IN the preceding chapter we examined a cross section of contemporary Jewish opinion relative to the messianic hope. In the present chapter it is fitting to begin the Scriptural study of the nature and person of Messiah with an investigation of the significance of angel of the Lord. Is this term specific or general?

The word מַלְאַךְ is used to designate both a heavenly being and a human messenger. In Genesis 32:1 we read, "And Jacob went on his way, and מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים the angels of God met him," but in the second verse below we see the statement that Jacob sent מַלְאָכִים messengers ahead to Esau. In view of the double significance of this word, it becomes necessary to examine the context of any specific occurrence in order to ascertain its meaning. After we have learned from the connection that a given case refers to a heavenly messenger, we must press our investigation further to determine the order of celestial beings to which the one mentioned belongs, since there are not only cherubim but also seraphim and others to whom no special names are given.

Some interpreters claim that the expression מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה should be rendered "the angel the Lord." If יְהוָה is to be understood as being in apposition with מַלְאַךְ, without regard to the Masoretic pointing, the phrase must be rendered "an angel or messenger, the Lord." Furthermore, if מַלְאַךְ is in the absolute state, we should expect יְהוָה to have the article and to be written הַיְהוָה as is always the case with אָדֹן Lord. In such instances it is always written הָאָדֹן. Whenever this form is used, reference is made to the Lord and never to a created being. Upon the same principle we would expect to see the article prefixed to יְהוָה. But it never is. Since in Malachi 2:7 we have the following statement: "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; כִּי מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה־צְבָאוֹת הוּא for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts," we see that מַלְאַךְ followed by יְהוָה may be in the genitive case. This quotation may serve as a hint in directing us to the solution of the problem.

Some modern versions, on the other hand, translate our phrase "an angel of the Lord." For instance, Isaac Leeser renders Judges 6:11: "And there came מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה an angel of the Lord, and sat down under the oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash," etc. This phrase can with equal propriety be translated "the angel of the Lord," for such a construction is found in the passage quoted above from Malachi. Against this translation it cannot be urged that מַלְאַךְ is used without the definite article, for nouns in the construct state never have the article. According to Hebrew grammar, the article is attached to the following noun to make the phrase definite. In conformity to the rule is the phrase הַר הַבַּיִת "the mountain of the house." To this rule, however, there are a few exceptions. For instance, the phrase אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל "the God of Israel" is indeed specific. In this case no article is needed to make the phrase definite. But the phrase הֵיכַל יְהוָה "the temple of the Lord" is also by all scholars recognized as definite, though the article does not occur in the expression. The sacred name of God יְהוָה is considered throughout the Tenach sufficiently definite so that the article is never used with it. No Hebrew scholar will call this statement in question. Consequently the phrase is rendered definite by the specific nature of God's memorial Name.

In order to investigate the question further, we will, for the present, dismiss from our minds the fact that the sacred name of God יְהוָה is definite. Therefore we will suppose that the Biblical writers desired to make the expression מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה "angel of the Lord" the most definite possible. How would they proceed? If they prefixed the article to מַלְאַךְ they would say "the Angel the Lord," whereas they desired to say "the angel of the Lord." They could not prefix the article to יְהוָה, for that name does not admit of such treatment. Only one course was left to them. On this point hear Doctor McCaul.

"There remained one other course possible, and that was, never to use the expression in the plural of angels, but always in the singular so as to indicate that one person, and one only, is intended. But have they done this? Yes uniformly: in the whole Bible, and in the great variety of styles which occurs we never once find the expression מַלְאֲכֵי יְהוָה 'Angels of the Lord,' but uniformly the singular, מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה to point out that there is only one of heavenly beings to whom this title belongs. It would be folly, or something worse, to say that this is fortuitous. The uniformity of the practice by all the sacred writers implies design, and teaches that there is but one person thus called, and that therefore the true translation is, The angel of the Lord.' "--Alexander McCaul in Kimchi's Commentary on Zechariah.

An objection sometimes brought against the position taken in the last paragraph is based upon the fact that, though we do not find the expression, "angels of the Lord," twice we see a kindred phrase, "angels of God." In reply, one may call attention to the fact that אֱלֹהִים is a general term applying to both the true God and the false ones, whereas יְהוָה, is the proper name for the one God, the God of Israel. Furthermore, we have already seen that a word in the construct state cannot have the article. If, however, it is desirable to make the phrase definite, the article must be prefixed to the following word, provided it admits of this modification. In the case of אֱלֹהִים, the article sometimes is used. For example, in Genesis 31:11 we have this statement: "And מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים the angel of God said unto me in the dream." Thus אֱלֹהִים God is made definite by prefixing the article. Again, we see the same usage in Exodus 14:19: "And מַלְאַך הָאֱלֹהִים the angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them." Since אֱלֹהִים may take the article, the sacred writers could, by prefixing it, make a phrase definite regardless of whether the preceding genitive was singular or plural. Since אֱלֹהִים can take the article, and since it was used by the sacred writers with both מַלְאַךְ angel and מַלְאָכִים angels, it is clear that they could have used the phrase מַלְאֲכֵי הָאֱלֹהִים the angels of God, had they so desired. Note, however, this most significant fact--they never did. At the same time they did use מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים angels of God twice (Gen. 28:12; 32:1) and also מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים the angel of God. These linguistic phenomena are not accidental. The data show that they were designed. In view of the facts which we have thus far seen, there is but one conclusion to be reached, namely, that the phrase מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים "the angel of God" was used to designate a special heavenly being, whereas the expression מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים "angels of God" was employed as a comprehensive term to indicate the angels of God in general.

In the preceding section we saw that the expression מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה was a specific term referring to a single heavenly being. The same thing is true concerning מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים. The question arising at this point is whether or not these two phrases refer to the same celestial being. In Judges 6:20,21 we find them used synonymously. "And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so. Then the angel of the Lord put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there went up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and the angel of the Lord departed out of his sight." He who is called מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים in verse 20 is spoken of in the next verse as מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה. Since the two specific terms are applied to the same heavenly being, it is certain that they are used interchangeably. Another example of the synonymous character of these two expressions is found in Judges 13. In verse 3 the statement is made that "the angel of the Lord" appeared to Manoah's wife. In verse 9 this same angel is called "the angel of God." Therefore it is evident that these two names are applied to one heavenly being.

It is now proper for us to press our investigation a step further to ascertain the nature of this heavenly visitor who is honored with the distinguishing names studied above. The first appearance of the angel of the Lord in the Biblical record is found in Genesis 16. In this passage we find an account of Hagar's being persecuted and driven away from home by Sarai. As she wandered around in the wilderness, מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה the angel of the Lord appeared to her and instructed her to return to her mistress. During the conversation, the angel informed her that mighty nations would spring from her yet unborn son. Recognizing who was talking with her, Hagar called the angel's name אַתָּה אֵל רֳאִי "Thou art a God that seeth." Hagar recognized that this Angel was God; hence she called Him a God that seeth.

In recording the event, the inspired historian said that she "called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou art a God that seeth." Some interpreters have thought that Hagar was the one who called this angel by the name יְהוָה, Lord, but this view is erroneous, for it was the sacred historian who said that the Lord talked with her. Hence both Hagar and the inspired writer recognized that this Angel was the Lord Himself.

It is unfortunate that such outstanding commentators as Rashi, Aben Ezra, Solomon ben Melech, and Nachmanides pass over this fact in silence. Abarbanel, however, comments upon this passage and states that it is exceedingly difficult, particularly, "Because the peculiar name of God is employed, 'She called the name of the Lord who spake with her;' and how can it possibly be, that the First Cause, blessed be He, should speak with Hagar; when the law itself testifies and says, that it was the angel of the Lord who appeared unto her, and not the Lord himself?" He cuts the Gordian knot in the following statement: "The right answer here is, that all prophetic vision, whether mediate or immediate, is always attributed to God, blessed be He, for it is from Him and by His will, and on this account also the Messenger is sometimes called by the name of Him that sends him. In this point of view it is that the Scripture here says, 'And she called the name of the Lord that spake to her'" (Abarbanel in loc.). This explanation is unsatisfactory, because it clashes with many other plain facts presented in the sacred narrative. For the present I shall pass by this objection and return to it in a later connection.

Another excellent example throwing light upon this question is found in Judges 6. The inspired historian states that "מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה the angel of the Lord appeared unto" Gideon (vs. 12); that "the Lord יְהוָה looked upon him" (Gideon) (vs. 14); and that "the Lord יְהוָה said unto him, Surely I will be with thee" (vs. 16). It is to be remembered that the Biblical writer made these statements. The entire narrative shows that the one who is called the Angel of the Lord at the beginning of the account is later called the Lord Himself. Unmistakably the Angel of the Lord is none other than the Lord, who for the purpose of communicating with man assumed for the occasion a human form.

In vision Zechariah (3:1-6) saw Satan opposing Israel. In it Joshua, the high priest, was standing before the Angel of the Lord and Satan stood at His side. He who is called in verse 1 the Angel of the Lord is in the second referred to as the Lord Himself. "And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" The Angel of the Lord is identified as the Lord Himself.

From the passages examined above, which are taken from the Torah and the Prophets, we see that the Angel of the Lord is recognized as the Lord Himself. Notwithstanding this positive evidence, some writers still claim that this angel is but a messenger of the Lord and that only in an accommodated sense is he called by the sacred memorial name of God. One states his position in the following words: "The messenger is called by the name of Him that sends him." Do the facts justify this conclusion?

The dictum, "the messenger is called by the name of Him that sends him," must be examined minutely in the light of all facts bearing upon the subject. In the eighth and ninth chapters of the book of Daniel, the account of the appearance of the angel Gabriel to the prophet is recorded. This mighty messenger is not "called by the name of Him that sends him." In the vision of Zechariah (1:7-11) we read of many angels who were commissioned to execute the Lord's will upon earth. Concerning these it is said: "These are they whom the Lord hath sent to walk to and fro through the earth" (vs. 10). None of these was "called by the name of the Lord who sends them." Again, we see an account of the angel who was sent to Isaiah in order to remove his iniquity (Isa. 6:6,7). This one likewise was not called by the name of Him who sent him but, on the contrary, was described as one of the seraphim. According to Tenach, often angels appeared to men but seldom were named. In view of these facts, why was this particular angel given the memorial name of God Himself? Here let us remember that this name was given only to this angel.*

The answer to the foregoing query doubtless is to be found by a close examination of two declarations of the Scriptures. First, let us note the significance of the statement: אֲנִי יְהוָה הוּא שְׁמִי וּכְבוֹדִי לְאַחֵר לֹא־אֶתֵּן וּתְהִלָּתִי לַפְּסִילִים׃ "I am the Lord, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images" (Isa. 42:8). On this verse Kimchi makes a very excellent comment: "That is my name, which is appropriated to myself alone, not like the name of the graven images; for although their worshippers associate them with me in the application of the name אֱלֹהִים God, they can not associate them with me in this name; for I am Lord over all." In this he is right.

A second passage throwing light upon this question is Hosea 12:5. וַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי הַצְּבָאוֹת יְהוָה זִכְרוֹ׃ "even the Lord, the God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial name." Rabbi David Kimchi likewise gives an illuminating comment upon this passage.

"Although he was revealed to your fathers in the name God Almighty, saying to him, 'I am God Almighty, increase and multiply' (Gen. xxxv. 11); yet to Moses he renewed his fearful name, and all this for your sakes, by means of it to renew signs and wonders, to bring you forth from slavery to liberty, and this new name is the Lord, יְהוָה, and he is the God of Hosts. God of Hosts expresses that degree, in which stand the angels, and the orbs with their stars, for in the names אֵל and אֱלֹהִים, he (God) is associated with them; but in this name He is associated with none but himself."

In this he is correct. Therefore, since his other statement, "The messenger is called by the name of Him that sends him," is at variance with this excellent comment on Hosea's declaration, we must reject this unwarranted statement as contradicting the facts. According to Kimchi's quotation above, the Lord God has no partner in the name יְהוָה. This interpretation is ancient, for it is found in the Talmud in connection with a comment on the verse, "On this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel." Here it is stated: "that is, with the name Jehovah. If you object, that it may be with the name Jehovah, or it may not be, but with the cognomen Lord; the objection is answered by the following words, 'And they shall put my name.' (Num. vi. 27.) My name, the name that is appropriated to me alone."--Sotah. fol. 38.1. Maimonides likewise is clear on this point. Hear him. "All the names of God which occur in Scripture are all derived from the works, as is well known, except one name, and that is, יְהוָה, which is the name appropriated to God alone. And this is called the plain name (Shem Hammephorash), because it teaches plainly and unequivocally of the substance of God." Again, he declares, "The sum of the whole matter is, the dignity of this name, and the prohibition to read it, is to be ascribed to this, that it points directly to the substance of God, and on this account, not one of the creatures has a share in the teaching of this name, as our rabbies of blessed memory have said: 'My name, the name that is appropriated to me alone.'" The quotations from these rabbinical scholars show that it is improper to ascribe the name of the Lord to anyone except the Lord God of Israel Himself. Since, however, the Biblical writers did call this Angel by the sacred memorial name of יְהוָה, it is certain that He was not an ordinary angel but the Lord Himself who appeared to certain ones of the patriarchs.

Not only is this Angel called יְהוָה, the incommunicable name of God, but also He is recognized as possessing the divine nature, for He was worshiped as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Proof of this fact is found in the record of Jacob's vision at Bethel (Gen. 28:10-22). In this divinely inspired dream he saw a ladder reaching from earth to heaven and at the top of the ladder stood יְהוָה the Lord, who declared, "I am יְהוָה the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac." At the conclusion of the message Jacob arose, erected a pillar, and worshiped, making a vow to the Lord. Later Jacob in explaining to his wives the reasons for returning to his native land referred to his experience at Bethel. He declared to them that "the angel of God" had appeared to him, instructing him to return to his native land. He affirmed that this Angel stated that He was the one who appeared to him at Bethel: "I am the God of Beth-el, where thou anointedst a pillar, where thou vowedst a vow unto me" (Gen. 31:13). This Angel declared that He was God and that Jacob had rendered worship to him formerly at Bethel. "Then beyond all doubt He was God, the true object of worship, for if Jacob had made a mistake, neither the angel nor the sacred historian would have passed by the sin of idolatry unnoticed and unreproved." When the historical narrative is allowed to give its message unmodified and the words are taken at their plain grammatical sense, we are forced to one conclusion, namely, that "this angel was the God of Beth-el, the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and the God whom Jacob worshiped, and to whom he vowed the vow."

Thus far we see that God, for the purpose of communicating His will to certain servants of His in primitive times, assumed a visible form. By the sacred penmen He is called both the Angel of the Lord and the Lord Himself.

Such manifestations are credible since the Creator can, for the purpose of communicating with His creatures, assume the form of man. In order to set this truth in bold relief, I may be allowed to use a borrowed illustration. If I were the omnipotent God who had created a universe and had peopled it with creatures of free choice, I would have to approach them by assuming the form in which they existed and to speak to them in their own language. Upon the same principle the true God temporarily assumed an angelic-human form to communicate with man. These theophanies were but brief visits. Since the Deity, consistent with His purposes, made such short visits as these, it is reasonable to think of His making a more extended stay upon earth if the fulfilling of His holy purposes so demands. We may now advance a step further by examining the promises of redemption.


Footnotes:

*The Talmud recognizes the fact that there is but one angel who was called by this sacred name. From Tractate Sanhedrin Dr. Alexander McCaul quotes the following: "The same heretic said to Rav Idith, It is written, 'And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord' (Exod. xxiv. 1), but it ought to have been written, 'Come up unto me.' The rabbi answered, The speaker here is Metatron, whose name is the same as that of his master, for it is written, 'For my name is in him.' (Exod. xxiii. 21)" Sanhedrim, fol. col. 2. Dr. McCaul makes the following observation concerning this position: "This passage is obviously the source whence Kimchi and Abarbanel borrowed that above explanation, but here the explanation is not general, applying to all angels, but only to one, whose name is Metatron. And the occasion of this reply plainly shows that the other opinion, that the name Jehovah is ascribed indiscriminately to all angels was then unknown, for, if it had been, it would have been a more plausible answer to the heretic's objection. The real difficulty, therefore, remains in all its force, why is the peculiar and proper name of God applied to the angel of the Lord?" Rabbi David Kimchi's Commentary upon the Prophecies of Zechariah (1837), pp. 17, 18.