Introduction
In the Hebrew Bible there is an angelic figure called the ‘messenger of Yhwh’ — more popularly translated as ‘the angel of the LORD’ — who appears briefly a little more than a dozen times in Israel’s historical narratives. Because of ambiguities perceived in the texts describing some of these occasions, Christians have long identified this figure as God himself.
Here is one example, the famous burning bush scene from Exodus.
Exodus 3.2–4
There the messenger of Yhwh appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush; he looked, and the bush was blazing, yet it was not consumed. Then Moses said, ‘I must turn aside and look at this great sight, and see why the bush is not burned up.’ When Yhwh saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, ‘Moses, Moses!’
The angel is in the burning bush, but when Moses turns his attention to the flames, it is God who speaks from the bush. It seems to equate Yhwh with his messenger. And identifying Jesus with this angel-who-is-God is thought to reconcile a handful of alleged contradictions in the Bible.
This is a concept I’ve looked at a few times in the last decade or so, though it’s sat in the back of my mind for a long time. It is often taken as proof that ‘God the Son’ Jesus is found in the Old Testament. You can find a great summary of the Christian interpretation in this recent video, beautifully animated by The Bible Project. When someone sent this video to me, I was struck with the realization that it ignores a lot of the scholarship that has touched on the topic, and even some basic common sense.
For example, one of the most popular arguments in support of the idea — that the messenger of Yhwh is Yhwh, and therefore the pre-existent Jesus — is this: no one can see God and live, but several people in the Old Testament claim to have seen God when seeing this messenger of Yhwh, therefore this angel must be God the Son. However, there is an inherent problem to this idea: if no one can see God and live, then this angel can’t be God, because people see the angel and live.
The Hebrew Grammar
While the Hebrew phrase ‘messenger of Yhwh’ (
if the [grammatical] construction favors an indefinite angel, it may refer to any of a number of angels sent by the Lord, and it is harder to sustain the theophany view.2
The grammatical argument tends to be that, since ‘Yhwh’ is a proper noun, the whole phrase should be translated as a definite angel: ‘the angel’. This rule is rarely followed in other cases where similar grammar is used. Anarthrous phrases (i.e. phrases without the Hebrew definite article ha) like ‘feast of Yhwh’ or ‘man of Benjamin’ are usually translated with the indefinite article because the context requires it.
Hence, it may be correct to translate the anarthrous construct noun (מלאך ) as indefinite, and W.G. MacDonald concludes, “One may therefore translate m-Y correctly as ‘an angel of the Lord’ or ‘an angel of Yhwh,’ and m-E as ‘an angel of God.”4
If the underlying Hebrew is more appropriately translated as ‘a messenger of Yhwh’ whenever that angel is first introduced into each narrative it appears, then we have little reason to assume the biblical authors intended us to interpret it as the same individual each and every time.
Errant Manuscript Traditions
While there are some occasions where the biblical text seems to treat Yhwh and his messenger interchangeably, there is at least one text where the common interpretation relies on an errant manuscript tradition. Judges begins with this ‘messenger of Yhwh’ taking credit for Yhwh’s accomplishments in the exodus.
Judges 2.1
Now the messenger of Yhwh went up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, ‘I brought you up from Egypt’
Michael Heiser, an important scholar on the ‘divine council’ alluded to in the Hebrew Bible, has found a lot of popularity in the last few years among apologists. Despite his high standards, when Heiser comes to this text, he doesn’t mince words:
The first-person language—the angel of Yhwh says it was he who swore to the earlier patriarchs that they would have the land—identifies him with Yhwh.5
What Heiser does not tell his readers is the Septuagint’s relevance to this text. While the ‘Septuagint’ (abbreviated LXX) usually refers to the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, this is a misnomer. The actual Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. The Greek translations of the other Hebrew scriptures were made independently, and were only collected together over time. As a result, we have a few competing Greek versions of those Hebrew scriptures. Judges is one example of this, and we find disagreement in the text at exactly this point.
LXXA Judges 2.1
LXXB Judges 2.1
Now an angel of the Lord went up from Galgal to Weeping and to Baithel and to the house of Israel, and he said to them, ‘The Lord, the Lord brought you up from Egypt’
Now an angel of the Lord went up from Galgal to Weeping and to Baithel and to the house of Israel, and he said to them, ‘This is what the Lord says: “I brought you up from Egypt”’
While the two texts don’t agree exactly, they demonstrate a Hebrew vorlage where the messenger of Yhwh made it clear he was only delivering the words of Yhwh. The repetition of
The Masoretic text, a Hebrew text tradition that most modern English Bibles prioritize over other ancient textual witnesses, is at fault here (probably due to a scribal error) when it depicts Yhwh’s messenger as taking credit for Yhwh’s actions. Behind the Masoretic text, LXX
This kind of textual corruption doesn’t occur in every occasion where the Hebrew Bible appears to identify Yhwh with his messenger, but it is important to bear in mind nonetheless. A scholar who claims Judges 2.1 equates Yhwh and the messenger demonstrates their own failure to accurately communicate the nature of the evidence.
Messengers Received as Their Senders
Even with this one example cleared up, the Hebrew Bible has plenty of other times when it does refer to Yhwh and his messenger interchangeably. Critical scholars point to other ancient Southwest Asian texts which show messengers being received as if they are the rulers or deities who sent them. This is not rare, but a basic aspect of the culture. Heiser, for his part, acknowledges the concept but flatly claims ‘biblical language goes beyond this mental substitution’.
While this kind of language of personal appropriation may seem to us unsuitable for mere messengers, ANE customs and texts indicate that envoys who came as agents of a god typically spoke in the first person and were addressed in the second person, just as the deity they represented. For example, in the Ugaritic Baal myth, Yammu’s (Yam’s) messengers came: “(Like) a fire, two fires they appears.” They spoke, “their [tongue] like a sharpened sword.” This is strikingly reminiscent of the way the angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the burning bush. Note that ʾIlu (mentioned eight lines before) responds as though Yammu is personally present when he is obviously not, which suggests that to see the messenger is like but not equal to seeing the deity8
We even have examples of exactly this in the Hebrew Bible. The final third of Genesis tells the story of Joseph, and how, when he became the second-in-command of Egypt, his eleven brothers didn’t recognize him. Genesis shows Joseph send a messenger to confront the brothers over a matter of theft.
Genesis 44.7–10
They said to him [the messenger], ‘Why does my lord speak such words as these? Far be it from your servants that they should do such a thing! Look, the money that we found at the top of our sacks, we brought back to you from the land of Canaan; why then would we steal silver or gold from your lord’s house? Should it be found with any one of your servants, let him die; moreover, the rest of us will become my lord’s slaves.’
He [the messenger] said, ‘Even so; in accordance with your words, let it be: he with whom it is found shall become my slave, but the rest of you shall go free.’
The narrative, without any explanation, has the brothers address the messenger as if he is Joseph (‘my lord’, ‘your servants’, ‘you’), and the messenger speaks in the first person as if he is Joseph (‘my slave’). The author had no need to explain this because what was happening was easily recognizable to his contemporary audience. If the modern equivocation of Yhwh and his angel were applied consistently to even this passage, then Joseph was literally his own messenger.
Messengers speaking their master’s words in the first person are actually seen dozens of times in the Hebrew Bible. They are the prophets, human equivalents to the angelic messengers seen only rarely.
Since a messenger speaks for his dispatcher, there is an inevitable transfer of identity. Thus prophets, also “messengers” (Isa 42:19; 44:26; Hag 1:13; 2 Chr 36:15, 16), speak in the divine voice and merge into the divine persona (cf. Exo 7:17; 11:8). […] The paradoxical interpenetration of Yhwh and angel, or Yhwh and prophet, also recalls the relationship between deity and idol in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Canaan. The statue is not the god, but can become the god and be referred to by the god’s name (Jacobsen 1987a). The Egyptian “Report of Wen-Amon” 2.55 (ANET 28) in fact calls a portable idol a “messenger.” Idol, angel and prophet are essentially localizations of a divine presence, or theophanies.9
In fact, the phrase ‘messenger of Yhwh’ is used for humans at least twice in the Hebrew Bible.
To use this term of a human, as does Haggai [1.13] and now Mal. 2:7, is revolutionary, the more so since in Mal. 2:7 an entire ethnic group—the Levites—have been so labeled.10
For biblical authors to apply the phrase to humans shows that, while it may have been understood as a special role to fill, it was nevertheless not a unique role. If any human can function as ‘messenger of Yhwh’, it reasons that Haggai and Malachi did not regard it as referring to a specific angel who is actually God himself.
Interpretations in Second Temple Literature
If Haggai and Malachi, each written at the very start of the Second Temple period of Israel’s history, did not regard the messenger of Yhwh as a particular individual, but a function potentially anyone could carry out, we should probably survey Judean literature after them. I can’t find a single text from this time period that equates the messenger of Yhwh with Yhwh himself.
Except for copies of the canonical Hebrew scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably quiet regarding the messenger of Yhwh. A variety of named angels, exalted angels, and angelic categories do appear in the Qumran literature, but none of them are equated with the God they represent.
The ‘angel of the Lord’ makes additional appearances in the Septuagint, such as Dan 14.31–42 (an alternate version of the story of Daniel in the lions’ den), but there is nothing unusual about them that requires commentary.
Philo of Alexandria, writing in the first half of the first century CE, identifies the messenger of Yhwh with God’s
Josephus, writing at the end of the first century, curiously minimizes the angel’s presence in his retelling of Israel’s history. Any occasions where an ambiguity might be alleged, Josephus tells the story to maintain a distinction between God and his angel. In the case of the burning bush (Judean Antiquities 2.12.1), Josephus completely removes the angel from the narrative, though he also deliberately avoids saying God himself was in the fire. Instead, Moses interacts only with ‘a voice’, which delivers ‘divine oracles’ from God.
Interpretations in the New Testament
Most importantly for our survey, not even the New Testament identifies the messenger of Yhwh with God or Jesus. The ‘angel of the Lord’ is mentioned about a dozen times between the different NT texts, and none of them make the connection. Even when the burning bush story is brought up, it is said that Moses first saw ‘an angel’, mentioned separately from ‘the voice of the Lord’ which spoke to him (Acts 7.30–31).
The two New Testament birth narratives for Jesus deserve extra attention. Matt 1–2 and Luke 1–2 each mention an ‘angel of the Lord’, ἄγγελος κυρίου. The Greek phrase is identical to the one used when the Septuagint translates ‘messenger of Yhwh’ from Hebrew. Both birth narratives are replete with allusions to birth stories in the Hebrew Bible.
Matthew’s first five chapters are deliberately constructed to resemble Israel’s origin story as told in Genesis and Exodus: Jesus’ father Joseph receives a prophetic dream (Gen 37.5, etc.), a star signals Israel’s ruler (Num 24.17), an evil king attempts to kill Jesus when he is only a child (Exo 1.15–22), Jesus is called ‘out of Egypt’ (Hos 11.1), and later still Jesus instructs about the law from a mountain (Exo 19ff). It would at least seem only natural for the messenger of Yhwh to announce the birth of Jesus.
Luke 1–2 deliberately resembles the style of stories and hymns from the Hebrew Bible, and the pregnancy revelations follow closely after those of Isaac, Samson, and Samuel.
elements from the scene in Genesis 16 are combined with elements from other biblical scenes and distributed between the two annunciation stories of Luke 1. For example, in the first annunciation story (Luke 1:11–20), Luke uses the termἄγγελος κυρίου to describe the angel issuing the birth prophecy (cf. Gen 16:7, 9–10; Judg 13:3).12
Luke’s birth narrative intentionally sets up its
Zech 3, written contemporary to Haggai, contains a quasi-symbolic scene where Jerusalem’s high priest Joshua is on trial. On his left stands the sâtan (literally ‘the accuser’), while his defender, the messenger of Yhwh, stands on his right. The trial setting, the presence of the sâtan, and the technical verb ‘stand’, require us to recognize the scene as taking place in the ‘divine council’, the heavenly court of divine beings which Yhwh presides over.
Judah 9
But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’
If this passage is intended to remind readers of the passage in Zechariah — which seems evident, since
Remnants of Polytheism
Yhwh was once associated with Edom before the migration of his sect into Canaan. Yhwh was once part of a pantheon, beneath the chief god El. Yhwh’s sect grew in power, and they elevated him above the pantheon, and he subsumed the identity of El.
The effects of this were not immediate, nor were they balanced evenly across the regions where Yhwh was worshiped. Local traditions grew separately from one another, so we have stories about El interacting with the patriarchs in Genesis, overshadowed by stories about Yhwh doing the same. Conflicting traditions about God making their way into the Bible naturally means the Bible will contradict itself regarding God’s interactions with humanity. And even after these contradicting texts made their way into the same Bible, readers found ways to redact or reinterpret the texts in order to make them cohere with one another.
For example, later scribes found references to the pantheon of gods in Deut 32 problematic for a strictly monotheistic worldview, so they redacted the chapter.
Conclusion
While it may sound like a trite excuse to those enthused by the pop theology exemplified by the mentioned video earlier, this last point is perhaps the most important to carry forward, after acknowledging errant manuscript traditions, cultural idiosyncrasies, and the distinct lack of the popular Christian interpretation in any text before the second century CE. The bare, undeniable fact that the Hebrew Bible contains evolving, conflicting traditions that have undergone varying degrees of redaction in order to mitigate polytheistic or anthropomorphic depictions of Israel’s god readily accounts for any stray text where it may seem that Yhwh and his messenger ‘overlap’ in identity.
To put it simply: an angel has been inserted (albeit inconsistently) into points of the narrative where later scribes thought Yhwh’s identity as the one true god, transcendent above all else, was conceptually threatened. The angel exists in the narrative precisely because he is not Yhwh.
Brief Analysis of Texts
If you are interested in the individual texts relevant to the topic, and how they might be explained under the paradigm given above, I’ve laid them out here.
Some scholars have theorized a connection between Samson, the truncated story of Shamgar son of Anat (Judges 3.31), and the story of Shammah (2 Sam 23.11–12).
Behind Judges 13 may be an earlier legend in which a god (Shamash, or another deity) appeared in disguise and fathered Samson with a human woman. Samson’s incredible strength would be the result of his divine parentage, and cutting his hair to harm him would be comparable to Achilles’ heel. Despite the text laboring to avoid suggesting that Samson is the son of Yhwh or the angel, even ancient readers recognized this was implied. Josephus claims that the angel’s second appearance, this time to the woman’s husband, was to assure him she had been faithful to their marriage (Judean Antiquities 5.8.2–3).
On that day the Lord will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the LORD, at their head.
The implied parallelism seems to be saying the house of David will ‘be like God’ and ‘like the messenger of Yhwh’, suggesting an identification between the two figures. However, another way of reading the text is that the house of David ‘shall be like God’ in the same way as the messenger of Yhwh had been ‘like God’ in the past (i.e. the angel represented God whenever he appeared, as a messenger is meant to). This would be comparable, then, to the way Moses was said to be ‘like God’ when confronting the pharaoh (Exo 4.16; 7.1).
It may complicate the incomparability of God; yet it comports well with the theology of the Chronicler, who spares no effort in praising the house of David. […] The phrase [“Angel of Yhwh”] appears only this once in Second Zechariah and could well be the mark of a redactor or compiler of the Book of Zechariah. […] This comparison of the Davidic dynasty to the Angel of Yhwh may draw upon the language of 2 Sam 14:17, in which the wise woman of Tekoa likens David to the “angel of God” (cf. the variant in Greek Lucan, which has “angel of Yhwh,” as here).20