I submitted this paper for Christology (TH 851) at Bob Jones University on April 26, 2004.
Introduction
Christology is not exclusively a New Testament issue. The words “Jesus” and “Christ” never occur in the Old Testament, yet its pages are rich with revelation of His person and work. Christ is certainly not absent by way of prophecy and typology. He is the great eschatological theme all throughout the pages of the Old Testament.1 As the Messiah, He was the great expected Prophet, Priest, and King who would set everything right and perfectly mediate between God and man. The whole Old Testament ceremonial system typified His great atoning work. As important as these anticipatory matters are, however, Old Testament Christology is not limited to them. It is not exclusively prospective in nature, nor is it entirely a matter of hope and expectation. God manifested Himself in the person of Christ many times prior to the incarnation.2 Indeed, as Micah 5:2 records, Christ’s “goings forth (וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו)3 are from the olden days, from the days of long ago.” Although this has been a favorite Old Testament proof text for the eternality of Christ, it is likely that its point is not Christ’s eternal generation but His historic preincarnate ministry of punctuated self-manifestations.4 Christ indeed was actively involved throughout the history of God’s people in the Old Testament.
Part 1: Framework for the Christophanies
Before immediately looking at these “going forths” of Christ’s preincarnate ministry, it will be helpful to set the stage for these Christophanies. Christophanies are a mode of divine self-revelation, and it is under this category that one must understand them. It is also vital to delineate clearly the meaning of “theophany” and “Christophany” in order to know precisely what to look for. Finally, the larger issue of how the invisible and unseen God can appear to men deserves attention as well.
Christophanies as Revelation
The issue of Christophanies finds its place in theology under the larger category of revelation. God has revealed Himself and His will to men in a variety of ways. He reveals Himself through creation, providence, conscience, and His spoken, Living, and written Word. Generally, theologians have divided this revelation into two main categories: general revelation and special revelation.5
General Revelation
In general revelation,6 God communicates “himself to all persons at all times and in all places.”7 General or universal revelation bears its name because of its non-particular scope and its non-specific content.8 Nature, providence, and conscience are the vehicles of communication for this general revelation. Nature reveals the character of God (Ps. 19:1). His power and deity are clearly seen in the created order (Rom. 1:20). In addition to nature, God’s providential working throughout history displays His character.9 Man’s moral makeup also reveals something of God. All men know about God and His demands through their conscience (Rom. 1:19). God’s law is written on the heart of every individual by virtue of being in the image of God (Rom. 2:11–16).
Special Revelation
In addition to this general, universal revelation, God has also revealed Himself through special revelation.10 The former is primarily God’s action, while this latter mode of revelation is primarily God’s word. It is more specific in its content and generally more individualistic in its scope. Not all people are recipients of special revelation. This word was given directly from God through an audible voice, through dreams and visions, through person encounters with God (i.e., theophanies) and with His Son (Christophanies and the Incarnation), and through the Scripture. It was given indirectly through angels, prophets, and the apostles.
Theophanies and Christophanies Defined
After having established the general category for a discussion of theophanies and Christophanies, it is essential to define these terms clearly. Apart from the general meaning, definitions vary as to what exactly constitutes both a theophany and a Christophany.
Theophany
The word “theophany” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word θεοφάνια, which Liddell and Scott define as “a festival at Delphi, at which the statues of Apollo and other gods were shewn to the people.”11 It comes from the words θεός (“God”) and φαίνω (“to appear”). The meaning is simply “an appearance of God.” Nearly all theologians agree on this basic meaning. Beyond this, there is less consensus. For example, Walvoord suggests that the theophanies should be limited to the bodily “appearances of Christ in the Old Testament.”12 Other manifestations of God, such as the Shekinah glory cloud, should not be “considered as… formal theophan[ies].” So Walvoord divides theophanies between formal and non-formal, the forming being all the bodily form appearances and the latter being the non-bodily form appearances.
Others include all of these, suggesting that the theophany should be broad enough to encompass not only the appearances of God in human form, but also any visible manifestation of God. Borland argues that limiting “theophanies to a bodily form in the Old Testament seems to be an undue restriction placed upon the more general term.”13 R. B. Chisholm argues that theophanies not only include all actual, visible manifestations of God but also those that take place in visions and dreams.14 Defining a theophany as the manifestation of the presence of God in a real visible and often audible way is preferable. In addition to the bodily form appearances, a theophany would then encompass the pillar of cloud, pillar of fire, and the Shekinah glory cloud, but not dreams and visions.
Christophany
The Christophany is equally difficult to define. Are all theophanies Christophanies, or are Christophanies a subclass of theophanies? While any visible manifestation of God might be classified as a manifestation of Christ, this cannot be proven with any degree of certainty.15 The safer route is to regard the Christophanies as bodily form theophanies, leaving open the possibility that the other theophanies may be Christophanies as well.16 Perhaps Borland’s definition is the most precise. He defines them as “those unsought, intermittent and temporary, visible and audible manifestations of God the Son in human form, by which God communicated something to certain conscious human beings on earth prior to the birth of Jesus Christ.”17
The Problem of the Theophanies and Christophanies
Before analyzing the specific Christophanic encounters, the issue of the problem of theophanies needs to be delineated. Apart from the specific difficulties that appear in the individual passages in identifying all the speakers and actors, there is the more general problem of how God can appear to man in the first place. The issue of the God’s essence and visible form must come up in a discussion of theophanies. The difficulty is quite evident: How can an invisible God, who cannot be seen, appear in a visible form to man?
The Invisible God
There is an apparent tension here in the Scriptural data. Scripture is clear that God is spirit (Jn. 4:24). As such, He is invisible. Paul refers to Him as the “invisible God” (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17).18 The author of Hebrews likewise identifies God as “the invisible One” (Heb. 11:27). Since He is invisible, the apostle John could declare that no one has ever seen God (Jn. 1:18; 1 Jn. 4:12; cf. 4:20). Jesus also testified that no one has seen the Father (Jn. 6:46; cf. 5:37). Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 6:16 is perhaps the most explicit: God dwells in unapproachable light, and no one has or is able to see Him. No doubt the Lord’s statement to Moses, that no one can see Him and live (Ex. 33:20), had an influence on this New Testament teaching. The data is rather explicit. God is invisible, no one has ever seen Him, and no one can see Him.
The Visible God
This is not the whole matter, however. While Scripture does present God as invisible, it also unambiguously reports that men saw God. Scripture records a variety of accounts where God appeared to different individuals throughout history. The Lord appeared (נִרְאָה or וַיֵּרָא) to Abraham (Gen. 12:7; 17:1; 18:1), Isaac (Gen. 26:2, 24), Jacob (Gen. 35:9; 48:3), Moses (Ex. 3:2, 4, 16), Samuel (1 Sam. 3:21), Solomon (1 Ki. 3:5; 9:2; 2 Chr. 1:7; 7:12), and the nation Israel (Jer. 13:3).
These individuals testified that they had seen God, and Scripture does not correct their assessment of the encounter. For example, the Lord spoke to Hagar (Gen. 16:13), and Hagar saw God and did not die.19 Jacob wrestled with God and testified that he had seen Him face to face, yet his life was preserved (Gen. 32:30). Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, along with the seventy elders of Israel saw God, yet He did not kill them (Ex. 24:10–11). Micaiah (1 Ki. 22:19; cf. 2 Chr. 18:18) and well as Isaiah (Is. 6:1, 5) saw the Lord sitting on His throne. Isaiah thought that as a result he would be destroyed. Ezekiel had a similar experience in His vision of the Lord (Ezk. 1:26). Daniel saw the Ancient of Days on His throne (Dan. 7:9). Amos saw the Lord as well (Am. 9:1). The Scripture is unambiguous about these appearances. Whether the individual physically saw God or saw Him only in a dream or vision, the problem of the invisible God being seen still exists.
Finally, the Scriptures clearly identify Jesus as God, yet thousands of people saw Him. This may seem rather simplistic, but it does help in providing a solution to this dilemma. (1) Jesus and the writers of the New Testament said that no one has ever seen God. Paul, in harmony with Exodus 33:20, said that no one can see God. (2) The New Testament frequently identifies Christ as God (Jn. 1:1; 20:28; Rm. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 Jn. 5:20). (3) Clearly, though, thousands of people saw Christ. How can these three statements be harmonized? Either statement (1) is not true: it is really possible to see God; statement (2) is not true: Christ is not really God; or statement (3) is not true: nobody actually ever saw Christ. None of these statements, however, can be rejected. They are all true. Two possible solutions exist in more precisely defining the meaning of statements (1) and (2). The first possibility deals with the issue of whether the “God” of statement one refers to the same individual as the “God” of statement two. The second possible option concerns the mode in which God appears.
Resolving the Problem
How are these two seemingly contradictory truths to be harmonized? First, a closer analysis of the texts reveals some qualifiers for God’s invisibility. God is indeed invisible, but not in the sense that the English word is normally used.20 This is not a statement to the effect that God has no visible form. The word ἀόρατος may convey simply the idea of unseen.21 In other words, God is ἀόρατος, not because He has no visible form, but because He chooses not to let men see it. Frame, in arguing that “God is essentially invisible,” adds this qualification: “This means, not that he can never be seen under any circumstances, but rather that, as Lord, he sovereignly chooses when, where, and to whom to make himself visible.”22 With this in mind, it is best to think of God in terms of being unseen rather than “unseeable,” or to qualify that the reason He is unseeable is not because He has no visible form. The passages, then, that refer to God as invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27) should be understood in this way.
God as “spirit” is a similar issue. A spirit is immaterial. This, however, does not necessitate that a spirit has no visible appearance or form. The words of the apostles manifest that they believed a spirit could be seen (Lk. 24:37–39). When Jesus appeared to His disciples after His resurrection, the Scripture records that they “thought they were seeing a spirit (πνεῦμα).” Jesus assured them that He was not a spirit, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Jesus is teaching only that a spirit is immaterial. The disciples undoubtedly believe that a spirit may been seen.
Exodus 33:20 is an important text in this regard. Moses requested of God that He be able to see God’s glory (33:18). God responded that He would “cause His goodness to pass over his face” (אַעֲבִיר כָּל־טוּבִי עַל־פָּ), but that Moses was not able to see God’s face, for no one could see God and live. This text affirms the earlier conclusion that God is not invisible in the ontological sense, but only in the functional sense. He has a visible form, but He hides it from man. God said that Moses was not able to see His face (לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת־פָּנָי).
The problem, then, of how people could see God, is not an logical problem (i.e., How did people see a God who has no form?). Rather, it appears to be an ethical problem (i.e., How could people see God when He said that no one could see Him and live?). Is the reliability of God’s word in question? Though on the surface it appears that God went back on His word, in reality He did not. The precise wording of the text is: “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live.” The first clause uses a form of יכל and the infinitive לִרְאֹת. This clause emphasizes man’s incapability. This is not a promise of God but a statement of fact. The second clause uses an imperfect, probably as a modal. The LXX seems to understand it this way by using the subjunctive ἴδῃ. In light of the previous clause, it is best to take this modal in the same sense, emphasizing man’s inability to see God.23
A second consideration in resolving this tension is the precise wording of the passages. John 1:18 does say that no one has ever seen God (Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε), but the context suggests that Θεὸν here is a reference to the Father. Likewise, the statement in 1 John 4:12 (“No one has ever seen God”), in the context, refers to the Father (cf. 4:10). Jesus makes the same point in John 6:46. No one has seen the Father. This, however, does not mean that the Father cannot be seen, for Jesus “has seen the Father.” 1 Timothy 6:16 says that God dwells in unapproachable light and no one has ever seen Him and no one is able to see Him. First, the statement about God dwelling in unapproachable light is proof that God does have some visible presence. Second, the precise wording is “no one of men has seen Him” (ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων). The implication of this statement is that God has been seen, just not by men. Finally, that no one is able to see God is a statement not about God’s form but about man’s inability to see Him (cf. Ex. 33:20). In summary, then, God the Father has not been seen nor can He be seen by human beings, not because He does not have a visible appearance—for Jesus has seen Him—but because man is incapable of looking upon His appearance in its fullness and living.
What about all of the times in Scripture when individuals did see God? Men have handled these theophanies in several different ways. Some have suggested that it is the Father that cannot be seen, therefore, any appearance of God must be one of the other persons of the Godhead, namely, the Son. Walvoord, for example, sees all the theophanies as appearances of Christ. By doing this he is able to avoid the apparent contradiction that no one can see God (i.e., the Father), yet men clearly have seen God (i.e., Christ). Others have taken the route that God has indeed revealed Himself to men, but He has done so in a veiled fashion.24 A third option is to see the occasions where men saw God as exceptions to the general rule. John Frame seems to suggest this in his comments about those who “do see God without losing their lives.” He attributes it to “the grace of God, preserving life, though [they] forfeited the right to live.”25
While Walvoord’s option (i.e., distinguishing between the Father and the Son) has some merit, the evidence that he uses to establish it does not seem to be as strong as he would like to think. Christ may indeed be the one appearing in all the theophanies of the Old Testament, but to argue that based on the fact that the Father cannot be seen is exegetically faulty. Frame’s point seems to be exegetically viable, that God can graciously enable men to see Him without experiencing the natural consequence of death. Nothing in the texts prohibits this. Whether anyone actually saw God in His fullness, however, seems to be unlikely. The best option is the second, that God appeared to men, both as Father and as Son, in a veiled fashion. What men saw then was something less than the divine fullness of His real being.
Part 2: Analysis of the Christophanies
Now that a proper framework for thinking about Christophanies has been established—that Christophanies are a mode of God’s special revelation, that Christophanies are temporary, bodily form appearances of God, and that God reveals Himself visibly primarily in the person of His Son—the Christophanic encounters themselves will be analyzed as to the titles of the Christophanic Person, His form, and His activities.
The Titles of the Christophanic Person
The individual who appeared in bodily form throughout the Old Testament bears several different names and titles. The most common designation is “the Messenger of Yahweh” (מַלְאַך יְהוָה).26 A number of alternate expressions occur as well. He is also “the Messenger of God” (מַלְאַך הָאֱלֹהִים; מַלְאַך אֱלֹהִים).27 Other times He is simply “His Messenger” (מַלְאָכוֹ or מַלְאֲכֵהּ),28 “the Messenger” (הַמַּלְאָך),29 “My Messenger” (מַלְאָכִי),30 “the Messenger of His presence” (מַלְאַך פָּנָיו),31 and “the Messenger of the covenant (מַלְאַך הַבְּרִית).32
In addition to the messenger terminology, this individual is also identified as Yahweh (יהוה), as God (אֱלֹהִים), and as “the captain of the army of Yahweh” (שַׂר־צְבָא יְהוָה).33
The Messenger of Yahweh
Some have argued that the nature of this title calls into question that the Messenger of Yahweh is really a Christophany. This is based on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew term מַלְאָך, the word which most versions translate as “angel.”34 מַלְאָך occurs 213 times in the Old Testament, and it simply means “messenger.”35 It may refer to (1) humans who carry out the divine will,36 (2) to angelic beings,37 or (3) to God Himself.38 Based on an examination of the passages and the meaning of the English word “angel,” it is best to translate the expression מַלְאַך יְהוָה as “the Messenger of Yahweh.” It is not necessary to conclude, then, that the Messenger of Yahweh is a finite being. Barrett is right that מַלְאָך concerns “function or activity” rather than ontology when it “applies to the Christophany,” the Messenger of Yahweh.39
Other Designations
Some have tried to argue that the individual appearing in human form is merely representing the true and living God. This view does not stand up to a careful examination of the passages. Those who saw Him identified Him as God (Gen. 31:13; 32:30; Ex. 3:2, 4; Jdg. 13:21–22; Zech. 12:8) and as Yahweh (Gen. 16:13). He speaks as Yahweh (Gen. 22:11ff; Ex. 3:7; Jdg. 6:14). His actions are consistent with a claim to deity. He forgives sins (Zech. 3:1–4), makes covenants (Jdg. 2:1), redeems (Gen. 48:15–16), has power to give life (Gen. 16:13–14), accepts sacrifices (Jdg. 6:21–22), accepts worship (Jos. 5:14), and sanctifies the place where He dwells (Ex. 3:5). This one must have been God Himself.
The Form of the Christophanic Person
Part of the very definition of a Christophany relates to the form in which the Christophanic person appears. While Christ’s appearances are not necessarily limited to the bodily form theophanies, it seems best to deal with them in a separate category.40 In the biblical records of the Christophanic encounters, little is said of Christ’s physical appearance. Some passage do describe His appearance, but the information they provide is rather limited. Others simply say that He appeared or that an individual saw Him, without giving any information about what He looked like. Another set of passages does not describe His appearance or explicitly say that anyone saw Him. Rather, it uses language that is suggestive of a bodily appearance.
The nature of the bodily form of the Christophanic person must be handled with care. Christ was not united to real humanity prior to the historic incarnation.41 Neither did He temporarily unite Himself with a human nature before each encounter. The incarnation was the real and permanent uniting of Deity and humanity. It is clear from an examination of the passages, however, that the Christophanic person appeared to be a man. Beyond that, the Scriptural data does not go. The precise nature of His body is uncertain.42
Bodily Form
Only a handful of passages give clear indication of the form of the Christophanic person. He appears to be a man, is identified as a man, and performs the normal activities of a man.
Genesis 18:1–33
Genesis 18 is not an easy passage to interpret. An element of mystery pervades the language. Nevertheless, the best way to handle it is to see Yahweh as one of the three men who appeared to Abraham. The first indication of the Christophanic form is in verse 1: “Yahweh appeared” to Abraham. Another indication of their form is the identification of the individuals as שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים (“three men”; cf. vv. 2, 16, 22). The texts says that they had feet (v. 4), and Abraham identified them as being able to eat (vv. 5, 8). They also performed normal human tasks, such as standing (v. 2), speaking (vv. 5, 9–10, 13–15, 17–21), rising up (v. 16), looking (v. 16), going down (v. 21), and walking (vv. 16, 21–22, 33).
Genesis 32:24–32
This passage records Jacob’s wrestling match with God. The narrator identifies his opponent in verse 24 as a man (אִישׁ). This “man” refers to Himself as God in verse 28, and then Jacob testifies to having seen God face to face (v. 30).43 The language of the passage clearly portrays a human form. He wrestled (v. 24), spoke (vv. 26, 27, 28, 29), and touched (vv. 25, 32). Jacob’s actions toward Him were just as an encounter with a man would be.
Numbers 22:22–35
The Messenger of Yahweh appeared to Balaam as he was going to curse Israel. Although Balaam did not see the Messenger at first, the donkey did (vv. 23, 25, 27, 33). The Messenger stood in the way of the donkey so he could not go through (vv. 22, 24, 26, 31, 34). As He stood their, He had a sword in His hand (vv. 23, 31). The individual apparently had a normal bodily form.
Joshua 5:13–6:5
This individual identified Himself as the Captain of the Host of Yahweh (v. 14). The text says in verse 13 that He was a man (אִישׁ). He was standing with a sword in His hand (v. 13). By Joshua’s response, this individual apparently looked no different from a normal man.
Judges 6:11–23
The Messenger of Yahweh appeared (v. 12) to Gideon while he was threshing wheat. He sat down under a tree (v. 11). He carried a staff (v. 21). Gideon’s response to the Messenger does not appear to be anything out of the ordinary until the Messenger revealed His identity by burning up the meat and unleavened bread (v. 22).
Judges 13:3–23
The Messenger of Yahweh appeared to Manoah’s wife with a message about her coming son Samson (v. 3). She identified the Messenger as a “man of God” (vv. 6, 8) and as simply a “man” (אִישׁ; vv. 10, 11). Manoah did not recognize anything unusual about the Messenger. He assumed the man could eat and offered Him some food (v. 15). The text records that Manoah did not know that He was the Messenger of Yahweh (v. 16).
No Stated Form
The majority of the Christophanic encounters do not contain any clear indications of the form of the individual. In light of the preceding examples, it is probable that these appearances were human form theophanies as well.
Genesis 3:8–19
This passage recounts Adam and Eve’s encounter with God immediately after their sin. Verse 8 says that they “heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and… hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.” While it is difficult to be dogmatic, the most natural interpretation is that the language describes the Christophanic person walking in the garden. Adam and Eve heard Him coming and hid from Him. Some regard the phrase אֶת־קוֹל יְהוָה as referring to the voice of Yahweh, and the reference to walking is treated in a figurative fashion.44 Others argue that the phrase is just as easily translated “the sound of Yahweh” and that the term “walking,” being the Hithpael, must be literal walking.45
Genesis 12:1–7
Genesis 12 is the first recorded interaction between Yahweh and Abram. He spoke to him and commanded him to leave and go to a land to which He would direct him (vv. 1–3).46 Abram responded in obedience (vv. 4–6), and when he arrived in Shechem at the oaks of Moreh, the Lord appeared to him and promised the land of Canaan to him and his descendents (v. 7). While God could have conceivably appeared to him in a dream or vision, the text does not indicate that. Given the regularity of human form theophanies in the Pentateuch, the likelihood of Christ appearing to him is high.
Genesis 16:7–13
The Messenger of Yahweh appeared to Hagar after Sarah had sent her away (v. 6). He found her, spoke to her, and told her about the future of her son, Ishmael. Hagar called Yahweh אַתָּה אֵל \ראִי (“You are a God who sees”). She testifies to having seen Him (v. 13). That this was a human form theophany is probable, seeing that Hagar initially did not recognize anything unique about the Messenger. She saw Him, and His appearance probably did not differ from the average man.
1 Samuel 3:1–14
The young boy Samuel was sleeping in the temple, and the Lord called to him (v.4). Samuel replied and, thinking that it was Eli, ran to see what he wanted. Eli told Samuel that he had not called him, so Samuel went back to sleep. This happened twice more, until finally Eli realized that it was the Lord calling him. He instructed Samuel to reply to the Lord, “Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening” (v. 9). This time the text says, “The Lord came and stood and called as at other times” (v. 10). The language of coming and standing is strongly suggestive of a human form theophany. The phrase “as at other times” could be modifying all three verbs or just the previous verb וַיִּקְרָא. Since Samuel did not see the Lord the first three times, it is likely that He appeared only this final time.47
Speculative Possibilities
In addition to the passages where the Christophanic person’s form is described and those where it simply says that He appeared, there are passages that use language that is consistent with such an appearance but without any explicit reference to a form or to being seen.
Genesis 3:21
After Adam and Eve had sinned and God had given the punishments for their sin, He provided Adam and Eve with coats of skin and clothed them. If the preceding context is an example of a Christophany, then it would be most natural to see Christ physically present here as well. God could no doubt have done all these things without the aid of a human body, but the language seems quite appropriate for Christophanic activity. He made coats and clothed them. Christ possibly performed the first animal sacrifice.48
Exodus 4:24–26
This is the account of the Lord seeking to kill Moses. Moses had not had his son circumcised, and the Lord was angry with Moses for disobeying. The text says that Yahweh met or encountered (וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ) Moses and sought to kill him. This language may be figurative, but some have suggested that it most naturally lends itself to a Christophany.49
The Activity of the Christophanic Person
The Christophanic person performed a variety of functions. His primary activity was revealing God’s word to individuals (Gen. 16:11–12; 22:17; 31:13; 32:28; Ex. 3:2–6; Jdg. 13:3ff.; Zech. 1:9–6:5). He also brought comfort (Gen. 21:17; Jdg. 6:12, 23), was involved in intercession (Zech. 1:9ff; Job 33:23 [?]), administered divine punishment (Jdg. 2:1–5; 1 Chr. 21:12–30), effected destruction and judgment (2 Sam. 24:16; 2 Ki. 19:35; Ps 35:5, 6), granted protection and deliverance (Gen 48:15–16; Ex. 14:19–22; 23:20; 32:34; Ps. 34:7; Is. 63:9; Dan. 3:28; 6:22), and gave guidance and instruction (Gen. 16:9; 24: 7, 40; 31:11–13; Ex. 14:19; Ex. 23:23; Josh. 5:13–15; Jdg. 5:23; 1 Ki. 19:7; 2 Ki. 1:3, 15).
Part 3: Application of the Christophanies
Like the rest of the doctrines of Scripture, the doctrine of Christophanies does not exist for theological reasons alone. God intended it to accomplish His redemptive purposes for the believers in the Old and New Testaments.
The Purpose of the Christophanies
While the primary function of the Christophanies was to reveal specific truth about God and His will to individuals, they also played an important role “in preparing the way for the Incarnation.”50 Barrett suggests that they gave a foretaste of Christ’s prophetic, priestly, and kingly mission.51
Conclusion
It is God’s nature to reveal Himself. He has done so in a variety of ways. His personal appearances to men are probably the most personal form of revelation. Man enjoyed this continual personal communion with God before the fall, but sin broke the relationship and God’s appearances were sporadic and momentary. In Christ God dwelt with men for a longer period of time, but it is not until glory that believers will experience that eternal and unrestricted fellowship with God.
Appendix A: A Table of the Christophanies
I did not finish filling out the table. If only I had more time!
Passage
Title
Description
Activity
Recipient
Gen. 2:15–16, 22
Gen. 3:8
Gen. 3:9–19
Gen. 3:21
Gen. 4:9–15
Gen. 5:22
Gen. 6:12–21; 7:1–4; 8:15–17; 9:1–17
Gen. 12:1–3, 7
Gen. 13:14–17
Gen. 15:1–21
Gen. 16:7–13
Gen. 17:1–22
Gen. 18:1–33
Gen. 21:17
Gen. 22:1–2, 11–12, 15–18
Gen. 24:7, 40
Gen. 26:2, 24
Gen. 31:11–13
Gen. 32:20, 24–32 (Hos. 12:4)
Gen. 35:1, 9–13
Gen. 48:15–16
Ex. 3:2–10 (Acts. 7:30–35)
Ex. 4:24–26
Ex. 14:19
Ex. 13:21 (14:19)
Ex. 23:20–23 (33:2, 14)
Ex. 24:9–11
Ex. 32:34
Ex. 33:2
Ex. 33:18–23 (cf. 20)
Num. 12:8
Num. 20:16
Num. 22:22–35
Jos. 5:13–6:5
Judg. 2:1–4
Judg. 5:23
Judg. 6:11–24 (22)
Judg. 13:3–23 (22)
1 Sam. 3:10
2 Sam. 14:17–20
2 Sam. 19:27
2 Sam. 24:14–17 (1 Chr. 21:11–30 [15–16, 18])
1 Ki. 19:4–8
2 Ki. 1:3–4, 15 (2 Chr. 32:20; Is. 37:36)
2 Ki. 19:35
Ps. 34:7
Ps. 35:5–6
Ecc. 5:6
Is. 37:36
Is. 63:9
Dan. 3:28?
Dan. 6:22?
Zech. 1:8–21
Zech 2:3
Zech. 3:1–10
Zech. 4:1–7
Zech. 5:5–10
Zech. 6:4–5
Zech. 12:8
Appendix B: The Text of the Christophanies
I was working on a document with all the passages and the titles, descriptions, activities, etc. highlighted. I was not able to finish it.
Appendix C: Is Melchizedek a Christophany?
I ran out of time to write this.
Appendix D: Christophanies and the Trinity
I ran out of time to write this.
Appendix E: The Identity of the Messenger of Yahweh
I. The Data
A. The Messenger of Yahweh is God.52
1. He is identified as God.
a. The Messenger of Yahweh is identified as Elohim. Jacob wrestled with an unnamed man whom he identified as אֱלֹהִים saying, “I have seen Elohim face to face” (Gen. 32:30). Hosea identified this man as the Messenger of Yahweh (Hos. 12:4). The Messenger of Yahweh was in the burning bush (Ex. 3:2). When Yahweh saw Moses’ response, God called to Him from the bush (3:4). Zechariah said the house of David would be כֵּאלֹהִים, and then uses the phrase כְּמַלְאַך יְהוָה as an appositive to it, identifying the Messenger with Elohim (Zech. 12:8). See also Gen. 31:13; Jdg. 13:21–22.
b. The Messenger of Yahweh is identified as Yahweh. He speaks as Yahweh (22:11ff.; Ex. 3:7; Judg. 6:14). Others identify Him as Yahweh (Gen. 16:13).
2. He acts as God.
a. He forgives sins (Zech. 3:1–4).
b. He makes covenants (Jdg. 2:1).
c. He redeems (Gen. 48:15–16).
d. He had power to give life (Gen. 16:13–14).
e. He accepts sacrifices (Jdg. 6:21–22).
f. He accepts worship (Jos. 5:14).
g. He sanctifies the place where He dwells (Ex. 3:5).
B. The Messenger of Yahweh is distinct from Yahweh.
1. Yahweh speaks about the Messenger of Yahweh (Ex. 23:20, 23; 32:34).
2. Yahweh sends the Messenger of Yahweh (Jdg. 13:8, 9).
3. Yahweh speaks to the Messenger of Yahweh (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr. 21:27).
4. The Angel of Yahweh speaks about Yahweh (Gen. 16:11).
5. The Angel of Yahweh speaks to Yahweh (Zech. 1:12).
6. Others (Ex. 3:4)
II. The Views:
A. Finite Being
1. The Messenger may be a different angel for each encounter.53
2. The Messenger is always the same angel.54
B. Infinite Being
1. The Messenger is the Father (see ISBE, 125).
The problem with this view is that no man has ever seen the Father (Jn. 1:18; 6:46; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1 Jn. 4:12), since He is spirit (Jn. 4:24) and consequently invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17).
2. The Messenger is the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 8:26–29).
There is little exegetical basis for making a connection between the Spirit and the Messenger of Yahweh. This view also suffers from the same weakness of the previous view, although the Spirit was seen at Jesus’ baptism (Mt. 3:16; Mk. 1:10; Lk. 3:22; Jn. 1:32).
3. The Messenger is an unsubstantial manifestation of God.
This view fails to give adequate account for the personality of the Messenger. He is regarded as a person, speaks as a person, and is distinguished from the person of Yahweh.
4. The Messenger is the Logos—the second person of the Godhead.
This view seems to have the fewest problems, and gives adequate account for both the identification of the Messenger with Yahweh (i.e., the Triune God) and His distinction from Yahweh (i.e., the Father or Father and Spirit). The following evidence points to this conclusion: (1) Christ is the visible manifestation of God (Jn. 1:18); (2) the divine Messenger of Yahweh never appears after the incarnation; (3) both Christ and the Messenger are sent by the Father for similar purposes; (4) both perform the acts of and exercise the prerogatives of Deity; and (5) both the Father and the Spirit are invisible spirits.
Barrett, Michael P. V. “Christ in Person.” Beginning at Moses: A Guide to Finding Christ in the Old Testament, 145–63. Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald International, 1999.
Biederwolf, William Edward. The Visible God: The Nature of Christ, A Study in Theophany. Reading, PA: Boyer, n.d.
Blaze, John M., Jr. “The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament—Part I.” Conservative Theological Journal 1:3 (December 1997): 268–79.
Blaze, John M., Jr. “The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament—Part II.” Conservative Theological Journal 2:4 (March 1998): 65–89.
Borland, James A. Christ in the Old Testament: A Comprehensive Study of the Old Testament Appearances of Christ in Human Form. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.
Bush, George. Commentary on Exodus. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1993.
Cairns, Alan. “Theophany.” Dictionary of Theological Terms, 408–09. Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald International, 1998.
Chisholm, R. B., Jr. “Theophany.” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, 815–19. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. “The Preexistent Christ in Theophany.” Baker Topical Guide to the Bible, 69–71. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1991.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.
Finestone, Daniel G. “Is the Angel of Jehovah in the Old Testament the Lord Jesus Christ?” Bibliotheca Sacra 95:379 (July 1938): 372–77.
________. “Is the Angel of Yahweh the Lord Jesus Christ?” In Vital Christology Issues: Examining Contemporary and Classic Concerns, edited by Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997.
Van Groningen, Gerard. Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.
Goodspeed, C. “The Angel of Jehovah.” Bibliotheca Sacra 36 (1879): 593–615.
Hengstenberg, Ernst W. The Christology of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1956.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Knight, G. A. F. “Theophany.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 4:827–31. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.
Kuntz, John Kenneth. The Self-Revelation of God. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.
Longman, Tremper, III. Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001.
MacDonald, William Graham. “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord.’” In Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretations: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, 327. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
McComiskey, T. E. “Angel of the Lord.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 47–48. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984.
Moyer, J. C. “Theophany.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1087. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984.
Oehler, Gustav Friedrich. Theology of the Old Testament, translated by George E. Day. 1883; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.
Payne, J. Barton. The Theology of the Older Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.
Reymond, Robert L. Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New and Old Testament Witnesses. Fearn, Tain, Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2003.
Sawtelle, Henry A. “The Angel of Jehovah.” Bibliotheca Sacra and Biblical Expository 16 (1859): 805–35.
Van Diest, John W. “A Study of the Theophanies of the Old Testament.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966.
Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. 1948; reprint, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1996.
Walvoord, John F. “Series in Christology—Part 4: The Preincarnate Son of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra 104:416 (October 1947): 415–25.
Walvoord, John F. Jesus Christ Our Lord. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.
Wilson, J. M. “Angel.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1:124–27. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
Notes
1. Christ repeatedly spoke about how the Old Testament was ultimately about Him (Mt. 26:24; Lk. 18:31–34; 22:37; 24:25–27; 44–49; Jn. 5:46). See the following works for further discussion on Christ in the Old Testament: Michael P. V. Barrett, Beginning at Moses: A Guide to Finding Christ in the Old Testament (Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald, 1999); Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); Ernst W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1956). ↩
2. From a logical standpoint, it would seem odd if one of the members of the Trinity was inactive for thousands of years of human history while the Father and the Spirit frequently acted in the affairs of men. While by no means a conclusive argument, this fact is at least suggestive that Christ was also involved. John Blaze makes this point by posing the following questions: “Was the second person of the Godhead, the eternal Son of God, inactive in the Old Testament? Is it possible that the passages concerning this unique person [the Messenger of Yahweh] can reveal a specific identity and special ministry in the Old Testament that centers upon the preincarnate Christ?” “The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament—Part I,” Conservative Theological Journal, 1:3 (December 1997): 268. ↩
3. The Hebrew word וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו is the plural construct of מוֹצָאָה. Some have suggested that the word means “origin,” but it may be better to render it more literally. It is a verbal noun based on the verb יצא, which means “to go out.” It would then refer, not to His origin, but His periodic appearances on the stage of human history. This more adequately accounts for the fact that it is plural. Unfortunately, the other occurrences are of little help. It occurs elsewhere only in 2 Ki. 10:27 as the qere reading where it refers to a latrine. ↩
4. Michael Barrett comments: “The text says literally, ‘His exitings have been from before, from days of long ago.’ Though some have interpreted this as referring to the Son’s eternal generation, I suggest that it refers rather to those before-the-Incarnation instances when the eternal Son of God appeared visibly on earth to men” (147). Gustave Oehler also suggests that the best interpretation sees in these words that “the entire sacred history from its very beginnings (origins) contains the going forths of the Messiah, the preparatory elements of His coming.” Theology of the Old Testament, trans. George E. Day (1883; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), 526. ↩
5. John Frame argues for three forms of revelation: “(1) the illumination of the Holy Spirit, (2) God’s revelation in nature and history (that is, “natural revelation”), and (3) God’s revelation by word (that is, “special revelation”: direct utterance, the speaking of prophets and apostles, and the Scriptures).” The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), 212. It might be simplest to summarize these various forms of divine self-disclosure as revelation through God’s acts (general revelation) and revelation through God’s words (special revelation). ↩
6. For a discussion of general revelation, see Millard Erickson, “God’s Universal Revelation,” Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 177–99. ↩
7. Erickson, 178. ↩
8. Ibid. ↩
9. Erickson lists the following passages: Job 12:23; Ps. 47:7–8; 66:7; Is. 10:5–13; Dan. 2:21; Acts 17:26. The most significant example of God’s sovereign control of human history is the existence of the nation Israel. Erickson notices that this tiny “nation has survived over many centuries within a basically hostile environment, often in the face of severe opposition.” It is difficult for “anyone who investigates the historical records” to not “find a remarkable pattern” (179). ↩
10. For a discussion of special revelation, see Millard Erickson, “God’s Particular Revelation,” Christian Theology, 200–23; Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Colorado Springs: Victor Books, n.d.), 63–66. Ryrie lists ten different categories of special revelation. ↩
11. The Abridged Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon, BibleWorks 6. ↩
12. John F. Walvoord, “Series in Christology—Part 4: The Preincarnate Son of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 104:416 (October 1947), 415. ↩
13. James A. Borland, Christ in the Old Testament: A Comprehensive Study of the Old Testament Appearances of Christ in Human Form (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), 9. ↩
14. He explains: “Many times in biblical history God appeared in human form or revealed himself through the elements of nature. Sometimes he appeared to people when they were fully awake; at other times he revealed himself in a dream to someone asleep or in a trance. Such tangible instances of divine self-revelation are called theophanies.” “Theophany,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Glove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 816. ↩
15. Walvoord argues that even the non-formal, that is, non-bodily form theophanies “are all to be taken as appearances of Christ in the Old Testament.” He lists “the appearance of God to the elders of Israel” and “the cloudy pillar” as such examples. “Series in Christology—Part 4: The Preincarnate Son of God,” (418). Walvoord’s reason for concluding this is not exegetically or theologically necessary and will be discussed later. ↩
16. This seems to be the most common position among conservatives. Barrett defines a Christophany as “a particular kind of theophany: a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ in human form” (146). ↩
17. Borland, 10. ↩
18. The Greek word for invisible is ἀόρατος. It is a combination of the adjective ὁρατός, which comes from the verb ὁράω (“to see”), and the alpha privative. ↩
19. Although the Scriptures do not record the revelation of God to man that no one can see God and live until God communicated this to Moses (Ex. 33:20), those who did see God seem to have been aware of this truth. It is possible that this was the common speculation, but it is more likely that God had revealed this truth at some time prior to this. ↩
20. The normal meaning, “impossible to see,” seems to suggest to most that there is nothing there to see. Air, for example, is invisible. This is not a necessary implication of the word. The object may be impossible to see for another reason, i.e., the individual is physically incapable of seeing the object, though it does have a visible form. An atom, Jupiter, and certain kind of light all have visible form but are unseen from men because of inherent limitations. Accordingly, the word “invisible” may simply mean “not accessible to view; hidden.” The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd ed. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993), 715. ↩
21. The LXX uses ἀόρατος to translate מַטְמוֹן (“hidden treasure”) in Isaiah 45:3. Something that is ἀόρατος may just be out of sight or unseen for other reasons. The reason is not necessarily because there is nothing to see. ↩
22. Frame, 590. ↩
23. The problem is with man and his inability to behold to fullness of the divine splendor. It is the unveiled, unadulterated vision of the very form of God that no one could see and live. ↩
24. Borland acknowledges that when individuals saw God, it may be possible to see these as “exceptions to the general rule,” but the “true explanation” is that “what they beheld was naturally some physical manifestation of the invisible God and not the very essence of His being, which no mortal could ever behold” (100). ↩
25. Frame, 590. Frame adds, “Although God prescribes death to sinners who look upon him, he reserves the right to extend the grace of forgiveness.” ↩
26. This exact expression occurs 58 times. See Gen. 16:7, 9, 10, 11; 22:11, 15; Ex. 3:2; Num. 22:22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35; Jdg. 2:1, 4; 5:23; 6:11, 12, 21 (2), 22 (2); 13:3, 13, 15, 16 (2), 17, 18, 20, 21 (2); 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Ki. 19:7; 2 Ki. 1:3, 15; 19:35; 1 Chr. 21:12, 15, 16, 18, 30; Ps. 34:8; 35:5, 6; Is. 37:36; Hag. 1:13; Zech. 1:11, 12; 3:1, 5, 6; 12:8; Mal. 2:7. ↩
27. This expression occurs ten times. See Gen. 21:17; 31:11; Ex. 14:19; Jdg. 6:20; 13:6, 9; 1 Sam. 29:9; 2 Sam. 14:17, 20; 19:27. ↩
28. This expression occurs four times, twice in Hebrew (Gen. 24:7, 40) and twice in Aramaic (Dan. 3:28; 6:22). ↩
29. This expression occurs 17 times. See Gen. 48:16; 2 Sam. 24:16, 17; 1 Chr. 21:20; Zech. 1:9, 13, 14; 2:2, 7; 3:3; 4:1, 4, 5; 5:5, 10; 6:4, 5. In some of these passages, it is questionable whether the Messenger of Yahweh is in view. ↩
30. This expression occurs twice (Ex. 23:23; 32:34). The name Malachi is this same Hebrew form, which is not included, seeing that it is a man’s name (Mal. 1:1). ↩
31. This expression occurs once (Is. 63:9). Notice the connection between the Messenger and God’s presence in Ex. 33:2, 14. ↩
32. This expression occurs once as a prophecy of the incarnation of Christ (Mal. 3:1). If there is a connection between this Messenger and the Messenger of Yahweh, this seems to provide an important link in identifying the Messenger of Yahweh as the second person of the Trinity. ↩
33. This expression occurs only twice (Josh. 5:14, 15). ↩
34. Nearly every English translation (e.g., kjv, nkjv, nasb, niv, net, nlt, etc.) translates the phrase מַלְאַך יְהוָה as “angel of the Lord,” “the Lord’s angel,” or “angel of Jehovah.” The New American Bible and Young’s Literal Translation are exceptions, translating it “the Lord’s messenger” and “the messenger of Jehovah.” ↩
35. TWOT defines a מַלְאָך as one who (1) carries a message, (2) performs a commission, and (3) represents the sender. Andrew Bowling, “מַלְאָך.” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 1:464–65. ↩
36. See, e.g., 1 Sam. 23:27; 2 Sam. 11:19, 22f, 25; 15:13; 1 Ki. 19:2; 22:13; 2 Ki. 5:10; 6:32f; 9:18; 10:8; 2 Chr. 18:12; Job 1:14; Pro. 13:17; 17:11; 25:13; Ecc. 5:6; Is. 41:27; 42:19; Jer. 51:31; Ezk. 23:40; Hag. 1:13; Mal. 2:7; 3:1. ↩
37. See, e.g., Gen. 28:12; 32:2. ↩
38. See all the passages below where the מַלְאַך is identified as Yahweh. ↩
39. For a discussion of this point, see Barrett, 149. ↩
40. It is the appearances of God in bodily form that are almost certainly appearances of Christ. This conclusion comes from the fact that the theophanic person is both identified with and distinguished from Yahweh. This is not the case with the non-bodily form theophanies such as the Shekinah glory cloud. ↩
41. Barrett comments on this theme: “To deny that Christ came in the flesh is serious heresy (I John 4:2–3). To assert that He was a real man before the Incarnation is a serious error as well. For Christ to be man before He became man is logically inconsistent; furthermore, it would attribute eternity to essential humanity, a perfection that is true only of God” (147). The essence of Barrett’s comments is accurate, but the second objection is weak. For the second person of the Godhead to become man prior to the incarnation is no more an attribution of eternality to humanity than His becoming man by being born to the Virgin Mary. ↩
42. There are a few possibilities: (1) He took on a real human body (which is different from a real human nature), (2) He took on something akin to glorified human body, or (3) He only appeared to have a human body. ↩
43. Hosea 12:4 recounts this event and identifies the man as “the angel.” In verse 5, this angel is identified as Yahweh Himself. ↩
44. See John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 159–61. ↩
45. Borland, 84–85. ↩
46. Although the Genesis account does not record it, Stephen recounts this event in Acts 7:2–3 as an appearance of God saying, “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.” ↩
47. For other such passages see Gen. 17:1–22; 21:17; 22:1–2, 11–12, 15–18; 26:2, 24; 35:1, 9–13. ↩
48. This is likely for two reasons: (1) Killing the animals to get their skins would be the most natural way for God to clothe Adam and Eve. (2) God had given revelation about sacrifices prior to the incident with Cain and Abel. ↩
49. See also Gen. 2:15–16, 22; 4:9–15; 5:22; 6:12–21; 7:1–4; 8:15–17; 9:1–17; 13:14–17; 15:1–21. ↩
50. Barrett, 154. ↩
51. Ibid., 154–160. Borland lists seven purposes: (1) “to reveal himself in a personal and visible manner,” (2) “to meet the needs of individuals,” (3) “to accomplish God’s plan of progressive revelation,” (4) “to predict and anticipate Christ’s incarnation,” (5) “to connect God’s work in Old and New Testaments,” (6) “to reveal God’s soteriologic and theocratic programs,” and (7) “to intimate Christ’s deity and the trinity” (120–32). ↩
52. In support of this connection between the Messenger and Yahweh, some have suggested that the genitive relationship is one of apposition rather than source. Therefore, instead of understanding it “the Messenger from Yahweh,” it should be “the Messenger who is Yahweh.” See Michael Barrett, Beginning at Moses (Greenville: Ambassador-Emerald, 1999), 149. While it may be theologically true that the Messenger was Yahweh, it seems difficult to be certain that this was the intended meaning of the expression, seeing that the idea of a messenger naturally lends itself to the idea of source (i.e., a messenger is sent from someone). ↩
53. In refutation of this view, the grammar of the phrase is significant. A Hebrew noun in the absolute state determines the definiteness of the word standing in construct with it. The absolute word is definite if it has the (1) pronominal suffix, (2) the definite article, or (3) is a proper name. Yahweh is clearly a proper name, and therefore the translation “an angel of the Yahweh” is inaccurate. In order to avoid making the first noun definite (when the second noun is definite) the genitive of circumlocution is used (GK §129c). The construction for “an angel of Yahweh” would then be לַיהוָהמַלְאָך. For a discussion of this point, see John M. Blaze, Jr. “The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament – Part I” Conservative Theological Journal 1:3 (December 1997), 270–71. ↩
54. This view has the difficulty of dealing with the clear identification between the Messenger and Yahweh Himself. Some have attempted to explain this by pointing to the fact that “the words and acts of a messenger are properly the words and acts of him whom he represents” (Oehler, 132). Nevertheless, this does not seem to account satisfactorily for all the data. ↩