From Christology of the Old Testament 1865
That the angel of the Lord is the Logos of John, who is connected with the supreme God by unity of nature, but personally distinct from him, was...the universal doctrine of the early Church. The Fathers of the first Synod in Antioch, in a letter sent to Paul of Samosata before his deposition (Colet. conc, coll Vend i. p. 866, 70), affirm that "the angel of the father, being himself Lord and God, MEGALHS BOULHS AGGELOS, appeared to Abraham and to Jacob, and to Moses in the burning bush." Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue witH Tryphon, § 59—61, proves that Christ spoke to Moses out of the thorn-bush, and says that he is called the angel of the Lord, EK TOU DIAGGELLEIN TOIS ANQRWPMOIS TA PARA TOU PATROS KAI POINTOU TWN APANTWN. See, further, Constitutt. Apost. v. 20 b., Coteler. i. p. 325; Irenaeus, c. Haeres. iv. 7, § 4; Theophilus, ii. 31; Clemens Alex,, Paed. i. 7; Tertullian, c. Prax. c. 16; Cyprian, c. Jud. ii. 6; Hilary, de trin. iv. § 32; Eusebius, demonstr. evang. v. 10 sqq.; Cyril, Hieros. p. 322, ed. Ox.; Chrysostorn, hoM. 48 in Gen.; Amltrosim, defide ad Graf. opp. t. ii. p. 460. Theodoret says (interr. 5 in Ex. opp., t. i. ed. Hal. p. 121, on Ex. iii. 2), KAI OLON DE TO CWRION DEIKNUSI QEON ONTA TON OFQENTA KEKLHKE DE AUTON KAI AGGELON INA GNWMEN WS O OFQEIS OUK ESTIN O QEOS KAI PATHR, ALL O MONOGENHS UIOS H MEGALHS BOULHS AGGELOS.
We will now proceed to point out certain general grounds, which favour the conclusion that the angel of the Lord is the Logos, in addition to the argument which we have already drawn from the separate passages of the Old Testament; and to reply to all those who adopt a different hypothesis.
The testimony of the New Testament is of the utmost importance. This is given in many different ways. The most direct is Heb. iii. 1, "wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and High Priest of our profession (Christ) Jesus." "There is something very remarkable," says Bleek, "in the application of the term APOSTOLOS to Christ." It is the more striking, from the fact that, when the author wrote, the word apostle had already acquired the force of a proper name. The most natural course, therefore, would have been to avoid the appearance of placing Christ upon a par with the apostles. There can be no doubt, however, that the expression is used for the purpose of pointing out the identity of Christ with the angel of Jehovah under the Old Testament (Benyel: "legatum deI patris"), and is thus a kind of proper noun. It is only on this supposition that it has any bearing upon the exalted dignity which the context necessarily requires. 'APOSTOLON is followed by ARCIEPEA. And so also there are passages of the Old Testament (Ezek. ix. and Zech. i. 12), in which the angel of the Lord is represented as "High Priest."
This passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews is closely connected with other passages in the New Testament, in which Christ is spoken of as sent by God (APOSTELLW) is the word commonly employed, and on some occasions PEMPW). These passages are too numerous to be regarded as accidental. There is the less room for such a supposition, from the fact that the frequent use of the expression is apparent solely in the discourses of Christ and in the writings of John, who has moulded his style, far more than the others, after the model of his Master, and in whose writings the independent use of these terms goes hand in hand with the fact, that he inserts them more frequently than the other Evangelists in the sayings of Christ. The explanation of the latter circumstance is, that he paid peculiar attention to the deeper significance of these terms; and the same reason necessarily led to his own frequent use of them. As the expression "Son of man" which the Saviour applied to himself, always points to Daniel, so do these expressions invariably contain an allusion to the personal identity of Christ and the Old Testament angel or messenger (<i>Gesandte, one sent) of the Lord. This is all the more obvious, from the fact that it is a customary thing with John to introduce nice and obscure allusions to the Old Testament, and that in this respect he differs widely from Matthew, who prefers what is obvious and lies upon the surface. Compare Matt. x. 40, "he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (TON APOSTEILANTA ME): i.e., "he that receiveth you, my apostles, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, the Malakh YHWH [angel of Jehovah], receiveth the Lord himself." Again, chap. xv. 24, OUK APESTALHN, "I am not sent;" and chap. xxi. 37. Also, Luke iv. 43, "I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also, for therefore am I sent" (APESTALHN). And in addition...compare chap. iii. 17, "for God sent not (OU GAR APESTEILEN) his Son into the world to condemn the world ver. 34, "for he whom God hath sent (APESTEILEN) speaketh the words of God;" chap. v. 36, 37, "the works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me (APESTALKEN), and the Father himself, which hath sent me (O PEMYAS ME) hath borne witness of me;" ver. 38, "and ye have not his word abiding in you, for whom he hath sent (APESTEILEN), him ye believe not;" chap. vi. 29, 57, and vii. 28, "he that sent me (O PEMYAS ME) is true, whom ye know not;" ver. 29, "I know him, for I am from him, and he hath sent me" (avreo,TetXe); chap. viii. 42, "if God were your father ye would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of myself, but he sent me" (APESTEILEN) ; chap. x. 36, xi. 42, xvii. 3,8, 18,21,23,25, xx. 21: "then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you, as my Father hath sent me (APESTALKEN), even so send (PEMPW)) I you;" 1 John. iv. 9, 10, "in this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent (APESTALKEN) his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent (APESTEILE) his Son to be the propitiation for our sins "ver. 14, "the Father (APESTALKEN) hath sent the son to be the Saviour of the world."
In John xii. 41, again, we read, "these things said Esaias, when he saw his (Christ's) glory, and spake of him." According to Is. vi. Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah. But if it be maintained that the angel of Jehovah is an ordinary angel, and is not in any way connected with Christ, the link between Jehovah and Christ is broken. It is perfectly obvious, however, that John does not assert the identity of Jehovah and Christ on his own authority, but stands upon such firm and clear scriptural ground that he is under no necessity of entering into discussions. Delitzsch objects (p. 355), that Isaiah did not see the glory of the angel of Jehovah, but the glory of Jehovah himself, and that, notwithstanding this, John speaks of him as seeing the glory of Jesus. But we have already observed, that the passages in which the angel of Jehovah is mentioned prove, that in every case, in which appearances of Jehovah are referred to, these appearances are to be understood as occurring through the medium of his angel, even where this is not expressly stated.
John speaks of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved (chap. xiii. 23; xix. 26; xx. 2; xxi. 7, 20). That this expression takes the place of a proper name is evident, not only from the frequency with which it is employed, but also from the fact that it is used in cases, in which there is no immediate reference to the love of Jesus to the apostle. It is obviously a paraphrase of the name John. The actual meaning of this name is "whom Jehovah loves;" and in the love of Jesus, John beheld a fulfilment of the pious wish, which dictated the name.
In chap. i. 11 John sets out with the view, that Christ was the angel of the Lord who had come in the flesh. He says Christ came EIS TA IDIA, and the IDIOI did not receive him. If we suppose the angel of the Lord to have been an ordinary angel, there is no foundation for this expression. The Israelites are described in the Old Testament as the people and inheritance of Jehovah (Ex. iv. 2:2, 23, and 2 Sam. vii. 24, "and thou preparedst for thyself thine Israel as a people for ever, and thou didst become their God"), and of his angel, through whom all his intercourse with his people was carried on. Compare Ex. iii. 2 ("and the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire"), and ver. 7 ("and the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt"). In Mal iii. 1, again, the temple is spoken of as belonging to the Lord and his covenant angel.
Not John alone, but the other "pillars" in the apostolic office start with the assumption, that Christ is the self-revealing Jehovah of the Old Testament, and thus confirm the view that has been maintained by the Church respecting the angel of the Lord. According to 1 Pet. i. 11, "the prophets searched what, or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did signify." But the prophets ascribe their revelations to the spirit of Jehovah. How, then, came Peter to substitute Christ so directly for Jehovah. unless he found a warrant for this in the Old Testament doctrine of the angel of the Lord? That the latter is always implied when the prophets speak of Jehovah, is apparent from Judges v. 23, where Deborah expressly refers to the angel of Jehovah a prophetic revelation, which she had received in a purely internal manner. In 1 Cor. x. 4, Paul says: "and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ." Here, then, we have what Delitzsch felt to be wanting in John xii. 41. The preservation of the people during their march through the wilderness, and their admission into Canaan, is expressly ascribed in the Old Testament to the angel of the Lord. Compare Ex. xxiii. 20, 21, "behold I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take heed to him, and obey his voice, rebel not against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, <i>for my name is in him"; also Is. lxiii. 8, 9, "the angel of his presence saved them." According to 1 Cor. x. 9 ("neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents"),—Christ was the leader of Israel through the desert, and was tempted by them. In Num. xxi. 5—7 they are said to have tempted Jehovah, who is represented in Exodus as leading them in the person of his angel. The reading KURION, which Lachmann has adopted, is evidently traceable to short-sightedness. According to Heb. xi. 26, Moses esteemed the reproach which he endured for Christ's sake (ONEIDISMON TOU CRISTOU) greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. But according to the Mosaic account, he made all his sacrifices in the service of Jehovah and his angel.
In John v. 37, when Christ is telling the Jews that they will lose God if they reject him, he says, "ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." It is inconceivable that Christ should have spoken in this manner with the giving of the law at Sinai before him, as well as Is. vi. and other passages in which Jehovah appears and speaks, except on the assumption that whenever manifestations of Jehovah are mentioned in the Old Testament, they always take place through the medium of his angel, who is connected with him by unity of nature, and who came in the flesh in Christ. That the remarks of Ode are correct, to the effect that "it was he himself who had formerly spoken to the patriarchs, and had appeared in the form of the angel" cannot for a moment be doubted, especially as there is an allusion both before and afterwards to the personal identity of Christ and the angel of the Lord in the manner already indicated, viz., ver. 36, "the Father hath sent me," ver. 38, "for, whom He hath sent, him ye believe not." The same may also be said of the expression in John i. 18, "no man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." That no one has ever seen God must be an assertion entirely without foundation, and altogether at variance with history, unless we recognise a divine mediator in the angel of the Lord. For, otherwise, such passages as speak of appearances and utterances on the part of Jehovah, have no connexion whatever with those which mention the angel of the Lord. And so, again, when Christ tells the Jews in John vii. 28, that from not knowing Him, they do not know God, and by rejecting him they cut themselves off from any participation in God, light is thrown upon his words by the distinction, already made in the Old Testament, between the unseen God and his revealer, who is the medium of all approach to Him.
That the words of Christ in John viii. 56 assume the identity of Christ and the angel of the Lord, has already been pointed out [elsewhere].
In Col. i. 15, Christ is described as "the image of the invisible God," and in Heb. i. 3, as APAUGASMA THS DOXHS KAI CARAKTHR THS UPOSTASEWS ("the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person"). Further investigation will show, that in these passages, expressions which were current among the Jews in connexion with the Metatron or angel of the Lord, are transferred to Christ. There is something strange in the passages themselves. One cannot but feel throughout that they do not enunciate the doctrine in question for the first time, but point to something already in existence, and ultimately to the Old Testament, which alone could possibly afford a pledge of certainty. It is only so far as the expressions themselves are concerned, that they are in anyway connected with the Jewish theology of the time. Bahr has correctly remarked, that "the idea of a revealer of the deity was to them one of the primary truths of religion, which they expressed in language current at the time." The same remarks apply to the doctrine of John respecting the Logos. The manner in which John treats of the Logos shows very clearly, that his intention is not to make known this doctrine for the first time, but simply to show the relation in which Christ stands to the doctrine alluded to. The very name Logos was not originally a term peculiar to John, and does not occur at all among the terms which he ordinarily employs. That there must be some connexion between the Logos of Philo and the Logos of John is a thought which immediately suggests itself, and the attempt to do away with this connexion has been altogether futile. And, beside this, the correspondence between the Logos and the angel of the Lord, which strikes any one at the first glance, would be very remarkable if it were merely elicited by exegesis.—Whenever Jesus speaks of having lived before man or before the world, he assumes the existence of the doctrine of the angel of the Lord, in the form maintained by the Church. There would, otherwise, have been no link of connexion whatever between these doctrines and the minds of the hearers. What was new was simply the personal application.
Lastly, the angel of the Lord, whom we meet with constantly throughout the whole of the Old Testament, disappears entirely from the New.—We will not confine ourselves to the name, but look also at the facts of the case. An angel, who usually speaks in the name of Jehovah, and is represented as the guardian of the Church, has completely disappeared (the passage in Rev. xxii. 7, where an angel speaks in the name of Christ, stands quite alone in the whole of the New Testament), unless he is to be found in Christ. With the Church's view of the Maleach Jehovah the enigma is solved, and the connexion between the two Testaments, as well as their perfect harmony, brought into the clearest light.
With these distinct and manifold confirmations, which the orthodox view receives from the New Testament, the few plausible arguments, by which the attempt has been made to prove that the New Testament regards the "angel of Jehovah," referred to in the Old, as merely an ordinary angel, are deprived of all their force.
Delitzsch observes (p. 334), "Wherever AGGELOS KURIOS (the Greek rendering of MALAK YHWH), is mentioned in the New Testament, whether he be called AGGELOS KURIOU or hO AGGELOS KURIOU, confessedly a created angel is intended." But as we have already shown, hO AGGELOS KURIOU (the angel of the Lord) and not AGGELOS KURIOU (an angel of the Lord) corresponds MALAK YHWH and the former is never found, except in cases in which the angel has been mentioned before. Matt. i. 24, for example, "he did as the angel of the Lord (hO AGGELOS KURIOU) had bidden him," is very instructive in this respect, when compared with ver. 20, "behold an angel of the Lord (AGGELOS KURIOU) appeared unto him in a dream ;" also Luke i. 11, "there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord" (AGGELOS KURIOU), when compared with ver. 13, "but the angel (hO AGGELOS) said unto him." Compare also Matt. xxviii. 2 with ver. 5, and Acts xii. 7 with ver. 8. But if the case had been different, if hO AGGELOS KURIOU (the angel of the Lord) were used in any instance entirely by itself, with reference to an ordinary angel, this would prove nothing. We have already admitted that MALAK YHWH does not of necessity denote the Logos, but that there are passages in which the angel may possibly be regarded as an ideal person. And hO AGGELOS KURIOU would in such cases have to be explained in the same way. The proof that in a considerable number of passages in the Old Testament the angel of the Lord can only be the Logos, we have already found in the fact that this term, which points to a person exalted infinitely above the angels, is applied to the angel who speaks and acts in the name and person of God. It would be necessary therefore to point out the same fact, in connexion with those passages (if any existed), in which hO AGGELOS KURIOU occurred.
"But," continues Delitzsch, "the New Testament furnishes still more direct testimony against the divine nature of the Old Testament MALAK YHWH. In Acts 7:30, Stephen calls the angel of Jehovah, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, AGGELOS KURIOU—In the original passage, Ex. iii. 2, it is stated that "the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the thorn-bush." In Acts vii. 30, "There appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai ayyeXos tcvpiov in a flame of fire in a bush." Thus in the Acts of the Apostles we find first of all a general term. But this proves nothing. The angel is also an angel. And it is evident from what follows immediately afterwards that it is not an ordinary angel that is intended. In ver. 31, we read of "the voice of the Lord," and in ver. 32, "I am the God of thy fathers," &c. On ver. 30, Bengel observes, "The Son of God (see following verses): at first Moses did not know who it was, but immediately afterwards he recognised Him from the voice."
"Again," says Delitzsch,p. 335, "tha angel, of whom he says in ver. 38 that he spake to Moses in Sinai, cannot have been regarded by him as a divine being, for in ver. 53 he says, (who have received the law by the disposition of angels (EIS DIATAGAS AGGELWN)'; and with this Paul agrees in Gal. iii. 19 and Heb. ii. 2."—In Acts vii. 38 we read, "this is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and spake with our fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto us." Moses is placed between the angel and the congregation, in connexion with the giving of the law. Bengel correctly observes, that "Stephen does not say with the angels, but with the angel of the covenant;" compare Mal. iii. 1. In the original account there is no allusion to an angel at all. Moses converses with Jehovah. But the angel is understood as a matter of course, since all the revelations of Jehovah are made through him. Moreover there is in Mai. iii. 1, a distinct scriptural authority, for the intervention of a Mediator on this occasion. And, on the other hand, Stephen would never have ventured to supply the mediation of an angel on his own authority merely. Let any one read Ex. xix. and see for himself, whether the scene is one befitting an ordinary angel. And even ver. 53 ("who received the law by the disposition of angels") does not favour such a hypothesis; (compare Gal. iii. 19, where the law is called DIATAGEIS DI AGGELWN). Again, if an ordinary angel were intended in ver. 38, the expression in ver. 53 would be directly contradictory. In the one case we have an angel, (only one can be regarded as speaking TOU LALOUNTOS AUTW) in the other, on the contrary, we have a plurality of angels. But the case is entirely different, if the angel of the Lord is alluded to there. He is usually attended by a retinue of inferior angels, and so far as Sinai is concerned, the presence of such a retinue is expressly attested in such passages. Deut. xxxiii. 2, "he comes with myriads of holy ones;" ver. 3, "all his holy ones are in thy hand (i.e., serve thee, 0 Israel) ," and Ps. Ixviii. 17, "the chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of thousands, the Lord is among them, Sinai in the sanctuary." "The chariots are attended by hosts of angels. In the midst of them is the Lord, as formerly on Sinai. The one thing, which is common to Zion and Sinai, is the presence of the Lord in the midst of the numerous hosts of his angels." In ver. 38 the angel of the Lord occupies just the same place as Jehovah in Ex. xix. The angels in ver. 53 and Gal. iii. 19 are taken from Deut. xxxiii. In the latter passage, however, the angels are not mentioned in the place of the Lord, but the Lord comes attended by them.
The only passage in the New Testament, which presents a difficulty at first sight, is Heb. ii. 2, 3, where the law is apparently placed below the gospel, on account of the latter being "spoken by the Lord," whereas the former was merely "spoken by angels." But it cannot have been the author's intention to ascribe the giving of the law, the most glorious work of the Old Testament, to merely inferior angels, without any direct participation on the part of the Lord and his revealer, in direct opposition to the Old Testament; for in chap. xii. 26 he distinctly affirms that "the voice of the Lord shook the earth at the giving of the law." The only ground, therefore, upon which he can possibly intend to exalt the gospel above the law, is that the revelation of the Lord as MALAK YHWH was not so perfect as in his incarnation, and for this very reason there is a certain sense in which we must make a distinction between the angel of the Lord and the Son of God, instead of saying directly, as the Fathers and most of the early theologians do, that "the angel of the Lord is identical with the Son." [Compare the remark of Grotius on Ex. 20, "errant graviter, qui hic per angelum intelligent secundam dei hypostasin. Variis enim multiplicibusque modis deus locutus est patribus; at per filium ultimis demum temporibus."]
