A Historical Approach 2
However, that means that as the third century began this topic had not yet been adequately dealt with. The option that Jesus was indeed connected with these physical appearances of men and angels was prominent, and appears to be the most prominent view held, but there was no further discussion on the issue. During the third century, Eusebius wrote his work entitled Church History and dealt with this issue in one section of his work. Unlike Ireaneus and Tertullian who did not provide enough discussion or evidence to support their claims, Eusebius looked into several passages as he struggled with the angel’s identity.
Beginning with Abraham’s encounter with God in Genesis 18, Eusebius plainly states that “the Lord God…appeared as a common man to Abraham while he was sitting at the oak of Mamre.” But Eusebius did not end his discussion here. Instead, he looked at Abraham’s reaction to this angel/man throughout the rest of the chapter. Genesis 18 shows Abraham worshipping and serving this being, and in verse twenty-five, Abraham clearly addresses this being as “Lord.” Furthermore, Eusebius looks at Moses’ description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. At the beginning of chapter nineteen, Moses states that two angels appeared at Sodom, but later in the chapter it claims that the Lord is the one who destroyed the city. Eusebius’ claim here is that since the text clearly states that it was the Lord, then the beings who first appeared in Sodom were the Lord as well. Next he looks at Jacob’s encounter with God in Genesis 32, once again looking at the actual words that Moses used to describe the scene. The text specifically calls this being with whom Jacob wrestles, God. So once again, Eusebius takes this direct identification as proof as to the identity of the man who appeared to Jacob.
Eusebius provides a few more examples, but first there may be some problems with Eusebius’ train of thought up to this point. Although Eusebius has made some ground from the arguments of Irenaeus and Tertullian, he may be taking some shortcuts as well. It is true that one should completely depend on the actual text of Scripture, taking it as utter truth and not doubting what it has to say. However, there are many times in Scripture where God speaks through others, such as the prophets, an argument that Augustine would deal with later. During these times, God speaks through the prophets and the text clearly states that the message is spoken by God or that God is the one who takes certain actions against His people. Although the prophets speak these words that are from God, they themselves are not the Lord, and no one makes the claim that men like Isaiah, Elijah, or Daniel are the Lord. Yet that seems to be what Eusebius is doing with the Genesis 19 and Genesis 32. Since the text claims that God is speaking or that God is acting in a certain way, he automatically assumes that this means that the angels mentioned earlier in each passage must be directly equated with the Lord. But could not these angels be delivering a message in a similar manner to the prophets later on in the Bible? Maybe Eusebius too is making too big of a jump with his claims. But these are not the only examples given by Eusebius.
He continues by looking at Exodus 3. Moses encounters the angel of the Lord in the burning bush, according to verse two. Yet as the passage progresses, the text identifies the man in the bush as God Himself. Eusebius takes this verse literally, stating that God is the one who is speaking with Moses, thus making a connection between God and the angel of this passage. He concludes his argument by looking at Joshua 5 where Joshua meets the commander of the Lord’s army. Eusebius focuses in on the parallels between Moses’ encounter at the bush with Joshua’s encounter at Jericho. Thus, Eusebius claims that this man to whom Joshua speaks can also be identified as the Lord. These two passages strengthen Eusebius’ argument. Unlike the Genesis passages, Exodus 3 actually identifies the being as the angel of the Lord, and this is the first time in which Eusebius deals with a passage that explicitly identifies the man as an angel. Furthermore, Eusebius uses his previous method of depending solely on the text in identifying the being. Since Exodus 3 later states that God is the one speaking to Moses, Eusebius draws the connection between the angel at the beginning of the passage with God. Then, by using Joshua 5 as a parallel, he concludes that God is the one speaking with Joshua as well. Although Eusebius does not explicitly parallel the “standing on holy ground” phrases, this phrase also seems to support his argument. Why would Moses and Joshua worship an angelic being in this manner? The only one who deserves worship is the Lord.
Although Eusebius initially appears to be taking a shortcut in his argument, he ends up making a more solid claim than that of Ireaneus or Tertullian. He searches Scripture for various examples and attempts to bridge some connections. He agrees with these two previous men in that the angel of the Lord can many times be identified as the Lord Himself, and he greatly appreciates Scripture, taking it for what it says. But this is still only one side of the argument. Others would soon arise, and Augustine would be the next one to offer his opinion on this controversial topic.
Sources for this post came directly from the works of Eusebius. Augustine is next, as well as Aquinas...
Matt
No comments:
Post a Comment