The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, 2016

OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS

IN GENESIS AND EXODUS IN THEIR ANCIENT
NEAR EASTERN CONTEXTS

MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY
University of Scranton
mbhundley10@gmail.com

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

Abstract
Angels are and have always been a popular topic. Nonetheless, much con-
fusion remains in popular and even scholarly literature. The present study
aims to provide clarity about angels (<ykalm, literally ‘messengers’) in
Genesis and Exodus by situating the texts in their ancient Near Eastern
contexts and examining how they adapt the ideas of those contexts to fit
their own unique theological agenda. The resulting portrait is derived
from, but clearly distinct from, its ancient Near Eastern analogues.

THE presentation of angels (<ykalm, literally ‘messengers’)1 in

Genesis and Exodus has occasioned much discussion without
much scholarly consensus.2 There is a rather general consensus

Other versions of this article were presented as ‘The Canonized Portrait of

Angels in Genesis and Exodus’ for the Helsinki-Munich-Tartu Annual
Meeting on the Formation of Canons and Other Topics in Tallinn, Estonia
in 2012 and as ‘What is an Angel in Genesis?’ for the Genesis section of the
SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, 2013 and benefitted from the following
discussions. I would also like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation for giving me the time and resources to research this article.
1
Note that the Hebrew term $alm describes both divine and human mes-
sengers, who may only be diVerentiated in context.
2
Among the various monographs and collected volumes, see e.g. Joseph
Rybinski, Der Mal’akh Jahwe (Paderborn: Schöning, 1929); Fridolin Stier,
Gott und sein Engel im Alten Testament (Münster: Verlag der
AschendorVschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934); William G. Heidt, Angelology
of the Old Testament: A Study in Biblical Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic
University of America Press, 1949); Volkmar Hirth, Gottes Boten im Alten
Testament: Die alttestamentliche Mal’ak-Vorstellung unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung des Mal’ak-Jahwe-Problems (Theologische Arbeiten, 32;
Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1975); Hermann Röttger, Mal’ak
Jahwe-Bote von Gott: Die Vorstellung von Gottes Boten im hebräischen Alten
Testament (RSTh 13; Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1978); Fritz Guggisberg, Die
Gestalt des Mal’ak Jahwe im Alten Testament (Lyss: Dach Druck, 1979);
Alexander Rofé, The Belief in Angels in the Bible and in Early Israel
ß The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For 1 of 22
Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
doi:10.1093/jts/flw066
2 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

that diVerentiates the angel of YHWH/God (or an angel of

YHWH/God) (hwhy $alm or <yhla $alm) from ‘ordinary’
angels (<ykalm), who seem to function like divine employees.3
However, as we will see, this distinction does not seem to hold in
Genesis and Exodus.
Commentators diverge about the identity and function of the
angel of YHWH. The main lines of interpretation may be
roughly divided into three categories: identity, representation,
and interpolation.4 According to the identity theories, YHWH/
Elohim is essentially identical with his messenger, such that the
messenger is interpreted as a theophanic form of YHWH or a
divine hypostasis.5 The representation theories, developed by

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

(Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Makor, 1979); Saul M. Olyan, A Thousand Thousands
Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism (Texte und
Studien zum antiken Judentum, 36; Tübingen: Mohr, 1993); Michael Mach,
Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabinischer Zeit (Tübingen:
Mohr, 1992); Friedrich V. Reiterer (ed.), Deuterocanonical and Cognate
Literature, Yearbook 2007: Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins,
Developments and Reception (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007); Camilla Hélena von
Heijne, The Messenger of the Lord in Early Jewish Interpretations of Genesis
(BZAW 412; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010); as well as Samuel A. Meier, The
Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (HSM 45; Atlanta, GA: Scholar’s
Press, 1988) and John T. Greene, The Role of the Messenger and the Message
in the Ancient Near East (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989) on messengers
more generally, and Peter Schäfer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen:
Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellungen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975);
Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and
Jewish Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen:
Mohr, 1985); Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second
God (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1992); Kevin P. Sullivan, Wrestling with
Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient
Jewish Literature and the New Testament (AGJU 55; Leiden: Brill, 2004); R.
M. M. Tuschling, Angels and Orthodoxy: A Study in their Development from
the Qumran Texts to Ephrem the Syrian (Studien und Texte der Antike und
Christentum, 40; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) on later developments.
3
See e.g. Gerhard von Rad, ‘$alm in the OT’, in ‘allelo"’, in TDNT 1
(1964), pp. 77–80; von Heijne, Messenger of the Lord, p. 49. Regarding whether
‘messenger of the Lord’ is to be understood definitely or indefinitely, see
Meier, ‘Angel of YHWH’, in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van
der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd edn.;
Leiden: Brill, 1998), p. 54.
4
See the summaries in Guggisberg, Gestalt, pp. 133–56; von Heijne,
Messenger of the Lord, pp. 114–20.
5
See e.g. Yehezkel Kaufmann, Toledot Ha-Emunah Ha-Yisraelit (Hebrew;
vol. 1; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1937), p. 228; Richard Elliot Friedman, The
Disappearance of God: A Divine Mystery (Boston: Little, Brown and Co.,
1995), pp. 12–13; Heinz-Josef Fabry, ‘$alm’, TDOT 8 (1997), p. 322;
Darrell D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angelic
Christology in Early Christianity (WUNT 2/109; Tübingen: Mohr, 1999), p.
 OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS 3 of 22
Jerome and Augustine, claim that the angel is a distinct being
who represents YHWH as his envoy and often attribute the con-
fusion between messenger and deity to messenger activity that
merges the two.6 The interpolation theories suggest that, espe-
cially in texts that posit a simultaneous identity and discontinuity
(e.g. Genesis 16), the angel of YHWH was later inserted into the
text for theological purposes.7 Here, we should also mention the
related theory that angels were originally Canaanite deities, who
for monotheistic purposes were transformed into YHWH’s
messengers.8
Each of these theories has its merits; each explains some of

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

the data particularly well, but is hard pressed to explain all of
the data.9 The reason for the diversity of interpretations
probably stems from the diversity of the material itself, which
presents divine messengers (whether the angel of YHWH or a
generic angel) as enigmatic beings and in diVerent ways in

20; James L. Kugel, The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible (New
York: Free Press, 2003), pp. 30–5; cf. Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God
and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2009), p. 42, who refers to the angel as an example of divine fluidity; for
an assessment of his proposal with special attention to the Priestly texts, see
Michael B. Hundley, ‘Divine Fluidity? The Priestly Texts in their Ancient
Near Eastern Contexts’, in F. Landy, L. M. Travaskis, and B. Bibb (eds.),
Text, Time, and Temple: Literary, Historical and Ritual Studies in Leviticus
(SheYeld: Phoenix, 2014), pp. 16–40.
6
The idea that messenger activity accounts for the confusion is associated
with the related messenger theory (see esp. A. S. van der Woude, ‘De Mal’ak
Jahweh: Een Godsbode’, NedTTs 18 [1963–4], pp. 6–13). See August Rohling,
‘Über den Jehovaengel des AT’, TQ 48 (1866), p. 431; Aubrey R. Johnson,
The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God (CardiV: University
of Wales Press, 1942), pp. 5–41; Mart-Jan Paul, ‘The Identity of the Angel of
the LORD’, Hiphil 4 (2007) (www.see-j.net/hiphil); cf. Rybinski, Mal’akh;
Matthias Köckert, ‘Divine Messengers and Mysterious Men in the
Patriarchal Narratives of the Book of Genesis’, in Reiterer (ed.), Angels, pp.
69–75; Stier (Gott) modified the theory into the vizier theory (summarized and
critiqued in Guggisberg, Gestalt, pp. 149–53); for a clear refutation of the
equation of messenger with sender, see Meier, ‘Angel I’, in Dictionary of
Deities and Demons, p. 49; Meier, ‘Angel of YHWH’, p. 58.
7
E.g. von Rad, ‘$alm’, pp. 77–8; Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah
Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), p. 383;
Meier, ‘Angel of YHWH’, pp. 58–9; Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic
Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGJU 54; Leiden: Brill, 1998),
p. 54.
8
Dorothy Irvin, Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old
Testament and the Ancient Near East (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1978), pp. 101–2.
9
Rather than rehearse the arguments for and against each position, we will
proceed to the data itself.
4 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

diVerent contexts. For example, in Gen. 31:13, the angel of God

(<yhlah $alm) appears to Jacob in a dream and identifies him-
self as the god of Bethel (la-tyb lah), such that there is no
clear diVerentiation between the angel and God. By contrast, in
Exod. 33:2–3 YHWH decides to send an angel ($alm) with the
people, but remarks that he himself will not go with them,
thereby clearly distinguishing himself from his angel.
How should we explain this variability, one might even say
inconsistency? What is an angel in Genesis and Exodus, and
more specifically, how is it related to YHWH himself? In a
text that promotes a single deity, why is an angel mentioned at
all? The present study aims to provide clarity about angels in

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

Genesis and Exodus by turning to the texts themselves, situating
them in their ancient Near Eastern contexts, and examining how
they adapt the ideas of those contexts to fit their own unique
theological agenda. We begin by setting biblical messengers in
their ancient Near Eastern context before assessing the data in
Genesis and Exodus, analysing in particular the references to
angelic form and its association with the function of the passages
in which they appear. With the data in hand, we will address the
relationship between YHWH and his messengers, using presence
and distance, mono-Yahwism and monolatry as explanatory
tools, before oVering a synthesis.
Before addressing these questions, it is important to note that
this study only investigates angels in Genesis and Exodus, not in
other biblical and non-biblical corpora. Although many later
texts seem to incorporate all subordinate divine beings into the
‘angel’ category, angels are only one of the many types of divine
beings in Genesis and Exodus.10 Other divine beings who are not
specifically identified as messengers, such as the cherubim (Gen.
3:24), the sons of God (Gen. 6:2), Jacob’s wrestling partner
(Genesis 32), the fear of Isaac (Gen. 31:42, 53), and the des-
troyer (Ex. 12:23), stand outside our purview.11
The material under investigation stems from the non-Priestly
portions of Genesis and Exodus, traditionally associated with the
Yahwist (J) and Elohist (E) sources.12 By contrast, the Priestly
10
Regarding the late fusion of categories, see Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, pp.
14–15; Meier, ‘Angel’, pp. 49–50; cf. Carol A. Newsom, ‘Angels’, in The
Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992),
vol. 1, p. 251; Köckert, ‘Divine Messengers’, p. 54.
11
Cf. the possible reference to the divine court in Gen. 1:26, ascribed to
the Priestly texts and the three mysterious men in Genesis 18.
12
For a classic presentation of the sources, see Martin Noth, The
Chronicler’s History (trans. H. G. M. Williamson; JSOTSup 50; SheYeld:
 OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS 5 of 22
texts (P) and Deuteronomy (D) do not refer to angels at all and
conceptualize the deity diVerently, focusing on the divine pres-
ence respectively as the glory (dwbk) and the name (<?{) in
sanctuaries.13 Rather than examining the history behind the
text, I will focus on the issue of angels from a synchronic per-
spective, addressing the unique biblical configurations and their
theological impetus.14 Nonetheless, the insights gleaned from
such a holistic approach will also serve as an entry point into
more specific diachronic analysis.

DIVINE MESSENGERS IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

Ancient Near Eastern deities sent messengers to communicate
with other deities on their behalf, analogous to the human
(especially royal) realm. In turn, ancient Near Eastern divine
messengers normally transmitted messages between deities, not
between deities and humans.15 Mythological texts are primarily
set in the divine world and often give an account of the divine
senders commissioning their messengers for a specific task. For
example, in KTU 1.3 vi 6–25, Baal sends Qadesh and Amurr to
Kothar-wa-Hasis, telling the messenger to introduce his speech as
‘message of Mighty Baal’, before delivering his message.16 When
the messengers arrive, in both the human and divine spheres, they
first identify their sender, thereby distinguishing themselves from

JSOT Press, 1987). On the debate about the nature of these texts, see, e.g.,
Thomas Dozeman and Konrad Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The
Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLLSS 34;
Atlanta: SBL 2006).
13
See resp. Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine
Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle (FAT II/50; Tübingen 2011), pp. 39–52;
Hundley, ‘To Be or Not to Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’, VT 59 (2009), pp. 533–55.
14
By synchronic, I do not mean the final form of the biblical text. Rather,
as noted, this study addresses the non-Priestly texts embedded in Genesis and
Exodus, which are distinct from the Priestly and Deuteronomic texts and
perspectives. It examines these texts as they appear in the Masoretic Text,
without investigating their complex genesis.
15
See regarding Ugarit and the Bible, Marjo C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the
Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (UBL 8; Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 1990), pp. 163, 317. Amun of the Road is a primary exception,
serving as a messenger of Amun to humans (see further n. 19). Ancient Near
Eastern divine ‘messengers’ who encounter humans frequently serve destruc-
tive purposes and are often called demons by modern commentators.
16
Regarding commissioning of messengers in the ancient Near East, see
Meier, Messenger, pp. 42–55.
6 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

him via a messenger formula (e.g. in Ugarit often ‘message of

Deity X’), before delivering the message in the first person.17
Many ancient Near Eastern messenger deities were clearly
distinct from their senders and had their own names and own
distinct attributes. In the vast majority of cases, messengers were
subordinate gods, who served as part of the divine entourage18 and
served a major deity.19 In some contexts, the texts considered
them important enough to mention their names and characteris-
tics. For example, Gupan and Ugar and Qadesh and Amurr served
as divine messengers in Ugarit, while Ninšubura, Ilabrat, and
Nuska served as messengers in Mesopotamia.20 In Mesopotamia

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

and Hittite Anatolia, rather than simply transmitting messages,
messengers of the major gods (Akkadian sukkallu ) often had more
expansive roles and functioned more as viziers or their masters’
chief advisers.21

17
Ibid., pp. 179–86.
18
The divine entourage refers loosely to family, servants, and other deities
who were especially closely associated with the major, anthropomorphically
conceived deity (see Hundley, ‘Here a God, There a God: Conceptions of
Divinity in Ancient Mesopotamia’, AoF 40 (2013), pp. 68–107, at pp. 82–83).
19
Amun of the Road, explicitly identified as a messenger (wpwtyw) of
Amun in the Tale of Wenamun, is the primary exception (Bernd U.
Schipper, ‘Angels or Demons? Divine Messengers in Ancient Egypt’, in
Angels, pp. 11–12). Rather than forming part of Amun’s entourage, Amun
of the Road is a cult image of Amun himself that extends his presence ‘on
the road’, i.e. in foreign lands (regarding the complicated relationship between
statue and deity in the ancient Near East, see Hundley, Gods in Dwellings:
Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East (SBLWAW Supp 3;
Atlanta: SBL, 2013), pp. 139–371).
20
Regarding Ugarit, see briefly Cho, Lesser Deities, p. 155; for a list of
messenger gods and their divine masters in Mesopotamia, see CAD S sukkallu
1c, pp. 358–9.
21
The sukkallu is a deity in its own right, who is responsible for thinking,
planning, and representing its divine master, often serving as a bridge between
its master and the other gods and between its master and the terrestrial
sphere. The divine sukkallu is modelled after his human counterpart, who
performs multifaceted functions as deputy of the king before his subjects or
in the provinces (Frans Wiggermann, ‘The StaV of Ninšubura: Studies in
Babylonian Demonology, II’, JEOL 29 [1985–6], p. 23; Manfried Dietrich,
‘sukkallu – der mesopotamische Götterbote: Eine Studie zur ‘‘Angelologie’’
im Alten Orient’, in G. Ahn and M. Dietrich (eds.), Engel und Dämonen:
Theologische, anthropologische und religionsgeschichtliche Aspekte des Guten und
Bösen [FARG 29; Münster 1997], pp. 57–8; cf. Simo Parpola, ‘The Assyrian
Cabinet’, in M. Dietrich and O. Loretz [eds.], Vom Alten Orient zum Alten
Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am
19. Juni 1993 [AOAT 240; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995], pp.
389–92, on the role of the vizier-sukkallu in the Neo-Assyrian cabinet).
 OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS 7 of 22
Although generally considered distinct, at other times their
individual identities were subsumed by their role as transmitters
of messages between deities. For example, like human messengers,
they could simply serve as a means of establishing communication
between parties and propelling the narrative forward, such that
their identities as (relatively) minor deities were incidental to the
larger narrative and thus not worthy of mention. Thus, while the
authors considered them distinct from the deity, they did not view
them as important enough to clearly identify them.
For the most part, ancient Near Eastern texts also fail to
describe the form of messenger deities. When a description is
included, it is usually necessary for the purpose of the story. For

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

example, in Ugarit messengers are presented as winged to indicate
that they can fly (KTU 1.2 i 11–3; 1.4 ii 12–16, 21–4) and are able
to cover vast distances between divine realms.22 In the Baal epic as
well, Yam’s messengers are presented as fire-like to express their
defiant potency (KTU 1.2 I 31–3).23

BIBLICAL MESSENGERS IN GENESIS AND EXODUS

While analogous, divine messengers in Genesis and Exodus are
distinct in multiple ways. Rather than having their own names and
own distinct attributes, angels in Genesis and Exodus are simply
dubbed ‘messengers’ and most often as messengers of YHWH or
Elohim. They are only named and identified according to their
function (‘messenger’) and subordinate status (‘of YHWH’). In
every instance when ‘of YHWH’ is not specified (Gen. 19:1, 15;
24:7, 40; Exod. 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2), the context makes it clear
that these messengers are messengers of YHWH/Elohim, such
that the descriptor is unnecessary. Thus, in Genesis and Exodus,
the identity and independence of messengers has entirely been
subsumed by their function and subordinate relationship to
YHWH. Every angel, then, is an angel of YHWH, whether or
not the text makes it explicit. Thus, while scholars distinguish
between an angel or angels and the angel of YHWH, there is no
clear distinction in Genesis and Exodus. As we will see more fully
22
Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, p. 546; Sang-Yol Cho, Lesser Deities in the
Ugaritic Texts and the Hebrew Bible: A Comparative Study of their Nature and
Roles (Gorgias Ugaritic Studies, 7; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007), pp. 164,
167; for parallels and iconographic representations, see Othmar Keel, Vogel als
Boten: Studien zu Ps. 68, 12–14; Gen 8, 6–12; Koh. 10, 20 und dem Aussehen
von Botenvögeln in Ägypten (Freiburg: University Press, 1977).
23
See also Athirat’s luminous messengers in KTU 1.4 iv 16–17 (Cho, Lesser
Deities, pp. 176–9).
8 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

below, ‘angel’ forms a general category whose members diVer in

various ways according to their purpose and function in each
context, not according to their title.24 In addition, in contrast to
the ancient Near East, nowhere does the Hebrew Bible claim that
angels have wings.25
Whereas ancient Near Eastern messengers primarily trans-
mitted messages between deities, YHWH sends his messengers to
humanity. Unlike in the ancient Near East, Genesis and Exodus
do not describe YHWH commissioning his messengers. In
contrast to the ancient Near Eastern texts, which set most
mythological narratives in the divine world, Genesis and Exodus

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

give the reader very limited access to the divine plane. The reader
primarily encounters the divine when it intersects with humanity
on the human plane. Since the text leaves the divine curtains
drawn, it includes no commissioning, only the angelic words and
activity taking place in the human sphere.26
In Exodus, divine messengers do not speak, while the presen-
tation of the message in Genesis is especially peculiar. Elsewhere
in the ancient Near East, in both the human and divine spheres,
and also in the Hebrew Bible in the human sphere, messengers
speak their message on behalf of, rather than as, the sender. In the
Bible, for example, human messengers or prophets often intro-
duce their messages with ‘thus says YHWH’ (hwhy rma hk ) or
‘declares YHWH’ (hwhy-<an). In Gen. 32:4, Jacob sends
messengers to Esau, prefaced with the messenger formula: ‘thus
you shall say to my lord Esau: ‘‘Thus says your servant Jacob’’’.
Such formulations were standard throughout the ancient Near
Eastern world.

24
Plural angels are easier to distinguish from YHWH than a solitary angel
of YHWH. However, the context, not the label, determines the nature and
function of the angel. Genesis 18 even blurs the relationship between YHWH
and his angels as the text associates the three ‘men’ who appear to Abraham
with YHWH (18:1–2). Later in the (composite) text, the narrator identifies one
as YHWH (18:13) and the other two as his angels (19:1).
25
See Claus Westermann’s provocatively titled book, Gottes Engel brauchen
keine Flügel: Was die Bibel von den Engel erzählt (Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1978).
26
There are scattered examples elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible of human
access to the deliberations of the divine council, including commissioning (1
Kgs. 22:19–23; Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6; Isaiah 6), but only as it relates to activity in
and concerning the human realm (see briefly Hundley, ‘Heaven and Earth’, in
S. Balentine (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Bible and Theology (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, forthcoming).
 OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS 9 of 22
By contrast, with the exception of Gen. 22:15, the divine
messenger uses no messenger formula in Genesis and Exodus.27
Instead, he speaks in the first person as if he is YHWH. The
text occasionally even appears to set YHWH and his messenger
in apposition, such that the two are seemingly equated (Exod.
3:2–3).28

The Textual Presentation of Angels

Having established some peculiarities of biblical messengers in
relation to their ancient Near Eastern counterparts, we turn to
the data in the texts themselves to fill out and explain the biblical

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

profile. In Genesis and Exodus, divine messengers appear out-
side of a temple context in various locales and in various ways.29
Unlike in the Priestly texts and Deuteronomy, there is also no
hint of centralization, of a single, accessible divine form (dwbk)
or concept (<?{). In divine–human encounters in Genesis and
Exodus, there is little attempt to pull back the divine curtain
and describe the events in the heavenly sphere or the divine
thoughts and motivations.30 There is no access to the thought-
world of God or his messengers except through their words and
actions in the terrestrial sphere. Instead, YHWH’s angels simply
show up in the human sphere in diVerent locales, catching both
the reader and the characters by surprise in an unexpected and
often unrecognized form. As such, rather than being controlled,
anticipated and repeatable, each encounter is uncontrolled and
unexpected, with no expectation that it can or should be
repeated.
27
The phrase ‘declares the Lord’ in 22:15 may even be understood as part
of the divine oath rather than a diVerentiation between speaker and sender.
Another possible example of the messenger diVerentiating himself from the
sender may be found in the second Hagar passage (Gen. 21:17). The messen-
ger speaks in the third person of YHWH seeing her: ‘for God has heard the
voice of the boy’. While not the messenger formula, using the third person
nonetheless seems to diVerentiate the speaker from God.
28
Cf. Gen. 31:13; Similarly, in Genesis 16, Hagar speaks of seeing God,
while the text only mentions the angel appearing to her.
29
Although they appear in etiological narratives for sanctuaries, they are set
before those sanctuaries are erected (e.g. Genesis 28 and Bethel).
30
See regarding Genesis in particular Françoise Mirguet, La Représentation
du divin dans les récits du Pentateuque: Médiations syntaxiques et narratives (VT
Supp 123; Leiden: Brill, 2009); cf. Erich Auerbach (‘Odysseus’ Scar’, in
Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature [Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1961], pp. 3–23), who refers to the general lack
of details in biblical narrative compared to the Odyssey, which is especially
true of divine language.
10 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

When angels do appear, Genesis and Exodus do not seem to

present a single, unified portrait of them. Instead, as is common
in the ancient Near East and even early Jewish interpretations,
their approach is context-specific, presenting the divine messen-
ger in the way that best suits the particular context, and without
undue consideration for unifying all individual presentations into
a consistent whole.31 As a result, regardless of whether references
to angels are early or late additions to a text, we should not
expect a fully integrated and articulated picture of them.
Rather, they are introduced and presented diVerently in accord
with the diVerent purposes of the various passages in which they

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

appear.
As in the ancient Near East, Genesis and Exodus rarely de-
scribe the angelic form, instead focusing on the function of the
messenger in the passage. In fact, they contain no superfluous
description of the divine form, whether of YHWH or his mes-
sengers.32 When the divine form is mentioned, it is necessary for
the purpose of the story.
In Genesis, the only explicit mention of angelic form is the
reference to the two angels who appear to Lot in Sodom as ‘men’
(<y?{na) in Genesis 19.33 The account in Genesis 28 mentions no
form, but the description of angels as ascending and descending
something like a stairway may suggest human-like form. Other
texts simply mention the angel showing up (e.g. finding Hagar
by a spring in Gen. 16:7), speaking (e.g. hwhy $alm hl rmayw
[‘the messenger of YHWH said to her’] in 16:9), and/or acting,
such that the reader has little idea what, if anything, an angel is
supposed to look like.

31
Regarding the ancient Near East, see Hundley, ‘Here a God, There a
God’; Hundley, Gods in Dwellings. Regarding early Jewish interpretation, see
esp. von Heijne, Messenger of the Lord.
32
In fact, the text contains no superfluous descriptions of human form (cf.
Auerbach, ‘Odysseus’ Scar’). Descriptions of form serve the purposes of the
texts in which they are embedded. For example, 1 Sam. 9:2 describes Saul’s
impressive appearance to indicate his outward fitness to be king in contrast to
David’s appropriate heart (16:1–13). In other words, except for times where
the reader needs to know something about the characters appearance (e.g. that
Goliath is a giant or Eli is fat), the text generally omits physical descriptions
altogether.
33
Gen. 32:24 refers to Jacob’s mysterious combatant as a ‘man’ yet not a
messenger. Hosea 12:4 interprets the mysterious figure as a messenger. See
Esther J. Hamori, ‘When Gods Were Men’: The Embodied God in Biblical
and Near Eastern Literature (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), for an analysis of
the divine in human form that focuses on Genesis 18 and 32.
 OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS 11 of 22
While visible on specific occasions, angels seem to be invisible
to human eyes unless they choose to visibly manifest themselves.
Genesis 24:7, 40 speaks of YHWH’s angel (wkalm) accompany-
ing Abraham’s servant to Haran in search of a wife for Isaac, yet
there is no reference to the angelic form. His presence is merely
assumed and presumably invisible, an unobtrusive extension of
YHWH that extends his presence and blessing. In Genesis 28,
the dream aberrantly makes visible what is normally invisible,
exposing heavenly reality to human eyes. While Bethel is pre-
sumably the place where heaven and earth meet and YHWH and
his angels appear, Jacob would not know it without the dream
precisely because he could not see what was happening on the

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

divine plane. As such, Jacob recognizes the dream theophany as
a privileged exception and responds with appropriate awe and
reverence.
In Exodus, there is no explicit reference to angelic form.
Exodus 3:2 refers to the angel appearing in a flame of fire
from the midst of a bush. It remains unclear if the angel takes
the form of fire, appears in its normal (perhaps anthropo-
morphic) form, or is invisible. In 14:19, there is no mention of
divine form, but the angel is closely associated with the pillar of
cloud and thus may appear as the cloud,34 in the cloud, near the
cloud, or be invisibly present.

Form and Function

As noted, when the divine form is mentioned, it is necessary
for the purpose of the story. In Genesis 19, the description of the
messengers as ‘men’ is necessary, as it represents the most nat-
ural form for the messengers to receive Abraham’s hospitality
and to witness the atrocities of Sodom. The burning bush in
Exodus 3 clearly serves as an attention grabber. An invisible
burning bush or another ‘man’ would not have the same dra-
matic eVect. The pillar of fire and cloud serve as visible, non-
anthropomorphic signs of divine presence and guidance and, at
the Red Sea, protect the Israelites by standing between them and
the Egyptians.
In most other cases, where no form is mentioned, it would
seem that a description of the divine form is not necessary to
communicate the divine message. In fact, descriptions of divine
form appear to be as minimalistic as possible. Since the point of
34
Cf. the Ugaritic ‘nn as divine cloud and companion and vehicle of Baal
(N. Wyatt, ‘The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God’, UF 24 (1992), p. 422;
Cho, Lesser Deities, pp. 147–9).
12 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

the encounters is found either in the message, activity, or mere

presence of the messenger, any reference to form is unnecessary
and may distract from the message. Although necessary in some
cases, these descriptions have even in some ways detracted from
the primacy of the message, as interpreters have focused and
often failed to explain the theophanic forms at the expense of
the angelic function.

A Comparison of Messengers in Genesis and Exodus

Having examined the diVerences between biblical and ancient
Near Eastern portraits and addressed the shared portrait of mes-

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

sengers in Genesis and Exodus, we turn to a brief comparison of
messengers in Genesis and Exodus before assessing more fully the
relationship between YHWH and his messengers. While in
Genesis, verbal communication is a primary angelic role, in
Exodus messengers do not speak at all (the dialogue in Exodus
3 is attributed to YHWH, not his angel). Likewise, messengers
manifest themselves diVerently in the two corpora. In Genesis,
their form is either unstated or anthropomorphic. Exodus does
not mention the angelic form. However, messengers are accompa-
nied by, if not present in or as, (super)natural elements like fire
and cloud.35 In Genesis, angels are necessary to establish some
form of distance and presence (see below). However, in Exodus,
the natural elements already establish some distance. Fire and
cloud are suitably impressive and suitably distinct from anthropo-
morphic form to express the awesome otherness of the deity and
to suggest that he is far more than either manifestation. As such,
angels in Exodus serve as a secondary rather than primary means
of establishing simultaneous distance and presence.36

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YHWH AND HIS MESSENGERS AND

ITS THEOLOGICAL RATIONALE
Divine messengers in Genesis and Exodus are presented as
neither fully assimilated into YHWH, nor fully independent from
35
The nature and duration of YHWH’s presence is also distinct. Whereas
in Genesis his presence is transitory, after the exodus from Egypt, YHWH is
continually present as fire and cloud and on Mt Sinai. Although not as clear
for YHWH’s messengers as for YHWH himself, some evidence exists for
continuous angelic presence (Exod. 13:21–2; 14:19, 24; 23:20–3; 33:1–3).
36
Although cursory, these diVerences may be used in support of the theory
that Genesis and Exodus represent diVerent traditions that are only later
merged (see e.g. the debate in Dozeman and Schmid, Farewell to the
Yahwist?).
 OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS 13 of 22
him. Instead, they fall along a spectrum between the two poles.
Why then do the texts present such a complicated picture? It
seems that their goal is not to provide clarity, but rather to leave
the relationship between deity and messenger murky and variable.
Such opacity serves their distinct theological agenda, namely to
establish simultaneous presence and distance, to promote mono-
Yahwism and to promote monolatry. This theological configur-
ation accounts for the unique portrait of angels in Genesis and
Exodus, which probably both draws on and deviates from
conceptions of other ancient Near Eastern messenger deities.

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

Presence and Distance
In Genesis and Exodus, one of the primary purposes of angels
is to simultaneously establish divine presence and some form of
divine distance.37 Humans have no access to divine activity or
thoughts in the heavenly sphere; they only encounter YHWH
when he chooses to intersect with humanity in the human
sphere. Thus, for human–divine interchange some degree of
presence is necessary. However, divine presence may also be
problematic. It tempts the reader to equate YHWH with what-
ever form he chooses to manifest himself through, to assume that
YHWH is simply a man or even a fiery bush. Likewise, divine
presence occasionally puts the deity in unpalatable situations.
For example, while it is uncomfortable for angels to be present
in Sodom, it would be unpalatable to directly thrust the god of
the universe into such a situation.
The insertion of an angelic mediator allows for both presence
and distance, allowing for divine–human interaction while com-
municating that, although the angel at least represents God, it is
not the deity in all his fullness. In turn, while present, YHWH is
always more and more mysterious than any single manifestation
would suggest. Thus, each divine encounter is real but incom-
plete, providing access to the deity without unnecessarily limit-
ing or impugning him.
Since each text has both sides of the paradox in mind, mes-
sengers are presented as neither fully identical nor fully distinct,
but rather as a variable admixture of both. For example, on one
side of the spectrum, in Genesis 16 and 22 and Exodus 3, the
37
Divine transcendence and the use of angels to establish it is a well-es-
tablished idea, so much so that it is impossible to adequately cite scholarly
references to it. See e.g. Newsom, ‘Angels’, p. 250; Stephen L. White, ‘Angel
of the LORD: Messenger or Euphemism?’, Tyndale Bulletin 50 (1999), pp.
299–305.
14 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

introduction of the angel introduces some element of distance

from the divine presence. Rather than fully articulating the re-
lationship between deity and angel, the text purposely blurs the
boundaries, such that it is unclear where YHWH starts and the
angel stops. While it remains true that the texts are concerned
with function and thus demonstrate little concern for spelling
out the relationship between angel and deity, confusion (or at
least circumspection) seems to be part of the function of the
texts.38 The texts clearly communicate that the angel represents
some form of divine presence that is by no means the fullness of
the deity, yet goes no further. Thus, presence is assured and the
reader recognizes that, although real, YHWH’s manifest pres-

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

ence does not represent YHWH in his unmediated fullness.
On the other side of the spectrum, although an element of
presence remains, certain texts stress the diVerence between
YHWH and his angels to add distance between YHWH and
an unpalatable situation. As noted, Genesis 19 stresses the dif-
ference between YHWH and his angels to distance him from the
situation in Sodom, while Exod. 33:2–3, in which YHWH says
that he will not accompany Israel, merely his angel, establishes
the divine displeasure and censure by establishing some distance,
while simultaneously confirming the promise to bring them into
the land through some form of accompanying presence.
Nonetheless, even in the situations where messengers are dis-
tinct, they are not fully independent. They have no names or
identities apart from being YHWH’s subordinate messengers,
who simply act as extensions of his person.

Mono-Yahwism
Genesis and Exodus also take care to present a single, unified
YHWH. In the ancient Near East, deities manifest themselves in
multiple forms in multiple locales. Rather than treating each
manifestation as identical, local manifestations occasionally took
on distinct identities.39 For example, a Mesopotamian hymn of
Aššurbanipal addresses the distinct Ištars of Nineveh and
38
Indeed, these texts are not concerned with what an angel is or looks like
any more than most biblical texts mentioning people are concerned with what
a person is or looks like.
39
See regarding the relationship between a deity’s various parts Hundley,
‘Here a God’, 82–90; id., Gods in Dwellings; id., ‘Divine Fluidity?’. On the
distinction between deities who bear the same forename, e.g. Baal of Aleppo
and Baal of Ugarit, see Spencer L. Allen, The Splintered Divine: A Study of
Ištar, Baal, and Yahweh. Divine Names and Divine Multiplicity in the Ancient
Near East (SANER 5; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014).
 OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS 15 of 22
40
Arbela, the divine witness list in the Hittite treaty between
Šuppiluliuma I and Huqqana of Hayasa lists 21 diVerent weather
˘
gods,41 and various oVering lists˘ from Ugarit mention mulitple
Baals who receive distinct oVerings.42 In Israel as well, YHWH
had multiple sanctuaries (e.g. at Dan, Bethel, and Jerusalem),
while inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud mention YHWH of
Samaria and YHWH of Teman.43
Genesis and Exodus also refer to YHWH manifesting himself
in diVerent locales (e.g. Bethel and Sinai) and in diVerent forms
(e.g. anthropomorphic and fire). As noted, the texts feature etiol-
ogies for the various Israelite sanctuaries, which may have fea-

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

tured distinct cultic practices (cf. the biblical references to golden
calves in Dan and Bethel [1 Kgs. 12:25–33] and aniconic worship
in the Jerusalem temple) and (semi-)independent YHWHs. By
putting the various divine manifestations into a single narrative,
the text avoids divine ‘fragmentation’,44 as potentially diVerent
YHWHs or even diVerent deities altogether are treated as a
single divine entity. Thus, the texts may be called ‘mono-
Yahwistic’, positing a single, unified YHWH with multiple
diVerent manifestations in multiple locations as well as several
diVerent names (such as El, Elohim, and YHWH).45 While often
associated with cult centralization and thus the reforms of
Jehoiada the priest, Hezekiah, and Josiah,46 mono-Yahwism in
Genesis and Exodus takes a diVerent form. Genesis and Exodus

40
K. 1290; Alisdair Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory
Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986),
pp. 10–13; for analysis, see esp. Barbara Nevling Porter, ‘Ishtar of Nineveh
and her Collaborator, Ishtar of Arbela, in the Reign of Assurbanipal’, Iraq 66
(2004), pp. 41–4.
41
Treaty no. 3 in Gary M. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2nd edn.;
SBLWAW 7; Atlanta. GA: Scholars Press, 1999), pp. 28–9.
42
See briefly the summary in Sommer, Bodies of God, p. 25 with references;
see more fully Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (SBLWAW 10;
Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 2002), pp. 11–72. For example, KTU 1.109
refers to a feast of Baal of Sapan (l. 5) in which oVerings are presented to
Baal, Baal of Sapan, Baal of _Ugarit, and Baal of Aleppo (Pardee, Ritual, pp.
29–33). _
43
Regarding Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, see Zeev Meshel, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: An Iron
Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 2012).
44
For the term ‘fragmentation’, see Sommer, Bodies of God, p. 13.
45
Mono-Yahwism has been in scholarly use since the early twentieth cen-
tury. See e.g. the classic study of William F. Badè, ‘Der Monojahwismus des
Deuteronomiums’, ZAW 30 (1910), pp. 81–90.
46
See e.g. Stephen L. Cook, The Social Roots of Biblical Yahwism
(SBLSBL 8; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2004), pp. 45–65.
16 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

acknowledge and even provide etiologies for non-Jerusalem sanc-

tuaries and include the disparate ancestral and Exodus accounts
of divine encounters. Rather than centralizing the cult, they
unite the various accounts into a single narrative, thereby defini-
tively identifying each encounter with deity as an encounter with
the same deity, YHWH.47 In other words, the deity’s potentially
disparate parts are treated as unified, and Yahweh and Elohim
are equated.48

Monolatry
In addition to being mono-Yahwistic, Genesis and Exodus also

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

seem to subscribe to monolatry.49 Rather than expressing belief
in a divine world with a population of one (monotheism),
Genesis and Exodus are monolatrous, promoting worship of a
single deity without denying the existence of other deities.50 The
narratives focus on the Israelite god such that no other gods are
in view or seem to matter, while all potential rivals are seemingly
eliminated. Like Marduk and Aššur, who rise from relative ob-
scurity to become the primary gods of the Assyrian and
Babylonian empires by co-opting aspects of other deities,51
YHWH establishes his identity and supremacy by accumulating
47
Cf. Christoph Levin, ‘Integrativer Monotheismus im Alten Testament’,
ZTK 109 (2012), p. 162.
48
Deut. 6:4 has been associated with mono-Yahwism at least since Badè’s
article. However, although mono-Yahwism may be in view, exclusive worship
seems to be the primary focus.
49
Like mono-Yahwism, monolatry has been in use for quite some time, first
appearing in Friedrich Schleiermacher, Der christliche Glaube nach den
Grundsätzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt (Berlin:
Reimer, 1830/1831).
50
For a survey of scholarship on monotheism, including monolatry and
henotheism, see Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of
‘‘Monotheism’’ (2nd edn.; FAT II/1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), pp.
21–71.
51
See briefly Hundley, ‘Here a God’, pp. 99–100. In both cases, political
expansion worked in tandem with the expansion of the deities’ aspects and
areas of competence (Walther Sallaberger, ‘Pantheon A. I. In Mesopotamien’,
RlA 10 [2004], p. 299). In the Enu ma eliš, in addition to his victory over a
seemingly invincible enemy, the poem climaxes with Marduk’s 50 names,
which co-opt aspects of other deities, thus rendering him supreme.
Regarding Aššur, see esp. Angelika Berlejung, ‘Die Reduktion von
Komplexität: Das theologische Profil einer Gottheit und seine Umsetzung in
der Ikonographie am Bespiel des Gottes Aššur im Assyrien des 1. Jt. v. Chr.’,
in B. Groneberg and H. Spieckermann (eds.), Die Welt der Götterbilder
(BZAW 376; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), pp. 9–56. Cf. the Psalmist’s exaltation
of YHWH through the implicit co-option of the aspects of other ancient Near
Eastern, and especially Canaanite, gods in Psalm 29.
 OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS 17 of 22
names (e.g. YHWH, El, and Elohim), manifestations (e.g. at
Bethel and Sinai), and attributes (e.g. control of fertility, fire,
and cloud) often at the expense of ‘other gods’.
By analogy, the business model of modern megastores like
Walmart or Amazon.com can help the modern reader to under-
stand the textual presentation of YHWH (as well as that of
Marduk and Aššur). In eVect, in order to make YHWH
worthy of exclusive worship, the texts aim to make YHWH a
one-stop shop, such that his worshipers are not tempted to shop
elsewhere. Rather than claim that other deities do not exist or try
to invent new products, YHWH partakes of the other deities’

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

previously exclusive specialities. As such, he can do all of the
things the ‘other gods’ can and even more in aggregate. His
worshippers are thus emboldened to come to him for all their
needs.
However, the promoters of YHWH have a more ambitious
goal than followers of Marduk and Aššur. In Mesopotamia, the
goal is to provide expansive enough profiles that Marduk and
Aššur are deemed worthy of being king of the gods, even
though multiple other gods continue to be venerated.52 Thus,
in the ancient Near East, the divine hierarchy remains intact,
with a high god, many important middle gods, and a multitude
of lower, servant deities.53 In Genesis and Exodus, the goal is
exclusive worship. In order to accomplish this goal, the text
squeezes out the middle gods, either demoting them into the
lower servant tier or pushing them out of the market entirely.54
Where before ‘other gods’ may have had their own identities and
specialties, in Genesis and Exodus they have become YHWH’s
nameless employees, who eVectively work for YHWH.com.

52
See further Hundley, ‘Here a God’.
53
At Ugarit (as elsewhere in the ancient Near East), the divine world was
hierarchically ordered with the king of the gods El standing atop the cosmic
hierarchy alongside his wife Athirat, below which stood the ‘middle gods’.
While beneath the divine king, such middle gods, like Baal and Anat, also
play a major role in the divine society and have significant power (and at
Ugarit are often children of the high god). Servant deities then occupy the
lower tier (cf. e.g. Lowell K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-
Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994];
Mark S. Smith, Memoirs of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004], pp. 101–5).
54
It must be noted that in much of the Hebrew Bible YHWH’s goal is not
to corner the entire ancient Near Eastern market, merely the Israelite one.
Thus, while he is concerned with exclusive Israelite worship, he shows far less
concern about whom the other people worship.
18 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

In line with this theological agenda, biblical angels are

‘demoted’ and lose all independence.55 Rather than being lesser
deities as they are elsewhere in the ancient Near East, they are
assimilated into the single deity or treated as his undefined ap-
pendages. In a typical polytheistic context, there is no taboo on
divinization of various beings and elements or on splitting a
single deity into smaller independently divinized parts. Thus,
divine messengers may be deified. In Genesis and Exodus, how-
ever, other gods and even potentially independent manifestations
of a god seem to be absorbed, neutered, or eliminated by the
narrative framework.

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

Nonetheless, the assimilation of divine messengers is only par-
tial. While Genesis and Exodus generally omit the ‘middle gods’,
they ambiguate the relationship between YHWH and his mes-
senger, theoretically demoting the angel from a full god to an
ambiguous figure. Although connected to YHWH to such an
extent that they often cannot be distinguished from him, there
is no suggestion that an angel is YHWH in all his fullness. Thus,
rather than being fully distinct or fully absorbed into the divine
person, texts seem to blur the two models to simultaneously
promote mono-Yahwism and monolatry and to provide some
distance between the human and divine.
However, once divine singularity and supremacy have been suit-
ably established in late biblical and post-biblical periods, angels can
be treated as fully independent beings with their own names and
characteristics without fear of impugning YHWH.56 In fact, vari-
ous Second Temple texts eventually fuse all divine beings into the
‘angel’ category.57 Rather than being lesser deities, all subordinate
deities thereby are put into an entirely diVerent category, such that
YHWH is the only one who remains in the Elohim category.58
55
It is nowhere made explicit that an angel was ever a god in the Israelite
tradition. Thus, when we speak of their demotion, we do it according to the
ancient Near Eastern model (in which they are deities) as a point of compari-
son, even though it may not apply to biblical Israel.
56
Cf. von Heijne, Messenger of the Lord, p. 13, who notes that from the
third century BCE onward, texts emphasize divine transcendence and the cor-
responding increase in the angels’ roles as mediators.
57
Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, pp. 14–15; Meier, ‘Angel’, pp. 49–50; cf.
Newsom, ‘Angels’, p. 251; Köckertffl ‘Divine Messengers’, p. 54.
58
The term ‘Elohim’ is an abstract plural of god, meaning something like
‘divinity’. As a generic term in the ancient Near East, it refers to various
deities (see Joel S. Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim [SBLDS 183;
Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2001]). However, while in the ancient Near East it is
usually followed by a descriptor, specifying the particular (type of) deity ad-
dressed, in some biblical texts, classically associated with the Elohist and also
 OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS 19 of 22
Thus, they may be individualized without threatening
YHWH.59
This progression resembles those of Anu and Marduk in
Mesopotamia and El and Baal at Ugarit. Like Marduk and
Baal, YHWH is presented as especially active in establishing
his supremacy. However, once supremacy is established,
YHWH, like El and Anu, often works through intermediaries.

What then is an Angel?

Given the confusing and anomalous data, it remains uncertain
what an angel is and how it relates to its divine master, YHWH.

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

As noted, Genesis and Exodus do not conform to the general
ancient Near Eastern portrait in important respects. It is tempt-
ing to argue that an angel is simply a being in the divine entou-
rage, subordinate but not identical to YHWH. However, as we
have seen, the text presents a more complicated portrait that
seems to blur the boundaries between God and messenger, by
rarely using messenger formulae and occasionally appearing to
equate the messenger and its master.
Alternatively, an angel may be envisaged as a temporary over-
lap of YHWH and his subordinate, that is, YHWH in the role of
a messenger or a semi-independent manifestation of YHWH like
a cult image. As fluid beings, deities in the ancient Near East
could overlap to some degree.60 This is especially pronounced in
Egypt, where such common forms as Amon-Re (where the

the Priestly texts, it stands alone and functions either as a name or title for
YHWH (cf. Erhard Blum, ‘Der vermeintliche Gottesname ‘‘Elohim’’’, in I. U.
Dalferth and P. Stoellger [eds.], Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als
Name [Religion in Philosophy and Theology, 35;Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
2008], pp. 97–119; Konrad Schmid, ‘The Quest for ‘‘God’’: Monotheistic
Arguments in the Priestly Texts of the Hebrew Bible’, in B. Pongratz-
Leisten [ed.], Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism [Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011], pp. 271–89).
59
The Satan or ‘accuser’ (!~_?h) likewise follows a similar trajectory.
Presented first as a member of the divine entourage functioning as an accuser
(Num. 22:22; Job 1–2), the Satan eventually drops the article and becomes a
being in his own right, responsible for inciting David to take a census (1
Chron. 21:1). However, rather than competing directly with YHWH, his pri-
mary adversaries become YHWH’s angels. Thus, the texts create a being re-
sponsible for much of the evil in the world, who is simultaneously no match
for YHWH.
60
For the ancient Near Eastern possibilities, see briefly Hundley, ‘Divine
Fluidity? The Priestly Texts in their Ancient Near Eastern Contexts’, in L.
Trevaskis, F. Landy, and B. Bibb (eds.), Text, Time, and Temple: Literary,
Historical and Ritual Studies in Leviticus (SheYeld: SheYeld Phoenix: 2014),
pp. 16–26.
20 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

otherwise distinct gods Amun and Re form a single deity) and

more complex forms as Amon-Re-Harakhte-Atum feature,61 yet
also appears in Mesopotamia, Hittite Anatolia, and Syria-
Palestine.62 In most cases, although understood to be a distinct
deity (at least temporarily), the combined form continues to exist
alongside the two deities in their own right, such that Amun, Re,
and Amon-Re are three distinct deities. In eVect, the second
deity’s name is probably descriptive, describing the first deity
as ‘like, or equivalent to, or incorporating the qualities of, the
second god’.63 For example, the combined form Aššur-dDayyani
(Aššur-the-Divine-Judges) refers to Aššur in his role as the
divine judge.64 However, the title ‘messenger of YHWH’

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

(hwhy $alm) appears in construct, not in apposition. Thus,
rather than being Messenger-YHWH, the $alm is a messenger
of YHWH.65 In addition, while gods like Amun and Amon-Re
may coexist, they do not appear together in the same narrative,
rendering the simultaneous references to the messenger of
YHWH and YHWH problematic.

61
See e.g. the classic study of Hans Bonnet, ‘Zum Verstandnis des
Synkretismus’, ZÄS 75 (1939), pp. 40–52; ET, ‘On Understanding
Syncretism’, Orientalia 68 (1999), pp. 181–98) as well as Erik Hornung,
Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many (trans. J.
Baines; Cornell: Cornell University Press, 1982), pp. 91–9; and John Baines,
‘Egyptian Deities in Context: Multiplicity, Unity, and the Problem of Change’,
in B. Porter (ed.), One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World
(Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 1; Maine: Casco Bay
Assyriological Institute, 2000), pp. 31–5.
62
In Mesopotamia, the takultu ritual texts combine the names of two gods
into a single name on at least eleven occasions, such as Ninurta-Aššur and
Aššur-Adad, each of which is treated as a single deity (for the ritual texts, see
esp. Birgitte Menzel, Assyrische Tempel [vol. 2; Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1981], no. 54 [K. 252], T 113–25 and no. 61 [VAT 10126], T 138–44; for
analysis, see esp. Porter, ‘The Anxiety of Multiplicity: Concepts of the Divine
in Ancient Assyria’, in One God or Many?, pp. 230–9). Hittite texts mention,
among others, Adamma-Kubaba, Hebat-Muš(u)n(n)i and Hebat-Šarruma
˘
(Volkert Haas, Geschichte der hethitischen Religion [HdO 1/15; ˘Leiden: Brill,
1994], p. 312). Regarding divine overlap in Syria-Palestine, see e.g. Mark S.
Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and
the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 70–2.
63
Porter, ‘Anxiety’, p. 237; regarding Egypt, see John Baines, ‘Egyptian
Deities’, pp. 34–5; regarding Syria-Palestine, cf. Smith, Origins, p. 71.
64
Porter, ‘Anxiety’, p. 237.
65
In addition, one would expect the construct to be YHWH-Messenger,
since the first name mentioned usually refers to the superior being (e.g., in
Aššur-dDayyani), either specifying or extending the usual divine function. In
Mesopotamia at least, such doubled names also seem to refer to particular cult
statues, specifying their function and diVerentiating them from other statues.
 OF GOD AND ANGELS: DIVINE MESSENGERS 21 of 22
The messenger of YHWH as a divine manifestation is perhaps
more promising, though by no means problem free. As we have
seen, a deity’s many manifestations (e.g. cult statues), although
associated, may also be treated as distinct.66 An angel may be
understood as a separable self-propelled secondary agent, who
when presented bears some but not all of the divine essence.67
However, as noted, the divine referent and its manifestation do
not appear together elsewhere in ancient Near Eastern narrative
contexts. In addition, whereas diVerent ancient Near Eastern
texts seem to present the relationship between a manifestation
and its referent in seemingly conflicting ways, none seem to pre-

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

sent such a confused relationship within the same passage like
the biblical account.
Unfortunately, none of these alternatives is fully satisfying,
and probably for good reason, since the texts’ purpose seems
to be to leave the relationship between YHWH and his messen-
gers undefined. It chooses to blur the definitional edges, keeping
the entire focus on the message and YHWH, not on the method
or agent of delivery. As such, and as a product of the text’s
unique theological agenda, the divine messenger in Genesis
and Exodus deviates from its closest ancient Near Eastern ana-
logues. In the end, on a synchronic level, it would seem that
even the all-knowing narrator is not quite sure what kind of
being a messenger is. Or, if he knows, he is not willing to tell
us, since too much information would detract from the texts’
purpose. All that is clear is that a messenger is YHWH’s eVect-
ive, but not exhaustive, presence on earth. Everything else re-
mains purposely circumspect, thereby producing intentionally
inconclusive and variable configurations to suit the specific
needs of the various texts.
Whereas in the ancient Near East deities generally communi-
cate with their human subjects through encrypted messages,
such as in omens, oracles, and dreams, in Genesis and Exodus

66
See Hundley, ‘Here a God’, pp. 80–90; id., Gods in Dwellings, esp. pp.
363–71.
67
This is similar to Zainab Bahrini’s concept of a Mesopotamian image that
partakes of some yet not all of the essence of its referent (The Graven Image:
Representation in Babylonia and Assyria [Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2003]). Regarding primary and secondary agents, see
Beate Pongratz-Leisten, ‘Divine Agency and Astralization of the Gods in
Ancient Mesopotamia’, in B. Pongratz-Leisten (ed.), Reconsidering the
Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011),
pp. 144–52.
22 of 22 MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY

the divine message itself is clear.68 Instead, the divine form is in

some way encrypted, such that it may be accessed but not fully
comprehended or limited to any one form or any one place.

SYNTHESIS
The presentations of the divine in non-Priestly portions of
Genesis and Exodus have long been considered primitive, espe-
cially in comparison to those of the Priestly texts (P) and
Deuteronomy (D).69 However, they are actually quite sophisti-
cated, especially when read in the light of their diYcult param-
eters. Unlike P and D, they do not have recourse to a single

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

sanctuary with a single, mysterious divine form. Instead, the text
relates various non-temple theophanies, many of which occur as
etiologies for future sanctuaries, in which the deity adopts
multiple forms in multiple places for diVerent purposes. They
use the narrative framework to unite the diVerent accounts, such
that they are all used to represent a single deity. The use of an
angel in particular adds an element of distance and mystery, yet
does so without compromising mono-Yahwism or monolatry. In
conclusion, the tendency to mono-Yahwize, monolatrize, and to
distance the deity from the realm of human experience produces a
sophisticated and confusing combination in Genesis and Exodus,
derived, but clearly distinct, from its ancient Near Eastern
precedents.

68
Regarding Mesopotamia, see the exhaustive survey of Stefan M. Maul,
‘Omina und Orakel: A. Mesopotamien’, RlA 10 (2005), pp. 45–88.
69
See e.g. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament ( Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1961–7), vol. 1, p. 211; cf. Sommer, Bodies of God, pp. 4–10 for a
summary of scholarly avoidance of divine embodiment.