I'd also like to add a few thoughts about Jesus and the Angel of the Lord -- another question I get frequently.
The angel of the Lord (Yahweh) in the OT is Yahweh in human form. Some of the things said about that angel (who is Yahweh) are applied to Jesus in the NT, thereby linking Jesus to Yahweh. The angel of Yahweh = the second person of the Trinity made visible as a man in the Old Testament. The man Jesus was = the second person of the Trinity *become incarnate” as a man. The Angel of the Lord was not the second person incarnate (conceived in the womb and born of a woman).
So, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord are related, but still distinct concepts — but both were God in human form. But only one was incarnate.
- Tim to insist as a popular SoCal preacher does and teaches that "His Sonship began in a point of time, not in eternity....He is no ‘eternal son.’" Is that error or heresy ? A few years ago D.A. Carson taught through The Book of Hebrews at Trinity and as I listened to him, I wondered how could my ex-pastor be so wrong when scripture is clear, but yet we still have that old heresy still alive and being taught today. The case for eternal Sonship by D.A. Carson: “It is not that this eternal Word became the Son by means of the incarnation, so that it is appropriate to speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit only after the incarnation, whereas before the incarnation it would be more appropriate to speak of the Father, the Word, and the Sprit. No, for as we have seen in Hebrews, the Son is the one by whom God made the universe. In John 3:17, we are told, ‘God did not send his Son into the word to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.’ It is fanciful to suppose this means that God sent into the world someone who became the Son after he arrived. ‘The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. . . . He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. . . . For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him’; indeed, ‘all things have been created through him and for him’ (Col. 1:15-19), making him not only God’s agent in creation but creation’s master and goal. In these and numerous other passages (e.g., Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 14:9; 17:1-8; 1 John 5:20), Jesus is not the Son of God by virtue of being the ultimate Israel, nor is he the Son of God by virtue of being the Messiah, the ultimate Davidic king, nor is he the Son of God by virtue of being a perfect human being. Rather, he is the Son of God from eternity, simultaneously distinguishable from his heavenly Father yet one with him, the perfect Revealer of the living God.”
- For Timothy - Here's how I put my thinking on this on moreunseenrealm.com - The angel of the Lord (Yahweh) in the OT is Yahweh in human form. Some of the things said about that angel (who is Yahweh) are applied to Jesus in the NT, thereby linking Jesus to Yahweh via the angel. Consequently, the angel of Yahweh = the second person of the Trinity made visible as in human form in the Old Testament. Jesus = the second person of the Trinity *become incarnate” as a man. The Angel of the Lord was not the second person incarnate (conceived in the womb and born of a woman). So, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord are related, but still distinct concepts — but both were God in human form. But only one was incarnate.
- This article is a great illustration of how to make a blog that is both amusing and educational. Your writing is easy to read and understand, and you back up your claims with engaging tales. I really enjoyed reading your post, and I found it to be extremely helpful. If you have some free time, please play https://catmario9.com with me.
