The Angel of the LORD

Participant

Quote (kenrch @ June 23 2006,03:15)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 23 2006,03:03)

Quote (kenrch @ June 23 2006,02:45)

Quote (t8 @ June 23 2006,02:03)

Sure, Jesus has all created beings as his servants.
Michael is called the great prince, Jesus is the Price of princes.

Then if Michael is the only archangel then either it is Michael who is announcing Jesus in 1 Thess. or Jesus is an archangel.

Wouldn't you say?

Hi kenrch,
Other princes exist, or Michael would not be called “one of the chief princes” in Daniel.
The JWs went down this path and decided Jesus was an archangel because of comparing 1 Thess 4 with John, and then since they only found one in the bible decided Jesus was Michael.
Any reading of Hebrews 1-2 , where Jesus is CONTRASTED with the angels must lead to the conclusion that he is not one.
He is the LIFE. Their life came through him so he is greater than any ordinary messenger, or even a chief of those messengers.

So then it is “AN” Archangel that is announceing Jesus' return.

I remember David saying that to assume that an Archangel's voice and not Jesus' is wrong (somewhere along those lines). The point I'm making is if Jesus sent an angel to John then it is absoutly possible that it is an Archangel announcing Jesus. CORRECT? Jesus seems to send messengers than deliver the message Himself just like the Father.

Just trying to put two scriptures together to show that Jesus is NOT an Archangel.

Hi kenrch,
I agree. God constantly says He does things, but we usually find it is done through the Son or one of his lesser servants.

June 23, 2006 at 3:10 am#20449

Participant

Hi,
Man is always trying to elevate his own status.
He learns of God.
Then he learns of Jesus as a man who revealed God.
Thus he starts to speak of God as if He was like men, denying His supreme Glory.
Then Jesus is relegated to being only a man denying his Glory.
Then angels are reduced to being as man too denying their superior nature and Glory too.

1Cor 15.40
” there are also heavenly bodies and earthly ones, but the glory of the heavenly is one and the glory of the earthly is another”

Meanwhile man sinks to behaviour drawn from the yet lower beings, the demons, while extolling his own imagined Glory.

June 23, 2006 at 9:15 am#20460

Participant

Hi,
Heb 1.6 speaking of Jesus;
“…Let all the angels of God worship him”

Jesus is greater than the angels, so much greater that they are commanded by God to worship him.

We need the word”angel” to know who this verse refers to surely?

June 23, 2006 at 10:01 am#20462

Participant

Nick I don't think you understood what I was saying.

I was saying that the word angel can apply to cherubs, seraphs, and to prophets, and is also used in reference to John the Baptist and Jesus in Malachi.

My point wasn't to say that angels don't exist, but to say that the angel of the LORD is what translators choose to use, but messenger of the LORD is also applicable.

The title of this topic is “Was Jesus the Angel of the LORD” and that is what I was making reference to.

Maybe the text (in blue) that I quoted threw you somewhat, but when I quote something it is to perhaps glean something useful and to enforce what I have written and not the other way round, i.e., to enforce everything in the quoted text. It is not and never has been about believing every word or statement of faith that may be attached to the writing.

At other times I have quoted text from websites that I would say are at best dubious (even from Trinitarians) but that is not an endorsement from me that I believe everything they say wholeheartedly. I may use a quote from here and there to support what I am saying, even if it is to point out that others say the same thing.

Paul did this when he quoted a Greek philosopher “We are the offspring of God”. Paul wasn't endorsing Greek philosophy nor was he endorsing the philosopher who wrote those words, he was supporting his message, not their message.

I hope you understand that it is OK to quote in order to support something, but it is not an endorsement of everything that it may say or stands for.

The point I wanted to bring out from the author was that when we in the English speaking world hear the word angel, we think one thing, i.e., a cherub or seraph. However the reality is that the word has more uses than that. It is also used in reference to prophets, John, and Jesus. There is no point in pretending otherwise, is there?

This is what I wanted to bring out, not that we should drop the word 'angel'. This is evident in that my own words make no such claim or argument. Rather my words say that the word angel has more uses than most think and that it may be possible that the angel of the LORD is messenger of the LORD.

I am a little surprised by your reaction. This particular discussion is not a teaching but a search. If it is fired down straight away, then how are we suppose to foster a 'seek and you will find' environment?

June 23, 2006 at 10:27 am#20463

Participant

Hi T8,
Fair enough. I am only pleading for simplicity and trying to avoid confusion. Every post, put in by anyone, is an opportunity to explore further and to expand into every possible implication. That is all I am doing and finding some possible roadblocks.
But if you wish to develop a theory that Jesus is the angel or messenger of the Lord, and I agree it should be explored, you will need to find strong support from the New and Old Testaments to build on. In the Old the Messenger will have to be specified as the Word or the Son; and Jesus would be called the Messenger of the Lord in the New Testament on several occasions too.
I agreed with the one in Malachi but have found none more in either the New or the Old. I believe that Jesus is more than messenger but is a vessel [ps 31.12]for God Himself. I will keep searching. I believe that Scriptural truth is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. Unless more evidence is found surely it would have to remain a theory I would have thought.

June 23, 2006 at 12:09 pm#20464

Participant

Thanks Nick. BTW it is not compulsory to participate, but if you want to pursue this subject then by all means do, and I look forward to input from anyone else too I agree it is a theory and haven’t suggested otherwise. It is also the reason I put it into the inferred doctrines forum. However I think that just because something can only be inferred, doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong. Surely some inferred ideas are correct too. But it is worth exploring in my opinion because of the following points. The angel of the Lord:

is called Wonderful (noun) Pil’iy – wonderful, incomprehensible, extraordinary;
forgives sins – Exodus 23:20-23
interceeds with God – Zechariah 1:12; then
God says “My Name is in Him” – Exodus 23:21.
was called “the angel of His presence” – Isaiah 63:9;
speaks at times as if He Himself were the LORD, at times as one who speaks in behalf of the LORD, in some instances appears in both roles interchangeably.
Those who see the Angel of the LORD are surprised to be still alive. Perhaps their surprise is in reference to God telling Moses that no one could see God’s face and live;
“Angel” in both Hebrew (malak) and Greek (aggelos or angelos) means “a messenger” and Jesus as the “Word of God”, is the ultimate “Messenger” Who is sent from the Father with a message of the good news;
Appearances or references to the title ‘angel of the LORD’ appear in the New Testament, but cease after the incarnation of Christ.We know in Malachi that Christ is called a messenger (angel), and so is John the Baptist, but we also know a pre-incarnate Christ was with Israel and Moses when they left Egypt. The Angel of the Lord was there also. Are they two or one in the same. Maybe these 2 scriptures shed some light.Exodus 14:19And the Angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face and stood behind them.In the New Testament we read this account:1 Thessalonians 4:13For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.We often wonder where Jesus was before he came to earth. We know from scripture that he is and was the Logos who was with God in the beginning. We also know that he came in the flesh. But what about between these two stages? Was he the ‘Messenger of the LORD’ spoken of many times in scripture, or is the messenger of the LORD a cherub, seraph, or another being that serves Christ?What do others think?

June 24, 2006 at 7:38 pm#20530

Participant

Hi t8,
So it is a question as to whether the Son of God is a messenger by his role, or of his nature.
Mal 3 calls him
“The messenger of the covenant”
Suggesting it is a role rather than a description of his nature.

Angels are messengers of their nature. That is what they do.

June 26, 2006 at 5:39 am#20737

Participant

Another possible example of messengers not being cherub or seraph is in the following accounts:

John 20:12
and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

Luke 24:4
While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing;

Here we have 2 accounts. One says 2 angels and the other, 2 men. The other gospels actually say 'a young man' and 'an angel of the Lord'.

In the past I have assumed that these messengers were cherubs or seraphs, but it seems possible to me now that they were actually men. Possibly Elijah & Moses, the same men who appeared with Christ during the transfiguration.

The point here is that the word 'angel(s)' and 'men/man' are used to describe the same event. In that case it is another instance of the word 'angel' being used to refer to men albeit glorified men.

So what appears to be a contradiction in the gospels is not at all. I will ignore for now the difference between one being and 2 for the sake of making this point.

The only other explanations I can think of are that some of the gospel writers used the word 'men/man' when they meant cherub or seraph, or that the word men/man isn't always in reference to human, or it is a mis-translation or addition of some kind. Another possibilty is that there were 2 cherubs and 2 men making 4 in all

June 26, 2006 at 8:42 am#20738

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 24 2006,20:38)

Angels are messengers of their nature. That is what they do.

Hi Nick,

He is the Word of God which is the greatest expression of God.
The Logos and the Messenger seem to be similar in that they are both the Word/words. But Jesus is not just an expression or word of the Lord, he is the Word itself.

Therefore being the Word he is the full expression of God. That is somewhat different I would say to being a son or a being with a message from God.

I guess that the Word has a role in which he brings God's message, but unlike created beings Christ was the first expression of God that God gave life unto. He is the prototype.

June 26, 2006 at 11:55 pm#20778

Participant

Quote (t8 @ June 26 2006,09:42)

Therefore being the Word he is the full expression of God. That is somewhat different I would say to being a son or a being with a message from God.

Hi t8,
I do not understand your drift here.

The Son was a vessel for the Father, a magnificent vessel, but the greater treasure was within that vessel surely?

June 28, 2006 at 2:21 am#20900

Participant

Of course. God was in Christ. God is greater.
Christ is the full representation of the invisible God. We reflect God in part, but Christ reflects the fullness of God.

If we want to know what the invisible God is like, we need look no further than Christ.

June 28, 2006 at 4:52 am#20903

Participant

Quote

Jesus was never an angel.

Nick, “angel” simply means “messenger.” Jesus was God's chief messenger. What he spoke was not his, but belonged to the Father. He did not come of his own initiative, but the Father sent him. And he had a message.

What is your definition of “angel” Nick? A spirit Son of God? A spirit creature? It seems to me that all these definitions fit Jesus. Of course, he wasn't an ordinary angel. As I said, he was God's chief messenger, used for a special purpose. You may even call him an “arch” messenger, meaning “chief” messenger.

david.

June 28, 2006 at 4:57 am#20904

Participant

Quote

Hi Nick,

I think you got the wrong end of the stick.

I am not denying angels, I am saying that angels can refer to cherubs and men too.
Like the word god or prophet, it appears to be an office, not a race.

Yes Michael is an angel (messenger), but his race is Seraph (I think), perhaps cherub.

In the Old Testament, Christ is refered to as an angel or mal'ak {mal-awk'}, just as John the Baptist is too.

Interesting, isn't it Nick? “Christ is refered to as an angel”? Is that what T8 just said? Well, he speaks correctly.
Yes Nick, Hebrews does go to great lengths to differentiate between the angels and Christ. And shouldn't it? What angel do you know that died for us? What angel do you know that is a mediator of the new covenant, that is the “only begotten” son of God? Sure, the angels are sons of God. But to which of them did God ever set apart? Jesus. His only begotten son.

Jesus is a spirit creature. He is definitely a messenger. Of course, not just any messenger. But, still, he did bring his Father's message. No, I'm not saying he's “just another angel,” but the term fits him in all ways.

david.

June 28, 2006 at 5:00 am#20905

Participant

Quote

Is Michael the only archangel in the bible?

Hi Kenrch, the word “archangel” is never used in plural in the Bible. We only find the expression, “the archangel.” And yes, Michael is the only one mentioned as being the archangel, or chief or head of the angels.

June 28, 2006 at 5:01 am#20906

Participant

Quote

Then if Michael is the only archangel then either it is Michael who is announcing Jesus in 1 Thess. or Jesus is an archangel.

Wouldn't you say?

Yes, that's the logical conclusion Kenrch.

June 28, 2006 at 5:03 am#20907

Participant

Quote

The Book of Enoch is much more detailed in that respect, and mentions Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael as archangels (among others).

I believe several hundred thousands of books have been written on angels in the past 50 years. But what does God's inspired Word say? It never speaks of “archangels,” but only uses the term in the singular.

June 28, 2006 at 5:04 am#20908

Participant

Hi david,
We know you value scripture as the basis of truth.
You love human reasoning too but I am sure you recognise that it does not compare with scripture in establishing what is spiritual truth.
Can you show me other verses where Jesus is called in scripture a messenger as we need more witnesses to the possible one in Malachi to give any sciptural credibilty to this claim?
Men are frequently called messengers in the bible and occasionally died because of that role, and even a donkey brought a message and these are not angels surely?
He who is life was used to give life to all the messengers of all types and his primary role was not as a messenger but as Messiah, a vessel for the Father.

June 28, 2006 at 5:21 am#20910

Participant

Quote

Hi Nick.
Hebrews leads to that conclusion only if you have a very narrow view.
Notice how it begins:
Hebrews 1
God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. 4 So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

“So he became better than the angels.” Does this mean that at one time he wasn't better than them? I guess if you take this very literally it does.

Anyway Nick it starts out by saying the different ways that God spoke to people, by prophets, and now He spoke to us by means of his very Son, his only begotten Son.
If we go on to chapter 2, we see that it says:
“2 For if the word spoken through angels proved to be firm, and every transgression and disobedient act received a retribution in harmony with justice; 3 how shall we escape if we have neglected a salvation of such greatness in that it began to be spoken through [our] Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him.”

So, we are told that God has spoken to us through angels in the past. And we are told that he has now spoken to us by means of His Son. And the greatness of this Son is spoken of in contrast with the angels.
So the strength and importance of the message is highlighted. But this in itself does not mean that Jesus is not of the same group.

If King Howard the seventh decides to give his servant half his kingdom you may say:
“To what man has such an honor ever been given?”
The answer is that to that servant man he gave it.

“To which of the angels has he ever said….” And you look at this as undisputable proof. The answer is that: to Jesus he said it.

It definitley contrasts the angels with Jesus, but doesn't show that Jesus is completely distinct from them, any more than the man whom half the kingdom was given is not a man. He is a man. But you still may well say after such a thing happens: “To what man has such a thing ever happened”? It doesn't mean that the guy who it happened to isn't a man. It simply shows the import of it, the significance, the honour.

Quote

The JWs went down this path and decided Jesus was an archangel because of comparing 1 Thess 4 with John, and then since they only found one in the bible decided Jesus was Michael.

Bit of an oversimplification. There are several lines of evidence pointing to this conclusion Nick.

June 28, 2006 at 5:29 am#20914