A Modern Look
Beginning with Genesis 16:7, Kenneth Matthews looks into the identity of the angel, offering several explanations. In this passage, he considers the fact that the text clearly states that the Lord speaks to Hagar on several occasions. Although it is the angel who appears to Hagar, the Lord Himself is said to speak to her. For this reason, Matthews suggests that there times, such as this passage, when the angel of the Lord must be equated with the Lord. In this instance, Matthews appears to be agreeing with Eusebius, who took the text for what it explicitly said. But Matthews also believes that there is a certain ambiguity in this passage. Although this instance appears to suggest that the Lord appeared to Hagar, other such passages are not as clear.
In Genesis 18-19, three men appear to Abraham, and Matthews believes that one of these must be God while the other two are angels, the angels who eventually go to destroy Sodom. Furthermore, he suggests that these three men represent a theophany. Once more, Matthews connects the angels and messengers of God to the Lord. This suggestion lines up with Luther’s thoughts on the topic. He too suggested that these three men were a representation of the Trinity, and just as Luther tended to lump these passages into two categories, Matthews might be seeing a distinction in these passages as well.
He moves on to Genesis 31, once more finding an ambiguous passage. Like Genesis 16:7, specifics are not stated. This passage begins in the same way by stating that it was the angel of the Lord that appeared to Jacob. However, as the passage progresses, it once again appears as if it is the Lord who is speaking and wrestling with Jacob. Matthews clearly states that although it is not explicitly stated, he believes that this must be God (suggesting another theophany). There are clearly some strong parallels in Genesis 16:7 and Genesis 31, and both passages tend to be unclear on the true identity of the angel. The question for Matthews is the same as it was for Eusebius. Is it adequate to assume the Lord’s identity solely on the fact that the text at times states that “the Lord says”? Or should Augustine’s suggestion that the angels could be viewed in the same light as the prophets who delivered God’s messages be considered?
Clearly Matthews’s research further complicates the discussion, yet he did make a few new suggestions, even tying in Eusebius and Luther into his argument. His idea that some of these instances could be a theophany is not unique to him. But as already seen, not everyone believes that these passages should be viewed as representations of God on earth. One such man of the modern era is Peter Enns. By tying his discussion into Exodus 3, he makes a claim that the angel of the Lord should not be equated with the Lord.
Enns looks at the meaning of the Hebrew word for angel, stating that it can also mean “messenger.” If that be the case, then these angels could also be viewed as a simple messenger sent from God down to earth to deliver a message. Much like Augustine, Enns believes that although these angels appear to be closely identified with the Lord, they should not be equated with Him. Therefore, he would deny the claims made by Matthews and suggest that just because the passage states that the Lord is speaking does not mean that the Lord is physically present in the form of an angel. In fact, in the Ancient Near East culture, lords and masters commonly sent messengers to speak for them. In the same way, the Lord could have sent His angels only for the sake of delivering a message. So when they spoke the Lord’s commands, they were speaking in a way very similar to that of the prophets.
But this terminology debate is not the only reason Enns gives for suggesting that the angel of the Lord should not be viewed as the Lord Himself. He also discusses the idea as to whether the angel is a representation of the pre-incarnate Christ. As already seen, many scholars have found it easy to equate the angel of the Lord with God. But there were also some who suggested that the angel of the Lord was actually an Old Testament example of Christ, much like the Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego story. But Enns denies this possibility stating that the angel of the Lord is actually a foreshadowing of Christ in the same ways that “Moses, the priesthood, and the sacrificial system” are. He agrees that a pre-incarnate Christ idea is a good theological point, but he is hesitant to suggest that Christ actually appeared in bodily form prior to His incarnation. Therefore, he concludes with the suggestion that it might all be foreshadowing.
Enns takes a huge step in understanding the angel of the Lord. He does not flat out deny the possibility that God cannot somehow be equated with the angel of the Lord, but he does want to make a distinction between the two. Yes, Scripture is ambiguous when it introduces the angel of the Lord and later suggests that it is God who is speaking, but Enns makes a good point in saying that these passages can be viewed in light of God speaking through the angel or messenger. Furthermore, he preserves the idea that in some sense these instances could point to Christ. Again, he is hesitant to equate the two directly, but he does suggest the possibility of foreshadowing.
Sources used in this section of the paper consist of commentaries written by Matthews and Enns. Next, we will look at the final two modern figures: Howard and Younger...
Matt
No comments:
Post a Comment