Author Topic: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord  (Read 445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38244
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« on: Sat Sep 25, 2021 - 17:44:15 »
What distinguishes THE Angel of the Lord from just AN Angel of the Lord.
« Last Edit: Sat Sep 25, 2021 - 17:46:34 by Jaime »

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13744
  • Manna: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #1 on: Sat Sep 25, 2021 - 22:34:31 »
Grammatically?  A prefixed ה

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38244
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #2 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 05:35:12 »
I had been taught that THE angel of the Lord was a Theophany or a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ or God himself speaking for himself in the first person, in the form of an angel.

Judges Chapter  2:1-3
1 And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?

3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.


Was THE Angel of the Lord given “divine Power of Attorney” (so to speak) in order to speak as God in the first person or was this a translational issue?

AN angel of the Lord mentioned is just a “rank and file angel”. I’m not sure of the difference anymore.
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 08:17:23 by Jaime »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #2 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 05:35:12 »

Offline yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12432
  • Manna: 746
  • Gender: Male
  • I TOO AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #3 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 08:24:18 »
Following

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #3 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 08:24:18 »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38244
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #4 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 08:29:22 »
What do you think Yogi? I never considered this question until yesterday actually when a friend brough it up in our small group Bible Study. It’s not a challenge to any doctrine per se’, just a curiosity.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #4 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 08:29:22 »



Offline yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12432
  • Manna: 746
  • Gender: Male
  • I TOO AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #5 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 08:41:38 »
Jaime, Truthfully I have never thought one way or the other haven't even noticed any difference in one or the other just thought it was a different way of saying the same thing so that is why I had not comment rather than following so just waiting to see what others say on this subject.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #5 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 08:41:38 »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38244
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #6 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 08:59:45 »
“The” and “an” never concerned me until someone brought up the way THE angelnof the Lord sometimes speaks in the first person AS God. May be kothing at all, except the MANY times I have heard that THE angel of the Lord was a manifestation of God himself, not some superior angel.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #7 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 09:46:18 »
Well, we have verses such as Isaiah 63:9 which says, "In all their affliction He was afflicted, and THE ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE saved them."   This is definitely God's presence - not that of only a created angelic being.   We also have Jacob blessing his grandchildren and saying, "...God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, THE ANGEL WHICH REDEEMED ME from all evil, bless the lads..." (Genesis 48:15-16).  Again, only God was "The Angel" which could have redeemed Jacob - not a created angelic being. 

The word "angel" simply means "messenger", which can actually be a human, terrestrial messenger, OR a celestial messenger.  Apparently it can also refer to Deity as well in scripture.   

Wasn't the second person of the Trinity called "The WORD" in John 1?  What is "The Word" if not God's message given to mankind, and the "Messenger" (or "The Angel")  the One who gives it? 

As for the distinction being made between "THE angel" and "AN angel", the whole chapter of Samson's parents' encounter with "THE angel" also calls that heavenly being "AN angel" as well.  "But THE angel of the Lord did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife.  Then Manoah knew that he was AN angel of the Lord.  And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God"  (Judges 13:21-22).   Manoah's wife also believed that "THE angel" and also "AN angel" they had seen was the LORD, who had received their offering of homage.   So apparently there is no actual difference between "THE angel" and "AN  angel" when it refers to Deity.   

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38244
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #8 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 10:24:38 »
But doesn’t THE angel indicate somehow a special angel, distinguishing him from just any of a rank and file angel? Also the theophany explanation is prevalent in many denominations as if it being Jesus was important.

AN angel of the Lord usually will say the Lord says such and such. But THE angel of the Lord sometimes says I say (the things we would expect the Lord to say).
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 12:05:08 by Jaime »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #8 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 10:24:38 »

Online Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #9 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 11:02:31 »
 ::eatingpopcorn: ::eatingpopcorn: ::eatingpopcorn:

And while I am looking forward to your answers I read the following....

From Got Questions.... includes a short video.

"Who is the angel of the Lord?"


https://www.gotquestions.org/angel-of-the-Lord.html



Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38244
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #10 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 11:10:12 »
Well that article Does represent what I had been taught or read of, but I am leaning now towards a “higher angel” like Michael or Gabriel, endowed if you will with a power of attorney of sorts to speak as God in the first person. Not an issue for fighting over, but definitely one to ponder.

Also if God himself thought it was necessary to physically materialize himself in certain situations, why the need for angels?

Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9466
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #11 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 14:38:00 »
 ::pondering::  I have some thoughts. One thing for sure~it was not pre-incarnate appearance of Christ~for Jesus is the Son of God that was CONCEIVED and we have a record of that conception in the NT.
Quote from: 3 Resurrections on: Today at 09:46:18
The word "angel" simply means "messenger", which can actually be a human, terrestrial messenger, OR a celestial messenger.  Apparently it can also refer to Deity as well in scripture.   
agreed~with an exception~
Quote from: 3 Resurrections on: Today at 09:46:18
Apparently it can also refer to Deity as well in scripture.
God is a Spirit, which no man or angels have or can see in any form whatsoever and live. His Infinite glory would consume any, beside, you cannot put the Infinite God in a box so to speak for he fills heaven and earth with his presence. THE angel of the LORD (not limited to just one~it is a collected noun) is a created spirit sent on a mission from his Creator~ speaking as though God Himself was speaking~much like Jaime said:
Quote from: Jaime on: Today at 11:10:12
I am leaning now towards a “higher angel” like Michael or Gabriel, endowed if you will with a power of attorney
There are RANKS among the angelic Host each given a special assignment.
Quote from: 3 Resurrections on: Today at 09:46:18
Wasn't the second person of the Trinity
We MUST be careful not to put the Godhead in rank as first, second, and third~for the Godhead is ONE~ manifest to us as three, only according to their respective work in the redemption of God's elect, yet in NO OTHER sense.

Maybe this week we can do a study on angels which some had entertained unaware in the OT and which question the NT.
Quote
Hebrews 13:2~"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."
But it is never said some entertain Christ unaware, or, that he visited them BEFORE he was sent into the world~or God as far as that goes. But, we KNOW angels took on flesh to do certain errands for their Creator.

Later....RB     3 Resurrections~WELCOME BACK my brother. RB
« Last Edit: Mon Sep 27, 2021 - 05:15:44 by RB »

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #12 on: Sun Sep 26, 2021 - 15:40:09 »
LOL,  Never went anywhere, RB.  I always check on this forum several times a day, as well as six others where I have been posting.  The newest one I joined a few weeks ago is a very large one, and I have been making a few waves there with about 350 posts so far.  All you folks make up my online church, though, since I haven't got an assembly to physically meet with.   Work orders are increasing also, with a new business that is directing clients my way, so my free time is shrinking.

No argument with you that God is a Spirit, which no man can see.  I would think that the celestial angels CAN see God, however, or we are going to have trouble with Jesus saying about the "little ones" that "their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven" in Matthew 18:10.

But we remember that the Holy Spirit took the form of a dove alighting on Jesus at His baptism, and John gave testimony that he literally saw it. So Deity can take visible forms, as did "THE angel" who appeared in the form of a man to Manoah and his wife, and gave them commands concerning their coming child - and received worship and an offering of their hands.   

We of course agree that none of these "Angel of the Lord" appearances in the OT could have been a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus.  But apparently God as "The Word" could adopt an appearance of a man when speaking to Manoah and his wife, and to Abraham, and to Joshua, and to Moses...


The "angels" of Hebrews 13:2 which were "entertained unawares" in the NEW TESTAMENT era were resurrected HUMAN messengers which had remained on earth for God's evangelistic purposes in the early church.  In their travels, these "strangers" went to the saints' houses who hosted them, as found in III John.   

 

Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9466
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #13 on: Mon Sep 27, 2021 - 05:13:26 »
LOL,  Never went anywhere, RB.  I always check on this forum several times a day, as well as six others where I have been posting.  The newest one I joined a few weeks ago is a very large one, and I have been making a few waves there with about 350 posts so far.
Well, welcome back posting~ ::smile:: I thought since your father's death you took time off. PM and give me a list of those forums. Let me ck them out.

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13744
  • Manna: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #14 on: Tue Sep 28, 2021 - 03:46:48 »
What distinguishes THE Angel of the Lord from just AN Angel of the Lord.
Nothing; they are the same.  Both are God, not "just an angel" or even some special class of angel/archangel.

Act 7:30  And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.

Jarrod

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38244
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #15 on: Tue Sep 28, 2021 - 08:52:38 »
Could the angel not have been standing among the burning bush to get Moses' attention and THEN the LORD spoke to Moses? I see nothing there indicating that the angel was the Lord himself. In fact the angel didn't speak at all it seems to me. The Lord did, even in the original telling of the story in Exodus 3.
« Last Edit: Tue Sep 28, 2021 - 10:13:02 by Jaime »

Online DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16647
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #16 on: Tue Sep 28, 2021 - 09:46:39 »
Hebrew has a definite article "ha-" equivalent to "the;" but has no indefinite article equivalent to "a" or "an."

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13744
  • Manna: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #17 on: Tue Sep 28, 2021 - 18:49:05 »
Could the angel not have been standing among the burning bush to get Moses' attention and THEN the LORD spoke to Moses? I see nothing there indicating that the angel was the Lord himself. In fact the angel didn't speak at all it seems to me. The Lord did, even in the original telling of the story in Exodus 3.
You're trying way too hard.  Just let the text say what it does naturally.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38244
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #18 on: Tue Sep 28, 2021 - 19:26:32 »
It very naturally says the angel was in the burning bush and then later the Lord spoke to Moses. It would have been just as easy for the text to say the angel spoke to Moses this was sort of a unique appearance of an angel, though seemingly silent and then Yahweh himself spoke to Moses, and the angelnis not mentioned again. Very untypical of other appearances of AN Angel of the Lord or THE Angel of the Lord that was indicated to bave done the speaking. It’s like the BIG GUY wanted to speak to Moses himself directly.
« Last Edit: Tue Sep 28, 2021 - 20:36:13 by Jaime »

Offline Choir Loft

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Manna: 6
  • Gender: Male
  • REPENT - the hour of judgment is upon us
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #19 on: Wed Sep 29, 2021 - 07:46:39 »
I had been taught that THE angel of the Lord was a Theophany or a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ or God himself speaking for himself in the first person, in the form of an angel.

Judges Chapter  2:1-3
1 And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?

3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.


Was THE Angel of the Lord given “divine Power of Attorney” (so to speak) in order to speak as God in the first person or was this a translational issue?

AN angel of the Lord mentioned is just a “rank and file angel”. I’m not sure of the difference anymore.

You were taught a Christian interpretation, which may or may not be accurate.   Christians often parrot such ideas without serious consideration.

According to Jewish interpretation (Jews wrote the Bible, btw) spiritual manifestations are angelic in nature.  Therefore statements about 'the angel of G-d' are meant to convey something less than a literal appearance of The Divine.  In other words, an angel.  Even writing the word "G-d" is restrained because of the holiness (separate nature) of the Almighty.  To be Holy is to be separate from the physical world, therefore manifestations of the Holy G-d in the world are not considered as valid.  This also denies the assertion that Jesus Christ is G-d. (I personally attest to the fact that Jesus is indeed G-d, but I also doubt my belief detracts from some Jewish interpretation of spiritual manifestations in the Tanakh (OT).)    

Jewish interpretation extends even to writings such as Ezekiel's testimony of the Shekinah Glory of the Lord at the River Chebar and in close proximity to the temple in Jerusalem.  Christians may interpret this particular passage as evidence of a visitation from a flying saucer from the planet Mars and not G-d at all. (1)

In other words, while Christians are generally confused about the interpretations of angelic visitations, Jewish theology isn't.  It may not be correct, but it's definitely consistent.

It should also be pointed out that on almost every Biblical occasion when an angel appeared to a human, the human mistook the creature for G-d.  The human is usually appraised of the fact that they are in the presence of a creature similar to themselves and not G-d at all.  Part of the confusion thus rests also upon the witnesses of these occurrences.  Angels 'taste' like G-d, as do some human believers, therefore angels are often mistaken for Him. Angels have 'edges' as opposed to the Holy Spirit, the "everywhere spirit", which does not. (2)

Those who have never encountered an angel must rely upon their own programming to interpret scriptural evidence of these manifestations - however limited their programming may be.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

(1) This isn't meant as a joke.  Serious literary work as well as video documentation has been produced suggesting this very idea - that Ezekiel saw an alien spacecraft.  Such literature also fails to address Ezekiel's testimony that he saw the Shekinah glory inside the temple in Jerusalem.  Personally I believe that unless space aliens were using the Jerusalem temple as a hanger Ezekiel was telling the truth about what he saw - the manifestation of heavenly spiritual glory.

(2) Generally speaking, those Biblical manifestations which are limited in size shape and duration (time) are manifestations of angelic spirits and not those of the Holy Spirit which has NO such limitations.  The expression "everywhere spirit" is a description of the Great G-d of heaven by Native Americans who did not have a Name (Hebrew: ha-shem) for Him.
« Last Edit: Wed Sep 29, 2021 - 08:15:36 by Choir Loft »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38244
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #20 on: Wed Sep 29, 2021 - 07:55:06 »
Well that IS why I am challenging the thesis of what I was taught and actually never accepted.

Online Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #21 on: Wed Sep 29, 2021 - 08:35:05 »
Well that article Does represent what I had been taught or read of, but I am leaning now towards a “higher angel” like Michael or Gabriel, endowed if you will with a power of attorney of sorts to speak as God in the first person. Not an issue for fighting over, but definitely one to ponder.

Also if God himself thought it was necessary to physically materialize himself in certain situations, why the need for angels?

As we have been told.... no man or woman has see God's face and lived. Nor can they. Only Moses who saw his hinder parts .

And possibly Adam?

The bible teaches us that God was far more hands on back in the beginning generations.

But not to be flip about this subject. Since the buck stops with God... He likely would appoint "representatives" to carry out what He might feel is grunt work. Saving the really important stuff... such as the punishment of his first living soul or giving us our first set of rules we are to still live by today... for himself.

 Pre- Jesus that is.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38244
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #22 on: Wed Sep 29, 2021 - 08:43:40 »
Or communicating absolutely vital info to his chosen envoy Moses about the future of HIS people?

Online Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #23 on: Wed Sep 29, 2021 - 09:08:01 »
Nothing; they are the same.  Both are God, not "just an angel" or even some special class of angel/archangel.

Act 7:30  And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.


Jarrod

Please explain why.... " there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina  an angel of the Lord"... When the OT in Genesis tells this slightly differently?

I agree that Both can be God, not "just an angel" or even some special class of angel/archangel. BUT!


First... Are you saying that Moses... the author of this recounting lied or is it possible that Luke... if he did write Acts was recounting the story under the assumption and conclusions of things he had heard ... such as John 6:46 ~ Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father?

Exodus 33:21-23
Then the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

For I submit... if it had been an angel in the burning bush that God was speaking through and not God Himself that there would have been no reason for Mose's eyes to be covered and that he only be allowed to see His back side.

This is a perfect example of generational telling of the story and assumptions based on understood facts that no one can or has seen God's face at anytime...

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13744
  • Manna: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: THE Angel of the Lord vs AN Angel of the Lord
« Reply #24 on: Wed Sep 29, 2021 - 12:40:06 »
Please explain why.... " there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina  an angel of the Lord"... When the OT in Genesis tells this slightly differently?
The difference in the stories that we perceive... was not a difficulty or a difference in the eyes of the writer!  It lies to the modern reader to resolve the apparent difficulty (as you have tried to do).

or is it possible that Luke... if he did write Acts was recounting the story under the assumption and conclusions of things he had heard ... such as John 6:46 ~ Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father?
My first thought was, "John was written after Luke."  But that doesn't mean Luke didn't hear that... so I went back to look at Luke and see if there was a version of the same teaching.  I found this:

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.  And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see (Luke 10:22-23)

This suggests to me that "no man can see God" isn't talking about literally SEEing God with one's physical eyes, but rather is talking about KNOWing God, or UNDERSTANDing the Mind of Christ.  This is consistent with the Jewish word "see" which also includes the idea of understanding something (or Someone).

Exodus 33:21-23
Then the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”


For I submit... if it had been an angel in the burning bush that God was speaking through and not God Himself that there would have been no reason for Mose's eyes to be covered and that he only be allowed to see His back side.
The logic is solid, but I'm not sure the premises stand up.  I would lean towards a less literal reading of Exodus 33... but that is a longer conversation, perhaps for a different topic.

Jarrod