Commander of Angelic Army

[Rushing Jaws]

[Scrawly]

I’m not a specialist in the OT. I’m open to any and all possibilities. If the evidence, textual or otherwise, favours:

• henotheism
• polydaemonism
• polytheism
• the recognition of a female consort for JHWH
• a mixture of the preceding at the same time in different parts of Israel/Judah
• strict monotheism throughout the history of the Chosen People (basically, the traditional Christian pre-critical approach)
• other solutions

- then I don’t exclude any of them on *a priori* grounds.

That's good. Some people reject a position a priori because it collides with their methodology and worldview. For example, some people utterly refuse the possibility that the Angel of the Lord could very well have been the pre-incarnate Christ because their philosophy and worldview precludes that possibility. Likewise, others absolutely reject the notion that Israelite religion was influenced by it's ANE neighbors because of prior theological commitments.

I think the *bene elohim* of Gen.6.1-4 were, for the author of the passage, lower-ranking deities, equivalent to, or the same beings as, the “sons of El” at Ugarit; and that the “god” of the Jabbok could have been a river-deity or *numen*, perhaps like Achelous or Skamander in Classical mythology.

Why couldn't the "sons of God" in Gen. 6:1-4 be a rank of angels?

If the “queen of heaven” in Jer. 7 & 44 was a goddess worshipped (officially or not) as the queen-consort of JHWH, a sort of Jewish Asherah or Ishtar, then I have no problem with that possibility.

Throughout the OT, the Israelite's were often involved in idolatrous practices, and those instances were recorded as such.

And the texts themselves have complicated histories, so those facts too must be respected. I don’t expect the texts to give a harmonious and uniform picture of OT theism

Why not?

if they give contradictory pictures of how God was thought of, I take that contradiction as part of the overall message of the OT as a whole.

What if those differing pictures of God are all part of his multifaceted being?

STM that the human reality of the texts is the way to beginning to see what they meant as inspired Scripture. If the kings of Judah gave a place to Baal and Asherah alongside JHWH, and if this was in later times regarded with disfavour by the authors of Kings & Chronicles and re-interpreted by them, as having been sinful, then fair enough.

I don't see the evidence from scripture that it was ever permissible to worship other gods; the fact that some Israelite's engaged in idolatry did not make it permissible.

I don’t think the traditional Christian strict monotheistic approach to the OT does justice to the OT as the pre-Christian, culturally alien, humanly varied thing it is. The *bene elohim* in Job 38 may seem to Christians to be angels - but is that how the author(s) of Job saw them ? The same applies to the seraphim of Isaiah 6, or to the cherubim. Or to the “commander of the host of JHWH” in Josh.5.

I still don't have sufficient reason to believe that these sons of God are anything other than various classes of angels. I have good reason to believe the angel of the Lord is something other than a created being however, and this aligns well with the one God's complex unity.

Baal-worship was seen as a threat during the regnal period. Conversely, the god of Israel is called “(El) Elyon”, “(God) Most High”, which, while by no means proof that other deities were taken to be serious competitors for Israel’s allegiance to him, is certainly consistent with the idea. The epithet could be an expression of something like transcendence, or, it may mean only that he was “a great king above all gods” - as is said in Ps.95.3. The assembly-scenes in 1 Kings 22 and Job 1 seem to express something different from strict monotheism.

Ps. 95:3 could be construed as henotheistic, but it's not a necessary interpretation. The spirit of 1Kings 22:21-22 seems to be a corrupt angel that God is sovereign over. Job 1:6-8 likewise seems to be a counsel of various ranking angels, and among them, Satan.

Of course, there is the detail that what counts as monotheism has varied through the ages: Trinitarian monotheism might well look like something less than monotheism from a Jewish POV.

For the Jews that reject Jesus, yes it would look different. However, for Messianic Jews, many of them regard the Trinity as properly Monotheistic. In fact, Jewish thinkers in the second temple period espoused a two powers in heaven doctrine or binitarianism precisely because of texts like Gen. 19:24:

Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven

It does not help matters that polytheism and monotheism can be seen as versions of each other.

This is usually the result of confusing Trinitarianism with Tritheism.

That makes sense, as the “commander” is a numinous, “unhuman” being. It does not show that the “commander” is God.

I think a better explanation is that the Angel of the Lord/the Commander functions as a member of the Triune Godhead.

Joshua’s action, like that of Moses, distinguishes the “sacred” area of the apparition from the “profane” area surrounding it. This distinction was part and parcel of ANE and Classical religion. It is why Muslims wash before handling the Koran, and why Catholics dip their fingers in water before entering church. It is why the sanctuary of a church is “set apart” from the rest of the interior. And why the Temple was divided into different areas, of increasing un-profaneness/sacredness, from the Court of the Gentiles, to the Most Holy Place. What Jesus does, is to be, among “profane”, actually sinful, mankind, not the Most Holy Place, but the even more sacred “Place” of God, of which the MHP is the earthly counterpart.

OK, but what we see the with Angel of the Lord is him issuing commands in his own authority and not a "thus says the Lord" authority. Indeed, the Angel of the Lord and Yahweh are simultaneously present yet separate from one another Ex. 3:1-4:

Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian; he led his flock beyond the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bushGod called to him out of the bush See also Jdg. 6:11-24.

For the same reason I don’t see Castor and Pollux at Lake Regillus as angels. The *stories* are, as stories, of the same kind: narratives, from whatever sources, of heavenly warriors fighting for the winning side. The motif by itself tells one nothing about either
(1) the “historicity” of the story
or
(2) the theological significance of the narrative.

My point was that in the context of Israelite religion, I see no reason to believe that other gods literally existed that could not be construed as angels or demons of some sort.

The comparison raises the possibility that, if God sent His angel to fight for the Chosen People, maybe He did likewise for the Romans. Maybe the story of Rome, from the Fall of Troy to the principate of Augustus, is as much a “sacred history” (albeit a non-Biblical one) as that of the Jews/Israelites. None of the empires of the past - or the present - could have grown as they did but for Divine Providence. This does not imply or require that they were virtuous; only that God had a purpose to work out through them. Including the Israelites/Jews.

This is interesting speculation.

IMHO that Christianises the OT too much. IMHO, the Trinity is not to be found anywhere in the OT; I think the Tri-Unity of God has to wait for the Person of Christ to be revealed, since He alone is a fully adequate Revelation of the Father. The Jews had enough trouble getting it into their heads that God was One & Unique & Incomparable - there were thousands of gods in the ANE, and no lack of Divine triads, dyads, quartets, and other groups of gods; not to mention hypostatised Divine attributes. Working out a Christian doctrine of the Trinity took centuries, even in a culture that was gradually putting the old gods aside. So there is a good *a priori* case against the idea that the Trinity was revealed or intimated in the OT, even before one gets down to the OT texts adduced in support of the idea.

I disagree. I think the complex unity of the Godhead is indeed found in the OT, including the Holy Spirit, see Isa. 63:10. Many Jewish believers in Christ agree.

The angel St Gabriel faithfully expresses the Divine purpose when he greets the BVM, but no-one thinks the angel is a Divine Person.

The angel Gabriel would not say what the Commander said when he received "worship" in Joshua did in 5:13-15. He would have rebuked him as the angel did in Rev. 22:9.

[Scrawly]

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

This rendering of Isa. 44:6 in the NRSV is a good illustration of plurality in the Divinity that we find throughout the OT.

[Scrawly]

I forgot to mention Gen. 16:7-14:

The angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wildernessThe angel of the Lord said to herThe angel of the Lord also said to herthe angel of the Lord said to herSo she named the Lord who spoke to herYou are El-roiHave I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him

The Angel of the Lord is a species of messenger? "THE LORD WHO SPOKE TO HER"; "THE LORD WHO SEES/El-ROI"; "SEEN GOD AND REMAINED ALIVE" -- do you think that the Apostle's would be OK with such pronouncements directed at them (Luke 10:16)?

[Faber]

So who do you say the commander of the army of the Lord is?

How should I know? The Bible doesn't say.

[Obsidian]

Or why not the Father appearing in human form?

He did - in Christ Jesus.

Err...that's not really correct.

[Cow Poke]

Err...that's not really correct.

Aside from the fact that you really mangled the quote, no - it's oversimplistic.

[Obsidian]

IMHO that Christianises the OT too much. IMHO, the Trinity is not to be found anywhere in the OT; I think the Tri-Unity of God has to wait for the Person of Christ to be revealed, since He alone is a fully adequate Revelation of the Father.

[Faber]

Doesn't the bible say that no one has seen the Father?

Jesus said to the religious leaders of His time (Jews, John 5:18) that they never heard His voice nor have seen his visible form (eidos, from which we get idolatry, the worship of idols) at any time.

John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 tell us that nobody has seen God at any time.

But we learn in Numbers 12:8 that God spoke to Moses and that Moses saw God face to face. Is that to mean he only saw what we nowadays refer to as an avatar? Or was this to be looked on as an exception to the basic rule of John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12? Or is this what you refer to as a Christophany? Or a theophany?

I'm not really looking for answers. Just taking the Word of God at face value.

[Cow Poke]

But we learn in Numbers 12:8 that God spoke to Moses and that Moses saw God face to face.

I looked that up in a whole bunch of translations, and it's frequently "mouth to mouth"...



I think the general consensus I've found is that the "face to face" there is an expression that means "as a close friend".

I'm not really looking for answers.

But you didn't actually expect not to get any?

Just taking the Word of God at face value.

[Sparko]

Jesus said to the religious leaders of His time (Jews, John 5:18) that they never heard His voice nor have seen his visible form (eidos, from which we get idolatry, the worship of idols) at any time.

John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 tell us that nobody has seen God at any time.

But we learn in Numbers 12:8 that God spoke to Moses and that Moses saw God face to face. Is that to mean he only saw what we nowadays refer to as an avatar? Or was this to be looked on as an exception to the basic rule of John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12? Or is this what you refer to as a Christophany? Or a theophany?

I'm not really looking for answers. Just taking the Word of God at face value.

When the NT uses "God" it is usually referring to the person of the Father. But in the OT, "God" referred to the Truine God, since there was no real distinction in the persons of the Trinity revealed at that time.

I think all theophanies in the OT were of the Son. Including when Moses saw God's back (PS Num 12 doesn't say he saw God face to face. God is saying he spoke to Moses mouth to mouth. When Moses asked to see God's face, he refused and let him see his glory in passing, or his back. I believe that was the Son he saw.

[Littlejoe]

I posted this in the Nobody-Dies-for-a-Lie thread when Shuny basically said there was no evidence from the O.T. that the Triune God was revealed.

Jews do claim a strict Monotheist view...but they obviously do not know their own Scriptures. Their are multiple places in the Old Testament Hebrew where the name used for God is plural. Virtually all Hebrew Scholars acknowledge that the word used many times for God in the Hebrew Scriptures, Elohim, is a plural noun. Genesis 1:26 for instance, "...let US make man in OUR They TheyThey

The speaker is Elohim (See verse 6)who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God.

Another example is Genesis 19:24 which reads:


Clearly we have YHVH number one raining fire and brimstone from a second YHVH who is in heaven, the first one being on earth.

And finally, we have examples of 3 personalities in one passage of Old Testament Scripture Isaiah 48:12 - 16: (pay attention to the last sentence that I bolded)

And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.

So, as we can clearly see, the speaker refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth...and it is abundantly clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it.

There is another passage in Isaiah 63:7 - 14 that also names the Trinity, but it's not as overt...

[NorrinRadd]

... He also doesn't refuse worship as other angels do in numerous occasions in the OT, and NT. ...

Would you be so kind as to cite one or two? I believe you are correct, but ATM I can't recall specific instances.

[Cerebrum123]

Would you be so kind as to cite one or two? I believe you are correct, but ATM I can't recall specific instances.

said to be inI brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. disobeyed me. Why have you done this? 3 And [b]

[NorrinRadd]

said to be inI brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. disobeyed me. Why have you done this? 3 And [b]

I meant cases where an angel *refuses* worship. The only one I can think of is Rev. 19:10.

Sorry for being unclear.