Joshua and the Captain of the Lord's Army

Joshua ch. 5

quote:

---

13 [4] While Joshua was near Jericho, he raised his eyes and saw one who stood facing him, drawn sword in hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you one of us or of our enemies?"

​

14 He replied, "Neither. I am the captain of the host of the LORD and I have just arrived." Then Joshua fell prostrate to the ground in worship, and said to him, "What has my lord to say to his servant?"

​

15 The captain of the host of the LORD replied to Joshua, "Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy." And Joshua obeyed.

---

NABThis little passage has long intrigued me.Why is it here? It seems to have little to do with the events that follow. The captain does not appear anywhere else in Joshua.Who is the "captain" of the Lord's army? Is it Jesus (keeping in mind that Jesus is the Hellenized form of Joshua, and that Joshua falls prostrate on the ground, something inappropriate to do for an angel or anyone else but God)?The NAB includes this footnote: "The account of the siege of Jericho embraces: (1) The command of the Lord, through his angel, to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-6, 5)." Is the angel Jesus?As you can guess, my main focus here is on who this captain or angel is supposed to be. Is it to be understood as Jesus? If so, should it be seen as an Old Testament Messianic prophecy?Whom do Jews understand it to be (Gabriel? Michael? another angel [though presumably not Lucifer!]?)

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

It is used to authenticate a Holy Place, verse 15 supports this. It is likely used to validate Gilgal as a holy place, especially since Gilgal is by Jericho. The reason for this is that the text is fragmentary, some of it has apparently been lost since verse 15 doesn’t really make sense in reply to 14. No, Jesus is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, he hadn’t
been dreamt up yet. Is it really inappropriate to show respect for God’s messenger? No, it is an angel. Perhaps some Christians may interpret the passage that way but Judaism doesn’t. It is an angel, a messenger of the Lord, He uses angels all the time to pass on information. The passage is not messianic in any sense. Rashi claims that it was Michael.Brian.

Bible.org teaches that the "captain of the Lord's army" is indeed Jesus: Brian asked:

quote:

---

Is it really inappropriate to show respect for God’s messenger?

---

According to Bible.org: These passages in Acts and Revelation are sometimes used to support the idea that Christ was not "merely" an angel, but God Himself. Rev. 19:10 reads: "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (KJV) I think this last point is a bit of a stretch, considering how fragmentary the passage is; however, if it's part of something longer that we are able to recover someday, perhaps it will be easier to tell whether the Bible.org point is valid.Whether one agrees with Brian, with Bible.org, or with some other explanation, I think one must agree that the fragmentary nature of the passage offers a few clues but even fewer indisputable answers.

Hi, Another reason why this cannot be Jesus is that Jesus is said, by Christians, to be God and Exodus 33:20 says: But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Problem is, given the fragmentary nature of the text, we do not know that the angel's reply actually was. There is nothign at all in the text to suggest that Jesus has anything to do with this episode. It is just another example of Christians mutilating the Old Testament to suit their own ends.Maybe the Lord's commander was a preincarnate Michael Landon this has as much credibility as bible org's version.Brian.

quote:

---

Another reason why this cannot be Jesus is that Jesus is said, by Christians, to be God and Exodus 33:20 says:

​

"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

---

Well, this is why Jehovah's Witnesses reject the Trinity doctrine outright. But even if one accepts the Trinity, and asserts that Jesus, at least in human form (being God the Son, not God the Father or God the Trinity), was capable of being seen without killing someone, we still have the problem of the fact that the passage in Joshua takes place during his (or His, if you prefer) prehuman (or preincarnate) existence, and I don't know how that fact is dealt with by fundamentalists or anyone else who believes Joshua had an encounter with Jesus--and that Jesus was and is God.This message has been edited by DeclinetoState, 04-20-2006 04:40 AM

---

Never overestimate the intelligence of someone who thinks you're wrong.

let me ask the same question, only backwards.there are a number of concepts in the old testament that jesus is retro-fitted to. such as the "spirit of god" in gensis 1, an aramiac "translation" of god's name ("the word"), and any number of messianic prophecies and supposed prophecies.in revelation, the person who leads the army of god against the forces of evil is jesus. here he plays the role of the "captain of the lord's army." is revelation making jesus out to be the captain in joshua? well, technically, an angel is a messanger for god. in calling jesus "the word" of god, the are saying that he brings the message -- and that makes him an angel (in some regard). the other fun bit is that the word for angel is — (malak) while the word for king is — (melek). melek, of course, comes from — (malak), a verb meaning "reign."not sure if it means they're related, but it's a fun coincidence. i caught the other day while watching the nat'l-geo program on the gospel of judas. they had jesus and co. talking in aramaic, and i caught a few cognates -- and i kept wondering why the captions said "angel" when i heard "king." on the contrary! all of joshua is messianic -- joshua is the messiah that brings the hebrews to the promised land. why do you think they named jesus after him? This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-16-2006 06:59 PM

---

Hi Arach, Have you got a chapter and verse for this in revelation Arach, I can’t seem to find the reference? An angel is a created being, don’t think the crazy gang will be happy with your parallelism.But, what I tend to do when faced with an identity problem such as this, is to try and remember if there are any similar events mentioned in the Bible which could give clues to the identity of the subject. Now, just like there is a prescribed ”prophetic call’ formula, and a ”raising of a judge’ formula, I believe there could be a ”theophany’ formula.If we look back to Moses’ burning bush episode, we can see that Yahweh’s attendance is preceded by the appearance of an angel:Exodus 3:1-4 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight”why the bush does not burn up."

​

When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!"

​

And Moses said, "Here I am." This is similar to the Joshua incident where the story is cut off after 5:14a.Then Joshua is commanded to: ” Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy."Meanwhile back at the Batcave, we find that Moses is to "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground."So, there seems to be a possible formula here, angel initiates the theophany, God appears, the site is then declared holy (in Moses’ case it was Bethel).To support this further we have Genesis 21:17-19: God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."

​

Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. Also Genesis 31:13-15 The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob.' I answered, 'Here I am.' And he said, 'Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Now leave this land at once and go back to your native land.' "Think I am on to something. The OT is just full of these wee puns, just one of the many interesting things about it. Now if only the high priest had anointed him instead of Moses, and if he had conquered all of Israel’s enemies, and if he enjoyed pizza . . .Anyway, I’d say it was an angel.Brian.

the bit about the white horse in revelation 19. one of the pretty standard readings is that the figure on top of the horse is jesus -- although i will admit that it doesn't actually SAY this. (we are, after all, talking about people reading stuff into the texts...) they can stuff it. jesus, being mortal enough to die for our sins, is a created being. whether he is god incarnate or not, the "incarnate" part was created. one standard reading is that god himself does not actually speak to man, ever. rather, he speaks through messangers. i'm not sure if that can be reconciled with the entire bible, though. clearly. but the question is -- is christianity reinterpretting the event to be an appearance of jesus?

---

I could make a joke about this being King Billy, but probably only Trixie, Iano and myself would get it Thanks anyway, I was scrutinising revelations for a clear reference and thought I was maybe overlooking it. It does look like a matter of reading too much into the text. I think some christians are, but all it takes is one to come up with a gimmicky idea and it spreads like wildfire.I have read a couple of Christian commentaries on Joshua and they both say it was a 'Christophany'. One is 'Joshua, Judges, Ruth' by J. Harris, C. Brown, and M. Moore. Paternoster Press, Carlisle 2000, cannot recall the other one at the moment.It is one of these things though that a certain type of Christian will cling to.I think the Hebrew writers were consistent with their formulas, so I think it is safe to go with an angel on this occassion.Brian.

Wikipedia has a short article on Christophany which addresses the issue at hand. I would quote from it, but it doesn't seem to say anything more or different from what has already been posted here. If anyone here would like to add their two cents' worth to the article, however, they should go ahead and do so.

Hi,Some wikipedia articles really are very poorly written, and this one contains probably my biggest pet hate when assessing a student's paper.Whenever a student of mine writes something like this:Some Christians believe Jesus came to Earth at various times before the New Testament, including once as Melchizedek himself.I feel like screaming. Okay, some Christians believe Jesus came to Earth at various times before the New Testament, but who are these particular Christians? Are they scholars, lay theologians, or their auntie Margaret from Kansas?Sometimes wiki is good, but at other times it is a waste of time.

At least one of the non-Celts as well

---

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after

revelation is a wacky, wacky book. it's hard NOT to read anything into it. i'd really have to go back an read almost all of revelation again to even be able to debate this particular point, and what john intended. yes i think so tooThis message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-22-2006 10:31 PM

---

haha, yeah, i've had profs catch me at stuff like that before. it's almost a cop-out way of making an argument. meaning *i* really think this, and i'm using it as evidence for my thesis, but if i'm wrong i don't want to have to take the blame. the least you can do is actually attribute WHO thinks this and why we should listen to them.

---