E
ethereality
Guest
I’m speaking with an Egyptian Muslim, and tried to convince him that Jacob wrestled with an angel, not with God, in Genesis 32. I began speaking off the top of my head:
myself:
So, who are each of the three men in Genesis 18? What do each of their actions signify Why would only the Father speak with Abraham if Abraham made a covenant with God, i.e. with all three persons of God?
What can we understand about God and about the Trinity from Genesis 18? Reading one verse further into Genesis 19, it begins “The two angels reached Sodom in the evening”. This appears to identify the other two men not as God but as in fact angels. I recall “The Witness of Isaiah 7:14” by Mark Shea. Two paragraphs that I think apply here:
I think I’ve reasoned through this passage properly (we must not confuse the original meaning with what the passage signifies), but I would like to hear what you have to say: I am a novice apologist, and a physics student, not a theologian.
myself:
I realized that I was on shaky ground: The fact that only one of the men appears to speak to Abraham could in fact suggest that the LORD is only one person, and that the other two men were simply images or angels, since neither of them talk to Abraham. Or, perhaps the person speaking with Abraham is Jesus, being the mediator between God and man, but I’m sure that contradicts the Old Testament: Every encounter the Israelites had with God, the LORD, was always with God the Father; that Exodus 3:14 explicitly identifies the First Person of the Trinity, from whom everything else comes. Thus St. Paul, speaking as a Jew, refers to the Father simply as “God”, and refers to Jesus as Lord. This point sticks so strongly with me that I tend to disagree with the statement, “Jesus is God” – if ‘God’ names the Father, as St. Paul does, then the statement “Jesus is God” logically means “Jesus is the Father”, which is not true, by virtue of their being two distinct persons.Nasr, the reason you cannot read literally the phrase “I have seen God” is because it contradicts the proper understanding of the passage’s context.
Verses 25-29 make it clear that it was some being from heaven who assumed a human form. Understanding the Old Testament as a whole, the spiritual knowledge of the Israelites, etc., make it clear that it was common knowledge that messengers of God appeared under the guise of being human. Read the book of Tobit as a good example of these kinds of stories.
We can turn also to where God visited Abraham on his way to Sodom, and look at how the context of that passage is different, where it actually WAS God, and not God’s messengers.
usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis18.htm
Genesis chapter 18. Right at the very beginning, verse 1: “The LORD appeared”.
God’s presence is clearly identified. If Jacob were wrestling with God, it would have been obvious.
Note here, by the way, that Abraham saw “three men”
God appears as three persons yet one being.
One being, verse 1, “The LORD appeared to Abraham” – one being, God is one.
Verse 2: “Looking up, [Abraham] saw three men standing nearby” – Three persons, God existing as three persons.
See also verse 22 “While the two men walked on farther toward Sodom, the LORD remained standing before Abraham” – I am not an expert theologian, so I can’t tell you which person is identified as “the LORD” – I am inclined to think that it is the Father. Anyway, this verse can be taken to signify that God is not one person who presents himself in three different forms.
I will ask at forums.catholic-questions.org about this chapter
So, who are each of the three men in Genesis 18? What do each of their actions signify Why would only the Father speak with Abraham if Abraham made a covenant with God, i.e. with all three persons of God?
What can we understand about God and about the Trinity from Genesis 18? Reading one verse further into Genesis 19, it begins “The two angels reached Sodom in the evening”. This appears to identify the other two men not as God but as in fact angels. I recall “The Witness of Isaiah 7:14” by Mark Shea. Two paragraphs that I think apply here:
…] Christ fulfilled, brought to fruition, and was that toward which all the Old Testament was straining and pointing. They mean he was the one toward whom the Law and prophets were being pointed by the Spirit though when the sacred writers themselves did not know quite what they were pointing toward (1 Pet. 1:10–11). This is why the early Church never had difficulty with an issue that vexes modern minds: why the New Testament often takes Old Testament texts out of their immediate context and sees them as applicable to Christ. The early Church does not see the Old Testament as talking about something different from Christ but rather sees it in relationship to him. What appear to us to be separate themes and events in the Old Testament appear to the New Testament writers as so many spokes on a wheel all connected to the hub who is Christ.
I had thought of the three men as being a sign of the Trinity because our pastor said so one homily a while back. So, am I correct in understanding that the first (literal) meaning of this passage’s three men, Genesis 18:1-19:29, is “God and two angels”? Then, after the divine revelation given to us by Jesus, we may see the three men appearing to Abraham as a sign of the Trinity? (After all, God could have accomplished his will with one powerful angel, rather than two powerful angels, and appeared to Abraham simply with one other, or with seven, etc.)For instance, Hebrews 2:13 quotes Isaiah 8:18: “Here I am, and the children God has given me.” In its original context, Isaiah is speaking about his own disciples with no hint of messianic intent behind these words. Yet the author of Hebrews sees Christ, not Isaiah, fulfilling the text anyway. Why? Because Christ and his Church are, most fully, what Isaiah and his disciples were foreshadowing. Isaiah and his disciples do fulfill the passage in an immediate sense, but the early Church sees no particular reason why this forbids the God whom Isaiah worshiped from fulfilling it even more profoundly when he becomes incarnate and establishes the Church. The author of Hebrews, reading the Isaiah passage through the lens of the entire life and ministry of Christ, sees something hidden in it, something Isaiah himself perhaps knew nothing about.
I think I’ve reasoned through this passage properly (we must not confuse the original meaning with what the passage signifies), but I would like to hear what you have to say: I am a novice apologist, and a physics student, not a theologian.