missed something?
@rich - it's ok i know that sometimes clarity requires fast blows. And God knows I need them. On your questions:
1. "unsophisticated" can be read positively, as in, "real, living, not speculative and merely philosophical" - I get the idea from TAOTL passages, and for example Gen 32, where "God" plays rugby.
2. On "trinity person identification": The sort of thing the hesitant are reacting against is the idea that after a great sermon about the nearness of God the comment is: "...and by the way that's the second person of the Trinity. Shabang!" More in tune with the passage would be something like: "... God reveals himself as the God who is near, the God who visits, the God who is with his people in a tangible way. No wonder that we as God's people who know Christ see here that Jacob encountered the same God who sent his Son, the same God who came in Christ to reconcile the world to himself."
IMO an issue behind the issue here is how we think of God as being triune - whether the Trinity is something we confess in Athanasian detail which then works as a framework for interpreting everything else, or whether we think that the Athanasian creed was a good attempt to summarise the very mysterious and eclectic bundle of unexplained formulas and worship in the NT. A classic case of dogmatics vs. exegesis.
3. 2 Kor 5,21 and from the Lord's prayer. Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your Name. The Name of the Father, in Jewish context is YHWH.
Sam,
Not everyone is in agreement that TAOTL=The LORD
btw - Trinity is an OT doctrine too! Athanasius spent a *lot* of time on the OT. He *never* claimed that his trinitarian theology was just a NT thing
O boy I missed that!
Hi Sam,
1. understood - thanks for clarifying what you meant.
2. dunno why it would be a bad thing to point out that God is near us in the person of his Son or his Sprit. seems fine to me.
3. sure - the name of the father is in the son, and the son is in the father. cool isn' it. what is also cool, is that the name is also in the angel (exodus 23 - 20-22)
Hi Andy,
Obviously we all welcome the call to not let our systems speak louder than the text. It does seem a *little* disingenuous however to make that call in the same paragraph as you assert (apart from exegesis) that Jesus' I AM confession doesn't necessitate that TAOTL is him, and that we have to concede that point, end of. Surely your system has just denied the opportunity to let the text speak? Exegesis takes us back to Exodus 3, and here we see that Moses hears this Angel of the Lord who is Lord and God utter his Divine Name.
I'm not sure what else to say on this now. It feels like in every Angel of the Lord passage that we bring up, you try to *explain away* that TAOTL receives divine names and privileges, and then accuse us of imposing frameworks on the text, being too sure of ourselves, missing the point of the passage and so on.
Rich
Rich,
My understanding, from the earlier comments, is that Andy is pro-TAOTL being identified as the shadowy appearance of the pre-incarnate Son of God. I'm pretty sure that your last paragraph would not apply to him.
Rich,
it's a great thing to point out that God is near in the person of his Son or his Spirit - that's the kind of Son-TAOTL connection I'm pleading for - "just like TAOTL... so the Son" - this is different from "the TAOTL is the Son, full stop".
Thanks Martin.
If that is the case, sorry Andy.
I didn't actually mean *you* (Andy) in that paragraph at all, i meant all those who say that TAOTL is unidentifiable and not really important anyway.
Extra cigars for Andy and Martin :-)
Rich
And of course that is what is going on in Exodus 3 and Judges 6, the covenantal nearness of the LORD is by means of TAOTL.
Any thoughts on Exodus 23:20ff being the background text for Joshua 5 (Commander of the LORD'S army)?
The Coffee and Cigars Bible Club Blog
Now that's very Reformed
Ok...
Cigars make me happy.
Dallas made me cry.
Can I suggest we look at Judges 13:20-22?
As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD.
"We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!"
I can't conceive of any system or framework by which to interpret this except:
(i) Manoah is right to say that seeing the Angel = seeing God.
(ii) Manoah is wrong to say that seeing the Angel = seeing God.
If he's wrong about it, then this could be for a couple of reasons:
(a) it's ok for him to worship angels as God.
(b) he's confused- but that's understandable at this stage in. the history of redemption.
It seems to me that the most, straightforward, least mind-stretching reading of this text is that Manoah is right: one of the three Persons of the Godhead appeared to the Manoahs using the title 'Angel'/'Messenger'.
And I suppose I'd say that Genesis 16 with Hagar presents us with the same set of choices.
Thanks Andy. "what is the excess that you are seeking to avoid?" - the same stridency you are, elevating something to dogma which has very shaky (at best) NT warrant.
"Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am".This may get me into all sorts of problems (I'm trying hard to work this out as I go), but perhaps at the heart of my unease is that "identity" covers a range of meanings (see idem/ipse comment above). In the bible, the question "what is your name" is huge - it's what God asks Jacob in Gen 32, for instance. That's not just "woops, I've forgotten what to label you"...
I wonder if we westerners struggle because we hear "the LORD" as if it was the equivalent of a modern name, eg "CHRIS": Have you met "CHRIS" - this is Chris...But hold on, this other character also introduces himself as "CHRIS" - that is Chris. But we also hear "God" as if it was the equivalent of "Chris", and say "but there's only one Chris", so we have a problem...Chris must be triune. I know it's a silly example, but I think that's how Grudem, for instance, seems to approach trinity...I think we're in danger of making the same kind of mistake unless we're clear on what a name is, biblically. I'm suggesting it's inappropriate to say TAOTL "=" LORD (Martin), or to ask was Jacob right to "name" the angel as God? (Glen). I have a hunch those are category confusions.
Judges 13:17-18 Then Manoah inquired of the angel of the LORD, "What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?" 18 He replied, "Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding. "interesting - not what God said to Moses. He proclaimed his name: The LORD, The LORD...Ex 3,5,33,34--> John 1:14-18 "and we have seen his glory"
Chris,
In Judges there is a contextual issue that sets that encounter appart from Exodus 34. Manoah and Mrs. Manoah don't know who they are dealing with (13:16, 21) until TAOTL ascends in the flame. They were not clear, until he ascended, and then panic breaks out (well for Manoah at least).
Chris,
You may be right that 'name' means all sorts of things, but whatever it means, 'the LORD' is the name of the God of Israel.
Tthe question before us is this: is the Angel the LORD God of Israel, or is this a created being receiving worship and status that is utterly inappropriate?
Dan - when you say "NAME means all sorts of things...the question is, IS the Angel the LORD God of Israel", I'm afraid you've got me the wrong way round. Identity means all sorts of things. I'm suggesting in the bible, Name means something very special - consider for example if I said,
I know that 'name' can mean all sorts of things, but the question in Genesis 32 is: IS it Jacob, or is it Israel who is wrestling? - how would you answer Gen 32:27? It's quite subtle, but do you see my point?
I think I see what you're saying, Chris. Yet I'm still unsure about the point you're making. Sorry if I'm being slow!
All I want to get at is this: you can't call an angel 'LORD' unless he is actually the LORD!
I don't quite see who the comlpexity of 'name' language in scripture makes any difference to that essential dilemma for your position.
REALLY sorry if I'm missing a big point you're making (which is a real possibility...)
Dan
No time at the moment. I'm preaching on 1 Cor 11 on Sunday so I've got to go get a haircut. But anyway...
One question buzzing around my head is this:
Is the concept of mediation more fundamental than the concrete Person of the Mediator?
Is the answer is anything approaching 'Yes' - than I'm worried.
@Dan: I'm with (i), but to go from there to "one of the three Persons of the Godhead appeared to the Manoahs" seems like a colossal jump.
What we have in the OT is IMO category preparations for even being able to think the idea of incarnation (the hypostatising of the Name or the Glory of the LORD; the mysterious mixing of the God/King of Israel category - who really rules?). It's then the fact of the incarnation which then gives birth to our (!) doctrine of the trinity.
The knowledge of God develops over a long period of time - the mode of God's revelation seems to be guiding the reflections of his people on his deeds. Reading the later reflections on the Christ-event and Spirit-experience back into texts where the development has clearly just started does no justice to the texts.
@Chris: re. your comments on Gen 32 and Jacob's name.. Am I right in thinking that you're exploring a non-literal, "literary" reading of the text - i.e. the story of Jacob is making a profound point about the nature of the nation's relationship to God through the Jacob-story?
Hi Sam
On this bit that you wrote:
"Reading the later reflections on the Christ-event and Spirit-experience back into texts where the development has clearly just started does no justice to the texts."
How do you know this is happening?
Hi Dan - I'm not sure what I'm saying (that's kinda my point) - I'm still figuring it out! But I'm not persuaded that it's as clear-cut as others say, and one reason is this sloppiness over this issue of whether the angel is identified with or named LORD. I hope my Gen 32 question is helpful: who wrestles with 'the man' in Gen 32? Jacob or Israel?
Sam - No. I'm asking because I take it that Exodus is asking precisely a Gen 32:27 kind of question of the God of Abraham. I don't think "Angel" is a name, nor is "God". "I will be who I will be"/"watch and learn" (my interpretation) is a name, just like Jacob (deceiver), or Israel (struggles with El), or Joshua (YHWH saves), but not like Chris. When God does saving acts in Exodus, he says "then you will know that I am the LORD, who..." - I would say that when the Israelites/Egyptians see those saving acts, can't we say they 'see' the LORD? Isn't that what the prophetic visions (I saw the LORD, high and exalted) in exile are all about? To interpret their exile under the sovereign plans of God & his covenant faithfulness (the gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger abounding in steadfast love...)?
Glen - is the rest of the OT mediated revelation? If so, are you saying the concept of mediation is different to the person of the mediator? If not, do you agree that the whole OT is "pre-incarnate Son"? I guess I'm questioning the whole notion of theophany (2 cor 3).
Hey Sam,
I'm entirely at a loss as to how the Angel could be God but not one of three Persons of the Trinity!
Dan
Are we ok with "being at a loss"? Are we allowed to say, "I don't really get it"?
If it helps, I'm saying, "hmm, I guess (i) but the NT doesn't do anything with this, where we'd expect it to, so perhaps we're asking foreign questions - I wonder where we might be confused? Perhaps we're confused about identifying/naming/seeing God"ps Sam - I'm referring to Gen 32 when Jacob has his name changed to Israel - I didn't mean Israel corporately (although yes I think we're probably supposed to see this event has further implications for Israel as a nation...eg Hosea 12), but in the first instance I see no reason why that rules out there being 2 real guys having a wrestle.
Hi guys.
This isn't my call to make but we are in a situation where we have lots of texts flying around and lots of other things going on and it doesn't feel like we are getting very far. I wonder if we could focus on just ONE passage, and focus on exegesis of that one passage? The flavour of the day seems to be Dan's suggestion from Judges 13.
Martin, as the author of the OP... your call buddy.
Rich
Martin,
>>How do you know this is happening?
Great question. I'm feeling the bit written between the lines!
It is a deduction from the observation that the knowledge of God is different in, say, the Pentateuch to, say, in Paul, and feeling it's inappropriate to deny the observation.
Hi Chris,
Jesus has many names in both testaments, some of them are shared with the Father, some of them are unique. I'm not sure how far your 'name' thing gets you.
You could say Jesus wrestled with Jacob. You could say God wrestled with Israel. You're still talking about the same 'guys'. But how you identify them reveals your understanding of the person.
Therefore it's fascinating that Hosea reads about Jacob wrestling God and clearly identifies Him as the Angel who is the LORD God Almighty. (Hosea 12:5-6)
And I say: Dead on Hosea. Who else could it be?
The OT saints themselves had language and a conceptual framework with which to handle the appearance of God. It was the Angel - the One who is Sent and who is also LORD.
Seems I haven't explained this "name" thing very well. The God of Abraham only has one name: YHWH, which I think is a character call, about what he will do - and to know him we must watch what he does. Jesus confirms and fulfils it (read Carson on John 1/Ex 33-34). Does anyone else see what I'm saying?
angel, God, prophet, king, these are not names in the sense that Jacob, or YHWH is a name. I'd even say Father, Son & Spirit are not names in the OT sense. Jesus is, "because he will save his people from their sins". I'm trying to think of other "and he shall be called..." and the only other "name" stuff I can think of is right now is the Isa 7-9 passage on immanuel but I think that's more about the end of Exile, God being with his people again, the virgin being Israel - oddly it happened to mean more than that (Mary), but you'd never have guessed. That's the kind of "murky" ambiguity I mean.
Gen 32 - the point of my question is to show what a name means - the difference between who & what, and how the right answer to the wrong question is probably wrong.
on Hosea 12: in Gen 32, Jacob's name is only changed to Isra-el, and el doesn't really settle the question (consider Psalm 8:5). Presumably the el in the text is equally ambiguous, too, but I don't read Hebrew. That it's ambiguous doesn't mean it can't mean both, in fact it's probably because it does!
Thanks, Chris. I think I get where you're coming from now. Phew!
As Rich suggests, staying with Judges 13 [which suits the point I'm about to make ;-)], the Manoahs say that the Angel is God. So that allows us to put on one side the name/LORD business.
Surely the Manoahs' visitor HAS to be God. What do you think?
I can't go along with Sam's argument that defining Trinitarian Persons at this point is wrong- I think Glen's argued quite clearly for a kind of Trinitarian language/framework for OT believers where the Angel who visits people is identified with the LORD in heaven, but distinguished from him on account of being visible.
Sam: would you suggest that the 'threeness' of God is only made clear in the NT? My hunch is that that would be a difficult position to hold right down to the ground...
Rich,
I'm the author of the OP but not the fat controller. But I agree with you, let's follow Dan's lead on Judges 13 (with room for chapters 2 and 6).
To all,
A bit of Turretin on clearer light in the NT but sufficient trinitarian revelation in the OT:
"Indeed, we confess that it was not revealed under the Old Testament with the same clearness as it is now taught in the New...Yet this is no objection to its having been made known even to the patriarchs sufficiently for salvation."
Having followed the discussion, appreciating its continuation and getting growing clarity on the hesitation of some, I have this to say: More coffee anyone?
Just want to reply to two things quickly..
Dan: yes, I'd say that we first get to see the threeness of God clearly in the NT - it would appear I have Turretin on my side now ;).. I'm interested in why you find it a difficult position - what are the possible dead-ends you see arising?
Martin: Is Turretin addressing a soteriological question there? I'd agree with him in saying "sufficient revelation for salvation", but he doesn't seem to be saying "sufficient trinitarian doctrine to be able to articulate it".
étrangère: good call - but maybe tomorrow..
Martin, that's such a helpful quote from Turretin. Sam I wonder if you've misunderstood it. It states that trinitarian conceptuality is essential to salvation. In the OT. Essential.
But then of course, you must know Christ to be saved. You must know the divine Mediator.
This has been the insistence of al the greats in church history from Justin through Irenaeus, Athanasius, Calvin, Turretin, Owen, Edwards.
I think I'm right in saying though that this historical insistence is being denied in our current conversation. If I've understood your positions: Mo, Marcus, Chris (and I'm less certain with Sam) you are denying that under the OT the distinct Person of the divine Mediator was actually revealed to the saints and you deny that they consciously trusted this Person (Christ) for their salvation.
I consider you all brothers. I can rejoice in Christ with you all and would love to go on mission with you. But I cannot agree to this view of things. I don't know what God is revealed apart from the divine Mediator Christ. It causes me heart-ache to think myself into a doctrine of God in which there is a revelation of 'God' without it being a revelation of or in a Person of the Godhead. I just don't understand this doctrine of God or of revelation. When I see a divine Visitor I have no reason to expect any deity - whether Father, Spirit, 'God in general', Zeus whoever - except the Image of the invisible God. Who else is going to show up??
I urge you to look again at the theologians I've mentioned. They insisted on these things because they saw the gaping abyss of unitarianism ready to swallow those who wavered on such points.
Many will have noticed a 'heat' to my comments greater than others. Partly that's just sin. Partly though it's because I see solus Christus itself threatened here. I'm emphatically not accusing anyone here of denying 'Christ alone'. But I am saying that certain hermeneutics, doctrines of revelation and of God may take you there quicker than you'd imagine.
I can't do better than quote John 1:18:
"No-one has ever seen God but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known."
I've enjoyed being identified as someone reading the OT into the New. (Usually I'm accused of it the other way - frankly I think it has to go both ways). But if we really want to read the OT through NT eyes, then here is the verse that guided the fathers, the reformers and the puritans. All appearances of God were appearances of the Son making the Father known. That's been one of the most consistent 'no-brainers' of hermeneutics in church history. To lose it leaves us extremely vulnerable to error.
btw Chris, I'd be happy to hear Don Carson's take on John 1:18. But only if you can fit it in a blog comment. If it's too long for that, I fear it would be too obtuse to be useful.
As you may have guessed, this will probably be my final comment.
Thank you Martin for posing and hosting this topic so well. Thank you those who have disagreed with me for bearing with me. I know very well I have come across as over zealous on this point. I trust some of you have begun to understand my fears and passions here. But thank you for all those who have answered my bluntness with grace.
May the Angel bless you ;-)
Glen
Glen,
that last comment is incredibly helpful because it helps me understand what's at stake for you. I'm guessing you're wanting to exclude the possibility of Rahner's "anonymous Christians"?
On this: "I don't know what God is revealed apart from the divine Mediator Christ"...
I think the words exclusive, definitive and exhaustive might help you understand my position (today, waiting for correction, dear brother!). I do not believe that God's revelation of himself is exclusively the revelation of the Mediator but definitively the revelation of the Mediator. God's exhaustive revelation of himself is something we still long for, when we know as we are known.
The consequence of this position is that there is revelation of God which does not have the Mediator as its direct content. However to definitively understand who and how God is, we need Jesus.
As I understand your position, you read John 1:18 like this:
"No-one has ever seen (anything of) God, but God the One and Only... has made Him known (at all)."
I read it like this:
"No-one has ever (truly) seen God, but God the One and Only... has made Him known (properly, now)."
Supporting this reading is the comparison Moses/Jesus in Jn 1:17 and the whole talk of veil in 2 Cor 3-5, and Heb 1:3.
Just so conversation doesn't stall in this discussion (which I think would be a shame)...
Hi Sam,
Yep, you've sussed me. Don't know what others think but I'm not for 'anonymous Christians' and in precisely the same way I'm not for 'anonymous OT Messiah-ians'.
A person knows God to the degree that they know the Son. That knowledge can increase, decrease, turn inside out or do a back-flip - I don't mind. But we know God (whether understood as 'God the Trinity' or 'God the Father') only insofar as we know His Son. (I'm not a christomonist though - the Father and the Spirit are equally there in the OT - but introduced by the Voice of the LORD, the Angel, the Appearing LORD etc).
There is no mediating dynamic going on before this, behind this, beneath this. When Athanasius argued for this trinitarian dynamic he thought he was describing revelation in both testaments. Therefore to seek for another mediating dynamic by which divine revelation comes that is not expressly the Hypostasis of the Son revealed in the power of the Spirit is to court grave danger.
So then Jesus is the Word of God. Not the supreme Word, not the Seal of a series of improving words, but the Word.
And on John 1:18 I think it's primarily talking about appearances of God.('seen'). The appearing LORD is the Son, making the Father known. But then taken together with the whole chapter - the appearing Son is the Word who leads us to the Father in all ages.
All that to say - yep. Sam's nailed my colours to the mast even better than I have.
Now feel free to tear them down - I won't be offended. I just won't necessarily respond.
But perhaps in keeping with the title of the post and the author's requests, the Angel stuff is the order of the day. Maybe at another time we could discuss those systematic considerations.
yours in Jesus,
Glen
Carson simply points out the parallels between Exodus 33-34 (LORD tabernacling amongst a people who reject him, "show me your glory", "no one can see my face and live...I shall make all my goodness pass infront of you...proclaiming the name of the LORD, saying "gracious & compassionate/unfailing love and faithfulness") and John 1 - "his own did not receive him", "no one has ever seen God", "the word tabernacled amongst us...and we have seen his glory" - Jesus both confirms and fulfils Ex 34: he was "FULL of unfailing-love-and-faithfulness". Jesus reveals the LORD; whose Ex 34 glory is revealed finally at the cross. I find that very helpful. John 1:18 is not so much a commentary on the OT, but on the Jesus of the dusty streets of John's gospel. John sees him be the true Moses, the true King, the true manna, the true vine, the true shepherd, the true temple...(it's odd he never mentions the angel)...John concludes (I think) that Jesus is the word made flesh. I believe Jesus was God because we see that he is the OT word made flesh, I don't believe he was the word made flesh "because he was God".
Glen - I fear you've inadvertantly hidden the actual clause we've been discussing. I'm denying that "under the OT the distinct person of the divine metiator was actually revealed to the saints specifically as the angel of the LORD in such a way that the rest of the OT did not reveal God". You seem to be using John 1 as a commentary on the OT, but then restricting God's revelation to a particular character, not the whole scripture. I may be wrong, but I think we are invited "see the LORD" [in a biblically appropriate sense] everywhere in the OT. I have a trinitarian theology of revelation, but I see the whole OT as "pre-incarnate Son".
I'm still unpersuaded that we should name the angel YHWH - that the angel replied "why do you ask my name? it is beyond understanding", gives me cause to pause. following Schaeffer, I still think that to say "the angel became Jesus" is going beyond scripture, but that doesn't make it wrong, but I'd rather say "Jesus was the angel par excellence".
I think Glen's comment is very helpful here in helping me see the issue more clearly. The systematic question, it seems, is "if the patriarchs were trusting the promise, was Christ the object of their faith?" I guess I am happy to answer yes to this, whereas others aren't.
I do wonder as well, whether part of the issue here - very much seen in Glen and Sam's dialogue, is the advent of the sort-of social trinitarianism that has become very popular in con-evo circles recently. It seems to make identifying precisely which person of the Trinity is talking in the OT a very big issue, whereas the more classic reformed views of the Trinity make a big deal of the mystery of it.
They allow you, therefore, to say "I'm not sure exactly which person is speaking here, or how, but then exacty how those intra-trinitarian relationships play out is pretty mysterious." I guess that is where I am at. It could be Jesus, but it might not be.
Hey Mo,
Not quite convinced that the classic/orthodox reformed tradition is the opposite to the 'social Trinitarianism' you refer to. If by 'social Trinitarianism' you mean the assertion that God's unity is in the communion between the three persons (and that the persons are distinguishable in scripture), then I think that very much IS the traditional reformed view.
You may mean something else of course!
My reading on all this is pretty limited, but I'm certainly very skeptical about the telling which attributes this to 20th Century guys. The likes of Justin Martyr will insist that the OT is a revelation three divine persons, for example.
Happy bank holiday!
Dan
Now Dan, Mo doesn't say that social Trinitarianism is opposed to a traditional reformed view: he merely implies a different emphasis / approach, which surely is true. May we not take the WSC as traditional reformed? As I learned it, "Three persons are in the one God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These three are one God, the same in substance and equal in power and glory." In teaching this to the 11s-14s in church I came at it from more of a social emphasis than a 'substance' emphasis as we tend to use it in English, but that was ok as they aren't opposed. Mo's point stands, that there is a different take / approach, which indubitably is influencing this discussion. Though where that leaves me I'm not quite sure.
As Schaeffer's name has been mentioned a few times on this thread I was intrigued to find out what he made of these issues. He too the view that TCOTLA (that's The Commander of the Lord's Army) in Joshua 5 is none other than the God of Abraham who revealed himself to Moses at the burning bush. Schaeffer says:
"The One who was in the wilderness and the One who stood before Joshua and said, 'As captain of the host of the LORD am I now come', is the same person we know after the incarnation as Jesus Christ."
On the social trinity stuff...it is worth bearing in mind that there is a long tradition of interpretation, Reformed and otherwise, that exegeted TAOTL texts as the appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. Not only do you find this in Calvin and Turretin but there is a very helpful summary of this position (as held by others) in Richard Muller's study on the post-Reformation Reformed views.
Perhaps the social trinitarianism of some is a factor, but it can only be that.
Thanks Martin and Rosemary- helpful comments.
I wanted to make the point that before so-called 'social Trinitarianism' was named, there was a long tradition in reformed circles of seeing the thee Persons of the Trinity active and distinguishable in the OT. Recent work on the Trinity by the likes of Moltmann, Barth, Gunton etc. is by no means the advent of seeing the Son active in the OT.
As Martin's pointed out with Muller, it does seem that there is an historical precedent for this difference within the reformed tradition.
I've written this on the classical reformed position
Hilariously, we are starting a series on the doctrine of God on 7th June in church.
The first one is on "Our God is the Lord" and the passage? Exodus 3.
I'll let you know what I learn. ;)
Perhaps when this discussion burns out we could turn our minds to that social-trinity stuff. Mo, you must have a post up your sleeve on that one.
that would be an interesting thread. You should do that Mo.
Martin - I was referring to Schaeffer's principle that the "Bible is a very efficient book", and distinguishing his 2 questions, "what is the least this must mean?" from "what is the most this could mean?". Although it's interesting to hear what he thought, I'd be surprised if that undermined that principle or those questions.
He was also part of a long presbyterian reformed tradition. No doubt to my shame, I tend to be a little suspicious of "reformed" systematics insofar as being "reformed" becomes a huge set of catechismal statements not a verb, and one reason is that many questions become abstracted from the biblical history of waiting for salvation - atemporal questions of how "a sinner" can know God "savingly", of being "regenerate" or not, "knowing Christ" or not, really struggle when we apply them to the Old Covenant. That doesn't mean they're false for us, but perhaps they overreach their scope? You end up on questions of covenant/new cov/dispensational theologies and so on...just in order to tell you how to read certain bits. I'm not a total sceptic, but as someone who never grew up catechised, it's hard to know where to start, and I tend to just see all these answers as relative to a tradition. To an outsider they do feel quite distant from scripture, and a little bewildering.
Oh dear - that would be even more half baked than my thoughts on this issue.
I was thinking today about this at the gym. It seems that the underlying concern here is that TAOTL must have been Christ for the recipients of his message to have had saving faith.
So - does that drive you to the conviction that every OT truster in the law's provision for their sin met Christ in some conscious way? I can't buy that.
It also led me to wonder about Mary. She has a word from the Lord which she responds to in faith through an angel who is clearly (whatever he is) not Jesus. I am happy to call her a believer at that point (I'm sure she is relieved) because she trusts God's promise. Would some people not be happy to describe her as having saving faith? Or is she simply a case of "hard cases make bad law"?
That seems like a good point Mo, Abraham believed specificly in the promise of his Seed (which we know to be Christ).
It would seem that the identity of the Seed would be more relevant that the identity of TAOTL. And it would seem a little strange for Abraham to identify the two...
Oh dear... confused again.
I do get the impression we're huffing and puffing now after so many comments - or is it just me?
Perhaps a new post summing up and giving new direction would freshen us up? There have been several suggestions or allusions to new posts - (social?) Trinity, Josh 13 exegesis regarding TAOTL, the question of conscious faith in the mediator in the OT. Maybe there are more? Or something completely different, of course.
Sam,
I think you may be right.
By the way, if Abraham had a unitarian view of God how is he a model of faith for trinitarian believers?
@ Steven - now you're back - do you have a source for the Keller quote in your previous post?
Mo, your comment about saving faith is the approach that's confusing me in this thread. I'm inclined to think TAOTL is Christ because people call him YHWH, he receives this and receives worship, whereas other angels correct/refuse it; therefore he seems to be God appearing to humans, and consistently in Scripture the Word is the one who communicates God in this way.
In identifying TAOTL I'm not at all concerned about the saving faith of the hearers - they should have been receiving God's self-revelation in the Word through the whole of the covenant, law, psalms, etc., etc., and thus trusting in Christ quite apart from individual theophanies and the identity of TAOTL.
a clarification and summary of my positionBlessings in Jesus.
:-O
Glenn - are you suggesting there might be blessings outside of Jesus!?!?!? ;o)
James - I think the comment from Tim Keller was from the series he did with Edmund Clowney on preaching at RTS. Sorry I can't be more specific than that.
Dear all,
WRT the request for a new post - my vote (again) is for exegesis of some of the Angel passages.
Please will someone who is on the fence as it were, or currently against the position which says that TAOTL is Christ, please exegete Gen 16 or Ex 3 or Judges 13.
And once you have done this, of if you don't want to do that (for some reason), then using those exegetical methods, please give a defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, answering the charge that 'the bible doesn't' teach the doctrine of the trinity'
Thanks,
Rich
Rosemary: I don't know my OT half as well as my NT, but where is the angel so named? I'm aware of Zec 2, but I suspect this reading doesn't turn on a (difficult) voicing of Zec 2. NB the NT never appeals to that verse as Jesus does with "the LORD says to my Lord" in Ps 110.
Rich - likewise, your question (demand?) makes the same assumption - namely that the angel is so named. I've indicated that in Judges 13, to name the angel in the sense that God is named is inappropriate. I've argued that the name of "YHWH" is not like the name of "Chris" - e.g. in a non-angel text, Jonah 4, Jonah sees/looks at Ninevah repenting, and says "I knew that God you are...[Ex34]". He knew God. He didn't know (at least there's no indication) that the word would one day become flesh, and that the name [ex 34]. Gracious/compassionate/abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and sin would one day be fulfilled when that person would die at the cross.
a) I might as well ask you to exegete any part of scripture (eg Jonah 4, but any scripture will do) where the angel is not there, and if you think it's a revelation of God. If you think (acc 2 Cor 3/John 5) that by the spirit, whenever Moses is read, we see the glory of God (in his covenant faithfulness) that people in the Old Covenant couldn't see - the glory of God in the face of Christ, then unless you're actually saying that all scripture is in some sense pre-incarnate son, I could just as well say you're undermining the trinity. I'm not saying that, but I'm "speaking as a fool", to try to show how strident your question sounds.
b) Mo has suggested exegesis of Gen 16 along the lines of exegeting what the angel says and what it meant for Abraham (he meets God in his word delivered by an angel). Here's an analogy with Jonah 1:1-3, "the word of the LORD came to Jonah: Go to the great city...But Jonah ran away from the LORD". Good exegisis asks what is the word of the LORD? We'd say, "Go to the great city..". We'd only ask "who is the word of the LORD?" on the basis of John 1. I used this analogy earlier on Zechariah 2 because "the angel" is there, and it also says "the word of the LORD came to me saying...". Why focus on the angel? I'm saying the whole scripture is God's word, and the word became flesh.
Chris
Chris,
IMHO I think that your approach holds the text hostage. You seem to want things to be stated in a certain way, to follow a certain verbal arrangement. The NT affirms that Jesus is God and is sent by God. That is what some of us are affirming about TAOTL: he speaks as Yahweh, Yahweh's name is in him, he does the works of Yahweh, and receives the worship of Yahweh...and yet he is also sent by Yahweh.
On Judges 13
The reason why the name is witheld from Manoah, the Manoah who we are explicitly told (because this is key to our interpretation of the text) has not understood that it was TAOTL speaking to him (13:16), it that Manoah cannot grasp and fathom his name. Manoah cannot take it it. He doesn't know who he is dealing with.
This situation changes after the ascent of TAOTL in the sacrificial flame. Verses 21-22:
21The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. 22And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God."
No wonder he couldn't take in his name, this Visitor was God.
So here's my challenege: Show us from this passage that Manoah was wrong to affirm that to see TAOTL was to see God.
Chris,
Re your question to Rosemary and myself: we have, time and again shown where we think the Angel is named YHWH and we have done so by ordinary exegesis, showing our working. He is named YHWH in (amongst many others) Gen 16, Gen 48, and Judges 13 - as we have shown. He is named within the texts, by the people themselves as God, and they hadn't read John 1 ;-)
Mo has responded, and we have interracted with his response. I said that his point of the passage argument isn't great becuase if communication contains nothing more than "a point", that causes all sorts of problems for any passage which doesn't have a specific focus. For example, how would anybody then explain the trinity? We may not have come to agreement, but at least there is a willingness to engage on an exegetical level, and openly examine each others working.
I'd love to be having that knd of discussion with you Chris, really I would. I'm not trying to be unkind or agressive and I'm sorry if it comes across that way, but all i want is for you to exegete a couple of the texts and show us your working - THEN we are in a position to interract.
Why not take Martin's challenge above?
Best,
Rich
Hi Andy - :)
As soon as I posted it I wished I'd said "*Every* blessing in Jesus". Then it would be a benediction and a doctrine!
Ok, I'm no preacher, and with the caveat that I'm for ignorance not refutation, here goes:
The point of this passage seems to be God "visiting" his people (a salvation word in OT, not just like "Chris visited Stonehenge"), speaking and doing them good through dark times. Though Dark, we see the LORD at work (ie in his covenant faithfulness to Exodus 34), and that's who (not simply what) Manoah is appealing to. I'm reminded of 1 Sam 3:"In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions" (NB that episode was all about "the word" not "the angel").
Judges 13
(v3-5) interestingly, Manoah's wife can hear from and see "the angel" without knowing who it was.
(v6) she calls him a "man of God" (cf Elijah, 2 Timothy) who "looked like an angel of God" (anyone know what that means? Are we meant to think of Elijah's appearance? - this unknown "man of God" bringing God's word in the dark days of Judges foreshadowing Elijah, God's word/prophet bringing God's word to the parched land in another dark time?)
(v7) again, Manoah's wife understood without knowing who/what it was. Anyone know who/what a "Nazirite of God" is? Perhaps that (name) is significant?
(v8) Manoah prays to the LORD (by name - see above), for this "man of God" to come and accomplish God's word to them - the word that this "man of God" brought. God hears Manoah, and "the angel of God" came again.
(v9) God hears Manoah, in the broadest sense of "hear" (just as "visit" is a salvation word, so "hear" - cf Mary's Magnificat)
(v11) I don't read Hebrew but I wouldnt be surprised if that is deliberately ambiguous - is he simply answering Manoah's question? Or is he "proclaiming the name of the LORD" (in his saving purposes, a la Ex 34?). Probably both.
(v12) Manoah is probably asking a what should his name be? question
(v13-16) no answer, just some Levitical commands. That's probably significant - maybe the point of this kid's birth is not the kid, but that God is calling people back to the law? Given that they did realise that this was "an angel of God" (v6) this covenant reply is probably significant in that they didnt realise that in all this the God they were praying to was being faithful to his Ex 34 covenant (law of Moses, levitical priesthood, etc). In other words, Manoah didnt realise the angel of God was the angel of the LORD.
Like Elijah's time of "the still small voice" on the mountain in 1 Kings - same covenant, same priesthood (not like Hebrews 8, or Galatians 1). Even in dark times, even when they were doing what was evil in the sight of the LORD (v1), and even when they were invoking God in prayer, I'm guessing we're meant to see him being faithful when they are faithless, and he's calling them back to Moses.
(v17-18) Manoah asks the angel's name, the angel says why do you ask my name, it is beyond understanding. At the same time I'm guessing that "it is wonderful" is also another deliberate a wordplay, because it says "the LORD did something amazing" - that seems like an Exodus style example of "signs and wonders" that the LORD did. If that's right, then as with name, I'd be very careful about signs and wonders - they only come at key points in the Bible story - and they seem to be times of God saving - eg Exodus, then promised again in eg Joel, and happen in Acts, at key times of salvation, as Hebrews 2 makes clear. I guess I read this and think - not first and foremost this angel is Yahweh, but in this angel's word, God has visited his people, in very dark times. He's still the LORD the LORD, the gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger & abounding in steadfast love...
I'm making a big deal of "name" cos I think the bible does - (eg Gen 32:27 - was it Jacob or Israel who wrestled with the man?). Rich - I'm sorry, I dont think you've understood the distinction I'm making about God's name - not to be picky but to be careful.
Apologies for my spelling in the previous comment.
Chris: Was Manoah right to say that he had seen God when he had seen the angel (21-22)? Or was this a mistake [he had seen an angel but heard the voice of God speaking through it]?
Surely the "wonderful" name recalls what TAOTL/the man/God said to Jacob in Gen 32? I guess that's a clue to his identity for Manoah.
was Job right to say "at first my ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen"?
did the blind (Isa 6,Mark 4) "see" Jesus?
I'm just trying to suggest there is more in this relation than a bland X=Y.
Chris,
Just give a straight answer to the question on that text.
At this point I think it's worth pointing something out: These TAOTL texts are by no means devoid of mystery. It's not as though ANY of these texts paint a picture of a direct encounter with God - what I mean by this is that encounters with God are always mediated in some way. There's a sense in which "God - as he is" is not something we get, it's always, "the back", "the glory of the Lord", the angel of the Lord", "the pillar of fire".
To try and mediate between the rather polarised positions, I think some are picking up on the cautiousness of the texts whereas some are picking up on the nevertheless (mysterious, even whispered) suggestion that YHWH has visited.
It seems to me that systematic considerations are driving this - I'm intrigued to see you, Rich, demanding an exposition of Trinitarian doctrine - is it the case that this is somehow endangering your way of thinking about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Like: if they are not revealed back then, then they are not revealed at all? Or: If they are not revealed very clearly then we should not believe in the Trinity?
Chris is asking questions about what the word "see" means in context - this is a great question. Is not "see" sometimes a theological shorthand? - as in: "in the CU mission week we really saw God at work" - people see God when we love (1 John) - people see the Father when they see the Son. The assumption that "see" always means "see" in a Specsavers, modern kind of way is eisegesis.
Although I think that TAOTL = YHWH, I can see why someone might want to be more cautious (like the texts!) and TAOTL = the second person of the Trinity (TSPOTT) seems too certain. But I'm repeating myself!
Sam, I think that is very helpful set of observations. Thanks.
At risk of barreling in here, I have to say: wwwwhhhaaatttt?!
Apologies if any of this sounds rude, but I have been utterly baffled for days now by how complex and abstract this conversation has become! When a character turns up in a text is referred to as God, and yet who is sent from God- then I'm don't know why we should be scratching our heads for so long wondering who he is!
John 1:18: No one has ever seen God, but God the one and only who is at the Father's side has made him known.
Sam said:
"some are picking up on the cautiousness of the texts whereas some are picking up on the nevertheless (mysterious, even whispered) suggestion that YHWH has visited."
Sam, surely It's hardly 'whispered' or mysterious, is it? The Angel turns up, and either the person he meets or the narrator tells us that the Angel is 'God', 'the LORD', or that he receives worship. The OT presents these visits pretty obviously as direct divine encounters. I think that for us to say that the Angel is NOT actually the LORD himself is to dismiss the plain reading of the text.
How could such a visit happen? How could Hagar or Jacob or Gideon or Manoah POSSIBLY see God? (And it does appear that they plain and simple see him).
As you rightly say, Sam, it happens via a mediator. And I'd argue that the eternal Mediator has always mediated between the Father and humanity: the same Person, simply known then as the Angel, and now as Jesus.
Doesn't that explain the texts? Isn't it wonderfully straightforward? Doesn't it appeal in that it places the eternal Son at the centre of God's dealings with humanity?
Hi Sam,
I know I've bowed out. But I left my hat in the corner and in returning I couldn't help overhearing your conversation...
Question: How would you argue for the divinity of the Sent One in the NT? If you find the OT material 'mysterious', how will you find the Gospels?? There He is - born! There He is - a man! There He is - getting baptised with sinners! There He is - nailed to a piece of wood and left to die!
The Angel verses are not mysterious at all. They are plain as daylight compared to the NT data. A moment's reflection will confirm that. Reach for your bible and try to prove the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. How many verses spring to mind? Now prove the divinity of the Angel. How many verses?
More than this - the identification of Jesus as Lord in the NT is so bound up with this 'God from God' OT conceptuality that to lose it leaves your position extremely vulnerable to unitarianism.
If trinity doesn't go all the way down, if it's just a NT gloss on a functionally unitarian way of God's operating through mysterious mediation, then our trinitarian birthright has already been sold. The unitarian simply says, "Wonderful, so Jesus is just one more mysterious way in which God is somehow present among us. He might be the supreme way this occurs. In fact, he is the supreme way this occurs. The Presence of God par excellence. Let's call him our plenipotentiary. Let's even call him God - but of course we use the term advisedly because the bible is very enigmatic, and we must be cautious, etc, etc.
So of course systematic considerations are bubbling away here. But they're bubbling away on all sides. It's not just Rich or I who have to account for why we expect to meet the trinitarian God in the Hebrew Scriptures. Those on the other side have to account for why they would ever expect anything different.
And as a systematic consideration, I find the expectation of a non-trinitarian revelation in the OT extremely odd. Where has this assumption come from??
As an historical warning, both Athanasius (versus the Arians) and Owen (versus the Socinians) were adamant in their debates that the OT introduces us to the trinity from the outset. They considered that to yield 3/4 of the bible and its foundational doctrine of God to the unitarian was to lose the debate before it had started.
@Dan and Glen:
Thanks for absolutely hammering my comment. I really do mean that. It's good for the soul, in the long run.
@Dan: The "whispered" thing was a fart, I'll admit it. YHWH has visited. The OT authors tell us that the experience with TAOTL was an experience with ELOHIM (God) or YHWH.
You asked,considering I see mediation, whether I don't think this is all the Mediator's work... Well why not?! My issue is not with the systematics in hindsight.
But does this mean that the OT saints definitely understood it was the Mediator (your view? certainly Glen's), or is it enough to say that they were getting a grasp on the fact that God is a God who mediates? (my view) This seems to do better justice to the texts.
A parallel example would be Christ's agency in creation. I don't buy the exegesis of the OT which sees the doctrine explicitly taught - but of course I confess that the doctrine is prepared.
@Glen: I think it's important to say that the divinity of TAOTL has always been my position.
Regarding the divinity of Jesus in the NT, what you call "God from God" conceptuality, I call "hypostatising" as in the differentiation between the LORD ("in heaven") and the Name/Glory of the LORD ("in the temple"), or even in passages like Proverbs 8 where Wisdom rejoices before the LORD - the preparation of thought about God which even makes thinking the Trinity possible.
Arguing for the divinity of Jesus is IMO easiest where the OT comes into play. Single proof-texts pull you into long arguments. Much of the excitement surrounding Jesus birth is firstly concerning his Messiahship - his rescuing of Israel from their sins. But as the NT goes on, OT LXX texts and allusions about YHWH get applied to Jesus left, right and centre so that you're only left with the confession: Immanuel. What Jesus does, acting out what God has promised, explains his identity clearly.
That the Spirit at work in Jesus is the Spirit of God leads us to a Trinitarian view of God, particularly clear and assumed in the "triplet" F, & HS verses and even playfully and worshipfully alluded to in Rev 1,8 (cf. Ex 3,14 LXX).
When I explain the Trinity from the NT, I build it up from the experience of the apostles with the Lord (a bottom to top Christology), rather than starting with Athanasius. He can comment on the NT later!
Regarding debates with Unitarians - if I interpret 3/4 of the bible in a way that doesn't do justice to the texts, then they might stop listening before I've started.
Martin - I ran out of characters, but I was mainly responding to your explanation of the build up, that "the name is withheld...because Manoah cannot grasp and fathom his name. Manoah cannot take it it. He doesn't know who he is dealing with".
We're told that they were praying to the LORD by name and we're told they didn't realise the angel of God was the angel of the LORD, but I guess a good question (as with all narrative and particularly in Judges) is what we're supposed to make of what they're saying/doing.
on v20-21, I take it that a straight answer to the wrong question often leads to more confusion:
(1) I don't read Hebrew, but isn't el/Elohim kinda difficult? (Consider Psalm 8:5 - heavenly beings/God/angels/...) I simply don't know - is there prefix/articles to help? if so why the confusion in e.g. Psalm 8?
(2) whether Manoah was right to say "we have seen God" is a distinct question from whether the angel "is" God. I guess strictly speaking, we're not told. The key point is surely that the LORD is faithful in dark times.
I guess there's 2 ways you could take the angel's response about his name.
- either he withheld his name: "it is beyond understanding" (in which case I think my earlier suggestion of mystery compared with the name of the LORD given in Exodus holds)
- or the angel does reveal his name, again in terms of what he will do, not like "chris": "it is wonderful" (in which case the point is the angel has been sent because "the LORD works wonders" [ESV], confirming my suspicion about "did an amazing thing" being parallel with his "wonderful" name. I won't repeat my signs+wonders comment.
Dan - where is the angel called LORD? what about "mediated divine encounter" in the rest of scripture? no-one's responded to the implication that this is a red-letter OT (that doesn't make it wrong - maybe our doctrine of scripture is wrong?)
Sam- thank you for your honesty there. I know it's easy to say something in a comment, then later wonder where it's come from! Limits of the medium...
Yes, my view is that the OT saints knew the Son as the Mediator. The weakness of the idea that 'God is a God who mediates' is that if it's not the Mediator mediating, then there's not actually any mediation happening! The concept of 'mediation' in the OT is all very well and good, but unless there's actual mediation happening surely your view means that the OT saints had direct access to the Father, which leaves NT-age people with a downgrade.
Christ's agency in creation- might be best not to dive into this one, but I'm relatively confident it is taught in the OT. You mention Proverbs 8, for example.
Anyway, main point: surely the concept of 'a God who mediates' but is not actually employing the Mediator would be a cop-out.
Cheers.
Chris- The Angel is called LORD quite a bit! A few examples: Gen 16:13, Ex 3:1-4, Num 22:28, Judges 2:1-5, Judges 6:14.
I'm not sure what your question about 'mediated divine encounter' is asking... if it's very general, I think the Son always mediates the Father who has never been seen/met. If you were looking for something more specific than that, come back to me :-)
Ok red letter OT. I assume the argument here is that to have the Son appearing in the OT is potentially dangerous as you end-up having passages that are more 'direct' just live sticking Jesus' words in red. Right?
Well so far as I can see, in the Gospels it's the red type that's the problem- not the presence of direct quotes from Jesus! Jesus' words are very important, but we say so in the knowledge that all of the Gospels are the word of the Son, inspired by the Spirit. It's not dangerous to simply have direct speech from Jesus- but it would be silly to give it more weight than the rest of the Gospels.
Same applies to the same person in the OT. He appears, he speaks, it's wonderful! But the whole OT is his Spirit-breathed word, too.
Again, if I've misunderstood what you're getting at, do say.
Dan
Dan - did you really mean to say that The Son is a 'downgrade' of The Father?
Chris - but what do you think the plain reading of the text's on the Angel are? Even if I want to nuance the degree to which I think the Son is revealed in those texts (conscious comprehension of those to whom He is revealed) it would take a hermeneutical back flip (with a triple salco) in order to say that the Angel is not co-identified with the LORD.
Sam - always liked the fact that you're willing to speak out and then correct yourself. It's a trait many could and should learn from.
All - do we have any more ground to cover in this conversation. It's become quite unweildy. We're nearly at 200 comments. One of us with a particular point needs to a make it in a new post which can be discussed in specific. Martin's appeal was for us to be focused in our chat and I'm grateful he opened the club chat again with such a provoking post. But maybe it's time to refocus the chat again.
Anyone who doesn't have author privileges and wants them - let me know.
Haha... sorry if my point was unclear there.
The point was to say that if the OT saints needed no mediation in their approach to the Father, but we now do need mediation, there are serious questions to be asked!
Hope that makes better sense. The Son is no downgrade! Col 1:15-17 are my red letter verses ;-)
Dan
And with my meaningless comment that brings up the 200...
[Gently clap at the announcement of that figure as you would do if you were seated at The Oval]
Having largely bypassed this conversation, may I suggest someone - one of the contributors moves things forward (on the same subject if you like) with a new post.
Hi Dan - thanks for the references. My point on "mediated divine encounter in the rest of scripture" is more a repost to the "trinitarian revelation" argument for TAOTL - he must be the Son on pain of denying trinitarian revelation. On the systematic stuff, here are my 2 problems (not rebuttals).
1) Both you and Glen talk a lot about "The Mediator". While this sounds like a great Channel Five film, it sounds to me quite abstract, epistemological stuff. As Dave K posted, 1 Tim makes clear that the "mediator" is the man Christ Jesus (cf my anthropology comment from Hebrews 2:16 above), and Hebrews 9-12 makes a big deal of Jesus being a suffering, tempted, man so as to mediate as priest of a new covenant. Where would you point me in scripture to understand? Or if you mean something else not explicit, but implicit in scripture, I'd appreciate a post on that, for my enlightenment.
2) I've said this many times before, but the argument from trinity seems to go like this: "X sees/meets/hears God/YHWH in "the angel", and since we know how trinitarian revelation* works, this must be mediated, so it must be the "pre-incarnate Son". My problem is that even granting we do know how it works, doesn't 2 Corinthians 3 (see my previous comments) warrant a trinitarian revelation in the whole OT? So you're left with a dilemma:
- either the whole OT is "pre-incarnate Son", and we see/meet God in the whole thing, or the OT is not a revelation of God: We don't meet/see him everywhere. But we do say that for instance the Torah is is not just prescriptions from God but a revelation of God as YHWH [Ex 34...], so if we know how trinitarian revelation works, the whole of Moses is pre-incarnate Son.
- fair point on red letters, but that's why I initially called this a "theological version of a red-letter OT". Imagine you're reading scripture out loud, and to explain it you're saying "here's what God is like - here he is!" in a way that I'd want to say in Jonah 4, looking at Ninevah repenting, with no angel.
Do you see the question this really does raise about canon? I think the whole OT is "pre-incarnate Son" in a way that NT isn't. But that really is another question...
Like I said, these aren't rebuttals, they're unresolved reservations about the systematic trinity stuff. Thanks for the texts:
Genesis 16:13 - It's possible just to say "the angel spoke", but the LORD was speaking through the angel, but this is the strongest I've seen, so fair enough! Same problem as earlier on "I have seen the God who sees me" - I'm guessing the word is "elohim" which I hear could also mean heavenly being. This is a comment from ignorance, nothing more - I'm just mindful of Psalm 8:5.
Numbers 22 - no he isnt.
Judges 2:1-5 - initially interesting, in terms of what I said about functional name, but the same could be said of Moses.
Judges 6 - the angel says "the LORD is with you", Gideon says "yea right", then the LORD speaks to Gideon. We all agree the LORD is distinct from the angel, but they're not identified here. v22 doesn't get you very far, although v21-23 has an interesting parallel with Luke 24 - that could be an NT argument.
I'm happy for people to say TAOTL is preincarnate Son. I still have too many hesitations to say that anyone who denies it is committing modal heresy. Thanks everyone for a very interesting discussion. what's interesting is we're all suspicious of unacknowledged assumptions in each other, and the answer is probably neither too quickly to jettison one for another, but to let each speak to all from all & call each into question. I appreciate the opportunity to express the hitherto unarticulated and be pushed by scriptures to closer marvelling at the LORD's faithfulness to his name in Jesus.
Chris
@ Martin: ha ha ha!
Love the new blog layout
Post a Comment