Book review: Angelomorphic Christology - Antecedents and Early Evidence by Charles A. Gieschen
Baylor University Press/1998/403 pages/$36.42 paperback (Amazon.com price)
Reviewed by Jim Burns on 1-15-2026
Having grown up in a mainline Protestant denomination, I must admit that the pre-existent Jesus as the Angel of the Lord was seldom mentioned from the pulpit or in bible studies. If this form of Jesus had been mentioned it somehow got lost in the “Jesus is God” trinitarian mantra with me believing well into adulthood that Jesus’ earthly mission didn’t kick-off until his birth to Mary. A bible study with my local congregation introduced me to the active work of Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament (OT) period. In this particular study the pastor referred to this visible manifestation to humankind as a “theophany” as Jesus was not only the Angel of the Lord, but at the same time God. I found this study fascinating and wondered why my church body seldom preached on this subject.
When I later became a unitarian, Jesus as the Angel of the Lord took on a whole different, yet refreshing, meaning for me. Angel Christology unitarians, also known as “Arians,” readily embrace the OT work of Jesus as the Angel of the Lord and regularly preach on the subject matter. It was my son, Joshua, who introduced me to Dr. Gieschen’s book. Although written by a devout trinitarian, Angelomorphic Christology is an indispensable book for countering Socinian Christology unitarians who believe Jesus didn’t exist before his birth to Mary and only became exalted after his resurrection.
In the Prologue of his book Gieschen shares his central thesis: “Angelomorphic traditions, especially those growing from the Angel of the Lord traditions, had a significant impact on the early expressions of Christology to the extent that evidence of an Angelomorphic Christology is discernible in several documents dated between 50 and 150 Common Era (CE).” He also reveals his bias that “the Angel of the Lord is God appearing in the form of a man. Therefore, the essential form of the revelation of God in Israelite and Jewish literature is as an angelomorphic figure.” Finally, the author alerts the reader that his study will have implications for research on early Pneumatology due to the influence angelomorphic traditions had on Holy Spirit teachings.
Gieschen notifies the reader in the first chapter of his book that the contribution the angelomorphic traditions made to the development of Christology occurred primarily in the first three centuries before the First Council of Nicea (325 CE). In this period there were exegetical efforts to express Christ’s pre-existence, as well as to affirm his divinity, through the use of traditions found in Israelite and Jewish literature. Additionally, he states that “the Arian Christological debate served to veil and bury the important contribution that angelomorphic traditions made to the early expression of Christology.” Upon referencing the provided footnote (2; page 7), one can see the reason for Gieschen’s animus to the Arian position: R. Lorenz’s work, “Arius Judaizans?”, revealed that Arius’ Christology emphasized God’s absolute oneness which led him to view Jesus (the Son/Logos) as the highest created being, not co-eternal, but created by God, making him distinct and lesser than the Father - a concept Lorenz connected to influences from Jewish thought (Judaizans) that stressed radical monotheism and a strict Creator/creature divide, which contrasted with Nicene orthodoxy.
The author was quick to add the following (page 8) which cements his trinitarian position: “This does not mean that Christian exegetes after Nicea discontinued their interest in the relationship between Christ and figures like the Angel of the Lord. Such exegesis, however, typically was done within clear dogmatic bounds which limited its focus to canonical documents and carefully distinguished the ontology of the Angel of the Lord from that of created angels. Furthermore, the focus of this exegesis was not primarily on how these ancient traditions influenced early Christology, but rather on how the carefully articulated Christology of later Christianity (Nicea and Chalcedon) could be found in Old Testament texts. Even the angelomorphic depictions of Christ within canonical books like Revelation were usually understood as “theophanies” rather than “angelophanies” because of the dogmatic and ontological problems involved in referring to Christ as “an angel.” This situation, however, began to change with the growth of historical research and its use of extra-biblical literature.”
In the remainder of Chapter One, Gieschen highlights the historical research that has been done on Angelology by various theologians from the late nineteenth century to modern times. Wilhelm Bousset, George Foot Moore, Hans Joachim, A.T. Hanson, Gilles Quispel, Margaret Barker and others were addressed. The work of these individuals included developmental trinitarian, trinitarian, binitarian, Jewish and gnostic positions of theological research. I was glad that the author dedicated an entire paragraph (page 21) to the important contributions that the late Larry Hurtado had made to the early Christology/Jewish monotheism discussion which unitarians have benefitted from: “Hurtado’s work has emphasized that Jewish “divine agency” traditions were crucial for early Christian understandings of Jesus’ exaltation. He argues that their understanding of Jesus as God’s chief agent produced a “distinctive” modification in Jewish monotheism which is visible in the worship of Jesus alongside God. He has been an untiring advocate for the role that divine agency played in assisting early Jewish Christians to understand and worship the exalted Jesus.” The author reveals that the term “Angelomorphic Christology” originated with the influential French scholar Jean Danielou, a staunch trinitarian, who claimed that early Jewish Christians drew on angelomorphic traditions in order to articulate their understandings of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
It was helpful that the author included a chapter (Chapter Two) on nomenclature and methodology as one can become confused and draw false conclusions if improper terms are used or not properly defined. I love how Gieschen handled the Religious Group Nomenclature section of his book by resorting to the language of taxonomy to tackle the multi-faceted aspects of Judaism. Judaism is the genus from which various species of competing movements (or groups) have developed over the years - Pharisaism, Essenism, Samaritanism and Christianity. He argues that Christianity became its own genus, which theologian Larry Hurtado had described as a result of a “mutation.”
Angel Nomenclature: “Angel” is an English term that has the basic meaning “messenger” and the technical meaning “a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and the divine realms.” Gieschen alerts his readers that the term will typically be used in the latter sense within his book, with sensitivity to pluralistic usage within the texts that will be examined. His trinitarian bias surfaces with the statement: “Several theophanies of the OT identify God as an angel, but not always with the same phrase.” A footnote (3; page 27) referencing multiple OT verses is provided. All of the verses feature the “Angel of the LORD” term which Gieschen declares will be the common term used to reference the divine figure where the tetragrammaton (YHWH) is written in the original text. Note: The Unitarian Paulician Church of Christ (UPCC) believes that YHWH (actually reads from right to left) is properly pronounced “Yahuah” in the original Paleo Hebrew language based on language studies and interviews with Islamic clerics who know how to pronounce the sacred name.
Multiple paragraphs of the Angel Nomenclature section establish the framework for the rest of the book as well as reveal the main theological difference between unitarians and trinitarians. “Angelology” is used in a very general sense to refer to the diverse ideas about angels. “Angelomorphic” is an inclusive adjective which describes a phenomenon that has the variegated form and functions of an angel, even though the figure may not be explicitly identified as an angel. “Angel Christology” is the explicit identification of Jesus Christ as an angel. (Note: At least two unitarian church bodies, the Jehovah Witnesses and The UPCC, embrace this form of Christology - recognizing that Jesus was strictly an angel before and after the incarnation). “Angelomorphic Christology” is the identification of Christ with angelic form and functions, either before or after the incarnation, whether or not he is specifically identified as an angel. Immediately following this definition Gieschen includes a quote from famous English theologian Christopher Rowland (page 28) which asserts the value of such a distinction: “This kind of description in no way implies that Christ was identified entirely with the created order. There is an implicit recognition, that, while there may indeed be a prima facie case for the transference of angelomorphic categories in passages like Mark 9:2 and Revelation 1:13 this need not necessarily mean that Christ was identified as an angel, if by that is meant a being ontologically distinct from God.” The author adds that Tertullian appears to be the first Christian to write about this distinction as he believed that Christ was an angel according to function, but not ontology, since angels were generally understood to be created beings. Note: The UPCC believes that all angels, including the Angel of the Lord, were created beings.
The remainder of this section introduces and defines the terms “Angelophany” (a manifestation of an angel), “Theophany” (a manifestation of God), “Epiphany” (a manifestation, especially of a supernatural figure), “Christophany” (a manifestation of Christ) and other terms. Gieschen admits that distinguishing between angelophanies and theophanies is at times very difficult in the scriptures. I certainly believe that this is true for Christians holding to a trinitarian view of God. Angel Christology unitarians are looking forward to the publication of the Tetragrammaton Restored Scriptures Version (TRSV) of the Bible which will enable the reader to determine the specific divine agent (God or Jesus) who is speaking in OT and Revelation Angel of the Lord verses. Note: The UPCC believes that there was only one time in recorded history when God the Father appeared on earth. Exodus 33: 21-23 captures this spectacular event.
Moving on to the Divinity Nomenclature section of the book, the author continues to reveal his trinity bias when he addresses the subject of monotheism. He states, “Using the term monotheism to describe first century CE Jewish belief in one God can be problematic. Several scholars have acknowledged the difficulty in asserting a blanket “strict monotheism” among Jews of this period, given the textual evidence of intermediation.” He references the presence of exalted mediator figures who are cultically venerated over the years, yet he offers no biblical proof that these venerated figures are equal in hierarchy to God the Father (Yahuah). He later admits, “we must allow the texts themselves to define what ideas are significant indicators of divinity.” To that end he lists five criteria of divinity that are used in texts to assert the divinity of a mediator alongside God: 1) Divine Position, 2) Divine Appearance, 3) Divine Functions, 4) Divine Name and 5) Divine Veneration. The author concludes that the presence of one or more of these five criteria in a biblical text may indicate that the angelomorphic (Gieschen’s framework) mediator figure was understood to share God’s status, authority, and nature. I certainly agree that Jesus had much in common with his Father as he was given the divine name and authority of God on earth, but this didn’t make him equal to God in hierarchy as indicated by multiple verses throughout scripture.
Due to the weight given to the Divine Veneration criterion by some scholars, Gieschen devotes a whole separate section to this criterion titled “Veneration Nomenclature.” He highlights the studies of Stuckenbruck and Arnold (page 34) who found that there were specific first and second century CE religious individuals and groups who venerated angels in a manner that usually was not seen as a substitute for the worship of God. Further, veneration of an angelomorphic figure alongside God usually involved various degrees or combinations of the following: an exalted portrayal that ascribes divinity, in some manner, to an angelomorphic figure; the assumption of a worship posture before the angel; the invocation of an angel for help; a fascination for, or participation in, the worship offered by angels to God; expressions of thanksgiving directed to an angel; and a song of praise about an angel.
More Gieschen trinitarian bias surfaces in the Hypostasis Nomenclature section of the book. He begins this section with the statement, “The complex relationship between God and the Angel of the Lord, or the relationship between God and some of his divine attributes, has brought the term hypostasis (a term used to signify personhood) into use for the past century. Many scholars have used it as a label for a divine attribute that is identified with God and yet has some degree of independent identity. A significant debate over defining this phenomenon and its usage has developed among biblical scholars in recent decades (a footnote (33) on page 36 gives credit to the work of Larry Hurtado). The discussion centers on whether particular divine attributes of God in Israelite Religion and Judaism (e.g., the Name, the Glory, Wisdom) are essentially linguistic personifications or whether they take on a relatively independent identity in certain texts.” In the third paragraph of this section the author admits that the hypostasis term “is most familiar to theologians in the context of the development of Trinitarian thought, although it has some biblical usage (a footnote (37; page 37) leads the reader to a list of bible verses, none of which defends the trinitarian position). Its usage underwent modification by Origen who no longer used the term for God as a hypostasis, but rather spoke of the three hypostases of God.”
I found it interesting that the author mentions the work of Helmer Ringgren who had hypothesized that hypostatization of attributes tends to lead to polytheism as well as the work of Jarl Fossum who reveals how “the hypostasized Name” which was invested in the Angel of the Lord provides important data for asserting the Jewish origin of the Gnostic demiurge (page 40). Additionally, I appreciated Gieschen mentioning the relatively recent work of James Dunn and Larry Hurtado (page 41) who had not only avoided hypostasis nomenclature, but had downplayed the idea of intermediation. Hurtado had been one of the more outspoken critics of the use of hypostasis nomenclature and had emphasized that the major mutation within Jewish monotheism happened with the cultic veneration of Jesus.
Not surprisingly, after listing six caveats to guide future usage of hypostasis nomenclature, the author doubles down on defending his trinitarian position at the end of this section with these statements: 1) “The hypostasis nomenclature presents problems, but the alternatives proposed are inadequate and misleading.” 2) “The presence of hypostases does not destroy or even weaken so-called monotheism; it increases the complexity of monotheism because the hypostases continue to remain aspects of the deity.” 3) “This study will use hypostasis nomenclature according to the following definition: an HYPOSTASIS is an aspect of the deity that is depicted with independent personhood of varying degrees. The textual evidence shows that a hypostasis shares the nature, authority, and will of the deity since it remains an aspect of the deity.”
In the final section (F) of Part One, Gieschen notifies the reader that the focus of the up-coming study will be the exegesis and comparison of texts using the religio-historical method. He repeats his main thesis (angelomorphic traditions, especially those growing from the Angel of the Lord traditions, had a significant impact on the early expressions of Christology to the extent that evidence of an Angelomorphic Christology is discernible in several documents dated between 50 and 150 CE) and reveals that support for his thesis will be examined in two major parts: Antecedents (Part 2) and Early Evidence (Part Three).
The author rightly shares a quote (page 52) from Samuel Meier, an authority on the use of messengers in the ancient Near East, in the beginning of chapter three (An Angelomorphic God): “The Angel of the Lord in these perplexing biblical narratives does not behave like any other messenger known in the divine or human realm.” The first important problem that the exegete must confront in examining these texts is how one understands the relationship between this angel and God where this angel is the form in which God appears in order to speak or act. Gieschen shares the challenging example of Exodus 3:2 where YHWH appears to Moses in the burning bush. Seven interpretive approaches have been proposed by scholars in order to understand this question of the indistinguishability between God and this angel, from Genesis through Judges: The interpolation theory, the representation theory, the identity theory, the logos theory, the hypostasis theory, the detachment theory, and the messenger theory. It is the representation theory that Angel Christology unitarians embrace as it asserts that the Angel of the Lord is a messenger spirit who represents God as his ambassador. Therefore, this angel speaks and acts for God, but is not God. The hypostasis theory is obviously the theory that the author champions as it holds that the Angel of the Lord is an aspect of God’s personality that has taken on a distinct, but not separate, identity. Yet, at the end of the chapter he concludes that “biblical texts have demonstrated the variegated nature of traditions associated with the Angel of the Lord figure. There is not a uniform pattern for these theophanies or angelophanies, nor are there uniform designations used for the visible manifestations described in these texts.”
Chapter Four takes a comprehensive look at specific biblical texts where evidence is supposedly found for the hypostatization of the aspects of God: the Name; the Glory; Wisdom; the Word; the Spirit; and the Power. I like how the author included texts from pseudepigraphal sources such as 1 Enoch 69 which revealed a connection between the Divine Name and the name of the Son of Man/Elect One. In Proverbs 1:20-33, Wisdom is personified as a woman whose speech is recorded in the first person. Additionally, she is described as a primordial figure who enjoyed a close relationship with God in the act of creating the world (Proverbs 8:22-31). Interestingly, the author states: “She is shown to be a figure fairly distinct from God and the rest of his creation.” The reason for this is the fact that Wisdom is referring directly to Jesus, God’s created son through whom He “had relations” when creating the world! In section E, Gieschen attempts to portray the Spirit as a distinct divine hypostasis. I didn’t find any of his arguments convincing and would refer readers to Gerald Sigal’s book Trinity Doctrine Error that devotes an entire section to the impersonal nature of the holy spirit.
Chapter Five addresses various angels through whom God carried out His work. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and other angels are mentioned. Despite one of these angels, Michael, possessing the Divine Name and acting in an intercessory role for God, Gieschen sides with Christopher Morray-Jones in his claim that interpreting the hypostatized glory, the visible likeness of God, as a principal angel distinct from God opened the door for two different heretical aberrations. One of these aberrations in identifying the Glory as a subordinate/created being igniting the process that culminated in Gnosticism. Obviously, the author would include Arianism in this aberration. Chapter Six highlights angelomorphic humans who acted or spoke for God including patriarchs, kings, prophets, priests and apostles. Although evidence is shared that these Elect individuals achieved angelic status both on earth and in heaven, Gieschen gives no indication that saved humans become angels upon entering heaven.
Gieschen opens Part Three with an intensive look at Angelomorphic Christology At Nicea And Before in Chapter Seven. In addressing Angel Christology at Nicea, the author was quick to distance himself from Arianism although he gives credit to Swiss theologian Martin Werner (page 187) who drew a line of continuity from early Christological uses of angel categories to Arianism as an authentic expression of the “earliest Christology” of the church. He also mentions the key verses (Proverbs 8:22-31) which Arius used to argue for the created and subordinate aspect of the Son! The author ends this section by admitting that the gradual distancing of Christianity from its Jewish roots also contributed to the decreased use of angel traditions in expressing Christianity.
The book goes on to document early church fathers pulling from angelomorphic traditions in their Christological formations. Justin Martyr was especially noteworthy in his interpretation of OT theophanies as evidence of the Son’s existence before the incarnation. In Dialogue with Trypho he argued (page 189) for the Son’s presence in various OT theophanies or angelophanies including the pillar of cloud, the Burning Bush, as one of the three men at Mamre, as the angel who wrestled with Jacob, and as the warrior angel who appeared to Joshua. As a subordinationist Martyr was careful to distinguish between the Angel who was begotten by the Father and the other angels who were created. Justin also recognized the Son in this pre-incarnate state as the Word.
Chapters Eight, Nine and Ten address angelomorphic references in extra biblical literature written within the first four centuries of the CE. The Pseudo-Clementines, The Shepherd of Hermas and The Ascension of Isaiah each have separate chapters devoted to their contents. I found it interesting that Gieschen stated (pages 222-223) that “The solution to understanding the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in Hermas is to stop reading this document with a trinitarian mindset; it is more binitarian in its understanding of the pre-existent Son of God as the Spirit. In Hermas the Son is pre-existent through the Holy Spirit who indwelt him. The description of the pre-existent nature of the Son is parallel to that of the Spirit because the Spirit indwells the Son.” Note: I gladly accept the author’s recognition of The Shepherd of Hermas as a “binitarian” document as a surrender to the Arians in their full knowledge that the apocalyptic text is uniquely unitarian in nature.
Chapters Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen and Fourteen address angelomorphic references in the New Testaments (NT) books of the Revelation to John, the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Epistles respectively. The author rightly states, “Of all the documents within the canon, the one most widely acknowledged to have drawn on angel traditions in its depiction of Christology is the Revelation to John.” Scholarly interest and debate has especially centered on the Mighty Angel of Revelation 10, since the angelic being depicted there has at times been interpreted as Christ, even though this figure is overtly labeled an angel. Revelation can be confusing at times in determining who is addressing who. (The TRSV Bible will make this easier). On page 263 Gieschen incorrectly states upon cross referencing Isaiah 11:2: “Interpreters readily acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is depicted in Revelation 15:5-8 as the sevenfold Spirit (angels) who is before God’s throne. This is especially clear from terminology in the “Trinitarian” greeting of Revelation 1:4.” The aforementioned bible verse reads: John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia: “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne…” No where is there a reference to the Trinity in this verse! The “from him who is, and who was, and who is to come” is all referring strictly to the existence of the Angel of the Lord - Jesus the Christ. The seven spirits that are mentioned in Revelation are the seven arch angels of God as referenced in the Book of Enoch.
Going on to the Gospel of John: The author devotes multiple paragraphs to Jesus self-identifying as the hypostatized Divine Name” with John 5:43 being one of the verses referenced: “I have come in my Father’s name….” Yet he reveals (page 274) that “Jesus is understood to be “the Glory that comes from God, who has the Father’s Name, and who is the very voice which Israel heard and the form who spoke to Moses when he beheld the Glory.” Bottomline: Jesus can speak and act for his Father because he had the divine name bestowed upon him at his creation. Jesus is God’s divine representative to mankind.
The Epistle to the Hebrews: Gieschen notes that some argue that the first two chapters of Hebrews contain a polemic against Angel Christology based on Christ’s superiority over the angels. He rightfully counter argues that verses emphasizing a clear distinction between Christ and the other angels is not necessarily a disavowal of Angel Christology. The opening chapters of Hebrews clearly affirm that Christ is distinct from the other angels as shown in Hebrews 1:4: “So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.”
The Pauline Epistles: I was glad that the author brought up the interesting exchange between the apostle Paul and fellow believers captured in Galatians 4:14. Paul makes the curious claim that the Christians he had visited and now is writing to had welcomed him “as God’s Angel, as Christ Jesus.” Of course Gieschen is quick to interpret this phrase as a hypothetical comparison. Yet I give him credit for mentioning that “a few scholars have asserted that Paul is identifying himself as an angelic being of sorts.” The Arian position is that Paul knows that he is one of God’s Elect and will eventually be united in the afterlife as an angel with the Angel of the Lord - Jesus the Christ. Earlier in this epistle Paul speaks of Christ living in him: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). Paul also refers to the Christ in Christians as the “Spirit of Christ”: “Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him; but if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness” (Romans 8:9-10). I was pleased that Gieschen mentioned that the broader context of the earlier verses also encourages the understanding of Paul as an angelic being when one considers the fact that demonic entities are active and hostile towards humans. They are not only at work inside of humans, but also visit and manifest themselves in various ways from the outside. Thus, it is a natural consequence that Paul notes how the Galatians, who had been freed from the evil spirits, acknowledged him as God’s Angel (one in whom Christ dwells and speaks). The author also announces that there is explicit evidence in 1 Corinthians 10:1-10 that Paul understood the Angel of the Lord to be the preexistent Christ. As a sidenote: The author admits that 2 Enoch 22:8 clearly asserts that Enoch was transformed into an angelic being after his visionary ascent to behold the Merkabah (God’s throne). Interestingly, shortly before the Conclusion section of The Pauline Epistles chapter, Gieschen asks two important questions of his readers: “If God cannot be seen, then who was making himself visible on so many occasions in the Old Testament? Who is the Angel of the Lord or the Glory of the Lord that was visible in various ways?” He goes on to answer, “The Son, who is the visible Image of the Invisible God.” To that end I totally agree, however I am quick to add that Jesus isn’t God.
The author concludes the book in Chapter Fifteen by informing his readers that his study demonstrated that “angelomorphic traditions played a significant role in early Christology, including the Christology found on the pages of the NT. Moreover, it has also been shown that these traditions were used to assert that Christ is the visible manifestation of God, who has been seen over centuries of time in various forms and by various means.” He goes on to delineate four implications of his research for the continued study of early Christology:
The study of Angelomorphic Christology has been broadened far beyond the simplistic confines of early Christians understanding that Jesus was an angel.
This study has reasserted the importance of Angel of the Lord traditions for early Christology, especially in light of how these traditions contributed to the expression of experiences and ideas concerning Divine Hypostases and Principal Angels.
In spite of the variety of textual traditions examined, this study has shown that there are interrelationships among both the various antecedent traditions and the subsequent Christological expressions.
The invisibility of God is a concept that greatly contributed to the development of angelomorphic traditions.
Gieschen had to reinforce his anti-Arian position on page 350: “It has been demonstrated that the threat of Arianism effectively veiled and virtually buried the important contribution which angelomorphic traditions made to the origin and development of Christology.” I personally found the author’s reasons for the negative impacts of Arianism to be vague, so I put AI Overview to work and was impressed with the response: “Charles Gieschen argues that the Arian controversy negatively impacted the reception of angelomorphic traditions in Christology because the Arian position’s portrayal of Christ as a created, subordinate being made any association with angels theologically dangerous for orthodox (Nicene) Christians. Here is how the threat of Arianism led to this outcome:
Arian Doctrine: Arius taught that Jesus, while divine and holy, was a created being (the firstborn of all creation) and not coeternal or consubstantial with God the Father. This placed Christ in a subordinate, creaturely category, albeit an exalted one.
Angelomorphic Christology: This early Christian tradition used imagery and functions associated with exalted angels (such as the “Angel of the Lord” in the Hebrew Bible) to describe Jesus’ identity and role. Before the Arian controversy, this was a legitimate way of expressing Christ’s unique mediation and divine status within a Jewish framework where the divine and human realms could overlap.
The Problem: The Arian debate forced a rigid distinction between the Creator and all creation. To affirm Christ’s full divinity (the orthodox position, solidified at the Council of Nicaea), any language or tradition that might imply Christ was part of the created order had to be suppressed or abandoned.
Consequence: Because angels were unequivocally understood as created beings, applying angelomorphic language to Christ could be misinterpreted as supporting the Arian heresy. Consequently, these traditions, which had been a valid part of early Christological expression, were largely discarded or downplayed in mainstream theological discourse after the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to clearly distance orthodox Christology from Arian subordinationism.
In sum, the need to assert Christ’s full, uncreated divinity in the face of Arianism meant that the rich contribution of angelomorphic traditions became a theological liability.” (End of AI statements).
Interestingly, the aforementioned issues also explain why so many trinitarian pastors are reluctant to bring up the OT Angel of the Lord subject during bible studies with laity. For starters, most trinitarian pastors were taught in seminary that Arianism equals heresy, so they want to distance themselves from any Angel Christology discussions which could potentially lead to a revisit of the First Council of Nicea matters. However, I personally believe that there is another underlying reason for the reticence: The trinity doctrine with its convoluted hypostasis explanation for the three distinct persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in the Trinity and the two natures (divine and human) in Christ (the Hypostatic Union) is hard to explain to most biblically illiterate church-goers plus many pastors have trouble explaining the concept. I would add that the doctrine of the Trinity is found nowhere in the Bible and is therefore indefensible.
Although Gieschen makes the case that Angel of the Lord traditions were present in both the Old and New Testaments before 325 CE, the big question for modern scholars is what form of Christology, Angel or Angelomorphic, was embraced by the earliest of early Christians in their understanding of the Angel of the Lord? Although the author argues for Angelomorphic Christology, other scholars have been making a strong case for Angel Christology. I personally believe that the bulk of biblical evidence favors the Arian theological position with its understanding that Jesus was a created angel who acted as God’s top messenger and warrior throughout the OT. Upon his incarnation Jesus was fully human and later returned to angelic status upon his resurrection.
My son and I got to know Dr. Gieschen personally as we discussed various theological topics with him on two different occasions in his office. He is a professor of Exegetical Theology and Academic Dean at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana. He is also an ordained minister in the former church body that I held membership in: The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.
My final comments on the book: Lots of scholarly research went into the writing of this publication. The original Greek language was showcased at times to show how the author produced the English words through translation. After reading Angelomorphic Christology I don’t know how any unitarian can hold to a Socinian Christological position. It is biblically obvious that Jesus existed as an angelic being throughout the OT and returned to angelic status upon his resurrection where he currently sits on a throne next to his Father in heaven. Without a doubt, this book ‘drives a stake through the heart’ of Christadelphian and Unitarian Christian Alliance Socinian dogma. The main negative of this book is that it promotes the unbiblical trinitarian position that in addition to Jesus acting as the Angel of the Lord, he is God at the same time. Trinitarian statements in regards to the presence and actions of the Holy Spirit are present as well. Therefore I issue a final 4 out of 5 rating on this book.
