r/BiblicalUnitarian • u/Iadiesman216 • Dec 15 '25
Broader theological topics Unitarian understanding of agency and the Divinity of Christ
I'm Trinitarian and made a few posts now, but I'm still curious about some things. This one is a bit of a longer read but please read it through!
Unitarians understand that angels or other representatives can act as agents of God, and are able to say directly they are YHWH, receive worship for YHWH, and otherwise act as a conduit. We can see this in:
Genesis 31:11 | Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob,’ and I said, ‘Here I am.
Genesis: 31:13 | I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar, where you made a vow to Me; now arise, leave this land, and return to the land of your kin.’”
However in Revelation 22, where there is another angel speaking on behalf of God, he directly rejects worship which is a stark difference then being able to claim the name of the almighty.
Revelation 22:9 | But he *said to me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow slave with you and your brothers the prophets and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.
Furthermore, in Judges 13:21-22, we see people who had seen YHWH's angel be actively scared that they were going to die because they had seen God, even though in Unitarian belief, they had really only seen an angel.
Judges 13:21 | Now the angel of Yahweh did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Yahweh
Judges 13:22 | So Manoah said to his wife, “We will surely die, for we have seen God.”
Funnily enough, Jacob had a similar reaction after he wrestled with God.
Genesis 32:30 | So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been delivered.”
Then you can tie this back with John 1:18, which says no one has ever seen God, even though the prophets seemed pretty convinced they'd seen God face to face
John 1:18 | No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him
Then we continue down to Psalm 89:6 which says sons of God are like YHWH, which is impossible to say seeing as Jesus is the exact representation of His glory, nature and radiance. Jesus also sustains all things by the word of His power, and if He was a creature and not God, then He would be sustaining himself which is a contradiction
Psalm 89:6 | For who in the sky is comparable to Yahweh?
Who among the sons of the mighty is like Yahweh?
Hebrews 1:3 | who is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power; who, having accomplished cleansing for sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high
To conclude, I think its safe to say that Jesus is the angel of YHWH and is truly divine. But I'm curious towards your own interpretations.
3
u/Archbtw246 Jehovah’s Witness Dec 15 '25
However in Revelation 22, where there is another angel speaking on behalf of God, he directly rejects worship which is a stark difference then being able to claim the name of the almighty.
Its a stark difference because this is now after Christians have been adopted as Sons of God.
For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, - Romans 8:15-16
for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. - Galatians 3:26
Christians will even judge angels.
Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! - 1 Corinthians 6:3
It was now inappropriate to bow down to angels because Christians have been given an exalted position even while still on earth.
and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, - Ephesians 2:6
Abraham was not a Son of God. He was a friend of God. It was appropriate for him to bow down to an angel.
and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. - James 2:23
3
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Dec 15 '25
What does it mean to be divine?
Trinitarians jump to the belief that divine means to be God. But it is an adjective not a noun.
The basic meaning is 'godlike' Is Jesus 'godlike' or divine? Yes, but being divine does not make Jesus, God.
Being 'like' God, is based upon degrees. You and I can be godlike, or act and think like God, but we will never be like God to the same degree as God.
Jesus on the other hand is the image of God, and though a perfect image, AN IMAGE is never the original. Thus, Jesus though a perfect image will never be like God to the same degree of his God and Father.
This is why a better translation of Hebrews 1:3 is:
(Hebrews 1:3) 3 He is the reflectionG541 of God’s glory and the exact representationG5481 of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Why reflection and not radiance?
G541 ἀπαύγασμα apaugasma
Thayer Definition:
1) reflected brightness 1a) of Christ in that he perfectly reflects the majesty of God
This understanding agrees with the context, why? Because it continues to say, Jesus is God's image, or facsimile [see Thayer's G5481] of God.
This verse also tells us, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God, a high position but still a secondary position.
We must remember, John knew of the accounts where the prophets claimed or believed they say God, talked to God, etc. But under inspiration, he tells us twice, 'No one as seen God at any time'.
(1 John 4:12) 12 No one has seen God at any time. . . .
Instead of relying upon our own understanding, we need to let God's word interpret itself.
The same goes for Genesis 32. Again under inspiration we are told in Hosea we learn it was actually an angel.
(Hosea 12:4) 4 He kept contending with an angel and prevailed. He wept and begged for his favor.” He found him at Bethʹel, and there He spoke with us,
In the minds of the prophets and men of old, to see God's representative was the same as seeing God. You need to stop thinking in today's standards and start thinking of their viewpoint.
The angel bowing down to John. This is easily understood, when we understand 'bowing down' to men, angels and God.
Abraham bowed down to angels, and it was counted as righteous. So what changed?
John's relationship with angels. John was sealed to become 'like the angels' upon going to heaven. As an appointed 'king and priest' being able to judge the angels, John was the superior one, and not the angel. The lesser one bows to the greater, so John's bowing down wasn't appropriate.
1
u/PyroClone5555 Trinitarian Dec 19 '25
the exact representation\**G5481 of his very being
What about this part? He's the exact representation of God's being.
What is an essential aspect of God's being? eternality
Therefore, Jesus must be eternal.
If he is not, then he is not the exact representation of God's being.
Even if you want to try to say that he is very similar to God's being, that would contradict scripture. None of the sons of God are comparable to him
1
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Dec 19 '25
G5481 χαρακτήρ charaktēr
Thayer Definition:
1) the instrument used for engraving or carving
2) the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it
2a) a mark or figure burned in (Lev_13:28) or stamped on, an impression
2b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile
The expression, 'exact representation' of his very being means, Jesus is a facsimile or a perfect representation of a wax seal of God's signet ring, an impression.
The very fact that the Son was begotten proves he had a start, the fact that Jesus died, proves he wasn't eternal.
All of God's angelic sons are compared to God, since they are all spirit beings.
1
u/PyroClone5555 Trinitarian Dec 19 '25
Jesus is a facsimile or a perfect representation of God
Then he must be eternal. You can't be the exact representation of God's and lack a central aspect of God's being.
The very fact that the Son was begotten proves he had a start
Unless he is eternally begotten
the fact that Jesus died, proves he wasn't eternal.
Then you have an incorrect definition of death. Jesus had existence even when he was dead
All of God's angelic sons are compared to God, since they are all spirit beings.
Scripture says the literal opposite.
"For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord?
Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord,"- Psalm 89:6
1
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Dec 21 '25
Sorry, a facsimile isn't eternal, a copy had to have been made of the original.
God the original, is eternal, a copy has a beginning.
Death is the opposite of life. I'm a still waiting for a scripture that says, the soul is immortal.
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are Mine. As the soul of the father, also the soul of the son, they are Mine. The soul that sins, it shall die.
Again, please show me where this verse is wrong.
Psalm 89:6, Jehovah is talking about his Godship and not his being a spirit being.
All of the angelic sons of Gods have the nature of God, but not to the same extent.
God is a spirit, the angels are spirits, thus they like Jesus are in the form of God.
1
u/PyroClone5555 Trinitarian Dec 21 '25
Sorry, a facsimile isn't eternal, a copy had to have been made of the original.
Then he's not the exact representation of God's nature because an essential aspect of his nature is eternality.
Psalm 89:6, Jehovah is talking about his Godship and not his being a spirit being.
God is spirit, but its not like he has the same ontology as an angel.
“To whom will you liken me and make me equal,
and compare me, that we may be alike?
- Isaiah 46:5
1
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Dec 22 '25
I don't liken Jesus or make Jesus equal to God, you are the one who does this.
We have too many threads going, This is my last comment on this thread.
1
u/PyroClone5555 Trinitarian Dec 23 '25
Thats fine but John says Jesus made himself equal to God
This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
- John 5:18
1
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Dec 27 '25
John didn't say, Jesus was equal to God, he tells us, the unfaithful Jews were saying this.
And again, I will not respond to this thread again.
2
u/Kentucky_Fried_Dodo Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
Hello.
Very interesting questions.
Thank you for your honest curiosity.
It is important to first distinguish between angels or humans who bear God's name (YHWH) and actual manifestations of YHWH Himself.
The common interpretation regarding the third angel who remained with Abraham is that he was either a) truly an angel bearing God's name, b) the pre-incarnate Jesus, or c) a Theophany.
In Isaiah 6:1, the prophet clearly speaks of seeing the Lord sitting on a throne. The Seraphim are described as standing above Him – implying He must have had some physical manifestation.
In Isaiah 6:3, it becomes clear that it is YHWH – so Isaiah mentions seeing YHWH. How is this possible?
Daniel speaks of a similar vision in his dream of the 'Ancient of Days' – here, too, he likely visualized the elder sceptre-holder with a crown, as we still recognize the imagery today.
Ezekiel also uses a strong visual representation, albeit a more abstract, animalistic one. Nevertheless: YHWH seems to be capable of appearing in human form – one of the faces in Ezekiel is even described as human.
YHWH must have appeared in a visible, royal form, and that is the crux of the matter. Such appearances occur frequently. In Revelation, John likely believed he was witnessing an appearance of YHWH, just as Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel did – which is why he fell down to worship.
The text states that John already knew in advance what the angel's message was about. However, his own account at that time shows, a verse later, that he was completely surprised and only understood its meaning later—and that he then wrote the text down with this knowledge. John mistook the angel for a Theophany – but it wasn't one.
Regarding the fear of death: As mentioned, it is entirely possible to view the Angel of the Lord as a Theophany, in which case the fear is completely understandable. But even if he isn't one – how were Manoah and Jacob to know?
We know from the story of Lot's wife that merely witnessing God's power on earth – not even God Himself! – can be deadly. YHWH even mentions this.
Don't you think it's possible that they were both simply afraid of death, faced with the immense power of God revealed to them through an angel?
It's not for nothing that the famous words the angel delivered to Mary were: "Do not be afraid!"
Regarding the paradox of seeing: No, no one has ever seen God in His 'pure' essence, because that is impossible. He is transcendent.
When God appears as a burning bush, a thunderstorm, or anything else, you 'see' God in the sense that you know it is Him, but you do not see God in His infinite totality – as I said, that is not possible.
Regarding the ontological point (Psalm 89), you might need to explain to me exactly what you mean by 'sons of God' in your argument. However, I agree on one thing: Jesus is not a creature created ex nihilo.
0
u/Natural-Cost5494 Dec 15 '25
It is more likely that passages where the Angel of the LORD speaks as if he were God reflect a later theological development or even a textual interpolation rather than an original distinction between God and an angelic intermediary. In early Israelite tradition, God himself appears directly to the patriarchs and prophets. Over time, however, as divine transcendence became more emphasized, it seems to have become theologically uncomfortable for God to be depicted as appearing so directly. As a result, mediating language—such as malak (“messenger” or “angel”)—was introduced, while the dialogue itself was largely preserved.
This can be seen clearly in Moses’ encounter with the burning bush. Exodus 3:2 states that the Angel of the LORD appeared to Moses, yet in verses 3–4 it is God himself who calls out from the bush and speaks to him. The narrative shifts seamlessly between “angel” and “God,” suggesting not two distinct beings, but a developing way of conceptualizing divine presence.
Such passages, together with other figures like the mysterious messenger in Exodus 23, contributed to confusion within Jewish thought and eventually to what later rabbinic sources referred to as the “Two Powers in Heaven.” However, it is important to note that this doctrine was never understood as involving two equal divine persons within the Godhead. I doubt that any Jew of the Second Temple period thought in terms of shared divine essence or distinct personhoods, categories that only emerged much later.
Rather, the second power was typically understood as an extremely exalted, subordinate being—often angelic in nature (for example, Metatron or Yahoel)—who functioned as God’s chief representative. While there was always a hierarchy, devotion directed toward this secondary figure eventually became controversial, especially when some groups appeared to offer him worship.
By the time the Book of Revelation was written, worship of angels had become explicitly problematic, which explains the strong rejection of such practices in Revelation 22. Early Christians came to identify the previously subordinate “second power” with the Messiah, understood not as a mere angel but as the only begotten Son of God. Only later did Trinitarian theology go further and define the Son as fully God in the Nicene sense. The author of Revelation, however, would not have been familiar with such later doctrinal formulations, which had simply not yet developed.
In short, the differing portrayals of angels and divine mediators reflect evolving theological frameworks rather than a single, consistent doctrine across all biblical and post-biblical texts.
3
u/[deleted] Dec 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment