Esaias - A Theophany?

[Pressing-On]

Esaias, I was reading Galatians 4:14 “And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected, but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.”

Would you call this a theophany as in Malachi 3:1 and Hosea 12:2-5?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Esaias, I was reading Galatians 4:14 “And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected, but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.”

Would you call this a theophany as in Malachi 3:1 and Hosea 12:2-5?

Paul is saying they received him with respect as one having authority to be listened to, as if he were an angel sent from God, or even as if he were Jesus Himself, instead of rejecting him because of his "temptation in the flesh" which appears to have been either a speech impediment or a lack of elocution. So no I would not say Paul was a theophany.

Where you been? Glad to see you back on the forum.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul is saying they received him with respect as one having authority to be listened to, as if he were an angel sent from God, or even as if he were Jesus Himself, instead of rejecting him because of his "temptation in the flesh" which appears to have been either a speech impediment or a lack of elocution. So no I would not say Paul was a theophany.

Where you been? Glad to see you back on the forum.

Thanks for the response! Been busy as usual!

I see I didn’t explain myself very well. I wasn’t saying Paul was a theophany.

I was trying to say, was Paul referring to Jesus Christ as a theophany.

After you explained, “Paul is saying they received him with respect as one having authority to be listened to” and “even as if he were Jesus Himself”, I get that.

I was reading in the KJV which leaves out “even” - “…as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.”

Other versions say, “as an Angel of God, as Jesus Christ.”

It reminded me of the other scriptures I quoted and made me think he was possibly eluding to a theophany. But, I see what you are saying. He is probably saying, “a messenger of God”.

It seemed like we had discussed, here on some thread, “Angel of God” meaning “the presence of God”.

Thank you!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thanks for the response! Been busy as usual!

I see I didn’t explain myself very well. I wasn’t saying Paul was a theophany.

I was trying to say, was Paul referring to Jesus Christ as a theophany.

After you explained, “Paul is saying they received him with respect as one having authority to be listened to” and “even as if he were Jesus Himself”, I get that.

I was reading in the KJV which leaves out “even” - “…as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.”

Other versions say, “as an Angel of God, as Jesus Christ.”

It reminded me of the other scriptures I quoted and made me think he was possibly eluding to a theophany. But, I see what you are saying. He is probably saying, “a messenger of God”.

It seemed like we had discussed, here on some thread, “Angel of God” meaning “the presence of God”.

Thank you!

Yes, I see what you are saying here. I do not think he is saying "as an angel of God, Jesus Christ" (ie that an angel of God is Jesus or that Jesus is an angel of God). The idea of a theophany is basically an "old testament manifestation of God". Sometimes these manifestations are referred to as "the angel of the Lord". Jesus is of course the ultimate theophany, in that he is God manifested in the flesh. Not just that He was God appearing in human form or appearance, but that He was God manifested as a complete human being with a complete human life, from birth to death (and resurrection). I think Paul is simply using a progressive comparison - you received me as an angel of God, (you received me) as Jesus Christ. The use of "an" angel and not rather THE angel of God seems to me to rule out Paul thinking of angel as theophany. I know there is no Greek term for "an" but the lack of the definite article (ho) implies the use of the indefinite article.

So "an angel" would not imply a theophany, whereas "the" angel imlies at least the possibility of a theophany (which would then have to be determined by the context and other statements).

There is something interesting about the term "angel of". Look here:

Acts 12:13-15 KJV
And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda. [14] And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate. [15] And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.

Did they mean they thought Rhoda had seen Peter's "guardian angel", who just so happened to look exactly like him? I don't think so. I think they were saying Peter wasn't really there, he was still stuck in jail, and she had seen his "ghost", that is, he had appeared to her in a spirit form. Or to put it another way, she had seen his spirit making some kind of visionary appearance to her. The thing is though that they were saying they thought she had encountered Peter on a spiritual level (rather than an actual physical level) and this was referred to as "his angel".

This possibly sheds some light on another curious statement:

Matthew 18:10 KJV
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Is Jesus affirming the popular belief in "guardian angels", assigned to everyone at birth? If so, then why does the Bible not assert such a thing? What happens when they grow up? Do they lose the guardian angel? If they were assigned to everyone at birth then wouldn't EVERYONE have an angel in heaven beholding the face of the Father? And if these are guardian angels, why do they ALWAYS behold the face of God, and they do it while in heaven? "In heaven they always behold" etc? Wouldn't they be down here doing the work of a "guardian"?

Or perhaps Jesus was referring to something else? Perhaps their angels aren't guardian angels, but is a reference to their spirit in some way? And i realise this probably opens a whole other can of worms that I don't pretend to have the answers to right now lol.

This would also shed some light on the "angel of the church" mentioned in the Revelation for each of the seven churches. Are they angels assigned to each church? Or is this a reference to the "spirit of the (local) church", personified as an angel in the symbolic language of the Apocalypse?

So the angel of the Lord being a theophany would be in a similar vein. It is the Spirit of God making Himself known in a visible or perceptual sense. In this way, it is HIS angel (much like they thought Rhoda was seeing Peter's "angel"). It is called "angel" not only because this is a spiritual thing but also because it functions as a messenger or someone/something sent by God to represent Him.

Of course, this does not detract from the fact that there are "angels", that is, spiritual beings created by God that do His will and represent the Divine government. They reflect the glory and power and authority of God but are not necessarily theophanies.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yes, I see what you are saying here. I do not think he is saying "as an angel of God, Jesus Christ" (ie that an angel of God is Jesus or that Jesus is an angel of God). The idea of a theophany is basically an "old testament manifestation of God". Sometimes these manifestations are referred to as "the angel of the Lord". Jesus is of course the ultimate theophany, in that he is God manifested in the flesh. Not just that He was God appearing in human form or appearance, but that He was God manifested as a complete human being with a complete human life, from birth to death (and resurrection). I think Paul is simply using a progressive comparison - you received me as an angel of God, (you received me) as Jesus Christ. The use of "an" angel and not rather THE angel of God seems to me to rule out Paul thinking of angel as theophany. I know there is no Greek term for "an" but the lack of the definite article (ho) implies the use of the indefinite article.

So "an angel" would not imply a theophany, whereas "the" angel implies at least the possibility of a theophany (which would then have to be determined by the context and other statements).

Yes, I see that "an" and "the" needs to be considered.

There is something interesting about the term "angel of". Look here:

Acts 12:13-15 KJV
And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda. [14] And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate. [15] And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.

Did they mean they thought Rhoda had seen Peter's "guardian angel", who just so happened to look exactly like him? I don't think so. I think they were saying Peter wasn't really there, he was still stuck in jail, and she had seen his "ghost", that is, he had appeared to her in a spirit form. Or to put it another way, she had seen his spirit making some kind of visionary appearance to her. The thing is though that they were saying they thought she had encountered Peter on a spiritual level (rather than an actual physical level) and this was referred to as "his angel".

Maybe they thought he had died and it was his ghost? I never looked into that. Interesting.

This possibly sheds some light on another curious statement:

Matthew 18:10 KJV
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Is Jesus affirming the popular belief in "guardian angels", assigned to everyone at birth? If so, then why does the Bible not assert such a thing? What happens when they grow up? Do they lose the guardian angel? If they were assigned to everyone at birth then wouldn't EVERYONE have an angel in heaven beholding the face of the Father? And if these are guardian angels, why do they ALWAYS behold the face of God, and they do it while in heaven? "In heaven they always behold" etc? Wouldn't they be down here doing the work of a "guardian"?

Or perhaps Jesus was referring to something else? Perhaps their angels aren't guardian angels, but is a reference to their spirit in some way? And i realize this probably opens a whole other can of worms that I don't pretend to have the answers to right now lol.

Total can of worms. LOL!

They can't do anything on their own accord. If they are beholding "His" face in heaven, perhaps they could be getting direction from Him, being accountable to Him? And I wonder if under the age of accountability, they need protection? Perhaps when older they are responsible to submit to the Gospel and be filled with the Holy Ghost - thus being their protector and guide? Can't substantiate that, of course, but it's the only reason I could think a child needs an angel to watch over them. They certainly need one coming over our open borders, but I digress. LOL!

This would also shed some light on the "angel of the church" mentioned in the Revelation for each of the seven churches. Are they angels assigned to each church? Or is this a reference to the "spirit of the (local) church", personified as an angel in the symbolic language of the Apocalypse?

Interesting perspective. I'd have to think about that one.

I have heard some preach that each church has a certain spirit ruling the church or the area - rebellion, disunity, revival, etc.
Is it driving the people or are the people driving it?

Can't recall which older minister talked about coming into an area to preach and seeking the Lord or the Lord revealing what type of principality he would be fighting against to gain revival.

So the angel of the Lord being a theophany would be in a similar vein. It is the Spirit of God making Himself known in a visible or perceptual sense. In this way, it is HIS angel (much like they thought Rhoda was seeing Peter's "angel"). It is called "angel" not only because this is a spiritual thing but also because it functions as a messenger or someone/something sent by God to represent Him.


Of course, this does not detract from the fact that there are "angels", that is, spiritual beings created by God that do His will and represent the Divine government. They reflect the glory and power and authority of God but are not necessarily theophanies.

Agree on both points!

Scrolling down, Sam posted a thread on "The Last Theophany" by Frank Ewart from 1946.

Thanks for taking the time, Esaias!