Joshua 5:13-15

[Epistemes]

I’m sure this has been mentioned here before, but unfortunately I wasn’t around for the explanation…

Joshua 5:13-15 reads,

13 While Joshua was near Jericho, he raised his eyes and saw one who stood facing him, drawn sword in hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you one of us or of our enemies?”
14 He replied, “Neither. I am the captain of the host of the LORD and I have just arrived.” Then Joshua fell prostrate to the ground in worship, and said to him, “What has my lord to say to his servant?”
15 The captain of the host of the LORD replied to Joshua, “Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy.” And Joshua obeyed.
Now, I must ask the usual questions:

Is this “one who stood facing him” God? or is it an angel?

If it is an angel, why does the angel command Joshua to remove his sandals “for the place on which you are standing is holy” just as I AM (as a burning bush) commands Moses to in the book of Exodus?

And if it is not God, why does Joshua fall down in worship?

However, if it is God, is it the Son? It is an early Incarnation of the Son?

How is this passage to be explained?

 

[Genesis315]

The footnotes in my Bible have this:

14 And he answered: No: but I am prince of the host of the Lord, and now I am come. 15 Josue fell on his face to the ground. And worshipping, add: What saith my lord to his servant?

14 “Prince of the host of the Lord”… St. Michael, who is called prince of the people of Israel, Dan. 10. 21.

15 “Worshipping”… Not with divine honour, but with a religious veneration of an inferior kind, suitable to the dignity of his person.

I would imagine the place where a holy angel was would be holy too. The difference between this case and that in Revelation where John bows down to the angel, is John was going to give him adoration due to God alone.

 

[Epistemes]

I found this interesting passage:

***Metatron is also called the head of the angels of God. It was he that appeared as a man to Joshua, who in turn bowed in worship, calling him “Adon” (sovereign). The presence of Metatron even made the ground Joshua was standing on holy (i.e., Moses and the bush at Mount Sinai).

What we have is an actual case of, “Sephirot (divinity) in the flesh.”*

The relationship of Metatron to God (i.e., to the Divine Sephirot of Tipheret, Yesod and also Malkut), is so intimate, it provoked the following discussion in the Talmud, where someone suggested to a rabbi that Metatron was worthy of worship:**

Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 38b - R. Nahman said: He who is as skilled in refuting the Minim [heretics] as is R. Idith, let him do so; but not otherwise. Once a Min said to R. Idith: It is written, And unto Moses He said, Come up to the Lord. But surely it should have stated, Come up unto me! — It was Metatron [who said that], he replied, whose name is similar to that of his Master, for it is written, For my name is in him. But if so, [he retorted,] we should worship him! The same passage, however, — replied R. Idith says: Be not rebellious against him, i.e., exchange Me not for him. But if so, why is it stated: He will not pardon your transgression? He answered: By our troth we would not accept him even as a messenger, for it is written, And he said unto him, If Thy [personal] presence go not etc.

Author Moshe Idel describes the connection between Metatron and the Messiah throughout Hebraic historical writings:

A recurrent figure in the apocalyptic literature, whose eshatalogical role has not drawn due attention from scholars, is the archangel Metatron. Though some of its features refelct earleir traditions, its emergence in Jewish angelology as the prince of the divine countenance was a momentous development that was destined to influence some interesting themes in later Messianism.

… The emergence of a median world, mythic in some of its characteristics, facilitated the commerce between man and God as it reformulated many of the earlier divine interventions in human affairs into angelic missions. The divine intervention in history was now attributed to the Messiah as part of a theophanic mode, or myth …

… The assumption of the existence of a continuum between God and some of the angels is paramount not only for a better understanding of ancient Jewish angelology, but also for the more adequate apprehension of Kabbalistic theories of emanation as an inner divine process. The relation between Metatron and God should be understood against the background this conception. Thus Metatron as the angel of the divine countenance is organically related to this divine limb and as such deserves the theophanic function of the divine face in the Bible. 15

yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/rev5hb.htm

 

[Liberian]

Genesis 3:15,

Thank you very much for your reply. I post over on an anti-Catholic forum as well and I have never had a good reply to this question. Perhaps you can help.

Joshua fell down and venerated the angel; John in Revelation was going to fall down and worship the angel. What difference was there, either in their attitudes or in their actions? I would be delighted if you could explain this to me.

• Liberian

 

[simbagizmo]

Please continue reading

Jos 5:13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
Jos 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
Jos 5:15 And the captain of the LORD’s host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.
Jos 6:1 Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in.
Jos 6:2 **And the LORD said unto **Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valor.

I believe this is Jesus Christ. In 6:2 it states the LORD said. Not an angle.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Haydock’s Catholic Bible commentary on these verses:

---

Ver. 14. Prince of the host of the Lord, &c. St. Michael, who is called prince of the people of Israel, Daniel x. 21. (Challoner) — Some of the Fathers explain it of the son of God. (Origen, hom. 6.) But St. Augustine, City of God xi. 13., St. Jerome in Galatians iii., and interpreters in general agree, that the person who here appeared to Josue, was the archangel Michael. He came, in the name of God, to assure Josue of success, as the angel had appeared to Moses in the burning bush, as if to denote the distress of the Hebrews, and to encourage Moses to undertake their liberation. (Calmet) — Chaldean, “I am the angel sent by God.” In that character he is called the Lord. (Haydock)
Ver. 15. Worshipping. Not with divine honour, but with a religious veneration of an inferior kind, suitable to the dignity of his person. (Challoner) — He styles the angel Adonai, which is a title frequently given to men; and hence he does not seem to have designed to give him supreme worship. (Calmet) — If he did, (Haydock) it was referred to God. (Calmet) (Exodus xx.)

 

[simbagizmo]

Haydock’s Catholic Bible commentary on these verses:

---

Ver. 14. Prince of the host of the Lord, &c. St. Michael, who is called prince of the people of Israel, Daniel x. 21. (Challoner) — Some of the Fathers explain it of the son of God. (Origen, hom. 6.) But St. Augustine, City of God xi. 13., St. Jerome in Galatians iii., and interpreters in general agree, that the person who here appeared to Josue, was the archangel Michael. He came, in the name of God, to assure Josue of success, as the angel had appeared to Moses in the burning bush, as if to denote the distress of the Hebrews, and to encourage Moses to undertake their liberation. (Calmet) — Chaldean, “I am the angel sent by God.” In that character he is called the Lord. (Haydock)
Ver. 15. Worshipping. Not with divine honour, but with a religious veneration of an inferior kind, suitable to the dignity of his person. (Challoner) — He styles the angel Adonai, which is a title frequently given to men; and hence he does not seem to have designed to give him supreme worship. (Calmet) — If he did, (Haydock) it was referred to God. (Calmet) (Exodus xx.)

The passage states that a man appeared and does not say an angel. Also, in Verse 6:2, it states the Lord spoke, this being the man in Verse 5:14-15. The word used for Lord is

H3068
יהוה
yehôvâh
yeh-ho-vaw’
From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

This with the fact that an angel would have not permitted Joshua to worship, I would say this is Jesus

 

[Todd_Easton]

The passage states that a man appeared and does not say an angel.

There is a similarity between this man’s appearance to Joshua and the appearance of three men to Abraham in Genesis 18. Although Scripture refers to these three individuals as “men” in Genesis 18:2, yet at least two of them seem to be referred to as “angels” in Genesis 19:1. There is also a similarity with the “man” with whom Jacob wrestled in Genesis 32:26, yet whom Hosea 12:4 referred to as an “angel.” Also see Hebrews 13:2 where Scripture tells us that some entertained angels unawares.

Also, in Verse 6:2, it states the Lord spoke, this being the man in Verse 5:14-15.

When it says that the LORD spoke to Joshua, that may not necessarily mean that this man is the LORD. It may mean that the LORD spoke through this man (angel). In Isaiah 7:10 it says, “Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,” yet from the context it seems that, ‘Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz through the prophet Isaiah,’ as it says in Jeremiah 37:2 that the LORD “spoke through the prophet Jeremiah” in Jeremiah 37:2.

This with the fact that an angel would have not permitted Joshua to worship, I would say this is Jesus

The fact that Joshua worshiped this individual is not as clear an indication as you propose. The Hebrew word shachah, which is translated here as worship, is sometimes in Scripture translated as *obeisance, *the type of reverence a man might justly give to a man who is his superior or that a man might justly give to an angel. This is the type of reverence that Joseph’s brothers offered him (Genesis 43:28), that Moses offered his father-in-law (Exodus 18:7), and that his mother offered King Solomon (1 Kings 1:16), etc.

The man who appeared to Josua may indeed be the Son of God but the text is ambiguous enough so that it cannot be completely ruled out that he was instead an angel.

 

[simbagizmo]

There is a similarity between this man’s appearance to Joshua and the appearance of three men to Abraham in Genesis 18. Although Scripture refers to these three individuals as “men” in Genesis 18:2, yet at least two of them seem to be referred to as “angels” in Genesis 19:1. There is also a similarity with the “man” with whom Jacob wrestled in Genesis 32:26, yet whom Hosea 12:4 referred to as an “angel.” Also see Hebrews 13:2 where Scripture tells us that some entertained angels unawares.

In Genesis 18:2, it states that the Lord appeared and spoke to Abraham. Abraham saw 3 “men”, but I believe these were Jesus, and two angels. The passages says the Lord went his way at the end of the Chapter.

In Genesis 19:1, the two angels that were with the Lord and Abraham went to Sodom and saw Lot. I believe the third person was in fact the Lord.

In Genesis 32:26, Jacob never calls the man Lord, nor worships.

In Hebrews 13:2, which is referring to the Genesis 18 and 19 chapters because there were two angels that Abraham and Lot took in.

When it says that the LORD spoke to Joshua, that may not necessarily mean that this man is the LORD. It may mean that the LORD spoke through this man (angel). In Isaiah 7:10 it says, “Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,” yet from the context it seems that, ‘Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz through the prophet Isaiah,’ as it says in Jeremiah 37:2 that the LORD “spoke through the prophet Jeremiah” in Jeremiah 37:2.

Agreed

The fact that Joshua worshiped this individual is not as clear an indication as you propose. The Hebrew word shachah, which is translated here as worship, is sometimes in Scripture translated as *obeisance, *the type of reverence a man might justly give to a man who is his superior or that a man might justly give to an angel. This is the type of reverence that Joseph’s brothers offered him (Genesis 43:28), that Moses offered his father-in-law (Exodus 18:7), and that his mother offered King Solomon (1 Kings 1:16), etc.

But if you take a look at the translations of the passage

Jos 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?

Exo 18:7 And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent.

1Ki 1:16 And Bath-sheba bowed, and did obeisance unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou?

Gen 43:28 And they answered, Thy servant our father is in good health, he is yet alive. And they bowed down their heads, and made obeisance.

The Bible makes this distinction.

obeisance

1. A gesture or movement of the body, such as a curtsy, that expresses deference or homage.
2. An attitude of deference or homage.

Worship

1. To honor and love as a deity.
2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion

The man who appeared to Josua may indeed be the Son of God but the text is ambiguous enough so that it cannot be completely ruled out that he was instead an angel.

Maybe, but I think there is enough distinction here that leans toward Jesus.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The Bible makes this distinction.

It was the English translators of the Bible who made this distinction; the original Hebrew is ambiguous. The original Hebrew word, shachah, can mean either worship or obeisance. The fact that the English translators chose one meaning of *shachah *over the other in this instance says more about the translators’ biases than the meaning of the original. This may be similar to what the ‘anti-tradition’ translators of the NIV did when they rendered the Greek New Testament word paradosis, which means tradition, as tradition when the context was unfavorable (Matthew 15:2, 3, 6; Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13; Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:8) but as teaching when the context was favorable (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6) to give the reader an unnecessary bias against all traditions.

 

[theweeper]

wow this totally answered my quesiton thanks todd must be why they called it catholic answers.