Who and What was the Angel of Jehovah?"

Angels are not God and always deny being worshiped. The angel of the Lord is called YHWH and worshiped. He is no other than the pre incarnate Lord , the Eternal Son , the 2nd Person on the Trinity in the OT making appearances.

hope this helps !!!

Give the Greek of Luke 7:27 a read. Luke has Jesus quoting the prophet Malachi and the Greek term used is "angelon," or "angel." Matthew and Mark both do the exact same thing in Mt. 11:10 and Mk. 1:2. This angel about who Jesus is speaking is John the Baptizer. 

Malachi 3:1
"Behold, I will send My messenger, who will prepare the way before Me. Then the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to His temple--the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight--see, He is coming," says the LORD of Hosts.

Luke 7:27
This is he of whom it is written, “‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.


We, therefore, necessarily, understand angels (or messengers) are in fact sometimes ordinary humans, not spiritual beings. It is useful to apply the surrounding text and context to the mentions of "angel," or "messenger," because there are times when humans are not possibly what is referenced. In the case of Moses standing before the burning bush it's not ordinarily possible for an ordinary human to be engulfed in flames of fire and not burn. Either is thoroughly figurative speech or a supernatural event. The same proves true with the angels descending and ascending to and from heaven (even though this is a vision), and Jesus' temptation (ordinary humans cannot ferry a plummeting body to safety. They themselves would also be plummeting because no ordinary human can overcome the force of gravity . It does not help that the word, "apostolon" is also sometimes translated as "messenger" (see Php. 2:25).

We also understand that some of this is imagery, and the figurative or allegorical nature is something being asserted by scripture itself, and not men. If the "tree of life" is to be considered in all that scripture says about it then we readily conclude that tree is Jesus, but Jesus is not literally a tree. If Eden was/is a literal place and not allegory (and I, personally, believe it is literal) then there was also probably a literal tree from which A&E were to literally eat literal fruit. It might well be the fruit of that tree would have killed them because there is no way to God except through Jesus and Jesus is the resurrection - resurrection requires a death from which to be resurrected . 

At any rate, we do well to read any and all mentions of angels as "messenger," paying attention to the context to understand whether we're reading about an angelic spirit or spiritual messenger, a human messenger, or Jesus. 

As to the particular episode of the burning bush I think trying to discriminate which Person of the Godhead is referenced is a red herring. It's not that I deny Christophanies in the OT, I firmly believe they are mentioned in several places. They tend to have an ordinariness to them that is nowhere to be found in Exodus 3. We should understand the language of the Father and the Son and the Spirt are almost exclusively New Testament devices and entirely soteriological and eschatological in nature. We don't find this in the OT. There are very few mentions of God as "Father" in the OT and when they do occur it is God as the father of the nation or a king. The connotation of "Abba" is completely absent. Similarly, the mentions of the Son, or "My Son," (those referencing the Messiah, Redeemer, Savior, etc. are all prophetic in nature and inescapably tied to 1 Peter 1:18-20 = the foreknown perfect sacrifice. There is a huge difference between the Christology or Christophany (whichever one prefers) of Melchizedek in comparison to the burning bush. I might say otherwise if the account of Mel had Mel walking around ensconced in flames but not burring away . What Moses saw was God in the fulness of His Godhead and trying to extricate the Redeemer/Savior from the God Who Saves from one another has no justification. God is going to save the people from their slavery and bring them to the land He had promised their forefather, Abraham. It is all wholly and constituently Soteriological. Just as Moses led the captives of Egyptian slavery to the promised land, so too does Jesus lead us from the slavery of sin to the Promised Land of His Kingdom. 

Keep in mind this burning bush is merely a manifestation of God, his power and sovereignty. It's not God. No man can stand before God and live. Compare this event with God placing Moses in the cleft of a rock so Moses can glimpse the remnant of the hindquarters of God's glory. Every single one of those qualifiers is important. It a remnant. It's the last part or portion seen from behind, and it's His glory, not HIM. If God had shown up in person that day in Midian, then Moses would be an ash spot on the ground.


Spots of ash do not save slaves from anything . 

Jesus is fully man and fully God in union.   
Jesus is NOT fully angel and fully God in union!

That is?  Unless you see no difference between the essence of man (soul) and the essence of angels (spirit).  

I wonder why some have a hard time with this. Its as if conventional tradition has become the word of God to them. 

Yes..... and......? 

Why are you brining up something that is not in dispute by ANYONE in this thread? Is there some person in posting something everyone already knows and agrees upon? If so, then please be plain and state the purpose clearly so as to preclude any ambiguity. 

Again, I'm not understanding why this is thought relevant to the op or my op-reply. Scripture makes it very clear this is some form of division between soul and spirit possible. Otherwise, verses like Hebrews 4:12 would be meaningless. 

If I correctly understand your post to be an affirmation of my post's content then I appreciate that, but I don't see anyone having a hard time with any of the positions stated in your post. The post appears entirely non sequitur. I certainly doubt you'd willfully post anything that contradicted your own op and not a sentence in your post that is problematic for my op-reply. Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God in union and Jesus is NOT fully angel if an angel is defined as a created spiritual being, because Jesus is Creator, not creature. However, IF, and when the English term "angel" is translated correctly specifically as "messenger" then Jesus is in fact fully the messenger of God who is fully God in union.  Furthermore, there are plenty of differences between the angelic host and humanity but there are also some similarities, one of which both are called "messengers" in scripture. That was proved that with evidence straight out of the Bible.  All three, Jesus, angels, and humans, can be messengers, but their being messengers does not make them the same sort of being. 


If the post was an affirmation, then thanks. If I misunderstood something, then please clarify it. [/quote]

Did you think I was saying otherwise?

Many think the angel of Jehovah was the pre-incarnate Jesus.  That can not be. 

Keep in mind, the Holy Spirit is also God. Not just Jesus.


The Father is God! And, the Son is God! The Holy Spirit is God!

The Angel of Jehovah was the Holy Spirit (not Jesus) manifested in an angelic body! God!  God being manifested to Moses as an angel. 

As Jesus came to man as a man? So it was for the angels. For they had the appearance of the Angel of Jehovah to angels.

Before there were any men created? The Holy Spirit came to the angels as the Angel of Jehovah. It was not Jesus as some try to figure out what it can not be.

An angel is "spirit."  The Holy Spirit.   Jesus is soul.= man.   The Angel of Jehovah could not have been Jesus in a pre-incarnate state. 

  Are you saying that we can not know and determine when it speaks of a "messenger" or an actual angel??


FYI  Greek:  Angelos always appears in the masculine gender.