Was the angel of the Lord the pre-human appearance of Messiah? [closed]

Question

I have noticed some commentators interpret the phrase "Angel of the Lord" ("מַלְאָךְ יהוה" mal'ak YHWH) in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to a pre-human appearance of Messiah?

I am considering to adopt this view, but might not. I have not yet found a sure argument to stand on. Are there any intra-textual supports to regard this as a very real possibility? Or strong arguments to suggest otherwise?

Here are some Bible versus that refers to this angel:

Genesis 16:7–14 Genesis 22:11–15 Exodus 3:2–4 Numbers 22:22–38 Judges 2:1–3 Judges 6:11–23 Judges 13:3–22

Answer 1

Angel of Jehovah

I have been digging deeper and am not aware how the connection was first made by early Christians to view ‘the Angel of Jehovah’ or ‘Angel of the Covenant’ to be a pre-human appearance of Messiah, but I have found one place that makes me see an arguable connection.

The connection is based on the connection of various ‘human forms’ that God visited his people. A connection cannot be made to previous Rabbinic views, apart from the idea that the Rabbis “regarded Him as the Shechinah, or visible presence of God, - the same as appeared in the pillar of the cloud and of fire, and afterwards in the temple, in the most holy place.” (Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Volume 1). Regardless if this Rabbinic historical view can be verified or not, the fact that this Angel appears at various stages of the Covenant history of Israel, it is certainly not a regular angel.

The place that I find an easy argument to be made in connecting this Angel to the ‘human form’ that God often used in visions is in the story of Samson. For references about the ‘human form’ see this post, or this post.

In Judges Chapter 13 we find the story of Samson’s extaordinary birth.

2 There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. 3 And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son.

6 Then the woman came and told her husband, “A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome.

Here the woman describes him as a man but also like an angel. So we have a connection to the human form.

8 Then Manoah prayed to the Lord and said, “ O Lord, please let the man of God whom you sent come again to us and teach us what we are to do with the child who will be born.” 9 And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field. But Manoah her husband was not with her. 10 So the woman ran quickly and told her husband, “Behold, the man who came to me the other day has appeared to me.” 11 And Manoah arose and went after his wife and came to the man and said to him, “Are you the man who spoke to this woman?” And he said, “I am.”

Again we see the Angel of the Lord described as ‘the man of God’ or 'the man' who the angels says he was that 'man'.

17 And Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, “What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?” 18 And the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?”

Now this seems to make the connection much more indestructible, and not just a fanciful imagination. The angel's name is ‘Wonderful’. One can’t help but make a connection from here to Isaiah 9:6.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

So it seems although there is no argument to be made that ancient believers under the Old Testament perceived the Messiah represented in the form of ‘the Angel of the Lord’ we can see from a post Jesus perspective that it may be a valid interpretation.

I think this tips the scales for me and I accept this view.

I should add the biggest counter argument for me was that many who hold this view also claim it was Jesus as 'the finger of God' who wrote the ten commands on the tablets in Exodus 31:18 but I could never believe this as Hebrews 2:2 specifically assigns the giving of the Law to angels. Yet now this does not cast doubt for me as the phrase ‘Angel of the Lord’ does not show up anywhere near this period.

Answer 2

This is a widely debated idea across many branches of the Christian faith. My belief is that, yes, the Angel of the LORD does refer to the pre-incarnate Christ. Here are a few reasons why.

In Genesis 16:7-14, the Angel of the LORD appears to Hagar. He tells her "I will multiply thy seed", an act that can certainly only be done by God. In verse 13, Hagar identifies the angel as God, calling him by name.

We find a similar scenario in Genesis 22:11-15 when the Angel of the LORD appears unto Abraham. In verse 12, the angel speaks from heaven indentifying himself as God. He does so again in verses 16 and 17 speaking for himself in the first person, swearing by himself, and promising things that only God himself can deliver.

There are many other instances throughout the Old Testament Scriptures where contextual clues also suggest this.

The KJV also uses "Angel of God" to refer to the same person who also appears to be Christ as in Genesis 31:11 when the Angel of God speaks to Jacob and refers to himself as God.

Answer 3

From a Jewish perspective, the answer is a pretty definite No; the Jewish perspective on the moshiach is very different from the Christian view of the Messiah and leaves no room to make him into an angelic being.

Additionally, the phrase “angel of the Lord” is ambiguous in its first word. The word malakh (מלאך) translates equally as “messenger” and (when send by God) “angel”. Many times when Scripture uses this phrase commentators disagree whether the messenger is a human prophet (“a messenger of God”) or an angel. Either way, the messenger is speaking God’s words and so the message is delivered in first person.

Your question is also assuming that those instances where the phrase refers to an angel are all referring to the same angel. There may be midrashic traditions that make this claim, but it is not at all implicit in the text.

Answer 4

May I suggest an approach to this question which seeks to understand the motives rather than find or not find scriptural support for either concept?

I believe either concept can legitimately be seen as correct. The important question would be what it means for the one stating it (and those being addressed).

We tend to think in (and this way making ourselves) images of what we have not seen. What we see is what we distinguish. What we distinguish is what we keep separate. Separation indicates difference. Difference may indicate distance. Distance then may indicate some form of division or even enmity. Where there is enmity there comes jealousy.

Is the Angel of the Lord one with the Lord? For Moses it seemed to be so. Even though he writes it was the Angel of YHWH (Exodus 3) who he encountered, he calls him by the Name. For the heart and the very existence of Moses there is no distinction. He does not claim to have seen what no one can see in the sense of direct and unmediated sight of God. But he worships the Perfect One just as Abraham had done and after him the prophets that were to come.

Now one appears who is greater than Moses and has existed before Abraham and lived before any creation, even before the Sons of God. Who is he and how is he to be seen in the perspective of scripture, of Law and Prophets? God is in him, he is in God, and all of God is in him, be it authority, kingship, wisdom, prophecy. The angels are one with him, are one with God. They appear as whatever they are made to appear, be it spirit (ruach) or fire, voice or thunder, even like humans they may appear.

The prophet Malachi (Was this his name: My Messenger, My Angel?) speaks of the Lord coming to His Temple. Malachi identifies Him with the Angel of the Covenant (Mal 3:1).

Angel (malach / aggelos) is the one who brings message. Message is brought by one who is sent (an ambassador, a spokesman), who speaks in behalf of the sending one, or message may be brought by the one it originates with.

Identification does not mean physical or corporal or personal sameness. It is a sameness and identity of mind and purpose and will, a commonness that does not seek any distinction. It is the oneness of two or three or even many that lets each one act and speak as the ones he is identified with.

As long as there is hierarchy (and there still is) there is distinction, otherness, and fear (of transgressing). When love and oneness has come, hierarchy suspends itself and is about to cease. This is, to my mind, why we find both: oneness and distinction. Because we still face both and we and God and angels and prophets need to address both: the distinction due to (a still immanent) enmity and wrongness (and jealousy for that reason) and the love due to the perfection and oneness and completeness that we along with all angels are called to attain and remain in.

Where distinction is given, we may distinguish - for the reasons of order and hierarchy. Where it is not given, why should we separate whom God does not?