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.
