Is the Angel of the Lord the Pre-Incarnate Christ?

Taylormarshall.com ^ | January 22, 2015 | Dr Taylor Marshall

[NYer]

The Church Fathers held an unwavering belief that the Second Person of the Trinity appeared frequently in the Old Testament in a variety of forms: the Angel of the Lord, the Burning Bush, the Son of Man, and the one like a Son of God in Daniel.

Today we’ll look at a debate regarding the Angel of the Lord. Is he are isn’t the Pre-Incarnate Son of God? There are various positions in early Christianity.

The Greek Church Fathers (for example, Saint Athanasius) are convinced that “the Angel of the Lord” is the pre-incarnate Christ. They posit that the Angel of the Lord is categorically different from lower angelic beings (as in the Epistle to the Hebrews) and use this distinction to refute Arian heretics that deny the deity of Christ.

We find the identity of the Angel of the Lord with the Pre-Incarnate Christ also in the early Latin Fathers, such as Saint Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Saint Hilary of Poitiers, and Ambrose.

Part of the problem is linguistic. In Hebrew, the word for angel isמלאך or “malak” and all it means is “messenger.” In Greek, the word ἄγγελος or “angelos” also means “messenger.” So the Angel of the Lord is the “Messenger of the Lord” and is God Himself.

Angel of the Lord in Latin

In Latin, the word is translated from Greek as “angelus” or angel or angelic being. In Greek, it’s not a problem. But in the Latin West there was a worry that identifying Christ as “the Angel of the Lord” would lead to Arianism since “angel” in Latin implies a lower created being. (By the way, Jehovah’s Witnesses make this very mistake!)

So we see by the time of Saint Augustine, the Latin Church is reading “Angel of the Lord” as merely a chief angelic being or generic theophany of God, and not as the Pre-Incarnate Christ.

Saint Ambrose believed the Angel of the Lord was the Pre-Incarnate Christ. Saint Augustine did not.

This is a shame. In my opinion, this interpretive shift with Augustine was a bad theological move.

Augustine does, however, grant that sometimes “Angel of the Lord” is a reference to the pre-Incarante Christ, such as at Isaiah 9:6 in the Septuagint, where Christ is called “Prince of Peace” and “Angel of Great Counsel” or μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος.

The Angel of the Lord as God

We can see in the opening books of the Bible that the “Angel/Messenger of the Lord” is divine and speaks as God and is recognized as God:

• In Genesis 16:7–14. The Angel/Messenger of the Lord speaks as God in the first person, and in verse 13 Hagar identifies “the LORD that spoke to her” as “Thou God sees me”.
• In Genesis 22:11–15. The Angel/Messenger of the Lord appears to Abraham and refers to God in the first person.
• In Genesis 31:11–13 the Angel/Messenger of God says, “I am the God of Bethel.”
• In Exodus 3:2–4. The Angel/Messenger of the Lord appears to Moses in a flame in verse 2, and God speaks to Moses from the flame in verse 4.

According to Saint Athanasius and Saint Hilary of Poitiers, in all these cases we have the Logos or Second Person of the Trinity acting as the Divine Word or Message to the people of God. If Christ is the Word of the Father, then we might expect Him functioning in the Old Testament as the Message or Messenger of God.

Irenaeus of Lyons also identifies the Angel/Messenger of the Lord with God the Son in Exodus 3:8:

And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, I have come down to deliver this people.” Against Heresies III, 6.

Saint Hilary of Poitiers writes:

To discriminate clearly between the Persons, He is called the Angel of God; He Who is God from God is also the Angel of God, but, that He may have the honour which is His due, He is entitled also Lord and God. On the Trinity IV

Theodoret of Cyrus writes:

The whole passage (Exodus 3) shows that it was God who appeared to Moses. But Moses called Him an “angel” in order to let us know that it was not God the Father whom he saw — for whose angel could the Father be? — but the Only-begotten Son, the Angel of Great Counsel.”

I’m currently re-reading the Pentateuch and making notes along the way as I come across “the Angel of the Lord” language. It’s quite fun and remarkable. It certainly gives a robust Trinitarian feel to the Old Testament, something the Greek Church loved to boast in.

Update: As brought up in the comments below: Saint Thomas Aquinas argues that the “Angel of Sacrifice” of the Roman Canon’s Supplices is Christ Himself (STh III q. 83, a. 4, ad 9).

For more references to the Angel/Messenger of the Lord as the Pre-Incarnate Christ see also:

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 58, 59, 60, 61, 76, 86, 116, 126, 127, 128; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.6.1-5, Fragments, 53; Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 16, De Carne, 14, Against Marcion 2.27, 3.9; Novatian, On the Trinity, 18, 19, 31; Apostolic Constitutions, 5.3.20; Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.7; Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, 1.5, 4.10, 5.10, Church History, 1.2.7-8, Preparation for the Gospel, VII. 5, 14-15; Origen, Contra Celsus, 5.53, 8.27; Methodious, Symposium, 3.4; Melito, New Fragments, 15; Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1.13.83; Athanasius, Against the Arians, 3.25.12-14; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 11.3.

[terycarl]

No." Just "No"? If Yahweh appeared to Abraham, and as John tells us, "No man has seen the Father and lived." then who exactly did Abraham visit with?

if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father....

[xone]

Show you?

Your objection is that this occurrence is just another angel when He speaks as God in His own right. Other angels recorded in scripture don't. You say it isn't an occurrence of a theophany or Christophany. 'The angel of the Lord' reference doesn't occur in the NT.

[The_Reader_David]

First, the position of the Fathers of the Church is that the Angel of the Lord is the Pre-Incarnate Word of God -- the person of the All-Holy Trinity who in His Incarnation assumed our human nature, and with it the human name Jesus (at which every knee shall bow) in the fullness of time, years after events described as appearances of the Angel of the Lord.

Second, you are simply wrong about humans not being called angels in the Bible -- the Greek word ἄγγελος is simply the word for messenger, and is applied to John the Baptist in Mark's and Matthew's Gospels, in Luke's Gospel to the men John the Baptist sent to inquire of Jesus whether he were the Christ, in the Universal Epistle of James to the Israelite spies whom Rahab aided, and, despite protestants objecting to this out of historical ignorance, to the bishops of the Churches of Asia Minor to whom St. John the Theologian addressed his Apocalypse.

The custom of referring to the bishop of a church as the "angel" of the church is very ancient, but is preserved to this day in the title of "The Angel of Haran" applied to the Orthodox bishop of the Diocese of Bosra-Haran in Syria.

[WXRGina]

You guys ALL must be catholic. Don’t you get it? There’s nothing I can say to you!

[xone]

You guys ALL must be catholic.

Not a Catholic.

[xone]

In case you missed it:

You guys ALL must be catholic. Don’t you get it? There’s nothing I can say to you! 64 posted on 1/25/2015, 8:52:06 PM by WXRGina (The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)

Apparently she reads your stuff closely.

[Dutchboy88]

"if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father...."

Not sure what you are getting at here, but that evidences that the Father has never been seen directly by any living man. Jesus correctly, perfectly, fully expresses the Father, but has appeared to man directly...thus, the Angel of the Lord, when He is Yahweh, must be the Son of God, pre-incarnate. Agreed?

[WXRGina]

Apparently she reads your stuff closely.

Sorry, never heard of him.

And, sorry, I assumed you were a catholic on this catholic thread. I'm not catholic either, and I shouldn't have commented "No" here to begin with. It's always a massive waste of time to get involved in "discussions" on catholic threads.

[MrB]

Maybe he remained hooded...

[Dutchboy88]

"Apparently she reads your stuff closely."

A "drive-by" blogger???

[imardmd1]

Sorry, I forgot to include the credit as a direct copy of the reference to the word "angel" taken from the eSword text of Vincent's Word Studies, a common reference work for Bible students. There may be terms in this treatment by Vincent whose definitions may be found in a dictionary or by searching for their definitions online.

Perhaps you could tell me what I ought to pray about when posting a direct abstract from a reference work that will make it clearer or more appropriate.

The object here was to show that the Bible selection was probably not a reference to a Christophany, a visible image of the person of Christ, since it was about Jesus asking that the messages be written to the angel of the particular church, which would not be a message to Himself, would it?

Respectfully --

[WXRGina]

It’s a mystery! :-)

[NYer]

IMHO, those who study Scripture through faith in Christ, are given the proper understanding when they read the passage by the work of God the Holy Spirit in our human spirit, thereby further sanctifying our souls.

If that were true, then the Holy Spirit would lead all christians to the same understanding. Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth"

For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.

[Cvengr]

I see. So God isn’t able to communicate with those who believe in Him through faith in Christ? Such is your position.

I don’t believe God had a senior moment when He formed us and forgot how to communicate with each and every believer.

More blasphemous is the position that the only avenue to God is through the RCC, instead of through faith in Christ.

[The_Reader_David]

If by “catholic” you mean in communion with the Pope of Rome, I am nothing of the sort. I’m afraid you are the one who doesn’t get it. You can’t pick up an English translation of the Bible and assume reading it at face value as if it were written by and for modern post-”Englightnment” men, and expect to get it right.

There are reasons to attend to what the Fathers of the Church thought the Scriptures meant: first, they, as much as you and I, were Christians to whom Christ’s promise that the Spirit would lead them into all truth applies, part of the Church against whom He promised the gates of hell should not prevail; second, some of them knew personally the Holy Apostles and Evangelists; and third, they lived in the same culture in which the New Testament was written, and (in the case of the Greek Fathers) were native speakers of the language in which it was written. This is not the case for you and me, so a little deference to their views on the meaning of Scripture is warranted.

[cothrige]

That was a very informative post, and I just wanted to thank you for it. I had no idea about the “Angel of Haran.” Thanks again, it definitely does shed some light on the subject being discussed.

[Iscool]

The Bible says it’s an angel of the Lord.

Nope...The one referred to is THE angel of the Lord...

[NYer]

So God isn’t able to communicate with those who believe in Him through faith in Christ?

According to you, God is not a very good communicator. He sends mixed messages. God is Truth. There can be only one Truth ... not many different ones.

More blasphemous is the position that the only avenue to God is through the RCC, instead of through faith in Christ.

It is precisely through faith in Christ that the Catholic Church has guided believers to the Truth.

[WXRGina]

I’m sorry, but I disagree. God’s Word is clear on this—and the Lord is plenty big enough to see to His Word—that for those of us who are saved through Christ, it is the Holy Spirit abiding in us Who teaches us the meaning of his revelation to man—and “all things”—as noted in 1 John 2:26-27. Further, I hold catholicism in terrible regard as a false gospel, which is no Gospel at all, and thus I have no confidence in the opinions of the so-called “church fathers” (Galatians 1:6-12). This is NOT to start a useless argument with catholics, which is a horrid waste of time. It is simply a statement in response to your comments to me. Thanks!

[WXRGina]

Nope...The one referred to is THE angel of the Lord...

As a broken record here, I repeat: You CAN over-think these things. An angel of the Lord = the angel of the Lord for the purposes of what I was saying: it's an angel.

And the bottom line, as I noted earlier on this thread, this is a pointless debate. We WILL NOT KNOW the full meaning of everything until after the Lord returns. Wasting time arguing semantics or silly what-ifs of things we cannot know at this time is just that: a waste of time.