Isaiah 63:9

[JeanneH]

The DR 63:9 reads–In all their affliction he was not troubled, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love, and in his mercy he redeemed them, and he carried them and lifted them up all the days of old.

Is this saying that God sent the angel Jesus? Or is the angel an angel that Jesus sent? Is Jesus being referred to as a messenger? Was Jesus an angel before he became man?

I find this verse confusing and a little troubling.

I need help here because being a Catholic I was taught that Jesus is not an angel, I know that the JW’s believe he is Michale.

Thanks

 

[Fidelis]

The DR 63:9 reads–In all their affliction he was not troubled, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love, and in his mercy he redeemed them, and he carried them and lifted them up all the days of old.

Is this saying that God sent the angel Jesus? Or is the angel an angel that Jesus sent? Is Jesus being referred to as a messenger? Was Jesus an angel before he became man?

I find this verse confusing and a little troubling.

I need help here because being a Catholic I was taught that Jesus is not an angel, I know that the JW’s believe he is Michale.

Thanks

Hi JeanneH-
There is nothing in this passage that mentions Jesus or even implies that he is the angel sent by God to protect the Israelites in the wilderness. It is simply talking about God sending an angel that stands in his presence as a guardian to his people. Also, the word “the” doesn’t imply that there is only one angel standing in God’s presence; it is simply a title or a description of that angel’s role. For example, when we say “Smokey The Bear” we don’t mean to assert that there are no other bears.

The only way the JW’s can cull that meaning from this passage is to start with the erroneous assumption that Jesus is an angel. It is typical of them to engage in poor reasoning and in the torturing of the plain meaning of Scripture to get it to say what they want it to.

 

[Cashue]

No, Jesus is NOT the archangel Michel because 1 Thesselonians 5: 15

"For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment, and with the voice of an archangel, " DR

so Jesus has the VOICE of an archangel but clearly he is not an archangel. Just like if I had the voice of a woman it proves I am not a woman, I only have a woman’s voice. So the bible clearly shows that Jesus is not the archangel Michel.

I hope that helps,
Cashue

 

[JeanneH]

No, Jesus is NOT the archangel Michel because 1 Thesselonians 5: 15

"For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment, and with the voice of an archangel, " DR

so Jesus has the VOICE of an archangel but clearly he is not an archangel. Just like if I had the voice of a woman it proves I am not a woman, I only have a woman’s voice. So the bible clearly shows that Jesus is not the archangel Michel.

I hope that helps,
Cashue

Hi Cashue,

It is ironic that you mention this verse that Jesus is clearly not an archangel because JW use this verse to prove that Jesus is in fact the Archangel “with the voice of an archangel”

Yes, I KNOW that Jesus is not an angel. and I will use your comment the next time the subject comes up. Thanks it is a good one.
Jeanne

 

[JeanneH]

Hi JeanneH-
There is nothing in this passage that mentions Jesus or even implies that he is the angel sent by God to protect the Israelites in the wilderness. It is simply talking about God sending an angel that stands in his presence as a guardian to his people. Also, the word “the” doesn’t imply that there is only one angel standing in God’s presence; it is simply a title or a description of that angel’s role. For example, when we say “Smokey The Bear” we don’t mean to assert that there are no other bears.

The only way the JW’s can cull that meaning from this passage is to start with the erroneous assumption that Jesus is an angel. It is typical of them to engage in poor reasoning and in the torturing of the plain meaning of Scripture to get it to say what they want it to.

Hi Fidelis,
Thanks for your response and helping me understand this verse. Hopefully now I can explain what we believe to my friend.

Not to beleaguer the point but this verse reads in the JB and similar in the NAB as:

It was neither messenger nor angle but his Presence that saved them.

I guess these 2 verses are saying the same thing in different ways, yes?

Thanks again
Jeanne

 

[Newman1]

I believe that the Hebrew word which we commonly translate “angel” can mean sometimes mean something more like “spirit.”

In fact, it’s my understanding that some theologians think that the phrase “the angel of the Lord,” which comes up frequently in the Old Testament, refers to pre-incarnate Jesus. This theory. certainly puts certain stories (Jacob wrestling with the Angel; the Angel’s appearance to Joshua, the Angel appearing to Balaam’s donkey) in an interesting light. But I’m not sure whether it’s true, and I don’t know of any specifically Catholic teaching on the subject.

 

[JeanneH]

I believe that the Hebrew word which we commonly translate “angel” can mean sometimes mean something more like “spirit.”

In fact, it’s my understanding that some theologians think that the phrase “the angel of the Lord,” which comes up frequently in the Old Testament, refers to pre-incarnate Jesus. This theory. certainly puts certain stories (Jacob wrestling with the Angel; the Angel’s appearance to Joshua, the Angel appearing to Balaam’s donkey) in an interesting light. But I’m not sure whether it’s true, and I don’t know of any specifically Catholic teaching on the subject.

Hi Newman
I haven’t heard that angel could mean spirit. According to the Strongs Concordance angel can mean messenger or ambassador.

If the angel of the OT refers to the pre-incarnate Jesus this would fuel the WT belief that the OT angel is Michael who they believe is Jesus pre-incarnate.

Jeanne