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.

[Jonty30]

Whenever man tried to worship an angel, he was told explicitly by the angel to not do that. Except, when it was the AoL.

[Alex Murphy]

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.

ECF disagreeing with each other PING

[Bigtigermike]

I think you are correct. People can agree to disagree but it does appear that in the Old Testament there are ‘angles’ (basic messengers and ministering spirits) and then there is “A Angle’ that’s different from the average angle in certain situations

[Gamecock]

Never in the history of Rome has that ever happened! </snark>

[Grateful2God]

St. Louis de Montfort referred to Jesus as “The Incarnate Wisdom!”

[imardmd1]

The angels of the churches do not seem to me to be "Angels of The LORD" as in the OT. Here is a summary on the angels to whom the letters were written in Rev. 2 and 3:

========

Angels (ἄγγελοι)

The exact meaning of the term here is uncertain. The following are the principal interpretations:

1. The officials known as angels or messengers of the synagogue, transferred to the Christian Church. These were mere clerks or readers; so that their position does not answer to that of the angels presiding over the churches. There is, besides, no trace of the transfer of that office to the Christian Church.

2. Angels proper Heavenly guardians of the churches. This is urged on the ground that the word is constantly used in Revelation of a heavenly being; by reference to the angels of the little ones (Mat_18:10), and to Peter's angel (Act_12:15). It is urged that, if an individual may have a guardian angel, so may a Church. Reference is also made to the tutelar national angels of Dan_10:21; Dan_12:1.
But why should the seer be instructed to write to heavenly messengers, with exhortations to repentance and fidelity, and describing them as "rich," "poor," "lukewarm," etc. (Rev_2:4; Rev_3:1, Rev_3:16)?

3. The angels are a personification of the churches themselves: the Church being spoken of as if concentrated in its angel or messenger. But in Rev_1:20, they are explicitly distinguished from the golden candlesticks, the churches.

4. The rulers ard teachers of the congregation. These are compared by Daniel (Dan_12:3) to stars. See Mal_2:7, where the priest is called the messenger (angel) of the Lord; and Mal_3:1, where the same word is used of the prophet. See also Hag_1:13. Under this interpretation two views are possible.
...(a) The angels are Bishops; the word ἄγγελος sometimes occurring in that sense (as in Jerome and Socrates). This raises the question of the existence of episcopacy towards the close of the first century.
...(b) The word is used of the ministry collectively; the whole board of officers, including both presbyters and deacons, who represented and were responsible for the moral condition of the churches. See Act_20:17, Act_20:28; 1Pe_5:1-5.

Dr. Schaff says: "This phraseology of the Apocalypse already looks towards the idea of episcopacy in its primitive form, that is, to a monarchical concentration of governmental form in one person, bearing a patriarchal relation to the congregation, and responsible in an eminent sense for the spiritual condition of the whole. . . . But even in this case we must insist on an important distinction between the 'angels' of the Book of Revelation and the later diocesan Bishops. For aside from the very limited extent of their charges, as compared with the large territory of most Greek, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Bishops, these angels stood below the Apostles and their legates, and were not yet invested with the great power (particularly the right to confirm and ordain) which fell to the later Bishops after the death of the Apostles. . . . The angels, accordingly, if we are to understand by them single individuals, must be considered as forming the transition from the presbyters of the apostolic age to the Bishops of the second century" ("History of the Apostolic Church").

[metmom]

Say it ain’t so.....

[Grateful2God]

“Yes, he might have appeared as an angel.”
Or the writers perceived him as such. Either way, I agree, “don’t put limits on God.”

[NYer]

Jesus is God. Humans are not angels. Nor are angels Jesus.

Genesis does not identify them as angels but as men.

Looking up, he saw three men standing near him.
Gen 18:2

Moving further on to Gen 18:9-12, the 3 men inquire about Sarah, Abraham's wife. One of them goes so far as to say he will return next year when Sarah will have a son. Meanwhile, Sarah has been listening and begins to laugh (because she is advanced in years). In Gen 18:13, it reads: "But the LORD said to Abraham:" If you move forward to Gen. 19:24 the text says that the LORD rains down fire and brimstone from the LORD in heaven. This seems to support the Trinity or at the very least a multiplicity in the Godhead.

[xone]

Actually, one was ID'ed as the Lord at the beginning. Gen 18:1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;.

Gen 16 has a better account of the angel of the Lord.

[xone]

Okay, one more reply.

Context.

[WXRGina]

The revelation of God to our minds and spirits (if we have His Spirit in us, that is) lets us know they were angels, not ordinary men. Angels apparently have an appearance similar to “men” in some cases. But, continue to go on a pointless rabbit trail if you like. In the end, all knowledge will be revealed, and we will see that this is a meaningless discussion to our purposes here and now. I shouldn’t have made my first one-word comment of “No” on a catholic thread anyway. That was my pointless mistake.

[WXRGina]

Context? What are you talking about? I said I was leaving this thread, but I said I was making one more comment. Not hard to understand the context there. And, as you can see, I came back AGAIN, when I said I wouldn’t.

[xone]

Not hard to understand the context there.

Not the context of your comment, the context of the scripture in question. The AOTL in Gen 16 isn't a messenger in the context of bringing a message, He is stating the message, it originated with Him.

[WXRGina]

It’s an angel of the Lord. He’s speaking for God. I don’t know what else to tell you.

[xone]

He is speaking for Himself. He doesn’t intro anything He says like a herald would. He speaks in the first person. Show me an angel in the NT who spoke in a similar fashion.

[353FMG]

Divine communication with mankind, in either direction, is done Through Him, With Him, In Him.

[huldah1776]

Not being a theologian and familiar with certain terminology, you may want to put that in layman’s terms but pray first.

[Cvengr]

No need to read more into Scripture tan what He provides. IMHO, the Angel of the Lord probably was the same person as the Son, but if God had wanted to communicate that to us in Scripture, He would certainly have so presented it.

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.

The is danger, however, in advancing the doctrines academically, independent of faith in Him.

[WXRGina]

He is speaking for Himself. He doesn’t intro anything He says like a herald would. He speaks in the first person. Show me an angel in the NT who spoke in a similar fashion.

Show you? What is your intention here? Are you desperately trying to say that an angel of the Lord is NOT an angel of the Lord? I don't get your persistence. As I said in the beginning, you CAN OVER-THINK these things.