9

OBSERVATIONS ON CHAPTER I.

M'78, THE ANGEL, OR Messenger of the Lord.

FROM Kimchi's commentary on the 8th and 12th verses of this chapter, it appears that he considered the person designated "The angel of the Lord," as nothing more than one of the many angels to whom he supposes that the governance and guidance of this lower world is committed. It has been repeatedly proved by Christian writers that this Being is none other than the Son of God. The latest writers in this country are Mr. Faber in his "Horæ Mosaicæ,"* and Dr. Pye Smith, in his work on the Messiah; but as their works were not written with a special reference to the Jewish controversy, and as the question is one of general importance, it may not be out of place to offer a few remarks on the character of the angel or messenger of the Lord.

Kimchi evidently took the word ?, as signifying 66 angel," and therefore decides that he is one of that class of heavenly beings commonly designated by that name. But the first and original meaning of the word is "messenger," in which sense it is frequently applied to men as well as to heavenly beings. In Gen. xxxii. 1. 3 (Heb. ii. 4) it occurs in both senses. "And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God, be, met him." "And Jacob sent messengers,, before him to Esau his brother." The word itself, therefore, decides nothing as to the nature of the messenger; so far as that is concerned, he may be a man, or he may be a heavenly being, but if a heavenly being, it decides nothing as to the order to which he belongs, whether to the living creatures de

* Not having access to this work, I cannot give the reference. Dr. Pye Smith treats this subject in vol. i. pp. 333.

scribed in Ezekiel, or to the Seraphim mentioned in Isaiah, or to others.

The next question is, How are the two words in se, to be translated? Some Christians wish to translate "The angel Jehovah." But this is plainly against the punctuation, and if persons pretend to disregard the points, then we must add against the consonants also. If the two words are to be taken in apposition, without regard to the points, the translation must be " An angel or a messenger, Jehovah." If he were used in the absolute form with reference to THE LORD, we should expect that it would have the article before it, as 7 has uniformly, so that the form 777, the Lord, is never applied to any created being. Besides, the words do occur in Scripture elsewhere, where must be taken as the genitive case, as "The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his

-for he is the mes כִּי מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת הוּא,mouth

senger of the Lord of Hosts." (Mal. iii. 7.)

The modern Jews, on the other hand, translate "An angel of the Lord," and in this our translators have occasionally followed them, as in Judges ii. 1, “An angel of the Lord, b, came up from Gilgal:" but there is nothing in the words to compel us to adopt this translation. As far as they are concerned, we may with equal propriety translate "The angel of the Lord.” It cannot be urged that has not got the article, for it is in regimen, and the general rule is, that nouns in regimen do not take the article, but are made definite by the following genitive, and the Jews themselves will admit that must be translated "The God of Israel;" and, "The mountain of the house;' “The temple of the Lord." It is true that in this case the general rule is, that the definite article should be prefixed to the genitive; but here that cannot be the case, for never, in any case, receives an

article. Suppose, then, that the sacred writers wished to express that is to be translated definitely, "The angel of the Lord," what means could they have taken? They could not have put the article before , for that would have made "The angel Jehovah." They could not prefix it to in, for, as we have said, that does not admit of it. There remained one other course possible, and that was, never to use the expression in the plural of angels, but always in the singular, so as to indicate that one person, and one only, is intended. But have they done this? Yes, uniformly: in the whole Bible, and in the great variety of styles which occurs, we never once find the expression, "Angels of the Lord," but uniformly the singular, ins, to

point out that there is only one of heavenly beings to whom this title belongs. It would be folly, or something worse, to say that this is fortuitous. The uniformity of the practice by all the sacred writers implies design, and teaches that there is but one person thus called, and that therefore the true translation is, "The angel of the Lord."

The only plausible objection that can be urged is, that though we do not find in the plural "The angels of the Lord," we do find the expression, " Angels of God." We might urge in reply, that there is a great difference between the words bs and , but this is not necessary, as this very objection will serve as an additional confirmation to the foregoing argument. We have already said, that a word governing a genitive case does not take the article, and that the rule therefore is, if the article is wanted, to prefix it to the genitive case, if the genitive be a word that admits of the article.

is a אֱלֹהִים Now

word that admits the article. When, therefore, the sacred writers wished to say definitely "The angel of God,"

and this they ,מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים they could express it by

have done, as in Gen. xxxi. 11, "And the angel of God, , spake unto me in a dream." And again,

,מַלְאַךְ

in Exod. xiv. 19, " And the angel of God, which went before the camp," &c.; and so in very many other cases. As, therefore, when they wished to use a definite expression, they had it in their power, it was not necessary to confine the expression, " Angel of God," to the singular. But now mark the care and accuracy of the sacred writers; when they use angels of God in the plural, they do not use the article before : that is, they do not make it definite. It occurs only twice in the Bible, but each time without the article. First, in Jacob's dream of the ladder, "And, behold, angels of God , ascending and descending on it." (Genesis xxviii. 12.) And again in the instance quoted above, "And Jacob went on his way, and angels of God, , met him." (Genesis xxxii. 1, Hebrew 2.) This expression, therefore, "Angels of God," is so far from weakening our former argument, that it shows us that there is one peculiar being, who is distinguished from all other heavenly beings, by the title, "The angel of the Lord;" and that, therefore, the analogy of Scripture confirms us in the faith, that there is only one person who is called "The angel of the Lord."

It may be thought needful to prove that He who is called "The angel of the Lord," is identical with him who is named "The angel of God;" but this is easily done. In Judges vi. 20, 21, we find both expressions indifferently applied to one and the same person. "And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour the broth. And he did so. Then the angel of the Lord put forth the end of his staff," &c. And again, Judges xiii. 3—9, “ And the angel of the Lord appeared unto the woman- -And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman." Here the identity is fully proved, and we have got thus far in our inquiry, that there is but one heavenly

being who is called "The angel of the Lord" and "The angel of God," and consequently that He is some way peculiar from those other heavenly beings, who have not these titles, but are called "Angels of God." Wherein that peculiarity consists, we now proceed to inquire.

It is not possible in the limited space, to which we propose to extend these observations, to go through all the passages on this subject, we, therefore, select a few plain ones, sufficient to establish what is advanced. The first peculiarity, then, in the character of this personage is, that he is called by the proper name of God, in. We read in the law, that He appeared to Hagar, when she fled from her mistress; and after relating the vision, the the sacred history adds, "And she called the name of the LORD,, who spake with her," so that He who was before called the angel of the Lord, is here called Jehovah. Rashi, Aben Ezra, Solomon ben Melech, and Nachmanides, all pass this over in silence. Individual Jews to whom I have proposed the passage, have almost always replied, that Hagar was mistaken, and from ignorance applied the name Jehovah to the angel. But this is not the fact, Hagar did not call the angel Jehovah; she called him

, or as our translation has it, "Thou God seest me.” It is the historian, in the course of his narrative, who applies to the angel the name Jehovah, and this is acknowledged by Abarbanel, who says that this is an exceedingly difficult passage, particularly "Because the peculiar name of God is employed, She called the name of the LORD who spake with her;' and how can it possibly be, that the First Cause, blessed be He, should speak with Hagar; when the law itself testifies and says, that it was the angel of the Lord who appeared unto her, and not the Lord himself?" A little lower down He gives his solution of the difficulty thus; "The right answer here is, that all prophetic vision, whether mediate or immediate, is always attributed to God, blessed be He,