BBI II-C #3 Yahweh’s Messenger & the Exodus

BBI II-C #3 Yahweh’s Messenger & the Exodus

Comments 18 comments

The same “Messenger of Yahweh” who confirmed the Covenant to Abraham, who was “the Mighty One of Jacob,” who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, was also with Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire and spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai. He then led Israel through the wilderness, at times punishing them severely for their rebellion, yet leading them to the Promised Land. He was the “ROCK” of Israel who Paul identified as “Christ” and Jude identified as “Jesus.”

03Download

Go to: BBI II-C #4 Hezekiah’s Deliverer & the Messiah

18 thoughts on “BBI II-C #3 Yahweh’s Messenger & the Exodus”

    1. The “Messenger” in Exod. 23:20-23 cannot be Moses because:

      1. Judges 2:1-4 Long after Moses’ death, Yahweh’s “Messenger” appeared to Israel and claimed to have been the one described in Exod. 23, having brought Israel out of Egypt to the Promised Land.

      2. Exod. 32:34 God was speaking to Moses, and said, “Now therefore, go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you. Behold, My Angel shall go before you. …”

      3. Exod. 33:1-2 Again God was speaking to Moses said, “Depart and go up from here, you and the people whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, … And I will send My Angel before you, …”

      4. Acts 7:30,35-38 Makes it clear that Moses was accompanied by “the Messenger of Yahweh” who appeared to Him in the burning bush and appeared to Him on Mt. Sinai.
      30 “And when forty years had passed, an Angel of the Lord appeared to him [Moses] in a flame of fire in a bush, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai. … 35 This Moses whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ is the one God sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush. 36 He brought them out, after he had shown wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. 37 This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear.’ 38 This [Moses] is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness WITH the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, …”

      5. Moses is never referred to as Yahweh’ “Messenger” (Heb. “malek,” Gk. “angelos”), but is always distinguished from him. Yahweh’s “Messenger” interacts with Moses and Israel in several passages.

      3. I will answer each of your objections here.
        1. You are simply assuming that “malak Yahweh” refers to some one specific personal entity that was sent by God. but this is a presupposition that cannot be substantiated from the text. You are also making the mistake of thinking that this malak is speaking about himself. When an author of scripture tells us that a malak Yahweh has been employed to speak or act then we know immediately that whatever this agent of Yahweh does or says he is not doing it of or for himself. The agent of Yahweh here is speaking Yahweh’s word, therefore the malak is not saying that he himself brought the people out of Egypt, but God is saying that he did so. Also there is not reason to assume this malak to be an angel instead of an unnamed prophet. The Targum says it was a prophet.

        2. I am no Hebrew scholar but after much research I don’t see why Ex. 32:34 could not be translated, “Now therefore go, lead the people according to that which I have spoken concerning you, ‘Behold, my malak will go before you.’ ”
        Taken this way God is telling Moses to lead the people just as He promised them when he said to them in Ex. 23:20 ” Behold I send my malak before you.”

        3. I understand this malak (agent) to be a swarm of hornets which God sent ahead of the Israelites which drove at least some of the inhabitants out of the land – see Ex. 23:27-28 and Joshua 24:12.

        4. I think you are misreading Acts 7. I see Stephen making a clear distinction between two different angels, “the one who appeared to him in the bush” and “the one who spoke to him on Mount Sinai.”

        5.Moses is referred to as a malak of Yahweh in Num. 20:14-16; compare with Ex. 3:7-10. The only time I am aware of that Moses is depicted as conversing with an amgel is Ex. 3, but again, he is not interacting with the angel as the angel, but as Yahweh, since it is Yahweh’s agent, speaking on Yahweh’s behalf.

        1. Troy,

          1. Most “messengers” of God do NOT speak as God (in the first person). I am not assuming that all references to a “Messenger of Yahweh” necessarily refer to the same person. Some “messengers” clearly distinguish themselves from Yahweh, never speak in the first person as Yahweh, nor do those who saw them ever claim to have “seen God.” They even sometimes give their name, such as Gabriel (Dan. 8:16; Dan. 9:20-23; Luke 1:19) and claim to have been “sent” by God with a particular message (Dan. 8:16; Dan. 9:22-23; Dan. 10:11; Luke 1:19).
          In contrast to this we have this very unique “Messenger of Yahweh” who speaks in the first-person as Yahweh, saying things like, “I am the God of your father Abraham …”, (as in the burning bush). Yet this “Messenger of Yahweh” also distinguishes Himself from Yahweh by speaking about Him in the third-person, yet about Himself in the first-person. A case in point is Gen. 22:12. “Now I know that you fear GOD since you did not withhold your only son from ME.” This “Messenger” also twice refused to give His own name when asked (Gen. 32:29; Judg. 13:17-18), claiming it was a “secret.” This “Messenger of Yahweh” is also found in passages that do not use that particular title, such as Isaiah 48:12-16. He was also the 4th man in the fiery furnace in Dan. 3 where He is called both “like the Son of God” (v. 25) and Yahweh’s “Messenger”(v. 28).

          2. Regarding Exod. 32:34, your interpretation cannot work because you are misidentifying and misstating the referents. In the context God was speaking to Moses, giving him a direct command. God said, “But now go, lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to YOU; behold, my Angel shall go before YOU. Nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit THEIR sin upon THEM.” (Exod. 32:34 ESV). The second-person singular pronouns (you) must refer to Moses, not to Israel, but the third-person plural pronouns (their/them) refer to all Israel. So, no, Yahweh’s “Messenger” who accompanied Moses cannot be Moses himself. He is the “Messenger” who appeared to Him in the burning bush according to Steven in Acts 7.

          3. The “hornets” are feminine plural but “My Messenger” is masculine singular. Also, note that “hornets” cannot do what God says “My Messenger” will do:
          20 “Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.
          21 “Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. 22 “But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 “For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off.
          So how are hornets going to bring Israel into the promised land? How are the Israelites going to “obey His voice”? And since when do hornets have the power to “pardon your transgressions?” There is also something else you are overlooking about the above passage that absolutely forbids vss. 20-23 being a reference to Moses. God said that this “Messenger” would not only go before Israel but would bring them into the promised land to the inheritance of the nations listed. But Moses did not go into the Land, Joshua did. So either God lied to Moses or else Moses was not the “Messenger.” Also, the “Messenger” of Yahweh who spoke in Judges 2:1-4 claimed to have fulfilled this very thing.

          4. I don’t think I am misreading Acts 7. The key statement is in vs. 35, “God sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush.” Note that it was by the same Messenger’s HAND, the one who appeared in the bush, that Moses was both a “ruler” and “deliverer” of Israel. The “hand” refers to powerful actions, not merely telling Him to go as in the burning bush. Isaiah 63:9 claims that God delivered Israel by “the Messenger of His PRESENCE (lit. Face).” This was clearly NOT Moses, because he was pleading with God to send His “PRESENCE” (Face) with him, otherwise not to send them at all. (Exod. 33:15). Also, where did Steven get the idea that Yahweh’s “Messenger” spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai (v. 38)? That is not recorded in the text of Exodus. However, Steven was familiar with Deut. 33:2 (LXX) “And he said, The Lord is come from Sina, and has appeared from Seir to us, and has hasted out of the mount of Pharan, with the ten thousands of Cades; on his right hand were his angels with him.” He was also familiar with Psalm 68:17-18 “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, Even thousands of thousands; The Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place. 18 You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive; You have received gifts among men, …” (Paul applied this passage to Christ – Eph. 4:7-10; see also Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). Steven concluded that the same “Messenger” who God told Moses would go before HIM also descended on Mt. Sinai and delivered the Law to Moses. There is a reason Paul referred to the “Rock” in the Song of Moses (Deut. 32) as “Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4; 2 Sam. 23:3). There is a reason Jude wrote: “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (ESV, NRSV, DRV, VULGATE).

          5. Moses was not the “Messenger” referenced in Num. 20:14-16. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. The “Messenger of Yahweh” who delivered them from Egypt is described in Exod. 14: “19 And the Angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud went from before them and stood behind them. 20 So it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel. Thus it was a cloud and darkness to the one, and it gave light by night to the other, so that the one did not come near the other all that night.” It was not Moses “who went before” them who “moved and went behind them” to block Pharaoh’s army. It was the same “Messenger of Yahweh” who spoke to Moses in the burning bush, and who accompanied Moses and Israel throughout the wilderness wanderings, who brought them into the Promised Land, and who powerfully aided Joshua in defeating Israel’s enemies (Josh. 5:13-15). This is the one who claimed to have brought Israel out of Egypt, through the wilderness, and conquered the Land (Judg. 2:1-4).

          Troy, I agree with you that the one eternal God is the Father alone. I agree that Jesus was 100% human, having no inherent divinity as a Man. But the error of Biblical Unitarianism is in denying the Son’s real origin out of God as “the Beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14), “the first-produced of all creation” (Col. 1:15) and that He was God’s personal Agent both BEFORE He “became flesh” (Jn. 1:14), “emptying Himself, … becoming in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7), and afterwards as a human (fulfilling the same role). There is a very good reason Jesus told the disciples “If you have seen Me you have seen the Father,” because this was precisely how Yahweh’s “Messenger” is portrayed in the OT. By denying Jesus’ temporal pre-human existence as “Wisdom” and Yahweh’s “Messenger” who used Yahweh’s name, you are truncating the NT teaching about who Jesus was and is. And this is quite detrimental to the pristine Christian Faith.

          1. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I do not think you have adequately rebutted my points, in fact you seem to have not understood me on some of them. You said that you are “not assuming that all references to a ‘Messenger of Yahweh’ necessarily refer to the same person.” But every passage I cite where the phrase “malak Yahweh’ appears or even just “my malak” you assume it to be a reference to this one specific entity, but on what grounds. It seems that you are simply reading your presupposition into the text. Who do you think Mal. 3:1 refers to when God says, “I will send my malak . . .?” Haggai 1:13 refers to Haggai as “malak Yahweh”. As for God’s agents, even human ones, speaking in the first person as Yahweh, this is axiomatic , as the prophetic writings prove. Even Moses himself did so in Deut. 11:15 and 29:6. It is clear to me that you are approaching these “malak Yahweh” passages with your presupposition as your guide in interpreting them, rather than just letting the most natural reading come forth.
            As for your point about the word ‘hornet’ being feminine and ‘malak’ being masculine, does this mean a women could have never fulfill the role of a messenger? This is merely a matter of grammatical gender and there is no reason why “the hornet” could not be referred to as God’s agent i.e. malak. Follow my logic – what the malak of Ex. 33:2 is sent to do is the same thing that the hornet of Ex. 23:28 (sing. in Heb = the hornet) and Josh. 24:12 (see also deut. 7:20) is sent to do, i.e. drive out the inhabitants. If the malak of 33: 2 is a divine being sent to drive out the inhabitants, why does God have to send the hornet also? Did the angel fail in his mission? The most natural reading is that they refer to the same thing. That hornets can be referred to as God’s agent should not be hard to accept since according to Ps. 104:4 God ” makes winds his agents and flame of fire his servants.”
            You seemed to have not understood my argument from Ex. 32:34. I know that God is speaking to Moses, I never denied that. Here is what I wrote in my article about this verse:

            “Here God is speaking to Moses, and not to the people, and he seems to be saying that a divine agent will go with him. But is this really what the text says? I want to offer an alternative translation of this verse that supports the proposal that Moses is the malak of Ex. 23:20. In the Hebrew text the word for “to” in the phrase “to the place” is el. This preposition denotes motion to or direction towards, and so the primary meaning of the word is to, unto, towards or into. But there are times when this preposition, as with all prepositions, has a meaning that goes beyond the primary meaning. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) includes within the semantic range of el such meanings as in regard to, concerning, on account of and according to. BDB also says this:

            There is a tendency in Hebrew . . . to use אֶל (el) in the sense of עַל (al); sometimes אֶל being used exceptionally in a phrase or construction which regularly, and in accordance with analogy, has עַל; sometimes, the two prepositions interchanging, apparently without discrimination, in the same or parallel sentences.

            Now the word עַל (al) has as one of it’s primary meanings according to. Since el and al are sometimes interchangable and el is sometimes used in the sense of al, then I would propose reading our text as if it read al instead of el in the phrase “to the place.” On top of this, there is no word in the Hebrew text which corresponds to the word “place“. The next word in the Hebrew text after el is asher, a relative pronoun meaning which, that which, what or who. So we can translate the first part of the verse as, “But now go, lead the people according to what (or that which) . . .” The next part of the verse can then be read “I have spoken concerning you (rather than to you).” The Hebrew for “to you” is lak, which is a lamed with a second person singular suffix. BDB says that “with verbs of speaking, commanding, hearing, etc.” lak can mean concerning, about3. Rashi, in his commentary on Gen. 28:15 says regarding lak, “[when] used after the verbal form of דבר [it is] used in the sense of ‘concerning’. This verse proves that this is so, since it cannot mean ‘I have spoken to thee’ as He had never spoken to Jacob before this occasion.” It is certainly the case in our text that lak follows after the common verb for speaking, dabar. So, when we put the two parts of the verse together we get:

            “But now go, lead the people according to that which I have spoken concerning you, ‘Behold, my angel shall go before you.’ “

            When read like this, God is quoting himself (from Ex. 23:23) to Moses telling him to lead the people to the land, for He had told the Israelites that he would send an agent, i.e. Moses, to lead them and keep them on the journey. This would be an explicit confirmation within the same book that the malak of Ex. 23:20 is indeed Moses. Now, someone may object that no English version translates Ex. 32:34 in this way. That is true. But I would answer that this is likely due to the almost universal acceptance of the misconception that God sent a divine agent to deliver the people from Egypt and to lead them to the land. As for those commentators who think Moses is the malak of Ex. 23:20, when they comment on Ex. 32:34, they simply direct the reader back to their comment on Ex. 23:20, which certainly implies that they think Ex. 32:34 is also about Moses, though they do not say anything about the possible translation I have offered. I would also note that in the text itself God is telling Moses to lead the people, so that task is clearly given to Moses, not to a divine agent.”

            As for Acts 7:35 the phrase “by the hand of” is an idom meaning “by the agency of”. It does not refer necessarily to “powerful actions”. Also the phrase does not refer to how Moses will be Israel’s deliverer and ruler, i.e by the hand of the angel Moses would be their deliver, rather the phrase refers to how God commissioned Moses, i.e. by the agency of the malak who appeared to him in the bush. The malak stood in for God and through this agent God commissioned Moses.
            What you said under #5 is all based on assumptions derived from your presupposition. None of what you said is necessitated by the text. There is no good reason why Num. 20:14-16 cannot refer to Moses, and in fact this is the most natural reading when you take into account Ex. 3:7-10. There is also no good reason to see the malak Yahweh in Judg. 2:1-4 as a celestial being rather than a human prophet. Prophets are clearly referred to as malakim in the scriptures – 2 Chron. 36:15-16; Haggai 1:13.
            I have always considered you a very good exegete, but it is painfully obvious to me that on this issue your presupposition is driving your exegesis, and I urge you to rethink your position.

  2. Troy,

    We all have theological presuppositions which color how we look at these passages as we attempt to understand them within the framework of our systematic theology. So please do not pretend that I am relying on presuppositions and you are not. I believe in a pre-human origin and existence of the Son of God since the beginning of creation. You deny this. So of course I look for evidence of His activity in the OT. On the other hand, since your theology cannot permit such an idea, you try to obliterate any such evidence, grasping for any thread with which you can weave an alternative explanation, even if it means plural “hornets” are God’s singular “messenger,” and even if it you have to rearrange the grammar so that God quotes himself. Let’s just be honest.

    My presupposition regarding preexistence is founded on several very clear NT passages, some of which I have discussed in great detail in previous videos, others will be discussed in upcoming videos. But even IF I completely set aside the idea that the Son of God existed since creation, and even if I was to concede for the sake of argument that He did not appear in the OT as a “Messenger” of Yahweh, I still would reach the same conclusion that the “Messenger” who appeared in the burning bush was also “My Messenger” whom God said He would send before Moses and Israel to bring them into the Promised Land. In fact, there really is NO reason for you NOT to acknowledge this could refer to the same “Messenger of Yahweh.” Even many of the ancient Jews acknowledged the “Two Powers” idea from these and other passages. Even the Jew Trypho had to admit to Justin Martyr that he had successfully shown that there is in the Hebrew Scriptures two distinct Persons who go by, and are referred to, by God’s personal name and the title “God.”

    I am convinced that the very same Messenger of Yahweh appears in Gen. 16:7-13; Gen. 22:11-18; Gen. 31:11-13; Gen. 48:16; Ex. 3:2-22, Ex. 23:20-23; Ex. 32:33-34, Ex. 33:1-3; Num. 22:22-35; Josh. 5:13-15, Judg. 2:1-4; Judg. 6:11-23; Judg. 13:3-23, 2 Kings 19:35; Isa. 37:36; Isa. 63:9. I realize that presenting evidence of this threatens your theology. But the fact is there is significant evidence which connects these incidents, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that proves or even suggests that any of them are mutually exclusive. This is especially true of the “Messenger” that God sent to bring Israel from Egypt to the Promised Land. This is because God Himself said at least twice that He was sending His (singular) Messenger before Moses’ own face, not merely before Israel (Exod. 32:34; Exod. 33:2), and the Messenger in Judg. 2:1-4 claimed to be that Messenger. Likewise, Isaiah 63:9 refers to the singular “Messenger of His Presence” who delivered Israel, as Isaiah’s inspired interpretation of Exod. 32:34 — 33:15.

    I am not going to go into why you are incorrect about the Hebrew grammar (of which neither of us are expert). But I am well versed in Greek grammar, and it is unassailable that in both Exod. 32:34 & Exod. 33:2 (LXX) that God promised to send His “Messenger” before Moses’ own face. In both verses God was speaking directly to Moses, not to Israel.

    In Exod. 32:34 the LXX has, κατάβηθι καὶ ὁδήγησον τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον εἰς τὸν τόπον ὃν εἶπά σοι ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄγγελός μου προπορεύεται πρὸ προσώπου σου; Lit. “You go and lead these people unto the place which I told you. Look! My Messenger goes ahead before your face.” Note that “face” is singular, and refers to Moses’ own face, as the genitive personal pronoun σου (your) is singular masculine. God was not quoting Himself (as you claim), nor was He saying that His “Messenger” was going before Israel.

    In Exod. 33:2 (again God speaking to Moses) the LXX has: καὶ συναποστελῶ τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου; Lit. “and I will send My Messenger before your face.” Again, “face” is singular, and the genitive personal pronoun σου (your) is singular masculine and can only refer to Moses. There is no way to make these passages say that Moses himself is “My Messenger.”

    These facts, being absolutely unassailable, it becomes quite obvious that “My Messenger” in Exod. 23:20-23 is the same “Messenger.” Beginning in Exod. 21:1, Moses was recording what God said to him personally. That is, Moses was quoting God’s words to him, commanding him to teach these things to the people. “And these are the ordinances which thou (Moses) shalt set before them (the people).” (Exod. 21:1 LXX). God’s addressing Moses directly continues through Exod. 23. So again, “My Messenger” in Exod. 23:20-23 is going before Moses’ face. God referred to His “Messenger” in the third-person singular, but Moses in the second-person singular.

    Your claim that even human “messengers” speak in the first person as if they were Yahweh is just not true. Either the grammar or the context makes it abundantly clear that the “messenger” in those cases is NOT Yahweh or being called “God” or “Yahweh” but is someone whom He has sent. For example, you cited Haggai 1:13 as an example of a human “messenger” speaking in the first person as if he were Yahweh. But you are comparing apples to oranges. Both the editorial remarks as well as the quote from Yahweh include statements clearly indicating that he was quoting Yahweh, not speaking his own words. “Then Haggai, the messenger of the LORD, spoke to the people with the LORD’s message, “I am with you, declares the LORD“ (Hag. 1:13 ESV). Conversely, Yahweh’s Messenger who appears in the Torah often speaks as if He was Yahweh Himself, He is called ‘Yahweh” and “God” in the narrative, and those who saw Him sometimes claimed to have seen God. That cannot be said of any human messengers of God, or even other heavenly messengers such as Gabriel.

    Next you cited Deut. 11:15 as proof that Moses spoke in the first person as Yahweh. While the 10th cent. AD Masoretic Text does indeed have a first-person singular verb (give), the LXX has the third-person future indicative singular verb δώσει. Again, in Deut. 29:5 which you cited we have the same situation, the clause “I am Yahweh your God” is translated in the LXX as οὗτος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν (“This is the Lord your God”). Moses did not claim to be God or ever speak in such a way that it appeared he was using God’s name as his own.

    Regarding Acts 7:35 and the clause “by the hand of …,” I think you are mistaken. The clause in Greek is σὺν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου (lit. “TOGETHER WITH the hand …” If this was a common idiom with the sense you claim, why does it not even occur once in the LXX or anywhere else in the entire NT? The preposition σὺν + dative object literally means “together with” as in two in company with one another.

    Here is Friberg Greek Lexicon’s entire definition of this very common preposition: “#25407 σὺν preposition with the dative with; (1) of persons, denoting a togetherness, often an inner agreement, fellowship, or harmony of experience (LU 8.51; AC 5.1; RO 16.14); as denoting close association; be with someone, follow, attend (MK 2.26; PH 1.23); (2) as combining things accompanied by, together with (MT 25.27); (3) as introducing a new factor to be reckoned in besides, in addition to (LU 24.21)”.

    It is noteworthy that Steven did NOT use the preposition διὰ + genitive object, which is the prepositional phrase that refers to agency. Instead Steven said that God sent Moses to be a ruler and deliverer TOGETHER WITH the hand of the Messenger who appeared in the bush. The prepositional phrase σὺν + dative object does NOT mean agency. It refers to accompaniment by another. Thus Moses was accompanied by the Angel’s had who spoke to him in the bush.

    This is all I have time to address today. I will try to get to you other points as time is available.

    Grace & Peace, Tim

    1. One other point I wanted to make but forgot. In your view Ex. 23:20; 32:34 and 33:2 are all referring to the same malak that God promised to send with Moses. Yet in 33:12 Moses says to God, “You have been telling me, ‘Lead these people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me.” How could Moses say such a thing to God? This is a serious flaw in your thesis that must be addressed. It is not a problem in my veiw for I take 23:20 and 32:34 to be referring to Moses himself and 33:2 to be referring to “the hornet” swarm that God would send to the land before the Israelites even get there.

      1. Troy,

        Actually, your above question shows your error. Moses’ question in Ex. 33:12 proves that he expected a “Messenger” to accompany him throughout the wilderness and to bring them into the Promised Land. The unresolved question in Moses’ mind was NOT “whether” God was sending a “messenger” to accompany him, but WHO this “messenger” was, what was His NAME!! Moses wanted to get to know Him as a PERSON, distinct from God. 12 Then Moses said to the LORD, “See, You say to me, ‘Bring up this people!’ But You Yourself have not let me know WHOM You will send with me. Moreover, You have said, ‘I have known you by name, and you have also found favor in My sight.‘” Moses wanted to know very specifically WHO this person was, by name, just as Moses was known by name. But this ought not surprise us, since again Paul declared that Christ was a “secret” (the hidden Wisdom), hidden from Israel. Likewise, when Jacob wrestled with the Messenger who changed his name from Jacob to Israel, Jacob also wanted to know His name, but He refused to give it. Again, when this “Messenger” appeared to Manoah and his wife, Manoah asked his name again, and the “Messenger of Yahweh” said that it was a “secret.” Finally, look at what follows in Ex. 33. God responded to Moses’ request by saying, “My Presence (lit. FACE) will go with you.” Isaiah then interpreted this as the one who accompanied Moses as “the Messenger of His Presence (FACE).” Again, this proves that the “Presence” (FACE) of God that accompanied Moses throughout the entire wilderness experience was the “MESSENGER” of Yahweh, not Yahweh Himself. It is the reason Jesus was called “the image of the invisible God.” And it is clear from Isaiah. 63:9 that this “Messenger of His Presence (FACE)” was the Agent through whom God interacted with Israel throughout the wilderness: “9 In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.” (Isa. 63:9 NASB 2020).

        You are trying too hard to force your theology onto the text, brother. It is better to set aside your theology, and allow the text modify your theology.

  3. Hi Tim,
    I want to thank you for your patience and for taking time to interact with me on this subject. I know you must be a very busy man and I do appreciate your interest. If at any time you have had enough just let me know, I won’t take offense.

    I could give responses to all the points you made in your last response but I want to narrow the focus to the Acts 7 passage. This is an important passage because it is the only NT passage which speaks about a specific OT appearance of “malak Yahweh”, so this is the only chance we get for the NT to throw light on what that phrase meant, at least to a 1st century Jews. I contend that this passage not only does not help your view but is decidely against it. The first obvious point of note is that Stephen does not anywhere in the passage make any equation between the angel(s) that spoke to Moses in the bush and on Sinai with the pre-incarnate son of God. And it must be said also that no NT author ever makes this connection. So the NT is completely silent on what you believe to be a key plank in your thesis that the “Angel of the LORD” is the pre-incarnate Messiah.
    In Acts 7:30 Stephen says that “AN angel appeared to [Moses] . . .” Note that the word angel is anarthrous. I have noticed that you give it the definite article in your LGV, but on what basis? When we come down to v. 35 again the word angel is anarthrous and should be translated as “This Moses . . . God commissioned as both ruler and deliverer through the agency of an angel, the one who appeared to him in the bush.” The point is that Stephen does not say “THE angel” as if the Jews believed in this one specific angel that was involved with Moses. Yes, later in v. 38 he uses the definite article for the word angel, but this seems to be for stylistic reasons (the congregation, the wilderness, the angel), and then he immediately specifies which angel, “the one speaking to him on Mount Sinai.” This sounds like a distinct angel from the one in v. 35. That these would be two different angels also fits better with Stephen’s statement in v. 53 that ANGELS, plural, were involved in the people receiving the law (see also Gal. 3:19 and Heb. 2:2).

    As for the phrase in v. 35, σὺν χειρὶ, I did some further research and what I discovered strengthens my position. First off, “by the hand of” is a Hebrew idiom (beyad) that appears many times in the Hebrew bible and simply means “by the agency of”. This can be ascertained by checking out any of the numerous instances of it’s use. Now typically, this is translated in the LXX as ἐν χειρὶ instead of σὺν χειρὶ, although I have found a few instances in the LXX where the Hebrew preposition ‘be’ is translated with the Greek word ‘sun’. Also, you may not be aware of the fact that the LSJ lexicon lists as one of the uses of ‘sun’:
    __A.7 of the instrument or means, with the help of, by means of.
    Not only this, but there seems to be a textual variant here for the Byzantine Majority Text and the Textus Rec. read ἐν χειρὶ instead of σὺν χειρὶ. Also the Hebrew Bible NT translates the phrase as “beyad”, i.e. “by the hand of”.
    All of this taken together, along with the fact that almost all English versions translate the phrase agentially, I maintain my position that the phrase is referring to how God commissioned Moses, i.e. through the agency of an angel, and that it is not referring to how Moses was to carry out his commission, i.e. with the hand of the angel.

    One other point. It seems to me that you think that “the Angel of Yahweh” aka the son of God, was the one who spoke to Moses on Mt Sinai. If I am wrong on this please correct me. But if that is your view then you would have this angel telling Moses in Ex. 23:20 that he would send his angel before him. But I thought you held that the angel that was being sent before him was the pre-incarnate son of God? Was the son of God telling Moses he would send the son of God to lead him to the land? You can’t have it both ways. Such a position is incoherent.

    This will suffice for now. Thanks again for your willingness to discuss this issue.

    1. Troy,

      I also appreciate the interaction, and especially the challenge to my points, which actually helps me to critically double check my conclusions.

      The Acts 7 passage is indeed important, but having very carefully examined the Greek, I strongly disagree with your characterization. I believe you are making some basic exegetical mistakes which I will outline.

      1. Of course Steven did not distinctly connect Yahweh’s Messenger who appeared to Moses in the bush with Jesus. Consider his audience! He was on trial for his life. The issue of “preexistence” was a “mystery” or “secret” hidden from Israel as Paul declared plainly in 1 Cor. 1-2 and other passages. His judge and jury were the very ones from whom this “secret” was withheld! Steven’s aim was to PROVE from Israel’s recorded history his concluding statement: 51 “You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. 52 “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, 53 “who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.” (Acts 7:51-53 NKJ). The mere fact that you are making this argument shows that you are making a basic exegetical error by not interpreting the text in its overall context. You are asking something of the text that is completely inappropriate in this setting! And if the text will not meet your unreasonable criteria, then it allegedly shows that you are correct. This is faulty reasoning. This is equivalent to saying that if preexistence is not clearly taught in the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke then it cannot be true. An argument from silence is considered weak at best. In this case, it is unimaginable that Steven would make such an argument in this situation regardless of whether or not He believed Jesus was that “Messenger.”

      2. Regarding the fact that Acts 7:30 has “an angel” (anarthrous) and in your view this is proof it was not a definite “angel” shows that you do not understand how Greek uses the article. You are making what is considered a beginner’s mistake in first-year Greek class, assuming that the Greek article acts like the English article. It does NOT. Greek does not have an indefinite article (a). The absence of the Greek article does NOT indicate the idea of the English indefinite article, that the noun is indefinite. Why does the “angel” (messenger) in vs. 38 have the article? The presence or absence of the article in vss. 30, 35, 38 actually argues for my position. The fact is, in Greek, whether a noun is definite or not is first determined by the context. What you will find in most cases is that the first mention of a particular person in a given passage with be anarthrous (without the article). However, if that person was intended to be definite, he will be clearly identified in the immediate context. If he is NOT clearly identified, then it should be assumed that he is indefinite and the indefinite article (a) should be supplied in English. However, once identified and determined to be definite, thereafter mention of that person in the same context will usually have the article (which means something like — that one previously mentioned). This is ESPECIALLY true if the speaker or writer intends to make sure that the audience connects that person with the previously mentioned one. Exactly how to handle the Greek article or absence of it comes from a lot of practice in translating. In Acts 7:30 the “angel” is absolutely DEFINITE because He is identified as the one who appeared in the bush. THAT is what makes this “angel” definite, and is why in English translation the definite article is needed in order to distinguish from the English indefinite. (The use of the article DOES NOT identify the person with someone in a different context, nor does the absence of the article require a different person from someone in a different context). The same is true in vs. 35 where he is again identified as “angel” who appeared in the bush, thus definite, and thus the same “messenger” as in vs. 30. However, in vs. 38 Steven was careful to include the article this time BECAUSE he intended to make the connection to the previously mentioned “angel” (in the bush), and because there is no other contextual indicators with which to identify this “angel.” This is very important because the Exodus account does not speak of any specific single “angel” (messenger) who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai, although it does indicate that “angels” (plural) were present. It does however distinguish the one who spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai from Yahweh Himself (albeit not calling Him Yahweh’s “Messenger” but using the name “Yahweh” as the Messenger does in other passages). “5 Now the LORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD (Exod. 34:5 NKJ).

      3. In vs. 35 The clause σὺν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου is literally “together with the hand of the messenger.” It is NOT “through the hand of the messenger” (agency) which in Greek would be διὰ χειρὶ ἀγγέλου or ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου (in hand of messenger). I agree with you that “through the hand of” in the OT was indeed a common expression of agency. But where you are mistaken is that Steven used this idiom. He absolutely did NOT. His statement in vs. 35 was σὺν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου, “together with the hand of the messenger. That this was Steven’s meaning is clear from vs. 38: “This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai” (NASB). The clause μετὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου (together with the angel) clearly means in the company of the messenger, as μετὰ + genitive object means accompaniment. Steven’s words in vss. 30,35,38 absolutely prove that the same “messenger” who appeared to him in the bush (v. 30) was also “SENT” with Moses (v. 35) and appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (v. 38). It is unfortunate that many translations get vs. 35 wrong by translating it “by the hand of the angel.” But the NASB gets it absolutely right. Here are all three verses from the NASB (2020) which corrects the mistake of previous versions.
      (NASB 2020) 30 “After forty years had passed, AN ANGEL APPEARED TO HIM IN THE WILDERNESS OF MOUNT Sinai, IN THE FLAME OF A BURNING THORN BUSH. … 35 “This Moses whom they disowned, saying, ‘WHO MADE YOU A RULER AND A JUDGE?’ is the one whom God sent to be both a ruler and a deliverer with the help of the angel who appeared to him in the thorn bush. … 38 “This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you.”

      4. You are misunderstanding what the “instrumental” sense of the preposition σὺν actually is. It still requires personal accompaniment even when used in the instrumental sense.

      5. Yes, I do claim that the “messenger” who spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai was the pre-human Son of God, the same one who spoke in the bush. But the point you raise regarding how this “Messenger” could tell Moses that He is sending a “Messenger” to go with him ignores the very point you that you made previously, that this “Messenger” often speaks for God in the first person! He was quoting God! It is as simple as that.

      Paul actually spoke of the “Messenger of Yahweh” in Gal. 3:19-20 (NKJV) “19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. In this instance the clause “by the hand of” is the Hebrew idiom you mentioned, using the preposition “en” (not “sun” as in Acts 7). Note that Paul’s use of “Mediator” here as the one through whom God gave the Law to Israel, and compare this to his statement in 1 Tim. 2:5 “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” The “Mediator” in Galatians 3 is not Moses but Christ.

  4. While I am also a believer in the Father as the only true God, I also hold to a preexistent Son, begotten before creation. But, my biggest objection to the preexistent Son being the Angel of the Lord was addressed by Mr. Salinger in his last post.

    There is utter silence by those inspired writers concerning Jesus having been the pre-incarnate angel of the Lord. Acts 7 would have been the perfect opportunity to preach this truth if it were so. Both the angel and Jesus are spoken of by Stephen, yet there is no connection of the latter to the former.

    While the post-Apostolic writings speak of such a connection, no author of the Biblical canon does so. As spoken of above, we all approach the Text with certain presuppositions, and mine is a preexistent, begotten Son of God. But even if it is true that Jesus was that angel in the OT, the connection is simply not made within the Scriptures themselves, and this would have been a most powerful testimony if someone had spoken to it in the Scriptures.

    Brother Tim Warner has been instrumental in my faith for many years, and I do not object to his teaching lightly. But for me, the extra-Biblical teaching of Jesus as the angel of the Lord seems to have developed similarly to the Trinity doctrine which we all reject. What I mean by this is that both connect certain dots found in Scritpure and conclude something never taught in Scritpure.

    My own presuppositions encourage me to connect these dots also, but for the same reason we reject Trinity, I cannot understand this.

    I appreciate the cordiality of the conversation and the dedication you both have presented in this study.

    Michael Smith
    Weirsdale FL

    1. Michael,

      I do not agree with your assessment that no NT Scripture connects the “Messenger of Yahweh” with Jesus. One of the critical teachings of both Paul and John was that God has never personally appeared to anyone in the OT Scriptures. John 1:18 adds that it was His “only-begotten Son” who made Him known (at any time). This not only places the Son in the OT, but it makes Him the primary conduit and mediator between God and the patriarchs, Moses, etc. It is not hard to find this “mediator” figure within the text of the OT. Further, Paul’s description of Jesus as “the image of the invisible God” (which again acknowledges that God did not appear to anyone), means that the visible person who appeared as “God” and “Yahweh” (His “image”) can be none other than His Son. Again, in 1 Cor. 10:4,9 Paul places Christ as the “Rock” of the Song of Moses (Deut. 32) who led Israel in the wilderness, and Jude 1:5 states that “Jesus” led Israel in the wilderness, and destroyed those who disobeyed (according to the oldest and best attested manuscripts). In the historical narratives, this was the “Messenger of Yahweh.”

      Then we also have Malachi’s prophecy that John the Baptist would come to announce “the Messenger of the Covenant” (Mal. 4:1). How would this title be understood by Jews who were familiar with the “Messenger of Yahweh” who was the mediator of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants? Sure, opponents will claim that this only refers to the New Covenant, but there is no good reason to reject that this title refers to the “Messenger” who swore the oath of the Abrahamic Covenant in Gen. 22, and who appeared to Moses in the bush and on Mt. Sinai, since these covenants were indeed delivered through the “Messenger of Yahweh” as the “Mediator.” Paul’s statement that “there is one God and one Mediator between God and man” also implies that the OT “Mediator” and the NT “Mediator” are the same person. Yes, I am aware that there are ways to get around this conclusion. But I really don’t care IF there are possible arguments against any particular point. I only care about finding a complete picture where all of the pieces fit with no contradictions.

      Then there is the book of Hebrews (which I have yet to cover in this series) which does indeed make this connection in the first chapter, but is missed because of biased translation. (Then we have “Melchizedek” presented who met Abraham but is himself said to remain alive with an unchangeable priesthood. I will be dealing with this topic also in this series).

      I agree that linking Jesus with this “Messenger” is not essential to the idea of preexistence. But the linkage is necessary to bring harmony between the OT and certain NT teaching that is very difficult to harmonize without it. So IMO it is a very important part of a systematic theology regarding God and His Son. Also, I think it is a serious mistake to assume that the New Testament contains all of the Apostolic teaching on the subject. It only contains a fraction of the Apostolic teaching, the bulk of it being oral and deposited with the elders of the local churches founded by the Apostles. The “Sola Scriptura” mentality is only partly correct as it completely ignores the testimony of the students of the Apostles. It is really hard to explain how the “Messenger of Yahweh” theology became so prevalent and thoroughly developed immediately after the death of John UNLESS it was part of the oral teaching of Paul and John.

      I know that Biblical Unitarians fight very hard against this teaching, but so do some Trinitarians. I also know that the argument pushed by Biblical Unitarians that no NT Scripture makes this direct claim seems to make pursuing this line of reasoning unproductive since it is not essential to “preexistence.” But from my perspective, understanding and teaching “the whole counsel of God,” and the “secret” that was concealed from Israel and only progressively revealed through the Apostles is my primary goal, not defeating Trinitarian or Unitarian arguments. They can believe and teach what they want.

      Grace & Peace, Tim

      1. Dear Tim,

        I appreciate your prompt response. After going through it, I find it necessary to clarify that my perspective does not involve denying the reference to Jesus in the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Corinthians 10:4). My primary concern revolves around the dogmatic assertion that the Angel of the Lord must unequivocally be identified as Jesus.

        I have a few points of interpretation that I’d like to discuss.

        Firstly, your insertion of the phrase “at any time” following your quote of John 1:18 caught my attention. While I acknowledge the Aorist tense of ἐξηγέομαι, I believe the interpretation of “τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο” should consider the Aorist’s nature, which doesn’t specify the start or end of an event but affirms its occurrence. Context becomes crucial in filling these temporal gaps. I perceive the declaration as occurring unquestionably during our Lord’s incarnate ministry, as presented throughout John’s Gospel.

        Secondly, regarding Jude 1:5, the evidence appears evenly balanced in both directions. You mentioned, “according to the oldest and best attested manuscripts.” However, among the Four Great Uncials, 2 (Vaticanus & Alexandrinus) have “Ἰησοῦς,” and 2 (Sinaiticus & Ephraemi Rescriptus) have “κύριος.” Vaticanus & Alexandrinus date to the 4th and 5th centuries, respectively, aligning with Sinaiticus & Ephraemi Rescriptus. While the “Ἰησοῦς” reading was more widespread, 2nd-century references by Clement of Alexandria and Justin indicate the corruption of this text predates the extant manuscript evidence.

        If we accept the ESV rendering, Jude asserts that JESUS delivered the people from Egypt, a claim seemingly assumed as common knowledge. Yet, scriptural accounts attribute the deliverance to Moses, the Lord God, and an Angel. When was it fully known that Jesus delivered a people from Egypt? This is my primary concern with the ESV reading, even beyond the manuscript variance.

        Thirdly, regarding your reference to “the Messenger of the Covenant (Mal.4.1 [sic]),” it’s worth noting that Malachi 3:1 (LXX) specifies “ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης,” emphasizing a singular “covenant.” Assuming three covenants would seem to violate the grammar.

        Lastly, your citation of 1 Timothy 2:5 implies Paul’s declaration of Jesus’ mediatorial role over both the Old and New Testaments. However, it’s noteworthy that you stopped your quote prematurely. The verse concludes with “the man Christ Jesus,” suggesting Paul is emphasizing Jesus as a human mediator, leaving little room for the assumption that Jesus mediated over both the Old and New Testaments.

        I value our shared desire for a consistent understanding of the truth. Your teachings over the past 17 years have been insightful, and I look forward to further exploration.

        Keep delving into the depths, brother Tim.

        Peace to you,
        Michael

        1. Michael,

          Thanks for the thoughtful reply and challenge. 🙂

          1. In Jn. 1:18, the clause Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε (no one has seen God at any time) uses the perfect tense of the verb (has seen) and adds the adverb “at any time,” which necessarily includes all time since creation. This is a universal statement which is reinforced in several other passages including John 5:37; Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Tim. 6:16; Heb. 11:27. While ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο (that one declared Him) uses the aorist tense, this is expected since the aorist is often used to summarize an activity even when that activity is NOT a single event but has occurred over vast periods of time. For example, “death reigned from Adam to Moses” (Rom. 5:14) uses the aorist and covers 2500 years! Or “and they reigned with Him a thousand years” (Rev. 20:4) also uses the aorist. Even your interpretation requires that the aorist includes at least 3.5 years and many events and statements during which Jesus made the Father known. So, this itself acknowledges the constative use of the aorist to sum up an activity in its totality. Wallace states that this usage is very common for the aorist (GGBB, p. 557) which he lists first of all the uses of the aorist, as the “Constative (Complexive, Punctiliar, Comprehensive, Global) Aorist.” Therefore, there is no distinction between summing up activity that took place over 3.5 years vs. activity which has occurred since Adam. Your grammatical argument using the aorist verb seems to be a distinction without a difference.

          I don’t think you are giving sufficient attention to the juxtaposition between the first and second statements in this verse. Since it is clear that “at any time” must include all time, the juxtaposition of the last statement was meant to answer what is left in question from the first statement. That is the aorist verb in “that one declared Him” should be viewed as a constative aorist within the contextual timeframe being juxtaposed, “at any time.” It would be amazing indeed if John made such a universal statement, that no one has EVER seen God, and then followed that up with the claim that Jesus had revealed Him for a miniscule 3.5 years! How does that relate to “EVER?” What about the rest of the 4 millennia from creation to Jesus’ time contained in the clause “at any time?” And why would John even mention the fact that no one has ever seen God if he merely wanted to mention that Jesus has made God known for 3.5 years? This leaves an elephant in the room; who was it that was “seen” and called “God” and “Yahweh” for the remainder of “at any time?”

          Also, if John’s Gospel was confined to only Jesus’ public ministry, then your point that 18b referred to that alone might be valid. But this is definitely not the case. Verse 18 is the concluding statement to the prologue in which Jesus’ pre-human existence (as Logos) and His activity before becoming flesh is clearly stated, including that “all things originated through Him,” (v. 3) and that“He was in the world, and the world originated through Him, and the world did not know Him.” (v. 10). It is a mistake IMO to try to interpret vs. 18 in light of Jesus’ public ministry which follows in John’s Gospel while isolating it from the prologue (to which it actually belongs) which includes both His pre-human activity, His transition to become flesh, and His disciples’ beholding His glory.

          2. Regarding Jude 1:5, it is not only the ESV and NRSV. The reading “Jesus” was concluded to be original by the latest and best textual critical process which does far more than tally up the number of ancient witnesses. It also strenuously analyzes textual families, geographical extent of various readings, and especially the likelihood of which reading led to the other. Not only is the reading “Jesus” the best attested in the oldest Greek copies, but also in the old Latin and the Vulgate which is why Nestle’s 28th and UBS 5th printed Greek texts have this reading. But regardless of the textual variant, even if we assume that “kurios” (Lord) was what Jude originally wrote, it still refers to Jesus in the context. 4 “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.” (NASB) It would be odd indeed if Jude referred to Jesus as “our ONLY Master and Lord (kurios)” and in the very next breath referred to the “Lord” expecting his readers to assume he meant the Father. Also, notice that Jude said he was reminding his readers of something that they once knew, which makes the importance of WHO He was speaking about critical, and implies that they might have lost sight of this fact, which IMO focusses the full weight of the verse on the identity of this person.

          I also think it is important to recognize Jude’s opening statement in which he referred to believers as “preserved in Christ Jesus” (v. 1) and his statement that the wicked imposters he was denouncing would be destroyed by that same Jesus Christ. “14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (ESV). This is clearly a reference to Jesus, which then makes his reference in vs. 5 to the Lord Jesus a natural one, the one who first delivered a people from Egypt, being the very one who afterwards destroyed those who rebelled. It was the “Messenger of Yahweh” who brought death to the Israelites who disobeyed, as Exod. 23:21 indicates, “Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression …” (ESV). Paul also indicated that Christ was the one who brought judgement on the rebellious Israelites, “9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer.” (1 Cor. 10:9-10 ESV).

          (I realize that there is room for speculation here regarding Jude’s intent. I am not offering Jude 1:5 as “proof” of preexistence, only demonstrating consistency for those with eyes to see. I do not expect this to be persuasive for those who deny preexistence since they will just appeal to the variant reading. But I like to put myself in the shoes of the original audience, and in the shoes of the writer, and try to follow the logical progression of ideas and the reasons for it).

          3. Regarding Mal. 3:1, I don’t see the singular “covenant” as a problem. The clause “Messenger of the Covenant” is a descriptive title, and refers to a role, not necessarily singling out a particular covenant. Note that “covenant” is singular in Nehemiah’s prayer (Neh. 1:5) and Daniel’s prayer (Dan. 9:4) in the statement, “God, who keeps His covenant and mercy with those who love Him.”. The intent of these statements is that God is faithful to each of His covenants, not singling out one particular covenant only. In Mal. 3:1, ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης (the angel of the covenant) could easily refer to the “Messenger of Yahweh” who appeared to Moses in the bush, who spoke to him on Mt. Sinai, and accompanied Israel through the wilderness. Note that the entire context of Malachi is about the LAW of Moses and the corruption of the Levitical priesthood. So if a singular covenant was intended, the most likely covenant which fits the context is the Mosaic Covenant, and its “Messenger” was “the Messenger of Yahweh” in Exodus. While some might wish to make this exclusively about the “New Covenant” prophesied in Jer. 31:31-34, there is nothing in that prophecy to imply a “messenger” would bring it. However, in Israel’s history there was indeed “the Messenger of the Covenant” who was well known from the Torah, and passages such as Judg. 2:1-4 and Isaiah 63:9.

          4. In 1 Tim. 2:5, the “one Mediator between God and man” is indeed called “the Man Christ Jesus.” But it was common to refer to someone by their current title or name, even when that title or name was given AFTER the events described. Do a search of “Abraham” in the NT, and you will find that he was always called “Abraham” and never “Abram” even when describing his activity before his name was changed. It is like saying “President Trump was born in New York.” We do not expect that he was “president” at the time of his birth. In the same way, referring to Jesus by his current title (Son of Man) or current condition (the Man Christ Jesus) in no way means He had to be human throughout His activity as “Mediator.” Consider Phil. 2:5 where Paul described the mindset that “was in Christ Jesus” when He was “in the form of God” before He “emptied Himself.” He was neither “Christ” nor was His name “Jesus” in the situation Paul described. Yet Paul called Him by His current human name even while describing His pre-human state and mindset.

          Also, consider the “one Mediator between God and Man” which Paul described in the following passage: Gal. 3:19-20 (NASB) “19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.” I know that Biblical Unitarians will claim that the “Mediator” in this passage was Moses, just as they claim that “Moses” was the “Angel of the Lord” in Exodus 23:20-23. The fact is, the “Mediator” in this passage was not Moses, but the “Angel of the Lord” (singular) mentioned by Steven in Acts 7:38. Paul clearly meant that this “Mediator” was a go-between for God and Israel, and Moses was a part of Israel not independent from Israel. Therefore this “Mediator” mediated between the “one God” and Israel (including Moses). Note His “mediatorial” role was in anticipation of the promised “Seed” of the Abrahamic Covenant (Christ, as Son of Man). Also in the next chapter Paul wrote: “you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.” (The indefinite article (an) was added by the translators). The two “even as” statements imply direct identification between Jesus and angel. Note the shared context in chs. 3-4 where Paul was still speaking about the Law. It really would be quite odd for Paul to refer to “one God“ and His “Mediator” in Gal. 3 when giving the Law on Mt. Sinai and then have a completely different “Mediator” in view in 1 Tim. 2:5 in the statement, “there is one God and ONE Mediator.”

          Also, please consider this: If the “one Mediator between God and man” is exclusively Jesus in His human state, who was “Mediator between God and Man” before Jesus became flesh? Did not mankind need a “Mediator” for the first four millennia? Don’t forget about that mysterious figure called “Melchisedek” who was “Priest of God Most High,” and “King of Righteousness,” and “King of Peace,” who Paul said was greater than Abraham and that he remains alive (Heb. 7:8).

          Grace & Peace, Tim
          PS. keep challenging me 🙂

  5. Tim,

    Troy said:

    It seems to me that you think that “the Angel of Yahweh” aka the son of God, was the one who spoke to Moses on Mt Sinai. If I am wrong on this please correct me. But if that is your view then you would have this angel telling Moses in Ex. 23:20 that he would send his angel before him. But I thought you held that the angel that was being sent before him was the pre-incarnate son of God? Was the son of God telling Moses he would send the son of God to lead him to the land? You can’t have it both ways. Such a position is incoherent.

    To which you replied:

    Yes, I do claim that the “messenger” who spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai was the pre-human Son of God, the same one who spoke in the bush. But the point you raise regarding how this “Messenger” could tell Moses that He is sending a “Messenger” to go with him ignores the very point you that you made previously, that this “Messenger” often speaks for God in the first person! He was quoting God! It is as simple as that.

    I have two questions and comments:
    1. How do you deduce that the Son is quoting the Father? I don’t see the evidence in Ex. 23:20 and following that informs your explanation.
    2. Why can it not be the case that both the Son and the Father spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai at various times, rather than only the Son? In places where the Angel speaks, it would be the Son, and in other places it would be the Father speaking. Therefore, in in Ex. 23:20 and following, the Father could be speaking to Moses about the Son (“My Angel”).

    1. Sam,

      The solution you offered very well may be the correct one. In fact, some of the ECFs claimed that when the “Spirit” spoke in the OT. it was sometimes from the person of the Father and other times from the person of the Son. But in my response to Troy I wanted to point out that his challenge actually is no challenge at all since he has already argued that Yahweh’s “Messenger” quotes Yahweh. Also, the NT clear teaching is that “no one has seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son … has declared Him,” (Jn. 1:18). However, the “face to face” description of Moses speaking with “God” seems to fit best IMO in light of Jn. 1:18.

      When examining all of the “Messenger of Yahweh” passages, one thing is glaringly obvious: It is very difficult to separate the words of Yahweh from the words of His Messenger, since the Messenger sometimes speaks as God in the first person and sometimes refers to God in the third person. One example is Gen. 22, “Now I know that you fear GOD since you did not withhold your only son from ME.” There are also passages where there are two persons called “Yahweh” such as Gen. 19:24.

Leave a Reply