NO “theophanies” or “christophanies” in Scripture.
July 21st, 2008 by Ron S.
Many a trinitarian holds to the belief that Jesus pops up here and there back in the Old/Original Testament proving that he is God. They believe that such a view is tenable based on the fact that in certain events described in the OT, the text describes God appearing to someone and conversing with them or doing something else in person. Yet NONE of these instances does the text ever say that the being described as God is Jesus or is “God the Son”, or any “person” of a tri-personal Godhead.
Still, these “appearances” seem to be a direct contradiction of many other plainly clear Scriptural statements where God is said to be invisible, and no man can see Him or has ever seen Him nor heard His voice. How can this be? How can Scripture describe an event of God appearing to man, then turn around and have God saying He doesn’t appear to man? The answer is easy once one looks at the entirety of Scripture and applies the Hebrew custom of the “law of agency” where one’s “agent” is regarded and treated identical to the one they are representing.
To go into greater detail in comparing the clear Biblical verses that tell us that God can NOT be seen with the events where God is suppose to appear “in person”, please read the following article by John Cordaro – ” THEOPHANIES AND CHRISTOPHANIES“. John presents this subject out in an excellent manner and shows that God indeed has never been seen, but used his authorized representatives in those “appearances”. Additionally, for even more detail on those appearances – and from a Jewish perspective – check out this article (written in an outstanding series of articles) from fellow unitarian Messianic – Uri Marcus: “The Theophanies (Alleged appearances of God to humans)”.
[7/22/11 NOTE: The above link to Uri Marcus' article is currently not available. At the present, Uri is writing a Theology book and is expanding what he wrote on this subject for that book. At his request the site(s) that had published his original aritcle, have pulled it down. Once Uri's book is released for sale, I will purchase a copy and write a new aritcle reviewing his thoughts on this intriquing subject. Look for that here on KR in the future!]
Hi Ron,
you mention
to which I would add that neither do any of these text passages say that it was “the Messiah”.
I do think that the difficulties are best understood by recognizing that in the biblical times and culture, a “representative / agent” was regularly spoken of as if the person whom he represented was personally present. In our culture and language we do not use this way of expression as such, but rather normally make a clear distinction
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Ron,
Here’s another verse that may be helpful.
The first account referred to here is the Gospel of Luke. Thus, Luke records what Jesus began to do and teach. If Jesus were doing and teaching before the Gospel of Luke, then this would not make sense.
What is also very relevant is the fact that Scripture never speaks of “the Son” being manifest prior to his begetting. But, making the context very clear when an Angel is involved in the representation. If Christ were “teaching” prior to his existence, then scripture should spell it out for us, right?
Wolfgang,
Exactly. The Hebrew expectation of the Messiah was that he would be born a real man and would come from the human Hebrew lineage. There was never the thought (certainly no where recorded in the Tanakh) that the Messiah would appear in person before his actual birth as a messenger of God. Of course even the thought of it is absurd since human beings do not “pre-exist”.
Sean,
That’s a GREAT verse to point out. Thanks!
How indeed could Luke say that his Gospel recorded “ALL” that Jesus “BEGAN” to do and teach if he were roaming around the OT doing stuff?
Joseph,
Scripture should have spelled it out and I believe it would have if that had been the case. But since it did not and even a child can see that if God says he can’t be seen by man and Jesus (known as the Son OF God) was seen, then he simply can not be that God. It is just that easy – unlike the illogical mental gymnastics required by the trinity.
Ron S.