Clearing the Fog: Incarnation, Hypostatic Union, and the Angel of the LORD

Many are watching from afar a controversy that has been erupting online over things like the doctrine of God or Christology or the Trinity. Many also realize that I’ve been brought into some of these discussions. Many people are wondering, “What’s going on?” “What are the controversies about?” “Help me understand.” This is my attempt to discuss just a couple of pieces in a way that I hope might help bring further clarity.

Due to a recent post that was written about me on the Heidelblog, I want to address two subjects raised there by giving you my understanding of them and how I’ve used them in my own development of theological ideas such as the Angel of the LORD in the OT.

The Incarnation

The first is the doctrine of the incarnation. “Incarnation” is a term that the church has always and only ever used to describe one thing: The Second Person of the Godhead taking on human flesh. It is a Latin term that comes from in + caro. Caro is Latin for flesh, specifically in the context of the coining of the term “incarnation”—human flesh. It doesn’t mean something like, “God [or the Second Person] taking on any created properties.” The incarnation is by definition God coming in human flesh. It is nothing more and nothing less. Among all the other ways God has interacted with his creation, it is a unique in occurrence, purpose, design, and substance.

Now, I want to do a thought experiment with this in order to make application to a controversy. Let’s say for sake of argument that someone argued that the Son of God in the OT manifested or appeared as an angel (or even “became”; a term I will no longer use though because it creates too much misunderstanding). This is precisely what I talk about my book The Angel of the LORD, and as we show in that book, this has been the view of the church since the very beginning of the NT onward.

Now here’s something I would think most people already understand: Angels are not humans. Yet, along with humans, angels are called “men” (Gen 18:2; 19:1, 5, 10; Josh 5:13-14; Jdg 13:6, 8, 10; Dan 9:21; 10:5; Ezek 40-48). But this is not a one-to-one.

In the OT, the Hebrew speaks about humans using two main words: adam or ish. However, those heavenly beings we call angels are never called adam. But they are called ish, because they are men. Thus, somehow, we are both ish-men, but only humans are adam-men. This may feel like a distinction without a difference, until you go back to the word “incarnation.”

If someone points out that in the OT, the Angel is called a “man” (e.g. Gen 18:2; 32:24; Ex 15:3; Josh 5:13; etc.), someone might want to say this is an incarnation. I feel the force of this. But someone else will hear that and immediately understand that this could pose a serious problem to the unique incarnation of Jesus in the NT. I very much feel the force of this and agree! However, the problem with both sides is that they haven’t recognized that since an angel isn’t a human, then by definition, whatever this is, it isn’t an incarnation. Whatever it is, it is—by definition—something else.

I'm inclined to think that the traditions have deliberately steered away from this. They haven't desired to address what it actually means that the Angel of the LORD is the Second Person of the Trinity. I’ve chosen to try and speak about it, but always in such a way that whatever it is, it isn’t an incarnation. The tradition has used terms like “manifested” or “appeared as.” I simply want to know what that means, because I believe this is not a mirage, a hallucination, a husk, or a mask God puts on. It is a person and it manifests itself physically (it can eat, it has feet, it can wrestle, it has hands, etc.). Yet, it is also called Israel's God, it forgives sins, it covenants with the people, it bears God's very name, and it is literally called "Yahweh" on hundreds of occasions. So how do you talk about that without it turning into heresy or without simply ignoring the biblical data? The simplest way is to acknowledge that this isn’t an incarnation. I think we can be more precise, but that’s for another time.

Hypostatic Union

That leads to a second objection raised in the piece on the Heidelblog. This has to do with the theological idea of a “hypostatic union.” This word is even tougher than the first! What in the world does this mean?

The short of it is that it refers to the union of two natures (divine and human) into one person or hypostasis. Since my goal here is to try and explain some extremely difficult things at as elementary level as I can, let’s not go into the weeds on that one. Instead, it is enough to understand that the hypostatic union has, like the previous term, always and only ever referred to the incarnation. The hypostatic union is the incarnation and the incarnation is the hypostatic union. The phrase was never, has never, and is not something that, given its historical context, could ever refer to anything other than the incarnation. Therefore, like the word incarnation, whatever it is that is happening in the OT, it is not a hypostatic union. Why? Because, by definition, the hypostatic union only refers to the Second Person taking on a human nature, adding it to the divine nature without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.

Therefore, when or if someone hears anything regarding Christ and the Angel and tries to infer something like, “Well that must mean it is a hypostatic union or an incarnation” of the Second Person with the Angel, they need to stop for a moment and think about definitions. Unless that person specifically says, “Yeah, that’s what it means,” by definition, this kind of language is already going off the tracks of what those words and terms have always meant.

To do this refers to the logical fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation is when you have one term that you define in two very different ways, without telling anyone. “A bank is a place where you keep money. The river has two banks. Therefore, the river is a place where you keep double the money.” This is an equivocation on the word “bank.” Similarly, to say that because Christ is somehow the angel in the OT might imply a “hypostatic union” or an “incarnation” is by definition equivocating on the terms unless by it they mean that Christ in the OT is a human being. Sadly, I’ve seen much confusion on this when people say things like, “Jesus appeared as a human in the OT.” No. He didn’t. He appeared as an ish, but not an adam—except one time, in an eschatological vision in Daniel 7, which is actually a prediction of the future, not a present reality of the Angel’s appearance.

A Common Objection Answered

Some might reply, “You can’t just define your way out of the problem.” Actually, that is exactly the point: I am not the one redefining terms. “Incarnation” and “hypostatic union” have always been limited by the church to the assumption of human flesh. The pre-incarnate Son’s appearances in created theophanic forms (angelic or otherwise) have never been called by those terms in 2,000 years of creedal, confessional, or Reformed theology. Is it possible to speak about these things differently in a way I haven’t thought about that doesn’t do injustice to the biblical-theological concerns I’m trying to point out and protect while helping those rightly concerned about protecting historic systematic theological terms? Surely, and I’m open to suggestions. I always have been. But to bring retroactively impose hypostatic union or incarnation language in order to avoid talking about real issues in the text, that’s what becomes the act of redefinition.

Here's one more application regarding the hypostatic union. Someone might say that a key point that needs to be addressed is how you can have the effects of the incarnation without the incarnation. Perhaps by this they are thinking of something like passions. Jesus got angry. But that was in the incarnation, they say. The Second Person doesn’t get angry like people do. Yet, the Angel does get angry. So isn’t that the definition of an incarnation? No, not necessarily. Yes, it is in the incarnation that the Son gets angry. But that doesn’t necessitate this is the only way that could happen. That is a discussion that is dealing with a broader category of a Person of the Godhead interacting with the creation through passible created media. There’s lots of things that get angry, not just humans. Perhaps angels get angry? I mean, I’ve read in plenty of literature that people think they do. In short, this doesn’t necessitate an incarnation or a hypostatic union. It does necessitate, if we are talking about God, that God is interacting with the creation through something like the human nature of Christ (Jesus in the NT), an angelic body (the Angel in the OT), or even the Holy Spirit grieving (in the NT in the context of our union with Christ; in the OT somehow because the Spirit is in special proximity to the people of God via the Shekinah glory cloud and the tabernacle). Again, you can’t object that two of these would also be incarnations or hypostatic unions, because those are, by definition, God taking on a human nature, which neither of those are.

One final objection might be that if this kind of thing is possible without the hypostatic union, then why do we need the hypostatic union? The answer is pretty simple. Angels don’t die for humans to forgive their sin. The hypostatic union and incarnation was absolutely necessary because Adam (adam-man) sinned, and only an adam-man can atone for that sin. Angels can’t do that, not even the Angel of the LORD. The incarnation isn’t the only theoretical thing that makes passions possible in an impassible God in my view; it is the only thing that makes redemption, forgiveness, and eternal salvation possible.

The point of this post has been to help you see that in my opinion, much of the present controversy surrounds the use of words. People seem to be presupposing definitions of terms that they are not themselves ever defining. If they did define them, then a lot of the problem would vanish.

To boil it down, all I’m saying is that the pre-incarnate Son appeared in real angelic form, experienced real passions through a created medium, and yet this was neither incarnation nor hypostatic union—by definition. This remains a beautiful mystery. In light of this, I’m linking back here to my “Affirmations and Denials” in hopes that whatever might have seemed unclear there might be made more clear in light of this present post. Clarity honors Christ. Confusion does not. My hope is that defining our terms carefully will help us all speak of our glorious Savior with greater precision and greater love.

Doug Van Dorn

Nov 25, 2025