Thursday, December 20, 2012

Christophany

Traditional Christian theology classifies OT apparitions of the Angel of the Lord as Christophanies. A Christophany would be an appearance of God’s preincarnate Son in OT times. If the traditional identification is right, that creates a bridge between OT monotheism and NT Trinitarianism. But is that correct?

This really bundles two questions into one: (a) the general question of whether the Angel of the Lord is an angelic creature or else a theophany; (b) the specific question of whether it’s a Christophany in particular.

Let’s approach the issue by quoting some objections to the traditional identification:


Nevertheless, it is best not to think of the two figures as simply equated. We should see this in the context of the ancient Near East, where messengers normally spoke for the sender. We see this phenomenon throughout the prophetic writings of the OT. When the prophets brought God’s message to Israel, they typically spoke for God in the first person; e.g. “The Lord said, ‘I am bringing a nation against you,’” rather than, “The Lord said that he is bringing a nation against you.” P. Enns, Exodus (Zondervan 2000), 96.

Some have equated the angel of I AM with Jesus Christ. This argument is plausible in that both are distinct from God and yet equated with God. But this argument must be rejected for several reasons. First, more than one being, such as a priest or judge, can have the status of being distinct from God yet equated with God. Second, there is a crucial difference between the angel of I AM and Jesus Christ. Since in Christ’s incarnation the fullness of the godhead dwells in him bodily, there is no reason to think a preincarnate revelation of him would be anything less. Third, the NT never lowers the identity of the Son of God to an angel of any sort. B. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan 2007), 363.

What are we to make of these objections?

i) What Enns says is careless. Indeed, the example he gives undermines his claim. The typical prophetic formula is a quotation formula. There’s a third-person introduction, followed by the first-person statement. A shift from indirect to direct discourse. The prophet doesn’t simply speak in God’s name, as if the prophet were God speaking. Rather, he attributes the statement to God: “Thus says the Lord…”

But in Angel of the Lord passages, we don’t have that distinction. There the speaker isn’t speaking for God, but as God.

Now, it’s possible that this is a form of shorthand. But if so, it stands in striking contrast to the prophetic practice.

ii) Apropos (i), notice how God speaking from heaven is interchangeable with the Angel of the Lord speaking from heaven (Gen 22:1-2,11,15-16). There’s a seamless transition.

iii) The ANE was rife with idolatry and polytheism. Indeed, the two went together. If the Angel of the Lord is simply an angelic creature, you’d expect special precautions to be taken to distinguish him from Yahweh. For, by ANE standards, the Angel of the Lord is a very godlike being. He’s depicted in terms indistinguishable from God himself. That would be terribly confusing to listeners accustomed to polytheism, unless a special effort was made to distinguish him from Yahweh.

iv) It’s true that Jesus is above the angels, just as the Creator is above the creature. But that misses the point. If the Angel of the Lord is a Christophany, that doesn’t mean the Son of God is literally an angelic being. It’s just a title, and the Hebrew word isn’t that specialized to begin with.

v) Of course there’s a crucial difference between a Christophany and the Incarnate Son. The traditional identification takes that difference for granted. So it’s hard to see the point of Waltke’s objection.

vi) Pace his claim, I don’t see where the status of a priest or prophet is equated with God. I don’t see anything equivalent to Exod 3, Exod 23:20-23, or Exod 33-34 in the way Scripture depicts prophets and priests.

vii) Exod 33-34 is a classic theophany. Yet that also seems to be an angelophany. The anthropomorphic or angelomorphic depiction dovetails with the Angel of the Lord.

viii) Gen 18 is a threefold angelophany. The three visitors have a human appearance. Two are angels, while the other is Yahweh. That also dovetails with the Angel of the Lord.

ix) Stuart renders the title “Yahweh Angel”. Cf. D. Stuart, Exodus (Broadman 2006). 111.

x) Jude 5 is potentially relevant. According to the best textual tradition, it reads: Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

On the textual issues, cf. G. Green, Jude & Peter (Baker 2008), 65.

This doesn’t refer to a specific incident. But it would certainly be consistent with the Yahweh Angel as a Christophany.

xi) Assuming that the Yahweh Angel is theophanic, is it specifically Christophanic? That identification involves an argument from analogy, between the sender and the sent. If God sends the “angel,” and the Father sends the Son, then the Father sends the Yahweh Angel (i.e. the preincarnate Son). 

xii) If the Yahweh Angel is a Christophany, then that would make the Son a literal warrior God, viz. Josh 5:13-15. The Book of Revelation uses martial imagery, but that’s symbolic. By contrast, Josh 5:13-15 refers to real combat.

9 comments:

  1. After 200 years of wobbling on this it would be good to see the older exegesis, that the Angel of the LORD is the pre-incarnate Christ, from the fathers (perhaps Augustine excluded) to the reformers and puritans rehabilitated. Perhaps 200 years of higher criticism has eclipsed the earlier view.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I recall reading that historically, some rabbis have had their share of challenges interpreting Judges 6:11-27, where the narrative switches seamlessly between Gideon speaking with the Angel of the Lord and speaking with the Lord Himself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This followon sentence caught my attention: "Now, it’s possible that this is a form of shorthand. But if so, it stands in striking contrast to the prophetic practice. "

    I suppose it is but "but if so"?

    I like this distinction made: "iv) It’s true that Jesus is above the angels, just as the Creator is above the creature. But that misses the point. If the Angel of the Lord is a Christophany, that doesn’t mean the Son of God is literally an angelic being. It’s just a title, and the Hebrew word isn’t that specialized to begin with. "

    I would make this distinction that whether its angelophanic, an angelophany or a bunch of attacking hornets, if the Name of the Lord is not there it is most probably a demonic occurrence.

    Also, make mention of the fact that "Moses" is truly historical and his writings reflect his nature and the natural experiences he was subjected too as well as the spiritual experiences that clearly silenced a whole nation witless!

    About those hornets, one just got to love them hornets!:

    Deu 7:20 Moreover, the LORD your God will send hornets among them, until those who are left and hide themselves from you are destroyed.
    Deu 7:21 You shall not be in dread of them, for the LORD your God is in your midst, a great and awesome God.
    Deu 7:22 The LORD your God will clear away these nations before you little by little. You may not make an end of them at once, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you.
    Deu 7:23 But the LORD your God will give them over to you and throw them into great confusion, until they are destroyed.
    Deu 7:24 And he will give their kings into your hand, and you shall make their name perish from under heaven. No one shall be able to stand against you until you have destroyed them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think usually the Angel of YHWH was the pre-incarnate Son (in the Old Testament). The word "angel" literally means "messenger" and therefore doesn't necessarily connote ontological status (i.e. a being of the species of angel-kind). I say, "usually" because the NT sometimes refers to "an angel of the Lord" or "the angel of the Lord" in contexts that would suggest it's not the second person of the Trinity. Though, obviously, as to His spirit, the second person of the Trinity is ubiquitous. Also, I'm not sure about the use of the definite article in the Greek in those passages. Also, I don't know if there is a definite article in the Hebrew language.

    Yet, it would seems strange (for example) for Jesus to be incarnate in the early chapters of Matthew and Luke while at the same time manifest himself in a Christophany. Though, it's not logically impossible (per divine ubiquity).

    Doing a quick search, the following are all the passages for the phrase "angel of the Lord" in the KJV translation of the New Testament. Some of the activities mentioned of "an/the angel of the Lord" in these passages would seem to be beneath the dignity of the second person of the Trinity. Especially since His dignity has since been revealed in the New Testament/Covenant.

    Matthew
    1:20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
    1:24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife;
    2:13 Now when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I tell thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
    2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying,
    28:2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it.

    Luke
    1:11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of altar of incense.
    2:9 And an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

    John
    5:4 [for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the waters stepped in was made whole, with whatsoever disease he was holden.]

    Acts
    5:19 But an angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them out, and said,
    8:26 But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza: the same is desert.
    12:7 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shined in the cell: and he smote Peter on the side, and awoke him, saying, Rise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.
    12:23 And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Therefore, if "the angel of the Lord" or "an angel of the Lord" in the New Testament is sometimes not the second person of the Trinity, then maybe not all occurrences of "an/the angel of YHWH" in the Old Testament were either. For myself, I think there are plenty of passages in the OT where it was the pre-incarnate Son.

      Steve, you refer to the second person of the Trinity as the pre-incarnate Son. I was under the (wrong?) impression that you reject eternal generation and eternal sonship of Christ in your strong affirmation of Christ as autotheos. Or do you affirm eternal sonship but reject eternal generation?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I also think the Old Testament sometimes records Christophanies when it mentions "the word/Word of the LORD/YHWH". Sometimes it merely refers to God's voice. But other times it implies a being whose title is "The Word of YHWH" (e.g. 1 Sam. 3:21; 15:10; 2 Sam. 7:4; Gen. 15:1-4). The language in such passages is so provocative that even some Jews (both before and after the coming of Christ) have a theology of the "debar" (or "memra" in Aramaic) of YHWH who speaks on God's behave in a god-like fashion. Even to the point of naming him "Metatron". Though, some Jews didn't/don't identify Metatron with the Angel of the LORD or with the Word of the LORD.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete