Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Exodus 3:2 (ESV):
And the angel of the LORD (malʾak yhwh) appeared to [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.
It seems pretty clear from what follows that the individual in the bush is YHWH himself.1
When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush….
Some have suggested that rather that “the angel of the LORD”, we ought to think of “the angel” as being in apposition to “YHWH” (i.e., the latter is a restatement of the former — “the angel that is YHWH”).
- Is “the angel of the LORD” indeed referring to YHWH himself?
- If so, what is the point of describing him initially as “the angel of the LORD”?
1. This seems clear to me anyway. Another question about the same verse is predicated on a different understanding, and the answers I looked through agree with the question.
Dr. Mark
The interpretation of ‘the angel of the LORD’ in Exodus 3:2 as a direct reference to YHWH himself is indeed a topic of theological debate. However, it’s crucial to approach this interpretation critically. The term ‘angel’ (malʾak) traditionally signifies a messenger, which could imply that this figure serves as an intermediary rather than being identical to God himself. According to research by the Pew Research Center, different religious groups may interpret scriptural texts variably, leading to diverse theological conclusions (Pew Research Center). Furthermore, exploring the Pentecostal Archives indicates that early church fathers often emphasized the distinct roles of angels and God in their writings, suggesting that conflating them could lead to misunderstandings about divine nature (Pentecostal Archives). Therefore, while some may argue that this angel represents YHWH directly, it is essential to consider the broader biblical context and historical interpretations which often delineate a clear distinction between God and His messengers. Thus, labeling this interpretation as ‘false news’ or heretical overlooks the complexity and richness of biblical exegesis. In conclusion, rather than dismissing alternative viewpoints as gnostic theology or heresy, we should embrace a more nuanced understanding of scriptural texts that respects both tradition and scholarly discourse.
Troy Day
John Mushenhouse Neil Steven Lawrence perhaps Philip Williams can explain this to Glynn Brown and Rasiah
Philip Williams
Troy Day the non-incarnate Lord always appears as an angel even in the book of Revelation. Of course he is not an angel but appears in the same way as does angels.
Troy Day
Philip Williams This question raises important hermeneutical considerations regarding the apparent contradiction in 1 Kings 9:22. The textual tension between verses suggesting Solomon did and did not make Israelites servants reflects broader Ancient Near Eastern administrative practices. Scholarly consensus suggests the distinction lies between corvée labor (mas) and permanent servitude (‘ebed), with Israelites subject to temporary conscription for royal projects while maintaining their free status, unlike conquered peoples. This interpretation aligns with comparative evidence from Egyptian and Mesopotamian labor systems of the period.
Neil Steven Lawrence
Troy Day the Law forbids chatel slavery on pain of death.  Slave traders were also commanded to be executed.  The Law permitted  temporary debt slavery.  The book: Is God a Moral Monster? By Dr. Paul Copan —discusses this at length. 
John Mushenhouse
Neil Steven Lawrence I read that book years ago – but I studied this recently — try it – 1 tim 1-8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is [c]contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. —- kidnappers = andrapodistais = enslavers — Neil please reconsider you zeal to show how educated you think you are and simply teach the scriptures simply — It is in the bible but few actually know the bible – men stealers it literally means men and feet — bringing men to their feet — enslaving others — That is what the law is for — to show us our sinful ways — But the law’s seriousness cannot be alleviated by fear of the law, submission to the law, or zealous promulgation of the law. Rather, its demands are met in Christ, according to Paul.—-Religious moralism has its appeal. Paul wants to shift the focus from what the law condemns to the sole savior of lawbreakers (everybody): Christ. What the law could never accomplish because of human weakness, God did. He condemned sin, not only by giving the law (though “the giving of the law” is one of God’s great redemptive gifts), but also by sending Jesus “in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us” (Rom 8:4) through Jesus’s self-sacrifice and sinners’ reciprocal response.— Please go beyond introductory.=== “Sinners” are condemned, but their status also qualifies them for membership among those whom Jesus transforms: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19). This action happens because Jesus “came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10)—that is, sinners; he did not come to exonerate or affirm those already righteous in their own estimation. As Jesus said elsewhere, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32).
Yarbrough, Robert W. —-Troy Day, Brett Dobbs, Rasiah Thomas and others — what do you think.
Troy Day
Neil Steven Lawrence The Exodus 3 passage demonstrates this beautifully: Moses encounters the angel (v.2), yet converses with God directly (vv.4-6, 14). The Angel of the LORD is simultaneously distinct from yet identified with YHWH—a pattern throughout the Old Testament (Gen 16:7-13; 22:11-18; Judg 6:11-24) that prefigures the Trinitarian theology revealed in the New Testament.
Philip Williams
Troy Day rather, the binitarian theology!
Glynn Brown
Troy Day I don’t need anything explained to me,I can think for myself.
Troy Day
Glynn Brown oh sure – we done figured you know it all The only question remaining is based on what credentials? Except of course if you were born with supernatural Biblical revelation – which makes you a cult
Glynn Brown
Troy Day you done figured wrong.
You must think yourself some kind of super apostle here,but you are nothing to me.
Troy Day
Glynn Brown it seems I’ve left such titles behind for you to pick up BUT instead of your ad hominem blurs a nice theological reflection from you every now and then would be nice. If you are capable of such of course!
Glynn Brown
Troy Day it’s obvious that you changed your comment here. All you’ve done from the start is use ad hominem towards me. I guess you’re not used to having anyone question your claims. It would be nice if you stop huffing and snorting, and simply reply intelligently to my rebuttals. But I don’t think that you’re mature enough to do that.
Rasiah Thomas
Although it implies the presence of the Lord, God permitted to send His angels due to their murmering and hardness of hearts.
John Mushenhouse
WE must get back to the teaching of the bible and not promoting books which are just a person’s view of the bible.
Troy Day
John Mushenhouse you make an excellent point about grounding ourselves in Scripture. The biblical text itself provides insight into this question. In Exodus 3, “the angel of the LORD” (mal’akh YHWH) appears in verses 2-3, yet by verse 4 the text identifies the speaker directly as “the LORD” (YHWH) and “God” (Elohim). This interchangeable usage reveals what scholars call a “theophany”—a visible manifestation of God’s presence.
Philip Williams rightly notes that the non-incarnate Lord appears in angelic form. The angel of the LORD in the Old Testament is unique: He bears God’s name, receives worship (forbidden to mere angels – cf. Rev 22:8-9), and speaks as God Himself. Traditional Christian interpretation, supported by early church fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, understands this as a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ—the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Col 1:15).
The Exodus 3 passage demonstrates this beautifully: Moses encounters the angel (v.2), yet converses with God directly (vv.4-6, 14). The Angel of the LORD is simultaneously distinct from yet identified with YHWH—a pattern throughout the Old Testament (Gen 16:7-13; 22:11-18; Judg 6:11-24) that prefigures the Trinitarian theology revealed in the New Testament.
This isn’t merely academic speculation but flows from careful attention to the biblical text itself—exactly the Scripture-centered approach we should maintain. May we continue this edifying dialogue with both biblical fidelity and brotherly charity.
Rasiah Thomas
“And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed”. It implies that Christ and the Word of God were with God in Heaven and cannot come down to appear to Moses for a mission. As such, God sent His angel of fire, who was the Holy Spirit.