Isaiah 6:1-5 and John 12:41 - God the Father, the Son of God, or the Trinity (20th and 21st centuries commentators)

As promised in my previous post, I will now provide selections from modern-day commentators concerning the person Isaiah saw in his Isaiah 6:1ff. vision. The following list includes representatives from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed denominations:

Andreas Kostenberger (2004) -

In the wake of the two Isaianic quotes in 12:38 and 12:40, the evangelist concludes that “Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory” (cf. 8:56). In light of the preceding quotation of Isa. 6:10, some say that the background for the present statement is the call narrative in Isaiah 6.8. Yet though αὐτοῦ (autou, his) probably refers to Jesus, John does not actually say that Isaiah saw Jesus, but that he saw Jesus’ glory. Hence, it is not necessary to conclude that the evangelist believed that Isaiah saw “the pre-existent Christ” (Schnackenburg 1990: 2.416; cf. Talbert 1992: 180; D. M. Smith p 392 1999: 244) or that he saw Jesus “in some pre-incarnate fashion” (Carson 1991: 449). Rather, Isaiah foresaw that God was pleased with a suffering Servant who would be “raised and lifted up and highly exalted” (52:13), yet who was “pierced for our transgressions” and “bore the sins of many” (53:5, 12) (see esp. Evans 1987). Hence, Isaiah knew that God’s glory would be revealed through a suffering Messiah—something deemed impossible by the crowds (John 12:34). Like Abraham, Isaiah saw Jesus’ “day” (cf. John 8:56, 58). (John - Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 391, 392)

Herman Ridderbos (1997) -

...vs. 41: "This the prophet said because he saw his glory and spoke of him." "His" refers to Christ—it is "his glory" —as the concluding words of vs. 41 confirm: "spoke of him." The Evangelist does not mean that Isaiah already foresaw Jesus' (later) glory, but that the glory of God as the prophet foresaw it in his vision was no other than that which the Son of God had with the Father before the world was and that was to be manifested before the eyes of all in the incarnation of the Word (17:4; 1:14, 18). For that reason ("because") the prophetic judgment of hardening on account of the unbelief of the people was fully applicable to the rejection of Jesus by Israel, and even came to fulfillment therein. (The Gospel of John: translated by John Vriend, p. 445)

George R. Beasley-Murray (1987) -

The glory of God that Isaiah saw in his vision (Isa 6:1-4) is identified with the glory of the Logos-Son, in accordance with 1:18 and 17:5. (Word Biblical Commentary - John, p. 217)

F. F. Bruce (1983) -

For verse 41 suggests that the one who 'has blinded theie eyes and made their heart obtuse' is Jesus. It was of him, says John, that Isaiah spoke on this occasion, 'because he saw his glory'. The reference is to Isa. 6:1, where the prophet says 'I saw the Lord'. In the Aramaic Targum to the Prophets (the 'Targum Jonathan') this is paraphrased 'I saw the glory of the Lord'; and while the Targum as we have is much later than John's time, many of the interpretations it preserves were traditional, going back for many generations, 'The glory' or 'the glory of God' is a targumic circumlocution for the name of God, but John gives the word its full force and says that the Lord whose 'glory' Isaiah saw was Jesus: Isaiah, like Abraham before him, rejoiced to see the day of Christ (John 8:56), for like John and his fellow-disciples in the fulness of time, he too was permitted to behold his glory (cf. John 1:4). (The Gospel of John, p. 272)

Rudolf Schnackenburg (1979) -

12:41 In an explanatory commentary (cf. 7:39) the evangelist says how he intends the quotation, which comes from the vision in which Isaiah received his call, to be understood. Isaiah spoke as he did at the time because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. Even if it were possible to regard the seeing of the glory as still a reference to God (as some manuscripts wrongly do), the second part makes it certain that John means Jesus; this is the evangelist's unique, Christological view. Judaism had a tendency to reduce the (earthly) vision of God to the vision of his glory, for example in the Targum on Is 6:1 and 6:5. In other places John attacks the idea of any direct vision of God (cf. on 1:18; 5:37; 6:46), but there is no note of polemic in our passage. All the emphasis is on the αὐτοῦ, as the speaking περὶ αὐτοῦ confirms. John is probably taking for granted the Jewish interpretation that Isaiah saw God's glory, but he connects the δόξα emphatically with the glory of Jesus, which he possessed with the Father, according to 17:5, before the foundation of the world. In this case the implication is that the evangelist thinks the prophet saw the pre-existent Christ. This idea is a natural development of his Logos Christology. (The Gospel According St. John -Volume 2: translated by Cecily Hastings, Francis McDonagh, David Smith and Richard Foley, p. 416)

Raymond E. Brown (1966) -

Verse 41: Isaiah's vision of lesus' glory

If vs. 40 was a citation of Isa vi 10, this next verse recalls Isaiah's initial vision of the Lord upon a throne in vi 1-5. There are two things to note in John's reference. First, John seems to presuppose a text where Isaiah sees God's glory, but in both the MT and LXX of Isaiah it is said that Isaiah saw the Lord Himself. This has led many commentators to suggest that John is following the tradition of the Targum (or Aramaic translation) of Isaiah where in vi 1 Isaiah sees ''the glory of the Lord" and in vi 5 "the glory of the shekinah of the Lord." The possibility of John's use of Targums has already been discussed in relation to i 51 (p. 90) and vii 38 (p. 322), and the Johannine citation of a Targum for the Isaiah text may have been determined by the frequent stress in this Gospel that no one has ever seen God.

Second, John supposes that it was the glory of Jesus that Isaiah saw. This is not unlike the supposition in viii 56 that Abraham saw Jesus' day (see NOTE there). There are several possible ways to interpret this. If we accept the suggestion of a citation of a Targum, then the statement that Isaiah saw the shekinah of God may be interpreted in light of the theology of i 14 where Jesus is the skekinah of God (p. 33). The belief that Jesus was active in the events of the OT is attested in I Cor x 4, where Jesus is pictured as the rock which gave water to the Israelites in the desert (also Justin Apol. I 63 [PG 6:424], where Jesus appears to Moses in the burning bush). In later patristic interpretation Isaiah was thought to have hailed the three divine persons with his "Holy, holy, holy" (Isa vi 3), and Jesus was identified as one of the seraphs who appeared with Yahweh. Another possible interpretation of John xii 41 is that Isaiah looked into the future and saw the life and glory of Jesus. This is certainly the thought found in the vision section of the Ascension of Isaiah (this part of the apocryphon is of 2nd-century Christian derivation). Sir xlviii 24-25 says that through his powerful spirit Isaiah foresaw the future and foretold what should be until the end of time. (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John,  I-XII: The Anchor Bible - Volume 29, 1966/1983, pp. 486, 487) [Note: this selection added 08-13-25]

William Hendricksen (1954) -

But because (ὅτι is the best reading here) Isaiah, in the glorious vision recorded in the same chapter from which the quotation was taken (chapter 6, verses 1-5 the vision; verses 9 and 10 the quoted words), saw the glordy, the transcendent majesty (not restricted to but certainly including the moral quality of holiness) of the Lord Jesus Christ (in whom the glory of Jehovah reflects itself) and was conscious of the fact that he was speaking of him, he did not criticize or protest, but recorded faithfully what he had seen and heard. Yes, Isaiah had seen not only the suffering of the Servant of Jehovah (Is. 53:1-10a) but also his glory (Is. 6:1-5; 9:6, 7; 52:13-15; 53:10b-12). (The Gospel According to John - Volume II, p. 213) 

R. C. H. Lenski (1943) -

41) These things said Isaiah because he saw his glory and spoke concerning him. Some texts have: "when" he saw, etc. "These things" are the ones contained in the two quotations from Isaiah,. The prophet uttered them, not as applying only to the nation at his time, but as applying equally to the Jews of the time of Jesus. Isaiah "saw his glory," "I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and hi train filled the temple . . . Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts," Isa 6.1-5, preceding by a little the last quotation. This is the glory of the exalted Son after his return to the Father, the glory referred in v. 28. Isaiah beheld it before the Incarnation, John after, Isaiah beheld it in a heavenly vision, John beheld it in the words and deeds of Jesus, in the person and the character of the God-man on earth: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," 1:14. And Isaiah knew that this glorious Son would in the fulness of the appear on earth, to be rejected by the Jews, even as they rejected the Lord in Isaiah's own time (compare Isa. 53). It is thus that the prophet "spoke concerning him,' namely Jesus. (The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, p. 889, 890)

Grace and peace,

David

An interesting assessment of Justin Martyr's Christology

My continuing studies into Justin Martyr’s Christology are providing some interesting assessments. Note the following from the Reformed author, Harry R. Boer:

With the Apologists, Greek philosophy became associated with Christianity. The best known of them was Justin Martyr, a man from Samaria whose parents were Roman. He was a student and teacher of philosophy before his conversion. He remained a philosopher, regarding Christianity as the highest philosophy. He died a martyr for the faith between 163 and 167. Justin taught that before the creation of the world God was alone and that there was no Son. Within God, however, there was Reason, or Mind (Logos). When God desired to create the world, he needed an agent to do this for him. This necessity arose out of the Greek view that God cannot concern himself with matter. Therefore, he begot another divine being to create the world for him. This divine being was called the Logos or Son of God. He was called Son because he was born; he was called Logos because he was taken from the Reason or Mind of God. However, the Father does not lose anything when he gives independent existence to the Logos. The Logos that is taken out of him to become the Son is like a flame taken from a fire to make a new fire. The new fire does not lessen the older fire.

Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. The Apologists were subordinationists. (A Short History of the Early Church, p. 110 – Google Books link.)

Boer’s take on Justin’s Christology is an interesting one; it contains two important aspects that are rarely combined in the Christological evaluations of Justin's thought I have read. First, the preexistent Jesus Christ is created by God the Father, and as such is a “creature”. Second, this creative act by the Father is from Himself, and not ex nihilo.

Now, I suspect some folk are going to be quite eager to critique Boer’s assessment; but before doing so, I think it is very important to keep in mind that Justin on two occasions approvingly cites the LXX translation of Proverbs 8:22 which states that Wisdom was ‘created’ (ἔκτισέ), and then applies this verse to the preexistent Jesus Christ. (For the two quotations, see Dialogue With Trypho, chapters 61 and 129—both are provided in English and Greek in THIS THREAD.)

Back to my studies…

Grace and peace,

David

Recent dialogue with a Muslim apologist

Back on June 3, 2016 I got involved in a thread published by Paul Williams under the title, Catholic Truth Society fails to answer its own question.  My participation began with this post.

The next day, Paul Williams asked: "Where does Jesus say he is equal to God?" (link).

I responded with:

The Gospel of John is perhaps the most complex and deepest work in the NT. An important aspect of that complexity is the contrast between a number of passages which clearly speak of the subordination of the Son to the Father, with those which imply equality.

I then provided passages from the Gospel of John which illustrate the contrast mentioned above—i.e. subordination and equality—(link).

This led to Paul's subsequent denigration of the Gospel of John, invoking two liberal New Testament scholars (Raymond Brown and James Dunn)—and a couple days later, his own book, Jesus as Western Scholars See Him—for support.

The rest of this post will focus on the reliability of the Gospel of John. As I mentioned earlier, Paul brought into the discussion two liberal New Testament scholars: Dr./Fr. Raymond Brown and Dr. James Dunn. I published the following concerning Raymond Brown back on June 6 (correcting some typos):

Being a former Jehovah's Witness (4th generation) who utilized liberal scholarship to attack Christian orthodoxy, I am quite familiar with the works of such scholars as Brown, Collins, Dunn, Kung, Wiles, et al. The shelves of my library contain dozens of their books, which I began purchasing and reading back in the late-70s. For instance, I have Raymond E. Brown's The Birth of the Messiah, The Death of the Messiah (2 vols.), An Introduction to the New Testament, Gospel According to John (2 vols.), The Epistles of John, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind, Antioch & Rome,  Peter in the New Testament, The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Biblical Exegesis & Church Doctrine, Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible and Priest and Bishop. Unfortunately, I do not have his The Community of the Beloved Disciple, so I cannot comment its content. But, I suspect that there is little in this more popular work of his which does not appear in his larger works; as such, I am fairly confident that what I am about to share will not conflict with its content.

Dr. Brown was somewhat of an enigma; on the one hand, he fully embraced liberal Biblical scholarship (i.e. the historical-critical method), while on the other, he retained personal belief in many of the doctrines that most higher critical scholars reject (e.g. Trinity, bodily resurrection of Jesus, virgin birth of Jesus; as well as the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity and Assumption of Mary). As such, I rarely used Brown when I was a JW.

As for his higher-critical works on the New Testament, they are, to be brutally honest, in the end, based on highly subjective theories. What I find particularly interesting is that much of his higher-critical work has received formidable criticism/s from both conservative and liberal scholars. The breadth, depth and complexity of the higher-critical method/s is so massive, it would be folly to attempt delve into the topic in any detail within the confines of a combox. ( link)

Brown's acceptance of higher-criticism concerning the Bible did not affect his view of the Gospel of John as authoritative Scripture, his belief in the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity. Since Paul denies that the Gospel of John is Scripture, as well as the divinity of Jesus, and the doctrine of the Trinity, I shall let him deal with the why Dr. Brown continued to embrace these important doctrines.

Moving on to James Dunn, I shall start with what Paul published:

‘On the question of the historical value of John’s Gospel there is probably one of the biggest gulfs between New Testament scholarship and the ‘man in the pew’. In preaching and devotional Bible study the assumption is regularly made that all four Gospels are straightforward historical sources for information about what Jesus did or said. Whereas scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John’s Gospel reflects much more of the early churches’ understanding of Jesus than of Jesus’ own self-understanding. There is Christian interpretation in the other three Gospels, as we have seen, but in John’s gospel there is much more of it. Again, evangelical or apologetic assertions regarding the claims of Christ will often quote the claims made by Jesus himself (in the Gospel of John) with the alternatives posed, ‘Mad, bad or God’, without allowing that there may be a further alternative (viz. Christian claims about Jesus rather than Jesus’ claims about himself). Or again, ecumenical pronouncements will frequently cite Jesus’ prayer, ‘that they may all be one’ (John 17:21), without ever raising the question as to whether the prayer was formulated by Jesus himself or at a later date.’

‘How then are we to understand John’s Gospel? The issue here is obviously a peculiarly sensitive one. And the answer to it will have wide repercussions on our use of John’s Gospel at all these different levels (preaching, evangelism, etc). It is important therefore that the Christian community at large should recognize how scholars see John’s Gospel and why they see it that way. That is our task here.’

James DG Dunn The Evidence for Jesus pp. 31-32 (link)

As with Raymond Brown, James Dunn is an enigma to me, for like Brown he has retained the views that Scripture is authorative, as well as the full divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity. (See THIS INTERVIEW for his perspectives on these issues.)

Though Dunn himself claims that he has retained some important elements of 'orthodoxy', his numerous works have certainly given ample ammunition to those who have not done the same. For instance, I myself retained my 'Arian' (Homoian) theology for a good 4-5 years longer than I would have if I had not come under the influence of liberal theologians like James Dunn and Maurice Wiles. But I digress—time to get back to what Dunn wrote. I will be using his book—referenced by Paul—The Evidence for Jesus. After presenting, "three possible explanations for the rather striking contrasts between the Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel (p. 35), he summarizes that:

...the Jesus of John is not to be identified in a complete way with the Jesus who meets us in the Synoptics. The Jesus of John is also Jesus as he was increasingly seen to be, as the understanding of who Jesus was deepened through the decades of the first century. John's Gospel, we may say, is intended to present the truth about Jesus, but not by means of a strictly historical portrayal. The Synoptic Gospels, if you like, are more like a portrait of Jesus; John's Gospel is more like an impressionist painting of Jesus. Both present the real Jesus, but in different ways. (Page 43 - italics in the original; bold emphasis mine.)

He goes on to write:

Such utterances as "I am the light of the world' (John 8.12) and 'I and the Father are one' (John 10.30) bear testimony to John's experience of Jesus (during his life and since), Jesus' witness to himself through the Spirit, as John would no doubt want to claim (John 15.26; 16.12-15), rather than Jesus' witness to himself while on earth – the truth of Jesus in retrospect rather than as expressed by Jesus at the time.

But that is not the complete answer. For the same evidence shows that this teaching was not invented by John. It is rather an enlargement of an element which was already present in Jesus' teaching from the beginning. It was important for John that the Spirit was revealing to them 'many things' Jesus had not said to them while on earth, many things which glorified Jesus (John 16.12, 14). But it was also what Jesus had said while he was still with them (John 14.25-26). It is likely then that the expanded teaching of Jesus about his divine sonship is just that, expanded teaching of Jesus. Or to put it more precisely, it is likely that this element of Jesus' discourses too has firm roots in the earliest memory of what Jesus had said while with his first disciples. As in other cases the discourses seem to have grown round particular sayings of Jesus which we know of also from the Synoptics (p.38), so here Jesus' teaching on his divine sonship in John has probably grown round the memory of things Jesus actually did say on the subject. (Pages 44, 45.)

And a bit later, he states:

Although John's Gospel is a well developed portrayal of Jesus' claims to divine sonship, that claim is in fact rooted in Jesus' own ministry, and particularly in his prayer address to God as 'Abba', Jesus, we may say with confidence, thought of himself as God's son and encourages his disciples to share his own intimate relationship with God as his son. (Page 49.)

In the next chapter of the book, "Beliefs about the Resurrection", he includes a section titled: The very high estimate of Jesus which soon became established in Christian faith. From this section we read:

Here the data focuses on the striking fact that within a few years the first Christians  were speaking about Jesus in divine terms. The most outspoken testimony comes from John's Gospel. It begins by speaking of 'the Word' which/who was in the beginning with God and was God, through which/who 'all things were made' , and which/who became flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1.1-3, 14). The prologue to the Gospel ends by calling Jesus 'the only son', or 'the only-begotten God' (John 1.18); there are different readings in the Greek manuscripts, but the latter is more likely. In the same vein the Gospel reaches its climax in the adoring confession of Thomas, 'My Lord and my God!' (John 20.28). In addition we may simply recall the very high view of Jesus presented by John the Evangelist (above chapter 2). The probability that this is a developed view (chapter 2) is of no consequence here. It is the fact of such development within seventy years of Jesus' ministry which is so striking. (Page 61.)

So, despite the use of unproven higher-critical methods/theories, James Dunn still arrives at some very important conclusions shared by conservative New Testament scholars: first, the Gospels (including John) are authoritative; second, Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God; third, Jesus' claims about himself and his relationship to God, led his disciples to conclude that he was in a very real sense God.

With the above in mind, I would like to suggest to Paul that he rethink his use of James Dunn.

Grace and peace,

David

Jesus Christ, the Angel of Jehovah, and Michael the Archangel - part 3

Part 3 of this ongoing series will focus primarily on Dr. Douglas F. Kelly's contributions concerning "The angel of the Lord" (Jehovah) and "Theophanies", published in his Systematic Theology - Volume One (2008 - Google Books).

Dr. Kelly begins his section on the "angel of the Lord" at page 465:

The angel of the Lord

Angels in both Old and New Testaments are usually 'messengers of God', often, 'ministering to those who are heirs of salvation' (Heb. 1:14). They are created spirits who can at times appear in human form. But they can also be identified with God Himself. Such is the case with the angel who speaks to Hagar, promising, 'I will multiply thy seed exceedingly' (Gen. 16:7). The, after the angel leaves, Hagar 'called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me...' (v. 13). At the sacrifice of Isaac (which was divinely prevented), the angel of the LORD said to obedient Abraham: 'I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me' (Gen. 22:12). Not to withhold Isaac from the angel was not to withhold him from God Himself. Thus, theangel is identified with the Lord. Jacob in his strange night of wrestling with 'a man' Genesis 32:30 (who is termed 'angel' in Hosea 12:4) says: 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.' The 'angel of the Lord' speaks to Jacob in Genesis 33:10-31, and makes it clear that He is the same as 'the God of Bethel.' Moses met the angel of the Lord in the burning bush, which was the same as meeting the Lord (Exod. 3:2-6). After the people of God had entered the Promised Land, the angel of the Lord says: '... I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you into the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you' (Judg. 2:1). Malachi 3:1, identifies the messenger (or angel) of the covenant with God Himself: 'Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.'

As Herman Bavinck writes:

... the subject which speaks through the angel of Jehovah far surpasses a created angel. The church-fathers before Augustine were unanimous in explaining this Angel of Jehovah as a theophany of the Logos...So much is clear: that in the Mal'akh Yhwh who is pre-eminently worthy of that name, God (esp. his Word) is present in a very special sense. This is very evident from the fact that though distinct from Jehovah this Angel of Jehovah bears the same name, has the same power, effects the same deliverance, dispenses the same blessings, and is the object of the same adoration. [53]

Thus, the mysterious appearance of the angel of the Lord indicates a certain diversity within the one Being of God, for He is at the same time both distinct from God and also one with God. Such passages indicate that God's Being is not an impoverished monad. Instead, His Being has a rich inner diversity.

53. Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, translated by William Hendriksen (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1979 reprint), 257.

The OT passages quoted by Dr. Kelly, when reflected upon with the assessment from Dr. Bavinck in mind, seems to modify an absolute understanding that all the references to the 'Angel of Jehovah' have a created angel in mind (contra Augustine). 

Dr. Kelly immediately follows the above with his take on "Theophanies":

Some of the appearances of holy angels are traditionally called 'theophanies' (i.e. manifestations of God). 'In these theophanies we note that on occasions the A. V. or the LXX speak of an angel, and sometimes the angel. This is no discrepancy, of course, but merely two ways of translating the Hebrew construct state.' [54] Knight goes on to list fifteen theophanies. We have already discussed several of them (i.e. Gen. 16:7-14; 21:17-19; 22:11-18; 31:11-13; 32:4-12; Exod. 3:2-6; Judg. 2:1-5).

54. George F. Knight, A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity, 25.

Dr. Kelly then examines 9 more passages: Gen. 18:1-22; 19:1; 48:15-16; Exod. 14:19-22; Josh. 5:13-16; Judg. 6:11-24; 13:2-23; Zech. 1:12; and 3:6-10. (Page 466.)

He concludes this section with the following assessment:

Before the rise of biblical higher criticism, the Christian theological tradition, both East and West, Catholic and Protestant, generally understood the Old Testament theophanies to be pre-incarnate appearances of the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ Himself. The nineteenth-century Swiss Reformed scholar, Louis Gaussen, helpfully summarized much of the traditional interpretation on this point, as we see in Appendix II to this chapter. (Page 467.)

From the above mentioned appendix, we read:

Chapter Seven Appendix Two - The Traditional Christian Interpretation of Old Testament Theophanies as Pre-Incarnate Appearances of Christ (as summarized by Louis Gaussen) [From Louis Gaussen, Sermons par Gaussen, 1847.]

In the main part of Chapter 7 we considered some Old Testament passages that speak of the mysterious angel of the Lord, and undertood them to be intimations of the pre-incarnate Son of God. But more remains to be said about this foreshadowing of the Holy Trinity. Dr. Louis Gaussen has carefully explicated the appearances of the angel of the Lord in a relatively brief compass. (Page 479.)

Dr. Kelly then translates the germane portion from Gaussen's, "Gédéon devant l'Ange de l'Eternal" [from the French in, Sermons par Gaussen, 1847.]

In the selection provided by Dr. Kelly, Gaussen lists, "several very simple principles, by which we may grasp in a very precise and certain manner the right opinion on this important subject" (pp. 479-483). Of the five that he provides, the following is the first:

The first of these principles is nothing else than one fact; here it is: every time in the Holy Bible that we are faced with appearances of this mysterious Angel, whom the Holy Spirit calls 'the Angel of the Face' (Isa. 63:9); 'the Angel of the Covenant' (Mal. 3:1), or 'the Angel of the LORD God' or 'Angel of Jehovah', one understands Him to be attributing constantly all the most incommunicable names of the omnipotent God; and not only the names, but also His attributes and works; and not only His attributes, names, and works, but also the worship which everywhere God claims for Himself alone. (Pages 479, 480.)

The second principle, "is the principle of divine unity." The third, "will be only one assertion, which flows directly from the first two, and which is nearly the same as they are. Here it is: The Being who, in the Bible, attributes to Himself the names, the works. the characteristics, and even the worship of almightly God, cannot be a creature." (Page 481.)

The fourth, "which is no less questionable: THE ANGEL OF HIS FACE, who appears so often to the elect of God in the Old Testament, could not be God the Father." (Page 481.)

And the fifth:

It was the Angel of the LORD, O Christians, it was the same Saviour, the same Master, the Comforter, whom we are commissioned to proclaim in the flesh; and also it was therefore already He who was appearing before His incarnation, in preparation for His mission of incomprehensible abasement in which He would come down at a later time in order to save us. (Page 481.)

Gaussen provides additional commentary and Scriptural support for all five principals. At end of his translation, Dr. Kelley adds the following summary:

Most Old Testament scholars for the last century (even conservative ones) have been considerably more restrained in definitely identifying all appearances of the angel of the Lord as the pre-incarnate Christ. Even if Gaussen is at times overconfident in focusing the scope of all passages he quotes exclusively to the Second Person of the Trinity, still, I cannot see that he is essentially wrong either exegetically or theologically, in assuming that in most cases of theophanic appearances of the angel of the Lord, the pre-incarnate Christ is most likely referred to. Many Church Fathers, medieval scholastics, and sixteenth-century Reformers held to much the same understanding of the angel of the Lord, and I can find no compelling reason to part company with them on this point. (Page 483.)

The conviction held by the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Gaussen, Gill, Hengstenberg, Liddon, et al., that, "in most cases of theophanic appearances of the angel of the Lord, the pre-incarnate Christ is most likely referred to", is also my view;  and like Dr. Kelly, "I can find no compelling reason to part company with them on this point."

Grace and peace,

David

Jesus Christ, the Angel of Jehovah, and Michael the Archangel - part 2

The second installment of the 'Jesus Christ, the Angel of Jehovah, and Michael the Archangel' series, is coming later than I had originally anticipated, due to the fact that this area of study is much more complex and diverse than I had recalled. I suspect that it would take an entire book length treatment to do full justice to this genre; but with that said, it is my sincere hope that this continuing series will suffice, by providing selections from a number of conservative scholars whose views are quite close to mine. In this post, I am going to focus on the Anglican, Oxford scholar, Dr. H. P. Liddon's, 1866 Bampton Lectures, published in a number of editions under the title: The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ—more specifically his second lecture of the eight he delivered—wherein he explores the relationship between the 'Angel of the Lord' and Jesus Christ (links to various editions available online HERE). [NOTE: all selections provided below will be from the 1908 edition.]

The second lecture of Liddon's eight 1866 Bampton Lectures, was published under the title: ANTICIPATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, and comprises pages 45-98 in the 1908 edition. I have chosen Liddon's reflections on Christ in the OT as a foundation of sorts, and this because he articulates important presuppositions and principals that Christian exegetes need to consider when approaching the question as to whether or not Jesus should be equated with the 'Angel of Jehovah' in the OT. Dr. Liddon begins his second lecture by quoting Gal. 3:8, which is followed with:

IF we endeavour to discover how often, and by what modes of statement, such a doctrine as that of our Lord s Divinity is anticipated in the Old Testament, our conclusion will be materially affected by the belief which we entertain respecting the nature and the structure of Scripture itself. At first sight, and judged by an ordinary literary estimate, the Bible presents an appearance of being merely a large collection of heterogeneous writings. Historical records, ranging over many centuries, biographies, dialogues, anecdotes, catalogues of moral maxims, and accounts of social experiences, poetry, the most touchingly plaintive and the most buoyantly triumphant, predictions, exhortations, warnings, varying in style, in authorship, in date, in dialect, are thrown, as it seems, somewhat arbitrarily into a single volume. No stronger tie is supposed to have bound together materials so various and so ill-assorted, than the interested or the too credulous industry of some clerical caste in a distant antiquity, or at best than such uniformity in the general type of thought and feeling as may naturally be expected to characterize the literature of a nation or of a race. But beneath the differences of style, of language, and of method, which are undeniably prominent in the Sacred Books, and which appear so entirely to absorb the attention of a merely literary observer, a deeper insight will discover in Scripture such manifest unity of drift and purpose, both moral and intellectual, as to imply the continuous action of a Single Mind. To this unity Scripture itself bears witness, and no where more emphatically than in the text before us. Observe that St. Paul does not treat the Old Testament as being to him what Hesiod, for instance, became to the later Greek world. He does not regard it as a great repertorium or store house of quotations, which might he accidentally or fancifully employed to illustrate the events or the theories of a later age, and to which accordingly he had recourse for purposes of literary ornamentation. On the contrary, St. Paul's is the exact inverse of this point of view. According to St. Paul, the great doctrines and events of the Gospel dispensation were directly anticipated in the Old Testament. If the sense of the Old Testament became patent in the New, it was because the New Testament was already latent in the Old. Προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεὸς προευηγγελίσατο τῷ Ἀβραὰμ. Scripture is thus boldly identified with the Mind Which inspires it ; Scripture is a living Providence. The Promise to Abraham anticipates the work of the Apostle ; the earliest of the Books of Moses determines the argument of the Epistle to the Galatians. Such a position is only intelligible when placed in the light of a belief in the fundamental Unity of all Revelation, underlying, and strictly compatible with its superficial variety. (Pages 45, 46)

With the above, Dr. Liddon places before us the extremely important guiding principal that one must keep in mind when approaching Scripture: an organic, providential unity between the NT and OT with a "Single Mind" behind it all.

Dr. Liddon continues with the following:

And this true, internal Unity of Scripture, even when the exact canonical limits of Scripture were still unfixed, was a common article of belief to all Christian antiquity. It was common ground to the sub-apostolic and to the Nicene age ; to the East and to the West ; to the School of Antioch and to the School of Alexandria ; to mystical interpreters like St. Ambrose, and to literalists like St. Chrysostom ; to cold reasoners, such as Theodoret, and to fervid poets such as Ephrem the Syrian ; to those who, with Origen, conceded much to reason, and to those who, with St. Cyril or St. Leo, claimed much for faith. Nay, this belief in the organic oneness of Scripture was not merely shared by schools and writers of divergent tendencies within the Church ; it was shared by the Church herself with her most vehement heretical opponents. Between St. Athanasius and the Arians there was no question as to the relevancy of the reference in the book of Proverbs [8:22] to the pre-existent Person of our Lord, although there was a vital difference between them as to the true sense and force of that reference. Scripture was believed to contain an harmonious and integral body of Sacred Truth, and each part of that body was treated as being more or less directly, more or less ascertainably, in correspondence with the rest. This belief expressed itself in the world-wide practice of quoting from any one book of Scripture in illustration of the mind of any other book. Instead of illustrating the sense of each writer only from other passages in his own works, the existence of a sense common to all the Sacred Writers was recognised, and each writer was accordingly interpreted by the language of the others. (Pages 46, 47)

Dr. Liddon knew all too well that higher critical methods were making huge inroads into Anglican Biblical scholarship. He repeatedly, and consistently, maintained that Sacred Scripture cannot be placed on the same level of non-revelatory (i.e. non "God-breathed") literature. My continuing exploration into the "Angel of Jehovah" issue has revealed to me that those scholars who have abandoned, "an organic, providential unity between the NT and OT with a 'Single Mind' behind it all" view for higher critical methods are much more prone to reject any concrete connection between Jesus Christ and the "Angel of Jehovah".

With above in place, I will now move on to Dr. Liddon's reflections on what he terms, "The Theophanies", of the Old Testament.

Though Dr. Liddon clearly affirms his belief in "the doctrine of the Trinity", he makes some very important distinctions between the person termed Jehovah (in an absolute sense), and the person called the "Angel of Jehovah". On pages 52-53 we read:

From these adumbrations of Personal Distinctions within the Being of God, we pass naturally to consider that series of remarkable apparitions which are commonly known as the Theophanies, and which form so prominent a feature in the early history of the Old Testament Scriptures. When we are told that God spoke to our fallen parents in Paradise, and appeared to Abram in his ninety-ninth year e, there is no distinct intimation of the mode of the Divine manifestation. But when ' Jehovah appeared ' to the great Patriarch by the oak of Mamre, Abraham ' lift np his eyes and looked, and lo, Three Men stood by him.' Abraham bows himself to the ground ; he offers hospitality; he waits by his Visitors under the tree, and they eat. One of the Three is the spokesman : he appears to bear the Sacred Name Jehovah ; he is seemingly distinguished from the 'two angels' who went first to Sodom; he promises that the aged Sarah shall have a son, and that 'all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in Abraham.' With him Abraham intercedes for Sodom; by him judgment is afterwards executed upon the guilty city. When it is said that 'Jehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven",' a sharp distinction is established between a visible and an Invisible Person, each bearing the Most Holy Name. This distinction introduces us to the Mosaic and later representations of that very exalted and mysterious being, the  מלאך יהוה  or Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is certainly distinguished from Jehovah ; yet the names by which he is called, the powers which he assumes to wield, the honour which is paid to him, shew that in him there was at least a special Presence of God. (Bold emphasis mine.)

After citing and commenting on other OT Theophanies, Dr. Liddon then writes:

But you ask, Who was this Angel ? The Jewish interpreters vary in their explanations. The earliest Fathers answer with general unanimity that he was the Word or Son of God Himself. (Page 56.)

And on the next page, he continues with:

The Arian controversy led to a modification of that estimate of the Theophanies which had prevailed in the earlier Church. The earlier Church teachers had clearly distinguished, as Scripture distinguishes, between the Angel of the Lord, Himself, as they believed, Divine, and the Father. But the Arians endeavoured to widen this personal distinctness into a deeper difference, a difference of Natures. Appealing to the often-assigned ground of the belief respecting the Theophanies which had prevailed in the ante-Nicene Church, the Arians argued that the Son had been seen by the Patriarchs, while the Father had not been seen, and that an Invisible Nature was distinct from and higher than a nature which was cognizable by the senses. St. Augustine boldly faced this difficulty, and his great work on the Trinity gave the chief impulse to another current of interpretation in the Church...The general doctrine of this great teacher, that the Theophanies were not direct appearances of a Person in the Godhead, but Self-manifestation of God through a created being, had been hinted at by some earlier Fathers and was insisted on by contemporary and later writers of the highest authority. This explanation has since become the predominant although by no means the exclusive judgment of the Church ' ; and if it is not unaccompanied by considerable difficulties when we apply it to the sacred text, it certainly seems to relieve us of greater embarrassments than any which it creates.

But whether the ante-Nicene (so to term it) or the Augustinian line of interpretation be adopted with respect to the Theophanies, no sincere believer in the historical trustworthiness of Holy Scripture can mistake the importance of their relation to the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity. If the Theophanies were not, as has been pretended, mythical legends, the natural product of the Jewish mind at a particular stage of its development, but actual matter-of-fact occurrences in the history of ancient Israel, must we not see in them a deep Providential meaning ? Whether in them the Word or Son actually appeared, or whether God made a created angel the absolutely perfect exponent of His Thought and Will, do they not point in either case to a purpose in the Divine Mind which would only be realized when man had been admitted to a nearer and more palpable contact with God than was possible under the Patriarchal or Jewish dispensations ? (Pages 57-59.)

Dr. Liddon points out the fact that Augustine introduced, "another current of interpretation", and though his, "explanation has since become the predominant [view]", it is "by no means the exclusive judgment of the Church".

What I find interesting is that Dr. Liddon's own reflections on the Angel of Jehovah passages seems much more in line with the pre-Augustinian view (i.e. the ante-Nicene Church Fathers); and perhaps even more importantly, it is the the pre-Augustinian view that most post-Reformation conservative scholars embrace.

Shall end here for now, with the hope that I will have part 3 ready for next week.

Grace and peace,

David