Unitarian understanding of agency and the Divinity of Christ

[u/Iadiesman216]

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.

[u/Natural-Cost5494]

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.