manoah & the Angel of the Lord

[Scrawly]

The Angel of the Lord in the OT is a great topic. One of my favorite encounters is with Manoah and his wife:

1)The connection between the angel of the Lord and the preincarnate appearance of the Messiah cannot be denied. Manoah meets the angel of the Lord, and declares that he has seen God. The angel accepts worship from Manoah and his wife as no mere angel, and refers to himself as "Wonderful," the same term applied to the coming deliverer in Isaiah 9:6 ( Jud 13:9-22 ). The functions of the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament prefigure the reconciling ministry of Jesus. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the angel of the Lord; the Messiah himself is this person.

Source: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dicti...-the-lord.html

2)

Source: http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.ca/201...l-of-lord.html

[Faber]

There are several references in the Old Testament where God appears as a man (to Abraham, Joshua, Gideon, etc.) Why does it have to be a pre-incarnate Jesus. Why can't it be just God?

[Bill the Cat]

There are several references in the Old Testament where God appears as a man (to Abraham, Joshua, Gideon, etc.) Why does it have to be a pre-incarnate Jesus. Why can't it be just God?

Because the pre-incarnate Jesus IS God.

[Obsidian]

God the Father stays in heaven. God the Holy Spirit goes forth, but works invisibly. God the Son goes forth, and is the image, also known as the Word of God.

[Faber]

Because the pre-incarnate Jesus IS God.

So are the Father and the Holy Spirit. According to Isaiah the Father has hands (Isaiah 64:8). I just don't see narrowing it down to one person of the trinity when the Bible doesn't specify one way or another.

[Sparko]

So are the Father and the Holy Spirit. According to Isaiah the Father has hands (Isaiah 64:8). I just don't see narrowing it down to one person of the trinity when the Bible doesn't specify one way or another.

Because Jesus said that nobody except him has ever seen the Father.

John 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

So the theophanies could not have been the Father.

[Obsidian]

Imo, the glowing man seen by Isaiah was the Father

[Bill the Cat]

Imo, the glowing man seen by Isaiah was the Father

Jesus said no one had ever seen the Father, did He not?

[JonathanL]

Imo, the glowing man seen by Isaiah was the Father

John seems to disagree with you:

Source: John 12:36b-43 ESV

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. 42 Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.

© Copyright Original Source

It seems from the context here that John was alleging that the one Isaiah saw and spoke of in Isaiah 6 was not the Father, but the Son.


John 6:46 (and also John 1:18) is also interesting:

Source: John 6:46 ESV

46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.

© Copyright Original Source

In other words, it seems to me that anyone who takes the NT seriously has to conclude that whenever anyone sees God in the OT it was always a pre-incarnate appearance of the Son, never of the Father.

[JonathanL]

So are the Father and the Holy Spirit. According to Isaiah the Father has hands (Isaiah 64:8). I just don't see narrowing it down to one person of the trinity when the Bible doesn't specify one way or another.

But the NT does say, in numerous places (mostly in the Gospel of John and his first letter) that no one has ever seen the Father, except the Son, and that it is impossible to see the Father except through the Son. In light of this it cannot have been anyone other than the Son who appeared to all these people in OT times.

[Obsidian]

It seems from the context here that John was alleging that the one Isaiah saw and spoke of in Isaiah 6 was not the Father, but the Son.

Hmm. Ok.

[Obsidian]

That definitely makes Revelation 4-5 a little more confusing.

[JonathanL]

That definitely makes Revelation 4-5 a little more confusing.

I think the one who sits on the throne in Revelation 4-5 is the Father. My guess is that having a vision of the Father isn't the same as actually seeing Him. I don't think the Father has ever taken a visible pre-incarnate form the same way that the Son has done.

[Obsidian]

Well if you think Isaiah 6 is describing the Word of God, then presumably Ezekiel 1 would be as well. And Ezekiel 1 is the same description as Revelation 4-5.

[JonathanL]

Well if you think Isaiah 6 is describing the Word of God, then presumably Ezekiel 1 would be as well. And Ezekiel 1 is the same description as Revelation 4-5.

I don't see why Ezekiel has to describe the Word of God simply because Isaiah 6 does. As I understand it actual appearances by God in the OT are always of the Son, while visions can be of any of the three Persons in the Trinity, or atleast that's how I understand the passages in the NT saying that no one has ever/cannot see the Father. We know that the vision Isaiah had of God in chapter 6 was of the Son because John explicitly tells us so, but AFAICT it's not explicitly stated anywhere in the OT or NT whether Ezekiel had a vision of the Father or of the Son, so it has to be ascertained in some other way, if there indeed is a way for us to know.

And it's not like the person sitting on the throne has to be the same in both instances, even if the setting is the same. Given that the throne stands for Gods universal dominion and sovereignty, I think it's safe to assume that the person sitting on it can be either the Father, or the Son, depending on what God wants to convey with the vision.