Paul D. Wegner is Senior Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies at Gateway Seminary.
I remember clearly back in Bible School when one of my teachers explained to me that the Angel of the LORD was a Christophany. Initially, I needed to look it up to see what the word Christophany meant, but once understood, I wondered how a Christophany was possible. I was further surprised to discover just how much disagreement over the identity of the Angel of the LORD in the OT there was throughout church history. Some interpreters considered the Angel of the Lord to be the preincarnate Christ, others a theophany, and still others merely an angel. When I was asked to write a paper on this topic, I figured it was time to look into this issue again.
The phrase “the angel of the LORD” occurs fifty-six times in the OT[1] and one time in the NT.[2] But without the article it occurs eleven more times in the NT.[3] The phrase “the angel of God” occurs only ten times in the OT[4] and only two times in the NT each time without the article.[5] “The angel of the LORD” is always singular, but the phrase “the angels of God” occurs twice in the OT (Gen 28:12; 32:2).
The most common interpretations for the identity of “the angel of the LORD” are: (1) God or a self-manifestation of God; (2) The pre-incarnate Christ; and (3) an angel with a special commission from God.[6] Each view has some significant strengthens and weaknesses and at present there is no consensus on this topic,[7] but I will try to highlight the evidence for each view and then provide what I believe is the strongest view:
God Himself (Identity Theory)[8] or The Self-Manifestation of God (Hypostasis Theory)[9]
1. The Evidence
God can appear in a number of ways in the OT, for example: Adam walks with God in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3); Moses talks with God in the burning bush (Exod. 3); God appears as a pillar of fire and smoke to lead the Israelites through the wilderness wanderings (Exod. 13:21); He appears as a thick cloud on Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:9, 18); He allows Moses to see his glory (Exod. 33); and God’s hand writes on the wall of the palace for Belshazzar (Dan. 5). Each of these was an intentional, self-manifestation of God, and the people involved saw some physical image or likeness of God or his glory—and the angel of the LORD may be similar to these. However, some have argued that since Jesus is the only part of the Trinity who appears visually, the angel of the LORD must be Jesus in the OT. Yet, it seems very likely that God can cause himself or his glory to be visible which is certainly what appears to have happened in Exodus 33.
One of the strongest evidences for the angel of the LORD being God is that he can speak in first person as if he is God (Gen. 16:10–11; 22:11–12, 15–16; etc.); and sometime is equated with or said to be the LORD (Gen. 31:11–13; Judg. 2:1–4; 6:11–16). A clear example is Genesis 22:11–12: “But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven . . . He said, ‘Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you indeed fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.’”
Some of these passages clearly say that the person in the narrative believes that they have seen God (Gen. 16:13; Judg. 6:22–23; etc.) and the narrator does not correct them. Umberto Cassuto believes that the phrase “the angel of the LORD” is just another way of speaking about God and thus describes the angel in Exodus 23:20–33 as follows:
The initial words, Behold I send an angel before you, do not imply a being distinct from God. In ancient thought-processes the line of demarcation between the sender and the sent is liable easily to be blurred; in the final analysis the angel of God is simply God’s action. From another part of the Bible we learn what is meant by an angel of the Lord being sent before one. In Gen. xxiv 7 Abraham says to his servant: “The Lord, the God of heaven . . . He will send His angel before you,” but in the continuation of the narrative there is not the slightest reference to an actual angel accompanying the servant; it is only related that the Lord prospered his way; and the servant says (ibid., v. 27): “As for me, the Lord has led me in the way.” Compare also ibid., vv. 40, 48, 56. It is clear from that passage, therefore, that the angel stands only for the guidance and help of the Lord.[10]
I believe it is unlikely that God would refer to himself as “the angel/messenger of the LORD,” but I agree with Cassuto that at times the line between the sender and the sent may be blurred since the messenger carries the authority of the sender. The messenger only has authority because of the sender and thus a very similar outcome would occur if God sends a messenger or angel with his authority (i.e., “my name is in him”) without making the unlikely mistake of equating God with the messenger.
This idea is seen much more clearly in passages that make a distinction between the angel of the LORD and God (Gen. 16:11; 21:17; 24:7, 40; Exod. 23:20–23; etc.). For example, see:
Genesis 16:11 which says, “Then angel of the LORD said to her, ‘Behold, you are pregnant and you are about to bear a son; and you shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has heard about your affliction.’” (Notice it says “the LORD” and not “I”.)
Zechariah 1:12 which says, “Then the angel of the LORD said, ‘O LORD of hosts, how long will you not have compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which you have been indignant these seventy years?’”
This last passage is extremely important since it depicts the angel of the LORD speaking directly to the LORD of Hosts, and thus it seems unlikely that they are the same person.
Douglas Stuart has argued that the construct phrase “the angel of the LORD” is used appositionally and should be translated “the angel that is Yahweh,”[11] but this is a very rare usage of the construct relationship. Generally, when a noun is found in a construct relationship with the name “LORD,” the possessive genitive is much more common.[12] See the following chart for some of the numerous examples:
| GENITIVE PHRASE (Suggesting Possession) | PASSAGES |
| “presence of the LORD” | Gen. 13:4; 27:7; Lev. 10:2; 16:1 |
| “name of the LORD” | Gen. 4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 16:13; 21:33; 26:25 |
| “eyes of the LORD” | Gen. 6:8 |
| “sight of the LORD” | Lev. 10:19 |
| “ears of the LORD” | Num. 11:18 |
| “garden of the LORD” | Gen. 13:10 |
| “word(s) of the LORD” | Gen. 15:1, 4; Exod 4:28; 9:20–21 |
| “way of the LORD” | Gen. 18:19 |
| “compassion of the LORD” | Gen. 19:16 |
| “mount of the LORD” | Gen. 22:14 |
| “sight of the LORD” | Gen. 38:7, 10 |
| “hand of the LORD” | Exod. 9:3 |
| “voice of the LORD” | Exod. 15:26 |
| “power of the LORD” | Num. 14:17 |
Thus, why prefer a rare usage of the construct chain over the common usage unless there is a very significant reason for doing so? Also, the appositional usage would not work in passages where the LORD and the angel are mentioned together (see esp. Zech. 1:12 where “the angel of the LORD” speaks directly to “the LORD of hosts”).
2. Weaknesses
One of the weaknesses of this view is that John 1:18 states that “no one has ever seen God,” and thus it begs the question of whether one can make a distinction between God and his manifestation. The answer must be “yes” since very few scholars have ever argued that the “pillar of fire” was actually God and in Exodus 33 God allows Moses to see his glory even after saying that no one can see God and live. Thus there must be some type of distinction between God’s glory or his appearance as a pillar of fire and his essence which is spirit that cannot be seen.
Zechariah 1:12 speaks most directly against this view since there the angel of the LORD speaks to the LORD of Hosts himself—in essence God would be speaking to his own manifestation which seems unlikely (see similar issues in 2 Sam. 24:15–17 and 2 Chron. 21:15–16). Another potential problem passage for this view is Judges 13:16, when Manoah offers a young goat to the angel of the LORD, but instead the angel responds that instead he should offer it to the LORD. The Hebrew phrase is likely in emphatic order and should be translated as “if you make a burnt offering, to the LORD offer it” and seems to imply “and not to me.” The כִּי kî clause in v. 16b most likely gives a reason for what preceded.[13] Thus the clarifying phrase in v. 16b should read something like: “then offer the burnt offering to the LORD, for Manoah did not know that this was the angel of the LORD.” Yet it is difficult to see how this כִּי kî clause provides the rationale for the preceding phrase unless it is clarifying that the one speaking to him is the angel of the LORD and not the LORD himself; thus he should not offer the burnt offering to him. This interpretation would provide serious problems for those that understand the angel of the LORD as a self-manifestation of God or a Christophany since then there would be little reason for the angel of the LORD to hesitate to accept the sacrifice from Manoah since as divinity they could accept divine worship.
It is possible to argue that the angel of the LORD wanted to clarify that the goat should be used to honor the LORD and not just as a meal, but there is still the problem of why the angel of the LORD says to offer the sacrifice to the LORD and does not say to offer it “to me.” Later, Manoah and his wife finally realize that it was the angel of the LORD speaking to them (v. 21) and Manoah believes that they will die because they have seen God (v. 22) which suggests that he knew about God’s words to Moses in Exodus 33:20. However, his wife wonders why the LORD would kill them after accepting the offerings and communicating these amazing promises. Thus, at least in her mind, there are some doubts about whether they actually saw the face of God or about God’s words to Moses. The former seems more plausible.
3. Summary:
From the evidence given above, there are several things that can be gained concerning the identity of the angel of the LORD: (1) there is a close connection between God and the angel of the LORD as pointed out by the significant amount of passages that seem to equate them (e.g., Gen. 22:11–12; 31:11–13); (2) it is less likely that the angel of the LORD is God himself (i.e., the identity theory) for it seems unlikely that God would call himself an angel (e.g., Exod. 23:20–23; 33:1–3) or talk to himself (e.g., 1 Chron. 21:15–16; Zech. 1:12); (3) there are several passages that appear to distinguish between the angel of the LORD and God suggesting that they are not the same person (e.g., Gen. 21:17; Zech. 1:10–21); and (4) the grammatical relationship in the construct phrase “the angel of the LORD” is most likely suggesting “possession” than appositional.
Given the preceding evidence, it is still plausible that “the angel of the LORD” could be understood as a manifestation of the LORD, but some passages appear to argue against this interpretation: (1) it is unlikely that God would call himself an angel (Exod. 23:20–23); (2) God would be speaking to his manifestation in some passages (e.g., 2 Sam. 24:15–17; 2 Chron. 21:15–16; Zech. 1:12); and (3) Judges 13:16 seems to go against this interpretation.
The Pre-incarnate Christ (Divine Logos Theory)[14]
1. Evidence
There are passages in the NT that suggest that the Son was active in the OT, such as: (1) John 1:3 suggests that Jesus was the “Logos” (word) and claims that all things came into being through him; (2) Jude 5 implies that the Lord (Jesus) led Israel out of Egypt, but punished their disobedience in the wilderness; (3) 1 Corinthians 10:1–10 argues that Christ was the spiritual rock that followed Israel in the wilderness; (4) John 5:56–59 says that Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus’s day; and (5) John 12:41 says Isaiah saw the glory of the Son and spoke of him. The concept of the Trinity demands that when the eternal God is active in the OT, so is the Son; and when God does things in the OT, in fact, the Son is also doing those things. But this does not demand that the Son must appear in the OT to be active, nor that every time the word LORD appears that this is referring to the Son. Abraham and Isaiah can look forward to the day that the Son will be revealed without totally understanding how God will actually work it out. The NT authors can help clarify God’s future deliverance that these OT saints were looking forward to even though they would not have understood the person or the times that these saints longed for (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10–11).
As noted above, one of the primary arguments for the angel of the LORD being Christ is that he is the only part of the God-head that can be seen and therefore this fits Jesus’ role in the God-head. But as has already been pointed out, God does indeed manifest himself or his glory to people throughout the OT. Still, the view of the angel of the LORD being a pre-incarnate Christ is bolstered by the verses above that have the angel speaking in first person literally saying the divine message himself (see above); or that he is sometimes equated with or said to be the LORD (see above). Some scholars take this argument further and argue that the article on the word “angel,” suggested by the construct phrase, demands that this is a specific angel set off from others of its class and not just any angel. A clear example of this is in Exodus 3:2 which says that the angel of the LORD appeared to Moses in the burning bush, but two verses later it says that the LORD saw him and God called to him from the bush. This connection between the angel of the LORD and the LORD can easily be explained by this angel being the Son who is commonly called Lord in the NT. However, Stephen clearly says that this is an angel (ἄγγελος) that appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Acts 7:30, 35).
Another interesting passage is Genesis 32:30 where a “man” wrestles with Jacob and Jacob claims that it is God: “So Jacob named the place Peniel, for, ‘I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.’” I would argue that Jacob was wrong for many theological reasons, but most of all because it contradicts what God says in Exodus 33:20. Also Hosea 12:4 describes this passage and confirms that it was indeed an angel that wrestled with Jacob: “He wrestled with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought favor from him. He found Him at Bethel and there He spoke with us.”
Some scholars have argued that the angel of the LORD possesses similar attributes as God, for example omniscience by prophesying future events (Judg. 6:14–16), omnipresence because he can be present on earth and yet speak from heaven (Gen. 22:11, 15), and acceptance of worship by consuming the sacrifice (Judg. 6:21). First, realize that in Judges 6 it is an offering (מִנְחָ֖ה) and not a sacrifice, but more importantly, all of these things could be said just as properly of an angel or messenger sent from God with his authority, and thus it does not prove either view.[15]
Another argument for the angel of the LORD being Christ is that the angel of the LORD never appeared after Christ was born.[16] There is at least one occurrence of the phrase “the angel of the LORD” after Christ’s birth (Matt. 1:24), but this is likely “the article of previous reference” in that the angel had already been mentioned in v. 20.[17] Some scholars have argued that “an angel of the LORD” in the NT is none other than “the angel of the LORD” in the OT.[18] While this is possible there may be other possible suggestions for this lack of the phrase after Christ’s birth: (1) A special messenger from God may no longer be needed since Jesus comes to be God’s final revelation (according to Hebrews 1:2); (2) it may be merely a grammatical issue in that the Greek grammar makes it easier to say “an angel of the LORD” (ἄγγελος κυρίου [Matt 1:24]) than the construct form in Hebrew which makes the whole construct chain definite (מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה “the angel of the LORD”);[19] or (3) the culture, may have changed and the messenger formula was no longer a common format. It is even possible that all of these issues had a part in the change of the usage of the angel of the LORD from the OT to the NT.
A stronger argument for the view that the angel is the pre-incarnate Christ is that the angel of the LORD can receive divine honor (Josh. 5:15) and possibly sacrifices were offered to him (Judg. 13:16), as pointed out above. This first passage is interesting for it is said to be the “commander of the hosts of the LORD” (שַׂר־צְבָא יְהוָ֜ה) and not “the angel of the LORD” that receives divine honor. Whoever this person is, he receives honor just like “the angel of the LORD” did at the burning bush (Exod. 3:5) and this is why some have suggested it is the LORD. There is some question as to who controls God’s hosts and suggestions have ranged from angels like Gabriel, or Michael, to Jesus himself. However, Acts 7:30 and 35 say it was an angel that spoke to Moses in the burning bush and thus it appears that at least the NT authors believed that angels could receive honor.
The second passage (Judg. 13) may favor the concept of an angel with a special commission from God (see earlier argument). But notice the angel of the LORD does not say “offer the sacrifice to me,” and earlier in the passage Manoah’s wife describes him in v. 6 as a “man” (אִישׁ) of God, but then explains him as different than other men for he was like “the angel of God,” very “awesome.”
Daniel 3:25 seems to be the clincher, for Nebuchadnezzar clearly says that the fourth person in the fiery furnace looks like “a son of the gods” (KJV has “the Son of God”). But Nebuchadnezzar is a pagan, and most likely what he really means is that it looks like a divine being to him (along with all his other gods).
2. Weaknesses
The first weakness for this view is that most of its evidence can be answered in other ways and as mentioned above it seems unlikely that God would introduce the second person of the Trinity when polytheism was such a problem. W. G. MacDonald argues that John 1:14 which states that “the word became flesh and dwelt among us” would lose much of its meaning if Jesus had already taken on flesh in the OT.[20] This argument has some validity, but Jesus’s appearances in the OT would be only temporary manifestations of his taking on flesh, while the physical birth and incarnation were something totally different. An angel can do the first (e.g., Matt. 1:20; 2:13), but none of these would be compared to what happened in the incarnation where Jesus was born in the flesh.
Second, MacDonald also states that, “if Jesus’ human history did not originate when he was ‘born of woman,’ then the docetists [people who believe that Jesus just took on a human form, but was not really God] win the day.”[21] Once again his argument has some validity, but because Jesus’s incarnation was something totally different than just taking on flesh, it would not seem to rule out this interpretation.
Third, Christ is clearly said to be superior to the angels in Hebrews 1:4–14 and thus picturing Jesus as an angel is at least confusing and at worst blasphemous. Hebrews 1:14 clarifies that angels are merely “ministering spirits” sent out to “render service to those who are about to inherit salvation.” This explanation would also fit well with the job of angels in the OT.
Fourth, several NT passages explain the angel of the LORD as merely an angel. As pointed out above, Stephen explains the appearance of the angel of the LORD at the burning bush (Exod. 3:2) as merely an angel (Acts 7:30; see also v. 35). Later in Stephen’s sermon, he mentions that an angel met with Moses on Mount Sinai (7:38), and we suppose this interpretation came from passages that said that God will send an angel before the children of Israel to guide them into the Promised Land (cf. Exod. 14:19; 23:20–23; 32:34; 33:2; Num. 20:16).
3. Summary
This view contains several positive elements, for example it makes very good sense why the angel of the LORD can receive honor and be equated with God. But there are several significant arguments against it: (1) as pointed out above the Judges 13 passage seems to argue against this view, since a Christophany could have received the offering in God’s name and also the purpose for the explanatory phrase at the end; (2) there are several other passages that seem to be a problem—for example—why would Moses ask to see God’s glory (Exod. 33:18) if he had already seen Christ in the angel of the LORD? Jesus himself tells us that if you have seen him you have seen the father (John 14:9), and other places say that Jesus is the exact image of God (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). Still Moses longed to see God; (3) there are also several NT passages that explain the angel of the LORD as being merely an angel (Acts 7:30, 35, 38), and it seems odd that God would use that term for his Son given what is said about angels in Hebrews 1:4–12. Also the most common usage of the construct form would suggest that the phrase refers to an angel/messenger belonging to the LORD; (4) if the scholars that see the angel of the LORD in the OT as similar to “an angel of the LORD” in the NT are correct, then it is most likely that it is just an angel; and (5) the idea of Jesus taking on flesh multiple times in the OT weakens the idea of Hebrews 1:1–2, but it is likely that MacDonald overstates the case that this would mean that the docetists were correct. While this view is possible, it appears to have significant evidence against it.
An Angel with a Special Commission from God (Representation Theory)[22]
1. Evidence
The word “angel” in both Hebrew (מַלְאָךְ) and Greek (ἄγγελος) means “messenger,” and this encapsulates a crucial element of their purpose. Throughout the OT (and even into the New) God sent angels at certain times to accomplish things (2 Kings 19:35; 2 Chron. 32:21; Dan. 3:28; etc.) or to announce messages for him (1 Kingss 13:18; 19:5; Zech. 1:9; etc.). Even as early as Genesis 3, God sends cherubim (possibly more than one), to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). Later in Genesis 18–19, there were at least two angels that go to Sodom and Gomorrah to bring Lot and his family out of the city. Abraham also sends out his servant with the promise that God would send his angel before him on his search for a wife for Isaac (Gen. 24:7, 40), and later Jacob wrestles with an angel (Gen. 32:24–31). Hebrews 1:14 summarizes the role of the angels well: “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to serve those about to inherit salvation?”
All of these passages demonstrate God’s use of angels in the Bible, and thus it is no surprise that in Exodus 3 the angel of the LORD (v. 2) appears to Moses in the burning bush to inform him of his mission. However, the interesting thing about this angel is that in v. 4 he appears to be equated with both the LORD and God. There is no doubt that the angel of the LORD and the LORD are strongly associated, but are they the same person? In verse 6, it says that Moses hid his face for he was afraid to look at God, but later in Exodus 33, Moses is told that no one can look at God’s face and live. Still Moses longed to see God’s glory and God agrees to show him the back of his glory. Because of God’s response in this passage, López believes that Moses (and others that thought they saw God) must have been mistaken since they lived. But he also argues:
One might respond by suggesting that the messenger came in veiled form (not in full splendor), like Jesus in the NT. But if seeing this angel was tantamount to seeing God—just as Jesus himself testified that to see him was tantamount to seeing the Father (John 14:9b), then why did Moses ask to see God’s glory, when the angel of the Lord had appeared to him numerous times before especially at the burning bush? Moreover, if this angel was the anonymous preincarnate Christ, who then would be more suited to reveal God’s glory?[23]
This is plausible, but Stephen clearly states that this was “an angel” at the burning bush (Acts 7:30, 35) and later he mentions that “an angel” appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (Acts 7:38). It is interesting that Stephen did not seem to have a problem with this angel speaking the word of God (vv. 31–34). Also there are other passages that equate “an angel” with “the angel of the LORD” (2 Sam. 24:16–17; 1 Kings 19:5–7; 1 Chron. 21:15–16, 18–20, 27–30) suggesting they are equivalent terms. This is also suggested in 2 Chronicles 32:21 which refers to “an angel” striking down the Assyrian army, but its parallel passage in 2 Kings 19:35 refers to him as the angel of the LORD.
When God sends a message through an angel, he expects the person receiving the angel and his message to obey as though God was speaking the message, and especially when the angel has “God’s name” upon him. The classic passage is Exodus 23:20–23 where God says:
20 “Behold, I am sending an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.
21 Be careful before him and obey his voice; do not cause him to be bitter, for he will not forgive your transgression, since My name is in him.
22 But if you indeed obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.
23 For my angel will go before you and bring you in to [the land of] the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will wipe them out.” (emphasis added)
This passage clearly explains God’s use of angels to do his work, and the second verse explains that when an angel is standing as God’s representative he bears God’s authority (or literally, “my name is in him”). The last verse makes it clear that the angel will lead them to the land, but it will be God that wipes out the Canaanites. Other passages confirm that God will send an angel ahead of them into the Promised Land (Exod. 32:34; 33:2) and Numbers 20:16 also confirms that God’s angel will bring them out of Egypt. Thus it is clear from both testaments that God uses angels to communicate with humans and also to accomplish tasks for him.
This seems to be very similar to how messengers were used in the OT: (1) David sends greetings through his messengers to Hanun, but when they were humiliated it was tantamount to declaring war (2 Sam. 10:1–7); (2) Jezebel sent a death sentence to Elijah through a messenger, and he fled for his life (1 Kings 19:2–3); (3) God sent a prophet to pronounce judgment on Ahab, and he went to his house sullen and vexed (1 Kings 20:43); or (4) Elijah sent his servant to heal a sick child, and the servant was to follow his instructions precisely (2 Kings 4:29–31). God even says that he sent prophets and seers to the nation of Israel expecting them to listen, but they did not (2 Kings 17:13). R. Ficker summarizes well the OT understanding of messengers:
The mal’ākîm stand in close relationship to their employers. They are authorized by them to speak or act in their names; through them the employer himself speaks or acts. Consequently, mal’ākîm can be identified with him and addressed as if they were the employer himself (Judg. 11:13; 2 Sam. 3:12f.; 1 Kings 20:2ff.); and affront to the mal’ākîm is an affront to the employer (1 Sam. 25:14ff.). The employer can also be held accountable for the actions of his mal’ākîm (2 Kings 19:23) . . .[24]
Ficker’s work deals specifically with messengers in general in the biblical text, but there is no reason to think that it would be any different with Yahweh’s messengers.
Meier highlights Ugaritic materials to show that the deities in the ANE have lower-ranking deities to do their bidding, and then he states: “These messenger deities function primarily as links between gods and not between gods and humans; when a major god wishes to communicate with a human, he or she can be expected to make a personal appearance.”[25] Therefore Meier argues that the evidence from the ANE does not correspond to the angel of the LORD in the biblical text, but we wonder if Meier is cutting the distinction too fine since the biblical text did not have an equivalent to lower deities and this may be why many of the people who saw the angel of the LORD thought that they had seen God.[26]
Since the word מַלְאַךְ “angel” can also mean “messenger,” it is permissible for it to refer also to humans that speak for God, for example, the prophet Haggai (1:13; מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה [LXX ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου]); priests (Mal. 2:17); and Malachi’s name, which means “my messenger.” This idea may also be highlighted in the NT for Matthew 8:6–9 records the centurion asking Jesus to heal his servant, and the parallel passage in Luke 7:3–8 says it was the messengers from the centurion that ask Jesus.
There are passages from the ANE[27] and from the biblical text where a prophet or messenger is speaking for their God in first person as if their God was speaking. In the following passage, Isaiah appears to be talking but is giving God’s message:
8 “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, offspring of Abraham my beloved,
9 You whom I have grasped from the ends of the earth, and called from its corners and said to you, ‘You are my servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you.’
10 Do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, surely I will uphold you with my righteous right hand. . . .
14 Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel; I myself will help you,” declares the LORD, “and your Redeemer (is) the Holy One of Israel.” (Isa. 41:8–14)
That Isaiah is declaring God’s message finally becomes clear in v. 14 where it says, “declares the LORD.” Micah 6:9–11 is similar where Micah is clearly speaking God’s word, but in v. 11 first person speech from God is recorded:
9 “The voice of the LORD will call to the city, and sound wisdom (is) to fear your name: ‘Hear, O tribe. Who has appointed its time?
10 Is there yet a man in the wicked house, (along with) treasures of wickedness and a short measure (that is) cursed?
11 Can I justify wicked scales and a bag of deceptive weights?’” (Mic. 6:9–11)
Thus the prophet’s words appear to be God’s words and if this is the case then it is entirely possible that the angel of the LORD could speak God’s words and yet not be God.[28] This would explain those passages where “the angel of the LORD” speaks in first person as though he is the LORD (Gen. 16:10–11; 22:11–12, etc.) and those that even appear to equate them (Gen. 31:11–13; Judg. 2:1–4; 6:11–16), while at the same time, explaining the passages that clearly distinguished them from one another (Exod. 23:20–23; 2 Chron. 32:21; Zech. 1:9–14).
If “the angel of the LORD” is an angel with a special commission from God, then those passages that have the angel of the LORD speaking to the LORD make perfect sense (1 Chron. 21:15 and Zech. 1:9–14). If both humans and angels can be messengers for God to speak his authoritative messages, then this would be similar to modern ambassadors that speak or act on the authority of someone else. Ficker believes this explanation: “best accounts for the function of the m.y. as one commissioned to speak and act for God. The difficulty that Yahweh and his mal’āk are sometimes identified no longer exists when one considered that mal’āk can generally be identified with his employer.”[29]
This interpretation may also be suggested by the Hebrew grammar. As pointed out above, the most common use of the construct chain is to demonstrate a genitive relationship, but there is some question as to whether the construct chain demands that this phrase be translated as “the angel of the LORD” or “an angel of the LORD.” It is most common that the first word (or nomen regens) gets its definiteness from the following word (or the genitive) in a construct chain.[30] However, there are some examples, primarily where the final word is a proper noun, that this may not be the case: Gen. 46:34 “an abomination before the Egyptians;” Deut. 7:25 “an abomination before the LORD”; Deut. 22:19 “a virgin of Israel;” 1 Sam. 4:12 “a man of Benjamin;” etc.[31] Given the LXX translates this phrase 24 times out of 34 without the article may help confirm this interpretation. If this phrase may be indefinite then it is very similar to its counterpart in the NT and generally scholars do not argue that angels in the NT are either Christophanies or Theophanies. It is interesting that “the angel of the LORD” in the OT and “an angel of the Lord” in the NT display similar actions:
| OLD TESTAMENT | NEW TESTAMENT |
| Proclaim a divine message (Gen. 16:9–11; 22:11–18; Exod. 3:2–22; etc.) | Proclaim a divine message (Matt. 1:20; 2:13, 19; Acts 8:26; etc.) |
| Punish for disobedience (Num. 22:22–35; Judg. 5:23; 1 Chron. 21:12–30) | Punish for disobedience (Acts 12:23) |
| Do miracles (Judg. 6:21; 13:19–20) | Do miracles (John 5:4; Acts 5:19; 12:7) |
2. Weaknesses
The primary weakness with this view are passages that seem to equate “the angel of the LORD” with the LORD, but Exodus 23:30–33 may help us understand this issue. It is reasonable that God intended to teach the people that they needed to listen to these messengers as though God were speaking with them. As sin created a barrier between God and man so that he no longer walked among them and in time they no longer had a prophet par excellence like Moses that heard God speak to him, God needed to make sure that God’s people knew when he communicated to them. The angel of the LORD became this means of communication and he needed to make sure that they would listen to him. Thus Exodus 23:30–33 taught them that when this angel spoke, it was tantamount to having God speak to them because he carried God’s authority (i.e., “my name is within him”). This idea is enhanced by those passages that seem to equate the angel of the LORD and the LORD—so that the very words that the angel spoke were God’s words. This message came through loud and clear as demonstrated by those that claim that they were going to die because they had seen God even though it was merely God’s representative. Initially, these messages came through the angel of the LORD, but later they came through God’s prophets—either way, the people needed to listen to them as though God was speaking with them.
Conclusions
In the Garden of Eden it does not appear to be a problem for Adam and Eve to see God’s image in their unfallen state, namely God’s glory would not be detrimental to them. However, this does not appear to be the case after the fall and so Moses was warned that no one could look at God’s face and live (Exod. 33:20). Thus angels or “the angel of the LORD” appear to be the new means of communication.
As noted above, each of the main views have strengths and weaknesses, but some passages argue fairly strongly against certain views. The angel of the LORD’s response in Judges 13:16 where he refuses the offering but clearly says to offer it “to the LORD” appears to be explained by phrase “for Manoah did not know it was the angel of the LORD.” My understanding is that the angel cannot accept an offering intended for the LORD; but if the angel was a self-manifestation of God or an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ, then there would be little reason why he could not accept it. Also I believe that Exodus 23:20–23 provides the logic as to why an angel can receive the same honor as God since he is standing in the place for God. Thus any disobedience on Israel’s part can be punished by him since he is God’s representative. This explanation also maintains the one-God framework in the Old Testament for he is God’s messenger and not God himself. For these reasons and others noted in the paper I believe that the explanation of an angel with a special commission from God makes the most sense.
The most important lesson to learn from this study is that when God sends a message to someone, whether it be by an angel, a prophet, or even the angel of the LORD, they had better honor and obey that messenger, for God’s authority is in them. In the NT, God sent his Holy Spirit to live within us so that we would know when God spoke to us—our job is to listen and obey him for he is the very voice of God speaking into our lives.
Appendix I – Summary of Major Positions
| A Self-Manifestation of God | The Pre-incarnate Christ | An Angel with a Special Commission from God |
| Explanation: God can appear in any number of ways and thus an angel may be another of them. | The only part of the God-head that can be seen is the Son and therefore this may be him. | Possibly in the OT an angel could be sent with a specific message, hence “the angel of the Lord.” |
| Evidence: 1. The angel speaks in first person as if he is God (Gen. 16:10; 18:17–21; 22:12, 15–18; 31:11–13; Judg. 2:1–5; 6:12–16) and is said to be the LORD (Gen. 18:17–21; 31:13; 32:28). 2. The “angel of the Lord” is equated with the “Lord” (Gen. 18:1, 17; 22:15–16; 31:3, 11, 13; 48:15–16; Exod. 3:2, 4; Josh. 5:13–6:2; 6:11–23) or God (Gen. 22:1, 11; 31:13; 32:28). 3. God can manifest himself in many ways: burning bush (Exod. 3:2); a pillar of fire and smoke (Exod. 13:21); a thick cloud (Exod. 19:9, 18). Why not also as “the angel of the Lord”? | 1. The angel speaks in first person as if he is God (Gen. 16:10; 18:17–19; 22:12; Judg. 2:1–5) and is called “God” in Gen. 32:28. 2. The angel is called “Lord” (Gen. 16:18; 22:15–16; Exod. 3:2–4; Judg. 6:14, 16, 23) and Christ is the bodily manifestation of God (Jon. 1:18; 14:8–11). 3. 1 Cor. 10:2–4 implies that Christ was in the OT (metaphor). 4. The angel of the Lord never appeared after Christ was born. 5. Divine honor (Josh. 5:15) and possibly sacrifice (Judg. 13:16) were offered him. | 1. Exod. 23:20–21 speaks of an angel going before Israel and “my name is in him” (probably meaning “he has my authority”). 2. Some passages appear to make a distinction between God and the angel of the Lord (Gen. 21:12, 17; 24:7, 40; Exod. 23:20–23; 32:44–45; 33:2; Num. 22:22; 2 Sam. 24:15–17; 2 Chron. 21:15–27; Zech. 1:10–21). 3. No man has seen God at any time (Jon. 1:18). 4. If the messenger stands in the place and authority of God, he may legitimately use the first person and be referred to as God. 5. NT usages of “the angel of the Lord” appear to indicate angels. |
| Problems: 1. No man has seen God at any time (Jon. 1:18); however, people have seen God’s image or glory (Exod. 33:18–23). 2. Some passages appear to make a distinction between God and “the angel of the Lord” (Gen. 21:12, 17; 24:7, 40; Exod. 23:20–23; 32:44–45; 33:2; Num. 22:22; 2 Sam. 24:15–17; 2 Chron. 21:15–27; Zech. 1:10–21). Is it possible for there to be a distinction between God and his manifestation? | 1. Jn. 1:1 says that “the word became flesh,” but this phrase would loose most of its significance if Christ already had flesh in the OT. 2. There is no mention or indication that Christ appeared in the OT, which would seem to make his appearance in the NT less significant (Heb. 1:1–2). 3. W. G. MacDonald says, “If Jesus’ human history did not originate when he was ‘born of woman,’ then the docetists [people who believe that Jesus just took on a human form, but was not really God] win the day” (p. 325). 4. Christ is clearly said to be superior to the angels in Heb. 1:4–14, thus the angel of Exod. 32:24–32 must not be Christ. 5. The angel of the Lord may occur in the NT after Christ’s birth (Matt. 2:13, 19; 28:2; Luke 2:9; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 12:23; 27:23). The problem with this argument is that the Greek form “an angel of the Lord” may not be equivalent to the Hebrew phrase “the angel of the Lord.” | 1. The only problem is that the angel of the Lord being called “Lord” or “God,” but the messenger formula may take care of it. 2. It is possible that the phrase “the angel of the Lord” does not occur in the N.T. because the messenger formula is no longer prevalent. |
Read more from the inaugural issue by downloading the full pdf or accessing the articles below.
[1] Gen. 16:7, 9–11; 18:1–33; 21:17; 22:11–18; 24:7, 40; 31:11; 32:24–32; 48:15–16; Exod. 3:2–4:17; 23:20–23; 32:34–35; 33:2; Num. 22:21–35; Josh. 5:13–6:5; Judg. 2:1–5; 5:23; 6:11–24; 13:3–23; 2 Sam. 14:17, 20; 24:15–17; 2 Kgs. 19:35; 1 Chr. 21:15–27; Isa. 63:9; Zech. 1:10–21; 3:1–10; 12:8.
[2] Matt. 1:24.
[3] Matt. 1:20; 2:13, 19; 28:2; Luke 1:11 (Gabriel); 2:9; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 12:23; 27:23; Gal. 4:14.
[4] Gen. 21:17; 31:11; Exod. 14:19; Judg. 6:20; 13;6, 9; 29:9; 1 Sam. 29:9; 2 Sam. 14:17, 20; 19:27.
[5] Acts 10:3; Gal. 4:14.
[6] Some scholars suggest an “interpolation theory” where the concept of the angel of the LORD was a later development to counter an overly anthropomorphic view of Yahweh (H. Gunkel, Genesis, trans. M. Biddle [Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1997], 186; W. Baumgartner, “Zum Problem des Yahwe-engels,” STU 14 [1944]: 97–102; C. Newsom, ABD, “Angels”). I have also included a summary table [Appendix I] of the major positions including: explanation of, evidence for, and problems with each position.
[7] James C. Moyer, “Theophany,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 1087.
[8] These terms go back to W. G. Heidt, Angelology of the Old Testament (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1949); P. R. Carrel, Jesus and the Angels (SNTSMS 95; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 27–28; and others. Sometimes the distinction between these two views is not clear, but the following scholars appear to hold this view: G. von Rad, “It is God himself appearing to human beings in human form,” (Old Testament Theology, trans. D. Stalker, 2 vols. [London: SCM, 1975] 1:287); W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker; OTL; 2 Vols. (London: SCM, 1961-7) 2:26–29; T. R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 455; R. Hess, Joshua. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008), 127.
[9] These views are similar, but in the Identity Theory it is God himself appearing and in the second theory it is a manifestation of himself (M. Erickson, “God himself temporarily visible in a humanlike form” (Christian Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985], 443); W. Propp, Exodus 1-18, AB 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 198 (“a visible manifestation of God”).
[10] U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008, repr. 1967 ed.), 305–6.
[11] Exodus (NAC 2; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 110–11 (see Bibliography on p. 111, n. 17 for this usage). See also GKC, 423–24, §151; William’s Hebrew Grammar, §42a.
[12] GKC, 416, §128g; William’s Hebrew Grammar, 14, §39; etc. Meier argues that it is a genitive construct suggesting a relationship of subordination (“Angel of Yahweh,” 96).
[13] GKC § 158b; Williams §444.
[14] This view goes back at least as far as Justin Martyr (Dial. 61.1; 127.4; also see D. C. Trakatellis, The Pre-existence of Christ in the Writings of Justin Martyr, HDR 6 [Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976] and modern theologians today (W. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 199], 401. Many others have held this view: G. Juncker, “Christ as Angel: The Reclamation of a Primitive Title,” TJ 15 (1994): 221–50 (see his history of this interpretation); A. R. Johnson, The One and the Many in Israelite Conception of God (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1961), 30–31; Richard N. Longnecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (SBT 2/17; Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1970), 19; James A. Borland, Christ in the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Fearn: Mentor, 1999); Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., et al., Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 191–92; and more. For an interesting nuanced view, see D. Howard, Joshua, NAC 5 (Louisville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 159–60.
[15] See also López, “The angel of the LORD,” 11.
[16] Andrew S. Malone, “Distinguishing the Angel of the Lord,” BBR 21.3 (2011): 311–12; Borland, Christ in the Old Testament, 29; Daniel Finestone, “Is the Angel of Jehovah in the Old Testament the Lord Jesus Christ?” BibSac 95/379 (Jul–Sep 1938): 372–77.
[17] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 217–18.
[18] Nigel Turner, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, vol. 3 Syntax, ed. James Hope Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), 180; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 252.
[19] Some scholars have suggested that the usage of this phrase in the LXX confirms this idea. The Septuagint has a variety of ways to express “the angel of the LORD” in Greek a few of them are noted in the following chart:
| Greek Phrase | Meaning | Passages |
| ἄγγελος κυρίου (or some slight variant) | Lit. “an (the) angel of the LORD” | Gen. 16:7; 22:11, 15; Exod. 3:2; Judg. 2:1; Matt. 1:20; 2:13; Luke 1:11; etc. |
| ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου (or some variant) | Lit. “the angel of the LORD” | Gen. 16:9, 10, 11; Num. 22:31, 34; Judg. 2:4; 6:12, 21 (2x); Matt. 1:24; etc. |
| ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ κυρίου (or some slight variant) | Lit. “the angel of the LORD” | No occurrences |
| ἄγγελος θεοῦ (or some slight variant) | Lit. “an (the) angel of God” | Judg. 13:6; 2 Sam. 14:17; Gal. 4:14 |
| ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ (or some variation of this) | Lit. “the (an) angel of (the) God” | Gen. 21:17; 2 Sam. 14:20; 19:27; Acts 10:3 |
| ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ θεου (or some variation of this) | Lit. “the angel of (the) God” | Gen. 31:11; Exod. 14:19; Num. 22:22, 23 |
Most of the occurrences appear to merely mirror the inarticulate form of the Hebrew or sometimes when the angel has already been mentioned it uses an article (Gen. 16:9, 10, 11; Judg. 2:1–4; etc.), but some just seem to be inconsistent [see Gen. 22:11, 15 (no article in v. 15); Num. 22:22–35 (article on each of them); Judg. 6:11–22 (no article in v. 11 and 22, but is one on v. 12)].
[20] W. G. MacDonald, “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord,’” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 324–35.
[21] MacDonald, “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord,’” 325.
[22] See the rabbinic axiom “A man’s agent is as himself” (m. Ber. 5:5). See also: b. B. Meṣiʽa 96a; b. Ḥag 109b; b. Menaḥ 93b; b. Naz 12b; b. Qidd 42b, 43c. M. Kalisch argues that the messenger of Exodus 23:20–23 is Moses (Exodus [London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1855], 356). The view of the angel of the LORD is an actual angel goes back as far as Stephen (Acts 7), and Augustine appears to have taught it (Augustine, On the Trinity, 3.21–22; 2.23). See also: TDNT 1:414–20; NIDNTT 1:127–28; Ficker, “מַלְאַךְ,” 671; B. S. Childs, Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974), 487; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 239; C. Meyers and E. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 114, 183; R. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, NAC (Louisville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 478; R. Boling, Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 198; J. M. Wilson, “Angel,” in ISBE 1:134; B. K. Waltke and C. Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 602, n. 34.
[23] López, “Angel of the LORD,” 11.
[24] Ficker, “מַלְאַךְ,” 668.
[25] Meier, “Angel of Yahweh,” 53.
[26] Another interesting thing that Meier points out is that in the ANE it is common for the messengers to be named (“Angel of Yahweh,” 96–97), but the biblical text may be careful not to record them so that they are not worshipped, as appears to be a problem when angels appear.
[27] See the Akkadian prophecies translated by Robert H. Pfeiffer concerning Esarhaddon where the prophets speak as if their God is speaking (ANET, 449–50). See especially page 450 lines 13–39.
[28] See also Micah 1:6-8. James F. Ross argues that a messenger’s authority depends upon the one who sent him (“The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger,” in Prophecy in Israel: Search for an Identity [ed. David L. Peterson; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 114).
[29] Ficker, “מַלְאַ֧ךְ,” 671.
[30] GKC, 410–414; Williams’ Hebrew Grammar, 8, n. 37; etc.
[31] GKC, 412 §127.3; Joüon, §139ac. See also: MacDonald, “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord,’” 330; López, “Identifying the ‘Angel of the LORD,’” 2.