2

“This is the one (Moses) who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭7:38‬

But in OT it reads

  • “The Lord (יהוה ) spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying,” ‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭25:1‬ ‭

  • “These are the generations of Aaron and Moses at the time when the Lord (יהוה) spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai.” ‭‭Numbers‬ ‭3:1

  • “These are the statutes and rules and laws that the Lord (יהוה) made between himself and the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai.” ‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭26:46‬

This is the same יהוה as used in this text

““Hear, O Israel: The Lord (יהוה) our God, the Lord (יהוה) is one.” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭6:4‬

Is Stephen wrong? The leaders didn’t seem to revolt when Stephen mentioned the angel was giving the oracles to Moses.

curiousdannii
  • 3,007
  • 6
  • 31
  • 54
Nihil Sine Deo
  • 9,044
  • 7
  • 38
  • 83
  • Stephen (and Paul, in Galatians 3:19) are simply reflecting pious Jewish tradition, as related later in the Talmud itself. – Lucian Jun 14 '20 at 21:56
  • Are you asking if "the angel of the Lord" in the NT and the "the angel of the LORD" in the OT can sometimes allude to Jehovah, YHWH? – Dottard Jun 14 '20 at 22:43
  • @Dottard this angel in the NT was not referred to as the angel of the Lord as in the OT. My question is whether this angel and YHWH are one and the same or not because there is no mention of an angel in the OT speaking to Moses. Further is this was the angel then who came down on the mountain and showed Moses his glory? – Nihil Sine Deo Jun 14 '20 at 23:01

4 Answers4

2

In the OT, the phrase "Angel of the LORD" appears to often refer directly to the LORD (YHWH). Here are a few examples:

  • Gen 16:7-13, V13 makes clear that Harar was speaking to YHWH
  • Gen 22:11-17, V16 and 17 declares that it is YHWH who is speaking
  • Gen 32:24-30, V28 & 30 makes clear that Jacob was wrestling with God
  • Gen 48:16, The Angel is called the Redeemer which can only be YHWH according to Isa 43:3, 11, 45:17, 21
  • Ex 3:2-6, V 4-6 makes clear that Moses was in the presence of YHWH
  • Num 22:22-35, Several times (v22, 26) it is declared to be YHWH and Balaam bowed down to worship YHWH which is forbidden to an mere angel (Rev 22:8, etc)
  • Judg 2:1-4, The angel here is the ONE who brought Israel out of Egypt
  • Judg 6:11-23, Gideon realises that he has seen God face to face and calls Him "Lord God" (v22)
  • Judg 13:3-23, Manoah realises that He has seen God (v22)

However, it should be stressed that not every instance of "Angel of the Lord" refers to YHWH. For example, Luke 1:11, 2:9, Matt 28:2, Acts 5:19, Isa 37:36, etc.

There is a similar phenomenon with the phrase, "Angel of God", Gen 6:13, 8:15, 9:8, 17, 15:13, 17:3, 4, 21:12, 16-21, 35:1, 10, Ex 4:3-8, 6:2, 23:20, 21, Deut 1:6, 1 Kings 12:22.

The fact that the Bible refers to YHWH as an angel (at times) does not diminish Jehovah's importance or standing. In fact, we see in other places that the LORD sends the LORD:

  • Zech 2:6-12 – the LORD (= YHWH) claims three times that He has been sent by the LORD.
  • Isa 48:11-16 – again, the LORD has been sent by the LORD.

"Angel" simply means "messenger" as is well known and some messages are evidently so important that they are delivered by YHWH Himself.

Thus, the fact that Acts 7:38 has "Angel of the Lord" while other places (Lev 25:1, 26:46, Num 3:1) simply have YHWH should not be surprising. (See also Acts 10:3, 4, Gal 4:14).

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
2

The short answer to your question is Stephen was not wrong. The angel of the Lord that Stephen talks about is the same being that spoke to Moses in the Old Testament and guided Israel through the wilderness.

Acts 7:30, "And after forty years had passed, an angel, appeared to Him/Moses in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning thorn bush." In this verse notice the word "an" is used meaning, "an angel" appeared etc.

At Acts 7:38 it says, "This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with "the" angel who was speaking. Are you aware that the definition of the word "a/an" is different from the word "the."

The chief grammatical function of "an/a" is to connote a thing not previously noted or recognized. The word "the" connotes a thing previously noted or recognized. Even though at Acts 7:30 Stephen used the word, "an" he in the same verse identified "the" angel of the Lord appearing in the burning bush at Exodus 3:2.

Moreover, it was the angel of the Lord who was in the wilderness with Moses according to the Apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. Cross reference that with Exodus 13:21, Exodus 14:;19 and Isaiah 63:9.

From Acts 7:30 Stephen explicitly mentions the events at Exodus 3 and who is the one doing the talking. Exodus 3:4, "When the Lord saw that he/Moses turned aside to look, GOD called to him from the midst of the bush, and said, "Moses, Moses," And he said, Here I am."

Notice Exodus 3:6, "He said also, "I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."

I have to bring the following up because it is "vitally" important that "the" angel of the Lord is "NOT" an actual angel, he is simply a messenger. This also means that "the" angel of the Lord is "NOT" Michael the arc angel. It's impossible for the angel of the Lord to be Michael or any other actual angel.

Here is why? At Genesis 22:11 the angel of the Lord calls out from heaven to Abraham. The angel of the Lord calls out from heaven a second time at Genesis 22:15. What does he say to Abraham?

Genesis 22:16, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing, and not withheld you son, your only son." Verse 17, "indeed I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore."

The point is the fact that an angel or any angel cannot swear an oath on behalf of somebody else, let along for God. Hebrews 6:13,14, "For when GOD made the promise to Abraham, since He could not swear by no one greater, HE SWORE BY HIMSELF, verse 14, saying, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you."

This could not be more clear. Sure angels and people/prophets represent God because the Jews have what's called the "Shaliah" principle. This means that a person/agent/emissary/envoy can represent a "principal" concerning the affairs of business etc. However, the shaliach remains a subordinate and he cannot swear oaths on behalf of the principal. One last point! "The" angel of the Lord never appears in the New Testament as the angel of the Lord.

Mr. Bond
  • 3,577
  • 2
  • 7
  • 18
  • 1
    "However, the shaliach remains a subordinate and he cannot swear oaths on behalf of the principal..." This argument does not seem to hold/apply if the words of the shaliach are not the shaliach's words but the words of the principle through the shaliach. – Austin Mar 03 '24 at 18:56
  • 1
    Regarding your last point... "the angel of the lord" phrase is used in Mathew 1:24. Also notice that "THE" angel of the Lord of Exoduds 3:2 is simply referred to as "an angel" in Acts 7:30. The absence of the definite article doesn't mean that "the angel of the Lord" is not being referred to. Thus despite the absence of the definite article, each of the 11 mentions of "an angel of the Lord" figure in the New Testament may actually be references to "the Angel of the Lord" – Austin Mar 03 '24 at 19:23
  • If you saw a crime you cannot send someone else in your place to swear that you saw the crime. If you cannot make it to court, the court will send someone to "depose" you. Secondly, according to the Uniform Law On Notarial Acts, a person/shaliach representing a principal may not take an oath or affirmation for another/principle, why? This act being highly personal commitment of CONSCIENCE. At Genesis 22:16 it was the angel of the Lord, (who is the preincarnate Jesus Christ who said, "By Myself I have sworn." Hebrews 6:13 says since God could not swear by no one greater, He swore By Himself. – Mr. Bond Mar 03 '24 at 19:35
  • Ambassadors and Delagates throughout history are able to make binding treaties on behalf of their superiors. There is no biblical limit preventing God from making an oath through his created angel who is speaking his exact words. – Austin Mar 03 '24 at 19:47
  • Obviously your not aware that there is a difference in definition between the little words "the" and a/an." The chief grammatical function of "an" or "a" is to connote a thing NOT previously noted or recognized. "The" connotes a thing previously noted or recognized. THE angel of the Lord first appears as the angel of the Lord at Genesis 16:7. He says I WILL multiply your descendants at vs10. Who do you think physically appeared to Abram at Genesis 17:1-3 and multiplied his descendants? Getting back to Stephen at Acts 7:30, Stephen uses the word "the" at Acts 7:38 referencing TAOTL on Sinai. – Mr. Bond Mar 03 '24 at 19:55
  • And that's another mistake you made when you said, "There is no biblical limit preventing God from making an oath through his created angel who is speaking his exact words." Why do you "assume" that TAOTL is a created angel? The Hebrew word for "angel" is malak" and it simply means messenger. It can refer to an actual angel and it can also refer to men as angels/messengers. Just read Malachi 3:1 where the first angel/messenger is John the Baptist. Mark 1:1-4. Who do you think is the second malak/angel/messenger of the covenant is? Finally, tell me who appeared to Abram at Genesis 17:1-3? – Mr. Bond Mar 03 '24 at 20:14
  • 1
    I didn't assume anything. My statement is correct even if the Angel is actually uncreated. Regarding, "Obviously your not aware that there is a difference in definition between the little words "the" and a/an..." misuse of "your" aside, this is an unnecessarily condescending and unfruitful line of response unworthy of this site. It also doesn't address the phrase "the angel of the Lord" as used in Matthew 1:24, nor the idea that the use of "an" instead of "the" for the New Testament "angel of the Lord" doesn't mean that the identity of said angel is not of "The angel of the Lord." – Austin Mar 03 '24 at 21:17
  • Do you know how I know you do not know how the use of "the" and "an/a" escapes you since you brought up Matthew 1:24? What you did not do was read the context of Matthew chapter 1. If you had you should have noticed vs20. "But when he/Joseph had considered this, behold, AN angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying etc." Now vs24, And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did AS THE ANGEL of the Lord commanded him." This is not "THE" angel of the Lord. And no, I am not being "condescending," just stating the facts. A piece of advice, always read the context. – Mr. Bond Mar 03 '24 at 22:13
  • 1
    it is much more credible for you to take the position that I missed the context than the absurd idea that I didn't know what "the", "a", and "an" are. Nevertheless, your assumption that I missed the context is due to you missing the whole argument. If simply 'an angel' can describe THE Angel of the Lord, then you have actually no grounds for ruling out all 'angel of the Lord' statements in the NT as not identifying "The Angel of The Lord." Based on Acts 7:30, the NT clearly doesn't place the same importance on the word "THE" when identifying the angel of the Lord as you do. – Austin Mar 03 '24 at 22:31
  • As I stated your assuming the angel of the Lord is an actual angel, he's not. He's the preincarnate Jesus Christ and He is God the Son. This is why He swore the oath because the text says so at Genesis 22:15-16. And Hebrews 6:13-18 backs it up. I suggest you read it for yourself. So now your going to lecture me on the importance of the word "the" at Acts 7:30? If you knew the difference between "the" and "an/a explain to me why I had to correct you that Stephen at Acts 7:38 was referring to THE angel of the Lord who as God spoke from the midst of the bush. Exodus 3:2-4. Who's the I Am at vs14? – Mr. Bond Mar 04 '24 at 00:59
  • how did you correct me? When did I say Acts 7:38 doesn't refer to the angel of the Lord? You seem to misperceive a lot about things I don't say. Also, regarding your argument about oaths, you make the case on extra-biblical grounds regarding human sworn testimony in law that someone can't give on behalf of someone else, but haven't responded to my extra-biblical counter-example of ambassadors and delegates making legally binding treaties or covenants on behalf of their sovereigns by the authority of their sovereigns. Also, no Bible verse says God cannot speak an oath by proxy. – Austin Mar 04 '24 at 06:21
  • You stated at Acts 7:30 refers to an angel, not "the" AOTL I then explained at Acts 7:38 does refer to "TAOTL. Do some homework and read the following and tell me where a persons can swear an oath for another person. https://www.google.com/search?q=does+the+jewish+law+of+agency+include+swearing+an+oath+on+behalf+of+the+principal&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS986US986&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgDECMYJxjqAjIJCAAQIxgnGOoCMgkIARAjGCcY6gIyCQgCECMYJxjqAjIJCAMQIxgnGOoCMgkIBBAjGCcY6gIyCQgFECMYJxjqAjIJCAYQIxgnGOoCMgkIBxBFGDsYwgPSAQk2NjY3ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1 continued – Mr. Bond Mar 04 '24 at 21:18
  • Regarding your last statement, "Also, no Bible verse says God cannot speak an oath by proxy." In logic this statement is an argument from silence. In other words, you are appealing to nothing. Also, read this: "An oath cannot be taken on behalf of someone else, including a corporation. Oaths cannot be given over the telephone. The oath-taker must be in the physical presence of the notarizing officer." I think were done here since you have NOT proved your case. – Mr. Bond Mar 04 '24 at 21:25
  • wow you completely missed the argument, thus you couldn't correct me. I literally said, with respect to Acts 7:30, 'The absence of the definite article doesn't mean that "the angel of the Lord" is not being referred to.' Also the argument that just because something might be forbidden for a Jew in court over 1000 years after the promise was given means that God is powerless to do the same is absurd. One might argue because a man has the power to do something that God is at least as capable to do the same, ... – Austin Mar 06 '24 at 07:00
  • ...but to argue because a man does not have the power neither does God is absurd on its face. You have no Biblical support for saying that God is so limited. No need to consult Jewish law to affirm the Biblical agency for Jesus states the concept succinctly (Luke 10:16, Matt 10:40; John 13:20). That being said I didn't come across anything within the first couple of links that forbade oaths, but it was possible to betroth oneself (a solemn vow to marry) via an agent to another which seems to further undermine any such limits on God. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/894-agency-law-of – Austin Mar 06 '24 at 07:01
  • I initially stated the angel of the Lord never appears in the NT as TAOTL. You disagreed and gave me Acts 7:30 and Matthew 1:24 which uses the word "an." Secondly, I said your assuming TAOTL is an actual angel, he is not. What was your purpose in quoting Matthew 1:24? And I have no idea what your talking about when you say, "that God is so limited.?" What does Luke 10:16, Matt 10:40 or John 13:20 have to do with anything? Bottom line, you cannot delegate someone else to swear an oath on behalf of you, period. None of the sites you looked at say so. Were done on less you want to go to chat. – Mr. Bond Mar 06 '24 at 18:46
  • "I initially stated the angel of the Lord never appears in the NT as TAOTL. You disagreed" I didn't say I disagree with that point. It is irrelevant given that in the NT TAOTL is simply referred to as an angel so all references to AOTL in the NT w/o the def. art. may refer to the same as TAOTL in the OT. Furthermore, the definite article wrt TAOTL is not relevant even in the OT. The Heb. doesn't even use the def. art. at all for TAOTL - just in the Eng. Not in Gen 16. Not in Ex 3. Therefore, both the NT Greek and the OT Heb. both refer to the TAOTL the same way... w/o a def. art. – Austin Mar 07 '24 at 07:04
  • And I have no idea what your talking about when you say, "that God is so limited.?" This is wrt to ur argument that God cannot swear an oath through an agent bc Jews can't swear an oath through agents under non-biblical Jew law. My point is that it is illogical to assert that because Jews forbid themselves from doing something God is also therefore forbidden from doing the same. "angels and people/prophets represent God because the Jews have what's called the "Shaliah" principle." Backwards. This comes from the Word & not Jew law. Lk, Mt,& Jn. verses r the principle confirmed by Jesus. – Austin Mar 07 '24 at 07:26
1

Angel of the LORD in OT is different from angel of the Lord in NT, and was the pre-incarnate Son of God, in OT. No man has ever seen the Father God. Father God has always manifested in His Son and the Power of His Spirit. Ex 14:19-20. Jacob wrestled with Him. My Father has been working until now and I have been working. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, ‘I AM’ “. In Acts 7 Stephen told the Jews, Jesus was there all along as who you call “Angel”. Now He has come in Human flesh to complete Redemption plan.

Mr. Bond
  • 3,577
  • 2
  • 7
  • 18
PT7 Ihope
  • 11
  • 1
  • 1
    Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Mar 04 '24 at 03:45
-3

Murray Harris [1], a devout Trinitarian, makes a grammatical/contextual argument to the effect that the source of words spoken to the prophets was the Father.

Heb 1:1-2 God , having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. (ASV)

This verse makes a very broad statement and identifies the God who spoke through the prophets in the OT as the Father because He has a Son (See Lev 1:1;Num 1:1; Dt 1:3;Jos 1:1; Isaiah 1:1,10; Jer 1:4, 2:1;Ezekiel 1:1;Hosea 1:1; Joel 1:1; Amos 1:3;Ob 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Micah 1:1; Nahum 1:1; Hab 1:1-2; Zeph 1:1; Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1: Mal 1:1, etc.)

On this basis, Harris also identifies YHWH as the Father in the OT:

It would be inappropriate for elohim or YHWH ever to refer to the Trinity in the OT when in the NT QEOS regularly refers to the Father alone and apparently never to the Trinity. [1]

According to Harris, θεός must refer to the Father as:

"When (hO) QEOS is used, we are to assume that the NT writers have hO PATHR in mind unless the context makes this sense of (hO) QEOS impossible” (Harris, Jesus as God, p 47)

Keep on reading past Acts 7:38. A more careful reading of Acts shows that angels, plural were used in Acts:

Acts 7:53 Ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not (ASV)

[1] Murray J Harris https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_J._Harris Murray J. Harris (born 18 August 1939) is professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis and theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He was for a time warden of Tyndale House at Cambridge University. He gained his PhD from the University of Manchester, studying under F. F. Bruce

Who is Jehovah in the OT? A related question demands brief treatment. To whom did the NT writers attribute the divine action described in the OT? To answer "the Lord God" (YHWH elohim) = LXX KURIOS hO QEOS) is to beg the question, for the authors of the NT wrote of OT events in the light of their Trinitarian understanding of God. A clear distinction must be drawn between what the OT text meant to its authors and readers and how it was understood by the early Christians who lived after the advent of the Messiah and the coming of the Spirit. Certainly the person who projects the Trinitarian teaching of the NT back into the OT and reads the OT through the spectacles of the dynamic or Trinitarian monotheism of the NT is thinking anachronistically. On the other hand, it does not seem illegitimate to pose a question such as this" To whom was the author of Hebrews referring when he said (1:1), "At many times and in various ways God spoke in the past to our forefathers through the prophets"? That it was not the Holy Spirit in any ultimate sense is evident from the fact that in neither the OT nor the NT is the Spirit called "God" expressis verbis. A LXX equivalent of YHWH, viz., KURIOS, is regularly applied to Jesus in the NT so that it becomes less a title than a proper name, it is not possible that hO QEOS in Heb. 1:1 denotes Jesus Christ. for the same sentence (in Greek) contains "(the God who spoke...) in these last days has spoken to us in a Son (EN hUIW)."and, in spite of the fact the LXX that the Since the author is emphasizing the continuity of of the two phases of divine speech (hO QEOS LALHSHS... ELALHSEN), this reference to a Son shows that the one who speaks in both eras and hUIOS as his final means of speaking shows that in the author's mind it was not the Triune God of Christian theology who spoke to the forefathers by the prophets. That is to say, for the author of Hebrews (as for all NT writers, one may suggest) "the God of our fathers," Yahweh, was no other than "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (compare Acts 2:30 and 2:33; 3:13 and 3:18; 3:25 and 3:26; note also 5:30). Such a conclusion is entirely consistent with the regular NT usage of hO QEOS. It would be inappropriate for elohim or YHWH ever to refer to the Trinity in the OT when in the NT QEOS regularly refers to the Father alone and apparently never to the Trinity.. (Murray J. Harris in "Jesus as God," page 47, fn 125)