It is virtually impossible that The Angel of the Lord is Michael the arc angel or Jesus Christ is Michael as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
2,109
534
113
#1
The following is what I wrote about 15 years ago on this subject.

The angel of the Lord first appears as the angel of the Lord at Genesis 16:7. He says in the following verses that he will multiply Hagar's descendants, verse 10. At verse 13 Hagar says, "Thou art a God who sees; Have I even remained alive after seeing Him."

At Genesis 17:1-2 you have the Lord appearing to Abram (physically) and says to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless. verse 2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply your exceedingly." Question? Is the angel of the Lord the same being that multiplied Abram's descendants at Genesis 17:2? Another question? Who was the Lord who appeared (physically) to Abraham at Genesis 18:1?

Moving on to Genesis 22:1 it says, "Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham etc." At verse 11, "But the angel of the Lord called to him/Abraham from heaven, AND SAID, Abraham, Abraham! etc." verse 12, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him, for now I KNOW that you fear God, since you have not WITHHELD your son, your only son, FROM ME." (Notice the verse identifies Isaac as Abrahams ONLY SON. Why is that since Abraham's first BORN son was Ishmael?)

Verse 15, "Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, verse 16, AND SAID, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son, verse 17, "indeed I will greatly multiply your seed as the starts of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies." Verse 18, "And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed because YOU HAVE OBEYED MY VOICE." When one swears an oath it is a matter of one's own conscience. For example, if you saw a crime you would not send your Uncle Harry to swear for you that you saw the crime. Even if you were unable to go to court, the court would send someone to you, to depose you.

So what we have here is the angel of the Lord at Genesis 16 who multiplied Hagar's descendants and was identified as God is the same being who made the covenant to Abram at Genesis 17:1-2 who is identified as God. It is also the same being (the angel of the Lord) at Genesis 22:16-18. The whole point being that if the angel of the Lord is an actual angel, angels CANNOT SWEAR OATHS ON BEHALF OF GOD.

All of this is backed up by the writer of Hebrews at Hebrews 6:13-14, "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, HE SWORE BY HIMSELF, Verse 14, "saying, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you." At Luke 1:73, "The oath which He swore to Abraham our father."

A couple of points of interest. The angel of the Lord is speaking in the "first person" here. This is confirmed at (Genesis 16:10, Genesis 21:18, Genesis 31:13). Also the angel of the Lord appears at, Genesis 16:7-14, Genesis 22:11-16, Exodus 3:2-4, (the burning bush), Numbers 22:22-38, Judges 2:1-3 and at other places.

Also note, that the angel of the Lord never appears in the New Testament, although he is mentioned at Acts 7. Another important point that people miss is there is a difference between the words, "a or an" as opposed to the word "the." For example, some will say the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph at Matthew 1:20 and say "the angle of the Lord appeared etc. despite the fact that the word used is "an" angel of the Lord appeared.

The grammatical function of "an" or "a" is to connote a thing not previously noted or recognized. In other words, it's just that, an angel/messenger. The word "the" connotes a thing PREVIOUSLY noted or recognized,. "THE angel of the Lord. Finally, the Biblical evidence clearly points out the angel of the Lord is the preincarnate Jesus Christ.

Remember, God the Father cannot be seen and the Father has no separate manifestation from the Son. The Son is the only manifestation and revelation of the Father. What is known of the Father is revealed through the Son. To see the Son is to see the essence of the Father, John 1:18, John 10:30, John 12:45, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3. I'm adding the following information to this post.

The Hebrew word for "angel" is "malak." This word simply means "messenger." That's what angels are, messengers, and so are men/prophets. Malachi 1:3, "Behold, I am going to send My "malak/angel/messenger," and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the "malak/angel/messenger" of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming , says the Lord of hosts."

The first messenger who is coming to clear the way of the Lord is John the Baptist, and he ain't no angel, except maybe to his mother. This is confirmed at Mark 1:1-4. Who do you think the messenger of the covenant is that will be coming to His temple and in whom we will delight in, guess? As a side note the prophet Malachi, well his name is from the root Hebrew word, "malak." I will be happy to answer any and all questions.

IN THE ANGEL OF THE LORD,
bluto
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,526
2,608
113
#2
I wouldn't call it "virtually" impossible...
I'd just call it impossible.

.
 

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
2,109
534
113
#3
I wouldn't call it "virtually" impossible...
I'd just call it impossible.

.
Your right, I should not have used the word "virtually." I thought it meant totally impossible but it means "nearly or almost." impossible, I looked it up. :eek:

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto