Shalom brother Matthew, Troy. This is very interesting. It is true, I have so much prior "programing" that I must be very aware of when I study Yah's Word. Thanks so much for the link to the article. Blessings 🕊 🙏
I hope I didn’t miss it, but did Troy address this passage? 👇 "As Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and remain at the entrance, and the LORD would speak with Moses. When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they would stand up and worship, each one at the entrance to his own tent. Thus the LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend..." - Exodus 33: 9-11
@@emjmnc I apologize if I missed it, cause I was listening but multi-tasking. I got the impression that Troy believes there was NO angel that accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness, but all references instead referred to Moses. I see this Ex. 33 passage showing us the angel descending to speak with Moses face to face, not the Almighty nor a pre-incarnate Yeshua.
@@KingdomInContext If there was an angel involved, say in the cloud, the angel is subsumed in Yahweh, i.e. the texts simply refer to Yahweh and not the angel. The angel plays no distinct role as himself. Everything he says or does is just taken as Yahweh doing and saying it.
I'm struggling or misunderstanding I should say with y'all saying Moloch? The 👹 Google machine is referring me to the Moloch the Israelites ended up worshipping. I'm driving myself nuts trying to figure out the difference. Searches keep referring me to the other. Thank y'all love listening & learning from y'all's lessons 👍🏼🙏🏼😇💯🇺🇲
I need to make one correction of something I said in the video. Between 21:12-21:15 I said that the 2nd person pronoun "you" in Ex. 23:20 was plural. I misspoke, it is actually singular. But this does not affect my proposal in any way. Here is how I explain this in my article: "Another objection, that supposedly confirms the first objection, is the use of the second person singular pronouns (you and your) from vv.20 -33. Surely this means that Yahweh is speaking to a single person, Moses, and so Moses can’t be the agent that Yahweh is promising to send with Moses. But this argument will not hold up. First off, all the things Yahweh says he will do in these passages cannot be said only of Moses but must be applied to all of Israel. Also, in the midst of all these singular pronouns we see a shift to plural in v.25 with the words “So you (pl.) shall serve Yahweh your (pl.) God.” It immediately shifts back to singular in the same verse with “and he will bless your (sing.) bread and water and will take away sickness from among you (sing.).” Surely this is referring not to Moses but to the whole Israelite community, which is being viewed as a single entity throughout. In fact, all of the 2nd person pronouns from vv. 26-33 are singular and all clearly refer to Israel as a people and not to Moses. This same use of singular pronouns for the Israelite community can be seen throughout the whole passage starting from Ex. 21:2 right up to 23:20. Once again, in 22:21-22, we see an abrupt change from singular to plural and then back to singular in v. 23., then back to plural in v. 24, and plural again in v. 25. I am not going to go through the whole passage; I think the point has been made sufficiently. So the use of singular pronouns in 23:20-23 cannot be made to mean that Moses, and not the Israelites, is the intended recipient of these words. This use of singular pronouns in relation to the nation of Israel is also common in the writings of the prophets."
Interesting discussion. I have heard of the "two powers in heaven" theory, and some people say it was originally believed by some Jews. I think it popped up among the Jews and Christians in the 1st century AD which makes me think it was influenced by the Greeks because that's how their top gods work.
I just looked it up, and Michael Heiser said that Alan Segal traced the idea of two powers in heaven back to around 200 BC and that it didn't become heretical in Judaism until Christians applied the concept to Jesus. But I have read other rabbis say that the idea was always heretical in Judaism.
I haven't quite finished this video, but I just read the passage, and yes, it does seem like Moses could be the malak that is mentioned in ex 23:20. Moses is called an elohim in Exodus 7:1 and then as Joel mentioned, other humans are called malak (like Gen 32:3). I don't know if he specifically states that Moses is the malak here, but could be. I'll keep listening....
Good morning brother Matthew, thanks for sharing part 2. Father always answers prayers, I was just wondering about the Angel of the Lord. Was talking with a Baptist pastor, a good friend of mine about it. He believes pre-incarnate Jesus(he doesn’t say Yeshua) and shared some verses with me after he said why he felt this “because this angel accepted worship”. Here are the verses he shared….. One instance - Judges 13:1-25 (specific verses - vs. 15-22) esp vs 22 ….. Joshua 5:13-15 - the commander of the army of the LORD - Joshua worshipped Him…. Judges 6:11-24. I am looking forward to watching this video. Thanks for always sharing brother, it’s good to hear from you this morning. Shalom
While that Baptist pastor probably has bad doctrine elsewhere, he’s correct. The Angel of YHWH that accepted worship is in fact a pre-incarnate Christ. Theophanies are pre-incarnations of Christ. For example - no man has seen the Father. Who wrestled with Jacob? This guy picks and chooses other heretics to co-sign his heresies.
@@Tracy-Inches if you deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, we will not be at the same time come judgement. Jesus Christ is God. The Scriptures and Church fathers agree.
And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, Genesis 48:15 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. Genesis 48:16
The idea that this is the same angel that appears to Joshua with a sword in his hand claiming to be the commander of the army of the Lord is not strange; Joshua was fulfilling the conditions needed for the angel to appear: driving out the wicked Canaanites mentioned in this passage. I think the idea is that the Angel of the Lord or Elohim means that the supernatural angel is implied, while just "messenger" is the typical context. We know YHVH is the Lord of Armies, and his are are the spiritual heavenly host, so it seems most likely the messenger is a spirit, but it could be a redeemed/resurrected human like Moses. Either way, it is most likely not a regular being. We know Jesus is called the captain of the armies of God in Revelation, so this is the same title the angel that appeared to Joshua gave. Clearly, we know that this is an angel with similar authority. Of particular interest is the fact that two angels are on either side of the Ark of the Covenant, which is Messiah's throne. These two angels represent how Jesus has full spiritual authority over all spirits. This means the angel can go forth in HIS name with HIS authority at HIS wish. So this angel does not necessarily have to be Jesus himself, but it does appear to be one of his angels. Moses and Elijah appeared before Jesus at the Transfiguration, so it does not seem impossible that Moses (who had a resurrected spiritual body after he died on Mt. Nebo, as evidenced by the Transfiguration on the Mount) could be the angel, and that these two angels represented on the Ark could refer to Moses and Elijah. However, we know that when Elisha and Elijah were walking across the Jordan since Elijah was going to be taken up to heaven, Elisha asked Elijah to have a double-portion of Elijah's spirit, so we can see that Elisha is recognizing that the Spirit that Elijah had was separate from him, and can incarnate in anyone who is willing. So, it appears that this commander of the armies of the Lord is a spirit that chooses who it comes upon; Moses and Elijah were just two of the chosen vessels. So the angel that appeared to Joshua was the commander of the Armies of the Lord, sent in the name of God/Messiah, and Joshua was the chosen vessel. Just as Jesus (whose Hebrew name is Joshua) made a new Covenant as an archetype of Moses, Joshua is the fulfillment of the archetype of Jesus as the Commander of the armies of the Lord. Angels are spiritual, so the angel was transferred from Moses to Joshua at the time it was prophesied and needed. The angel came from the throne of God in the name of God to deliver the people of God; it is the same spirit... and it is the title of the chosen leader of God's people. Since Jesus has now assumed this role forever as the eternal "Melchizedek", the title of commander of the armies of the Lord now rests on him forever, and since the throne always was his, he was the one who brought the people of Egypt out: through his angel that manifested through Moses. Distinguishing between whether it is the angel of Jesus or YHVH is not necessary because the Father and the Son are in perfect agreement; the spirit is equally theirs.
I never said, either in this video or in any article, that the personage that appeared to Joshua was not a heavenly agent, in fact, I have said that it could possibly be Micheal, though we can't know for certain. But there is nothing in either text that tells us the malak in Ex. 23:20 is the same entity as in Joshua 5. If someone wants to believe that, fine, but there is no textual evidence for it, it would be merely an assumption. As for the other points you made about there being a spirit who comes upon different persons, who is the same as this malak in Ex. 23:20, well that is quite a fanciful interpretation without much contextual support.
@@troysal The context is the key. The Israelites never took the land until Joshua. Exodus 23:23 specifically says, "[23] For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and I will annihilate them." This is exactly why the angel that comes before Joshua: to declare God is fighting for them as was prophesied. I would say it is very much supported by the text. While I recognize resurrected Christians have spiritual bodies, Hebrew 1-2 clearly indicates to me that 1) Spirits≠Humans, yet 2) Spirits=Angels. However, like you say, angel is just a word for messenger, but the point is spirits can be angels and appear human if a person's eyes are opened to the spiritual world like Elisha's were when he saw the Chariots of God when Elijah was taken (2 Kings 2) and the Armies of the Lord against the Syrian Army (2 Kings 6). Could the spiritual body of Moses be the vessel that chosen by the angel in this specific instance? It is unclear for sure, but I suppose context is everything. We know from the Transfiguration even resurrected humans can be hidden in the spiritual world, so it could still be that Moses was used, but I think the key is to distinguish spirits from humans.
An interesting idea, and however we define the angel of YHWH, it is evident that Moses can legitimately be described as one. However, when I consider the malak who went before the people in a pillar of fire and cloud, I realise that presents us with two angels of YHWH. One heavenly, and one human. This being the case, is there sufficient reason to doubt that the malak of YHWH in Exodus 23:20-23 is heavenly? In other words, if we know God's angel was already going before them in the pillar, then why not believe that he's the one being spoken of, instead of Moses? This would remove a potential difficulty of Moses not actually being the one who brought them in. Depending if one believes that God knew in advance that Moses would fail or not. Another point is where God says the malak will not pardon. I understood the explanation, but don't find it the best fit. The reason being that this lack of pardoning fits with what is said about God himself in Joshua 24:19. Also in Exodus 34:7, God says he will not clear the guilty, which is basically saying the same thing. If the angel is heavenly, he would just be representing God in bringing judgement on the guilty, ie. the unbelieving/idolatrous ones among the Israelites. Because in reality it was YHWH who didn’t pardon and destroyed those who believed not, but he did so through his heavenly angel. Whereas Moses in those situations acted more as a spokesperson, informing the people what God was about to do, or explaining what had just happened. So, though Moses was indeed one sent by God to go before the people, I don't believe he's the best candidate for Exodus 23:20-23. Deuteronomy 1:32-33 describes it well, and fits Exodus 23: '...the LORD your God, Who went in the way before you, to search you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night, to shew you by what way ye should go, and in a cloud by day.'
Thanks for taking time to listen and to interact. To your first point, there is only one time that a malak is mentioned in connection with the pillar of cloud, Ex. 14:19, though even this text seems to differentiate between the malak and the cloud. Every other time the pillar of cloud is mentioned there is no reference to a malak, but often, there is a reference to Yahweh being associated with the cloud. If there was a malak associated with the cloud then I would assume it to be a heavenly malak, and that this malak perhaps is simply causing the visible phenomenon of the cloud. The malak plays no special role in the whole account. If there is an angel involved he is subsumed into Yahweh and does not stand out as an individual. In the account of the Red sea crossing Moses stands out as the prominent agent of God - he encourages the people to not fear but to trust in Yahweh; he raises his staff over the sea to divide it and then again later to drown Pharoah's army. The end result is seen in Ex. 14:31, which says that the people put their trust in Yahweh and in Moses his servant. The people seem completely unaware of any heavenly malak, for them it's just Yahweh and Moses. To your second point, the phrase "he will not pardon your rebellion" consists of the negative particle 'lo' and a Qal imperfect verb. This construction can denote that one is able but unwilling to perform the action, but it can just as easily denote that one is not able to perform the action. I give some verses in which this is demonstrable in my article. But, in the verse you cited, Josh. 24:19, of course God is able to forgive but will chose not to. But, it does not necessarily follow that the agent in Ex. 23 has the ability to forgive.
@@troysal Thanks Troy for the info. You're right, Exodus 14 seems to be the only place a malak is mentioned in connection with the pillar, and I can see this could potentially be Moses. What do you think about Numbers 12:5, where YHWH comes down in the pillar of cloud and speaks to Aaron and Miriam? Though it doesn't specify an angel there, could we assume there was one speaking on YHWH's behalf? Working on the same principle as the burning bush appearance, where an angel appears and speaks as YHWH.
@@eddieyoung2104 Of course it is possible, but I don't see any problem with God speaking in an audible voice without an agent. If there was an angel speaking for God in the cloud he does not stand out in the narrative as distinct, he is subsumed in Yahweh.
@@troysal I am not reading anything into the text. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, *and were destroyed of serpents* Keep studying, but only with a contrite heart.
Actually, 1 Corinthians 10:10 says the destroyer killed the complainers. The complainers wanted food, and he sent snakes to kill them. Matthew 7:9-10 Or what person is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf of bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?
Shalom thank you for the wonderful teaching
Shalom brother Matthew, Troy. This is very interesting. It is true, I have so much prior "programing" that I must be very aware of when I study Yah's Word. Thanks so much for the link to the article. Blessings 🕊 🙏
Very insightful!
Just finished. Wow, I think he's right. That was really good.
I’m not totally convinced, but brother Troy makes so many good points. 👍🏼
I hope I didn’t miss it, but did Troy address this passage?
👇
"As Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and remain at the entrance, and the LORD would speak with Moses. When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they would stand up and worship, each one at the entrance to his own tent. Thus the LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend..." - Exodus 33: 9-11
I can’t remember him addressing it, but I’d have to revisit his article. How do you feel it factors into the discussion?
@@emjmnc I apologize if I missed it, cause I was listening but multi-tasking. I got the impression that Troy believes there was NO angel that accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness, but all references instead referred to Moses. I see this Ex. 33 passage showing us the angel descending to speak with Moses face to face, not the Almighty nor a pre-incarnate Yeshua.
@@KingdomInContext If there was an angel involved, say in the cloud, the angel is subsumed in Yahweh, i.e. the texts simply refer to Yahweh and not the angel. The angel plays no distinct role as himself. Everything he says or does is just taken as Yahweh doing and saying it.
I'm struggling or misunderstanding I should say with y'all saying Moloch? The 👹 Google machine is referring me to the Moloch the Israelites ended up worshipping. I'm driving myself nuts trying to figure out the difference. Searches keep referring me to the other.
Thank y'all love listening & learning from y'all's lessons 👍🏼🙏🏼😇💯🇺🇲
Malak
They are using the hebrew word for angel (messenger) - malak 💙
They’re actually worshipping moloch/baal/satan because the deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.
I need to make one correction of something I said in the video. Between 21:12-21:15 I said that the 2nd person pronoun "you" in Ex. 23:20 was plural. I misspoke, it is actually singular. But this does not affect my proposal in any way. Here is how I explain this in my article:
"Another objection, that supposedly confirms the first objection, is the use of the second person singular pronouns (you and your) from vv.20 -33. Surely this means that Yahweh is speaking to a single person, Moses, and so Moses can’t be the agent that Yahweh is promising to send with Moses. But this argument will not hold up. First off, all the things Yahweh says he will do in these passages cannot be said only of Moses but must be applied to all of Israel. Also, in the midst of all these singular pronouns we see a shift to plural in v.25 with the words “So you (pl.) shall serve Yahweh your (pl.) God.” It immediately shifts back to singular in the same verse with “and he will bless your (sing.) bread and water and will take away sickness from among you (sing.).” Surely this is referring not to Moses but to the whole Israelite community, which is being viewed as a single entity throughout. In fact, all of the 2nd person pronouns from vv. 26-33 are singular and all clearly refer to Israel as a people and not to Moses. This same use of singular pronouns for the Israelite community can be seen throughout the whole passage starting from Ex. 21:2 right up to 23:20. Once again, in 22:21-22, we see an abrupt change from singular to plural and then back to singular in v. 23., then back to plural in v. 24, and plural again in v. 25. I am not going to go through the whole passage; I think the point has been made sufficiently. So the use of singular pronouns in 23:20-23 cannot be made to mean that Moses, and not the Israelites, is the intended recipient of these words. This use of singular pronouns in relation to the nation of Israel is also common in the writings of the prophets."
Thanks brother, I appreciate your humility. Still ruminating on the discussion. May Yahweh bless you for your labor…
Interesting discussion. I have heard of the "two powers in heaven" theory, and some people say it was originally believed by some Jews. I think it popped up among the Jews and Christians in the 1st century AD which makes me think it was influenced by the Greeks because that's how their top gods work.
I just looked it up, and Michael Heiser said that Alan Segal traced the idea of two powers in heaven back to around 200 BC and that it didn't become heretical in Judaism until Christians applied the concept to Jesus. But I have read other rabbis say that the idea was always heretical in Judaism.
I haven't quite finished this video, but I just read the passage, and yes, it does seem like Moses could be the malak that is mentioned in ex 23:20. Moses is called an elohim in Exodus 7:1 and then as Joel mentioned, other humans are called malak (like Gen 32:3). I don't know if he specifically states that Moses is the malak here, but could be. I'll keep listening....
Good morning brother Matthew, thanks for sharing part 2. Father always answers prayers, I was just wondering about the Angel of the Lord. Was talking with a Baptist pastor, a good friend of mine about it. He believes pre-incarnate Jesus(he doesn’t say Yeshua) and shared some verses with me after he said why he felt this “because this angel accepted worship”. Here are the verses he shared….. One instance - Judges 13:1-25 (specific verses - vs. 15-22) esp vs 22 ….. Joshua 5:13-15 - the commander of the army of the LORD - Joshua worshipped Him…. Judges 6:11-24.
I am looking forward to watching this video. Thanks for always sharing brother, it’s good to hear from you this morning. Shalom
While that Baptist pastor probably has bad doctrine elsewhere, he’s correct. The Angel of YHWH that accepted worship is in fact a pre-incarnate Christ. Theophanies are pre-incarnations of Christ. For example - no man has seen the Father. Who wrestled with Jacob? This guy picks and chooses other heretics to co-sign his heresies.
@@PhillipCallaway-w1j
yikes, I disagree with you. It is all good, if you truly believe. I will be giving you a hug at the resurrection.
Shalom
@@Tracy-Inches if you deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, we will not be at the same time come judgement. Jesus Christ is God. The Scriptures and Church fathers agree.
@@PhillipCallaway-w1j
John chapter 17
Revelation 22:14
no Denial of the authority given to the Messiah from the Almighty
@@Tracy-Inches the Messiah is God.
Isaiah 9:6
Matthew 1:23
John 1:1-4; 1:14
John 20:28
Hebrews 1:8-14
I can go on and on
And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, Genesis 48:15
The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. Genesis 48:16
The hornets were sent literally to drive giants out of the promised land.
The idea that this is the same angel that appears to Joshua with a sword in his hand claiming to be the commander of the army of the Lord is not strange; Joshua was fulfilling the conditions needed for the angel to appear: driving out the wicked Canaanites mentioned in this passage. I think the idea is that the Angel of the Lord or Elohim means that the supernatural angel is implied, while just "messenger" is the typical context. We know YHVH is the Lord of Armies, and his are are the spiritual heavenly host, so it seems most likely the messenger is a spirit, but it could be a redeemed/resurrected human like Moses. Either way, it is most likely not a regular being. We know Jesus is called the captain of the armies of God in Revelation, so this is the same title the angel that appeared to Joshua gave. Clearly, we know that this is an angel with similar authority. Of particular interest is the fact that two angels are on either side of the Ark of the Covenant, which is Messiah's throne. These two angels represent how Jesus has full spiritual authority over all spirits. This means the angel can go forth in HIS name with HIS authority at HIS wish. So this angel does not necessarily have to be Jesus himself, but it does appear to be one of his angels. Moses and Elijah appeared before Jesus at the Transfiguration, so it does not seem impossible that Moses (who had a resurrected spiritual body after he died on Mt. Nebo, as evidenced by the Transfiguration on the Mount) could be the angel, and that these two angels represented on the Ark could refer to Moses and Elijah. However, we know that when Elisha and Elijah were walking across the Jordan since Elijah was going to be taken up to heaven, Elisha asked Elijah to have a double-portion of Elijah's spirit, so we can see that Elisha is recognizing that the Spirit that Elijah had was separate from him, and can incarnate in anyone who is willing. So, it appears that this commander of the armies of the Lord is a spirit that chooses who it comes upon; Moses and Elijah were just two of the chosen vessels. So the angel that appeared to Joshua was the commander of the Armies of the Lord, sent in the name of God/Messiah, and Joshua was the chosen vessel. Just as Jesus (whose Hebrew name is Joshua) made a new Covenant as an archetype of Moses, Joshua is the fulfillment of the archetype of Jesus as the Commander of the armies of the Lord. Angels are spiritual, so the angel was transferred from Moses to Joshua at the time it was prophesied and needed. The angel came from the throne of God in the name of God to deliver the people of God; it is the same spirit... and it is the title of the chosen leader of God's people. Since Jesus has now assumed this role forever as the eternal "Melchizedek", the title of commander of the armies of the Lord now rests on him forever, and since the throne always was his, he was the one who brought the people of Egypt out: through his angel that manifested through Moses. Distinguishing between whether it is the angel of Jesus or YHVH is not necessary because the Father and the Son are in perfect agreement; the spirit is equally theirs.
I never said, either in this video or in any article, that the personage that appeared to Joshua was not a heavenly agent, in fact, I have said that it could possibly be Micheal, though we can't know for certain. But there is nothing in either text that tells us the malak in Ex. 23:20 is the same entity as in Joshua 5. If someone wants to believe that, fine, but there is no textual evidence for it, it would be merely an assumption. As for the other points you made about there being a spirit who comes upon different persons, who is the same as this malak in Ex. 23:20, well that is quite a fanciful interpretation without much contextual support.
@@troysal The context is the key. The Israelites never took the land until Joshua. Exodus 23:23 specifically says, "[23] For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and I will annihilate them." This is exactly why the angel that comes before Joshua: to declare God is fighting for them as was prophesied. I would say it is very much supported by the text. While I recognize resurrected Christians have spiritual bodies, Hebrew 1-2 clearly indicates to me that 1) Spirits≠Humans, yet 2) Spirits=Angels. However, like you say, angel is just a word for messenger, but the point is spirits can be angels and appear human if a person's eyes are opened to the spiritual world like Elisha's were when he saw the Chariots of God when Elijah was taken (2 Kings 2) and the Armies of the Lord against the Syrian Army (2 Kings 6). Could the spiritual body of Moses be the vessel that chosen by the angel in this specific instance? It is unclear for sure, but I suppose context is everything. We know from the Transfiguration even resurrected humans can be hidden in the spiritual world, so it could still be that Moses was used, but I think the key is to distinguish spirits from humans.
An interesting idea, and however we define the angel of YHWH, it is evident that Moses can legitimately be described as one. However, when I consider the malak who went before the people in a pillar of fire and cloud, I realise that presents us with two angels of YHWH. One heavenly, and one human. This being the case, is there sufficient reason to doubt that the malak of YHWH in Exodus 23:20-23 is heavenly? In other words, if we know God's angel was already going before them in the pillar, then why not believe that he's the one being spoken of, instead of Moses?
This would remove a potential difficulty of Moses not actually being the one who brought them in. Depending if one believes that God knew in advance that Moses would fail or not. Another point is where God says the malak will not pardon. I understood the explanation, but don't find it the best fit. The reason being that this lack of pardoning fits with what is said about God himself in Joshua 24:19. Also in Exodus 34:7, God says he will not clear the guilty, which is basically saying the same thing. If the angel is heavenly, he would just be representing God in bringing judgement on the guilty, ie. the unbelieving/idolatrous ones among the Israelites. Because in reality it was YHWH who didn’t pardon and destroyed those who believed not, but he did so through his heavenly angel. Whereas Moses in those situations acted more as a spokesperson, informing the people what God was about to do, or explaining what had just happened.
So, though Moses was indeed one sent by God to go before the people, I don't believe he's the best candidate for Exodus 23:20-23. Deuteronomy 1:32-33 describes it well, and fits Exodus 23:
'...the LORD your God, Who went in the way before you, to search you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night, to shew you by what way ye should go, and in a cloud by day.'
Thanks for taking time to listen and to interact. To your first point, there is only one time that a malak is mentioned in connection with the pillar of cloud, Ex. 14:19, though even this text seems to differentiate between the malak and the cloud. Every other time the pillar of cloud is mentioned there is no reference to a malak, but often, there is a reference to Yahweh being associated with the cloud. If there was a malak associated with the cloud then I would assume it to be a heavenly malak, and that this malak perhaps is simply causing the visible phenomenon of the cloud. The malak plays no special role in the whole account. If there is an angel involved he is subsumed into Yahweh and does not stand out as an individual. In the account of the Red sea crossing Moses stands out as the prominent agent of God - he encourages the people to not fear but to trust in Yahweh; he raises his staff over the sea to divide it and then again later to drown Pharoah's army. The end result is seen in Ex. 14:31, which says that the people put their trust in Yahweh and in Moses his servant. The people seem completely unaware of any heavenly malak, for them it's just Yahweh and Moses.
To your second point, the phrase "he will not pardon your rebellion" consists of the negative particle 'lo' and a Qal imperfect verb. This construction can denote that one is able but unwilling to perform the action, but it can just as easily denote that one is not able to perform the action. I give some verses in which this is demonstrable in my article. But, in the verse you cited, Josh. 24:19, of course God is able to forgive but will chose not to. But, it does not necessarily follow that the agent in Ex. 23 has the ability to forgive.
@@troysal Thanks Troy for the info. You're right, Exodus 14 seems to be the only place a malak is mentioned in connection with the pillar, and I can see this could potentially be Moses.
What do you think about Numbers 12:5, where YHWH comes down in the pillar of cloud and speaks to Aaron and Miriam? Though it doesn't specify an angel there, could we assume there was one speaking on YHWH's behalf? Working on the same principle as the burning bush appearance, where an angel appears and speaks as YHWH.
@@eddieyoung2104 Of course it is possible, but I don't see any problem with God speaking in an audible voice without an agent. If there was an angel speaking for God in the cloud he does not stand out in the narrative as distinct, he is subsumed in Yahweh.
@@troysal Thanks. I'll look into it a bit more.
1 Corinthians 10:9
What is the specific point you want to make?
@@troysal
It tells you who the angel was.
@@larrybedouin2921 I don't see it. You are reading your presupposition into it. 1 Cor. 10:9 has nothing to say as to who the malak of Ex. 23:20 is.
@@troysal
I am not reading anything into the text.
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, *and were destroyed of serpents*
Keep studying, but only with a contrite heart.
Actually, 1 Corinthians 10:10 says the destroyer killed the complainers. The complainers wanted food, and he sent snakes to kill them. Matthew 7:9-10 Or what person is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf of bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?
Brother Mathew in Jubilees it does tell you that was an Angle it backs up our standard Bible 🙂 YA Bless
I’m familiar with that as well as another text that speak of Yahoel, which shows that to be at least one understanding.
@@emjmnc thanks for the reply back Brother I’d love to visit your church sometime I’m surrounded by Trinity and dispensation churches