Jesus and Angel of The Lord

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some th esis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of th is reproduction is d e p en d e n t upon the quality o f th e

copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not sen d UMI a complete m anuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g.. maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQ uest Information and Learning

300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
JESUS AND THE ANGEL OF THE LORD:
AN OLD TESTAMENT PARADIGM FOR
NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY
by
Gunther H. Juncker
B.A., University of California, Davis, 1986

M.Div., magna cum laude, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1995
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
New Testament Concentration
at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
December 2001
UMI Number: 3033430
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3033430
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQ uest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
®2001 Gunther H. Juncker
Accepted:
Dissertation Mentor
Second Reader
\j
Program Director
ii
ABSTRACT
Against the backdrop of the new "Religionsgeschichtliche Schule" and its
salutary emphasis on Jewish sources and concepts, especially the concept of agency, the
following thesis is asserted: a Jewish agent o f considerable, perhaps even maximal,
relevance to the high (divine) Christology o f the N T is the OT Angel o f the LORD. Three
classes of agents are relevant to the Christology of the NT, but one class—the class of
principal angels—is especially relevant. Not only does this class include figures more
clearly personal than the divine attributes and powers, and more clearly divine than the
exalted patriarchs, it also includes the Angel of the LORD (Chapter 1). This angel is the
most important angel in the OT where, in a number of passages, he appears as a
manifestation of YHWH himself. The OT describes YHWH as appearing in the form of
an angelic agent (Chapter 2). This remarkable phenomenon, herein labelled divine
agency, cannot be found in the intertestamental literature (Chapter 3). It can, however, be
found in the NT where Christ, an agent, is divine and where significant Christological
use is made of OT Angel of the LORD texts. The NT conflates and applies two Angel of
the LORD texts (Exod 23:20; Mai 3:1) to Christ in Matt 11:10 and Mark 1:2 and it
echoes several others. It is thus likely that the NT is consciously drawing upon an OT
paradigm, a paradigm of divine agency, in its explication of the person and status of
Christ (Chapter 4). The Christological monotheism of the NT is solidly founded upon
iii
God’s theophanic manifestations in the OT. That Jesus was an agent needs little or no
explanation; that he was very early perceived as divine and worshipped does. By
carefully examining the NT use of OT Angel of the LORD texts it is possible to explain
the high Christology of the NT in its own idiom and on a primarily canonical and
intertextual basis. There is no angel Christology in the NT. There is, however, an
implied Angel of the LORD Christology or a Christology o f divine agency. Jesus is not
simply an agent but a divine agent.
iv
To Penny sine qua non
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................... ix
LIST OF................... FIG U RES...................................................................................... x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. xi
Chapter
1.INTROD U CTION ................................................................................................ 1
Delimitation of Concepts and S ou rces...................................................... 3
Thesis Statement......................................................................................... 9
Methodological Considerations................................................................ IS
C o n c lu sio n ................................................................................................. 29
2.THE OLD TESTAMENT..................................................................................... 32
Genesis 1 6 :7 -1 4 ......................................................................................... 35
EXCURSUS: Third Person References by YHWH to

H im self......................................................................................... 39
Genesis 21:14-21 ...................................................................................... 49
Genesis 2 2 :1 -1 8 ......................................................................................... 54
EXCURSUS: The Angel in Genesis 24:7, 40 ................................... 59
Genesis 31:10-13 (cf. Gen 28:10-22) ..................................................... 60
Genesis 48:15-16 ...................................................................................... 64
Exodus 3 : 2 ................................................................................................ 70
Exodus 14:19.............................................................................................. 78
Exodus 23:20, 23; 32:34; 3 3 : 2 ................................................................ 83
Numbers 20:16.............................................................................................. 104
Numbers 22:22-35 ...................................................................................... 106
Joshua 5:13-15.............................................................................................. 113
Judges 2:1-5 .................................................................................................117
EXCURSUS: The Deuteronom(ist)ic and Primary

Histories ......................................................................................... 118
Judges 6:11-24.............................................................................................. 126
Judges 13:1-23.............................................................................................. 133
Isaiah 6 3 : 9 ................................................................................................... 140
Hosea 12:4-5.................................................................................................150
Malachi 3 :1 ................................................................................................... 163
Conclusion to the Old Testam ent.................................................................186
3. THE INTERTESTAMENTAL P E R IO D ........................................................... 190
The L X X ......................................................................................................191
Exodus 4 :2 4 ............................................................................................195
Exodus 13:21; 14:19 ........................................................................... 197
Exodus 23:20-23 ................................................................................. 198
Numbers 22:34; 24:3-4, 15-17 ........................................................... 199
Judges 2:1-5........................................................................................... 200
Judges 6:14, 1 6 ...................................................................................... 200
Judges 13:19 ........................................................................................ 201
Isaiah 9:5 ..............................................................................................202
Conclusion to the L X X ........................................................................ 205
vi
Philo 206
Josephus.........................................................................................................222
Q u m ra n .........................................................................................................232
EXCURSUS: Melchizedek at Q um ran............................................... 236
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha................................................................... 247
T o b it...................................................................................................... 248
2 Maccabees ......................................................................................... 250
1 Enoch .................................................................................................252
Apocalypse o f Z ep h a n ia h ......................................................................255
4 Ezra ....................................................................................................256
2 B aruch.................................................................................................258
3 B aruch.................................................................................................259
Apocalypse o f A braham ........................................................................ 260
Testaments o f the Twelve P a tria rch s................................................... 264
Testament o f A braham ........................................................................... 266
Jubilees .................................................................................................268
Joseph and Aseneth ..............................................................................271
Life o f Adam and E v e ........................................................................... 273
Pseudo-Philo .........................................................................................274
Ladder o f Jacob ................................................................................... 276
Prayer o f J o se p h ................................................................................... 277
C onclusion................................................................................................... 278
vii
4. THE NEW TESTAMENT ..................................................................................281
NT Citations of OT Angel of the LORD T e x ts ......................................... 285
The Identity of "the Christ" (Matthew 11:2-14) .................................286
The Identity of "the Son of God" (Mark 1:1-3) .................................312
Conclusion.............................................................................................. 324
NT Allusions to OT Angel of the LORD T e x ts ......................................... 326
The Forerunner and His ‘Follower’ (Mark 1: 4 - 8 ) .............................. 327
The Son of Man’s Forgiveness of Sins (Mark 2:1-12) ...................... 335
EXCURSUS: The Prayer of Nabonidus ...................................... 336
The Sea-Rescue Theophany (Mark 6:45-52) ................................... 345
The Transfiguration of "the Son" (Mark 9 :1 -1 3 ).................................358
EXCURSUS: The Christological Use of

Exodus 33-34 in the N T .........................................................363
The Lord’s Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 1 1 :1 5 -1 9 )...................... 383
The Absolute "I a m " of the Preexistent

Christ (John 8:31-59) 395
C onclusion................................................................................................... 407
5. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................410
BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................424
TABLES
Table Page
1. Semantic Breakdown: 127 Occurrences of Singular in the MT . . . . . 34
2. Semantic Breakdown: 143 Occurrences of Singular dryycXo^ in the LXX . . 192
3. LXX Additions: 25 Occurrences of GrfyeXoc, without Corresponding . 193
4. LXX Omissions: 9 Occurrences of without Corresponding Gyytkoc, . 194
ix
FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Philo’s Categories of B eing...................................................................................211
2. The Canonical "Categories of B e in g ".................................................................. 212
3. Qumran D u a lis m .................................................................................................. 242
4. New Testament "D ualism "...................................................................................247
5. The Exodus Forerunner Framework.....................................................................297
6. The Malachi Forerunner F ram ew o rk.................................................................. 297
7. The Isaiah Forerunner Framework .....................................................................298
8. The New Testament Forerunner Framework .....................................................299
9. Old Testament Theophany Paradigm ..................................................................417
10. New Testament Theophany Paradigm ..................................................................418
11. Intertestamental Agency Paradigm....................................................................... 420
12. New Testament "Divine Agency" P aradigm ....................................................... 421
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people stand behind a work like this even though only a single name
appears on the title page. It is thus with great appreciation that I acknowledge the help
and encouragement of the following:
My loving wife Penny without whose encouragement I might never have
embarked on this theological adventure and without whose companionship I would never
have finished it. My three sons Christopher, Sheldon, and Wesley who gave up time with
their dad and who rejoiced over every rough draft, not least because it meant more
scratch paper for their own little projects. And my parents who always believed I could
do it and who supported us with more than words when the times were tough.
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for its outstanding faculty, for its
commitment to the authority and relevance of the Word of God, and for a scholarship
that enabled me to complete my coursework in two years, just like the catalog says can
be done. My confederates in crime—members and former members of the Dead Heretics
Society—with whom it was a joy and an education all its own to engage in theological
discussion. My colleagues in the PhD program at Trinity who encouraged me, and one
another, with these words from Dr. Murray Harris: namely, that the key to finishing a
dissertation is the progressive surrender of ideals of perfection. And my dissertation
committee for ensuring that the surrender was not unconditional.
Dr. D. A. Carson, my Doktorvater, who is the epitome of a Christian scholar
and whose typically scintillating lectures on the use of the Old Testament in the New
xi
have inspired a fresh generation of scholars, myself included. Dr. Douglas J. Moo, my
second reader, whose stature as a New Testament scholar is rarely surpassed and who has
consistently exemplified what it means to love God with one’s mind. And Dr. Willem A.
VanGemeren, my third reader, who has kept, or tried to keep, my Hebrew exegesis
n*nn.
Dr. Brian Dodd and Dr. Walter Liefeld for teaching me Greek; little did they
know then the use to which it would someday be put. Dr. Lincoln Hurst for his
theological acumen as well as his patience and forgiveness (I promise I’ll turn in that
overdue undergrad paper one of these days!). Dr. Scot McKnight for his accessibility and
for his vision for liberal arts education. And Dr. Martin Hengel for taking a few
moments out of a busy schedule to encourage an American evangelical.
xii
6 A&foq Si xoo Oeou &mv 6 ui6q aoxou, <bq npoiîfiEV. xai fryyEto^ S i KaXeCxax
m i dwcdoxoôq Koci O&kvpe. Manxjef fryyeXoq 6eou
tv $Xoyi iropdq £k xt)<; pdxoo taxi efnev
'Eytb d p i 6 <5v.
—Justin Martyr
Strange opinions have arisen either due to people who committed errors
or to people who acted with some end in view, so that professing
such opinions they ran counter to the nature of existence
and denied a sensibly perceived thing.
—Maimonides
The spiritual instinct of the children of God is not to be despised.

In the face of it I cannot evade my responsibility.
—Helmut Thielicke
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A paradigm shift is taking place in Christology away from the old history of
religions approach exemplified by Wilhelm Bousset toward the new history of religions
approach exemplified by Larry W. Hurtado.1 So significant is Hurtado’s watershed
monograph and what it represents that it clearly warrants the following comment by Martin
Hengel:
This very informative, interesting, and revolutionary book gathers in a masterly manner
the results of scholarly experts in many countries who are in some way forming a new
"Religionsgeschichtliche Schule." I know of few recent boojp which promote our
understanding of early Christology so much as this volume."
W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History o f the B elief in Christ from the Beginnings
o f Christianity to Irenaeus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970 [1913]); L. W. Hurtado, One God,
One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1988). For the notion of paradigms and paradigm shifts see T. L. Kuhn, The Structure o f
Scientific Revolutions (2d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970 [1962]); idem,
The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1977). Though Kuhn’s thesis has been subject to debate and
modification the analogy from science to the Queen of the Sciences continues to remain a
fruitful one (contra, most recently, R. F. Shedinger, "Kuhnian Paradigms and Biblical
Scholarship: Is Biblical Studies a Science?" JBL 119 [2000]: 453-471). Cf., e.g., T. L.
Donaldson, "Thomas Kuhn, Convictional Worlds, and Paul," in Origins and Method:
Towards a New Understanding o f Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honour o f John C.
Hurd, ed. B. H. McLean (JSNTSup 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 190-198; H. Kung
and D. Tracy, eds., Paradigm Change in Theology: A Symposium fo r the Future (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1989); V. S. Poythress, Implications o f Scientific Method fo r Biblical
Interpretation (Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 6; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1988).
2The comment by Hengel, arguably the patron scholar if not the reluctant headmaster
of the new school (cf. his seminal, The Son o f God: The Origin o f Christology and the
History o f Jewish-Hellenistic Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976]), appears on the back
cover of Hurtado’s One God. Major representatives of the new school include: P. R. Carrell,
Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology o f the Apocalypse o f John (SNTSMS
95; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts:
2
Alan F. Segal likewise notes the importance of Hurtado’s monograph, indicating the one
feature above all others that distinguishes the new history of religions school from the old:
"Professor Hurtado traces the rise of ideas of Christ’s divinity to Jewish sources. He shows
that Christians naturally relied on Jewish concepts . . . to understand Jesus’ mission. "3
Because the paradigm has shifted, that is, because Hurtado and others in the new school have
been able to show that the high Christology of the NT essentially derives from Jewish
concepts and sources, the new paradigm may be taken as the point of departure in what
follows.4
Angels, Christology and Soteriology (WUNT 2.94; Tubingen: Mohr, 1997); J. Fossum, The
Name o f God and the Angel o f the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts o f Intermediation
and the Origin o f Gnosticism (WUNT 2.36; Tubingen: Mohr, 1985); C. A. Gieschen,
Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGJU 42; Leiden: Brill,
1998); D. D. Hannah, M ichael and Christ: M ichael Traditions and Angel Christology in
Early Christianity (WUNT 2.109; Tubingen: Mohr, 1999); C. C. Newman, Paul’s Glory-
Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup 69; Leiden: Brill, 1992); C. Rowland,
Christian Origins: From Messianic Movement to Christian Religion (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1985); A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and
Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977); L. T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A
Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology o f the Apocalypse o f John (WUNT 2.70;
Tubingen: Mohr, 1995). Excellent surveys of the new school, its proponents, and its
distinctives already exist and need not be repeated here. See esp. J. Fossum, "The New
Religionsgeschichtliche Schule: The Quest for Jewish Christology," SBLSP 30 (1991), 638-
646; Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 7-25; Hannah, Michael and Christ, 2-11.
3This citation from Segal also appears on the back cover of Hurtado, One God. Cf.
Fossum, "Religionsgeschichtliche Schule," 640 and passim. Cf. B. Witherington, "Lord," in
DJG, 486 [art. =484-492].
4Bousset’s view held considerable sway for much of the last century. Cf., for
example, Rudolf Bultmann who was able to take the view for granted in his Theology o f the
New Testament (2 vols.; New York: Scribner’s, 1951 [Tubingen: Mohr, 1948]), 1:50-51; cf.
1:123-133). For a critique of Bousset, see L. W. Hurtado, "New Testament Christology: A
Critique of Bousset’s Influence," TS 40 (1979): 306-317; idem, "New Testament
Christology: Retrospect and Prospect," Semeia 30 (1984): 15-27; idem, One God, 24-27; cf.
O. Cullmann, The Christology o f the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959
[1957]), 202-215. For the collapse of the rigid distinction between Judaism and Hellenism, or
Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism, a distinction foundational to Bousset’s view, see esp.
M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early
H ellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974); idem, The "Hellenization" o f
Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London: SCM, 1989); cf. W. D. Davies, Paul and
Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (4th ed.; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1980 [1948]), vii-xii, xxiii-xxv, 1-16.
3
Delimitation of Concepts and Sources

The foremost Jewish concept to which appeal is made in the new history of religions
school is that of agency. In fact, three classes of agents are held to be of special relevance to
the Christology of the NT:
1. divine attributes and powers (e.g., Glory, Image, Logos, Name, Wisdom);5
2. exalted patriarchs (e.g., Abraham, Adam, David, Enoch, Jacob, Melchizedek,
Moses, Noah); and
The old school, however, is not completely without adherents as a number of

scholars may still be found who are inclined take what I. H. Marshall calls "the easy way
out” (I. H. Marshall, Review of One God, One Lord [2d ed.] by Larry W. Hurtado, IJST 1
[1999]: 227 [art. =227-228]). For example, A. E. Harvey states, "It was not until the new
religion had spread well beyond the confines of its parent Judaism that it became possible to
break the constraint and describe Jesus as divine. . . . [R]eleased from the constraint of
Jewish monotheism, gentile Christians began to think of Jesus as also, in some sense, God”
(A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints o f History [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982], 157-
158, 173; cf. 154-173; idem, "Christ as Agent," in The Glory o f Christ in the New
Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory o f George Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and
N. T. Wright [Oxford: Clarendon, 1987], 249-250 [art. =239-250]). For an incisive critique
of Harvey see N. T. Wright, "‘Constraints’ and the Jesus of History," SJT 39 (1986): 189-
210. More prolific is P. M. Casey, who claims that the high Christology of the NT can only
be the result of a break from the Jewish "identity marker" of monotheism and a shift from
Jewish to Gentile "self-identification" (From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and
Development o f New Testament Christology [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox,
1991]); idem, "The Deification of Jesus," SBLSP 33 (1994), 697-714; idem, "Monotheism,
Worship and Christological Development in the Pauline Churches," in The Jewish Roots o f
Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical
Origins o f the Worship o f Jesus, ed. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis (JSJSup
63; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 214-233; idem, "Christology and the Legitimating Use of the Old
Testament in the New Testament," in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in
Honour o f J. L. North, ed. S. Moyise (JSNTSup 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000), 42-64. Cf. also A. Yarbro Collins, "The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult," in
The Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism, 234-257.
5For problems with Hurtado’s rather broad understanding of agency see, P. A.
Rainbow, "Jewish Monotheism as the Matrix for New Testament Christology: A Review
Article," NovT 33 (1991): 84-85 [art. =78-91]; R. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism
and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 20-22; idem, "The
Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus," in The Jewish Roots o f Christological
Monotheism, 49 [art. =43-69]. I.e., this first class does not actually consist of agents but
personifications or metaphorical ways of speaking about God himself and his activity.
4
3. principal angels (e.g., Eremiel, Iaoel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel).6
These three classes of agents, as over against prophets, priests, kings, and the angelic host,
are thought to be particularly relevant to NT Christology in that they more closely resemble
Jesus in two key respects: they are "pictured either as heavenly in origin or as exalted to a
heavenly position"; and they are "described as bearing more fully than the earthly agents or
*1
angelic host the properties associated with divinity."
According to Segal, the third class of agents noted above, that of principal angels, is
of greatest significance to the Christology of the NT.8 This is arguably correct, especially
if the thesis set forth below proves to be defensible; though qualifications regarding the
precise nature of the significance and the axis or axes of comparison are clearly necessary.9
H urtado, One God, 17-18. He is followed, e.g., by Casey, Jewish Prophet, 78;
A. Chester, "Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and Pauline
Christology," in Paulus und das antike Judentwn, ed. M. Hengel and U. Heckel (WUNT
2.58; Tubingen: Mohr, 1991), 61-65 [art. = 17-89]; P. G. Davis, "Divine Agents, Mediators,
and New Testament Christology," JTS 45 (1994): 480 [art. =479-503]; cf. J. R. Davila, "Of
Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and
the Origins of the Worship of Jesus," in The Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism, 4-6
[art. =3-18].
7Hurtado, One God, 18.
8Segal, Two Powers, 24, 265; cf. Chester, "Jewish Messianic Expectations and
Mediatorial Figures," 62-63, 71.
9E.g., based on his analysis of the primary sources along a temporal axis, P. G.
Davis ("Divine Agents, Mediators, and New Testament Christology”) argues that Enoch
rather than the Angel of the LORD is of greatest significance to the Christology of the NT.
He observes three distinct temporal patterns of mediation in Second Temple Judaism:
mediation from the past (the legacy pattern), mediation in the present (the intervention
pattern), and mediation in the future (the consummation pattern). In Christ, all three patterns
are combined into a "triple pattern of mediation" (490). This triple pattern, though extremely
rare, is nonetheless found among: the divine attributes and powers, which is understandable
since these are simply metaphorical ways of speaking about God himself (491); the chief
angels, e.g., Michael and, perhaps, the Angel of Light in the Qumran literature (491-492,
498); and the exalted patriarchs, i.e., Enoch (495-495, 498). The closest parallel on this
analysis is between Christ and Enoch since they are the only human beings to exhibit the
triple pattern (496). Davis, however, overlooks the fact that the Angel of the LORD also
exhibits this same triple pattern. He mediates in, if not exactly "from" (483), the past (Gen
16:7-14; Exod 3:1-14; Isa 63:9; etc.); he mediates in the present (Pss 34:7; 35:5-6; Zech
3:1-7); and he mediates in the future (Mai 3:1).
5
Taken pragmatically, however, as a way to narrow the Held Segal’s claim has obvious
utility. But even this significant delimitation is insufficient given the sheer proliferation of
angel speculation in the Second Temple period and the vast and still proliferating literature
related to it. For this reason a single principal angel has been selected for further, detailed
investigation.10 Not only will the three classes of agents be restricted to a single class (the
class of principal angels) but the various principal angels will be restricted to a single
principal angel (the Angel of the LORD). This principal angel has been selected for a
number of reasons, the most significant of which are the following:
1. the Angel of the LORD is the most important and clearly defined angel in the
OT;11
2. the Angel of the LORD is the most important angelic figure in the intertestamental
literature;12
3. the Angel of the LORD is found in Jewish sources that are demonstrably early;
4. Christ more closely resembles the Angel of the LORD (and angels modelled after
him) than he resembles the other principal angels.13
5. The NT makes significant if limited use of OT Angel of the LORD texts in the
development of its high Christology.
l0Cf. the methodologically similar narrowing of focus in the important recent study
of Hannah, M ichael and Christ.
u Cf. G. von Rad, "frrYeXoq, leO,.," TWNT 1:77 [art. =74-87].
l2This would seem to hold true whether the OT Angel of the LORD is directly in
view or whether, as is often the case, other angels who are clearly modelled after him are in
view.
13This applies a fortiori to the other two classes of agents. Unlike the divine powers
and attributes the Angel of the LORD is more clearly personal; and unlike the exalted
patriarchs the Angel of the LORD is more clearly heavenly and divine. Cf. J. Ashton,
Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 82-83; C. H.
Talbert, "The Christology of the Apocalypse," in Who Do You Say That I Am? Essays on
Christology, ed. M. A. Powell and D. R. Bauer (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox,
1999), 166-184.
6
6. The Angel of the LORD has been overlooked or misunderstood in much recent
discussion.
Some comparison and contrast with other principal angels and agents will be necessary and
unavoidable. The focus, however, will be on the Angel of the LORD—especially on those
texts that show the Angel of the LORD to be divine. In concept, if not in practice, a
distinction may be drawn between the comparison of figures (e.g., Christ, Eremiel, Iaoel,
Melchizedek) and the comparison of texts (i.e., the use and interpretation of OT Angel of the
LORD texts). Where possible emphasis will be on the latter.
For reasons equally practical and theoretical a second major delimitation has also
been adopted, a delimitation that pertains to Jewish sources instead of Jewish concepts. The
new history of religions school is certainly correct to highlight the primacy of Jewish sources
for the Christology of the N T .^ In the research below, however, use will not be made of
In light of the previous five points it is curious that several important works in this
area make little or no reference to this important angel. Casey, Jewish Prophet, for example,
does not deal with the Angel of the LORD at all; Harvey, Constraints, 164-165 (cf. "Christ
as Agent," 246), dispatches with him in two or three swift lines; and Hurtado, One God, 75,
discusses him for only a paragraph—one of his more questionable delimitations effectively
being the elimination of die OT from consideration. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology,
57-67, does provide a brief overview of OT Angel of the LORD texts. But the overview, in
addition to being somewhat haphazard, is hampered by the anachronistic preconception that
the vanguard angel of Exod 23:20-23 is a creature distinct from YHWH who possesses, is
indwelt by, and/or is invested with the hypostatic Name of God. Evidence in the OT that
"Name" (00) is a divine hypostasis is completely lacking (cf. Gieschen, Angelomorphic
Christology, 70-78); and it can be shown that the vanguard angel is most likely YHWH
himself or a way of speaking about him (so rightly Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and
Christology, 67, n. 58). The fundamental importance of this angel for NT christology is not
that he, like Christ, is a creature divinized by investiture with a divine hypostasis (contra
Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 56-57, 66-67, 124, n. 1, 151, 339). It is that he, like
Christ, is a manifestation of YHWH who is intimately associated with the exodus and with
subsequent New Exodus typologies.
15A caution against a new and equally restrictive history of religions reductionism is,
however, certainly in order: First, "[i]t will not do simply to substitute a Jewish history-of-
religions ‘explanation’ for a Hellenistic one, to see a Rabbi instead of a Gnostic behind every
text" (S. Neill and N. T. Wright, The Interpretation o f the New Testament, 1861-1986 [2d
ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988], 376; cf. W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and
the Cult o f Christ [London: SCM, 1998], 112-119). And, second, "[e]arliest christology has
a quite original stamp . . . we must also consider the possibility of ‘unparalleled’ innovation"
7
Jewish sources per se but only of demonstrably early Jewish sources.16 These first-
century ad and earlier sources are obviously of the greatest potential relevance to the
Christology of the NT, returns diminishing more or less quickly as one moves to later Jewish
sources. In particular, the use of late sources to reconstruct early beliefs and traditions is
fraught with as yet unresolved problems that cannot be adequately addressed here.17
(Hengel, Son o f God, 58-59; cf. Cullmann, The Christology o f the New Testament, 5; Dunn,
Christology in the M aking, 253; L. Morris, "The Emergence of the Doctrine of the
Incarnation: Review Article," Themelios 8.1 [1982]: 16-17 [art. = 15-19]). This unparalleled
innovation could be the result of divine revelation and/or the creative genius of the Founder
of Christianity (so C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure o f New
Testament Theology [London: Nisbet, 1952], 109-110; followed by G. B. Caird, New
Testament Theology, comp, and ed. L. D. Hurst [Oxford: Clarendon, 1995], 65; cf.
D. Wenham, Paul: Follower o f Jesus or Founder o f Christianity? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995]). The result is that it may not be possible in principle to fully account for the
christology of the NT by exclusive appeal to its (Jewish) antecedents.
16Consensus dating of the relevant literature will be adopted as a "working
hypothesis" (cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into
the Origins o f the Doctrine o f the Incarnation [2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996],
xxxii, n. 1).
17E.g., for specific cautions against the premature use of Targums in research such
as this see, B. Chilton, "Reference to die Targumim in the Exegesis of the New Testament,"
SBLSP 34 (1995), 77-81; J. A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Arcunean: Collected Aramaic Essays
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 42, 86, n. 5; idem, Review of The New Testament and the
Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch by M. McNamara, TS 29 (1968): 322-326, esp. 324-
326; idem, Review of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts by M. Black, CBQ 30
(1968): 417-428. See also J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction
to Jewish Interpretations o f Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 14;
A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (TSAJ 14;
Tubingen: Mohr, 1986), 4-6, 252-259; idem, "Jewish Messianic Expectations and
Mediatorial Figures," 40, cf. 79, 80-81; A. J. Saldarini, "Judaism and the New Testament,"
in The New Testament and Its Modem Interpreters, ed. E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae
(Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 40 [art. =27-54]; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A
Comparison o f Patterns o f Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 25-26.
For similar cautions against the use of Rabbinic literature see, P. S. Alexander,
"Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament," Z N W 74 (1983): 237-246; Bowker, The
Targums and Rabbinic Literature, 52-53; G. W. Buchanan, "The Use of Rabbinic Literature
for New Testament Research," BTB 7 (1977): 110-120; C. A. Evans, "Early Rabbinic
Sources and Jesus Research," SBLSP 34 (1995), 53-76; W. Horbury, "Keeping up with
Recent Studies: 5. Rabbinics," ExpTim 91 (1979-80): 238 [art.233-240]; S. A. Kaufman,
"Dating the language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century
Texts," in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, ed. D. R. G. Beattie and
M. J. McNamara (JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 118-141;
K. Muller, "Zur Datierung rabbinischer Aussagen," in Neues Testament und Ethik: Fur
8
Thus, late Jewish sources such as the Kabbalah, Rabbinics, Samaritanism, Targums, *8
etc., will be excluded even though they are clearly significant and valuable—both in their own
right and, ultimately, for the diachronic nuancing of the findings of this investigation.
Significant conclusions reached will, however, be representative of the most important
primary sources (the control group) and of such a nature that late sources will not call them
into question or cause them to be significantly modified.
These delimitations respecting Jewish agent classes and principal angels, on the one
hand, and Jewish sources, on the other, are necessary beyond such delimitations as already
distinguish the new history of religions school from the old. Their purpose is not to
Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed. H. Merklein (Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 551-587; J. Murphy-

O’Connor, "Qumran and the New Testament," in The New Testament and Its Modem
Interpreters, ed. E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 55 [art. =55-71];
J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees before 70 (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill,
1971); idem, Review of Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E. P. Sanders, HR 18 (1978): 177-
191; idem, "The Use of the Later Rabbinic Evidence for the Study of First-Century
Pharisaism," Approaches to Ancient Judaism, vol. 1, Theory and Practice, ed. W. S. Green
(BJS 1; Missoula: Scholars, 1978), 223 [art. 215-228]; idem, "The Use of Rabbinic Sources
for the Study of Ancient Judaism," Approaches to Ancient Judaism, vol. 2, Text as Context
in Early Rabbinic Literature, ed. W. S. Green (BJS 11; Chico: Scholars, 1981), 15-16 [art.l-
17]; idem, Review of Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People by E. P. Sanders, Ancient
Judaism: Debates and Disputes (BJS 64; Chico: Scholars, 1984), 195-203; idem, "Fifteen
Years After Judaism: The Evidence o f the Mishnah,” chap. in Approaches to Ancient Judaism
(vol. 10=SFSHJ 142; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 21-54; A. J. Saldarini, Review of Paul and
Palestinian Judaism by E. P. Sanders, JBL 98 (1979): 299-303; idem, "Judaism and the New
Testament," 28; S. Sandmel, "Parallelomania," JBL 81 (1962): 1-13; P. Schafer, "Der
vorrabbinische Pharisaismus," in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. M. Hengel and
U. Heckel (Tubingen: Mohr, 1991), 126 [art. = 125-175]; A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The
Apostolate and Apostasy o f Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990),
xiv-xv.
Similar strictures apply in equal measure to the use of other late and disputed
corpora. For a different opinion see, e.g., Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 63, who
regards the internal dates and attributions of the rabbinic material as authentic; Rainbow,
"Jewish Monotheism," 85-86, who specifically faults Hurtado for having neglected rabbinics;
and, most recently, D. I. Brewer, "Review Article: The Use of Rabbinic Sources in Gospel
Studies," TynBul 50 (1999): 281-298.
18Apart from the fragmentary 4QTgLev and the more extended llQTgJob, neither of
which is relevant to the present undertaking, the extant Targumic literature may safely be
referred to as late.
9
predetermine the outcome of the investigation but to ensure meaningful if modest results.
One cannot hope to construct anything on the order of ‘the Christology of the NT and its
(Jewish) antecedents’ in a single monograph. One can, however, hope to furnish a sturdy
brick or two while leaving further construction to others.19
As noted above, the Christology of the NT is firmly rooted in Jewish sources and
concepts, foremost among which is the concept of agency. The following analysis of a
singularly noteworthy agent will show, however, that this salutary emphasis on agency must
be nuanced in the direction of canonical Jewish sources: that is, in the direction of the OT.
Not only must there be a revolutionary move from the history of religions to the history of a
single religion (a move that is well underway), there must be an equally revolutionary move
from the history of a single religion to salvation-history?® The new school is simply not
radical enough.
Thesis Statement
A Jewish agent o f considerable, perhaps even maximal, relevance to the high (divine)
Christology o f the New Testament is the Old Testament Angel o f the LORD.
19Cf. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 13, 16, for this metaphor.
20It is not possible to understand the NT without assuming, at least provisionally,
that there is a God, that God acts savingly in history, that history is teleological, and that
God’s future acts resemble his past acts (cf. Isaiah’s New Exodus typology). A proper
understanding of salvation-history must also take cognizance of the fact that the canonical OT
has a plot, a story-line, and that this story-line is consciously picked up and continued in the
NT. Cf. J. Goldingay, Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation (rev. ed.; Downers
Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990), 66-96, 191-197; R. Lints, The Fabric o f Theology: A
Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); E. L. Miller,
Salvation-History in the Prologue o f John: The Significance o f John 1:3/4 (NovTSup 60;
Leiden: Brill, 1989), 97-107; M. Muller, "Salvation-Histoiy in the Gospel of Matthew: An
Example of Biblical Theology," in New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers o f the
Aarhus Conference, 16-19 September 1992, ed. S. Pedersen (NovTSup 76; Leiden: Brill,
1994), 58-76; J. Nolland, "Salvation-History and Eschatology," in Witness to the Gospel:
The Theology o f Acts, ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),
63-81. See also the introductory articles in T. D. Alexander, B. S. Rosner, D. A. Carson,
and G. Goldsworthy, eds., New Dictionary o f Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity and
Diversity o f Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 3-112.
10
It will be crucial to the demonstration of the thesis, or, more accurately, to the
demonstration of the probability of the thesis, to show that the primary sources lend
themselves to the following conclusions:
1. The divine identity of the Angel of the LORD in the OT.21
2. The non-divine identity of the Angel of the LORD in the intertestamental literature.
3. The divine identity of Jesus Christ in the NT.22
It is immediately evident, however, that these three conclusions do not form a syllogism.
From the fact that the Angel of the LORD is divine in the OT and not divine in the
intertestamental literature, and from the fact that Christ is divine in the NT but never
explicitly referred to as the Angel of the LORD, it does not necessarily follow that Christ’s
divinity is related to or dependent on the divinity of the Angel of the LORD. Christ’s
divinity could derive from the divinity of other agents in the intertestamental period, or it
could derive directly from the divinity of YHWH in the OT without being in any way
mediated, so to speak, through an agent. The likelihood that the high Christology of the NT
derives from one of these alternative possibilities is diminished by the following
observations: (1) though considerable effort has been expended of late, little or no evidence
for the divinity of agents in the interestamental period has yet been uncovered;23 and
(2) though YHWH is divine, and thus could be the source of Christ’s divinity, this is still
only half of the picture. The full picture must include the fact that YHWH, though divine,
appears and functions in the OT as an agent.
21For the notion of "divine identity" see, Bauckham, God Crucified, 1-44, esp. 6-9;
idem, "The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus," 43-48.
22Cf. Bauckham, God Crucified\ D. B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in
Paul’s Christology (WUNT 2.47; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992); M. J. Harris, Jesus as God: The
New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
23According to Bauckham, "The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus," 57-60,
the sole exception is the Son of Man who sits, or seems to sit, on God’s throne and who is
worshipped in the Similitudes of Enoch (51:3; 62:5-9; 69:29).
11
To better account for these observations the three conclusions to which the primary
sources lend themselves may be restated more precisely in the following way:
1. The divine identity of the principal agent (i.e., the Angel of the LORD) in the OT.
2. The non-divine identity of principal agents in the intertestamental literature.
3. The divine identity of the principal agent (i.e., Jesus Christ) in the NT.
When restated in this way there is still no syllogism; however, a significant paradigmatic
correlation emerges. Christ and the Angel of the LORD are implicitly correlated by their
similarity of function and status. Both Christ and the Angel of the LORD function as agents
while at the same time having the status of deity. Each can thus be understood not only as an
agent sent from God, which is no surprise, but as God sent from God, which is not only a
surprise but a paradox. So unusual is this conception of "divine agency" that its presence in
both testaments (and its absence elsewhere) is not likely to be accidental.
Additional criteria are still necessary to show that the Angel of the LORD is of
special relevance to the Christology of the NT. These additional criteria are provided by the
independent convergence of two other significant correlations that separately, and in
conjunction with the "divine agency" paradigm common to both testaments, point to the same
conclusion.24 First, Christ is correlated with the Angel of the LORD at what may be
termed the intertextual level by means of the application to him of OT Angel of the LORD
texts. The authors of the NT, for example, make programmatic use of Mai 3:1 in their
portrayal of Christ;25 they allude to a number of potentially significant Angel of the
24Cf. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 108, "It is the coincidence of evidence
from different quarters that carries weight." John Henry Cardinal Newman, Apologia Pro
Vita Sua (New York: Doubleday/Image Books, 1956), 140-141, had earlier argued along
similar lines, i.e., that certitude in matters of natural theology and revelation is "the result of
an assemblage of concurring and converging probabilities."
25The use of Mai 3:1 in the NT (Mark 1:2-3; Matt 11:10; etc.) is in some ways the
linch-pin of the present thesis. Of course, it will first have to be shown that the "Angel of the
Covenant" is the "Angel of the LORD" and that the primary reason for applying Mai 3:1a to
John the Baptist was to identify Jesus as the "Lord" and "Angel of the Covenant" of Mai
12
LORD texts;2** and they detect the preexistent Christ in OT narratives where the Angel of
the LORD is prominent.27 All of this together suggests that Angel of the LORD may have
had some influence on the high Christology of the NT. Given the prominence of the Angel of
the LORD in the OT, and not just in the OT but in those very texts and contexts to which
the NT makes such frequent christological appeal, it is reasonably certain that the Angel of
the LORD would have been known to the authors of the NT.28 (The Angel of the LORD
is also prominent in the intertestamental literature, but it is less immediately obvious that the
3:lb-c. But this (see Chapters 2 and 4 below) can be done.

41 See Chapter 4 below. Valuable criteria for detection and assessment of allusions
may be found in D. C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993), 7, 11-23; R. B. Hays, Echoes o f Scripture in the Letters o f Paul (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29-32; and M. Thompson, Clothed With Christ: The
Example and Teaching o f Jesus in Romans 12.1-15.13 (JSNTSup 59; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1991), 28-36. No rigorous distinction will be made here between allusions and echoes (cp.
Hays, 29; Thompson, 30).
27The idea of the "Real Presence" of Christ in the OT has been propounded, most
notably, by A. T. Hanson with reference to texts such as John 12:41; 1 Cor 10:4, 9; Heb
11:26; and Jude 5. Cf. Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1965); The New
Testament Interpretation o f Scripture (London: SPCK, 1980); The Living Utterances o f God:
The New Testament Exegesis o f the Old (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983). This
idea is broader than the present thesis even though it obviously intersects with the present
thesis whenever the NT envisions Christ as present in OT Angel of the LORD contexts. But
the detection of Christ in OT Angel of the LORD contexts, while consistent with the present
thesis, is only potentially supportive of it. YHWH was also present in those same OT
contexts and it is possible that a correlation, if one is being made, is between Christ and
YHWH rather than between Christ and the Angel of the LORD.
28For the significance of OT "contexts" and text "plots" to the christology of the NT
see Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 57-62, 126-127, and passim. Cf. also, with reference
to Dodd's seminal diesis, F. F. Bruce, "Scripture and Tradition in the New Testament," in
Holy Book and Holy Tradition: International Colloquium Held in the Faculty o f Theology
University o f Manchester, ed. F. F. Bruce and E. G. Rupp (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968),
80-81 [art. =68-93]; R. H. Gundry, The Use o f the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel:
With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (NovTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 205-208,
and passim; 1. H. Marshall, "An Assessment of Recent Developments," in It is Written:
Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour o f Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. D. A. Carson
and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 1-21; A. C.
Thiselton, New Horizons in Biblical Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice o f Transforming
Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 148-156, 163-167. The most salient
feature of all of the text "plots" uncovered by Dodd is that they are all variations on the
same fundamental theme, namely, the exodus (Caird, New Testament Theology, 60; cf. 410).
13
authors of the NT were familiar with or significantly dependent upon this literature.) It
is also reasonably certain, again given the prominence of the Angel of the LORD in the OT
and the NT use of the OT, that it would have been incumbent on the authors of the NT to
formulate a coherent view of his identity and salvation-historical role—possibly even to the
point of incorporating him at some level into their Christology. There are basically two
options for them should they have done this. The Angel of the LORD could be viewed as a
creaturely angel, as in the LXX and other intertestamental literature. In this case it is
immediately obvious that he could not actually be Christ since Christ is categorically superior
to the angels. As God’s principal agent in the OT, however, the Angel of the LORD could
function as a type of Christ who himself functions as God’s principal agent in the NT. Or the
Angel of the LORD could be viewed as God, as in the Hebrew OT. In this case he could
either be the pre-incarnate Christ who is himself God or he could, as God manifest but not as
Christ, function as a type of Christ who is God manifest in the NT.
Second, Christ is implicitly correlated with the Angel of the LORD at what may be
termed the hermeneutical level. The NT imitates two distinctive OT hermeneutical patterns.
These patterns, used in the OT to explicate the Angel of the LORD and in the NT to
explicate Christ, are: (1) alternating references to the same figure as agent and as God; and
(2) the appropriation to an (ostensible) agent of earlier divine theophanies.30 The
29 Cf. J. Behm, "jcap&KA.TTto<;," TDNT, 5:812 [art. =800-814], who concludes that
when doubt over possible history of religions backgrounds to NT concepts remains, one has
little choice but to decide in favor of "the ancient biblical tradition."
30For earlier theophanies applied to the Angel of the LORD see, Gen 31:11-13 in
reference to Gen 28:10-22; Hos 12:3-5 in reference to Gen 32:24-30; 2 Chr 3:1-2 in
reference to 1 Chr 21:15-20; and, more broadly, Gen 48:15-16 in reference to the entire
Jacob Cycle; and Isa 63:9 in reference to the entire exodus and wilderness narratives.
For earlier theophanies applied to Christ see, John 1:16-18 in reference to Exod
33:18-34:9; John 8:40, 56-57 in reference to Genesis 18; John 8:58 in reference to
Exod 3:14; John 12:41 in reference to Isa 6:1-5; 1 Cor 10:9 in reference to Num 21:5-6;
and, more broadly, John 1:14 in reference to the tabernacling glory of God in the wilderness;
and 1 Cor 10:4 and Jude 5 in reference to the wilderness theophanies.
14
application of earlier divine theophanies to the Angel of the LORD occurs entirely within the
confines of the OT, though it does cut across various OT books and corpora; while the
application of divine theophanies to Christ does not occur entirely within the confines of the
NT since there are no earlier divine theophanies in the NT to which an appeal could be
made. Christ’s appearances are the only divine theophanies in the NT. Thus, if earlier
theophanies are to be applied to him they must be those of YHWH and/or the Angel of the
LORD in the OT. One of the most perplexing and hotly debated features of the NT is the
fact that it applies OT YHWH texts as well as divine titles, prerogatives, and theophanies to
someone who is clearly an agent in respect to appearance and function. ^ 1 As remarkable
as this may be, the OT is witness to a similar phenomenon and, thus, may provide some
hermeneutical warrant for it.
The first-mentioned paradigmatic correlation between Jesus and the Angel of the
LORD as "divine agents" is the most obvious; yet its significance is easily overlooked
because of its generality. The closely related intertextual and hermeneutical correlations are
more specific and less likely to be merely coincidental or accidental. Each is, in fact, part of
a coherent "system" or "pattern” of christological identification that finds much of its
[EJarly Christianity does not hesitate to transfer to Jesus everything the Old
Testament says about God. It is surprising that scholars do not give more consideration to
such an important fact" (Cullmann, The Christology o f the New Testament, 307, cf. 234-
237). This lack of consideration has effectively been remedied by the studies of Capes, Old
Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology; Harris, Jesus as God; L. J. Kreitzer, Jesus
and God in Paul’s Eschatology (JSNTSup 19; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); N. Richardson,
"The Relationship Between Paul’s Language About God and His Language About Christ,"
chap. in Paul’s Language About God (JSNTSup 99; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1994), 240-307; A. Ruck-Schroder, Der Name Gottes und der Name Jesu: Eine
neutestamentliche Studie (WMANT 80; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 260-261.
Cf. also H. D. Buckwalter, "The Divine Saviour,” in Witness to the Gospel, 112-120
[art. = 107-123]; and O. Hofius, "1st Jesus der Messias? Thesen," in Der Messias, ed.
I. Baldermann, E. Dassmann, O. Fuchs, et al. (Jahrbuch fur biblische Theologie 8 ;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993), 129 [art. = 103-129], "Jesus ist in seiner Person und
in seinem Werk die Erfullung alttestamentlicher Heilsankiindigungen, die das rettende
Kommen und Eingreifen Gottes selbst ansagen. ”
15
expression in the creative exegesis of the OT. 32 Together these three correlations,
especially when seen in the light of the negative evidence from the intertestamental period,
suggest that the high (divine) Christology of the NT cannot be fully understood without some
reference to the Angel of the LORD.
Methodological Considerations
Several methodological considerations are of immediate concern. First, to return to
an issue raised above, it is immediately apparent that the NT never calls Christ an angel.33
For this reason it will be necessary to demonstrate the likelihood of a correlation between
Christ and the Angel of the LORD at the more difficult implicit level. This difficulty, though
real, is not insuperable. Not only are there a number of functional equivalents to the term
Bauckham, God Crucified, 26, 47, 72; idem, "The Throne of God and the
Worship of Jesus," 60-6 1 . In reference more broadly to the inferring and analyzing of belief
systems and patterns of religion, see also J. Neusner, The Systemic Analysis o f Judaism (BJS
137; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), esp. 10- 12, where he defines the stages of moving from text
to context to matrix; and Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, esp. 12- 18, where he not
only speaks to the issue of religious patterns but offers some cautions regarding the kind of
"motif research" being entertained here. Cf. Alexander, "Rabbinic Judaism and the New
Testament," 246; G. Boccaccini, "Middle Judaism and its Contemporary Interpreters:
Methodological Foundations for the Study of Judaisms, 300b c e to 200 c e ," Henoch 15
( 1993): 207-233; Hurtado, One God, 10; Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology,
38-42 (specifically in reference to the "symbolic universe" of Revelation as a matrix for an
internally consistent interpretation).
33There can be little doubt that this has been a contributing factor to the neglect or
denial of the correlation being advocated here. An equally important contributing factor can
be seen in the argument of Dunn, Christology in the Making, 149- 159, 161- 162. He rightly
understands that the Angel of the LORD in the OT is YHWH and that Christ in the NT is
not an angel because he is superior to the angels. From this he concludes that Christ cannot
be the Angel of the LORD and that the NT authors ignored or rejected the Angel of the
LORD "as a model fo r their understanding o f Christ” ( 162). It is true that the Angel of the
LORD is YHWH. But the Angel of the LORD is not simply YHWH without remainder. He
is YHWH manifest in the form of an angel, or, to borrow Dunn’s terminology, he is YHWH
manifest in the form of ”a personal heavenly being functioning as a mediator between man
and God” (162). It is also true that Christ is not an angel. But there is evidence in the NT
(not only in the Fourth Gospel) that Christ is portrayed as YHWH, that he exercises divine
prerogatives, that he functions as a mediator between man and God, and that he is himself an
agent. This suggests that the use of the Angel of the LORD as a model by the authors of the
NT is entirely within the realm of possibility. It only remains to be seen if it is probable.
16
"angel" in the NT, 34 there are also a number of more-or-less analogous christological
categories that have gained wide acceptance in spite of their being implicit. Jesus, for
example, recapitulates Israel’s history and is himself the "new" or "true” Israel and the locus
of the people of God.35 This view is necessarily an inference from the use of an OT
"son" text in Matt 2:15 (cf. Hos 11:1; Num 24:7-8 [LXX]) and from Jesus’ forty day
temptation in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11 et par.). Similar is the view, for the most part
implicit, that Jesus is a new or a second Moses.36 In both of these widely accepted cases
the correlation is not only possible but highly probable even though it is implicit. Ironically,
however, the very prominence of these correlations may also have contributed to the
E.g., the word durooraAoq in Heb 3:1; the word X6 yoq and the totoaxiXka and
x£|uu> word groups in the Fourth Gospel; and the NT references to Christ as "servant"
(1217=amq) (cf. Isa 42:1 and esp. Isa 42:19 [MT] and 44:26 where there is a parallelism
between servant and messenger). The term Sidcxovoq may also be significant. It is used of
Christ in Rom 15:8 and is implied in Marie 9:35; 10:43; Matt 23:11; 20:26; and Gal 2:17.
According to M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; vol. 1; Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1994), 231 (following J. N. Collins, Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient
Sources [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990]), "the underlying idea of the Suncov-
terminology is that of being a ‘go-between’ . . . . The words may refer to . . . the
transmission of a message, the activity of an agent, and the like . . . . All this is true in
religious as well as secular usage, i.e., where the ‘between’ is between heaven and earth."
As will be suggested below, however, the NT terms that ultimately replace and
subsume the word "angel" are the words "Lord" and "Son (of God)," for reasons that will
become apparent in due course. There may even be a distant analogy between the absence in
the NT of a divine title exclusive to the OT (i.e., "Angel of the LORD") and the absence in
the rest of the NT of a Christological title exclusive to the gospels (i.e., "Son of Man").
-1 C
So most commentators: e.g., R. E. Brown, The Birth o f the Messiah:
A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (New York: Doubleday,
1977), 215; D. A. Carson, Matthew (EBC 8 ; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 91-93;
W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, The Gospel o f Saint Matthew (ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1988-1997), 1:263-264; R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 206-210; D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (WBC; Dallas: Word,
1993), 34-37; J. Howton, "‘Son of God’ in the Fourth Gospel," NTS 10 (1963-64): 227-237,
esp. 233-234, 236; T. De Kruijf, Der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes: Ein Beitrag zur
Christologie des Maithausevangeliums (AnBib 16; Rome: Pontifico Institute Biblico, 1962),
56-58, 105-112; J. P. Meier, The Vision o f Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the
First Gospel (New York: Paulist, 1979), 55; D. Patte, The Gospel According to Matthew: A
Structural Commentary on Matthew’s Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 37; E. Schweizer,
"ui6 q, vioeetria," TDNT, 8:380 [art. =334-399].
36
E.g., Allison, The New Moses, passim.
17
crowding out of the less generally accepted correlation being advocated here. That is, if
Jesus is typified or prefigured by Israel in the exodus narratives, and if Jesus is typified or
prefigured by Moses in the exodus narratives, and if Jesus is in some sense understood to be
present and active as God in the exodus narratives, then any specifically angelic connections
would be easy to miss. There might also be a reluctance on the part of some to the adding of
yet another correlation, typological or otherwise, to the wealth of christological material that
has already been mined from the same source. (Surely not everything in the OT points to
Christ!) In any case, the absence of the title "angel" in the NT need not preclude a
correlation (possibly typological) between Jesus and the Angel of the LORD.
Second, the goal of this study is to explicate the Christology of the NT, or certain
features of it, and their most likely antecedents. For this reason it is imperative that an
attempt not only be made to read the NT sympathetically (rather than suspiciously) but also
to read the OT to the greatest extent possible as the authors of the NT give every indication
of having read it. The historical-critical clock surely cannot be turned back, and it would be
sheer presumption to claim undue intimacy with the intentions of the NT authors.
Nevertheless, it seems clear enough that the authors of the NT would not have understood
the OT in terms of any of the regnant critical orthodoxies of the last century. The method of
exegesis used here will be an eclectic grammatical-historical-literary m e t h o d . T h i s
Cf. L. Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1984), 12, who rightly views literary analysis as a "logical extension” of grammatical-
historical interpretation. See further J. D. G. Dunn, "Historical Text as Historical Text:
Some Basic Hermeneutical Reflections in Relation to the New Testament, ” in Words
Remembered: Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour o f John F. A. Sawyer, ed. J. Davies,
G. Harvey, and W. G. E. Watson (JSOTSup 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995), 340-359; R. W. L. Moberly, "Some Considerations of Method in Narrative
Interpretation,” chap. 1 of At the Mountain o f God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34
(JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 115-43; S. E. Porter, "Can Traditional
Exegesis Enlighten Literary Analysis of the Fourth Gospel? An Examination of the Old
Testament Fulfillment Motif and the Passover Theme," in The Gospels and the Scriptures o f
Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner (JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1994), 396-428; N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question o f God, vol. 1,
18
method is, for the most part, fairly traditional ("classical”), though it is not completely
beside the point to note that it overlaps significantly with recent postcritical methods of
interpretation. 38 These also tend to view OT books as literary wholes and to take
seriously the concepts of scripture, canon, and salvation-history (concepts that would not
have been completely meaningless to the authors of the NT). The method used, however, is
ultimately not as important as the sensitivity of the one using it to the overriding
christological and hermeneutical concerns of the authors of the NT .39
The New Testament and the People o f God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 3-144.
38There are three such postcritical methods according to the summary essay of G. A.
Lindbeck, "Postcritical Canonical Interpretation: Three Modes of Retrieval," in Theological
Exegesis: Essays in Honor o f Brevard S. Childs, ed. C. Seitz and K. Greene-McCreight
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 26-51. These three methods are: canonical interpretation
for its witness to God’s reality (exemplified by B. S. Childs); canonical interpretation for its
narrationally structured symbolic worlds (exemplified by R. B. Hays); and canonical
interpretation for its authorial discourse (exemplified by N. Wolterstorff).
IQ
On hermeneutics generally see, E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1967); D. N. Molina, ed., On Literary Intention (Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh Press, 1976); Thiselton, New Horizons in Biblical Hermeneutics',
K. J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality
o f Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998); N. Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse:
Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995).
On the use of the OT in the NT see, D. E. Aune, "Charismatic Exegesis in Early
Judaism and Early Christianity," in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation,
ed. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans (JSPSup 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 126-
150; J. Barr, Old and New in Interpretation: A Study o f the Two Testaments (2d ed.;
London: SCM, 1982 [1966]); D. I. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis
Before 70 CE (TSAJ 30; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992); D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson,
eds., It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour o f Barnabas Lindars, SSF
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Dodd, According to the Scriptures; E. E.
Ellis, Paul’s Use o f the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957); idem, "How the
New Testament Uses the Old," in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (WUNT
2.18; Tubingen: Mohr, 1978), 147-172; idem, The Old Testament in Early Christianity:
Canon and Interpretation in the Light o f Modem Research (WUNT 2.54; Tubingen: Mohr,
1991); C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, eds., Paul and the Scriptures o f Israel (JSNTSup 83;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); idem, Early Christian Interpretation o f the
Scriptures o f Israel: Investigations and Proposals (JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997), 17-96; L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation o f the Old
Testament in the New (repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982 [1939]); R. B. Hays, Echoes o f
Scripture in the Letters o f Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); M. Hengel, "The
Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel," in The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, ed. C. A.
19
Third, even if the literature in question is read sympathetically, it remains complex
and unsystematic. Definitional problems, in particular, are acute. What, for example, is
divinity and how may that which is divine be distinguished from that which is not? What is a
theophany and how is it different from lesser forms of presence, manifestation, and
revelation? What is worship and how may it be contrasted with lesser forms of devotion and
veneration? What is an agent? Or, more accurately, Who is an agent and how may an agent
be distinguished from a literary device (personification) or a temporary theophanic
Erscheinungsform? And, finally, When is one dealing with the Angel o f the LORD and not
some other agent or (principal) angel?
Definitive answers to these difficult questions are not possible. The following
provisional definitions and explanations are offered only as reflections of some of the
dominant concerns of the primary sources and as indicators of some of the presuppositions
and working assumptions of the current investigation:
(1) Divinity relates to the "God-ness" of God rather than the "God-like-ness" of that
which is not God. Divinity is what makes God who he is. Because there is only one God
Evans and W. R. Stegner (JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 380-
395; D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation o f the Old Testament in Early
Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); C. A. Kimball, Jesus Exposition o f the Old
Testament in Luke’s Gospel (JSNTSup 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994); D.-A. Koch, Die
Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zjur Verwendung und zum Verstdndnis der
Schrift bei Paulus (BHT 69; Tubingen: Mohr, 1986); R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis
in the Apostolic Period (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992 [1975]); D. J. Moo, The Old
Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 25-78; S. Moyise,
"Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament," in The Old
Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour o f J. L. North, ed. S. Moyise (JSNTSup
189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 14-41; J. T. Sanders, "The Prophetic Use
of the Scriptures in Luke-Acts," in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory
o f William Hugh Brownlee, ed. C. A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring (Atlanta: Scholars,
1987), 191-198; K. Snodgrass, "The Use of the Old Testament in the New," in New
Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. D. A. Black and D. S. Dockery (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1991), 407-434; C. D. Stanley, Paul and the Language o f Scripture: Citation
Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992).
20
only God is divine. This one God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob whose revealed
covenant name is YHWH. Thus, to say that someone is divine is to say that he is God. The
unique divinity of God flows out of two fundamental and closely related beliefs in Second
Temple Judaism: monotheism, which is the belief that there is only one God, and creation,
which is the belief that this one God is transcendent and qualitatively distinct from all that he
has made.4 0 The one God, in other words, differs in kind and not just in degree from
Cf. Bauckham, God Crucified, 6-13; idem, "The Throne of God and the Worship
of Jesus," 43-48, esp. 45, n. 4; J. J. Collins, "Jewish Monotheism and Christian Theology,"
in Aspects o f Monotheism: How God is One, ed. H. Shanks and J. Meinhardt (Washington,
D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1997), 81-105, 129-131; J. D. G. Dunn, "Was
Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning?" SJT 35 (1982): 303-336, esp. 335-
336; idem. The Partings o f the Ways Between Judaism and Christianity and their
Significance fo r the Character o f Christianity (London: SCM, 1991), 19-21; D. A. Hagner,
"Paul’s Christology and Jewish Monotheism," in Perspectives on Christology: Essays in
Honor o f Paul K. Jewett, ed. M. Shuster and R. Muller (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990),
19-38; L. W. Hurtado, "What Do We Mean by ‘First Century Jewish Monotheism’? ” SBLSP
32 (1993), 348-368; idem, "First-Century Jewish Monotheism," JSNT 71 (1998): 3-23; E. P.
Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE 66 CE (London: SCM, 1992), 241-247;
S. Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978),
168-171; Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, 15-21; Wright, The New
Testament and the People o f God, 248-259.
Helpful in this context are the comments of T. G. Weinandy on God’s
transcendence, especially as it is reflected in and defined by the doctrines of monotheism
(vis-a-vis the Shema) and creation:
To say that God is one not only specified that there is numerically only one God, but also that,
being one, he is distinct from all else. . . . Yahweh is distinct from all else that exists for he, in
an orderly and systematic fashion, calls into existence the cosmos and all it contains (see Gen. 1).
Thus neither the cosmos nor anything within it is divine. . . . The biblical notion of
transcendence is not then a description of how God exists in himself as isolated from the created
order, but rather how he exists in relation to the created order. For God to be transcendent means
that he intimately relates to, is lovingly present to, and dynamically acts within the created order
as the one who is ontologically wholly other than the created order.
Actually, God in himself is neither transcendent nor immanent. He is just God.
Transcendence, by its very nature, only expresses who God is in relation to what he is not, that
is, that he is not "a part" of the created order and therefore, as such, transcends it. God’s mode
of being God differs then in kind and not just in degree from all else that exists. Equally, to
speak of God’s immanence is not to speak of God in himself as if there were aspects of him
which are part of the created order, but rather "immanence" specifies that he who is not "a part"
of the created order is nonetheless present to and active within it (T. G. Weinandy, D oes God
Suffer? [Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000], 44, 47, 56-57; cf. 40-57).
21
everything else .41 The intent here is not to deny the "God-Iike-ness" of creatures (e.g.,
the imago dei) or to define their divinity, or alleged divinity, out of existence by fiat; it is to
offer a conceptual framework for understanding divinity that is more consistent with the
common theology of Second Temple Judaism and with the vast majority of the actual
descriptions and functions of agents in the OT and intertestamental literature.4 2 Of
particular relevance in this regard is the matter of worship.
(2) Worship, though difficult to define with precision, can be roughly circumscribed
by the following kinds of activities and responses: acclamation, awe, blessing,
commemoration, confession, doxology, fear, hymn, invocation, offering, praise, prayer,
prophecy, prostration, sacrifice, supplication, and thanksgiving.43 Any one or more of
these activities and responses may, in the appropriate context, be indicative of worship .4 4
This is not the place to revive the old nominalist/realist debates of the middle ages;
nevertheless, the fact that God differs in kind and not just in degree from every created thing
is of such vital importance that it bears further elucidation:
Whenever, with respect to two things being compared, it is said that only one of them has a
certain property or is capable of a certain performance, a difference in kind is being asserted.
Just as the word "only" is indicative of difference in kind (whenever it is said of two things that
only one of the has a certain characteristic), so the words "more" and "less" are indicative of a
difference in degree. . . .
When two things differ in kind, no intermediate is possible; the law of excluded middle
applies; and the two things can be said to differ discretely or discontinuously. . . . When two
things differ in degree, intermediates are always possible; the law of excluded middle does not
apply; and the two things can be said to differ continuously (M. J. Adler, The Difference of Man
and the Difference It Makes [New York: Fordham University Press, 1993], 21-22).
4 2 Cf. Bauckham, God Crucified, 5.
4 3 Cf. D. E. Aune, "Worship, Early Christian," ABD, 6:973-989; R. Bauckham,
"Jesus, Worship of," ABD, 3:812-815 [art. =812-819]; O. Cullmann, Early Christian
Worship (SBT; Naperville, 111.: Allenson, 1953); R. T. France, "The Worship of Jesus: A
Neglected Factor in Christological Debate?" in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology
Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. H. H. Rowdon (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1982), 24
[art. = 17-36]; F. Hahn, The Worship o f the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973);
L. W. Hurtado, "The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship," in The Jewish Roots o f
Christological Monotheism, 187-213, esp. 187-191; R. P. Martin, Worship in the Early
Church (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1964); idem, "Worship," DPL, 982-991; C. F. D. Moule,
Worship in the New Testament (Richmond, Va.: Knox, 1961).
^ C f . A. Yarbro Collins, "The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult," 237.
22
In Second Temple Judaism only God is to be worshipped because only God is divine. The
exclusive worship of God (the divine) is not only consistent with the fundamental doctrines of
monotheism and creation, it is a direct outgrowth and corollary of them:
the exclusive worship of the God of Israel is precisely a recognition of and response to his
unique identity. It is God’s unique identity which requires worship of him alone. Worship of
other beings is inappropriate because they do not share in this unique identity. Worshipping God,
along with withholding worship from any other being, is recognition of the absolute distinction
between God and all other reality.
The distinction in cultic practice between Jews and others who acknowledged a high god is
in fact correlative with a difference in monotheistic conception. The typical Hellenistic view was
that worship is a matter of degree because divinity is a matter of degree. . . . The notion of a
hierarchy or spectrum of divinity stretching from the one God down through the gods of the
heavenly bodies, the daemons of the atmosphere and the earth, to those humans who were
regarded as divine or deified, was pervasive in all non-Jewish religion and religious thought, and
inseparable from the plurality of cultic practices in honour of a wide variety of divinities. Jews
understood their practice of monotheism to be justified, indeed required, because the unique
identity of YHWH was so understood as to place him, not merely at the summit of a hierarchy of
divinity, but in an absolutely unique category, beyond comparison with anything else. Worship
was the recognition of this unique incomparability of the one God. It was the response to
YHWH’s self-revelation as the sole Creator and Ruler of all. 5
Since worship in Second Temple Judaism is strictly reserved for God it can function
as an "acid test" for determining whether a particular figure is divine.46 As such, it is
4 5 Bauckham, God Crucified, 14-15. Cf. N. T. Wright who argues similarly:

Jewish monotheism at this period was not a matter of theoretical belief, of speculative
investigation of the being of God for its own sake. It was the fighting doctrine which engaged in
battle on two fronts: against dualism, the rejection of the goodness of the created order, and
against paganism, the deification of the created order or parts of it, or of forces within it. The
second of these (paganism) seems to have been more important in the period we are considering.
The belief that Israel’s God was the God of all the earth committed Judaism to a radical anti
pagan stance (N. T. Wright, "Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8 ," chap. in
The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress,
1992], 125-126 [chap. = 120-136]; cf. idem, The New Testament and the People o f God, 248-
250).
4 6 Rainbow, "Jewish Monotheism," 80; cf. R. J. Bauckham, "The Worship of Jesus,"
chap. in The Climax o f Prophecy: Studies on the Book o f Revelation (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1993), 118 [art. = 118-149]; Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, 43,
265. Additional criteria beyond worship are still necessary for determining whether a figure
is divine since indications of worship are not always present. Foremost is the direct
identification of a figure as "God" or "YHWH" and, related to this, the application to a
figure of OT YHWH texts and theophanies. Other useful criteria are elaborated by Gieschen,
Angelomorphic Christology, 30-33; Hurtado, "First-Century Jewish Monotheism," 11-12.
These include, e.g., sitting on or sharing God’s throne; exercising divine prerogatives such
as creation, salvation, rule over the cosmos, and (eschatological) judgement; possessing the
divine name; and the use of elq and p 6 voq formulae. This last criterion is explicated by P. A.
23
especially noteworthy that evidence for the worship of angels is lacking in the early Jewish
sources, leading ineluctably to the conclusion that "there was no such worship in pre-
Christian Judaism. "47 The Angel of the LORD, however, is worshipped (at least in the
OT) and this graphically highlights the absolute distinction between this angel and all other
angels. The angels are not divine and may not be worshipped. If ever they are worshipped,
they immediately decline the honor and redirect the worship to God who alone is worthy of
Rainbow as follows:
Although pagans applied dq- or povoq-formulae to multiple gods and goddesses in a merely
elative sense, Jews never applied this type of formula to their intermediaries, but reserved them
stringently for God alone. The firmness of Jewish monotheism makes it all the more remarkable
that Jewish Christians could not only acclaim Jesus cultically in terms originally intended for God
but could also predicate etc; and fibvoq-formulae of him (Rainbow, "Jewish Monotheism," 83, in
reference to idem, "Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians 8.4-6" [D.Phil. thesis, Oxford,
1987], 66-100).
One criterion that should probably be discarded (contra Gieschen, Angelomorphic
Christology, 32; following C. Rowland, The Open Heaven, 94-111; idem, "A Man Clothed
in Linen: Daniel 10:6ff. mid Jewish Angelology," JSNT 24 [1985]: 99-110) is the description
of exalted figures in terms reminiscent of the outward appearance of God (cf. Ezek 1:26-28;
Dan 7:9). According to Bauckham,
Descriptions of the form of God (quite rare in the literature) do not employ elements of
description which are specific or unique to God, but borrow a standard set of descriptives that
could be used to describe any heavenly being, including quite ordinary as well as quite exalted
heavenly beings. . . . the descriptions employ a stock series of images (Bauckham, "The Throne
of God and the Worship of Jesus," 51; cf. Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 61; cf. 32, 84; Dunn,
Christology in the Making, xxv, 156; Hurtado, One God, 76).
4 7 C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, "The Worship of Divine Humanity as God’s Image and
the Worship of Jesus," in The Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism, 112 [art. = 112-
128], in reference to the "magisterial survey” of Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and
Christology. Cf. Bauckham, God Crucified, 19, 26; idem, "The Throne of God and the
Worship of Jesus," 45-48; Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 73-75; Hurtado, One God, 27-35,
82. As a result, efforts have been intensified to find in these early Jewish sources evidence
for a new monotheistic "paradigm" involving the divinely sanctioned cultic worship of
humans (Fletcher-Louis, "The Worship of Divine Humanity," passim; cf. M. Barker, "The
High Priest and the Worship of Jesus," in The Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism,
93-111). Suffice it to say that the search for evidence of the worship of angels showed some
initial promise.
24
worship.4 8 The Angel of the LORD, on the other hand, is divine and may be worshipped.
When he is worshipped he accepts the worship without refusal or redirection.4 9 In this
and other respects his appearances seem to qualify as theophanies.
(3) A theophany may be understood as "a temporal, partial, and intentionally
allusive self-disclosure initiated by the sovereign deity at a particular place . . . . "5 0 That
a theophany is partial and allusive is a necessary reflection of God’s transcendence and the
inherent mystery of his being . 51 That God, nevertheless, is actually present in theophany
is an indication of his immanence. Whatever the outward manifestation—be it in the form of a
human, an angel, or a pillar of cloud and fire—a theophany involves an actual, perceptible,
spacio-temporal appearance of God himself. 52 Theophanies in the OT are often indicated
4 8 Bauckham, "The Worship of Jesus," passim; L. T. Stuckenbruck, "An Angelic

Refusal of Worship: The Tradition and Its Function in the Apocalypse of John," SBLSP 33
(1994), 679-696; idem, Angel Veneration and Christology, 75-103.
49The one apparent exception is Judg 13:15-16 where the Angel of the LORD
refuses Manoah’s offering. But there are clear contextual reasons for this based on the
narrative’s portrayal of Manoah as something of an anti-Abraham (see Chapter 3 below).
50 J. K. Kuntz, The Self-revelation o f God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 45; cf.
28-46. See also J. Barr, "Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament," in
Congress Volume: Oxford 1959, ed. G. W. Anderson, P. A. H. de Boer, G. R. Castellino,
et al. (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 31-38; M. Frenschkowski, Offenbarung und
Epiphanie, vol. 1, Grundlagen des spatantiken und fruhchristlichen Offenbarungsglaubens;
vol. 2, Die verborgene Epiphanie in Spatantike und fruhem Christentum (WUNT 2.79-80;
Tubingen: Mohr, 1995-1997); R. Knierim, "Offenbarung im Alten Testament," in Probleme
biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. W. Wolff (Miinchen:
Kaiser, 1971), 206-235; J. Lindblom, "Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion,"
HUCA 32 (1961): 91-106; R. North, "Angel-Prophet or Satan-Prophet?" ZAW 82 (1970): 33
[art. =31-67]; F. Polak, "Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book
of Exodus," in Studies in the Book o f Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation, ed.
M. Vervenne (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 113, n. 1 [art. = 113-
147].
51 Cf. Kuntz, The Self-revelation o f God, 36-39; and the very full treatment of
S. Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology (San Francisco: Harper
& Row, 1978).
52No attempt will be made to distinguish theophanies from epiphanies (as do, e.g.,
C. Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms [Atlanta: John Knox, 1981], 93-101, esp.
99-101; and Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 68-70; cp. F. Schnutenhaus, "Das kommen und
25
by certain hallmark characteristics like Ore, fear, and the Niphal of HMI, which in certain
contexts functions as a virtual terminus technicus for theophanies. They are also clearly
indicated on many occasions by the straightforward use of the words "God" and "YHWH" in
reference to a mysterious visitor, often only after the visitor has departed.53 Because
theophanies involve the appearance and presence of God himself, they would seem to have
nothing at all to do with the appearance and presence of an agent. There is, however, a
possible exception.
(4) An agent, most simply put, is a person who acts or speaks on behalf of another
person.54 By definition (it could be argued) an agent is numerically and personally distinct
erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament," ZAW 76 [1964]: 21 [art. = 1-22]). Similarly, no

attempt will be made to treat "theophany" as a technical term or to limit theophanies to a
counterintuitive subset of what have traditionally been understood as theophanies (contra,
e.g., Jorg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Getting [WMANT
10; 2d ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977], 1-2, and passim).
53The words "God" and "YHWH," used to identify the visitor as divine, may be
spoken to similar effect by the narrator, by characters in the narrative itself, or by both.
Emphasis is at present on the OT since its theophanies, unlike the theophany of Christ in the
NT, are not in dispute.
54The divine attributes and powers are not agents. Because agents are persons,
however, and because the divine attributes and powers are personifications, it is only fitting
that agency language should be used to describe them. The usage does not go beyond
metaphor since there is little evidence for the independent existence or "hypostatization" of
these attributes and powers in Second Temple Judaism. So already P. Heinisch,
Personifikationen und Hypostasen im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient (Munster:
Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1921), 55, "Dichterisches Denken mufite leicht dazu
fiihren, dafi wie man abstrakte Begriffe personifizierte, so besonders auch Eigenschaften der
Gottheit als selbstandig gefeiert werden. . . . Aber diese Eigenschaften werden nicht zu
realen Personen ausgebildet. . . . [E]s handelt sich hier nur nicht um Personen, sondem nur
um ein dichterisches Bild." Cf. J. Barr, "Hypostatization of Linquistic Phenomena in Modem
Theological Interpretation," JSS 7 (1962): 85-94; Bauckham, God Crucified, 20-22; Dunn,
Christology in the Making, 252-253; A. Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic (New York: St.
Martin’s, 1981), 92-96; Hurtado, One God, 36-37, 41-50, 85-90; S. M. Olyan, A Thousand
Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming o f Angels in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ 36;
Tiibingen: Mohr, 1993), 88-115, esp. 88-91; G. Pfeifer, Ursprung und Wesen der
Hypostasenvorstellungen im Judentum (Arbeiten zur Theologie 31; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1967).
Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 36-45, on the other hand, follows Ringgren,
Rowland, and Fossum in arguing for the existence of hypostases and the continued usefulness
of the term. But he defines the term so vaguely and applies it so generously that equivocation
and confusion are not completely avoided. For example, it is occasionally unclear whether
26
from his sender. Thus God’s agents, angels included, are numerically and personally distinct
from God. Unfortunately, the OT evidence regarding the Angel of the LORD complicates the
obvious by revealing a unique situation in which simple definitions are misleading. The
Angel of the LORD is not an exalted creaturely agent who merely reflects God’s divinity or
participates in God’s divinity by degrees. He is fully divine and his appearances are
theophanies. If one takes the OT witness seriously, this means that God sometimes chooses
to appear and function as an angel. God, in other words, sometimes acts as his own
agent. ^ At one level this strange phenomenon surely must have something to do with the
relationship between God’s transcendence and immanence and with the fact that any
manifestation of God in space and time is necessarily partial and incomplete. That God does
not always appear in this way, however, suggests that this strange phenomenon is also a
the vanguard angel of Exod 23:20-23 is a creature divinized by the possession of a divine
hypostasis (i.e., the Name of God) or whether he is actually an angel(omorph)ic
manifestation of the hypostatic Name itself (cf. 56-57, 66-69, 76-78, 122-123, 136, 143).
More pointedly, however, his definition of a hypostasis as "an aspect of the deity that is
depicted with independent personhood of varying degrees” (45) seems a perfectly serviceable
definition of personification. In any case, since the data can be explained consistently and
economically without hypostases on the basis of (literary) personifications and (temporary)
Erscheinungsformen, the term will be completely avoided here.
55 As
odd as it sounds, when YHWH appears as an angel he seems to maintain an I-
Thou relationship with himself, i.e., with his transcendent self. This is expressed
semantically and grammatically by means of the word "angel," by means of sending language
and messenger formulae, and by means of third person speech in reference to himself.
There is a possible analogy here to NT theology and later Nicene orthodoxy. But to
say that these are latent in the OT is probably to go beyond the evidence. First, the
appearances of the Angel of the LORD are temporary and mysterious and comparable to
other OT theophanies, some of which are also anthropomorphic, where there is no mention
of the Angel of the LORD. Thus while the Angel of the LORD is a distinct figure who
appears in a number of clearly defined roles and contexts, some of considerable duration, he
does not clearly exist independently of these appearances (though cp. his ability noted above
to mediate in the past, present, and future). And, second, while tension and ambiguity
certainly arise from the fact that distinctions are drawn between YHWH and the Angel of the
LORD, most texts finally resolve the tension and ambiguity in the direction of a full
identification. Texts where there is no such resolution are quite few (e.g., 1 Chronicles 21;
Zech 3:1-7), though even here some evidence for an identification can still be detected.
Thus, in the last analysis, the Angel of the LORD remains a manifestation of YHWH or a
way of speaking about YHWH manifest rather than a creature or an incipient second member
of a triune Godhead.
27
matter of divine choice. There may be other reasons, possibly even salvation-historical
reasons, for these mysterious and allusive appearances.
As understood here a "divine agent" is an agent who is YHWH. Or, in slightly
different terms, a "divine agent" is a manifestation o f YHWH in the form and/or role o f an
agent. This definition is paradoxical, to be sure, but not obviously contradictory in light of
the OT evidence that inspires it.56 At one level the Angel of the LORD is clearly on the
side of the divine attributes and powers since his appearances are true theophanies. To see
this angel is to see the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God whose revealed covenant
name is YHWH. At another level the Angel of the LORD is on the side of the principal
angels and exalted patriarchs since he, too, is an agent. He is called an agent (i.e., an angel),
he is sent, he communicates a message, and he typically has a tangible anthropomorphic
form. This raises the question of how one can determine in a given context whether one is
dealing with the divine Angel of the LORD rather than with some other non-divine agent or
principal angel.
(5) The Angel o f the LORD can be distinguished from other agents and (principal)
angels by means of several closely related criteria: First, the angel in question may be
explicitly called "the Angel of the LORD." Second, the angel in question may be depicted as
divine. And, third, the angel may be understood or explained in reference to OT Angel of
the LORD texts and contexts. These criteria reflect the concerns at hand and are intended to
be broad enough to find references to the Angel of the LORD where the expression (D’H^M)
m rr "ptbia or Gtr/ytXoq Kupiou does not appear, yet narrow enough to exclude all manner of
56it is doubtful whether such a definition of divine agency will gain wide currency.
Nevertheless such a definition is necessary here to avoid the equivocation so common in the
recent literature whereby divine agency sometimes refers to the divinity of the sender,
sometimes to the divinity of the agent, and sometimes, in varying degrees, to both.
28
unrelated agents and angels even where the expression does appear. 57 There are, for
example, several instances in the OT where the Angel of the LORD is clearly in view but
where the full expression does not occur (e.g., Gen 48:15-16; Exod 23:20-23; Josh 5:13-15;
Isa 63:9; Mai 3: l ) . 58 By the same token there are many instances where the full
expression does occur but where it is clearly being used of "ordinary," that is, created,
angels. 59 Thus the three criteria may function together or independently in any given
instance to indicate that the Angel of the LORD is in view. Quite often the first criterion
alone will not be sufficient. The expression does not always have titular force and does not
invariably refer to the angelic figure who is so prominent in the OT, especially in the
patriarchal and exodus-wildemess-conquest narratives.6 0 More fruitful in some ways,
then, are the second and third criteria, particularly when and if they are found in conjunction
with each other or with the first.
For the satisfactory resolution of a similar dilemma vis-a-vis the title "Messiah"
see, Chester, "Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures,” 17-19, 81; and cf.
M. G. Abegg and C. A. Evans, "Messianic Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ” in Qumran-
Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H.
Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema (Tubingen: Mohr, 1998), 191-203; J. J.
Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient
Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 11-12. Cp. P. Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and Its
History (JSPSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 150, whose definition is too
broad to be useful: "we will call the figure of any mediator of salvation, whatever its nature,
messiah."
58 Cf. probably also Gen 18:1-33; 32:25-33.
59For OT instances of this see Table 1 in Chapter 2 below. For NT instances
(namely all of them) see, Matt 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19; 28:2; Luke 1:11; 2:9; Acts 5:19; 8:26;
10:3; 12:7, 23; 27:23; Gal 4:14.
60The presence or absence of definite articles in the expression is of no interpretive
significance whatever. The expression is definite given the indisputable definiteness of the
second noun; and it is titular when the context makes it clear that it is being used to denote
the most important and clearly defined angel in the OT.
29
Conclusion
The thesis proposed here is, again, that a Jewish agent o f considerable, perhaps even
maximal, relevance to the high (divine) Christology o f the NT is the OT Angel o f the LORD.
If this thesis can be demonstrated with any degree of certainty it could have important
implications for the inductive construction of a biblical Christology and for the inductive re
construction of the Christology of the earliest Christians. One of the most obvious
implications is that a low (agency) Christology and a high (divine) Christology are not
incompatible. If a messenger could be divine in the OT, why not a Messiah in the NT?
Moreover, the existence of both Christologies, or of a single complex Christology, need not
be explained sequentially in an evolutionary framework. This is not to deny the existence of
Christological development; it is only to suggest that the assumption that agency is early and
deity is late fits neither the data nor the highly restrictive time-frame.61 Christ exercises
divine prerogatives and is even called God (John 20:28; Rom 9:5) and YHWH (e.g., Mark
1:3; 1 Cor 8 :6 ; Phil 2:5-11) in the earliest strata of the NT. Correspondingly, he is also
worshipped as God and YHWH in the earliest strata of the NT.62 The most important
developments, in other words, took place in a thoroughly Jewish milieu within two decades
61 Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts, 181-183. Certainly no NT author would have
found any such evolutionary development in the OT in reference to the Angel of the LORD.
There, if anything, the reverse seems to be the case. The earlier Pentateuchal sources appear
to have a higher view of the Angel of the LORD than certain later historical and prophetic
sources (e.g., 1 Chronicles 21; Zech 3:1-7). Cf., in this light, the NT where the Christology
of Mark appears to be higher than that of Luke (Caird, New Testament Theology, 282; cf.
281-285; 343); and where the Christology of Paul, and of several hymnic and Aramaic
fragments incorporated by him, appears to be higher than that of all three Synoptic Gospels.
6 2 Cf. Hurtado, One God; cf. Bauckham, "The Worship of Jesus"; France, "The
Worship of Jesus."
30
of the crucifixion and resurrection-some developments possibly within as little as three or
four years.63
But if not gradual evolution, then what? Hurtado has popularized talk of "mutation"
for it implies suddenness and gives the appearance of solving the problem of the highly
restrictive time-frame. But since mutations are always purposeless and almost always
harmful, it would be better to talk of a revolution and better still to talk of a revelation.6*
Only by a revelation, or a perceived revelation, is there the necessary impetus for first-
century Jewish monotheists to see an individual, much less a crucified "Jewish state
criminal, "65 as a manifestation of the person and presence of the God of the OT. The
difficult question cannot be ducked: Why did these particular Jews worship this particular
agent—an agent who had lived in their midst and who had recently died the most hideous and
offensive o f deaths? Here the worship is all the more unusual, unexpected, and otherwise
inexplicable; here the worship requires a correspondingly greater impetus or precedent.
In this context Jesus’ implicit self-designation as Angel of the LORD by means of
Mai 3:1 may provide the necessary impetus. The designation acts like a wedge, struck by the
hammer of God, that cracks open the OT to reveal its unique "divine agency" paradigm—an
analogy to the high Christology of the NT that has the singular merit of deriving from
Christ. It is this analogy that may have facilitated the application to Christ of a wide range of
OT material about God; and it is this analogy that may finally provide a satisfactory reason
6 3 I.e., in the period between the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ and the
theophany to Paul on the Damascus road. See Hengel, Son o f God, 2; idem, "Christological
Titles in Early Christianity," chap. in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1994), 383 [art. =359-389]; idem, "‘Sit at My Right Hand!’ The Enthronement of
Christ at the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110:1," chap. in Studies in Early Christology,
174, cf. 214, 224 [art. = 119-225].
^ C f. generally on the subject of revelation, M. N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and
Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (WUNT 2.36; Tubingen: Mohr, 1990).
6 5 M.Hengel, Son o f God, 1; cf. idem, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the
Folly o f the Message o f the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
31
for the worship of Christ in early Christianity, showing the worship of Christ in the NT to be
no less appropriate than the worship of the Angel of the LORD in the OT. Jesus may be
more but he is not less than the Angel of the LORD—God manifest in the form and role o f an
agent. Such an awareness of the divine status of Christ, an awareness as thoroughly Jewish
as it was early, was not the culmination but the fountainhead of Christology.66
The crucifixion, however, is the crux of the matter in more ways than one, and a
brief word must be said about it and the Christian redefinition of Jewish monotheism before
moving to the exegesis of individual texts in their respective corpora. The word is this:
Judaism as it stood at the beginning of the Common Era could have accommodated another
anthropomorphic theophany, perhaps even a thirty-three or (as at the exodus) a forty year
theophany. What it could not accommodate was an incarnation, the brutal execution of God
manifest in the flesh, and a permanent distinction of persons in the Godhead. It was these
things and not a high view of Christ per se that forced a redefinition of Jewish monotheism
along Christological lines and that resulted in what would quickly become a new "binitarian"
and then "trinitarian" religion. But the Jewish authors of the NT were constrained to make
this modification, constrained to penetrate what had largely remained a mystery in the OT,
by experiences that they could not deny: by their experience of the promised Jewish Messiah
and his unique relationship to God (the Father); by their subsequent experience of the
promised Holy Spirit (Christ’s Spirit); and by their indomitable conviction that the OT was
consistent with this modification and, in fact, positively demanded it.67
^ C f. Bauckham, God Crucified, 27-28; Cullmann, The Christology o f the New

Testament, 215-218, 235; Harris, Jesus as God, 299.
67In part, at least, the question is not whether "charismatic exegesis” took place but
whose exegesis was inspired by the Spirit. This is a question that the historical-critical
method alone cannot answer.
CHAPTER 2
THE OLD TESTAMENT
The first order of business is to determine the meaning of the relevant OT texts. But
which texts? In one sense the question has already been answered: texts that refer to the
Angel of the LORD. But in another sense the problem of textual delimitation still looms
large. Which texts: Hebrew or Greek or both? If there are significant differences between the
MT and the LXX, as indeed there are, it makes little sense to exegete Hebrew texts if the
NT is deriving its theology from Greek texts. The following analysis will suggest that while
the NT primarily cites the LXX , 1 it takes its theology of "divine agency" from the Hebrew
OT. The remarkable idea that an agent could be divine is propounded by the authors of
the NT. This idea can be found in the MT. It cannot, for all practical purposes, be found in
the LXX. So different is the impression conveyed by the MT from that of the LXX that one
This fact, demonstrated in a wide variety of studies, is still only a general

observation that does not exclude the possibility that in specific instances one is dealing with
ad hoc translations of Hebrew originals, uses of other Greek recensions or versions, citations
from memory, theological adaptations of Vorlagen, etc. See further, T. Holtz,
Untersuchungen iiber die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TU 104; Berlin: Academie
Verlag, 1968); M. J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in
Textual Form (CBET 15; Kampen: Kok, 1996); idem, "The Use of the Septuagint in Three
Quotations in John: Jn 10,34; 12,38; 19,24," in The Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL 131;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 367-393; M. Muller, The First Bible o f the
Church: A Plea fo r the Septuagint (JSOTSup 206; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1996); H. F. D. Sparks, "The Semitisms of St. Luke’s Gospel," JTS 44 (1943): 129-138;
Stanley, Paul and the Language o f Scripture, 12, 30, n. 87, 79 and passim; K. Stendahl, The
School o f St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1968), 169-182, esp. 171, 174, 180; H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in
Greek (2d ed.; New York: KTAV, 1968 [1900]), 392, cf. 381-405; K. J. Thomas, "The Old
Testament Citations in Hebrews," NTS 11 (1964-65): 303-325.
2 Cf. Bauckham, God Crucified, 50, who has independently come to a similar but
slightly stronger conclusion: "most early Christian exegesis of the Old Testament was done
with reference to the Hebrew text, even when the Greek text was also employed."
32
33
could almost speak in this respect of two "Old Testaments." Because the LXX stands in such
marked contrast to the MT, and because it originated in the intertestamental period and
decidedly reflects the theological Tendenz of that period, it will be covered in the next
chapter rather than here.
The following table presents all occurrences of the singular of in the MT .3

The taxonomy or semantic breakdown, loosely so-called, is a bit premature since it
anticipates the analysis of specific texts below; nevertheless, it is useful to note all of the
texts early and in one place. For a number of texts the evidence is insufficient for a judgment
about the identity of the angel in question. In such cases general presuppositions and other
clearer texts must be determinative. There are, however, some fifty instances in the Hebrew
OT where it is probable that a is divine, that is, where it can be shown that a being
who is called a or who appears as a is actually YHWH himself. Of these fifty

the precise collocations are as follows:
1. thirty-five instances of mrp (Gen 16:7, 9, 10, 11; 22:11, 15; Exod 3:2; Num
22:22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35; Judg 2:1, 4; 6:11, 12, 21, 21, 22, 22;
13:3, 13, 15, 16, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 21);
2. six instances of -|l6 o (Gen 31:11; Exod 14:19; Judg 6:20; 13:6, 9);
3. one instance of -p en (Gen 21:17);
3The plural of is not relevant to this study as there are no instances where the
plural refers to YHWH. The expression HTTP does not occur in the OT; the
expression Q*rfrtt(n) does occur three times (Gen 28:12, 32:2; 2 Chron 36:16), but
provides no parallel to the Angel of the LORD. Contra C. Westemiann, Genesis (3 vols.;
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984-86), 2:505 (cf. B. Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading
[Garden City: Doubleday, 1977], 344), it is not the case in Gen 32:2-3 that "Jacob’s return
from Laban’s house begins with an encounter with God just as did his flight from his
family." Jacob does indeed encounter God on his return from Laban’s house, but not in Gen
32:2-3. In fact, "encounter" is much too weak a word for Jacob’s wrestling with God in Gen
32:24. The angels of God who meet Jacob in Gen 32:2-3, on the other hand, are simply
God’s vanguard. Their appearance to Jacob does not indicate a theophany but the power and
protection of God at a time when Jacob is particularly vulnerable and fearful (cf. 2 Kings
6:16-17). But where one sees YHWH’s angelic host (Gen 32:2-3), the Prince or Captain of
that host cannot be far off (Gen 32:25-31). Westermann, Genesis, 2:505, thus rightly
adduces "the host of YHWH" (m!T H32t) in Josh 5:13-15 as a parallel to "the angels of
God" (DTt*7X 'OvbrS) and "the camp of God" (D t 6 k n3TO) in Gen 32:2-3.
34
4. one instance of V3B (Isa 63:9);
5. one instance of m a n (Mai 3:1);
6. six instances of -Jt6n (Gen 48:16; Exod 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2; Hos 12:5).
For the sake of convenience and consistency in English, and since the collocations are
functionally equivalent, the expression "the Angel of the LORD" will be used generically for
all instances where an angel is divine in the OT. The exegesis below will focus on these
Table t. Semantic Breakdown: 127 Occurrences of Singular in the MT

[ STATUS | TEXT | TOTAL
1 Sam 23:27
2 Sam 11:19, 22, 23, 25
1 Kgs 19:2*; 22:13
2 Kgs 5:10; 6:32, 32, 33; 9:18; 10:8
2 Chron 18:12
HUMAN Job 1:14; 33:23* 24
Prov 13:17; 17:11
Eccl 5:5*
Isa 42:19*
Ezek 23:40*
Hag 1:13
Mai 2:7; 3:1
1 Kgs 13:18*
ANGELIC 2 Chron 32:21 (cf. 2 Kgs 19:35)
Dan 3:28; 6:23* 17
Zech 1:9, 13, 14; 2:2, 7, 7; 4:1, 4, 5; 5:5, 10; 6:4, 5
Gen 24:7, 40
Judg 5:23
1 Sam 29:9*
2 Sam 14:17, 20; 19:28; 24:16, 16, 16, 17 36
(UNCERTAIN) 1 Kgs 19:5, 7
2 Kgs 1:3, 15; 19:35
1 Chron 21:12, 15, 15, 15, 16, 18, 20*, 27, 30
Pss 34:8; 35:5, 6
Isa 37:36 (=2 Kgs 19:35)
Zech 1:11, 12; 3:1, 3, 5, 6 ; 12:8
Gen 16:7, 9, 10, 11; 21:17; 22:11, 15; 31:11; 48:16
Exod 3:2; 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2
Num 20:16; 22:22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35
DIVINE Judg 2:1, 4; 6:11, 12, 20, 21, 21, 22, 22; 13:3, 6 , 9, 50
13, 15, 16, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 21
Isa 63:9
Hos 12:5
Mai 3:1
Key: * = LXX Omissions: 9 Occurrences of “]K*?n without Corresponding dryyEXoq
35
texts, though not to the complete exclusion of others, for two related reasons: first, the
question at hand is not how Christ could be a human or an angelic agent but how he could be
a divine agent. Thus OT texts that speak of a divine agent are potentially of greater
Christological significance than texts that do not or that are uncertain; and, second, the NT
makes use of a number of Angel of the LORD texts in the divine category above (e.g., Exod
23:20; Mai 3:1), but not Angel of the LORD texts in the other categories, in the
development and presentation of its high Christology. To these texts we now turn.
Genesis 16:7-14
It is here to Hagar that the Angel of the LORD makes his first appearance.4 What
does this "carefully constructed narrative" have to say about his identity? 5 Who is this
mysterious angel? First of all, though Hagar initially takes her interlocutor to be a mere
prophet or fellow traveler (16:8), it immediately becomes obvious that this visitor has
supernatural knowledge. 6 The Angel of the LORD knows Hagar’s name and her status as
Sarai’s maidservant (16:8-9); he knows that she is about to give birth and that she will give
birth to a son (16:11); and he knows her son’s character and destiny (16:12). Second, the
Angel of the LORD arrogates to himself divine prerogatives. He commands Hagar to return
to the abusive relationship from which she had just fled (16:9); he promises her countless
descendants (16:10); and he personally chooses a name for her son, the (soon to be) firstborn
son of the patriarch Abraham (16:11).
One could infer on the basis of what has just been said that Gen 16:7-14 recounts a
theophany and that the expression "the Angel of the LORD" is simply a circumlocution for
4The expression JTKT occurs four times (16:7, 9, 10, 11) in this short passage.
5 T. D. Alexander, "The Hagar Traditions in Genesis XVI and XXI," in Studies in
the Pentateuch, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 41; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 140 [art. = 131-148].
6 Cf. P. Heinisch, Das Buch Genesis (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1930), 235.
36
YHWH, a way of speaking about him in personal manifestation. If so, this appearance of
YHWH would be a theophany on a par with the few that precede it (Gen 3:8; 12:7; chap.
IS) and the many that follow it (chap. 17; chap. 18; etc.). At this point, however, the
inference would be premature since several points can be made that appear to count against
it. These points will be briefly stated and answered before other points that ultimately
confirm the inference will be made. Against the inference that the Angel of the LORD is
YHWH are the following points: (1) the word "angel" is used; (2) the angel appears to be
ignorant; (3) the angel refers to YHWH in the third person; and (4) the angel’s supernatural
knowledge is similar to that of other agents.
1. The word "angel" is used. It may be noted by way of analogy that other
theophanies contain anthropomorphic features.7 In one such theophany (Genesis 18)
YHWH is unqualifiedly called a "man. ” It is not possible to And a more anthropomorphic
passage than Genesis 18 where YHWH temporarily appears in human form. The text clearly
implies that the feet of all three men were washed (18:4-5); and it expressly states that all
three men ate the food so graciously prepared by Abraham (18:8). Such descriptions,
however, do not engender the slightest confusion over YHWH’s identity or ontological
status. In the same way, angels can be referred to as men without actually being men and
without at any point being mistaken for men. 8 Given this analogy, there is no antecedent
7 E.g., Gen 3:8 speaks of "the sound of the LORD God walking”. Other
anthropomorphic features are found in texts such as Exod 24:10 ("feet"); Ezek 1:26-27 ("a
throne . . . a figure with the appearance of a man . . . his loins"); Dan 7:9 ("took his seat
. . . hair of his head"); etc. Cf. Barr, "Theophany and Anthropomorphism," 31-38.
o
°By without confusion or mistaken identification is meant the absence of confusion
on the part of the reader of the text. Abraham himself does not recognize that one of his
visitors is YHWH until well into the account. It is also possible that Lot never realizes that
he has entertained angels. The reader, however, knows better (cf. the reader’s advance
knowledge in Gen 22:1). On the identity of the first "man” in Genesis 18 see esp., Gen 18:1,
13, 17, 20, 22 (cf. 19:27), 25-27, 30-33. On the identity of the other two "men," see, Gen
19:1, 13, 15. These men had tangible hands and with them they "seized” the hands of Lot,
his wife, and his two daughters (19:10, 16).
37
reason why other theophanies could not contain angelomorphic features or even references to
God as "angel" without thereby suggesting that God is actually an angel or that a given
"angel" is anything less than or other than God manifest. If YHWH can temporarily and
occasionally assume a human form, can he not also for similar or comparable reasons assume
an angelic form? Or alternately, since the phenomenon at hand is found in narratives, if a
narrator can describe YHWH anthropomorphically can he not also for similar or comparable
reasons describe YHWH angelomorphically? Either way, terms that customarily entail a
fixed ontological status are being used descriptively and solely in reference to outward
appearance or mode of manifestation.
2. The angel appears to be ignorant. As already indicated in the phrasing of this
point, the angel’s ignorance in 16:8 is apparent and not real, comparable to God’s own
apparent ignorance in Gen 3:9; 4:9; 18:9 (cf. 18:21); Exod 4:2; Num 22:9; 1 Kgs 19:13;
and Job 1:7; 2:2 .9 But no appeal beyond the immediate context is necessary. The ignorance
It is not the case that all three men in Genesis 18 are, or represent, YHWH. Contra
inter alia J. Skinner, Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910), 299; G. von Rad,
Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 160; Kuntz, The
Self-revelation o f God, 122; cf. Lindblom, "Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew
Religion," 96, n. 7; N. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah; Philadelphia: JPS, 1989), 328. The
degree of overlap between YHWH and the singular Angel of the LORD is such that the two
often cannot be distinguished. But there is no such consistent and recurrent overlap between
YHWH and any plurality of his (MT) or 6 7 7 EX01 (LXX), even though there is a
temporary element of ambiguity-induced mystery in the "perplexing alternation" between
singulars and plurals in Genesis 18 (Skinner, Genesis, 298; cf. R. I. Letellier, Day in
Mamre, Night in Sodom: Abraham and Lot in Genesis 18 and 19 [Biblical Interpretation
Series 10; Leiden: Brill, 199S], 215).
Âccording to B. K. Waltke and M. P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical
Hebrew Syntax [= W-O] (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §18.2g, "Rhetorical questions
aim not to gain information but to give information with passion." Cf. H. Rouillard, "Les
feintes questions divines dans la Bible," VT 34 (1984), 237-242. Similar questions are posed,
for example, by "the man" to Jacob in Gen 32:28, by "the Angel of the LORD" to the
people in Judg 2:1, and by "the word of the LORD" to Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:9. This
juxtaposition between the word of the LORD and YHWH in 1 Kgs 19:9-18 (esp. w . 9, 11,
13, 15) is similar to that between the Angel of the LORD and YHWH. Cf. also 1 Kgs 18:31
where Gen 35:10 (cf. Gen 32:28) is quoted and the renaming of Jacob is attributed to "the
word of YHWH."
38
of Gen 16:8 evaporates already within the confines of Genesis 16 when one takes into
account that the angel who asks the question already knows the answer. Where has Hagar
come from? Hagar (whose name the angel knows) comes from Sarai (whose name he also
knows) for Hagar is Sarai’s maid (as he yet again knows). And where is Hagar going? The
angel presumably knows this answer as well. The reader certainly does. Hagar is on her way
back to Egypt (16:1, 7 ) . 10
3. The angel refers to YHWH in the third person. Many OT texts can be adduced in
which YHWH refers to himself in the third person (see the Excursus below). Though an
agent would naturally refer to YHWH in the third person, third person references to YHWH
per se are not inconsistent with theophanies. The Angel of the LORD need not on this
account be anything less than or other than YHWH. It may also be noted in passing that the
third person reference in 16:11 (cf. 21:17) occurs in the angel’s explanation of the name that
he gives to Hagar’s son: "you will call his name Ishmael (*?RS7GBP), because YHWH has
heard (iTUT 9D27) your affliction. " 11 That is, an etymological explanation of the name
may have necessitated a third person reference regardless of the speaker. It is also possible
given the lack of explicit theophanic elements in the passage that it is the very giving of this
explanation that makes Hagar aware of the divine identity of her interlocutor. The fact that
the Angel of the LORD has come to Hagar’s rescue could suggest that he himself was the
10On Hagar’s failure to answer the second part of the angel’s question cf. V. P.
Hamilton, The Book o f Genesis (NICOT; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-95),
1:452; M. Tsevat, "Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael," chap. in The Meaning o f the Book o f
Job and other Biblical Studies: Essays on the Literature and Religion o f the Hebrew Bible
(New York: KTAV, 1980), 57 [art. =53-76].
1 *On the discrepancy between the theophoric name and its explanation see Hamilton,
Genesis, 1:453-454. Cf., for example, 1 Sam 1:20 where Samuel’s name is explained with
reference to YHWH; and 4QVisions of Amram0 (4Q545) where the Malachiyah’s name is
explained as "angel of God." That God hears Hagar’s affliction "constitutes a unique phrase
in the Hebrew, it being an amalgam of two distinct idioms. Generally, God ‘sees (HMI)
suffering,’ as in Genesis 29:32 and Exodus 4:31, and ‘heeded (D7X7) their outcry,’ as in
Exodus 3:7 and Deuteronomy 26:7" (Saraa, Genesis, 121).
39
one who had "heard" her. The name and its explanation would then have been understood by
Hagar as meaning, in effect, "you shall call his name Ishmael, because / have heard your
affliction." From this Gen 16:13 follows quite nicely (see below).
*** EXCURSUS: Third Person References by YHWH to Himself ***

A third person reference in first person speech naturally indicates a grammatical
distinction of persons and normally indicates an actual or ontological distinction of persons as
well. But a third person reference need not indicate such a distinction. On the assumption
that the Angel of the LORD is a created being distinct from YHWH, third person references
to YHWH in the first person speech of this angel are to be expected. This phenomenon is
ubiquitous in the speech of God’s agents and it would be tedious to adduce examples.
Contrary to expectation, however, a third person reference to YHWH in the first person
speech of this angel is equally consistent with the opposite assumption: namely, that the
Angel of the LORD is himself YHWH and not a created being distinct from YHWH. In fact,
hundreds of third person references to YHWH in the first person speech o f YHWH can be
found in the OT. These references not surprisingly predominate in the Pentateuch and in the
prophetic books where YHWH’s first person speech is most commonly reported. But they
may also be found in the historical books and in the Psalms—in fact, wherever first person
speech by YHWH is reported. The relatively large number of these references is partly but
not entirely reduced to manageable proportions when one takes into account some of the
following kinds of considerations:
1. The possibility that sources out of grammatical concord have been brought together
without modification.
2. The fact that in first person discourse YHWH frequently refers to himself in the
third person by his covenant name YHWH, perhaps for emphasis, in such a way that
one could gloss the name with first person pronouns (cf. the cry of the Egyptians in
Exod 14:25 or the prayer of David in 2 Sam 7:18-29, esp. w . 20, 26).
3. The possibility that poetic or stylistic variation may account for the shift in
grammatical person much the same as it elsewhere accounts for other grammatical
shifts (e.g., the change from singular to plural pronouns in reference to Israel in
Exodus 23; 32-33).15
4. The anticipatory grammatical conversion of YHWH’s speech whereby he himself
speaks to a prophet the words that the prophet will later convey, in the third person,
to others (a phenomenon often made explicit as in Exod 9:1-5; Num 14:19; Lev 1:1-
2, 4:1-2; etc.).
12
This is unlikely given the literary artistry evident in many of the passages under
consideration. It is also unlikely on the assumption of (repeated) redaction that could have
smoothed out the grammatical irregularities. Cp., however, the LXX which on the whole
stands out for its fidelity to the Hebrew, irregularities and all, in these particular passages.
(For passages that the LXX has smoothed out cp. Gen 9:6, 16; Exod 23:22, 25; Josh 24:6-7;
2 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chron 34:27; Isa 60:9; etc.)
^ U . Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book o f Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967),
307.
40
5. The possibility that a distinction between direct and indirect discourse, between first
and third person speech, was not always maintained with modem rigor (cf. Exod
14:25; 2 Sam 7:23; and cp. 2 Kgs 22:19 with 2 Chron 34:27).
6 . The fact that in numerous instances of divine discourse and prophetic speech the
voice of YHWH has so blended with that of his mouthpiece that it is impossible to
clearly distinguish YHWH’s direct speech from the prophet’s indirect speech-
making not only a "red letter" edition of the OT impossible but effectively making
all of the prophet’s words YHWH’s words (e.g., Isaiah 13).
But it may not be possible to account for all of YHWH’s third person references to
himself by means of the ad hoc considerations just noted. Others seem to go far enough
beyond them to warrant a slightly different explanation. For example:
And the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do . . . .
For I have chosen him in order that he may command his children and his household
after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; in order that
the LORD may bring upon Abraham what he has spoken about him" (Gen 18:17-19).
Then God said to Jacob, "Arise, go up to Bethel, and live there; and make an
altar there to God who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau" (Gen
35:1).
Then he [YHWH] said, "If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD
your God, and do what is right in his sight, and give ear to his commandments, and keep
all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians;
for I, the LORD, am your healer" (Exod 15:26; cf. 23:25).
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, "Go down, warn the people, lest they break
through to the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish. And also let the priests who
come near to the LORD consecrate themselves, lest the LORD break out against them. ”
. . . Then the LORD said to him, "Go down and come up again, you and Aaron with
you; but do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the LORD,
lest he break forth upon them" (Exod 19:21-22, 24; cf. 24:1-2).
And the LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and execute
them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn
away from Israel" (Num 25:4, cf. v. 11).
"And I brought your fathers out of Egypt, and you came to the sea; and Egypt
pursued your fathers with chariots and horsemen to the Red Sea. But when they cried out
to the LORD, he put darkness between you and the Egyptians, and brought the sea upon
them and covered them; and your own eyes saw what I did in Egypt . . . ." (Josh 24:6-
7).
"I overthrew you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were like a
firebrand snatched from the blaze; yet you have not returned to me," declares the LORD
(Amos 4:11; cf. Jer 50:40).
And David inquired again of God, and God said to him, "You shall not go up
after them; circle around behind them, and come at them in front of the balsam trees.
And it shall be when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the trees, then you
shall go out to battle, for God will have gone out before you to strike the army of the
Philistines." And David did just as God had commanded him . . . . (1 Chron 14:14-16).
Six possible explanations were suggested above for the existence of these third
person references and another, a seventh, may not be completely without biblical warrant in
light of the texts just cited. That is, it is possible in at least a few key texts that the third
41
person references function as something of a grammatical buffer. By means o f them YHWH
objectifies himself (for lack of a better expression) and so distances himself from himself or
from certain of his actions. This may even be analogous to what one sees the OT narrator(s)
doing with the expression the Angel of the LORD, an expression never used by YHWH in
reference to himself. The grammatical buffer, on the one hand, and the lexical buffer, on the
other, both serve to maintain an aura of mystery and safeguard God’s transcendence.
It must be noted, however, that for the purpose at hand it is not necessary to explain
the origin or significance of these third person references. It is sufficient simply to note their
existence. Clearly third person references to YHWH are consistent with the observation that
the speaker is himself YHWH. If it can be established with reasonable certainty that the
Angel of the LORD is YHWH, then the third person references in the angel’s speech follow
the same pattern that YHWH uses elsewhere and may not be used as evidence against the
angel’s divine status.
4. The angel’s supernatural knowledge is similar to that o f other agents. Certainly

the mere possession of supernatural or divine knowledge does not make the possessor of that
knowledge divine; but neither does it prove that the possessor is not divine (a curious state of
affairs indeed!). The possession of divine knowledge is consistent with several states of
affairs and the same can be said for the taking of at least some divine prerogatives.
The four points above cohere well with one another and conform to what is known:
God has many agents. All four points could be applied without qualification to any number
of agents, angels certainly included. The brief responses given above do not in any way
negate these four points. At most, these brief responses allow room for an alternative
hypothesis should one be forthcoming that can stand on its own merit. Clearly at this
juncture the burden of proof is on anyone who suggests that the angel in Genesis 16 is more
than a created angel; and were it not for the following considerations, it is doubtful that the
suggestion ever would have been made. On closer examination of the passage several other
points may be noted that favor the inference that the Angel of the LORD is YHWH: ( 1) the
angel’s first person speech as YHWH; (2) the parallels between Genesis 16 and the
surrounding context; (3) the name Hagar gives to her interlocutor and its explanation; and
(4) the narrator’s explicit commentary.
42
1. The angel’s first person speech as YHWH. First person speech as YHWH does
not necessarily prove that the speaker is YHWH, only that the speaker is most naturally
YHWH in the absence of other mitigating factors (some of which, as noted above, are found
in this passage). Direct, unqualified appeal to the First person speech of the angel in 16:10 is
partly neutralized, though not fully negated, by the angel’s third person speech in 16:11. The
first person speech does, however, precede the third person speech and is never qualified in
any way as messenger speech. This is consistent with the fact that elsewhere this particular
angel never identifies himself as a messenger. He thus does nothing to discourage the divine
identification later made by Hagar and, in fact, seems rather to encourage it. Hagar’s
identification is fully consistent with the angel’s first person speech and with the remaining
points that follow.
2. The parallels between Genesis 16 and the surrounding context. Compare, for
example, the words of the angel to Hagar in Genesis 16 with the words of God to Sarah in
the following chapter: the angel promises Hagar a son and many descendants (16:10) just as
God promises Sarah a son and many descendants (17:16); the angel names Hagar’s son
(16:11) just as God names Sarah’s son (17:19; cf. 21:3) ; 14 and the angel possesses
supernatural knowledge of Ishmael’s future (16:12) just as God possesses supernatural
knowledge of Isaac’s future (17:16, 19, 21). These parallels support the view that the Angel
of the LORD is YHWH, particularly since thus far in the Abrahamic cycle no angels, in fact
no agents of any kind, have been encountered. YHWH’s dealings are all direct and
unmediated.
The most significant of these parallels is the angel’s first person promise regarding
Ishmael in 16:10 ("I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to
count"). The angel, calling from heaven, later repeats his promise to Ishmael in 21:18 ("I
14Note that both names receive an explanation or etymology: Ishmael’s in 16:11 and
Isaac’s in 21:6 (cf. 17:17; 18:12-15).
43
will make a great nation of him"). This repeated promise to Ishmael alternates with God’s
own repeated promise to Ishmael in 17:20 ("I will bless him and will make him fruitful, and
will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes and I will make
him a great nation") and in 21:13 ("of the son of the maid I will make a nation also"). In
addition, the angel’s promise to Ishmael alternates with God’s promise to Abraham in 12:2;
13:16; 15:5; 17:2, 4, 6 , 16; and passim. 15 At a minimum, these alternating divine
promises serve to identify the angel with God in the closest possible way—they are
functionally identical. At a maximum, these alternating divine promises could also serve to
identify the angel as God—they are ontologicatty identical.
3. The name Hagar gives to her interlocutor and its explanation. The name that
Hagar confers on YHWH in 16:13a is meaning "a God who appears” or "a God
who may be seen. " 16 The name itself is remarkable, almost as remarkable as the fact that
15A slavishly consistent author (or redactor) might have made a theological point by
having the Angel of the LORD interact exclusively with Hagar, the slave, while YHWH
interacts exclusively with Abraham, the patriarch. Likewise, a slavishly consistent author or
redactor might have changed all the appearances of YHWH into appearances of the Angel of
the LORD in order to promote a view of YHWH’s transcendence held on (extra-biblical)
philosophical or theological grounds. But no such consistency obtains in the OT (cf. Genesis
18). Cf. Barr, "Theophany and Anthropomorphism," 33-34; Tsevat, "Hagar and the Birth of
Ishmael," 64-65. The problem of consistency is most problematic for those who view the
angel as less than fully God. There is an inconsistency in any case: But is the inconsistency
substantive (the angel is not God) or is it merely formal (the angel is a manifestation of God
or another way of speaking about God)?
16 Cf. BDB, 42. According to Heinisch, Genesis, 236, "Die Wendung ‘Gott des
Schauens’ wird bedeuten: ‘der sich schauen lafit, der sich offenbart’"; similarly R. Kilian,
Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsiiberlieferungen: Literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich
untersucht [BBB 24; Bonn: Hanstein, 1966], 82, "es kann sich in diesem doch wohl
nur um einen Gott handeln, den Hagar gesehen hat, der ihr erschienen ist. . . . Dafi ein El
Hagar sieht, ist nicht so bedeutsam oder gar verwunderlich, dafi man ihn deshalb schon einen
‘•HI nennen miifite"; and O. Procksch, Die Genesis (3d ed.; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1924), 115, "Der dunkle Sinn von *?K kann doch nur sein
‘Erscheinungsgott’."
44
a human being has given YHWH a name. 17 The crux of 16:13a and Hagar’s name for
YHWH is the word The pointing and meaning of this word have both been hotly
debated. The MT points the word as a noun and this pointing is preferable to the LXX which
renders the word as if it were a Qal participle with a first person suffix (cf. 16:13b,
14a). 1X The word is a noun formally comparable to affliction ('ID) or beauty
That said, two very different interpretations of this abstract noun are still
possible. 20 It may be an objective genitive with the meaning, a God who may be seen; or
it may be a subjective genitive with the meaning, a God who sees. The former is more likely
given the other uses of ’Ml in reference to outward appearance (e.g., 1 Sam 16:12; Job
33:21; Nahum 3:6) .21 It is also more likely given the explanation or reason for the name
The prefix has been omitted from the customary invocation formula such that
Hagar does not call "on" (3) the name of YHWH but actually names him: TTSV Oti Nip. Cf.
the conferring of names in Gen 16:11, 15. "The expression is striking because it connotes
naming rather than invocation. . . . a power attributed to no one else in all the Bible"
(P. Trible, "The Other Woman: A literary and Theological Study of the Hagar Narratives,"
in Understanding the Word: Essays in Honour o f Bernhard W. Anderson, ed. J. T. Butler, E.
W. Conrad, and B. C. Ollenburger [JSOTSup 37; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985], 229) [art. =221-
246]. Perhaps this remarkable privilege is in some way consistent with the fact that Hagar,
though a slave, is the recipient of the first OT appearance of the Angel of the LORD (cf.
ibid, 226).
1ft
Cf. Sam. Pent, and Vg. An intentional consonantal double entendre is unlikely
pace, Sarna, Genesis, 121; Skinner, Genesis, 288; J. Weingreen, "The Construct-Genitive
Relation in Hebrew Syntax," V T 4 (1954): 57, n. 1 [art. =50-59]; Trible, "The Other
Woman," 243, n. 36.
19We ingreen, "The Construct-Genitive Relation," 57 (cp. BDB, 421, 777). Cf.
A. Schoors, "A tiqqun sopherim in Genesis 16:13b?" VT32 (1982): 495 [art. =494-495]; and
the passing mention of an "abstr. form in ’— " in BDB, 145, s.v.,
20 Cp. Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsuberlieferungen, 82, who claims that
the Qal participle ’M") can likewise be regarded as either subjective ("El, der mich sieht") or
objective ("El, den ich sehe").
21 So, rightly, K. Koenen, "Wer sieht Wen? Zur Textgeschichte von Genesis 16:13,"
IT 30 (1988): 473, n. 25 [art. =468-474]; cf. BDB, 909; Schoors, "A tiqqun sopherim in
Genesis 16:13b?" 495; Weingreen, "The Construct-Genitive Relation," 57; H. C. White,
"The Initiation Legend of Ishmael," ZAW 87 (1975): 285, n. 59 [art=267-306]. Koenen is
correct to note that W) is a noun, that the noun is an objective genitive, and that the
45
that immediately follows (cf. 16:13b; cf. v. 11). YHWH is a God who may be seen because
(O) Hagar saw him.
The explanation for the name that Hagar confers on God reiterates and reinforces the
fact that Hagar actually saw God. A large number of interpretations of 16:13b are possible,
most involving conjectural emendations on the assumption that little or no sense can be made
of the MT. But this assumption is not exactly correct. Two interpretations of the MT
are possible both of which make passable sense of the text as it stands and which express,
objective genitive indicates a theophany and identifies the Angel of the LORD as God.
Unfortunately he then conjectures that the noun is not original and that it was actually the
Massoretes who underscored or created the theophany by pointing the consonantal text to
exclude reading 'HI correctly, i.e., as a suffixed participle (Koenen, "Wer sieht Wen?" 473,
n. 25).
It may also be possible to adduce the indirect or negative witness of the LXX in
support of taking as a noun. "The effect created by reading ’HI as a participle, most
clearly supported by the LXX, is that it throws the focus of v. 13 onto Yahweh’s seeing
Hagar, rather than onto Hagar’s seeing Yahweh" (Hamilton, Genesis, 1:455, n. 22). Such a
deliberate shift of focus would be entirely consistent with the known theological Tendenz of
the LXX: i.e., a general aversion to anthropomorphism (cf. Exod 24:10-11 [LXX]) and a
specific aversion to texts that identify the Angel of the LORD as God (see Chapter 3 below).
Contra Koenen ("Wer sieht Wen?" 470, 472) such a shift of focus would be equally
consistent with the presumably similar Tendenz of the Massoretes (cf. Tg. Ps.-J., "You are
the Living and Enduring One, who sees but is not seen”) who almost certainly did not create
a new angelic (!) theophany here.
22
Notably, J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (3d ed.; Berlin:
Reimer, 1886), 339, n. 2; followed inter alia by Skinner, Genesis, 288-289; Procksch,
Genesis, 115; E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB; 3d ed.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 119.
Less radical emendations are proposed, e.g., by H. Gunkel, Genesis (6 th ed.; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 190; H. Seebas, "Zum Text von Gen. 16:13b," VT 21
(1971), 255 [art. =254-256]; F. Stier, Gott und sein Engel im Alten Testament
(Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 12.2; Munster: Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1934), 37-38 (cp. Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsuberlieferungen, 81-82);
Westermann, Genesis, 2:248.
Tsevat, "Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael,” 63, n. 22, follows Wellhausen and
concisely summarizes the perceived advantages of this emendation; but he also concedes, "If
any meaning at all is to be derived from the actual text, it is essentially the same as that of
the emendation." Tsevat’s point is well taken, though Wellhausen’s emendation, if correct,
seems more clearly to underscore the theophany. Hagar’s surprise at remaining alive would
find its basis in numerous statements to the effect that one cannot see God and live (Gen
32:30; Exod 3:6; 24:10-11; 28:16-17; 33:20-23; Judg 6:22-23; 13:22-23; cp. Num 4:20).
A similar thought may also lie behind Gen 33:10 (Tsevat, "Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael,"
6 6 , n. 27) and Exod 10:28 (Moberly, At the Mountain o f God, 205, n. 141).
46
with differing nuance, the fact that Hagar saw God. The crux of 16:13b in the MT is the
word "after" (’TTTM) and the meaning of the expression "I have seen after" CHT1H TVNn).
The word *nN is a plural construct that can be taken as a substantive (cf. 2 Sam 2:23) or as
a preposition. If a substantive, it is identical in (consonantal) form and meaning to the plural

construct of "rtnK (Exod 26:12; 33:23; 1 Kgs 7:25=2 Chron 4:4; Ezek 8:16) and likewise
means "back” or "backside".^ The thought, then, would be analogous to that of Exod
33:23 where Moses saw the back or "after-effects" of God.24 If, on the other hand, the
word is a preposition, the thought would then be that Hagar "looked upon" or "gazed
after" God as the people gazed after Moses in Exod 33:8 .25
So Lindblom, "Theophanies in Holy Places," 102, n. 21; KB (1967 ed.), 34. Cf.
White, "The Initiation Legend of Ishmael," 285-286, esp. n. 60; Hamilton, Genesis, 1:456.
Cf. T. Booij, "Hagar’s Words in Genesis 16:13b," VT30 (1980): 4-5, and nn. 18 and 22
[art. = 1-7]. Schoors, "A tiqqun sopherim in Genesis 16:13b?" 494-495, theorizes that the text
originally read "face," but that it was corrected to "back" for theological reasons (cf. Exod
33:20, 23). The lack of textual and versional evidence weighs heavily against this theory, as
does the existence of similar uncorrected texts (i.e., Gen 32:31; Exod 33:11; Judg 6:22).
On the traditional eighteen "scribal emendations" see, D. Barthelemy, "Les Tiqqune
Sopherim et la critique textuelle de 1*Ancien Testament," in Congress Volume, 1962, ed.
G. W. Anderson, et al. (VTSup 9; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 285-304 (repr. in OBO 21 [1978]:
91-110); K. M. Craig, "The Corrections of the Scribes," Perspectives in Religious Studies 17
(1990): 155-165; C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in
the Masoretic Text o f the Old Testament (OBO 36; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1981); L. Diez Merino, "Los Tiqqune Soferim en la Tradicidn Targumica," in Tradition o f
the Text: Studies offered to Dominique Barthelemy in Celebration o f his 70th Birthday, ed.,
G. J. Norton and S. Pisano (OBO 109; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 18-44.
24So Cassuto, Exodus, 437; Moberly At the Mountain o f God, 82 ("afterglow");
Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 147; Tsevat, "Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael," 63, n. 22;
White, "The Initiation Legend of Ishmael," 285-286, n. 60 ("effects" or "after-effects"). Cp.
also North, "Angel-Prophet," 60, who suggests that the subject of "sends me" in Zech 2:12
is *1*03 IPlft (cp. YHWH as subject of the same verb in 2:13, 15). He renders this
expression "the rear of glory" and sees it as "strangely echoing" Exod 33:23.
2 5 R. Y. B. Scott, "Secondary Meanings of TTIH, After, Behind," JTS 50 (1949),
178-179. Cf. S. R. Driver, The Book o f Genesis (12th ed.; London: Methuen, 1926), 183;
Koenen, "Wer sieht Wen?" 470 ("hinterherschauen"); Seebas, "Zum Text von Gen. 16:13b,"
254-256; White, "The Initiation Legend of Ishmael," 285-286, n. 60; F. I. Anderson and
D. N. Freedman, Hosea (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980), 407. Other less likely
meanings of the preposition have been suggested: e.g., temporal (Speiser, Genesis, 117-119;
Westermann, Genesis, 2:234, 248) and purposive (Booij, "Hagar’s Words in Genesis
47
The question is thus not whether Hagar saw God, for the text of Gen 16:13 twice
states that she did. The question is whether there is any textual warrant for taking the seeing
figuratively and not literally.26 Here the text is on the side of the Angel of the LORD. It
gives no indication that Hagar’s seeing is any less literal than her being found on the way to
a specific destination ("on the way to Shur," 16:7; cp. "by the oaks of Mamre," 18:1), or
her hearing specific words and promises (16:7-12). Because of this Hagar called the name of
YHWH who spoke to her "a God who may be seen. "
4. The narrator’s commentary. Any distinction between the words of Hagar and the
words of the narrator is necessarily artificial. Yet it is not entirely without relevance to note
that it is the omniscient and reliable narrator in 16:13a, and not a possibly mistaken Hagar,
27
who informs the reader that Hagar conferred a name on "YHWH who spoke to her."
The narrator alone refers to Hagar’s interlocutor as the Angel of the LORD (cp. his use of
YHWH in Genesis 18) and he could have done so again here were it necessary to avoid
16:13b," 1-7; followed closely by G. J. Wenham, Genesis [WBC; 2 vols.; Waco: Word,
1987-94], 2:3, n. 13.c-c). The purposive use of “HIM is laconically described by Schoors as
"rather speculative" ("A tiqqun sopherim in Genesis 16:13b?" 495).
26Notably Stier, Gott und sein Engel, 36-39; Koenen, "Wer sieht Wen?" 472; and,
less stridently, Sama, Genesis, 121; Westermann, Genesis, 2:248; Seebas, "Zum Text von
Gen. 16:13b," 255. Frustrating is the length to which Koenen ("Wer sieht Wen? 472) goes to
have his cake and eat it. He vigorously denies that Hagar saw God in 16:13a, since he
admits that this would entail a theophany and identify the Angel of the LORD as God. Later,
when it cannot be denied that Hagar saw God (16:13b), he denies that her seeing is literal.
Hagar (figuratively) sees God only in that she "meets" him in his own (figurative) seeing or
"rescue" of her. (Go figure!) Surely W. Eichrodt, Theology o f the Old Testament (2 vols.;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 2:24, n. 2, is correct: "To weaken the force of the word
‘see’ here, and to explain it as a figurative ‘vision of God’ in the sense of an experience of
his succour . . . is to fail to do justice to the character of the narrative."
27On the omniscience of the biblical narrator see, M. Sternberg, The Poetics of
Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama o f Reading (Bloomington, Ind.:
University of Indiana Press, 1985), esp. 84-128; cp. D. M. Gunn, "Reading Right: Reliable
and Omniscient Narrator, Omniscient God, and Foolproof Composition in the Hebrew
Bible," in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration o f Forty Years o f Biblical
Studies at the University o f Sheffield, ed. D. J. A. Clines, S. E. Fowl, and S. E. Porter
(JSOTSup 87; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 53-64.
48
confusion. Hagar thinks she is interacting with God and the narrator explicitly confirms her
assessment.2** The narrator’s statement follows immediately after the angel’s longest
speech in 16:11-12 and close behind four references to the angel’s speaking in 16:8, 9, 10,
11. One could on the basis of antecedent presuppositions gloss the narrator’s statement in
16:13 to read, "And Hagar called the name of YHWH who spoke to her by means o f his
angel, ‘You are a God who may be figuratively seen. ’ "2 9 But the text makes more than
adequate sense without such heavy-handed manipulation.
In 16:14 the narrator again confirms that Hagar’s interlocutor was YHWH by way of
an etiological aside on the name of the well: "the well of the Living One who sees me. "30
The one who sees Hagar is none other than the living God. The passage thus recounts a
primitive theophany and the attendant practice of naming a place to commemorate it in
perpetuity. The text does not actually say that Hagar names the well,31 though her naming
of the well may be implicit. A rather different point is being made, and so the narrator uses
an indefinite subject: "Therefore one (lit. ‘he’) calls the name of the well"; or, "Therefore
the well is called." In so doing, the narrator deftly adds to Hagar’s witness his own
witness along that of unnamed others over untold generations. The identity of this important
visitor is not left to the fallible judgment of a minor character.
28Presumably Hagar related the encounter to Abraham. His tacit agreement with her
assessment of the visitor’s identity may be seen in the fact that he names the boy Ishmael
(16:15).
So, in essence, Stier, Gott und sein Engel, 35.
30 Cp. Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsuberlieferungen, 83 (cf. n. 43), who
renders the name of the well, "Brunnen des Lebendigen, den ich sah (sehe, der mir
erschienen ist)." White, "The Initiation Legend of Ishmael," 286, n. 61, renders ’HI as a
noun. But the meaning of the resulting proper name, "the well of the living sight" (White
quoting Speiser, Genesis, 119), is opaque.
31 Pace Hamilton, Genesis, 1:457.
32 Wenham, Genesis, 2:3, n. 14.a; cf. Hamilton, Genesis, 1:457, n. 30.
49
The four positive points above also cohere well with one another and conform to
what is known: the OT recounts many theophanies. But with this second set of points the
balance of probability has shifted slightly in favor of the original (but premature) inference
that the passage recounted a theophany. A presumption in favor of the conclusion that the
Angel of the LORD is YHWH now exists and this presumption will be carried over into
subsequent texts by the discerning reader. Nevertheless, it cannot simply be assumed without
argument that the identity of the Angel of the LORD is everywhere fixed or that other texts
are dealing with the same divine angel. The identity of the Angel of the LORD must still be
determined, to the extent possible, in each subsequent text. It is only the burden of proof that
has shifted. It also must be acknowledged that a question may have been asked of the text
that it was never meant to answer; and that an issue may have been prematurely resolved that
the OT writer(s) did not want resolved. The present text is not entirely free of ambiguity or,
better, indeterminacy. The possibility that the indeterminacy was intended must be taken
seriously.
Genesis 21:14-21
The Angel of God in these verses again appears to be "nothing else than a form of
God’s own appearing, by which Yahweh’s T addresses man. "33 This conclusion is
suggested: (1) by the natural assumption that this is the same angel encountered by Hagar
earlier in Gen 16:7-14; and (2) by the fact that the angel’s speech comes in the midst of a
succession of references to God’s activity ("God said . . . God heard . . . the Angel of God
called . . . God opened . . . God was with"). Some caution is warranted, however, since the
first person speech of the angel in 21:18 is immediately preceded by a third person reference
to God in 21:17 and since some of the striking affirmations of deity that ultimately
outweighed the similar third person reference in Gen 16:7-14 are lacking.
<3-a
JJVon Rad, Genesis, 233, in reference to the first person speech of Gen 21:18b.
50
The natural assumption that this is the same angel who spoke to Hagar earlier is
buttressed by the close verbal and thematic links between the two passages. 34 Several
specific links between Genesis 21 and Genesis 16, beyond the fact that the Angel of the
LORD is mentioned, stand out and are worth noting: the angel’s opening question; the
angel’s supernatural knowledge of Hagar’s name; and the angel’s first person promise to
Ishmael. 35 In addition, there is an allusion to Ishmael’s name in 21:17 ("God has heard
the voice of the lad") that presupposes the giving and explanation of that name in Gen
16:11. The remaining link worth noting at this point is the possible echo of Hagar’s
name for God in the reference to sight, "God opened her eyes and she saw" (Gen 21:19; cf.
Cf. Wenham, Genesis, 2:79; Alexander, "Hagar Traditions," passim. Note also
the intriguing verbal and structural parallels between this Angel of the LORD passage and
the theophany to Isaac in Gen 26:24. Both passages include a command not to fear and the
promise of numerous progeny; and both passages are followed by a block of text relating a
covenant with Abimelech and access to a well.
The wording of this promise and the fact that it alternates with identical promises
by both God and the angel was noted above.
36 Driver, Genesis, 212; Wenham, Genesis, 1:79, cf. 85. This allusion to Ishmael’s
name, repeated for emphasis, is not only underscored by the strange absence of the name
Ishmael in this chapter but by the arresting contrast between 21:16 and 17. The reader is told
that Hagar "lifted up her voice and wept" (21:16); but the statement is immediately followed
by the words, "and God heard the lad crying." Contra Westermann, Genesis, 2:341, there is
no need to reject the MT in favor of the DOC which has the lad crying in Gen 21:16 (cf. the
similar addition to Exod 14:15 in the Syriac). The abrupt shift may be deliberate and
reflective of the literary artistry of the narrator, on a par with the anticipatory use of the
word "bowshot" in 21:16 (cf. 21:20 which states that the lad became an archer). Cf.
E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 312, n. 7.
51
16:13). References to seeing are crucial to these early Angel of the LORD passages and
serve to tie the passages together not only thematically but theologically.
The fact that the angel’s speech comes from heaven in the midst of a succession of
references to God and his activity is highly significant. Note, in this regard, the related
alternation or juxtaposition that takes place between YHWH and the Angel of the LORD in a
number of these angel texts:
And Gqd heard the lad crying; and the Angel o f God called to Hagar from Heaven (Gen
21:17).38
God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am. " . . . And
the angel o f the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And
he said, "Here I am" (Gen 22:1, ll) .39
And the Angel o f the LORD said to me . . . . "I am the God of Bethel" (Gen 31:
11, 13).
And the Angel o f the LORD appeared to him . . . in the midst of the bush; . . . and God
called to him from the midst of the bush (Exod 3:2, 4).
But God was angry . . . and the Angel o f the LORD took his stand in the way as an
adversary (Num 22:22).
Apart, perhaps, from the word itself, there is no indication of a change in
speakers or a distinction of persons. There is also not the slightest indication that replacing
the word with or mrP would in any way alter the interpretation of these texts
insofar as that interpretation depends on the identity or number o f the characters in the
^7
The final verses of the passage (21:20-21; cf. 25:12-18) bring closure to the words
of the angel regarding Ishmael’s destiny in 16:12. In this divine visitation God’s loving
provision for Hagar and Ishmael can be seen. The gracious promise of God’s presence is
definitive of God’s unique covenantal relationship with the patriarchal line that ran from
Abraham to Isaac to Jacob. It is also definitive of God’s covenantal relationship with Israel
established later at Sinai. Yet here God’s presence is independently vouchsafed to Ishmael
with the unqualified statement, "God was with the lad." (Could this have implications for a
reading of Rom 9:6-9 or Gal 4:21-31?)
38 Cf. Exod 20:22 where again it is (uniquely) God who speaks from heaven.
39For "Here I am" as the human response to God’s call see also Gen 31:11, 46:2;
Exod 3:4 (cf. Kuntz, The Self-revelation o f God, 54).
52
narratives. This is truly remarkable. It suggests that the word is not being used to
indicate the presence of an additional character in these narratives (the "Agent") but that it
functions in other more fascinating and subtle ways.
First, a fairly persuasive case can be made that the word a]M<70 in the OT does not
mean "angel" at all, at least not in the modem sense of a distinct, creaturely spirit. Instead,
the word means only "presence" or "manifestation" with the ontological status of the one
present contextually determined.4 0 But second, and more importantly, a variety of recent
literary analyses of the OT have tended to confirm the view that the Angel of the LORD is
YHWH or a narratologically sophisticated and theologically subtle way of speaking about
him .41 Perhaps the most fascinating recent literary analysis involves a careful comparison
40 R. North, "Separated Spiritual Substances in the Old Testament," CBQ (1967):

424, 448-449 [art. =419-449]; cf. idem, "Angel-Prophet or Satan-Prophet?" ZAW 82 (1970):
33 [art. =31-67].
4 1 E.g., according to T. L. Thompson, "The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical
Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine," in The Triumph o f Elohim:
From Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. D. V. Edelman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 117-118
[art. = 107-124], "The narrative as such loses meaningful plot coherence, unless . . . the
three numina, DTt^M, m rr and nVP are understood to be identical: the one god [sic]
of Israel.” Thompson’s statement, made in reference to Exodus 3, applies to all of the angel
passages under consideration. Thus, the Angel of the LORD "does indeed stand between the
divine and the human, but in a purely literary and anecdotal sense, as nothing more than a
figure of speech, with no ontological implications at all. . . . [Tjhe Yahwist was striving to
attach some subtlety to the notion of what it means for God to make his will and disposition
known to his human creatures" (Vawter, Genesis, 216-217). Cf. also Tsevat who argues that
in most of the passages under consideration "a trend is recognizable in the narrative
movement from the vague and ambiguous to the definite and clear, from the seeming natural
to the actual supernatural, from the lower to the higher" ("Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael,"
64). He then adds that the "essential weakness" of source-critical and redactional
explanations is that they are extranarrative: "The primary questions in regard to narratives
are those which yield to intranarrative answers. Messengers, natural or supernatural, in
whom God is concealed and from whom He emerges are the narrative’s way of expressing
man’s uncertainty about the divine at a given moment, indeed of the elusive nature of the
divine in its encounter with him” ("Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael," 65). See further, G. B.
Caird, The Language and Imagery o f the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980),
74; Letellier, Day in Mamre, 91, 215; Moberly, At the Mountain o f God, 33-34; Polak,
"Theophany and Mediator,” 120-121; C. A. Newsom, "Angels (OT)," in ABD, 1:250
[art. =248-253]; Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 64 and passim; S. L. White, "Angel of the
LORD: Messenger or Euphemism? TynBul 50 (1999): 304-305 [art. =299-305].
53
of Angel of the LORD texts in Genesis with "[t]he entirety of the narrative material of the
Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite, Ugaritic, and Egyptian literature." 4 2 The main
conclusion of this analysis is noteworthy: when the angel in the Genesis narratives acts he
performs the functions of the deity in the extra-biblical narratives rather than those of the
messenger or agent of the deity; and when the angel in the Genesis narratives speaks he
speaks as the deity in the extra-biblical narratives and not as the messenger or agent of the
deity. The narratives in the ANE that most closely resemble those in Genesis are the
epiphany narratives where the deity himself appears:
[W]hen the messenger of Yahweh or Elohim speaks, he is not understood to be acting as
a messenger, even though he is called a messenger. On the basis of comparable narrative
material, it can be said that no delivery of a message takes place. It can be concluded
that the messenger of Yahweh or Elohim is not thought of in these Genesis stories as
being, in fact, a messenger. . . . [I]n the Genesis messenger stories the word
"messenger" is used, but the concept of the being, brought out by what he does, is the
concept of a god. . . . The word mal'ak as used there is empty of content, other than the
concept identical to the role played by the deity in similar extra-biblical stories. Nothing
of the belief in the angel as we know it from post-exilic thought, the angel functioning as
intermediary, is found in our stories. 3
If this angel is a deity, it only remains to be asked, Which deity? The canonical narratives as
such permit only one answer.
D. Irvin, Mytharion: The Comparison o f Tales from the Old Testament and the
Ancient Near East (AOAT 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978), xv. Specifically,
Irvin examined the plot and form of Genesis 16; 18; 19; 21:8-21; 22; and 28:10-12. The
rationale for the comparison was that these Genesis texts were narratives: "It is therefore as
narratives that they must be studied, rather than as places where information about angels can
be found. Whether angels exist, as real beings, or as notions in comparative religions, is
therefore a secondary question" (93).
__
Irvin, Mytharion, 99, 103. These conclusions have been independently confirmed
by S. A. Meier who, unlike Irvin, did not restrict himself to narratives:
It must be underscored that the angel of YHWH in these perplexing biblical narratives
does not behave like any other messenger known in the divine or human realm. Although
the term ‘messenger’ is present, the narrative itself omits the indispensable features of
messenger activity and presents instead the activities which one associates with Yahweh
or the other gods of the ancient near east (S. A. Meier, "Angel," in DDD, 8 8 [art. =81-
90]; cf. idem, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (HSM 45; Atlanta: Scholars,
1988]).
54
Genesis 22:1-18
This passage "constitutes the aesthetic and theological summit of the whole story of
Abraham. It has long been admired for the brilliance of its narrative technique and for the
profundity of its theology. " 4 4 But with whom, theologically speaking, does Abraham
interact? And is there any reason to suppose that from Gen 22:11 onward Abraham is
interacting with an agent and not directly with God as in Gen 22:1 and elsewhere in the
Abrahamic cycle? These questions attain some poignancy when it is realized that this will be
the last time that God speaks to the great patriarch. If the passage is taken in isolation, one
could conclude that the Angel of the LORD is not YHWH or that his identity is again
indeterminate. The angel is functionally identical to YHWH, even to the point of having the
authority to countermand a specific command of YHWH;45 and there is evidence that the
passage recounts a theophany, broadly conceived.4 6 But there is also for the first time
what appears to be compelling evidence that the angel is not YHWH. Only after showing the
close links between this passage and earlier passages in the Abrahamic cycle can one finally
conclude that this is the same angel encountered earlier and that this angel YHWH
himself.4 7 To some degree the identity of the Angel of the LORD continues to depend on
^Wenham, Genesis, 2:99.

45Gen 22:12; cf. Exod 4:24; Num 22:20-22.
46 According, perhaps a bit optimistically, to von Rad (Genesis, 241), "the angel of
God is only the form in which God makes himself known to man. In fact, the distinction
here between the angel and Yahweh seems to be almost completely removed, for in
everything it is God’s voice that comes to Abraham."
47For the literary and theological unity of Genesis 20-22 (i.e., Gen 20:1-18; 21:8-21;
22:1-13) see, S. E. McEvenue, "The Elohist at Work," Z4W96 (1984): 315-332.
Documentary Hypothesis notwithstanding, McEvenue correctly notes that each story contains
the same "four-phased development" (317), the final phase being God’s intervention to bring
good out of evil, and that "the role of God in each of these stories is identical" (319). This is
noteworthy since in two of the three tightly connected stories it is the Angel of die LORD
who intervenes to fulfills the role of God.
55
the interpretation of Genesis 16, the first and most important Angel of the LORD text in the
book of Genesis.
The strongest evidence that the angel is not YHWH is found in 22:16 in the
expression HKV DM3. This expression seems to be the clearest possible indicator that in
giving the oath the angel is speaking as YHWH’s mouthpiece, that is, as YHWH’s agent or
representative. It occurs 356 times in the OT and is a hallmark of prophetic discourse.48
In the mouth of YHWH the expression mn* 0M3 would be "somewhat stylistically
difficult." 4 9 This difficulty does not, of course, make it impossible. There are numerous
stylistic not to mention theological difficulties in the OT. 50 One may, however, be
48The expression occurs in all of the prophets except Habakkuk and Jonah (BDB,
610) and is almost as common in prophetic speech as (nw ) TDM HD.
49The understatement is von Rad’s (Genesis, 243). The expression only occurs twice
in the Pentateuch, here and Num 14:28 (where the expression, though spoken by YHWH, is
an instance of the kind of grammatical conversion noted in the Excursus above on YHWH’s
third person speech: i.e., YHWH gives to Moses the very words in the third person that
Moses will later speak to the people). Cp. Isa 45:23 (cf. v. 18); Jer 22:5; 49:13; and Amos
6 :8 , where YHWH swears "by himself" through the medium of an agent and where
translations typically use quotation marks to indicate that the words HTT DM3 belong to the
prophet and not to YHWH. It should be added, however, that "a prophetic idiom" would be
equally "unexpected in the mouth of an angel" (J. Davila, "The Name of God at Moriah: An
Unpublished Fragment from 4QGenExoda," JBL 110 [1991]: 578 [art. =577-582], emphasis
added). The text thus presents the reader with a hapax regardless of the attribution.
Cf. W. G. Heidt, Angelology o f the Old Testament: A Study in Biblical Theology
(Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1949), 73-74; Irvin, Mytharion, 27, 99.
Neither sees evidence in the passage an agent is speaking the words of another; and neither
refers the words DTV DM3 to the angel by means of quotation marks in their translations.
This is consistent with the fact that in a later theophany YHWH confirms this oath to Isaac
(Gen 26:3) and states that he personally swore the oath to Abraham (Gen 26:3); and again,
in a theophany to Moses, YHWH is understood to have sworn the oath himself (Exod
32:13). Either the reference to the angel is omitted from later references to the oath because
the angel qua agent is transparent or, more likely, because the angel is non-existent.
50 Cp. the extraordinary and perhaps analogous first person use of the expression
"call upon the name of the LORD" (n v r DtfD KTp) by YHWH himself in Exod 33:19; 34:5.
I.e., this is the formula customarily used by others when invoking YHWH in prayer: Gen
4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25; 1 Kgs 18:24; 2 Kgs 5:11; Ps 116:4, 13, 17; Joel 2:32; Zeph
3:9; cf. 1 Chron 16:8; Pss 79:6; 99:6; 105:1; Isa 12:4; 41:25; 64:6; Jer 10:25; Zech 13:9.
56
forgiven if one assumes on the basis of this expression that the Angel of the LORD is a
creature or that a later interpolator has betrayed himself.51
Positive evidence that the Angel of the LORD is YHWH can be found in the parallel
statements in 22:1-2 and 22:11-12;52 in the angel’s fust person speech as YHWH in
22:12, 16-18; and in the names given to the mountain in 22:2, 14. Only the names of the
mountain require elaboration. The original location and meaning of m iJ in 22:2 is disputed
and, perhaps, unrecoverable.53 Its importance here is that it provides an anticipatory

verbal (or phonological) link to 22:14.54 The narrator is carefully building up to a
theological denouement even as Abraham is climbing the physical mountain. In Gen 22:14,
Abraham names the place and the narrator adds a timeless etiological/etymological comment:
Westermann, Genesis, 2:363; cf. J. T. Greene, The Role o f the Messenger and
Message in the Ancient Near East: Oral and Written Communication in the Ancient Near
East and in the Hebrew Scriptures: Communicators and Communiques in Context (BJS 169;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 263.
52These verses have four specific elements in common: divine speech; Abraham’s
name; Abraham’s response; and reference to Isaac as "your son, your only son." The
commonality of divine speech assumes that the expression "God said" is equivalent to "the
Angel of the LORD called from heaven and said." Abraham’s response, as noted above, is
the classic response to deity: "Here I am." As parallels these elements are merely suggestive
and do not in any sense constitute proof that the Angel of the LORD is YHWH.
53 Sama, Genesis, 391-392; cf. Davila, "The Name of God at Moriah," 577-582;
idem., "Moriah," in ABD, 4:904. Note, however, that Symmachus (iwraxmaq), Vulgate
(visionis), and the Sam. Targ. (Sama, Genesis, 391) each translate or interpret the word
as "vision" (cp. m n n in Gen 46:2; Exod 3:3; Judg 13:6; 1 Sam 3:15). Aquila also
renders the Hebrew similarly, i.e., with Kaxaâvq. The LXX (cf. Jub 18:2) renders n n n as
"high ground." Could this reflect an attempt to idiomatically translate what was read as "land
of sight/seeing/vision"? Cp. the LXX rendering of the similar mlD as "high oak" in Gen
12:6. In 2 Chron 3:1, on the other hand, the LXX woodenly transliterates mlQH (definite
article and all!) as too Apopia.
54The repeated references to "seeing" (Gen 22:4, 8 , 13, 14; cf. 22:2) make it likely
that the verb ntn functions as a Leitwort within Genesis 22 (Blum, Die Komposition der
Vdtergeschichte, 324; cf. R. Alter, The Art o f Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic, 1981],
92-95); and ran functions similarly within many of the theophany passages under
consideration. But r a n also serves more broadly, i.e., intertextually, to link these theophany
passages with each other.
57
"And Abraham called the name of that place ‘YHWH will see (HMT),’ as it is said to this
day, ‘On the mountain of YHWH he will be seen (TIMT) . ’ " 55 God’s presence may very
well entail God’s provision; but there is no need to gloss HNl as "provide" and so break in
translation the many links that the narrator has so carefully forged in the original. 56 As in
Gen 16:13-14, this is an instance of reciprocal seeing and the perpetual commemoration of a
place as the result of a theophany.57 This passage also adumbrates the theophanies at
Mount Horeb and Mount Sinai later in the Pentateuch as well as the much later theophany to
David at Mount Moriah (2 Chron 3:1).
The MT points the first instance of HST as a Qal imperfect and the second as a
Niphal imperfect (cf. the LXX, Kupioq cftiev . . . icupioq fixfrOn). Procksch, Genesis, 318,
argues that TOT* must be twice active or twice passive, "da der Gedanke sonst hinkt." But
this penchant for consistency overlooks the possibility of a deliberate word play. In any case,
there is no reason to reject the MT (cf. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, 324).
Though by no means a terminus technicus, the passive (Niphal) of is especially used
in reference to divine appearances or theophanies (BDB, 908). It occurs 32 times in reference
to appearances of God or YHWH; 8 times in reference to the Glory of YHWH; 4 times in
reference to the Angel of the LORD; and 1 time in reference to the STO of YHWH
(Schnutenhaus, "Das kommenund erscheinen Gottes," 10).
56The verb JIM"! occurs 1300 times in the OT, but instances of meaning
"provide" are rare and debatable. BDB, 907, adduces only two instances (Gen 22:8, Deut
33:21); while KB (1985 ed.), 861-864, does not list "provide" as a possible meaning. The
LXX in each of the above cases renders the Hebrew with a verb of seeing.
57This can be seen most clearly in the narrator’s comment in 22:14b. Contra
Westermann, Genesis, 2:363, this comment is not a later interpolator’s "deliberate correction
of v. 14a." The repetition in 22:14b of the same four consonants found in 22:14a can hardly
be called a correction. If so, it is difficult to imagine a more inept and unsuccessful one.
Again, contra Westermann, Genesis, 2:363, the narrator’s comment is not "a clumsily
appended piece of syntax." It is arguably an integral part of a larger whole and a piece of
literary artistry unequalled in the OT. Note not only the contrast between the angel’s
commendation of Abraham’s fear (22:12) and the angel’s command to Hagar not to fear
(21:17), but the verbal link to instances of J"IMT in the similar sounding verb MT (cf. Blum,
Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, 324, n. 73; Hamilton, Genesis, 1:113, n. 57; Sarna,
Genesis, 391). This particular word play between "seeing" and "fear" is not uncommon in
the OT (cf. Gen 26:24; Exod 3:2-7; 34:10, 30; Deut 1:21, 28-29; 20:1; Judg 6:22-23; 13:6;
Ps 34:8-9).
58
The references to calling "from heaven” in Gen 22:11, 15 do not serve to distance
God from Abraham .58 Rather, they show that God in heaven was so close to the Patriarch
in his hour of greatest need that he could speak to Abraham without leaving heaven. By his
faithful obedience Abraham has, as it were, ascended into the very presence of God. That
some of the attendant features of other theophanies are lacking is not necessarily significant.
These features are equally lacking in Genesis 15, a theophany that begins quite indirectly,
and in Gen 28:12-22, a theophany that begins and ends in a dream . 59
"The whole of 22:1-19 reverberates with the echoes of earlier parts of the Abrahamic
cycle. 1,60 These tight verbal and thematic links make it likely that the same angel has
appeared in this trio of closely related texts.61 There is no a priori need for the
multiplication of entities and little textual warrant for it. There is, however, textual warrant
for the conclusion that the Angel of the LORD is YHWH manifest. A cord of three strands
is not easily broken.
58Neither did it serve to distance God from Hagar in Gen 21:17 (contra Trible, "The
Other Woman," 236). Cf. Neh 9:13. These are the only instances in the OT where an angel
calls from heaven (Sarna, Genesis, 150; cf. 153). Note that unlike the of Gen 28:12
(cf. Dan 10:12-14) this angel does not need to descend to earth to deliver his message.
59 Cf. Jacob’s dream in Gen 28:12-15 which was understood by Jacob himself
(28:16-17) and later by God (35:1) as a theophany (Barr, "Theophany and
Anthropomorphism," 33). Note also the descriptions of God’s two private theophanies to
Solomon (1 Kgs 3:5; 9:2; 11:9; 2 Chron 1:7; 7:12).
60 Wenham, Genesis, 2:100 (cf. Westermann, Genesis, 2:358). The links to earlier
promises, instances of n m , etc., have already been noted. In addition, there are over a
dozen parallels "in content and outline" between Genesis 21 and 22, as well as numerous
other links to earlier chapters, notably to the command of 1 2 :1 ("go . . . to the land") that is
echoed in 22:2 (Wenham, Genesis, 2:99-100; cf. Trible, "The Other Woman," 245, n. 73).
61 Cf. T. D. Alexander, Abraham in the Negev: A Source-Critical Investigation o f
Genesis 20:1-22:19 (Carlisle, Cumbria, U. K.: Paternoster, 1997), 128, who rightly speaks
of the Abraham narrative as "a highly unified literary work. ”
59
*** EXCURSUS: The Angel in Genesis 24:7, 40 ***
These two angel texts may be mentioned in passing even though, strictly speaking,
they are not Angel o f the LORD texts and were not classified as relatively certain instances
of divine agency (see Table 1 above). They are, however, doubly suggestive: first, they
evoke the many references to God’s angel earlier in the Abrahamic cvcle (esp. Genesis 22
where Isaac and Abraham’s promised progeny are clearly at stake) ; 6 2 and, second, they
foreshadow the "vanguard motif” of Exod 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2; Num 20:16. 3 An
invisible angel could represent or guarantee the equally invisible presence and blessing of
YHWH with Abraham’s servant. But it is also possible that the Hebrew presents the
reader with an idiomatic expression meaning, "YHWH will go before/with you. The
servant’s words in Gen 24:27, 48 could be interpreted as bearing this out for he says twice in
reference to his successful journey, "the LORD has guided me." There appears to be no
significance in the change of prepositions from Abraham’s wording in 24:7 ("The LORD, the
God of heaven, . . . will send his angel before you") to the servant’s paraphrase of that same
wording, in 24:40 ("The LORD, before whom I have walked, will send his angel with
you").
In spite of the repeated reference to the sending (rfatf) of an angel, the words may
not indicate the literal sending of an angel but "the spiritual presence of Yahweh. If
so, the reason why no angel ever materializes in the narrative is simply that there is no angel
to materialize. 8 One could perhaps draw a parallel between the sending of a servant by
Abraham and the sending of an angel by YHWH, each in turn acting through an agent. But a
better parallel is found in the Jacob cycle. There YHWH personally accompanies Jacob on
his journey to the same location for the same purpose: i.e., to find a wife and so assure the
continued fulfillment of the promise. There it is repeatedly said that YHWH was with Jacob
Note esp. the word "oath." This word occurs in Gen 22:16 but not in 12:1, 7 from
where most of the words in 24:7 are taken verbatim. Cf. Wenham, Genesis, 2:142, and also
2.137 (on the many "retrospective references" or links to the preceding chapters).
63 Hamilton, Genesis, 1:141, n. 19.
^ C f. Heidt, Angelology o f the Old Testament, 41-42, who sees this as evidence of
belief in "guardian angels."
65 Cf. N. Sama, Exodus (JPS Torah; Philadelphia: JPS, 1991), 148, "an idiom
expressing the activity of Divine Providence."
66A similar change of prepositions occurs in Exod 33:2 ("before you"), 12 ("with
me"), 16 ("with us").
67 J. Van Seters, In Search o f History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the
Origins o f Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 341. Cf. Skinner,
Genesis, 342, "The Angel is here an invisible presence, almost a personification of God’s
providence"; Cassuto, Exodus, 306, "the angel stands only for the guidance and help of the
Lord."
68 Cp. the angel Raphael in Tobit, esp. the allusion to Gen 24:7, 40 in Tob 5:17.
60
(Gen 28:15, 20-21; 31:3, 5; 35:3; cf. 46:4). And there, interestingly, one again finds two
references to an accompanying angel (Gen 31:10-13; 48:15-16).
Genesis 31:10-13 (cf. Gen 28:10-22)

This passage invites the conclusion that the Angel of God is YHWH. The Angel of
the LORD calls out the patriarch’s name and Jacob answers, "Here I am" (31: l l );69 the
Angel of the LORD identifies himself as the one who had seen Jacob’s affliction and who
had blessed him (32:12);70 and the Angel of the LORD further identifies himself as the
God of Bethel to whom Jacob had made a vow (31:13).71 The manner in which the Angel
of the LORD identifies himself in the first person and without a messenger formula as the
God of Bethel is, to say the least, astonishing:
A representative may indeed speak in the person of his principal, but a representative
will never say, for example, "I am the king of Babylon." Now the m al’ak-Yahweh did
say, "I am the God of Bethel . . . . I am the God of your father. ” Would anyone ever
address a king’s representative, "My King!" Yet Gedeon said to the m al’ak-Yahweh,
Cf. Gen 22:11; 46:2; Exod 3:4; 1 Sam 3:1. Two of these parallel texts (Gen 46:2;
Exod 3:4) are noteworthy in that the call is also followed by a first person statement that
identifies the one calling.
70 Cf. Gen 28:15, 20; 31:5-8; 35:3. The Angel’s statement in 31:12 ("I have seen all
that Laban has been doing to you") implies that the Angel has been watching over Jacob ever
since Laban first deceived him in 29:21-27. The same thought is later echoed by Jacob in
31:42 ("God has seen my affliction and the toil of my hands"). The similar thought in 16:11
has already been noted (though that verse contains a verb of hearing rather than of sight);
and Exod 3:7, which contains verbs of both hearing and sight, will be noted below. These
anthropomorphic verbs of sensory perception indicate that God is with his people, that he
cares about his people, and that he acts on behalf of his people. He is no merely passive
spectator or auditor. In the present passage the reference to seeing may echo earlier
references to God’s sight, notably Genesis 16 and 22, and anticipate the theophany to Jacob
at Peniel in 32:24-32 (see esp. v. 30).
71 "Der Bezug auf 28, lOff ist so explizit, wie man es sich nur wtinschen kann: Gott
[sic!] stellt sich selbst als ‘der Gott in/von Bethel’ vor" (Blum, Die Komposition der
Vdtergeschichte, 118).
61
"Yahweh, Lord.” The persons to whom the m al’ak appeared, as well as the fflpient
witnesses to the accounts, regarded the manifestation simply as God Himself.
Not only does this angel call himself God, he is also called God by characters in the
narrative and by the narrator himself. The argument from silence is normally to be avoided;
but it seems that in these instances a messenger formula of some kind is hardly optional:
a messenger always clearly identifies the words of the one who sent the message. A
messenger would subvert the communication process were he or she to fail to identify
the one who sent the messenger on his or her mission. In texts that are sufficiently well
preserved, there is never a question as to who is speaking, whether it be the messenger
or the one who sent the messenger.
There is therefore no evidence for the frequently made assumption that messengers
need not make any distinction between themselves and the ones who sent them. . . . The
only contexts in biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature where no distinction seems
to be made between sender and messenger occur in the case of the "angel (literally
"messenger") of Yahweh. "73
In the presence of first person divine speech, and the absence of an obligatory messenger
formula, the conclusion that this particular "angel" is YHWH is seems difficult to avoid.
The juxtaposition of the Angel of God with other references to God’s speech and
activity in the same tightly woven narrative also seems to indicate that the Angel of the
LORD cannot be meaningfully distinguished from God himself:
And YHWH said to Jacob, "Return to the land of yqur fathers and your relatives, and I
will be with you" (31:3; cf. 28:15, 20; 31:5; 35:3).
"The God of my father has been with me . . . God did not allow him to hurt me . . .
God has taken away your father’s livestock and given them to me" (31:5, 7, 9).
2 P. Heinisch, Theology o f the Old Testament (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical,

1950), 108 (ellipsis original), in reference to Gen 31:13; Exod 3:6; and Judg 6:22. Cf.
Heidt, Angelology o f the Old Testament, 74, n. 19; 99.
73 S. A. Meier, "Angel," 87-88. This conclusion is the result not only of a
meticulous study on the "Angel of Yahweh” in DDD, 96-108, but of two comprehensive
earlier monographs, i.e., The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World and Speaking of
Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup 46; Leiden: Brill, 1992).
74This divine accompaniment "is the distinctive feature of the promise to Jacob"
(Wenham, Genesis, 2:268). The same could be said in reference to Isaac (Gen 26:3, 24), to
Moses (Exod 3:12) and, prophetically, to all Israel (Gen 48:21).
62
And the Angel o f God said to me in the dream, "Jacob," and I said, "Here I am." And
he said, . . . "I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel,
where you anointed a pillar, where you made a vow to me; now arise, go out from this
land, and return to the land of your birth" (31:11, 12, 13).
"The wealth that God has taken away from our father belongs to us . . . do whatever
God has said to you" (31:16).75
The last phrase, spoken by Jacob’s two wives, serves to summarize and give finality to what
has preceded. Jacob’s long speech is over, having accomplished its purpose. God, the Angel
of God, has spoken; it is time now to act.
The significance of this text, however, does not lie merely in its identification of the
Angel of the LORD as YHWH, for this identification is also made elsewhere. The
significance of this text lies in the fact that it creates the strongest possible intertextual link to
an earlier theophany in which the Angel o f the LORD played no explicit part. Yet here the
reader is expressly told that it was the Angel of the LORD himself who had appeared earlier
to Jacob at Bethel, who had stood beside Jacob at the foot of the stairway, and who had
reiterated the blessing he had given earlier to Abraham and Isaac (Gen 28:12-14).76 It
75
Esp. note the references to God’s first person speech in 31:3, 11-13. Jacob’s
recounting of this theophany in 31:11-13 is expansive in comparison to the narrator’s terse
summary in 31:3 (though cp. Jacob’s brief summary in the prayer of 32:9). But in each case
the one who commands Jacob, and who indicates that he has been or will be present, is God
himself. The other possibility is that while the presence of an agent is only indicated in
31:11, this agent may be read back into 31:3. In this case the narrator’s terse summary in
31:3 has the ultimate rather than the proximate source of the command in view (cf. 31:16,
32:9). Oddly, then, it is Laban and not the patriarch Jacob who receives an unmediated
theophany and who hears directly from God in this account (unless one must also inject an
agent into 31:24, 29; and again in 32:9; etc.).
76An OT hapax, the word cfeo could also mean ladder. Reference to a similar
stairway is found in the Akkadian myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal, fragments of which are
first attested ca. 14th-15th century b c at Tell El-Amama in Egypt though the story may have
older Sumerian antecedents. In this story the gods and their messengers ascend and descend
"the long stairway of heaven." At the top of this stairway is the "gate" and the abode of the
sky gods; at the bottom are the "gates" and the "house" of the gods of the underworld. The
text of this myth may be found in S. Dailey, "Nergal and Ereshkigal," in The Context o f
Scripture, vol. 1, Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. W. W. Hallo and
K. L. Younger, Jr. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 384-390; O. R. Gurney, "The Sultantepe Tablets:
VII, Nergal and Ereshkigal," Anatolian Studies 10 (1960): 105-131; and ANET, 103-104,
63
was the Angel of the LORD who promised Jacob a safe return from Paddan-aram and who
said to him, "Lo, I am with you" always (Gen 28:15); and it was the Angel of the LORD to
whom Jacob made his vow and promised his tithe (28:20-22).77
Are all OT theophanies appearances of an agent and not, in the end, theophanies at
all? This is a possible conclusion but one that does too much violence to too many texts.78
The conclusion that does the least violence to the least number of texts is the one that has
already been suggested. The Angel of the LORD is YHWH or a manner of speaking about
YHWH. Theophanies may be referred to as appearances of the Angel of the LORD, and
7Q
vice-versa, without necessitating the existence or presence of a second being. This
conclusion is confirmed with some finality by the last Genesis passage to mention the Angel
of the LORD. In that passage there is not ju st an intertextual link to a single theophany
earlier in the Jacob cycle, there is an intertextual link to the entire Jacob cycle and beyond.
507-512. See further Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World, 124; Irvin,
Mytharion, 30, 44-47; A. R. Millard, "The Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven
(Genesis xxviii. 12, 17)," E xpTlS (1966-67): 86-87; R. S. Hendel, The Epic o f the
Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions o f Canaan and Israel (HSM 42;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 65.
The expression vh n 323 indicates that Jacob saw God "standing in front of him"
(Lindblom, "Theophanies in Holy Places," 97) or "standing by him" (C. Houtman, "What
Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel? Some Remarks on Genesis xxviii 10-22," VT 27
[1977]: 337, cf. 348-349 [art. =337-351]). While the third singular suffix could conceivably
refer to Jacob (God stood before or beside him) or the stairway (God stood upon or above
it), the former option is to be favored. Not only is this the most common meaning of the
collocation by a three to one margin (cf. BDB, 755-756), there is a similar use of the same
preposition in 35:13 (cf. 17:22) again in reference to a theophany to Jacob at Bethel. Too
much should not be made of the antecedent in light of the LXX and the third singular suffix
that ends 28:12 with a reference to the stairway. The important thing is that the passage
recounts a theophany as Jacob’s reaction (28:16-19) makes abundantly clear.
77 Cf. Heb 7:4-10.
78Philo provides an example of what the OT might look like were all of its
theophanies expunged and the tour de force necessary to expunge them.
7Q
Cp. again Gen 31:11-13 with the summary statements by the narrator (31:3) and
by Jacob (32:9); and note the specific texts in the Jacob Cycle, e.g., Gen 35:1, 7, 9 (1133,
"again"), that unambiguously affirm that God and not an agent appeared to Jacob at Bethel in
Genesis 28. Structurally, Jacob’s sojourn is bracketed by these theophanies at Bethel.
64
Genesis 48:15-16
The last three chapters of Genesis serve to conclude the Jacob cycle, the Joseph
cycle, and the entire patriarchal history that began in Genesis 11-12. These concluding
chapters are remarkable not only for their combination of retrospective and prospective
linkages but also for the density of those linkages.80 Both kinds of linkages are equally
important to the story-line and to the identity of the angel mentioned in Gen 48:16. In
reference first of all to the many retrospective linkages in the concluding chapters of Genesis,
it should be noted that the most profound linkages are found in Gen 48:15-16.81
O '}
The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
The God who shepherded me all my life to this day,
The Angel who redeemed me from all evil—
May he bless the lads.
80 E.g., Wenham, Genesis, 2:460-461, lists over three dozen retrospective references
in these chapters alone and makes the following observation (461):
This constant harking back to earlier episodes and promises is totally in place in a book
whose theme is the fulfillment of promises, a book that regularly uses analogy between
episodes as a narrative technique. And at the close of a book it is particularly appropriate
to exploit these cross-linkages to the full. It reinforces the sense of completeness and
suggests that the story has reached a natural stopping point.
81 Cf. von Rad, Genesis, 417-418.
82On the verb see esp. Gen 24:7, 40 where the God before whom Abraham
walked is "YHWH, the God of heaven," and where there is also mention of a Both in
Gen 24:40 and here in Gen 48:15 the reference to having walked before God occurs at the
end of a patriarch’s life and as the summary of a life lived coram deo.
83 Cf. Gunkel’s observation concerning ancient blessings and solemn invocations: "In
solchem Fall nennt der Polytheist alle die Gotter, die er verehrt . . . , der antike Monotheist
alle die Namen Gottes, die er kennt. . . . Im Polytheismus ruft man bei feierlicher Handlung,
beim Schwur oder dergl. drei verschiedene Gotter an . . . ; hier liegt die monotheistische
Umbiegung einer polytheistischen Segenssitte vor" (Genesis, 473). The structure and to a
lesser extent the content of Jacob’s threefold invocation are echoed in his own later blessing
of Joseph (Gen 49:24-25), and again in the tripartite Aaronic benediction of Num 6:24-26
("The LORD bless you, and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be
gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance on you, and give you peace"). Cf.
Westermann, Genesis, 3:189, 239, for specific lexical correspondences to the Aaronic
benediction.
65
Jacob’s tripartite blessing is "a crowning summary" of the patriarch’s faith. 84 This
blessing clearly echoes earlier statements about God’s care for and deliverance of Jacob.
Note especially the following texts: "Lo, I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go”
(Gen 28:15); "The God of my father has been with me" (Gen 31:5); "God, who answered
me in the day of my distress, and has been with me wherever I have gone" (Gen 35:3). The
second of these (Gen 31:5) is an explicit Angel of the LORD text, from which it was
inferred that the first text (Gen 28:15) was also an implicit Angel of the LORD text. That
these texts are all to varying degrees echoed now is, thus, not surprising.
All three parts of Jacob’s blessing contain constative or summary statements of
God’s identity and activity. The third statement, however, is arguably "the most important
theologically . . . the ultimate thing that Israel was authorized to say about Yahweh. "85 It
is certainly the most important for the purpose at hand. Here for the first time God, and not
just God but God qua angel, is referred to as redeemer (blO) . 86 The prose is elevated and
solemn if not actually liturgical or poetic, and the word is clearly parallel to the twice
The content and vocabulary of Jacob’s blessing are also echoed in later prophetic
statements about God’s care for and deliverance of "Jacob." E.g., "In all their affliction he
was afflicted, and the Angel of his Presence saved them; in his love and mercy he redeemed
them; he lifted and carried them all the days of old" (Isa 63:9; cf. 43:1, 48:20); "He who
scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock. For the LORD
has ransomed Jacob, and redeemed him from the hand of him who was stronger than he"
(Jer 31:10-11). The texts and the shift from patriarch to nation are significant and there may
be cause to return to both in greater detail.
8 4 W. Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 361.
85Von Rad, Genesis, 417. Cf. Eichrodt, Theology o f the Old Testament, 2:26;
O. Procksch, "X<xo," TDNT, 4:330 [art. =328-335].
8 6 Cp. the second statement where God is for the first time spoken of as a Shepherd
(run). References to God as Redeemer are found elsewhere in the Pentateuch (Exod 6:6;
15:13) but predominate in the Psalms and especially in Isaiah where the exodus and a greater
New Exodus are often in view.
66
repeated O T fa t 87 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (48:15), the God who
shepherded Jacob all his life, and the Angel who redeemed Jacob from all evil (48:16), are
one and the same divine person.88 If this angel were not God, then the third and final
87On parallelism in the OT see esp., A. Berlin, The Dynamics o f Biblical

Parallelism (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1985); idem, "Parallelism," in ABD,
5:155-162; D. J. A. Clines, "The Parallelism of Greater Precision: Notes from Isaiah 40 for
a Theory of Hebrew Poetry," in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. E. R. Follis
(JSOTSup 40; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 77-100. According to Berlin,
"parallelism must be viewed in light of its context. Each parallelism is designed to fit into its
own context, to partake of the meaning of the text as a whole and to contribute to it.
Parallelism itself does not have meaning; but it structures the meaning of the signs of which
it is composed" (Biblical Parallelism, 138; cf. 135). Broadly conceived, the relevant context
of these verses includes all of Genesis 12-48; and the most adequate interpretation of the
parallelism is that it is "synonymous," at least in the sense that D’rfat and have the
same referent, with the second term also adding a degree of precision since the first term is
generic.
See further R. Alter, The Art o f Biblical Poetry (N.p.: Basic, 1985), 3-26;
T. Collins, Line-forms in Hebrew Poetry (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978); S. E.
Gillingham, The Poems and Psalms o f the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994);
J. L. Kugel, The Idea o f Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1981); K. Kuntz, "Recent Perspectives on Biblical Poetry," Religious
Studies Review 19 (1993): 321-327; P. D. Miller, Jr., "Meter, Parallelism and Tropes: The
Search for Poetic Style," JSOT 28 (1984): 99-106; J. Muilenberg, "A Study in Hebrew
Rhetoric: Repetition and Style," in Congress Volume: Copenhagen 1953, ed. G. W.
Anderson, et al. (VTSup 1; Leiden: Brill, 1953), 97-111; M. P. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse
Structure (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 87-137; W. G. E. Watson, Traditional
Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (JSOTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1994), 104-261; idem, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (2d ed.;
JSOTSup 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 114-159.
One could, perhaps, argue that the parallelism should not be pressed, if not in
principle, then at least on the basis of T. Jos. 6:6-7 and Sir 48:21. For in these two texts
there is a similar parallelism without any possibility of confusing or identifying God with his
angel. The former text, reminiscent of Gen 48:15-16, uses the third person singular verb
§otoi in reference to God and his angel: "May the God of my fathers and the angel of
Abraham be with me.” The latter text, which echoes 2 Kgs 19:35, places "the Lord" and
"his [destroying] angel" in parallel clauses. These two works, however, decidedly reflect a
later theological Tendenz away from identifying God with his angel (see Chapter 3 below)
and should not be determinative for the interpretation of Gen 48:15-16. Here, internal and
contextual considerations do seem to suggest an equivalence of personal identity between God
and his angel.
8 8 H. Holzinger, "Genesis," in E. Kautzsch, trans., Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments, ed. A. Bertholet (4th ed.; 2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1922-1923), 1:90, n. i,
"schwerlich ein dienender Engel neben Gott, sondem Abkvirzung fur ‘der Engel Gottes’"; cf.
1:34-35, n. i, where Holzinger had stated in reference to the Angel of the LORD in Gen
16:7, "in den alten Stellen ist das aber Jahwe selbst, sofem er in sinnlich wahmehmbarer
67
statement would be anticlimactic; the reference to the angel redeeming Jacob from all evil
would be an exaggeration at best;89 and the long-delayed third person singular verb,
("may he bless") would be awkward.9 0 A blessing such as this can only be asked of and
received from God.
For Jacob this Angel is none other than God himself. Only on this understanding
could Jacob sum up all of God’s prior appearances and acts of deliverance as appearances
and acts of a "]N(?I3. 91 Jacob’s blessing confirms that in spite of the residual ambiguity
that is present in a few verses (i.e., Gen 21:17-20; 22:16; 24:7, 40) the word is
Erscheinung—hochstwahrscheinlich ist dabei immer an Menschengestalt gedacht—vor

ubergehend in unmittelbare Beziehung zu Menschen tritt." Not only was YHWH alone
Jacob’s redeemer from all evil in the preceding chapters of Genesis, it is YHWH alone who
redeems from all evil when Gen 48:16a is echoed in later texts (2 Sam 4:9; 1 Kgs 1:29; cf.
Isa 48:20).
89 I.e., Jacob dealt explicitly with an angel on but one occasion (Gen 31:11-13)
where the angel did no redeeming.
^ f the verb had both God and an angel in view, it most likely would have
been plural. If, on the other hand, the verb *pa had only the nearest antecedent, the angel,
in view, this would be unheard of since "[n]o one in the Bible ever invokes an angel in
prayer" (Saraa, Genesis, 328). Though these verses could be the exception to the rule, the
best and most natural interpretation is to see as a title for God and this passage as
Targument principal pour l’identite du Mal’ak avec Dieu" (M.-J. Lagrange, "L’Ange de
Iahv6 ," RB 12 (1903): 220 [art. =212-225]). Lagrange’s own appeal to Sam. Pent., in light
of the fact that this seemingly inescapable conclusion would refiite his interpolation theory, is
a counsel of despair ("la benediction solennelle a trois termes suppose necessairement un
troisieme nom divin. Aussi ne faut-il pas hesiter a lire avec le samaritain Melek au lieu de
Mal’ak,” ibid.). The reading in Gen 48:16 is an obvious misreading of (cf. the
same error in 1 Chron 21:20 [LXX]; and cp. the reverse error in 2 Kgs 7:17 [LXX]). The
versions uniformly attest in Gen 48:16.
91 I.e., a single is in view rather than a multiplicity of generic O'DK^n. Contra
Stier, Gott und sein Engel, 40-62; followed inter alia by W. Baumgartner, "Zum Problem
des ‘Jahwe-Engels’," chap. in Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt: Ausgewahlte Aufsatze
(Leiden: Brill, 1959), 240-246; V. Hirth, Gottes Boten im Alten Testament: Die
alttestamentliche M al’ak-Vorstellung unter besonderer Berucksichtigung des Mal’ak-Jahwe-
Problems (Theologische Arbeiten 32; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1975), 25-31.
68
decidedly used in the book of Genesis "as an epithet of God. n92 Equally important is the
fact that it can already be seen in the first book of the OT that the presence and activity of
this divine may be inferred even where there is no express textual (i.e., lexical)
warrant in situ for such an inference.93
It has been suggested with regard to the many retrospective links in the final three
chapters of Genesis that the story has reached a natural stopping point.9 4 But if the story
does stop, it stops only for an instant. God had repeatedly promised the patriarchs that they
would become a nation too numerous to count and that they and their descendants would
possess and dwell in the land of Camzn—forever. But at the end of the book it is painfully
obvious that God has not (yet) fulfilled his promises. Clearly the story must go on .95 But
there is another promise that also remains unfulfilled at the end of the book: God’s highly
specific promise to Jacob in Gen 46:4. This promise by the Angel of the LORD (cf. Gen
48:15-16) helps explain why we so quickly meet the Angel of the LORD in the opening
chapters of Exodus, the book that continues the story. He who made the promise has
personally come to fulfill it.
9 2 Sama, Genesis, 328. So also, inter alia, Brueggemann, Genesis, 362; Driver,
Genesis, 377-378, cf. 184; Hamilton, Genesis, 2:633, n. 21; Westermann, Genesis, 3:190.
D. R. de Lacey, "Jesus as Mediator," JSNT 29 (1987): 103, n. 15 [art. =101-121],
recognizes that in Gen 48:16 is being used to designate God: "Clearly the passage is
picking up previous references to the mrP in earlier chapters; but equally clearly the
parallelism here removes the possibility of any ambiguity such as may be present in those
earlier chapters." He is correct regarding the import of the parallelism, but fails to draw out
the implications of this for a re-reading of those earlier chapters in light of this unambiguous
identification.
7'>This possibility was already noted above in the comparison of Gen 31:10-13 and
Gen 28:10-22. See further the specific identification in Hos 12:4 (cf. Gen 32:24-30) and the
sweeping generalization in Isa 63:9. Equally significant is Mai 3:1 wherein the Abrahamic
covenant (cf. Genesis 15 and 17), the Sinaitic covenant (cf. Acts 7:38) and, conceivably, the
new covenant (cf. Jer 31:27-34; 32:40; Ezek 16:60; 37:24-28) are all in view.
^ I .e ., by Wenham, Genesis, 2:461 (cited in n. 80 above).
95Even the last word of the book seems to point to this, for that word is not "in
Canaan" but
69
Genesis 46:3-4 is one of two key passages in the book of Genesis that foreshadows
the exodus.9** After setting off for Egypt because of a severe famine, Jacob pauses,
apparently with some trepidation, at the southernmost extremity of Canaan (46:1-3). There
God reassures him that his sojourn in Egypt will only be temporary (46:4)97 The
promises to Abraham and Isaac regarding their own possession of the land were not fulfilled;
and thus it is no great surprise that the same promise to Jacob should also go unfulfilled or
that God should make a great nation of him "there" (Gen 46:3), in Egypt, rather than in
no
Canaan. The promised return from Egypt, however, seems quite different. The
sequence of the three clauses/events in Gen 46:4 and the emphatic nature of the promised
return indicates that God will personally bring Jacob up from Egypt—presumably within
Jacob’s own lifetim e." Only in Gen 48:21 as the promised return devolves to Joseph, and
in Gen 50:24-25 as the promised return devolves yet again to "the sons of Israel," does it
become clear that this promise will not be fulfilled in Jacob the individual but in "Jacob" the
96 Cf. Wenham, Genesis, 2:441-442. The other passage is Gen 15:13-16.

07
Cp. Abraham’s temporary sojourn in Egypt, also due to a severe famine (Gen
12:10-13:1), and Jacob’s own temporary sojourn in Paddan-aram and the divinely promised
return that preceded it (28:15).
98 Note,e.g., that Jacob’s summary (Gen 48:3-4) of God’s earlier promises regarding
the land (Gen 28:13-15; 35:11-12) omits the key phrase "to you." The land would not be
given to him after all, at least not directly.
go
In addition to the exceptional word order (i.e., the infinitive absolute generally
precedes another verb of the same stem), the emphatic nature of the promise is indicated by
the following: the presence of two pleonastic personal pronouns (*33K), the use of the
causative (Hiphil) stem of the verb rfos, and the insertion of the emphatic particle 03 prior to
the infinitive absolute (cf. Gen 31:15; Num 16:13). Cf. C. J. Labuschagne, "The
Emphasizing Particle Gam and its Connotations," in Studia Biblica et Semitica (Wageningen:
Veenman & Zonen, 1966), 200-203. On this particle see further, C. H. J. van der Merwe,
The Old Hebrew Particle Gam: A Syntactic-Semantic Description o f Gam in Gn—2Kg (ATAT
34; St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlag, 1990). The verse may thus be glossed as follows: "I myself
will go down with you to Egypt, and I myself will indeed surely cause you to come up, and
Joseph will close your eyes." This asseveration is strikingly similar to that of 28:15 ("I
myself am with you and will keep you wherever you walk, and I will cause you to return to
this land, for I will not forsake you until I have done what I have spoken to you"); cf. ^ I S
IS.
70
nation. 100 But since it was the Angel of the LORD who had redeemed Jacob from all
evil in the past, and who had promised to bring Jacob up from Egypt in the future, it is only
to be expected that this angel will appear in due course (cf. Gen 15:13-14) to fulfill his
promise. In fact, the penultimate redemption of "Jacob” from evil lies just ahead.
Exodus 3:2
The book of Exodus "shows a solid continuity with its predecessor Genesis. . . .
[It] takes up the thread where it was dropped. " 101 In particular, the sojourn of Israel in
Egypt and the exodus were both foreshadowed in Genesis 12 and explicitly predicted in
Genesis 15.102 Echoes of both then continue to reverberate throughout the remainder of
100The texts are profound at this juncture and, unfortunately, there is only space to
hint rather lamely at that profundity. As has just been said, a promise made to the one is
fulfilled in the many. But there is more. Not only does he who has ceased to exist come up
from Egypt in his progeny; they who do not yet exist go down to Egypt in their forebear.
Many of the seventy referred to as "all his seed” in Gen 46:6-7, and listed as going to Egypt
with Jacob in Gen 46:8-27, had not yet been bom (e.g., the grandsons of Judah, the
grandsons of Asher, and the grandsons, possibly even the sons, of Benjamin. (I am indebted
to my colleague Tom Wood for pointing this out to me.) Later, however, an even greater
reversal will be seen as promises made to the many are fulfilled in the one, namely, Christ
(cf. below on Mai 3:1 and Malachi’s prophetic inversion of promises related to Isaiah’s New
Exodus).
101 J. P. Fokkelman, "Exodus," in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and
F. Kermode (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1987), 59 [art. =56-65]; contra R. Rendtorff,
"Traditio-Historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis," in P. Peli, ed., Proceedings
o f the Fifth World Congress o f Jewish Studies (2 vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies, 1969), 1:9 [art. =5-11], "there exist no direct cross connections between the stories
of the patriarchs and those of Moses and the Exodus."
102In Gen 12:10-13:2 the text states that Abraham "went down" (TT*) to Egypt "to
sojourn" (113*?) there because of a famine. Abraham then "came up" (*?sr) from Egypt with
many possessions after God in judgment had struck Pharaoh and his house with "great
plagues" (O Û B*P33). The words "IT and n*!?D, used here of Abraham’s descent to and
ascent from Egypt, are repeatedly used of Israel’s descent to and ascent from Egypt. For "IT
see Gen 45:9, 13, 46:3-4, and esp. Deut 26:5 which so clearly reveals the solidarity between
the patriarch Israel and his eponymous nation. For n*?9 see Gen 50:24; Exod 1:10, 3:8, 17,
12:38, 13:18, 17:3, 33:1, 12, 15. (Note again the ascent promised to Jacob in Gen 46:4; and
cp. the parallel use of N2P in Deut 26:8.) The word "sojourner" ("I'D) is also repeatedly used
of Israel in Egypt (Gen 15:13, 47:4; Exod 2:22, 18:3, 22:21, 23:9; Deut 26:5). The
reference to "great plagues" (cf. Exod 11:1) evokes the plagues on Egypt. And, finally,
71
Genesis (e.g., 46:3-4) and into the early chapters of Exodus. It may even be possible to see
foreshadowings of the sojourn in Egypt and the exodus in the lives of three other individuals:
Hagar, Jacob, and Joseph. In the case of Hagar the foreshadowing, if such it is, has a
decidedly antithetical or antitypical cast; 1 while in the case of Joseph the
foreshadowing is only seen long after the fact (Ps 105:16-45). A more obvious and
straightforward foreshadowing can be seen in the life of Jacob whose temporary sojourn in
Paddan-aram anticipates Israel’s sojourn and slavery in Egypt and whose return anticipates
the exodus. Note the following verbal parallels:
1. "sojourn(er),n (TI)TU —Jacob (Gen 28:4; 32:5); Israel (Gen 15:13; 47:4; Exod
2:22; 18:3; 22:21; 23:9; Deut 26:5).
Abraham’s many possessions evoke Israel’s plunder in Exod 3:20, 12:36. Cf. R. W. L.
Moberly, The Old Testament o f the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic
Yahwism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 143.
Unlike the foreshadowing in Genesis 12, which could merely reflect a remarkable set
of historical or lexical coincidences, the prophecy of Genesis 15 is quite explicit:
And God said to Abraham, "Surely know that your offspring will be a sojourner ("13) in a
land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved (03139) and afflicted (339) for four
hundred years. And I myself will indeed judge the nation that they will serve (3139*),
and afterward they will come out (3K2P) with great possessions (BffO"3). And as for you,
you will go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. Then in the
fourth generation they will return (3330*) here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet
complete" (Gen 15:13-16).
The word for possessions (033*3) may connote plunder or booty as in Genesis 14 (BDB,
940). This rare word (cf. Gen 31:18 in reference to Jacob) foreshadows a later fulfillment
that is indicated by means of a play a different word: God will "deliver” (^3K3) his captives
(Exod 3:8); and they, in turn, will "plunder" (^33) their captors (Exod 3:22; cf. 12:36). (Cp.
the word plays on "3* and 13*20 in Exod 3:19-20.) On other key terms see further below.
103 Cf.
Tsevat, "Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael," 69-70; and cp. T. B. Dozeman,
"The Wilderness and Salvation History in the Hagar Story," JBL 117 (1998): 23-43. The key
links are to slavery, wilderness, and afflict(ion), esp. the latter since attention is drawn to it
by its three-fold repetition and by its use in an unusual mixed metaphor: Hagar the slave was
afflicted (Gen 16:6); she fled to the wilderness (16:7); she was to return (330) to her slavery
and submit to additional affliction (lit. "afflict herself*) (16:9); and her affliction was "heard"
(16:11). Because the Angel of the LORD heard her affliction, he responded by coming down
to meet her in the wilderness. What makes this aggregate of allusive associations antitypical,
and at the same time adds an element of irony to the Pentateuchal story line, is not the fact
that Hagar was an individual, or a woman, but the fact that she was a gentile slave and her
oppressor was a Jew. But God hears and helps the afflicted regardless of their status; and he
graciously cares for all of Abraham’s offspring.
72
2. "slave(ry)," (rnaP)13B ~ Jacob (Gen 29:27; 30:26; cf. synonymous ITT, "toil," in
31:2); Israel (Gen 15:13-14; Exod 1:14; 2:23; 5:9, 11, 15-16; 6:6, 9; 13:3, 14,
20:2; Deut 26:6).
3. "the God of my/your father," “pR /'Q H *76* ~ Jacob (Gen31:5, 29, 42, 53;
32:10; 46:3); Moses/Israel (Exod 3:6; cf. 3:13, 15-16).
4. "the Angel of the LORD," TliT "ptbo -- Jacob (Gen 31:11); Moses/Israel (Exod
3:2; 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2).
5. "here I am," *3371 —Jacob (Gen 31:11); Moses (Exod 3:4).
6. "I will be with you," -|D» ITOR - Jacob (31:3; cf. 28:15, 20; 31:5; 35:3);
Moses/Israel (Exod 3:12; cf. Gen 48:21).
7. "I have seen," Htn - Jacob (Gen 31:12, 42); Israel (Exod 2:25; 3:7, 9).
8. "afflict(ion)," 03B)n3U - Jacob (Gen 31:42; cf. synonymous 71128 in 35:3); Israel
(Gen 15:J3; Exod 1:11-12; 3:7, 17; 4:31; Deut 26:6-7; Neh 9:9; cf. Gen
41:52).105
9. "deliver, plunder" bjt3 —Jacob (Gen 31:9, 16; cf. 32:12; 33:30); Israel (Exod 3:8,
22; 5:23; 6:6).106
10. "return," 31B7 -- Jacob (Gen 28:15, 21; 31:3, 13; 32:9); Israel (Gen 15:16; 48:21).
11. "come out, bring out" K2P -- Jacob (Gen 31:13); Israel (Gen 15:14; Exod 3:10-12;
6:6-7, 13, 26-27; 7:4-5; 12:17, 40-42, 51; 13:34, 8-9, 14, 16; Num 20:16;
Deut 26:8).
12. " c o m p a i^ c a m p ” 713710 -- Jacob (Gen 32:8-9, 11; 33:8); Israel (Exod 14:19, 20,
A host of other conceptual and verbal parallels may also be set forth.108 For
104It is odd that the word 2K is singular in Exod 3:6 not only because elsewhere in
Exodus 3 the word is plural, but because the name of Moses’ father is as yet entirely
unknown, having been withheld in Exod 2:1 only to be revealed later in 6:20.
l0 5 Cp. also the generic term 7VDV used to describe, respectively, the things "done to"
Jacob in Paddan-aram (Gen 31:12, “I*? 71B7J7) and to Israel in Egypt (Exod 3:16, DD*? 1B71771).
106cf Jacob’s "possessions" (BftD*l) in Gen 31:18. Cassuto, Exodus, 44, sees in the
"spoil" of Exod 3:22 an anticipation of the law attending the release of Hebrew slaves in
Deut 15:12-15. But at this point in the narrative the backward link seems tighter.
107Isaac blesses Jacob immediately prior to Jacob’s departure for Paddan-aram (Gen
28:1-4). This blessing includes three main elements: that Jacob would find a wife (28:2); that
he would become a great "assembly" (*?np) of people (Gen 28:3; cf. 35:11; 48:4); and that
he and his seed would possess the land that God gave to Abraham (28:4). That Jacob became
a great "company"--in fact two companies!--in Paddan-aram seems to be an anticipatory
fulfillment o f the middle element. Cf. the references to Israel as an "assembly" (Exod 12:6;
16:3) and a great "host" (rfllCS) (Exod 6:26; 7:4; 12:17, 41, 51).
108 Cp.
the requests for God’s name by Jacob (Israel) in Gen 32:30 and by Moses,
on behalf of Israel, in Exod 3:13-14. See further D. Daube, "Jacob and Laban," chap. in The
Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London: Faber and Faber, 1963), 62-72; M. Vervenne,
"Exodus Expulsion and Exodus Flight: The Interpretation of a Crux Critically Re-assessed,"
JNSL 22/2 (1996): 52-54 [art. =45-58], where the relationship between Genesis 31 and
73
example: Jacob tends the flock of his father-in-law (Gen 29:9; 31:41; cf. Exod 3:1); Jacob
becomes successful and has numerous progeny in his servitude, with the result that Laban
and his sons are threatened and become hostile (Gen 31:1-2; cf. Exod 1:7-14); Laban
changes Jacob’s wages ten times (Gen 31:7; cf. Exod 7:14-12:32); Jacob finds Laban and his
kinsmen in hot "pursuit" after having "fled" with all his possessions (Gen 31:22-25; cf. Exod
14:5-9);109 and when Jacob is finally "overtaken," God miraculously intervenes to
protect him from his pursuer (Gen 31:24, 29; cf. Exod 14:13-14). Some of these many
parallels are doubtless coincidental. But all of them?
In short, that the Angel of the LORD appears in the early chapters of the book of
Exodus is not surprising. He has simply come as promised to rescue "Jacob." He has
personally come to "bring" Jacob up out of Egypt, to "deliver" him from slavery, and to
"redeem" him from evil with great "judgments" on Pharaoh and Pharaoh’s house (Exod
6 :6).110
But perhaps the case has been overstated. The analogy between Jacob and Israel does
not, indeed cannot, prove that the Angel of the LORD will appear to lead the exodus or that
one may simply identify as the Angel of the LORD the first angel who happens to appear in
Exodus 14 is examined; and T. Lescow, "Ex 4,24-26: Ein archaischer Bundesschlufiritus,"

VT 105 (1993): 22-23 [art. = 19-26], where the parallel between Jacob’s hostile encounter
with the Angel of the LORD in Gen 32:22-32 and Moses’ hostile encounter with YHWH in
Exod 4:24-26 is examined.
1AQ
The parallel in these verses between Jacob and Laban, on the one hand, and Israel
and Pharaoh, on the other, is striking. Some of the more remarkable verbal correspondences
between Gen 31:22-25 (cited first below) and Exod 14:5-9 (cited second below) are:
apjr afn mrnt *)-nn vrw r« npn npir rro •o yfib w
onto iran bmftr nn» nn npb nan rro o -ftth tan
110This verse (i.e., Exod 6 :6 ) also echoes many earlier terms and themes: e.g., the
"judgments" on Pharaoh (cf. Exod 7:4; 12:12) were adumbrated in the Jacob/Laban
narrative, foreshadowed in Gen 12:17, and predicted in Gen 15:13-16; while the
"redemption" of Israel that specifically attends these judgments echoes the wording of Gen
48:15-16. That is, Exod 6 :6 contains only the second occurrence in the OT of the important
verb bid ("to redeem"). If the Angel of the LORD redeemed Jacob from all evil, will he not
also do the same for Israel?
74
the book of Exodus. The analogy only suggests that such an appearance and such an
identification would fit reasonably well into the narrative as it has unfolded thus far. But is
there any direct evidence for the divine identity of the angel who appears in Exod 3:2?
Indeed there is. In fact, of all the passages in the OT that speak of the Angel of the LORD
this one most clearly identifies him as YHWH. (There is a third person reference to God in
Exod 3:12 but the speaker, cf. Exod 3:11, 13-14, is unambiguously God himself.)
Unlike Moses, the reader has been led to expect that God will be seen on "the
mountain of God" (Exod 3:1; cf. Gen 22:14).111 His expectation is not disappointed: for
in the very next verse the Angel of the LORD "appears" (NT) to Moses in a blazing fire
from the midst of the bush" (Exod 3:2 ) . 112 Then, as Moses turns to see the marvelous
The expression CTtbitn "in cannot be reduced to "a sacred mountain" as if the
noun am bn merely had adjectival force (contra S. R. Driver, Exodus [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1911], 18). The expression anticipates the divine theophany that
is described in the verses that immediately follow (P. Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus [Bonn:
Hanstein, 1934], 48). It also evokes Abraham’s earlier encounter with God—i.e., with the
Angel of the LORD—on "the mountain of YHWH" (m rp i n , Gen 22:14; cf. 2 Chron 3:1).
Later, the Angel of the LORD will appear to Elijah on "Horeb, the mountain of God" (1 Kgs
19:8). In reference to the mountain of God see also Exod 4:27; 18:5; 24:13; Num 10:33; Isa
2:2-3; 30:29; Dan 9:20 (cf. 9:16); Mic 4:1-2; Zech 8:3. In several texts there may be a
connection between the mountain of God, the house of God, and the Angel of the LORD
(Gen 28:17; 1 Chron 22:1; 2 Chron 3:1).
112On the use of Vtt to indicate the "supernatural fire" (BDB, 77) that uniquely
attends theophanies see, Gen 15:17; Exod 13:21-22, 14:24, 19:18; Deut 4:11-12, 15, 33, 36;
etc. This fire, first seen by Abraham at a decisive point in the inauguration of God’s
covenant dealings with him, now reappears at the inauguration of an equally decisive new
point (cf. Kuntz, The Self-Revelation o f God, 143). The fire is not merely a visible
manifestation of God’s presence, it is a means of vividly communicating the awesome power,
purity, and holiness of God as is indicated by Deut 4:24; 9:3, and especially Exod 24:17,
where the "glory" (1*03) of God on the mountain of God is likened to "a consuming fire"
(cf. C. Houtman, Exodus [vol. 1; Kampen: Kok, 1993], 338). The "self-sustaining fire" also
suggests the immaterial nature and self-sustaining existence of God as transcendent Spirit
(Sarna, Genesis, 14; cf. A. Clamer, "L’Exode," in La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot and
A. Clamer [12 vols.; Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1946-1961], 1:2:78; Heinisch, Exodus, 48,
117).
75
sight (3:3), YHWH sees him turn and God calls to him "from the midst of the bush"
(3:4) . 113 The oscillation between JTBT and in 3:4 (and elsewhere in the OT) does
not indicate a change of persons. Whatever its source or literary-theological raison d ’etre,
the oscillation of these divine names neither indicates an increase in the number of characters
in the narrative nor an increase in the number of entities in the world . 114 It is probable
that the expression TUTT* functions similarly: that is, at the referential or denotative
level "the Angel of the LORD" is simply one of several divine names.
Though the theophany is not especially unusual as a theophany (the OT recounts
many), the burning bush is indeed unusual. 115 The repeated reference to the bush in the
phrase "from the midst of the bush" (713071 “pITO) not only serves to highlight the
supernatural phenomenon, it specifically serves to locate the divine presence. 116 In doing
so it identifies the Angel of the LORD as the God who is within the bush: "the Angel o f the
113The verb "to see" (71K*1) again functions as a Leitwort, occurring no less than nine
times in these eight verses (Exod 3:2-9). Cf. G. Fischer, Jahwe unser Gott: Sprache, Aufbau
und ErzJahltechnik in der Berujung des Mose (Ex 3-4) (OBO 91; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1989), 69-72, 103. Here in Exod 3:2-4 one also finds another instance of a
theophany that involves reciprocal seeing (cf. Gen 16:13-14; 22:14).
1 14 Cf. Cassuto, Exodus, 32, 40; U. F. W. Bauer, (Tl^RTl B*T3*171 bo) All diese
Worte: Impulse zur Schriftauslegung aus Amsterdam; Expliziert an der Schilfineererzdhlung in
Exodus 13,17-14,31 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991), 262, 235-238, 327; Polak,
"Theophany and Mediator," 119-121.
115 Cf. Deut 33:16, the only other OT passage where the rare word 7130 is attested.
116The text is quite explicit. The preposition "in" (3) and the substantive "midst"
(T in) are both used for spatial deixis in Exod 3:2, 4 to indicate the precise physical location
of God before Moses. God himself is present in the bush. Cf. Deut 33:13, 16, where it is
stated unequivocally—and without reference to the Angel of the LORD—that YHWH "dwelt
in the bush" (7130 *300). Elsewhere the word “fin is used to locate and identify as God the
one personally speaking from within the theophanic fire (Deut 4:12, 15, 33, 36; 5:4, 22-24,
26; 9:10; 10:4; cf. the parallel use of 3 in Exod 19:18) and from within the theophanic cloud
(Exod 24:16; cf. the use parallel of 0 in 13:21; 14:24; 19:9; and cp. 20:21). God’s presence
is also said to be located "in the midst" of his people in the tabernacle (Exod 25:8; 29:45-46;
Num 5:3; 35:34; cf. the use of the synonym 3*19 in Exod 33:3, 5; 34:9; Num 14:14; Deut
6:15; 7:21; 23:14).
76
LORD appeared to him in a burning fire from the midst of the bush . . . and God called to
him from the midst of the bush” (Exod 3:2, 4) . 117 Because this angel is God, the divine
call ("Moses! Moses!") and the human response ("Here I am") follow the customary pattern
(3:4) ; 118 the ground beneath Moses’ feet is made holy (3:5 ) ; 119 the divine self-
identification is formulaic (3:6a; cf. 3:15); and the fearful human reaction is appropriate
(3:6b) . 120
The Angel of the LORD has seen the affliction of ”his people" (3:7; cf. 3:10; 6:7;
19:5) and he has come down as promised to deliver them (3:8) . 121 He commissions
Moses as his agent (3:10), emphatically affirming that he will be with Moses (3:12). As
1 God himself is within the bush" (W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18 [AB; New
York: Doubleday, 1999], 198). Propp goes on, however, to effectively negate this insight by
attempting to model the relationship of the Angel of the LORD to YHWH on the relationship
of all angels and prophets to YHWH, as well as on the relationship of idols to deities
throughout Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Canaan. This leads him to the completely unacceptable
conclusion that "[i]dol, angel and prophet are essentially localizations of a divine presence,
or theophanies" (199).
118The repetition of Moses’ name (cf. Gen 22:11; 46:2; 1 Sam 3:10) indicates the
urgency and immediacy of the divine call. In all four instances where the name is repeated in
this way the caller is God himself (cf. Fischer, Jahwe unser Gott, 105-107).
119 Cf. Propp, Exodus 1-18, 200; H. C. Brichto, "tnp»S B'tan rcf^n (Taking-off
of the Shoes in the Bible)," in P. Peli, ed., Proceedings o f the Fifth World Congress, 1:27-
30, 225-226. Brichto notes that shoes are "a symbol of ownership, power, dignity, and
pride" and that their removal is "a symbol of . . . surrender" (1:225-226). There is a similar
reference to taking of shoes in Josh 5:15, a text modelled on Exod 3:5. Cf. also lQLiturgy
of the Three Tongues of Fire [1Q29].
120Note in 3:6 that the word "fear" (RT) again plays on the word for "seeing" (RT)
in the surrounding context.
121
Yahweh’s intervention in history is motivated by his emotion of sympathy for
the oppressed. He has seen the suffering of the Hebrews in Egypt. He shares the misery of
his people" (Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 112). This is certainly true (cf. Isa 63:9), but it
is a half truth that must be counterbalanced by the divine promise of Gen 46:4 and the earlier
time-bound prediction of Gen 15:13-16 (cf. Exod 2:24; 12:40-41). Note also the emphatic
affirmation, twice repeated, that God would "surely visit" OpB* IpB) the sons of Israel and
bring them up from Egypt (Gen 50:24-25). The wording of this emphatic affirmation is taken
up in Exod 3:16; 4:31, and esp. 13:19; while the thought is taken up by means of other
synonyms in Exod 3:18 (mp) and 5:3 (SttB).
77
proof (PrtM) that he himself has commissioned and sent Moses the Angel of the LORD
declares that the people who come out of Egypt will worship him (lit., "God") on the
mountain of God (3:12; cf. 3:18). The fulfillment of this declaration occupies Exodus 19-31.
Finally, in response to Moses’ question on behalf of Israel, he reveals his name to be
rvriR “W
7R rm*. Thus one may say that it is an "angel" who speaks the momentous "/ am"
in Exod 3:14.
The present narrative only makes complete sense when one understands that "L’ange
n’est autre ici que Yahweh lui-meme" and, thus, that YHWH himself has appeared to
Moses. This theophany anchors the entire exodus narrative (and arguably much of the
OT), and the text goes to extraordinary lengths to secure it. 123 Note in particular the
repetition of the word "appeared" (passive of HlCl) in Exod 3:2, 16; 4:1, 5 ; 124 and the
precise way in which God is identified in 3:6, IS, 16, and 4:5. The point of all this is that
there be "no doubt in the reader’s mind about the identity of the God who spoke to
Moses. " 125 Likewise, YHWH gives Moses three signs to perform so that even the most
skeptical "may believe that YHWH, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared" (Exod 4:5; cf. 4:1-9). If Exodus 3 does not
recount an unmediated theophany, it seems quite safe to say that there is no such
| tyy
^Clam er, "L’Exode," 1:2:78. The immediate source of Moses’ commission is
YHWH, not another agent. The only agent in Exodus 3 is Moses. For example, five times in
six verses the reader is told that the (Angel of the) LORD has or will send (rfatf) Moses to
be his agent (3:10, 12, 13, 14, 15).
123 Cf. Polak, "Theophany and Mediator," 113 ("The theophany theme dominates the
entire book of Exodus").
l24Significant later uses of the Niphal are found in 6:3; 16:10; 33:23. Cf. also the
use of other related terms in 3:18; 4:31; 5:3.
125 J. I. Durham, Exodus (WBC; Waco: Word, 1997), 31.
78
thing. i *yjf% The fact that God himself appeared to Moses in Exodus 3 has an obvious
entailment: it entails that the Angel of the LORD is God. But this is not the first time the
reader has encountered such an entailment. Earlier narratives presupposed by the present
narrative have already made it clear that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can on
occasion be referred to as a
Exodus 14:19
God had promised that he himself would come down and lead the exodus; 127
and in Exod 13:17 and following he does just that. The precise manner of God’s guidance is
described in 13:21.128 YHWH naturally led from before (’3D1?) his people; 129 but he
did not lead them invisibly or remotely by proxy. He was personally present to guide and
126A theophany by definition should render moot the question of mediation. The
unfortunate redundancy of an unmediated theophany is nevertheless necessary to guard
against misunderstanding. In particular, one must not confuse accommodation with
mediation. God is really present even though, being transcendent, he is not fully present.
122Exod 3:8, 16-17; 6 :6 , 8 . Note esp. the word "visit" (*lpD) in Exod 3:16; 4:31;
13:19 (this last being a reference to the promise of Gen 50:24-25). Cf. also the ominous use
of IpB in Exod 32:34.
128
God is the usual subject of the uncommon verb nrD ("to lead, guide") that occurs
in Exod 13:17, 21. Other OT uses of this verb almost invariably hark back to the exodus,
specifically to the pillar of cloud and fire in which YHWH’s guiding presence manifested
itself (Exod 15:13; Neh 9:12, 19; Isa 58:11). Cf. Gen 24:27, 48 for two possibly relevant
earlier uses of the verb. The verb does not necessarily preclude human agency (e.g., Moses
in Exod 32:34; cf. David in Ps 78:72). For example, Deut 32:12 states that "YHWH alone
led OSTIT) Jacob" in the wilderness. But clearly the ultimate rather than the proximate source
of guidance is in view and the presence of the prophet Moses is not precluded. Divine
guidance is thus compatible with the mediation of a human agent (cp. Exod 3:8, 17 with
Exod 3:10-12), and it need not a priori preclude the mediation of an angelic agent.
Nevertheless, angelic mediation is at odds with the heightened emphasis on theophany in the
texts under consideration: an emphasis that is lacking, for example, in later visionary texts
like Daniel and Zechariah where the mediating angelus interpres rather than the theophanic
Angel o f the LORD is found.
129The word TOB, i.e., its derivatives *2Bb and D*3B, are crucial linking words in the
passages under consideration. See, e.g., Exod 13:21-22; 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:1, 23, 34;
33:2, 11, 14-15, 19-20, 23; 34:6.
79
protect his people in a supernatural pillar of cloud and fire. By means of the pillar of cloud
and fire God was able simultaneously to manifest and conceal himself. 130 One should
probably not think of two separate or separable pillars, one of cloud and one of Are, but of a
single pillar (cf. Exod 14:24) whose appearance is being described in phenomenological
terms. 131 As evidence of God’s constancy and faithfulness, a theme of crucial
importance to later chapters, the reader is expressly told in advance that he never took away
130 A. Oepke, "vd K X ti, v &Jkx;," TDNT, 4:905 [art. =902-910]. Cf. Polak,
"Theophany and Mediator,” 120-121, "Revealing implies concealing; the more the narrator
reduces the gap between the human and the divine, the more he has to emphasize the
distance. . . . This dialectic is a fundamental feature of the theophany theme in Exodus."
According to Heinisch, Exodus, 117, "Die Wolke versinnbildlicht Jahves geheimnisvolles
Wesen, seine Unnahbarkeit und Unergriindlichkeit; kein menschliches Auge vermag ihn zu
sehen." Sarna, Exodus, 70, comments similarly on the appropriateness of this form of
manifestation: "the God of the Hebrew Bible is a Being who transcends the limits of time
and space, and thus surpasses human imagining. Hence, God’s indwelling presence in the
world is symbolized, however inadequately, by the mysterious, intangible, incorporeal
elements of fire and cloud."
See further T. W. Mann, "The Pillar of Cloud in the Red Sea Narrative," JBL 90
(1971): 15-30; G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins o f the Biblical
Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 32-66, esp. 56-66;
L. Sabourin, "The Biblical Cloud: Terminology and Traditions," Biblical Theology Bulletin 4
(1974): 290-311, providing a concise summary and review of J. Luzarraga, Las tradiciones
de la nube en la biblia y en el judaismo primitivo (AnBib 54; Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1973); and J. L. Ska, Le passage de la mer: Etude de la construction, du style et de la
symbolique d ’Ex 14,1-31 (AnBib 109; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986), 78-79, 100-107.
131
Cf. F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History o f the
Religion o f Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 164. Presumably the fire
appears only at night though it is always present (cf. Sarna, Exodus, 70). Cassuto, Exodus,
166-167, so closely identifies the Angel of the God with the pillar of cloud that when the
pillar of cloud moved behind the Israelites in Exod 14:19-20 to protect them from the
pursuing Egyptians, he assumes that the pillar of fire remained in front of Israel "as usual" to
light up the night. Durham, Exodus, 189, n. 20.a., is quick to point out that this speculation
finds "no support in the text." Unfortunately, his own speculation also lacks textual support.
Like Cassuto, Durham severs the pillar of cloud from the pillar of fire such that (contra
13:21, etc.) the pillar of fire is completely absent on the night in question (Durham, Exodus,
189, n. 20.a.; cf. 193). Possible textual corruption in Exod 14:20 may have contributed to
the confusion; however, the MT of this verse makes adequate sense if one but assumes that it
is elliptical. Cf. Aquila who, in contrast to the LXX and paraphrastic Targums, follows the
MT "word for word" (J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text o f Exodus [SBLSCSS 30;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1990], 219, n. 22)
80
the pillar of cloud and fire, that is his presence in theophany, from before (*3B^) his people
(13:22).132
The retrograde movement of the Angel of the LORD described in Exod 14:19 occurs
in the midst of a series of references to God’s own words and actions in the narrative
sequence that extends from Exod 13:17 to Exod 14:31.133 This suggests a close
association between the Angel of the LORD and YHWH, an association that may or may not
rise to the level of an identification. What is lacking in the mere juxtaposition of (divine)
speech and activity, however, is supplied by three key verses in that same narrative
sequence:
And YHWH was walking before (’3D*? m(7T\) them in (3) a pillar of cloud by day to lead
them on the way, and in (3) a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might
travel by day and by night (Exod 13:21).
And the Angel o f God who had been walking before (*3fib 1*?m) the camp of Israel
moved and walked behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and
stood behind them (Exod 14:19). 4
YHWH in (3 ) the pillar of fire and cloud looked down on the camp of the Egyptians and
brought the camp of the Egyptians into confusion (Exod 14:24).
132«The tense used [in 13:22] expresses what was habitual” (Driver, Exodus, 113;
cf. Propp, Exodus 1-18, 490). This is consistent with the use of the participle “|*?n in 13:21.
Cf. Exod 40:38, "in all their journeys"; Num 9:15-23, esp. the adverb "continuously" (TW 1)
in 9:16; and Neh 9:19. The point needs emphasis here because of its great importance for a
proper understanding of the four remaining Angel of the LORD texts in the book of Exodus.
There is no indication, however, that God continued guiding his people in the pillar
of cloud and fire after they reached their destination (cp. the explicit cessation of manna in
Josh 5:12; cf. Exod 16:35). Though referred to throughout the OT, the last actual appearance
of the pillar of cloud is on the plains of Moab just prior to the death of Moses (Deut 31:15).
The disappearance of the guiding pillar of cloud and the reappearance of anthropomorphic
theophanies in Joshua and Judges suggest a new modus operandi subsequent to arriving at the
promised land; or, alternately, a return to the kind of theophanies that characterized the book
of Genesis. The wilderness period is, thus, unique not only in the mode of manifestation—the
pillar of cloud and fire—but in the unparalleled duration of the theophany—forty years!
133See esp. Exod 13:17, 18, 21; 14:1, 8 , 15, 19, 21, 24, 26, 30.
134This verse is uniquely echoed in Isa 52:12 (cf. Isa 58:8; Num 10:25; Josh 6:9,
13) as the first exodus (cf. Isa 52:4) becomes the prototype for a greater New Exodus.
81
The Angel of the LORD has not been explicitly mentioned since the theophany of
Exod 3:2 ; 135 and he is not immediately mentioned in the account of the exodus proper
that begins in Exod 12:31. Yet in Exod 14:19 the Angel of the LORD is described as the one
who has been "walking before" the camp of Israel to lead the exodus. As YHWH, the Angel
o f the LORD would be continuously present even when not expressly referred to as such. The
participle “|*?n in 13:21 implies continuous or ongoing activity . 136 If the participle ~p7\
in 14:19 also indicates continuous or ongoing activity, as seems likely, the duration of that
activity is certainly from 13:21 onward—and presumably from the beginning of the exodus
onward as well. 137 Furthermore, the participle in 14:21 is articular, occurring in an
attributive or descriptive phrase. The articular phrase "^TTI in 14:21 naturally refers
back to the similar but anarthrous phrase "fin in 13:21. Thus, there is not only a
parallel but a positive identification. This identification is confirmed in 14:24 where the
locative preposition and the wording of 13:21 and 14:19 are again taken up. On the basis of
these three texts one may safely conclude that the Angel of the LORD is YHWH and that the
Angel of the LORD is present in the pillar of cloud and fire. YHWH is truly present, not
merely represented; he is present in person, not in the person of a representative.
It may also be possible to derive essentially the same conclusion from the parallel
clauses of Exod 14:19 alone. That is, if the parallelism of the clauses is associative, the pillar
of cloud moves when the Angel of God moves because he is in it and it is the visible
manifestation of his otherwise invisible presence (cf. Num 12:9-10). If the parallelism is
135For structural and lexical evidence that the same angel is in view in both Exod
3:2 and 14:19 see, Bauer, A ll diese Worte, 309-310; contra Durham, Exodus, 193, who
states, "This ‘attendant’ has not before been mentioned in the narrative o f Exodus."
The word "attendant" is an unfortunate and misleading rendering of
136 Driver, Exodus, 113; Sarna, Exodus, 70.
137 Cf. the repeated use of the key verb "fin in Exod 23:23; 32:34; 33:14-15.
82
more rigorously synonymous, it would seem to suggest that the Angel of the LORD is, or
that the expression 1T0V here designates, the pillar of cloud. 138 The distinction is
subtle. But if the Angel is said here to be the pillar of cloud itself, that is, the
Erscheinungsform of YHWH, then this might make more understandable a statement such as
is found in Exod 23:21 ("my name is in the midst of him"). YHWH is in the Angel of the
LORD in the same way that he is in the pillar of cloud. Generally speaking, however, the
equivalence established in other texts, and ultimately in the present context (cf. 13:21; 14:19,
24), is a direct equivalence between the Angel of the LORD and YHWH rather than an
indirect equivalence between the Angel of the LORD and the Erscheinungsform of YHWH.
Nowhere, for example, is it expressly said that the Angel of the LORD is himself the
theophanic fire or the pillar of cloud in which YHWH appears. It is only said that the Angel
of the LORD, as YHWH, is "in" or "in the midst o r the theophanic fire (Exod 3:2 ) . 139
Cf. Cassuto, Exodus, 166, 306; Durham, Exodus, 193. Though neither
specifically mentions the parallelism, this understanding of 14:19 seems to lie behind their
exegesis (particularly Durham’s erroneous claim that the angel appears here for the first time
in the book of Exodus).
139A case has been made for taking the preposition 3 in Exod 3:2 "comme Beth
essentiae plutot que comme Beth local” (P. Joiion, "Une serie de Beth essentiae meconnus,"
Bib 4 [1923]: 318-320; cf. L. N. Manross, "Beth Essentiae," JBL 73 [1954]: 238-239;
C. Gordon, "‘In’ of Predication or Equivalence," JBL 100 [1981]: 612-613). Instances, or
purported instances, of beth essentiae, of which Exod 6:3 ("as El Shaddai," *?N3) and
Isa 40:10 ("or a mighty one," pTTD) are probably the most defensible, may be found in the
grammars (e.g., BDB, 88-89; GKC, §119i; Joiion, §133g; K-B [1967 ed.], 100; W-O,
§11.2.5e). Commentators who have interpreted the 3 o f Exod 3:2 in this way include, e.g.,
B. S. Childs, The Book o f Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 50; E. Kautzsch,
trans., Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, ed. A. Bertholet (4th ed.; 2 vols.;
Tubingen: Mohr, 1922-1923), 1:102; Propp, Exodus 1-18, 5, 180; Sarna, Exodus, 240, n. 8 .
Cf. also J. H. Charlesworth, "The Beth Essentiae and the Permissive Meaning of the Hiphil
(Aphal)," in O f Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism,
and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion o f his Sixtieth Birthday,
ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and T. H. Tobin (Lanham: University Press of America,
1990), 70 [art. =67-78]; Fischer, Jahwe unser Gott, 7, 12; Heidt, The Angelology o f the Old
Testament, 76; J. A. Motyer, The Revelation o f the Divine Name (London: Tyndale, 1959),
14. If this is correct, then it is possible that the Angel of the LORD manifests himself ”en
(forme de)n (Joiion), "als" (Kautzsch), or "in the mode of” (Sarna) a flame of fire.
83
Exodus 23:20. 23: 32:34: 33:2

These four Angel of the LORD texts, the last in the book of Exodus, are best viewed
together. They are unusual in a number of significant ways. The word for example, is
not in construct with m rr or 0*n*?K and it is twice the object of the Qal verb a verb
whose grammatical subject is YHWH. 140 These are also the only OT texts where
YHWH speaks directly of his angel. Do these texts indicate that a distinct new angel is in
view? On the contrary: the passages in their contexts and in the larger context of the book of
Exodus suggest that the angel of Exod 3:2 and 14:19 is again in view, his identity being
secured not by a construct genitive but by other grammatical, lexical, and functional means.
There is no denying, however, that there seems to be a much greater distinction between
YHWH and Angel of the LORD in these texts than in Exod 3:2 and 14:19.
The verb rfatf readily suggests an ontological distinction between the sender and the
one sent. Can YHWH send himself? Nevertheless, in this case the "sending" may stretch, so
to speak, the bounds of ordinary usage and find its closest parallel not in the sending of one
How might this affect one’s understanding of the theophanic angel? Ultimately, very
little. While the means of arriving will have changed slightly, the end result is similar. If the
angel appears as fire, and if YHWH also appears as fire, then on the understanding that
there is only one theophanic fire the angel is being portrayed as YHWH. On the other hand,
if the angel appears in the fire, and if YHWH also appears in the fire, then on the
understanding that there is only one divine person in the theophanic fire the angel is again
being portrayed as YHWH. The case for beth essentiae in texts that mention the theophanic
fire is somewhat weakened by numerous parallel passages where a necessarily local “Jin or
rather than simple 3 occurs.
140Exod 23:20; 33:2. For YHWH as the subject of the verb rb 6 elsewhere in the
OT see Gen 24:7, 40; Num 20:16; 1 Chron 21:15; Dan 3:28; 6:23 (cf. 10:11). H.-D. Neef,
"Tch selber bin in ihm’ (Ex 23,21)," Biblische Zeitschrift 39 (1995): 62, n. 23 [art. =54-75],
fails to mention the two Genesis passages or the two Aramaic passages in Daniel. (He also
mistakenly includes Judg 6:21 where the grammatical subject of the verb is not YHWH but
"|N*?0 and where the object of the verb is the angel’s staff.)
84
person by another, or even in the sending of a human or angelic messenger by
YHWH, 141 but in the sending of YHWH’s own "hand" (T*) or "word" OD 1 ) to
accomplish his unique purposes. 142 These latter circumlocutions do not add an agent to
any text. But even if this parallel holds true, no little tension is occasioned by the use of the
verb rb ti in conjunction with an object (an angel) that is obviously personal and ordinarily
distinct. 143 For this reason the verb rfatf remains problematic, or potentially so, to the
view that the one "sent" is in some sense YHWH himself.
Grammatically, as noted above, the word in these four texts is not in the
construct state. Twice, however, and more often still if the LXX can be trusted, it appears
with a first person possessive suffix ’Qttbia (Exod 23:23; 32:34). Given that the possessor is
YHWH, this suffix may be understood to approximate the more usual construct genitive.
Similar usage, that is, where a first person singular possessive suffix is equivalent to a
Cf. the examples of such sending in J. F. Ross, "The Prophet as Yahweh’s

Messenger," in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor o f James Muilenburg, ed.
B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (New York: Harper, 1962), 99, n. 9 [art. =98-107].
142For the use of n*?®, with YHWH as subject, in reference to YHWH’s hand see,
e.g., Exod 3:20; 9:15; 24:11; Job 1:11; 2:5; Pss 138:7; 144:7; Jer 1:9; Ezek 2:9, 8:3. Cf.
J. T. Milik, Recherches d ’epigraphie proche-orientale, vol. 1, Dedicaces faites par des dieux
(Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases semitiques a I ’epoque romaine (Paris: Paul Geuthner,
1972), 439-440. Note also two synoptic Angel of the LORD texts (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chron
21:15) where the first uses this circumlocution but the second does not without any
noticeable change of meaning. For the use of rf?®, again with YHWH as subject, in
reference to YHWH’s word see, Pss 107:20; 147:18 (cf. the use of mOK "command" in Ps
147:15).
143 Cp., however, the use of r 6 ®, with YHWH as subject, in reference to YHWH’s
rm in Ps 104:30 and Isa 48:16. In these and other texts such as Zech 4:6 the Spirit of
YHWH is YHWH or a way of speaking about YHWH and his activity. In Pss 51:13 and
139:7 YHWH’s m i is in syntactical parallelism with his Q*3B ("presence"); and in three
other texts (Neh 9:20; Isa 63:9-14; Hag 2:5) YHWH’s Spirit is seen to be another way of
speaking about the Angel o f the LORD, specifically with reference to the exodus and
wilderness wanderings (cf. BDB, 926). J. R. Levison, "The Angelic Spirit in Early
Judaism," SBLSP 34 (1995), 470-474 [art. =464-493], rightly underscores the identity
between the Spirit and the Angel of the LORD in these three texts; however, he mistakenly
identifies the spirit as "an angelic being" (464, 492) rather than seeing the Spirit and the
Angel of the LORD as simply alternate ways of speaking about YHWH.
85
construct genitive with m!T or is found with a number of other theologically
significant nouns. 144
Lexically these four angel texts not only echo Exod 13:21 and 14:19 (cf. 3:2) , 145
they also evoke YHWH’s promises to personally come, lead the exodus, and bring his people
Israel into the promised land. At one point the language even seems to echo YHWH’s
programmatic promise to Jacob ("Israel") in Genesis 28, a foundational earlier Angel o f the
LORD text (cf. Gen 31:11-13; 48:15-16). As Jacob departs to sojourn in Paddan-aram
YHWH appears at Bethel and promises to be with Jacob to "guard" ("09) him along the way
and bring him back safely to the promised land (Gen 28:15; cf. Gen 28:20). Not only is the
key verb "Htf the same, the additional expressions that follow the verb in each passage are
conceptually parallel. 146 In both passages YHWH’s personal presence and continuous
protection are the keys to a successful return to the promised land—first for the patriarch
Jacob and then for the people of Israel. What YHWH had originally promised Jacob he now
promises Israel; and what he had first said about himself he now says about his angel.
Functionally, the role ascribed to YHWH’s angel is carried out by YHWH and/or
the pillar of cloud and Are. With YHWH personally and visibly present in the pillar of cloud
and fire to guide and protect his people there is little room in the narrative for an angel (in
the sense of a creaturely agent) and equally little purpose for an angel should one materialize.
This is consistent with the fact that no angel ever materializes. 147 It is also consistent
144 E.g., house (IV3), word (“H I), mountain OH), hand (T ), glory (1133), servant
(133), and spirit (m i).
l 4 Ê.g., angel (^kSq), walk (1*91), before (’3B*?), way (*pl).
146 I.e., "in all which you walk" (Gen 28:15) roughly parallels "along the way"
(Exod 23:20); and "I will bring you . . . to the land" (Gen 28:15) roughly parallels "I will
bring you to the place" (Exod 23:20).
147 Cf. Gen 24:7, 27, 40, 48 where YHWH’s personal guidance may again be
compatible with the "sending" of a who never materializes.
86
with the fact that the reader has already encountered and identified as YHWH the angel who
inaugurated the exodus (Exod 3:2; cf. Num 20:16), the angel who promised bring his people
into the promised land (Exod 3:8, 17, 6 :8 ), and who has guarded his people along the way
(Exod 14:19). The marching orders in Exod 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2 reaffirm in a striking
way what has already been said. But they do not convey new information relative to the
appearance of an agent.
To be convincing, any view of these difficult verses must do equal justice to three
things: (1) to YHWH who is personally present in the wilderness to guide his people; (2) to
the pillar of cloud and fire that is the visible Erscheinungsform of YHWH in the wilderness;
and (3) to the angel whom YHWH sends to guide and guard his people in the wilderness.
The stumbling block is obviously the angel and the apparent agency language that attends
him (i.e., the verb rfoti and some of the ensuing third person speech). Interestingly,
however, the striking use of agency language whereby YHWH objectifies the angel as if it
existed apart from himself is paralleled by an equally striking grammatical shift whereby
YHWH also objectifies himself. This grammatical shift occurs in an uninterrupted section of
YHWH’s first person discourse as YHWH blends third person references to his angel
(ostensible agency language) with third person references to himself:
For if you will indeed hear his [my angel’s] voice and perform all that / say, then I will
be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For my angel will
walk before you and bring you in . . . and I will completely destroy them . . . and you
will serve YHWH your God, and he will bless your bread and your water, and I will
remove sickness from your midst (Exod 23:22-25).148
148«when Israel is promised the protective company of an angel, the word ‘angel’ is
so obviously a way of talking about God’s own presence that we feel no incongruity when
the promise continues in the first person rather than the third . . . . The terms ‘angel’,
‘name’ and ‘glory’ are purely linguistic devices and have no referent other than God himself"
(Caird, The Language and Imagery o f the Bible, 74). The LXX, however, has smoothed out
the rough grammar by changing a third person fcp to a first person xqq £|xt£ $G)vfj<; in 23:22
(cf. Sam. Pent.); and by changing a third person " p a to a first person etitoyfjoa) in 23:25
(cf. Vg). Note as well the continuous oscillation in this passage and elsewhere between
second person singular and second person plural suffixes in reference to the people of Israel.
87
This passage is remarkably similar to an earlier verse, namely, Exod 15:26. There
was no mention of YHWH’s angel in that earlier verse; but there were many of the same
terms and ideas as well as the same peculiar grammatical oscillation between first and third
person. If the similarity between Exod 23:22-25 and Exod 15:26 is intentional rather than
accidental, the Angel of the LORD would appear to stand formally in the place of "YHWH
your God":
And he [YHWH] said, "If you will indeed hear the voice of YHWH your God and
perform what is right in his sight and give ear to his commandments and guard all his
statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that / have put on the Egyptians; for /,
YHWH, am your healer" (Exod 15:26).
The grammatical oscillation between first and third person no more demands a
distinction between YHWH and his angel in Exod 23:20-23 than it demands a distinction
between YHWH who blesses bread and water and YHWH who removes sickness in Exod
23:25 or between YHWH your God and YHWH who heals in Exod 15:26. The voice of the
angel in Exod 23:21 is the voice of "YHWH your God" because this angel is YHWH and
not because YHWH speaks through him or because he speaks for YHW H.^° It would
Cassuto, Exodus, 307, regards all such changes in person and number as merely stylistic or
poetic variations to avoid monotony (cf. H. Ausloos, "The Risks of Rash Textual Criticism
Illustrated on the Basis of the Numeruswechsel in Exod 23,20-33," BN 97 [1999]: 5-12). But
in the case of the grammatical shift in person a theological motive seems more likely as was
suggested in the Excursus on "Third Person References by YHWH to Himself" above.
149The link between Exod 23:20-25 and 15:26 is strengthened slightly by the
occurrence of TOn in Exod 23:21. This Hiphil verb from the root m o ("be rebellious") is
consonantally identical to the Hiphil of TVS ("be bitter"), a verb that occurs four times in
Exod 15:23. The MT pointing of in n as "bitter" in Exod 23:21 may reflect an awareness of
the earlier passage, though this pointing has rightly been disputed. Among the versions only
Symmachus takes i n n in Exod 23:21 to mean bitter (Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text o f
Exodus, 370, n. 23; cf. BDB, 598, 600; GKC, §21y).
150 Cf. Gen 22:17-18 where it is the Angel of the LORD who says to Abraham, with
direct reference the promised land, "Indeed I will greatly bless you . . . and your seed will
possess the gate of their enemies. And in your seed all the nations of the earth will be
blessed, because you obeyed my voice." The themes of land, blessing, enemies, and
obedience to God’s voice are all repeated here in Exod 23:20-25.
88
thus seem that the view that does the least justice to the personal presence of YHWH in the
wilderness, and to the pillar of cloud and fire as his Erscheirumgsform, but the most justice
to the agency language of these texts taken in isolation, is the view that YHWH’s angel is an
agent. The texts, however, militate against taking the agency language in isolation.
Theophany is an intrinsic feature of these texts and the sine qua non of the exodus
and wilderness wanderings. 151 No view of these texts or of the exodus and wilderness
wanderings can be taken seriously that does not take theophany seriously; and it is precisely
at this most crucial juncture that the agency or ‘theophany-by-proxy ’ view falls short. The
identity of the angel thus reduces to two basic possibilities: either the angel is YHWH or a
way of speaking about him\ or the angel is the Erscheinungsform of YHWH or a way of
speaking about it. 152 These alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive and a
more detailed examination will show the texts vacillating between them.
Exodus 23:20, 23
These verses occur in the epilogue to the Book of the Covenant, "the ultimate
constitutive document of the nation’s identity. " 152 Like the prologue, the epilogue "has
15 ^ f . Sarna, Exodus, 70. In addition to other terms and expressions used to

designate YHWH’s theophanies in the wilderness (e.g., ip a , V3B, EP3B), note that
in the aptly named tent of meeting God himself and not an agent "meets" ( 1 ST) with his
people. Cf. Exod 25:22; 29:42-43; 30:6, 36; Num 17:19.
152A third view that will not be considered here holds that the messenger is a human
being, e.g., Joshua (cf. Deut 1:38; 3:28; 31:3) or Moses (cf. Deut 10:11; Hos 12:14). A few
historical proponents of such unlikely views are noted in W. Foerster, "Tncrou^," TDNT,
3:290-291 [art. =284-293]; Childs, Exodus, 487; Sarna, Exodus, 254, n. 45. More recently
Hirth, Gottes Boten im Alten Testament, 55, 67, identifies Moses as the figure in view in
Exod 23:20-23 and Num 20:16 but adduces no arguments in support of this improbable
identification.
153 R. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (WUNT 2.88; Tubingen: Mohr, 1997),
63. The expression "the Book of the Covenant" is found only at Exod 24:7. This "book" (cp.
the expressions "all that the LORD has spoken" and "all these words” in Exod 24:7-8) is a
lengthy and uninterrupted divine discourse that extends from Exod 20:22-23:33 and
immediately precedes the actual making of the covenant (Exod 24:1-8). This "book" is
generally understood to have a thematically unified prologue (Exod 20:22-26) and epilogue
89
as a foundational motif absolute loyalty to Yahweh and complete rejection of all other
deities. " 154 In light of this, the most striking feature of the conclusion to the Book of the
Covenant is that its "requirement of obedience is couched not in terms of the immediately
preceding laws as one might expect, but instead in terms of Israel’s relationship to the
messenger ‘in whom is my name. ’ " 155 YHWH’s promise is that his “[N^D will walk
before the people of Israel to guard them along the way and bring them into the promised
land.15<* The people, for their part, must render to this angel the absolute covenantal
loyalty and obedience due only to YHWH himself. 157 Here, then, is raised in acute form
(Exod 23:20-33).
154 Durham, Exodus, 334. In Exod 23:13 it is forbidden even to mention other
"deities" (O n1?*). Cf. Exod 20:2-6; 22:23; 34:13-17.
155 Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 64.
156 Cp.
the expression "My presence/face (D^C) will walk with you" in Exod 33:14-
15. The parallelism between "JKÔ and CP3& is evidence for the view that the angel is not a
created being but a way of referring to the presence of YHWH (cf. North, "Separated
Spiritual Substances," 424, 448-449). See further, North, "Angel-Prophet," 33,
First of all, the Bible shows God communicating with men face to face. This is the
normal way God chooses for speaking to Adam and again in the time of Jacob and as far
down as Moses . . . . The idea of ascribing to God a face is a rather gross
anthropomorphism . . . . But to ascribe a face to God is really no worse than to ascribe
an utterance. What is significant is rather the mutualness of the encounter. God
communicates himself to men with that immediacy and personal impact with which men
communicate with one another. This aspect is not anthropomorphic. It is a highly modem
and inescapable ultimate formulation of the relation between God and men.
157The repetition of the verb TOtf in Exod 23:20-21 (cf. 23:13, 15), in particular the
change from active to passive voice and its conjunction each time with ’2D1?, results in a
profound word play: the angel will go before the people to guard them, and they in turn must
be on their guard before him. A further related word play is also found in 23:21 between the
verbs “IDTI ("rebel") and "lOS? ("guard") (Cassuto, Exodus, 306). The expression TC&Q "IQS771
(lit., "be guarded from his presence/face") evokes and anticipates other crucial uses of D*2B
and esp. those of Exod 33:14-15, 20, 23. A reflexive meaning for the expression has
also been suggested: "guard yourself . . . from his presence" (cf. Durham, Exodus, 314,
n. 21.a.). Could the expression then hint at the danger that is explicit in earlier texts such as
Gen 16:13; 32:20; Exod 19:21-22; 24:11; 33:20; Deut 4:33; Judg 6:22-23; 13:22? If so, it
supports the identification of the angel as YHWH whom no one can see and live.
90
the question of the identity of this extraordinary angel. That is, in a context where absolute
obedience to YHWH and YHWH alone is repeatedly demanded, and where not only the
making but the very mention of other is categorically forbidden (Exod 23:13), the
presence of a precisely such a supernatural substitute and/or mediator for YHWH would be
remarkable. Is the Angel of the LORD, then, a sanctioned QTI^N (cf. Exod 3:2, 4)? Does
Exod 23:13 have an implied exclusionary clause for this angel?

There can be no doubt the last clause of Exod 23:21, where YHWH says that his
name is in the midst of his angel (TOipD TOP), provides an all-important clue to the mystery
of the angel’s identity. 158 But is the clue ambiguous? Does it mean that the angel is in
some undefined sense the locus of YHWH’s presence and that the angel simply possesses
divine authority without actually being divine? Or does it mean that the angel is YHWH
himself? 159 It will be tentatively suggested that this all-important clue is not finally
Exod 23:21 is difficult syntactically because it ends with two consecutive TO

clauses (23:21d-e) that could be either coordinate (so BDB, 474) or sequential. If coordinate,
both TO clauses provide a reason for the imperative statements earlier in the verse (23:21a-c).
If sequential, the second TO clause (23:21e) only provides a reason for the preceding TO
clause (23:21d) and not for the earlier imperatives. The fact that this conjunction may be put
to diverse and "subtle" uses (BDB, 473, cf. 471-474; cf. J. Muilenburg, "The Linguistic and
Rhetorical Usages of the particle TO in die Old Testament," HUCA 32 [1961]: 135-160), and
the fact that the two verses that follow 23:21 each begin with TO, makes a final determination
difficult at the purely lexical or grammatical level. Context, however, favors coordination
(Neef, "Ich selber bin in ihm," 63; cf. Stier, Gott und sein Engel, 64-65). The role of the
angel generally, and the name of YHWH in him particularly, cannot be restricted solely to
the punishment (i.e., the non-pardoning) of transgression. Understood in this way Exod
23:21 promotes a complete or nearly complete identification of the angel and YHWH: "In
dem Engel mufi man Gott selber sehen. Die Befehle des Engels sind Gottes Befehle, die
Stimme des Engels ist Gottes Stimme. In diesem Fall identifiziert sich Gott selbst mit dem
Engel" (so Neef, "Ich selber bin in ihm," 63, though he ultimately denies that the angel is
YHWH himself; cp. B. Stein, "Der Engel des Auszugs," Bib 19 [1938]: 289-291 [art. =286-
307], who does not shrink back from the identification).
159According to Cassuto, Exodus, 306, the expression is clear indication that YHWH
and the angel "are the sam e." Neef, on the other hand, who specifically refers to Cassuto at
this point, argues that the expression only means that this angel possesses "gottliche
Autoritat" (Neef, "Ich selber bin in ihm," 64, 75; cf. Stier, Gott und sein Engel, 64-71;
Baumgartner, "Zum Problem des Jahwe-Engels," 244; Hirth, Gottes Boten im Alten
Testament, 64). The only thing clearly indicated, pace Cassuto, is that those who affirm and
91
ambiguous and that this notorious crux can be resolved, first by careful attention to the
expression ^3"lp3 *130, and, second, by careful attention to the larger context in which the
crucial expression appears.
The "name" (00) o f YHWH refers to the person, presence, being, and divinity of
YHWH. The word 0 0 is not obviously suggestive of (delegated) authority and is not
glossed with this meaning in any lexicon. Most likely, if the goal was to affirm the
(delegated) authority of an agent, the customary idiom for delegated authority would have
been used. That is, it would have been said that the people should listen to the voice of this
angel on pain of punishment because he speaks "in the name o r (D03) YHWH . 161
This, however, is precisely not what is said.

Note the great importance attached to YHWH’s name elsewhere in the book of
Exodus (e.g., Exod 3:13-14; 6:3; 34:4-5) where YHWH’s name stands for YHWH himself,
those who deny that the angel is YHWH have together made appeal to the indwelling name.
It is certainly possible that this angel’s authority is unique only in degree: God has countless
messengers who possess divine(ly delegated) authority and this angel may simply possess
more than others. But it is also possible that this angel’s authority is unique in kind. He
possesses divine authority because he is, in fact, divine.
160See J. Barr, "The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament," BJRL 52 (1969):
28 [art. = 11-29] (name= "being, presence"); BDB, 1028 (name= "designation of God, specif,
of '*"); H. Bietenhard, "ftvopo, ictX," TDNT, 5:255, cf. 257-258 [art. =242-283] (name="an
alternative term for Yahweh himselF); idem, "Name," NIDNTT, 2:649 [art. =648-656];
H. A. Brongers, "Die Wendung t/Sem jhwh im Alten Testament," ZAW 77 (1965): 18
[art. = 1-20] (name = "Weehselbegriff fur Jhwh"); Cassuto, Exodus, 306 (name = "I in my
glory"); Clamer, "L’Exode," 1:2:208 (name= "Yahweh lui-meme"); Heinisch, Exodus, 190
(name= "sein Wesen"); idem, Christus, der Erloser im alten Testament (Graz: Styria, 1955),
277; idem, Personifikationen und Hypostasen, 26; Kautzsch, Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments, 1:132 (name="mein eigenes Wesen"); Stein, "Der Engel des Auszugs," 290
(name= "sein tiefstes Wesen"). A particularly apt rendering of the expression is taken up
from the Zuricher Bibel and found in the title of the recent article by Neef, "Ich selber bin in
ihm."
161A representative speaks and acts "in the name o r (003) another, not because the
name of the other is in the midst of him. For the use of the idiom 000 with representatives
of YHWH see, Exod 5:23; Deut 10:8; 1 Sam 17:45; 2 Sam 6:18; 2 Kgs 2:24. For its use
with the representatives of others see, 1 Sam 25:5, 9; 1 Kgs 21:8; Esther 2:22; 3:12; 8 :8 ,
10; Jer 29:25.
92
for his character and his divine being. And note also the use of "name” rubric in
Deuteronomy where it indicates that YHWH will personally come and dwell in the place of
his choosing (Deut 12:5, 11, 21; 14:23-24; 16:2, 6 , 11; 26:2; cf. Exod 15:17). ^ Could
the dwelling of YHWH’s name, that is YHWH himself, in the temple provide an analogy to
the dwelling of his name in this angel? This possibility is not to be completely
excluded. A better analogy, however, may be suggested by texts closer at hand that state that
YHWH himself is "in" or "in the midst of" the theophanic pillar of cloud and fire . 164
YHWH is not simply "by" or "with” the pillar of cloud and Are in the relatively weak sense
of accompaniment or endorsement; he is actually present in the midst of it.1^ On the
basis of this analogy it is possible that the angel of Exod 23:20, 22 is being likened to or
equated with YHWH’s pillar of fire and cloud Erscheinungsform. Either the angel is a
second distinct Erscheinungsform, indwelt by YHWH in a similar manner as the pillar of
cloud and fire, or the angel is being identified with or as the pillar of cloud and Are itself.
Since there is (as yet) no evidence that two Erscheinungsformen are present in the wilderness
the latter option seems preferable. 166
Cf. I. Wilson, Out o f the Midst o f Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy (SBLDS
151; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995); R. de Vaux, "’Le lieu qui Yahve a choisi pour y etablir son
nom’," in Das Feme und Nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost, ed. F. Maass (BZAW 105;
Berlin: Topelmann, 1967), 219-228.
163 Cf. Stier, Gott und sein Engel, 66-67; Hirth, Gottes Boten im Alten Testament,
64.
164 E.g., Exod 13:21; 14:24; 24:16; cf. Deut 4:12, 15, 33, 36; 5:4, 22-24, 26; 9:10;
10:4.
l 65 I.e., unlike the locative collocation in Exod 23:21, the preposition 3 alone
can mean "by" or "with" (cf. BDB, 89) in a sense weaker than indwelling. A simple 3 thus
would have been more compatible than 31p3 with the view that the angel was intimately
associated with the presence of YHWH or that he merely possessed the delegated authority of
an agent.
166 Cp. Numbers 22 with the continuous presence of the pillar o f cloud and fire
before the people in Exod 40:38; Num 9:15-23; and Deut 31:15. One could easily conclude
from these texts that the Angel of the LORD appears to Balaam independently o f the pillar o f
93
On this view the reason no (new) angel materializes in the book of Exodus is that the
"angel" in question has already m a t e r i a l i z e d . T h e role ascribed here and in Exod
14:19 to an angel (cf. also 32:34; 33:2) has already been—and will continue to be—performed
by the guiding pillar of cloud and fire (13:17-18, 21-22; 40:34-38). But this is simply
another way of saying that the role ascribed to this angel will be performed by YHWH (cf.
33:14-15).168 The angel is not sent into a vacuum but into the historical, geographical,
narratological, and theological space that only YHWH himself can and does fill. There is a
certain fluidity in all of this, to be sure. But the fluidity is not between YHWH and the angel
(as is commonly alleged) but between YHWH, the angel, and the pillar of cloud and fire. A
satisfactory solution will account for all three, and the most satisfactory solution will equate
all three (at least at the denotative level). An appearance of this angel like an appearance of
the pillar of cloud and fire is properly understood as a theophany.
The pillar of cloud and fire is the Erscheinungsform of YHWH. It is not an agent.
This passage (Exod 23:20-23) is thus not unique in the degree to which one creaturely agent
cloud and, what is more, while the pillar o f cloud is still standing before the people on the
plains o f Moab. Is YHWH engaged in two simultaneous theophanies: one to manifest his
presence and guide his people and one to protect his people? Can YHWH appear in two
places at once?
No visible angel materializes in the book of Exodus; and there is no evidence in
the narrative for the presence of an invisible angel, unless it should be thought fitting that an
invisible angel leave no trace in the narrative.
168 Cf.the many references to these events elsewhere in the OT. These, with only
one or two exceptions (e.g., Isa 63:9; Zech 13:8), attribute to YHWH or the pillar of cloud
and fire that which is here attributed to YHWH’s angel. The book of Deuteronomy is
especially noteworthy in this respect for it contains no trace of YHWH’s angel in spite of
dozens of references to the exodus and wilderness wanderings. Most noticeable is the
omission of the angel from the following passages: e.g., Deuteronomy 7 (cf. Exod 23:20-33,
i.e., the epilogue to the Book of the Covenant); Deuteronomy 9-10 (cf. Exodus 32-34); Deut
11:3-5 (cf. Exodus 14); Deut 23:4-5 (cf. Numbers 22-25); Deut 26:7-9 (cf. Num 20:16); and
Deut 33:16 (cf. Exod 3:2). Cf. also Deut 1:30-33; 2:7; 6:10, 18-19, 21-23; 9:3; 31:3, 6 , 8 ;
32:10-12. Either Deuteronomy radically revises or reinterprets Exodus and Numbers (cp.
Jubilees); or it presupposes an the identity of YHWH and his angel. The word "angel," being
a circumlocution, is not indispensable. The same concept or concepts can be communicated
with other circumlocutions or, for that matter, with none.
94
as over against other creaturely agents is identified with the presence or authority of YHWH.
The passage is unique in two very different respects: (1) in the degree to which YHWH
objectifies the "angel" as if it existed apart from him such that it could be "sent" to walk
before his people; and ( 2 ) in the degree to which the context forces an equation of this angel
with the pillar of cloud and fire. The quasi-independent existence of this angel at the verbal
level is carefully circumscribed or relativised at the contextual level by the ubiquitous stress
on the presence of YHWH himself and by the association of the angel with an
Erscheinungsform that is not only impersonal but that has no independent existence whatever.
What the agency language would force apart the context forces together.
The texts are still problematic in the sense that YHWH cannot literally send himself
or dwell in himself. But in spite of this, perhaps even because of this, the texts succeed by
periphrasis and circumlocution in communicating two theological profundities: YHWH is
personally present with his people; and YHWH transcends his personal presence with his
people. 169 The text does not simply pose or wrestle lamely with ‘the problem’ of
immanence and transcendence. The text gives every indication that a subtle and highly
nuanced solution was firmly within its grasp. 170 Language about YHWH "sending" his
angel, that is, his presence, indicates that while YHWH is transcendent he is nevertheless
personally present with his people to guide them and guard them and, if necessary, to punish
them. From the fact that the angel is not a created being it does not follow that the angel is
YHWH without remainder or qualification. 171 The angel most likely is and remains a
169The problem of immanence and transcendence is particularly acute in view of the

duration of YHWH’s wilderness theophany. YHWH is visibly present in theophany for an
entire generation—forty years!
170 Cf. n. 41 above.
171Rightly Heinisch, Christus der Erldser, 277; Stein, "Der Engel des Auszugs,"
292, 303-304.
95
uniquely powerful way of speaking about YHWH in accommodation and communication, in
manifestation and revelation . 172
Exodus 32:34; 33:2

Situated between the theophanies of chapters 24 and 34, chapter 32 is in every way
the nadir of the book of Exodus. There at the base of God’s holy mountain, there in the
presence of God’s glory (24:17), there with the Ten Commandments (20:1-6) and the Book
of the Covenant (esp. 20:23; 23:13) ringing in their ears and with oaths of loyalty fresh from
171
their lips (19:8; 24:3, 7), the people commit a "monstrous and unthinkable sin." They
make, worship, and sacrifice to an idol. It is in the context of this apostasy and its aftermath
that the final references to the Angel of the LORD in the book of Exodus occur.
A satisfactory interpretation of these two difficult Angel of the LORD texts can be
achieved, but only if the following items are granted (at least tentatively) and borne in mind
throughout: (1) that the book of Exodus, especially chapters 32-34, is best treated as a
literary unity; 174 (2) that the structure and location of chapters 25-31 and 35-40, two of
the book’s major sections, are maximally significant for a proper understanding of chapters
32-34; (3) that the narrative in chapter 32-34 is advanced primarily by Moses’ repeated
172The word Memra in some of the later literature may serve as a partial analogy.
Targum Neofiti, for example, "uses Memra to characterize God in particular aspects of his
activity, especially as he communicates and makes effective his will for man" (A. Chester,
Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim [TSAJ 14; Tubingen:
Mohr, 1986], 373).
173 Durham, Exodus, 433. From a literary point of view the heinousness of the sin is
especially evident in a comparison of Exod 18:12; 24:5, 10-11; and 32:5-6. The first
passage, which recounts Jethro’s sacrifice and a meal eaten in God’s presence, foreshadows
the magnificent theophany at Sinai in Exodus 24. This great theophany, with its sacrifices
and a meal eaten in God’s presence, is then reflected, even parodied, in Exodus 32.
174See esp. Moberly, At the Mountain o f God, passim.
96
prayers of intercession; 175 (4) that the Angel of the LORD in the book of Exodus has a
uniform identity; and (S) that the ultimate issue at stake in Exodus 32-34 is the presence of
God "in the midst” of his people. The following perfunctory comments on Moses’ six
petitions are offered with these considerations in mind.
Moses* First Petition (Exod 32:11-14)

God’s judgment on the gross idolatry of his people is swift. As the people have
rejected God for a substitute of their own making, 176 so God rejects his people and
determines to replace them with a new people (32:8-10).177 Moses, however, does not
for a moment countenance the idea of becoming the fountainhead of a new people of God
and immediately begins to intercede on behalf of God’s people (32:11). He first appeals to
God’s reputation (32:12) and then, perhaps with God’s character in view, to the oath that
The only biblical analogy to such intercession, not only in terms of sheer boldness
and persistence but in terms of the actual number of petitions, is Abraham’s repeated
intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 18:23-33. Note also the expression, "If, now, I
have found favor in thy sight" ("TWO p TM2U3 N3 OK), that occurs in Gen 18:3 and Exod
33:13 (cf. Exod 33:12, 16, 17; 34:9).
176The Golden Calf episode "forms a reversion of the Sinai theophany" (Polak,
"Theophany and Mediator," 141). The calf serves as a man-made substitute or replacement
for God himself—a visible image of the invisible God, that is, an idol. Equally obviously it
serves as a substitute or replacement for the Angel of the LORD. It is said of the Golden
Calf that it is the who "brought up" (rh s) the people from Egypt (32:4, 8 ) and that it
is an DTlbK who will now "walk before" (OB1? "f?Tt) the people to guide them into the
promised land (32:1, 23). Yet the Angel of the LORD himself is called Israel’s DYI^K (3:4,
6 ). He "brought up" (7179) the people from the land of Egypt (3:8, 17), and his specific role
was to "walk before" (007 "fin) the people to guide them into the land (14:19; 23:20, 23;
cf. 32:34; 33:2). Note the spontaneous and almost miraculous emergence of the calf from
within the fire (BftO) in 32:24. Polak, "Theophany and Mediator, 141-142, rightly makes a
connection to the Sinai theophany (presumably to the use of VKO in Exod 19:18) but does
not notice a possible echo of Exod 3:2 (cf. 14:24) where the Angel of the LORD had also
appeared in the fire.
177So antithetical is this idolatry to what it means to be the people of God that God
does not speak of them as his people but as Moses' people (32:7; cf. 33:1).
97
God had sworn to "Abraham, Isaac, and Israel" (32:13).178 As a result, "YHWH
repented of the evil that he said he would do to his people" (32:14).179 God would not
destroy the people (32:10); however, it cannot be said at this point that they have regained
all that they have lost. In fact, the terrible magnitude of their loss is not fully manifest, being
only gradually revealed. 180
Moses* Second Petition (Exod 32:31-34: cf. 33:1-6)

Moses specifically asks God to forgive the great sin of the people or to remove him
from God’s book (32:32). This petition is evidence that while the people may have been
spared from annihilation they were not yet forgiven. But God refuses to remove Moses from
1Q1
his book. He will instead remove those who have sinned from his book (32:33).101 As
8Customarily in the OT, the three patriarchs are referred to as "Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob” (e.g., Exod 3:6, 15, 16; 4:5; 6:3, 8 ; 33:1). Only here in the Pentateuch (cf.
1 Kgs 18:33; 1 Chron 29:18; 2 Chron 30:6) is the name Israel substituted for Jacob. Also of
potential significance is the fact that this oath was originally sworn by the Angel of the
LORD (Gen 22:16).
179This short verse is a masterpiece of understatement. We are told only that YHWH
"repented" of "evil." Both terms are borrowed from the words o f Moses in 32:12. Not only
does YHWH do what Moses asks, not unremarkable in itself, but YHWH allows Moses’
evaluation of his intended deed to go unchallenged. Nowhere had YHWH said that he would
do "evil." That is purely Moses’ interpretation. And does God really care what "the
Egyptians" will think of him (32:12)? Has he not just wasted Egypt with plagues and
drowned its army in the sea? But, here, with God’s people hypothetically "destroyed from
the face of the earth" (32:12), the Egyptians function as the only available observers to
express Moses’ own moral judgment. See further, G. W. Coats, "The King’s Loyal
Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32-34," chap. in The Moses Tradition
(JSOTSup 161; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 63-64 [chap. =57-75].
180 Note, for example, the ironic inversion in 33:6 where the word is used in
reference not to the Egyptians but to the Israelites. Their sin has caused them to "plunder"
themselves (Exod 3:22; cf. 12:36). Cf. Moberly, At the Mountain o f God, 61.
181 According to Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text o f Exodus, 537, "God’s response
to Moses’ prayer implicitly denies Moses’ quixotic request for inclusion in the people’s fate."
But God’s response is more than merely a denial: it is a rebuke.
98
God had plainly said earlier, he will not pardon those who sin against him (23:21; cf.
20:5) . 182 The only positive note is the belated discovery that the oath to the patriarchs
appears to be intact (cf. 32:14). This oath entails, as it did in Exodus 23, God’s guidance in
the person of his angel (32:34; 33:1-4). Though God has not forgiven the sin of the people,
he will nevertheless bring the people into the land for the sake of his oath (cf. Deut 7:8; Judg
2:1). Unfortunately, this positive note is almost completely negated by the explicit revelation
that God will no longer go in their midst. That is, God will not go in the tabernacle that was
to have been his special dwelling place in the midst o f his people (25:8; 29:42-46). God is
indeed present. This if nothing else is the point of the frequentive verbs, the name of the
18^
ad hoc tent pitched by Moses, and the mention of the pillar of cloud in Exod 33:7-11.
Moses is still able to meet God outside the camp. 184 But gone is the cultic role of the
nation (Exod 19:5-6) and, with it, the tabernacle that has occupied the previous seven
chapters of the book (Exodus 25-31). Strictly speaking, the narrative has nothing to do with
the absence of God, much less the rhetorically-inflated "Absence" of God. 185 The
narrative has everything to do with the manner and location o f God’s presence. God would
be present, as is indicated by the references to his angel (32:34; 33:2) and the pillar o f cloud
(33:9-10); but God would not be present in the tabernacle in the midst of the people. This
182Not only have the people not been forgiven, the punitive measure that resulted in
the death of three thousand (32:27-28) has apparently done little to assuage God’s wrath.
This is indicated by the additional punishment threatened in 32:34 (and, apparently, meeted
out in 32:35). Twice, also, God here refers to the people as "stiff-necked" (*p& ntfp). The
expression, which occurs only four times in Exodus, suggests here that in the people’s status
has not changed from 32:9 where the expression was first used.
183 Moberly, At the Mountain o f God, 63-66, 171-177, and passim, has capably
demonstrated that 33:7-11 is integral to the surrounding narrative and that God’s cultic
presence in the midst of his people rather than his presence per se is at issue.
184 God’s presence outside the camp is repeatedly stressed in 33:7-11 (four times in
33:7 alone).
185Pace Durham, Exodus, 437-438.
99
alone is the "sad word" referred to in 33:4; and this alone is the sole and sufficient cause for
the people’s grief. The people were not mourning the presence of an angel as Ersatz for
God. 100 Had the angel been an inferior substitute for God, Moses and the people might
better have mourned in Exod 23:20-23 (or 32:34) where precisely the same words are used
to describe his sending. Now, however, the people have cause enough to mourn. They have
lost their special status as a nation of priests and they have lost, not God’s promised
presence, but God’s promised presence in their midst. The significance of the command to
"depart" and "go up" in 33:1 (cf. 33:3 where both verbs are implied) is none other than this:
the people were to depart and go up immediately, that is, without building the
tabernacle.187
Moses’ Third Petition (Exod 33:12-14)

Moses makes another lengthy and convoluted petition. Is he stalling for time? Is he
being evasive? Perhaps he cannot bring himself to ask again for the forgiveness that has been
twice denied, once implicitly (32:14) and once a bit more emphatically (32:33-35). God had
commanded Moses to bring the people up (32:34; 33:1, 3). Moses now echoes this command
(33:12), well aware that the command precludes the time-consuming construction of the ark
and tabernacle. The wording of Moses’ petition must not be taken in a woodenly literal
inter alia, Childs, Exodus, 585-589. Less consistent are those who argue that
186 So,
the Angel of the LORD in Exod 3:2 and 23:20-23 is YHWH manifest but that the angel in
32:34 and 33:2 is a different angel, a substitute for YHWH: e.g ., Clamer, "L’Exode,"
1:2:264; Driver, Exodus, 356-357, 360; Heidt, The Angelology o f the Old Testament, 79-82;
Hirth, Gottes Boten im Alten Testament, 64-65; M. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 253-254; Stein, "Der Engel des Auszugs," 294, cf. 289-
292.
187 Cf. Exod 32:34, "now go, lead the people" (D in HH HTO “1*5 nTW). The temporal
adverb 7V\S> precludes the laborious and time-consuming construction of the tabernacle and its
elaborate paraphernalia which, according to Exod 40:17, took the better part of a year.
100
manner as if he did not know whom YHWH was sending with him (33:12; cf. 33:2) . 188
Moses’ complaint of ignorance is best understood as an allusive paraphrase of his request to
know YHWH and his ways (33:13) and as an impassioned plea that God would go with, that
is, in the midst, of his people (33:16). In spite of the indirection Moses wants desperately to
know one and only one thing: What will YHWH do with his people (cf. 33:5) ? 189 Will
he or will he not forgive them and go in their midst? 190 YHWH implicitly rejects this
third petition. His answer in 33:14 deals only with his presence, which is not at issue, and
188As noted above with reference to Gen 24:7, 40, the change of prepositions from
"before" (Exod 33:2) to "with” (Exod 34:12, 16) is not significant. The suffixed preposition
*09 ("with me”) in Exod 33:12 "implies close personal contact” and is "reminiscent of the
words at Moses’ commissioning" in Exod 3:12 (Moberly, At the Mountain o f God, 69).
Moberly, however, interprets the "whom" (TON) of 33:12 as a "what," i.e., as a reference to
the ark. This impersonal rendering is "almost impossible" (J. Morgenstem, "The Oldest
Document of the Hexateuch," HUCA 4 [1927]: 42 [art. = 1-138]). A possible alternative is
that TON refers collectively to the immediately preceding TOTI D9H ("this people"). In light of
the anger and unforgiveness of YHWH, the unspecified punishment of 32:35, and the
possibly ominous last clause o f 33:5, Moses might well want to know if there will be anyone
to go with him. There is indeed a close connection between Exod 33:5 and 33:12 (see next
note); nevertheless, the reference to "sending" most naturally evokes the "[N^Q of 33:2 even
though it is a more distant antecedent than "this people."
Other less likely alternatives for identifying the "whom" (TON) that YHWH sends
with Moses have included Aaron (a possibility noted but immediately rejected by Calvin,
Exodus, loc. cit.y, a human guide like Moses who happened to know the lay of the land
(Morgenstem, "The Oldest Document," 42); and even Moses himself according to one
commentator’s rather ingenious interpretation of the singular suffix on in Exod 34:10
(H. C. Brichto, Toward a Grammar o f Biblical Poetics: Tales o f the Prophets [Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1992], 110; followed by J. M. Sprinkle, "The Book o f the
C o v e n a n t A Literary Approach [JSOTSup 174; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994], 34). But none
of this speculation is convincing or necessary.
189On the structural and interpretive importance of 91*, which occurs once in 33:5
and six times in 33:12-17, see J. Muilenberg, "The Intercession of the Covenant Mediator
(Exodus 33:1a, 12-17)," in Words and Meanings, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 159-181.
190The reference to Moses’ favor, opaque until seen in the light of the next petition,
supports this conclusion. Moses is intimating that God has withheld information that he
should have given to one whom he favors. God should give evidence of his favor toward
Moses by forgiving the people. Moses is thus attempting to use God’s evaluation of him as
leverage to obtain the information that has been withheld, that is, the knowledge that God has
forgiven the people and will go in their midst.
101
confirms that his "presence" (DTD) will walk before his people and will give them
rest. 191 God himself will bring his people into the land as he had promised. 192 He
will go with them but he will not go in the tabernacle in their midst.
Moses* Fourth Petition (Exod 33:15-17)

Moses is resolute and again requests YHWH’s presence as prerequisite to the
departure from Sinai. YHWH has just confirmed (again) that he will be present. Why would
Moses again request his presence? The request suggests that Moses is asking for more than
God’s mere (if one can call it that!) presence. Moses’ fourth petition repeats the matter of his
favor in God’s sight, now stating unequivocally that God’s presence in the midst o f his
191 Cf. Isa 63:14 which attributes to the Holy Spirit the giving of this rest. The word
DTD functions as a Leitwort in Exodus 33-34 (cf. Moberly, A t the Mountain o f God, 63-66).
Here in 33:14-15 (cf. v. 16) it stands by synechdoche as an anthropomorphic circumlocution
for YHWH himself and is best rendered "presence" (Muilenberg, "Covenant Mediator," 172,
n. 3; cf. A. R. Johnson, "Aspects of the Use of the Term DTD in the Old Testament," in
Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zitm 60. Geburtstag, ed. J. Fuck [Halle: Niemeyer, 1947], 155-159;
H. Simian-Yofre, "DTD," TDOT 11:595, 607 [art. =589-615]). The word DTD similarly
refers to YHWH himself in Deut 4:37; Isa 63:9; and Lam 4:16 (cf. 2 Sam 17:11).
For the view that the collocation DO^n JT3D is an idiom meaning "to take/be in the
lead" or "to act as leader” see, E. A. Speiser, "The Biblical Idiom pSnim h01ekim," in The
Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume o f the Jewish Quarterly Review, ed. A. A. Neuman and S.
Zeitlin (Philadelphia: Jewish Quarterly Review, 1967), 515-517; followed by Simian-Yofre,
"DTD," 595. See further, e.g ., J. Reindl, Das Angesicht Gottes im Sprachgebrauch des Alten
Testaments (Erfurter Theologische Studien 25; Leipzig: St. Benno, 1970); A. S. van der
Woude, "DTD pdnlm Angesicht," THAT 2:432-460, esp. 446-448; as well as the older but
less nuanced studies of J. Boehmer, "Gottes Angesicht" (BFCT 12.4; Gutersloh:
Bertelsmann, 1908), 43-69 [321-347], esp. 6 6 [344]; and F. Notscher, "Das Angesicht Gottes
schauen" nach biblischer und babylonischer Auffassung (2d corrected ed. with an appendix;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969 [1924]).
192The idea of rest is inextricably bound up with the promised land (cf. Sarna,
Exodus, 213, n. 11; J. Laansma, "I Will Give You Rest": The Rest M otif in the New
Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3-4 [WUNT 2.98; Tubingen: Mohr,
1997], 33, with reference to numerous commentators in n. 6 6 ). It does not refer to Moses’
subjective state of mind, the dispelling of his personal anxiety, or his need for individual
assurance (pace Cassuto, Exodus, 434; Durham, Exodus, 444, n. 14.c.; and Moberly, At the
Mountain o f God, 74, n. 114, who misinterprets a second person singular suffix that here,
and often throughout these chapters, refers collectively to the people and not to Moses or any
single individual).
102
people is proof of that favor. But Moses now makes a subtle, or perhaps not so subtle,
addition. Moses twice includes the people ("/ and your people") as if they too had found
favor in God’s sight. When God answers, he mentions only Moses’ favor (33:17), thus
implicitly rejecting Moses’ attempt to include the nation within God’s favor. At one level
God will "indeed, surely" (03) do what Moses has asked. He will be present with his
people. But at another level God once again rejects what Moses is really after. God’s people
have not found favor and therefore God will not go in their midst. Moses’ own favored status
with God is insufficient to win him the concession that he so desparately desires.
Moses’ Fifth Petition (Exod 33:18-34:81

Moses has already seen God’s glory (Exodus 24) and, in fact, continues to see it on
a regular basis (Exod 33:7-11). A request to see God’s glory again is thus unexpected. Is
Moses actually asking for a greater and more intimate theophany than any he has previously
experienced? YHWH’s response suggests that Moses’ request should be interpreted in this
way. He will show, albeit strictly on his own terms, all of his goodness to Moses. YHWH
will also call upon the name of YHWH before Moses. 194 Moses is told that YHWH’s
The particle 03 is best taken as emphatic ("indeed") rather than additive ("also").
Cf. Durham, Exodus, 444, n. 17.a., 448; Houtman, Exodus, 14; Labuschagne, "The
Emphasizing Particle Gam,” 200; contra, e.g., Cassuto, Exodus, 425; Driver, Exodus, 362;
Moberly, At the Mountain o f God, 69, n. 95; Sarna, Exodus, 213.
194The word 00 in Exod 33:19; 34:5-6 and the double repetition of the name JTIJT
in Exod 34:6 echo Exod 3:13-14 and 23:21 (cf. Durham, Exodus, 451; Polak, "Theophany
and Mediator," 144-146). The verb Rip "portrays the action that precedes the verbal
interchange, specifically the summoning . . . of one party into the presence of the other"
(Meier, Speaking o f Speaking, 340). By calling on his own name YHWH dramatically inverts
the common formula invocation formula (cp. YHWH’s equally remarkable inversion of the
common "Here I am!" response formula in Isa 65:1). YHWH, in other words, summons
himself into his and Moses’ presence so that Moses may know YHWH by name just as
YHWH knows him by name (33:12). Cf. Cassuto, Exodus, 439; Childs, Exodus, 603;
Durham, Exodus, 453; Sarna, Exodus, 214; contra E. Auerbach, Moses (Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, 1975), 109-112; Driver, Exodus, 366; Noth, Exodus, 261, who argue
that Moses is the subject o f the calling. (N.B.: if YHWH can "call upon the name” of
YHWH as if he were someone else, perhaps his "commanding" the Angel of the LORD in
103
"goodness" (33:19) and his "glory" (33:22) will pass before Moses. 195 When YHWH
does pass by before Moses (34:6) the result is nothing less than the greatest revelation of
God’s essential nature in the OT. God is ultimately and absolutely "compassionate and
gracious, slow to anger, and full of grace and truth” (Exod 34:6).196 He is a God who
forgives "iniquity" (|to), "transgression” (27&C), and "sin" (riMtDTI) (Exod 34:7).
Moses’ Sixth Petition (Exod 34:9-34:281

Moses immediately seizes on this astounding revelation of God’s goodness and
mercy, asking one last time for the forgiveness of the "iniquity" (]fr) and "sin" (HMtDrt) of
the people and the return of YHWH to their midst. The reference in 34:9 to forgiving
"iniquity" and "sin" clearly echoes God’s description of his own character in 34:7. The
references to the people as "stiff-necked" and to God "walking in their midst" echo God’s
words in 33:3, 5, forming an inclusion and tying the intervening material together. 197
The reference to the people as God’s possession also echoes 19:5-6, once again confirming
that the unique cultic status of the nation and God’s presence in their midst rather than his
2 Sam 24:16 and 1 Chron 21:27, like his "sending" the Angel of the LORD in Exodus 23
and 32-33, does not entail that the angel is a creature distinct from YHWH.)
IQS
Since the text is explicit that YHWH himself passes by before Moses, the
"goodness” (31H) and "glory" (133) mentioned earlier must function as circumlocutions for
God himself. The same is true for the word "face" (0*3B) in 33:14-15 (cf. v. 16) and for the
word "angel" (^N^Q) in 32:34; 33:2.
196The expression "grace and truth" (DI3M1 1 0 1 ) was first used in reference to God
(possibly understood as the Angel of the LORD) by Abraham’s servant in Gen 24:27 and
again by Jacob in Gen 32:11. Now God uses the expression to definitively and authoritatively
describe himself. On the noun 10R, and the combination riDKI io n as a hendiadys referring
to God’s unwavering covenant love, see G. R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible
(JSOTSup 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 235-255, esp. 242-255.
|Q7
A certain unconditionality may be evident here and in what follows: first, in
calling the people "stiff-necked," Moses seems to be asking God to forgive them as they are
and without any essential change on their part; and, second, the covenant vows of the people
prominent earlier are absent from the covenant renewal in Exodus 34.
104
presence or absence per se have been at issue throughout Moses’ six petitions. Moses’ sixth
and last petition is answered. The people are forgiven. As a result, Exodus 32-34 is
immediately followed by six lull chapters (Exodus 35-40; cf. Exodus 25-31) that again deal
exclusively with the construction of the tabernacle. These two massive blocks of material
dealing with the tabernacle dramatically slow the narrative pace. The second block
culminates in the completion of the tabernacle and the glorious presence of God in the midst
o f his people (40:34-38).
Chapters 32-34 of Exodus are ultimately concerned with the location of God’s
presence and, no doubt closely related to this, the character of God. The angel and the pillar
of cloud and fire were never absent—proof that God was always present. 198 Thus, one
need not view the angel of Exod 32:34 and 33:2 as inferior to YHWH or as distinct from the
angel who had appeared earlier in the book. The angel who began the exodus was always
with his people in the wilderness. He is now in their midst; and he will soon lead them into
the land as he had promised.
Numbers 20:16
This brief text refers in summary fashion to the great sequence of events that began
in Exod 2:23. Given that sequence of events, one could argue that the Angel of the LORD in
Exod 3:2 (cf. 14:19) is in view, since it was he who heard the cries of Israel in bondage and
appeared to bring them out of Egypt. On the other hand, one could argue that the vanguard
angel of Exod 23:20, 23; 32:34; and 33:2 is in view, since the verb rfoo ("to send") is used,
since the word is not in construct, and since the arrival at Kadesh took place after his
guiding presence was promised. Fortunately, any such dichotomy is false—doubly so if one
|QO
°Cf. Neh 9:18-19 where precisely this point is made in reference to the pillar of
cloud and fire. God in his great compassion did not forsake his people even after they had
made the Golden Calf.
105
views the vanguard angel as inferior to the angel who had appeared earlier in Exodus.1^
From Egypt to Kadesh (and beyond) a continuous sweep of events and a single divine angel
200
is in view. w This continuous sweep of events is indicated by the terse synopsis of those
events in 20:16, "And when we cried out to the LORD, he heard our voice and sent an angel
and brought us out of Egypt and, Voilal Here we are in Kadesh. "201 The brief mention
of the angel, brief to the point of being cryptic, anticipates the more detailed depiction of his
appearance to Balaam two chapters later. No reason is given for a reference so cryptic that
the king of Edom was sure to misunderstand it. But Moses, the Israelites, and the reader
know better.202
100
^Contra, e.g., N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (NCB; London: Thomas
Nelson, 1967), 277, who states that the angel in this verse "is dependent on Exod. 23:20 E
rather than on Exod. 14:19, where the reference is to the Angel of God, the special
manifestation of God." Cf. his later comment on Num 22:22, "This is not a heavenly
messenger, but a special manifestation of God Himself" (288-289). But the identity of this
angel does not depend on whether the word "]K^Q is in construct with mrP or DYtat. B. A.
Levine, Numbers 1-20 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 491, states that the angel of Num
20:16 is a created messenger and implies a contrast between this verse and Hos 12:14 ("by a
prophet [i.e., Moses] the LORD brought Israel from Egypt"). The contrast evaporates if die
angel is YHWH since the OT speaks alternately, but harmoniously, of YHWH and Moses
leading the people out of Egypt. Moses is the only agent depicted in the exodus narrative.
200
The angel, as usual in earlier writers, is theophanic in character; Yahweh
Himself is present in the angel" (G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1903], 266). Cf. A. Clamer, "Les Nombres," in La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot and A. Clamer
(12 vols.; Paris: Letouzey et An6 , 1946-1961), 2:367; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch,
Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes (repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),
1:3:132; J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text o f Numbers (SBLSCSS 46; Atlanta:
Scholars, 1998), 329.
201 Cf.
Deut 26:7-9; Judg 11:16-18. The above gloss attempts to capture the force of
rom ("And behold!") in Num 20:16.
202
On the opposing assumption that the angel is not YHWH, A. Noordtzij, Het Boek
Numeri (Kampen: Kok, 1957), 216, suggests that the verse implies the ease with which
Israel’s God brought about the capitulation of mighty Egypt: a mere angel sufficed. In any
case the Edomites are not impressed (M. Noth, Numbers: A Commentary [OTL;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968], 150).
106
Numbers 22:22-35
The Angel of the LORD is referred to ten times in this passage, making it the second
densest collection of such references in the OT next to Judges 13/203 The Balaam
account (Numbers 22-24) serves to bridge the two main sections of the book (Numbers 1-21
and 26-36), each of which begins with the census of a generation. The angel who inaugurated
the exodus (Exod 3:2) and who accompanied his people from Egypt to Sinai (Exod 14:19),
and again from Sinai to Kadesh (Exod 23:20-23; Num 20:16), is now with them East of the
Jordan across from Jericho (Num 22: l ).204 This angel had promised to guard and
protect his people along the way, and he now acts in precisely that role. No disaster, be it
natural (Exod 14:19) or supernatural (Numbers 22-24), can befall them so long as he remains
with them (and they with him) .205
The bibliography on the Balaam pericope is substantial. See, e.g., P. J. Budd,

Numbers (WBC; Waco: Word, 1984), 248-249; J. T. Greene, Balaam and His Interpreters:
A Hermeneutical History o f the Balaam Traditions (BJS 244; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992);
W. Gross, Bileam: Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num 22-24 (SANT
38; Munchen: Kdsel, 1974); M. S. Moore, The Balaam Traditions: Their Character and
Development (SBLDS 113; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990); H. Rouillard, La Pericope de Balaam
(Nombres 22-24) (Ebib 4; Paris: Gabalda, 1985); H. Seebas, "Zur literarischen Gestalt der
Bileam-Perikope," ZAW 107 (1995): 409-19.
The Deir ’Alla Balaam text was consulted but not found to be relevant to the present
investigation. Apart from the name Balaam and the fact that he is a seer there is very little
overlap with the biblical story (cf. M. Weippert, "The Balaam Text From Deir ’Alls and the
Study of the Old Testament," in The Balaam Text From Deir ’A lla Re-evaluated: Proceedings
o f the International Symposium Held at Leiden 21-24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and
G. van der Kooij [Leiden: Brill, 1991], 176 [art. = 151-184). Balaam makes no journey, he is
not opposed, he delivers no imprecations, etc. In particular, there is no figure, angel or
otherwise, comparable to the Angel of the LORD in the canonical narrative.
204The location is repeatedly stressed (cf. Num 26:3; 31:12; 33:50; 36:13) and is
significant for a proper identification of the divine visitor in Josh 5:13-15.
205The parenthetical qualification is required by texts such as Numbers 25 and
Judges 2 (on which see below).
107
The passage contains evidence that the Angel of the LORD is not a created angel but
"a temporary appearance of YHWH in human form. "2 0 6 This evidence includes the
following points:
1. The abrupt narrative shift from God to the Angel of the LORD in Num 22:22
CGod was angry . . . and the Angel o f the LORD took his stand in the way as an adversary
against him " ) .207 Though not conclusive in itself this shift is consistent with the
identification of God and his angel later in the passage. It also fits the pattern of juxtaposition
in other Angel of the LORD texts where such an identification is highly probable.208
There is, however, stronger corroborating evidence elsewhere in this passage.
2. Balaam’s worship of the Angel of the LORD in Num 22:31 after having had his
eyes uncovered. The verb n*?3 ("to uncover, remove") is noteworthy. It typically has one of
two highly negative connotations: either to expose (sexually) or to exile. Here, however, it is
used in reference to the eyes (Num 22:31; cf. Num 24:4, 16; Ps 119:18) and may be
indicative of a theophany.209 The combination of verbs describing Balaam’s prostration
is also noteworthy. Not only did Balaam "bow his head" (lip), he "fell prostrate" (nrttf) on
his face. The first verb (lip ) "is used to emphasize devotion and thus occurs at especially
206 Gray, Numbers, 333; followed by E. W. Davies, Numbers (NCB; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995), 250. Cf. T. B. Dozeman, "The Book of Numbers," NIB, 2:183 [art. =
2:1-268].
207 Cf. Num 22:31 (”YHWH opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the Angel o f the
LORD").
208 Gross, Bileam, 359-360, notes the juxtaposition between YHWH and his angel in
this passage, as elsewhere in the OT, but fails to elaborate or draw out the implications that
this might have for the identity of the angel.
209See also Gen 35:7; 1 Sam 3:21; Isa 40:5 (cf. Isa 53:1) where the word is used of
theophanies. On the relationship between rfo, HMl, and 91* as terms for God’s self
disclosure see, S. Talmon, "Revelation in Biblical Times," HS 26 (1980), 57-60 [art. =53-
70].
108
crucial times. "210 The doubling up of verbs adds emphasis to Balaam’s already emphatic
act of obeisance.211
3. The Angel of the LORD’S hostility in Num 22:32. One might have expected a
reference to God or YHWH here instead of a reference to the Angel of the LORD in light of
God’s sudden anger in 22:22. Instead it is the angel who says, "Behold, / have come out as
an adversary, because your way was reckless in my sight" (22:32). Balaam’s answer, "if it is
evil (1H) in your sight” (22:34), corresponds to the Angel’s charge. Balaam recognizes that
he has "sinned” (Wirt) against the Angel of the LORD (22:34). Nowhere in the OT (unless
this passage be the exception) is there any indication that one can sin against or do evil in the
sight of an angel.212
4. The parallel between Num 22:22-34 and Num 24:3-4, 15-16. The multiple
references to Balaam’s sight and seeing in these latter verses echoes the similar stress placed
on them in Num 22:22-34 (esp. 22:31).213 Twice it is said the Balaam’s eyes were
J. Coppes, " l i p (qSdad)," TWOT, 2:784 [art. =784-785]. It occurs fifteen

10 L.
times in the OT, always in conjunction with the more common rtntf. Ten times it describes
the worship of YHWH: Gen 24:26, 48; Exod 4:31, 12:27, 34:8; Num 22:31; 1 Chron
29:20; 2 Chron 20:18, 29:30; Neh 8 : 6 (cp. Gen 43:28; 1 Sam 24:9, 28:14; 1 Kgs 1:16, 31).
21 ^ p . T. R. Ashley, Numbers (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 455, who
on the basis of Num 22:31 denies that the Numbers 22 passage is of a piece with other texts
where "God’s angels [sic] seem to be more of a manifestation of God himself (e.g., Gen.
16:7; 22:11, 15)." Cf. J. Sturdy, Numbers (Cambridge: CUP, 1976), 166.
2 1 2 Cf. BDB, 306.
2 1 3 Cf. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 105, "The very first word in the Hebrew of
the Balaam story is the verb to see (Num. 22:2), which appropriately becomes, with some
synonyms, the main Leitwort in this tale about the nature of prophecy or vision." The
parallels are not only verbal but structural: "In both the ass episode here and the poetry,
Balaam’s eyes are opened in the third scene, an indication that the poetry and prose belong
together" (J. Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers [JPS Torah; Philadelphia: JPS,
1990], 192, cf. 190; cf. Dozeman, "Numbers," 2:183; G. Wenham, Numbers: An
Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1981], 164-165).
109
"opened" ( p in OTIS?) (24:3, 15);214 twice more it is said that Balaam’s eyes were
"uncovered" (n*73) (24:4, 16);215 and twice Balaam is said to "see a vision of the
Almighty" (nTTT* nTTIQ) (24:4, 16).2 16 The participle bBi ("falling down") is also
strongly reminiscent of Balaam’s emphatic obeisance before the Angel of the LORD in
217
22:31. Balaam receives his oracles from the one whom he had so dramatically seen
earlier—the Angel of the LORD. If a link between 22:31 and Numbers 24 was intended, it
might also imply that Balaam had the Angel of the LORD in view when he said, "I see him,
but not now; I behold him, but not near" (24:17). Has Balaam turned his confrontation with
the Angel of the LORD into a boast of visionary prowess and intimacy with God? If so, this
214The verb is rare, occurring only here in the OT, and is a notorious crux
interpretum (Rouillard, Balaam, 347; cf. 347-354). For the rendering of CD# as "opened"
see Gray, Numbers, 361; cf. Ashley, Numbers, 488; Budd, Numbers, 268-269; Dozeman,
"Numbers," 2:189; Noth, Numbers, 190; Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 296-297; TWOT,
2:960; Wenham, Numbers, 177. In spite of the dominant poetic parallelism (which,
incidentally, renders the charge of tautology a non sequitur), a number of unsuccessful
attempts have been made to improve upon the text: e.g., by reading on# as the rare
homonym "closed" (DTO) (so, e.g., R. K. Harrison, Numbers [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992],
328); by dividing the consonants differently to read the word "perfect" (man) (so, e.g., J. de
Vaulx, Les Nombres [SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1972], 282, n. 3b; following J. Wellhausen, Die
composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments [4th ed.;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963], 351; W. F. Albright, "The Oracles of Balaam," JBL 63 [1944]:
216-217, nn. 56-57 [art. =207-233]); and, finally, by interpreting the verb in light of an
(alleged) Arabic cognate meaning "malicious" (J. M. Allegro, "The Meaning of the Phrase
Setam hd’ayin in Num. XXIV 3, 15," VT3 [1953]: 78-79).
21S
The rare term for "uncover" is so distinctive that it cannot do otherwise than call
to mind Balaam’s experience in Num 22:31.
216The rare word for "vision" is not found in Numbers 22 but does occur elsewhere
in the OT (Gen 15:1; Ezek 13:7; cf. Ezek 1:1; 8:3).
217 Gray, Numbers, 336, despairs of finding an acceptable meaning for *?D3 after
rejecting as unlikely or unnatural the notions of falling down "in sleep" (cf. LXX), "in awe,"
and "under the overpowering . . . influence of the spirit." He goes on to suggest the
possibility of textual corruption. Another solution is that "falling down" does not refer to
"Balaam’s comportment while receiving . . . revelation[s]" or to his state of being in an
"ecstatic trance" (contra Davies, Numbers, 268). It simply refers to his prostration in
worship. This is a natural meaning of the verb (see esp. Gen 17:3, 17; Josh 5:14; Judg
13:20; 1 Chron 21:16; 2 Chron 20:18).
110
could have surprising implications, via Gen 49:10 to be sure, for the identity of the
messianic "star" that will someday come forth from Israel.218
5. The parallel between Num 22:35 and Num 22:8, 20, 38; 23:3-5, 12, 16-17, 26;
24:1-4, 13, 15-16. According to Num 22:35, it is the angel’s words alone that Balaam must
speak to Balak.2 1 9 One thus does not expect the Angel of the LORD to be completely
absent from Numbers 23-24.229 Yet there is no hint in what follows that Balaam
receives his oracles through the agency of any mediator. It is emphatically and repeatedly
made clear that Balaam (like it or not!) received his oracles directly from God. Prior to the
first oracle "God met Balaam . . . and YHWH put a word in Balaam’s mouth" (Num 23:4-
5). Prior to the second oracle "YHWH met Balaam and put a word in Balaam’s mouth"
(Num 23:16). And prior to the final oracles "the Spirit of God came upon him" and caused
him to take up his discourses (Num 24:2). The words of God are the promised words of the
Angel o f the LORD because the Angel of the LORD, who notably does not introduce or
identify himself as a messenger, is God. It is doubtful that a distinction of persons is
intended between "God," "YHWH," and "the Spirit of God" in this narrative.221 And
The word "star" (22*0) was "a common metaphor for a king in the ancient Near
East," as is corroborated by the word "scepter" (BStf) that follows (Davies, Numbers, 273).
This prophecy is notably applied to a coming Davidic figure at Qumran, e.g., CD 7:18-21;
1QM 5:6-7; 4QTest 9-13. But the word star was also a metaphor for angels: cf. J. J.
Collins, OTP, 1:392; idem, The Sybylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBLDS 13;
Missoula: Scholars, 1974), 90-91; P. Enns, Exodus Retold: Ancient Exegesis o f the
Departure from Egypt in Wis 15-21 and 19:1-9 (HSM 57; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 63,
n. 51; W. Foerster, "dornp, ftoxpov," TDNT, 1:503-505; F. Lelli, "Stars," in DDD, 1536
[art. = 1530-1540]. Cf. Job 38:7; Dan 8:10; Rev 1:20; 8:10-11; 12:4; 22:16; 1 Enoch 18:14-
16; 21:6; 46:7; 86:1-3; 88:3; 90:21, 24; 2 Bar. 51:10; Apoc. Abr. 14:6.
2 19 Cp.Milgrom, Numbers, 190, 192 (cf. Noth, Numbers, 179), where he argues that
the angel is merely an "agent" and a "surrogate” for the LORD, and that the angel’s
identification "with the T of the Lord” in 22:35 is only a "seeming exception."
220 Cf. Heidt, The Angelology o f the Old Testament, 84.
221 Cf. also the divine names "Almighty" (’Itf) in 24:4, 16; and "Most High" (ll^ P )
in 24:16. On the former, the "divine name of the patriarchs" (BDB, 995), see, Gen 17:1;
28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; Exod 6:3. On the latter see, Gen 14:18, 19, 20, 22; Deut
Ill
the expression "the Angel of the LORD" probably functions similarly at the literary and
theological level as simply another way of referring to YHWH.222
6. The parallels between the appearance to Balaam and earlier theophanies. For
example, Balaam’s journey to Moab is remarkably similar to Abraham journey to Moriah in
Genesis 22 . 2 2 3 It might be going too far to call Balaam a "second Abraham" or an
"Anti-Abraham" ; 2 2 4 nevertheless, there are surprising similarities between the two
narratives. Abraham and Balaam both arise early in the morning, are accompanied by two
servants, and sacrifice a "whole bumt-offering" (r6j7) . 2 2 5 In both accounts there is an
inordinate emphasis on sight and seeing, and in both accounts God is present in the form of
the Angel of the LORD. An equally striking parallel exists between Balaam’s journey to
Moab and Moses’ journey to Egypt in Exodus 4, though it would again be going too far to
call Balaam a second Moses or an Anti-Moses. The following similarities are present in both
accounts: the prophet is divinely commissioned to speak God’s message to a hostile king; the
prophet—while en route in obedience to that commission—is shockingly and murderously
confronted by a divine visitor; and the prophet’s life is spared because of the timely
intervention of a third party. Admittedly this streamlined comparison does not flatter
32:8.
2 2 2 Cf.
Dozeman, "Numbers," 2:180, where he notes that the alternation of divine
names "is for literary and theological reasons."
2 2 3 Cf. Rouillard, Balaam, 108-111, 167. Rouillard suggests (111) that there might
have been no Angel of the LORD in this pericope had he not first appeared in Genesis 22.
This conclusion is essentially correct, though judgment is withheld here on the redactional
means by which Rouillard reaches it.
224As does Rouillard, Balaam, 109-110.
2 2 5 Cp. Noth, Numbers, 179 (cf. Davies, Numbers, 250; Milgrom, Numbers, 190),
who, missing the allusion to Genesis 22, claims, "These two [servants] have no part to play
in the story; they . . . serve only to show that Balaam travelled like a man of superior rank."
The word Tfov occurs almost 300 times in the OT and is not rare in and of itself. What is
rare is the (sanctioned) occurrence of such an offering outside the cultic system.
112
Zipporah, who stands formally in the place of Balaam’s donkey; but it does show that in
these essentials the accounts are remarkably similar. The simplest explanation for the fact
that the Angel of the LORD in Numbers 22 stands in the place of the Angel of the LORD in
Genesis 22, and in the place of YHWH in Exodus 4, is that he is YHWH.226
7. The parallel between Exod 23:20-23 and Num 22:22-34. Thematically and
conceptually these two passages are closely parallel since the latter illustrates the Angel of
the LORD in the role promised in the former. Not only will he guard his people from their
enemies, he himself will become an enemy to their enemies and an adversary to their
adversaries. This could be one reason why the Angel of the LORD is described as an
"adversary" (]C9S7) in Num 22:22. The reader may not yet know that Balaam will turn out to
be an adversary since at this point in the narrative he seems harmless, even honorable. But
the narrator knows better and has left a clue or a foreshadowing. Of greater importance,
however, is the verbal link to Exod 23:20 in the expression "in the way" ("p“Q). The
expression was used in Exod 23:20 and is a Leitwort in the present passage. This exact form
of the expression occurs four times (22:22, 23, 31, 34) with other variations of the noun
occurring four more times (22:23 [bis], 26, 32).
226The rare verb m p ("to meet") that occurs in Num 23:3, 4, 15, 16, may further
echo Exod 3:18 and the appearance of the Angel of the LORD to Moses. The verb is usually
used of YHWH (BDB, 899) and is roughly synonymous with V2D ("to meet") in Exod 4:24;
with 930 ("to meet") in Exod 5:3; and again with IpB ("to visit") in Exod 3:16; 4:31; 13:19
(=G en 50:24-25). Another expression that only occurs twice in the OT is found here in Num
22:30 and in Jacob’s blessing in Gen 48:15 (cf. Gray, Numbers, 336; Milgrom, Numbers,
320, n. 73; Westermann, Genesis, 3:190). That expression is HTTI DlTI IP ■plPia/,*llPO ("all
my/your life long until this day"). Could this be a deliberate echo? If so, the different
application of the phrase in the mouth of Balaam’s donkey may be ironic; or it may suggest,
as far as echoes to earlier Angel of the LORD texts are concerned, that the point of
diminishing returns has been reached. For thematic connections to God’s attack on Jacob at
Peniel see, D. F. Pennant, "Genesis 32: Lighten our Darkness, Lord, We Pray," in He
Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12-50, ed. R. S. Hess, G. J. Wenham, and
P. E. Satterthwaite (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 175-183; R. S. Hendel, Epic o f the
Patriarch, 105-106, 158-161.
113
The evidence uncovered in the Balaam account lends itself to the following
conclusions: Balaam has had a personal encounter with the "vanguard" angel of the exodus
(Exod 23:20-23; Num 20:16); and Balaam has been the recipient of a theophany. These
conclusions are fully in accord with earlier Angel of the LORD texts—a number of which are
distinctly echoed here—and with the divine identity of the Angel of the LORD in those texts.
What is unique to this account is the angel’s sword. This is the first time that the Angel of
the LORD appears wielding a sword; but it will not be his last. The sword will show up
again soon and is indispensable to a correct identification of the one wielding it.
Joshua 5:13-13
Once again the interpreter is faced with a notoriously difficult passage: "Les trois
versets qui terminent le chapitre V de Josue presentent une enigme qui n’est pas encore
resolue. Chaque phrase y soulfcve des difficult^ " . 227 Nevertheless, the flow of the
exodus and wilderness narrative and the verbal and thematic links to earlier Angel of the
LORD passages make it likely that the Prince of the LORD’S Host is the Angel of the
LORD.22® The Angel of the LORD has guarded the people along the way (Exod 23:20;
227 F. M. Abel, "L’apparition du chef de l’armee de Yahveh a Josue (Jos. V, 13-

15)," in Miscellanea Biblica et Orientalia, ed. A. Metzinger (Studia Anselmiana 27-28;
Rome: Herder, 1951), 109 [art. = 109-113].
OOR
Contra E. Jacob, "Une theophanie mysterieuse: Josue 5, 13-15,” in Ce Dieu qui
vient: Etudes sur VAncien et le Nouveau Testament offertes au Professeur Bernard Renaud a.
[’occasion de son soixante-cinquieme anniversaire, ed. R. Kuntzmann (Lectio Divina 159;
Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1995), 133 [art. = 131-135]. While acknowledging the similarity
between the two figures, Jacob claims that the two figures are completely distinct. The Angel
of the LORD is a mere messenger; but the Prince of the LORD’S Host "est une presence
r6v61atrice, done une theophanie."
The translation Prince, rather than Captain or Commander, is to be preferred since it
maintains the inner-biblical connection to Dan 8 :1 1 where "there can be no doubt that the
reference is to God" (J. J. Collins, Daniel [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 333).
The expression tQ2t(n)~"tf occurs 37 times in the OT, but only in Josh 5:13, 15 and Dan
8:11 does it refer to YHWH (cf. V. Fritz, Das Buck Josua [HAT 7; Tubingen: Mohr,
1994], 64). Elsewhere it refers exclusively to human military commanders (Abner, Joab,
Naaman, Phicol, Sisera, etc.). For additional background and bibliography on the term "IB?
114
Num 22:22-35). He is now with them, as promised, to bring them victoriously into the
yjQ
land. 7 As the Divine Warrior, he will be an enemy to their enemies and an adversary
to their adversaries (Exod 23:20, 22-23). Particularly striking are the links to Exodus 3 and
Numbers 22.
The promise of YHWH’s presence in Josh 1:5, 17 (cf. Exod 3:12) has already
identified Joshua as a Moses figure, an identification that is underscored in Josh 5:13-15.
This connection between Joshua and Moses is crucial to the narrative and to the identification
of Joshua’s visitor. As Moses saw a strange sight, so also Joshua sees a mysterious stranger
and approaches to investigate (Josh 5:13; Exod 3:2-3). The stranger identifies himself as the
Prince of the LORD’S Host,2 3 0 and Joshua responds by worshiping him (Josh 5:14; cf.
see H. Niehr, TWAT 7:855-879. Cp. also Isa 9:6 where OlbBMfe is used of a messianic
figure (cf. CD 5:2; 4QWords of the Luminaries3, Frags. 1-2, Col. 4, Line 7; 1 lQPsalms3
28:11); and 1QH 18:8 where God is referred to as "Prince of Gods and King of the glorious
ones, Lord of every spirit, Owner of every creature."
229 Cf. Stier, Gott und sein Engel, 51-52.
230On the form of Joshua’s "polar question," see W-O, §40.3. The stranger’s
response in Josh 5:14 begins with *3 K1?, a noted interpretive crux. Cf. J. Muilenburg, "The
Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages of the Particle "O in the Old Testament," HUCA 32 (1961):
135-160, esp., 140; Joiion, §173c; and cp. A. Aejmelaeus, "Function and Interpretation of
'O in Biblical Hebrew," JBL 105 (1986): 201 [art. = 193-209].
In favor of an affirmative answer, i.e., of the first half of Joshua’s question, see
J. A. Soggin, "The Negation in Joshua 5,14 (Emphatic Lamed),” in Old Testament and
Oriental Studies (BibOr 29; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975), 219-220, "Certainly! Since
I am the Captain of the army of Yahweh"; idem, Joshua: A Commentary (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1972), 76-77; G. Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading o f the Book of
Joshua (JSOTSup 134; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 49. Cf. GKC, §143e. This
interpretation seems most consistent with the role of the angel in Exod 23:22-23 (cf. Num
22:22) as adversary to Israel’s adversaries.
In favor of a negative answer, most likely because the stranger does not exactly fit
either of Joshua’s categories, see D. Barthglemy, Critique textuelle de VAncien Testament
(OBO 50; 2 vols.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982-1986), 1:4, "La legon N*?
donne ici plus de relief a la th6 ophanie, l’ange reftisant de se laisser inclure dans le dilemme
propose par Josu6 "; R. G. Boling, Joshua (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1982), 195, 197;
T. C. Butler, Joshua (WBC; Waco: Word, 1983), 55, n. 14.a.; R. D. Nelson, Joshua (OTL;
Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1997), 73-74, 81; M. H. Woudstra, Joshua
(NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 105.
115
Exod 3:6). 1 The command to remove the sandals occurs only in Josh 5:15 and Exod
3:5 and cements the bond between the two passages.232 YHWH is personally present
and his presence has made the ground beneath Joshua’s feet holy.233
231
Cf. Butler, Joshua, 54; R. S. Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary
(Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1996), 127 ("Joshua worships the figure who accepts his worship");
Mitchell, Together in the Land, 49; Soggin, Joshua, 76, 78.
232This connection between Joshua and Moses, fundamental to the identification of
Joshua’s visitor, has been denied by Boling, Joshua, 198. According to Boling, the fact that
"Joshua does not deal directly with Yahweh" suggests that this is only "a partial parallel" to
Exodus 3 and that Joshua "is not being presented as another Moses." It is true that some
initial reserve may be evident in Josh 1:1 where one finds a possible contrast between
Joshua, "the servant of Moses" (71B7Q 0*18713), and Moses, "the servant of YHWH"
(mn* "1317; cf. Josh 1:2, 7, 13, 15, etc.). But this contrast, if it exists at all, is resolved well
before Josh 5:13-15. It is resolved, first, in God’s promise to be with Joshua (Josh 1:5, 9,
17; 3:7; cf. Exod 3:12); and, second, in the extensive parallel between the crossing of the
Red Sea—a narrative that prominently featured the Angel of the LORD—and the crossing of
the Jordan river (Josh 3:1-4:24, esp. 3:23; cf. Exod 13:17-14:31, esp. 14:19). The book then
concludes with a definitive reference to Joshua not as the servant of Moses but as miT "1317
(Josh 24:29).
For these and other reasons recent commentators have not followed Boling’s lead.
For example, Butler, Joshua, 62, argues correctly in reference to Josh 5:13-15 that "[t]he
words are borrowed from the experience of Moses to attest once more the dependence of
Joshua upon Moses. Even his ‘call experience’ with the divine messenger is simply a replica
of the Mosaic one. Wherever he turns, Joshua cannot escape the Mosaic shadow." Similarly
Fritz, Josua, 63, 65; M. Gorg, Josua (Wurzburg: Echter, 1991), 26, "Josua tritt in die
FuBstapfen des Mose, die Landnahme is wie der Exodus ein Neubeginn unter dem
Vorzeichen der Manifestation Jahwes"; and C. Schafer-Lichtenberger, Josua und Salomo:
Eine Studie zu Autoritat und Legitimitat des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament (VTSup 58;
Leiden: Brill, 1995), 209, cf. 107-224, "Mose folgt Josua . . . wie ein Schatten."
In some ways Joshua not only parallels Moses but surpasses Moses. This would
seem to increase the likelihood that Joshua is also dealing directly with YHWH in these
narratives rather than with a creaturely angel. Joshua, for example, recognizes YHWH more
quickly than Moses (Butler, Joshua, 57); he has no objections or excuses (Hess, Joshua,
126); and he is heard by God in an unprecedented and unparalleled way (Josh 10:14). Cf.
also P. J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles o f Moses, Joshua,
Elijah and Elisha (JSOTSup 224; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 78-82, who
concludes that of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha, only Joshua is a completely reliable
character (70, 94-95, 200).
233The word flH in 5:14 does not imply that "the whole land" is holy (contra
Mitchell, Together in the Land, 49). First, the word "earth" ()HM) is neither definite nor
nominal but adverbial ("earth-ward," rOHM); second, the word is part of an idiom for
obeisance; and, third, the territorial extent of that which is made holy is specified in 5:15 by
the definite word Dlpon and the following deictic clause ("on which you stand upon it,"
v b s *1317 nrm *WR). Cf. Abel, "L’apparition du chef," 111. As in Exod 3:5, a particular
116
The connection between Josh 5:13-15 and Numbers 22 is equally close and equally
significant. The sword, not seen in Exodus, was seen in Num 22:22, 31 where the Angel of
the LORD came out as an adversary against Balaam.234 Even more dramatically, the
doubling up of terms to describe Joshua’s obeisance before the Prince of the LORD’S Host,
"and Joshua fell on his face earthward and bowed down (nnw)," evokes Balaam’s emphatic
obeisance before the Angel of the LORD in Num 22:31, "he bowed his head and bowed
down (JTItf) to his face".
If the Prince of the LORD’S Host is the Angel of the LORD, then the text is not
presenting the reader with a series of distinct, sword-wielding angelic figures but with a
variety of connotation-filled ways of speaking about YHWH. Further confirmation can be
found in the immediate continuation of the narrative. Joshua’s mysterious visitor continues to
speak in Josh 6:2, but now the narrator identifies him as YHWH, "And YHWH said to
Joshua, ‘See, I have given Jericho into your hand’ . " 233 Corresponding to this, there is
no indication in the rest of the book that an angel leads the conquest or, for that matter, that
an angel is present at all. YHWH himself and not an intermediary fights for his people and
wages holy war against his enemies (cf. Josh 23:3, 10). YHWH, in other words, commands
place is hallowed for the duration of a theophany. The entire wilderness did not become holy
in Exodus 3 (or 24 or 34), and all Israelites in Joshua 5 do not need to take their shoes off
since they are not standing in the immediate presence of deity. Cf. Brichto, "Taking-off of
the Shoes," passim; Nelson, Joshua, 82.
234 Cp. the references to adversaries in Exod 23:22; Josh 5:13; Judg 2:3 (?); 1 Chron
21:1. Since the Angel of the LORD explicitly appears in human form, it might go without
saying that he "stood" (IDS?) before Joshua (5:13). Yet the fact that it is said could serve as a
conceptual link to 22T in Num 22:22-23 or as a verbal link to "109 in Exod 14:19 and Gen
18:22, should one accept the unemended text of the latter verse (cf. BHS apparatus loc. cit.
and the references to scribal emendations or tiqqune sopherim in n. 23 above).
235 A. Gelin, "Josud," in La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot and A. Clamer (12 vols.;
Paris: Letouzey et And, 1946-1961), 3:41; Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old
Testament, 2:1:64; Heidt, Angelology o f the Old Testament, 8 6 , n. 50; Hess, Joshua, 127
(cf. 128, n. 2); Van Seters, In Search o f History, 327, n. 19.
117
his own host.2 3 6 For this reason the Prince of the LORD’S Host is not "Joshua’s cosmic
[angelic] counterpart" but Joshua’s LORD .237
Judges 2:1-5
In one sense, this passage simply continues the meta-exodus-wildemess-conquest-
narrative begun earlier. In another sense, it effectively terminates it. YHWH’s people have
violated the covenant. As a result YHWH must confront his people and pronounce a terrible
judgment upon them. The Angel of the LORD was last seen by Joshua in Gilgal near Jericho
(Josh 4:19-20; 5:9-10). He now comes up from Gilgal to confront the successors of Joshua
who, in marked contrast to their predecessor, do not know the (Angel of the) LORD and his
earlier works (Judg 2:10; cf. Exod 1:8). Though the Angel of the LORD does typically
appear in human form, the reference here to his having "come up" (TbV) from Gilgal to
Bochim (Judg 2:1a) need not imply that he physically traversed the distance.238 The
3I.e., m!T ICS IB7 is functionally equivalent to HTT. Cf. Gorg, Josua, 26.
According to Mitchell, Together in the Land, 48-49, "The dramatic appearance of the main
actor in the story makes a vivid impression on the reader. YHWH is himself the war hero,
and he is the only one in the story whose military bearing is so emphasized." For YHWH as
Divine Warrior see further P. D. Miller, Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), esp. 128-131 on Josh 5:13-15. Cf. also
S.-M. Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East (BZAW 177;
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 197-204; M. Klingbeil, Yahweh Fighting from Heaven:
God as Warrior and as God o f Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern
Iconography (OBO 169; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999); M. C. Lind, Yahweh
is a Warrior: The Theology o f Warfare in Ancient Israel (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1980);
T. Longman and D. G. Reid, God is a Warrior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); G. von
Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 141-145; G. E. Wright,
"Introduction," in Boling, Joshua, 27-37 [art. =3-88].
237 Pace, e.g., Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 105 (cf. 70).
238 I.e., as would be the case with a human prophet who would literally have to walk
(cf. Hirth, Gottes Boten, 50-51, who connects this passage with its alleged "Doublette" in
Judg 6:7-10); or with the ark which would literally have to be carried (J. Gray, Joshua,
Judges, Ruth [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 242-243; J. Dus, "Herabfahrung
Jahwes auf die Lade und Entziehung der Feuerwolke," VT 19 [1969]: 301, n. 1 [art. =290-
311]). See further J. Marais, Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts (Biblical
Interpretation Series 36; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 82-83.
118
reference serves instead as an identity marker and as one of several intertextual echoes to
previous Angel of the LORD texts, this time to Josh 5:13-15. The angel who appears to the
people at Bochim is none other than the Prince of the LORD’S Host who had appeared
earlier to Joshua at Gilgal.239
EXCURSUS: The Deuteronom(ist)ic and Prim ary Histories ***

Integral to but not absolutely necessary for the acceptance of this conclusion, a
conclusion primarily based on the fact that the Judg 2:1-5 narrative follows Josh 5:13-15 in
the canon and so is unavoidably conditioned by it, is a determination of the relationship
between Joshua and Judges vis-a-vis the larger historical narrative(s) of which they are a
part. Almost twenty years ago Van Seters could say, "[t]he literary problems of the book of
Joshua and Judges are so numerous and complex that no comprehensive review of the present
state of scholarly discussion can be attempted here. Since these problems have only
become more numerous and complex, it must suffice here to make one or two brief points of
a very general nature.
Cf. B. Lindars, Judges 1-5: A New Translation and Commentary (Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1995), 75.
240Van Seters, In Search o f History, 322.
241 See further, e.g., H. Ausloos, "The Need for Linguistic Criteria in Characterising
Biblical Pericopes as Deuteronomistic: A Critical Note to Erhard Blum’s Methodology,"
JNSL 23.2 (1997): 47-56; idem, "The Need for a ‘Controlling Framework’ in Determining
the Relationship Between Genesis-Numbers and the So-Called Deuteronomistic Literature,"
JNSL 24.2 (1998): 77-89; A. F. Campbell and M. A. O’Brien, eds., Unfolding the
Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000);
S. B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation
(FAT 27; Tubingen: Mohr, 2000); R. J. Coggins, "What Does ‘Deuteronomistic’ Mean?" in
Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour o f John F. A. Sawyer, ed. J. Davies,
G. Harvey, and W. G. E. Watson (JSOTSup 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995), 135-148; G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and
Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (SBTS 8 ; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2000); V. P. Long, ed., Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite
Historiography (SBTS 7; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999); S. L. McKenzie and M. P.
Graham, eds., The History o f Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage o f Martin Noth (JSOTSup
182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); M. A. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic
History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989);
R. Polzin, "Criticism and Crisis Within Biblical Studies," chap. in Moses and the
Deuteronomist (New York: Seabury, 1980), 1-24; A. de Pury, T. C. Romer, and J.-D.
Macchi, eds., Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recem
Research (JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); R. Rendtorff,
"Traditio-Historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis," 5-11; idem, The Problem o f
the Process o f Transmission in the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990);
T. C. Romer, "Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘Book-
119
First, it is necessary to point out that the Deuteronom(ist)ic History, i.e., the larger
narrative of which Joshua and Judges are a part, has a plot with a "straightforward" story
line. Thus a certain continuity of presentation, of character and characterization, is
only to be expected. In particular, a competent reader of this narrative would be alert to a
character-identity clue such as is found in the reference to Gilgal in Judg 2:1. Whether the
continuity of presentation derives from one or more original authors or from a
supernumerary redactor is not material at this juncture. Material at this juncture is only the
obvious fact that plot is indicative of intention and literary cohesion. We are not simply
dealing with an emergent (but accidental) property of the canon, i.e., with mere
narratization-by-juxtaposition.2
Second, it is necessary to point out that there is no clear dividing line between the
Deuteronom(ist)ic History and the Pentateuchal narratives. In fact, it is hardly an
exaggeration to say that Joshua and Judges cannot be understood without reference to the
Pentateuch. The complex formation of the Deuteronom(ist)ic History and the
relationship of this historical narrative to the Pentateuchal narratives are obviously beyond
the limits of the present study. Note, however, the following considered judgment of
J. G. McConville:
It seems as if the material of the narrative existed at various stages in blocks, and that
these were united into a coherent narrative by a transmission process that is lost to us.
These blocks may have developed independently, and finally been redacted together by
the exilic period, but in a way that preserves their individuality. This seems to be the
only satisfactory explanation of the fact that modem literary treatments (such as those of
Webb and Exum) are able to focus on the individual books, and find coherence of
expression and theme within them. . . . This is not to say that the books must have
Finding’ and other Literary Strategies," ZAW 109 (1997): 1-11; L. S. Schearing and S. L.
McKenzie, eds., Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon o f Pan-Deuteronomism
(JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); J. Van Seters, "The So-Called
Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch," in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989, ed. J. A.
Emerton (VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 58-77; M. Vervenne and J. Lust, eds.,
Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans (BETL 133;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997); M. Weinfeld, "The Period of the Conquest and of
the Judges as Seen by Earlier and Later Sources," VT 17 (1967): 93-113; H. Weippert, "Das
deuteronomische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung," TRu 50
(1985): 213-249; idem, "Geschichten und Geschichte: Verheifiung und Erfullung im
Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk," in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989, ed. J. A.
Emerton (VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 116-131; G. J. Wenham, "Pentateuchal Studies
Today," Themelios 22.1 (1996): 3-13; R. N. Whybray, The Making o f the Pentateuch: A
Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).
2 4 2 R. B. Coote, "The Book of Joshua," NIB, 2:564 [art. =555-719].
D. Jobling, The Sense o f Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses o f the
2 4 3 Cp.
Hebrew Bible II (JSOTSup 39; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 14, "clearly much material not
originally narrative has gone into its making, but this material has been ‘narratized’ by its
very incorporation.”
2 4 4 C p.,
for example, Josh 5:13-15 with Exod 3:1-6 (on which see above); or Judg
2:1-5 with Exod 23:20-33 (on which see below).
120
achieved their present form all at once. It is likely, rather, that they constitute distinctive
units of tradition, which have grown into their present shape in the context of their own
particular history. They may also, however, have been adjusted in relation to each other,
as part of a process of transmission. . . . Indeed, such a view might imply a kind of
proto-canonical tendency, as has been recently advocated for the beginnings of the
formation of the Book of the Twelve. It would also explain why the individual historical
books are found to have their own concerns, which cannot successfully be reduced to
those of the exile.
A further implication of this approach to the historical books is the breaking down of
the rigid division between these and the Pentateuch. The connections between Pentateuch
and historical books have been highlighted at a number of points in our study. This has
important consequences for interpretation. It leads to the recognition that the book of
Exodus exercised an important influence on the historical books (Westermann and
Friedman). 5
McConville has essentially articulated the thesis of D. N. Freedman that there is a
"great Primary History of Israel extending from Genesis through Kings. Freedman
first proposed this intriguing thesis inl962 and subsequently elaborated on it in a number of
important articles and monographs. 47 His argument, in the main a convincing one, runs
essentially as follows:
The substantial unity of the narrative that runs from Deuteronomy through II Kings can
scarcely be questioned. . . . It seems, however, that to call the break between Numbers
and Deuteronomy a major one is to leave the story of the first part of the Pentateuch
unfinished. . . . Deuteronomy presupposes an earlier work on which it is dependent.
That is, its author assumed that everyone knew the stories up to the settlement in the
J. G. McConville, "The Old Testament Historical Books in Modem Scholarship,"

Themelios 22 (1997): 10-11 [art. =3-13]. McConville’s parenthetical references are to: J. C.
Exum, "The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges," CBQ 52
(1990): 410-431; R. E. Friedman, "From Egypt to Egypt: Dtrl and Dtr2," in Traditions in
Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. B. Halpem and J. D. Levinson
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 167-192, esp. 189-192; B. G. Webb, The Book o f
Judges: An Integrated Reading (JSOTSup 46; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); C. Westermann,
Die Geschichtsbiicher des Alten Testaments: Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk?
(TBu 87; Gutersloh: Kaiser, 1994).
2 4 6 D. N. Freedman, "Deuteronomic History," IDBSup (1976): 226 [art. =226-228].
247 D. N. Freedman, "The Law and the Prophets," in Congress Volume: Bonn
(1962), ed. G. W. Anderson, P. A. H. de Boer, G. R. Castellino, et al. (VTSup 9; Leiden:
Brill, 1963), 250-265. Cf. idem, "Pentateuch," in IDB (1962), 3:711-727; idem, "‘Son of
Man, Can These Bones Live?’" Int 29 (1975): 171-186; idem, "Prose Particles in the Poetry
of the Primary History," in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, ed.
A. Kort and S. Morschauser (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 49-62; idem, "The Earliest
Bible,” in Backgrounds fo r the Bible, ed. M. P. O’Connor and D. N. Freedman (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 29-37.
121
land; he backtracks only to the most recent high point, the making o f the covenant, the
first giving of the Torah. 8
The "chief merits” of Freedman’s thesis regarding the existence of a great Primary History
are not only its "simplicity and prima facie plausibility” (as Freedman himself notes) but its
explanatory power. 9 It has thus been adopted here as more than merely a working
hypothesis; it has been adopted as a viable explanation (or the closest thing to a viable
explanation that is likely to be forthcoming) of the present canonical data.
******
The Angel of the LORD appears to his people and states in the first person that he
had "brought them up" (rbSH) from Egypt (Judg 2:1b; cf. Exod 3:8, 17);250 that he had
led them into the land that he had sworn to give to their fathers (Judg 2:1c; cf. Exod 3:16-
17; 32:13; 33:1); that he had said that he would never break his covenant with them (Judg
Freedman, "Deuteronomic History," 226. Others who have made fruitful use of
Freedman’s proposal include, e.g., D. J. A. Clines, "The Old Testament Histories: A
Reader’s Guide," chap. in What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerfy Questions to the
Old Testament (JSOTSup 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 85-105, esp. 90, and 102, where
he states, "the Primary History itself consists of a self-contained and uninterrupted narrative
. . . . a unified work with a distinctive thesis"; P. D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading
(Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), viii,
"The corpus is an ‘entity’ held together by plot—from creation to exile; by characters—the
Lord and the people; and by themes—the word of the Lord, covenant, justice and mercy."
Miscall is, however, quick to add, "I speak of Genesis-Kings as a work, an entity with unity
and coherence, but the unity and coherence are its own and not necessarily that of Western
literature" (ix). Cf. R. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1989), 240-242, n. 1 (in reference to Jobling, The Sense o f Biblical Narrative).
2 4 9 Freedman, "The Earliest Bible," 29.
250Regarding the "false," i.e., imperfect tense of the verb n*?S7, Moore suggests that
"the author here copied Ex. 3:17a without correcting the tense" (G. F. Moore, Judges [ICC;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895], 58, 61). This suggestion is unwarranted, as is the
suggestion that a perfect tense verb and a waw consecutive "originally stood before the
Imperfect, in continuation of some event of which the statement has fallen out of the text"
(C. F. Burney, The Book o f Judges [New York: KTAV, 1970], 38; cf. W. Rudolf,
"Textkritische Anmerkungen zum Richterbuch," in Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zum 60.
Geburtstag, ed. J. Fuck [Halle: Niemeyer, 1947], 199 [art. = 199-212]). Though problematic,
it is not necessarily the case that the imperfect tense "defies solution" (pace Lindars, Judges,
77). According to W-O, §31.1.l.d (cf. GKC, §107b), ”[i]n some prose texts it seems that
some prefix forms without waw must be taken as preterites. "
122
2: Id; cf. Lev 26:44-45);251 and that he had commanded them not to make covenants
with the inhabitants of the land but instead to tear down their altars (Judg 2:2a; cf. Exod
23:24, 32-33; 34:11-15, 27). The people, however, did not "listen to his voice" (Judg 2:2b;
cf. Exod 23:21-22) even though he had specifically warned them to be on their guard against
the very idolatry and disobedience into which they fell (cf. Exod 23:29-30). After being
confronted with their sin by the Angel of the LORD the people weep (Judg 2:4; cf. Exod
33:4) and offer sacrifices to YHWH; but the rest of the book shows that their repentance was
insincere or, at best, short-lived. 252
These five verses are exceptionally dense and cannot be fully unpacked here. Their
most obvious and immediate significance lies in the fact that they contain several distinct
251The thought that God is faithful to his covenants) is found throughout the OT.
The precise collocation, JUt IVQ TTD [. . .] K*?, however, is found only twice in the OT, in
Judg 2:1 and Lev 26:44-45 (cf. Jer 14:21; 33:20-21). Both Judg 2:1 and Lev 26:44-45 have
in view the faithfulness of YHWH to the unilateral promise sworn to the fathers regarding
the land (cf. Webb, Judges, 104; pace Moore, Judges, 58, and Burney, Judges, 39, who
claim that Exod 34:27 is in view). This promise is intimately if not exclusively associated
with the Angel of the LORD (e.g., Exod 23:20-23). The disobedience of the people, on the
other hand, is related to the injunctions that are found in the Book of the Covenant (esp. the
epilogue) and repeated in Exod 34:10-27. The tension between these two "covenants," the
one kept by YHWH and the other broken by his people (Judg 2:20), has far-reaching
thematic implications not only for the book of Judges (cf. Webb, Judges, 121-122, 208) but
for the remainder of the OT.
252According to Dus, "Herabfahnmg Jahwes," 309-310, YHWH’s punishment for
the people’s "Bundesbruch" is too mild to be believable. Therefore, Judg 2:4-5 must
originally have recounted the complete and radical the departure of God’s presence from his
people. Dus reconstructs the putative original as follows: "Und wahrend . . . Jahwe diese
Worte zu alien Israeliten redete, (sahen die Israeliten die Herrlichkeit nicht mehr,) und das
Volk fing lout zju weinen an. Daher heisst jene Ortlichkeit Bochim” (ellipsis original, Dus
being an adherent of the interpolation theory). This admittedly brazen conjecture (cf. 310)
commends itself only as a reminder that God no longer appears to his people as a pillar of
cloud and fire. But it is not said that the pillar of cloud and fire departs, and so its
(conjectured) departure cannot be viewed as a punishment. Last seen in Deuteronomy 31, the
pillar of cloud and fire had a specific and temporary function as a visible guide in the
wilderness. Once the people were in the promised land it was no longer needed (cp. the
cessation of manna in Josh 5:12). YHWH is still with his people. But when he appears, it is
as an angel rather than as a pillar of cloud and fire. YHWH has simply returned to an earlier
modus operandi.
123
quotations and echoes of earlier passages.2 5 2 Foremost among passages quoted and
echoed are Exod 23:20-33; 34:10-15; Lev 26:44-45; Num 33:52, 55; Deut 7:1-26; 31:15-21;
Josh 23:12-13; 24:17-18. These passages are not all equally relevant, however, since not all
contain words that could have been said by the Angel of the LORD on a previous occasion.
That is, the first person verbs of speaking in Judg 2:1, 3 (TT1DN OT) . . . TOttt) most
naturally refer to things previously said.254 Once this is understood, it is clear that Exod
23:20-33 is of primary significance.255 These are the words first spoken by YHWH to
conclude the Book of the Covenant; these are the words repeated by YHWH in Exodus 34,
Numbers 33, and Deuteronomy 31 (from the pillar of cloud and fire); and these are the
words repeated by Moses in Deuteronomy 7, again by Joshua in Joshua 23, and finally by
the people in Joshua 24. Additional indications of the primacy of Exodus 23 are the fact that
the key verb BH3 ("drive out”) occurs four times in Exod 23:28-31; and the fact that
collocation in which the key verb is found in Judg 2:1 (ODTBO OTrtH BH3N H*?) occurs
elsewhere in the OT only in Exod 23:29.256
In each instance, the words quoted were originally spoken by YHWH with no
indication that an angel was speaking. Now, however, the Angel of the LORD claims these
2 5 2 Cp. Moore’s aphoristic description of the angel’s words as "a cento of quotations
and reminiscences" (.Judges, 61).
2 5 4 A. van der Kooij, "‘And I also Said’: A New Interpretation of Judges II 3," VT
45 (1995): 294-306. Cf. Burney, Judges, 39; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient
Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 202; Moore, Judges, 59; Neef, "Tch selber
bin in ihm’," 6 8 ; Webb, Judges, 105.
255 Cf. Lindars, Judges, 75, 78; Van Seters, In Search o f History, 341. R. H.
O’Connell, The Rhetoric o f the Book o f Judges (VTSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 71-72, does
well to highlight the connections between Judg 2:1-5, Joshua 23-24, and Deuteronomy 7 and
31; but he fails to note the existence of allusions to the book of Exodus.
256 Cf. Kooij, "‘And I also Said’," 298-299; Blum, Die Komposition der
Vdtergeschichte, 53, n. 42; Neef, "Tch selber bin in ihm’," 69.
124
words and oaths as his own: a bold move unless he himself had originally spoken
257
them. But an even bolder move may be the angel’s devastatingly selective quotation
of himself. Originally he had said, by way of a blessing,
/ will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not become
desolate and the beasts of the Held become too numerous for you. I will drive them out
before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land. . . .
You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. They shall not live in your
land, lest they make you sin against me; for if you serve their gods, it will be a snare to
you (Exod 23:29-30, 32-33).
But now he says, by way of a curse,
Therefore I said, "/ will not drive them out before you; but they will become adversaries
to you, and their gods will be a snare to you" (Judg 2:3) . 258
The temporary existence of some of the inhabitants of the land was always a part of God’s
plan; but now the purpose for their existence and the rate of their expulsion have changed
dramatically.2^ In fact, the selective quotation of Exod 23:29 in this new context
25 Contra L. R. Klein, The Triumph o f Irony in the Book o f Judges (JSOTSup 6 8 ;

Sheffield: Almond, 1988), 31, one cannot derive from the angel’s first person speech as
YHWH "an interim stage between Yahweh’s direct speech and strictly messenger-speech."
258The word IT1 S is tentatively rendered "adversaries." See the excellent discussion
in O’Connell, The Rhetoric o f the Book o f Judges, 454-455. The expression O’mtf? I’m
(lit. "and they will be sides to you") is problematic to say the least. Moore, Judges, 61,
conforms the expression to Num 33:55 (DS’IJQ D’3’3S*?; cf. Josh 23:13) and reads Judg 2:3
as if the mention of thorns has dropped out due to "hasty abridgement or transcriptional
accident." This is possible, as also is the alternative possibility that an original O’HX
("adversaries") was misread as □’IS ("sides"), the confusion of 1 and 1 being one of the
more common transcriptional errors (cf. Burney, Judges, 39; A. E. Cundall, Judges: An
Introduction and Commentary [Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1968], 65). If a transcriptional
error is to blame, the second alternative is preferable given the lack of dependence on
Numbers 33; the recurrence of adversaries in related passages (see n. 234 above; cp. the use
of IS in Gen 35:3; Num 22:26; Isa 63:9) and the evidence of the versions. If a
transcriptional error is not to blame, the present Hebrew text could conceivably give the
meaning "adversaries" on the analogy of in Dan 7:25 (cf. Barth£lemy, Critique
textuelle, 1:76) or on the possibility that D’IS derives from the rare root mx meaning "to be
hostile, opposed" (O’Connell, The Rhetoric o f the Book o f Judges, 455).
259See Judg 2:20-3:4, esp. the negated adverb "quickly" ( in n ) in 2:23. Cf.
R. Smend, "Das Gesetz und die Volker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen
Redaktionsgeschichte," in Probleme biblischer Theologie, 507 [art. =494-509]; Blum, Die
Komposition der Vatergeschichte, 52, n. 40.
125
effectively turns the earlier words into a prophecy of judgment (cf. Deut 31:14-21). God
cannot be taken by surprise.
As in many Angel of the LORD passages the continuation of the narrative suggests
that the Angel of the LORD and YHWH are interchangeable. Here the narrative continues by
repeating the substance of Judg 2:1-5 and applying it to YHWH. Thus in Judg 2:12, the
narrator states that it was YHWH, the God of their fathers, who had brought the people out
of the land of Egypt. Following this, YHWH states in the first person that the covenant
broken by the people was the covenant that he had commanded their fathers (Judg 2:20-23;
cf. Exod 23:20-33). He also states that the people did not "listen to his voice" (cf. Exod
23:21-22), and that he would not drive out the nations from before them (cf. Exod 23:29). A
mediator could be read into this and other similar passages (i.e., since YHWH is ultimately
responsible continuous mention of the angelic mediator is superfluous or redundant). But a
more natural interpretation, and one borne out by the remaining appearances of the Angel of
the LORD in the book of Judges, is that the Angel of the LORD is YHWH .260
260 Cf. Judg 6:11-40; 13:1-23. There is not enough evidence in Judg 5:23 to warrant
a firm conclusion, hence its placement in the uncertain category in Table 1 above.
Nevertheless, the relatively clear Angel of the LORD passages surrounding it in Judges, and
preceding it in thematically related earlier passages (i.e., Exodus 23 and 33-34), suggest that
5:23 may be another reference to YHWH (Moore, Judges, 162). Neef ("‘Ich selber bin in
ihm,’" 69-71; idem, "Meroz: Jdc 5,23a," ZAW 107 [1995]: 118-122) recognizes the thematic
relationship between these Angel of the LORD passages but attributes this unity to a later
redaction. Cf. E. Blum, "Die kompositionelle Knoten am Ubergang von Josua zu Richter:
Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag," in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H.
W. Brekelmans, ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust (BETL 133; Leuven: Leuven University Press,
1997), 187-194 [art. = 181-212].
Unlikely, given the unity among these exodus-conquest passages, is the view that the
angel in 5:23 is "the professional diviner, invariably consulted in ancient warfare" (R. G.
Boling, Judges [AB; New York: Doubleday, 1975], 114; following T. H. Gaster, Myth,
Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament: A Comparative Study with Chapters from Sir
James G. Frazer’s Folklore in the Old Testament [New York: Harper & Row, 1969], 419,
530). On the form and brevity of the angel’s curse see H. C. Brichto, The Problem o f
"Curse” in the Hebrew Bible (JBLMS 13; Philadelphia: SBL, 1968), 101-102.
126
Judges 6:11-24
The Angel of the LORD next appears to Gideon as he is threshing wheat in, of all
places, a wine press. Gideon is slow to recognize his visitor and his slowness lends more
than a touch of irony to what will become a pervasively ironic account.261 Interestingly,
Gideon's lack of awareness corresponds, at least temporarily, to the uncertainty experienced
by the reader at this juncture. That is, the relatively smooth transition from 6:8-10 to 6:11
("YHWH sent a prophet . . . . And the Angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak")
briefly puts the reader in Gideon’s shoes: Is Gideon’s visitor the aforementioned
prophet? 262 The answer, which the reader discovers before Gideon, is that his visitor is
not a prophet but the Sender of prophets (and judges!).263
Evidence that Gideon is the recipient of a theophany accumulates on several fronts:
first, in the parallel between this visitation and foundational earlier Pentateuchal theophanies;
second, in the parallel between this visitation and appearances of the Angel of the LORD
elsewhere in the book of Judges; and, third, in the parallel or interchangeability between the
Angel of the LORD and YHWH in this particular account.264 The account dramatically
culminates in 6:22 with Gideon’s awareness that he has seen God.
261 Klein, Triumph o f Irony, 49-55; Webb, Judges, 146-154. Gideon, the "valiant
warrior," is hiding to avoid detection by Midianite marauders. He falls far short of the
Mosaic ideal after which his call is patterned. The greatest irony in the passage may be in
6:12-13. YHWH is present with Gideon and Gideon, oblivious to the fact, argues with
YHWH against the very possibility! Klein fails to identify properly the Main Character in the
drama and so misses the full effect of this irony (Triumph o f Irony, 53; cf. 31; 50, n. 3; 51).
262 Cp. Y. Amit, The Book o f Judges: The Art of Editing (Biblical Interpretation
Series 38; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 225, 249-251.
263 Cf. Marais, Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts, 108-109, "In 6:11
the messenger of Yahweh is represented in human form, even to such an extent that Gideon
does not recognize his identity. . . . Yahweh is represented as active in reality to the point
that He is human, but his identity is always the subject of wonder and mystery. He is not to
be grasped or possessed."
264On this third point cf. Burney, Judges, 186; Cundall, Judges, 104; J. A. Soggin,
Judges: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 114.
127
The appearance of the Angel of the LORD to Gideon is identical in many important
respects to the angelomorphic theophany to Moses in Exodus 3-4 .265 For example, in
both passages the Angel of the LORD comes to call and commission (i.e., "send") a
representative, his representative protests and proffers pathetic excuses, and the Angel of the
LORD gives a sign to validate the encounter.266 Specific verbal correspondences
include:
1. "Angel of the LORD," m rr - Judg 6:11, 12, 20, 21, 22; Exod 3:2.
2. "appeared," MT - Judg 6:12; Exod 3:2, 16, 4:1, 5 . 267
3. "bring up from Egypt," O’TXOO nb37 -- Judg 6 :8 , 13; Exod 3:8, 17.
4. "I have sent you," -- Judg 6:14; Exod 3:12 (cf. 3:10, 13, 14, 15).
5. "Excuse me, Lord," 'VV* *2 ~ Judg 6:13, 15; Exod 4:10, 13.268
6. "Indeed I will be with you," “JOS? R’TIK "O —Judg 6:16; Exod 3:12 . 269
265w. Bluedom, "Yahweh versus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the Gideon-

Abimelech Narrative" (Ph.D. diss., Cheltenham, 1999), 50-52, concisely notes many of the
similarities and differences. On the OT call narratives see: E. Kutsch, "Gideons Berufung
und Altarbau Jdc 6,11-24," ThLZ 81 (1956): 75-84; N. Habel, "The Form and Significance
of the Call Narratives," ZAW 77 (1965): 297-323; W. Richter, Die sogenannten
vorprophetischen Berufungsberichte: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche Studie zu 1 Sam 9,1-
10.16, Ex 3f. und Ri 6, lib -17 (FRLANT 101; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970),
esp, 137-169; H.-C. Schmitt, "Das sogenannte vorprophetische Berufungsschema: Zur
‘geistigen Heimat’ des Beruftmgsformulars von Ex 3,9-12; Jdc 6,11-24 und 1 Sam 9,1-
10.16," ZAW 104 (1992): 202-216; Bluedom, "Yahweh versus Baalism," 53, n. 43.
266 Cf. Webb, Judges, 149, who notes the broader structural pattern of call, exposure
of foreign deities, and holy war. There is also an immediate structural parallel between the
introduction of a single sign (Judg 6:17; Exod 3:12) followed later by a completely different
set of signs (Judg 6:36-40; Exod 4:1-9).
267In Judges 6 , as with earlier Angel of the LORD theophanies, there is a play on
identical consonantal forms of the verb KV. The Niphal in Judg 6 :12 means "appeared,"
while the (long-delayed!) Qal in 6:22 means "he saw." The Niphal is never used in the OT in
conjunction with a (cf. Judg 6:8) or a except in reference to four mn*
theophanies. The Niphal of TOT may thus be treated as "a technical term for the divine
manifestation" (Soggin, Judges, 115).
268The rare particle of entreaty *3 ("I pray, excuse me") is found only a dozen times
in the OT. Its use in Judges 6 and Exodus 4 (cf. Judg 13:8) is pointed out by Habel, "Call
Narratives," 300, n. 9.
26Âccording to Habel, "Call Narratives," 300, the *3 is an "archaic emphatic
particle." This sense best tits the context of Judg 6:16 and Exod 3:12, pace both A. Schoors,
"The Particle "O," in Remembering all the Way A Collection o f Old Testament Studies,
128
7. "sign," n1H - Judg 6:17 (cf. 6:36-40); Exod3:12, 4:8-9, 17, 30.270
8. "fire," 0K - Judg 6:21; Exod 3:2.
9. "fear," KT(n) - Judg 6:23; Exod 3:6 .271
If the appearance of the Angel of the LORD to Gideon is similar to the

angelomorphic theophany to Moses in Exodus 3 it is no less similar to the anthropomorphic
theophany to Abraham in Genesis 18.272 For example: in both Judges 6 and Genesis 18
YHWH appears in a mundane form that conceals his identity; he stays, as requested, while a
lavish meal is prepared;273 and he only gradually reveals his true identity to his host.
The following specific verbal correspondences, in addition to these more general thematic
considerations, suggest that Judges 6 deliberately echoes the theophany to Abraham:
1. "under the terebinth," n m - Judg 6:11, 19; Gen 18:1 (cf. 18:4, 8 ) 274
2. "appear," HT - Judg 6:12 (cf. 6:22); Gen18:1 (cf. 18:2).
3. "Lord," TIR - Judg 6:15; Gen 18:3.275
ed. B. Albrektson, et al. (OTS 21; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 257 [art. =240-276], who argues
that it follows a question and retains its customary causal sense; and Muilenberg, "The
Particle *3," 144, who claims that it "introduces a direct quotation" and so would have been
said by the narrator rather than the Angel of the LORD.
27°The collocation "do a sign" (n it nfeP) occurs only four times in the OT: Exod
4:17, 30; Judg 6:27; Ps 86:17.
Note again a word play in the consonantal text between fearing and seeing (cf.
Marais, Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts, 109).
2 7 2 Cf. Moore, Judges, 183.
2 7 3 Cf. O’Connell, The Rhetoric o f the Book of Judges, 149, n. 183, "the inordinately
large quantity of the meal offered in Judg. 6:19 (an ephah) is probably a deliberate point of
analogy to Gen. 18:6 (three seahs) in the Abraham version inasmuch as they are equivalent
amounts (ca. 2 2 litres)."
274There is doubtless also an echo of Judg 4:5, "under the palm tree" ("inn n n n ),
but the link noted above is tighter, being part of a sustained comparison.
275The unexpected pointing of as "Lord," rather than "my lord," gives an
ironic twist to both accounts. At this point in the narrative it anticipates the later revelation
of the visitor’s identity and puts the reader in the position of knowing more than the
characters in the narrative.
129
4. "If, now, I have found favor in your sight," "pri73 )n TINSQ iCEM - Judg 6:17;
Gen 18:3.276
5. "Do not, I pray, depart," “QWVtfDn M3 Sm —Judg 6:18;Gen18:3.
6. "prepare," TWJt — Judg 6:19; Gen 18:7-8.
7. "depart (lit. walk)," "^7T\ — Judg 6:22; Gen 18:33.
8. "fire," VM —Josh 6:21; Gen 19:24.
9. "and I will speak but this once," QP&n “|M rroiM I --Josh 6:39; Gen 18:32.277
In addition to reflecting the key theophanies in Exodus 3 and Genesis 18, Judges 6
may also reflect YHWH’s theophany to Moses in Exodus 33-34. This connection is most
strongly suggested by the rare expression "face to face" (0*3B *?M D*3&) used in Judg 6:22
and Exod 33:l l .278 The expression categorically excludes mediation. Admittedly, the
expression alone cannot prove that the Angel of the LORD is YHWH, only that the Angel of
the LORD spoke personally and without mediation ("face to face") to Gideon. But this is
hardly a thought one expects to find in conjunction with a mediator, particularly the paragon
of mediators. And the exclamation, ”/ have seen a mediator face to face (i.e., without
mediation)!” (6:22), is also a bit anticlimactic. The seeing of a mediator cannot adequately
account for Gideon’s fear. To explain his fear one must look to texts like Gen 32:31 and
Exod 33:20 (cf. Judg 13:22).
Moses also uses precisely this expression of entreaty on two occasions (Exod
33:13, 34:9; cf. 33:12, 16, 17). The entreaty is listed here as a parallel to Genesis 18, rather
than above as a parallel to Exodus 33-34, given its similar function and placement vis-a-vis
the detainment of the visitor and the hospitality of the host.
277The "nearly verbatim parallel" (Boling, Judges, 141) between Judg 6:39 and Gen
18:32 includes more than this polite request to speak. I.e., Gideon says to God, "Let not
your anger bum against me, and I will speak but this once"; while Abraham had said, "Let
not, I pray, the Lord be angry, and I will speak but this once":
(Judg 6:39) DPDH “|M TTOlMl . . . 1XV *?M. . . TOM*!
(Gen 18:32) B l» n "[M n*01Ml VP . . . ^M TOM’I
278The expression is also found at Gen 32:31, Deut 34:10, and Ezek 20:35. Cf. also
the synonymous use of D^2EH O'Sfi in Deut 5:4 and "mouth to mouth (HCT^M n&) in Num
12:8. The terms "rest" (ITU, Judg 6:18, 20; Exod 33:14), "the rock" (TlSn, Judg 6:21; Exod
33:21-22), and "know" (1H \ Judg 6:37; Exod 33:13) may also faintly echo this earlier
theophany.
130
At the literary level, Judges 6 is a masterful blending of at least two foundational
earlier theophanies. In their light the (sympathetic) reader can hardly avoid concluding that
Gideon has also been the recipient of a theophany.2^ Additional evidence for the
identity of Gideon’s visitor is found in the narrator’s use of divine names; in the angel’s
acceptance of a meal offering; in Gideon’s fear and altar building; and in YHWH’s promise
of peace.
Regarding this first piece of additional evidence, though Gideon’s visitor is
introduced as the mm he consistently speaks in the first person as mm.280 One
could interpret this first person speech as messenger speech on the assumption that the word
is sufficient to make third person speech or messenger formulae unnecessary. The
problem with this assumption is that the narrator appears to contradict it by repeatedly calling
the Angel of the LORD mrr* and ETT^R:
And mm turned toward him and said, "Go in this your strength and deliver Israel
from the hand of Midian. Have / not sent you?" (Judg 6:14);
Contra Gray, Judges, 234, who suggests that the angel of God might be a
"human associate" or "the personification of a man’s conscience."
2 8 0 I.e., with the exception of mm in Judg 6:12, which functions ironically (cp.
YHWH’s non-ironic third person reference to himself in 6:26). The expression ipo mm
lacks a copula and is therefore ambiguous: it could be a wish ("May YHWH be with you")
or a statement of fact ("YHWH is with you"). Gideon’s response ("If YHWH is with
us . . .") shows the latter interpretation to be correct (cf. W. Beyerlin, "Geschichte und
heilsgeschichtliche Traditionsbildung im Alten Testament: Ein Beitrag zur
Traditionsgeschichte von Richter VI-VIII," VT 13 [1963]: 9 [art. = 1-25]; Burney, Judges,
191; Moore, Judges, 184; Soggin, Judges, 118). Gideon’s response also shows that he
completely missed the theophanic implication of the angel’s words. He says, in effect,
"YHWH is not with (i.e., for) us." The thought of a theophany, whether to him or to the
nation, has apparently not entered his mind. The reader already knows better by 6:14, but
Gideon not until 6:22.
281On this verse note the following comment by Boling (Judges, 131; cf. 132-133):
Yahweh turned. . . and said. The statement is generally, but imprecisely, taken to
indicate the identity of Yahweh and the Yahweh envoy. In the prophetic book entitled
"My Envoy" (Malachi), however, it is specified that the envoy goes in advance to
prepare the way for Yahweh (Mai 3:1-2); Yahweh himself remains invisible and will be
131
And n w said to him, "Because / will be with you, you will defeat Midian as one
man" (Judg 6:16);
And Gideon said to tm b tt, "If you will deliver Israel by my hand as you have said
[i.e., in Judg 6:14, 16]" (Judg 6:36, 37).
This alternation between 71*171* “|K*?Q and 71171* or 0*71*711 in the present narrative parallels the
similar alternation here and elsewhere in the OT between the simple divine names 71171* and
orb*. In the present narrative, all of these divine appellatives~!TI71* “[K*7?3 ineluded—appear
to be functionally equivalent. From this it is not unreasonable to infer that they have the
same referent.282
hard at work ‘till they present right offerings to the Lord.’ In the present context Yahweh
has caught up with his envoy, and Gideon is in a three-way conversation without
realizing it.
Such a "three-way conversation" is not only confusing but unnecessary (cf. Heidt,
Angelology o f the Old Testament, 89) to explain the narrative and the identity of die Angel of
the LORD in it.
Equally confusing and unnecessary is the proposal of Freedman that Boling adopts in
connection with 6:14. Boling, Judges, 131, does not render the command as "Go in this your
strength,” i.e., as a reference, possibly ironic, to Gideon and his strength. Instead, he
renders the command as "Go in the strength of this one," i.e., as a reference to the Angel of
the LORD and his strength. See, however, Webb, Judges, 150, n. 8 8 (cf. Gray, Judges,
286), who rightly rejects this unusual proposal. Not only is this interpretation difficult to
explain, it is one that the average reader, ancient or modem, would have trouble detecting
even if he could grasp it. Does YHWH’s envoy speak in the first person as YHWH while at
the same time referring to himself cryptically in the third person? Can he? Fortunately, all
that is required is that a reader grasp the following more-or-less obvious features of the
narrative: (1) Gideon’s visitor is YHWH; and (2) Gideon fails to recognize YHWH until
6:22. Boling has also misapplied Mai 3:1-2 (on which see below).
282On the alternating use of divine names Cassuto argues, "[t]he Divine names
change . . . in accordance with the following principles: whenever the Lord is spoken of
objectively, the name YHWH occurs; but when the reference is to what Moses saw or heard
or felt subjectively, the name Elohim is used” (Cassuto, Exodus, 32; cf. H. Ringgren,
"D*71*7R," TDOT, 1:284 [art. = 1:267-284]). In other words, the divine names alternate, but
they have the same referent. Cf. Alexander, Abraham in the Negev, 96-101; and cp. Polzin,
Moses and the Deuteronomist, 169-170, 175-176. This suggests the possibility of a
comparable solution for the name 7TCT* the basis for alternation now involving
function or perceptibility. Boling, Judges, 131, refers to Cassuto but attempts to use
Cassuto’s insight to support the less likely view that the angel is merely an envoy.
132
If the angel is deity, it is only natural that he would accept an offering from Gideon.
The passage, however, is riddled with ironic ambiguities—one of which is this meal offering.
The parallel with Genesis 18 initially suggests that Gideon is simply being a good host by
preparing a meal for his visitor. The verbs nWB ("prepare") and Bft3 ("present") are used for
sacrificial offerings, but they are also used in other contexts and cannot be more than
____
suggestive. The word TTDQ is virtually a technical term for a meal offering; yet a
small degree of ambiguity remains since nron can refer to an ordinary gift (Gen 32:14, 19,
21-22; etc.). But the amount of the offering and the conclusion of the matter indicate that an
offering had been in view . 2 8 4 Gideon had acted better than he knew.
"The climax of the scene" takes place in 6:22 as Gideon finally recognizes his
visitor. 285 In a flash of insight, Gideon’s knowledge becomes commensurate with his
actions and with the knowledge of the reader. The fire that triggers Gideon’s insight is one
of the hallmarks of a theophany.286 Other hallmarks of a theophany are also present:
namely, Gideon’s fear and the building of a commemorative altar. The name that Gideon
gives the altar, oV?V miT, ultimately functions not merely as place name but as an
appellative of YHWH (cp. 7MKV m!T in Gen 22:14) who had comforted him with the words,
"Peace to you, do not fear; you will not die. ”287 If Gideon had only seen a
283 Cf. BDB, 585, 620-621.

284 Bumey, Judges, 191-192; Gray, Judges, 287; Soggin, Judges, 116; cp. Moore,
Judges, 187-188.
285 Webb, Judges, 148.
286It is unusual that the fire comes up from the rock (cf. Judg 13:20) rather than
down from heaven (Gen 19:24, etc.). This could be an additional indication that YHWH is
present on earth with Gideon. Boling (Judges, 133; cf. 222) goes beyond the evidence when
he takes *VUin in Judg 6:21 as a divine name. The word "VQt is evocative, to be sure (cf.
Exod 33:21-22; Deuteronomy 32), but it is not an appellative.
287See generally, S. Talmon, "The Signification of O')1?# and its Semantic Field in
the Hebrew Bible," in The Quest fo r Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Jntertextuality
133
representative, then the commemorable mercy of YHWH consisted in part or in whole in the
fact that YHWH did not kill Gideon for having seen a representative. But this thought, unlike
the idea that seeing God results in death, has no basis in the OT 288 The narrator then
gives his imprimatur to Gideon’s identification (Judg 6:24; cf. Gen 16:14) to assure the
reader that Gideon was not mistaken. Gideon had indeed seen YHWH.
Judges 13:1-23
The appearance of the Angel of the LORD to Manoah and his wife in Judges 13
"strikingly resembles in conception and expression" his appearance to Gideon in
Judges 6 .289 This suggests not only that the reader will approach Judges 13 "in the light
of what has gone before, "29° but that the theophany texts echoed and amplified in
Judges 6 will continue to reverberate in the present text. These resemblances are apparent on
even a cursory reading and need not be set forth in detail here. It is only necessary to point
out: ( 1 ) that both accounts are highly ironic due to the initial failure of the protagonists to
recognize their heavenly visitor; and (2 ) that both appearances culminate in the same way,
namely, with the sudden, fearful awareness that God has been seen.
The appearance of the Angel of the LORD to Manoah and his wife not only
resembles his earlier appearance to Gideon, it also exhibits striking resemblances to YHWH’s
in Honor o f James A. Sanders, ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon (Biblical Interpretation Series
28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 75-115. On the possible theophanic implications of DTOtf see, J. I.
Durham, "dV?H7 and the Presence of God," in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament
Essays in Honour o f Gwynne Henton Davies, ed. J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter (London:
SCM, 1970), 284 [art. =272-293].
288 Cf. Heidt, Angelology o f the Old Testament, 90.
2 8 9 Moore, Judges, 316. Cf. Burney, Judges, 336; W. Bohme, "Die alteste
Darstellung in Richt. 6,11-24 und 13,2-24 und ihre Verwandtschaft mit der Jahveurkunde des
Pentateuchs," ZAW 5 (1885): 251-274; J. C. Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment: Narrative Art
in Judges 13," JBL 99 (1980): 43 [art. =43-59]; Webb, Judges, 164, 167.
29 0 Webb, Judges, 178.
134
appearance to Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18.291 That text also recounts an
anthropomorphic theophany and the hospitality of a host who is at first completely unaware
ooy
of the identity of his visitor. ^ Likewise, both Judges 13 and Genesis 18 record the
announcement of the birth of a son. The connection between the two annunciations can be
seen by comparing Judg 13:3, 5, 7, on the one hand, with Gen 18:10, 13-14. Interestingly,
however, the full expression that is used three times in Judges 13, "Behold, you will
conceive and give birth to a son" ( p m b *) m n "pn), is not found in Genesis 18 but in the
words of the Angel of the LORD to Hagar in Gen 16:11 (cf. Isa 7:14) 293
As was the case with Judges 6 , Judges 13 reveals a masterful blending together of
earlier theophanies in a brilliantly structured narrative.294 The expectation on the part of
the reader is that Manoah and his wife will also be the recipients of a theophany. The
narrative is immediately complicated, however, and considerable irony is introduced, by the
initial failure of the main (human) characters to recognize their heavenly visitor.293 For
obvious reasons they lack the larger literary framework possessed by the reader and are not
privy to the clues left by the narrator in the narrative that envelops them. 296
291According to M. Greene, "Enigma Variations: Aspects of the Samson Story

(Judges 13-16)," Vox Exangelica 21 (1991): 59 [art. =53-79]), Judges 6 is less significant for
die interpretation of Judges 13 than Genesis 18. But the proximity of Judges 6 to Judges 13
and the fact that they are integral parts of the same running narrative makes this unlikely.
292 Cp. Judg 13:10 ("hastened and ran," p n i . . . TU3TT)) with Gen 18:6-7; Judg
13:15-16 ("prepare," DH7J7) with Gen 18:7-8; and the Angel of the LORD’S rejection of
Manoah’s "bread" (DTlb) in Judg 13:16 with Gen 18:5.
293In Judg 13:24 and Gen 21:2-3 (cf. Isa 7:14) the eventual birth and naming of the
promised son are also described in similar language.
294See esp. Exiun, "Promise and Fulfillment," 45.
295 Cf. Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," 46 ("In all three sections the messenger is
the central character").
296Note in particular the theophanic terminus technicus for "appearing" (NT) in Judg
13:3 and the emphatic repetition of the expression B*nbM/mn* “|NbQ, indicating the divine
identity of the visitor (13:3, 6 , 9, 13, 15, 16 [bis], 17, 18, 20, 21 [bis]). Cf. Alter, Art o f
135
Furthermore, Manoah is deliberately presented as so lacking in perception that the irony
takes on almost farcical proportions. 297 Only the Balaam narrative, of those under
consideration, surpasses this narrative in ironic effect.2 9 8 There is, for example, an
exquisite irony in the statement by Manoah’s wife (13:6) that her terrifying (N"tf3) visitor
"looked like (ITRTQ3) the Angel of God. "2" The greatest irony, however, occurs later in
13:15-16 (see below).
Though Manoah is introduced first, and is named (13:2), the Angel of the LORD
does not appear to him but to his unnamed wife (13:3-5).30® On learning about the
visitation from his wife (13:6-7), Manoah entreats YHWH to let "the man of God" come to
them again (13:8). YHWH answers Manoah’s request, or so it seems. But when the Angel of
God (not the man of God) returns he comes only to the wife. Once more Manoah is not
present (13:9).301 Manoah’s wife must get him and bring him to the Angel of the LORD
(13:10). But when Manoah comes to the Angel of the LORD he neither believes his wife nor
what he sees with his own eyes; instead, he questions the visitor to verify that he is the one
Biblical Narrative, 90 (cf. 88-113), who notes that "the only convenient way of fixing a
particular action or statement for special inspection was by repeating it." The frequency with
which the expression C’Tfctt/mrP occurs also acts as something of a literary
counterbalance to the ignorance of Manoah and his wife.
297 Cf. O ’Connell, The Rhetoric o f the Book o f Judges, 214 (esp. n. 304), 218.
2Q O
I.e., not only is Balaam less perceptive than his donkey, he wishes for a sword to
kill the animal at the very moment that one hangs menacingly over his own head.
299Pace GKC, §127e, and Joiion, §139c, there is no reason to interpret the
expression tm^NTI in 13:6 as if the nomen regens were indefinite ("an angel of
God"). The definiteness heightens the irony and is also the most natural grammatical
interpretation of the construct genitive.
300 Cf. Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," 48; A. Reinhartz, "Samson’s Mother: An
Unnamed Protagonist," JSO T55 (1992): 25-37.
The last clause of 13:9 adds emphasis since Manoah’s absence is already implicit
in the statement, "the Angel of God came to the woman as she was sitting in the field." The
repeated expression "to me" (*^K) in 13:10 also adds emphasis to the fact that Manoah was
(initially) absent at both visitations (cf. Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," 47, 50).
136
who had appeared previously. The stranger replies to Manoah’s abrupt question with an even
more abrupt answer—a single pronoun (13:11). Manoah then lamely requests additional
information about the "judgment" and accomplishments of the boy whose birth the Angel of
the LORD had announced (13:12).302 The Angel of the LORD responds but does not
exactly answer Manoah’s question. Instead he restates what he had said earlier to Manoah’s
wife. Interestingly, his restatement gives Manoah only one-fourth of the information that he
had earlier given to Manoah’s wife. 303 The Angel of the LORD’S response also focuses
exclusively on the wife, exhorting her not once but twice to do what she was told the first
time (13:13-14). The boy’s future accomplishments are solely contingent on the faithfulness
of his mother. Manoah, the boy’s father, is again completely marginalized. Manoah at last
attempts to play the host (13:15) as did Abraham from the first (Gen 18:2ff) 304 (Has all
the talk of food in 13:14 made Manoah hungry?) But Manoah’s hospitality is brusquely
rejected (13:16). Manoah is no Abraham. 303 Manoah is also no Gideon for he, unlike
Gideon, is not acting better than he knew. The Angel of the LORD must explicitly command
him to make an offering to YHWH. The tremendous irony of this command lies in the fact
that it is YHWH himself who gives it. YHWH is standing before Manoah and Manoah is
completely clueless. Just to make sure that the reader does not miss the irony the narrator
3 0 2 Cf. Boling, Judges, 221-222. The word "judgment" renders BBSfta, a word that is
easily lost in translation but that for obvious reasons is of fundamental importance to the
book of □’’BDtf.
3 0 3 Cf. Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," 52.
304Note esp. the use of DTI1? ("bread") in Judg 13:16 and Gen 18:5.
305According to Amit, Book o f Judges, 254-256, the eating or not eating of food
indicates whether the guest is human or angelic (cf. Tob 12:19). Because of this false
disjunction and the reliance on a later topos Amit has missed the fact that Manoah’s visitor in
Judges 6 , like Abraham’s in Genesis 18, is divine. The visitor’s failure to eat here is
motivated by, and explained by, completely different considerations.
137
adds, "For Manoah did not know that he was the Angel of the LORD!" (13:16).306
Manoah seems lacking not only in hospitality but perspicacity (not to mention faith!) and he
does not immediately and unquestioningly obey. He first asks for the name of the visitor so
that after his words come to pass he and his wife might honor him (13:17; cf. v. 12) . 307
The Angel of the LORD rebuffs Manoah’s request, saying allusively that his name is
"wonderful" (13:18; cf. Gen 18:14; Exod 3:20; 34:10; Judg 6:13; Isa 9:6) . 3 0 8 Only
306According to P. Kiibel, the narrator’s statement "hangt . . . in der Luft"

("Epiphanie und Altarbau," ZAW 83 [1971]: 226 [art. =225-231]). Some have even suggested
transposing 13:16a-b (so R. Tamisier, "Le Livre des Juges," in La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot
and A. Clamer [12 vols.; Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1946-1961], 3:250; cf. Bohme, "Die
alteste Darstellung," in loc.) or deleting 13:16b altogether as a marginal gloss (so Moore,
Judges, 320-321). All of this is unnecessary and indicates that the narrator’s statement has
not been understood properly as highlighting, if somewhat abruptly, the incredible irony of
the situation (cf. Boling, Judges, 222; Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," 53-54). The Angel
of the LORD is not a mere agent but is YHWH himself. Note in addition the similarity
between the Angel of the LORD’S third person reference to YHWH and the command to
Manoah to offer a sacrifice (13:16), on die one hand, and YHWH’s third person reference to
himself and the command to Gideon to build an altar (6:26), on the other.
Manoah’s request for the name of his visitor is grammatically irregular in that it
begins with the personal interrogative *0 ("who?") rather than the impersonal interrogative
HQ ("what?") as in Gen 32:28 and Exod 3:13 (cf. Jouon, §144b; BDB, 566). The Angel of
the LORD’S rebuff in Judg 13:18, "Why do you ask my name?" (’OB1? bttBTTI JIT HQ*?), is
identical to that given by Jacob’s opponent in Gen 32:30. The link to Gen 32:25-31, arguably
another Angel of the LORD passage (cf. Hos 12:5), is strengthened by the conjunction of the
terms 130 ("declare") and Otf ("name”) in Judg 13:6 and Gen 32:30; by the use of the term
ran ("see") in Judg 13:3-23 and Gen 32:36, 31; and, above all, by the fact that both
narratives end in the same way: with the sudden and terrifying awareness that God has been
seen.
308The word N*?B refers to that which is wonderful, extraordinary, or
incomprehensible (cf. BDB, 810-811). Though not quite a technical term, it is especially
appropriate for, and almost always used of, God and his activity (R. Albertz, "NIB," THAT
2:415 [art. =413-420]; J. Conrad, "i6 b," TDOT 11:535, 540, 543 [art. =533-546]; cf.
Burney, Judges, 349; Boling, Judges, 222; Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," 57, 58, n. 35;
Gray, Judges, 326; Greene, "Enigma Variations," 61; Moore, Judges, 185, 322; Webb,
Judges, 166).
Thus, J. Kim, The Structure of the Sampson Cycle (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993),
208, is correct to say that "the root p i’ refers to the acts of God.” But since he sees the
Angel o f the LORD as a creature, he immediately goes on to take the text’s ostensible
references to the angel’s name (Judg 13:17-18) as oblique references to YHWH’s name:
"The name that is ‘wonderful’ is not the messenger’s name but YHWH’s name since the
messenger represented YHWH himself. . . . [T]his strophe underscores YHWH’s amazing
138
when the Angel of the LORD disappears do Manoah and his wife "fall down on their faces
toward the ground" in worship (13:20).309 Finally, they recognize their visitor and
realize that they have been entertaining (no pun intended) God himself and not one of his
agents. "We shall surely die, for we have seen God!" (13:22). But even then Manoah still
manages to draw the wrong conclusion. Unlike Gideon, who is reassured by YHWH that he
will not die after the theophany, Manoah is reassured by his wife (13:23).310 And unlike
nature by causing the messenger to say that YHWH’s name as representative of his nature
and identity is too ‘wonderful’ (pl’y) to understand."
In spite of his painstaking analysis Kim has missed the plain meaning of the text.
The angel’s name is K7B. True, the angel’s name could be wonderful in its own right; but
this is inherently and contextually unlikely. The angel’s name could also be wonderful
because the angel represents someone whose name is wonderful or because, on one reading
of Exod 23:21, he is indwelt by the wonderful name of God; but this is to hopelessly conftise
the present narrative. Or the angel’s name could be wonderful for the relatively
straightforward reason that the angel is God, which is precisely what the text itself goes on to
affirm. "We have seen God!" (Judg 13:22). The text is thus remarkably similar in many
respects to Gen 32:30 where a "man," like the angel in this text, refused to divulge his name
(presumably because it was wonderful) and where that "man," again like the angel in this
text, was identified as none other than God. "I have seen God!" (Gen 32:31). This again
suggests and may even confirm that the words "man" and "angel" are being used
phenomenologically. They refer to the perceptible form of God or to the outward appearance
of his theophanic presence.
309xhe expression rBHM DTP3B ibD’l is a clear indication of worship. There is a
highly effective contrast here in 13:20. As the flame and the Angel of the LORD rise up to
heaven Manoah and his wife fall down to the ground in worship (cf. Boling, Joshua, 222;
Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," 55; Webb, Judges, 167). Contra Kim, Structure o f the
Sampson Cycle, 213, the word D*n<?K is not being used genetically for a supernatural being,
"a divine envoy." Because Kim denies that God is in view he is unable to give a reason for
Manoah’s "intense fear." As noted already this fear does not attend prophetic or angelic
visitations but is (unless this be the exception) unique to theophanies.
Burney, Judges, 350, correctly notes that the Hebrew word order in 13:22
(,a n n Dn*7tt *D) "is very emphatic." But he also argues (followed by Moore, Judges, 319,
324; Soggin, Judges, 235) that CTO*?# refers not to "God" but only to "a god" (350; cf. 336,
345, 346). His arguments are not compelling. First, he adduces (346) 1 Sam 28:13, a less
than maximally relevant parallel passage. Not only does 1 Samuel 28 contain no evidence for
a theophany, and no connection to other theophany passages, but Burney himself takes
there as a plural while here it is clearly singular. Second, his argument (350-351) that
had "God" been intended "Yahweh" would have been used is a non sequitur. And, third, his
claim that the Angel of the LORD is not God here does not square well with his earlier claim
that the Angel of the LORD "denotes Yahweh Himself in manifestation to man" (35).
310 Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," 43, n. 1.
139
Gideon, who builds an altar to commemorate the theophany, Manoah does absolutely
nothing. Nothing at all. The next significant action narrated is the birth and naming of
Sampson by Manoah’s wife (13:24).
Regardless of the irony that pervades the narrative, and perhaps because of it, the
narrator’s main point is as emphatic as it is clear. Manoah and his wife have seen God.
[T]he theophany is not just extraordinary in itself, but is the event to which the section
has been moving, since this is the event which resolves the dramatic tension of uncertain
identification and therefore confirms the promise.
The centrality of the issue of identification is also reflected in the frequency of the
root r ’h (see)—nine times in this chapter. . . . In this episode, what is finally seen,
importantly in response to worship, is God. The peak of the section, (hen, is not the
promise of a son, or national deliverance, but the appearance of God.
This is not to say that the passage is free of exegetical difficulties for that is clearly
not the case. ^ It is only to say that the passage can be understood as describing a
Greene, "Enigma Variations," 61. As Greene points out (with reference to Alter,
Art o f Biblical Narrative, 93), the word n tn functions as a Leitwort in this passage. It also
functions as "a framing device" (Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," 45) since the nine
instances of 71tn all occur in 13:3-10 and 19-23.
3 1 2 E.g., notorious cruces are found, respectively, in 13:19 and 13:21. Regarding the
former, Moore who is not typically given to hyperbole states, "The two words that remain
[i.e., matt?1? defy every attempt to construe them grammatically" (Judges, 322; cf.
324; Burney, Judges, 349-330). The point of these two words seems to be that someone does
wondrousty or works a wonder. The three questions that must then be asked are: who works
the wonder, when is the wonder performed, and what is the wonder? The immediately
preceding context suggests that the one working the H^B is the one whose name is *fC?B (cf.
Greene, "Enigma Variations,” 61). It also suggests in the following circumstantial clause that
the M^B was performed ”while Manoah and his wife looked on." Part of Moore’s inability to
construe the two words that remain lies in his premature deletion of this circumstantial clause
(Moore, Judges, 322; cp. Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," 54, n. 27). The highly unlikely
result is that the words "to Yahweh who worketh wonderfully . . . refer, not to the portent
which is described in v. 20, but to the predicted birth of a son" (Moore, Judges, 322). But
the next verse, and not merely by coincidence, shows none other than the Angel of the
LORD performing an astounding wonder: he ascends miraculously to heaven in the
theophanic fire (13:20).
The interpretation given here of Judg 13:19 assumes that the text is essentially intact
(though an explicit subject such as OTTI may have dropped out by haplography [so Rudolf,
"Textkritische Anmerkungen," 205]) and that the narrator’s overriding concern is to focus on
the identity of the Angel of the LORD rather than on more timeless theological truths (pace
Webb, Judges, 166, who refers to Exod 15:11) or on YHWH as distinct from the Angel of
the LORD (cf. LXX, Vg). Interestingly, Burney, Judges, 350, rejects such a construal on the
140
theophany. This, in turn, means that it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Angel of the
LORD is God and that m,T -|Mbn, CTO*?* "p6n, m r, and P TlbM (cf. mrr mn in Judg
13:25) are different ways of speaking about him. These are not, however, the only ways of
referring to YHWH or the Angel of the LORD as the next text to be considered suggests.
Isaiah 63:9
If the MT is to be accepted, Isa 63:9 refers to a V3B "|MbD who, in light of the
pervasive echoes of the exodus and wilderness narratives in 63:7-14, is almost certainly the
mm "|Mbn of those same narratives. 313 It has been said that Isa 63:7-9 comprises "a
ground that it "could only be justified by the insertion of a subj. Min or IMbnn." But does
not the context imply precisely such a subject? So, rightly, Cundall, Judges, 159-160.
A second notorious crux is found in 13:21, "And the Angel of the LORD did not
again appear (HMinb IftD Mb) to Manoah and his wife; then (TM) Manoah knew that he
was the Angel of the LORD." Briefly put, the context does not allow for any significant
passage of time; yet the use of the temporal adverb TMseems to make Manoah’s awareness
contingent on just that (cf. W-O, §§39.3.4-5, 31.6.3; GKC, §107c; I. Rabinowitz,
”'Oz Followed by Imperfect Verb-Form in Preterite Contexts: A Redactional Device in
Biblical Hebrew," VT 34 [1984]: 54 [art. =53-62]). The events in Judges 13 all take place in
one or two days depending on how one interprets Dim in 13:10 and are clearly part of a
single, unbroken sequence that culminates in Manoah’s awareness that his visitor was God.
Cf. the use of flBD "at this time=nown (BDB, 773) in 13:23.
This crux begins to resolve itself, at least in part, when it is understood that Manoah and
his wife did not come to recognize their visitor in 13:21b (contra Burney, Judges, 346).
They had already come to recognize him in 13:20 as they watched him ascend miraculously
in the fire. For this reason "they fell on their faces earthward" (JTMTM DTP3D ibDI; cf.
Josh 5:14 where the same words are used) in worship. Two possible interpretations of 13:21
are consistent with this prior recognition and worship. Either 13:21a is a somewhat awkward
parenthesis to highlight that Manoah is no Abraham; or the whole of 13:21 parallels and
recapitulates 13:20 for emphasis. This second possibility fits well in its context but requires
that the expression "did not again appear" (HMinb I f r Mb) is equivalent to
"disappeared" (cf. Moore, Judges, 324). Cp., however, Gen 8:21; 38:26; Exod 10:29; Deut
28:68; 1 Sam 7:13; 2 Sam 2:28, 14:10; etc. where, with the possible exception of 2 Sam
2:28, the passage of time and not simply the cessation of a prior activity is indicated.
313 Cf. Stein, "Engel des Auszugs," 293-294. The seemingly abrupt jump from
Judges to Isaiah, a jump considerably less abrupt in the MT than in the LXX, is mitigated by
the lack of certain references to a divine angel in the canonically-intervening material (i.e.,
1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings) and by the considerable dependence of the prophets, both major
and minor, on the patriarchal and exodus-wilderness narratives that so prominently feature
the Angel of the LORD.
141
brief recitation of the magnolia dei. "3 1 4 To this it should only be added that the same
applies to the whole of verses 7-14,315 and that for deus one may also substitute
angelus. As Jacob had once looked back over the course of his own life and attributed all of
God’s mighty acts of redemption to a so does Isaiah look back over the course of
Israel’s national life and do the same. Does Isaiah deliberately echo Gen 48:15-16? To say
this may be to go beyond the evidence, especially since other OT subtexts are dominant. It is
interesting to note, however, that Gen 48:16 is the first OT reference to God as redeemer;
that the word is a Leitwort in the book of Isaiah as well as in the more immediate
context (63:9, 16);316 that Gen 48:16 is the only other place in the OT where the words
bid and "ptbn occur together; and that in both passages the prose is elevated such that
diverse but referentially equivalent appellations are used to describe the same God (i.e.,
DTI1?* and "JK'jQ in the Pentateuchal text and mn\ Y*» ttnp mi, and mm m i in
the prophetic text). Note also Jacob’s reference to YHWH as "Shepherd," a reference that
may be echoed in the pastoral imagery (cf. Isa 40:11) of God "lifting and carrying" his
people; and also the resonance, not necessarily intended, between "all my life until this day"
and "all the days of old" (Isa 63:9, cf. v. 11).
This mention of the V2B who saved Israel all the days of old is flatly
contradicted, however, by the LXX. Thus while the MT of 63:9 states, "In all their affliction
Schramm, The Opponents o f Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History o f

3 1 4 B.
the Restoration (JSOTSup 193; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 150.
3 l 5 Cf. J. Morgenstem, "Isaiah 63, 7-14," HUCA 23.1 (1950-1951): 185-203; R. J.
Clifford, "Narrative ami Lament in Isaiah 63:7-64:14," in To Touch the Text: Biblical and
Related Studies in Honor o f Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed. M. P. Horgan and P. J. Kobelski (New
York: Crossroad, 1989), 94-100 [art. =93-102].
3 1 6 Cf. I. Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe? Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7-64,11 als Ausdruck
des Ringens um eine gebrochene Beziehung (SBB 19; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1989), 120-123.
142
he was afflicted, and the Angel of his Presence saved them , " 317 the LXX states very
differently, " . . . out of all their affliction. Neither an envoy nor an angel, but the Lord
himself saved them."'310 Because many commentators and translations have preferred the
LXX over the MT it is necessary to examine the merits of both. That is, one must first
ascertain that there is a V3B *]H^2 before one attempts to comment on his identity.
The most vigorous argument in favor of the LXX was made just over a century
11Q
ago. 17 It earned not only the day but much of the following century and consisted of
the following points: (1) metrical considerations require that the first two words of 63:9
(Dmx *?2 2 ) go with what precedes in 63:7-8;320 (2) text-critical considerations do not
favor reading Qm2 ^22 with what follows;321 (3) philosophical-theological
3 1 7 i.e., D in th n t o -jito *« 16 arret l» 2 .

. . . &k ratoiK 0 A.(yeax^ oi> xp&yfhx; obSt trfYsXoq, 6XK' orfrcdc icupioq taaxsev
3 1 8 I.e.,
afaouc. The LXX reads Qms *722 as if it belonged with vv. 7-8; ^22 as if 222; V? (Qere)
as if N2 (Kethib); *12 as if T2; "]K*2?2 as if in the absolute state; and 122 as if preceded by
an adversative. The remaining extant witnesses closely support the MT against the LXX. For
example, lQIsaa is identical to the MT except for a potentially ambiguous vcb (cf.
Barthelemy, Critique textuelle, 2:435); Theodotion reads, oft icofaopKTTnfc (lit. ntaker/besieger
of cities"), icoci 6 tiyyeXcx; too xpootfmou orircou Sogdoev arirzcrbq; Syriac reads, "en toutes leurs
catamites il ne les a pas affliges et l’ange de sa face les a liberes" (cited in Barthelemy,
ibid.); and Vg reads, "in omni tribulatione eorum non est tribulatus et angelus faciei eius
salvavit eos."
3 1 9 B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (HKAT; 5th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1968 [1892]), 466.
320Meter was ultimately determinative for Duhm: "die beiden ersten Worter von v. 9
[bilden] den zweiten Stichos des funften Distichons und [sind] daher mit der LXX zum
Vorhergehenden zu ziehen. . . . Der Versbau zeigt, dafi mit K1? ein neuer Satz beginnt"
(466). Cf. Morgenstem, "Isaiah," 188; K. Pauritsch, Die neue Gemeinde: Gott sammelt
Ausgestossene und Arme (Jesaia 56-66) (AnBib 47; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971),
147.
I.e., the divergent attempts to read the first two words of 63:9 with what follows
(e.g., MT, Tg. Isa., Vg) again suggests to Duhm that these words must be taken with what
precedes.
143
considerations favor the Kethib over the Qere which naively attributes suffering to God; and
(4) statistical considerations militate against an otherwise unattested V3B “JR^D. 322
But these points are not compelling: (1) Metrical considerations are by no means
irrelevant, but there is little evidence that (Trito-)Isaiah was as meticulous about meter as
later commentators who have attempted to improve upon him. If 63:7-9a comprises five
parallel bicola, then perforce 63:9a must go with 63:7-8.323 The related argument that
"TO &b begins a new verse, and for this reason is preferable to T t *b which does not, also
does not follow unless it is first assumed.324 (2) Text-critical considerations are likewise
So also, e.g., K. Budde, "Das Buch Jesaia," in E. Kautzsch, trans., Die Heilige
Schrift des Alten Testaments, ed. A. Bertholet (4th ed.; 2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1922-
1923), 1:711, n. a.; Notscher, Angesicht Gottes schauen, 51 ("Von einem ‘Engel des
Angesichtes’, wie der masorethische Text bietet, findet sich nirgends im A. T. eine Spur");
Reindl, Angesicht Gottes, 80; J. Skinner, The Book o f the Prophet Isaiah (Chapters XL-
LXVI) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954 [1898]), 221; B. D. Sommer, A
Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1998), 280, n. 51; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66 (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981),
257. To this may be added the debatable but (logically) similar observation of Skinner
(Isaiah, 221) that there is "no equally strong expression of Jehovah’s sympathy with His
people in the O.T."
Cp., by way of contrast, the excellent structural and thematic analysis of Isa 63:7-
10 by Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 32-40.
324See Duhm, Jesaia, 466. I.e., among the versions only the LXX begins a new
verse with and reads "128 as TO. It may also be added that the collocation TO R*? does
not occur elsewhere in the OT (in fact there is no other instance in the OT of TO preceded
by a negative adverb) and that T2t(S) occurs only once (Job 36:19). This observation does
not necessarily militate against the rare use of "I2£ VO or the singular use of TX M1? here,
especially since the word TO is too rare for statistics to be really meaningful. The
observation does serve, however, to highlight the fact that when the word TS is used it is
more often than not collocated with a suffixed b (e.g, D21?, ~\b, V?, *^). The only difference
in Isa 63:9 is that *b, the object, precedes "OS. Most likely this change in word order is for
emphasis: so Barthdlemy, Critique textuelle, 2:437; M. A. Beek, "Das Mit-Leiden Gottes:
Eine massoretische Interpretation von Jes. 63.9," in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae:
Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Bohl Dedicatae, ed. M. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman,
C. Nijland, J. Ryckmans (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 29 [art. =23-30]; J. N. Oswalt, The Book o f
Isaiah: Chapters 40-66 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 600-601, n. 34.
According to F. Delitzsch, The Prophecies o f Isaiah (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1892), 2:419, "the sentence gives a weighty thought (cf. e.g. Judg. x. 16) in idiomatic
phrase (cf. *b Ht, 2 Sam. i. 26) and well-studied order of words (\b=ipsi)."
144
not irrelevant, though they too are easily abused. If they do favor the LXX they do so at
only one relatively insignificant point, namely, the reading of Kb instead of lb. But
acceptance or rejection of the LXX hinges on more than just the Kethib/Qere question. 325
At those points that are significant for the existence of a V3& "]KbD the LXX continues to
stand alone. (3) Philosophical or theological naivete is in the eye of the philosopher or
theologian. 326 Indeed, a prima facie case can be made that a naive reading is an early
reading and that the Massoretes would not have transmitted, much less invented, the
suffering of the deity (i.e., the Qere) unless such a lectio difficilior had some independent
claim to originality. 327 (4) The statistical argument needs no refutation beyond stating
the obvious—its consistent application would eliminate every singularity. 32X
325Contra Schramm, Opponents o f Third Isaiah, 150-151, who states, "While

V2B "]Kbl3 (‘the angel of his presence’) is certainly possible, it requires that Kb be read as
lb. LXX requires no changes at all and is therefore to be preferred."
326 Cf. Beek, "Das Mit-Leiden Gottes," 24. He specifically faults Duhm’s argument
because, in it, "die religidsen Griinde [pravalieren] fiber die philologischen."
327According to Beek, "Das Mit-Leiden Gottes," 28, "die Tannaim und Amoraer
[haben] Jes. 63,9 ausnahmslos in Ubereinstimmung mit dem qere lb erklart." Cf. P. Kuhn,
Gottes Selbstemiedrigung in der Theologie der Rabbinen (SANT 17; Mfinchen: Kosel, 1968),
87. The Passover Haggadah, however, resembles the LXX of Isa 63:9 and represents an
opposing and equally well-established tradition. See further Barthelemy, Critique textuelle,
2:436-437; Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 133-134, 140-141; J. Goldin, "Not by Means of an
Angel and Not by Means of a Messenger," in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory o f
Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 412-424; M. Pesce, Dio
senza mediatori: Una tradizione teologica dal giudaismo al cristianesimo (Brescia: Paideia,
1979), 169-182; P. Winter, "OT AIA XEIP nPEZBEDZ OTAE AIA XEIP ZEPA* OTAE AIA
XEIP AITEAOY: Isa lxiii 9 (Gk) and the Passover Haggadah," VT4 (1954): 439-441.
The Passover Haggadah and the LXX could reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage from
that o f the MT (so Winter, "Passover Haggadah," passim; I. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint
Version o f Isaiah: A Discussion o f its Problems [Leiden: Brill, 1948], 62). But this
conclusion is not the only one possible. E. Tov wisely cautions, "it is well-known to the
textual scholar that it is often very hard, if not impossible, to decide whether a given
Midrashic element, or, for that matter, any exegetical deviation from the MT, is based on a
Hebrew variant reading or tradition" ("Midrash-Type Exegesis in the LXX of Joshua," RB
85 [1978]: 51 [art. =50-61]).
328 Cf. the related observation of Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 138 (cf. 10-11, 135),
"Zum Engel seines Angesichts findet sich im AT, wie erwahnt, keine Parallele. Dieser
145
Additional reasons for preferring the MT to the "kuhne Interpunktion" 329 of the
LXX include the following: (1) the LXX reading of Isa 63:9 "is typical of dozens of other
LXX paraphrases of difficult passages in this book " ;330 (2) the misreading, or hearing,
of *b for Hb is more common than the reverse;331 (3) the word IS ("affliction") is
neither rare nor especially difficult;332 (4) the word T25 ("envoy") is used elsewhere
Tatbestand gibt jedoch keinesfalls ausreichende Berichtigung, den Text zu andem, da unser
Gebet an mehreren Stellen ganz eigenstandige Formulierungen und Vorstellungen aufweist."
F. Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar iiber den Prophet Jesaia (Leipzig: Dorffling
und Franke, 1866), 606.
330 Oswalt, Isaiah, 600, n. 33 (cf. nn. 29, 32); J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66 (WBC;
Waco: Word, 1987), 326, n. 7.a. For example, in 63:7 the LXX misreads S I ("great") as if
from y i ("judge") and in 63:8 it misreads K1? as if it went with the preceding noun 0*93
("sons") rather than with the following verb Vlp#* ("who will deal falsely").
331The Massora Magna (§1795) lists between 15 and 18 instances where *b is the
Qere and the Kethib: i.e., Exod 21:8; Lev 11:21, 25:30; 1 Sam 2:3; 2 Sam 16:18; 2 Kgs
8:10; Isa 9:2, 49:5, 63:9; Ps 100:3, 139:16; Job 6:21, 13:15, 41:4; Prov 19:7, 26:2; Ezra
4:2; 1 Chron 11:20. In only two disputed instances, however, is M1? the Qere and *fo the
Kethib: i.e., 1 Sam 2:16, 20:2 (Delitzsch, Prophecies o f Isaiah, 2:419, n. 1). Both of these
readings appear in the margins of, e.g., the Leningrad Codex, but are not found in the
Massora Magna.
332 Cf., for example, the expression B m 2S which opens 63:9. There is no good
lexical reason to read an immediately following "125 as "1*25 ("envoy") unless the combination
"125 1*? ("to him was affliction") was thought to be offensive—in which case one or both words
could be read differently. The word "125 is fairly common. It is found seven times in Isaiah
and forty-one times in the OT. (And were the feminine form of the word and its several
nominal, verbal, and adjectival derivatives also taken into consideration this number would
quickly rise into the hundreds.) As expected, "125 is most often rendered straightforwardly in
the LXX by the 6A.u|n<; and axev6 ? word groups.
The word "P25, on the other hand, is fairly rare. It is found six times in the MT
(Prov 13:17, 25:13; Isa 18:2, 57:9; Jer 49:14; Obad 1:1). Cf. Pauritsch, Die neue
Gemeinde, 15, n. 94; A. Rof6 , "Isaiah 59:19 and Trito-Isaiah’s Vision of Redemption," in
The Book o f Isaiah—Le Livre d ’lsai'e. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unite et complexity de
Vouvrage, ed. J. Vermeylen (BETL 81; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 408, n. 8
[art. =407-410], According to Beek, "Das Mit-Leiden Gottes," 28, the word T26 is always
written Plene in the MT. Beek’s argument would seem to be supported by lQIs3 where Plene
forms predominate (Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 7, n. 12; cf. 6 , n. 3; J. Cook, "The
Orthography of Some Verbal Forms in lQISAa, " in New Qumran Texts and Studies, ed.
G. J. Brooke with F. Garcia Martinez [STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994], 135 [art. = 133-147]).
Thus in lQIsa "125 almost certainly means "affliction" and not "envoy." Some caution,
however, is advisable with reference to lQIsa because its "orthographical patterns simply
146
only in a profane sense;333 (5) the adversative &AJU&, by which the LXX divides
from TOB is a free creation that has no basis in the MT and no versional support;334 and
(6 ) "Lorsque le mot B*3B suivi d’un pronom suffixe exprime, a titre de sujet d’un verbe, la
personne du Seigneur ou d’un homme, ce verbe se met au pluriel (Ex 33,14.15; 2 S
17,ll) ." 335 For these reasons one is justified in accepting the MT of Isa 63:9 and in
speaking of the existence of a TOD
But who is this TOD For all of its many faults the LXX is reasonably well
justified in rendering TOD dynamically as "the Lord himself" (airc6 q Kuptoq) . 336 This
suggests the possibility of rendering TOD equally dynamically as ”the Angel o f the Lord
himself. "337 The Angel of his Presence is, in other words, the Angel of the
cannot be predicted" (Cook, "Orthography," 146). Likewise, some caution is advisable with
reference to the MT because of the appearance of a defective plural form of TO in Isa 57:9
(Leningrad Codex [=BHS]). Cp., however, the Plene form in earlier printed editions of the
Hebrew text of Isa 57:9 (e.g., BHK, Snaith, Koren; cf. also the form of the lemma given in
recent editions of Lisowsky).
333 Barthdlemy,Critique textuelle, 2:437; J. de Waard, A Handbook on Isaiah
(Textual Criticism and the Translator 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 212.
Skinner, who argues against TOD "jNbo precisely because it is a singularity, notes the force
of this objection. He nevertheless prefers the unparalleled—perhaps even the ad hoc—use of
"TO in reference to "an angelic representative of Jehovah" (Skinner, Isaiah, 221; cf.
J. Muilenberg, "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66," IB 5:732-733 [art. =381-773]).
334 Cf. Barthdlemy, Critique textuelle, 2:437; de Waard, Handbook, 212; Oswalt,
Isaiah, 600, n. 33; Watts, Isaiah, 326, n. 9.d. Contra Volz who follows the LXX and simply
assumes without argument an original "abgetrennt vom Folgenden" (P. Volz, Jesaia
II: Ubersetzt und erklart [KAT; Leipzig: Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1932], 266).
333Barth61emy, Critique textuelle, 2:437. So also Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 9, 138;
and de Waard, Handbook, 212, who like Barthdlemy argues that "B*3D (followed by a
pronominal suffix) as subject of a verb requires a plural verbal conjugation." Cp. P.-E.
Bonnard, Le Second Isaie, son disciple et leurs editeurs: Isaie 40-66 (Ebib; Paris: Gabalda,
1972), 448, n. 4; Reindl, Angesicht Gottes, 81, 84.
336 Cp. Reindl, Angesicht Gottes, 84; Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 9.
337By this analogy it is not necessary to engage the difficult question of whether the
genitive is objective, subjective, appositional, or epexegetical and what, if any, subtle
interpretive difference it makes. Cf. Oswalt, Isaiah, 607.
147
LORD.338 Isaiah clearly has the exodus and wilderness wanderings in view and has
deftly combined two expressions for the person and presence of YHWH: the mJV
(Exod 33:2; etc.) and YHWH’s D*3B (Exod 33:14, 15).339 This view is preferable to the
LXX in which, "Der Dichter widerspricht hier ausdriicklich der vielfach sich meldenden, aus
mifiverstandener Ehrfurcht geborenen Anschauung, als hatte Jahwe sich bei seinen
Rettungstaten, insbesondere der Ausfuhrung aus Aegypten, durch ein Mittelwesen vertreten
lassen. b34° That is to say, a reference to the activity of the V3D is more likely
than a denial of his activity in a passage that so clearly has his sustained activity in view.
Evidence that the exodus and wilderness wanderings, primarily the narrative found in Exodus
33-34, are in view includes the following:341
338So rightly, e.g., T. K. Cheyne, The Prophecies o f Isaiah (4th ed.; 2 vols.; New
York: Whittaker, 1886), 2:105; Delitzsch, Prophecies o f Isaiah, 2:420; A. Dillmann, Der
Prophet Jesaia (5th ed.; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1890), 521; E. Kalt, Das Buch Isaias (Herders
Bibelkommentar 8 ; Freiburg: Herder, 1938), 411; Oswalt, Isaiah, 607; I. W. Slotki, Isaiah
(London: Soncino, 1949), 307; Watts, Isaiah, 332; E. J. Young, The Book o f Isaiah
(NICOT; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 3:481-482. Cf. Boehmer, "Gottes
Angesicht," 67 [345]. Paradoxically, a few scholars who reject the MT in favor of the LXX
arrive at a similar conclusion by arguing that VJD does not refer to YHWH but to the Angel
of the LORD (so, e.g., Duhm, Jesaia, 466; Skinner, Isaiah, 221; G. W. Wade, Isaiah
[London: Methuen, 1911], 398).
339 Dillmann, Jesaia, 521.
340So Budde, "Jesaia," 711, n. a, who adopts the LXX. Reindl, Angesicht Gottes,
83, argues similarly ("eine Stellungnahme gegen diese Traditionen [e.g., Exod 14:19]"); and
the same argument can again be found, albeit in a more nuanced form, in Bonnard, Second
Isaie, 448 ("notre psaume affirme qu’en dernier analyse le salut vient a Israel non pas par un
deldgud, ni par un messager divin, mais par le Visage meme de Dieu, c ’est-a-dire par sa
presence personnelle et agissante"). Not only does the LXX of Isa 63:9 contradict the
Pentateuch, formally if not finally (a contradiction overlooked by Schramm, Opponents o f
Third Isaiah, 151), the LXX of Isa 63:9 contradicts its own Tendenz, i.e., its characteristic
aversion to the unmediated activity of the deity. Cp. rather Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 11 (cf.
135, 138), in this regard: "unbekannt ist eine Aussage, die das Mitwerken eines Engels bei
der Fuhrung vom Schilfmeer an ausdrucklich verneint."
341 Other texts less directly in view include Gen 48:15-16; Exod 14:19, 15:13,
23:20-23 (cf. Judges 2); Num 14:11-19; cf. Nehemiah 9; etc.
148
1. "love," io n —Isa 63:7 (bis); Exod 34:6, 7 (cf. Exod 15:13; Num 14:18-19).
2. "goodness," 3%) —Isa 63:7; Exod 33:19.
3. "compassion," D*iam —Isa 63:7; Exod 33:19 (bis), 34:6 (cf. Deut 4:31; 2 Sam
24:14; 1 Chron 21:13; Neh 9:17, 19, 27, 31 (bis).
4. "angel," "]i6 d - Isa 63:9; Exod 32:34, 33:2 (cf. Exod 3:2, 23:20, 23).
5. "presence," D*3B -- Isa 63:9; Exod 33:14, 15 (cf. Exod 33:11, 20; Num 14:14).
6 . "save," £0* ~ Isa 63:9: Exod 14:3c.342
7. "redeem," —Isa 63:9 (cf. 48:20); Exod 15:13 (cf. Gen 48:16;Exod 6 :6 ).
8 . "rebel," m n - Isa 63:10; Exod 23:21.343
9. "walk," - Isa 63:11, 12, 13 (c f.48:20-21); Exod 13:21, 14:19, 23:23, 33:14,
15, 16, 34:9 (cf. Num 14:14).344
10. "midst," S-ipa - Isa 63:11; Exod 23:21, 33:3, 5, 34:9 (cf. Num 14:14).
11. "name," 00 - Isa 63:12, 14; Exod 23:21.
12. "rest," rm - Isa 63:14; Exod 33:14.345
This partial catalog of verbal echoes and reminiscences is best explained on the
assumption that actual pentateuchal texts, in addition to a complex of historical events, are in
Dies [Exod 14:30] ist die einzige Stelle der Auszugserzahlungen, and der Jahwes
Eingreifen mit £0* hif. bezeichnet wild" (Reindl, Angesicht Gottes, 83). It is also an account
that prominently features the Angel of the LORD (14:19) and identifies him as a
manifestation o f YHWH.
343According to Levison, "The Angelic Spirit in Early Judaism," 471, the antecedent
text that has most influenced the present passage is Exod 23:21. He continues,
The theme of rebellion against God’s holy spirit is introduced in 63:10 with the verb,
m o , with God’s holy spirit as its object. The occurrence of this verb in an exodus
context comprises an allusion to Exod 23:21, in which God urges Israel not to rebel
against the angel which leads them: 13 TOrrttt. The holy spirit of Isa 63:10 is,
therefore, the angel of Exod 23:21 and, concomitantly, the angel of the presence of Isa
63:9. . . . In summary, multiple allusions in Isa 63:9-10 to a tradition of the angelic
presence of God (V2B m o ), alongside an allusion to God’s presence of Exod
33:14 in Isa 63:14 (ni3), indicate that the angel of God’s presence and the (holy) spirit
(of Yahweh) of Isa 63:7-14 are one and the same angelic presence of God which
delivered Israel from Egypt to Canaan.
Though Levison may have overstated his case, the point to note is that a variety of
referentially or denotatively equivalent terms is used to describe the person and activity of
the one God.
344The verbs "bring up" (Tfojt) in Isa 63:11 and "lead" (113) in 63:14, and their
synonyms, also abound in the exodus and wilderness narratives.
345The rest promised by God’s presence in Exod 33:14 is given by the Spirit in Isa
63:14, indicating that D’’3D and m i are simply different ways of speaking about YHWH. Cf.
Levison, "The Angelic Spirit in Early Judaism," 471.
149
view. The key texts for a determination of the identity of the TOB are clearly Exod
33:2 CptblS) and Exod 33:14, 15 (D,3D).34<* Not only has Isaiah creatively combined the
two expressions, 3 4 7 he has done so in a context that suggests that he did not see this
angel as a replacement of or substitute for YHWH’s personal presence. It is possible that
Isaiah is attempting to harmonize two divergent streams of tradition, one involving an angel
and one involving the personal presence and activity of YHWH ,348 but it is more likely
that Isaiah is heir to the Pentateuchal and exodus-related Angel of the LORD tradition
elaborated above. In this tradition the Angel of the LORD, here spoken of as the V3B
is simply another way of speaking about YHWH.349
The action ascribed to the TCB "ptbn is uniquely that of YHWH and not that of a
creature, however exalted that creature might be. This is suggested by the following
parallelism of soteriological statements:330
346See Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 139, n. 28, steht sonst nie im Kontext mit
contra Reindl, Angesicht Gottes, 83-84, who denies that Exod 33:14 is in view.
347 B. F. Price, "Questions and Answers," Bible Translator 16 (1965): 125
[art. = 123-127], claims that the original of Isa 63:9 was "confused" in subsequent
interpretation through the influence Exod 33:1-3 and 12-16. The original was not confused;
rather, the fusion of these verses was original to the prophecy.
348 Cf. Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 9-10, 138-139.
349Multiple expressions and terms are used to describe YHWH in Isa 63:9-14
(Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 37; cf. Clifford, "Narrative and Lament," 95, 99; Dunn,
Christology in the Making, 134). More specifically, what was earlier attributed to YHWH
himself, i.e., giving the people "rest," is now attributed to the m i of YHWH (63:14). Cf.
nn. 343, 345 above. The Spirit is also treated in 63:11 as if he existed independently of
YHWH as an agent or an object. YHWH "sets" his Spirit in the midst of his people (63:11).
The same kind of language, with the verb rfcti instead of DIP, was found earlier in reference
to the Angel of the LORD and the pillar of cloud and fire. Creatures distinct from YHWH
need not be indicated by such language.
350 Cf. Isa 63:7 which sets the stage for what follows by fixing the reader’s attention
on YHWH. The thought that follows is not that God so loved his people that he sent a
creature to save them but that he himself was personally present to save them and to suffer
along with them. Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?, 140-141, rightly rejects the LXX because it
eliminates "des Mitleidens Gottes" but (wrongly) claims that it makes little contextual
150
And he [YHWH] became their savior.
In all their affliction he was afflicted;
And the Angel o f his Presence saved them;
In his love and in his mercy he redeemed them;
And he lifted and carried them all the days of old (Isa 63:8, 9).
These important soteriological statements (became their savior . . . saved them . . .
redeemed them . . . lifted and carried them) all have the same divine Savior in view. The
combination of and is unique to Isa 63:9 and Gen 48:15-16.351 But the
parallelism between YHWH and V3B "|R*?D is also remarkably similar in effect to the
parallelism between God and in Gen 48:15-16; and what was said there about the
unlikely intrusion of an agent applies in equal measure here. Not only does one have good
reason to accept the MT of Isa 63:9, one also has good reason to accept the fact that Isa 63:9
is in continuity with earlier canonical traditions. Once again the Angel of the LORD is not a
creature but a way of referring to the person and mighty saving acts of God.
Hosea 12:4-5
These verses have long been recognized as "a notorious crux interpretum. " 3^ 2
Does Hosea, for example, know the canonical tradition about Jacob found in
Genesis 32?353 Does Hosea present Jacob in a positive or a negative light (12:4-
difference whether YHWH’s people were saved by a creature or by YHWH himself.

351See pp. 141-142 above.
352 S. L. McKenzie, "The Jacob Tradition in Hosea XH 4-5," VT36 (1986): 311
[art. =311-322], whose comment is representative of the literature. Cf. D. R. Daniels, Hosea
and Salvation History: The Early Traditions o f Israel in the Prophecy o f Hosea (BZAW 191;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), "Hosea 12 is one of the most discussed and yet least understood
passages in the entire book"; Jorg Jeremias, Hosea (ATD; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1983), 149, "Hos 12 ist das wohl schwierigste Kapitel des Hoseabuches, aber auch
eines seiner theologisch bedeutsamsten"; W. Rudolf, Hosea (KAT; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn,
1966), 223, "Kap. 12 gehort zu den schwierigsten Abschnitten des Buches Hosea.”
353Below it will be assumed that Hosea is either using Genesis 32 or a tradition
similar enough to it that rigorous distinctions between the two cannot be made. Cf. Andersen
and Freedman, Hosea, 598-600; U. Cassuto, "The Prophet Hosea and the Books of the
151
5 )?3 5 4 Does the verb *W* (12:5a) derive from 1187 or m fr or ITBT? 355 Does Jacob
Pentateuch,” chap. in Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973), 79-100;
R. B. Coote, "Hosea XII," VT21 (1971): 395 [art. =389-402]; G. I. Davies, Hosea (NCB;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 273; Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History, 50-52, 123-
124; L. M. Eslinger, "Hosea 12:5a and Genesis 32:39: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,"
JSOT 18 (1980): 95 and passim [art. =91-99]; H. Gese, "Jakob und Mose: Hosea 12:3-14 als
einheitlicher Text," in Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian
Literature: Essays in Honour o f Jurgen C. H. Lebram, ed. J. W. van Henten, et al. (SPB 36;
Leiden: Brill, 1986), 38; E. M. Good, "Hosea and the Jacob Tradition," VT 16 (1966): 149-
150 [art. = 137-151]; W. L. Holladay, "Chiasmus, the Key to Hosea XH 3-6," VT 16 (1966):
55, 64 [art. =53-64]; E. K. Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use o f Israel’s History in the
Book o f Hosea (JSOTSup 194; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 34, 36, 39;
A. A. Macintosh, Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), 486; J. L. Mays, Hosea:
A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 162; McKenzie, "Jacob Tradition," 315,
320-321; H.-D. Neef, Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verkundigung des Propheten Hosea
(BZAW 169; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987), 39-41, 45-47, 231-234; A. de Pury, "Le cycle de
Jacob comme ldgende autonome des origines d’lsrael," in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989,
ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 88-89 [art. =78-96]; Rudolf, Hosea,
227; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (WBC; Waco: Word, 1987), 191. Neef, in particular, is right
to highlight the verbal links or "Motivworten" that the two passages have in common. He
concludes: "Die Aufhahme wichtiger Motivworte aus Gen 32,23-33 lafit darauf schliefien,
dafi Hosea die Geschichte in einer Getalt kannte, die sich von der im Pentateuch iiberlieferten
nicht wesentlich unterschied" (Die Heilstraditionen Israels, 39-40; cf. 232-233).
There is thus no need to appeal to different, much less to unknown, traditions. There
is especially no need for the clever, if not frivolous, reversal of Whitt who claims that the
Genesis account is derived from the Hosea account (W. D. Whitt, "The Jacob Traditions in
Hosea and their Relation to Genesis," ZAW 103 [1991]: 33-34 [art. = 18-43]). According to
Whitt (following Gertner, Wolff, et al.), the word was not original to Hosea but was
added by a later redactor. This modified Hosea text was then used at a still later date (i.e.,
"late in the Judean monarchy or exile") by the author of Genesis 32 who himself, in turn,
glossed the word in Hosea with the word Bftt. Whitt (33, n. 61) claims that "this is
the only way to get from the original form of the verse in Hosea to its form in Gen 32,29"
(emphasis added). Not only is Whitt’s conjecture unnecessarily complicated it is completely
unnecessary. Moreover, there is simply not enough time for such a fantastic and textually
unattested sequence of interrelated glossings.
354The prevailing view in this century has been that Hosea presents Jacob negatively.
For a positive view of Jacob, however, see the minority opinion of P. R. Ackroyd, "Hosea
and Jacob," VT 13 (1963): 245-259; Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History, 48-49; G. I.
Emmerson, Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective (JSOTSup 28; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1984), 129; Gese, "Jakob und Mose," 38-47; and Neef, Die Heilstraditionen
Israels, 25-49, esp. 25-28, 48-49.
See also the more ambivalent portrayals of Jacob as an example of repentance or
conversion in F. Diedrich, Die Anspielungen aufdie Jakob-Tradition in Hosea 12,1-13,3:
Ein literaturwissenschaftlicher Beitrag zur Exegese friiher Prophetentexte (Forschung zur
Bibel 27; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977), 291, 332, 334-335; Eslinger, "Hosea," 94-95;
Holt, Prophesying the Past, 36, 39, 49; G. A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book
o f Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation (SBLDS 102; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 234,
152
or the angel weep and seek favor (12:5b)? Does Jacob find God or does God find Jacob at
Bethel (12:5c)? 356 Does God speak "with him" or "with usn (12:3d)? 357 Amidst
these and other interpretive difficulties one thing, at least, is relatively certain: the word
is original and should be retained.
An older and text-critically more radical scholarship tended to reject 12:5 (and more)
as a later interpolation.358 A recent and text-critically more refined scholarship tends to
363, n. 314.
355Whatever the verbal root, it is universally recognized that "1BP is a deliberate
play on the name Israel. In fact, "Hosea appears almost incapable of using a name without
playing on it" (G. Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea [JSOTSup 219; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996], 121). The likelihood that the root is TW, as many commentators
have argued, is heightened slightly by the existence of other similar wordplays on and
TJfe in Hosea, e.g., Hos 3:4, 5:9-10, 8:3-4, 13:9-10; cf. 7:1-5. See further, Morris,
Prophecy, 122-124.
3 5 6 Cf. Good, "Hosea and the Jacob Tradition," 144-145, who lists eight possible
interpretations of this one clause.
357The patriarch Jacob clearly functions "typologically" to explicate the present
status and behavior of the nation Israel. Cf. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient
Israel (Clarendon: Oxford, 1985), 376-378. It is not clear, however, that serves a
similar typological function in these verses: as if Jacob’s historic struggle were with an
angel, from whom he received a blessing, while Israel’s present struggle is with God. In both
cases the struggle is with God—the same God—but with God specifically characterized as a
Could this word be emphasizing God’s immanence and his (gracious) condescension?
358 Cf., e.g., H. Guthe, "Hosea," in E. Kautzsch, trans., Die Heilige Schrift des
Alten Testaments, ed. A. Bertholet (4th ed.; 2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1922-1923), 2:19;
W. R. Harper, Amos and Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905), 373-374;
J. Lindblom, Hosea literarisch untersucht (Abo: Abo Akademi, 1928), 103; T. H. Robinson,
Die Zwolf Kleinen Propheten (HAT; 3d ed.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1964), 47; and N. Schmidt,
"The Numen of Penuel," JBL 45 (1926): 260-279. More recently see J. Mauchline, "Hosea,"
in IB 6:696-697 [art. =551-725]; J. Vollmer, Geschichtliche Ruckblicke und Motive in der
Prophetie des Amos, Hosea und Jesaja (BzAw 119; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), 107;
and Yee, Composition and Tradition, 232-237. For the rejection of 12:5a rather than the
whole verse see K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (Tubingen: Mohr, 1904), 95; A. Deissler,
"Os6 e ,” in La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot and A. Clamer [12 vols.; Paris: Letouzey et Ane,
1946-1961], 8:1:112-113; Rudolf, Hosea, 220, 222, n. 5 a, 227.
153
reject only the word "ptÔ. 3 5 9 Such emendations are not immediately warranted on text-
critical grounds since the text is admitted to be "in relatively good condition” even by those
who have gone on to emend it anyway.360 The MT of 12:5a reads, TBH ("and
he contended with the angel"), a reading decisively confirmed by the versions. 361
3 5 9 M. Gertner, "The Masorah and the Levites: An Essay in the History of a

Concept," VT 10 (1960): 272-284 [art. =241-284]. Building on Nyberg’s conjecture that the
word 7K was not a preposition but a divine appellative (H. S. Nyberg, Studien zum
Hoseabuche: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Klarung des Problems der Alttestamentlichen Textkritik
[UUA 6 ; Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1935], 95), Gertner argued that the
word was not original. He speculated that a scribe may have added "|MI7Q in the
margin of a manuscript "as an exegetical gloss . . . . Later a copyist incorporated the gloss
in the actual text. . . . Then the words "pOQ (God - angel), not making much sense,
began to be read as "|N*?D (to the angel), which is our masoretic version" (281).
This hypothesis has been adopted, often without argument, by a surprising number of
commentators: e.g., H. W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 1: Hosea (BKAT; 3d ed.; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1976), 268, 275; Holladay, "Chiasmus," 56; L. Ruppert, "Herkunft
und Bedeutung der Jakob-Tradition bei Hosea," Bib 52 (1971): 495-496 [art. =488-504]; R.
KCimpel, "Die Berufung Israels: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Hosea” (Diss., Rheinischen
Friedrich-Wilhems-Universitat, Bonn, 1973), 220, n. 193; H. Utzschneider, Hosea, Prophet
vor dem Ende: Zum Verhdltnis von Geschichte und Institution in der alttestamentlichen
Prophetie (OBO 31; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 189; Diedrich,
Anspielungen auf die Jakob-Tradition, 36-37; Jeremias, Hosea, 153; Macintosh, Hosea, 484,
n. b; McKenzie, "Jacob Tradition," 313.
The lack of textual evidence, however, along with the improbable sequence of
intermediary stages, the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose reconstruction of scribal proclivities
(exemplified by Gertner, "The Masorah and the Levites," 280-281), and the sweeping claim
that the text only makes sense without the word “|N,?D (Gertner, 282) all count strongly
against this hypothesis. Cf. the cogent criticisms of Coote, "Hosea XII," 395, n. 4; Good,
"Hosea and the Jacob Tradition," 138; McKenzie, "Jacob Tradition," 314; Rudolf, Hosea,
229, n. 17.
360 So, e.g., Holladay, "Chiasmus," 53; similarly Rudolf, Hosea, 223. But see the
strictures against hasty emendations in E. Sellin, Das Zwoljprophetenbuch, part 1, Hosea-
Micha (KAT; 3d ed.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1929), 120-121; and esp., D. N. Freedman,
"Problems of Textual Criticism in the Book of Hosea," in Divine Commitment and Human
Obligation: Selected Writings o f David Noel Freedman, vol. 1, History and Religion, ed.
J. R. Huddlestun (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 314-329, esp. 314-318, 329.
361 I.e., the LXX reads, Koti tvioxuoev petti tiyyfeXou; Peshitta, "power over the
angel" (cited in Macintosh, Hosea, 488); Symmachus, KaxESuvdoxeuoe x6v ftyyeXov; Syriac,
"he overcame the angel" (cited in Gertner, "The Masorah and the Levites,” 273); and Vg, et
invaluit ad angelum. Aquila and Theodotion, on the other hand, read petti 0eo6 but should
not be allowed to overturn the weightier versions.
154
If emendations are not immediately warranted on external grounds, perhaps they are
warranted on internal grounds. But this also is not the case, for such internal difficulties as
might have forced emendation on such a uniform textual tradition are not insuperable.
Alleged difficulties have included the following: (1) the unemended text of 12:4b-Sa contains
"senseless repetition" ; 3 6 2 (2) the distinctly negative portrayal of Jacob in 12:4b (he
contended with God) could not originally have been followed by the more positive portrayal
of Jacob in 12:5a (he merely contended with an angel) ; 363 (3) there is no mention of an
angel in Gen 32:25-33;364 (4) the stylistically unlikely preposition is used when one
would have expected 037 as in Gen 32:29 (cf. 32:25-26) or DM as in Hos 12:4; 365 (5) the
preposition and the word are patently incompatible with the paronomasia of the
passage;3 6 6 (6 ) the noun is needed for stylistic variation with DTl^H in 12:4b;367
(7) the noun is needed for the meter; 368 (8 ) the word "jK^Q would have been
preceded by a definite article had it been original;36^ (9) the word is never used
362 Gertner, "The Masorah and the Levites," 273, 282; cf. Vollmer, Geschichtliche
Ruckblicke, 106.
3 6 3 Davies, Hosea, 274-275; Deissler, "Osee," 112-113; Guthe, "Hosea," 19, n. f;
Lindblom, Hosea, 103-104; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 95; Rudolf, Hosea, 222, n. 5 a;
Vollmer, Geschichtliche Ruckblicke, 106-107; Yee, Composition and Tradition, 234.
364 Gertner, "The Masorah and the Levites," 277, 282; Wolff, Hosea, 275;
Holladay, "Chiasmus," 56 ("The word in our passage spoils the echo of Genesis"!);
Macintosh, Hosea, 484, n. b.
3 6 5 Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuche, 94; Gertner, "The Masorah and the Levites,"
277; Wolff, Hosea, 275; Holladay, "Chiasmus," 56; Ruppert, "Jakob-Tradition," 496, n. 1;
Macintosh, Hosea, 484, n. a; Yee, Composition and Tradition, 233.
3 6 6 Holladay, "Chiasmus," 56.
367 WoIff, Hosea, 275.
368 Wolff, Hosea, 275.
369 Wolff, Hosea, 268.
155
in poetry in parallel with either or DM^R" ;3 7 0 and ( 10 ) the word is never used
by Hosea!371
None of these difficulties necessitates emendation. Specifically: (1) The argument
against "senseless repetition" is too subjective and imprecise to be of exegetical or text-
critical value and could quickly lead to the elimination of all OT parallelism .372 On any
reckoning these verses in Hosea contain considerable repetition (parallelism) and the exact
form that this repetition will take should not be dictated a priori. It also remains to be shown
that this particular parallelism is so completely senseless as to be impossible. In fact, quite
the opposite is the case. (2) The argument from Hosea’s portrayal of Jacob assumes that
Hosea’s portrayal is thoroughgoingly negative. This assumption has not gone unchallenged;
but even if it is true, or largely true, several problems with the argument still remain. First,
it begs the question by assuming that the in 12:5a is a mere creature. If the extant text
shows the word in formal parallelism with in 12:4b, then the word may
be another way of speaking about or referring to o rfctt rather than the ameliorating gloss of
a later redactor. Second, it has not been sufficiently noted that the same offended redactor
who added the ameliorating gloss in 12:5a left 12:4b intact. Perhaps he was oblivious to the
tension he created. Perhaps there never was any tension. (3) The argument that the word
is not found in Genesis 32 seems to be an ad hoc argument that binds Hosea far more
closely to Genesis 32 than the same scholars who use the argument would otherwise allow.
There is nothing illegitimate about referring to the B^N=0,n<?M of Genesis 32 as a it
370 Whitt, "Jacob Traditions," 32.

371 Wolff, Hosea, 268 ("von Engeln weiB Hosea selbst auch sonst nichts”), 275;
Whitt, "Jacob Traditions," 32, n. 55; Macintosh, Hosea, 484, n. b.
372 Cf. Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History, 39-40.
156
may even be Hosea’s single most potent and creative parallel.373 (4) The stylistic
argument that the preposition is unlikely begs the question of what Hosea’s (unemended)
style actually was and overlooks possible stylistic reasons, such as assonance or simple poetic
variation, for its adoption. 374 The stylistic argument can also be turned around quite
373 Cf. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 608 (cf. 611), "It is only an inference that
this person [in Genesis 32] is God. However, ’yS, ‘person,’ is a generic term, covering both
human and divine beings who have the same appearance; thus the Genesis account, which
intends to be mysterious, does not contradict Hosea, who identifies the ‘person’ as an ‘angel
of God’."
374 Compare, by way of contrast, the following comment on the unemended text in
Coote, "Hosea XH," 395,
It becomes plain that mal’Ok not only summarizes suitably the somewhat confused picture
of Jacob’s opponent in Gen. xxxii, but it also recalls Hosea’s practically automatic use of
the parallel melek. I would perhaps be driving things too far were I to insist that it were
no accident that the preposition ’el (= ’el) appears between ydsar and mal’dk. But the
whole expression for Hosea nevertheless is an inordinately effective assonantal variation
on Gen. xxxii 29.
The preposition warrants further comment for it is in many ways the fulcrum by
which the word has been dislodged from the text. Is this preposition impossible no
matter what the derivation of the verb TBP? According to Wolff the verb TW "ist in
Verbindung mit der praep. unbekannt und bleibt unverstandlich," while HIV "kaum in 4b
mit nH, in 5a aber mit konstruiert wurde" (Hosea, 275; cf. Ruppert, "Jakob-Tradition,"
496, n. 1). Wolff’s first dogmatic pronouncement overstates the case. It is also statistically
meaningless given the rarity of the verb TW and the fact that the verb appears with a variety
of prepositions. Cf. Num 16:13 (bis); Jud 9:22; Esth 1:22; Prov 8:16; Isa 32:1; Hos 8:4.
W olffs second and equally dogmatic pronouncement, if applied consistently, would eliminate
from the OT all minor stylistic variations.
The (alleged) problem with this preposition has gone unnoticed by lexicographers
and grammarians who have long observed on the basis of induction that Ttt can mean
"against" (BDB, 40, 757-758; Jotion, §133b; W-O, §11.2.2a). Cf. Ackroyd, "Hosea and
Jacob," 250; A. Bentzen, "The Weeping of Jacob, Hos XH 5A," VT 1 (1951): 58-59; Coote,
"Hosea XII," 395; Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History, 35-36, n. 5a; Gese, "Jakob und
Mose," 41-42, n. 9; Good, "Hosea and the Jacob Tradition," 141; Neef, Die Heilstraditionen
Israels, 41, n. 95; Rudolf, Hosea, 222, n. 5a. The most thorough study may still be that of
H. G. Mitchell, "The Preposition JBL (1888): 43-120. He catalogued every instance of
in the OT, along with the verb (if any) whose meaning it completes, and concluded (45;
cf. 47, 90) that is frequently used "[i]n the hostile sense of upon or against, like bV; e.g.
Cain rose up against Abel.~Gen. iv.8 ; comp. I Sam. xvii. 35."
It also bears repeating that the versions all read a preposition before as even
Nygren was forced to admit: "btt streichen kbnnen wir nicht, denn die ganze Uberlieferung
kennt an dieser Stelle eine Proposition" (Studien zum Hoseabuche, 95). The versions do not
157
easily and used as a text-critical argument in favor of the more difficult reading. (5) The
argument from paronomasia falsely pits one literary device, paronomasia, against another,
parallelism, as if one could know in advance which device was more important to a given
author at a given time. Such a subjective criterion cannot function as a canon of exegesis or
textual criticism (a loose canon indeed!).375 It also overlooks the fact that there is clearly
paranomasia between and the name "Israel" no matter how is pointed. (6 ) The
argument that is needed for stylistic variation with overlooks the stylistic variation
(parallelism) between and in Hosea’s sources. Can one know in advance of
reading the text which parallelism, if any, an author will prefer? 376 (7) The argument
that the noun btt is needed for the meter assumes that the preposition *7Mlproduces a
stumble over the fact that is slightly unusual or that it is not the same preposition that is
used in Genesis 32 or Hos 12:4. This suggests that if one absolutely must emend the text one
should begin modestly by emending to nn (so, e.g., J. Wellhausen, Die Kleinen
Propheten [3d ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1898], 129; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 95; Harper,
Hosea, 381; A. van Hoonacker, Les Douze Petites Prophetes [Ebib; Paris: Gabalda, 1908],
113; J. Lippi, Die Zwolf Kleinen Propheten (vol. 1; Bonn: Hanstein, 1937), 74; Robinson,
Hosea, 46; Schmidt, "The Numen of Penuel," 266; A. Weiser, Das Buch der zwolf kleinen
Propheten, vol. 1, Die Propheten Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, Micha [ATD; 6 th ed.;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974], 89, n. 2); or perhaps by emending to the
near-homonym and synonym bo. I.e., if one must emend one should emend to another
preposition. Wolff calls the emendation of to AN "Willkiir" (275), though he himself has
freely emended *?Ml to a noun and struck a well-attested
But even if one does emend to a noun it is by no means self-evident that one
must also strike the word Hos 12:5a could contain two nouns in apposition, "das
Numen, der Engel" (so Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuche, 95) or an additional parallelism,
"He contended with God. He overcame the angel" (so F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman,
Hosea [AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1980], 593, 611-613; Eslinger, "Hosea," 93-94; D. A.
Hubbard, Hosea: An Introduction and Commentary [Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1989], 204;
Yee, Composition and Tradition, 232-234; idem, "Hosea," in NIB 7:283-284 [art. = 195-
297]).
375 Cf. Coote, "Hosea XH," 394, n. 4.
376The word may also have been chosen for poetic reasons, i.e., "because of
its alliteration value with wayydkal which follows" (Yee, Composition and Tradition, 234).
158
markedly different meter. 377 It also assumes that the meter can be known and that the
meter, once known, can function text-critically to alter the very text that has given rise to the
meter. In other words, the argument from meter quickly becomes circular.378 (8 ) The
lack of a definite article before cannot function as an argument for emendation given
the frequent omission of the article in Hebrew poetry.379 The article may not be needed
in any case since the noun is already definite: a specific angel is in view.380 (9) The
argument that the word "1 ^ 0 is never used in poetry in parallel with either or 0 *rtatH
founders on the fact that such parallelism occurs "fairly frequently" in prose. 381 As a
result, the argument appears to reduce to one of two non sequiturs: What does not occur in
poetry elsewhere cannot occur in poetry here; or, worse, What occurs in prose cannot occur
in poetry. Again, it is no coincidence that this oscillation between 0*rfat and is found
in the Jacob cycle and in other traditions that Hosea has deliberately and poetically chosen to
echo. (10) The argument that Hosea knows nothing of angels also appears to reduce to one of
two non sequiturs: Hosea really does know nothing of angels (and traditions that featured
angels); or, worse, Hosea never uses a word just once.382
377Note also the pattern of verb + preposition + noun in 12:4a and 12:4b. This
pattern is simply repeated again in 12:5a.
3 7 8 Freedman, "Problems of Textual Criticism," 316-317.
379 Ackroyd, "Hosea and Jacob," 250, n. 5. One might also add that if the noun was
acceptable without an article to a glossator there is little reason to think that it was not
acceptable to Hosea and, therefore, that it was not original (unless it can be empirically
demonstrated that glossators are invariably more economical in their use of articles than
prophets).
380Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 608.
381 As even Whitt, who makes this argument, must admit ("Jacob Traditions," 33,
n. 55).
382 Cf. Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History, 40-41.
159
Thus, and finally, the question is not whether "pfaa is original. The question is what
Hosea meant by placing in formal parallelism with B’Tlblt. The parallelism
immediately suggests that is being referred to again as Had Hosea not wished
to suggest this, he could hardly have structured his syntax more misleadingly. 3 8 3 Are
other interpretations possible? It is possible, though unlikely, that the is a creature and
that O’rfeK correspondingly refers not to God but to "a divine being," 384 identified by
some as "der elende Gotze Baitylos," that is, as a local numen or deity who was at
best "an underling, a mere member, of the heavenly host. "386 Though this interpretation
has little to do with the final canonical form of the texts in Hosea or Genesis (in Hos 12:6
Jacob’s assailant is explicitly identified as YHWH the God of Hosts and in Gen 32:31
Jacob’s assailant is explicitly identified as God) it at least has the merit of respecting Hosea’s
parallelism. 3 8 7 Another possibility, though an equally unlikely one, is simply to deny the
The force of this parallelism is frequently acknowledged in the literature and it is

not special pleading to appeal to it here by way of clarifying an otherwise difficult text. See,
e.g., Ackroyd, "Hosea and Jacob," 250; Gese, "Jakob und Mose," 41-42; Good, "Hosea and
the Jacob Tradition," 141; Harper, Hosea, 381; T. E. McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An
Exegetical and Expository Commentary (vol. 1; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 201; Sellin,
Das Zwolfprophetenbuch, 122; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 191. Cf. also Andersen and Freedman,
Hosea, 613; Cassuto, "Hosea and the Pentateuch," 85; Eslinger, "Hosea," 99, n. 19;
Holladay, "Chiasmus," 58; Holt, Prophesying the Past, 35; Macintosh, Hosea, 484, n. 6 ;
Yee, Composition and Tradition, 234.
3 8 4 Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History, 44.
3 8 5 Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuche, 95-96.
3 8 6 H. L. Ginsberg, "Hosea’s Ephraim, More Fool than Knave: A New Interpretation
of Hosea 12:1-14," JBL 80 (1961): 339 [art. =339-347]. Cf. Cassuto, "Hosea and the
Pentateuch," 83, 85.
387One obvious criticism of the El-Bethel conjecture is that it is quite unlikely that
YHWH would have commanded Jacob to build an altar to an "underling" (contra Ginsberg,
"Hosea’s Ephraim," 344; cf. Gen 35:1-7). For a more sustained critique of the questionable
El-Bethel conjecture see the excursus in Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, 186-
190. Cf. also Ackroyd, "Hosea and Jacob," 251, n. 3; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic, 47, n. 14; M. Dahood, "Northwest Semitic Notes on Genesis," Bib 55 (1974): 79-80
[art. =76-82]; Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History, 36, n. 5c, 44; Holladay, "Chiasmus,"
160
parallelism and argue that refers to a mere creature while D*nbM refers to
4 0 0
YHWH. In addition to being anticlimactic this second possibility squares poorly with
the parallelism here in Hosea, with the parallelism between BTlbM and "]NbQ elsewhere in
the OT, and with the explicit identification of Jacob’s assailant in both Gen 32:31 and Hos
12:6. This second view is also predicated on the conjecture that bit in Hos 12:5a is a divine
appellative rather than a preposition for only then is it possible to juxtapose Hos 12:5a and
Gen 32:29 in such a way that the word bit corresponds to the word 0 *ni?M while the word
“1*60 corresponds to the word 0*B73K. 389 The underlying conjecture regarding bn is
itself unlikely and unnecessary, as was suggested above, especially when it results in the
awkward pairing of a singular word in Hos 12:5a with a plural word in Gen 32:29
The single Bfat with whom Jacob wrestles in Gen 32:25 indirectly identifies himself
as DVlblt in Gen 32:29 ("You have contended with God and men and have
prevailed" ) .390 Then, in 32:31, this 2TN is implicitly identified as bn (i.e., in the place
59; Holt, Prophesying the Past, 37-38.

388 Holt, Prophesying the Past, 35 (cf. 36), claims that there may be two different
traditions behind Hos 12:4b-5a and, thus, that "there are really two different struggles
involving Jacob: one with God (about which we learn no more) and one with an angel, who
weeps and asks for mercy." Since the key Motivworten all derive from one tradition,
Genesis 32, there is no need to postulate a second tradition. Sellin suggests that without Hos
12:5a "wurde die Erwahnung des Gotteskampfes in v. 4 gar keinen Sinn haben" (Das
Zwolfprophetenbuch, 122), a suggestion that applies a fortiori if v. 4 does not refer to
Genesis 32 but to some tradition about which we know nothing.
389 Cf. Eslinger, "Hosea," 93-95, who holds this view but whose presentation of it is
confused; and Andersen and Friedman, Hosea, 610-611, who elaborate on this view but quite
rightly go on to reject it in light of the parallelism within Hos 12:4b-5a.
390 Cp. A. M. Honeyman, "Merismus in Biblical Hebrew," JBL 71 (1952): 16
[art. = 11-18]; followed by H. A. Brongers, "Merismus, Synekdoche und Hendiadys in der
Bibel-Hebraischen Sprache," OTS 14 (1965): 106 [art. = 100-114]. Both Honeyman and
Brongers argue that the expression "God and men" in Gen 32:29 (cf. Judg 9:9, 13) is a rare
merism for "everyone." This merism is also found in, e.g., T. Reub. 4:9; T. Jos. 15:5;
T. Ben. 6:7. A merism here, however, is contextually unlikely given that the words "God"
and "men" each have concrete referents in the immediately preceding narrative. (The
situation is somewhat different in Jotham’s olive tree parable [Judg 9:9-15] where concrete
161
name "Peniel") by the narrator, and explicitly identified as by the patriarch Jacob ("I
have seen o r fo t face to face, yet my life has been preserved!"). The word O’BfaR in Gen
32:29, on the other hand, is unrelated to the BPR (= B rfat) in the immediate narrative
context. The plural O'ttfrM refers most naturally to two actual men, namely, Esau and Laban.
Hosea’s unique and creative contribution is thus not to gloss with but to identify
the mysterious ttftt (=DVlbN) of Genesis 32 as the divine ^K'TQ, that is, as the Angel of the
LORD . 391
Hosea may have based his interpretation of Genesis 32 on other key texts that
juxtapose and or he himself may have made a similar inference to the one
made at the end of the Jacob cycle (Gen 48:15-16), that inference being the retrospective use
o f the word "|KÎ3 to describe earlier theophanies. Hosea has drawn liberally from material
throughout the Jacob cycle (Hos 12:3-5) as well as from material throughout the exodus and
wilderness narratives (Hos 12:6, 10, 13-14). The Angel of the LORD is featured prominently
in all of this material. In particular, the oscillation between YHWH and the Angel of the
LORD does not just occur elsewhere in the OT ,3 9 2 an important observation it its own
referents are less immediately obvious.) But, perhaps, a strict dichotomy is unnecessary.
F. A. Spina, "The ‘Face of God’: Esau in Canonical Context," in The Quest fo r Context and
Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor o f J. A. Sanders, ed. C. A. Evans and
S. Talmon (Biblical Interpretation Series 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 14 [art. =3-25], notes that
"this mysterious event . . . is the culmination of Jacob’s entire life up to this point, because
the unnamed man symbolizes every person with whom Jacob ever struggled—Esau, Isaac,
Laban. Still, the ‘man’ at the beginning of the encounter is undoubtedly God at the end, as
the ineffability of the divine name and Jacob’s recognition of the divine face indicate. Thus,
this strange episode blends Jacob’s conflicts with people and God into a single event."
391See Lippi, Die ZwolfKleinen Propheten, 74-75, "Den Elohim am Jabbok (4 b)
nennt Osee in 5 a ‘Engel’; Gn 32, 25 spricht von einem ‘Mann’ (’i§); damit is die aufiere
Erscheinungsform gemeint, mit der Gott sich dem Patriarchen kundgab."
392 Cf. Ackroyd, "Hosea and Jacob," 250; Neef, Die Heilstraditionen Israels, 41,
n. 95.
162
right, it occurs in the very traditions to which Hosea alludes. Note the following minor but
interesting verbal parallels to earlier Angel of the LORD texts:
1. "visit," IpB - Hos 12:3; Exod 3:16; 32:34.

2. "Angel (of God/the LORD), (mrr»/trr6n) - Hos 12:5; Gen 16:7, 9, 10, 11;
21:17; 31:11; 48:16; Exod 3:1; 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2; Judg 2:1.
3. "prevail," ^ - Hos 12:5; Gen 32:26, 29; Exod 33:20.
4. "weep," 70S -- Hos 12:5; Gen 21:16; Judg 2:4.
5. "show favor, be gracious," |3n —Hos 12:5; Exod 33:19 (bis).393
6. "find," IC«3 - Hos 12:5; Gen 16:7; Judg 6:13, 17.394
7. "Bethel,” b i n r a - Hos 12:5; Gen 31:13.
8. "YHWH God of Hosts,” rrtaaSH JTTP - Hos 12:6; cf. Josh 5:13-15.395
9. "remembrance (lit., name),” 1ST —Hos 12:6; Exod 3:15.396
Since these parallels could be coincidental, they should not be pressed. An earlier
Angel of the LORD text that is clearly relevant, however, is once again Gen 48:15-16. This
text is relevant not only because it is part of the Jacob cycle to which Hosea alludes but
because it is remarkably similar in both form and content to Hos 12:4b-5a. Specifically, in
393The only instances of the verb ]3TI in the Jacob Cycle are Jacob’s own references
to God having shown ]3R toward him (Gen 33:5, 11; cf. 31:2-16). This suggests that the flTtt
of Gen 32:25-31 who blessed Jacob, like the of Hos 12:5 from whom Jacob sought
favor, is none other than the gracious God explicitly referred to twice by Jacob. It is always
possible that God’s favor was mediated through an agent; but that possibility seems to be
precisely what these texts are finally excluding.
394Attention is drawn to Gen 16:7 by Kiimpel ("Die Berufung Israels," 18-19) in an
attempt to delineate a primitive "RXD-Tradition" (cp., however, Holt, Prophesying the Past,
116-127, who argues that no such tradition has yet been found in the OT). The verb tCtO and
the noun ]R ("grace, favor") also occur together repeatedly in Genesis 18 and Exodus 33 in
the idiom "to find favor," but there is no evidence that this idiom is in view in Hos 12:5.
395 I.e., a wordplay on (Hos 12:5a) in the same breath as a reference to
the hosts of YHWH (12:6a) could be taken as mildly evocative of Josh 5:13-15 where the
Angel of the LORD is referred to as the "W of YHWH’s host. Cf. n. 355 above.
Cassuto, Exodus, 39. Compare also the key Motivworten Tfou ("bring up")
396 Cf.
and ("keep") in Hos 12:14. Though both words are applied to "a prophet," presumably
Moses, both are strongly reminiscent o f Exod 23:20-23 where they originally described the
Angel of the LORD. The possibility of a typological correlation between Moses, or prophets
generally, and the Angel of the LORD cannot be completely excluded. Cp. Zech 12:8 which
echoes Exod 23:20 and which could suggest a typological correlation between the coming
Davidic King and the Angel of the LORD; and Mai 3:1a which, drawing as it does upon
Exod 23:20, could suggest a typological correlation between the coming eschatological
prophet (cf. Mai 3:23) and the Angel o f the LORD.
163
both texts the word is used "absolutely, in series with God. "397 Hosea’s usage is,
thus, consistent with that of foundational earlier texts. It is also consistent with the usage of
other prophets who describe both the past (Isa 63:9) and future (Mai 3:1) theophanies of
YHWH as those of a
Malachi 3:1
The verse that begins "the most famous passage of the Book of Malachi" (Mai 3:1-5)
is without parallel in the OT.398 Only here is the collocation rP"Hn found; and
only here is an eschatological theophany of YHWH described as the coming of a
"|H*??3.399 This verse is also without question the most difficult in the book of Malachi:
Just who is being spoken of here and how many are involved? Is the "|K^Q of 3: la to be
identified with the n’TSH "pfaa of 3:l[c] or are they distinct? Do ]1lKTJ of 3:l[b] and
nnan of 3:l[c] have the same referent? How much of the verse is original to the
prophecy? To answer these questions is to provide a key to the entire prophecy, for this
verse is pivotal; it looks back to the past of the prophecy itself (HJL1), answers questions
posed by the present (2:17) and points toward the ftiture (3:22f).
Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 613. The significance of Gen 48:15-16 has also
been noted by others, e.g., Gese, "Jakob und Mose," 43, n. 15; C. Van Gelderen and W. H.
Gispen, Het Boek Hosea (Kampen: Kok, 1953), 399.
398J. M. O’Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (SBLDS 121; Atlanta: Scholars,
1990), 73.
399I.e., all other such texts have recounted past theophanies. The text that comes
closest to the present text is Exod 23:20-23. In that passage, however, the theophany is not
eschatological; and though it may be future (imminent) from the point of view of the
characters in die narrative, it is clearly past from the point of view of the narrator.
400B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger (SBLDS 98; Atlanta:
Scholars, 1987), 128-129. For the sake of convenience and clarity Glazier-McDonald’s verse
divisions (121-122) have been simplified to reflect the succession of characters rather than
each "grammatical element" (30, n. 1). The verse may thus be structured as follows:
3:1 a "Behold! I am going to send my messenger, and he will clear a way before me.
b Then suddenly will come to his temple
the Lord whom you seek,
c namely, the Angel o f the Covenant in whom you delight.
Behold! He is coming,”
d says YHWH of Hosts.
164
The first and most important question—for it is the question that not only determines
the answer to the other questions but the ultimate difficulty of this interpretive crux—is the
question of the literary unity of the book of Malachi. While most commentators still find
redactional elements in the book (e.g., 1:1, 3:lb-4, 3:22-24), some as many as three distinct
layers in 3:1-5 alone,401 a successful case has been made for the original unity of the
book.402 Especially relevant are the following literary and form-critical observations:
The waw that begins 3:1b, rendered "then" for emphasis above, is a "conjunctive-
sequential waw” indicating temporal sequence. Cf. W-O, §§33.2.1, 39.2. Id, 39.2.2; T. O.
Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 162-
163. Pace A. E. Hill, Malachi (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 267, the insertion of a
verbal modifier (i.e., the adverb QU1B) between the waw and the verb does not change the
basic waw + verb pattern noted by Lambdin. In any case, the meaning Hill adduces is
similar: "The interclausal waw before a non-verb is disjunctive, signaling the completion of
one episode and the beginning of another (in this case distinguishing the activity of the
messenger from that of Yahweh and the messenger of the covenant)."
In contrast to this, the waw that begins 3:1c, rendered "namely" for emphasis above,
is an explicative waw that further identifies the ]Y1MH of the previous clause. See
S. Eriandsson, "Nigra exempel p i Waw Explicativum," SEA 41-42 (1977): 69-76, esp. 71;
D. W. Baker, "Further Examples of the Waw Explicativum," VT 30 (1980): 129-136; H. A.
Brongers, "Alternative Interpretationen des sogennanten Waw copulativum," ZAW 90 (1978):
273-277. Cf also GKC, §154a, n. 1(b); K-B (1967 ed.), 1:248, nn. 3, 5; W-O, §§39.2.1,
39.2.4.
401 Notably, A. Renker, Die Tora bei Maieachi: Ein Beitrag zur
Bedeutungsgeschichte von tord im Alten Testament (Freiburger Theologische Studien 112;
Freiburg: Herder, 1979), 75-79.
402See, e.g., Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 6, 170-171, and passim; E. Achtemeier,
review of Malachi: The Divine Messenger by Glazier-McDonald, CBQ 51 (1989): 517-518;
Hill, Malachi, 15-16, n. 1, 18-23, 260. Note also the linguistic and form-critical studies of
E. R. Clendenen, "The Structure of Malachi: A Textlinguistic Study," Criswell Theological
Review 2 (1987): 3-17; idem, "Old Testament Prophecy as Hortatory Text: Examples from
Malachi," Journal o f Translation and Textlinguistics 6 (1993): 336-353; O’Brien, Priest and
Levite, 51-57, 79-82 and passim; E. Wendland, "Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi,"
BT 36 (1985): 108-121; A. S. van der Woude, "Der Engel des Bundes: Bemerkungen zu
Maieachi 3,1c und seinem Kontext," in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fu r Hems
Walter W olff zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Jorg Jeremias and L. Perlitt (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1981), 290, n. 4 [art. =289-300]. Cf. also the seminal study of E. Pfeiffer,
"Die Disputationsworte im Buche Maieachi: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Struktur,”
EvT 19 (1959): 546-568.
165
[I]t is only when the prophecy is viewed as a unity that we can determine what type of
text it is (genre), why it urns composed (intention) and above all, from what sort of
situation it arose (setting). 3
[A]n understanding of the Book of Malachi as bearing an adapted rib form suggests that
many passages usually treated as secondary additions to the book may indeed be integral
to it. . . . The lawsuit form . . . helps to account for each of the disputed verses and if
an editor has added material to the book, he or she has done so with full awareness of
the rib form."404
These two observations suggest that redaction may have been posited prematurely
and that its detection may be inherently problematic. They are also buttressed by the related
observation that the arguments most frequently adduced in favor of redaction fail to elevate
what is merely possible to the level of what is probable. These arguments include: (1) the
shift from first to third person speech in 3:lb-d;405 (2) the confusing multiplicity of
figures in 3:la-c and the intrinsic difficulty of 3:1-5 ;406 (3) the prosaic and unmetrical
quality of all or parts of 3 :lb-4;407 (4) the uncharacteristic syntax found in 3:1c;408
403Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 6; cf. 170-171.

404O’Brien, Priest and Levite, 81-82.
405E.g., B. V. Malchow, "The Messenger of the Covenant in Mai 3:1," JBL 103
(1984): 253 [art. =252-255]; R. Mason, The Books ofHaggai, Zechariah and Malachi
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 153; P. L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 176; E. M. Schuller, "Malachi," NIB,
7:868 [art. =841-877]; A. S. van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 291. Cp. H. Graf
Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maieachi (ATD; 9th ed.; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 152; and W. Rudolf, Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-
14, Maieachi (KAT; Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976), 278, who are right to seek other
explanations. For similar non-redactional instances of this shift in grammatical person see the
OT passim.
406E.g., Schuller, "Malachi," 7:868, who fails to see in this an argument for the
originality of the lectio difficilior.
407E.g., T. Chary, Aggee, Zacharie, Malachie (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 265;
K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwolf kleinen Propheten, vol. 2, Die Propheten Nahum, Habalcuk,
Zephanja, Haggai, Zacharja, Maieachi (ATD; 6th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1967), 205, 208; Sellin, Das Zwolfprophetenbuch, 609; van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes,"
290. Cp. Reventlow, Die Propheten, 151. This criterion is subjective and arbitrary. If it
could be demonstrated independently that Malachi never varied his meter beyond certain
parameters, or that he never mixed "prose" and "poetry" for stylistic or rhetorical effect, etc.
(cf. Freedman, "Problems of Textual Criticism").
166
(5) the superfluous nature of the figure in 3:1c once the sought for Lord of 3:1b has
come;409 (6) the corrective nature of 3:1c as safeguarding the transcendence of YHWH
whose coming is mentioned in 3:1b;4*0 and (7) the fact that the fourth disputation makes
sense if 3: lb-4 is omitted(!).
If the book is seen as a literary unity, however, and if its present "canonical shape"
is taken into consideration, then the interpretive options are limited 411 The predicted
According to Chary, Afalachie, 265, "La construction de cette phrase, avec le

verbe tout a la fin, est inhabituelle." But the Malachi corpus is too small for this judgment to
have any meaning. Chary also overlooks the chiastic construction of Mai 3:lb-c.
409E.g., Elliger, Die Propheten, 206 ("Hinter dem Allherm erwartet man keinen
anderen mehr"); Marti, Dodekapropheton, 473; Renker, Die Tora bei Maieachi, 76; Rudolf,
Maieachi, 278; Sellin, Das Zwolfprophetenbuch, 608. TTiis argument, which is valid, is a
better argument for the equivalence of "the Lord" and "the Angel of the Covenant" than it is
for redaction. Chary, Malachie, 265, unjustifiably goes beyond Elliger’s truism when he
says, "Apres la mention du ‘Seigneur’, un autre personnage ou une autre designation est
inutile" (emphasis added).
410E.g., Marti, Dodekapropheton, 473-474; Rudolf, Maieachi, 279; cf. Elliger, Die
Propheten, 208; van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 291, 298. Interestingly, the author of
the interpolation theory himself had held that T ange de l’alliance indique personnellement
Iahve, comme ayant donne la loi en apparition d’ange. Le texte distingue en effet nettement
l’ange ordinaire qui prepare la voie, et l’ange de l’alliance qui n’est autre que Iahve, venant
dans son temple" (Lagrange, "L’ange de Iahvd," 221; cf. van Hoonacker, Les Douze Petits
Prophetes, 730-731).
41 *See B. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979), 488-498; and cf. also the more general comments of R. Rendtorff,
"Emergence and Intention of Canonical Criticism," in The Bible and Its World: Proceedings
o f the Twelfth World Congres o f Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29 - August 5, 1997, ed.
R. Margolin (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999), 13-19. According to the
present scholarly consensus, while Mai 3:1a and its forerunner are original to Malachi’s
prophecy, Mai 1:1, 3:lb-4, and 3:23-24 are the conflicting attempts of later redactors to
identify that original forerunner.
Childs, on the other hand, argues persuasively that this redactional interpretation
"wreaks havoc with the entire message of the book" and "renders the prophetic text with a
confused and unintelligible meaning" (Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 493; cf.
E. Achtemeier, Nahum—Malachi [Atlanta: John Knox, 1986], 171; O’Brien, Priest and
Levite, 52-53). Childs then goes on to offer a coherent, internally consistent interpretation of
the present canonical text of Malachi. It must only be asked at this juncture, since the work
of redactors is detectable only insofar as it is inconsistent with the putative original of
Malachi’s oracle, whether the present canonical text can be interpreted consistently and in a
manner that is not blatantly anachronistic or tendentious. If so, this would seem to eliminate
the very evidence that is used to detect the work of redactors in the first place.
167
forerunner in Mai 3:1a can only be a human prophet (cf. 3:23-24);412 and the Lord who
comes to his temple in 3:1b can only be YHWH (cf. 3:2-5, 19, 23-24), as most
commentators readily acknowledge.413 There is still a small degree of uncertainty over
the identity of the Angel of the Covenant in 3:1c from a lexical and structural point of
view;414 but this uncertainty is resolved by other more prominent features of the text. In
short, Angel of the Covenant is a further evocative description of YHWH and the "two-
character approach," as it has been called, is correct.415 Others, however, have argued
for "single-character" and "three-character" approaches and it is necessary to sketch the
For evidence independent of Mai 3:23-24 that the messenger of Mai 3:1a is a
prophetic figure see especially, D. L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-
Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBLMS 23; Missoula: Scholars, 1977), 42-45.
413Recognized, e.g., by Hill (Malachi, 287) who agrees with most commentators
and by van der Woude ("Engel des Bundes,” 294, n. 24) who does not.
414I.e., if the waw that opens 3:1c is not explicative, then m a n in 3:1c
could refer back to the forerunner of 3:1a. The word in this case would have
uniform referent and the exclamation HSH (+ participle) would serve structurally to form an
inclusion: "Behold! I am sending my messenger . . . . Behold! He is coming." Cp.,
however, A. von Bulmerincq, Der Prophet Maieachi, vol. 2, Kommentar zjum Buche des
Propheten Maieachi (Tartu: Kruger, 1932), 342, 346; Hill, Malachi, 271; and esp. Stein,
"Engel des Auszugs,” 296-297.
415For this rubric see Hill, Malachi, 286-289, who favors the "three-character
approach." This method of classification is useful if somewhat artificial given the range of
variations within each approach and given the role commonly ascribed to redaction and
interpolation. For example, a single-character could be human (France) or angelic (van der
Woude); a third character could have been added to two original characters (Rudolf); and so
forth. Hill’s own elaboration of the three basic approaches (269) suffers from confusion, in
part from having improperly categorized commentators on the basis of whether they gloss
rVH3H "pfaa as "angel of the covenant” or as "messenger of the covenant." I.e., neither
Laetsch nor Chary nor Rudolph nor Verhoef understands the m o n as "a heavenly
being and the angelic guardian of Israel." Laetsch understands him to be the second person
of the Trinity; Chary understands him to be Ezra the scribe; Rudolf opts for the interpolation
theory and expressly rejects Kraetzschmar’s view that this "pfaa is "der Schutzengel der
Gemeinde"; while Verhoef understands him to be the Angel of the LORD and his appearing,
as elsewhere in the OT, to be a theophany. Similarly, again pace Hill, neither Achtemeier
nor Glazier-McDonald understands the m a n to be "a human figure." Both
understand him to be ]Vwn of 3:1b, that is, God himself. (Mason, on the other hand, holds
that the m a n *|HSo is a levitical figure, though not in the work cited by Hill.)
168
comparative strengths and weaknesses of these alternatives before returning to the approach
that, like a glove, best fits the canonical text at hand.416
The Single-Character Approach

Among single-character approaches the first to be considered holds that the character
in question is a human prophet.417 According to this view, the repetition of the noun
™JK*?7a indicates that the same person is being described in 3:1a and 3:1c. The apposition of
and m a n further indicates that only one person is being described in 3:1b and
3:1c. Thus, "the same messenger" is being described in all three parts of the verse. That this
messenger is the human prophet Elijah (or "Elijah redivivus") is finally indicated by Mai
3:23-24.418 Though this view may safely be rejected as "impossible,"419 its two
main strengths are that it correctly notes the apposition between 3:1b and 3:1c and that it
respects, or attempts to respect, the canonical shape of the book by bringing 3:23-24 to bear
on the interpretation of 3:1. These strengths can be put to better use.
Another increasingly prominent single-character approach holds that the character in
question is not a human being but an angel. This angel may be an angelus interpres, as in
416Because the arguments for and against each approach overlap considerably some
repetition will be unavoidable. Whenever possible the focus will be on more recent literature.
For older commentators see von Bulmerincq, Maieachi, 330-351; Stein, "Engel des
Auszugs," 295-302.
417R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application o f Old Testament
Passages to Himself and His Mission (London: Tyndale, 1971), 91-92, n. 31; idem,
Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 310, n. 75. Cf. W. J.
Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," RTR 35 (1976): 48-49, 52 [art. =42-
52], who argues that Ezra is in view; and O ’Brien, Priest and Levite, 73-75 (cf. 82, 107-
108), who envisions a prophet in the role of "covenant enforcer" or "agent of the covenant."
418Franee, Jesus and the Old Testament, 91-92. The most obvious objection to this
view, i.e., that "the Lord" and "his temple" must refer to YHWH, is countered by noting
that does not always refer to YHWH in the OT (France, Jesus and the Old Testament,
91, n. 31); or by arguing that since YHWH is speaker in Mai 3:1, a third person reference
to "the Lord" must refer to someone else (Dumbrell, "Malachi," 48).
419Hill, Malachi, 288.
169
Zech l:9-6:5,42® or he may be God’s heavenly "Wesir" or "Majordomus."42* As
the most viable alternative to the traditional two-character approach this view requires careful
examination. Arguments adduced in favor of this view include:422 (1) the messenger in
Mai 3:1a cannot be human because of the dependence of these words on Isa 40:3 where
heavenly beings are in view;423 (2) the messenger in 3:1a cannot be Elijah or he most
So, e.g., T. Lescow, Das Buck Maieachi: Texttheorie - Auslegung - Kanontheorie

(Arbeiten zur Theologie 75; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1993), 41-42, 119-120; following G. Wallis,
"Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis," in Das Feme und Nahe Wort: Festschrift
Leonhard Rost, ed. F. Maass (BZAW 105; Berlin: Topelmann, 1967), 230-231 [art. =229-
237].
421 So van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 296-297; following Stier, Gott und sein
Engel, passim; cf. Wallis, "Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis," 231. Van der
Woude, 297-298, further designates this angel "Schutzengel der Bundesgemeinde," following
R. Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament in ihrer geschichtlichen
Entwicklung (Marburg: Elwert, 1896), 237-239. There are two minor ironies, if they may be
called that, to this further designation. The first is that Kraetzschmar’s rendering of m s as
"Gemeinde" has no lexical basis and for this reason has been almost universally rejected.
Van der Woude, 297, n. 43, appeals for support to Dan 11:28, 30, 32, but IVQ can hardly
mean Gemeinde, or "Bundesgemeinde," in those verses where the covenant itself and (the
violation of) its requirements are explicitly in view. The second minor irony is that for
Kraetzschmar the Schutzengel was the third of three characters (see below).
422The most detailed presentation of this view is found in van der Woude, "Engel
des Bundes," to which primary reference will be made. Cf. also R. A. Bascom, "Preparing
the Way—Midrash in the Bible," in Issues in Bible Translation, ed. P. C. Stine (UBSMS 3;
London: UBS, 1988), 225-226 [art. =221-246]; A. Deissler, Zwolf Propheten III: Zefanja,
Haggai, Sacharja, Maieachi (Wurzburg: Echter, 1988), 330-331; Lescow, Maieachi, 40-42;
K. Marti, "Der Prophet Maieachi," in E. Kautzsch, trans., Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments, ed. A. Bertholet (4th ed.; 2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1922-1923), 2:111, n. g
(cp. Marti’s adherence to the two-character approach in Dodekapropheton, 473); Wallis,
"Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis," 229-231.
423Van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 293; Deissler, Zwolf Propheten, 330;
Rudolf, Maieachi, 278; Sellin, Das Zwolfprophetenbuch, 608, 616. For the scholarly
consensus on Isa 40:3, i.e., that heavenly beings in the divine council are being addressed by
the mysterious voice, see F. M. Cross, "The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah," JNES 12
(1953): 274-277; Duhm, Jesaia, 289; K. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, vol. 1, Jesaja 40,1-45,7
(BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978), 17-18; C. R. North, The Second Isaiah
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), 74; C. R. Seitz, "The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and
New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah," JBL 109 (1990): 231-232 and passim [art. =229-247];
H. J. Stoebe, "Uberlegungen zu Jesaja 40,1-11: Zugleich der Versuch eines Beitrages zur
Gottesknechtfrage," 7Z 40 (1984): 104 [art. = 104-113]; Whybray, Isaiah, 50. Cp.
E. Hefiler, Das Heilsdrama: Der Weg zur Weltherrschaft Jahwes (Jes. 40-55)
(Religionswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien 2; Hildesheim: Olms, 1988), 295-296, who
170
certainly would have been named;4^4 (3) the word in 3:1a most naturally refers to
a heavenly being;425 (4) the waw that begins 3:1b is explicative, thus equating the Lord
of 3:1b with the messenger of 3:1a;426 (5) YHWH’s coming in 3:1b could not be
described as sudden if he first sends a messenger to prepare his way;427 (6) the
"parallelismus membrorum” between 3:1b and 3:1c demonstrates that is being further
described as m a n 428 (7) the repetition of the word in 3:1c indicates that
the “jubn of 3:1a is again in view;429 (8) the word "yibn in 3:1c cannot refer to YHWH
"weil auf ihn die Bezeichnung ‘Engel’ nicht angewendet werden kann";430 and (9) the
problematic expression "his temple" in 3:1b, which seems to refer to YHWH, could refer to
an angel in the role of God’s "Majordomus," or it could simply be emended to read "my
temple."431
In response the following should be noted: (1) The appeal to Isa 40:3 is quite
possibly an instance of explaining obscura per obscuriora since the form, structure, and
argues that "Weisheit und ihrer Vertreter" make ready "den Weg der Erkentniss" (296).
424Van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 293, n. 19; cf. Rudolf, Maieachi, 277.
425Van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes,” 294.
426Van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 294.
427Van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 291 ("die Aussage von 3,1b steht im
Widerspruch zu den Worten von 3,1a," emphasis added), 294-295.
431Van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 295-296, 298. The conjecture that God
may have had a heavenly "Majordomus" or "Tempelherr" is taken from Wallis, "Wesen und
Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis," 231.
171
meaning of Isa 40:3 are no less contested than those of Mai 3: la.432 But even if the
disembodied "voice" of Isa 40:3 and its audience are proved, rather than just asserted, to be
heavenly beings, it does not follow that the forerunner in Mai 3:1a is also a heavenly being.
There is every indication that Malachi echoes Isa 40:3, as commentators are quick to point
out; but there is also every indication that he has reworked the earlier traditions on which he
is dependent. It then becomes a question of the degree of that reworking. (2) If Malachi
chooses to withhold certain key information, like a name, that is certainly his prerogative. A
poet or a prophet, or any communicator for that matter, must be allowed to speak in his own
idiom. But, in fact, Malachi has not withheld any information. He has only delayed it for
rhetorical effect. The mysterious messenger is Anally named at the climactic conclusion of
the oracle.433 (3) The word naturally refers to angels. But it equally naturally
refers to human beings and to deity. Context and not the late use of as a terminus
technicus must in each case be determinative of the referent. (4) The waw that begins 3:1b
does not become explicative merely by labelling it as such. Context is again determinative,
432Cf. the representative observations of R. F. Melugin, The Formation o f Isaiah 40-

55 (BZAW 141; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976), 7; Oswalt, Isaiah, 46, ("the number of opinions
closely approximates the number of writers"!); Seitz, "Divine Council," 229-230; and
C. Stuhlmueller, "Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions in the Prophet’s Theology and in
Contemporary Scholarship," CBQ 42 (1980): 1-2 [art. = 1-29]. Even the authenticity of Isa
40:3 is disputed. R. Kilian, for example, regards all of 40:1-8 as part of a later redaction
("‘Baut eine Strafie fur unseren Gott!’ Uberlegungen zu Jes 40, 3-5," in Kiinder des Wortes:
Beitrdge zur Theologie der Propheten, ed. L. Ruppert, P. Weimar, and E. Zenger
[Wurzburg: Echter, 1982], 53-60). For additional literature on Isa 40:3 see R. W. Fischer,
"The Herald of Good News in Second Isaiah," in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor o f
James Muilenburg, ed. J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974), 117, n. 1
[art. = 117-132]; Watts, Isaiah, 75-76.
433Cf. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 243-244, n. 1; 267-268 ("the climax of the
prophecy"). Glazier-McDonald also notes the analogous way in which Cyrus is mentioned in
Isa 41:2, 25, but not actually named until Isa 44:28; 45:1 (263-264; citing von Bulmerincq,
Maieachi, 570-571).
172
and it is the context that indicates that this waw is "conjunctive-sequential. "4^4 In
addition, the extended explication YHWH’s forerunner=Lord o f YHWH's temple = Angel o f
the Covenant is so extraordinary that its instantiation would seem to require more than a
mere conjunction. The equivalence of the Lord and the Angel of the Covenant is cemented
by the structure of 3:lb-c, by the antecedent context (2:17-3:la) in which the coming of
YHWH is adumbrated, and by the larger canonical context on which Malachi is drawing.
There is, however, no such chiastic parallelism in 3:la-b and no antecedent or larger
canonical context in which the Lord coming to his temple could refer to anyone but
YHWH.435 (5) Only by a pedantic and unsympathetic reading of Mai 3:1 can the
suddenness of the Lord’s coming be said to contradict the sending of a messenger to prepare
his way.436 The text does not say how long the preparation will take or whether the
434See n. 400 above. It is unlikely, granted that an explicative waw begins 3:1c, that
two explicative wows follow one another in such close succession and in such syntactically
different ways. First, the waw in 3:1b is not prefixed to a noun (a descriptive appellative) as
in 3:1c but to a verbal modifier (OMTIB). Second, the adverb DMT1B most naturally functions
"as a transitional device separating the action of the “|M*7Q from that of Yahweh" (Glazier-
McDonald, Malachi, 139; cf. 130; similarly Hill, Malachi, 267). And, third, the antecedent
of an explication in Mai 3:1b would be unclear at best: i.e., the expression "and suddenly
will come to his temple the Lord whom you are seeking" could be a further explication of
the who prepares YHWH’s way; of YHWH himself who follows and who is indicated
grammatically by the first person suffixes on ’3351, 'OK*?n, and *3B^; or of the whole
complex of events in 3:1a, in which case all of 3:lb-c would be needed to explicate the two
characters in 3:1a (i.e., and YHWH=nnan "pta).
435The expectation that YHWH will come to his temple (Mai 3: lb-4) is also found
in Ezek 43:1-9; Joel 4:16-21; Hag 2:7, 9; Zech 8:3.
4 3 6 " E ls e w h e r e in the prophetic literature the adverb DKTI& possesses an ominous
quality, because it is used to describe the ‘sudden’ visitation of Yahweh for judgment against
Jerusalem (Isa 29:5; 30:13; cf. Jer 6:26)" (Hill, Malachi, 267) Cf. D. Daube, The Sudden in
the Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 1, who notes that the adverb "always occur[s] in
connection with disaster"; and R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Waco: Word, 1984),
329, who speaks of the suddenness of YHWH’s coming as "an eschatological idea." No
doubt the sudden judgment against Jerusalem surprised not a few in spite of its having been
predicted. The adverb does not require absolute and universal ignorance of what (or who) is
coming and, in the case of Mai 3:1, it does not forbid prior preparation. Contra van der
Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 294, n. 23, the adverb does not mean "immediately” or
"instantly" (Vg, statim) but rather "suddenly" and "unexpectedly" (subito). Cf. BDB, 837;
173
forerunner and his work will, except perhaps in retrospect, be evident to the people as a
whole. It also does not say whether the people as a whole will respond positively to the
forerunner (cf. 3:23-24) or whether those "seeking" and "delighting" in the Lord in 3:lb-c
are the same as those whose hearts are being prepared in 3:1a.437 (6) The Lord of 3:1b
is indeed the Angel of the Covenant.438 This fact fits better with the two-character
approach and is positively foundational to a correct understanding of this difficult verse.
(7) The repetition of the word in 3:1c could indicate that the of 3:1a is again in
view. Malachi’s own usage, however, like that of the OT as a whole, is too diverse for a
uniform (angelic) referent to be assumed. As already noted, the word can refer to angels, to
human beings such as priests and prophets,439 and to God himself. (8) The argument
von Bulmerincq, Maieachi, 337-338; Daube, The Sudden in the Scripture, 74-75; Elliger,
Die Propheten, 206; C. F. Keil, Die zwolf kleinen Propheten (3d ed.; Leipzig: Ddrflin &
Franke, 1888 [repr., Giessen: Brunnen Verlag, 1985]), 705; Rudolf, Maieachi, 278, n. 2;
P. A. Verhoef, The Books o f Haggai and Malachi (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987), 288.
437It is likely that the "seeking" and the parallel reference to "delighting" are to be
taken ironically (Achtemeier, Nahum—Malachi, 184; J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi [TOTC; London: Inter-Varsity, 1975], 243; Hill, Malachi, 268, 270; Reventlow,
Die Propheten, 152). That Malachi has used both terms earlier increases the likelihood of
irony in Mai 3:1 (i.e., "to seek" occurs in Mai 2:7, 15, and "to delight" occurs in 2:17).
438Wallis, "Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis," 231, "Will man den Text
nicht willkurlich andem oder zerschneiden, und dazu liegt wohl kein Grand vor, so ist der
Bundesbote gleichzeitig Tempelherr" (cited approvingly by van der Woude, "Engel des
Bundes," 295).
439Malachi’s reference to priests as m n' (Mai 2:7) is unique in the OT. This
reference, encompassed as it is by the word rP"Q, may foreshadow the use of IVOn
in Mai 3:1c. The coming of the Angel of the LORD, here styled Angel of the Covenant, is
no doubt conditioned by the failure of the priests to fulfill their role as messengers of
YHWH. Cf. Bascom, "Preparing the Way," 226, where he states that the messenger of Mai
3:1c "is a figure who will take the title already given to the priests in Malachi 2.7. This is a
strong rebuke directed against the wicked priesthood of Malachi 2.8-9. This messenger will
bring about a reform of the priesthood from the outside."
For OT uses of "JM713 in reference to prophets see, Isa 42:19; 44:26; Hag 1:12-13;
2 Chron 36:15-16 (cf. Josephus’ use of &yyÛov xapd too 0eou in reference to prophets in
Ant. 15.136). Greene, The Role o f the Messenger arui Message, 148-149, however, argues
against the parallelism between "prophet" and "messenger" in 2 Chron 36:15-16 as part of
his larger thesis that prophets neither function as, nor (with the single exception of Hag 1:13)
174
that YHWH cannot be called a overlooks several texts, perhaps as many as fifty,
where the opposite is the case. It is also a virtual certainty that Exod 23:20-23, one of the
more important of these texts, is being consciously reworked by Malachi in the light of Isa
40:3. (9) The suggestion that "his temple" may be read as "my temple" is at worst special
pleading and at best a counsel of despair.440 The alternative notion that his temple could
apply to someone other than YHWH is equally unlikely. There is no indication that anyone
in Malachi’s context was seeking or delighting in a heavenly Butler or Steward
("Majordomus"). Thus it would be impossible here, and confusing at any time, for someone
to say his temple 0^3*71) in reference to what is clearly YHWH’s temple and to mean by this
not YHWH’s temple but the steward’s temple. The pronomial suffix on 'foo'Ti anticipates and
refers to ]YW1, a more natural designation for YHWH than for a steward (assuming that
there is such a steward).441 Only after the existence and function of a heavenly steward
vis-a-vis God’s temple was clearly delineated in the text at hand, or after the belief was
are called, messengers in the OT. But the parallelism in 2 Chron 36:15-16, even if it is not
strictly poetic parallelism, is similar to that between "prophet" and "messenger" in the
narrative of Hag 1:12-13 and also to that between "servant" and "messenger(s)" in the poetry
of Isa 42:19; 44:26 (cf. also the common OT apposition "my servants the prophets"). For
OT uses of rb o in reference to prophets see, e.g., Exod 3:10, 13-15; Judg 6:8; 1 Sam 15:1;
16:1; 2 Sam 12:1, 25; 24:13; 2 Chron 24:19; 25:15; Isa 6:8; 61:1(7); Jer 1:7; 7:25; Ezek
2:3-4; Mic 6:4; Hag 1:12-13; Zech 2:12, 13, 15; and especially Mai 3:23. For additional
references see E. T. Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature
(HSM 24; Chico: Scholars, 1980), 215; Ross, "The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger," 99,
n. 9.
440Cf. Sellin, Das Zwolfprophetenbuch, 608, who rightly classifies this view as a
"'Verzweiflungsauskunft." The same may be said of Bascom, "Preparing the Way," 225, who
attempts to remove the stumbling block by suggesting that the word "temple" is being used
"to specify the middle court of the Temple" rather than the holy of holies. The result is, to
say the least, a bit odd: "And suddenly the (angelic) Lord whom you seek will come to his
middle court"?
441With the definite article in the OT always refers to YHWH (e.g., Exod
23:17; 34:23; Isa 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33; 19:4; 36:12; etc.). He who is "Lord of all the earth"
(Zech 4:14; 6:5) is surely Lord of his temple. Cf. also Mai 1:6 for the only other uses of
in the book of Malachi. In that verse it is the priests in the temple who are expressly
condemned for not honoring YHWH as ]VlK.
175
demonstrated to have been shared by the author and his readers, could "his temple" possibly
refer to someone other than YHWH. There is every indication in the immediate context,
however, that the belief shared by the author and his audience was the coming of YHWH
himself, or, more accurately, his (apparent) failure to come. "Where is the God o f
judgment?" ask the people (Mai 2:17). "Just you wait!" answers YHWH (Mai 3:1-5).442
The Three-Character Approach

At the other end of the interpretive spectrum to the single-character approach is the
three-character approach. This rubric covers a variety of diverse and conflicting views that
have failed to command wide assent primarily due to their speculative identifications of the
third character. For example, the three characters could be: (1) a prophet, YHWH, and
"Esdras, le pretre";443 (2) a prophet, YHWH, and "a priestly messiah";444 (3) a
prophet, YHWH, and "der Schutzengel der Gemeinde";445 (4) an angel, YHWH, and
Contrast this passage with the resounding affirmation in Isa 30:8, "YHWH is a
God of BBtfD," and the promised blessing for all those who "long for" (J"DR) him. In Mai
2:17, however, the rare expression "God of BBOfta” is not being affirmed but derided; and
those who are ironically said to long for him (i.e., to "seek" and "delight in" him) are not
promised blessing but judgment when YHWH finally comes (Mai 3:1-5).
443So Chary, Malachie, 266 (cf. 263-267), who holds that "the angel of the
covenant" (Mai 3:1c) and "the purification of the sons of Levi” (3:3b) are correlative later
glosses.
444So Malchow, "Messenger of the Covenant," 255 (cf. 252-254), who takes 3:1c to
be a later gloss and traces an ephemeral trajectory through Zech 4:11-14 (messiahs from
Judah and Levi), Dan 9:26 (Hellenistic high priest Onias HI called "messiah"), Dan 11:22
(Onias HI called "the prince of the covenant"), and Mai 3:1. Cp. Hill, Malachi, 269.
445So Kraetzschmar, Bundesvorstellung, 237-239, who had argued that the guardian
angel appeared alongside YHWH at his coming: "Dass der v. la a und der ' an
nicht identisch sind, hat schon Kohler festgestellt, denn jener soli vor dem Erscheinen Jahwes
auftreten, dieser aber gleichzeitig mit demselben. . . . Elia [3:23-24] und der v. 1
sind als eine Person zu betrachten" (Kraetzschmar, Bundesvorstellung, 237). Cp. Marti,
Dodekapropheton, 473; Rudolf, Maieachi, 278, n. 5.
176
the Schutzengel (so to speak) of YHWH’s transcendence;446 or (5) the Angel of the
LORD, YHWH, and a second angel.44^ None of these conflicting views is satisfactory.
Each is rendered untenable by the observation that after YHWH (or with YHWH) another
figure is superfluous. The text bears this out in Mai 3:2-5 where everything is ascribed to a
single figure, YHWH, in his eschatological theophany of judgment.44**
The "day of his coming" (1ttf2 Qty spoken of in Mai 3:2 is not the day of a
mediator. It is "the great and terrible Day of the LORD" as the verbatim quote from Joel a
few verses later makes clear (Mai 3:23, citing Joel 3:4; cf. Joel 2:11; Amos 5:18; Zeph
'^ ^ .e ., the interpolation theory. This theory is somewhat difficult to classify. E.g.,
Rudolf, Maieachi, 279, who claims to be following Marti, Dodekapropheton, 473-474,
speaks of the Angel of the Covenant as a distinct heavenly mediator. For Marti, however, as
for Lagrange before him, the Angel of the Covenant was not actually a mediator distinct
from YHWH but a euphemism for YHWH himself ("nur eine andere Bezeichnung Jahwes,"
Marti, Dodekapropheton, 473; cf. Lagrange, "L’ange de Iahve," 221, cited at n. 410 above).
^ A cco rd in g to Hill, Malachi, 288-289, "both the original writer and the original
audience most naturally would have understood ‘my angel,’ ‘The Lord,’ and ‘the angel of the
covenant’ as titles for three separate divine beings . . . a divine processional into the Temple,
with Yahweh flanked by two angelic retainers." The first angelic retainer, identified as the
Angel of the LORD of Exod 23:20-23, is described by Hill as "Yahweh himself hypostatized
in humanoid form" (288), and again as "Yahweh himself . . . visibly manifest in a personal
presence (at times) of humanoid form" (289). The reference to Exod 23:20-23 is duly noted.
In that earlier text YHWH manifested himself and went before his people to prepare their
way. In this text, however, YHWH manifested as his own forerunner is a more awkward
conception, particularly if the element of surprise connoted by DMTI&I ("and suddenly!") in
Mai 3:1b is to be retained. Can YHWH be flanked by a fore-runner? Can YHWH be flanked
by a hypostatization of himself in humanoid form? Hill’s identification of the second angelic
retainer is necessarily vague.
448So, e.g., Achtemeier, Nahum—Malachi, 185; Baldwin, Malachi, 242-244; S. R.
Driver, The Minor Prophets: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
(Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1906), 318-321; Elliger, Die Propheten, 205-208; Glazier-
McDonald, Malachi, 132, 142-171; HU1, Malachi, 271-284 (cp. 273); van Hoonacker, Les
Douze Petits Prophites, 731-732; Keil, Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, 706-708; Marti,
Dodekapropheton, 473-474; Redditt, Malachi, 176-177; Reventlow, Die Propheten, 152-153;
Rudolf, Maieachi, 278; Sellin, Das Zwolfprophetenbuch, 608-609; J. M. P. Smith, Malachi
(ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 64-65; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 329; Verhoef,
Malachi, 290-296, esp. 290, n. 15.
177
1:14; Hos 2:2).449 Moreover, the actions described are not the actions of a forerunner
merely preparatory to YHWH’s theophany, which would leave YHWH with little to do on
his delayed arrival in 3:5. The actions described are the actions of "the God of judgment
(BfitfQ)" himself. The word BBtiQ in Mai 2:17 and 3:5 not only frames but sets the tone for
the fourth disputation in which the dominant theme is God’s judgment. Additional evidence
that Malachi is setting forth a theophany includes the repeated mention of YHWH’s
"coming";450 the parallel use of the even stronger term "appearing" (i.e., Niphal of
n m ); and the description of YHWH as being like fire (Mai 3:2; cf. Exod 2 4 :17).451
The Two-Character Approach

The best approach to the most famous and difficult passage in the book of Malachi is
still the traditional two-character approach. This is not to deny the existence of less
traditional two-character approaches, only their plausibility. For example, the two characters
^ C f . E. Jenni, "DY»jOm Tag," THAT 1:724 [art. =707-726], and J. D. Nogalski,

"The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve," SBLSP 38 (1999), 620, n. 10
[art. =617-642]; R. Rendtorff, "Alas for the Day! The ‘Day of the LORD’ in the Book of the
Twelve," in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemarui, ed. T. Linafelt and T. K.
Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 195-196 [art. = 186-197]. The word N'Q occurs seven
times in Mai 3:1-2, 19-24. It is a Leitwort that highlights the close connection between the
fourth disputation and the final words of the chapter. The alternating but parallel references
to the "coming" of YHWH and the "coming" of the Day of the LORD show that "the day of
his coming" in Mai 3:2 can only be understood as referring to that same great and terrible
day.
450The word "to come" (Mfc) has theophanic implications in related OT texts. Note
especially the nearly identical statement in Isa 40:10 (cf. 35:3), "Behold! The Lord YHWH
will come (ttia* miV ’SIN JUTl)." This statement is maximally relevant, being found in a
context that is foundational to Malachi’s fourth disputation.
451Malachi is not above playing with words—witness the astonishing variety of
referents for the seemingly innocuous word "|N *?n (cf. Childs, Old Testament as Scripture,
494). Thus it is possible that the second and more unusual of the two similes in Mai 3:2
("like fuller’s soap") was suggested by, and may allude to, YHWH as the Angel of the
Covenant. The rare word used for "soap" (W D ) is consonantally identical to the word for
"covenant" (WHS) (Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 148).
178
could hypothetically be Ezra the priest and YHWH;452 or Israel’s Guardian Angel and
YHWH;453 or the Angel of the LORD and YHWH;454 or a prophetic figure and
YHWH;455 or a levitical figure and YHWH 456
The strength of these less traditional two-character approaches is obviously their
recognition that in Mai 3:1b must be YHWH.457 That said, however, the
distinctive view that "my messenger" and "the Angel of the Covenant" refer to Ezra
depends, first, on dubious speculations about fifth-century "Volksglaube" and
"Volkseschatologie" vis-a-vis heavenly angel figures and on Malachi’s supposed application
of these supposed expectations to a contemporary human figure; and, second, on an overly
precise dating of the book of Malachi to the summer of 458 b c .4 5 8 The "Schutzengel"
view has been dealt with above,459 and the Angel of the LORD view is similar to it, at
452So von Bulmerincq, Maieachi, 330-351. In addition to arguing that "my

messenger" and "the Angel of the Covenant" in Mai 3:1 referred to Ezra, von Bulmerincq
also argued (567-576) that "Elijah" in Mai 3:23 referred to Ezra.
453So J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962), 405,
n. 220; 421, n. 241.
454H. Junker, Die Zwolf Kleinen Propheten, vol. 2, Nahum, Habakuk, Sophonias,
Aggdus, Zacharias, Malachias (Bonn: Hanstein, 1938), 215-216; cf. G. von Rad, HyyeXoq,
mX.," TDNT, 1:78, n. 18.
455So Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 42; J. Schniewind, "dcTyeXfo, kxX.," TDNT,
1:58, nn. 8, 11 [art. = 1:56-73]. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 167-168, sees the
prophet (Elijah) as having been exalted to the status of "a heavenly angel" (168).
456So Mason, Malachi, 152-153. This view can already be found in Elliger, Die
Propheten, 206.
457In addition, von Bulmerincq and Lindblom are correct to argue that Mai 3:1c
need not be understood as a later interpolation.
458Von Bulmerincq, Maieachi, 350.
459Cf. nn. 421, 445 above.
179
least to the extent that the Angel of the LORD is seen as distinct from YHWH.4**® The
view that the forerunner and the Angel of the Covenant are a single prophetic figure depends
on two contextual impossibilities: first, that Mai 3:2-4 describes the preparatory work of this
figure with YHWH only arriving on the scene in 3:5; and, second, that this figure is "the
prophetic ‘author’ of the book,"461 in which case it becomes rather difficult to see his
coming as still future. The equally distinctive view that the second character next to YHWH
is a levitical figure also depends on the assumption that this figure, YHWH’s forerunner, is
already present. This is exegetically unlikely, to say the least. A participle following the
exclamation run, not to mention the whole tenor of the passage, indicates that the
sending—and perforce the coming—of YHWH’s forerunner is imminent, not that the
forerunner is already present.462 The fundamental difficulty with all of these less
traditional two-character approaches, however, is their mistaken identification of YHWH’s
forerunner as the Angel of the Covenant.463 YHWH’s forerunner is explicitly identified
460Junker, Die Zwolf Kleinen Propheten, 215-216, is ambivalent at this point. On the
one hand the Angel of the LORD is to be distinguished from God as a creaturely servant; yet
on the other hand there obtains "eine Art Perichorese oder Durchdringung" between God and
this angel such that God not only works through but is actually present in this angel (216).
To the extent that the latter is true Junker’s view runs into the same problem as Hill’s three-
character view (cf. n. 447 above). I.e., it is difficult to see how such an angel can be
YHWH’s forerunner, how he can be meaningfully distinguished from YHWH, and how his
appearing is not already the theophany that Malachi’s audience seeks and desires.
461 Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 42.
462The locution 5U7! + participle "is intended to announce the event as imminent, or
at least near at hand (and sure to happen)" (GKC, §116p; cf. W-O, §§37.6f, 40.2.1; van der
Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 293). According to Ausloos, "The Need for a ‘Controlling
Framework’," 83, "in 118 of the 125 occurrences (94%), ’3371 + participle introduces a
divine promise, announcing a near and active divine intervention."
^ N o t e again the chiastic parallelism in Mai 3:lb-c to which reference has already
been made. It is highly unlikely that a glossator would have added 3:1c, thereby completing
and at the same time creating an artful chiasm that did not previously exist (van der Woude,
"Engel des Bundes," 292; and cf. more generally O’Brien, Priest and Levite, 82, "if an
editor has added material to the book, he or she has done so with full awareness of the rib
form"). Such creativity is best ascribed to original authors. On the significance of this
chiastic parallelism see, e.g., Clendenen, "The Structure of Malachi,” 12; Driver, Minor
180
as a prophetic figure a few verses later in the book (Mai 3:23-24); and "the Angel of the
Covenant," like the Angel of the LORD elsewhere in the OT, is a further evocative
description of YHWH. The Lord, namely, the Angel of the Covenant, is coming to his
temple.
The Gospel According to Malachi

But what are the implications of the traditional two-character approach? And what
exactly does the further description of YHWH as "Angel of the Covenant" evoke? Not least
it evokes the coming of YHWH in glory in the pillar of fire and cloud to the tabernacle in
the wilderness (e.g., Exodus 33, 40); his coming in glory to the temple in Jerusalem (e.g.,
1 Kings 8); and his final coming in glory to the restored eschatological temple (e.g., Ezekiel
43). More importantly, however, the Angel of the Covenant evokes the Book of the
Covenant that so prominently features the Angel of the LORD in its epilogue. That is, the
mention of the Angel of the Covenant shows that YHWH is being portrayed in the role of
covenant enforcer: "Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious
toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression" (Exod 2 3 : 2 1 ) . This is not
accomplished solely by calling YHWH a in Mai 3:1c, though that alone might have
Prophets, 318; Hill, Malachi, 260; Keil, Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, 705-706; Marti,
Dodekapropheton, 473; Reventlow, Die Propheten, 152; Stein, "Engel des Auszugs," 296;
Verhoef, Malachi, 288-289; and Wendland, "Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi,"
109. Cf. also Lescow, Maieachi, 40-41; Wallis, "Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft
Maleachis," 231; and van der Woude, "Engel des Bundes," 294, who, though they
mistakenly identify the referent, are certainly correct to equate "the Lord" and "the Angel of
the Covenant" on the strength of this parallelism.
'^Judgm ent and prosecution are certainly major themes in the book of Malachi.
But, contra Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 43 (cf. O’Brien, Priest and Levite, 73-75), it
is YHWH and not a prophet who will come and act as his own "covenant enforcer." See
rightly Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 129-132, esp., 132 ("ascribing all the action in verses 1-
5, with the exception of 3:l[a], to Yahweh creates a dramatic flow, a crescendo that is
denied by Petersen’s analysis").
181
sufficed. It is accomplished by actually citing Exod 23:20 in Mai 3:1a.465 The Book of
the Covenant is thus of primary significance for understanding the Angel of the Covenant in
Mai 3:1c.
Strikingly, however, the words that are taken up from the Book of the Covenant are
not in the first instance applied to YHWH as Angel of the Covenant but to YHWH’s
prophetic forerunner. To fully understand this prophetic tour de force it is necessary to see
that Malachi has simultaneously taken up exodus imagery from the Book of the
Covenant466 and New Exodus imagery from the prophecy of Isaiah.467 But he has
not just taken up this imagery; he has completely inverted it. Here is the first of several
prophetic inversions or judgment typologies unique to the book of Malachi.468
465For additional evidence that the Book of the Covenant forms an important
backdrop to Malachi see, O ’Brien, Priest and Levite, 73, 92-93.
466"The relationship between Mai 3:1 and Exod 23:20 is too striking to be
accidental" (Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 43). Note the following verbal similarities:
(Exod 23:20) TDDH lOH Blpon bit “JH’anVl f T D "pOBib -pfflb "|«bn nb® ,D3K ran
(Mai 3:1a) ■*»*? "p i <1381 'Qxbn rib® *3371
In fact, all but one of the words in Mai 3:1a can be found in Exod 23:20. The only exception
is the substitution of one synonym for another: i.e., the word H3& ("to turn”) is being used
figuratively in the Piel in Mai 3:1a for making things orderly, clearing things away, and
freeing them from obstacles (BDB, 815). This meaning is not far removed from which in
the Hiphil in Exod 23:20 means "to make ready, prepare" (BDB, 466). The conjunction of
]*© and "pT is found in reference to preparing an actual road (^"1171 |*3n) in Deut 19:3; but
the expression is also used figuratively (ethically) for rightly ordering one’s way or steps
before God (e.g., 2 Chron 27:6; Ps 37:23; 119:5; Prov 21:29). Malachi’s use of 713B instead
of ]!D probably derives from Isaiah who had earlier looked to Exod 23:20 in setting forth his
New Exodus typology (Isa 40:3; cf. 45:2).
467I.e., the collocation of 713& in the Piel and " p i is only found four times in the
OT (Isa 40:3; 57:14; 62:10; Mai 3:1). More importantly, the idea that YHWH has a way,
and that someone prepares his way before him, is found only twice in the OT (Isa 40:3; Mai
3:1).
468The inversion of Day of the LORD expectations is certainly analogous, but it is
not unique to Malachi (cf. Joel, Amos, and Zephaniah). Closer, perhaps, is the inversion of
exodus imagery such that the prototypical deliverance becomes a model of impending
judgment (Dfififta) (Ezek 20:33-44); the inversion of conquest promises such that the Angel of
182
In his second disputation Malachi thoroughly indicted the priests for having violated
"the covenant of Levi" (Mai 2:4, 5, 8; cf. Neh 13:29). Then in his third disputation he
shifted focus to the people as a whole who were no less guilty than the priests (Mai 2:10-16;
cf. 1:2-5). The people were charged with having profaned "the covenant o f our fathers" (Mai
2:10), that is, the Sinai covenant especially as it is epitomized by the Book of the
Covenant.469 Because priest and people alike stand condemned as covenant violators
Malachi prophesies judgment against them instead of blessing and comfort. This judgment
begins with the temple and the priests, referred to as the "sons of Levi" (Mai 3:2), and then
moves outward to include the people, referred to as the "sons of Jacob" (Mai 3:6), and the
land as a whole. The temple thus serves as a microcosm of the land. The most important
thing to observe, however, is that the future will bring judgment on God’s people rather than
a repetition of past glories (i.e., the exodus) or a positive role in the unfolding eschatological
drama of YHWH’s glorious return to Zion and their return with him (i.e., the New Exodus).
It is no longer YHWH who goes before (*3fi^) his people to guard them along the
way C p i) and prepare a place for them; it is a prophetic forerunner who goes before (^B*?)
YHWH to prepare the way (*yH) for him. The great and terrible day of judgment is coming.
It is no longer YHWH coming to drive their enemies out of the land; it is YHWH coming to
drive his enemies out of the temple. YHWH’s enemies are, in effect, his own people and his
great and terrible judgment will begin with the priests. Yes, says Malachi, there will still be
a "IK’JB who goes before. But this forerunner will not be YHWH but a prophet. Yes, says
the LORD’S intended blessing becomes a judgment and a curse (Exod 23:29; Judg 2:3); or
the inversion of the protecting role of the Angel of the LORD such that he becomes a
destroying angel whose enemies are not Israel’s enemies but Israel (Exod 23:20, 22; Num
22:22-35; 2 Samuel 24; 1 Chronicles 21).
469cf Hill, Malachi, 227. The word "to deal treacherously" (1SS) is a Leitwort in
the third disputation (Mai 2:10, 11, 14-16). In the Pentateuch it is found only in the Book of
the Covenant (Exod 21:8) where, as here, it refers to the covenant-violating practice of
divorce.
183
Malachi, the way of YHWH will still be prepared. But this preparation will be made by a
single prophet (Mai 3:1a) and not by YHWH’s sinful people (cp. Isa 40:3).
This is all, of course, predicated on the assumption that Israel is being exhorted to
prepare the way of YHWH in Isa 40:3-4. This assumption makes good sense of Isaiah’s
prophecy. For example, those addressed in Isa 40:9 are the people of God (i.e.,
Zion/Jerusalem); and those addressed in Isa 35:1-10, a text parallel to Isa 40:1-11, are
clearly the people of God.470 This assumption makes good sense of Malachi 3, though
®These two sections of Isaiah serve structurally to bookend Isaiah 36-39, aptly
described by one commentator as "the rock of history" (J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of
Isaiah [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993], 276). The thematic and verbal similarities
between these two sections of Isaiah are impressive. The following key words and phrases
occur in both sections: "wilderness," T21Q (Isa 40:3; 35:1, 6); "way," " p i (Isa 40:3; 35:8);
"desert," 7QTOJ (Isa 40:3; 35:1, 6); "highway," nbo o (Isa 40:3; 35:8); "they shall see the
glory of YHWH," WVI mn*» TOM (Isa 40:5; 35:2); "grass," TOSR (Isa 40:6; 35:7); "Fear
not!" n n T I (Isa 40:9; 35:4); "Behold! Your God comes," H ta* ODTObtt TOJ1 (Isa 40:9-
10; 35:4). The notion of "recompense” (Isa 40:10; 35:4) is a conceptual parallel, though
different terms are used; and the pastoral scene in Isa 40: 11 could be seen as an elaboration
of the salvation mentioned in Isa 35:4. More important, however, is the similar rhetorical
sequence found in Isa 40:3-5, 10-11 and Isa 35:3-10. In both sections plural Piel imperatives
exhorting the people to ethical and moral preparedness (Isa 40:3-4; 35:3) are followed by
indicatives describing the glorious work and appearing of YHWH (Isa 40:5, 10-11; 35:4-10).
The ethical preparation described in Isa 40:3-4 by one analogy (lifting up valleys and
lowering mountains) is comparable to that described in Isa 35:3 by means of another
(strengthening weak hands and making firm feeble knees). In both analogies that which is out
of place ethically, or is a hindrance morally, is to be set right by God's people in preparation
for God’s coming.
For the view that God’s people are addressed in Isa 40:3 see further, Delitzsch,
Jesaia, 391-392; J. Goldingay, "The Old Testament and Christian Faith: Jesus and the Old
Testament in Matthew 1-5 (Part 1)," Themelios 8 (1982): 7 [art. =4-10]; J. L. Koole, "Zu
Jesaja 40,3," in Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift fur Prof Mag. Dr. Dr. J. P. M. van der
Ploeg O. P. zur Vollendung das siebzigsten Legensjahres am 4. Juli 1979, ed. W. C.
Delsman, et al. (AOAT 211; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982), 137-142; idem, Isaiah
(HCOT; 3 vols.; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 3:1:57, 60 ("The voice of vv. 3ff. talks about
Yahweh as ‘our God’ and one expects to hear this from the mouth of humans,
possibly prophets (cf. v. 1), rather than celestial beings. . . . w . 3ff can only address the
exiles and not celestial beings"); R. P. Merendino, Der Erste und der Letzte: Eine
Untersuchung von Jes 40-48 (VTSup 31; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 35-36, 44-45; Oswalt, Isaiah,
52; Watts, Isaiah, 79; Young, Isaiah, 2:28. Cf. also the related view that a group within
Israel, e.g., a group of prophets or the disciples of Second Isaiah, are being exhorted. This
view is set forth by, e.g., J. H. Eaton, "The Origin of the Book of Isaiah," VT 9 (1959): 152
[art. = 138-157]; K. Kiesow, Exodustexte im Jesajabuch: Literarkritische und
Motivgeschichtliche Anafysen (OBO 24; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 64;
184
all such mirror-reading is necessarily conjectural. Malachi could have transferred the work of
heavenly beings in the heavenly council to a single prophet privy to that council; but he
would not then have sounded the note of judgment that so completely dominates his
disputations. And, finally, this assumption also makes good sense in light of Qumran where
those preparing the way of YHWH are clearly God’s people and not heavenly beings.471
That a prophet will precede and prepare the way of YHWH on the Day of the LORD
is consistent with Joel 3:1-5 where prophecy is set forth as one of the signs that will precede
the Day of the LORD and YHWH’s appearing.472 That only a single prophet will
precede and prepare the way of YHWH inverts Joel’s eschatological democratization of
prophecy in a way that closely parallels Malachi’s inversion of Isaiah’s New Exodus
expectations. Not the people but a single prophet, an ideal representative, will prophesy; not
the people but a single prophet, an ideal representative, will precede and prepare the way for
YHWH’s coming. That this single prophet is identified as Elijah (Mai 3:23) places the
covenant violators addressed by Malachi squarely in the sandals of the vacillating, covenant-
violating people confronted by Elijah in 1 Kgs 16:29-18:18 473 By means of these
R. R. Wilson, "The Community of the Second Isaiah," in Reading and Preaching the Book
o f Isaiah, ed. C. R. Seitz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 54 [art. =53-70]. Cf. T. Seidl,
"Offene Stellen in Jesaja 40, 1-8: Ein methodenkritischer Vergleich," in Goldene Apfel in
silbemen Schalen: Collected Communications to the Xlllth Congress o f the International
Organization fo r the Study o f the Old Testament, Leuven 1989, ed. K.-D. Schunck and
M. Augustin (BEATAJ 20; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992), 49-56.
471 IQS 8.12-16; 9.17-20; 4Q258, frag. 2, col. 3, line 4; 4Q259 3.4-6, 19. Cf.
K. R. Snodgrass, "Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40:1-5 and Their Adaptation
in the New Testament," JSNT8 (1980): 28-31 [art. =24-45].
472See Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 42-45. In his estimation this eschatological
focus on prophecy demonstrates that Malachi and Joel belong to "the same theological
stream" (p. 42). Cf. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 140.
473Cf. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 268. Note especially Elijah’s own description of
this people in 1 Kgs 18:10, 14, "the sons of Israel have forsaken your covenant." Malachi’s
identification o f the coming prophet is analogous to expectations concerning the
eschatological coming of a greater David (Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5). So,
rightly, Keil, Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, 715, "Wie in diesen Stellen nicht an eine
185
prophetic inversions or judgment typologies Malachi demonstrates that priest and people alike
are covenant violators. They have been judged, condemned, and disqualified. Small wonder
then that they will not be able to stand when YHWH appears like a consuming fire on that
great and terrible day (Mai 3:2).
In the midst of these terrible prophetic inversions Malachi still maintains a delicate
balance. While he forcefully inverts prior hopeful expectations involving exodus and New
Exodus imagery, he does not finally lose all hope for a purified remnant of priests and
people (Mai 3:3-4, 16-18, 20-21, 24).474 Likewise, while he provocatively applies the
polyvalent word "JN'tD to a prophet (Mai 3:1a; cf. 2:7), he does not finally lose sight of the
identity of the in the Book of the Covenant to which he so forcefully alludes (Mai
3:lb-c).475 Malachi’s Angel of the Covenant, like the vanguard angel in Exod 23:20-23,
is YHWH himself (Mai 3:lb-c). One angel (a prophet) will precede and prepare the way for
another (YHWH). This is the clarion call of Malachi—the resounding note on which this OT
prophecy closes and on which the NT proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ begins (cf.
Mark 1:1-3).
Wiederkehr oder Auferstehung des langst verstorbenen Konigs David zu denken, sondem ein
Konig gemeint ist, der im Sinne und Geiste Davids das Volk Gottes regieren wird, so kann
auch der zu sendende Elija nur ein Prophet im Geiste und in der Kraft des Thisbiten Elija
sein."
474Cf. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 268.
475Cp. Hos 12:4-5, where God is referred to as a with Hos 12:14, where a
prophet (Moses) is described in language borrowed from Exod 23:20. According to Daniels,
Hosea and Salvation History, 49, Hos 12:14 "demonstrates the extreme importance of the
prophetic office in Hosea’s thinking. . . . So crucial are the prophets that Hosea cannot think
of a future renewal without them (v. 11)." Malachi likewise refers to God as a in a
context featuring a future prophet described in language borrowed from Exod 23:20.
186
Conclusion to the Old Testament
A cumulative and fairly convincing case can be made that the Angel of the LORD in
a number of OT texts is YHWH himself.47<* The expression miT in these texts
functions at two distinct but overlapping levels. It functions primarily at the literary-
theological level as an alternative divine name, that is, as a circumlocution for YHWH
comparable in many respects to other circumlocutions such as "face" (CP3B), "glory" (1^33),
and "name" (B8f).477 The expression mJT is, however, highly distinctive in its
connotations for it implies that God himself has taken up the role and the activities of a
messenger. Also, unlike other circumlocutions, this expression functions at the
phenomenological level as description of concrete historical theophanies, that is, as a
description o f the actual form in which God sometimes chose to appear to his people. In this
respect the 7VW more closely resembles the "pillar of cloud and fire" |337 TU3B)
in Exodus and, above all, the divine "man" (Bftt) in Gen 18:1-33 and Gen 32:25-33.
According to Mai 3:1 the great eschatological theophany of God will be a theophany
of the Angel of the LORD. Given this one verse it cannot be determined with finality
whether Malachi simply intends IVOn as a circumlocution for God manifest or
476As was indicated at the outset (see Table 1 above) the number of these texts is
approximately fifty: less if the exegesis of specific texts above can be overturned; more if
individual Angel of the LORD texts in the "uncertain" category (e.g., Gen 24:7, 40; Pss
34:8; 35:5, 6; Zech 12:8) and non-Angel of the LORD theophany texts (e.g., Genesis 18)
can be understood as Angel of the LORD texts in light of their similarity to the core group
of fifty certain texts. (Note again in this regard the retrospective and seemingly global
hermeneutic implied by Gen 31:11; 48:15-16; Hos 12:4-5; and Isa 63:9.)
477This can be illustrated by the following simple thought experiment: An isolated
but competent cadre of OT scholars has access only to texts that contain gaps or bracketed
ellipses [ . . . ] in place of each occurrence of HUT in this core group of OT texts.
The task set before them is to determine, as best they can, what once stood in the gaps.
However long and carefully these scholars examined their texts they could hardly conclude
otherwise than that what once stood in the gaps was the word CPH^N or m!T or some
denotatively equivalent circumlocution: that is, a reference to deity. Not only is this
remarkable, it is (one could argue) impossible if the m!T is a creature.
187
whether he also has the form of that manifestation in view. Furthermore, if Malachi does
have the form in view it cannot be determined with finality whether that form is
anthropomorphic.47** The definitive answer to the question of form must await the NT
where the fulfillment of Mai 3:1 is said to take place and where the OT story-line, in
particular the exodus and New Exodus strands of that story, continues.479
A H tl
Note, however, that when the form of the Angel of the LORD is described it is
typically described in anthropomorphic terms: e.g., Gen 32:25-33 (cf. Hos 12:4-5); Num
22:22-35; Josh 5:13-15; Judges 6, 13. See Barr, "Theophany and Anthropomorphism," 33-
34, 38; cf. Irvin, Mytharion, 93.
479A verse that has not been dealt with at length is Zech 12:8 (see Table 1 above
where it was classified as "uncertain"). It is nevertheless worthy of brief mention at this
point for two reasons: first, because of its thematic connections to Isa 40:3 and Mai 3:1 as a
prophetic text that also harks back to the first exodus in its portrayal of a greater future
deliverance; and, second, because it may in some small way (seen only in retrospect, of
course) speak to the question of the form of God’s eschatological appearance. Zech 12:8
reads, "In that day YHWH will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is
weak among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God,
like the Angel o f the LORD before them.” Cf. 1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17, 20, where David
himself is likened to the Angel of God.
The day spoken of is the Day of the LORD (cf. Mai 3:2), a day mentioned seven
(possibly symbolic) times in Zech 12:1-11 (C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14
[AB; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 333). It is possible but unlikely in the context of an
eschatological New Exodus on the Day of the LORD that the word "God" (D'H^K) merely
refers to an angelic being (contra Reventlow, Die Propheten, 114; Rudolf, Sacharja, 223).
And it is also possible but unlikely that the reference to the Angel of the LORD is a later
gloss that has been added to mitigate the offense of comparing someone or something to the
incomparable God (contra Deissler, Zwolf Propheten, 306; Elliger, Die Propheten, 166, n. 8;
B. Otzen, Studien tiber Deuterosacharja [Acta Theologica Danica 6; Copenhagen:
Munksgaard, 1964], 183; Sellin, 573). An allusion is clearly being made to Exod 13:21;
14:19; and 23:20-23. This is indicated not only by the mention of the Angel of the LORD
but by the use of the key term ’3D*?. The escalation of imagery—from least to greatest and
horn greatest to God!—in combination with the parallelism of consecutive similes suggests
that the God of the glorious exodus-conquest narrative and the Angel of the LORD are one
and the same. Cf. Meyer and Meyer, Zechariah, 332, who speak of this "double
comparison" as an instance of "repetitive divine terminology."
If the Angel of the LORD is not God in his capacity as divine protector (Zech
12:8a), guide (Exod 23:20-23), and heavenly Warrior (Josh 5:13-15), then the conclusion of
the verse is intolerably anticlimactic. The second part of the double comparison thus serves
to clarify but not to diminish the divine identity of the single figure that is in view (Junker,
Die Zw olf Kleinen Propheten, 178; Keil, Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, 652; R. L. Smith,
Micah-Afalachi, 275; cf. Chary, Zacharie, 200; and contra B. C. Ollenburger, "The Book of
Zechariah," NIB 7:827 [art. =733-840]). For God as protector see Meyers and Meyers,
Zechariah, 330, who state that "the verb gnn ("to defend, protect") occurs only eight times
188
Recovery of the biblical (canonical) story-line is prerequisite to a proper
understanding of the NT view of Christ. To backtrack slightly to an earlier point by way of
elaboration, it has been observed that the Deuteronom(ist)ic History has a plot with a
"straightforward" story-line.480 More importantly, it has been observed that the larger
Primary History of which the Deuteronom(ist)ic History is a part also has a plot: "the
Primary History has a unifled story-line which begins with creation and ends with Israel’s
exile."481 But if the Primary History of the OT has a plot, a fortiori the Canonical
History. The Canonical History of the OT has a unified story-line that runs from creation to
exodus to exile to new exodus and new creation. The Canonical History includes, in addition
to much else, the Chronicler’s History and the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and
Malachi.482
in the Hebrew Bible and its meaning is quite straightforward. The subject is always
Yahweh." There is little room in Zech 12:8 for a second angelic figure next to God and no
need to posit such a figure on the assumption that the description of God here is in close
continuity with the canonical exodus texts and traditions described more fully above.
The idea that God would come to lead a New Exodus is not new (cf. Isa 40:3; Mai
3:1). But the idea that this New Exodus would be led by a Davidic king (Meyer and Meyer,
Zechariah, 331; Smith, 275), and, moreover, that this king would be like God, like the Angel
o f the LORD, adds a decidedly messianic element (cf. Chary, 200) to an idea that elsewhere
hers only YHWH and/or the Angel of the LORD (cf. Exod 23:20) in view. There are other
OT texts where there seems to be some overlap between the eschatological coming of God
and the eschatological coming of God’s servant, king David (cf. Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23-24;
37:24-25; Hos 3:5); but these texts are not found in the context of a New Exodus and do not
make reference to the Angel of the LORD.
480Coote, "Joshua," 2:564. Cf. the Excursus on "The Deuteronom(ist)ic and Primary
Histories" above.
481Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History, 13, cf. 14-16. It is precisely
the "overall coherence" of this plot that makes the Primary History "a natural, that is, non
artificial, starting point for a final form analysis of the portrayal of our figures" (13).
Kissling obviously has a plurality of human figures in view, but his statement is eminently
suitable to the investigation of a single angelic figure.
482For a delineation of the "Chronicler’s History" and its relationship to the Primary
History and the prophets see, Freedman, "The Law and the Prophets," 257, 259, 263-264.
Cp. Clines, "The Old Testament Histories," 89-105, for a disjunctive contrast between the
Chronicler’s History (referred to by him as the "Secondary History") and the Primary
History.
189
The OT canon thus looks forward to a New Exodus and to the eschatological return
of YHWH and YHWH’s glory to his temple (Mai 3: lb).483 But the OT canon also looks
forward to the coming of the Angel of the LORD (Mai 3:1c). Is Jesus the climax of the
canonical story? Is Jesus the angel whose coming was prophesied by Malachi? Does the
ultimate redemption o f "Jacob" from evil lie just ahead? These questions will be addressed
shortly; not, however, in the next chapter but in Chapter 4 since the shortest distance
between two points in difficult and contested terrain is not always a straight line.
483Of no little significance to the canonical story-line is the anticlimactic return of

the exiles to the land and the manifest non-return of (the glory of) YHWH to his temple. Cf.
1 Kings 8; 2 Chronicles 6; Ezek 43:1-5; 44:4; Ezra 6:13-18.
CHAPTER 3
THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD
The differences between the angelology of the Hebrew Old Testament (MT) and
that of the intertestamental period should not be exaggerated or absolutized. Nevertheless,
an inductive survey of intertestamental literature immediately reveals a cambrian-like
explosion in the number, the names, and the ranks of angelic beings. The dramatic
growth of interest in and speculation about angels during this period is certainly
noteworthy. Even more noteworthy is the radically different view taken of one particular
angel--the Angel of the LORD. No longer is this angel divine, no longer are his
appearances theophanies, and no longer is he the object of worship, sacrifices,
commemorative altars, etc. The Angel of the LORD, in other words, is no longer
identified as a manifestation of God or as a way of speaking about God himself. Clearly
the magnitude and significance of this change for the present thesis are directly
proportional to the relative continuity between the OT and the NT and the relative
discontinuity between the canonical literature and the intertestamental literature. Thus,
before attempting to highlight the continuity between the OT and the NT with regard to
"divine agency" it will be necessary first to review the primary literature of the
intertestamental period. This brief review will include relevant and representative material
from the LXX, Philo, Josephus, Qumran, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha.1
1The order of presentation is somewhat arbitrary except that a discussion of the

LXX seems to follow naturally from the discussion of the MT while Philo and Josephus,
in turn, are not only dependent upon the LXX but are exemplars of its theological
190
191
The LXX
As noted in Table 1 above there were 127 singular occurrences of "|K,?D in the
MT. There are, however, 143 singular occurrences of firyyEXoq in the LXX.2 The LXX
adds twenty-five singular occurrences of fryyEXo^ where there is no corresponding
in the Hebrew, and omits nine where there is, for a net gain of sixteen. Statistically the
total increase (12.6 percent) is fairly modest. Exegetically, however, there is a drastic
decrease to the vanishing point in the number of texts where any overlap, much less
identity, between the Angel of the LORD and YHWH can be detected. It is highly
doubtful whether there are any texts in the LXX—including those texts where the LXX
has not altered its Vorlage—where the Angel of the LORD is divine. It is also doubtful
whether there are any "uncertain" texts in the LXX. This is not to say that valid
arguments made from the Hebrew text could not be applied mutatis mutandis to the
Greek text; no doubt some of them could.3 It is to say that the unambiguous Hebrew
texts were ‘corrected’ to ensure that the Angel of the LORD was not mistakenly
identified as deity and, as a result, that the remaining ambiguous texts could only have
been interpreted in a non-divine way. This might partially account for the lack of explicit
Tendenz. Unless otherwise noted versification and translation follow the standard editions
(i.e., Rahlfs for the LXX, Loeb for Philo and Josephus, Garcia Martinez for Qumran,
Charlesworth’s OTP for Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and The New Oxford Annotated
Apocrypha [1991 ed.] for Deuterocanonical works not included in OTP).
In the discussion that follows, references to the LXX are only to that portion of
the LXX that can lay claim to a (canonical) Hebrew Vorlage. Apocryphal additions to the
OT canon will be covered separately below.
3Cf. J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text o f Genesis (SBLSCSS 35; Atlanta:
Scholars, 1993), 225 (on Gen 16:13), 816 (on Gen 48:16).
192
proof-texting in the NT since in the version most commonly cited the texts simply were
not there (see Table 2 below).
Table 2. Semantic Breakdown: 143 Occurrences of Singular CrfytXoc, in the LXX

r STATUS TEXT TOTAL
1 Sam 23:27
2 Sam 11:19, 22, 22*. 23, 25
1 Kings 22:13
2 Kings 5:10; 6:32, 32, 33; 7:17*; 9:18; 10:8 29
HUMAN 2 Chron 18:12
Job 1:14, 16*. 17*, 18*; 20:15*
Prov 13:17; 16:14*; 17:11; 25:13*; 26:6*
Hag 1:13
Mai 1:1*; 2:7; 3:1a
Gen 16:7, 8*. 9, 10, 11; 21:17; 22:11, 15; 24:7, 40;
31:11; 48:16
Exod 3:2; 4:24*; 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2
Num 20:16; 22:22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35
Judg 2:1, 4; 4:8*; 5:23; 6:11, 12, 14*, 16*. 20, 21, 21,
22, 22; 13:3, 6, 9, 11*, 13, 15, 16, 16, 17, 18, 20,
21, 21
2 Sam 14:17, 20; 19:28; 24:16, 16, 16, 17
1 Kings 13:18; 19:7
ANGELIC 2 Kings 1:3, 15; 19:35
1 Chron 21:12, 15, 15, 15, 16, 18, 27, 30 114
2 Chron 32:21
Ps 34:8; 35:5, 6
Isa 9:5[6]*; 37:36; Isa 63:9
Dan 2:11*; 3:25[92]*; 3:28[95]; 4:10[13]*, 20[23]*,
31134]*; 10:21*; 12:1*
Hos 12:5
Zech 1:9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17*; 2:2, 7, 7; 3:1, 3, 5, 6; 4:1,
4, 5; 5:5, 10; 6:4, 5; 12:8
Mai 3:1c
UNCERTAIN 0
DIVINE
Key: * = LXX Additions: 25 Occurrences of &yYeAxx; without Corresponding
193
The dashed lines in Table 2 above indicate that texts once in the divine and
uncertain categories have gravitated toward the large mass of undisputed angel texts.4
This interpretive shift, the precise opposite of what was discovered in the MT, is
indicative of the theological Tendenz of the LXX and the closely related fact that the
word tiyy&oq is well on its way to becoming a technical term for created spirits.5 There
is no need to analyze each Angel of the LORD text in the LXX or to repeat text-critical
comments made earlier in the analysis of the MT. It will be sufficient simply to note in
passing the LXX additions and omissions to the MT (Tables 3 and 4) and then to
comment briefly on the passages that are most clearly representative of the LXX Tendenz.
Table 3. LXX Additions: 25 Occurrences of frfyeXoq without Corresponding "[KÔ

| TEXT | EXPLANATION
Gen 16:8 Translator’s license: implied by 3d person vb. “1QJC1
Exod 4:24 Renders n v r as HTTP (cf. Targums; Jub)
Judg 4:8 Barak’s response twice as long as in MT; refers to eOoSdi icupioq xov
AyyeXov pet' £pou (cf. vv. 14-15)
Judg 6:14 Renders mrp as mrr»
Judg 6:16 Renders mn* as miV "|R*?n
Judg 13:11 Translator’s license: implied by 3d person vb. "IQIOT
2 Sam 11:22 David’s expected response to Joab’s report (w . 19-21) made explicit
2 Kings 7:17 Reads "fron (cf. w . 2, 18-20) as m\xbnn
Job 1:16 Translator’s license: implied in context (cf. v. 14)
4The dashed lines also indicate that a handful of uncorrected LXX texts (e.g.,
Gen 16:7-13; 48:15-16) could still give rise to uncertainty, possibly even to the view that
the Angel of the LORD was divine (cf. n. 3 above), though it is highly unlikely that they
ever did so.
Êxclusive of the three citations of Mai 3:1 in the NT (cf. Mark 1:2; Matt
11:10; Luke 7:27), there are only two references to human "angels" (Luke 7:24; 9:52).
Cp. this with the many OT references noted in Table 1 above.
194
Job 1:17 Translator's license: implied in context (cf. v. 14)

Job 1:18 Translator’s license: implied in context (cf. v. 14)
Job 20:15 Renders
Prov 16:14 Renders plural construct as singular
Prov 25:13 Translator’s license: renders synonym IS
Prov 26:6 Translator’s license: renders ^ 0 3 T 3 ffao as 6
ducootEftacSi' dcry&oo ft$povoq X6yov
Isa 9:5[6] Renders tfh ti "1® ISTSN -fOi h* firt* as peydXiy; pouXifc
&YTEXOC
Dan 2:11 Renders
Dan 3:25[92] Renders “Q1?
Dan 4:10[13] Translator’s license: dynamic equivalent for TP
Dan 4:20[23] Translator’s license: dynamic equivalent for T 9
Dan 4:31[34] Nebuchadnezzar’s response twice as long as in MT; refers to
fryyEXoc efq £k&Xeo£ pe £k xou o&pavou
Dan 10:21 Renders 1X1/
Dan 12:1 Renders W w i *WH
Zech 1:17 Translator’s license: implied in continuity of speaker (cf. v. 14)
Mai 1:1 Renders proper name
Table 4. LXX Omissions: 9 Occurrences of without Corresponding GcyyeXxx;

| TEXT 1 EXPLANATION
1 Sam 29:9 Lacuna (parablepsis?); O L read correctly toadStq fryyeXoq 0eo6
1 Kings 19:2 Translator’s license: adequately implied by Jezebel’s sending
1 Kings 19:5 Lacuna: omits and/or reads Hiram as
"pfaa HT ram and glosses with m i i5o6 tit (cp. Cant 2:8)
1 Chron 21:20 Reads as if "fro, i.e., David (cp. 2 Sam 24:20-21)
Job 33:23 Renders singular as plural (next word begins with 0)
195
Eccl 5:5 Renders *3Efc as np6 npooam ox) xou 8eou (so also the
Syriac; cp. 5:1)
Isa 42:19 Lacuna (homoeoarcton?); with misreading of DbflTQ as oi
KOpt£UOVtE£ = Q6B7D)
Ezek 23:40 Renders singular as plural
Dan 6:23 Renders RDTHK DB “UO’I rO l6 n P b ti as oeow k£ p e 6 fcdq
duc6 tbjv Xedvuav
Again, most of the additions and omissions are not significant and require no
further comment: they are the inevitable result of translation and fall within the respective
domains of translation technique(s) and textual criticism.** Four of the additions,
however, are theologically significant and of a piece with alternate ways of subverting the
divine identity of the Angel of the LORD. The theologically significant additions are
found in Exod 4:24; Judg 6:14, 16; and Isa 9:5[6]; while alternate and equally effective
ways of subverting the divine identity of the Angel of the LORD are found in Exod
13:21; 23:20-23; Num 22:34; 24:3-4, 15-17; Judg 2:1-5; 13:19; Isa 63:9.7
Exodus 4:24
One of the more striking LXX changes is found in Exod 4:24 where a theophany
of YHWH is changed into the attack of an angel by the simple addition of the word
6Some text-critical problems may antedate both MT and LXX. Both, for
example, mistakenly read "angel" for "king" in 2 Kings 6:33. On the LXX as a
translation see esp. S. Olofsson and S. P. Brock, "Translating the Old Testament," in It
is Written, 87-98; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique
o f the Septuagint (ConBib 30; Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1990); idem, God is My
Rock: A Study o f Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint
(ConBib 31; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990).
<7
This last text (Isa 63:9) was dealt with in Chapter 2 above and will not be
covered here. Note that most of these revised LXX texts are directly or indirectly related
to the exodus—a primary text plot used by the authors of the NT to explicate Christ.
196
dryyEto?- In the MT it is clearly YHWH who meets Moses and seeks to put him to
o
death. But the passage is extremely problematic on several levels: the intensely
dramatic scene is terse in the extreme, occupying from start to finish only three verses;
the theophany, indicated only by a single word (BftB, "to meet”), lacks its customary
auditory and visual concomitants; the identity of Moses, who is not mentioned by name,
must be inferred from the context; and the reason for YHWH’s hostile appearance is
never given but must be inferred from Zipporah’s dramatic action and the cryptic words
of explanation that follow.9 Ultimately, however, the account is problematic because
YHWH’s attack on Moses seems to be at complete odds with the immediately preceding
commission of Moses (4:19-23; cf. 3:10) and with the fact that Moses seems to be en
route to Pharaoh in prompt obedience to that commission. To safeguard not only the
transcendence of YHWH but his goodness the LXX introduces an angel. The introduction
of this angel is not completely arbitrary. As already noted, Moses’ confrontation by
YHWH closely resembles Balaam’s confrontation by the Angel of the LORD in
Numbers 22. Thus theological Tendenz and textual precedent, albeit from a canonically
O
Cf. Aquila (6 0ebq); Symmachus (icupioq); Theodotion (icvpioq).
9See further on this difficult passage, E. Blum and R. Blum, "Zipporah und ihr
]nn," in Die Hebraische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift fur
R olf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz, E. Stegemann
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 41-54; C. Houtman, "Exodus 4:24-26 and its
Interpretation," JNSL 11 (1983): 81-105; H. Kosmala, "The ’Bloody Husband,’" VT 12
(1962): 14-28; T. Lescow, "Ex 4,24-26: Ein archaischer Bundesschlufiritus," VT 105
(1993): 19-26, esp. 22-23 where he notes the parallel to the attack on Jacob in Gen
32:22-32; W. H. Propp, "That Bloody Bridegroom (Exodus iv 24-6)," VT 43 (1993):
495-518; H.-F. Richter, "Gab es einen ‘Blutbrautigam’? Erwagungen zu Ex 4,24-26," in
Studies in the Book o f Exodus, 433-441; B. P. Robinson, "Zipporah to the Rescue: A
Contextual Study of Exodus iv 24-6," VT 36 (1986): 447-461.
197
later text, have come together.10 Thus instead of reading the appearance of the Angel of
the LORD to Balaam as a theophany in light of the earlier theophany to Moses, the
earlier theophany is read in light of the later appearance to Balaam. Not YHWH but an
angel confronts Moses in the LXX of Exod 4:24.11
Exodus 13:21; 14:19
The LXX does not directly change Exod 14:19, an important Angel of the LORD
text. Instead, the LXX modifies Exod 13:21, effectively eliminating its interpretive
significance for Exod 14:19. In Exod 13:21 the LXX does not say that God himself
"walked before" his people (BTTCB^ in the pillar of cloud and fire but only that God
"led them” (ftyEito atixwv) by means of the pillar of cloud and fire. The important
preposition and thematic linking word TO*? is left untranslated. In Exod 14:19, however,
the verb icpoicopeodpcvoq is used and the preposition is translated. The result is that
Exod 14:19 no longer reflects the equation between YHWH and the Angel of the LORD
that is reflected in the MT descriptions of the theophanic pillar of fire and cloud.
10Cf. Sternberg, The Poetics o f Biblical Narrative, 371-372, who notes that such
"backsmoothing" is translation technique common to LXX and Sam. Pent.
^C f. Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him, 27; Wevers, Notes on the

Greek Text o f Exodus, 54. Interestingly, in Jub 48:2-4 it is not the Angel of the LORD
but Prince Mastema or Satan who confronts Moses. This interpretation is consistent with
Jub 17:15-18:16 (cf. Genesis 22; Job 1:6-12) where it was Prince Mastema who provokes
God into testing Abraham’s faithfulness with the sacrifice of Isaac.
198
Exodus 23:20-23
The LXX has made three significant changes to these verses in order to eliminate
the distinct impression conveyed by the MT that this angel is YHWH.12 First, the LXX
eliminates the statement that the angel "will not pardon your transgression"
(BXVVtb KBP M*?) since the pardoning, or not pardoning, of transgression is the
prerogative of God alone.13 Instead the LXX reads, "he will not shrink back from
you" (oO pf| ‘imoaxeLXrjtai oe). Second, the LXX does not say that God’s name is "in the
midst of him" (*aip2) but only that God’s name is "on him" (fen* crimp) in a much
weaker and contextually less integrated manner. And, third, as noted earlier, the LXX
does not say "If you obey his voice (V?p) and do all that I say" but "If you obey my
voice ( x r f c p o o ) and do all that / say." The LXX deliberately eliminates the
grammatical oscillation that serves to identify YHWH and his angel in the MT. This last
change was not merely stylistic since the same grammatical shift from first to third
person is typically not smoothed out elsewhere in the OT when YHWH refers to himself
in the third person and where the identity of the Angel of the LORD is not at issue.14
12Cf. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text o f Exodus, 370-371.

13Cf. the Excursus on "The Prayer of Nabonidus" in Chapter 4 below.
14See the Excursus on "Third Person References by YHWH to Himself" in
Chapter 2 above.
199
Numbers 22:34; 24:3-4, 15-17
The LXX version of the Balaam passage weakens the testimony, admittedly
subtle, to the Angel of the LORD’S divinity in Num 22:34. It also eliminates the possible
echo of Num 22:31 in the later references to Balaam’s falling down and seeing in Num
24:3-4, 15-17. In Num 22:34 Balaam does not say, "If it is evil in your eyes"
in ON), a technical phrase in the OT for sinning against YHWH (cf. Gen 38:7;
Num 32:13; Deut 4:25; 9:18; 17:2; 31:29; Judg 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1;
etc.). Instead Balaam only says, "If it is displeasing to you" (ei ph ooi (ipeoKEi). The verb
for sinning is not used and the anthropomorphic reference to God’s eyes has been
e lim in a te d .T h e n , in Balaam’s third and fourth oracles, instead o f a reference to
"falling down" and seeing the Almighty, a reference that could evoke his earlier falling
down and seeing of the Angel of the LORD in Num 22:31, Balaam does not fall down
but only sees a vision of God "in sleep" (tv Orcvqj) (Num 24:4, 16).16 And instead of
seeing and beholding an ambiguous "him" that could also evoke Balaam’s vision of the
Angel of the LORD in 22:31, Balaam only "points out" (5eUja> airap) and "blesses"
(pcncapiCo) the future messianic star (24:17).17
15Cf. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text o f Numbers, 380.

16Cf. Josephus who customarily follows the LXX but here sides with the
Hebrew text (Ant. 4.125).
17Cp. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text o f Numbers, 412, who makes the
unlikely suggestion that the dative pronoun orirap ("I will show him") may refer to
Balak.
200
Judges 2:1-5
The changes in this passage are similar to those in Exod 23:20-23. The MT of
Judges 2:1 reads OnSJM ODnH n*?I» TOm . . . The LXX-A text,
however, reads Kai <3tv£0n icupiou. . . icai efaev rcpoq a&zout; Kupioq icupioq
dcveptpaaev upac; &£ Aiyoircou. And the LXX-B text reads Kai &v6pr| GtyyeXoq icupiou. . .
Kai efaev npdq airtouq TdSe ktya Kupioq AvefJipaaa 6pa<; £1; Aiyvmov. In both major
LXX versions a messenger formula or its equivalent has been added and a string of verbs
has correspondingly been changed from first to third person. No longer does the Angel of
the LORD speak in the first person as YHWH, the God of exodus, covenant, and
promise; and no longer can the reader follow the lead of the text to the conclusion that
the Angel of the LORD is YHWH. This "dogmatic correction . . . must be dismissed as
an attempt to avoid the anthropomorphism of the implicit identification of the angel and
1ft
Yahweh. ° The changes to these early verses in Judges are immensely significant to the
interpretation of the book as a whole since it is this ‘corrected’ understanding that the
reader will bring to bear on the interpretation of the remaining Angel of the LORD
passages in the book.
Judges 6:14, 16
The LXX additions in these two verses are similar to the addition of the word
tiryycto? in Exod 4:24. Here, however, the additions are more easily explained since they
occur within a framework of references to the Angel of the LORD in a context where it
18Lindars, Judges, 75-76; cf. 77, 88.
201
is clear that there has been no change of speaker. Nevertheless, while the MT freely
juxtaposes references to the Angel of the LORD and YHWH such that the two are readily
identified, the LXX translator adds the word ftyyeXo^ to eliminate the juxtaposition and,
along with it, the likelihood that a reader would identify YHWH and his angel. The first
addition of fryyeXoq in Judg 6:14 removes the anthropomorphism of YHWH "turning"
toward Gideon as if he were actually standing there speaking to Gideon. The second
addition in Judg 6:16 necessitates changing the Angel of the LORD’S first person promise
of his divine presence with Gideon (ip o iTTlM) into indirect discourse (icupioq £<nai pexd
oou). Furthermore, these changes in Judg 6:14, 16 weaken the parallel between the first
sign of Judg 6:17 and the additional signs of 6:37-40; and they eliminate the backward
reference to God in Judg 6:36-40 since one now must infer the following italicized
material at the end of Judg 6:36, "And Gideon said to God, ‘If you will deliver Israel
through me, as you have spoken through your m essenger'" God did not actually speak
with Gideon "face to face" (6:22) and the text no longer recounts a theophany. This
interpretation is consistent with the LXX interpretation of Judg 2:1-5 and the same
interpretation will again be carried over into the third and final Angel of the LORD
passage in the book of Judges.
Judges 13:19
The changes in Judg 13:19, though seemingly minor, are not without interpretive
significance. The Hebrew reads m'tbqi. These notoriously difficult words serve to
highlight and reflect the mysterious and "wonderful" (N*?D) name of the Angel of the
LORD in Judg 13:18. The LXX-B text, however, by correctly reading Gorupaoxov in
202
13:18 but Koei Suxupioev xoifpoi in 13:19, eliminates the verbal connection that is so
obvious and important to the MT. The angel's name may be wonderful but he is no
longer YHWH, the God who works wonders (cf. Gen 32:29; Exod 15:11; Ps 77:14; Isa
9:5[6]; 29:14; Joel 2:26). The LXX-A text makes a different change by reading tq>
Soeupaoxdt noiouvn icupfcp in 13:19, but the result is similar. By adding the word icopup to
the text,19 and by changing the difficult Hebrew expression to a relative
clause with an attributive participle, it is no longer the Angel of the LORD on earth who
works wonders before Manoah and his wife but YHWH from heaven. There is still the
reference to "seeing God" in 13:22, but there is no longer a theophany to which the
reference might correspond. Thus either "God” would be taken generically in reference to
a supernatural angelic being or the "seeing” would be taken figuratively in reference to
the wonder that he worked from heaven.
Isaiah 9:5
Strictly speaking this is not an Angel of the LORD text. It is significant enough,
however, to warrant a few brief comments. Why does the LXX reading differ so greatly
from the MT? And why does no NT author appeal to what appears to be the single most
obvious and impressive Christological proof-text in the OT? Could the answers to these
two questions be related? Note at the outset the radically different readings of the LXX
and MT:
19Contra Boling, Judges, 222, there is no need to conjecture that the LXX-A
text is original and that the MT, followed by LXX-B, has omitted the word miT by
haplography.
203
K ai KaXEixai to b v o p a a fa o u M eyti PauJtfiq dryyeJUx;
HO 1ST3K 1133 *?tt ^ R*» to ff M ip i
Since the Hebrew is not especially difficult it may be suggested (tentatively) that the LXX
rendering was deliberate and not the result of a translation error or a different Vorlage.
The LXX translator understood the MT to be describing an angel, possibly Gabriel or
Michael. His problem was that a literal translation would not convey this understanding
and, as a result, could potentially mislead a reader of the text. For this reason the
translator opted for dynamic equivalence over literal translation. All of the connotations
and vocabulary of the MT (with the possible exception of fiEYdXiiq=1l33) were sacrificed
to obtain the theologically-necessitated denotative meaning. But on what basis did the
LXX translator understand the MT to be describing an angel? If one looks closely enough
at the MT, as the LXX translator may have done, one finds a number of subtle clues. For
example, the word "name" (00) taken in isolation could bring to mind the important use
of 00 in Exod 23:21 in reference to the Angel of the LORD; the conjunction of 0W and
could bring to mind the wonderful (M*?D) name (00) of the Angel of the LORD who
spoke with Manoah and his wife in Judg 13:19; the word on the analogy of the word
(cf. Pss 8:5 [LXX]; 137:1 [LXX]), could be used to describe an angel;20 the
20Such usage is exceptional in the OT. Later, however, D,I?R (Dn*?N) becomes
"a frequent designation for angels in QL, especially in 1QM and 1QH" (C. Newsom,
Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition [HSS 27; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985], 23.
Cf. M. J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study o f 1 Enoch 1-36, 72-108
and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSPSup 11; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 201-
203; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:232; 2:156, n. 793; P. W. Skehan, "A Fragment
of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran," BASOR 136 (1954): 12-15;
J. Strugnell, "The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran," in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959
204
conjunction of "ti33 and could be suggestive of the angelic name "Gabriel"
(*?tiH23);21 and, finally, the word "IB? is used elsewhere to describe angels, most notably
the Angel of the LORD in Josh 5:13-15. In fact, so clearly does the word "KP refer to an
angel in two texts dealing with Michael that the LXX simply translates the word
dynamically with &yyeXoq (Dan 10:21; 12:1) rather than, as elsewhere, with &p%<0v,
ffyoupEvoq, iteyundvE£, or even with orponiyoq as in Josh 5:13-15 and Dan 10:13,
20.22 Though it is highly doubtful that the LXX translator made all of these diverse
connections, any one of them would have sufficed to secure the angelic status of the
figure in Isa 9:5. But since Jesus was not an angel, and since the LXX was the most
commonly cited version of the OT in the NT, this could explain why there is no
(VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 338, n. 4 [art. =318-345]; J. de Waard, A Comparative

Study o f the Old Testament Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament
(STDJ 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1966), 13-16; Y. Yadin, The Scroll o f the War o f the
Sons o f Light against the Sons o f Darkness [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962],
230). Note also that related OT expressions D**?tt *33 (Pss 29:1; 89:7) and D*rrt>N *32
(Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) refer to angels.
21Note that *fiD3 is rendered correctly as 0edv loxuovra just a few verses
later (Isa 10:21; cf. Jer 39[32]: 18-19). Clearly the Hebrew itself did not constitute a
stumbling block.
22For the application of the term "1B7 to angels outside the OT see, e.g.,
CD 5:18; IQS 3:20; 5:18; 1QM 13:10; 17:5; 4QShirShabba [4Q400] 1:12;
4QShirShabbb [4Q401], Frag. 14, Col. 2, Line 6. The term ISf also forms the basis of
several angelic proper names: e.g., "Sariel" in 1QM 9:15 and 4QEnochb [4Q202]; Lad.
Jac. 3:2-3; "Sarasel" in 3 Bar. 4:15; and, most likely, "Israel" in Lad. Jac. 4:3. The
Greek word &pxo>v, the most common LXX translation equivalent for TtP, is also used of
angels in T. Sim. 2:7; T. Jud. 19:4; 1 Enoch 6:3.
205
reference to Isa 9:5 in the NT in spite of the fact that the immediately surrounding
context has been heavily mined for christological proof-texts.23
Conclusion to the LXX
The LXX changes to the MT are pervasive and systemic in nature. The identity
of the Angel of the LORD in the LXX is rarely if ever ambiguous or uncertain. He is a
created angel. The LXX changes included the addition of the word firyyEXoq to a number
of key texts even though there was no corresponding in the Hebrew (i.e., Exod
4:24; Judg 6:14, 16; Isa 9:5[6]), along with a variety of other lexical changes and
grammatical ‘corrections’ (most notably in Exod 23:20-23 and Isa 63:9). In each case the
result, and presumably the intent, was the same: to eliminate the possibility of an
identification between YHWH and the Angel of the LORD. If one can speak of "the
Angel of the LORD" in the LXX at all, that is, if the Angel of the LORD is a single
distinct figure in the LXX, he is simply one angel among many. He is no longer divine
and the expression "the Angel of the LORD” is no longer a way of speaking about
YHWH. This view, it will be seen, pervades the intertestamental period.
23E.g., Isa 6:1-5 = John 12:41; Isa 6:2-3 = Rev 4:8; Isa 6:9-10 = Matt 13:14-
15; Mark 4:12; Acts 28:26-27; John 12:40; Isa 7:14 = Matt 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Isa
8:10 = Matt 1:23; Isa 8:12-13 = 1 Pet 3:14-15; Isa 8:14 = Rom 9:32-33; 1 Pet 2:8; Isa
8:17-18 = Heb 2:13; Isa 8:23-9:1 = Matt 4:15-16; Isa 9:1-2 = Luke 1:79; Isa 10:3 =
1 Pet 2:12; Isa 10:22-23 = Rom 9:27-28; Isa 11:2 = 1 Pet 4:14. As to why no NT
author made direct use of the Hebrew text of Isa 9:5(6), assuming that such use would
have been Christologically appropriate, one can only speculate. The absence of such use
could count as evidence against die notion that the authors of the NT are cognizant of the
divine agency paradigm of the Hebrew OT.
206
Philo
Philo deliberately and self-consciously carries on the LXX tradition of
Hellenizing the Jewish faith. With Philo, however, the process is more or less complete:
the OT has been assimilated to Middle Platonism.^4 This view has recently been
See esp. J. Dillon, "The Pleasures and Perils of Soul-Gardening," in Wisdom

and Logos: Studies in Jewish Thought in Honor o f David Winston, ed. D. T. Runia and
G. E. Sterling (Studia Philonica Annual 9; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 190-197; idem, "The
Nature of God in the ‘Quod Deus’," in Two Treatises o f Philo o f Alexandria: A
Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, ed. D. Winston and
J. Dillon (BJS 25; Chico: Scholars, 1983), 217-227; idem, The Middle Platonists: 80
B.C. to A.D. 220 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 139-183; and D. Winston,
"Response to David Runia and Greg Sterling,” in The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in
Hellenistic Judaism, ed. D. T. Runia (Studia Philonica Annual 5; Atlanta: Scholars,
1993), 141-146; idem, "Philo’s Conception of the Divine Nature," in Neoplatonism and
Jewish Thought, ed. L. E. Goodman (Studies in Neoplatonism 7; Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1992), 21-42; idem, Logos and Mystical Theology in
Philo o f Alexandria (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985).
Cf. also Y. Amir, Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von
Alexandrien (Forschungen zum judisch-christlichen Dialog 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1983); R. M. Berchman, "The Categories of Being in Middle Platonism:
Philo, Clement, and Origen of Alexandria," in The School o f Moses: Studies in Philo and
Hellenistic Religion in Memory o f Horst R. Moehring, ed. J. P. Kenney (Studia Philonica
Monographs 1; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 98-140, esp. 115-119, 139-140; idem, From
Philo to Origen: Middle Platonism in Transition (BJS 69; Chico: Scholars, 1984), 23-53;
C. Blonnigen, Der griechische Ursprung der jiidisch-hellenistischen Allegorese und ihre
Rezeption in der alexandrinischen Patristik (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992), esp. 70-
137; I. Christiansen, D ie Technik der allegorischen Auslegungswissenschaft bei Philon
von Alexandrien (Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Hermeneutik 7; Tubingen:
Mohr, 1969); U. Fruchtel, Die Kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandrien:
Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Genesisexegese (ALGHJ 2; Leiden: Brill, 1968); E. R.
Goodenough, Light by Light: The Mystic Gospel o f Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1935); idem, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1940); I. Heinemann, Philons griechische und judische Bildung:
Kulturvergleichende Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der judischen Gesetze
(Breslau: Marcus, 1932); S. Sandmel, Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study o f Conceptions
o f Abraham in Jewish Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956), esp.,
211, "Philonic Judaism is the result of a hellenization which transcends mere language; it
is as complete a hellenization as was possible for a group which retained throughout its
loyalty to the Torah"; T. H. Tobin, The Creation o f Man: Philo and the History of
207
challenged in favor of the view that "Philo is first and foremost an exegete o f
scripture."25 But Philo’s allegorical revision of the OT is simply too tendentious and
thoroughgoing to make this view likely. The allegorization of a text necessarily gives the
text a secondary status. Not only is the allegorical meaning more important than the
literal meaning of the text, but the allegorical meaning is prior to and independent of the
text. The problem, simply put, is that a different text would not have resulted in a
Interpretation (CBQMS 14; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America,

1983).
25D. T. Runia, "How to Read Philo," NedTTs 40 (1986): 189 [art. = 185-198].
Though H. A. Wolfson had earlier argued that Philo’s Hellenization was "a Hellenization
in language only; not in religious belief or cult” (Philo: Foundations o f Religious
Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1948], 1:13), the recent trend toward viewing Philo as an exegete rather than an
allegorizing philosopher properly begins with the work of V. Nikiprowetzky, Le
commentaire de VEcriture chez Philon d ’A lexandrie: Son caractere et sa portee:
Observations pfulologiques (ALGHJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1977); idem, "L’exegese de
Philon d ’Alexandrie," chap. in Etudesphiloniennes (Paris: Cerf, 1996), 111-131. Cf. also
E. Bimbaum, "What Does Philo Mean by ‘Seeing God’? Some Methodological
Considerations," in SBLSP 34 (1995), 536 [art. =535-552]; P. Borgen, Philo o f
Alexandria: An Exegete fo r His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997); N. G. Cohen,
Philo Judaeus: His Universe o f Discourse (BEATAJ 24; Frankfurt am Main: Lang,
1995); G. E. Sterling, "Philo’s Quaestiones: Prolegomena or Afterthought?” in Both
Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo o f Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on
Genesis and Exodus, ed. D. M. Hay (BJS 232; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 121 [art. =99-
123].
This line of thought is essentially followed by Runia, though it seems at times
that he protests too much (e.g., D. T. Runia, Philo o f Alexandria and the Timaeus o f
Plato [Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986], 528-552; idem, "How to Read
Philo," 189-190; idem, "Philo, Alexandrian and Jew," chap. in Exegesis and Philosophy:
Studies on Philo o f Alexandria [Collected Studies Series 332; Aldershot, Hampshire,
G.B.: Variorum, 1990], 15-16 [art. = 1-18]); for, in fact, he himself has conclusively
demonstrated Philo’s complete dependence on Plato. He even goes so far as to say, "The
profound influence of Plato’s writings and their interpretative tradition must be
recognized for what it is, a pillar of Philo’s thought which, if removed, would cause the
whole edifice to totter and collapse" (Philo o f Alexandria, 518; cf. 365-519 and passim).
208
different allegorical meaning. Philo’s commentaries thus tell us a great deal about Philo
and his Middle Platonic Philosophy but they tell us very little about the texts
themselves.26
The error of viewing Philo as an exegete rather than as an allegorist stems, in
part, from a kind of intentional fallacy. The fact that Philo intends to present himself as
"a devout and Law-abiding Jew" rather than "a Greek philosopher" is of little
57
consequence to what Philo has actually done with the sacred texts at his disposal/' This
means that many of Philo’s "exegetical" conclusions are objectively wrong in spite of his
(presumably good) intentions; or, at any rate, that his conclusions would have been more
correct had he adopted a less tendentious and content-laden hermeneutic. The error of
viewing Philo as an exegete also stems, in part, from the existence of undeniable
similarities between Philo’s interpretive procedure and that of an exegete: namely, the
verse by verse (or lemma by lemma) analysis of a text with painstaking attention to the
lexical and grammatical features of that text.28 But this similarity is superficial and,
26I.e ., an allegorical meaning can be imposed on a text but an allegorical

meaning cannot (legitimately) be derived from a text unless that text is allegorical to
begin with. Cf. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 68-126, on the interpretive importance
of genre identification. For two recent analyses of allegory in Philo, see D. M. Hay,
"Defining Allegory in Philo’s Exegetical World," SBLSP 33 (1994), 55-68; J. Dillon,
"Philo and the Greek Tradition of Allegorical Exegesis," SBLSP 33 (1994), 69-80.
27Pace Runia, "Philo, Alexandrian and Jew," 16; cf. "How to Read Philo," 189-
190; Philo o f Alexandria, 507, 535.
28Cf. J. Dillon, "The Formal Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Exegesis," in Two
Treatises, 77-87, where it is argued that Philo’s exegetical method is ultimately that of
the Stoic, Neoplatonic, and Neopythagorean commentators on Homer and Plato.
209
ultimately, of no relevance whatever. The actual content of Philo’s so-called "exegesis" is
supplied in advance by, and is in fact determined by, his philosophical system.29
The doctrine that drives Philo’s philosophical system is his doctrine of God; and
it is here that any analysis of Philo must begin. For Philo, God is "pure being" (Conf.
137, 139). He is the "First Cause" of all things (L.A. 3.206; Somn. 1.67, 161; cf.
1.240); he is a transcendent and immutable "monad" (L.A. 2.3; Deus 11; Her. 183;
Spec. Leg. 1.66; Proem. 40); he is "free from alteration and from movement" (Somn.
1.249); and he is beyond names, utterances, qualities, and mental conceptions (L.A. 1.36,
51; 3.206; Deus 55-56, 62; Mut. 7-17; Conf. 138; Somn. 1.67; Mos. 1.75; Praem. 39-
40).30 He is, to put the matter somewhat technically, "above genus, species, and
-a I
differentia . . . a transcendent first principle." Clearly such a Deity does not—indeed
cannot—appear in theophany, whether anthropomorphically, angelomorphically,
7Q
Since Philo is personally convinced that Platonism is the true philosophy he
has no compunctions about infusing the biblical text with its content" (Winston,
"Response to Runia and Sterling," 143). This point would seem to be confirmed by the
proportion of text to commentary in Philo’s works. In Philo’s treatise on dreams, for
example, he comments for nearly 4000 lines on just a few scant verses in Genesis (i.e.,
Somn. 1.1-188 on Gen 28:10-15; and Somn. 1.189-256 on Gen 31:11-13). Not only is it
impossible that these verses (or any verses) in Genesis should convey information about
Middle Platonism, it is impossible that so few verses should convey so much information.
The text—any text—evokes the entire philosophical system; and it is the system rather than
the text that is actually being set forth and expounded.
30The only logically consistent course of action, and one not take by Philo,
would be to adopt complete agnosticism, even complete silence, regarding the existence
and attributes of God.
31Berchman, "The Categories of Being in Middle Platonism," 115-116; cf.
Winston, "Philo’s Conception of the Divine Nature," 21-23.
210
‘stylomorphically’ (i.e., as a pillar of cloud and fire) or otherwise. The very thought is an
absurdity, a patent non-sequitur.
Equally clearly, Pure Being cannot have any direct or unmediated interaction
with its creation. How then does such a Deity interact with its creation? It does so,
according to Philo, through its Logos:

God is above all qualification. He is bare existence. Whereas nothing can be said of
the Father, his Logos is the highest genus of the universe and of logical division.
Through his Logos, deity is in contact with his universe because the Logos functions
as the primary, generic something of the universe. The Logos as divider (tomeus)
defines and classifies all reality—both intelligible and sensible.
. . . God is a bare existence who cannot be compared with anything else. He
transcends genus and species because they are divisions of created things. Nothing
positive can be said of his essence, quality, or state of movement. Nonetheless, deity
is a being. Through his Logos he is the primary, generic something of the universe
and through his ideas he knows his universe.
The categories stand at the center of his [i.e., Philo’s] theoretic. They separate
and link types of existence. They bridge degrees of reality and knowledge.
Distinctions between an uncreated God and a created cosmos, a divine intellect and
its thoughts, md transcendent forms and immanent images, are linked
categorically.32
For Philo it is not the OT that sets the parameters for discussing the nature of
God, the nature of reality, and the nature of God’s relationship to reality; it is Middle
Platonism with its complicated theory of categories and its multiple degrees of reality (see
Figure 1 below).33 The Logos is indispensable to this philosophical system for it is only
the Logos that can bridge the otherwise unbridgeable gap between an absolutely
32Berchman, "The Categories of Being in Middle Platonism," 117-118.

33Figure 1 is a simplification and combination of two diagrams found in
Berchman, "The Categories of Being in Middle Platonism," 116-117.
211
transcendent and unknowable Deity and his creation.34 Can such a Logos appear or
manifest itself locally? The only consistent answer to this question must be a negative
GOD/PURB BBIMG
Logos /Intelligible World/Genera
Nature/Sensible World/Species
Figure 1. Philo’s Categories of Being
answer, in spite of the fact that Philo identifies the Logos as the Angel of the LORD who
appears, or at least seems to appear, in the OT.35 Philo’s Logos is ultimately not
34One indicator of the importance of the Logos for Philo is the sheer number of
times Philo uses the term: i.e., while there are some 52 instances of the word Xorfoq in
the Pentateuch (LXX) there are over 1300 instances of it in Philo’s commentaries on the
Pentateuch. Compare this with the number of times the word dcfyeXoq occurs in the
Pentateuch (42 times) as over against the number of times it occurs in Philo’s
commentaries on the Pentateuch (77 times). (The figures for Philo would be slightly
higher except that the bulk of Q.G. and Q.E. are extant only in Armenian versions.)
But does the Logos really solve the problem of God’s absolute transcendence and
unknowability? Here Philo seems to involve himself in a contradiction or, worse, an
infinite regress. This problem is perhaps most evident in a passage referred to above
where Philo has this to say about the Logos:
It is a logical consequence that no personal name even can be properly assigned to
the truly Existent. . . . So impossible to name indeed is the Existent that not even the
Potencies who serve him tell us a proper name. Thus after the wrestling-bout in
which the Man of Practice [i.e., Jacob] engaged in his quest of virtue, he says to the
unseen master, "Announce to me thy name," and he said "Why dost thou ask this my
name?" (Gen. xxxii. 29), and he refuses to tell his personal and proper name. . . . "
Think it not then a hard saying that the Highest of all things should be unnameable
when His Word has not name of its own which we can speak. And indeed if He is
unnameable He is also inconceivable and incomprehensible (Mut. 11, 14-15).
There is essentially a one-to-one correspondence in Philo between the Angel of
the LORD and the Logos, on the one hand, and between angels and words, on the other.
See below and cf. also B. Dechameux, "Anges, demons et logos dans I’oeuvre de Philon
212
personal but generic in the most literal sense of the word. As the highest genus the Logos
comprehends and gives rise to the intelligible world o f ideas. The Logos, in Aristotelian
terms, is the formal cause (for Philo the "archetype," "seal," and "pattern") of the
intelligible world.36 This world, in turn, serves as the archetype, seal, and pattern of the
sensible or phenomenal world. Thus Philo’s Logos, being impersonal, is no more the
kind of being that could manifest itself locally than Philo’s Deity. Contrast this with the
biblical picture which is not only considerably simpler but which presents no categorical
or ontological barriers to God’s self-manifestation in the realm of created things, that is,
to theophany (see Figure 2 below).
GOD/CREATOR
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VH- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(theophany)
creation
Figure 2. The Canonical "Categories of Being"
It is within his philosophical Middle Platonic framework that Philo comments on

the appearances of the Angel of the LORD (i.e., the Logos) in the Pentateuch. The fact
that he comments repeatedly and at length on Angel of the LORD texts indicates that he
recognized the intrinsic importance (or possibly the threat) of these texts to his
d’Alexandrie," in Anges et demons: Actes du Colloque de Liege et a Louvain-la-Neuve,

25-26 nov. 1987, ed. J. Ries and H. Limet (Homo religiosus 14; Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium: Centre d'histoire des religions, 1989), 147-175; idem, L ’ange, le devin et le
prophete: Chemins de la parole dans I ’oeuvre de Philon d ’Alexandrie dit 'le Ju if’"
(Brussels, Belgium: Editions de 1’University de Bruxelles, 1994), esp. 49-53.
36Cf. Opif. 16, 24-25, 129-130; L.A. 2.86; 3.175; Det. 118; Plant. SO; Conf.
172; Her. 280; Ebr. 132-133; Fug. 12-13; Somn. 1.62; Q.E. 2.68.
213
philosophical system; but the allegorical manner in which he "exegetes" them is quite
revealing. Before attempting to classify or comment on specific Angel o f the LORD texts
it will be helpful to document Philo’s view of angels more generally since it in this larger
matrix that the Angel of the LORD (i.e., the Logos) is found.37
On one level, the term angel seems to refer as it does in the OT to created
spirits. But this is not quite correct. For Philo the term angel actually applies genetically
to all rational beings, not just to what we (or the OT) would think of as angels. Philo is
thus able to state unequivocally that "souls and demons and angels are but different
names for the same one underlying object" (Gig. 16). Elsewhere Philo indicates that these
angels or souls are also what the Greek philosophers refer to as "heroes" (Plant. 14).
And in an extended treatment of Genesis 28 Philo interprets Jacob’s ladder (stairway) in
the following manner:
"Stairway" when applied to the universe is a figurative name for the air; whose foot
is earth and its head heaven. . . . The air is the abode of incorporeal souls, since it
seemed good to their Maker to HU all parts of the universe with living beings. . . .
Of these souls some, such as have earthward tendencies and material tastes, descend
to be fast bound in mortal bodies, while others ascend . . . . Of these last some,
longing for the familiar and accustomed ways of mortal life, again retrace their steps,
while others pronouncing that life great foolery call the body a prison and a tomb,
and escaping as though from a dungeon or grave, are lifted up on light wings to the
37
Most of Philo’s 77 plus references to angels occur in direct connection with
Angel of the LORD texts: Gen 6:1-4 (Gig. 6, 6, 16, 16, 17, 17; Deus 1, 2; Q.G. 1.92;
cf. Q.G. 1.92); Genesis 16 (Cher. 3; Fug. 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 119, 177, 203, 212; Somn.
1.239, 240; cf. Q.G. 3.27-35); Genesis 18 (Abr. 113, 115; Migr. 173, 174); Genesis 19
(Conf. 28; Q.G. 4.52); Genesis 22 (Somn. 1.195); Gen 28:12-15 (Somn. 1.3, 115, 133,
141, 148, 157); Gen 31:11-13 (Somn. 1.189, 190, 196, 238, 238); Genesis 32 (Sobr.
65; Mut. 87); Gen 48:15-16 (L.A. 3.177, 177, 177, 178; Conf. 181, 181; Fug. 67; Deus
158); Exodus 3 (Mos. 1.66, 67; Somn. 1.232); Exod 14:19 (Mos. 1.166; cf. 176-178);
Exod 23:20-21 (Agr. 51; Migr. 173-174; Q.E. 2.16, 16; cf. Q.E. 2.13); Numbers 22
(Cher. 35; Deus 181, 182; Mos. 1.273); Deut 32:7-9 (Post. 89, 91, 92; Virt. 74). There
are also a few passing references to angels elsewhere (Sacr. 5, 5; Conf. 146; Spec. Leg.
1.66; Q.G. 3.11) as well as a handful of purely figurative uses of the term (Conf. 116;
Mut. 162; Decal. 145; Somn. 1.27).
214
upper air and range the heights for ever. Others there are of perfect purity and
excellence, gifted with a higher and diviner temper, that have never felt any craving
after the things of earth, but are viceroys of the Ruler of the universe, ears and eyes,
so to speak, of the great king, beholding and hearing all things. These are called
"demons" by the other philosophers, but the sacred record is wont to call them
"angels" or messengers, employing an apter title . . . . In accordance with this they
are represented by the lawgiver as ascending and descending (Somn. 1.134-142).
All of this is plainly derived from Plato and his allegory of the soul (cf. Tim. 39E-44C;
Phaedr. 248). Philo simply attributes the view to Moses (Gig. 6-7) and then elaborates it
to considerable effect, both here and elsewhere (cf. Gig. 1-18; Deus 1-4, 150, 160; Conf.
174; Somn. 1.134-145; Plant. 14).38 Part of this elaboration includes the fact that souls
who have not left their proper abode serve as God’s messengers and servants. In this
context Philo is happy to affirm that the Logos, conceived in angelic terms, is their
commander and chief (e.g., Conf. 146-147).
On another level, a level closer to Philo’s Middle Platonic category theory but
further from the conceptual framework of the OT, the term angel generically applies to
all rational words and thoughts. Philo allegorizes portions of Genesis 19, for example, to
propound the philosophical view that Lot’s house is "the house of the soul." Lot’s angelic
guests, in turn, are "divine and holy Thoughts" that visit the soul; while the Sodomites
attacking the house are foolish persons, "barren of wisdom and blind in the
understanding," who symbolize the vices and the passions that impede the soul’s progress
38One interesting result of having adopted Plato’s allegory of the soul is that for
Philo there is no distinct class of evil angels (cf. V. Nikiprowetzky, "Sur un lecture
d£monologique de Philon d’Alexandrie, De Gigantibus 6-18," in Hommage a Georges
Vajda: Etudes d ’histoire et de pensee juives, ed. G. Nahon and C. Touati [Louvain:
Peeters, 1980], 43-71; followed by J. Dillon, "Philo’s Doctrine of Angels," in Two
Treatises, 197-205). There are only souls who have become enamored with "the
daughters of men" (i.e., earthly pursuits) rather than with "the daughters of right reason"
(i.e., the sciences and virtues) and have thereby become ensnared in material bodies. We,
in other words, are the evil angels (Dillon, "Philo’s Doctrine of Angels," 205). Philo’s
emanational philosophy stands in sharp contrast to the angelic dualism, not to mention the
fixity of ontological status, that is found in the OT, in the NT and, above all, at Qumran.
215
(Conf. 27-28; cf. Q.G. 4.36). This understanding of angels is expounded at greater length
in Philo's allegorical interpretation of Genesis 28. Here the "place” to which Jacob comes
(Somn. 1.115-117; cp. Somn. 1.61-17); the "stone" on which Jacob sleeps (Somn. 1.127-
129); and the "angels" whom Jacob sees ascending and descending on the stairway are all
interpreted as immortal and incorporeal "words" (Somn. 1.146-148).39 In this last flight
of allegorical fancy the stairway is specifically said to represent the human soul:
If we consider that which is so called [i.e., a stairway] in human beings we shall find
it to be soul. Its foot is sense-perception, which is as it were the earthly element in it,
and its head, the mind which is wholly unalloyed, the heavenly element, as it may be
called. Up and down throughout its whole extent are moving incessantly the "words"
of God, drawing it up with them when they ascend and disconnecting it with what is
mortal, and exhibiting to it the spectacle of the only objects worthy of our gaze . . . .
[I]n the understandings of those who are still undergoing cleansing and have not yet
fully washed their life defiled and stained by the body’s weight there walk angels,
divine words, making them bright and clean with the doctrines of all that is good and
beautiful (Somn. 1.146-148).4Gr
Philo thus ascribes to rational thoughts, to all words and ideas, an independent and
supramundane existence. Words and ideas are not things that souls possess or generate
within themselves but things that visit souls to guard them (cf. Conf. 27) and guide them
upward and away from the body which Philo understands, following Plato, to be the
prison house and tomb of the soul.41 The supremely rational thought is the Logos who
<3Q
Clearly something besides "exegesis" is going on here.
40Perhaps in place of the Great Chain of Being (cf. A. O. Lovejoy, The Great
Chain o f Being: A Study o f the History o f an Idea [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1936]) one should speak of the Great Ladder of Being.
41E.g., Philo speaks of the body as the soul’s "house" and "tomb" from which
the soul must "escape to the Uncreated" (Deus 150, 160; cf. Conf. 177; Virt. 74, 76). He
speaks of souls "who have given themselves to genuine philosophy, who from first to last
study to die to the life in the body," and who thereby have "soared upwards back to the
place from whence they came" (Gig. 13-14). And he speaks of souls whose intense
longing "to perceive the Existent One gives them wings to attain not only to the furthest
region of the upper air, but to overpass the very bounds of the entire universe and speed
away toward the Uncreate" (Plant. 22).
216
acts as the guide and guardian of the most noble souls (Migr. 173-175; cf. Q.E. 2.13).
These rational thoughts, including the Logos, are easily and often personified by Philo;
but they are not actually persons.
How and where does Philo’s view of the Angel of the LORD fit into this
complex matrix? It fits in two basic ways that correspond fairly closely to the two
seemingly distinct classes of angels set forth above.42 In the first place the Angel of the
LORD is understood to be a secondary agency, primarily in the context of Philo’s
theodicy; and in the second place the Angel of the LORD is understood to be a divine
thought or "word" within the soul, primarily in the context of Philo’s anthropology. Since
Philo tends at times to repeat himself it will suffice to examine only a few passages
representative of each view.
The first view of the Angel of the LORD occurs in reference to Gen 48:15-16,
an important text and one to which Philo returns on several occasions. In fact, the first
time he mentions angels he states the following:43
Now those of whom we have been speaking pray to be fed [by] the word of God. But
Jacob, looking even higher than the word, says that he is fed by God Himself. He
speaks on this wise: "The God to Whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac were well-
pleasing, the God Who feedeth me from my youth up unto this day, the Angel who
delivereth me out of my ills, bless these boys" (Gen. xlviii. 15f.). How beautiful his
tone and temper! He looks on God as feeding Him, not His Word; but the Angel,
who is the Word, as healer of ills. This is the language of a true philosopher. He
thinks it meet and right that He that is should Himself and in His own Person give
the principal boons; while His Angels and Words give the secondary gifts; and
secondary are such as involve riddance from ills. . . . The good things, the food, He
I.e., "angels" as rational beings or souls that act as God’s servants; and
"angels" as divine thoughts and words within other rational beings or souls, i.e., within
other "angels. "
43By "first time" is meant first time in LCL. Though Philo’s commentaries on
the Pentateuch are for the most part sequential no strict chronology of Philo’s works is
here implied or necessary.
217
Himself bestows with His own hand, but by the agency of Angels and Words such as
involve riddance of ills {L.A. 3.177-178; cf. Conf. 181; Fug. 67; Deus 158).
This passage is interesting not only because Philo misses the parallelism between God and
Angel but because in such a short space he equivocates so dramatically on the meaning
and role of the Logos. The manna eaten in the wilderness is, according to Philo, the
Word of God. The Word is given by God and those who feed on it are fed by God
Himself.45 Immediately prior to the above-cited reference to Jacob, however, a subtle
shift takes place from feeding on the Word of God to being fed by the Word of God.
This shift is necessary to Philo’s exposition of Gen 48:15-16 and involves a curious
interpretation of Sid oxd^xoq Oeou in Deut 8:3 such that those who live by every word
that goes forth "through the mouth of God" are not those who are fed by God himself but
those who are fed by the Logos of God, the mouth being a symbol of the Logos {L.A.
3.176). It is difficult to see how, in Philo’s system, Jacob can be superior to those in the
wilderness since both are fed by God himself. The important thing to note in any case is
that Philo introduces a buffer between God and evil such that what is good may be
attributed to God but what is evil or associated with evil, including its removal, must be
attributed to secondary agencies—foremost among whom is the Angel of the LORD.
44The bracketed word "by" in the first line is contextually preferable to the
word "with” that is found in the LCL translation. There is no preposition and the dative
X6ytp is indicative of agency (cf. L.A. 3.176).
45"We have proof of this [i.e., God’s propitiousness] in His feeding us with His
own most ‘generic’ word; for ‘manna’ means ‘something,’ and this is the most generic of
all terms. And the word of God is above the world, and is eldest and most all-embracing
of created things" {L.A. 3.175; cf. 3.162-176). According to the LCL note to 3.175,
"Philo audaciously substitutes the indefinite for the interrogative pronoun (‘something’ for
‘what?’). And in the appended comment to 3.175 in LCL it is noted that "the Stoic
phraseology . . . adopted xi, i.e., ‘quiddity,’ as the most generic and all-embracing of
terms in place of the Platonic £v and the Aristotelian 6v." Cf. Berchman, "The Categories
of Being in Middle Platonism," passim.
218
But in point of fact not even the good may be attributed directly to an absolutely
transcendent God. Philo’s partial view of mediation here must be supplemented by more
comprehensive statements elsewhere, notably his nascent understanding of what would
later be known as the "Two Powers" heresy.46 For example, according to Philo neither
the creation nor the government of the world can be attributed directly to God for God is
utterly transcendent and beyond any such attributions. As a result, "[t]he administration
of the world is the function of God’s two chief Powers (expressed by his two LXX
epithets ‘god’ (theos) and ‘lord’ (kyrios)), his creative Power, by which he brings the
world into being, and his sovereign or governing Power, by which he administers the
world, once created."47 In this semi-dualistic scheme God’s governing Power ("lord") is
the Logos or Angel of the LORD; and it is not impossible that God’s creative Power
("god") is another way of referring to the same Angel, albeit from a different angle (cf.
Q.E. 2.13, 68).48 All of God’s activity in the world is mediated by the Logos, in spite
of occasional indications to the contrary in reference to what is good.
The second view of the Angel of the LORD occurs in reference to Genesis 16
and Numbers 22. In these passages the Angel of the LORD is understood as the human
^ L .A . 3.73; Cher. 27-28 and passim; Conf. 137; Abr. 119-122, 160-163; Q.G.
1.57; 4.2; Q.E. 2.61-62, 68. Cf. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 159-181 and passim;
F. Stricken, "Philo on the Cherubim," in The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in
Hellenistic Judaism, ed. D. T. Runia (Studia Philonica Annual 8; Atlanta: Scholars,
1996), 40-57; Wolfson, Philo, 1.200-294, esp. 217-226.
47Dillon, "Nature of God," 222.

48This last passage is interesting for it shows the Two Powers flowing from the
Logos and not directly from God.
219
conscience.49 This initially seems quite strange, but for Philo the connection was
actually close at hand. That is, his understanding of angels included within it the view
(see above) that angels were divine "thoughts" or "words" that served to guide and guard
the soul, leading it upward and away from the prison house of the body. His view of the
Angel of the LORD as conscience is simply an extension or application of this particular
view. Therefore Philo can say in reference to Hagar: "an angel, a Divine Word, meets
her to advise the right course, and to suggest return to the house of her mistress. . . .
Hagar . . . is taught by the angel monitor (£Xey%oq), whose goodwill to her makes him at
once her friend and counsellor" (Fug. 5-6). This "inward monitor" <EAey%oq) speaks
"within the soul," asking where it has come from and where it is going (Fug. 203; cf.
207).50 Similarly, in reference to Balaam’s encounter with the Angel of the LORD,
49Cf. Deus 125-128; Mut. 85; Det. 22-24, 146; Fug. 108, 117-119, 131; Opif.
128; Ebr. 125, 149; Jos. 47-48; Q.E. 2.13. See further R. T. Wallis, The Idea o f
Conscience in Philo of Alexandria: Protocol o f the Thirteenth Colloquy, 12 January 1975
(Protocol Series of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modem
Culture 13; Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1975); idem, "The Idea of
Conscience in Philo of Alexandria,” in Two Treatises, 207-216. Less valuable on the
whole is the treatment of H.-J. Klauck, "Accuser, Judge and Paraclete: On Conscience in
Philo of Alexandria," Skrifen Kerk 20 (1999): 107-118, though cf. 110-112.
50Perhaps the most interesting part of Philo’s commentary on Genesis 16 is his
explanation of the word "god" in Gen 16:13a,
The soul, then, which is pregnant with the sophist-principle [i.e., Ishmael] says to the
monitor (gX^yxv) who is talking to her: "Thou art God that didst look upon me,"
which is equivalent to saying "Thou art the Maker of my wishes and offspring”; and
well may she say this, for of free and really high-born souls He who is free and sets
free is the Creator, while slaves are makers of slaves: and angels are God’s house
hold servants, and are deemed gods by those whose existence is still one of toil and
bondage (Fug. 211-212; cf. Somn. 1.239-240; Q.G. 3.24).
Pace the LCL translation it is possible that the words "God" and "Maker" in the second
and third lines cited above should not be capitalized. This change is suggested by the
contextual contrast between God and his angel(s) and by the different words used for
"Maker” (Ttovnrnq) and "Creator” (Srntoupyoq).
220
Philo can say, "not even when the closed eye of his soul received its sight and ‘beheld
the angel of God standing in his way’ (Num. xxii. 31) did he turn aside and refrain from
evil doing" (Deus 181). This Angel, further described as "Conviction (SAeyxoq), the
divine Word, the angel who guides" (Deus 182), is also described by Philo as "the
inward judge" within the soul (Deus 183; cf. 128). Balaam is not unique in being
opposed by his conscience—for "the divine Word” bars the high road of virtue to all the
"associates of Edom," that is, to all who remain earthly (Deus 180-181; cf. Deus 144;
Mig. 146).
The Angel of the LORD’S role as conscience (i.e., a divine word in the soul)
clearly converges with his mediating role as the divine word in the cosmos: for as the
Angel of the LORD guides and governs the individual soul so also on a far vaster scale
does he guide and govern the whole of creation (cf. Cher. 36).51 Most illuminating in
this respect are Philo’s seemingly divergent interpretations of Exod 23:20 as reflected in
the following two passages:52
It well befits every lover of God to rehearse this [twenty-thud] Psalm. But for the
Cosmos it is a still more fitting theme. For land and water and air and fire, and all
Elsewhere Philo makes a clear distinction between "God" and "god," i.e.,
between Oedq with the definite article and 0e6q without the article, the latter being a way
of describing the Angel of the LORD (Somn. 1.229-230; cf. Fug. 71-72 where Philo
makes a similar ad hoc distinction between "Man" and "man" in Gen 1:26-27, i.e.,
between fivOpawtoq with the definite article and &v0pamoq without the article). There is, of
course, no grammatical warrant for such a distinction; but it does reveal one of the many
techniques in Philo’s exegetical arsenal along with his willingness to use the term 0e6$ in
a qualified sense of beings other than the one transcendent God.
51I.e., Philo seems to see the soul as a microcosm of the cosmos and the cosmos
as the soul writ large (cf. Somn. 1.215).
For the sake of clarity the LCL translations below have been changed in one
or two slight particulars: i.e., the use of "Cosmos" instead of "Universe" and the use of
"Angel" instead of "messenger."
221
plants and animals which are in these, whether mortal or divine, yea and the sky, and
the circuits of sun and moon, and the revolutions and rhythmic movements of the
other heavenly bodies, are like some flock under the hand of God its King and
Shepherd. This hallowed flock He leads in accordance with right and law, setting
over it His true Word and Firstborn Son who shall take upon Him its government
like some viceroy of a great king; for it is said in a certain place: "Behold I a m , I
send My Angel before thy face to guard thee in the way" (Exod. xxiii. 20) (Agr. 51-
53).
Now he that follows God has of necessity as his fellow-travellers the words and
thoughts that attend Him, angels as they are often called. What we read is that
"Abraham travelled with them, joining with them in escorting them on their way"
(Gen. xviii. 16). . . . For as long as he falls short of perfection, he has the Divine
Word as his leader: since there is an oracle which says, "Lo, I send My Angel before
thy face, to guard thee in thy way, that he may bring thee in into the land which I
have prepared for thee: give heed to him, and hearken to him, disobey him not; for
he will by no means withdraw from thee; for My name is on him” (Ex. xxiii. 20f)
(Mig. 173-174).
In the latter passage the Angel of the LORD in Exod 23:20-21 is interpreted as the guide
and guardian of individual souls; while in the former he is interpreted as the guide and
guardian of all creation.53 Interestingly, this convergence brings Philo’s understanding
of the Angel of the LORD, or Logos, full circle back to his Middle Platonic category
theory and to his view of the Two Powers in heaven.5'* The Angel of the LORD as
supreme genus and formal cause is the creative Power or "god" of the intelligible
cosmos. But he is also the governing and guiding Power or "lord" of the cosmos who is
present to individual souls as a "divine word" and as "conscience."
Philo’s view of the Angel of the LORD or Logos is obviously extremely complex
and justice has hardly been done to it. Nevertheless, there is a certain underlying
53Elsewhere Philo speaks of the Angel of the LORD and Logos as High Priest
in God’s temple which is the cosmos (cf. Somn. 1.215; Mig. 102; Plant 8-10; Fug. 108,
118-119; Spec. Leg. 1.66).
54See esp. Q.E. 2.13 where Philo expounds the Angel of the LORD in Exod
23:20-21; and Q.E. 2.68 where he expounds the two cherubim in Exod 25:21b as flowing
from the Logos.
222
consistency, a method to the allegorical madness, as it were, that makes it safe to say that
the Angel of the LORD or Logos is not God himself even though he may be called "god"
or "lord” in a restricted sense. Any resemblance between angels in Philo and the OT, or
between the Angel of the LORD in Philo and the OT, is a resemblance in name only.
Philo’s Middle Platonic world of thought is a completely different world from that of the
OT, even if it happens to include (as so much grist for the allegorical mill) the Greek text
of the OT. The point to note is that in Philo’s Middle Platonic world God does not,
indeed cannot, appear personally in theophany.
Josephus
The avowed model for Josephus’ magnum opus, Jewish Antiquities, was the LXX
(Ant. 1.10-13). Does this mean that Josephus also reflects the theological Tendenz of that
model? Indeed it does. The first half of Jewish Antiquities consists of a paraphrase of the
OT, a paraphrase that Josephus refers to as a translation.55 For Josephus, however,
”[t]he task of ‘translating’ was not simply to offer a literal rendition of the native sources
into Greek, but to Hellenize them."5<5 This Hellenization included, as it did to a lesser
55n[T]his present work . . . will embrace our entire ancient history and political
constitution, translated from the Hebrew records (£k xwv ’EPpcd'Kuv pethippTiveup^vriv
Ypocppdxcov) (Ant. 1.5). Josephus similarly affirms that n[t]he precise details of our
Scripture records will, then, be set forth, each in its place, as my narrative proceeds, that
being the procedure that I have promised to follow throughout this work, neither adding
nor omitting anything" (Ant. 1.17; cf. 4.196-197). Cf. L. H. Feldman, Judean Antiquities
1-4, vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, ed. S. Mason (Leiden:
Brill, 2000), 77-78, n. 22. Later Josephus will use the term "translate" (|i£0eppT|VEiL)(o) to
describe the LXX (Ant. 12:20, 48).
56G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos [sic], Luke-Acts
and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 263 (emphasis
added); and cf. also p. 255, where Sterling notes that Josephus’ "status as a prophet-
historian allowed him to present the Hebrew writings in an interpreted form " (emphasis
added).
223
extent in the LXX, a heightened view of God’s transcendence and the elimination of
theophanies and theologically awkward anthropomorphisms by means of a variety of ad
hoc additions, omissions, alterations, and textual rearrangements.57
Josephus’ Hellenistic view of God can be readily inferred from his handling of
CO
the OT. ° But it is also explicitly stated on a number of occasions in terms borrowed
from the Greek philosophers, especially the Stoics.59 Thus, according to Josephus, God
57On Josephus’ handling of the OT see, H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation o f

Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae o f Flavius Josephus (HDR 7; Missoula:
Scholars, 1976), esp. 29-70; L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation o f the Bible
(Hellenistic Culture and Society 27; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), esp.
14-73. See further, C. Begg, Josephus’ Account o f the Divided Monarchy ( AJ 8,212-
420): Rewriting the Bible (BETL 108; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), esp.
276-284; S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a
Historian (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8; Leiden: Brill, 1979), esp. 38-
39, 41-42, 47; L. H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of
Josephus," in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation o f the Hebrew Bible
in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder (CRINT 2.1; Assen: Van
Gorcum, 1988), 455-518; idem, "Rearrangement of Biblical Material in Josephus’
Antiquities, Book 1," SBLSP 38 (1999), 246-263; T. W. Franxman, Genesis and the
"Jewish Antiquities ” o f Flavius Josephus (BibOr 35; Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1979), esp. 20, 24-27; H. R. Moehring, "Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius
Josephus" (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1957); M. R. Niehoff, "Two Examples of
Josephus’ Narrative Technique in His ‘Rewritten Bible’," JSJ21 (1996): 31-45;
E. Nodet, "Flavius Josephe: Creation et histoire," RB 100 (1993): 5-40; idem, "Josephus
and the Pentateuch," JSJ 28 (1997): 154-194; Sterling, Historiography and Self-
Definition, esp. 252-263, 290-297; P. Villalba i Vameda, The Historical Method o f
Flavius Josephus (ALGHJ 19; Leiden: Brill, 1986), esp. 193-195.
58The term "Hellenistic" is potentially misleading in that a rigorous dichotomy
between Judaism and Hellenism is to be rejected (cf. n. 4 in Chapter 1 above). The real
contrast is not between Judaism and Hellenism, broadly conceived. Josephus was, after
all, a Jew and to that extent his views were certainly Jewish. The real contrast is between
the biblical view of a God who appears in anthropomorphic and angelomorphic
theophanies and any philosophy or system of thought, be it "Jewish" or "Hellenistic,"
that would reject this view a priori.
59Cf. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra, ” 498-500; idem,
Josephus’ Interpretation o f the Bible, 327.
224
is "the universal Father and Lord who beholds all things” (Ant. 1.20); God is "Lord of
all the ages and Creator (STfitoupydq) of universal being" (Ant. 1.272); "the Deity stands
in need of nothing and is above any such recompense" (Ant. 8.111); "the universe is
directed by a blessed and immortal Being" (Ant. 10.278); "He [Moses] represented Him
as One, uncreated and immutable to all eternity; in beauty surpassing all mortal thought,
made known to us by His power, although the nature of His real being passes knowledge
. . . In fact, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato, the Stoics who succeeded him, and indeed
nearly all the philosophers appear to have held similar views concerning the nature of
God" (Ap. 2.167-168); "perfect and blessed, self-sufficing and sufficing for all. He is the
beginning, the middle, and the end of all things. By His works and bounties he is plainly
seen, indeed more manifest than ought else; but his form and magnitude surpass our
powers of description. . . . The like of him we have never seen, we do not imagine, and
it is impious to conjecture" (Ap. 2.190-191).60
Though much more could be said, it is sufficient to note that Josephus’ view of
God effectively precludes theophanies, especially anthropomorphic and/or angelomorphic
theophanies, as "unseemly mythology" (Ant. 1.15).61 God exercises providential care
^ O n the relationship between Contra Apionem and the Antiquities see

P. Spillsbury, "Contra Apionem and Antiquitates Judaicae: Points of Contact," in
Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character with a Latin Concordance to the
Portions Missing in Greek, ed. L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levison (AGJU 34; Leiden:
Brill, 1996), 348-368.
61Cf. A. Kamesar, "The Literary Genres of the Pentateuch as Seen From the
Greek Perspective: The Testimony of Philo of Alexandria," in Wisdom and Logos:
Studies in Jewish Thought in Honor o f David Winston, ed. D. T. Runia and G. E.
Sterling (Studia Philonica Annual 9; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 163 [art. = 143-189]. He
notes that in the Hellenistic period "the term ‘myth’ was generally used to denote
miraculous or false narrative material.”
225
over the world, seeing to it that the good are rewarded and the evil punished,62 but he
does not appear on earth in visible, tangible form. In Josephus’ defense it should be
added that there are OT parallels for much of what he has said; it is just that OT texts
that might have served as a corrective, namely texts dealing with God’s immanence, have
themselves been "corrected" or simply omitted.
Consistent with his Hellenistic view of God, Josephus rationalized or
"detheologized" the miraculous and, in particular, reduced theophanies to the vanishing
point.63 God, for example, is not present with Adam and does not walk in the Garden in
the cool of the day;64 God does not go down to inspect Babel or Sodom;66 God does
not appear in a flaming theophany to make a covenant with Abraham;66 God is not
62Attridge, Interpretation o f Biblical History, devotes two important and related

chapters to Josephus’ view of divine providence (xpovoux) (pp. 71-107) and to Josephus’
moralistic interpretation of history (pp. 109-144).
63Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation o f the Bible, 38-39, 205-214, 249-252,
285-288, 326-328, 425-433, 453-457. Cf. also G. Delling, "Josephus und das
Wunderbare," NovT 2 (1958): 291-309; G. MacRae, "Miracle in the Antiquities of
Josephus," in Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History, ed. C. F. D.
Moule (London: Mowbray, 1965), 127-147; H. R. Moehring, "Rationalization of
Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus," Studia Evangelical, vol. 6, Papers
Presented to the Fourth International Congress on New Testament Studies Held at
Oxford, 1969, ed. E. A. Livingstone (TU 112; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973), 376-
383.
^ G e n 3:8; cp. Ant. 1.45.
65Respectively, Gen 11:5, 7; cp. Ant. 1.113-120; and Gen 18:21; cp. Ant.
1.198-199.
^G enesis 15; cp. Ant. 1.183-185. The theophany is reduced to a mere "divine
voice" that speaks to Abraham. Josephus’ treatment of Exodus 3 (Ant. 2.264-276) and
Judg 2:1-6 (Ant. 5.132-135) is similar. In place of a theophany is a mere "oracle."
Neither God nor the Angel of the LORD appears and speaks.
226
locally present in a pillar of cloud and fire to guide and protect his people;67 God is not
described as having feet or a hand that he might stretch out against his people;68 God
does not appear to Moses, cover him with his hand, or show him his back;69 and God
does not bury Moses. 7ft
The few theophanies that are recounted are so highly attenuated and spiritualized,
or qualified with disclaimers, that there is considerable doubt as to whether God himself
is actually present.71 The tabernacle theophany in Exodus 40, for example, is explained
naturalistically, and without reference to God’s glory, as a cloud of darkness. God’s
presence was revealed by the "delicious dew" that condensed from this cloud, but even so
67Exod 13:21 (and passim); cp. Ant. 2.323 (and passim). Josephus has not just
removed God’s localized presence from the guiding pillar of fire and cloud, he has
removed the guiding pillar of cloud and fire altogether. There is only a passing reference
to this cloud in the context of Num 9:15-23, but there is no clear statement that the cloud
guided the people and no suggestion that God himself is in the cloud.
68Exod 24:10-11; cp. Ant. 3.78. The presence of God on Sinai (Exodus 19) is
recounted in Ant. 3.75-82. The description of his presence is, however, highly attenuated
and limited primarily to a description of unusual natural phenomena such as winds, rain,
lightning, and thunder (Ant. 3.80). In addition, God’s presence is twice referred to as a
"rumour" (Ant. 3.76, 82); and the whole Sinai account is concluded with a disclaimer
(Ant. 3.81).
69Exodus 33-34; cp. Ant. 3.89-101. Cf. A. Schlatter, "Wie sprach Josephus von
Gott?" in Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus, ed. K. H. Rengstorf (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970), 83 [art. =65-142]. Schlatter notes, by way of
evidence for Josephus’ reticence in speaking anthropomorphically about God, that there is
not a single reference in the Antiquities to God’s face or eyes.
70Deut 34:6; cp. Ant. 4.326.
71
‘Josephus often adds a disclaimer whenever the recounting of a theophany or
other miraculous event cannot be completely avoided. The disclaimer, which may be
found in Ant. 1.108; 2.348; 3.81; 4.158; 10.281; 17.354, runs as follows, "Of these
happenings each of my readers may think as he will; for my part, I am constrained to
relate them as they are recorded in the sacred books."
227
this presence was only revealed "to those who both desired it and believed it. "72 Later,
the related temple theophany in 1 Kings 8 is explained (away?), again without reference
to God’s glory, as only the apparent presence of a portion of the divine spirit—a spirit
conceived very much along Stoic lines.73
More to the point of the present analysis are those places in the OT where the
Angel of the LORD appears. What does Josephus do with these texts? He does two
related things that together suggest that he saw these texts as highly problematic. First, he
eliminates most references to the Angel of the LORD outright. This is consistent with his
programmatic elimination of the miraculous, specifically the theophanic. And, second,
when references to the Angel of the LORD are retained, or partially retained, Josephus
12Ant. 3.202-203. Cf. Ant. 3.310.

Ant. 8.106, "there suddenly appeared a thick cloud . . . ; and it produced in
the minds of all of them an impression fyavraotav) and belief (8o£av) that God had
descended into the temple"; cf. Ant. 8.114, "send some portion of Thy spirit to dwell in
the temple, that Thou mayest seem (Soiqiq) to us to be on earth." Josephus adds to this
account a minor but revealing detail not found in his source, i.e., that Solomon’s
sacrifices are consumed by "a fire that darted out of the air" (Ant. 8.118). Customarily in
the OT such fire comes directly from God and indicates a theophany. For Josephus’
Hellenistic conception of the divine spirit in 1 Kings 8 see J. R. Levison, "Josephus’
Interpretation of the Divine Spirit," JJS 47 (1996): 240-244 [art. =234-255].
Josephus’ use of the verb S okeo) in reference to the 1 Kings 8 theophany seems to
be deliberate and programmatic-one of several ways that Josephus transfers matters of
historical fact into the realm of opinion, possibly even into the realm of unreality (cf. LSJ
[1996 ed.], 441-442). Similar statements are found, e.g., in Ant. 1.196-197, "Abraham
. . . espied three angels . . . ; and they gave him to believe (Soâv) that they did eat";
Ant. 1.279, "He thought (££o£ev) that he saw a ladder reaching from earth to heaven,
down which were descending phantoms of nature"; Ant. 2.13, "he believed (ESoê) that
he saw the sun, attended by the moon and the other stars, descend to earth and make
obeisance to him"; Ant. 2.16S, Shepherds prior to Moses had avoided Mount Sinai
"owing to a belief (56£av) that the Deity sojourned there"; Ant. 3.290, "so long as the
cloud was found stationary above the tabernacle, they thought good to tarry, believing
( £ 5 6 kei ) that God was sojourning among them"; etc.
228
completely eliminates any possible identification between the Angel of the LORD and
God himself.
References to the Angel of the LORD have been carefully excised from such
crucial OT passages as Genesis 22, 24, 31, 48; Exodus 3, 14; Numbers 20; Joshua S;
Judges 2, 6.74 In most cases the omission of references to the Angel of the LORD is
clearly deliberate. In others, it may have been the fortuitous result o f having omitted, for
some other reason, a block of text that happened to contain within it a reference to the
Angel of the LORD.75 Where references to the Angel of the LORD have been retained,
it is patent that the angel is merely a created messenger. This interpretive shift is most
obviously signalled by the angel’s radically diminished role and by the removal of any
features in the text that could conceivably suggest an identification between God and one
of his angels.
The interpretive shift is also signalled by a corresponding shift in terminology.
The expression "Angel of the LORD" (fryyEto^ lcupioo = mTP is never used; and
while the expression "Angel of God" (ftyysto^ 6eo6 = DTl^M is used as many as
four times, only two of the four usages derive from explicit OT references to the Angel
74See, respectively, Am. 1.232-234 (Genesis 22); 1.242-255 (Genesis 24);

1.309-311 (Genesis 31); 2.195 (Genesis 48); 2.264-276 (Exodus 3); 2.329-333
(Exodus 14); 4.76-77 (Numbers 20); 5.20-22 (Joshua 5); 5.132-135 (Judges 2); 5.213-
214 (Judges 6).
75E.g., the omission of Israel’s idolatrous sin with the Golden Calf and Moses’
breaking of the tablets of the Law, along with the simultaneous streamlining of the
repetitive chapters on the building of the tabernacle (cf. Ant. 3.89-101), naturally resulted
in the omission of the Exodus 23, Exodus 32-33, and much else besides; the elimination
of the Song of Deborah and Barak (cf. Am. 5.209-210) naturally resulted in the omission
of Judg 5:23; the elimination of the Psalter naturally resulted in the omission of Pss 34:7;
35:5-6; and the elimination of all non-historical prophetic material naturally resulted in
the omission of Isa 63:9; Hos 12:5; and Mai 3:1.
229
of the LORD.76 Josephus’ preferred ways of referring to angelic messengers are "angel"
(ArycXoq), "divine angel” (0eioq frjryeXoq),77 and "phantom” (^dvxaopa). This last
word, ^dvraopa, is itself quite revealing. It is found eleven times in Josephus’ writings:
five times in reference to an angel,7** and six times in reference to dreams, nightmares,
or visions, all of which are shadowy and intangible.79
Thus at no point is it possible, simply by reading Josephus, to conclude that an
angel is a tangible manifestation of God or a way of speaking about God. For example,
when a "divine angel" (ticyyEXo^ (tetoq) meets Hagar in Genesis 16, he simply bids her to
return to her mistress and threatens that if she is disobedient to God she will perish (Ant.
76The expression dcyyeAxx; Geou is twice added to Josephus’ version of Gen

32:25-33 (Ant. 1.333). There is some biblical warrant for understanding the mysterious
figure with whom Jacob wrestles to be an angel (cf. Hos 12:5) though the term does not
actually appear in the Hebrew (MT) or the Greek (LXX). On two occasions Josephus’
use of fryyckoq deov does accurately reflect his source: i.e., in his retelling of Judges 13,
where an angel visits Manoah and Manoah’s wife (Ant. 5.277); and in one of his
retellings of 2 Kings 19:35 (J.W. 5.388). The instance in J. W. 5.388 is, however,
textually suspect and out of keeping with Josephus’ normal idiom; while in the version of
2 Kings 19:35 that is found in Jewish Antiquities, a work said to be a translation, there is
no mention of an angel. God is simply said to have "visited a pestilential sickness" upon
the Assyrian army (Ant. 10.21). The discrepant versions of 2 Kings 19:35 could be the
result of textual corruption or it could simply reflect a lack of consistency on Josephus’
part. Either way, however, the presence of the angel is not integral to the story as
Josephus retells it.
77Pace Loeb, it would seem best to translate the expression 0eio<; dyyekoq as "a
divine angel” rather than as "an angel of God," a translation best reserved for the
different expression fryycXoq 6eou. There is precedent for such a translation elsewhere in
reference to a "divine voice" (Ant. 1.185); "divine worship" (Ant. 1.81); "divine way"
(Ant. 2.339); "divine man" (Ant. 3.180); "divine providence" (Ant. 4.157); "divine spirit"
(Ant. 4.108, 118); etc. The word feioq is less concrete than fcdq and well in keeping with
Josephus’ Stoic proclivities and his detheologizing tendencies (Feldman, Josephus’s
Interpretation o f the Bible, 327).
1%Ant. 1.333, 331 [bis] (Genesis 32); 5.213 (Judges 6), 277 (Judges 13).
79J.W. 3.353; 5.381; Ant. 1.325; 2.82; 3.62; 10.272.
230
1.188-190). The angel does not speak as God and Hagar does not claim to have seen
God. When three "angels" visit Abraham in Genesis 18 none of the angels speaks as God
or is addressed by Abraham as God (Ant. 1.196-199). The angels are never referred to as
"men"; they do not eat, but only "seem to eat";80 their feet are not washed; and, since
Abraham does not come to recognize his visitors on his own. Instead, they must confess
their angelic identity to him.81 Then, when Abraham makes supplication for Sodom, he
does not converse with one of his visitors but stands and prays directly to God (Ant.
1.199). When a "divine angel" (teioq &ncXoq) meets Hagar in Genesis 21, he does not
call or come from heaven. He simply directs her to a spring and reminds her of the
blessings that God has promised to Ishmael (Ant. 1.217-219). When a "divine angel"
(06iov &yyeXov) wrestles with Jacob in Genesis 32, the angel is three times described as a
"phantom" (Ant. 1.331-334). It is not said that Jacob wrestled with "God" (or with a
"man"); and Jacob does not claim to have seen God, making the place name "Phanuel" a
non-sequitur. When a "divine angel" (&yy&oo 6ciou) confronts Balaam in Numbers 22, it
is not to manifest himself in a theophany to the seer but to reveal the Platonic nature of
biblical inspiration and the Stoic nature of divine providence (Ant. 4.107-130).82 Gone is
OA
Ant. 1.196-197, "Abraham, while sitting beside the oak of Mambre before the
door of his court-yard, espied three angels (0eaadpevoq xpefq (trffiXouc) . . . ; and they
gave him to believe that they did eat (oi 5e Soôcv orCrnp rcapeaxov £ o 0 i6 v tb > v ). " As noted
above, the use of the verb 5ok£q> here is consistent with its use elsewhere in reference to
appearances that do not match reality.
OI
olAnt. 1.198, "they could maintain dissimulation no longer but confessed
themselves messengers of God (drpfiXow; too 0 e o u ) , of whom one had been sent to
announce the news of the child and the other two to destroy the Sodomites.”
82Cf. J. R. Levison, "The Debut of the Divine Spirit in Josephus’s Antiquities”
HTR 87 (1994): 123-138; idem, "Josephus’ Interpretation of the Divine Spirit," 234-255;
L. H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (JSJSup 58; Leiden: Brill, 1998),
128-130; idem, "Josephus’ Portrait of Balaam," in The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies
231
the angel’s sword and, along with it, any hint that the angel is divine. And when a
"phantom" (^dcvroopa) visits Gideon in Judges 6, he simply offers Gideon a brief word
of encouragement by pronouncing him "blessed and beloved of God" (Ant. 5.213-214).
There is no meal offering, no theophany, and no fear at having seen the Angel of the
LORD (i.e., God) face to face.83
To all of this there is one apparent exception, namely, the appearance to Manoah
and his wife in Judges 13.84 But even so, the exception is only partial. As an angelic
messenger had appeared to Gideon, so also does an angelic messenger appear to Manoah
and his wife (Ant. 5.276-284). This messenger is first introduced as a "phantom"
tydvroopa) (Ant. 5.277) and subsequently referred to as an "angel of God" (Ant. 5.277
[v.l.]) and as an "angel" (Ant. 5.279, 280 [bis], 284). While key evidence for the deity of
the angel has been removed,83 the account somewhat surprisingly concludes with a
miracle and what could be understood as a theophany: "[T]he angel, borne on the smoke
as on a chariot, was plainly seen by them ascending into heaven. Manoch thereat fearing
that some mischief might befall them from this vision of God, his wife bade him take
heart, since it was for their good that it had been given them to see God" (Ant. 5.284). It
is very unlikely, however, that Josephus himself understood this as an actual theophany
in Hellenistic Judaism, ed. D. T. Runia (Studia Philonica Annual 5; Atlanta: Scholars,

1993), 68-70 [art. =48-83].
QO
God’s only appearance to Gideon, in reference to the words of divine direction
in Judg 7:2-10, is said to have taken place "in his sleep" (Ant. 5.215). Cf. Feldman,
Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 163-176, esp. 170-171.
^ O n the Samson narrative generally, see L. H. Feldman, "Josephus’ Version of
Samson," JSJ 19 (1988): 171-214.
85E.g., there is no reference to the angel’s appearance being awesome, to his
name being wonderful, to his working a wonder, to the preparation of an offering, or to
the fear of death that specifically results from having seen God.
232
of the uncreated and immutably transcendent God.**** The account simply shows that
Josephus’ "translation" of the OT was not thoroughly consistent.**7
Clearly for Josephus, as for the LXX, the Angel of the LORD is not God. In
fact, it may be going beyond the evidence to suggest that Josephus had a single angel in
view. The messengers that Josephus variously describes have no real personality or
consistency of identity. As "phantoms" their existence is shadowy and, correspondingly,
Josephus does not see them as essential to the biblical narratives or to the history of the
Jews as he somewhat tendentiously retells it.88
Oumran
The biblical manuscripts at Qumran require no discussion for they do not differ
materially from the Hebrew text of the MT discussed above (see Chapter 2). If the
interpretation of the Angel of the LORD at Qumran differs from that of the MT the
difference will have to be sought elsewhere. But this immediately gives rise to a problem,
namely, that apart from the biblical manuscripts the expression "Angel of the LORD" is
QQ
nowhere found. While this is initially somewhat surprising given the prominence of
86Cf. Ant. 5.278 where Josephus concludes the angel’s first visit to Manoah’s
wife with the words, "And having thus spoken the visitor departed, having come but to
execute God’s will."
87Cf. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 38-39, 47.

****Cf. Attridge, The Interpretation o f Biblical History, 4, "a tendentious,
interpretative retelling of history."
89The expressions mJV and DnO)*?N are not found. The expression
"]l6o ("angel of God") is found once, but only as an explanation of the theophoric
name of ("Malachiyah") the son of Amram (4QVisions of Amramc [4Q545],
lines 9-17; 4QVisions of Amrama [4Q543], Frag. 3, line 1). The interpretation suggested
by K. Beyer, Die aramaischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Sana den Inschriften cats
Palastina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten
233
the Angel of the LORD in the OT, it does not mean that the Angel of the LORD was of
no significance to the community, that the Angel of the LORD was not referred to in
alternate ways, or that key OT Angel of the LORD texts were not (re)interpreted at
Qumran.90
There are obvious dangers that attend any attempt to systematize a diverse body
of literature such as is found at Qumran. In this particular case, however, the literature is
consistent enough to allow for the conclusion that the figure known in the OT as the
Angel of the LORD is the angelic figure known at Qumran as "the Angel of His Truth"
and "the Prince of Light(s)."91 Specifically, this "angel," along with two others,
appeared to Abraham at Mamre and spoke to him regarding the sins of Sodom;92 this
angel, called the "Angel of His Truth" and the "Spirit of Truth," will deliver the
talmudischen Zitaten (2 vols.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984-1994), 1:214;

2:87, is unlikely. He does not take Malachiyah as a proper name and applies the epithet
-|l6 n to Aaron, one of Amram’s other sons. (Better, in this case, might have been a
reference to Moses since he alone of Amram’s three children [cf. Exod 6:22] is not
otherwise mentioned.)
Garcia Martinez translates the description of Malachiyah in 4QVisions of
Amrama, Frag. 3, line 1, misleadingly as "[...] you will be God and angel of God you
will be cal[led]." By omitting or misplacing a gap in the fragmentary text he leaves the
impression that Malachiyah is divine. This description is rendered more accurately by
Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer, 2:87-88, as "[... Der ...] ‘Gottes’ wirst
du sein, und der Engel ‘Gottes’ wirst du gennant werden"
(m p n n m rm bn [....] *]*?).
90The fact that the biblical manuscripts at Qumran do not betray this
reinterpretation suggests that a fairly clear distinction should be maintained between the
transmission (i.e., copying) of texts and the translation (cf. LXX) and explanation (cf.
pesher; Targum) of those same texts.
91Cf. IQS 3:20-25; 1QM 13:10-12; 4QWar Scrolle [4Q495], Frag. 2;
4QCatenaa [4Q177] 4:10-12.
924QAges of Creation [4Q180] 2:3-4, "The three men [who] appeared to

[Abra]ham in the oak wood of Mambre are angels." Cf. Genesis 18; Jub 16:1-4.
234
righteous sons of light from Belial in the same way that Lot was delivered from
Sodom;93 this angel, called the "Prince of Lights," raised up Moses and Aaron at the
time of the exodus and acted as the heavenly opponent of Belial;9* this angel, called
simply "his [the Lord’s] angel," guarded the children of Israel from their enemies at the
crossing of the Red Sea;95 and this angel, called the "Angel of the Presence, ” dictated
the law to Moses on Mount Sinai.9** If the conclusion that a single angelic figure is in
view is not a certain one, it is nevertheless a reasonable one.97
The literature is also consistent enough to allow for the conclusion that the figure
known in the OT as the Angel of the LORD is the angelic figure known at Qumran as
Michael. Though Michael is not often mentioned by name,98 it is nevertheless evident
that he is the greatest of the angels in his cosmic role as the guardian angel of Israel and
934QCatenaa [4Q177] 4:10-12, "[. . . Abrajham, until there are ten just men in
the city, for the spirit of truth [. . . fo]r there are no [. . .] and his brothers through the
scheming of Belial, and he will triumph over them the angel of his truth
will ransom all the sons of light from the power of Belial." Cf. Genesis 18-19.
^ C D 5:17-19, "in ancient times there arose Moses and Aaron by the hand of
the prince of lights, and Belial, with his cunning, raised up Jannes and his brother during
the first deliverance of Israel.” Cf. Exodus 3-4; 7:11-22; 2 Tim 3:8.
954QBless, Oh my Soula [4Q434] 1:12, "And he positioned his angel in the
vicinity of the children of [Isra]el so that they would not be destroyed." Cf. Exod 14:19.
964QJubileesa [4Q216] 4:6; 5:1.
97Some hesitancy is warranted on the basis of the apocryphal and
pseudepigraphal literature in which a number of different named angels are found who act
in some of the same ways and with reference to some of the same OT texts just noted.
98Other key angels are also mentioned infrequently, possibly because "the names
of the angels were regarded as a part of the secret knowledge of the sect" (Hannah,
Michael and Christ, 67-68; following Davidson, Angels at Qumran, 268, n. 3).
235
the heavenly opponent of B elial." For this reason it is likely that Michael was
understood at Qumran to be the Angel of His Truth and the Prince of Lights (cf. Dan
12:1 where Michael is called a "prince").100 This also means that Michael was
implicitly understood to be the Angel of the LORD. Considerably more difficult to assess
is the identity and role of Melchizedek. He is not known from the OT to be an
angel.101 But his high status at Qumran and his eschatological role as guardian of the
community and opponent of Belial are closely parallel to descriptions of Michael. For this
reason the scholarly consensus is that Melchizedek is the angelic figure known elsewhere
" lQ M 9:15-16; 17:5-9; 4QMa, Frags. 1-3, line 3; 4QEnocha [4Q201] 4:6;
4QEnochb [4Q202] 3:7; 4QWar Scroll8 [4Q285] 10:3; 4QFragment mentioning Zedekiah
[4Q470]; 4QWords of Michael [4Q529]. In 4Q470 Michael seems to be the mediator of a
covenant modelled on Jeremiah 31 (cf. E. Larson, L. H. Shiffrnan, and J. Strugnell,
"4Q470, Preliminary Publication of a Fragment Mentioning Zedekiah," RevQ 16 [1994]:
335-349; E. Larson, "4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation of King Zedekiah," DSD 1
[1994]: 210-228). One could infer from his role as mediator of a covenant that Michael
was also present, perhaps as the Angel of the LORD or as an angel of the Presence, at
the giving of the Sinai covenant. The most important text at Qumran about Michael,
however, is doubtless 1QM 17:5-8. In the first two lines Michael appears as the heavenly
opponent of "the prince of the dominion of evil" (i.e., Belial) in the final eschatological
battle. In the second two lines Michael’s exaltation over the other angels is seen to be
relative, not absolute, and roughly paralleled by Israel’s exaltation over the other nations.
100So, inter alia, Bauckham, God Crucified, 18, n. 28; Davidson, Angels at
Qumran, 147-148, 225-227; Hannah, Michael and Christ, 64-70, 74-75; P. von der
Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus
in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 116-
120; Yadin, The Scroll o f the War, 235-236.
101Gen 14:18-20; similarly lQGenesis Apocrypon [1Q20] 22:14-17; cf.
Josephus, Ant. 1.179-182. A. Aschim, "Melchizedek the Liberator: An Early
Interpretation of Genesis 14?" SBLSP 35 (1996), 243-258, argues for the possibility of a
creative "exegetical" relationship whereby the human figure of the biblical narrative came
to be understood as Abraham’s heavenly angelic guardian.
236
as Michael. If this is correct, then by implication Melchizedek would also have been
understood as the Angel of the LORD.102
*** EXCURSUS: Melchizedek at Qumran ***

The primary source of information about Melchizedek at Qumran is the
fragmentary document known as 1lQMelchizedek [11Q13J. This document was first
published by A. S. van der Woude in 1965 and it has been the subject of intense scrutiny
and debate ever since.103 Van der Woude himself confidently identified Melchizedek
102Cf. F. du Toit Laubscher, "God’s Angel of Truth and Melchizedek: A Note

on llQMelch 13b," JSJ 3 (1972): 51 [art. =46-51], who concludes that Melchizedek is
implicitly understood to be an angel, specifically the Angel of Truth described in
4QCatenaa [4Q177] 4:10-12. If it seems to be going slightly beyond the actual evidence
to say that Melchizedek is the Angel of the LORD, it is surely well within the evidence
to say that he is on a par with that angel and, if they are distinct, that each can be
understood and interpreted in the light of the other. That is, they each perform the same
function and fill the same cosmic slot in the dualistic thought of Qumran (see Figure 3
below). Again, however, the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature should serve as a
warning against a hasty equation of Melchizedek with other named and unnamed angels at
Qumran. The more monolithic the Qumran literature the more likely it is that one angelic
figure with multiple names or titles is in view.
103A. S. van der Woude, "Melchisedek als himmlische Erldsergestalt in den
neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Hohle XI," in TO (1940-1965),
ed. P. A. H. de Boer (OTS 14; Leiden: Brill, 1965), 369-372 [art. =354-373]. A more
definitive text of llQMelch is now available in DJD, 23:221-240. For literature on
Melchizedek see: Aschim, "Melchizedek the Liberator," 243-258; idem, "The Genre of
1lQMelchizedek," in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments, ed. F. H. Cryer and
T. L. Thompson (JSOTSup 290; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 17-31;
idem, "Melchizedek and Jesus: 1lQMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews," in The
Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism, 129-147; D. E. Aune, "Note on Jesus’
Messianic Consciousness and 11 HQ [sic] Melchizedek," EvQ 45 (1973): 161-165; I. W.
Batdorf, "Hebrews and Qumran: Old Methods and New Directions," in Festschrift to
Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich: Lexicographer, Scholar, Teacher, and Committed Christian
Layman, ed. E. H. Barth and R. W. Cocroft (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 16-35; J. R. Davila,
"Melchizedek, Michael, and War in Heaven," SBLSP 35 (1996), 259-272; M. Delcor,
"Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews," JSJ 2
(1971): 115-135; J. A. Fitzmyer, "Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave
11," in Essays on the Semitic Background o f the New Testament, 245-267 [originally
published in JBL 86 (1967): 25-41]; C. Gianotto, Melchisedek e la sua tipologia:
Tradizioni giudaiche, cristiane e gnostiche (sec.II a.C.-sec.III d.C.) (RivB 12; Brescia:
237
as an angel, in feet as the archangel Michael, and most scholars have accepted this
identification. The identification was based in large measure on Melchizedek’s
stature in llQMelch 2:10 as a heavenly being (O’JTHII), that is, as an angel, and on his
undeniable similarity to Michael as guardian of the community and opponent of Belial.
While dissenters from the received view are few, it is worth noting that a number of
prominent scholars remain unconvinced. Already as early as 1966 Flusser defended the view that
Melchizedek was not an angel but an exalted human figure, 05 and Carmignac in 1970, and
Paideia, 1984); F. L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination o f the

Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 30;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude,
"11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament," NTS 12 (1965-66): 301-326; P. J. Kobelski,
Melchizedek and MelchireSac (CBQMS 10; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1981); T. H. Lim, "llQMelch, Luke 4 and the Dying Messiah,"
JJS 43 (1992): 90-92; J. C. McCullough, "Melchizedek’s Varied Role in Early
Exegetical Tradition," Theological Review 1.2 (1978): 52-66; M. P. Miller, "The
Function of Isa 61 1-2 in 11Q Melchizedek," JBL 88 (1969): 467-469; D. F. Miner, "A
Suggested Reading for 11Q Melchizedek 17," JSJ 2 (1971): 144-148; E. Puech, "Notes
sur le manuscrit de XIQMelkisgdeq," RevQ 12 (1987): 483-513; idem, La croyance des
Esseniens en la vie future: Immortalite, resurrection, vie etemelle? Histoire d ’une
croyance dans le Judaisme ancien, vol. 2, Les donnees qumraniennes et classiques (Ebib
22; Paris: Gabalda, 1993), 515-562; P. Sacchi, "Esquisse du Developpement du
Messianisme Juif a la Lumiere du Texte Qumranien 11 Q Melch," Z A W 100 Supp.
(1988): 202-214; J. A. Sanders, "The Old Testament in 1lQMelchizedek," JANES 5
(1973): 373-382; J. W. Thompson, "The Conceptual Background and Purpose of the
Midrash in Hebrews VII," NovT 19 (1977): 209-223; A. S. van der Woude, "Ftinfzehn
Jahre Qumranforschung (1974-1988)," TRu 57 (1992): 41-45 [art. = 1-57]; Y. Yadin, "A
Note on Melchizedek and Qumran," IEJ 15 (1965): 152-154.
104Van der Woude, "Melchisedek als himmlische Erldsergestalt," 369-372. Cf.,

inter alia, Aschim, "Melchizedek the Liberator," 245; G. J. Brooke, "Melchizedek
(llQMelch)," in ABD 4:687 [art. =687-688]; J. J. Collins, "A Herald of Good Tidings:
Isaiah 61:1-3 and Its Actualization in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in The Quest for Context and
Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor o f James A. Sanders, ed. C. A.
Evans and S. Talmon (BIS 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 231 [art. =225-240]; Davidson,
Angels at Qumran, 255-264, 308; Gianotto, Melchisedek e la sua tipologia, 79-81;
Hannah, Michael and Christ, 70-75; Kobelski, Melchizedek, 139; Newsom, Songs o f the
Sabbath Sacrifice, 37; Puech, La croyance des Essiniens, 548-550.
105D. Flusser, "Melchizedek and the Son of Man," Christian News from Israel
17 (1966): 23-29; cf. idem, Review of Melchizedek and MelchireSac by P. J. Kobelski,
JQR 73 (1983): 294-296.
238
Rainbow as recently as 1997, have argued along similar lines.106 In distinction from both this
view and the received view, Milik argued in 1972 that Melchizedek was actually God hunself or,
more properly, "un hypostase de Dieu" similar to the Angel of the LORD in the OT;107 and
this thesis was taken up at some length (with considerable erudition and without reference to
hypostases) by Manzi in 1997 who argued that Melchizedek was not a proper name but the divine
title "Re de Giustizia. 08 Justice cannot be done to these alternative interpretations except to
observe that they are surprisingly compelling in spite of some of the problems that they
create.109 This is surely due in part to the fragmentary nature of the document itself and in
part to the fact that God’s human and angelic agents overlap considerably in their functions—not
106J. Carmignac, "Le document de Qumran sur Melchisddeq," RevQ 7 (1970):

343-378; P. A. Rainbow, "Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran," BBR 7 (1997): 179-
194. Cf. also A. Hultg&rd, "The Ideal ‘Levite,’ the Davidic Messiah, and the Saviour
Priest in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs," in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism:
Profiles and Paradigms, ed. J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (Chico: Scholars,
1980), 93, cf. 105 [art. =93-110].
107j «p Milik, "Milki-sedeq et Milki-resac dans les anciens ecrits juifs et
chrdtiens," 775 23 (1972): 125; cf. 139 [art. =95-144].
1A O
F. Manzi, Melchisedek e I’angelologia nell'Epistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran
(AnBib 136; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1997), 51-96.
109cf Aschim, "Melchizedek and Jesus," 133-135. For example, Rainbow’s
view that Melchizedek is a messianic human figure would seem to founder on the fact,
Ps 45:7 notwithstanding, that he is called an OTrfctt; on the similarity between
Melchizedek in llQMelch and in 4QVisions of Amramb [4Q544], where he acts as the
angelic opponent of Belial; and on the similarity between Melchizedek and Michael more
generally. Moreover, Rainbow does not take the antecedent of v h v ("about him") in
llQMelch 2:10 to be Melchizedek. Instead, he renders as "about it" and takes the
antecedent to be the word "time" or "day" (cf. Fitzmyer, "Further Light on
Melchizedek," 249, 261, and Carmignac, "Le document de Qumran sur Melchisedeq,"
353, 366, who take the antecedent to be the impersonal word "judgment"). This attempt
to avoid the description of Melchizedek as an O’TlVjR in 2:10 seems like special pleading,
not least in view of Rainbow’s rendering of as "about him" in 2:23; and much the
same could be said of his attempt to deny angelic status to Melchizedek in the
eschatologically parallel 4QVisions of Amramb.
Manzi’s argument, on the other hand, seems to founder on 1 lQMelch 2:13 where
Melchizedek is said to execute "the vengeance of the judgments of God"; and again on
4QVisions of Amramb where Melchizedek, as Manzi recognizes, is an angelic figure.
Pace Manzi {Melchisedek, 82, 100-103) it is unnecessary to suppose that three completely
distinct views of Melchizedek are attested at Qumran—i.e., that he is a human figure in
lQGenesis Apocryphon, an angelic figure in 4QVisions of Amramb, and a divine figure
in llQMelch—when two views, the human and the angelic, satisfactorily account for all
of the evidence.
239
only with each other but with God himself whose will they execute. A kingly messiah, an exalted
angel, and even God himself could all in some legitimate sense be described as carrying out the
functions ascribed to the figure in 1lQMelch.
Melchizedek also receives brief mention in lQGenesis Apocryphon [1Q20] 22:14-17, but
the account does not differ materially from that of Genesis and provides no additional information
about Melchizedek. Slightly more information may be provided by 4QVisions of Amram, Frag.
3, line 2; and 4QShirShabbb [4Q401] 11:3, that is. if the conjectural restorations of the name
Melchizedek in these two texts are to be accepted. 10 The latter liturgical text
(4QShirShabb°) refers to an angelic figure in 11:3 as "[. . .]zedek, priest in the assembQy of
God . . .]. According to the editor of this text, this reference is "strongly reminiscent of
llQMelch ii 10 . . . where Ps 82:1 is interpreted as referring to Melchizedek." If correct,
this restoration might lend independent support to the view that Melchizedek exercises priestly
functions in llQMelch. 13 It would also reinforce the view that Melchizedek is an angelic
figure at Qumran since in this document he is classed with other angelic ministers, most notably
the seven chief princes (Bft"l WB73) who serve God in the heavenly temple.114
The former visionary text (4QVisions of Amram11) attests the same cosmic dualism found
elsewhere at Qumran. In this text the struggle for control over Amram, in fact for control over
"all the sons of Adam,” is between two angelic figures each of whom has three names. The first
angelic figure is dreadful. He "rules over all darkness" and has power over the sons of
110Much less likely are the restorations proposed for 4QShirShabbb and
llQShirShabb [11Q17]. In 4QShirShabbb 22:3 Newsom allows for the possibility of
reconstructing the fragmentary line "]pTS 'St" as referring to Melchizedek (Songs o f the
Sabbath Sacrifice, 143-144); while in llQShirShabb [11Q17], Col. 2, frag. 3, line 7,
editors F. Garcia Martinez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude allow for the
possibility of reconstructing the fragmentary line "]Sl?iai? as referring to "the
wonjderful [priesthoods] of Melch[izedek" (DJD, 23:269-270). Not only are these two
texts highly fragmentary but the restoration of the name Melchizedek, hardly the only
restoration possible, is largely dependent on conjectural restorations of the name in other
(related?) texts.
^N ew som , Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, 133.

112Newsom, Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, 134.
113According to Kobelski, Melchizedek, 64-71 (cf. Newsom, Songs o f the
Sabbath Sacrifice, 37; Puech, La croyance des Esseniens, 551-553), the view that
Melchizedek is a priest is difficult to obtain from 1lQMelch on strictly internal grounds.
Though "atonement will be made for all the sons of [God] and for the men of the lot of
Melchizedek" (2:8) it is not clear that Melchizedek himself does anything more than
proclaim this truth (cf. the verb "proclaim" in 2:6 and the verb "declare" in 2:8).
114Newsom, Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, 37, suggests that Melchizedek,
known elsewhere as the archangel Michael, may be the seventh and greatest of the seven
chief princes.
240
darkness.115 For this figure only one name survives, the name "Melchiresha" (J7BH 'o b n y
Presumably one of his missing names was Belial. The second angelic Figure is beneficent. He
"rules over all that is bright" and has "power [over all the sons of] light." Unfortunately, none of
his names has survived. Presumably one of them was Melchizedek, which would correspond
nicely with Melchiresha, and the others were Michael and the Prince of Lights.116
******
Considerable caution must be exercised in the identification of externally similar

117
figures;11 nevertheless, an identification seems to be the most economical
explanation of the striking similarities between these figures, especially in light of the
rigorously dualistic framework in which the similarities are found. In any case, it is safe
to say that while these figures are clearly exalted, they are no less clearly marked as
agents of God. No agent at Qumran is ever identified as God or portrayed as a
115Cf. 4QVisions of Amran/ [4Q548].

116Cf. Beyer, Die aramaischen Texten vom Toten Meer, 1:212; Davidson,
Angels at Qumran, 267-268; Kobelski, Melchizedek, 36, 71; Puech, La croyance des
Esseniens, 536, 550-51, 554. The struggle here for control over Amram at the time of his
death is reminiscent of the struggle between Michael and Satan for control over the body
of Moses (Jude 9). Jude may be dependent on T. M os., a document that has "closer
affinities with the Essenes than with any other known group in the Judaism of the period"
(J. Priest, "Testament of Moses," in OTP, 1:921). It is unfortunate that T. Mos. is
incomplete and that the story of Michael’s struggle with Satan is missing. There is,
however, mention of Israel’s guardian angel. This angel not only seems to be a priestly
figure like Melchizedek or Michael, he also seems to have an instrumental role in the
eschatological vanquishing of the devil and the enemies of Israel (T. Mos. 10:1-2). See
further, D. C. Carlson, "Vengeance and Angelic Mediation in Testament o f Moses 9 and
10," JBL 101 (1982): 85-95; Origen, De Principiis, 3.2.1; J. Priest, "Some Reflections
on the Assumption of Moses," Perspectives in Religious Studies 4 (1977): 92-111;
J. Tromp, The Assumption o f Moses: A Critical Edition With Commentary (SVTP 10;
Leiden: Brill, 1993), 270-285; A. Yarbro Collins, "Composition and Redaction of the
Testament of Moses 10," HTR 69 (1976): 179-182 [art. = 179-186].
117Cf. Fitzmyer, "Further Light on Melchizedek," 254-255; Horton, The

Melchizedek Tradition, 81-82; E. Larson, "4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation of King
Zedekiah," 225-226; Priest, "Testament of Moses," OTP, 1:932, n. 10 a.; Rainbow,
"Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran," 181-184.
241
manifestation of God comparable to the Angel of the LORD in the OT. The Angel of the
LORD at Qumran carries out a number of divine functions—understood as divinely
delegated functions. But in considerable distinction from the OT the Angel of the LORD
at Qumran is not himself divine. He does not act as God and he does not speak as God.
His appearances are not theophanies and he is nowhere worshipped. The Angel of the
LORD at Qumran is simply one angel, albeit the greatest, among many. This interpretive
shift is not only signalled by the way in which OT Angel of the LORD narratives are
interpreted, it is also signalled by the existence of a whole class of angels known as
"angels of the presence."11® The OT knows of only one such angel (Isa 63:9),
namely, the Angel of the LORD. In the Qumran literature, however, the Angel of the
LORD is not unique. At most he is simply primus inter pares. Ultimately the interpretive
shift is indicated by the cosmic dualism that pervades the Qumran literature. Within this
dualistic framework the Angel of the LORD is merely the heavenly counterpart of Belial;
God, on the other hand, is the sovereign creator of both (see Figure 3 below).119
118See 1QH 14:13; lQRule of the Blessings [lQ28b] 4:25-26; 4QJubileesa

[4Q216] 5:5. Note also the synonymous use of the expression "ministers of the Presence"
(£T3B TPWQ) in 4QShirShabba [4Q400] 1:4, cf. 1:8 (Newsom, Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice, 35-36). It is, however, possible that a single angel of the presence next to God
is envisioned in the fragmentary text tentatively known as 3QTestament of Judah (?)
[3Q7]; cf. r. Jud. 25:2. If this is the case, then it would appear that the Angel of the
Presence is second in rank to the Lord just as Judah is second in rank to Levi.
119The cosmic dualism found at Qumran is a relative rather than an absolute
dualism (Davidson, Angels at Qumran, 149-150, 160-162, 221-224, 303-309; Hannah,
Michael and Christ, 62-64). This dualistic framework may be diagrammed as in Figure 3
with the understanding that in place of the Angel of the LORD one may substitute the
Angel of His Troth, the Prince of Lights, Michael, or Melchizedek. See further, J. H.
Charlesworth, "A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in IQS III,13-IV,26 and the
‘Dualism’ Contained in the Fourth Gospel," NTS 15 (1968-69): 389-418; D. Dimant,
"Dualism at Qumran: New Perspectives," in Caves o f Enlightenment: Proceedings o f the
American Schools o f Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947-1997),
ed. J. H. Charlesworth (North Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL, 1998), 55-73; J. L.
242
GOD
Angel of the LORD Belial

Sons of Light Sons of Darkness
Figure 3. Qumran Dualism
In one sense the results of this brief survey are completely negative: "the OT
identification of God and his angel, as in Gen. 16.7, 13, is not a feature of the Judaism
of the period of our text [llQMelch]. Nor is such an idea found elsewhere in the Qumran
literature." In another sense, however, this survey has given rise to a number of
positive results: first, the identification of several figures as the Angel of the LORD
vindicates the indirect and inferential methodology outlined above in Chapter 1. The
Angel of the LORD is indeed featured prominently at Qumran even though the expression
B*m^N/mrP "jKbn is never actually used to describe him. By analogy it may be that
Jesus is viewed as the Angel of the LORD in the NT even though he is never explicitly
referred to by that title.
Duhaime, "La redaction de 1 QM XIII et revolution du dualisme a Qumran," KB 84

(1977): 210-238; J. Frey, "Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran
Library: Reflections on Their Background and History," in Legal Texts and Legal Issues:
Proceedings o f the Second Meeting o f the International Organization fo r Qumran Studies,
Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour o f Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. M. Bernstein,
F. Garcia Martinez, and J. Kampen (STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275-335; Kobelski,
Melchizedek and MelchireSac, 84-98; von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial.
120Davidson, Angels at Qumran, 257, n. 1; following Kobelski, Melchizedek,
74, "The Jewish angelology of this period has developed beyond the point of earlier
writings that attest the identification of God and his angel. By this time, angelic figures
have acquired an independent status, and although they are presented as acting on behalf
of God in the human sphere, they are nevertheless believed to be separate created
beings."
243
Second, monotheism is vigorously upheld at Qumran. Not only is there no threat
to monotheism at Qumran, there is not even the hint of a threat. The transcendence of
God and the cosmic dualism attested at Qumran provide a framework that effectively
precludes any threat to monotheism. The following statement is thus fully representative
of Qumran angelology as it relates to the unique identity of the one true God: "From of
old you appointed the Prince of Light to assist us . . . . You created Belial for the pit
. . . . Who is like you in strength, God of Israel? . . . And which angel or prince is like
you for aid?" (1QM 13:10-11, 13-14).121 The answer, unequivocally, is none. As
"the Great One, the Lord Eternal," God is incomparable and completely distinct from all
creation, including the agents he has created to accomplish his will. 1 Specifically,
no angel is worshipped at Qumran;123 no angel speaks in the first person as God; no
angel is addressed as God or YHWH;124 and no angel is confused with or identified
as God himself.
And, third, though Qumran clearly passes the "acid test" of monotheism with
high marks, it nevertheless attests the existence of an exalted agent to whom in a very
brief space are applied a remarkable array of divine texts, titles, and prerogatives.
12*Cf. Bauckham, God Crucified, 5; 14, n. 17; 16, who rightly argues that
representative monotheistic texts such as this should take precedence over exceptional
texts in one’s interpretation of Second Temple Judaism.
122The lofty title, "the Great One, the Lord Eternal," occurs in 4QWords of
Michael [4QS29] where, not inappropriately, it is used by Michael to describe the
creator.
123Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, 150-164, esp. 150, n. 268.
He does allow, however, for the possibility of a "qualified veneration of angels" (163)
within a strict monotheistic framework in two disputed and highly fragmentary
documents, i.e., 4Q400 2:2; 4Q403 1:1:32-33; llQBerakhot [HQ14=UQBlessings].
124The use of *rm*?K in llQMelch 2:13 is not a real exception (see below).
244
Melchizedek implicitly takes the place of YHWH in Isa 61:2, an OT "YHWH text"
(llQM elch 2:9);125 he is explicitly referred to as D’TTlblt in reference to Ps 82:1, an

OT text where God is in view (llQMelch 2:10);12** he executes the vengeance of
God’s judgments in the last days (llQMelch 2:13); he is described as "anointed" in terms
normally reserved for the Messiah (llQMelch 2:18);127 and his future coming is
preceded and heralded by a prophetic messenger (llQM elch 2:18-19).128
125I.e., Isa 61:2 reads "the year of favor for YHWH," while llQMelch reads
"the year of favor for Melchizedek." The usage is, however, slightly different from that
of the NT which retains and does not replace the name YHWH in its application of OT
YHWH texts to Christ.
126I.e., will stand up in the assembly of in the midst of the D*m<?K

he judges." The Psalm had only God in view; llQMelch, on the other hand, has two
figures in view. That Melchizedek is a "heavenly being" (ffn^X ) and not "God" (*?K)
absolutely is indicated: (1) by his thoroughgoing role as God’s agent; (2) by the existence
of other angelic "gods" in whose midst Melchizedek stands and judges; and (3) by the
fact that rather than is used to designate God in 1lQMelch (de Jonge and van
der Woude, "11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament," 305; Fitzmyer, "Further Light
on Melchizedek," 257). Carmignac, "Le document de Qumran sur Melchisedeq," 365-
366; and Manzi, Melchisedek, 64-67 (esp. 64-65, n. 176), contest this last observation by
arguing that the reference to God as DTVfoK has been retained, contrary to normal usage,
because it is contained within a scriptural citation that was taken up unaltered. Note,
however, the alteration of mrP into in the citation of Ps 7:8-9 in llQMelch 2:11.
127
I.e., Melchizedek is said to be "[the anojinted of the spirit about whom
Dan[iel] spoke" (Dan 9:25). The mention of the prophet Daniel, not found in the editio
princeps of llQMelch 2:18, was supplied by Yadin, "A Note on Melchizedek and
Qumran," 152-154, and subsequently adopted by de Jonge and van der Woude,
"11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament," 301; cf. Fitzmyer, "Further Light on
Melchizedek," 252-253, 265-266. This reference to Dan 9:25 is foundational to
Rainbow’s argument that Melchizedek is a royal human messiah ("Melchizedek as a
Messiah at Qumran," 189-192). Although this argument is to be rejected, the related
argument (190) that two "heralds” are in view (Melchizedek and his forerunner) seems
sound and has been tentatively adopted here.
128Cf. Collins, "A Herald of Good Tidings," 230; idem, "Powers in Heaven:
God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed.
J. J. Colins and R. A. Kugler (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature;
245
The parallels between Christ and (the Qumran) Melchizedek are obvious and lend
themselves readily to a history of religions explanation of the high Christology of the
NT.129 Clearly for some Jews the execution of God’s will, specifically God’s
eschatological "coming" in judgment, could be fulfilled in the coming of a figure whose
appearance is not a theophany. Such a figure could be referred to as Dim19K without
actually being God; and such a figure could have OT YHWH texts applied to him without
actually being YHWH. All that is implied by this usage is that the figure is highly exalted
and that the figure is an agent who represents God and executes his will.
Is not Christ precisely such a figure? After all, he too is called God, he has OT
YHWH texts applied to him, and he executes God’s eschatological judgment. The
answer, stated briefly here but defended at greater length below, is simply that the
differences between Christ and Melchizedek outweigh the similarities. It cannot be denied
that the NT portrays Christ as an agent. What must be denied is that the NT portrays him
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 19, n. 38 [art. =9-28]; F. Garcia Martinez,

"Messianische Erwartungen in den Qumranschriften," in Der Messias, ed. I. Baldermann,
E. Dassmann, O. Fuchs, et al. (Jahrbuch fur biblische Theologie 8; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1993), 203, n. 73 [art. = 171-208]; Gianotto, Melchisedek e la sua
tipologia, 73-75; Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 79; de Jonge and van der Woude,
"1 lQMelchizedek and the New Testament," 306-307; Kobelski, Melchizedek, 61-62;
Manzi, Melchisedek, 94-96; and cf. Rainbow, "Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran,"
190. Though this figure is probably the eschatological prophet like Moses (IQS 9:11;
4QFlorilegium 5-8; cf. CD 2:12), the scenario depicted in llQMelch resembles the one
depicted in Mai 3:1, all the more if one interprets the !V"Hn "]R*?0=]1lNn in that verse
as an angelic figure rather than as YHWH himself.
129Not, of course, that llQMelch is a direct background to the NT, since the
authors of the NT betray no familiarity with it, but that it could reflect a parallel
development with regard to the exaltation of an agent.
246
merely or exclusively as an agent.130 For example, it is not just that Jesus is called
"god" (qua heavenly being or exalted agent) but that he is called God in contexts that
make him the Creator, Sustainer, and sovereign Ruler of all that exists.131 It is not
just that Jesus takes the place of God in an isolated OT proof-text but that he is with
surprising consistency portrayed as YHWH, the God of the OT.132 It is not just that
Jesus comes to execute the eschatological judgment of God (i.e., as an agent of or stand-
in for the transcendent God) but that he comes as prophesied in Malachi and elsewhere to
execute his own eschatological judgment on the great and terrible Day of the LORD.
130If Jesus were simply an exalted agent then 1lQMelch would almost certainly
be the single most significant parallel to the high Christology of the NT (though cf. the
Son of Man in 1 Enoch). The parallel is even closer if one assumes that both
Melchizedek and Christ are, in the first instance, humans who have been exalted to
angelic status. This assumption must, however, be questioned: first, the question of
whether Melchizedek is a human who has been exalted to angelic status is moot. Though
the name Melchizedek clearly derives from Gen 14:18-20 there is no hint in 1 lQMelch
or 4QVisions of Amram that Melchizedek is or ever was a human being. He is presented
only as the heavenly angelic opponent of Belial (cf. Aschim, "Melchizedek the
Liberator," passim). And, second, even if Melchizedek were a human exalted to angelic
status a parallel would still not obtain. Christ’s exaltation is not to angelic but to divine
status. He is above the angels and his exaltation, quite unlike that of Melchizedek or any
other agent at Qumran, was first preceded by an abasement from divine to human status.
A reductionistic parallel is no parallel at all and should be rejected in favor of the data.
13 ^ e e further Bauckham, God Crucified, 70,
[I]t was on God as the Creator of all things and God as the sovereign Ruler of all
things that Jewish understanding of the uniqueness of the one God focused. These are
the two features of the divine identity which serve most clearly to distinguish God
from all other reality and to identify God as the unique one, who alone relates to all
other things as their Creator and Sovereign. These features therefore also served to
make unequivocally clear the New Testament writer’s inclusion of Jesus in the unique
divine identity.
132Cf. Bauckham, God Crucified, 70. Perhaps if llQMelch were longer it
would be possible to say more.
247
There are similarities between Jesus and other agents, to be sure, just as there are
differences (e.g., the worship of Christ); but a changed context has radically changed
even the meaning of the similarities. The most significant context, and at the same time
the most significantly changed context, is the cosmic framework itself. The cosmic
framework of the NT (see Figure 4 below) is fundamentally different from that of
Qumran if for no other reason than that it is fundamentally dependent on the divine
agency (i.e., theophany) paradigm of the OT:
GOD/JESUS
■■■II ■■
v
JESUS Satan
(theophany)
Believers Unbelievers
Figure 4. New Testament "Dualism"
According to the NT Christ rightfully belongs on the divine side of the dividing line
between God and his creation. Such a thing could never be said of Melchizedek or
Michael or any other agent at Qumran. This change from cosmic dualism to katabasis
and incarnation requires either a revision of the dualistic framework found at Qumran or
a return to the divine agency paradigm of the OT.
Apocrypha and Pseudepigranha
The intertestamental literature that goes by the name "apocrypha and

pseudepigrapha” is considerably more diverse and unsystematic than the Qumran
literature. But as with the Qumran literature there is an impressive degree of consistency
on one important point: the Angel of the LORD is not divine. In fact, the Angel of the
LORD does not even exist (in the sense that the same angelic figure is uniformly in view
248
in the many descriptions of exalted angels in this literature). Thus one does better in this
context to speak of angeLr of the Lord, or of angeLr modelled after the Angel of the
LORD, than of the Angel of the LORD proper. There are many glorious and powerful
angels in this literature some of whom fulfill the same functions and fill the same cosmic
slot as did Michael at Qumran. But none of these angels exercises divine prerogatives and
none is worshipped.133 None, in short, is a manifestation of God or a way of
speaking about God. This is in fairly stark contrast to the Hebrew OT in which a single
angelic figure is consistently in view—at least with reference to the patriarchal narratives,
to the exodus-wildemess-conquest narratives, and to the later prophetic texts that hark
back to these earlier narratives—and in which this single angelic figure is divine. The
apocrypha and pseudepigrapha are thus of a piece with Qumran. The same strict
monotheism, the same heightened divine transcendence, and the same cosmic dualism
found at Qumran can also be found in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.134 The
only minor difference is that a variety of named angels fill the slot occupied by the single
principal angel at Qumran.
Tobit
Tobit, for example, is a scrupulously monotheistic work that features an angel

named Raphael. This angel is one of seven angels (Tob 12:15) all of whom are clearly
and carefully distinguished from "the Lord of heaven and earth" whom they serve. 135
133There are possible but contextually unlikely exceptions in T. Abr. 3:6; 3 Bar
11:6; cf. T. Jos. 6:7.
134Cf. OTP, l:xxxi, on the heightened transcendence of God in the
Pseudepigrapha; and note also the reference to "apocalyptic dualism” in OTP, 1:9-10.
135Tob 7:16; 10:11, 13; cf. 5:17; 13:7, 16; etc.
249
God sends the angel Raphael, whose name means "God heals," to heal Tobit and Sarah in
response to their prayers (Tob 3:16-17). Raphael then accompanies Tobit’s son Tobias on
a journey acting as his guide (Tob 5:4-6) and protector (Tob 8:3).136 At no point is
Raphael’s appearance described except to say that he was, or rather appeared to be, "a
man."137 Thus it is not surprising that Tobias does not immediately recognize his
companion as "an angel of God."138 Tobias nonetheless seems to intuit something
out of the ordinary and so asks Raphael from what family and tribe he comes. Raphael
initially answers his question with another, "Why do you need to know my tribe?"139
But Tobias, not being satisfied with this indirection, persists and Raphael is forced to
dissemble by giving Tobias a pseudonym ("Azariah") and pretending to be a distant
relative (Tob 5:12-14). Tobit blesses Tobias and Raphael with the following words as the
prepare to leave on their journey, "May God in heaven bring you safely there and return
you in good health to me; and may his angel, my son, accompany you both for your
safety."140 There is obviously a great deal of irony here just as there is at the end of
their journey when Tobias and Raphael return and Tobias thanks God with the words,
"Blessed be God, and blessed be his great name, and blessed be all his holy angels" (Tob
136In this latter verse Raphael binds an evil demon but there is no indication that
he is like the archangel Michael (not mentioned in the work) who stands opposite Satan.
137Tob 5:5; 11:5; 12:1.
138Tob 5:4; cf. Genesis 18; Judges 6; 13.
139Tob 5:11-12; cf. Gen 32:30; Judg 13:17-18.
140Tob 5:17; cf. Tob 5:22; Gen 24:7, 40. The link to Genesis 24 is
strengthened by the observation that one of the express purposes for this journey is to
And a wife for Tobias. The primary difference between the accounts (i.e., for the present
purposes) is that in Genesis 24 the accompanying angel never materialized. Cf. the
Excursus on "The Angel in Genesis 24:7, 40" in Chapter 1 above.
250
11:14).141 Finally, however, Raphael reveals his true angelic identity (Tob 12:11-
15). Tobias and Tobit fall down in fear (Tob 12:16); and Raphael encourages them with
the words, "Do not be afraid; peace be with you."142 He then exhorts them to
worship the God who sent him.142 Clearly the author of Tobit was familiar with a
number of OT Angel of the LORD texts, perhaps even with the irony in several of them,
but equally clearly he makes no attempt to portray Raphael as a manifestation of God or
a way of speaking about the Lord of heaven himself.
2 Maccabees
2 Maccabees is another scrupulously monotheistic work. The Almighty God

created the heavens and the earth and everything that is in them ex nihilo (2 Macc 7:28).
Though God is clearly transcendent, yet he is concerned for his people and hears and
answers their prayers. On three occasions Judas Maccabeus and his beleaguered forces
pray to God for military assistance. On the first occasion, they "implored him to be
gracious to them and to be an enemy to their enemies and an adversary to their
adversaries, as the law declares."144 In response God sent not one but five angels to
route their enemies: "When the battle became fierce, there appeared to the enemy from
heaven five resplendent men on horses with golden bridles, and they were leading the
141There is no indication that Raphael is himself associated with the divine name
or with Exod 23:21.
142Tob 12:17; cf. 6:23. These are precisely the words of the Angel of the
LORD to Gideon in Judg 6:23.
143Tob 12:17, 18; cf. 12:6.
1442 Macc 10:26; cf. Exod 23:22.
251
Jews" (2 Macc 10:29).145 Later, in similar circumstances, the people again "prayed
the Lord to send a good angel to save Israel" (2 Macc 11:6). And in response, "a
horseman appeared at their head, clothed in white and brandishing weapons of gold. And
together they all praised the merciful God . . . . They advanced in battle order, having
their heavenly ally, for the Lord had mercy on them. . . . the Hebrews were invincible
because the mighty God fought on their side" (2 Macc 11:8-10, 13). And on the third
such occasion Judas Maccabeus "stretched out his hands toward heaven and called upon
the Lord who works wonders."146 He then prayed, "O Lord, you sent your angel in
the time of King Hezekiah of Judea, and he killed fully one hundred eighty-five thousand
in the camp of Sennacherib. So now, O Sovereign of the heavens, send a good angel to
spread terror and trembling before us."147 In response to this third prayer God again
routes the enemies of his people. The victory is extolled, and is moreover viewed as
proof that God "had manifested (£m$avn) himself."148 But the appearance of one or
more angels is not recounted as it had been earlier. The "epiphany" here is not a
theophany, and the destroying angels mentioned earlier are not divine. A number of OT
Angel of the LORD texts are alluded to, and one is explicitly cited, but the angel in those
texts is not understood to be the transcendent Sovereign of the heavens or a way of
speaking about his tangible theophanic presence.
145Cf. 3 Macc 6:18-19 where the Almighty God Most High sends two angels
from heaven to rout the enemies of his people.
1462 Macc 15:21; cf. Exod 15:11; Judg 13:19; 3 Macc 6:32.
1472 Macc 11:22-23; cf. 1 Kgs 19:35; Exod 23:27. The destroying angei in
2 Kgs 19:35 is also mentioned in Josephus, J.W. 5:388; 2 Baruch 63; Sir 48:21; 1 Macc
7:41.
1482 Macc 15:34; cf. 15:27.
252
1 Enoch
1 Enoch describes "the God of the universe, the Holy Great One" (1:3) as the
sole creator and sustainer of all that exists.149 He is "the Most High" (9:3) and "the
Lord of lords, and the God of gods, and the King of kings" (9:4). He is "the Great
Glory" (14:20) and "the Lord of Glory"150 whose throne cannot be approached and
whose face no flesh can see (14:19-25). He is also "the Lord of the Spirits."151 The
myriads of angels are his servants and ministers, and chief among these angels are
Asuryal, Gabriel, Michael, Phanuel, Raguel, Raphael, Saraqa’el, Saru’el, Surafel
(Sariel), and Uriel.152 These angels have distinct roles and functions (20:1-7) but all
stand opposite the fallen angels and all stand on a par with one another as is indicated by
the repeated expression ”PN, one of the holy angels"155 and by the fact that they are
each able to act as angelus interpres for Enoch.154
More interesting from the point of view of the present thesis are 1 Enoch 37-71,
wherein the messianic Son of Man is described, and 1 Enoch 89:10-40, wherein the story
of the exodus and conquest is retold with a thin allegorical veneer. In the Book of the
Similitudes (7 Enoch 37-71) the Messiah or Elect One is explicitly referred to nine times
1497 Enoch 9:5; 84:2-3.

150i Enoch 22:14; 25:3, 7; 27:3, 5; 36:4; 40:3; 46:2; 75:3; cf. 1 Cor 1:8.
1517 Enoch 37:2, 4; 38:2, 4, 6; 39:2, 7, 8, 12, 14; 40:1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10; etc.
1527 Enoch 9:1; 10:1, 4; 19:1; 20:1-7; 40:8-10; 54:6; 68:2-4; 71:8-9, 13.
153E.g„ 1 Enoch 20:1-7; 21:5, 9; 22:3; 23:4; cf. 71:3.
154Cf. the references to similar revealing angels in Dan 8:15-17; 9:20-23;

10:10-14; Zech 1:9, 13, 14; 2:2, 7, 7; 4:1, 4, 5; 5:5, 10; 6:4, 5.
253
as the Son of Man. 155 As in Daniel 7 the Son of Man is an exalted heavenly being;
and as in Daniel 7 he stands before "the Antecedent of Time” and is granted to sit on a
glorious heavenly throne. The Son of Man’s countenance "was full of grace like that of
one among the holy angels” (46:1), but he is not himself an angel since he "was bom of
human beings” (46:2). Nevertheless there are two possible connections between the Son
of Man and the Angel of the LORD. The first involves his seemingly unique possession
of God’s name:
At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name (lit. named . . . by the name), in the
presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the
sun and the moon, before the creation of the Stars, he was given a name in the
presence of the Lord of the Spirits" (48:2-3). 56
This bit of speculation may derive from Exod 23:21, an OT Angel of the LORD text,
though certainty is not possible. The text does not say that the name is "in him" or that
the name is explicitly God’s name; and other connections to Exod 23:20-23 are lacking.
More impressive, still with reference to the Similitudes, is the status and authority of the
Son of Man. His authority seems to rival that of the Lord of the Spirits himself: the Son
of Man sits on a glorious heavenly throne;157 a throne that in one passage could be
interpreted as the very throne of God.158 He "rales over everything" (62:6) thereby
sharing in God’s sovereignty over creation. And to him is delegated the execution of
155i Enoch 46:3, 4; 48:2; 62:7; 69:27, 29 (bis); 70:1; 71:17. In 71:14 where
Enoch is referred to generically as "son of man" a different Ethiopic expression is used
(cf. OTP, 34, n. e; 43, n. j; 50, n. s). Enoch is not the preexistent heavenly Son of Man.
156Cf. 1 Enoch 69:14 where Michael is said to possess a secret and powerful
name.
1577 Enoch 45:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:5; 69:29.

158
I.e., 1 Enoch 51:3. The speaker of the words "my throne," however, is
unclear; and elsewhere God clearly sits on his own even more glorious throne (i.e., 60:2;
62:2; 71:7).
254
eschatological judgment.159 Because of this he is worshipped (48:5; 62:9) in the
same terms used elsewhere to describe the worship of the Lord of the Spirits (57:3;
63:1). The messianic Son of Man is completely distinct from the Antecedent of Time and
the Lord of the Spirits. Yet there is a significant fusing together of their thrones, their
sovereignty, and even their worship. The dating and provenance of the Similitudes are
problematic in that no fragmentary Aramaic copies of 1 Enoch from Qumran contain the
Similitudes and all of the complete Ethiopic versions were transmitted and copied by
Christian scribes. If the possibility of Christian editing is to be excluded, then the high
‘christology’ of 1 Enoch would seem to reflect a Jewish development that in a number of
key respects parallels the high Christology of the NT. But the Christology of the NT is
arguably higher than that of 1 Enoch (e.g., Christ does not only share God's sovereignty
by ruling over everything, he himself created everything); and the Christology of the NT
is more clearly dependent on OT Angel of the LORD texts.
Also of interest, not least because it is very early and clearly related to OT Angel
of the LORD texts, is the allegorical retelling of the exodus and conquest in the Dream
Visions (7 Enoch 83-90). In this retelling, however, "the Lord of the sheep" (i.e., God)
is the sole divine actor. With the exception of Moses there is no reference to, or room
for, an angel or mediator of any kind. Surely this is most curious in a genre that readily
lends itself to speculation and elaboration and within a work that is otherwise preoccupied
with angels. Note especially the allegorical retelling of Exodus 3 and 14 in the following
passage:
the Lord of the sheep descended at their entreatment, from a lofty palace, arriving to
visit them. He called that sheep which had escaped from the wolves and told him
concerning the wolves that he should warn the wolves not to touch the sheep. . . .
Then their Lord came to (the rescue of) the sheep . . . . But the Lord of the sheep
1597 Enoch 49:4; 50:4; 55:4; 61:8-9.
255
went with them as their leader, while all his sheep were following him; his face was
glorious, adorable, and marvelous to behold. As for the wolves, they continued to
pursue those sheep until they found them at a certain pooLof water. . . . [A]nd their
Lord, their leader, stood between them and the wolves. ”
The Lord then personally leads his sheep "to the summit of that lofty rock" (i.e., Sinai)
and manifests himself there in a glorious albeit sheepish theophany: "After that, I saw the
Lord of the sheep, who stood before them; his appearance was majestic, marvelous, and
powerful; all those sheep beheld him and were afraid before his face" (89:29-30). All
traces of the Angel of the LORD have been effaced. Either the mediation of an angel at
this juncture was rejected outright (cf. Isa 63:9 [LXX]) or the Angel of the LORD was
understood to be God himself, in which case the title may have been avoided as
potentially giving rise to misunderstanding. The former interpretation is intrinsically more
probable. The evidence of 1 Enoch is thus of mixed value for understanding the high
Christology of the NT, no doubt in part due to the composite nature of the document. If
there is an exception to the rule—or an exception that proves the rule—that agents are not
worshipped in the intertestamental period, that exception is the Son of Man.
Apocalypse of'Zephaniah
The Apocalypse o f Zephaniah prominently features Eremiel, "the angel of the

Lord."161 Eremiel functions as an angelus interpres and initially appears as one of
many "angels of the Lord" (3:6) who stand opposite and on a par with "the angels of the
accuser" (3:8). It soon becomes evident, however, that while Eremiel is one of many
angels he is also primus inter pares. He is called "a/the great angel"162 and he stands
1607 Enoch 89:16-17, 20, 22-24.

l6lApoc. Zeph. B:8; 2:1, 6; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1, 4.
l62Apoc. Zeph. 6:11, 15; 7:9; 9:1, 3; 10:1; 11:5; 12:1.
256
opposite and on a par with the accuser who is also spoken of as "a/the great
angel."163 Eremiel and the accuser are so glorious that when they appear to the seer
he thinks that the Lord Almighty has appeared to him and falls down to worship (6:3-17).
But Eremiel quickly refuses the worship and rebukes the seer: "Take heed. Don’t worship
me. I am not the Lord Almighty, but I am the great angel, Eremiel, who is over the
abyss and hades" (6:15). The cosmic dualism clearly resembles that found at Qumran
(with Eremiel in place of the Prince of Light= Michael); and Eremiel’s refusal of worship
is only to be expected given the monotheistic tone of the work.
4 Ezra
4 Ezra proclaims God as the sole creator and sustainer of all that exists.164
God is the "sovereign Lord"165 and "the Most High."166 Under his command
are "the innumerable hosts of angels" (6:3; cf. 8:21), among whom are the named angels
Uriel and Jeremiel. "Jeremiel the archangel" (4:36) is only mentioned once in passing but
Uriel is present with Ezra throughout as angelus interpres. Ezra has seven visions (4:1-
14:48) and Uriel is repeatedly sent by the Most High to explain these visions to
Ezra.167 Uriel’s appearance is apparently unimpressive (at least nothing is said of it)
and gives rise to no fear. At no point does his behavior exceed that of a messenger.
Consistent with his status as a creaturely messenger is his admitted lack of supernatural
l6Âpoc. Zeph. 6:8, 17.

1644 Ezra 3:4; 5:44-55; 6:1-6.
1654 Ezra 4:38; 5:23, 38; 6:11; 12:7; 13:51.
1664 Ezra 4:2, 11, 34; etc. This title occurs sixty-eight times 4 Ezra and is
clearly the author’s favorite title for God {OTP 1:520-521).
1674 Ezra 4:1, 3; 5:31; 6:33; 7:1; cf. 10:28-29; 12:39.
257
knowledge. He knows neither the time of Ezra’s death nor what the future holds for him
(4:51-52). There is thus no real parallel between Uriel and the Angel of the LORD even
though there is a brief span of narrative during Ezra’s second vision in which Ezra,
standing before Uriel, petitions God (not Uriel!) as "O sovereign Lord” (5:38; 6:11; cf.
5:56) and in which Uriel, speaking as God’s mouthpiece, answers in the first person as
God would speak if he were present (5:38-6:10).168 That Uriel is not a divine
manifestation but is merely God’s mouthpiece, and that his first person speech is more
closely analogous to prophetic first person speech than to the Angel of the LORD’S first
person speech, seems evident. It seems evident from the context of the work as a whole,
from the fact that most of the references to "the Most High" in 4 Ezra are spoken by
Uriel, and from the conclusion to the second vision itself (6:11-34). In this conclusion
Uriel, who has just been speaking as God’s mouthpiece, tells Ezra to rise to his feet in
order to hear the voice of God (not Uriel!) directly and without mediation. Ezra obeys
and hears the voice of God "like the sound of many waters" (6:17). It was argued earlier
(see Chapter 2 above) that first person speech as God was not necessarily conclusive
evidence that a speaker was divine. More is needed to make such a momentous
determination; and here, unlike in the OT Angel of the LORD texts, there is no
additional confirming evidence to support the idea that Uriel is divine. He does not look
like God, he does not act like God, he is not worshipped, and he is not feared. His
appearances bear none of the hallmark characteristics of OT theophanies. If there is
anything remarkable about Uriel’s appearances it is that they are completely
unremarkable.169 This is not to say that he is a mere stage prop or literary device
168Cf. Jub 32:20-26.

169Cf. the angel Ramael in 2 Baruch.
258
only that his role as interpreting angel is a restrictive one and one that he in no way
exceeds. After the fourth vision he ceases to be named and virtually disappears. There is
thus little possibility in 4 Ezra of confusing Uriel with his sender the Most High God and
equally little possibility that such an identification was intended.
2 Baruch
2 Baruch adds little to what has already been said. Baruch has an apocalyptic
vision (2 Baruch 53) and prays to God for understanding (2 Baruch 54). God answers
Baruch’s prayer by sending the angelus interpres Ramael to explain the vision. 170
Ramael here functions identically to Uriel in 4 Ezra; only the name has changed. Like
Uriel, Ramael is nondescript and unimpressive. His coming to Baruch causes no fear—not
even surprise or astonishment. So close is the correlation between vision and
interpretation that the presence of an interpreting angel seems to be expected, even taken
for granted. Of minor significance is the fact that Ramael identifies himself in
2 Baruch 63 as the Angel of the LORD (i.e., the destroying angel) of 2 Kgs 19:35.171
But there is no indication in 2 Kgs 19:35 or 2 Baruch 63 that the destroying angel is
divine or even that the destroying angel is the same (divine) angel who had visited the
patriarchs and led the exodus. When the exodus itself is specifically mentioned in the
work there is only reference to God as "him who brought us out/up from Egypt" (2 Bar
75:7-8). There is no indication that an angel (whether divine or created) was present to
lead the exodus and no evidence that Ramael is anything other than a created angel.
n o 2 Bar 55:3; 56:1; cf. 2 Bar 55-76.

171Cf. J.W. 5:388; Sir 48:21; 1 Macc 7:41; 2 Macc 15:22.
259
3 Baruch
3 (Slavonic) Baruch boasts an angelus interpres who again functions identically to

Uriel in 4 Ezra and Ramael in 2 Baruch. This angel’s name is Phanuel (Intro.; 2:5), and
he is sent by God to show Baruch "all the mysteries of God" (1:4). He is called,
variously, "the/an angel of the Lord,"172 "the angel of hosts,"173 and "the angel
of power.”174 It initially seems as if the various named angels (i.e., Phanuel,
Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael, Satanael, and Sarasael) are all equals (4:7, 15). But it
quickly becomes apparent that two angels are distinct from the rest. Satanael is the
serpent and the chief evil angel (4:8, 13; 9:7), and Michael, who opposes him, is the
chief good angel (13:3; 16:3). Michael is "the holder of the keys of the kingdom"
(11:2).175 And it is to him that the revealing angel Phanuel bows down (11:6). The
other angels also entreat him as their chief (13:3) and hail him as "O Glorious One"
(13:4) since to see him is to see "the glory of God” (11:2). His appearance is not
described, but it may be instructive that Michael is not alone in reflecting the glory of
God. Elsewhere it is said that to see the shining sun (6:12; 7:2) and the resting place of
the righteous (16:4) is also to see "the glory of God." Michael is clearly exalted as chief
among the angels but he is again merely primus inter pares. It would be tendentious to
adduce as an instance of worship the bowing down of Phanuel to his superior, just as it
would be tendentious to suggest that Michael possesses the glory of God in a way that
1723 Bar 1:3; 3:4; 9:1.

1732 Bar 2:1; cf. Josh 5:13-15.
1742 Bar 10:1; 11:1.
175Cf. 4 Bar 9:5 where it is said of "Michael, the archangel of righteousness,"
that he "opens the gates for the righteous."
260
makes him divine. Though the other angels do entreat him as their chief, he himself has
nothing to say to them in return until he first asks God what he commands concerning
them (13:5). Again the dividing line between "the Lord God" who hears and answers
prayer (16:8) and the Lord’s creatures has not been crossed.
Apocalypse o f Abraham
The Apocalypse o f Abraham is yet another strictly, even polemically,

monotheistic work. There is only one true God--"the Eternal (Mighty) One."176 He
alone is to be worshipped for he alone is the creator and sustainer of all that exists.177
Not only is idolatry mocked and rejected by Abraham (1:1-7:12) but the idolaters
themselves, including Abraham’s own father, are destroyed by the wrath of God from
heaven (8:1-6). It is within this framework, that is, the framework of an anti-idolatry
polemic,178 that the glorious angel Iaoel appears to Abraham:
And I stood up and saw him who had taken my right hand and set me on my feet.
The appearance of his body was like sapphire, and the aspect of his face was like
chrysolite, and the hair of his head like snow. And a kidaris [turban] (was) on his
ll6Apoc. Abr. 10:13, 15; 12:4, 9; 13:10; 14:2, 13; 16:3; 17:8; 20:6; cf. 8:1;
9:3.
l l l Apoc. Abr. 7:10; 8:3; 9:3; 10:6; 17:8-10; 22:2.
178
The worship of a human being is recounted in Apoc. Abr. 29:3-13. It is
likely that this is a 10th century ad Christian or pseudo-christian (i.e., Bogomil)
interpolation referring to Christ ([FTP, 1:694). But it is also possible to integrate these
verses with the anti-idolatry polemic of the work as a whole, in which case these verses
would serve as something of an inclusion with the early chapters of the work. In the last
days God will permit Azazel (Satan) to promote the worship of a human being in order
that God might use it as a litmus test to determine who among Abraham’s seed have
remained faithful during "the age of impiety" (cf. 29:4-16). In any case, the anti-idolatry
polemic of the work as a whole still obtains even if 29:3-13 is a spurious later
interpolation.
261
head, its look that of a rainbow, andihe clothing of his garments (was) purple; and a
golden staff (was) in his right hand,1
That Iaoel is not the only glorious angel is indicated, first, by the presence of other
angels with him on "the seventh expanse" (10:8); and, second, by the fact that he is on a
par with Michael (10:17, "with me Michael blesses you") even though he seems to have
taken over Michael’s role as the heavenly opponent of Azazel (Satan). Iaoel has been sent
by God not only to strengthen and bless Abraham,180 but to act as Abraham’s
guardian angel. Abraham needs protection from Azazel in order to offer a pleasing
sacrifice to G od.181 And he needs strengthening because he is about to witness a
glorious theophany of "the Eternal One" himself.182 As God’s theophanic presence
approaches the angel Iaoel prepares and directs Abraham as follows:183
"Remain with me, do not fear. He whom you will see coming directly toward us in a
great sound of sanctification is the Eternal One who has loved you. You will not look
at him himself. But let your spirit not weaken, for I am with you, strengthening
you."
And while he was still speaking, behold the fire coming toward us round about
and a voice was in the fire like the voice of many waters, like the voice of the sea in
its uproar. And the angel knelt down with me and worshiped. And I wanted to fall
face down on the earth. . . . And he [Iaoel] said, "Only worship, Abraham, and
recite the song which I taught you." Since there was no ground to which I could fall
prostrate, I only bowed down, and I recited the song which he had taught me. And
he said, "Recite without ceasing." And I recited, and he himself recited the song:
Eternal One, Mighty One, Holy El, God autocrat
self-originate, incorruptible, immaculate,
^ A p o c . Abr. 11:1-3; and cf. 10:4 where reference is made to Iaoel’s human
appearance.
m Apoc. Abr. 10:3, 6, 13; 16:4.
181i4poc. Abr. 9:8; 10:16; 12-15; cf. Gen 15:9-11.
1B2Apoc. Abr. 16:1-32:6; esp. 17:1-19:2; cf. Gen 15:17.
l83Apoc. Abr. 16:2-17:14. Cf. 2 Enoch 21-22 where it is the angel Gabriel who
similarly ushers Enoch into the presence of God; and T. Isaac 6:1-15 where it is
Abraham and the saints who usher Isaac into the presence of God.
262
unbegotten, spotless, immortal,
self-perfected, self-devised,
without mother, without father, ungenerated,
exalted, fiery,
just, lover of men, benevolent, compassionate, bountiful,
jealous over me, patient one, most merciful.
Eli, eternal, mighty one, holy, Sabaoth,
most glorious El, El, El, El, Iaoel,
you are he my soul has loved
The passage has been cited at some length (emphasis added) not only because the song is
profoundly moving but because one of the many names or titles of the God being
worshipped by Abraham and Iaoel is "Iaoel.” The seeming oddity of this title has,
however, been prepared for by earlier references to the angel Iaoel and his sublime name:
And while I was still face down on the ground, I heard the voice speaking, "Go,
Iaoel of the same name, through the mediation of my ineffable name, consecrate this
man for me and strengthen him against trembling." The angel he sent to me in the
likeness of a man came . . . . And he said to me, "Stand up, Abraham, friend of
God who has loved you . . . . I am Iaoel and I was called so by him who causes
those with me on the seventh expanse, on the firmament, to shake, a power through
the medium of his ineffable name in me."184
These descriptions are clearly based on Exod 23:21 (cp. 1 Enoch 48:2-3) and indicate
that Iaoel has been identified with or modelled after the Angel of the LORD in that OT
text. The name "Iaoel," a conflation of "YHWH" and "El," is here quite literally
understood to be one of the many names or titles of the Eternal One.185 There is no
indication, however, that Iaoel is anything more than a glorious angel. And this in turn
means that the reverse is also true: there is no indication that the author of the
Apocalypse o f Abraham saw the Angel of the LORD in Exod 23:20-23 as divine or a way
lMApoc. Abr. 10:3-5, 8.

1R5
Cf. L.A.E. (Apoc. M os.) 29:4; 33:5 where, without reference to a similarly-
named angel, one of the names of God is "Jael"; and Lad. Jac. 2:18 where, again
without reference to a similarly-named angel, one of the names of God is "Yaoil."
263
of referring to YHWH. Though Iaoel’s appearance resembles that of the Ancient of Days
in Dan 7:9,186 Iaoel is neither divine nor worshipped. Together with Abraham, the
paragon of monotheistic faith, Iaoel worships the Eternal One. Then, his mission of
ushering Abraham into the presence of God accomplished, Iaoel hastily makes an exit to
attend to other matters of heavenly crowd control (18:9-11). And Abraham, now in the
presence of God, continues for the remainder of the apocalypse in dialogue with the
Eternal One (chapters 19-32). Apart from the allusions to Exod 23:21 noted above there
seem to be no other significant correlations between Iaoel and the Angel of the LORD.
There may, however, be a few minor and less significant correlations. For example,
while the description of Abraham’s sacrifice derives primarily from Genesis 15 it has
clearly been influenced by the story of Abraham’s sacrifice in Genesis 22.187 It is
thus possible that Iaoel has also been correlated with the Angel of the LORD mentioned
in Gen 22:11, 15. The difference here is that the angel Iaoel does not call to Abraham
from heaven for he is already present with Abraham on Mount Horeb. The one who does
call to Abraham is the Eternal One and not an angel: "And a voice came to me out of the
midst of the fire, saying, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ And I said, ‘Here I am!’"188 There
seems to be an allusion here to the theophany to Moses in Exod 3:4 as well, but again the
one who calls from the fire is not an angel but the Eternal One himself. It is possible that
an allusion to Exod 3:12 can be found in God’s promised presence in Apoc. Abr. 29:21
186Cf. Dan 10:6; Ezek 1:28.

ls lApoc. Abr. 9:8 (cf. Gen 22:2); Apoc. Abr. 12:1-6 (cf. Gen 22:6-7, 13).
188/1/?0C. Abr. 19:1; cf. 20:1.
264
("behold I am with you forever");189 and that an allusion to Exod 3:14 can be found
in God’s introductory self-identification in Apoc. Abr. 8:3 ("I am he"; cf. Apoc. Abr.
9:2).190 The result of this brief overview seems fairly clear. One important OT
Angel of the LORD text (Exod 23:21) is understood to refer to a created angel and is
applied to "Iaoel." But other OT Angel of the LORD texts are understood to refer to God
and are applied to the Eternal One. There is no evidence in the work that the Angel of
the LORD in Exodus 3 and Exod 23:21 are one and the same (divine) being and no
evidence of the kind of divine agency reflected in a number of OT texts.
Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs
The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs feature a variety of unnamed angels who
function primarily as revealing angels and occasionally as guardian angels.191 They
are referred to variously as "angels of the Lord," "angels of peace," "angels of the
presence," "archangels," and simply "angels."192 All of these angels are clearly
189This promise could also echo God’s promise to Jacob in Gen 28:15. Iaoel
also promises Abraham his presence as guardian angel {Apoc. Abr. 10:16; 11:5) and this
could indicate a degree of functional overlap between Iaoel and the Eternal One.
190Cf. also Apoc. Abr. 20:5-6 where there are one or two minor allusions to the
theophany to Abraham in Genesis 18 and where, again, the Eternal One and not an angel
is in view.
191According to Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 133-134, "[t]he history of

composition is one of the most controversial isues in the current study of the
Pseudepigrapha." It will be assumed here (cf. OTP, 1:777-778) that T. 12 Pair, as a
whole is an essentially Jewish work with Christian interpolations. These more or less
discrete interpolations (e.g., T. Sim. 6:5, 7; 7:1-2; T. Lev. 4:4; 10:2-3; 16:3; 18:7) do
not alter and are not directly related to the angelology of the work.
192r . Reub. 3:15; 5:3; T. Sim. 2:8; T. Lev. 2:6; 3:5; 5:1-6; T. Jud. 3:10; 10:2;
15:5; 25:2; T. Issac. 2:1; T. Dan. 5:4; 6:2, 5; T. Asher 6:4; 7:1; T. Jos. 6:6, 8; T. Ben.
6 : 1.
265
distinguished from God the creator and ruler of the universe, of whom it is expressly said
that "none o f the angels is like him With but one or two possible exceptions
there are no passages in these twelve testaments that describe the existence of a single
principal angel figure.194 Three passages, however, are of special interest being
reflective of, or of possible interpretive significance to, OT Angel of the LORD texts.
The first of these passages is T. Levi 5:5-6 where, with echoes of (Jen 32:29 and Judg
13:17-18, a revealing angel refuses to divulge his name to Levi but only describes
himself as "the angel who makes intercession for the nation of Israel, that they might not
be beaten."195 The second of these passages is T. Jos. 20:2 where, in reference to
Exod 13:19; 14:19-20, the following is said by Joseph but without reference to an angel:
"You shall carry my bones along with you, for when you are taking my bones up there,
the Lord will be with you in the light, while Beliar will be with the Egyptians in the
dark." And the third of these passages is T. Jos. 6:7 which recounts Joseph’s prayer for
protection against the enchanted food offered him by the wife of Pharaoh’s chief officer.
The wording of Joseph’s invocation, in particular the unexpected use of a singular verb,
seems to resemble Jacob’s blessing in Gen 48:15-16.196 The invocation reads: ’O
193r. Dan 6:6 (emphasis added); cf. T. Levi 3:4-5; T. Napht. 3:4; T. Isaac 6:9.
194Cf. T. Jud. 25:2 where Levi, who is first in rank among the sons of Jacob, is
blessed by "the Lord" while Judah, who is second in rank, is blessed by "the Angel of
the Presence." The other brothers are blessed, respectively, by "the powers of glory"
(Simeon), "the heaven" (Reuben), "the earth” (Issachar), "the sea" (Zebulon), "the
mountains" (Joseph), "the Tent” (Benjamin), "the lights" (Dan), "luxury" (Naphtali), "the
sun" (Gad), and "the olive tree" (Asher).
195Cf. Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1, where similar functions are attributed to Gabriel
and Michael.
106
Cf. also the numerous poetically parallel divine names and titles in T. Jos.
1:2-7 where, however, no angel is mentioned.
266
Qeoq tow nax^poov poo, iari 6 CcrftXoq 'APpaaii foxon p e t1 £pou (T. Jos. 6:7). The
unnamed angel in question is merely a guardian angel according to the preceding line
(T. Jos. 6:6), but there nevertheless seems to be a very close connection between God
and this angel. 197 The invocation of an angel in the same breath as God seems
unusual on the lips of Joseph, a self-professed worshipper of the Most High and a
resolute opponent of idolatry.198 Nevertheless it is highly unlikely in the context of
T. Jos. as a whole, and in the context of the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs as a
whole, that the word "angel" is a divine title or that an equivalence of any kind is
intended between God and the angel of Abraham.199
Testament o f Abraham
The Testament o f Abraham is an extended stoiy whose point of departure is

Genesis 18. When the time came for Abraham "the righteous man” who was "very
hospitable” (1:1) to die, God sent Michael the archangel to bring Abraham the news and
to offer him encouragement (1:3-7). The most interesting feature of this story is not that
Abraham resolutely refuses to die and must eventually be tricked into kissing the hand of
Death. The most interesting feature of this story is that Michael is identified as one of
1Q7
Cf. T. Dan. 6:1-2 where God and his angel are also mentioned together but
where they are also more clearly distinguished: ”[B]e on guard against Satan and his
spirits. Draw near to God and to the angel who intercedes for you, because he is the
mediator between God and men for the peace of Israel. He shall stand in opposition to
the kingdom of the enemy." This unnamed angel stands in the role elsewhere attributed
primarily to Michael. Cp. T. Jac. 2:5; 4:15, where the angel of Gen 48:15-16 is
expressly identified as Michael.
198If the author of T. Jos. understood the angel in Gen 48:16 to be a creature,
then that text could have served to sanction Joseph’s unusual invocation here.
199Rightly, OTP, 1:820, n. 6b.
267
"the three heavenly men” (6:4) who had visited Abraham many years before at the oak of
Mamre. In T. Abr. Michael again meets Abraham at "the oak of Mamre” (2:1), and
Abraham again addresses him as "my lord" (2:7), washes his feet (3:7-9), and shows him
hospitality (4:1-5:2). But Abraham does all of this without at first recognizing his visitor.
Sarah, on the other hand, upon hearing Michael’s voice "immediately realized that the
speaker was an angel of the Lord" (6: l).200 Only then, after she informs Abraham
that "this man is one of those three holy men" (6:5), does Abraham realize that Michael’s
feet were the feet of one of "the three men" that he had washed before.201 Michael is
referred to a number of times in the story as angel, archangel, and "angel of the
Lord,"202 but he is most often referred to as "Commander-in-chief."203 Though
Michael is God’s greatest angel he remains throughout the story in an almost comical
quandary, completely incapable of overcoming Abraham’s stubborn refusal to go the way
of all flesh. There is no possibility of confusing or equating Michael with God: the two
could not possibly be more distinct. Michael is merely a messenger of "the unseen God"
(16:4) and a servant of his Master.20* Michael and Abraham both pray together to
Cf. T. Abr. 3:5-6 where Isaac immediately upon seeing this visitor recognizes
him as an angel.
201For references to Michael as a "man" see T. Abr. 4:1, 3; 5:3, 4; 6:2, 5, 6;

7:3, 4, 5, 6, 8. Clearly the outward human appearance is in view even though there is
some hint already in 2:2, 4-5, that his appearance is more glorious than that of an
ordinary man. It is not, however, glorious enough for Abraham to recognize him as an
angel.
202r. Abr. 6:1; 7:12.
203r. Abr. 1:4; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10; 3:4, 9, 10, 11; 4:4, 5, 7, 9; etc.; cf. Josh
5:13-15.
204r. Abr. 1:4; 8:2-3; 15:9.
268
God,205 who is understood to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe.2®**
Clearly there is no threat to monotheism here. Perhaps for this reason when Isaac falls
down to worship Michael on first seeing him (3:6) there is no need for Michael to refuse.
The "worship" in this instance is clearly understood to be respect. Two OT Angel of the
LORD texts thus stand behind the Testament o f Abraham, one directly and one indirectly.
But there is no evidence that either biblical text (Genesis 18; Josh 5:13-15) was
understood to describe a divine being. Though there is every indication in the OT that
God appeared as a man and as the Prince of his own host, that interpretation no longer
appears to be acceptable to the heightened but unbiblical view of God’s transcendence
evident here. On this point, though, T. Abr. is simply reflective of a widespread
intertestamental Tendenz.
Jubilees
Jubilees is a retelling of earlier Scripture that runs from the account of creation
to the giving of the laws of sabbaths and jubilees to Moses on Mount Sinai, at which
point the narrative ends abruptly. The retelling incorporates most of Genesis 1 through
Exodus 24 though not without considerable expansions, omissions, and alterations. The
primary alteration is the presence of an angel of the presence with Moses on Mount
Sinai. No such angel is present in the OT. Moses ascends "the mountain of the LORD"
and is the recipient of a glorious theophany (Jub 1:1-4; cf. Exod 24:12-18). But God
almost immediately delegates to an angel of the presence the task of revealing the past
205r. Abr. 5:2; 14:5-6, 10-13; cf. 18:9-10.

206T. Abr. 8:7; 9:5-6; 10:14; 16:2.
269
and the future to Moses so that Moses might, in turn, write everything down in a
book.207 This important angel is first mentioned in Jub 1:27, where he is called "the
angel of the presence" (cf. Isa 63:9). He is further described in Jub 1:29 as "the angel of
the presence, who went before the camp of Israel," and in Jub 2:2 as one of the many
ministering "spirits" created by God on the first day of creation.208 Two things are
thus immediately clear at the very outset of the work: (1) the angel of the presence is
understood to be the Angel of the LORD of Exodus 14; Exodus 23; and Isa 63:9; and
(2) this angel is understood to be a mere creature. Not only is he one created angel
among many angels, he is one created angel of the presence among many created angels
of the presence:
For on the first day he created the heavens, which are above, and the earth, and the
waters and all of the spirits which minister before him: the angels of the presence,
and the angels of sanctification, and theangels of the spirit of fire, and the angels of
the spirit of the winds, . . . (Jub 2:2).
And he gave us a great sign, the sabbath day, so that we might work six days and
observe a sabbath from all work on the seventh day. And he told us—all of the angels
of the presence and all of the angels of sanctification, these two great kinds-that we
might keep the sabbath with him in heaven and on earth (Jub 2:17-18).
The angel of the presence may be primus inter pares among the other angels of the
presence, just as the angels of the presence and the angels of sanctification are greater
than the remaining kinds of ministering angels. But if this is the case it is not stated
explicitly and must be inferred from his role as revealing angel, his role as vanguard
angel, and his role as heavenly opponent and counterpart to Prince Mastema (see below).
A number of OT Angel of the LORD texts are dealt with in the course of retelling
207Jub 26-29; 2:1; cf. 1:4-7.

208For God as "the Creator of all" see, Jub 2:31-32; 11:17; cf. 12:19; 16:26;
32:18.
209In all seven different kinds of angels or ministering spirits are described.
270
Genesis and Exodus.210 In most of these texts references to "the angel of the
presence" are simply substituted in place of references to "the Angel of the LORD."
Among such texts are Genesis 22 (Jubilees 18); Exod 14:19 (Jub 48:13); and
Exod 23:20-23 (Jub 1:29).211 The angel of the presence is also inserted into other
OT texts where he did not appear in the original. He is inserted, for example, into Gen
12:1-3 (Jub 12:22-24); Genesis 18 (Jub 16:1-4, cf. 15-19);212 Exod 4:24 (Jub 48:2-
4); and Exodus 24 (Jubilees passim). While the angel of the presence is inserted into a
handful of texts where he does not appear in the original he is not tendentiously inserted
into the majority of OT theophanies but only into especially anthropomorphic
(Genesis 18) or theologically difficult (Exod 4:24) theophanies.213 The majority of
OT theophanies are more or less left as they were found: e.g., the theophanies to
Abraham at Shechem (Jub 13:3-4) and Hebron (Jub 15:3-22); to Isaac at Gerar (Jub 24:9-
11); and to Jacob at Gerar (Jub 24:22-23), Bethel (Jub 27:21-25; 32:17-20), and Beer-
sheba (44:5-6). Cf. also the theophany to Moses at Mount Sinai where, even though the
angel of the presence is eventually added to the account (Jub 1:29), he does not
completely negate or replace the theophanic presence of God (cf. Jub 1:1-4). There is
210A number are also omitted: e.g., Gen 16:7-14; Gen 31:11-13; Gen 32:25-33;
Gen 48:15-16; Exodus 3.
21 ^ p . this with the retelling of Gen 21:9-21 where the Angel of the LORD is
not replaced by the angel of the presence as one might have expected but by "an angel of
the Lord, one of the holy ones" (Jub 17:11).
212Cf. 4QAges of Creation [4Q180] 2:3-4.
213The retelling of Genesis 22 and Exod 4:24 is especially complicated by the
further addition of "Prince Mastema" into the accounts. It was Mastema who provoked
God into ordering the sacrifice of Isaac (cf. Job 1:6-12) and who opposed Moses to kill
him on the way to Egypt. Cf. Jubilees 48 where it is Mastema who provokes the
Egyptians into pursuing the Israelites and where the angel of the presence again acts as
Israel’s guardian angel.
271
occasionally some confusion or apparent overlap between the actions and words of the
angel of the presence and those of God,214 but for the most part the two remain
clearly distinguished and clearly distinct. This is in keeping with the high monotheism
and cosmic dualism of the work as a whole. Similar to Qumran, the angel of the presence
in Jubilees is on a par with Prince Mastema but God is the sovereign Lord of both (Jub
10:7-13; 48:15). The angel of the presence is clearly a creature rather than a
manifestation of or a circumlocution for the Creator.
Joseph and Aseneth
In Joseph and Aseneth an unnamed angel appears to Aseneth immediately after

her conversion to monotheism and the worship of the Most High God. The point of his
appearance is to confirm her in her new monotheistic faith and to announce that she will
be given to Joseph in marriage. The angel identifies himself as "the chief of the house of
the Lord and commander of the whole host of the Most High."2 The angel is
214In the first place the angel repeatedly uses the plural pronouns "we" and "us"
in a way that could suggest that he is speaking and acting as if on a par with God or as if
his words and actions have a dual source. It is contextually likely, however, that these
plural pronouns do not refer to the angel of the presence and God but to the angel of the
presence and other angels of the presence with whom this angel is indeed on a par (e.g.,
Jub 2:17-18; 3:1, 4-5, 9, 12, 15; 10:10-13, 22-23; 16:1-4, 15-19; 48:13, 16-19, esp.
v. 17; etc.).
And in the second place the angel’s first person speech as God in Jub 32:25-26
could again suggest that he is speaking and acting as if on a par with God. Jacob prays to
the LORD in the presence of an angelus interpres, or to the LORD through the mediation
of an angelus interpres, and the angel answers for the LORD in the first person. Since
the angel is almost certainly the angel of the presence (cf. Jub 32:20-24), and since there
are no other indications that this or any other angel in the work is divine, it is reasonably
certain that Jub 32:25-26 is merely another instance of the kind of compressed messenger
speech noted above in reference to Uriel (cf. 4 Ezra 5:38-6:10).
215Jos. Ath. 14:8; cf. 15:12. This angel could be Michael, but all that can be
said with certainty is that exercises the functions typically but not exclusively attributed to
272
referred to as a "man,"216 but his appearance is more glorious than that of ordinary
men (14:9) and is said to resemble the appearance of Joseph with whom Aseneth is madly
in love (5:4-7; cf. 6:1-6). Aseneth falls at the feet of this angel and blesses the Most
High God who sent him (15:11-12). She then tries to ascertain his name so that she can
"praise and glorify him for ever (and) ever" (Jos. Ath. 15:12). But the angel refuses:
Why do you seek this, my name, Aseneth? My name is in the heavens in the book of
the Most High, written by the finger of God in the beginning of the book before all
(the others), because I am chief of the house of the Most High. And all the names
written in the book of the Most High are unspeakable, and man is not allowed to
pronounce them in this world, because those names are exceedingly great and
wonderful and laudable.21
Though it is "wonderful" the angel’s name does not seem to be a divine name (cp. Exod
23:21) but simply the first such name among many other angelic names. This angel is
primus inter pares among the other angels (cf. 15:7-8; 16:14-15) and is very clearly
distinguished from the Most High God. Aseneth does later refer to him as "a god"
(17:9). But it seems fairly clear in context that by this title she simply means an angel or
a supernatural being or, possibly, one like the patriarch Israel whom she greatly
respects. 2 1 8 There is no indication that she has confused the messenger with his
Michael in the intertestamental period.
216Cf. Jos. Ath. 14:3, 8, 9, 11, 12; 15:1, 2; 19:5, 6; etc.

2177oj. Ath. 15:12. Cf. Gen 32:30; Judg 13:18 for the scriptural source of this
topos.
Cf. Jos. Ath. 22:3 where she speaks of Jacob as being "like a father to me
and (a) god." Jacob is described a few lines later (22:7) in exalted terms reminiscent of
Joseph in 5:4-7 and of Aseneth’s angelic visitor in 14:9. Jacob’s appearance was beautiful
and radiant, his head was white as snow, and his eyes were flashing like lightning. His
arms were "like (those) of an angel" and his appearance overall was "like a man who had
wrestled with God." Caution is warranted at this point, however, since the text of
Jos. Ath. used in OTP is considerably expanded in comparison to the critical text of
M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aseneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (SPB
13; Leiden: Brill, 1968), 198-200. Philonenko’s critical text contains neither the reference
273
sender the Most High God or that she has fallen away from the monotheistic faith that is
the raison d ’etre of the work. Several OT Angel of the LORD texts are alluded to (e.g.,
Gen 32:30; Exod 23:21; Josh 5:13-15; Judg 13:18) but there is no evidence that the
author of Jos. Ath. understood the angel(s) in those texts to be divine or that he attempted
to portray "the chief of the house of the Most High" as anything more than a glorious
creature.
Life o f Adam and Eve
The Life o f Adam and Eve exists in two very different versions, a Latin and a
Greek version referred to respectively as the Vita Adae et Evae {Vita) and the Apocalypse
o f Moses {Apoc. M os.). Both versions feature a variety of named and unnamed angels
who, like Adam, worship the Most High God.219 These angels are all roughly on a
par with one another, though Michael the archangel is again revealed as primus inter
pares. Michael’s primary role is that of a messenger and revealing angel,220 though
at one point he not only brings a message from the glorious and incomparable God but
actually ushers Adam into his presence.221 The work would be entirely unexceptional
were it not for Vita 13-15. These chapters describe the worship of Adam, the image of
God, by the angels. It is possible that these chapters in the Latin version are inauthentic
to "a god" in 22:3 nor the angelomorphic description of Jacob and the allusion to Gen
32:30 in 22:7 since these are almost certainly later expansions (cf. p. 8).
2l9Vita 28:1-2; 33:2; Apoc. Mos. 7:2; 17:1; 27:5; 33:5; 43:4.
220Vita 22:2; 43:1-3; 45:1; 51:2; cf. 49:2-3; Apoc. Mos. Intro. \ 3:2-3; 13:2-6;
43:1-4; 49:2.
221 V?/a 25:2-3; cf. Iaoel in Apoc. Abr. 16:2-17:14; and Gabriel in 2 Enoch
21 - 22 .
274
since they are not found in Apoc. Mos., the earlier Greek version.222 But even if
they are authentic it is still possible that the Latin version should be taken cum grano
since the source for the seemingly-idolatrous notion that the angels once worshipped
Adam is Satan—the "cursed enemy of troth" (Vita 39:1) and a most unreliable character.
Pseudo-Philo
The Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (L.A.B.) of Pseudo-Philo is a retelling of the

OT that is similar in many respects to that of Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, and
Josephus’ Antiquities. Pseudo-Philo canvasses many OT Angel of the LORD texts in the
course of retelling the OT. But he omits the Angel of the LORD from a number of
texts;223 and he demotes or understands the Angel of the LORD to be a mere created
angel in the remainder. For example, in the retelling of Gen 32:24-27 Jacob is said to
have wrestled with an unnamed angel, "the angel who was in charge of hymns" (L.A.B.
18:6); but all traces of the theophany and the divine identity of Jacob’s opponent
are omitted. In L.A.B. 19:9 Moses makes passing reference to God’s angel: "/ first saw
your angel on fire from the bush. But you called me from the bush, and I was afraid and
turned my face. And you sent me to them and you freed them from Egypt, but their
enemies you drowned in water." But the angel is not referred to as the Angel of the
'yyy
These chapters are also missing from the Slavonic versions though they are
found, albeit less expansively, in the Armenian and Georgian.
223I.e., Gen 16:7-14 (cf. L.A.B. 8:1); Genesis 22 (cf. L.A.B. 18:5; 32:2-4);
Exodus 3 (cf. L.A.B. 10; 37:3; 53:2); Exodus 14 (cf. L.A.B. 10). This is probably due
more to the condensed nature of the retelling than to any Tendenz on the part of Pseudo-
Philo. Cf. L.A.B. 19:9 where he again has occasion to mention Exodus 3 and where he
does note the presence of an angel.
224Cf. Apoc. Abr. 16:2-17:14 where Iaoel teaches Abraham the hymn of praise
to God.
275
LORD (cp. Exod 3:2). There is a hint of the OT juxtaposition between God and his
angel, and Moses fears and turns his face; but it is not evident that the angel is himself
divine or that he is a manifestation of God or a way of speaking about God. In L.A.B.
18:9, "an angel” is briefly mentioned with reference to Balaam but is again not referred
to as the Angel of the LORD. Though it is said that Balaam "adored him on the ground"
after having his eyes opened (L.A.B. 18:9), all other traces of the angel’s divinity have
been omitted and what remains is again insufficient to sustain the conclusion that the
angel is divine. In L.A.B. 30:2 God sends "an angel" to rebuke his people (cf. Judg 2:1-
5). But this angel, much as in the LXX, is relegated to the status of a mere messenger or
mouthpiece. God is now the true speaker and it is to him that the first person pronouns
now refer: "And the LORD was angry at them and sent his angel and said, ‘Behold I
have chosen one people . . . , and I said that my glory would reside in this world with it;
and I sent them Moses my servant, . . . and they transgressed my ways . . . . And
behold now I will arouse their enemies, and they will rule over them’." The title "angel
of the Lord" does appear later in Pseudo-Philo’s retelling of Judges 6 and 13. With
reference to the former, again as in the LXX, the angel’s first person speech as God has
been changed to indirect discourse and all evidence of the angel’s divinity has been
removed, including the theophany that concludes the visit and Gideon’s realization that he
has seen God (L.A.B. 35:1-7). With reference to Judges 13, the angel of the Lord is
called a "minister of God" and is even given a name. This angel is sent by God and is
clearly distinguished from God. The conclusion of his visit and the surprise of Manoah
and his wife at having seen him resembles the OT account, nevertheless even this has
been changed in such a way that it is no longer possible to conclude that his visit was a
theophany: "And the angel o f the Lord went up from there with the flame o f fire. But
Manoah and his wife saw these events and fell on their faces and said, ‘Surely we will die
276
because we have seen the Lord face to face. ’ And Manoah said, ‘It is not enough that I
have seen him but I even asked his name not knowing that he was the minister o f God.'
Now the angel who came was named Fadahel."225 There are many angels in L.A.B.
and none is confused with "the Most Powerful" God. As one of the angels Fadahel is
presumably on a par with the three unnamed angels in L.A.B. 26:4, 8; with the unnamed
"angel who was in charge of hymns" (L.A.B. 18:6); with Ingethel the invisible "angel
. . . who is in charge of hidden things" (L.A.B. 27:10); with Zeruel "the angel who is
pre-eminent in military might" (L.A.B. 27:10); with Nathaniel "the angel who was in
charge of fire" and who is referred to as "the angel of the LORD" (L.A.B. 38:3-4); and
with Zervihel "the angel in charge of might in warfare" who is also referred to as "the
angel of the LORD" (L.A.B. 61:5, 8-9). Some of these angels clearly modelled on
Michael and/or the OT Angel of the LORD. But it is equally clear that there is little
evidence that the same angelic figure is in view throughout this retelling of the OT, and
less evidence that one or more of these angels is a manifestation of God or a way of
speaking about him.
Ladder o f Jacob
The Ladder o f Jacob is an extended elaboration of Jacob’s mysterious dream in

Gen 28:11-19. Jacob has a vision of a ladder (stairway) between heaven and earth on
which angels were ascending and descending and at the zenith of which was the Lord
God himself. Jacob sees God indirectly, as if looking at a portrait, and God is
incomparably glorious: "the face in the middle was higher than all that I saw, the one of
225L.A.B. 42:9-10; cf. 42:1-10. Manoah’s reference to having asked the angel’s
name is a non-sequitur in its present context since Pseudo-Philo has neglected to include
Judg 13:17-18 in his retelling of this OT narrative.
277
fire, including the shoulders and the arms, exceedingly terrifying" {Lad. Jac. 1:6). After
seeing this glorious vision of God (who is portrayed in strikingly anthropomorphic terms)
Jacob sings a hymn extolling the glory and power and incomparability of the LORD, the
God of his Fathers {Lad. Jac. 2:5-22). While he is still praying he overhears the voice of
God commanding the angelus interpres Sariel the archangel, "who is in charge of
dreams," to come to him and explain the meaning of his mysterious dream {Lad. Jac.
3:1-2). Sariel appears to Jacob and while Sariel’s appearance is "very beautiful and
awesome" {Lad. Jac. 3:3), Jacob remains unimpressed. He has seen a vision of the
incomparable God. What, after that, is a mere angel? Says Jacob, "I was not astonished
by his appearance, for the vision which I had seen in my dream was more terrible than
he. And I did not fear the vision of the angel" {Lad. Jac. 3:4-5). Jacob shows no interest
in obtaining the name of his visitor; but Sariel requests Jacob’s name and on receiving it
announces, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but your name shall be similar
to my name, Israel" {Lad. Jac. 4:1-3).226 Sariel then gives a lengthy allegorical
interpretation of Jacob’s dream: "the ladder is this age," "the twelve steps are the keys to
personal recovery and patriarchal self-esteem," etc. There is no possibility of confusing
the angel in charge of interpreting dreams with the incomparable God who sent him.
Prayer o f Joseph
The Prayer o f Joseph is a brief fragment (nine lines) of an unusually fanciful

elaboration of Jacob’s mysterious encounter at Jabbok in Gen 32:24-31. Jacob wrestles
with an "angel of God." But he does not have his name changed by the angel for he is
226There is a word play on "W ("prince") here as well as an allusion to Gen

32:28-29.
278
himself an angel.227 He is "the firstborn of every living thing,” "the archangel of the
power of the Lord,” "the chief captain among the sons of God," and "the first minister
'yyot
before the face of God. The opponent with whom he wrestles is not a good angel
(much less God!) but an envious usurping angel named Uriel who is dissatisfied with his
rank as the eighth angel after Jacob. This is clearly not the same Uriel found elsewhere in
the intertestamental literature.229 There is every indication that the angel Israel saw
God. What, after all, could be more natural than that an angel should see God? But there
is no indication that his seeing God involved Uriel, with whom he wrestled, or that it
took place when he was coming up from Paddan-aram. Clearly neither Israel nor Uriel is
divine.
Conclusion
The intertestamental literature is nothing if not diverse. Nevertheless, there is a

surprising consistency on the one point that is at issue. There is no noticeable overlap of
identity between God and his many named and unnamed angels in the intertestamental
literature, and there is no reference to an angel that could reasonably be understood as a
reference to God or a way of speaking about him. Though God is not everywhere as
remote as, say, in Philo, he is everywhere transcendent: much too transcendent to be
227Cp. Pr. Jac. 19, where Jacob is merely likened to an angel.

228On what basis did the author conclude that Israel was an angel? It is possible
that the author understood the name "Israel” in Exod 4:2 ("Israel is my first-born son")
as referring to the patriarch rather than the nation {OTP, 2:713, n. A. g.), and,
correspondingly, that he understood "son" in that text as short-hand for "son of God,"
i.e., an angel. It is also possible that he understood Israel to be an angel on the
etymological basis that "J® ("Prince of God") indicated an angelic figure.
229E.g., 1 Enoch 9:10; 10:1, 4, 9, 11; 20:2; 4 Ezra; 3 Bar 4:7; Apoc. Mos.
40:2.
279
wandering about the countryside as a human, or an angel, speaking to patriarchs and
saints (let alone to tax collectors and sinners!). A surprising number of OT Angel of the
LORD texts are taken up but always with similar results: the angel in those texts is not
understood to be divine; and the many angels that are modelled after the angel in those
texts are not understood to be divine. Though these results are not based on an exhaustive
analysis of the intertestamental literature, they can at least lay some claim to having a
solid basis in the early literature of that period.230 And it is precisely this early
literature that betrays little or no awareness of the divine agency paradigm in the OT.
The principal angels in this literature, including the angel(s) o f the Lord, do not rise
above the status of mere agents. They function as messengers, as revealing angels, and as
guardian angels who stand roughly on a par with each other and opposite Satan and the
evil angels. Though these angels are often quite exalted, and are often directly modelled
on the OT Angel of the LORD, they remain merely creatures. They are not worshipped,
their appearances are not described as theophanies, they do not exercise divine
230Though every attempt has been made to be thorough, no doubt some early
works were excluded (as perforce were all of the allegedly early traditions in
demonstrably later works). This was unavoidable given the parameters of the present
investigation. Also excluded were a number of early but merely passing references to the
Angel of the LORD or to OT texts in which that angel appeared. These passages are,
however, consistent with those that received comment above: e.g., Wis 10:17-19 (cf.
Exod 13:21; 14:19-24); 18:15-16 (cf. 1 Chron 21:12-30); Pr Aza 26 (cf. Daniel 3); Sus
55, 59 (cf. 1 Chron 21:12-30); Bel 34, 36, 39; Philo the Epic Poet, Frags. 1-2
(Genesis 22); Ezek. Trag. 90-112 (cf. Exod 3:1-14), 217-242 (cf. Exod 14:19-24);
Demetrius the Chronographer, Frags. 1 (cf. Genesis 22); 2:7 (cf. Gen 32:24-32);
Artapanus, Frag. 3:21 (cf. Exod 3:2-10), 36-37 (cf. Exod 14:15-28). Two of these texts
(Wis 18:15-16; Ezek. Trag. 99) are of possible significance to the interpretation of the
Johannine Prologue for they both, like Philo (passim), speak of the divine Logos where
the OT spoke only of the Angel of the LORD. It is possible that God’s Word, Wisdom,
or Torah served as a middle term to link Christ with the OT traditions about the Angel of
the LORD. But it is also possible (see Chapter 4 below) that the link was substantially
more direct.
280
prerogatives, and, with one possible exception, they do not speak and are not spoken to
as God.231 The status of these angelic agents is thus evident at the explicit textual
level, at the intertextual and hermeneutical levels, and at the underlying cosmological
level.232 There is no room in the intertestamental cosmos for a divine agent.233
This difference between the OT and the intertestamental period sets up the
possibility of an interesting comparison and contrast with the NT. That is, where does the
NT fit in? Does the NT align itself with the divine agency paradigm of the OT or does it
follow the agency pattern that pervades the intertestamental period? Or does it combine
elements of both or does it do something completely different and unexpected? What kind
o f an agent is Christ? The next chapter will attempt to answer these questions in light of
the NT use of OT Angel of the LORD texts.
231There are a few hints or residual traces at most (e.g., the first person speech
of Uriel in 4 Ezra) of the OT relationship that obtained between YHWH and the Angel of
the LORD, but never enough to conclude with any certainty that a given intertestamental
angel was a divine manifestation rather than a created spirit. It is not, perhaps, until the
fifth or sixth century ad with Metatron "the lesser Yahweh” in 3 Enoch that there any
suggestion that an angel might be divine. But this work is obviously late (OTP, 1:229)
and its "closest parallels are with Gnosticism" (1:236) rather than with the OT and its
divine agency paradigm.
232Cf. Figure 3 on "Qumran Dualism" above. This cosmic dualism is pervasive
and it might therefore be better to describe it as "Intertestamental Dualism."
233The focus here, as throughout, is on the (principal) angels. As noted above,

however, the Son of Man in 1 Enoch is clearly exceptional. In particular, he is
worshipped alongside the Antecedent of Time. But whether he is divine in comparison
with the Antecedent of Time depends on one’s definition of divinity. That a violation or
modification of monotheism is intended seems unlikely.
CHAPTER 4
THE NEW TESTAMENT
Considerable space has been devoted to what in a sense is prolegomena; but the
foundation had to be deep if it was to support the towering christology of the NT. Now
that the two fundamental and distinct interpretive options relating to the Angel of the
LORD have been set forth it is time to turn to the christology of the NT. The questions
at the forefront of this chapter are: What view does the NT hold regarding the Angel of
the LORD? Is he a manifestation of YHWH as in the OT or is he merely an exalted
agent as in the intertestamental period? What light is shed on the Christology of the NT
by the fact that God appeared in the OT as an agent? What Christological use is made in
the NT of OT Angel of the LORD texts? Is there a theological framework or paradigm in
which the conjunction of apparent contradictories, agency and deity, can be satisfactorily
explained?1 And if such a paradigm applies to Christ can one still speak of Christ as
1The tension, present throughout the NT, is especially acute in the Fourth
Gospel. There one not only finds the highest (divine) Christology in the NT but also the
greatest emphasis on the son’s role as agent and his subordination to the Father (cf.
Hagner, "Paul’s Christology and Jewish Monotheism," 31). It is extremely unlikely that
the author or final redactor of the Fourth Gospel saw the subordinationist strain as the
vestige of a more primitive christology or that he detected even the slightest inconsistency
between the two christological strains. The same could be said for the rest of the NT. It
is thus incumbent on the NT interpreter to find a paradigm that allows the two strains to
exist simultaneously and symbiotically~not only in the same documents but in the same
(presumably) rational minds. Cf. J. Marcus, "Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth:
The Shema in the Gospel of Mark" in The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, ed. C. A.
281
282
merely (or originally) an exalted agent,2 or is it necessary to speak of him as divine in
a sense for which there is no clear history of religions parallel outside of the Canonical
History of the OT?
To answer these difficult questions fully would require a longer and more
detailed analysis than is possible here: an analysis, as previously noted, that would
minimally have to engage the primary NT evidence for Christ’s status as an agent (e.g.,
his humanity, his subordination to God, and his having been sent by God) as well as the
primary NT evidence for his status as deity (e.g., applications to him of OT YHWH texts
and divine prerogatives, references to him as Oeoq, references to his preexistence and the
katabasis/anabasis pattern of his manifestation,3 and references to his being
worshiped). This means, in short, that a few instructive soundings related to the present
thesis will have to suffice. These soundings fall roughly into two groups: (1) Citations of
OT Angel of the LORD texts in which it is probable that Christ is being correlated with
Evans and W. R. Stegner (JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994),
200-201 [art. = 196-211]; N. T. Wright, "Christ, the Law, and ’Pauline Theology’," in
Climax o f the Covenant, 4-7 [art. = 1-17].
In addition to the works cited in nn. 1-3 of Chapter 1 above, see also the
section titled "The Assimilation of Jesus to Yahweh" in B. Blackburn, Theios AnSr and
the Markon Miracle Traditions: A Critique o f the Theios An5r Concept as an
Interpretative Background o f the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark (WUNT 2.40;
Tubingen: Mohr, 1991), 133-182. Blackburn’s treatment of the evidence is excellent as
far as it goes; it simply does not go far enough.
•1
This pattern of manifestation is most clearly evident in the Fourth Gospel; but
it is also present in Phil 2:5-11, a passage that is considerably earlier and that may be
even earlier still if it incorporates traditional material. Cf. D. Wenham, "The Enigma of
the Fourth Gospel: Another Look,” in Understanding, Studying and Reading: New
Testament Essays in Honour o f John Ashton, ed. C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-
Louis (JSNTSup 153; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 111-113 [art. = 102-
128].
283
the Angel of the LORD;4 and (2) Allusions to OT Angel of the LORD texts in which it
is probable that Christ is being correlated with the Angel of the LORD.5
A more complete treatment would also necessitate a full analysis of several other
closely related groups of texts: (3) Citations of OT Angel of the LORD texts in which the
Angel of the LORD is divine (or transparent) but which seem to have no direct bearing
on the Christology of the NT;6 (4) Texts featuring an "angel of the Lord" who is not
divine and who seems to have no direct bearing on the Christology of the NT;7
(5) Texts that depict or seem to depict Christ as an angelomorphic being;8 and, finally,
(6) Texts that depict or seem to depict Christ as active and present in the narratives of the
OT.9 These texts will be noted briefly in the chapter that follows, the first two groups
4I.e., Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2.
5I.e., Mark 1:4-8; 2:1-12; 6:45-52; 9:1-13; 11:15-19; Matt 11:25-28; 28:20;
John 1:1-18; 8:53-59; 2 Cor 3:15-18.
^ .e ., Mark 1:11 (cf. Gen 22:2, 12); 12:26-27 (cf. Exodus 3); Acts 7 (cf.
Exodus 3); Heb 6:13-14 (cf. Gen 22:17; Exod 32:13); 11:17-19 (Genesis 22); 11:24-29
(cf. Exodus 2-3, 14).
7I.e., Matt 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19; 28:2; Luke 1:11; 2:9; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 10:3;
12:7, 23.
O
On Rev 1:12-18, the most promising such NT text, see Carrell, Jesus and the
Angels, 129-174 (cf. Hengel, "Sit at My Right Hand," 221). For Gal 4:19; Rev 14:14;
19:11-16, and other less likely texts see, e.g., Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 175-219;
Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 33-71, 222-250; Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 245-
346; R. Gundry, "Angelomorphic Christology in the Book of Revelation," SBLSP 33
(1994), 662-678.
9As noted in n. 27 of Chapter 1 above, the idea of the "Real Presence" of Christ
is consistent with but potentially much broader than the present thesis. The only Real
Presence texts that will be touched upon below are those bound up with the use of
Exodus 14 and Exodus 33-34 in the NT. Here, more than elsewhere, it seems likely that
a correlation is being made (by way of Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1) between Jesus and the
Angel of the LORD of Exod 14:19 and Exod 32:24; 33:2.
284
of texts enumerated above being of considerably greater and more immediate
significance. These two groups of texts are of the greatest significant because they are
sufficient to establish a prima facie case for a correlation between Jesus and the Angel of
the LORD and, furthermore, to establish a plausible framework into which the remaining
material can be fitted. In fact, the relative ease with which this material can be fitted into
such a framework must be considered one of its primary advantages.10 A one-to-one
correlation of personal identity is, again, not necessary to the thesis. It is sufficient that
the Angel of the LORD was a divine agent (i.e., God manifest as an agent) in the OT and
that Jesus Christ is similarly portrayed as a divine agent in the NT.
To approach this same material from a slightly different (and more hypothetical)
angle, it would be rather unusual given the importance of Moses in the OT, and the
avowed dependence of the NT on the OT, to And no mention of Moses in the NT. It
would be even more unusual, however, to find no mention of the Angel of the LORD.
His importance in the OT~especially at key junctures in Salvation History such as the
exodus—tends to dwarf even that of Moses. One does, of course, find numerous
references to Moses in the NT just as one would expect. There is even a cameo
appearance at the Transfiguration.11 But contrary to hypothetical expectation one finds
only a single explicit reference to the Angel of the LORD (Acts 7) and no appearance
10I.e., the simplicity, comprehensiveness, and explanatory power of a theory are

compelling indicators of its validity.
11This is something of a surprise since "Moses was not expected to return
before the Day of the Lord" (M. D. Hooker, "‘What Doest Thou Here, Elijah?’ A Look
at St Mark’s Account of the Transfiguration," in The Glory o f Christ in the New
Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory o f George Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst
and N. T. Wright [Oxford: Clarendon, 1987], 62 [art. =59-70]). Cp. Deut 18:15, 18
which does not prophesy the return of Moses but only the appearance of a prophet like
him.
285
even though his eschatological return was unequivocally prophesied in the OT (Mai 3:1).
What has happened to the Angel of the LORD? A more careful reading of the evidence
suggests that the Angel of the LORD may not, in the final analysis, be entirely absent
from the NT. His presence may be veiled, but he is present indeed—present as the
principal NT agent.
NT Citations of OT Angel of the LORD Texts
It could be argued not only from the perspective of history but from the
perspective of Canonical History that Mark 1:1-3 is the most natural place in the NT to
begin. Not only was the Gospel of Mark the first gospel written, but it begins by
carefully picking up the OT story line where the Canonical History had left it—with the
coming of the Angel of the LORD and his prophetic forerunner (Mai 3:1). 1'I It was,
however, Christ himself who first made use of Mai 3:1 to identify John the Baptist as his
forerunner and to highlight his own unique and unexpected messianic identity. For this
reason the analysis of NT texts rightly begins with the first gospel in the canon and with
the Messiah’s creative use of the OT, a use followed not only by Mark but by the rest of
the NT.
12For the general importance of salvation history to Mark’s prologue see, e.g.,
R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology fo r the Cross (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993), 34-35; L. W. Hurtado, Mark (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1983), 15-16; J. Marcus, Mark (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 143, 147. Cf.
R. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (WUNT 88; Tubingen: Mohr, 1997), 381,
"Mark has not abandoned Heilsgeschichte, but on the contrary it is his ’indispensable
presupposition’."
286
The Identity of "the Christ"
(Matthew 11:2-14)
The central focus of this pivotal section in Matthew is the identity of the Christ
as this identity is mirrored first in his deeds (11:2-6) and secondly in the identity of John
the Baptist (11:7-14).13 In both instances it is the light of the OT that illuminates the
Messiah’s true identity. Even more specifically, it is the Messiah’s creative interpretation
o f the OT that provides the hermeneutical key to his identity. He is both Son of David
and Son of God. He is both Messiah and Emmanuel or "God with us" (Matt 1:23; citing
Isa 7:14).14 It has been convincingly argued that Matt 1:23 and 28:20 form an
inclusion within which it is possible to detect a veiled christology of divine presence or
an "Emmanuel christology." While the name Emmanuel does not unambiguously
indicate the deity of Christ, the name is capable of such a deeper meaning (cf. "Mighty
13Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, The Gospel o f Saint Matthew (ICC; 3

vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-1997), 2:294-295, who describe Matt 11:1-19 as
the turning point in the plot of Matthew’s gospel.
14The name Emmanuel is indicative of Christ’s "divine sonship" and is the
complement of his Davidic sonship, a theme introduced in the opening line of Matthew’s
gospel (R. E. Brown, The Birth o f the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives
in Matthew and Luke [New York: Doubleday, 1977], 153).
15D. D. Kupp, Matthew’s Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God’s People in the
First Gospel (SNTSMS 90; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 175, 218-
220, and passim. Cf. J. Gnilka, Das Matthausevangelium (HTKNT; vol. 1; Freiburg:
Herder, 1988), 21; J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1975), 52-53. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:213, 3:688, also
note this important inclusion but argue that the primary thrust of Matthew’s closing
verses is to promote a Moses typology (3:679-680). The parallels they themselves draw,
however, fit much better in an Emmanuel christology: i.e., Moses promises his
successors God’s presence in Deut 31:23 and Josh 1:9; but Jesus promises his successors
his own presencel Jesus stands in the place of God not in the place of Moses; or, if Jesus
both stands in the place of God and Moses, surely the former correlation is of greater
christological significance than the latter.
287
God" in Isa 9:6). "Although his language does not seem to carry ontological implications,
through Emmanuel Matthew is a least claiming a basic functional or representative
equivalence between Jesus and God."16 This deeper meaning gradually unfolds
throughout the gospel, culminating in a supernatural promise of divine presence. At the
end of Matthew’s gospel "Christ with us" (Matt 28:20) is shown to be the true meaning
of "God with us" (Matt 1:23).17 Precisely such a high christology is evident in Matt
16Kupp, Matthew’s Emmanuel, 220. For the name Emmanuel as indicative of

Christ’s deity see, e.g., D. A. Carson, Matthew (EBC 8; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1984), 79-80; J. C. Fenton, "Matthew and the Divinity of Jesus: Three Questions
Concerning Matthew 1:20-23," in Studia Biblica 1978: II. Papers on the Gospels, ed.
E. A. Livingstone (JSNTSup 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 79-82; France, Matthew,
308-312; R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook fo r a Mixed Church
under Persecution (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 24-25; D. A. Hagner,
Matthew 1-13 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1993), 20.
Contra, inter alia, W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (AB; New York:
Doubleday, 1971), 8-9, who argue that Emmanuel means only "God’s active vindication
of his people" (a people referred to as "his [Jesus’] people" in Matt 1:21!); P. Bonnard,
L ’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (2d ed.; Geneve: Labor et Fides, 1982), 22; Davies and
Allison, Matthew, 1:217; Harris, Jesus as God, 256-258; D. Hill, The Gospel o f Matthew
(NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 80; M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint
Matthieu (EBib; 8th ed.; Paris: Gabalda, 1948), 17. Matthew’s view of the divine
presence in Christ cannot adequately be explained by appeal to texts like Isa 8:10, texts
that speak of YHWH’s vindication but not his theophanic presence. Gnilka,
Matthdusevangelium, 21, n. 38, is thus correct to bring Deut 20:1 into the discussion.
But there are better texts: namely, pentateuchal texts that feature the Angel of the LORD
and that may more clearly indicate the precise way in which God is present with his
people.
The promise of God’s presence ("I will be with you") was a Leitmotiv of these
particular OT texts as was demonstrated in Chapter 2 above. Interestingly, Christ’s
promise to the church in Matt 28:20 (leai 15ou pc0' 6pa>v ripi) echoes the Angel of
the LORD’S promise to Jacob in Gen 28:15 (icoci 15oo fryib petti oou). There is clearly an
Israel/Christ typology in the NT. Could this be a hint of an Israel/Church typology?
17Cf. Fenton, "Matthew and the Divinity of Jesus," 81; Kupp, Matthew’s
Emmanuel, 156. Something similar seems to be going on in Matt 1:21 where the name
Jesus is explained (almost paradoxically) as "Jesus saves" rather than "YHWH saves" (cf.
J. Miler, Les citations d ’accomplissement dans I’Evangile de Matthieu: Quand Dieu se
rend present en toute humanite [AnBib 140; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico,
288
11:2-14.110ft The analysis below thus complements the thesis of an "Emmanuel
christology” by showing that while Matthew does not speak in ontological terms p er se he
nevertheless claims more for Jesus than a basic functional or representative equivalence
with God. Jesus is "God with us" because he is God. He is divine in the strongest
possible sense even if Matthew, like Jesus, was too subtle to say this directly.19
Matthew introduces this pivotal section with a surprising question from John the
20
Baptist. John had heard reports of "the deeds of the Messiah" (ta §pya xou Xptorou),
and he experienced doubt as the result of some significant dissonance in his expectations.
John’s doubt was in large measure caused by the complete absence of divine judgment in
the reported deeds of the Messiah.21 Not only is Christ’s answer strongly suggestive
1999], 24-34). Moreover, those whom he saves from their sins are called "his people"
rather than "YHWH’s people."
18Kupp does not deal with this important passage in the middle of Matthew’s
gospel.
19Cp. the inclusion that frames the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1; 20:28). Cf.
M. Hengel, "Christological Titles in Early Christianity," chap. in Studies in Early
Christology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 367 [art. =359-389], "The confession of
the divinity of Christ stands thus at the beginning and end of the Fourth Gospel, and,
with the self-declaration of Jesus at 10:30, determines the middle as well: ‘The Father
and I are one’."
20The "deeds of the Messiah” reported to John (Matt 11:2), along with the
reference to what has been "heard and seen" (11:4) and the allusive catalog of the
Messianic deeds (11:5), all refer tellingly back to what has transpired in the preceding
chapters of Matthew’s gospel. Cf. Carson, Matthew, 261; Davies and Allison, Matthew,
2:240, 242; J. P. Meier, "John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel," JBL 99 (1980): 393
[art. =383-405]; D. Verseput, The Rejection o f the Humble Messianic King: A Study o f
the Composition o f Matthew 11-12 (European University Studies 291; Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 1986), 59.
21Cf. Carson, Matthew, 261-262; idem, "Do the Prophets and the Law Quit
Prophesying before John? A Note on Matthew 11.12," in The Gospels and the Scriptures
o f Israel, 180-181 [art. = 179-194]; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:241, 244-246;
J. Dupont, "L’ambassade de Jean-Baptiste (Matthieu 11, 2-6; Luc 7, 18-23)," NRT 83
289
of this (Matt 11:5), it can also be inferred from John’s preaching in which judgment was
the predominant motif (Matt 3:7-12). John’s preaching echoed a number of OT Day of
the LORD texts foremost among which was Malachi 3.22 And this suggests the
possibility of another more important reason for John’s doubts: John may not only have
anticipated the coming of the Day of the LORD (i.e., judgment), he may have anticipated
the coming of the LORD himself.23 John’s description of the Coming One (Matt 3:11-
12; Mark 1:7-8; and Luke 3:15-18) in some respects would seem to confirm this. That is,
of all the figures whose coming John might reasonably have expected,
the figure which best meets all the elements o f John’s description is Yahweh—in fact,
the only figure who does so. Of the other alternatives, the Son of Man and the
Davidic Messiah each has a greater number of the elements than do the rest [i.e.,
Aaronic Messiah, Michael/Melchizedek, and Elijah-rerf/vmtf], but these two figures
still come a distant second to Yahweh. Therefore the preliminary conclusion derived
from a survey of the descriptive elements used to portray different expected figures
of judgment and restoration is that the figure which most closely matches John the
Baptist’s expected figure is Yahweh.
(1961): 821 [art. =805-821, 943-959]; Gundry, Matthew, 205; Meier, "John the Baptist,"
392-393. John’s doubts, however, may have begun much earlier: "As early as the
baptismal scene (3:13-15), John expresses an uneasiness with Jesus for his coming to be
baptized, rather than to execute his role as eschatological judge" (G. Yamasaki, John the
Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism o f Matthew’s Narrative [JSNTSup
167; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 107; cf. 95-98).
22J. A. Trumblower, "The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist,"
in The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, 28-41.
23J. Hughes, "John the Baptist: The Forerunner of God Himself," NovT 14
(1972): 191-218; P. G. Bretscher, "‘Whose Sandals’? (Matt 3:11)," JBL 86 (1967):
81-87.
24R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study

(JSNTSup 62; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 383, emphasis added. Webb, however,
concludes that Jesus is merely an agent since God is often portrayed as working in and
through agents (254-260) and since John the Baptist also ascribes to Christ some of the
characteristics of an agent (286). Jesus is indeed an agent; but he is not merely an agent.
Jesus is a divine agent; and thus Webb’s conclusion is not the only one possible.
290
Needless to say Christ’s answer to John, though veiled, does not disappoint on this very
score. It is not that an eschatological agent, the Messiah, has replaced YHWH but that
YHWH has come in an unexpected manner.
Although the time for doubt had passed, indicated ironically by Matthew with a
titular reference to "the Messiah," John nevertheless doubts and asks Jesus if he
really is "the Coming One" of eschatological expectation.26 Christ, as is often the
case, answers obliquely and allusively (i.e.,/or those who have ears to hear) rather than
by stating unequivocally, "Yes, I am the eschatological presence of God (Emmanuel) on
the Day of the LORD," or even "Yes, I am the Messiah." Nevertheless both answers, the
first more surprising than the second, are implicit in what follows. Jesus is unequivocally
the Messiah and the Coming One of eschatological expectation; but he is different from
and greater than what anyone had expected. He explains this difference and this greatness
25Cf. Carson, Matthew, 262; Verseput, The Rejection o f the Humble Messianic
King, 62-66. (Note that the title "Christ " has not been used since Matt 2:4 where,
significantly, it appeared in conjunction with an OT text that prophesied the birth the
Coming One in Bethlehem [Mic 5:2].) Something similar seems to be going on in Luke
7:19 where Luke refers to Jesus as "the Lord" (cf. I. H. Marshall, The Gospel o f Luke: A
Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 289).
Mai.3,1 may have been at the very root of, or at least one of the major
inspirations for, the use of the expression 6 &px6p£vo£ applied to Jesus Christ." So
E. Arens, The HAQON-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition: A Historico-Critical
Investigation (OBO 10; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 299; cf. M. Davies,
Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup 69; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992),
171. Other significant OT texts include Gen 49:10; Num 24:17; Ps 118:26; Isa 35:2-6;
40:3; 59:20; Dan 7:13; 9:25-27; Mic 5:2; Zech 9:9; 14:5. With reference to the future
coming of YHWH and the Day of the LORD see, Arens, The HAQON-Sayings in the
Synoptic Tradition, 276-280 (cf. 273-274). Arens thus outruns his own evidence when he
claims that 6 £px6pevoq is simply a circumlocution or terminus technicus for the Messiah
(288-300). The term may certainly have the Messiah as its subject, but the rich
theophanic connotations of the term should not be minimized.
291
first in terms of his deeds and secondly in terms of the identity of the very one who was
then doubting him.
In reference to his deeds Christ adduces two primary OT texts, both of which are
from the prophet Isaiah:
John has, according to 11.2, already heard of the ‘deeds of the Christ.’ What then is
the function of v. 5? Being a summary of what is already known to both John and the
reader, is it not superfluous? The answer is No, for the verse contains more than a
list of miracles: it also supplies a hermeneutical suggestion. Jesus’ language directs
one to Isaiah and is therefore an invitation to put Jesus’ ministry and Isaiah’s oracles
side by side. 7
Both OT texts that Jesus adduces are from Isaiah, both are eschatological, and both are
selectively cited without reference to judgment. But there the similarity ends. The first is
an OT YHWH text and not a messianic text at all; while the second is a messianic locus
classicus. The first text and its implied context read as follows:
They will see the glory of YHWH, the majesty of our God. . . . Behold! Your God
will come with vengeance; the recompense of God will come, and he will save you.
And the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will be opened,
and the lame will leap like a deer (Isa 35:2-6).
This text is of a piece with Isaiah 40, especially Isa 40:3 (cf. Matt 3:3), since Isaiah 35
and 40 both speak of God’s eschatological theophany on the Day of the LORD and
neither speaks a word of a Messiah. References to God’s eschatological coming may have
some bearing on John the Baptist’s question about the Coming One;28 while the
combination of "Behold!" and "come" in the context of divine judgment is a possible
point of contact with Mai 3:1, a verse that will be adduced by the Messiah in Matt 11:10.
27Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:243; cf. Verseput, The Rejection o f the
Humble Messianic King, 66-68. Not only the content but the form of 11:5 is reflective of
Isaiah’s oracles: so Dupont, "L’ambassade de Jean-Baptiste," 947-948; Davies and
Allison, Matthew, 2:242; Verseput, The Rejection o f the Humble Messianic King, 68-69.
28Cf. Hughes, "John the Baptist," passim.
292
It is not just that Jesus does the deeds of YHWH or that he functions as YHWH
(something easier said than done); and it is not just that Jesus representatively manifests
the eschatological presence or vindication of YHWH. It is that Jesus is implicitly
identifying himself as YHWH, the God of Isaiah. Not only are his deeds revelatory of his
messianic identity,29 they are revelatory of his divine identity.30
The second text that Christ adduces also comes from the prophet Isaiah. This text
in its entirety reads,
The Spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me, because YHWH has anointed me to bring
good news to the afflicted; he has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim
liberty to the captives, and freedom to the prisoners (Isa 61:1).
This text, unlike Isa 35:5-6, is messianic in its original context.31 The reference to
"sending" is a possible point of contact with Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 (cf. Matt 11:10)
where, respectively, the Angel of the LORD and the forerunner of YHWH are sent.
Notably the eschatological deeds of the Messiah catalogued in Matt 11:5 do not include
liberty for the captives or freedom for the prisoners. Surely this must have given John
29So, e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:245-246.

on
Jesus’ doing miraculously what only God was predicted and expected to
do . . . [is] an indication of Jesus’ deity" (Gundry, Matthew, 206). Cf. R. H. Gundry,
The Use o f the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the
Messianic Hope (NovTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 209, 224-225; and for a similar
christological use of OT YHWH texts in Paul, whose writings are earlier than the
gospels, see Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts, 164, "Paul’s application of Yahweh
texts to Christ, therefore, has significant christological implications. It implies that he
considered Jesus to be more than man. It suggests that he believed that Christ was in
some sense Yahweh himself, manifest as the M essiah” This means, in other words, that
for Paul Yahweh was manifest as an agent.
31Motyer, Isaiah, 499.
293
additional reason to doubt.32 Several more texts are also echoed in Matt 11:5. These
are Isa 26:19 (cf. 26:20-21), an OT YHWH text and not a messianic text, and Isa 29:18-
19, a text that recounts eschatological blessings and judgments (cf. Isa 61:1-2) without
direct reference to a Messiah or a theophany. The judgment mentioned in these texts, or
in their immediate contexts, is again carefully omitted by Christ.
When seen in the light of Isaiah’s oracles all that Christ has done in the
preceding chapters of Matthew’s gospel is shown to be the direct fulfillment of OT
prophecy.33 But what specifically do the deeds of the Messiah reveal about the identity
of the Messiah? They reveal that Jesus understood himself to be both the promised
Messiah and the eschatological coming and presence of YHWH.34 Jesus, in other
words, understood himself in terms of divine agency. He is both Son of David and
Emmanuel. He is "God with us" in the form of an agent. The idea that Jesus is a divine
agent is an occasion if not for stumbling then certainly for perplexity or doubt. Perhaps
that is why Jesus concludes this evaluation of his deeds with a blessing for all who accept
32Carson, Matthew, 261; Hagner, Matthew, 300-301. Cf. Matt 11:2 where it
was expressly pointed out that John was in prison.
33D. A. Carson, "Matthew ll:19b/Luke 7:35: A Test Case for the Bearing of Q
Christology on the Synoptic Problem," in Jesus o f Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on
the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. J. B. Green and M. Turner
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 133-134 [art. = 128-146]; Davies and Allison, Matthew,
2:242.
Contra J. Becker, Johannes der Taufer und Jesus von Nazareth (BibS 63;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 84, who first severs Matt 11:5 from
11:2-4 and then claims that the deeds catalogued in Matt 11:5, though they have temporal
or eschatological significance, are formulated impersonally and so reveal nothing about
the identity of the person performing them.
294
him on these rather surprising terms. Interestingly, his blessing contains a veiled but
ominous allusion to Isa 8:13-14, yet another OT YHWH text.35
Obviously quite a bit has just been drawn out of Matt 11:5, a single verse and a
not very explicit one at that (in spite of its allusive density). But when the verse is
understood in the way just suggested it is shown to be a verse that not only sets the stage
for what follows but that is strikingly confirmed by what follows.3**
In reference to the identity of John the Baptist Jesus again adduces two OT texts.
Neither this time comes from Isaiah but both are very closely related to Isaiah’s
eschatological expectations. Ostensibly the question being raised and answered by Christ
is, "Who is John?" But a second and more important question is actually in view.37
35
Verseput, The Rejection o f the Humble Messianic King, 74; cf. Carson,
Matthew, 262. In the NT this text, a text which portrays YHWH as a cause for stumbling
and offense, was combined with similar messianic texts (Ps 118:22; Isa 28:16; cf. Matt
21:42-44; Luke 2:34; 20:17-18; Rom 9:32-33; 1 Pet 2:4-8). Such usage derives from
Christ and reflects his self-understanding as a divine agent. On these texts more
generally, cf. M. Beider, "La pierre rejetee par les batisseurs”: Psaume 118,22-23 et son
emploi dans les traditions juives et dans le Nouveau Testament (EBib; Paris: Gabalda,
1996); and K. R. Snodgrass, "The Christological Stone Testimonia in the New
Testament" (Ph.D. diss., University of St. Andrews, 1973).
A reason for exercising caution presents itself at this juncture. If Jesus was
creative enough to envision a Day of the LORD without judgment, or with delayed
judgment, might he not also have been creative enough to envision a Day of the LORD
without the LORD? The use of Isa 61:2 at Qumran in reference to Melchizedek (probably
understood as Michael and the Angel of the LORD) suggests the possibility that for some
Jews some eschatological activities (deeds) attributed to YHWH in the OT could be
delegated and fulfilled by a non-divine agent. At Qumran such a view would certainly be
consistent with its heightened sense of God’s transcendence: i.e., as indicated in Figure 3
above there is a vertical as well as a horizontal dimension to the cosmic dualism found at
Qumran. It can be shown, however, that the NT handles the problem of God’s
transcendence (if it can be called a problem) in a completely different and novel way.
Melchizedek is merely on a par with Belial; Jesus, on the other hand, is on a par with
YHWH. Jesus, unlike Melchizedek, is a divine agent.
37Carson, Matthew, 263; Hagner, Matthew, 303, 305.
295
That question is, "Who is the Messiah?" The answer to this second question is implicit in
the answer to the first, but only for those who have ears to hear (Matt 11:15) and eyes to
read between the lines of the OT texts that Christ adduces.
"The goal of Jesus’ rhetorical crescendo is reached in the pronouncement of Matt
11:10. The importance of this affirmation is clearly revealed by the elaborate manner
with which it has been introduced. ”38 According to Jesus John is not only a prophet,
he is exceedingly greater than a prophet (Matt 11:9). He is greater than a prophet because
he is himself the object of one of the most important prophecies in the OT. But the role
ascribed to him in is that of preparing the way for someone else: in fact, for someone
much greater still (cf. Matt 3:11). John is thus an eschatological signpost. The one
signified, the one to whom John points, is the Messiah. In this light it is interesting to
note that neither of the two texts that the Messiah adduces to identify himself is messianic
in its original context.39 This alone is unusual enough to warrant a closer
investigation.
Christ’s definitive pronouncement in Matt 11:10 consists entirely of OT Angel of
the LORD texts. What is most striking about Christ’s use of Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 is
that he conflates them much in the same way that he had earlier conflated texts from
38Verseput, The Rejection o f the Humble Messianic King, 83, in reference to the
cataract of rhetorical questions (Matt 11:7-9) that precede Christ’s decisive scriptural
answer in Matt 11:10.
39Cf. M. M. Faierstein, "Why Do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come
First," JBL 100 (1981): 75-86; J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from
Qumran Cave 4," in Essays on the Semitic Background o f the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 137 [art. = 127-160]; idem, "More about Elijah Coming First,"
JBL 104 (1985): 295-296; Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 270; Hughes, "John the Baptist,"
212; J. A. T. Robinson, "Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection," NTS 4 (1957-
58): 268-269 [art. =263-281]. Contra, inter alia, D. C. Allison, "Elijah Must Come
First," JBL 103 (1984): 256-258; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 75-76, n. 124.
296
Isaiah to explain his deeds (Matt 11:5; cf. Isa 35:5-6 and Isa 61: l).40 This conflation
of Angel of the LORD texts immediately suggests two distinct but interrelated conceptual
frameworks both o f which are prerequisite to a proper understanding of the implied
identity of the Messiah. The first conceptual framework derives from Exod 23:20 and,
more broadly, the whole exodus and wilderness narrative of the OT. This framework
involves two characters (loosely so-called since one of them is the nation Israel) who may
for the sake of simplicity and ease of future reference be represented as follows:
40Though Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 were related in synagogue use and Rabbinic
tradition it is difficult to know whether this usage dates back to the first century. This
contra the oft-cited but rather dated treatment of J. Mann, The Bible as Read and
Preached in the Old Synagogue, vol. 1, The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Genesis and
Exodus (New York: KTAV, 1971 [1940]), 479. The important thing to note, however, is
that nowhere else were the two texts conflated as here by Christ. So rightly
W. Michaelis, "656q, TDNT, 5:70, n. 96 [art. =5:42-114]; cf. K. Stendahl, The
School o f St. Matthew and Its Use o f the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968
[1954]), 50.
What Christ has done with Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 is thus without parallel. The
first half of the conflation in Matt 11:10 is identical to the LXX of Exod 23:20. The
second half follows the MT of Mai 3:1, most likely because the LXX translator missed
the intertextual echo of Isa 40:3. Thus the LXX incorrectly understands H3B in Mai 3:1
as a Qal and renders it with iiapteyeroa rather than as a Piel and rendering it with
KataoKEuaoei (NT) or o x o k d o a (Aquila) or tiucooKEutioEi (Symmachus) or dxoipdoet
(Theodotion). See Gundry, Use o f the Old Testament, 11-12; Stendahl, The School o f St.
Matthew, 49-54; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 249-250. As a result of this and other
considerations Stendahl, The School o f St. Matthew, 52, notes that "the quotation from
Malachi is the only quotation common to the Synoptics which clearly shows influence
from the Hebrew text." This is a minor point, to be sure, but one that is consistent with
the view set forth at the beginning of Chapter 2 that the NT derives its divine agency
paradigm from the Hebrew and not the Greek OT in spite of its heavy dependence on the
LXX.
297
GOD
sends"
ANGEL Israel
guides
Figure 5. The Exodus Forerunner Framework.
The Angel of the LORD in this framework is a manifestation of YHWH himself and not
a created being. He is "sent" by God to guard Israel along the way and to lead Israel into
the Promised Land. Before elaborating on the possible significance of this framework it
will be helpful to set forth the others.
The second conceptual framework that is in view derives from Mai 3:1. It also
involves two characters and may be represented as follows:
GOD
sends
> Prophet ANGEL

prepares way
Figure 6. The Malachi Forerunner Framework.
In distinction from the exodus framework the forerunner in Malachi’s framework is a

prophet (specifically identified as Elijah in Mai 3:23). The Angel of the Covenant, or
Angel of the LORD, is again YHWH himself and not a created being—but he is now
298
shown to be following one of his people, a prophet, rather than leading his people as at
the exodus. (The significance of this change will become evident shortly.)
A third framework, that of Isaiah, must also be included here: in part because it
is intimately associated with Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 in the OT;41 in part because it
is helpful in understanding the aforesaid role reversal in Malachi; and in part because
Matthew has made use of it earlier in his narrative to explain what Christ is now
explaining in Matt 11:10, namely, the eschatological role of John the Baptist in relation
to the Messiah (Matt 3:3; citing Isa 40:3). The characters in Isaiah’s forerunner
framework may be represented as follows:
GOD
sends
> Prophet > People YHWH

exhorts prepare way
Figure 7. The Isaiah Forerunner Framework.
Once it is understood that the enigmatic "voice" crying in the wilderness (Isa 40:3 LXX)
is the voice of an eschatological prophet, it is immediately evident that Malachi’s
forerunner framework is essentially Isaiah’s framework minus the preparatory activity of
the people.42 Malachi has modified Isaiah’s framework by suppressing the preparatory
41Cf. D. C. Allison, The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q (Harrisburg, Penn.:

Trinity Press International, 2000), 39.
42Cf. J. Marcus, The Way o f the Lord: Christological Exegesis o f the Old
Testament in the Gospel o f Mark (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 98. Strict
accuracy requires acknowledgement of the fact that Isaiah’s framework, unlike Exod
299
role of God’s covenant-violating people and highlighting the preparatory role of a single
eschatological prophet. It is in Malachi’s streamlined form that Isaiah’s framework is
taken up in the NT. Malachi also gives the eschatological prophet a name (Mai
3:23), a name not found in Isaiah, but this is not a modification of Isaiah’s eschatological
framework. His reference to YHWH as Angel of the LORD is also not a modification of
Isaiah’s framework since the Angel of the LORD in Mai 3:1 is YHWH and since Isaiah
also refers to YHWH as Angel of the LORD in a context where the exodus is in view
(Isa 63:9; cf. Exod 23:20).44
With this important background in mind the characters in the NT forerunner
framework may now be set forth as follows:
GOD
sends
> Prophet MESSIAH

prepares way
figure 8. The NT Forerunner Framework (Three Characters).
23:20 and Mai 3:1, is not explicitly a "forerunner" framework. God’s role as sender is
implicit in the fact that a prophet has come; and the prophet acts as a forerunner in the
sense that his prophetic activity precedes the eschatological coming of YHWH to lead a
New Exodus.
43Cf. Luke 1:76, "And you, child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;
for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways."
^N ote again that only in the prophecies of Isaiah and Malachi are references to
the Angel of the LORD found where the genitive in construct is not HW or
Isaiah uses 0*3B (Isa 63:9) to emphasize God’s saving presence with his people; Malachi,
on the other hand, uses n*"Q to emphasize the ethical distance of that same people from
God.
300
The prophetic forerunner in the NT is clearly John the Baptist, and the one who follows
him is Jesus the Messiah. Equally clearly the dominant OT framework behind Matt 11:10
is Malachi’s framework and, therefore, the dominant OT subtext in Matt 11:10 is Mai
3:1.45 This is consistent with the fact that John’s reference to "the Coming One”
echoes Mai 3:1 (cf. Matt 11:3); with the fact that Christ himself cites Mai 3:1 (Matt
11:10); with the fact that it is a single eschatological prophet rather than the people of
God who prepare his way; and with the fact that Christ expressly identifies John the
Baptist as "Elijah" (Matt 11:14), a name that can only derive from the larger context of
Malachi’s forerunner framework (cf. Mai 3:23).
But what is the point of bringing Exod 23:20 into the picture when it differs so
greatly from Mai 3:1 and its dominant framework? And what is the significance of the
fact that Mai 3:1 has only two characters in view while the NT has three (i.e., the
Messiah in the NT is not only a divine manifestation or theophany but is personally
45Carson, Matthew, 264; Gnilka, Matthausevengelium, 414-415; cf. J. A.

Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1981-
1985), 1:674; J. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1989), 337; H. Schurmann,
Das Lukasevangelium (vol. 1; HTKNT; Freiberg: Herder, 1969), 416-418; W. Wiefel,
Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1988), 150.
Contra D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994-1996),
1:672-675; idem, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament
Christology (JSNTSup 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 113-114, 322-323; F. W.
Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel (rev. ed.;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 166; Gundry, Use o f the Old Testament, 11, n. 2; cf.
U. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and its
Basis in the Biblical Tradition (SBT; Naperville, 111.: Allenson, 1963), 81. These scholars
argue that Exod 23:20 rather than Mai 3:1 is dominant and that the primary point is that
the forerunner goes before the people to prepare them for God’s coming.
According to A. Polag, Die Christologie der Logienquelle (WMANT 45;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), 159, the conflation of Exod 23:20 and
Mai 3:1 betrays traces of a Moses typology. This is highly unlikely in the present context
as Moses is neither integral nor necessary to any of the forerunner frameworks set forth
above (cf. Figures 5-8).
301
distinct from God the Father)? The answer to both of these questions is the same. The
point of conflating Exod 23:20 with Mai 3:1 is precisely that it adds a third character to a
framework that originally had only two. The conflation changes a self-referential
statement by YHWH about his own future coming on the Day of the LORD (Mai 3:1)
into an address by YHWH to a second person*6 YHWH’s forerunner is now the
forerunner of that second person—and it is this second person and not YHWH (the
speaker) who is coming on the Day of the LORD.47
Who is this second person? To say that he is the Messiah is a truism. One must
immediately go on to ask, Who is the Messiah and in what sense is he the eschatological
fulfillment of the promised coming and presence of YHWH (Mai 3:1; cf. Isa 40:3)? Jesus
had already hinted at the possibility that he was divine in his application of OT YHWH
texts to himself in Matt 11:5-6. Now in Matt 11:10 he turns up the volume.48 What
can be heard is arguably this: the second person whose way has been prepared by
YHWH*s forerunner is a second divine person. That is, instead of YHWH coming
suddenly to his temple under the titles "Lord" and "Angel of the LORD" a second divine
^"D adurch wird aus dem Spruch Gottes eine Anrede and den Christus, der als
praexistenter bei Gott ist" (A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthaus: Seine Sprache, sein
Ziel, seine Selbstandigkeit [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948], 363).
Am
It is not quite accurate to say that "Jesus has replaced Yahweh" in Malachi’s
eschatological prophecy (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:250) or that John the Baptist is
the forerunner of Jesus and not of God (Hill, Matthew, 199). Without qualification such
statements suggest a false disjunction. They suggest that Jesus is not divine and that the
divine agency paradigm of the OT is not prerequisite to a proper understanding of the
implied identity of the Messiah. John the Baptist can certainly replace Elijah, and can
appear in the spirit and power of Elijah, for the simple reason that he and Elijah are both
prophets. But who can replace God? Who can appear in the Spirit and Power of God
except his equal?
48Cf. Hays, Echoes o f Scripture, 30, where volume is used as a technical term
in the detection and assessment of OT allusions.
302
person is coming to his temple under these same titles. The conflation of Exod 23:20
with Mai 3:1 has resulted in the bifurcation of one divine person (YHWH/the Lord/the
Angel of the LORD) into two divine persons (YHWH and the Lord/the Angel of the
LORD). But this bifurcation does not negate or diminish the divine status of the second
person. The Messiah is the Lord and Angel of the LORD of Mai 3:1. He is God with us
in the form of an agent. But he is not just God with us in the form of an agent—for such
were many of the theophanies in the OT; he is a second divine person with us in the form
AQ
of an agent—something new and incomparably greater than anything found in the OT.
The unstated assumption in what has just been said is that Christ’s citation of Mai
3:1a entails an implicit christological (ie)application of Mai 3:lb-c such that Jesus is
identified as the Lord and Angel of the LORD whose coming was prophesied by Malachi.
But could one not argue that the omission of explicit reference to Jesus as the Angel of
the LORD of Mai 3:lb-c was deliberate and intended to preclude precisely such an
49The apparent distinction between YHWH and the Angel of the LORD in the
texts examined in Chapter 2 above did not amount to a real personal distinction. Christ’s
unique and unparalleled conflation of two such texts, however, does seem to indicate a
real personal distinction. There are OT texts in which the Angel of the LORD seems to
be more distinct from YHWH than in the texts examined in Chapter 2 (e.g.,
1 Chronicles 21; Zech 3:1-8). Interestingly, however, it is not these texts but texts in
which the Angel of the LORD is divine that are adduced by Christ.
With reference to the distinction of persons, the genius of Christ’s conflation can
be seen more clearly if one supposes for a moment that he had cited Mai 3:1a unaltered:
"Behold! I am sending my messenger and he will prepare the way before me. " In this
case the implication would either be that John the Baptist was the forerunner of YHWH
and that YHWH’s coming was still imminent (Mai 3: la understood as indirect discourse);
or that Christ was God without qualification and had himself sent John to be his own
forerunner. Neither of these alternatives would have been acceptable. Not only was God
actually present in the person of the Messiah, the Messiah was personally distinct from
the transcendent God (i.e., the Father). Only the conflation allows for distinctions as
subtle as these to be made.
303
identification?50 On the contrary. In the first place, both Mai 3:1 and Matt 11:10 have
two characters in view one of whom is a prophet. This means that Jesus’ identification of
John the Baptist, a prophet, as the first character of Mai 3:1 and as his own forerunner
entails that he himself is the second figure of Mai 3:1.51 Christ’s use of Mai 3:1 can
have no other significance than this, and the fact that the second figure happens to be
divine and is called Lord and Angel of the LORD in Mai 3:1 in no way precludes this
implicit identificaiton. In the second place, the OT citations in Matthew typically do
imply their larger contexts (cf. Christ’s reference to Mai 3:23 in Matt 11:14) and there is
no good reason to suppose otherwise here.52 And in the third place, the fact that Exod
23:20 and Mai 3:1 are both pivotal OT divine agency texts seems very difficult to ignore.
It is not just that Christ has replaced YHWH in Mai 3:1a, although this in itself is quite
50Perhaps, one might argue, this omission is parallel to the deliberate omission,
even suppression, of all reference to judgment in the OT texts that Christ adduces. (I.e.,
Christ is not here to judge and his identity is not to be explained with reference to the
Angel o f the LORD of Mai 3:lb-c.) But Christ’s OT citations do not negate or ignore
judgment, they only postpone it to his (not YHWH’s!) future return. And there is
certainly an ominous hint of eschatological non-blessing, if not outright judgment, in
Christ’s beatitude in Matt 11:6. Cf. also the judgment described in Matt 11:20-24. This
description follows a reference to the deeds of Wisdom in Matt 11:19, a reference that
forms a natural inclusion with the deeds of the Messiah in Matt 11:2 (Carson, "Matthew
ll:19b/Luke 7:35," 130, 134; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:235, 264).
51At the more purely literary level, and for wont of a better analogy, one might
imagine a scene in a Sir Arthur Conan Doyle story in which the story’s most eminent
character is identified as follows, and where the character identification, in spite of being
implicit and somewhat mysterious, is instantly made by anyone familiar with the requisite
literary canon: "A doctor by the name o f Jofm H. Watson will soon enter the room,
followed rather suddenly by a man wearing an invemess cape and a deerstalker hat and
smoking a calabash pipe. . . . ”
52Cf. Gundry, Use o f the Old Testament, 205-208, esp. 208, "Dodd’s main
thesis that NT quotations tend to be drawn from OT contexts which are exploited as a
whole by various NT authors is remarkably confirmed and is found to hold true even in
the allusive quotations."
304
remarkable; it is that Christ, an agent, has replaced YHWH in two of the most important
divine agency texts in the OT. To argue from this that the Angel of the LORD is of no
Christological significance seems not only counterintuitive but positively
counterproductive.
Three OT frameworks were diagrammed above. Christ stands formally in the
place of Israel in one of them (Exod 23:20) and in the place of YHWH in the others (Mai
3:1; cf. Isa 40:3). This suggests that Christ may, in the first place, have seen himself and
his mission prefigured by the nation Israel.53 It also suggests that Christ may have
seen his divine identity and relationship to God prefigured by the Angel of the
LORD.54 If so, Christ’s divine status vis-a-vis Mai 3:1 (cf. Isa 40:3) is consistent
53The exodus framework suggests the existence of a Promised Land/Kingdom of

God typology (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:249) that nicely complements and fulfills
the New Exodus typology of Isaiah that has been taken up in the NT. It is good news that
God’s people have been led out of their bondage in slavery and exile but they need some
better place to go. That better place is the Kingdom of God, and it is Jesus who leads
them and who prepares a place for them there (Exod 23:20; cf. John 14:2-6). More
importantly, the exodus framework underscores the Israel/Jesus typology so significant to
the Son of God christology of the NT. This typology, which originally derives from
Christ’s own filial consciousness, is clearly present in Matthew’s gospel (cf. Christ’s
baptism and temptations in the wilderness). Is it not possible that just such an
understanding on Christ’s part enabled him to interpret the promise to Israel in Exod
23:20 as promise to himself as true Israel? If so one can trace a great parabola through
the OT canon: i.e., as a promise once made to Jacob (Israel) was fulfilled in the nation,
so now a promise made to the nation is fulfilled in Christ, the true Israel (cf. n. 100 in
Chapter 2 above). In any case, it is clearly by means of the second person singular
pronoun in Exod 23:20 whose original referent was Israel that Christ turns YHWH’s self-
referential statement in Mai 3:1 into a direct address to a second person, namely,
himself.
^ I n the case of Israel it is not possible for the prefigurement to go beyond

typology. (I.e., an individual cannot actually be a nation.) In the case of the Angel of the
LORD, however, it is possible that the prefigurement goes beyond typology to identity
since Christ and the Angel of the LORD are both individual persons (cf. J. B. DeYoung,
"The Function of Malachi 3.1 in Matthew 11.10: Kingdom Reality as the Hermeneutic of
Jesus," in The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, 73 [art. =66-91], where it is argued
305
with the divine status that is already implied in the description of Christ’s deeds in Matt
11:5-6. The combination of OT YHWH texts (Isa 35:5-6; cf. Isa 8:13-14; 26:19) with an
OT Messiah text (Isa 61:1) results in a hypostatic union, so to speak, of agency and deity
texts. The implication is that the Messiah understood himself not only as an agent but as
a divine agent; and the subsequent conflation of OT Angel of the LORD texts in Matt
11:10 does not introduce so much as underscore this implication since the Angel of the
LORD is the paradigmatic divine agent in the OT. As already noted, however, the
conflation of Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 goes beyond the divine agency paradigm of the
OT. The Messiah is not just God manifest as an agent—he is a second divine person
manifest as an agent.
God with us as an agent is one thing (cf. the OT). But Two Powers in heaven are
quite another. Is there any evidence that the Angel of the LORD in the OT is a second
divine person or must a second person be read into these texts on the basis of some
extraneous presupposition? (Or perhaps on the basis of some not so extraneous
presupposition if that presupposition can be shown to derive from elsewhere in the
canonical OT.) Does the conflation of Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 create a second divine
person ex nihilo, so to speak, or does it only make a second divine person explicit? Are
there any canonical antecedents for what Christ has done here?
Though the exegesis in Chapter 2 above did not finally point in such a direction
it is not inconceivable that two divine persons could be read out of Exod 23:20 and Mai
3:1. Perhaps a distinction, even a distinction expressed in terms of persons, could be
that the Angel of the LORD is the preincamate Christ). Suffice it to say here that there is
a consistency and a continuity between the way God manifests himself as an agent in the
OT and the way that he manifests himself as an agent in the NT. In this sense the Angel
of the LORD may be a prefigurement of Christ even if it is premature to say that he is
the preincamate Christ.
306
made between God transcendent and God manifest: between God who sends his angelic-
theophanic presence and the angelic-theophanic presence that is sent (cf. Exod 23:20). Or
perhaps the existence of a second divine person could be inferred from YHWH’s third
person speech regarding the Angel of the LORD.55 Such third person speech is found
in both Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:lb-c, though this is still once removed from the second
person address found in Matt 11:10. It may, however, be more fruitful to look elsewhere
and to suppose that Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 are being interpreted in the light of other
OT text(s) where a distinction of (divine) persons is more clearly evident.
Such a text is Ps 110:1. This text, quite possibly the most important OT text in
the NT, is cited by Christ later in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 22:44; cf. Mark
12:36).56 Did Christ already have it in mind in Matt 11:10? It is possible that he did.
Not only are there two persons in Ps 110:1, there is a direct second person address by
one of these persons to the other: "YHWH said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I
55Cf. also the second person singular pronouns used of Israel in Exodus 23 that
may have facilitated Christ’s application of Exod 23:20 to himself. If the OT was
interpreted in this way by Christ it would be very similar to the way in which the authors
of the NT read two divine persons out of OT texts on the basis of a change in divine
names (see below). In each case this would be to go beyond the intention of the OT
authors who presumably did not have two divine persons in view with each shift in
grammatical person or change in divine names.
5<*Cf. M. Gourgues, A la droite de Dieu: Resurrection de Jesus et actualisation

du Psaume 110,1 dans le Nouveau Testament (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1978); D. M. Hay,
Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1973); M. Hengel, "‘Sit at My Right Hand!’ The Enthronement of Christ at
the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110:1," chap. in Studies in Early Christology
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 119-225, originally published as "‘Setze dich zu
meiner Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110,1," in Le
Trone de Dieu, ed. M. Philonenko (WUNT 69; Tubingen: Mohr, 1993), 108-194;
Marcus, The Way o f the Lord, 130-146.
307
put your enemies under your feet’."57 This second person could be understood as a
second divine person. In the first place, he is David’s Lord;5® and in the second place
he shares the very throne and unique sovereignty of God himself.59 Psalm 110:1 thus
constitutes
an important starting-point for early Christology. Here, in a single statement, God
and Jesus are both thought to be addressed as ‘Lord’, thereby catapulting the
resurrected one into an almost unprecedented proximity to God. This interpretation of
Psalm 110:1 is only exceeded by the Johannine corpus in John 1:18.
The importance of this verse is that it is a single verse that simultaneously affirms
Christ’s divine status and his distinction from God the Father.*’1 Neither Exod 23:20
nor Mai 3:1 does this until after they are conflated.
Another text where a distinction of (divine) persons is more clearly evident than
Mai 3:1 or Exod 23:20 taken in isolation is Dan 7:13-14. This text, which was also used
by Christ to define his unique identity (Matt 24:30; Mark 13:26), is "the most important
57Cf. Ps 2:7, an important OT "Son" text, where YHWH also directly addresses
the Messiah.
58David’s Lord in the Psalms is clearly YHWH (Pss 8:2, 10; 97:5; 114:7;
135:5; 136:3; 147:5).
59Bauckham, God Crucified, 28-31; Hengel, "The Enthronement of Christ,"
119-225. That Christ understood this participation in the unique sovereignty of God as
absolute rather than partial and by degrees is indicated by his claim to have "all authority
in heaven (!) and on earth" (Matt 28:18; cf. 11:27). Cf. Bauckham, God Crucified, 31-
32.
60Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, xiv.
61Cf. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 159, "the image [of Christ’s session]
affirmed supreme exaltation without calling into question the glory and sovereignty of
God the Father. Jesus’ elevation was thereby defined in terms of unique proximity to
God, and Father and Son were carefully distinguished. The phrase did not resolve the
potential problems of ditheism or subordinationism, but it permitted Christians to confess
faith in the absoluteness of Jesus before they had ‘solved’ such issues."
308
parallel" to Ps 110:l.62 In fact, Christ not only cites Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13 singly
but actually conflates them in his answer to the High Priest (Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62).
There is no second person address in Dan 7:13-14. But there is a second person. This
second person, one like a Son of Man, is highly exalted. There may even be hints of
divinity in the fact that the Son of Man shares God’s unique sovereignty (cf. Dan 6:26;
7:27) in a manner that closely resembles the sovereignty possessed by David’s Lord (Ps
110:1). 63 It has recently been argued that the Son of Man in Daniel is an angelic
figure.64 If this is correct, which is by no means certain, there may be a better angel
with which to associate him than Michael. That angel is the Angel of the LORD (cf.
Apoc. Abr. which identifies the Danielic Son of Man with the Angel of the LORD but
expressly distinguishes this supremely glorious angelic figure from Michael).66 Note,
for example, the references to God "sending his angel" in Dan 3:28 and 6:22 (cf. Gen
62Hengel, "Sit at My Right Hand," 181; cf. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 26.
63Hengel, "Sit at My Right Hand," 181-189; cf. Blackburn, Theios AnSr, 154-
157.
^ E .g ., J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish

Matrix o f Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 82-83; idem, Daniel (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 304-310, esp. 310; C. Colpe, "6 u(6? xou dcvOpducoo,"
TDNT 8:421 [art. =400-477]; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, "Son of Man," DDD, 1512
[art. = 1510-1520]; C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study o f Apocalyptic in Judaism
and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 182; Segal, Paul the Convert, 41.
Cf. B. Chilton, "(The) Son of (the) Man, and Jesus," in Authenticating the Words o f
Jesus, ed. B. chilton and C. A. Evans (New Testament Tools and Studies 28,1; Leiden:
Brill, 1999), 259-287, esp., 274-287.
65Hannah, Michael and Christ, 156-157, is probably correct to argue against the
identification of the Danielic Son of Man with Michael. But at the same time he
overlooks the possible connections between the Son of Man and the Angel of the LORD
in Daniel (see below) as well as the probable connections between the Son of Man and
the Angel of the LORD in the NT (see Chapter 4 passim). In particular, Hannah (146) is
working under the mistaken assumption that "no NT author ever cites Ex. 23:20-21."
309
24:7, 42; Exod 23:20); the reference to (theophanic) clouds in Dan 7:13 (cf. Exod 13:21;
14:19, 24; etc.); the combination of "Behold!" and "coming" in Dan 7:13 (cf. Mai
3: l);66 and the reference to the "Prince of the Host" in Dan 8:11 (cf. Josh 5:14-15).
But these parallels are, at best, merely suggestive. More to the point may be the fact that
the figure in Dan 7:13-14 is not said to be a man or a son of man but like a son of man.
A natural deduction from this simile is that the figure is not a human being; and a
plausible supposition is that he is an angel, perhaps even the Angel of the LORD in view
of the fact that he shares God’s unique sovereignty and divine authority (££o\xria) and
may even share God’s worship (crimp Xaxpeuouoa). The point of this is not so much to
argue that the Danielic Son of Man is an angel—especially since the Messianic
interpretation dominates in the NT and in the intertestamental literature~as it is to argue
that connections to the Angel of the LORD were close at hand and may well have
facilitated the amalgamation of texts and figures that one finds in the NT.
Texts such as Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13-14, especially when taken in conjunction
with evidence suggesting that the Messiah may have understood himself to be God
manifest as an agent (Matt 11:5; cf. Isa 35:5-6; 61:1), could have provided the
hermeneutical warrant for conflating Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 to highlight the existence
of this second divine person. The fact that both Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 were key OT
divine agency texts would not have been an impediment to this understanding and may
even have preceded it. Also not an impediment to this understanding is the fact that the
^T his link between Dan 7:13 and Mai 3:1 is closer in the Greek than in the
Hebrew. The terms in the MT of Dan 7:13 are V1K and TOTH. These are synonyms,
respectively, for 71371 and It'D in Mai 3:1. In the LXX, however, iSob and a verb from
the root Ep%ojxai are used in both verses (fjpxpco in Dan 7:13 and Epxexoa in Mai 3:1).
Theodotion uses iSoo and the participle Epgbfievoq in Dan 7:13 (cf. Matt 11:3).
310
title "Lord" (p “W=K<)pioq) appears in both Ps 110:1 and Mai 3:l . 67 David’s Lord is
the Lord and Angel o f the LORD of Mai 3:1. Could this be the ultimate significance of
the name "Emmanuel”? Could Jesus be called "God with us" because he is God?
The first and final authority for seeing two divine persons in the OT, and the
supremely creative Genius behind the christological monotheism of the NT, is Christ. But
to what extent does the rest of the NT follow his hermeneutical lead into the wilderness
of nascent trinitarianism? Paul, for example gives evidence in Phil 2:10-11 that he saw
two divine persons in a context where the OT had envisioned only one. Paul understood
the different divine names in Isa 45:23-25 (m!T=iaSpio?; and □,n‘?»=6edq) as referring
to God (the Father) and the Lord (Jesus Christ).68 Paul is also so bold in 1 Cor 8:6 as
to find two divine persons in the Shema (the Shema!) on the same basis.69
The NT usage that is closest to Christ’s handling of Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 in
Matt 11:10, however, is found in Mark’s citation of Isa 40:3 in an Angel of the LORD
context (on which see the following subsection) and John’s citation of Zech 12:10 (John
70
19:37). u In this last instance another self-referential statement by YHWH is
transformed into a statement about the Messiah as the direct result of a change in the
67Note as well the use of the title "Lord" in other key Angel of the LORD texts:
e.g., Josh 5:14; Judg 6:13, 15; 13:8; cf. Gen 18:3, 27, 30, 31, 32.
68Cf. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, 114; Capes, Old Testament
Yahweh Texts, 157-160.
69Note further that this reference to Jesus as a second divine person (i.e., as
Lord) occurs in the context of a sustained argument against idolatry the first premise of
which is monotheism. Either Paul did not see the irony or his monotheism, and that of
his readers, had already been redefined to include Christ within the identity of the one
Jewish God.
70Cf. Christ’s allusion to Zech 12:10 in Matt 24:30 as well as the citation of
Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7.
311
pronouns. No longer is it "they will look upon me (YHWH) whom they have pierced"
but "they will look upon him (the Messiah) whom they have pierced."71 There is no
obvious conflation of texts in the NT treatment of Zech 12:10; nevertheless, in addition
to the christological change in pronouns it is certainly interesting to note that it is YHWH
(the Angel of the LORD) who experiences affliction in Isa 63:9 but the Suffering Servant
in Isaiah S3.72 The NT authors interpret the OT in a Christological manner reflexively
and unselfconsciously. They interpret the OT as if the existence of a second divine
person, as if the amalgamation of OT YHWH texts with OT Messiah (and possibly
71Having just referred to Zech 12:10, which comes from an OT text plot of
massive christological significance (Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 64-67), one more
point is worth noting. The verse that follows Matt 11:10 may contain an allusion to Zech
12:8 (cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:251). If so it is a very revealing allusion
indeed. For in Zech 12:8 an eschatological likeness is drawn between the house of David
and the Angel of the LORD (understood in context to be God) who had led the exodus.
This resembles what one finds here in Matthew where the Messiah is both Son of David
and Angel of the LORD in the context of two exodus-related texts (Exod 23:20; Mai
3:1). The presence of an allusion to Zech 12:8 seems too good to be true, and perhaps it
is. If an allusion is present it could also hark back to Isa 59:22, the verse immediately
prior to Isa 61:1 which Christ cites in Matt 11:5. Nevertheless, Zech 12:8 may still have
relevance to the christology of the NT since it may have been a familiar text coming, as
it does, from an OT text-plot whose christological significance was not lost on Christ or
the authors of the NT.
72Cf. A. Fuillet, "Une triple preparation du sacerdoce du Christ dans l’Ancien
Testament. (Melchisedek, le Messie du Ps 110, le Serviteur d’ls 53). Introduction a la
doctrine sacerdotale de l’Epitre aux Hebreux," Divinitas 28 (1984): 125 [art. = 103-136].
He suggests, following Lamarche, that Zech 12:10 distinctly echoes Isaiah 53. Cf.
P. Lamarche, Zacharie IX-X1V: Structure litteraire et messianisme (Ebib; Paris: Gabalda,
1961), 127-147, esp. 136-137 and 144-147. Though the reading ("upon me") in Zech
12:10 has been contested, primarily on philosophical/theological grounds, the internal and
external evidence overwhelmingly supports it (Lamarche, Zecharie, 82; cf. Meyers and
Meyers, Zechariah, 336; Smith, Micah-Malachi, 276, n. 10.a., 277).
312
Suffering Servant) texts,73 and as if the transference to Christ of what the OT says
about YHWH, were self-evident and in no need of justification. This makes sense if such
an understanding were primitive and widely held in the early church. But it makes even
more sense if the understanding were divinely authorized by a Messiah who not only
approved of it but gave specific examples of how it was to be done.
The Identity of "the Son of God"

(Mark 1:1-3)
The Gospel of Mark is a "vivid and fast-paced" narrative written in a disarmingly

"simple and unsophisticated" style.74 Because its christology is understated it is easily
underrated. On closer examination, however, Mark’s christology turns out to be both
creative and profound:
The sheer humanity of the Markan portraiture catches the eye of the most careless
reader; and yet, it is but half seen if it is not perceived that this Man of Sorrows is
also a Being of supernatural origin and dignity, since He is the Son of God. . . .
Mark’s christology is tLbigh christology, as high as any in the New Testament, not
excluding that of John.
73E.g., the combination of Isa 35:5-6 and Isa 61:1 in reference to the same
figure. Note further that in Matt 11:5 Jesus’ healings are said inter alia to fulfil Isa
35:5-6 while earlier in Matt 8:14-17 these same healings were said to fulfil Isa 53:4. The
most common way of putting the pieces to this christological puzzle together is by
assuming that God has sent an agent in and through whom he effects his will. But it is
also possible to argue that God has come as an agent and that the pieces fit together
better with this assumption.
74Hurtado, Mark, 1, 11.
75V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (2d ed.; London: Macmillan,
1966), 121. Cf. Caird, New Testament Theology, 282 (cf. 281-285; 343) who argues that
Mark’s christology is higher than that of Luke. In each case, however, it might be better
to speak in terms of explicitness rather than height.
313
Jesus’ presence is, for Mark, the prophesied coming of YHWH on the Day o f the LORD.
Jesus is God manifest—ziof absolutely but as an agent—and it will be seen that "Son of
God" is the Markan descriptor that most fully encapsulates this profound reality .76
The title Son of God "represents the most fundamental element in Mark’s
Christology. "77 For this reason Mark introduces the title early—in fact in the very first
line o f the programmatic prologue to his gospel.7 8 The title, however, is polyvalent
7 6 Cf. Mark 1:1, 11; 5:7; 9:7; 14:61; 15:39.
Mark, 120; cf., e.g., Cullmann, Christology, 294; R. A. Guelich,

7 7 Taylor,
Mark 1-8:26 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1989), 10.
78The text-critical problem at this point is well-known but worth belaboring a bit
due to its relationship to the present thesis. Internal theological arguments for the
appropriateness of utou Oeou in the opening line of Mark’s gospel are compelling in light
of Mark 15:39, with which it forms an inclusion, and the overall importance of the title
to Mark’s christology. The manuscript evidence is solidly in support of the title’s
originality. According to B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament
(Third Edition) (Stuttgart: UBS, 1975), 73, "the combination of B D W al in support of
uiou fleou is extremely strong." This extremely strong combination can be strengthened
by explicitly adducing A f ^ f ^ 33 as important collateral witnesses of the Ceasarean and
Alexandrian text types and by noting that 6 28 are, corrected or uncorrected, inferior
Caesarean mss. Again, according to Metzger, n[t]he absence of uiou fleou in M 0 28c al
may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the
nomina sacra" (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 73). That is, homoioteleuton is likely
given that the original text at this point contained a series of six genitives among which
were the four abbreviations IT XT TT 0Y (Guelich, Mark, 6 , n. c; Gundry, Mark, 33,
39).
For these and other reasons u io u O eou continues to be accepted by the majority of
commentators: e.g., H. Anderson, The Gospel o f Mark (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1976),
67; E. K. Broadhead, Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel o f Mark
(JSNTSup 175; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 120; C. E. B. Cranfield, The
Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 38;
Cullman, Christology, 294; Frenschkowski, Offenbarung und Epiphanie, 2:156;
A. Globe, "The Caesarean Omission of the Phrase ’Son of God’ in Mark 1:1," HTR 75
(1982): 209-218; Hurtado, Marie, 15, 23; P. Lamarche, "’Commencement de l’dvangile
de J€sus, Christ, Fils de Dieu’ (Me 1,1)," NRT 90 (1970): 1032-1033 [art. = 1024-1036];
W. L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974),
314
and in need of explanation or delimitation since it could conceivably refer to a number of
different figures. 79 But it is hardly correct to say that
Mark does not indicate explicitly what he means by calling Jesus the "Son of God,"
nor does he indicate when this status was conferred upon him. This makes the
interpretation of his Christology a somewhat precarious matter, as even the most
recent investigations provide ample witness. In the early church, this Gospel could be
read by adoptionists who believed that it was at his baptism that Jesus became the
Son of God, as well as by the orthodox, who believed that Jesus had always been the
Son. 80
41, n. 7; C. S. Mann, Mark (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1986), 194; R. Schneck,
Isaiah in the Gospel o f Mark I-VIII (Vallejo, Calif.: BIBAL, 1994), 28; Taylor, Mark,
152.
Marcus {Mark, 141), however, argues that "it is . . . unlikely that a scribe
freshly started on the transcription of a manuscript would be careless or tired enough to
skip over these important words on the very first line of his text!" Marcus here following
B. D. Ehrman, "The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox," LQ 5 (1991): 143-
156. A similar argument is made by S. Ldgasse, L ’Evangile de Marc (Lectio Divina
Commentaires; 2 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1997), 1:70, n. 17; following P. M. Head, "A Text-
Critical Study of Mark 1.1: ‘The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," NTS 37
(1991): 629 [art. =621-629]; who is himself elaborating on a passing comment by
J. Slomp, "Are the Words ‘Son of God’ in Mark 1:1 Original?" Bible Translator 28
(1977): 143-150. But in the absence of a complete collation of ancient scribal errors
(e.g., homoeoteleuton) plotted by relative frequency according to their location in the
mss., this claim, even if stated emphatically, does little to refute the likelihood of a
scribal error in this instance. Cf. also Lamarche ("Commencement de l’evangile," 1033)
who observes that "une omission est ordinairement plus facile a admettre qu’une
addition." R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT; 2 vols.; Freiberg: Herder, 1977),
1:74, n. a, also rejects the title by suggesting that scribes may have been indirectly
influenced by Matt 1:1. This argument would have greater force if the title Son of God
were found in Matt 1:1.
79For different possibilities (e.g., charismatic, Davidic King, Israel, Messiah,
righteous individual, etc.) see, G. Fohrer, E. Lohse, E. Schweizer, et al., "ui6 q,
uioO&na," TDNT, 8:334-397; cf. Gundry, Mark, 34.
80 Ehrman,"The Text of Mark," 152. Cp. Taylor, Mark, 121, who is much
nearer the truth when he argues that Mark’s christology is high enough to preclude an
adoptionist reading of the title Son of God:
The claim that, according to Mark, Jesus becomes the Son of God by adoption has
often been made, but it probably rests on a superficial reading of the Gospel. The
Evangelist’s idea is rather that Jesus is by nature the Son of God . . . . [Mark’s]
315
Mark’s goal in writing a gospel is to describe Christ.81 In the process he can
hardly do otherwise than articulate a christology and concomitantly actualize one or more
of the potential meanings of the title Son of God. (He might even be so bold as to add a
new and deeper meaning to the title.) One obvious and seemingly helpful meaning for the
title Son of God is that for a Gentile audience it is immediately suggestive of Christ’s
divinity.82 But this is not enough for Mark. Jesus is indeed divine, but he is divine in
a very narrowly-conceived way. For Mark the divinity of the Son of God is not defined
by the imperial cult or by Graeco-Roman religiosity but strictly and monotheistically by
the OT . 83 Mark not only indicates this understanding throughout his gospel he
assumption appears to be that Jesus is Deus absconditus, the Hidden God. . . .

[B]ehind a fully human life, Deity is concealed, but is visible for those who have
eyes to see, in His personality, teaching, and deeds.
81
It is safe to say: that "Mark devotes the bulk of his book to Christology"
(Gundry, Mark, 32); that "at the heart of Marie’s Gospel lies the question: Who was
Jesus?” (R. A. Guelich, "The ’Christ’ of the Gospel: A Lesson from Mark’s
Christology," in Perspectives on Christology: Essays in Honor o f Paul K. Jewett, ed.
M. Shuster and R. Muller [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], 5 [art. =3-17]); that
"Mark’s Gospel was written primarily to establish a particular understanding of Jesus’
identity" (Marcus, The Way o f the Lord, 6 ); and that Jesus is the "central focus" of
Mark’s gospel (Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 59).
These observations, almost too obvious to need mentioning, are inseparably
related to an important fact that does need mentioning: i.e., the genre of the gospels is
essentially that of ancient biography. See R. A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A
Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (SNTSMS 70; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992); idem, "About People, by People, for People: Gospel Genre and
Audiences," in The Gospels fo r All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed.
R. Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 113-145.
82 Gundry, Mark, 34.
83 Cf. the reference to the Shema (Deut 6:4) in Mark 12:28-34. Note, however,
that this reference to the Shema is immediately followed by Christ’s provocative
interpretation of Ps 110:1 (cf. Marcus, "Authority to Forgive Sins," 202). For Christ the
high monotheism of the Shema is not incompatible with the existence of two divine
beings. It is not impossible that this very juxtaposition of texts (Deut 6:4 and Ps 110:1)
316
indicates it powerfully and creatively in the very next lines of his gospel (Mark 1:2-3).
These lines contain a compound OT citation and a well-known crux interpretum:
Mark’s citation is crucial. As part of the heading it is programmatic for the prologue
and therefore the whole Gospel, while cix; [sic] Y&ypcunm also suggests that it is
epexegetical of v. 1: the ’gospel’ of Jesus Christ is that gospel about which Isaiah
wrote. That this is Mark’s only explicit editorial OT citation in the Gospel adds to its
significance. However, the well-knowndifficulty here is that Mark does not in fact
quote Isaiah; at least not immediately.
The meaning of this opening citation will occupy the remainder of the present
section: What, in particular, is the significance of the fact that Mark ascribes Exod 23:20,
Mai 3:1, and Isa 40:3 to the prophet Isaiah? What is the significance of the fact that two
of the three conflated OT texts (Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1) are pivotal Angel of the LORD
texts while the third (Isa 40:3) is closely related to them? 85 And in what way does
Mark’s opening citation, his only formula-citation, expound or expand on the
meaning of title Son of God?87
lies somewhere behind Paul’s treatment of the Shema in 1 Cor 8 :6 .

Isaiah’s New Exodus, 56-57. On the importance and extent of Mark’s
84 Watts,
prologue see in addition to the commentaries the individual studies of M. E. Boring,
"Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel," Semeia 52 (1990): 43-81; Guelich, "The
Beginning of the Gospel," passim; R. T. France, "The Beginning of Mark," Reformed
Theological Review 49 (1990): 11-19; F. J. Matera, "The Prologue as the Interpretative
Key to Mark’s Gospel," JSNT 34 (1988): 3-20. Here the important thing to note is not
the inclusion per se (Mark 1:1, 14) but the surprising interchangeability, even
equivalence, between "the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son o f God” and "the gospel of
God.”
85 I.e., Isa 40:3 has the exodus in view while Mai 3:1 has Exod 23:20 and Isa
40:3 in view. Only here in the NT are all three texts are brought together.
86 M. D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (BNTC; London: Black,
1991), 34.
87That the citation is epexegetical of what precedes has been demonstrated most
clearly by R. A. Guelich, "‘The Beginning of the Gospel’ Mark 1:1-15," Biblical
Research 27 (1982): 6 [art. =5-15], where he states, "[t]he formula kathOs/hOs gegraptai
317
In the short space of three verses Mark has accomplished a christological tour-de-
force comparable only with what is found in the opening lines of the Fourth Gospel or
the Epistle to the Romans. In the first place the ascription to Isaiah alerts Mark’s more
perceptive readers to the need to read between the lines of his citation since what
immediately follows does not by any stretch of the imagination come from Isaiah. What
can be read between the lines of Mark’s citation is that the Good News of Jesus Christ
the Son of God, and the streams of tradition leading up to it, have been redirected and
channeled through Isaiah.88 This redirection dampens or at least postpones the note of
judgment sounded so loudly by Malachi and heard so clearly by John the Baptist. 89
never appears at the start of a new sentence when used as an introductory formula. . . .
The formula and quotation always refer back and never forward in the context." Cf.
Anderson, Mark, 67-68; G. Arnold, "Mk 1,1 und Eroffnungswendungen in griechischen
und lateinischen Schriften," ZNW 6 8 (1977): 123-127; Guelich, Mark, 7; W. Grundmann,
Das Evangelium nach Markus (THKNT; 3d ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1968), 26; Gundry, Mark, 30-31; Marcus, Mark, 141-142; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus,
55-56. Contra, e.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:77; Taylor, Mark, 153.
8 8 Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 57, 88-90. Cf. Marcus, Mark, 96, 147. The
importance of Isaiah to Mark is indicated by the fact that Isaiah is the only prophet that
mentioned by name (Mark 1:2; 7:6) and by the fact that Mark cites from Isaiah more
than from all the other prophets combined (Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 60).
8 9 Mark’s omission of John the Baptist’s fiery preaching (cf. Mark 1:4-8) is
consistent with his initial de-emphasis on judgment and with Christ’s own treatment of
Isaiah’s prophecies (cf. Matt 11:5). See below, however, where the cursing of the fig tree
and the temple incident can be understood as the fulfillment of the Lord coming suddenly
to his temple in judgment (Mai 3:1-5). Judgment, or the threat of it, is also an integral
apart of the epilogue to the Book of the Covenant from which the Exod 23:20 citation
comes. Cf. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 63-72, who rightly notes these ominous
undercurrents of judgment. Watts also correctly identifies the LORD in Mai 3:1 as
YHWH (p. 70); however, in the case of Exod 23:20 he mistakenly interprets "the
sending of the angel [as] the direct result of Israel’s faithlessness and idolatry" (p. 6 6 ; cf.
72). It is unlikely that the sending of the "angel" in Exod 23:20 is a divine judgment,
apparently (according to Watts) in anticipation of Exodus 33; and it is equally unlikely in
context that the "angel" in Exodus 33 is not a divine manifestation (cf. Chapter 2 above).
318
Mark has effectively turned Malachi’s Bad News into the Good News that God will "tend
the heavens and come down" to deliver his people.9® God will act unilaterally and, as
becomes evident later, sacrificialty, for the good o f his people. The assertion that Mark’s
ascription is "misleading" is unwarranted. 91 No one was misled. Instead, Mark has
led his willing readers into a new hermeneutical framework. This framework is Isaiah’s
"New Exodus."9^ It is this New Exodus framework that is largely determinative of the
basic content and structure of Mark’s gospel;93 and it is this New Exodus framework
that is also largely determinative of the (divine) identity of the Son of God.
There is thus an important christological reason for citing Isa 40:3 in the same
breath as a conflation of Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1. This reason is consistent with Mark’s
ascription of all three texts to Isaiah (which effectively highlights the one text that
90Note that Mark echoes Isa 64:1 in Mark 1:10 but without reference to
judgment. On the significance of this echo, and the close relationship between Isa 64:1
and Isa 63:9, see Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 102-108.
91Pace J. D. G. Dunn, "John the Baptist’s Use of Scripture," in The Gospels

and the Scriptures o f Israel, 43 [art. =42-54].
9 ^Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, passim; cf. Marcus, The Way o f the Lord,
passim.
93The fact that Isaiah’s New Exodus is an organizing theme of Mark’s gospel
considerably heightens the possibility of a christological connection to the Angel of the
LORD since the Angel of the LORD led the first exodus and is prominently featured in
more than one of the prophetic streams of tradition flowing out of it (Isa 63:9; Zech
12:8; Mai 3:1). See further Snodgrass, "Streams o f Tradition," passim; C. J. Davis, The
Name and Way o f the Lord: Old Testament Themes, New Testament Christology
(JSNTSup 129; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 61-102. For the importance
of the exodus and exodus imagery elsewhere in the NT see, e.g., S. C. Keesmaat, Paul
and His Story: (Reinterpreting the Exodus (JSNTSup 181; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999); D. W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (WUNT 130; Tubingen:
Mohr, 2000).
319
actually does come from Isaiah)9 4 and with his christologically motivated revision of
Isa 40:3. The reason is this: the Isa 40:3 quotation makes explicit the identity of the
person addressed by God in the initial non-Isaianic conflation. The Isa 40:3 quotation
indicates precisely the kind of divinity that Mark understands the Son of God to possess
and in doing so fills the title Son of God to overflowing with scriptural meaning. For
Mark the divinity of the Son of God is the divinity o f the God o f the most explicitly
monotheistic book in the OT. It is not just that the way of the LORD is the way of
Christ, it is that Jesus is Lord (i.e., YHWH) . 95 In the context of Isaiah it is YHWH
himself who will come in glory in the last days to lead a New Exodus just as he had been
present in glory in the pillar of fire and cloud to lead the first exodus (Isa 4:1-6) 96
Mark says quite a bit here but he is careful not to say too much by deliberately changing
94 Cp.Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 90, n. 190, following J. R. Edwards,

"Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives," NovT 31
(1989): 193-216, who argues that it is Mai 3:1, i.e., the middle element between the
Isaiah ascription and the Isaiah quotation, that receives the emphasis (cf. J. Gnilka, Das
Evangelium nach Markus [EKK; 2 vols.; Zurich: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978-1979],
1:45). On the mixed nature of Mark’s OT citations see further H. C. Kee, "The Function
of Scriptural Citations and Allusions in Mark 11-16," in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift fu r
Werner Georg Kiimmel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. E. Ellis and E. Grasser (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 165-185.
95This incidentally being the earliest Christian creed.
96It is this same glory that Isaiah saw in his throne vision (Isa 6:1-6), and it is
this glory that Isaiah later speaks of as having been a manifestation of the Angel of the
LORD (Isa 63:9). Could this partially explain the statement in the Fourth Gospel (John
12:41) that it was actually the glory of Christ, a divine agent, that Isaiah saw in his
throne vision? On the relevance of God’s unique glory to the high christology of the NT
see further, C. C. Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup
69; Leiden: Brill, 1992).
320
Isaiah’s "for our God" to "his" (i.e., Christ’s) . 97 The alteration of Isa 40:3 and the
attendant change in referent are subtle; nevertheless,
it seems highly likely that informed hearers/readers would not only have noted
alterations but also have recognized that the altered form was of interpretative
significance. It is not too big a step to suggest that they may also have been generally
aware of the original context of a given passage and so have been equally alert to the
implications of changes between the original context and the present setting.98
For Mark Jesus is the Son of God, and God is the Father of the Son. To retain "for our
God" in Isa 40:3 would have been to identify the Son of God too completely with God
The putting of ‘his’ (v 3) in place of ‘for our God’ (Isa 40:3) keeps the word
‘God’ for later use in reference to the Father of Jesus (cf. v 11 with w 14-15) and keeps
Mark’s audience from misunderstanding ‘the Lord’ as God the Father rather than as
Jesus" (Gundry, Mark, 36). There can thus be little doubt that this change was deliberate
and christologically motivated. So rightly, e.g., Grundmann, Markus, 26; Guelich, Mark,
11; Gundry, Mark, 30, 36; Hooker, Mark, 31-32; M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint
Marc (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1966), 4; W. Michaelis, "6 8 6 5 , icdt.," TDNT, 5:70;
Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness, 80; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:77; E. Stauffer,
"8 e6 q, kxX," TDNT, 3:103 [art. =65-123]; Stendahl, The School o f St. Matthew, 48;
A. Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im
Markusevangelium (Gutersloh: Mohn, 1965), 135, n. 218; Taylor, Mark, 153;
E. Trocmd, L ’Evangile selon Saint Marc (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament; Geneve:
Labor et Fides, 2000), 26; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 61-62.
Cf. also E. E. Ellis, The Gospel o f Luke (NCB; London: Nelson, 1966), 89;
G. Geiger, "Falsche Zitate bei Matthaus und Lukas," in The Scriptures in the Gospels,
ed. C. M. Tucket (BETL 131; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 483 [art. =479-
486]; J. B. Green, The Gospel o f Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 171;
T. Holtz, Untersuchungen iiber die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TU 104; Berlin:
Academie Verlag, 1968), 37; Marshall, Luke, 136; Nolland, Luke, 143; L. Sabourin,
L ’Evangile de Luc: Introduction et commentaire (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universita
Gregoriana, 1985), 114; Schurmann, Lukasevangelium, 1:160, n. 98; and T. Zahn, Das
Evangelium des Matthaus (4th ed.; Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 1984 [1922]), 131.
Contra Bock, Luke, 1:293, who holds that the antecedent is God (the Father); and
contra Snodgrass ("Streams of Tradition," 34, 36) who holds that the antecedent of the
pronoun is "uncertain" and was occasioned by the desire on Mark’s part to avoid the
divine name (cp. rightly, Gundry, Mark, 42).
98 Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 52 (with reference to Stanley, Paul and the
Language o f Scripture).
321
(the Father) when in actuality he was a second divine person addressed by God (the
Father)."
Mark’s christology is quite high. If it were too high or unguarded, however, it
would have conflicted with the very title that he was in the process of explicating. This is
not to suggest that there is a full-blown trinitarian theology in the Gospel of Mark for that
is surely not the case. But it is to suggest that Mark’s christology is both subtle and
profound in its implications, that his christology is not adoptionistic in its use of the title
Son of God, and that his christology is not inconsistent with later and more explicit
trinitarian formulations.100
Jesus is without question a human being. But he is also the Lord (YHWH) of
whom Isaiah spoke (Isa 40:3). Jesus is not God absolutely but God manifest as an agent
or, in Mark’s terminology, the Son of God. This suggests the likelihood that for Mark
Jesus either is the Angel of the LORD or he is God manifest in a way that resembles
God’s OT manifestations as the Angel of the LORD. Again, it is hardly coincidental that
the Angel of the LORD is just below the surface of all three texts that Mark has so
carefully brought together. The divine agent who led the first exodus will come in glory
to lead a greater New Exodus. Not only was his coming prophesied indirectly by Isaiah,
who calls him Lord (YHWH) in Isa 40:3 rather than Angel of the LORD as in Isa 63:9,
"N o te how the second person address in Mark 1:2 prepares the way for the
second person address in 1:11 (Gundry, Mark, 35), an address that echoes a number of
OT texts among which are Gen 22:2, 12, 16; Exod 4:22-23; Ps 2:7; Isa 42:1 (cf.
Guelich, Mark, 33-34).
10°cf. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, ix, xvii, who notes that Mark’s
theology is also consistent with earlier trinitarian formulations, i.e., the nascent
trinitarianism of Paul.
322
his coming was prophesied directly by Malachi within the confines of the same verse that
Mark cites.
Mark's OT citations typically imply their larger OT contexts;101 and in this
case the citation of Mai 3:1a implies the coming of the Angel of the LORD of Mai
3:lb-c. Mark could have cited all of Mai 3:lb-c had he wished to make this explicit.
Perhaps he did not because Christ, whose usage he is following, did not. Perhaps he too,
like Christ before him, preferred the allusive answer and expected his readers to supply
the missing information through their active engagement with his text and, in a manner of
speaking, his pretexts.102 Who is the Markan Jesus? Explicitly he is the Messiah and
the Son of God and the Lord (YHWH) whose coming to lead a New Exodus was
prophesied by Isaiah (Isa 40:3). Implicitly he is the true Israel (Exod 23:20) and the
Angel of the LORD whose coming and forerunner were prophesied by Malachi (Mai
3:l) .103 Jesus, in other words, is God (YHWH) manifest as an agent.
101Marcus, The Way o f the Lord, 199-200; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 52,
381-382. Cf. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, passim.
102Cf. Ellis, "Deity-Christology," 203; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 384-385.
103The view that "John is the forerunner, not of God, but of Jesus" (J. D.
Kingsbury, The Christology o f M ark’s Gospel [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983], 59) is
potentially misleading if Jesus is himself God; while the view that Jesus rather than John
was the forerunner who prepared the way for God has little to commend it (contra M. A.
Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: M ark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective
[Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989], 239-248; cf. P. Katz, "Jesus als Vorlaufer des Christus:
Mogliche Hinweise in den Evangelien auf Elia als den ‘Typos’ Jesu," TZ 52 [1996]: 225-
235).
The dominant text in the conflation of Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 is clearly the
latter in which a prophet prepares the way of the Lord (cf. Isa 40:3). As noted above in
reference to Matt 11:10, however, the former text is suggestive of an Israel/Jesus
typology and this suggestion was not lost on Mark. He immediately underscores Christ’s
sonship by narrating his baptism (cf. Israel at the Red Sea in Exodus 14) and by
immediately catapulting Christ into the wilderness to recapitulate, with better results, the
experiences of the nation. Cf. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 107-108.
323
But Jesus is not simply God manifest as an agent, that is, a theophany such as
one finds in connection with the Angel of the LORD. Jesus is God manifest as an agent
in a way that maintains a personal distinction between God manifest (the Son of God) and
God transcendent (the Father). Jesus is a second divine person distinct from God who is
addressed by God—this being the express point of the Exod 23:20/Mal 3:1 conflation.
Such a profound christology, as indicated above in reference to Matt 11:10, ultimately
derives from Christ and his creative interpretation of the OT. It was Christ who first
indicated that there were two divine persons in the OT through his conflation of Exod
23:20 and Mai 3:1 (cf. Ps 110:1; Dan 7:13-14). And it was Christ who first implied that
he was the coming Lord and Angel of the LORD of Mai 3:1 whose forerunner was the
prophet John the Baptist. But Mark’s juxtaposition of the Exod 23:20/Mal 3:1 conflation
with Isa 40:3, and his christologically motivated revision of Isa 40:3, build carefully upon
the foundation laid by Christ. The agent implicit in the Exod 23:20/Mal 3:1 conflation is
a divine agent. This is Mark’s contribution to NT agency christology—evidence of his
literary genius and theological sophistication. This, for Mark, is what it means to call
Jesus Christ the Son of God;104 and this is the lens through which Mark intends the
rest of his Good News to be read.105
104Cf. Marcus, The Way o f the Lord, 92, "The title ‘Son of God,’ therefore, is
a perfect one for the Markan Jesus, since it bespeaks both his unique familial likeness to
God and his subordination to the one whom he calls ‘Father’"; and Grundmann, Markus,
26, "Markus setzt ein Christusverstandnis voraus, wie es Phil. 2,6-11 bezeugt ist." The
present thesis thus goes some way toward fulfilling the concluding christological
desideratum of Watts* important monograph. Does the application of Mai 3:1 and Isa
40:3 to Christ reveal that "a high Christology is in place, perhaps even presupposed, at
this early stage" (Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 388)? Indeed it does.
105Cf. Hooker, Mark, 31-32. It is possible that the abrupt and perplexing ending
o f Mark’s Gospel (£$ofkn>vro yrftp) is of a piece with the opening of his Gospel, an
opening that introduces the Son of God as a divine agent with the programmatic
application to him of OT Angel of the LORD texts. That is, in the OT it is often only
324
Conclusion
A reasonable case for the relevance of the Angel of the LORD to the high
christology of the NT can be made from the way that Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 are cited
in the NT. Not only do the authors of the NT betray an awareness of the divine agency
paradigm revealed in the OT, there is every indication that they take decisive measures to
apply this divine agency paradigm to Christ. This paradigm highlights the divinity of the
one called "Emmanuel" and "Son of God." But it also does something unexpected: it
reveals the existence of a second divine person next to God the Father.
It is not inconceivable that something completely different is going on in the
reapplication of these OT Angel of the LORD texts to Christ. Perhaps the OT texts do
not imply their contexts after all; or perhaps the OT texts do imply their contexts but
Jesus is merely a great but non-divine agent who is being modelled after a great but non
divine OT agent;106 or perhaps God manifested himself theophanically as an agent in
the OT but has since absconded; or perhaps John the Baptist rather than Christ is being
modelled after the Angel of the LORD in Exod 23:20 (and Mai 3:1 is not the dominant
OT text and framework in the conflation).
after the Angel of the LORD has departed that those to whom he has appeared fear,
suddenly realizing that they have been the recipients of a mysterious theophany (cp.
Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 365-367). For rhetorical reasons, however, the author has
chosen not to elaborate but rather to step aside at this ungrammatical point and leave it to
the reader to make a response. Cp. John 20:26-29 where a possible allusion to the words
of the Angel of the LORD in Judg 6:23 ("Peace to you") are followed by the express
identification of Jesus as Lord and God.
1(V>Assuming either that the exegesis in Chapter 2 above is mistaken or that the
NT, like the intertestamental literature, mistakenly views the OT Angel of the LORD as a
creature.
325
But if such is the case there is little evidence for it and much against it not only
in Matt 11:2-14 and Mark 1:1-3 but elsewhere in the NT as well. The OT citations in the
NT typically do imply their contexts and in this instance the contexts reveal an agent who
is fully divine.107 God did manifest himself as an agent in the OT (e.g., Exod
23:20). The mere fact that he appeared as an agent in Canonical History is, however, no
guarantee that he will appear as an agent in the eschatological future or, for that matter,
that he will come again at all. The guarantee comes first from Isaiah, who prophesies that
God himself will come, and second from Malachi, who prophesies that God will come as
the Angel o f the LORD. Could God have elected to send a delegate or a non-divine (non-
theophanic) representative in his place? This possibility cannot be completely excluded
a priori. If God has done this, however, he has elected to annul rather than fulfill the
words of his prophets. That he has not done this is indicated throughout the NT which
proclaims with one voice a greater and more complete and more intimate manifestation of
God in Christ than was experienced in the OT. The eschatological realization of OT
expectation is indeed the climax rather than the anticlimax of prophecy.108 Consistent
with this is the fact that in both Matt 11:2-14 and Mark 1:1-3 (and systematically
elsewhere in the NT) one finds the application of OT YHWH texts to the Messiah. There
is also no indication in the NT that John the Baptist is being modelled after the angel in
Exod 23:20,109 even though at first glance this might seem to fit the exodus
framework and the Israel/Jesus typology elaborated in the NT. There is instead a strong
Elijah/John the Baptist typology in the NT and every indication that it is Jesus qua divine
107Cf. Chapter 2 above.

108Similarly, Davis, The Name and Way o f the Lord, 165-167.
109So rightly Allison, The Intertextual Jesus, 40; contra Marcus, "Authority to
Forgive Sins," 208, n. 2.
326
agent who is being correlated with the Angel of the LORD qua divine agent. This is a
reasonable conclusion to draw from the NT citations of OT Angel of the LORD texts, a
conclusion that is not only consistent with but buttressed by the NT allusions to OT
Angel of the LORD texts.
NT Allusions to OT Angel of the LORD Texts
Additional evidence supportive of the divine identity of Christ can also be found
in allusive NT references to OT Angel of the LORD texts and contexts. In some of these
allusive references Christ is portrayed as taking on the role and functions attributed to the
Angel of the LORD in the OT. In others Christ is portrayed as present in OT contexts
where the Angel of the LORD is also present. This suggests either that Christ is being
correlated with the Angel of the LORD or that he is being correlated solely with YHWH
without reference to YHWH’s theophanic manifestation as an agent. The distinction is a
subtle one, especially in light of the fact that OT Angel of the LORD texts are in the
final analysis a unique subset of OT YHWH texts. Nevertheless, it seems more plausible
to identify Christ with the Angel of the LORD than with YHWH in these particular OT
contexts given the (qualified) status of both Christ and the Angel of the LORD as agents.
It is also plausible to assume, if only as a working hypothesis, that the
paradigmatic correlation between Christ and the Angel of the LORD in Matt 11:2-14 and
Mark 1:1-3 will turn up elsewhere in the NT. And this, in fact, is the case. The NT not
only provides evidence for the christological use of OT Angel of the LORD texts, it
provides evidence for the subtle but pervasive christological use of these important OT
texts. Most of this usage is allusive and easily overlooked, particularly since other
typologies and christological motifs are often in the forefront (e.g., Moses/Christ and
Israel/Christ typologies). Ironically, however, the christological use of OT Angel of the
327
LORD texts was not allusive and subdued because these OT texts were unimportant, or
even because other typologies and christological motifs often dominated; the use was
allusive and subdued primarily because these texts were so important that they had long
since (relatively speaking) become an unexamined and undefended part of the substructure
of NT christology.
The following subsections will attempt to highlight this substructure of NT
allusions to OT Angel of the LORD texts and contexts. As noted above the broader
conjunction of agency and deity in the person of Christ will not be dealt with, as
worthwhile as it would be to do so,110 in favor of connections to specific OT Angel
of the LORD texts and contexts. These divine agency connections are logically (and
historically) prior since they provide the paradigm that makes the conjunction of agency
and deity in Christ possible and, in the final analysis, coherent. A number of NT texts
simply make better sense in the light of a correlation between Christ and the Angel of the
LORD than they do otherwise. The NT understands Christ in terms of an important OT
paradigm: Christ, like the Angel of the LORD, is God manifest as an agent. To these
more allusive texts we now turn.
The Forerunner and His ‘Follower’

(Mark 1:4-8)
Mark has decisively presented the Son of God as a divine agent in the
programmatic opening lines of his gospel (Mark 1:1-3). He has done so with reference to
three important OT texts, two of which are Angel of the LORD texts (Exod 23:20; Mai
3:1; Isa 40:3). In light of this it would not be surprising if Mark alluded to these or other
Angel of the LORD texts at other key points in his gospel. This, in fact, is precisely what
110Cf. Hagner, "Paul’s Christology and Jewish Monotheism,” passim.
328
Mark does beginning in 1:4-8. These verses elaborate on the opening lines of his gospel
and it is not far from the mark to speak of them as "a line by line commentary" on the
three OT texts that are cited in 1:2-3.111 John the Baptist is portrayed as the Elijah
figure of Mai 3:1, 23, who appears in the wilderness to prepare the way of YHWH. The
presence of an Elijah figure in the wilderness shows how completely Mai 3:1 and Isa
40:3 have been amalgamated into a single eschatological framework. John’s primary act
as the forerunner who prepares the way of the Lord in the wilderness is to identify the
Greater One who follows him. That Greater One is Jesus and the identification is
necessary not only because the Greater One has finally come, but because the Greater
One has come incognito.
At the textual level the reference to the wilderness (f| £pr|iO£) in Mark 1:4 is no
doubt occasioned by its use in Mark 1:3 (cf. Isa 40:3).112 The wilderness, however,
113
was evocative of the exodus in Isa 40:3 and it is no less evocative of it here. This
agrees with the Israel/Jesus typology that follows in Mark 1:9-12 where the wilderness is
again highly evocative of exodus and New Exodus motifs. Of potentially greater
significance than the reference to the wilderness, and the statement that the people were
111Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness, 80; following E. Lohmeyer, Das

Evangelium des Markus (KEK; 17th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967),
10, "Diese Prophetie wird Zeile fur Zeile in V.4-8 kommentiert."
112The historicity of John the Baptist’s ministry in the wilderness is in no way
compromised by this (inter)textual observation. See Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness, 81-
82, 86-87; Wink, John the Baptist, 4-5; cf. J. Ernst, Johannes der Taufer:
Interpretation—Geschichte—Wirkungsgeschichte (BZNW 53; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989),
7-8.
**^R. T. France, "Jesus the Baptist?" in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ:
Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. J. B. Green and
M. Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 103-104 [art. =94-111]; contra Gundry,
Mark, 43.
329
"going out” (&iacope6o|iai) into it (Mark 1:5; cf. Exod 13:4, 8; 14:8), are some of the
key terms and expressions in Mark 1:7-8. The verb Ipxjetaa. may echo the use of fcpxetm
in Mai 3 :l , 114 where it specifically referred to the "coming" of "the Lord" who, in
context, was identified as the Angel of the LORD. If so, the use of the verb would
certainly be consistent with John the Baptist’s understated description of the Coming One
as "he who is mightier than I" (6 ioxupdtepoq poo).115
The use of the comparative "mightier” could suggest that Jesus is not divine:
after all, who would dare to compare themselves with God?* *** But this conclusion
does not necessarily follow. Jesus is not God absolutely but God manifest in weakness
(i.e., as an agent). John’s task is thus to point out the greatness of one whose true
greatness and glory are veiled.117 The reference to Jesus as "mightier" also helps to
offset the implication that Jesus is inferior, or even that he is John’s disciple, because he
comes "behind" (fatoa>) John:
Nun hat aber die Wendung ‘hinter Jemand Kommen’ im NT immer einen strengen
Sinn; sie ist Zeichen der Unterordnung oder der geringeren Macht. Wie ein Schuler
114Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:83.

115Both terms are also found in Isa 40:10 where it is said that YHWH "will
come with might" (icnpioq jiexti ioxuoq fcpxerai); or, assuming Beth Essentia in the
Hebrew text, that he will come "as a Mighty One" (ptro). For ioxupoq as a divine title
see 2 Sam 22:31; 23:5; Ps 7:12; Jer 39:18; Dan 9:4; Rev 18:8; and cf. Isa 9:6 (MT).
Cf. Ernst, Johannes, 15, 49-51 (esp. 50, n. 51), 305.
116So, e.g., Guelich, Mark, 1:22; Gundry, Mark, 45; Markus, Mark, 151;
Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:84; Webb, John the Baptizer, 285. Otherwise Grundmann,
Markus, 28; Hughes, "John the Baptist,” 196-197.
117Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, 18. It would thus have been completely out of
character for John the Baptist (or Mark) to have said unequivocally and without
qualification that Jesus was the Mighty One (i.e., God), in spite of Gundry’s suggestion
(Mark, 45) that 6 toxupdq would have been more appropriate had a divine referent been
in view.
330
zu seinem Lehrer, ein Diener zu seinem Herrn, so verhalt sich der Hintergehende zu
dem Vorangehenden.
John is in effect saying, "Jesus is not inferior to me even though he comes behind me;
rather it is I who am unworthy so much as to loose the thong of his sandal." Jesus does
not follow John as an inferior, or as a disciple, but as prophesied. The comparative
ioxupdtepoq is understandable in the present context even if it is not indispensable to
John’s identification of Jesus.119
118Lohmeyer, Markus, 18; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:313; Ernst,
Johannes, 15; Webb, John the Baptizer, 265. For this use of 6 tuoo) cf. the Hebrew
expression nrtK "p7\ as noted, e.g., in BDF §215(1); MHT 3:277; H. Seesemann,
nindata, &uo0ev," TDNT, 5:290 [art. =289-292]. For the word order (i.e., the forward
placement of 6 ioxupdtspoq pou) as heightening the superiority of Jesus see Legasse,
Marc, 1:81, n. 42.
Contra, e.g., C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1963), 273-275; K. Grobel, "‘He that Cometh after Me’,"
JBL 60 (1941): 397-401; J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority o f John (Oak Park, 111.: Meyer-
Stone, 1985), 182-183, there is no warrant here for concluding that Jesus was a disciple
of John even if, as may well be the case, dmaon is not being used temporally. Cf.
J. Ernst, "War Jesus ein Schuler Johannes’ des Taufers?" in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus:
Fur Joachim Gnilka, ed. H. Frankemolle and K. Kertelge (Freiberg: Herder, 1989), 20
[art. = 13-33], who rightly notes that context is determinative of meaning ("Entsheidend is
immer der Kontext") and argues that the interpretation of Dodd and others flatly
contradicts "der Gesamttendenz der neutestamentlichen Deutung des Tauferwortes."
11Q
By way of a brief aside: Gundry, Matthew, 48, argues that Matthew’s change
from "loosen” (kuoai) to "bear" (Paoxdtoca) is a theologically significant anticipation of
his citation of Isa 53:4 in Matt 8:17, "Jesus removed our diseases; John was unfit even to
remove Jesus’ sandals. That is how much stronger Jesus is." And W. Grundmann,
"iox6e>, TDNT, 3:401 [art. =397-402], argues that Christ’s reference to himself
as toxupdrepoq in Luke 11:22 echoes Isa 53:12 (cf. Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus, 148-
152). For other nearby echoes of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant see, e.g., O. Cullmann,
Baptism in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1950), 15-19; and France, "Jesus the
Baptist?" 103, who suggests that "it is possible to see in the odd use of the term
Suconocr6vn [i.e., in Matt 3:15] an echo of the repeated p’lX of Isa 53:11, where
the Servant’s role is spelled out as achieving righteousness for many."
If any of these arguments is correct, it could potentially serve as an explanation
for the omission of toxup6t£po<; in the Fourth Gospel and for John the Baptist’s
unparalleled description of Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the
331
John’s use of the term "behind" (6ictoa>) is mildly evocative of Mai 3:1 and Exod
14:19, two important exodus-related Angel of the LORD texts. While the term itself is
not found in Mai 3:1 it does serve as an accurate summation of the relationship found
there between the forerunner and the coming Angel of the LORD. In Exod 14:19 the
actual cognate faiofev is used in reference to the Angel of the LORD’S movement to
protect his people from the Egyptians in the wilderness. The echo of Exod 14:19 is
particularly easy to miss since dxuxo in Mark 1:7 is generally understood to have a
temporal meaning which would not fit the clearly spatial or positional movement of the
Angel of the LORD. The NT as a whole, however, rather overwhelmingly supports a
spatial or positional meaning for factoo.120 In fact, it would appear that the only NT
evidence that can be adduced to support a temporal meaning is Mark 1:7,121 the very
world" (John 1:29), a description that is found immediately before John the Baptist’s
description of Jesus as the One who comes behind him (imiaa poo) (John 1:30; cf. Mark
1:7). John the Baptist expected Eery judgment and may not have seen Jesus as a
sacrificial lamb or a Suffering Servant (cf. again his hesitancy to baptize Jesus in Matt
3:14 and the doubt he expresses in Matt 11:3). But John the Baptist may yet have spoken
better than he knew in the estimation of someone who did see Jesus in the full sacrificial
light of Isa 52:13-53:12.
On the complex relationship between Mark and the Fourth Gospel see further,
E. Trocme, "Jean et les Synoptiques: L’exemple de Jn 1,15-34," in The Four Gospels
1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle,
J. Verheyden (BETL 100; 3 vols.; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2:1935-
1941; E. D. Freed, "Jn 1,19-27 in Light of Related Passages in John, the Synoptics, and
Acts," in The Four Gospels 1992, 2:1943-1961; D.-A. Koch, "Der Taufer als Zeuge des
Offenbarers: Das Tauferbild von Job 1,19-34 auf dem Hintergrund von Mk 1,2-11," in
The Four Gospels 1992, 2:1963-1984.
150
Eine zeitliche Bedeutung von factom ist nirgends bezeugt, sondem nur eine
raumliche" (Lohmeyer, Markus, 18, n. 1; cf. Grobel, "He that Cometh after Me," 398-
399; Ernst, "War Jesus ein Schuler Johannes’ des Taufers?" 19-20).
121Cf. BAGD, 575, who adduce only this verse and its parallels in the Fourth
Gospel.
332
verse whose meaning is, or should be, in question.122 An exceptional use is possible
not only because a temporal meaning is attested outside of the NT, and is a logical
extension of the spatial.122 Nevertheless, it is more likely here in Mark 1:7 that
dieted) has a spatial meaning—a meaning that John the Baptist goes out of his way to
mitigate. That it was used in spite of the potentially negative connotation that Jesus was a
disciple or "follower" of John increases the probability that it was used precisely because
it reflects the spatial relationship signalled by the use of ’3D*? in Mai 3:1a (cf. Exod
23:20), and, moreover, because it adds an allusive verbal association to Exod 14:19,
another important exodus-related Angel of the LORD text.
John the Baptist’s use of the expression "to loose the thong of his sandals"
(kuoai xdv (jufcvra th>v tao&Tfukaav) is more than mildly evocative of Exod 3:6 and Josh
5:15, two more important exodus-related Angel o f the LORD texts.124 "The
correspondence between the passages can hardly be accidental. . . . John’s declaration of
his unworthiness with reference to the coming one was consciously reminiscent of the
ancient stories of Moses and Elijah."122 Since Jesus is not being presented as divine
without qualification but as a divine agent the reference to his sandals is not inconsistent
122Similarly Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 273; Grobel, "He
that Cometh after Me," 398.
123LSJM (1968 ed.), 1239. Cf. Grobel, "He that Cometh after Me," 398, who
finds only two "clearly temporal" instances of 6icteoa in the LXX (i.e., Eccl 7:1; 10:14).
124I.e., in Exod 3:6 and Josh 5:15 the expression Xuoai t o 6 ico & T )ia x©v
nod&v aao is used.
125Bretscher, "‘Whose Sandals’?" 85; cf. Hughes, "John the Baptist,"
196. Neither, however, makes reference to the Angel of the LORD.
333
with his divine status.126 If removing the shoes has cultic overtones, as has been
127
suggested,1,6' the point is not that Jesus is a priestly figure whose shoes must be
removed by a temple servant but that Jesus is the Angel of the LORD who is finally
coming to his temple (Mai 3:l).128
Is Jesus being correlated with the Angel of the LORD in Mark 1:4-8? It is very
difficult to say since the case here is at best piecemeal rather than cumulative. The case
certainly would have been stronger had all the allusions come from the same OT text or
context,129 had John referred to the taking off of his own sandals,130 or had
126Contra, e.g., Dunn, Christology in the Making, xxi and xxxv, n. 31;
Gundry, Mark, 45; Webb, John the Baptizer, 284-285. According to Davis, The Name
and Way o f the Lord, 98, ”[t]he problem with this argument is that the final redactor of
John uses the same verse and probably did think of the coming one as divine (Jn 1.27 and
1.1). Moreover, this objection would also demand that because Abraham washed the feet
of his visitors in Gen. 18.4 none of them was God’s theophanic presence." See further
Bretscher, "‘Whose Sandals’?"; Hooker, Mark, 39; Hughes, "John the Baptist"; Ernst,
Johannes, 305; idem, "War Jesus ein Schuler Johannes’ der Taufers?" 21; W. Schenk,
"Gefangenschaft und Tod des Taufers: Erwagungen zur Chronologie und ihren
Konsequenzen," NTS 29 (1983): 476, n. 13 [art. =453-483].
127
Lohmeyer, Markus, 18; cf. Grundmann, Markus, 28.
128Pace Ellis, "Deity-Christology," 202, the coming of YHWH to his temple
that is implied by Mark’s use of Mai 3:1 is not a reference to the incarnation (cf. John
1:14) as such.
120
In one sense, however, they do: they all come from the same text plot
broadly understood as the exodus-related nexus of texts.
130Cf. Bretscher, "‘Whose Sandals’?” 81-87, who strains the meaning of Matt
3:11 and Acts 13:25 to make the sandals belong to John rather than to Jesus (cp. Davies
and Allison, Matthew, 1:315). In actuality, however, for the shoes to fit Exod 3:5 and
Josh 5:15 exactly Jesus would have had to command John to remove his (John’s) shoes.
But this again would have been out of keeping with Christ’s more allusive manner of
self-identification (and was, in any case, precluded by John’s own preemptive statement).
334
Marie retained the reference to a baptism of fire.131 The presence of allusions to
Angel of the LORD texts would, however, be consistent with Mark’s programmatic
identification of Jesus as the Angel of the LORD in his opening citation, with John the
Baptist’s self-abasement before Jesus,132 with the fact that it is God alone who
dispenses the Spirit,133 and with the likelihood that John had given no little thought
over the years to the identity of the Coming One whose way he was to prepare.134
131Webb, John the Baptizer, 283, notes the reference to fire as the strongest
possible association with YHWH. The omission of "fire" (cp. Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16; Mai
3:2-3) is odd given Mark’s earlier focus on Mai 3:1. It is consistent, however, with his
de-emphasis on judgment, at least until after the Lord comes suddenly to his temple and
curses the land for failing to heed his forerunner (see below on the Cursing of the Fig
Tree and the Cleansing of the Temple).
132John’s unworthiness resembles the sense of unworthiness evinced elsewhere
in Scripture by those in the presence of deity (e.g., Isa 6:5; Luke 5:8).
133Christ’s relationship to the Spirit of God is the relationship attributed solely
to God elsewhere in Scripture and in Judaism. Cf. J. Becker, Johannes der Taufer und
Jesus von Nazareth (BibS 63; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 24, "die
Geistbegabung ist ausschliefilich seine Domane"; Schenk, "Gefangenschaft und Tod des
Taufers," 455. The result, both in the Gospels and in Paul, is the highest possible
Christology. See, M. M. B. Turner, "The Spirit of Christ and Christology," in Christ the
Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. H. H. Rowdon (Leicester:
Inter-Varsity, 1982), 168-190; idem, "The Spirit of Christ and ‘Divine’ Christology," in
Jesus o f Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament
Christology, ed. J. B. Green and M. Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 413-436;
M. Fatehi, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination o f Its
Christological Implications (WUNT 128; Tubingen: Mohr, 2000).
Guelich, Mark, 1:22, notes the force of this argument but remains unconvinced
that a divine figure is in view. This hesitancy may, however, be the result of the false
dichotomy noted elsewhere. Many commentators faced with the choice of a Jesus who is
divine or a Jesus who is an agent typically, and understandably, opt for a Jesus who is an
agent without giving adequate consideration to the possibility that he might be a divine
agent.
134The last point assumes that Zacharias’ use of Isa 40:3 in Luke 1:76 is
essentially historical and/or that John saw himself as an Elijah figure in the light of
Malachi 3 (cf. Trumblower, "The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist," 28-
41). If so, it is a very short distance from Isa 40:3 and Mai 3:1 to Exod 23:20, and an
335
On balance, then, the probabilities in Mark 1:4-8 slightly favor the existence of a fairly
general allusion to an Angel of the LORD context (i.e., the exodus/wilderness narrative),
along with one or more fairly specific allusions to Angel of the LORD texts (i.e., Exod
3:5; 14:19; Josh 5:15; Mai 3:1).
The Son of Man’s Forgiveness of Sins

(Mark 2:1-12; cf. Matt 9:1-18; Luke 5:17-26)
According to the OT texts used to describe his mission John the Baptist was to go
before YHWH to prepare the way for him (Isa 40:3; Mai 3:1). The one who came in
fulfillment of these OT prophecies was not, however, YHWH in a glorious eschatological
theophany of judgment and salvation, at least not to all outward appearances, but Jesus.
Hints can be found, however, that Jesus is greater than the greatest prophet (i.e., John
the Baptist) and greater than any heretofore expected Messiah. These hints can be found
in the OT texts used to describe Jesus’ mission (Exod 23:20; Isa 40:3; Mai 3:1), and in
his corresponding exercise of the unique prerogatives of deity. Jesus is thus better
comprehended as a divine agent in light of his actions, and the OT texts that interpret his
actions, than simply as an agent.135
One of the unique divine prerogatives exercised by the Jesus is the eschatological
healing of the lame in fulfillment of Isa 35:5-6 (cf. Matt 11:5).136 Here in Mark 2:1-
even shorter distance from Exod 23:20 to Exod 3:5 and 14:19.
135"The question cannot be limited to the dichotomy, Ts Messiah Yahweh or
Yahweh’s (creaturely) agent’ (cf. Harvey), but must also be posed more broadly: ‘Is the
Messiah as revealed in Jesus both Yahweh and Yahweh’s agent?’" (Ellis, "Deity-
Christology," 196, n. 22, but without reference to the Angel of the LORD).
136Healing per se is not a unique divine prerogative. Though healing is certainly
one of God’s prerogatives (see esp. Exod 15:26; 23:25), he often effects healings through
the agency of others.
336
12 (cf. Matt 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26) Jesus is shown healing a man whose lameness was
severe and incontestable. But Jesus does much more than heal the man’s lameness—Jesus
forgives the man’s sins (cf. Ps 130:3). In doing so he exercises yet another unique divine
prerogative. 137 Unlike healing, however, "[fjorgiveness is a prerogative of God
which he shares with no other and deputes to none."138
*** EXCURSUS: The Prayer of Nabonidus ***

The only possible exception that has been adduced is 4QPrNab (4Q242), better known as
the "Prayer of Nabonidus."139 The primary relevance of this fragmentary text for biblical
scholarship is that it portrays a babylonian king afflicted by the Most High God because of his
idolatry (cf. Daniel 4). His affliction lasts for seven yean during which time he is like a beast
and/or is banished far from the presence of other men.140 His affliction finally leaves him
when he acknowledges the one true God at the behest of a Jewish diviner OT3; cf. Dan 2:27; 4:4;
5:7, 11) living in exile. In question is whether the first several words of line 4 (i.e.,
rb ntfiOTTt) should be read with what precedes in line 3 or with what follows in line 4. If
they are read with what precedes then God Most High in line 3 is the implied subject of the verb
pStf, "and he (God) forgave my sins."141 But if they are read with what follows then the
137Cf. Gundry, Mark, 112 ("an implied claim to deity").

138G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries o f the Christian Era: The Age o f
the Tannaim (2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927-1930), 1:535; cf.
L. Goppelt, Theology o f the New Testament (vol. 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981),
132, "There was, in fact, no Old Testament/Jewish analogy for this imparting of the
forgiveness of sin through Jesus. . . . Thus, the objection of the scribes observed
correctly that Jesus conveyed what was God’s alone to convey."
139This text was first published by J. T. Milik, "‘Priere de Nabonide’ et autres
ecrits d ’un cycle de Daniel: Fragments Arameens de Qumran," RB 63 (1956): 407-415.
Cf. also F. M. Cross, "Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus," IEJ 34 (1984): 260-264,
whose restored text includes a fragment not known to Milik; and the now definitive text
of J. J. Collins, "4QPrayer of Nabonidus ar," DJD, 22:83-93.
140The text at this point in line 3 is largely conjectural. According to Cross,
"Prayer of Nabonidus," 262, "[t]he gap in line 3 has spawned almost as many
implausible proposals as there have been scholars who reconstructed the text."
141So Blackburn, Theios AnSr, 139; Collins, "4QPrayer of Nabonidus ar," 89-
90; Cross, "Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus," 260-264; P. Grelot, "La priere de
Nabonide (4 Q Or Nab)," RevQ 9 (1978): 483-495, esp. 485, 488-489; L. P. Hogan,
Healing in the Second Temple Period (NTOA 21; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
337
word "1T3 in line 4 is the express subject of the verb "and an exorcist forgave my
sins."142
Granted for the sake of argument that both readings are grammatically possible, the
former is almost certainly mandated by the immediate context of Nabonidus’ prayer and by the
fact that in Scripture (e.g., Exod 34:6-7; Dan 9:9; Isa 43:25; 44:22) and in ancient Judaism,
especially at Qumran (e.g., IQS 11:3; CD 2:4-5; 3:18; 1QH 12:37; 15:18, 30, 35; llQTgJob
1992), 149-157; B. Jongeling, C. J. Labuschagne, and A. S. van der Woude, Aramaic

Texts from Qumran (Semitic Study Series 4; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 121-131, esp. 127-128,
"the subject of Sbq in line 4 . . . must certainly be God" (127, n. 3); H. J. Klauck, "Die
Frage der Sundenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelahmten (Mk 2,1-12
parr.)," BZ 25 (1981): 239-240 [art. =223-248]; R. Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid: Eine
in den Qumran-Handschriften wiederentdeckte Weisheitserzahlung (Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1962), 23-24, 30, 33; E. Puech, "La prigre de Nabonide (4Q242)," in Targumic
and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour o f Martin McNamara, ed. K. J. Cathcart and
M. Maher (JSOTSup 230: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 208-227, esp.
211, 216-217; C. M. Tuckett, "The Present Son of Man," JSNT 14 (1982): 74-75, n. 29
[art. =58-81]; A. S. van der Woude, "Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonides (4Q or
Nab)," in Qumran: Sa piete, sa theologie et son milieu, ed. M. Delcor (BETL 46;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978), 121-129, esp. 122, 124. Cf. also M. Burrows,
More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Scrolls and New Interpretations (New York:
Viking, 1958), 400; and Milik, "Prigre de Nabonide," 408. Both rightly take God as the
subject of but awkwardly render what follows as, respectively, "he (God) left me a
seer" and "(Dieu) /n’accorda un devin."
142So Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:90; A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene
Writings from Qumran (Cleveland: Meridian, 1962), 322; F. Garcia Martinez, "The
Prayer of Nabonidus: A New Sythesis," chap. in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the
Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 116-136, esp. 120, 125-126;
F. Garcia Martinez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.;
Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998) 1:486-489; J. A. Fitzmyer and D. J. Harrington, A Manual o f
Palestinian Aramaic Texts (second century B.C.-second century A.D.) (BibOr 34; Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 2-5; Fitzmyer, Luke 1:585; P. W. Flint, "The Daniel
Tradition at Qumran," in Eschatology, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. C. A.
Evans and P. W. Flint (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 56-57 [art. =41-60]; Marcus, Mark, 217; G. W. E.
Nickelsburg, "Prayer of Nabonidus," in Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period:
Apocalyptic, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. M. E.
Stone (CRINT 2:2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 35-37, who speculates (35) that the
exorcist is Daniel (/); G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York:
Penguin, 1998), 573.
338
38:2), God is the only one who forgives sin.143 It is questionable, however, whether
grammatical parity should be granted to both alternatives. The former alternative takes 71*? more
or less naturally as introducing a nominal sentence (cf. Dan 2:20; 7:4, 6, 7); while the latter takes
76 as a rare dativus ethicus, and a non-reflexive one at that.144
To the extent that there is a parallel to the NT in 4QPrNab that parallel lies in the
objection of the scribes and not in Christ’s forgiveness of the paralytic. Christ is not portrayed as
a mere diviner but as fully divine. His taking on of this divine prerogative, like his taking on of
so many others, makes sense in the context of Mark’s Son of God Christology and in the broader
context of NT Christology more generally.145 There is, however, nothing in 4QPrNab that
would make reasonable sense of an exorcist forgiving another man’s sins. In fact, Nabonidus’
prayer seems positively antithetical to the usurpation of divine prerogatives by an exorcist or, for
that matter, by anyone.146 The point of Nabonidus’ prayer is a vigorous affirmation of
143See further Blackburn, Theios AnSr, 137-139; J. Gnilka, "Das Elend vor dem
Menschensohn (Mk 2,1-12)," in Jesus und der Menschensohn: Fur Anton Vogtie, ed.
R. Pesch, R. Schnackenburg, O. Kaiser (Freiburg: Herder, 1975), 202 [art. = 196-209];
O. Hofius, "Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage: Mk 2,1-12 und das Problem
priesterlicher Absolution im antiken Judentum," in Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann?’
Aufsatze Jiir Hans-Joachim Kraus zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. H.-G. Geyer, J. M. Schmidt,
W. Schneider, M. Weinrich (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), 115, 126
[art. = 115-127]; Klauck, "Die Frage der Siindenvergebung," 236-240; Puech, "La prigre
de Nabonide," 216-217; van der Woude, "Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonides," 124,
"das Subjekt der Siindenvergebung [ist] immer Gott. ”
The conclusion that God alone can forgive sin is considerably strengthened by
Blackburn’s exhaustive study of ’divine’ men in the ancient world. He states, "I could
And no examples of the authority to forgive sins attributed to any miracle-working 0eio<;
&vf|p, or to any biblical hero treated by a ‘Hellenistic-Jewish’ author" (Blackburn, Theios
AnSr, 139, n. 208, emphasis added).
144Blackbum, Theios Aner, 139, n. 206; Collins, "4QPrayer of Nabonidus," 90;
Jongeling, Labuschagne, and van der Woude, Aramaic Texts from Qumran, 128, n. 4. On
the use of the ethical dative in Hebrew see BDB, 515; GKC, §119s; Joiion, §133d, nn. 2-
3; and W-O, §11.2. lOd. According to T. Muraoka, "On the So-called Dativus Ethicus in
Hebrew," JTS 29 (1978): 495-498, "the hallmark of the Semitic construction is the
identity of grammatical person of the subject of the verb with that of the pronoun suffixed
to the preposition . . . . Hence some scholars refer to the Lamedh as reflexive" (495).
With reference more specifically to the reflexive nature of the ethical dative in Aramaic,
see M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3d ed.; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1967), 101-104.
145Cf. Puech, "La prigre de Nabonide," 217.

146Contra the rather forced arguments of Garcia Martinez, "The Prayer of
Nabonidus," 125-126.
339
monotheism: there is only one God and all other pretenders to divinity are idols.147
A statement by Nabonidus to the effect that someone other than the Most High God forgave his
sins would be as improbable in such a context as a statement by him to the effect that,
immediately upon acknowledging the one true God and being healed of the dread affliction caused
by his idolatry, he fell down and worshipped the exorcist who had set him on the straight and
narrow path of monotheism.148
It is one thing to announce God’s forgiveness, as might a priest in the context of

the cultus, or to exhort someone to seek God’s forgiveness, as might a Jewish diviner in
the context of the exile. But it is quite another thing to personally forgive a man’s sins
with a powerful performative word.149 The scribes are therefore completely justified
147Note in this respect that the scribe’s objection in Mark 2:7 contains an
allusion to the Shema (el jiti etq 6 0e6q) since it is precisely God’s uniqueness in the larger
context of monotheism that is at issue (Guelich, Mark, 1:87; Gnilka, "Das Elend vor dem
Menschensohn," 203; Marcus, "Authority to Forgive Sins," 196-199 and passim; idem,
Mark, 222).
1480n the important but generally overlooked matter of genre see, Meyer, Das
Gebet des Nabonid, 34-42, 101-105 (cf. Collins, "4QPrayer of Nabonidus," 87). Meyer
adduces as close thematic and generic parallels the Prayer of Manasseh in 2 Chron 33:10-
13 (p. 35), the monotheistic polemic against idolatry in Isa 46:6-8 (p. 39), and Jewish
wisdom literature generally (pp. 101-105).
l49I.e., the passive verb dîevxon is not a divine passive. So rightly Davies and
Allison, Matthew, 2:89; Gundry, Mark, 112 (cf. 121-122); Hagner, Matthew, 1:232;
Hofius, "Vergebunszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage," 115 (cf. also 127 where he speaks of
Christ’s words as "schdpferische Machtworte"); Hooker, Mark, 86; Klauck, "Die Frage
der Siindenvergebung," 227, who argues that the verb in Mark 2:5c was originally a
divine passive but admits that in the present context it can no longer be understood this
way; Markus, Mark, 216; R. H. Stein, The Method and Message o f Jesus’ Teachings
(rev. ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 117. Contra Bock, Luke,
1:481; Gnilka, Matthausevangelium, 326; idem, "Das Elend vor dem Menschensohn,"
202; Grundmann, Markus, 56; J. Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie, vol. 1, Die
Verkundigung Jesu (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971), 21; Lane, Mark, 94, n. 9; Legasse,
Marc, 1:169; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:156; Zahn, Matthaus, 370.
A mediating position is attempted by Guelich, Mark, 1:86 and Taylor, Mark,
195, 200-201. In both instances, however, the result is the same as with the divine
passive: the objection o f the scribes and the affirmation of Jesus are both reduced to non-
sequiturs. The scribes’ objection clearly assumes that Jesus has arrogated to himself a
340
(in their own estimation) in interpreting Jesus’ claim as completely blasphemous. Jesus
has not claimed to do something that only a priest can do, he has claimed to do
something that only God can do. 15® On this point Jesus and his interlocutors are in
full and complete agreement.151
The charge of blasphemy opens up an important window on NT Christology
since in each instance the charge results from a claim that is interpreted as the usurpation
of a divine prerogative. Instances include Christ’s ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5), his
divine prerogative; and Jesus’ affirmation equally clearly reveals that he possesses the
divine authority to forgive sins (dîevcn tyuxpriaq) rather than the lesser authority to
announce God’s forgiveness.
150Some have argued that Christ’s offense ( = blasphemy?) is merely the
usurpation of priestly prerogatives: e.g., W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus
(THKNT; 8th ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1980), 76; E. Haenchen, D er
Weg Jesu: Eine Erklarung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (2d
ed.; Berlin: de Gmyter, 1968), 202; Lohmeyer, Markus, 52. Cp. also S. Kim,
"Jesus—The Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant: The Role of
Zechariah in the Self-Identification of Jesus," in Tradition and Interpretation in the New
Testament: Essays in Honor o f E. Earle Ellis fo r His 60th Birthday, ed. G. F. Hawthorne
and O. Betz (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 143-144 [art. = 134-148], who argues that
Jesus, as the Son of Man, "is to build a new temple by fulfilling the real function of the
temple" and that in this capacity "Jesus already exercises the function of the temple,
mediation o f the divine forgiveness of sins, quite apart from the temple standing in
Jerusalem."
Hofius ("Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage," passim), however, argues
persuasively against the view that Christ has usurped priestly prerogatives mainly because
he can find no evidence in biblical or post-biblical sources for the view that priests ever
announced or pronounced the forgiveness of sins: "Die Behauptung, dafi das antike
Judentum dem Priester bzw. dem Hohenpriester die Vollmacht zuerkannt habe, von
Stinden loszusprechen, entbehrt jeglicher Quellengmndlage. Wir wissen weder etwas von
einem priesterlichen Absolutionsakt gegeniiber dem einzelnen noch auch von einem
priesterlichen Vergebungszuspruch an die im Tempel versammelte Gemeinde" (125). The
thesis of Kim, on the other hand, may contain an element of truth but is of minimal
relevance to the immediate context. Christ is accused of acting like God Almighty, not of
acting like a priest or functioning like the temple; and he, in so many words, agrees with
the accusation.
151Ellis, "Deity-Christology," 193.
341
ability to raise himself from the dead (Mark 14:58; cf. John 2:19), and his oneness
(equality) with God Almighty (John 10:33).152 The trial of Jesus (Mark 14:61-64) is
especially illuminating for there one finds the charge of blasphemy occasioned by his use
of the title Son of Man, the same title that he uses in the present context (Mark 2:10).
The charge at Jesus’ trial suggests that the title, as Jesus uses it, involves an implicit
claim to deity:
He incurs the charge of blasphemy not by affirming that he was the Messiah, which
in Judaism was not a blasphemous claim, but by his further definition of his
messiahship in terms of a combination of Dan 7:13-14 (the Son of Man) and of Ps
110:1 (David’s Lord seated at God’s right hand). . . . The charge of blasphemy at
the trial is fully understandable if the Sanhedrin understood Jesus to interpret Dan
7:9-14 via Ezek l:26ff. as a theophany applied to himself and thus to assert his
divine status and role. . . . The charge of blasphemy is, then, an important key . . .
It suggests that Dan 7:13-14 was affirmed by Jesus and so heard by his accusers to
point beyond an "Adamic" messianic figure, alluding to Psalm 8 and Gen l:26ff, to a
manifestation of Yahweh in God’s throne-room m "a likeness as the appearance of a
man," alluding to Ezek 1:26 and Gen 1:26-27.153
^ 2Ellis, "Deity-Christology," passim.
153Ellis, "Deity-Christology," 195-197. For the importance of Daniel 7 and its

relationship to Psalm 110 in Christ’s disputes see, J. Dupont, "Le paralytique pardonne
(Mt 9, 1-8)," N R T 82 (1960): 945-948 [art. =940-958]; and for the relationship between
Daniel 7 and Ezekiel 1 see, M. Black, "Die Apotheose Israels: Eine neue Interpretation
des danielischen ‘Menschensohns’," in Jesus und d e r M enschensohn: F ur A n to n V o g tle ,
ed. R. Pesch, R. Schnackenburg, and O. Kaiser (Freiberg: Herder, 1975), 97-98
[art. =92-99]; following A. Fuillet, "Le Fils de l’homme de Daniel et la tradition
biblique," K B 60 (1953): 183-189 [art. = 170-202, 321-346]. See also C. A. Evans,
"Jesus’ Self-Designation ‘The Son of Man’ and the Recognition of His Divinity," in The
T rin ity: A n Interdisciplinary Sym posium on the T rinity , ed. S. T. Davis, D. Kendall, and
G. O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 33-34, 44-46 [art. =29-47]. Evans
argues that the throne set up for the Ancient of Days was a ch a rio t throne since it is
described as having wheels of burning fire (Dan 7:9; cf. Ezek 1:4, 15-21). Thus, "Jesus’
claim that he would sit at God right hand, ‘coming with the clouds of heaven,’ implies
that he would sit upon God’s chariot throne, a seat reserved for the deity” (p. 32). To
this it needs only to be added that the seat was reserved not simply for the deity but for
the anth rop om orp hic deity (cf. Ezek 1:26-28).
342
It is, in other words, as the Son of Man (and as the Lord addressed by David and as the
anthropomorphic Glory seen by Ezekiel) that Jesus claims divine status and exercises
divine prerogatives. Specifically with reference to Mark 2:10, it is as the Son of Man that
Jesus forgives sins.154 The prerogative is divine because Jesus is divine: his action is
fully consistent with his identity.
The Son of Man is portrayed in Daniel 7 as a second figure next to God. And
while there may be some evidence in Daniel 7 that this second figure is divine, there is
none that indicates that he can forgive sins (unless it is the fact that the Son o f Man
possesses the authority of God himself and that this authority necessarily includes the
ability to forgive sins).155 There is, however, a divine figure in the OT who in some
respects resembles the Son of Man, qua second figure next to God, and who does possess
the authority to forgive sins. That figure is the Angel of the LORD:
Behold! I am sending an angel before you to guard you in the way and to bring you
to the place that I have prepared. Be on your guard before him and obey his voice;
do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since my
name is in him (Exod 23:20-21). 56
The use of this Angel of the LORD passage to help explain the present NT passage may
seem like a superfluous hypothesis. After all, Christ’s claim to forgive sins could simply
154Note that all reference to judgment in the context of Daniel 7 has been
omitted (cf. Marcus, "Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth," 208) much in the same
way that Mark omitted it from John the Baptist’s preaching (Mark 1:2-8) and as Christ
himself had omitted it from his citations of Isaiah (Matt 11:5).
155Cf. Marcus, "Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth," 205, with reference
to Dan 9:9.
156Though expressed negatively the implication is clearly that the Angel of the
LORD has the authority to forgive sins (Marcus, "Authority to Forgive Sins upon the
Earth," 207). For this reason the LXX translators) took offense and drastically revised
Exod 23:21. If "name" here means authority rather than, say, nature or hypostasis, then
the connection to the present passage may be even closer still.
343
imply his deity and nothing more. The hypothesis is made possible, however, by the fact
that Christ speaks of his authority to forgive sins as the authority of a second figure next
to God (i.e., the Son of Man). And it is made probable by the fact that Mark has already
decisively tipped his hand in the direction of Exod 23:20 (Mark 1:2; cf. Matt 11:10), the
verse immediately prior to Exod 23:21 where the Angel o f the LORD is described as
having the authority to forgive sins. 157 In a qualified sense, then, the forgiveness of
sins is not solely a divine prerogative: that is, the forgiveness of sins is not solely the
prerogative of God in heaven-, it is also the prerogative of God on earth . 158 Jesus, as
God manifest on earth, has the authority to forgive sins. 159
157Marcus notes the earlier reference to Exod 23:20 in Mark 1:2 but appears to
miss its significance due to the mistaken assumption that "the angel/messenger is
interpreted as John the Baptist rather than as Jesus" ("Authority to Forgive Sins upon the
Earth," 208, n. 2; idem, Mark, 142). More perceptive may be his detection ("Authority
to Forgive Sins upon the Earth," 208, n. 3) of an important correspondence between
Exod 23:21 and the citation of Ps 117:26 (LXX) in Mark 11:9, "Blessed is he who comes
in the name o f the L o rd ” The Coming One is not only the Davidic Messiah, he is also
the Angel of the LORD.
1SftIn Mark 2:10 the expression in i xnq yfy; is used. This same expression is
found in Dan 7:17; and though it is not expressly said in Dan 7:17 that the Son of Man
exercises his authority on earth this may be a valid inference (Marcus, "Authority to
Forgive Sins upon the Earth," 203). The mention of earth in Exod 23:20-22 may also be
of some relevance in designating the sphere within which the Son of Man exercises his
extraordinary authority: i.e., the expression eiq tf|vynv is found in 23:20; and the
expression ip i ydp io n v ndoo yq is found in the LXX expansion of 23:22. Note that
reference to Jesus being in i xrfc yqq is also found in Mark 6:47 just prior to the exercise
of further divine prerogatives: i.e., a theophanic manifestation reflective of several key
OT Angel of the LORD texts (see below).
159 Cf.
Matt 28:18 where Christ not only claims to have authority in i Tqq YHS but
to have all authority on earth.
344
The closest parallel to this portrayal of Christ, at least in certain limited respects,
is found in Apoc. Abr. 160 There the great angel Iaoel is described not only in terms
reminiscent of Exod 23:21 (and several other Angel of the LORD texts) but also in terms
reminiscent of Dan 7:13-14. It is abundantly clear, however, that Iaoel is not divine and
that he does not forgive sins. In fact, Iaoel exercises no divine prerogatives whatever.
Though glorious, Iaoel is merely on a par with Abraham rather than, like the Son of
Man, on a par with God. The author of the NT conception of Christ (arguably Christ
himself) thus seems to have a more accurate view of the OT Angel of the LORD (i.e., as
a manifestation of God), and, moreover, seems to have thought through more carefully
the implications of this vis-a-vis the exercise of divine prerogatives.
The amalgamation of Exod 23:20-23 and Dan 7:13-14 in the NT thus reveals a
divine agent and not merely an agent:
Der Erzahlung Mk 2,1-12 hingegen gilt Jesu Wort an den Gelahmten nicht bloB als
eine Ansage der von Gott geschenkten Vergebung, sondem als wirkmdchtiges Wort,
mit dem Jesus selbst in unmittelbarer gottlicher Vollmacht und eigener gottlicher
Autoritat die Vergebung der Siinden gewahrt. . . . Die Erzahlung Mk 2,1-12 setzt
deutlich eine Handlungseinheit zwischen Gott und Jesus voraus. 1
But function entails ontology; and he is YHWH who does the deeds of YHWH. The
forgiveness of sins is one of the deeds of YHWH. The healing of the lame in fulfillment
of Isa 35:5-6 is another. And the supernatural knowledge of the thoughts and intents of
the heart (Mark 2:6-8) may be yet a third. One could argue in light of this that
160 Marcus,
"Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth," 205-208. Note,
however, that Apoc. Abr. is half a century later than the NT.
161 Hofius, "Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage," 126.

162 Cf. Gnilka, "Das Elend vor dem Menschensohn," 204; Gundry, Mark, 113;
Hagner, Matthew, 1:92; Marcus, Mark, 222; Pesch, Markusevangeluim, 1:159. The
Angel of the LORD similarly possessed supernatural knowledge in the OT (e.g., Gen
16:11-12; cf. 18:12-15); although this alone is not a sufficient indicator of divinity.
345
Mark 2:1-12 "constitutes a very significant assimilation of Jesus to God. ” 163 But one
could also argue that this understatement begs the question almost entirely. Jesus did not
need to be assimilated to God because he was God. He was God manifest on earth as a
divine agent. This, at least, is how Christ seems to have understood himself; and this is
certainly how he is portrayed in the earliest strata of the NT . 164
The Sea-Rescue Theophany

(Mark 6:45-52; cf. Matt 14:22-33; John 6:16-21)
This remarkable account has aptly been described as a "sea-rescue

epiphany. " 165 An apter description, however, might be a sea-rescue theophany or
even a sea-rescue angelophany insofar as the angel in question is understood to be the
Angel of the LORD. 166 The theophanic elements in this account are diverse and
163 Blackbum, Theios Aner, 138.

I64"This triple-tradition episode, found also in a Q Vorlage, is at the bedrock of
the Gospel tradition" (Ellis, "Deity-Christology," 192, n. 2).
165 J. P. Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions o f Matt
14:22-33, Mark 6:45-52 and John 6:15b-21 (AnBib 87; Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1981), vii, 17, 30, and passim. Heil’s monograph remains the definitive treatment of this
remarkable account.
1661116 generally accepted definitions of epiphanies are, in this instance, difficult
to distinguish from descriptions of theophanies (cf. the definition of theophany given in
Chapter 1 above and note the use of the term epiphany in reference to theophanies in the
LXX of Gen 35:7; Deut 33:2; 2 Macc 3:24, 30). Heil, for example, defmes an epiphany
as:
. . . a sudden and unexpected manifestation of a divine or heavenly being
experienced by certain persons, in which the divine being reveals a divine attribute,
action or message. The essential characteristic of an epiphany is that it reveals some
aspect of God’s salvific dealings with his people (Jesus Walking on the Sea, 8 ).
And E. Pax states:
Unter ‘Epiphanie’ verstehen wir das plotzlich eintretende und ebenso rasch weichende
Sichtbarwerden der Gottheit vor den Augen der Menschen unter gestalteten und
ungestalteten Anschauungsformen, die natiirlichen oder geheimnisvollen Charakter
346
complementary. Together they suggest that Jesus is much more than a ‘divine
\f n
m an.u They may even suggest that he is the eschatological manifestation of the
God of the exodus deliverance narrative. 168
The first significant theophanic element in the account is the mountain on which
Jesus prays. Taken in isolation the mountain is mere topography. But taken in
conjunction with the multiplicity of theophanic elements that immediately follow, the
tragen (EIIl®ANEIA: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Biblischen Theologie

[Miinchener Theologische Studien 1.10; Miinchen: Karl Zink, 1955], 20; cf.
Frenschkowski, Offenbarung und Epiphanie, 1:278; 2:5).
Pax is quick to add, however, that the terms epiphany and theophany are often
interchangeable and that the modem preference of one over the other in NT studies is
largely a matter of convention (20-21). Thus, unless one’s use of the term epiphany is
designed to beg the question, i.e., by assuming that epiphany and deity are mutually
exclusive, the contextual evidence here suggests that Christ manifests himself to his
disciples as a being whose divinity is that o f YHWH in the OT.
\f%7According to Blackburn, Theios Aner, 145, this passage more than any other
has been adduced in support of the thesis that Jesus was a Qexoq ricvfp. This thesis,
however, has justifiably fallen on hard times and will not be considered further here. For
a refutation of the thesis see, Blackburn, Theios Aner, passim; and cf. C. H. Holladay,
Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique o f the Use o f This Category in New
Testament Christology (SBLDS 40; Missoula: Scholars, 1977), esp. 236-239; W. L.
Lane, "Theios Aner Christology and the Gospel of Mark," in New Dimensions in New
Testament Study, ed. R. Longenecker and M. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974),
144-161.
1AS
°°This is fully consistent with the dominance of Isaianic New Exodus themes in
the Gospel of Mark (cf. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, passim) and in the NT more
generally. Since the christologically significant motifs and imagery derive most naturally
from the OT there is no need to appeal to non-Jewish sources to explain any of the
features of this theophany. Contra, e.g., K. Kertelge, Die Wunder Jesu im
Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (SANT 23; Miinchen:
Kosel-Verlag, 1970), 147-149; A. Yarbro Collins, "Rulers, Divine Men, and Walking on
the Water (Mark 6:45-52)," in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the
New Testament World: Essays Honouring Dieter Georgi, ed. L. Bormann, K. Del
Tredici, and A. Standhartinger (NovTSup 74; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 207-227, both of
whom argue that OT motifs and Hellenistic concepts (Kertelge), or Jewish and Greek
traditions (Yarbro Collins), are of equal relevance to the explanation of this account.
347
mountain can only be understood as parallel to the mountain on which God revealed
himself in the OT and from which he descended in all of his radiant glory (cf. Deut 33:2;
Hab 3:3-4) to save and guide his people.***9 That mountain is variously called Sinai
and Horeb in the OT and it is where God revealed himself, respectively, to Moses
(Exodus 33-34) and Elijah (1 Kings 19).170
The second significant theophanic element is the fact that Christ’s rescue of his
disciples takes place at sea:
In the OT water is the special domain of Yahweh. Only God can save from distress
on the waters of the sea. . . . In view of this OT background the disciples’ distress in
crossing the sea signifies, both from the meaning of the motif in itself and its
function in a rescue story, distress specially oriented to a divine saving action. The
distress implies rescue; the distress at sea implies rescue by God. . . . Both the
meaning and function of walking on the sea indicates that it is a uniquely divine
169So rightly, in view of the predominant exodus imagery in the account,

Guelich, Mark, 1:349; Gundry, Mark, 342; Marcus, Mark, 422-423; Pesch,
Markusevangelium, 1:360; H. Ritt, "Der ‘Seewandel Jesu’ (Mk 6,45-52 par): Literarische
und theologische Aspekte," BZ 23 (1979): 78-79 [art. =71-84]. Contra Heil, Jesus
Walking on the Sea, 33, 6 8 ; cf. T. L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in
Matthean Theology (JSNTSup 8 ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 12.
*7®Note that later at the Transfiguration Jesus not only reveals his divine glory
on a mountain but does so to Elijah and Moses. Others have also noted the close
relationship between the present account and that of the Transfiguration: e.g., A.-M.
Denis, "La marche de Jesus sur les eaux: Contribution a l’histoire de la pericope dans la
tradition evangelique, " in De Jesus aux Evangiles: Tradition et redaction dans les
Evangiles synoptiques, ed. I. de la Potterie, et al. (BETL 25.2; Gembloux: Duculot,
1967), 235, 243, 246 [art. =233-247]; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:498; H. B. Green,
The Gospel According to Matthew (New Clarendon Bible; Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1975), 141; Hagner, Matthew 2:421 (citing Green).
Note also the absence here of any significant Moses typology: "the parallels in
our passage are between Jesus and Yahweh, not Jesus and Moses" (Davies and Allison,
Matthew, 1:504, n. 32; cf. Hagner, Matthew, 2:422; contra, e.g., Davies and Allison,
Matthew, 1:502; Gundry, Matthew, 297). Below it will be suggested that there is also
less Moses typology at the Transfiguration than is customarily seen.
348
activity. By performing it Jesus shows that he, like Yahweh, can not only dominate
the sea but also save from it.
God’s mastery over the sea is depicted in relation to two OT traditions: the creation
tradition and the exodus tradition. 172 Here it is the exodus tradition that dominates
(cf. Exodus 14). Most commentators are quick to point out that the reference to the
fourth or early morning or watch tyutanefi) of the night (Mark 6:48c; cf. Matt 14:25a)
echoes the reference to the morning watch tyutoncn) in Exod 14:24.173 But there are
numerous other important echoes as well. For example, the following words in Mark
6:45-52 are also found in Exodus 14: £v peotp trfe OaXdomv;, tnq YHS. t&bv, &vepo<;
£vavrioq, ûtonaflv xife vuiexdq, 156vte£, £ici xrfc OaXdooTK, rafcvxE^, ef5ov m i £?apax9naav,
171 Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 34, 36, 56. Cf. Davies and Allison,
Matthew, 2:503-504; Marcus, Mark, 432; Yarbro Collins, "Rulers, Divine Men, and
Walking on the Water," 224, "[t]he fact that it is God alone in the Hebrew Bible who is
said to walk on water and the presence of theophanic elements in the story imply a
relatively ‘high’ Christology."
Jesus Walking on the Sea, 34. The word "sea" (GdXaoaa) is something
172 Heil,
of a Leitwort in Exodus 14, occurring fifteen times; while the word "sea" occurs three
times in Mark’s shorter account. See W. R. Stegner, "Jesus’ Walking on the Water:
Mark 6.45-52," in The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R.
Stegner (JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 217-218 [art. =212-
234]. According to E. S. Malbon (cited by Stegner, 218), "the Marcan application of the
term thalassa rather than limne to the Lake of Galilee serves well its narrative and
theological purposes. Though limne is more geographically precise, the more ambiguous
thalassa is rich in connotations from the Hebrew scriptures" (E. S. Malbon, "The Jesus
of Mark and the Sea of Galilee," JBL 103 [1984]: 376 [art. =363-377]). Some of these
connotation-filled OT references to the sea and God’s power over it include Ps 69:2-4,
14-16; 77:16-20; 107:23-32; Job 9:8, 11; 26:11-12; 38:16; Isa 43:16-21; 51:9-11; Hab
3:15. Cf. also Wisdom’s power over the sea in Sir 24:5-6 and esp. Wis 10:18-19.
Wisdom in these two texts, as in Prov 8:28-30, is simply a metaphorical way of speaking
about God himself.
Jesus Walking on the Sea, 37. Cf., e.g., Blackburn, Theios Aner, 146;
173 Heil,
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:504; L6 gasse, Marc, 1:412, n. 21; Marcus, Mark, 431;
Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:360; Ritt, "Seewandel Jesu," 79. Note also that in Exod
34:2, 4, the theophany to Moses is said to take place "early in the morning."
349
£AaXi)OEv, Xtytx, OapoeiXE, £76 d p i, $of)efo€e, ftvcjioq, f| xapSia.174 In fact, almost
one-third of the wording of Mark 6:45-52 is found in Exodus 14.17^ Some of these
parallels are no doubt purely coincidental; many, however, seem to be deliberate.17*’
And not only are there numerous verbal parallels between Mark 6:45-52 and Exodus 14,
there is also a significant structural parallel: 177 in Exodus 14 it is God who is present
visibly, who "looks down" from the pillar of fire and cloud, who sees the distress of his
people "in the midst of the sea," and who dramatically effects a sea-rescue. But in the
NT it is Jesus who visibly manifests the divine presence, who "looks down" from the
mountain, who sees the distress of his disciples "in the midst of the sea, " 178 and who
dramatically effects a sea-rescue. The structural parallel is not quite exact. 179
Nevertheless, the correspondences between the two passages are revealing, not least
174 Stegner, "Jesus’ Walking on the Water," 221.

17 ^Stegner, "Jesus’ Walking on the Water," 221. His overall statistics run a bit
high, however, since he isolates Mark 6:46-5 la as the most primitive "Jewish Christian"
form of the account, and it is here that most of the parallels to Exodus 14 occur.
176This is true even if one cannot accept, with Stegner, the thesis that the
account derives from a primitive Christian Passover haggadah (Stegner, "Jesus’ Walking
on the Water," 215, 229; following B. Gartner, John 6 and the Jewish Passover [ConNT
17; Lund: Gleerup, 1959], 30, 37).
177 Stegner, "Jesus’ Walking on the Water," 222-223.

178With reference to the repetition of this and similar phrases in Exodus 14 and
the present account see, Stegner, "Jesus’ Walking on the Water," 217; cf. Malbon, "The
Jesus of Mark and the Sea of Galilee," 374-375, n. 34.
170
E.g., in one sense the source of danger in Exodus 14 is not the sea but the
Egyptian army. Note, however, that it is the sea that effectively traps the Israelites and
that is subsequently overcome by God who then leads his people to safety through it. God
could have simply exterminated the Egyptian army without effecting a miracle over the
sea. That he first overcomes the sea underscores his absolute power over all creation and
over all o f the chaotic forces symbolized in the ancient world by the sea.
350
because it was the Angel of the LORD who was present in the pillar of cloud and fire as
the visible manifestation of YHWH (Exod 13:21; 14:19) and who delivered the Israelites.
It is probably going beyond the evidence to say that Mark 6:45-52 is modeled after
Exodus 14.180 The NT account is not modeled after any one OT passage but instead
(at the literary level) combines a variety of theophanic motifs and divine actions from a
number of different OT texts. 181 As already suggested, however, these motifs and
actions have one important feature in common: they are all taken from key OT Angel of
the LORD texts and narrative contexts.
The third significant theophanic element is the curious and perplexing fact that
Jesus "desired to pass by his disciples" (fjpetev itnpeXOeiv orircouq). A divine miracle is
taking place—Jesus is walking on the sea toward his foundering and exhausted
disciples—and a rescue is anticipated. What can it possibly mean that Jesus desired to pass
by his disciples? 182 The answer to this difficult question is found in the appearances
of YHWH to Moses and Elijah in Exodus 33-34 and 1 Kings 19 where, in each case,
YHWH’s theophany is described as a "passing by. " 183 No fewer than four times in
180Pace Stegner, "Jesus’ Walking on the Water," 215 and passim.

182"Le trait est mysterieux et a donne lieu a des exegeses variees, certaines de la
plus haute fantaisie" (Legasse, Marc, 1:413).
183So E. Lohmeyer, "‘Und Jesus ging voriiber’: Eine exegetische Betrachtung,"
chap. in Urchristliche Mystik: Neutestamentliche Studien (Darmstadt: Gentner, 1956), 71-
72 [art. =57-79], Lohmeyer’s seminal article, which first appeared in Nieuw theologisch
Tijdschrift in 1934, is followed by most commentators: e.g ., Blackburn, Theios Aner,
148-150; Denis, "La marche de Jesus sur les eaux," 236-237, 244; Guelich, Mark,
1:350; Gundry, Mark, 336-337, 340-341; Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 69-72; Lane,
Mark, 236; Lggasse, Marc, 1:413-414; Marcus, Mark, 426, 432; Pesch,
Markusevangelium, 1:361; J. Schneider, "Spxopai, KtX.," TDNT, 2:681-682 [art. = 6 6 6 -
684], Cf. H. Fleddermann, "‘And He Wanted to Pass by Them’ (Mark 6:48c)," CBQ 45
351
Exod 33:18-34:8 does God say to Moses that he (Exod 33:22; 34:6), his goodness (Exod
33:19), his glory (Exod 33:22), and his ‘back’ (cf. Exod 33:23) will pass by
(1983): 394 [art. =389-395], who affirms Lohmeyer’s thesis even though he gives
primacy to Amos 7:8 and 8:2. It is highly unlikely in these two prophetic texts, however,
that the verb napdpxopai has the elsewhere unattested meaning of "to rescue." Cf.
Gundry, Mark, 341; B. M. F. van Iersel, "KAIH0EAEN I1APEA0EIN ATTOYZ: Another
Look at Mark 6,48d," in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van
Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden (BETL 100; 3 vols.;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2:1072 [art. =2:1065-1076].
The only sustained argument against Lohmeyer’s thesis comes from T. Snoy,
"Marc 6,48: * . . . et il voulait les depasser.’ Proposition pour la solution d’une enigme,"
in L ’Evangile selon Marc: Tradition et redaction, ed. M. Sabbe, et al. (BETL 34;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974), 357-363 [art. =347-363]. Snoy argues that
Lohmeyer’s parallels are "parfois arbitraires ou insuffisamment justifies" (359, n. 62),
but it has already been shown that this is not the case and that theophanic motifs are
maximally relevant. Snoy also argues that if the Markan account were based on Exodus
33-34 there would be more than merely two points of contact: the verb napepxopou and
"le fait de la theophanie" (360). True, these are the primary points of contact with
Exodus 33-34; but they are considerably more substantial than Snoy allows. One could as
easily dispense with the statement, ostensibly reflective of a high Christology, that Jesus
is the God o f the OT. For here, too, there are only two points of contact: God and the
OT! Iersel ("Another Look," 1067-1068) follows Snoy at this juncture, even going so far
as to state, "Jesus never does anything in Mark that unmistakably refers to the
performance of a divine action" (1071). But were such stringent criteria to be applied
universally it would quickly become impossible to affirm that Jesus does anything at all.
At issue is not whether Jesus performs divine actions. That is a foregone conclusion. At
issue is whether his performance of divine actions entails his divinity and, if so, whether
his divinity is the divinity of the God of the OT.
Blackburn (Theios Aner, 149) argues persuasively against Snoy primarily by
noting that the present narrative "does not represent the transference of any one O.T.
theophany to Jesus, but rather a Verschmelzung of theophanic motifs (or at least actions
of Yahweh) occurring in various contexts in the O.T." Blackburn (150) also notes that
there is no evidence in the present context for the "messianic secret" theory that Snoy
prefers over Lohmeyer’s thesis. Nowhere does Jesus attempt to hide his identity from his
disciples, whether by "passing by" them (seen but unrecognized) or otherwise; and Mark
1:32-35, which Snoy adduces as a parallel, is hardly an improvement over Luke 24:28
which Snoy rightly faults Lohmeyer for adducing. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 340-341; Heil,
Jesus Walking on the Sea, 72; L6 gasse, Marc, 1:414, n. 32.
352
Moses. 184 The express purpose of the theophany to Moses is that God might reveal
himself to Moses in a more profound way than ever before. In addition to the theophanic
appearance itself there is also considerable emphasis in Exod 34:5-7 on the divine name
(Exod 34:5-6a) and on the revelatory divine speech that attends the appearance itself
(Exod 34:6b-7). The same emphasis on divine speech can be found in Christ’s words to
his disciples immediately after he "passes by" them (see below) . 185 Christ’s "passing
by" his disciples thus continues, and is fully consistent with, his theophanic action of
walking on the sea: "The action of ‘passing’ (TUB; raxp£pxojiai), then, expresses one of
the ways in which God appears or comes to men. It signifies the manner by which God
makes himself visible and shows himself to human eyes. " 186
The fourth significant theophanic element in the account is Christ’s use of the
self-designation "I am " (£ytf> dpi). Taken in isolation this might mean nothing more than,
"It is I (Jesus)." Taken in conjunction with the many other theophanic elements in the
immediate context it must also be understood as alluding to the divine "I am " of Exod
184In 1 Kings 19 the theophanic "passing by" of YHWH’s presence, which may
bear some relation to earlier references to the Angel of the LORD (1 Kings 19:5, 7) and
the word of the LORD (1 Kings 19:9), is mentioned only once and takes place in 1 Kings
19:11. Cf. the use of the verb in Gen 18:3 in reference to YHWH’s
anthropomorphic theophany to Abraham.
185 Gundry, Mark, 336-337; cf. Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 69.
186 Heil,Jesus Walking on the Sea, 69 (cf. 70-71). It is also possible that the
purpose of Christ’s "passing by" his disciples is not only to manifest his divine nature to
them but to move from behind (cf. Exod 14:19) to in front of them thereby restoring his
position at their lead vis-a-vis the forerunner framework of Exod 23:20-23. Cf. Gundry,
Matthew, 296; Iersel, "Another Look," 1074-1075. In addition to this possible echo of
Exodus 23 there may also be an echo of Exod 23:25 in Jesus’ blessing of the bread in
Mark 6:41.
353
3:14,187 to the iytUt d p i icuptoq of Exod 14:4, 18, and perhaps also to the
theologically-charged repetition of the divine name in Exod 34:6.188
When Jesus quells the power of the sea, strides in triumph across the waves, and
announces his presence to the disciples with the sovereign self-identification formula
"I am he" (4:35-41; 6:45-52), he is speaking in and acting out the language of Old
Testament divine warrior theophanies, narratives in which Yahweh himself subdues
the demonic forces of chaos in a saving, cosmos-creating act of holy war.189
The self-designation "I am " thus serves a dual purpose: to identify and reveal.19®
The divine self-identification is underscored by the command to "Fear not!" that
immediately follows.191 Though fear and the command not to fear are both found in
reference to non-divine beings (angels), they are especially common in the context of OT
theophanies and appearances of the Angel of the LORD.192 The forty-third chapter
of Isaiah is especially instructive in this regard: not because the fear and the comfort-
187Cf. Carson, Matthew, 344; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:506; Guelich,
Mark, 1:351; Gundry, Mark, 337; Hagner, Matthew, 2:423; Hurtado, Mark, 106;
Marcus, Mark, 427, 431-432; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:362; Ritt, "Seewandel Jesu,”
81.
188As noted above in Chapter 2 there is an equivalence in Exodus 33-34
between YHWH, his angel, and his "face" or "presence" (EP3B).
189Marcus, The Way o f the Lord, 144-145.
190Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:362, "Die Klarung der Identitat des
Erscheinenden geschieht doppelbodig theologisch: In dem aufdem Meer
inherschreitenden irdischen Jesus (fryd) d p i als Identitatsproklamation) wird Jahwe
epiphan (tyw d p i als Offenbarungsformel)."
191Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:362; cf. Marcus, Mark, 434.
192Cf. also Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 58, who points out that the
disciples’ fearful reaction to Jesus’ theophany closely resembles the sea’s fearful reaction
to YHWH’s theophany at the exodus: i.e., in the LXX of Ps 77:17 "the same Greek
verbs for seeing (aorist of 6pdo>) and fearing (xapdooo)) as in Matt 14:26 and Mark 6:50
are used."
354
formula in Marie 6:50 derive from that chapter, 193 but because Mark and Isaiah
deliberately echo the same exodus deliverance narrative. The difference is that for Mark
Jesus stands in the place o f YHWH.194 Clearly, then, it is no understatement to say
that Jesus is portrayed as "performing a characteristic saving action of Yahweh. " 193
It is equally no understatement to say that Jesus "speaks in a way that is peculiarly
characteristic of Yahweh in the O.T. Not even the divine formula £ 7 6 d p t (=Nin *3H) is
withheld from Jesus’ lips. " 196 The one who performs a uniquely divine action
reveals himself with uniquely divine speech. But if Jesus does what YHWH does, and if
Jesus says what YHWH says, then it is not inconceivable that Jesus is what YHWH is.
Jesus is not merely the "revealer" of YHWH (or of YHWH’s saving will) but a
theophanic manifestation of YHWH as a divine agent. 197
193Pace Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 59. He does, however, rightly highlight
the following parallel words and expressions:
Isa 43:1 "Fear not, for I have redeemed you."
Isa 43:2a "When you pass through the waters I will be with you."
Isa 43:3a "For I am the Lord your God."
Isa 43:5 "Fear not, for I am with you."
Isa 43:10b "that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. "
Isa 43:11 "/, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior."
Isa 43:12b-13 "/ am God, and also henceforth I am He; there is none who can
deliver from my hand: I work and who can hinder it?"
194 Cf. Marcus, Mark, 435, "Jesus assumes the character of the God of the
exodus himself."
195 Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 59.
197Contra Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 79-80 (cf. 59), whose argument
against a divine Jesus is based at this point on a false dichotomy and, moreover, on the
a priori assumption that Jesus is not divine. According to Heil, £ 7 6 d p i on Jesus’ lips is
either an identification formula or a revelation formula, but not both; and since it clearly
identifies the speaker it cannot also reveal the divine identity of that speaker (for if it did
it would imply that Jesus is divine, "which, of course, is not the case").
355
The revelation of Christ’s divine identity on the sea was deliberately initiated and
orchestrated by Christ. This is the meaning of the statement that Jesus "compelled" his
disciples to go out onto the sea. The verb "compel" (dcvaYiafc$o) is unusually strong in
this context, especially in the absence of any reported resistance or foul weather.
It indicates that the whole scene was deliberately staged by Christ for an express
theological (i.e., Christological) purpose and that the disciples, in failing to recognize
Jesus on the sea, show that they have failed to grasp that purpose.199 Mark attributes
their failure to their hardness of heart; but, more importantly, he relates their hardness of
heart to their earlier failure to understand the miracle of the loaves. It is not that the
disciples failed to understand that the multiplication of bread was a miracle, it is that they
failed to understand that it was a miracle that revealed the divine identity of the one
200
performing it. Jesus possesses the creative power (and the pastoral compassion) of
l98The verb is found in the NT and in the LXX and does not elsewhere have the
weaker meaning of urging or inviting (pace Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:501;
following BAGD, 52). Elsewhere it means to compel or force someone. Cf. in the NT,
Matt 14:23; Mark 6:45; Luke 14:23; Acts 26:11; 28:19; 2 Cor 12:11; Gal 2:3, 14; 6:12;
and in the LXX, Prov 6:7; 1 Esdr 3:24; 4:6; Jdt 8:30; 1 Macc 2:25; 2 Macc 6:1, 7, 18;
7:1; 8:24; 11:11, 14; 4 Macc 4:26; 5:2, 27; 8:2, 9; 15:7; 18:5.
199Zahn, Matthaus, 513 (this view is mentioned but not endorsed by Davies and
Allison, Matthew, 2:501). For other possible but contextually less likely explanations see,
e.g., Carson, Matthew, 343; Gundry, Mark, 335, 339; Hagner, Matthew, 2:422. In John
6:15, for example, it is said that Jesus withdrew to "the mountain" because the crowd
was about to seize him and make him king; but there is no indication here or in any of
the gospels that this was why Jesus compelled his disciples to set sail. Jesus may also
have desired solitude for prayer, but that hardly explains the exceptionally harsh verb
here and its absence at other times when Jesus desired solitude. Could there be an
analogy to the present difficult verb in the equally surprising use of the verb &K0dAA(D in
Mark 1:12?
200Contra Gundry, Mark, 337-337, it strains credulity to imagine that the
disciples (who Gundry says are sitting in a boat filled to overflowing with baskets of
leftovers) failed to recognize that the production of bread was a miracle. See, rather,
Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 73-75. He points out with reference to the expression
356
YHWH himself. Jesus is the source of bread as YHWH was the source of manna in the
exodus narrative;201 and Jesus blesses bread as YHWH had said that he himself
would bless it in the Promised Land.202 Had the disciples understood Christ’s divine
identity on the basis of the miracle of the loaves they surely would have recognized him
on the water and understood that they were witnesses to a New Exodus theophany.203
Mark’s statement that they did not understand the loaves is the surest indicator that he
himself did by that time understand; and one may safely infer that others did as well.
It is possible to note other minor theophanic elements in the Markan passage, and
one or two more in the Matthean version of the account.204 But the main outline is
cruvrpcov £ici xoiq ftprou; that ini with the dative indicates "basis" or "grounds" (cf.
Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §126; BDF, §235(2)). "Thus, the implied but unexpressed
object of the verb ouvfpeav, ‘understand,’ is not ‘the loaves’ but the true identity of Jesus
as shown especially in his sea-walking and in his miraculous multiplication of the loaves"
(74, n. 108; cf. 6, n. 13). See further M. Boucher, The Mysterious Parable: A Literary
Study (CBQMS 6; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1977),
69-75.
201Cf. Exod 16:6-7, "At evening you will know that YHWH has brought you
out of the land of Egypt; and in the morning you will see the glory of YHWH."
202Cf. Exod 23:25, "And you shall serve YHWH your God, and he will bless
your bread. "
203Cf. Hooker, Mark, 169 (emphasis added), "The crossing of the sea and the
gift of manna are the central miracles in the Exodus story, and it is therefore not
surprising to find Mark tying these two miracles of Jesus closely together."
204E.g., the disciples’ fear, already mentioned in passing above, is consistent
with the portrayal of Christ’s appearance on the sea as a theophany (cf. Exod 14:31).
Christ’s supernatural observation of his disciples is also consistent with his divine status
(cf. Marcus, Mark, 423; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:360; contra Heil, Jesus Walking on
the Sea, 69, n. 92). Christ can see his disciples floundering on the sea even though it is
night and they are far away from him "in the midst of the sea."
Matthew, who alone speaks of Peter walking on the water, omits mention of
Jesus’ theophanic "passing by" but compensates by adding several elements in Matt
14:28-33 that could be interpreted as theophanic (cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:507-
357
fairly clear: Jesus stands in the place of God and takes on divine prerogatives because he
is divine.205 Notably, the divine prerogatives that he takes on are those found in OT
Angel of the LORD texts and contexts.206 Here again it is possible that Jesus is
being identified with YHWH without any reference to the Angel of the LORD. But it
seems more likely that the Angel of the LORD is an important christological factor. This
is not only due to the fact that the Angel of the LORD was the localized manifestation of
the presence of God in these OT texts (often appearing in the OT in human form); it is
also due to the fact that Jesus was already identified with reference to two important OT
Angel of the LORD texts in the programmatic opening lines of Mark’s gospel. The
present passage thus fits within an overarching Christology that takes Christ to be the
eschatological manifestation of YHWH as a divine agent. Did the disciples in the boat
510). This would suggest that while Matthew’s emphases are different there is no basis
for saying that he is "oblivious" to Mark’s theophanic language (contra Hagner, Matthew,
2:422). For example, Peter calls Jesus "Lord." Here the vocative may simply be a polite
form of address. But, like the title Son of God, it also has a deeper significance. Peter’s
cry to Jesus for help ("Lord, save me!") clearly echoes OT cries to God for deliverance.
See, e.g., Ps 107:28-32 and Jon 1:13-16; and cf. Pss 18:4-6, 16; 69:1-2, 14-15; and Ps
144:7, where, however, the water is figurative. Also consistent with a theophany is the
fact that everyone in the boat worships Jesus. Carson (Matthew, 345) thus rightly sees
Matt 14:33 as "[t]he climax of the story."
John’s account by contrast is comparatively sparse. This could indicate that it is
the most primitive account (so, e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew. 2:500). But it could
also indicate that the divine "I a m " conveyed everything that John—whose Christology is
the highest in the NT—wished to convey. Other corroborating theophanic details could
easily be omitted in view of his own narrative and theological aims. Cf. G. R. O’Day,
"John 6:15-21: Jesus Walking on Water as Narrative Embodiment of Johannine
Christology,” in Critical Readings o f John 6, ed. R. A. Culpepper (Biblical Interpretation
Series 22; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 149-159.
205Cf. Marcus, Mark, 432, "Although, therefore, Mark never explicitly says
that Jesus is divine, he comes very close to doing so here, and this high evaluation of
Jesus is consonant with indicators elsewhere in the Gospel . . . . [T]he overwhelming
impact made by our narrative is an impression of Jesus’ divinity."
206I.e., Exodus 3, 14, 23, 33-34.
358
grasp all of this? Hardly! They are, in fact, rebuked for their obduracy and
incomprehension.207 After the resurrection, however, things are noticeably different.
After the resurrection there is every indication that the disciples did finally grasp the truth
of the divine identity of the Son of God: the truth toward which Christ’s miracles, like
Christ’s forerunner, were pointing.
The Transfiguration of "the Son"

(Mark 9:1-13; cf. Matt 17:1-13; Luke 9:28-36)
The purpose of the Transfiguration is to reveal the true glory and identity of "the
Christ" confessed by Peter at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:29).208 The climax of the
Transfiguration narrative is thus the heavenly voice that describes the transfigured Christ
(whose true glory and identity have just been misunderstood by Peter!) as "my beloved
Son. "209 It is best, however, not to begin here but to work up to this pinnacle of
207Cf. Boucher, The Mysterious Parable, 69-75, 79-85, who relates Christ’s
miracles (i.e., the multiplication of bread and the walking on the sea) to his parables and
both, in turn, to themes of obduracy, incomprehension, and the mystery of the kingdom.
These miracles, in other words, are functioning as signs.
208Cf. Carson, Matthew, 384 ("The narrative is clearly a turning point in Jesus’
self-disclosure"); Hagner, Matthew, 2:489.
209For the heavenly voice in Mark 9:7 as the climax of the Transfiguration
narrative see, e.g., Carson, Matthew, 386; Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 146, 148;
Gundry, Mark, 457; H. C. Kee, "The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphany or Apocalyptic
Vision?" in Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in honor o f Morton S. Enslin on the
Hebrew Bible and Christian Beginnings, ed. J. Reumann (Valley Forge, Pa.; Judson
Press, 1972), 139 [art. = 135-152]; Marcus, The Way o f the Lord, 81; W. R. Stegner,
"The Use of Scripture in Two Narratives of Early Jewish Christianity (Matthew 4.1-11;
Mark 9.2-8)," in Early Christian Interpretation o f the Scriptures o f Israel: Investigations
and Proposals, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997), 111, 117 [art. =98-120]; D. Zeller, "Bedeutung und
religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund der Verwandlung Jesu (Markus 9:2-8)," in
Authenticating the Activities o f Jesus, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans (New Testament
Tools and Studies 28:2; [L]eiden: Brill, 1999), 304 [art. =303-321].
359
revelation more gradually using other more accessible features of the narrative as anchor
points.210 For in the first place the expression "Son (of God)" is polyvalent;211
and in the second place the intent of the words "Listen to him!" is not in the final
analysis to promote a Moses typology. This is not to deny the existence of a Moses
typology altogether, only to note that the prevailing preoccupation with Moses-Sinai
parallels has tended to obscure other more subtle and possibly more significant
parallels.212
A number of closely-related features in and around the Transfiguration narrative
proper (Mark 9:2-8) must be taken into account in order to arrive at a contextually
Note further that the Transfiguration narrative itself, of which the heavenly voice
is the climax, is itself at the apex of a larger chiastic structure that extends from Mark
8:22-9:29. This larger literary structure may be represented in outline form as follows:
A Miracle of Healing (Mark 8:22-26)

B Elijah and the true identity of Jesus (Mark 8:27-29)
C The Suffering Son of Man (Mark 8:31-33)
D The Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8)
c" The Suffering Son of Man (Mark 9:9)
B' Elijah and the true identity of Jesus (Mark 9:11-13)
A Miracle of Deliverance (Mark 9:14-29)
210Otherwise Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, who takes the statement "This
is my son" as ”a typical enthronement formula" (146) and as the starting point for his
thesis that the mountain is "a mountain of enthronement" (147).
211As in Mark 1:1 so also here: the term is in need of additional elaboration. In
each case, interestingly, this is accomplished with reference to John the Baptist (see
below).
212Note for now, however, that without exception all of the wrong answers to
Christ’s question in Mark 8:27 (cf. 6:14-15) are prophets. It is as, thus, as likely at the
outset that Moses and Elijah have a negative function in the narrative as that they have a
positive one. Cf. Hooker, "What Doest Thou Here," 62-63; Yamasaki, John the Baptist
in Life and Death, 133.
360
adequate understanding of Christ’s true identity as God’s "beloved Son." These features
include: (1) the location; (2) the appearance of Elijah and Moses; (3) the prioritization of
Elijah over Moses; (4) the transfiguration of Christ; (5) the Son of Man inclusion in
Mark 8:31, 38 and 9:9, 12; and (6) the Elijah inclusion in Mark 8:28 and 9:11-13.21^
Equally relevant is Mark’s identification of Jesus, the "Son o f God", as the Angel of the
LORD in Mark 1:1-3 (cf. Exod 23:20; Mai 3:1); but the relevance of this earlier text to
the Transfiguration will only become apparent after the features itemized above have been
subjected to further analysis.
The significance of Christ’s presence on a mountain, here emphatically a "high
mountain," has already been noted in reference to Mark 6:46. What was only implicit in
that verse now becomes explicit: the mountain is "nouveau Sinai', site theophanique par
excellence."214 The theophanic, which is to say christological, significance of this
mountain is its only significance in the present narrative.215 Had its precise physical
o.\*\
An unlikely ‘inclusion’ of sorts (i.e., the use of the verb £p%opon in Mark
9:1, 13) is adduced by Trimaille as part of his argument for the secondary nature of
Mark 9:2-10. See M. Trimaille, "Le recit de la Transfiguration comme recit interpretatif:
Marc 9, 1-13," in La temps de la lecture: Exegese biblique et semiotique: Recueil
d ’hommages pour Jean Delorme, ed. L. Panier (LD 155; Paris: Cerf, 1993), 165
[art. = 163-172]; cf. Arens, The HAGON-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition, 244;
J. Taylor, "The Coming of Elijah, Mt 17:10-13 and Mk 9:11-13: The Development of
the Texts," RB 98 (1991): 107-119. But one could as easily adduce the verb gpgopai in
Mark 8:38 and dispense with Mark 9:1-10 altogether since the coming of the Son of Man
in glory with his (not God’s!) angels no less than the coming of the Kingdom of God in
power could spark the question, "Does not Elijah need to come first?"
214Trimaille, "La rdcit de la Transfiguration," 167; cf. Hooker, Mark, 215-216.
215
Note, for example, that no new law is given (cp. the Sermon on the Mount).
361
location been important the mountain no doubt would have been named. That it is not
named facilitates "symbolic associations with mountains of biblical importance. "21<*
The most important biblical mountain is without question Sinai/Horeb; and this
explains the appearance of Elijah and Moses since both were the recipients of theophanies
on that mountain.217 The presence of both Elijah and Moses together could speak
against a Moses typology. Better in this case would have been an appearance only of
Moses; 218 and better still would have been Christ alone on the mountain in the same
way that Elijah was alone on Mount Horeb in imitation of the foundational earlier
216W. Liefeld, "Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative," in New

Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 167, n. 27 [art. = 162-179]. Though the historical location of
the mountain cannot be known with absolute certainty, Liefeld argues convincingly in
favor of Mount Meron which, at 3,926 feet, is the highest mountain in Israel. Mount
Tabor at 1,929 feet is not "high" and its peak was occupied (by a fortress according to
Josephus!); and Mount Hermon at 9,232 feet is too high and too far from Galilee to make
good sense of Mark 9:14, 30.
217
The presence of Moses and Elijah is not to be explained by the fact that they
represent the Law and the Prophets. This view does not explain the surprising
prioritization of Elijah over Moses (‘the Prophets and the Law’?); and in the second place
it does not do justice to the fact that Moses was himself a prophet, perhaps even the
paradigmatic prophet, and Elijah was not a "canonical" or "writing" prophet. Cf.
Gundry, Mark, 478; Hooker, "What Doest Thou Here," 61, 63; Kee, "The
Transfiguration in Mark," 144-145; Liefeld, "The Transfiguration Narrative," 171;
A. D. A. Moses, Matthew’s Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy
(JSNTSup 122; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 41-42; M. Ohler, "Die
Verklanmg (Mk 9:1-8): Die Ankunft der Herrschaft Gottes auf der Erde," NovT 38
(1996): 205, n. 26 [art. = 197-217].
Even less likely are the explanations of, e.g.: Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness,
115, who suggests that Elijah and Moses are present because they, like Christ, are "men
of the wilderness par excellence"; Ohler, "Die Verklarung," 206-207, who suggests that
Elijah and Moses are present because they are "Himmelsbewohner" whose presence lends
to the affair a heavenly atmosphere; or Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:74, who suggests
that Elijah and Moses are present to show, "daB Jesus ihrer Welt zugehort."
218Cf. Zeller, "Bedeutung der Verwandlung," 315.
362
theophany to Moses. Moses received theophanies on Mount Sinai in Exod 24:15-16 and
again in Exod 34:4-9; and Elijah received a theophany on Mount Horeb in 1 Kings 19.
Note, however, that the theophany to Elijah closely parallels the theophany to Moses in
Exod 34:4-9 but not the theophany to Moses in Exod 24:15-16. The primary Mosaic
theophany that is in view is thus Exod 34:4-9.219 This is consistent in the first place
with Christ’s radiance in Mark 9:3, a radiance that resembles Moses’ radiance in Exod
34:29-35; with the fact that the theophany in Exodus 34 is more profoundly revelatory of
God’s innermost nature and character, and is at the same time a more obvious Angel of
the LORD context (cf. Exod 32:34; 33:2), than the theophany in Exodus 24; and, finally,
with the other NT references to the theophany in Exodus 33-34, most notably the earlier
reference to Jesus’ "passing by" in Mark 6:48 (cf. Exod 33:18-34:9).220
219Contra, e.g., Stegner, "The Use of Scripture in Two Narratives," 117, who
argues that Exodus 24 is the "model" and "literary archetype" for the Transfiguration
narrative.
220Other possible echoes of Exodus 34 in the Transfiguration narrative include
the compound verb ouAAccX&d, a Markan hapax, in Mark 9:4. The same verb is found in
Exod 34:35 (cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:697; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:74;
Stegner, "The Use of Scripture in Two Narratives," 114-115). There is no proving that
the use of this verb derives from Exod 34:35. It is interesting to note, however, that the
verb is extremely rare in the LXX being found only in Exod 34:35; Isa 7:6; and Jer
18:20. Another possible echo is detected by some who see the descent from the mountain
in Mark 9:9 as reflecting Moses’ descent from the mountain in Exod 34:29. So, e.g.,
J. M. Niitzel, Die Verkldrungserzdhlung im Markusevangelium: Eine
redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (FB 6; Wurzburg: Echter, 1973), 154; Davies and
Allison, Matthew, 2:712. Cf. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 127, 292-294, who sees in the
"confrontation scene" of Mark 9:14-29 "a reflection of the descent of Moses from Sinai
and his subsequent confrontation with idolatrous Israel (Ex 32)" (p. 293).
Less obvious but of potential Christological significance is the echo of 1 Kings
19:5, 7 in Matt 17:7. In the latter text it is said in reference to Jesus that he came to his
disciples, touched them, and told them to arise; and of the disciples that they lifted up
their eyes and saw. But in the former text, repeated for emphasis, it is said in reference
to the Angel of the LORD that he came to Elijah, touched him, and told him to arise;
and of Elijah that he lifted up his eyes and saw. This suggests a possible correspondence
363
*** EXCURSUS: The Christological Use of Exodus 33-34 in the NT ***

The allusions to Exodus 33-34 in the Transfiguration account, and in the earlier
description of Christ’s "passing by" at the sea-walking epiphany, are not an isolated
phenomenon. There are equally significant allusions to this important OT theophany in
Matt 11:23-30; John 1:14-18; 2 Corinthians 3; and Heb 3:1-6. These allusions are
christologically significant not only because they concern Christ but because in each case
the allusions are indicative of the highest possible Christology: a Christology consistent
with the divine glory revealed by Christ at his Transfiguration.
The first passage, Matt 11:25-30, has rightly been said to contain the First
Gospel in nuce. Since this is the case it should come as no surprise that Matt
11:23-30 is fully consistent with Matthew’s Christology of divine presence, that is, with
his Immanuel Christology. The passage is generally thought to reflect Matthew’s Wisdom
Christology.224 But this consensus has been successfully contested. The
important thing to note, however, is not that Matthew’s Wisdom Christology is, at most,
"quiescent” and "at the periphery of Matthew’s major concerns," but that the
present scholarly emphasis on Wisdom (i.e., Sirach 51) has obscured the more important
Christological connections to the theophany in Exodus 33-34. These connections are not
between Jesus and the Angel of the LORD, on the one hand, and Jesus’ disciples and
Elijah on the other.
22 *The last three passages are noted by Hooker, "What Doest Thou Here," 69.
222Cf. Brown, John, 1:34; P. E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the

Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 114, 118, n. 18; Moses,
Matthew’s Transfiguration Story, 212-238; D. Wenham, Paul: Follower o f Jesus or
Founder o f Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 357-363.
223Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:296; cf. Hagner, Matthew, 1:316.
224So, inter alia, Dunn, Christology, 200-201; Hagner, Matthew, 1:321, 323;
M. J. Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1970), 71-108; U. Wilckens, "oajoa, icd..," TDNT, 7:516-517
[art. =465-528],
225See, e.g., Carson, Matthew, 211-21%-, Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:292-
293, 295; Gundry, Matthew, 220; M. Hengel, "Jesus as Messianic Teacher of Wisdom
and the Beginnings of Christology," chap. in Studies in Early Christology, 88 [art. =73-
117]; Verseput, The Rejection o f the Humble Messianic King, 145; cf. F. T. Gench,
Wisdom in the Christology o f Matthew (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America,
1997).
226Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:295.
364
indicative of a Moses typology.22 They are indicative of a divine agency
Christology.
Jesus’ possession of divine Knowledge and his role as the sole revealer of God
show him to be God’s unique agent. This means that Jesus is on a par with the
Angel of the LORD in the OT, God’s revelatory agent par excellence. But Jesus is also
on a par with God the Father, with whom he compares himself in Matt 11:27, and with
the Spirit of God as Paul describes the Spirit in 1 Cor 2:11. Jesus’ status is divine
because his knowledge of God is divine. His knowledge of God and God’s
knowledge of him are reciprocal and commensurate. That Jesus alone knows God the
Father testifies to the mystery and transcendence of the Father’s being. That the Father
alone knows the Son indicates that the Son’s true identity, no less than God’s, is
mysterious and transcendent. Each can only be known by the other qr by revelation. And
this revelation, when it is given, comes exclusively through the Son.230 Jesus here
arrogates to himself a divine prerogative. Though astonishing, this statement is consistent
with other features of text. Jesus, for example, speaks in the first person as God and not
as a mere agent. The words "I will give you rest" were first spoken by God to Moses in
an OT Angel of the LORD context (Exod 33:14; cf. Exod 32:34; 33:2). It is only fitting
that Jesus repeats them here. Jesus also calls people to himself and to his yoke Tather
than to God and Torah, thereby implicitly placing himself on a par with God.
227Contra Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:272, 283-287, 290; Allison, The
Intertextual Jesus, 43-51.
228Hagner, Matthew, 1:317, 319-320. Cf. John 1:18; 14:9 for similar
descriptions of Jesus as the unique revealer of God (the Father). Matthew 11:25-30 is not
a ‘Johannine Thunderbolt’ but rather, at least implicitly, a wellspring of divine agency
Christology (cf. Hagner, Matthew, 1:319). The "all things" that have been handed over to
the Son by the Father (Matt 11:27) include divine knowledge but should not be limited to
knowledge to the exclusion of authority (cf. Matt 28:18; Dan 7:14). Jesus not only
possesses divine knowledge but is expressly described as having the sovereign authority
to dispense it to whomever he wishes (Carson, Matthew, 277; Verseput, The Rejection o f
the Humble Messianic King, 141, 144; cf. Marshall, Luke, 436).
229Cf. Verseput, The Rejection o f the Humble Messianic King, 143.
non
[T]he most astonishing statement in the passage is found in the last clause
[of v. 27] . . . . Here the same verb used in describing the sovereign revealing activity of
the Father in v 25 . . . is now used in describing the prerogative of Jesus . . . . This in
principle places Jesus on the side of the Father in contrast to all humanity." (Hagner,
Matthew, 1:320). It also in principle places Jesus on the side of the Father in contrast to
all other created beings, agents or otherwise.
*y\\
There is another important contrast implicit in 11.29 between Jesus and
Moses. The latter gave to Israel God’s law. Jesus gives his own law (note the |ioo; cf.
7:24). It is telling that we have not been able to find the phrase, ’the yoke of Moses.’
Jesus is like Moses in that he hands down a law. But he is unlike him in that what he
365
Jesus’ relationship to the Law is not that of Moses or any prophet but that of God
himself. Moses transmitted or relayed God’s Law to the people and enjoined obedience to
it. Jesus speaks forth his own Torah and enjoins obedience to it and to himself. Jesus thus
supersedes and surpasses Moses by speaking not as God’s mouthpiece but as God
manifest. And, finally, Jesus’ words, "you will find rest for your souls," are the
words originally spoken by God in Jer 6:16. Jesus speaks as the God of the
prophets and, more importantly, as the God of the exodus. Again this is only fitting. As
John the Baptist served as the forerunner of Christ (Mai 3:1; Exod 23:20) so also, at the
textual level, does Matt 11:3-10 serve as forerunner to Matt 11:25-30. The Christology of
both sections of Matthew 11 is the same. Jesus, whose role as God’s revealer is
inextricably bound up with the Angel of the LORD, is a divine agent. As such he not
only mediates the knowledge of God (at his own discretion!), he also manifests the
presence of God in a manner consistent with Matthew’s Immanuel Christology elsewhere.
A similar but more developed Christology is found in John 1:14-18;
2 Corinthians 3; and Heb 3:1-6, each of which also echoes the theophany in Exodus 33-
34. In John 1:14-18 the allusions to Exodus 33-34 occur in the context of John’s
presentation of Jesus as a divine agent. Jesus is die Logos of God who reveals God and
who is himself God (John 1:1, 18; cf. 20:28). He is sent from God as God’s
agent yet he is fully divine. He is the Son of God yet his incarnation is a theophany of
hands down is his own" (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:290). Cf. Hagner, Matthew,
1:323, "[astonishingly Jesus calls people in the first instance to himself and only
subsequently to the yoke of discipleship. It is moreover he, rather than God, who gives
rest. Jesus stands not only in the place of Wisdom and truth but even in the place of
Yahweh."
232Contra Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, 106 (cf.
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:289; Hagner, Matthew, 1:323), Jesus does not speak
here as Sophia or Torah. Since Wisdom is a personified divine attribute a Wisdom
Christology would not be antithetical but complementary to the divine agency Christology
advocated here. The problem in the present instance is that while a Wisdom Christology
remains attractive the similarities between Matt 11:25-30 and Sirach 51 have been grossly
overrated. In particular, the speaker in Sirach 51 is not Wisdom at all but Jesus son of
Sirach. Moreover, the distinctive language of Matt 11:25-30 can be shown to derive from
the OT, making the appeal to Sirach 5 1 a superfluous hypothesis.
233Gundry, Matthew, 219; cf. idem, Use o f the Old Testament, 136.
234The title &6yo£ (John 1:1, 14) is conceptually very close to Crfy&xx;. The
God who had manifested himself as Messenger in the OT now incarnates himself as
Message in the NT. The same thought comes again to expression in John 1:18 where the
verb îTirnoato is not inappropriately understood to mean that the Logos is the
"exegesis" or "narration" of God (D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 135).
366
the God of Exodus 33-34. There are differences to be sure,23® but as regards
the presence of God the basic paradigm is not dissimilar to the way in which God
manifested himself as an agent in the OT. Thus it is possible that John is aware of earlier
references to the Angel of the LORD in the OT narrative that precedes and informs the
interpretation of Exodus 33-34 (cf. Exod 3:2; 14:19; Exod 32:35; 33:2). If so John’s use
235Since the work of Boismard on the Johannine Prologue the connection

between Exodus 33-34 (and the exodus generally) and John 1:14-18 has been widely
accepted. See M.-E. Boismard, Le Prologue de Saint Jean (LD 11; Paris: Cerf, 1953),
74-79, 85-87; idem, Jesus or Moses: An Essay in Johannine Christology (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993), 93-98. See also C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John
(London: SPCK, 1955), 139; G. R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC; Waco: Word, 1987),
14; Brown, John, 1:14, 36; Carson, John, 126-129, 134; W. J. Dumbrell, "Grace and
Truth: The Progress of the Argument of the Prologue of John’s Gospel," in Doing
Theology fo r the People o f God: Studies in Honor o f J. /. Packer, ed. D. Lewis and
A. McGrath (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 111-120 [art. = 105-121]; C. A.
Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background o f John’s
Prologue (JSNTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 77-83; A. T. Hanson, "Jn 1,14-18
and Exodus 34," NTS 23 (1976): 90-101; idem, Grace and Truth: A Study in the Doctrine
o f the Incarnation (London: SPCK, 1975), 5-7; M. D. Hooker, "The Johannine Prologue
and the Messianic Secret," NTS 21 (1974): 52-56 [art. =40-58]; Koester, The Dwelling of
God, 104; B. Lindars, The Gospel o f John (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981
[1972]), 95; J. A. Montgomery, "Hebrew Hesed and Greek Charis,” HTR 32 (1939): 100
[art. =97-102]; L. Morris, The Gospel according to John (NICOT; rev. ed.; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 92, n. 95, 95, n. 104, 100; H. Mowvley, "John 1:14-18 in the
Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35," ExpTim 95 (1984): 135-137; Westcott, John, 13, 15.
Especially noteworthy are the following points of contact: the presence of God in
the midst of his people in the Tent of Meeting (Exod 33:7-11; cf. 40:34-38) and the
"tenting" of the incarnate Logos "among us" (John 1:14); Moses’ partial vision of God’s
glory (Exod 33:18; cf. 33:23) and the full vision of God’s glory in the incarnate Logos
(John 1:14); the assertion that no can see God and live (Exod 33:20) and the parallel
assertion that no one has ever seen God the Father (John 1:18); and the use of the
expression "grace and truth" to describe the innermost character and nature of God (Exod
34:6) and its parallel use in reference to Jesus Christ as the embodiment of that divine
character and nature (John 1:14, 17). Jesus "is indeed superior to Moses. Moses only
transmitted what God spoke to him. Jesus is God himself (1:1) speaking to men. But
Jesus is also ‘kindness and faithfulness’ incarnate" (Boismard, Jesus or Moses, 98).
Contra J. R. Michaels, John (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984), 24, "grace
and truth" is not "a circumlocution for the Holy Spirit."
236rhe primary differences are that God’s manifestation in Christ is through a
permanent incarnation rather than a temporary Erscheinungsform and that God’s
manifestation as Logos and Son of God is more complete and glorious than the single
greatest theophany in the OT.
367
of the OT in this instance would be consistent with his treatment of Christ’s prophetic
forerunner in John 1:6-8, 15, 19-36 (cf. Isa 40:3; Mai 3:1), with his placement of
the Cleansing of the Temple in John 2:13-22 (cf. Mai 3:1-5), with Christ’s description of
himself as the unique mediator between heaven and earth in John 1*51 (cf. Gen 28:12-13;
31:11-13), and with Christ’s allusion to Exod 3:14 in John 8:58. 8 In each case one
or more OT Angel o f the LORD texts are directly in view or close at hand.
The remaining NT texts that allude to Exodus 33-34 are reflective of the same
high Christology as Matt 11:25-30 and John 1:14-18. Specifically, Paul in 2 Cor 3:16
understands Christ to have been the Lord seen by Moses on Sinai and in the Tent of
Meeting (cf. Exod 33:7-11; 34:29-35). For this reason Paul can say, alludme to Exod
34:34, "when anyone turns to the Lord (i.e., Christ) the veil is removed."23^ Paul
'y in
Note especially the apparently intrusive reference to John the Baptist in John
1:15. Since John the Baptist is the forerunner of 6 £px6pevo<; (the Angel of the LORD)
and since John 1:14-18 is redolent with allusions to Exodus 33-34 (an OT Angel of the
LORD context), the reference to John the Baptist in John 1:15 is not likely to be an
intrusion or an interpolation. Rather, the reference is in complete accord with John’s
powerful presentation of Jesus, the Logos, as a divine agent. Cf. Hooker, "John’s
Prologue and the Messianic Secret," 55.
238Cf. also the possible allusions to Exod 23:21 in the verb denciO^cu (John 3:36;
cf. Isa 63:10) and in the noun bvopa (John 17:26). Jesus like the Angel of the LORD is
uniquely associated with the name of God. One disobeys him at great peril.
239Cf. P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 196, 198-199; C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the
Corinthians (BNTC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1973), 122-123; F. F. Bruce,
1 and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 193; R. Bultmann, Der zweite
Brief an die Korinther (KEK; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 92; E. E.
Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light o f
Modem Research (WUNT 2.54; Tubingen: Mohr, 1991), 115, n. 169; A. T. Hanson,
"The Midrash in n Corinthians 3: A Reconsideration," JSNT9 (1980): 18-19 [art. =2-
28]; I. Hermann, Kyrios und Pneurna: Studien zur Christologie der paulinische
Hauptbriefe (SANT 2; Miinchen: Kosel, 1961), 38-43; Hughes, Second Corinthians, 113-
114; H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the
Corinthians (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 476-477; A. Plummer, The Second
Epistle o f St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915), 102;
E. Schweizer, "wveupa, iciX.," TDNT, 6:418-419 [art. =332-455]; J. Sickenberger, Die
Briefe des heiligen Paulus an die Korinther und Romer (Bonn: Hanstein, 1932), 105-106;
H.-D. Wendland, Die Briefe and die Korinther (NTD; 13th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1972), 182-183; H. Windisch, D er zweite Korintherbrief (KEK; 9th ed.;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924), 123.
Against the traditional view see J. D. G. Dunn, "2 Corinthians III. 17—‘The Lord
is the Spirit,’" JTS 21 (1970): 310, 312-314, and esp. 317-318 [art. =309-320]; idem,
368
also understands Christ to have been personally present with Israel in the wilderness
(1 Cor 10:4, 9; cf. Jude 5). It is thus possible, perhaps even likely, that he too
understood Jesus as a divine agent analogous to the Angel of the LORD or as the Angel
of the LORD himself. Certainly Paul’s high Christology is consistent with such a
conclusion even if it does not demand it. The glory that radiated from Christ at the
Christology, 143-144. Dunn is followed inter alia by V. P. Furnish, II Corinthians (AB;

New York: Doubleday, 1984), 211-212, 235; M. J. Harris, 2 Corinthians (EBC; Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 338-339; R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco: Word,
1986), 70-71; C. K. Stockhausen, Moses' Veil and the Glory o f Christ (AnBib 116;
Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1989), 130; M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle
to the Corinthians (ICC; vol. 1; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 271-273, 278-282.
Dunn is certainly correct to argue that "the Lord" in 2 Cor 3:16 is YHWH. But
his conclusion that the Lord therefore cannot be Christ is a non-sequitur. Paul here
applies an OT YHWH text to Christ (rightly Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts, 155-
157, 162, 176-177; cf. L. Cerfaux, "‘Kyrios’ dans les citations pauliniennes de l’Ancien
Testament,” chap. in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux: Etudes d ’Exegese et d ’Histoire Religieuse
de Monseigneur Cerfaux [BETL 6; Gembloux: Duculot, 1954]), 183 [art. = 173-188]) and
the context readily bears out this Christological application. Paul almost invariably has
Christ in view when he uses the title icupioq (Hermann, Kyrios und Pneuma, 40; cf.
Dunn, "The Lord is the Spirit," 317) and so it is antecedently likely that he again has
Christ in view here. The oft-repeated argument that lcupioq refers to God (the Father)
while 6 icuptoq refers to Christ is simply fallacious in light of the many exceptions
(rightly Hermann, Kyrios und Pneuma, 40; cf. W. Foerster, "xupioq, kxX., " TDNT,
3:1087 [art. =3:1039-1098]; contra, e.g., Dunn, "The Lord is the Spirit," 317; Harris,
2 Corinthians, 339; N. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1965], 127). For exceptions see, e.g., 1 Cor 4:4, 17; 7:22, 25, 39; 9:1,
2; 10:21; 11:11; 12:3; 14:37; 15:58; 16:10, 19; 2 Cor 2:12; 4:5; 8:21; 10:17; 11:17;
12:1; and, especially in the context of the present thesis, Mark 1:3; 2:28; 12:37. Context,
however, is determinative. Note in this light that the Lord’s removal of the veil in 2 Cor
3:16 is paralleled by 2 Cor 3:14 where it is Christ who removes the veil. Similarly in
2 Cor 3:18 the expression "the glory of the Lord" is paralleled in 2 Cor 4:4 by "die glory
of Christ" (cp. 2 Cor 4:6 where the "the glory of God," perhaps being potentially
ambiguous, receives additional qualification to distinguish God, i.e., the Father, from
Christ). The expression "the Spirit of the Lord" in 2 Cor 3:17 is not paralleled by "the
Spirit of Christ” in 2 Corinthians, but the parallel expression is found in Rom 8:9 and
Phil 1:19 (cf. 1 Pet 1:11). Decisive, however, is 2 Cor 4:5 (cf. 1 Cor 8:6) where Paul
explicidy affirms that it is Christ whom he preaches as Lord (Capes, Old Testament
Yahweh Tacts, 157; cf. Barnett, 2 Corinthians, 199).
369
Transfiguration is the same glory that Moses himself saw, and reflected, in Exodus
33- 34 . ^
Much the same can be said of the high Christology of Hebrews. Jesus is clearly
an agent, the Son, who supremely and uniquely reveals God the Father (Heb l:l-2a). Yet
he is also fully divine (Heb l:2c-3, 8-13). 1 Following and building upon this
distinctive Christology is Heb 3:1-6 where Christ and Moses are contrasted by way of
allusions to the exodus narrative. If the Angel of the LORD is in view, which is by no
means certain, it would certainly seem easier to explain the reference to Jesus as Apostle
in Heb 3:1, this term being virtually a functional equivalent of Angel. This might
also explain why it is that the author of Hebrews, like Paul, seems to see Christ as active
and present in the events surrounding the exodus. This, at least, is one reading and a not
unnatural one of "the reproach o f Christ” suffered by Moses (Heb 11:26). The primary
OT allusions in Heb 3:1-6 are to the description of Moses in Num 12:7 and to Nathan’s
240rhe word pcrapopôo) is rare. It is found in the NT at Mark 9:2; Matt 17:2;
2 Cor 3:18; and Rom 12:2. The word group is not found in the LXX. The use of the
term here in 2 Cor 3:18 and the specific reference to the glorious face o f Christ in 2 Cor
4:6 (cf. the mention of his face in Matt 17:2; Luke 9:29) make it probable that Paul not
only has Exod 34:29-35 in view but the Transfiguration as well. Cf. Moses, Matthew’s
Transfiguration Story, 224-238; Wenham, Paul, 357-363.
241The connections to the Johannine Prologue are especially close. Christ as
God’s Logos (elsewhere Son of God) is understood in the book of Hebrews to be God’s
final word in his Son; and in both passages the Son’s role as Creator clearly indicates and
complements his unique divine identity.
242According to H. W. Attridge, Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1989), 107, n[t]he unusual title ‘apostle’ alludes to his function as the messenger of the
divine name implicit in the psalm quotation at 2:12. It thus recalls the role assigned to
various intermediaries between God and humanity, functions that Jesus fulfills in a pre
eminent way. While the title is rare, the notion that Christ performs such a role is
traditional." Jesus’ function as messenger of the divine name (Heb 2:12 citing Ps 21:23)
is highly significant in light of Exod 23:21 and the Angel of the LORD’S unique
relationship to the name of God. The expression "in the midst of" also seems to echo the
repeated use of such expressions in the exodus narrative, especially those in Exodus
33-34.
P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1993), 199-200, suggests the possibility that the title "Apostle" is an allusion to Mai 3:1
and the duality of divine persons reflected there. Note esp. the verb ifyxKoaxiMxo in Mai
3:1 (cf. & icoot£AAo) in Exod 23:20). W. L. Lane, Hebrews (WBC; vol. 1; Dallas: Word,
1991), 75 (cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 200), draws attention to the Samaritan Targum
where in Exod 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2 the word "angel" has been glossed by the word
"apostle" (rP^tf). But the dating of this Targum is too problematic to be useful here
except that it underscores the semantic overlap between the two terms.
370
oracle to David in 1 Chron 17:14. But Num 12:7 is closely related to Moses’
previous visions of and face to face speech with God (Num 12:8; cf. Exodus 33-34, esp.
33:111. And the glory spoken of in Heb 3:3 most likely echoes Exod 33:18, 22; 34:29-
35. Moses merely reflected the Lord’s glory but Christ is divine and radiates that
glory from himself (Heb 1:3; cf. John 12:41; 1 Cor 2:8). The difference between Moses
and Christ "is the difference behveen the glory with which Moses was glorified, and the
glory of God which he saw."245 For this reason the distinction between Moses’ glory
and Christ’s glory is absolute. That is, it is as great as the distinction between creature
and Creator (Heb 3:3-4; cf. Heb 1:2, 10-12, where Christ is described as the
Creator).246 Note further that while the "rest" elaborated in Hebrews 3-4 derives
primarily from Ps 95:7-11, and secondarily from Exod 15:23; 17:2-7; Num 14:21-23,
this negation of God’s promised rest also evokes God’s original promise of rest to Moses
in Exod 33:14 and Christ's first person repetition of that promise in Matt 11:28. Thus the
description of Christ as Son, the application to him of OT YHWH texts, and the
application to him of Ps 110:1, though seemingly diverse, are all reflective of the same
divine agency Christology found elsewhere in the NT. This Christology is widespread in
the NT and it derives, at least in part, from the foundational theophany to Moses in
Exodus 33-34 and from the glory radiated by Christ in his Transfiguration.
******
The dominance of Exod 34:4-9 over Exod 24:15-16 in the Transfiguration

narrative is a clue to resolving the question of the Son of God’s identity. Of course the
reference to "six days" in Mark 9:2 does seem to echo the "six days" mentioned in Exod
24:16; the presence of three named disciples in Mark 9:2 (Peter, James, and John) could
echo the three named individuals in Exod 24:1 (Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu); and the voice
from the cloud in Mark 9:7 could echo the voice from the cloud in Exod 25: Iff. But
3Lane, Hebrews, 73. Cf. the application to Christ of Ps 110:1 in Heb 1:13.
Jesus is the promised Davidic Messiah whose "throne will be established forever"
(1 Chron 17:14) but he is also David’s Lord who sits as God at the right hand of God the
Father (cf. Heb 1:8; Ps 45:6).
244M. R. D ’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews (SBLDS 42; Missoula:
Scholars, 1979), 155-161, 177; cf. H. Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 72.
245D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 162.
246Cf. D ’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 165-168, cf. 168-186.
371
these oft-noted parallels are less than exact.247 For example, in Mark 9 the
Transfiguration takes place on the sixth day; but in Exodus 24 it takes place on the
seventh day. In Mark 9 the three named disciples are the only ones present with Jesus;
but in Exodus 24 Joshua and seventy elders are also present with Moses. In Mark 9 Jesus
ascends the mountain with his three disciples; but in Exodus 24 Moses ascends the
mountain alone. And, finally, in Mark 9 it is Jesus who speaks with Moses (and God
who speaks to the disciples); but in Exod 25: Iff it is God who speaks with Moses. This
last point reveals that Jesus stands in the place of God on the mountain and not in the
place of Moses (and/or Elijah who, it must be borne in mind, was also present). This is
not to deny the presence of allusions to Exod 24:15-16 altogether, or to use more
stringent criteria for the assessment allusions to Exodus 24 than to Exodus 33-34, but
rather to put these allusions in proper perspective.
Another clue to the identity of the Christ is found in the uniquely Markan
prioritization of Elijah over Moses.24® This again suggests the need for caution
regarding the dominance if not the presence of a Moses typology. It also suggests that
Mark’s prioritization of Elijah over Moses is due to his view of Elijah as Christ’s
247Cf. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 143; Gundry, Mark, 475-476; Moses,
Matthew’s Transfiguration Story, 44-45; Ohler, "Die Verklarung," 202-204; Zeller,
"Bedeutung der Verwandlung," 312-313.
248I.e., in Mark’s gospel it is not "Moses and Elijah," the customary order, but
"Elijah with Moses." Cf. Gundry, Mark, 458; 478-479; Hooker, "What Doest Thou
Here," 61; Legasse, Marc, 2:527; Marcus, The Way o f the Lord, 84 ("the upstaging of
Moses by Elijah"); contra J. P. Heil, "A Note on ‘Elijah with Moses’ in Mark 9:4," Bib
80 (1999): 115; Ohler, "Die Verklarung," 200; Niitzel, Die Verklarungserzahlung im
Markusevangelium, 105-106. It is no surprise, then, that Elijah and not Moses (Elijah’s
‘companion’) figures heavily in the verses that immediately follow the Transfiguration
narrative.
372
forerunner;249 and, corresponding to this, to his view of Christ as Elijah’s
‘follower.’ The prioritization of Elijah, in other words, has a distinctly christological and
not merely an eschatological motivation.250 Christ is not the new Moses of a New
Exodus but the Angel of the LORD of Malachi’s forerunner framework (cf. Mark 1:2).
This explains why in the OT Moses and Elijah speak with God on the mountain but in
their dramatic eschatological appearance in the NT they speak with Jesus. 251 Jesus
stands on the mountain in the place of God.252 He does not stand on the mountain,
except perhaps in a secondary way, as a new Moses. Moses-Sinai and exodus imagery
per se do not guarantee the existence of a Moses typology for the simple reason that
Moses was not the only figure with whom a christological correlation could be made.
Closely related to the fact that Christ stands on the mountain in the place of God
is the fact that Christ’s transfiguration takes place before the cloud appears and the
theophany proper begins. 2 5 3 There can be no doubt that the cloud signals the
249Hooker, "What Doest Thou Here," 61-62.

250Pace, e.g., Gundry, Mark, 458; Liefeld, "The Transfiguration Narrative,"
173; Marcus, The Way o f the Lord, 83-84; Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel o f
Mark, 15.
25*Cp. Blackburn, Theios Aner, 119, n. I l l ; Gundry, Mark, 476, both of whom
attempt to minimize the connection between Mark 9 and Exodus 34 on the basis of this
apparent discrepancy.
252Cf. Gundry, 459, "A major difference is that the Transfiguration reveals
Jesus, not God. Even God will figure in the narrative only to exalt Jesus (v 7). But Jesus
is revealed as divine; so we are back to theophany after all"; and Lane, Mark, 317, "The
transfiguration scene develops as a new ‘Sinai’ theophany with Jesus as the central
figure."
253Contra Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 148, who argues tendentiously in
the service of his messianic enthronement thesis that the Transfiguration itself (referred to
as a mere "detail") "has an isolated position in the story. Nothing else in the account
depends on it for its meaning."
373
glorious theophanic presence of God and that Moses’ face radiates this glory in Exod
34:29-35. The present narrative, however, effectively turns the earlier account on its
head. Christ radiates the glory of God before the cloud appears.254 The contrast with
Moses is dramatic and palpable. Moses reflected the glory of God in a wholly derived
way and only after speaking with God face to face. Jesus, on the other hand, radiates the
glory of God from within himself.255 There is no repudiation of Moses or the glory
that he reflected. But there is in this surprising contrast the sudden realization that Christ
surpasses Moses as a Son surpasses a servant and as a Builder surpasses what he has
built. The dazzling glory that Christ radiates in his Transfiguration is the glory of God
himself and not merely the star-like brightness of heavenly beings or transformed
righteous individuals (cf. Dan 12:3).256 That, after all, was basically the error of
254The word "glory" is used of Christ only in Luke’s version of the

Transfiguration (Luke 9:32) but is certainly an appropriate descriptor here.
255In view of this it may be best not to take iietajiop$60n with most
commentators (e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:695; Gundry, Mark, 458; Ohler,
"Die Verklarung," 204; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:72) as a divine passive. Against the
divine passive cf. the minority opinion of Zeller, "Bedeutung der Verwandlung," 304;
idem, "La metamorphose de Jesus comme epiphanie (Me 9,2-8)," in L ’evangile explore:
Melanges offerts a Simon Legasse a Voccasion de ses soixante-dix ans, ed.
A. Marchadour (LD 166; Paris: Cerf, 1996), 169 [art. =167-186]; Legasse, Marc, 2:524-
525.
Contra the reductionistic appeal to apocalyptic literature in, e.g ., Kee, "The
Transfiguration in Mark," 143-144; Ohler, "Die Verklarung," 204-205 (cf. 208-209);
Zeller, "Bedeutung der Verwandlung," 313-321. And contra also the equally
reductionistic appeal to the enthronement, translation, and so-called ‘divinization’ of
Moses in, e.g., Marcus, The Way o f the Lord, 84-92; following W. A. Meeks, The
Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup 14; Leiden:
Brill, 1967); idem, "Moses as God and King," in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in
Memory o f Erwin Ransdell Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner (Studies in the History of
Religions 14; Leiden: Brill, 1968), 354-371. The Rabbinic and Samaritan sources for
these traditions about Moses and his ‘deification’ are late and of questionable value for
explicating the high christology of the present passage.
374
Peter whatever else one might also wish to say about the three tabernacles. As at the
exodus one tabernacle for the glorious presence of God was all that was needed.257 It
may even be that no tabernacle at all was needed since "Jesus was Himself the new
tabernacle of the Divine glory."258 The building of three tabernacles, however, not
only misses the forest for the trees but mistakes the forester for a tree. Jesus is
Of equally questionable value, though early in relation to Rabbinic and Samaritan

sources, is Philo’s curious exegesis of Exod 7:1 and his severely qualified use of the term
in reference to Moses (e.g., Mos. 1:27; 2:288; Sac. 8-10; Somrt. 2:227-234). Cf.
Blackburn, Theios AnSr, 64-69; Hurtado, One God, 59-63. Jesus is not being presented
as "a god" or a'divine’ man (cf. Blackburn, Theios AnSr, 118, "It is worth noting that no
miracle-working teCoq dcvfjp . . . experienced a metamorphosis similar to Jesus") but as
the God of the OT.
The description of Moses in Ezek. Trag. 68-82 (cf. 85-89), however, may be
slightly more germane since the enthronement of Moses on Mount Sinai in that account
seems to draw upon imagery from Daniel 7. But for all of his apparent exaltation, Moses
remains a prophet, a mere human being. Proof of this is found, first of all, in the
interpretation of the dream given within the confines of the work itself, an interpretation
that affirms Moses as a prophet but militates against his deification. Further proof is
found in the fact that Moses is later called the "best of men" (v. 96) and "mortal man"
(v. 101; cf. 64, 91, 142) by God himself, speaking to Moses from the burning bush (cf.
Exod 3:2). Though Moses has been exalted, yet will he go the way of all flesh. See
further, Bauckham, God Crucified, 20, n. 34; Blackburn, Theios AnSr, 60-61; E. S.
Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention o f Jewish Tradition (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1998), 134; Hurtado, One God, 57-59; Moses, Matthew’s
Transfiguration Story, 81-83. Moses, in particular, draws attention to the Daniel 7
parallel in Ezek. Trag. and the possible implication of this for the Transfiguration of
Christ: i.e., if the Transfiguration is an enthronement scene the primary parallel may be
to the Son of Man in Daniel 7 rather than to Moses on Mount Sinai (Moses, Matthew’s
Transfiguration Story, 108).
257Cf. Exod 33:7-11, esp. 33:11 where it is said that "the Lord used to speak to
Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." The Lord mentioned in 33:11
(YHWH= Tcuptoq) could have been understood as Christ by the authors of the NT.
258G. B. Caird, "The Transfiguration," ExpTim 67 (1956): 293 [art. =291-294].
375
categorically not on a par with Moses and Elijah.259 The next best explanation that
has been offered for the tabernacles is that Peter is instead giving expression to some
kind of temporal error:260 either the desire to prolong the experience, an experience
which was intended only to be a proleptic vision of Christ’s future glory, or the mistaken
assumption that the Kingdom of God or the end of the age had come in all of its fullness
and power (cf. Mark 9: l).261 But in this case one would still expect one tabernacle
or six (eschatological Feast of Booths) rather than three. Moreover, in this case the voice
from heaven does not follow as closely. The emphasis of the heavenly voice falls on the
identity of Christ and on his absolute uniqueness over against Moses and Elijah. The
heavenly voice does not say that Christ will be but that he is (presently/permanently) the
beloved Son of God.262 This is more consistent with a christological than a merely
temporal error on the part of Peter.263 Note also, in light of this, that neither Moses
259So, rightly, Caird, "The Transfiguration," 292-293; Carson, Matthew, 386;

Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 146; Gundry, Mark, 460, 480; Hagner, Matthew,
2:493-494; Liefeld, "The Transfiguration Narrative," 174-175; cf. Hooker, "What Doest
Thou Here," 64, 66.
260So, e.g., Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 146; Hurtado, Mark, 146; Kee,
"The Transfiguration in Mark," 147-148; Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness, 113-114;
Ohler, "Die Verklarung," 209; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:75-76; cf. Hooker, "What
Doest Thou Here," 66.
261According to Hooker, "What Doest Thou Here," 65-66, Peter offers to build
three tabernacles as an expression of hospitality. This explanation is surely inadequate. It
does, however, suggest the possibility of a thematic connection to Genesis 18 where
Abraham played host to three visitors, one of whom was the Lord.
262Cf. Zeller, "Bedeutung der Verwandlung," 310; following T. A. Burkill,
Mysterious Revelation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1963), 159-160.
263It is difficult to see how the words "This is my beloved Son" could serve as
corrective to a temporal error (though the words "Listen to him!" could conceivably
anticipate Christ’s upcoming corrective of such an error in Mark 9:12; cf. 8:31).
376
nor Elijah is said to be glorious, radiant, or transfigured. The transfigured Jesus does not
resemble Moses or Elijah on the mountain; he resembles God himself on the mountain
(cf. Deut 33:2; Hab 3:3-4). This resemblance may even be underscored with an allusion
to Dan 7:9 if, as has been suggested, the "dazzling white" clothing of Christ (Mark 9:3)
reflects the description of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.264
This observation brings us to the next important feature of the Transfiguration
narrative: a structural feature that is of considerable exegetical importance, not least
because it tends to confirm the allusion to Dan 7:9 in Mark 9:3. The Transfiguration
narrative in Mark is framed by references to the Son of Man in Mark 8:38 and 9:9,
12.265 Within the Transfiguration narrative itself, a narrative framed by references to
the Son of Man, there are further connections to Dan 7:13-18. Specifically, the
Transfiguration narrative resembles the Son of Man narrative in its portrayal of: (1) the
vision; (2) the reaction to the vision; (3) the request for an explanation of the vision; and
264So Hurtado, Mark, 147, with reference to the fact that in both accounts the
adjective Xeuxoq is found. Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:697; Moses, Matthew’s
Transfiguration Story, 101. It is likely that the expression xqq YHS alludes to Dan 7:17
(cf. Exod 23:20, 22; Mark 2:10; 6:47; Matt 28:18). In addition, there may also be one
or two allusions to Malachi 3 according to C. E. Joynes, "A Question of Identity: ‘Who
Do People Say that I Am?’ Elijah, John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel," in
Understanding, Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour o f John Ashton,
ed. C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis (JSNTSup 153; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998), 24 [art. = 15-29]. The first of these is the description of Christ’s
garments as being whiter than any "fuller on earth could whiten them" (Mark 9:3b). This
description is reminiscent of the "fuller’s soap" in Mai 3:2. And the second of these is
the thematic importance of Moses and Elijah, the two figures encountered here on the
Mount of Transfiguration, in the concluding verses of Malachi 3. These verses (Mai
3:23-24) describe the future coming of Elijah; and while they do not speak of the future
coming of Moses, they do specifically mention his having been with God on Mount
Horeb (Mai 3:22). The possibility of just such an allusion is considerably increased by
the existence of an unmistakable allusion to Mai 3:23-24 in Mark 9:11-13.
265Cf. Moses, M atthew’s Transfiguration Story, 89-113.
377
(4) the explanation of the vision.266 These connections between the Transfiguration
story and Daniel 7 are even more explicit in Matthew than in Mark. For example,
Matthew alone describes the Transfiguration in Matt 17:9 as a "vision" (6papa), using a
term found in Dan 7:13 but not elsewhere in the synoptics; and Matthew changes Mark’s
reference to the coming of the Kingdom of God in power (Mark 9:1) to the coming of the
Son of Man in his (not God’s!) kingdom (Matt 16:28).267 This last change makes
reasonably good sense, however, because the Son of Man receives divine authority and
an everlasting kingdom from the Ancient of Days. Matthew also adds to the Son of
Man’s authority in Matt 16:27 (cp. Mark 9:1) by giving him the divine prerogative of
judgment. Specifically, it is the prerogative of the Son of Man to "repay each man
according to his deeds. "268 Not only is the prerogative clearly divine, but the words
themselves are a citation of Ps 62:13 or Prov 24:12 (cf. Sir 35:22-24; Rom 2:6) where
the Judge is God himself. Together, then, the Son of Man inclusion and the internal
structure of the Transfiguration narrative make it reasonably certain that the divine glory
Christ reveals in his Transfiguration is the glory that he possesses in virtue of being the
Son of Man of Dan 7:13-14.26^ Interestingly, however, the explanation of this
vision, though it twice refers to the Son of Man, is couched in terms of Elijah and John
266Moses, Matthew’s Transfiguration Story, 91.

267Moses, M atthew’s Transfiguration Story, 89, 97.
268Moses, M atthew’s Transfiguration Story, 93.
269Moses, M atthew’s Transfiguration Story, 102, notes as a "conspicuous
absence" the lack of any reference to the radiant appearance of the Son of Man in Dan
7:13. Thus he attributes this feature of the NT account to Exodus 34 (p. 103). But as
suggested above, this feature may just as well derive from the description of the Ancient
of Days in Dan 7:9, especially since elsewhere in the NT Christ is described in terms
borrowed from Dan 7:9 (cf. Rev 1:13-15). The figure is called the Son of Man, but he
looks and acts like God.
378
the Baptist. This suggests that the Transfiguration narrative cannot be adequately
explained with reference to Moses-Sinai and Daniel 7 parallels. More than this is needed
before one can reasonably conclude that Christ’s presence is a "coming of God."27®
The explanation that immediately follows the Transfiguration narrative (Mark
9:9-13) is integral to that narrative.27^ It is also, structurally speaking, part of a
larger christologically-oriented Elijah inclusion (Mark 8:28; 9:11-13).272 The
possibility thus arises that the divine glory revealed by the Son of God is not only the
glory that he possesses in virtue of being the Son of Man, a second figure next to God, it
is also the glory that he possesses in virtue of being the Angel of the LORD. (The glory
is the same because the two figures have been completely amalgamated.)273 The
27®Pace Moses, Matthew’s Transfiguration Story, passim. In fairness, Moses

does refer to Mai 3:1-2; 4:5-6 in the context of a brief discussion of Matt 11:10-15.
There he states, "Jesus is the eschatological manifestation of Yahweh and ushers in the
eschatological Day of Yahweh" (168). He simply fails later (152-157) to apply this
valuable insight to his explanation of Matt 17:10-13 which speaks of John the Baptist as
Elijah.
271 "La Transfiguration forme un tout avec la conversation de Jesus et des

disciples en 9,9-13" (L6gasse, Marc, 2:522). This is observation is supported, first, by
the fact that "coming down the mountain" in 9:9 forms an inclusion with going up the
mountain in 9:2 (Ldgasse, Marc, 2:522, 535-536; Gundry, Mark, 481; cf. Ohler, "Die
Verklarung," 198); and, second, by the fact that 9:9-13 clearly serves to elucidate the
meaning of 9:2-8 (Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:70; and cf. also 2:77, "Der abrupte
Schlufi der Offenbarungsszene drangt auf eine weitere Klarung, die im Abstiegsgesprach
erfolgt").
272Cf. Hooker, "What Doest Thou Here," 62. The inclusive nature of Mark
8:27-30 and 9:9-13 is also underscored by the fact that each revelation of Jesus’ true
identity is followed by an injunction to secrecy. In Mark 9:9 it almost appears as if the
‘messianic secret’ functions in the narrative as did Moses’ veil in Exod 34:29-35, to
conceal the glory that had been revealed.
273A similar amalgamation of between the Son of Man in Dan 7:13-14 and the
Angel of the LORD was also evident in Mark 2:1-11 (cf. Exod 23:21) where the divine
prerogative of the forgiveness of sins was in view. The same amalgamation can again be
379
Elijah inclusion is no less significant than the Son of Man inclusion. Its significance is
evident on a number of closely related fronts. First, Mark has decisively indicated the
christological importance of John the Baptist and Malachi 3 in the programmatic prologue
to his gospel (Mark 1:1-3; cf. 1:4-8). Second, Peter’s revelatory confession of Jesus as
"the Christ” at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:29) comes in the wake of references to John
the Baptist and Elijah (Mark 8:28). Jesus is neither John the Baptist nor Elijah. Instead,
as is revealed later, John the Baptist is Elijah (Mark 9:12-13).274 The true identities
of Jesus and John the Baptist are closely related—but more still needs to be said. The
mere fact that Jesus is not Elijah says almost nothing about who Jesus really is. Third,
Elijah was personally present on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9:4). This hints at
the fact that the narrative is not yet done with Elijah and again underscores the fact that
Jesus is not Elijah. And, fourth, as noted above, the explanation of the Transfiguration
(Mark 9:11-13) is couched in terms of Malachi’s Elijah:
The returning Elijah is here identified with John the Baptist, who is presented once
again in the role which he regularly occupies in Mark’s Gospel, as the messenger
who points forward to the one who follows him, who is greater than he. . . . If the
disciples, on the Mount of Transfiguration, are privileged to glimpse the glory of
found in the closing verses of Matthew’s gospel: i.e., Jesus’ claim to possess "all
authority in heaven and on earth" in Matt 28:18 echoes Dan 7:13-14 and the promise of
his presence in Matt 28:20 echoes the Angel of the LORD’S promise to Jacob (Israel) in
Gen 28:15 (cf. Gen 31:11, 13). For the presence of an allusion to Dan 7:13-14 in Matt
28:18 see, Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:682-683; J. Schaberg, The Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit: The Triadic Phrase in Matt 28:19b (SBLDS 61; Chico: Scholars,
1981), 111-141. The latter monograph presents a sustained argument for the interesting
and suggestive thesis that the Father and Son in Matt 28:19 correspond to the Ancient of
Days and the Son of Man in Dan 7:13-14. Less likely, however, is the alleged
correspondence between the Holy Spirit and the angels (the triadic formulations in Luke
9:26 and Rev 1:4-5 notwithstanding).
274This identification, implicit here in Mark, is made explicit in Matt 17:13
(Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:716-717).
380
Jesus, and hear the proclamation of his identity, it is hardly surmising if they also
glimpse Elijah, and have John’s true identity explained to them.
The startling conclusion is left implicit. I f John was Elijah, then Jesus is the one
whose way was prepared by John. . . . The proper identification o f John leads to the
appropriate Christology.
The identities of John the Baptist and Jesus are very closely related. One could
even say that they are correlative since to understand the forerunner is to understand the
‘follower.’ That is, to understand John the Baptist as Elijah (Mai 3;1, 23) is to
understand Jesus as the Angel of the LORD (Mai 3: l).277 This is the glory—the
divine glory—that was glimpsed on the Mount of Transfiguration. And this is the
appropriate christology to which a proper identification of John the Baptist leads. Jesus is
not only the Son of Man o f Daniel 7, a second figure next to God, he is also the Angel
of the LORD of Malachi 3, a divine agent.
Having established a base of operations, so to speak, it is now possible to attempt
the summit of the Transfiguration narrative in the hopes of arriving at a more complete
understanding of the words spoken by the heavenly voice (Mark 9:7). The expression
"Beloved Son (of God)" is redolent with OT connotations and implications (cf. Gen 22:2;
Hooker, "What Doest Thou Here," 62, 67 (emphasis added). Mark 9:11-13,
where it is said that Elijah has come first, is fully consistent with the presentation and
role of John the Baptist as Christ’s forerunner in Mark 1:2. Contra G. Dautzenberg,
"Elija im Markusevangelium," in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck,
ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, J. Verheyden (BETL 100; 3 vols.;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 1087 [art. = 1077-1094]; Suhl, Die Funktion der
alttestamentliche Zitate, 135.
276Hagner, Matthew, 2:499-500 (emphasis added).
277
The same dynamic between John the Baptist and Jesus is at work in the wake
of the Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:27-33; cf. Matt 11:7-10). To recognize John’s
authority is to recognize Jesus’ authority.
381
2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; Dan 7:13; Hos 11:1).278 In the present context it is also
amenable to, and suggestive of, a striking new connotation: divine agency. Jesus is a
manifestation of God in the form and role of an agent. God is immanent and as such is
present visibly, even bodily, on the mountain as "Son." At the same time, however, God
is also present invisibly and audibly as "Father" in a way that upholds and affirms his
transcendent otherness.
The words that immediately follow the Father’s identification of Jesus as his
Beloved Son are generally thought to be a "direct allusion" to or a "virtual citation" of
Deut 18:15 which reads, "you will listen to him" (]1&nvn 1^?H=a'6xo\)
dncouoEoee).279 But if Moses typology is not driving the christology of the

Transfiguration narrative, then it is possible that the words "Listen to him!" derive from
elsewhere in the OT. Specifically, it is possible that Mark 9:7 (dncoueiE crirtou) derives
from Exod 23:21 0*?p3 St0V=eia&KOve avtou) rather than Deut 18:15.28® The
context is amenable to such an allusion, and much the same could be said for tense,
voice, mood, and word order.281 Furthermore, and more importantly, God is the
278According to Liefeld, 176, "the closest verbal parallel" to the expression

"This is my beloved son" is found in Genesis 22:2. Similarly, Stegner, 116; cf. Pesch,
Markusevangelium, 2:76-77; E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan
Soteriology (SNTSMS 2; 2d. ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 169-
173. In Matt 17:5 there is a further allusion to Isa 42:1 ("with whom I am well
pleased"), an allusion reflective of the christological amalgamation of OT Son and
(Suffering) Servant imagery.
279E.g., Hurtado, Made, 145; Marcus, 7Tie Way o f the Lord, 81; who are
representative of most commentators. Cp., however, Gundry, Mark, 461; Ohler, "Die
Verklarung," 214.
280Cf. also Exod 23:22, £av dncafj dncownrte ttV; fejriiq âwtfe.
281I.e., in Mark 9:7 and Exod 23:21 (LXX) one finds a present active
imperative verb before the pronoun; while in Deut 18:15 (LXX) one finds a future
382
speaker in Mark 9:7 and Exod 23:21 and a divine agent is the object of the pronoun
orCrtou; while in Deut 18:15 Moses is the speaker and a prophet is the object of the
pronoun. Is it not more natural in the context of a new "exodus" (Luke 9:31) that God
would repeat his own earlier words than that he would repeat the words of Moses? The
only other NT citation of the words of Moses’ in Deut 18:15 follows the LXX
exactly.282 Mark, however, does not follow the LXX of Deut 18:15 here even
though he customarily follows the LXX elsewhere. This again argues against the
influence of Deut 18:15 on the present passage and for the influence of Exod 23:21.
Jesus is the Christ, the Beloved Son of God. But he is also the Angel of the
LORD. As in Mark 1:1-3 the reference to Jesus as Christ and Son of God is immediately
followed by a reference to the Angel of the LORD. The purpose of the reference is to
specify just what kind of sonship is in view. The Transfiguration not only reveals
that Jesus stands in the place of God on the mountain, it also reveals that he stands in the
middle indicative verb after the pronoun. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 461.
282I.e., Acts 3:22 reads orircou dneouoeofe. These words are not included in the
partial citation of Deut 18:15 in Acts 7:22. The UBS and Nestle-Aland appendices also
list John 1:45 and 5:46 as allusions to Deut 18:15 but this is may be unwarranted. Both
seem more likely to be references to the Angel of the LORD than to the prophet like
Moses. John 1:45 follows references to Christ’s forerunner John the Baptist (John 1:6-8,
15, 19-36), and allusions to Exod 34:6 (John 1:14, 17); while John 5:46 follows a
possible allusion to Exod 23:21 in John 5:43 ("I have come in my Father’s name") and
precedes allusions to God’s provision of manna in the wilderness (John 6:1-13, 22-59), to
God’s conquest of the sea at the exodus (6:15-21), and to God’s revealed name "I a m "
(feyd> ei|ii) to Moses (John 6:20; 8:58). Moses and the Prophets wrote often of the Angel
of the LORD (e.g., Exod 23:20-23; Mai 3:1), but they wrote less clearly, and less often,
of a prophet like Moses. In Moses there is Deut 18:15, but what is there in the Prophets
that corresponds to it and that is of christological significance in the NT?
283Cf. Gundry, Mark, 458, "Mark’s Hellenistic audience would understand the
Transfiguration as indicative of Jesus’ divinity." This no doubt is correct. But what kind
of divinity is indicated? To answer this question the OT is absolutely indispensable.
place of the Angel of the LORD. The divine agent who led the first exodus has come to
lead a greater New Exodus. But before he does so he has some unfinished business to
take care of, some house cleaning as it were.
‘Elijah’ came first and restored all things, not least by preparing the way of the
Lord in the wilderness so that the Angel of the LORD of Mai 3:1 (cf. Exod 23:20) could
come as prophesied.284 But the fact that ‘Elijah’ was killed does not bode well. It
does not bode well for the Coming One, who will also be killed, and it certainly does not
bode well for the temple to which he comes and the land which was under threat of a
divine curse should the prophetic ministry of ‘Elijah’ be rejected (Mai 3:24).
The Lord’s Cleansing of the Temple

(Mark 11:15-19; cf. Matt 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-16)
There can be no doubt that many of Jesus’ words and actions are modelled on the
OT.285 The problem in this case is determining which OT text or texts are ultimately
284According to Gundcy, Mark, 465, Elijah has not yet restored all things and
will only do so at some future return. Though grammatically possible, this interpretation
is all but contextually impossible. The emphasis in the present context is on Elijah’s role
as forerunner and on the successful completion of the most important aspect of his
mission. Elijah did come and he did restore all things (Carson, Matthew, 389; Davies and
Allison, Matthew, 2:714; Hagner, Matthew, 2:499; Moses, Matthew’s Transfiguration
Story, 155). Marcus, The Way o f the Lord, 99, also argues that Elijah did not restore all
things. But he does so, following Wellhausen and "at least one ancient scribe," on the
exegetically doubtful assumption that Mark 9:12 opens with a question expecting a
negative answer ("Is it hue that, when he comes before the Messiah, Elijah will restore
all things?"). Cp. Gundry, Mark, 485, "But militating against this interpretation is the
declarative thrust of ji£v, ‘indeed, it’s true,’ which even in a question would assume an
affirmative answer in the mind of the questioner."
285P. M. Casey, "Culture and Historicity: The Cleansing of the Temple," CBQ
59 (1997): 311 [art. =306-332]; cf. Wright, Jesus and the Victory o f God, 418.
384
in view since there are so many possible connections.28** One important OT text,
though by no means exclusive of others, is Malachi 3.287 It may be going a bit too
far to speak of the Cleansing of the Temple as "a commentary on Mai 3: Iff,"288 but
it is not going too far to speak of the Cleansing of the Temple as a deliberate and
dramatic fulfillment of Mai 3:1-5.289 The evidence for a connection to Mai 3:1-5 is,
286R. H. Hiers, "Purification of the Temple: Preparation for the Kingdom of

God," JBL 90 (1971): 85-86 [art. =82-90].
2870ther OT texts are Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11, both of which are cited, and
possibly also Hos 9:10-17 and Zech 14:21. With reference to Isa 56:7 see, Watts,
Isaiah's New Exodus, 322-325, 330. Cf. also Gundry, Mark, 640, who argues that "‘my
house’ probably means Jesus’ house and carries this meaning for him as well as for Mark
and his audience." If this is correct, or even if "my house" is ambiguous, it would lend
support to the influence of Malachi 3 since in Mai 3:1 the temple is said to belong to the
coming Lord. (Note Jesus’ reference to himself as Lord in Mark 11:3). With reference to
Jer 7:11 see, Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 325-330. With reference to Hos 9:10-17 see,
D. Krause, "Narrated Prophecy in Mark 11.12-21: The Divine Authorization of
Judgment," in The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R.
Stegner (JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 235-248. And with
reference to Zech 14:21 see, C. Roth, "The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah
xiv 21," NovT4 (1960): 174-181; Kim, "Zechariah and Jesus’ Self-Identification," 139;
M. A. Matson, "The Contribution of the Temple Cleansing by the Fourth Gospel," in
SBLSP 31 (1992), 501-503 [art. =489-506].
288B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1950 [1881]), 40.
289Cf. T. A. Burkill, "Strain on the Secret: An Examination of Mark 11:1-
13:37," ZNW 51 (1960): 39 [art. =31-46]; Carson, Matthew, 442; idem, John, 179;
Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 71; C. A. Evans, "Jesus Action in the Temple:
Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?" in Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and
Restoration, by C. A. Evans and B. D. Chilton (AGAJU 39; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 413,
418, n. 70 [art. =395-439]; Hiers, "Purification of the Temple," 87-89; M. D. Hooker,
"Traditions about the Temple in the Sayings of Jesus," BJRL 70 (1988): 18-19 [art. =7-
19]; Lane, Mark, 405; B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance
o f the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 108; Marshall, Luke,
719; B. F. Meyer, The Aims o f Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), 197; D. E. Nineham, The
Gospel o f St Mark (Pelican New Testament Commentaries; Baltimore: Penguin, 1963),
300, n. t ; J. A. Robinson, The Historical Character o f St. John’s Gospel (2d ed.;
385
admittedly, almost completely circumstantial. But it would be a mistake to think that the
evidence is therefore insufficient to justify the conviction, and a greater mistake to think
that the evidence is therefore nonexistent.290
"The whole of Mk 11 and 12 (and 13) is a carefully constructed
composition.”291 So carefully, for example, is Mark 11 constructed that the
Cleansing of the Temple falls in the middle of a carefully crafted double inclusion or
"double-decker" Markan sandwich.292 Strictly speaking there is no chiasm in
Mark l l . 293 However, the Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:15-19) is clearly
framed by the Cursing of the Fig Tree (Mark 11:12-14, 20-25) and by the authority, the
activity, and the identity of Jesus vis-a-vis Mai 3:1 (Mark 11:1-11, 27-33).294 Note
London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1929), 31; W. R. Telford, The Barren Temple and
the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis o f the Cursing o f the Fig-Tree Pericope
in Mark’s Gospel and its Relation to the Cleansing o f the Temple Tradition (JSNTSup 1;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 163; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 295-368; Wright, Jesus
and the Victory o f God, 415, 496-497. Cognizance of Mai 3:1 is also taken by C. H.
Dodd, The Interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1953), 351; and R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon,
1956), 177, who curiously apply it to the secret coming of Jesus to the Feast of
Tabernacles (John 7:10, 14) rather than to the Cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13-17).
290Hooker, "Traditions about the Temple," 18, advocates a connection to Mai
3:1 but only after confessing (whether with embarrassment or with tongue in cheek is
difficult to say) that there is "no evidence at all” for it.
291C. K. Barrett, "The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves," in Jesus und
Paulus: Festschrift fu r Werner Georg Kiimmel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. E. Ellis and
E. Grafier (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 13 [art. = 13-20].
292Hooker, "Traditions about the Temple," 8; cf. idem, Mark, 261; Watts,
Isaiah’s New Exodus, 304.
293Pace Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 304.
294The Parable of the Vineyard (Mark 12:1-12), again pace Watts, Isaiah’s New
Exodus, 304, is not part of a chiasm or an inclusion beginning in Mark 11:1. It is a
digression (at least from a structural point of view) that vividly illustrates the intended
386
further that the Cleansing of the Temple is also framed by the christological use of Ps
118:25-26 (Mark 11:9; 12:10),29^ by the mention of the Mount of Olives (Mark
11:1; 13:3), by the identification of Jesus as Lord (Mark 11:3; 12:35-37), and by the
related identification of Jesus as Son o f David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37) 296
The meaning of each part of Mark 11 can only be understood in relation to the
whole; and it is this whole, not just the Cleansing of the Temple taken in isolation, that is
reflective of Malachi 3. Triumphal Entry and the Cleansing of the Temple together are
the fulfillment of the prophesied coming of the Lord (= Angel of the LORD) to his
temple (Mai 3:1-5). Of course much else is also fulfilled by this coming, not least the
coming of the Davidic King and "the glorious return of Yahweh" to culminate the hope
of Isaiah’s New Exodus.297 The Triumphal Entry (Mark 11:1-11) clearly describes
the coming of a Messianic King.298 But this King is greater than any heretofore
symbolic meaning of the prior Cleansing of the Temple and Cursing of the Fig Tree
(Mark 11:12-25). Cf. Hooker, "Traditions about the Temple," 8-10; Watts, Isaiah's New
Exodus, 339-344; Wright, Jesus and the Victory o f God, 497-501.
" JCf. J. W. Doeve, "Purification du temple et dessechement du figuier: Sur la
structure du 21^me chapitre de Matthieu et paralleles (Marc xi. i-xii. 12, Luc xix. 28-
xx. 19)," NTS 1 (1954-55): 299-306 [art. =297-308].
296Cf. F. J. Matera, The Kingship o f Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark
15 (SBLDS 66; Chico: Scholars, 1982), 68-69.
2Q7
Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 296 and passim.
298Wright, Jesus and the Victory o f God, 490-491. Note, for example, that Zech
9:9 and Gen 49:10-11 are alluded to in Mark 11:2-7 and that Ps 118:25 is cited in Mark
11:9 (cf. Matera, The Kingship o f Jesus, 70-84). Luke makes the royal identity of
6 tpx6p£vo£ explicit in Luke 19:38 by interpolating the words 6 paoiAeoq into the middle
of the Psalm citation. Cp. John 12:13 where the words 6 pCKnAeuq follow the Psalm
citation.
387
expected Messiah.2^ There are hints of his divinity in Mark 11:1, by way of a
possible allusion to Zech 14:4;3®® in Mark 11:3, by way of the title icupioq (cf. Mark
1:3!); and again in Mark 11:9, by way of the title 6 £px6pevo<;. The title 6 £px6pevo<;, as
noted above, is inseparably related to messianic expectations. But it is also related to the
expected coining of the Lord and Angel of the LORD of Mai 3:l.301
In this light, then, it is hardly coincidental that Jesus’ first major action upon
entering Jerusalem is to come to his temple (Mai 3: l).302 Jesus does come to the
299Cf. Hooker, "Traditions about the Temple," 10.
300Zech 14:4 is an OT YHWH text that describes the eschatological coming

(theophany) of YHWH to the Mount of Olives. His coming is described in Zech 14:1 in
the same way that the coming of the Angel of the LORD and the Day of the LORD are
described in Mai 3:1-2. Matthew, perhaps aware of this theophanic background, adds to
his account the eschatological healing of the blind and the lame (cp. Mark 10:46052) that
Isaiah had prophesied would accompany YHWH’s eschatological theophany (Matt 21:14;
cf. Isa 35:5-6). Matthew also adds to his account Christ’s citation of Ps 8:3, another OT
YHWH text, in reference to the worship of Jesus as God by the children (Matt 21:16).
According to Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:142, the "praise” mentioned in Ps 8:3 was
traditionally associated with the "praise" of Exod 15:2 (cf. Wis 10:21) and, hence, would
have been evocative of the exodus. If this is correct it serves as another minor
confirmation of the thesis that Jesus stands in the place not just of YHWH but of the
Angel of the LORD. For the Angel of the LORD was present at the first exodus (e.g.,
Exodus 14, 23) and is in the midst of leading a greater New Exodus (Isa 40:3; Mai 3:1).
301Cf. also Watts {Isaiah’s New Exodus, 305-308; following B. Kinman, Jesus
Entry into Jerusalem: In the Context o f Lukan Theology and the Politics o f His Day
[AGAJU 28; Leiden: Brill, 1995], 58-60, 64-65), who draws attention to "divine entry"
motifs with reference to the Ark of the Covenant. In addition, Watts notes (330-331, 368)
the parallels between Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and his cleansing of the temple and that
of the Maccabees. There is, however a devastatingly ironic reversal. For with Jesus’
temple cleansing it is not foreigners and idolaters who have defiled the temple but the
leaders of God’s own people.
302Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 295, 332, n. 223. No comment will be made
here on the relationship between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel (on which see the
commentaries) except to repeat the following observation on the assumption that John has
placed the Cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry for theological
(i.e., Christological) reasons:
388
temple. But then, strangely, . . . nothing happens. Jesus only "looks around" (Mark
11: l l ) . 303 The delay of the Cleansing of the Temple to the next day is difficult to
explain on the basis of Mai 3:1-5. But it would be pedantic to argue that this brief delay
negates a connection to Mai 3:1 since that verse speaks of the "suddenness" of the Lord’s
coming to his temple.304 In the first place, there is not always a literal one-to-one
The new sequence . . . had a theological attractiveness. John the Baptist, prominent
in the first chapter of John, fulfilled the first clause of Mai iii 1, ‘I send my
messenger to prepare the way before me.’ The second clause is: ‘The Lord whom
you seek will suddenly come to his Temple,’ a clause that finds fulfillment in the
present sequence in John" (R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii) [AB;
Garden City: New York, 1965], 118)
Note as well the echoes of Mai 3:1 in John 1:15, 27, 30; cf. 3:28. G. Reim, Studien zum
alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums (SNTMS 22; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1974), 188, claims that John never uses Mai 3:1; but this
claim is only made possible by his first having begged the question, i.e., by his having
declared (p. 6) the references to Mai 3:1 in John 1:15, 27, 30 to be inauthentic. On the
Johannine placement of the Cleansing of the Temple more generally see, L. J. Kreitzer,
"The Temple Incident of John 2.13-25: A Preview of What is to Come," in
ed. C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis (JSNTSup 153; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998), 93-101.
303The compound verb icEpifft,Ena> occurs only seven times in the NT, six of
which are in reference to Jesus (Mark 3:5, 34; 5:32; 9:8; 10:23; 11:11; Luke 6:10).
304Contra Gundry, Marie, 643; J. P. Sweeney, "Jesus’ Temple Action (Mark

11:15-18) in Recent Discussion: An Examination of its Character, Meaning, and Role in
Jesus’ Death" (Ph.D. diss., Trinity International University, 2000), 237-238; W. W.
Watty, "Jesus and the Temple—Cleansing or Cursing?" ExpTim 93 (1981-82): 236
[art. =235-239]. The "suddenness" has more to do with the expectedness of the coming
and with ethical preparedness than with strictly chronological quickness (Daube, The
Sudden in the Scripture, 74-75; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 315). Could it not be that in
"looking around at everything" Jesus was actually, in that seemingly minor act, assessing
the preparedness of his temple for his coming?
An equally pedantic argument against the importance of Mai 3:1-5 is the lack of
any explicit mention of "cleansing." So W. G. Kummel, Promise and Fulfillment: The
Eschatological Message o f Jesus (SBT 23; London: SCM, 1957), 118, n. 53; cf. Davies
and Allison, Matthew, 3:139. But there is no mention of "cleansing" in part because
Jesus’ temple action is intentionally allusive and underdetermined, and in part because the
389
correspondence between prophecy and fulfillment. In the second place, the coming to the
temple is sudden—as sudden as it can possibly be!305 It is only the cleansing o f the
temple that is briefly delayed. And in the third place, there may be a compelling
rhetorical reason for the delay: a delay that, curiously, Mark seems to feel the need to
explain. Jesus left the temple after only looking around "because it was late" (Mark
11:11). The detail seems almost completely irrelevant unless Jesus was expected to do
more upon coming to the temple. That is, if Mark’s audience was familiar with Mai 3:1,
and if they expected Jesus’ cleansing of the temple to follow immediately upon his
coming to the temple, then a delay would have considerable shock value or rhetorical
effect. The effect would be a dramatic highlighting of the Cursing of the Fig Tree before
the Cleansing of the Temple that finally resolves the now heightened expectation of
Mark’s audience. Since there is no question that Mark and his audience were familiar
with Mai 3:1 (Mark 1:2; cf. 9:11-13), the only question that remains is whether Mark in
his capacity as narrator might have made rhetorical and hermeneutical capital out of this
familiarity. In any case, the Cursing of the Fig Tree remains an important clue to the
significance of the Cleansing of the Temple.
cleansing of Mai 3:1-5 has been reinterpreted as a cursing and a symbol of destruction
(see below). This also answers the argument of Hooker, "Traditions about the Temple,
19, who claims that there was no explicit reference to "cleansing" the temple because
Jesus’ action was "unsuccessful." On the contrary, it was completely successful for what
it was intended to be: a prophetic act symbolizing the destruction of the temple. Cf. E. P.
Sanders, Jesus and Jerusalem (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 61-76; and, more recently,
Sweeney, "Jesus’ Temple Action," passim.
Â C
Note the highly compressed wording of Mark 11:11a, Kai riarftDev eiq
lepoodXupa dq x6 iepdv.
390
The Cursing of the Fig Tree (Mark 11:12-14, 20-25) is closely related to the
Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:15-19).3®® So close is this relationship that it begs
for an explanation. Could this explanation be found, at least in part, in the relationship
between Mai 3:1 and Mai 3:23-24? The coming of ‘Elijah’ in the person of John the
Baptist (Mai 3:1, 23), and his subsequent rejection, means that the land will be subjected
to a divine curse (Mai 3:24). Thus it is probable that the Cursing of the Fig Tree, which
graphically illustrates the coming fate of temple and nation, is (or is symbolic of) that
curse. 3®7 This means that the Cleansing o f the Temple is to be interpreted within a
curse framework?®* The cleansing is absolute and irrevocable—a complete sweeping
306The Cursing of the Fig Tree follows the Cleansing of the Temple in
Matthew. There is no Cursing of the Fig Tree in Luke. There is, however, an equally
potent reference to judgment immediately prior to the act of Cleansing of the Temple in
Luke 19:41-44. This reference functions in Luke’s narrative just as the Cursing of the Fig
Tree does in Mark (cf. Hooker, "Traditions about the Temple," 13). Jerusalem would be
utterly destroyed because it failed to recognize the time of its "visitation." There is a
terrible and ironic word-play of sorts here. The word tauneoicn, which refers to the
coming of God, can have a positive or a negative connotation. Because Israel "missed"
God’s gracious coming in Christ, rather an understatement considering his impending
crucifixion, his coming becomes a judgment (H. W. Beyer, "£moK£irco|iai, kxA.. ," TDNT,
2:602 [art. =599-622]; Marshall, Luke, 719). Cf. Qumran where God’s "visitation" refers
to YHWH’s great eschatological theophany of judgment (e.g., IQS 3:18-19; 4:19, 26;
CD 7:9; 8:2-3; 19:6, 10, 15). It is this judgment that Christ prophetically prefigured by
his Cleansing of the Temple. Interestingly, the word "visitation" is also crucial term in
the book of Exodus, most notably occurring twice in the mouth of the Angel of the
LORD in Exod 3:16 in reference to his appearance to Moses at the burning bush (cf.
Exod 4:31).
307Hagner, Matthew, 2:603-604; Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered
Tree, 163. For the fig tree as a symbol of Israel (Jer 8:13; Joel 1:7; cf. Mic 7:1) see
esp., Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree, 136-137. And for the temple as
symbol of Israel’s national identity cf. Wright, Jesus and the Victory o f God, 405-428.
Cp. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:195, 197, who takes the unlikely view that the Cursing
of the Fig Tree has no symbolic value.
308According to Barrett, "The House of Prayer," 14, "[t]he Cursing surrounds
the Cleansing, and provides its interpretation. The fig tree was a readily understood
391
away of the temple—because the curse is absolute and irrevocable.309 That Mai 3:1-2
originally spoke of cleansing rather than destruction is almost completely beside the
point. The cleansing becomes a destruction, or a portent of destruction, because God’s
people were unprepared for his coming and because his forerunner had been spurned and
killed. From the rejection of Elijah the curse follows inexorably according to Mai 3:24.
Had Elijah been accepted, however, things no doubt would have turned out quite
differently for both temple and nation.
symbol for Israel, and its withering away means that Israel . . . is now to be brought to
an end. Just as the fig tree is withered, so the Temple is to be destroyed. " Others have
also noted that the Cursing of the Fig Tree frames and interprets Christ’s otherwise
ambiguous and underdetermined action in the temple. See, e.g., Best, The Temptation
and the Passion, xxxvi-xxxvii, xxxix-xl; Hooker, "Traditions about the Temple," 7-8;
idem, Mark, 265; Hurtado, Mark, 180, 183; Telford, The Barren Temple and the
Withered Tree, 237-239; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 311, 373; Watty, "Jesus and the
Temple," 237; Wright, Jesus and the Victory o f God, 414, 421.
The strength of this curse is indicated by word order, by the expression eiq
xov aitova, and by the double negative puicexi . . . unSeiq (Gundry, Mark, 636-637, 650-
651; cf. Hagner, Matthew, 2:604). This is in complete agreement with the citation of Jer
7:11 in Mark 11:17 since the context in Jeremiah (Jer 7:11-15) involves the destruction
of the temple on the analogy of the earlier destruction of Shiloh. Now, however, the
destruction is bound up with the Day of the LORD: i.e., its destruction is eschatological
and irrevocable. The earthly temple will be "no more forever. ” The strength of this curse
is also consistent with the meaning of the Parable of the Vinyard (Mark 12:1-12) and
with the prophecy of the temple’s utter and complete destruction in Mark 13:2. Thus
Barrett, "The House of Prayer," 14, n. 8, can say that it is the destruction of temple and
nation that gives unity to Mark 11-12.
It is also possible that the mountain-moving saying in Mark 11:23 has a similar
thrust. That is, if "this mountain" is the temple mount (so, e.g., Telford, The Barren
Temple and the Withered Tree, 95-127; Hooker, "Traditions about the Temple," 8; idem,
Mark, 269-270; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 332-337; Wright, Jesus and the Victory o f
God, 422), then its being cast into the sea portrays its obliteration by the very forces of
chaos that Christ himself had earlier overcome in his sea-walking theophany. In light of
the exodus background of the sea-walking theophany (i.e., Exodus 14) and the many
exodus and New Exodus themes coming to expression here in Mark 11 and elsewhere, it
is possible that the words "cast into the sea" echo the same words, repeated for emphasis,
in Exod 15:1, 3, 19, 21. If so, it would be a devastating correlation indeed.
392
The Cleansing of the Temple and Jesus’ authority (Mark 11:27-33) are closely
bound up with John the Baptist:
All the Synoptics link the incident in the temple with the challenge to Jesus’
authority. Jesus replies by linking his own activity with that of John. But those who
have rejected the preparation of John will reject die activity of Jesus. Now, according
to Mark 1, John is the messenger of Malachi 3.1, who prepares the way of die
Lord—the Lord, who (so Malachi tells us) will suddenly come to his temple.31
So closely are John the Baptist and Jesus related that to understand the authority and
identity of the one is to understand the authority and identity other. Again the identities of
Jesus and John the Baptist are seen to be correlative. Though Jesus’ interlocutors show
themselves to be ignorant and obdurate, refusing to acknowledge the divine origin of
John’s ministry, Mark and his readers know better. They have known for some
time (cf. Mark 1:2; 9:11-13) that John the Baptist is the forerunner of Jesus (Mai 3:1,
23) and that Jesus, John’s ‘follower,’ is the coming Lord and Angel of the LORD (Mai
3: l).312 The question over Jesus’ authority thus functions in relation to the Cleansing
of the Temple just as Mark 1:2-3 (cf. 1:4-8) does in relation to the opening line of the
Gospel and, again, as Mark 9:11-13 does in relation to the Transfiguration. There are
many different ways in which Jesus and his sonship could be understood. But this
consistent pattern of identification with reference to John the Baptist, and not only to John
the Baptist but to Malachi 3, ensures that Jesus and his sonship will be understood in
terms of divine agency.
310Hooker, "Traditions about the Temple," 18-19. Cf. Doeve, "Purification du

temple et dessdchement du figuier," 305; Hooker, Mark, 23, 254, 271-272; Robinson,
The Priority o f John, 129, 185-186.
31 Jo h n ’s "baptism" is a synecdoche for his entire prophetic ministry (Carson,
Matthew, 447; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:160; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 338),
the essence of which was to be Jesus’ forerunner.
312Cf. Hooker, Mark, 31-32; Wright, Jesus and the Victory o f God, 495-497.
393
Is this not, after all, very nearly the point of Jesus’ question about David’s Son
(Mark 12:35-37)? Jesus’ question about David’s Son clarifies everything that has been
said and done in Mark 11-12.313 It especially clarifies the (divine) identity of the one
who has come to cleanse the temple. Jesus has the authority to cleanse the temple because
it is his temple. But he not only has the authority of the "Lord" (p itt= K tip io q ) of Mai
3:1 (cf. Mark 11:27-33), he also has the authority of David’s "Lord" (p iK = K u p io q ), a
second figure next to God.314 Thus he who is Lord of the temple, and Lord of
David, is also be the rightful Lord of those who choose to reject his sovereignty in the
same way that they had earlier elected to reject his forerunner.313
Why in light of this was Mai 3:1 not cited?316 This one question masks two
closely related issues. First, regarding Jesus himself, there is every indication that, had
the religious ‘authorities’ answered his question, he would have answered their question
with a reference to Malachi 3. This, at least, was how he had answered the question
posed by John the Baptist’s disciples (Matt 11:10) and this was again how he had
answered the question posed by his own disciples following his Transfiguration (Mark
9:11-13). And second, regarding Mark himself, there was no reason to refer to Malachi 3
since in light of his "presuppositional use of the Malachi context" that context would have
been a foregone conclusion not only to him but to his audience as well.317 The
313Matera, The Kingship of Jesus, 68, cf. 84.

314Cf. Hooker, Mark, 292-293.
315Cf. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 347, 349.
316"The Malachi prophecy . . . of the Lord who comes suddenly to his Temple,
is so manifestly appropriate, one would think, that it is surprising to find no reference to
it" (Barrett, "The House of Prayer," 20).
317Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 316.
394
relevance of Malachi 3 to Jesus and his forerunner have been understood since Mark 1:2
(and arguably since the words recorded in Matt 11:10, 14 and Mark 9:11-13 were
originally spoken by the earthly Jesus). Mark could thus assume that his audience was
sufficiently competent to read Malachi 3 between the lines.318 The absence of an
explicit reference to Malachi 3 here is also consistent with Mark’s allusive christological
identifications elsewhere and is not in itself a valid argument against the pervasive
influence of Malachi 3.319
Earlier it was said that the Cleansing of the Temple was a deliberate and
dramatic fulfillment of Mai 3:1-5. Clearly it was dramatic. But was it deliberate? Christ’s
own presuppositional use of Malachi 3 elsewhere (Matt 11:10; Mark 9:11-13; and esp.
Mark 11:27-33) would seem to suggest that his action was deliberate,320 and there
may be some additional confirmation of this in Mark 12:26 where Jesus cites verbatim
318Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 332 (cf. 324), "there is no need for explicit
reference if other indicators make the allusion clear."
319Contra, e.g., Barrett, "The House of Prayer," 20; France, Jesus and the Old
Testament, 92-93, n. 35; Gundry, Mark, 643; Kinman, Jesus Entry into Jerusalem, 155-
156; Sweeney, "Jesus’ Temple Action," 237-238; Watty, "Jesus and the Temple," 236.
Ironically, however, the stronger this argument is stated the more clearly it answers
itself: e.g., "it does seem strange that none of the evangelists saw the necessity of making
an explicit reference to the Malachi prophecy, the more so since the particular reference
in Malachi was apparently well known and applied to other situations" (Watty, "Jesus
and the Temple," 236, emphasis added).
Some have also argued that Mai 3:1 could not have been used with reference to
Christ here because it was "no longer available" having already been used in reference to
John the Baptist elsewhere (Barrett, "The House of Prayer,” 20; cf. France, Jesus and
the Old Testament, 92-93, n. 35; Gundry, Mark, 643). But this argument is based on a
misunderstanding of both Mai 3:1 and the citations of Mai 3:1 in the NT (Mark 1:2;
Matt 11:10; Luke 7:27). Two figures are in view in Mai 3:1 and in the NT citations of
Mai 3:1 and there is no reason why the same verse could not be used, explicitly or
implicitly, to identify John the Baptist or Jesus or both.
320Cf. Wright, Jesus and the Victory o f God, 414.
395
the words of the Angel of the LORD to Moses at the Burning Bush (Exod 3:6). It seems
unlikely that Jesus was unaware that these words to Moses were originally spoken by the
Angel of the LORD and equally unlikely that he was oblivious to the fact that his so-
called "incident" in the temple was a near-perfect fulfillment Mai 3:1-5. The
convergences are simply too numerous, too profound, and too appropriate to be merely
accidental. Jesus understood himself, at least in part, as the eschatological coming of the
Lord and Angel of the LORD prophesied by Malachi.
The Absolute "I am" of the Preexistent Christ

(John 8:31-59)
Jesus had used the divine self-revelation formula "I am" at the dramatic
conclusion of his sea-walking theophany (John 6:20; cf. Matt 14:27; Mark 6:50).
Here now in John 8:58 he makes even more dramatic use of that same formula, a use
that fully reveals his true identity as the incarnate Logos and Son of God, that is, his
identity as a divine agent. This revelation is consistent with John’s own programmatic
placement of the Cleansing of the Temple early in Christ’s ministry (John 2:13-16; cf.
Mai 3:1-5) and with his presentation of Jesus as the preexistent ‘follower’ of John the
Baptist (John 1:16, 19-34; cf. Isa 40:3; Mai 3:1).
321There are twenty-three "I am" sayings in the Fourth Gospel. Thirteen of
these are followed by an image or predicate: John 6:35, 41, 48, 51 (the Bread of Life);
8:12 (the Light of the World); 10:7, 9 (the Gate), 11, 14 (the Good Shepherd); 11:25
(the Resurrection and the Life); 14:6 (the Way, the Truth, and the Life); 15:1, 5 (the
True Vine). Ten "I am" sayings, however, have no image or predicate and are therefore
grammatically absolute. These ten sayings are: 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6,
8, 18. Of these ten absolute uses John 8:58 and 13:19 are perhaps the most remarkable
for the context supplies no possible predicate. As a result the "I am " formula in these
verses "must be regarded as complete and meaningful in itself" (P. B. Hamer, The "/
A m ” o f the Fourth Gospel [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970], 39).
396
Recent scholarship has tended to emphasize the Isaianic background of Jesus’
"I AM" sayings.322 The result, while certainly illuminating at many levels, has
nevertheless been reductionistic. A crucial background for both Jesus’ use of the "I am"
formula, no less than for Isaiah’s use, has been obscured if not denied outright. That
background is Exod 3:14.323 But what evidence is there that Exod 3:14 stands
322With reference to Isa 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 45:18; 46:4; 48:12; 51:2; 52:6,
see, e.g., D. M. Ball, "/ Am ” in John’s Gospel: Literary Function, Background and
Theological Implications (JSNTSup 124; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), esp.
201-203, 258-261, 265-269; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (2d. ed.;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 352; Bauckham, God Crucified, 55-56; Brown, John,
536-537; Dodd, Interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel, 93-96, 261-262; A. Feuillet, "Les
Ego Eimi christologiques du quatrieme Evangile: La revelation enigmatique de l’etre
divine de Jdsus dans Jean et les Synoptiques," RSR 54 (1966): 5-22, 213-240, esp. 11-12;
Harner, The "I Am " o f the Fourth Gospel, esp. 6-15; E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story
(New York: Knopf, 1960), 174-195; C. Williams, I am He: The Interpretation o f ’Ani
Hu’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (WUNT 113; Tubingen: Mohr, 2000);
H. Zimmermann, "Das absolute ’Eyib eipi als die neutestamentliche Offenbarangsformel,"
BZ 4 (1960): 54-69, 266-276.
An appeal has also been made to the Wisdom tradition (Lindars, John, 336;
idem, Behind the Fourth Gospel, 46; idem, "Slave and Son," 284; Davies, Rhetoric and
Reference, 83, 87; cf. Brown, John, l.cxxiii, 537-538), but this is unlikely. The appeal
to Wisdom confuses the speech of a personified divine attribute with the speech of a
person, in this case a divine Person. More importantly, it confuses ordinary first person
speech with the extraordinary "I am" declarations of God’s unique divine identity and
etemality. To this the Wisdom tradition, Sirach 24 and Proverbs 8 notwithstanding, does
not bear the remotest analogy.
323I.e., what could be more appropriate in the context of a New Exodus than the
divine self-revelation formula of the first exodus? Cf. S. Motyer, Your Father the Devil?
A New Approach to John and ‘the Jews’ (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1997), 197; Watts,
Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark, 231; Williams, I am He, 253, 307-308. Commentators
who have affirmed the primacy of Exod 3:14 include Boismard, Moses or Jesus, 120-
121; G. M. Burge, "‘I Am’ Sayings," DJG, 355 [art. =354-356]; H. E. Lona, Abraham
in Johannes 8: Ein Beitrag zur Methodenfrage (Europaische Hochschulschriften 65;
Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, 1976), 234; Morris, John, 419-420; and R. Schnackenburg,
Das Johannesevangelium (HTKNT; vol. 1; 4th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1979), 1:301;
idem, Das Johannesevangelium (HTKNT; vol. 2; 2d ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 2:64,
300-301; cf. G. K. Beale, John’s Use o f the Old Testament in Revelation (JSNTSup 166;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 327-329. Others allow at least some
397
behind John 8:58? The case for Exod 3:14 is indirect and cumulative, no less than the
case for Isaiah. The point in making the following case is not to deny the presence of an
Isaianic background altogether but to put that prophetic background in proper perspective.
If Isaiah is in view there can be no question that it supports the high Christology being
advocated here. But Jesus is not simply a divine manifestation who speaks in the first
person as only God himself can speak.3 2 4 Jesus is also a divine agent whose
manifestation is modelled, at least in part, on the appearances of the Angel of the LORD
in the OT. Here in John 8, as will be suggested below, it is primarily the Pentateuchal
appearances of the Angel of the LORD to Abraham that are in view.325
influence from, or echo of, Exod 3:14 in John 8:58 while still affirming the primacy of
Isaiah. See, e.g., Beasley-Murray, John, 139; Hamer, The "I A m ” o f the Fourth Gospel,
17, 60; S. S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter (2d ed.; Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1998), 192, n. 23; 225, n. 178; E. Stauffer, "frytf>," TDNT, 2:344, 352
[art. =343-362]; Williams, / am He, 57-62, 276-277.
For the outright denial of Exod 3:14 as a background to John 8:58 see, e.g.,
Barrett, John, 352; Lindars, John, 336, whose argument is based in part on the claim
that John never identifies Jesus with God (but cf. John 1:1, 18; 5:18; 10:30; 20:28; etc.);
and K. L. McKay, "‘I am’ in John’s Gospel," ExpTim 107 (1995-96): 302-303, who
contra mundum fails to see any allusive significance in these words. Ball, I Am in John’s
Gospel, 159, 258-261, in an otherwise thorough and impressive study, rightly states that
the background must be Jewish, specifically the OT; but he gives no consideration to the
possibility that Exod 3:14 may be in view.
324WiIliams, I am He, 37-41 and passim; cf. Ball, I Am in John’s Gospel, 281;
Hamer, The ”1 A m ” o f the Fourth Gospel, 6-15; Stauffer, "deoq, icxA.," 3:103-104.
325A number of Jesus’ "I am " sayings are rooted in or related to Pentateuchal
contexts. John 4:26 demonstrates that Jesus is greater than Jacob (John 4:12); John 6:20
alludes to the saving presence of God at the Red Sea in Exodus 14; and John 6:35, 48,
51 allude to the manna in the wilderness. It is to these "I am" sayings that John 8:58
(which demonstrates that Jesus is greater than Abraham) bears the closest intertextual
affinity even though an inclusion is formed in the more immediate context by John 8:24,
28, on the one hand, and John 8:58, on the other (cp. Ball, I Am in John’s Gospel, 81-
82; Brown, John, 1:367). This does not mean that John 8:24 and 28 are insignificant for
a proper understanding of John 8:58. On the contrary: first, the two earlier verses pose in
stark terms the question of Jesus’ identity that is not fully resolved until John 8:58.
398
John 8:31-59 is a unified whole within which Jesus unambiguously presents
himself as a divine messenger. He is divine because he is God’s Son. And he is God’s
messenger because he repeatedly refers to his word (8:31, 37, 43, 51) and to speaking
that which he has heard from his Father in heaven (8:38, 40, 45-46; cf. 32, 47, 55). As
God’s unique Son Jesus proceeds forth from God, comes from God, and was sent by God
(8:42). Jesus is thus an agent, a messenger, whose function is to communicate a message.
The word "angel" is, of course, not used. But it is conceptually very close at hand.
John 8:31-59 is also a unified whole that is inextricably bound up with Abraham,
a Pentateuchal figure, rather than with Isaiah and prophetic themes and language.326
Second, like John 8:58, these two verses occur in the context of Christ’s presentation of
himself as a divine agent (cf. 8:23, 26, 28-29). And, third, these two verses bracket an
important reference to Jesus as the Son of Man. If the analysis below is essentially
correct, i.e., that Exod 3:14 stands behind John 8:58, then John 8:24-28 may also reflect
Exod 3:14. If that is the case, then the same convergence between the Danielic Son of
Man and the Pentateuchal Angel of the LORD that is found in the Synoptic Gospels (i.e.,
Mark 2:5-11 with reference to Jesus’ authority to forgive sins; and Mark 9:2-13 with
reference to the theophanic Transfiguration of the ’follower’ of John the Baptist) would
also seem to be present in the Fourth Gospel (cf. J. H. Neyrey, "The Jacob Allusions in
John 1:51," CBQ 44 [1982]: 597 [art. =586-605]). Christ treats the two (divine) figures
as a single complex figure: himself. Again, this may be one of Christ’s more impressive
contributions to the Christology of the NT.
326On the importance of Abraham to this passage see esp., Lona, Abraham,
446-450 and passim; cf. Williams, I am He, 275. Specific points of contact to the
language of Isaiah beyond the "I am" saying itself are proposed by Ball, I Am in John’s
Gospel, 195-198 (who admits on p. 195 that the verbal connections to Isaiah are not
close); and Williams, I am He, 275-283. But the connections to Isa 43:10 and 46:10 (cf.
Tg. Isa. 43:10-13 which, interestingly, interpolates Abraham into Isa 43:12) are tenuous
from the vantage point of the immediate Johannine context. In particular, it is unlikely
that the use of gyft dpi, Ipicpoofev, and gyeveco in Isa 43:10 parallels the highly
distinctive and contextually different use of xpiv, yevtaOcn, and frytb d p i in John 8:58
(pace Ball, 195-196); or that the use of rcpiv afoot yev&rikxi in Isa 46:10, which speaks of
God’s perfect prophetic foreknowledge, parallels the use o f npiv 'Afipadp yevôSai in
John 8:58, which speaks of Jesus’ personal preexistence (pace Williams, 277, n. 74). The
problematic dating of the Targums has already been noted.
399
Abraham is explicitly mentioned eleven times in these verses, elsewhere in the Fourth
Gospel not at all. Nowhere else in the NT is there such a density of references to
Abraham or any other (human) OT figure. This in itself is a significant clue to Jesus’
identity and, above all, to "the immensely impressive claim"327 with which he
climaxes and concludes his lengthy dialogue with the Jews. Note in light of these many
references to Abraham the many echoes of Genesis 16-21 (an OT Angel of the LORD
context) in the present passage. For example, there are echoes of Hagar, Ishmael, and
Isaac in the contrast between free sons of Abraham who remain in the house and slaves
who, though sons of Abraham (John 8:37, 56), do not remain in the house.328 It is
also possible that the hostility of the Jews toward Jesus in John 8:37, 40, finds its
(typological) basis in the hostility of Ishmael toward Isaac. This hostility is not
elaborated in the OT but reflects an early interpretive tradition based on Gen 21:9.
327B. Lindars, Behind the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Creative Criticism (London:
SPCK, 1971), 43.
328Cf. Genesis 16-21 (esp. Genesis 16; 21:10, 14). These echoes are noted by
Barrett, John, 346; Lona, Abraham, 263-264; J. H. Neyrey, "Jesus the Judge: Forensic
Process in John 8,21-59," Bib 68 (1987): 521-523, cf. 525-526, 537-538 [art. =509-542].
The same basic contrast is further elaborated by Paul in Gal 4:21-31.
329Neyrey, "Jesus the Judge," 523. Neyrey (525-526) goes even further by
taking the reference to illegitimacy in John 8:41 not as a slur against Jesus but as the
Jews’ rejection of the charge that they are offspring of Ishmael and illegitimate children
of Abraham.
330This tradition seems to be reflected in Gal 4:29, Ant. 1:215, and possibly
Cher. 9, though Philo has his own rather idiosyncratic reasons for wishing to expel
"Hagar" and "Ishmael" (so-called). For the extensive later development of this early
tradition see R. N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1990), 200-206. Cp.
also the Angel of the LORD’S own dire prediction about Ishmael’s future hostilities in
Gen 16:12. Also of special interest is 1QM 2:13 where, in the only reference to Ishmael
at Qumran, "the sons of Ishmael" are numbered among the sons of darkness, the army of
Belial, and the men of the lot of Belial (cf. 1QM 1:1-17). Opposing Belial and his sons is
the Prince of Light and his sons. Interestingly, this Prince was understood at Qumran to
400
There is also an echo of Genesis 18 in John 8:40. This echo is generally missed
because the deed described by Jesus is too quickly spiritualized, moralized, or generalized
when it is intended to be literal, historical, and highly specific. It is not simply a matter
of "ethical kinship" with the great patriarch.331 Jesus is saying much more than that
Abraham was nice and not at all the sort of person (unlike some people) who would kill a
divine messenger.332 The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus and it is specifically this,
namely, seeking to kill Jesus, that Abraham did not do.333 Jesus is indeed making a
factual claim about Abraham—not only about Abraham’s exemplary hospitality during an
unexpected theophany but also about Abraham’s absence of hostility toward his heavenly
visitors. But Jesus is simultaneously making an important factual claim about himself—he
was a contemporary of Abraham. He was the LORD who appeared to Abraham in
Genesis 18. Interestingly, it is in Genesis 18 that the LORD himself appears to Abraham
and is referred to as "a man” (Gen 18:2). And it is here in John 8:40 that Jesus refers to
be the Angel of the LORD. The convergence of dualistic themes and personages is
certainly suggestive even if the Fourth Gospel, unlike Qumran, understands the Angel of
the LORD to be fully divine.
331Pace Motyer, Your Father the Devil?, 190-192, who rightly highlights the
importance of Abraham’s hospitality (cf. Genesis 18), Torah observance, and monotheism
to Second Temple Judaism.
332Contra, inter alia, J. H. Bernard, The Gospel According to St. John (ICC; 2
vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), 2:311; Brown, John, 1:357; J. R. Michaels,
John (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984), 157; Lona, Abraham, 219-220, 321-
322; Morris, John, 409; Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium, 2:284.
333Similarly, Neyrey, "Jesus the Judge," 534-535. Motyer, Your Father the
Devil?, 190-191, is correct that the aorist verb £jiouioev refers to a specific past deed of
Abraham. That deed, however, is more specific even than Abraham’s hospitality. Note
that Jesus’ reference to the deed in question is expressed negatively (Abraham did not do
the deed) rather than positively (Abraham did show hospitality).
401
himself as "a man."334 Such an unusual self-designation in the context of a
discussion about Abraham is not likely to be coincidental.335 Jesus’ preexistence vis
it-vis Abraham is thus implicit in John 8:40 even though it does not become fully explicit
until John 8:57-58.
There are further echoes of Genesis 18 in John 8:56 where Jesus says to the
Jews, "Your father Abraham rejoiced at seeing my day, he saw it and was glad.1,336
In spite of considerable recent advances in linguistics (notably the application of verbal
aspect theory to the Greek NT) there is every indication that all four of the (aorist) verbs
in John 8:56 are past referring. Abraham rejoiced at seeing in the past; he saw Jesus’
"day" in the past; and he was glad in the past. The closest parallel to this in the Fourth
Gospel is John 12:41 where it is stated that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory in the past,337 It
is also likely in John 1:14-18 that Moses is assumed to have seen Jesus and his glory,
334 "This unqualified use of cmthrOpos for Jesus without any implication of
uniqueness is not encountered elsewhere in the NT" (Brown, John, 357). Cf. John 1:23,
30 where the coming LORD of Isa 40:3 (and Mai 3:1) is described by John the Baptist as
"a man"; and John 4:29 where Jesus is described as "a man" by the woman at the well
immediately after he utters the words "I a m " (John 4:26).
335Cf. Motyer, Your Father the Devil?, 191.

336Lona, Abraham, 205-206, notes the artistic chiastic structure of this verse.
Cf. H. Leroy, Ratsel und Missverstandnis: Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des
Johannesevangeliums (BBB 30; Bonn: Hanstein, 1968), 83. The Iva is unusual and may
indicate wish or desire (BAGD, 377; BDF §392(1)(a)) or, more probably, the content
(C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book o f New Testament Greek [2d ed.; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1959], 145-146) or the cause of the rejoicing (MHT,
3:102).
337Cf. Brown, John, 1:359; N. A. Dahl, "The Johannine Church and History,"
in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor o f Otto A. Piper, ed.
W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 132 [art. = 124-142];
Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium, 2:299; Williams, I am He, 275, n. 66.
402
again in the past.338 This is consistent with the thoroughly Johannine view that no
one has ever seen God (the Father), even though the OT recounts many theophanies, and
with the evidence from elsewhere in the NT that points to the real presence of Christ in
OT Angel of the LORD contexts (cf. 1 Cor 10:4, 9; Jude 5).
The word used in John 8:56 for "rejoicing" (dryaXXirioiiai) does not occur in the
Pentateuch but does occur often in the Psalms in reference to "rejoicing in the LORD"
and also in Isaiah in eschatological contexts (e.g., Isa 35:1, 2).339 Here in John
8:56, however, the word d y a X A id o p a i probably reflects the verb ye Acccd, understood in a
positive sense, which occurs in the Pentateuch in Gen 17:17 and 18:12, 13, 15
(bis).340 If ordinary rather than "visionary" seeing is in view, then the only passage
in the OT where such seeing is found in combination with rejoicing is Genesis 18 and,
more broadly, in Genesis 17-21.341
338Lindars, John, 95.

339This one word alone could have caused offense had not Jesus said so many
other still more offensive things. The word suggests the arrogation of a divine prerogative
for it has cultic overtones and its object is always God (R. Bultmann, "dcYaXXuxopon,
wJL," TDNT, 1:19-21; E. Beyreuther, "dcYaUuxopcn," NIDNTT, 2:352-354).
34°Cf. Jubilees 16 for a positive interpretation of the laughter in Genesis 17-18.
The related noun ytkaq occurs in the Pentateuch only in Gen 21:6. Interestingly, the verb
<nryxaipo>, an OT hapax, also occurs in Gen 21:6. Cp. the doubling up of terms
(dcyaAJUaopat and x od p oj) in John 8:56; and cf. also the use of X ffip to in Exod 4:31 in
reference to Israel’s proper response to the Angel of the LORD’S tlteophanic visitation in
Exodus 3.
341Lona, Abraham, 292-310, makes an exhaustive search but is unable to find a
single OT or Jewish text that combines a vision of Abraham with his rejoicing. Thus he
concludes (312; cf. 329-330) that John’s combination of the two themes is completely
unique. But if one does not first beg the question by looking for "visions" of the future
(of which the text says very little) and looks instead for instances of ordinary seeing in
the context o f a theophany or heavenly visitation, then the combination of seeing and
rejoicing can readily be found in the context of Genesis 18.
403
It is tempting to link the difficult expression "my day" with a specific OT text
where the word "day" occurs (e.g., Gen 15:18; 18:1; and esp. the "third day" of Cen
22:4). But it is also possible that "my day" is not being used literally but is instead a
circumlocution of sorts for "me. b34^ In either case it seems clear enough that the
Jews in John 8:57 understand Jesus to be preexistent, most likely as one of the three
heavenly (i.e., angelic) visitors to Abraham in Genesis 18, and that the narrative flows
much more naturally at this juncture if their retort is basically correct.343 It is only
on the (false) assumption that seeing Jesus’ "day" refers to an eschatological vision that
the Jews retort in John 8:57 becomes not just a misunderstanding but "krasses
Unverstehen” and a patent non sequitur.344 As at crucial points elsewhere in the
42Cf. L. Urban and P. Henry, "‘Before Abraham was I am’: Does Philo
Explain John 8:56-58?" Studia Philonica 6 (1979-80): 184-186 [art. = 157-195]. Lona,
Abraham, 230-231, classifies the Johannine uses of the word "day" and concludes that in
this instance the usage is "ganz eigenartig; ein solcher Gebrauch von f|i£pa lafit sich
anderswo nicht belegen, weder im AT noch im NT" (231). Perhaps, then, it should not
be understood here as having one of its customary (i.e., temporal) meanings.
343Cf. M. J. Edwards, "‘Not Yet Fifty Years Old’: John 8.57," ATS 40 (1994):
449-454, esp. 453-454, n. 30; S. Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment o f Christ: A
Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel (WUNT 2.120;
Tubingen: Mohr, 2000), 295, n. 260. According to Lindars, Behind the Fourth Gospel,
46, "John contrives to make it sound as if Abraham and Jesus are contemporaries. And of
course the Jews once more miss his meaning by taking the words too literally." But if
John does contrive to say this, then perhaps he has merely been successful. Perhaps the
Jews have not missed his meaning or taken his words too literally at all.
^ L o n a , Abraham, 233; cf. 232-233, 328-329, n. 265, 330, 332, 392-393. On
misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel generally see the fuller treatments of D. A.
Carson, "Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel," TynBul 33 (1982): 59-
91; Leroy, Rdtsel und Missverstdndnis, 82-88 and passim. See also, more recently,
Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment, 91-122, 230-232, 408 and passim, who
demonstrates that the ambiguity and elusiveness of the Fourth Gospel is inextricably
bound up with its allusive use of the OT to present Jesus as the (divine) Christ. With
reference to, and cogent criticisms of, the assumption of Leroy and others (notably
Martyn and Meeks) that the enigmatic language of the Fourth Gospel can be explained on
404
Fourth Gospel (e.g., John 5:18; 8:59; 10:30-31) the Jews have correctly understood, but
rejected, the claims o f Jesus. Jesus’ response in 8:58 then builds upon and cleverly plays
off of their correct but incomplete understanding.345
The incredulous retort of the Jews—You can’t possibly be a contemporary of
Abraham!—thus furthers the subtle but high Christology of the present narrative. This
Christology culminates with the words of Jesus in John 8:58. Not only am I a
contemporary of Abraham, says Jesus, I am! "This is the only passage in the NT where
we have the contrast between rival and yzvtaticn. The verse attributes to Jesus
consciousness of eternity or supra-temporality. To the Son who is equal to the Father
(5:18ff.) there is here ascribed what Scripture attributes to the Father."346 It is not
the basis of its sectarian character see, Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment, 174-
219, esp. 190-193, 197-208.
345I.e., it is not the case that the narrative in John 8:56-58 moves abruptly and
disconnectedly as follows:
A Abraham had a vision of me (I am eschatologically important)

B You can’t possibly be a contemporary of Abraham! (patent non-sequitur)
C Yes, I am! And more than this, "I am !" (riposte to non-sequitur)
Rather, it is the case that the narrative rises gradually to a crescendo as the Jews finally
begin to grasp what had eluded them in Jesus’ earlier allusion (John 8:40) to Abraham’s
lack of murderous behavior toward him in the past:
A ' Abraham saw me in the past (I am a contemporary of Abraham)
B' You can’t possibly be a contemporary of Abraham! (sheer incredulity)
C ' Yes, I am! And more than this, "I am !" (a fortiori)
Thus, if Lona, Abraham, 447, is correct to argue that John 8:56 is the key to
understanding Abraham’s role in John 8, it must only be added that John 8:57 is the key
to understanding 8:56!
346F. Buchsel, "dpi, 6&v," TDNT, 2:399 [art. =2:398-400]. "The theophanic
formula used by Jesus was the purest, the boldest, and the profoundest declaration by
Jesus of who and what he was" (Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, 194).
405
merely preexistence that is in view, for which the imperfect (fjpnv) would have
sufficed.347 It is divine existence and etemality that are in view.348 Not only
was Jesus a contemporary of Abraham, he was and is the God of Abraham.349 He is
the eternal God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush and who was called the
Angel of the LORD in Exod 3:2. Jesus’ equality with God (John 5:18) and his oneness
with God (John 10:30) are here expressed by the absolute "I am" of the Angel of the
LORD in Exod 3:14.33® To this radical claim the Jews’ response is predictable and,
347Ball, I Am in John's Gospel, 92; Lona, Abraham, 233; cf. 207, n. 57, 330-
331.
348Ball, I Am in John’s Gospel, 91-93, 195; Beasley-Murray, John, 139;

Brown, John, 1:360; Carson, John, 358; Dodd, Interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel, 261-
262; Morris, John, 419-420; Neyrey, "Jesus the Judge," 533-534; Schnackenburg,
Johannesevangelium, 2:61, 300; Williams, I am He, 276. According to Davies, Rhetoric
and Reference, 86, Jesus has merely uttered a metaphor for precedence that is utterly
lacking in temporal connotations. But this hardly does justice to the contrastive tenses in
8:58. It is also difficult to see how such an innocuous claim could qualify as blasphemy
worthy of death. Cf. Ball, I Am in John’s Gospel, 92-93.
349Jesus himself never claims Abraham as his father or claims to have
descended from Abraham. As the unique, divine Son of God Jesus stands completely over
against Abraham and all of Abraham’s descendants, legitimate or otherwise.
350Jesus’ use of the absolute "I am" formula is the most obvious connection to
Exodus 3 in John 8:31-59 but it is not the only connection. A correlation can also be
made between Jesus’ ability to bestow eternal life (John 8:51), his personal preexistence,
his absolute "I am " saying, and his citation of Exod 3:6 in Mark 12:26 (Michaels, John,
154-155; cf. Motyer, Your Father the Devil?, 200, 206, n. 153). Jesus cannot bestow
what he himself does not possess (cf. Lindars, "Slave and Son," 274 and passim). And
what he bestows, in addition to entailing his own preexistence, shows that he is divine.
The ability to bestow eternal life like the ability to dispense the Holy Spirit is a divine
prerogative. Jesus can exercise this prerogative because he is himself the Author of Life
(cf. John 11:25; 14:6) and the God of the living—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
There may also be subtle echoes of other OT Angel of the LORD texts in this
passage. For example, the references to hearing and keeping Jesus’ word (8:43, 47, 51-
52) may echo Exod 23:20-23 where Israel was commanded to hear and obey the words of
the Angel of the LORD. In addition, it may also be possible to understand die absolute
"I am " as, or as approximating, a divine name (Brown, John, 537; Edwards, "Not Yet
406
in a strictly monotheistic context, understandable.351 They reach for rocks to stone
Jesus for blasphemy.
The important thing to observe here is not that Jesus has (again) uttered the
divine self-revelation formula of the God of the OT, important as that surely is, but that
Jesus has interpreted his Pentateuchal appearances to Abraham intertextually and in the
strictest possible salvation-historical continuity with those appearances. The divine
Fifty Years Old," 453-454, n. 30; Neyrey, "Jesus the Judge," 534; Williams, I am He,
280-283). If this is the case, then there is a correlation between Jesus and the Angel of
the LORD (cf. Exod 23:21) since both bear the divine name. Elsewhere in the Fourth
Gospel Jesus is often and uniquely associated with the divine name though it cannot be
said for certain that this association derives from Exod 23:21. See John 5:43; 10:25;
12:23, 28; 17:6, 11, 12, 26; cf. 3:18; 14:13, 26; 15:16; 16:23. (These verses are
adduced by Brown, John, 1:537, not with reference to Exod 23:21 but in the context of
explaining the Jewish use of "I a m " as a divine name and of Jesus’ possession of this
name.) Cf. also Phil 2:9-11 where the divine name possessed by Jesus "can only be
KUpioq " (Foerster, "xupioq," 3:1088), that is, YHWH.
It is also possible, especially in light of John 1:51, that there are subtle echoes of
Gen 28:10-22 in John 8:31-59. The Angel of the LORD’S theophany to Jacob at Bethel,
the house of God, would then correspond to Jesus’ theophanic presence in the temple; the
stone on which Jacob slept and which he used to erect an altar to commemorate the
divine presence would correspond (negatively) with the stones taken up by the Jews to
kill Jesus; and God’s "I am . . ." promise of his presence with Jacob would correspond
with Jesus’ "I am " pronouncement to the Jews. Jesus’ appeal to this very OT context in
John 1:51 (cf. Matt 28:20) would be consistent with the existence other allusions to the
same context elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, but the differences between the two
accounts are considerable and echoes all to quickly degenerate into silence and
subjectivity.
351Note the allusions to the Shema in John 8:41b-42a. Motyer, Your Father the
Devil?, 193, astutely points out that while the Jew’s allude to the Shema in reference to
God ("We have one Father, God"), Christ alludes to the Shema in reference to himself
("If God were your father, you would love me”)\ Cf. Christ’s appeal to the Shema in
Mark 12:28-30 where he seems to view monotheism and love of God as one indivisible
commandment: the greatest commandment. Here he is implicitly claiming a divine
prerogative. He is claiming the love that rightly belongs only to the one, true God. Paul
not dissimilarly unpacks the Shema with reference to two divine persons in 1 Cor 8:6.
407
manifestation to Abraham in Genesis 18 and the speaker of "the monumental
formula”352 in Exod 3:14 are one and the same. Jesus is not only claiming to be
divine, he is claiming to be i divine agent whose true but veiled status can only be
grasped by those who, like Abraham, have eyes to see him clearly and faith to receive his
words gladly. Jesus is claiming to be God manifest as an agent. He is, in other
(Johannine) words, the incarnate Logos and Son of God.
Conclusion
The NT makes consistent use of OT Angel of the LORD texts in its depiction of
Christ, doing so at the level of both citation and allusion. This is not a complete surprise
given: (1) the prominence of the Angel of the LORD in the OT, and not just in the OT
but in the very exodus and exodus-related texts that are of such crucial importance to the
NT; and (2) the frequent appeal to and elaboration of OT Angel of the LORD texts in the
intertestamental literature. What is surprising, however, is the fact that unlike the
intertestamental literature the NT does not use these OT texts to depict a mere agent. The
NT uses these texts much as they were originally used in the OT: to depict a divine agent
such as is found in the OT. Jesus is divine and his divinity is in part explained, perhaps
even promoted, by means of citations and allusions to OT Angel of the LORD texts.
The primary OT texts are Exod 23:20 and Mai 3:1 since it is these that are
conflated and explicitly cited in the NT. Both citations occur in pivotal Christological
texts where the identity, respectively, of "the Christ" (Matt 11:10) and "the Son of God"
(Mark 1:2) is clearly in view. The Christological significance of these primary OT texts
is then buttressed and expanded by a number of NT allusions to OT Angel of the LORD
352Stauffer, "frytb," 344.
408
texts.353 These allusions are found in Mark 1:1-4 (cf. Exod 3:6; 14:19; 23:20; Josh
5:15; Mai 3:1); Mark 2:1-12 (cf. Exod 23:21); Mark 6:45-52 (cf. Exodus 14; 33-34);
Mark 9:1-13 (Exodus 33-34); Mark 11:15-19 (cf. Mai 3:1-5); John 8:31-59 (cf. Genesis
16-18; Exod 3:14).
The NT use of these OT texts is demonstrably early.354 And its usage,
which is both subtle and consistent, most likely derives from Christ’s own self-
I C C
understanding and from his unique and creative interpretation of the OT. He saw
John the Baptist as his forerunner and himself as the eschatological fulfillment of Exod
23:20 and Mai 3:1. It cannot be said that the divine identity of Christ, or the NT belief in
353It is also buttressed, first, by the application of OT YHWH texts to Christ in

the NT (notably Isa 26:19 and Isa 35:5-6 in Matt 11:5; and Isa 40:3 in Mark 1:3); and,
second, by the Real Presence of Christ in the OT, often in OT Angel of the LORD
contexts.
354I.e., it is found in so-called "Q" material in Matthew, the first canonical

gospel, as well as in Mark, the first written gospel. n[T]hese traditions are of high value
as ipsissima verba of Jesus" (W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition
[SNTSMS 7; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968], 18; cf. Dunn, Christology
in the Making, 86; Ellis, "Deity-Christology," 192, n. 2). In defense of the "Q"
hypothesis, a hypothesis not necessary to the present thesis, see C. E. Carlston and D. A.
Norlin, "Once More—Statistics and Q," HTR 64 (1971): 59-78; idem, "Statistics and
Q—Some Further Observations," NovT41 (1999): 108-123; J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Priority
of Mark and the ‘Q ’ Source in Luke," in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies
(New York: Crossroad, 1981), 3-40; D. R. Catchpole, The Quest fo r Q (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1993); C. M. Tuckett, Q and the History o f Early Christianity: Studies on Q
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996); idem, "Q (Gospel Source)," in ABD 5:576-572. Cp.
A. M. Fairer, "On Dispensing with Q," in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory o f
R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 55-88.
355Cf. Blackburn, Theios Anffr, 179, "there is a real sense in which Jesus did
assimilate himself to God, and thus a definite link is forged between the historical Jesus
and the assimilation that occurs in early Christian literature"; Grundmann, Markus, 25.
409
the divine identity of Christ, has by any means been proved. Perhaps it is the
nature of the case that proof must remain as elusive as the presence of God. Evidence has
been uncovered, however, that is decidedly supportive of the divine identity of Christ—the
principal agent in the NT—and that might even go some small way toward explaining it
on a canonical and intertextual basis.
356rhough see, e.g., Bauckham, God Crucified; Capes, Old Testament Yahweh
Texts; Harris, Jesus as God. The results of investigations such as these, especially when
taken together, are quite compelling.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
The thesis proposed at the outset of this investigation was that a Jewish agent o f
considerable, perhaps even maximal, relevance to the high (divine) Christology o f the NT
was the OT Angel o f the LORD. The investigation began under the assumption,
admittedly generous, that of the three classes of Jewish agents set forth by the New
History of Religions School the class of principal angels was of the greatest potential
relevance to the high Christology of the NT.1 Then, due to the proliferation of angels
and angel speculation in the intertestamental period a single principal angel, the Angel o f
the LORD, was selected for further investigation. The five reasons initially given for this
significant delimitation were: (1) the Angel of the LORD was the most important and
clearly defined angel in the OT; (2) the Angel of the LORD was the most important
angelic figure in the intertestamental literature; (3) the Angel of the LORD was found in
Jewish sources that are demonstrably early; (4) Christ more closely resembled the Angel
of the LORD (and angels modelled after him) than he resembled the other principal
angels; (5) the NT made significant if limited use of OT Angel of the LORD texts in the
development of its high Christology; and (6) the Angel of the LORD has been overlooked
or misunderstood in much recent discussion.
*See again Segal, Two Powers, 24, 265; and cf. Chester, "Jewish Messianic
Expectations and Mediatorial Figures," 62-63, 71. The other two classes of agents are the
divine attributes and powers, which are not agents, and the exalted patriarchs, who
typically rank below the principal angels in glory and authority.
410
411
What followed in Chapters 2-4 demonstrated the validity of this delimitation and
the reasons adduced to support it. The Angel of the LORD is the most important and
clearly defined angel in the OT not only because he appears more often than any other
angel but because in a number of OT texts (perhaps as many as fifty) he is divine.2 The
Angel of the LORD is also the most important angelic figure in the intertestamental
literature, even though he is not divine in that literature, because he is referred to with
surprising frequency and consistency, because he is invariably equal or greater in glory
than the other principal angels, and because he served as the exemplar for most if not all
of the other principal angels in that literature. That Christ more closely resembles the
Angel of the LORD goes without saying. It only needs to be said that he most closely
resembles the Angel of the LORD whose appearances are described in the OT. The
angels of the Lord are always glorious and exalted. But only in the OT is the Angel of
the LORD, like Christ, divine. Only in the OT is the Angel of the LORD, like Christ,
God with us in the form of a created being.
And, finally, the NT makes significant use of OT Angel of the LORD texts in
the development of its high (divine) Christology. It does so for the most part implicitly:
not only by adopting the OT theophany paradigm, which vis-a-vis the Angel of the
LORD can be understood as a divine agency paradigm, but also by citing and alluding to
OT Angel of the LORD texts (e.g., Exod 23:20; Mai 3:l).3 The allusions, in
particular, assume a high level of reader competency and are indicative of a widespread
and primitive familiarity with the divine agency Christology that they imply. This
2Cf. Table 1 in Chapter 1 above.

3"The most important [Christological] formulae . . . are the least noticeable" (so
Stauffer, "flebq, icdL," 3:303, in reference to the subtle NT use of OT texts like Mai 3:1
and the fact that in the NT Jesus consistently stands in the place of God).
412
Christology most likely originated with Christ and his own creative use of the OT, a use
that in addition to citations and allusions included prophetic-symbolic enactments and
deliberate eschatological fulfillments of OT Angel of the LORD texts (e.g., the Sea-
Walking Theophany, the Transfiguration, and the Cleansing of the Temple). It also
included the repeated association of OT Angel of the LORD texts with other key OT texts
like Ps 110:1 and especially Dan 7:13. This amalgamation of texts clearly indicated an
amalgamation of the three divine, or potentially divine, figures reflected in them: namely,
the Angel of the LORD, David’s Lord, and the Son of Man.4 The diversity and
profundity of this OT usage demonstrates that it was not haphazard or unintentional but
deliberate, pervasive, and primitive. Such extraordinary creativity does not reside in
communities but in creative geniuses.^
The NT makes use of OT Angel of the LORD texts in the development of its
high Christology. Does this mean, then, that Christ is a created angel? On the
contrary: Christ is not a creature and the NT betrays few if any traces of an angel
Christology:
The idea of Christ as one exalted to the status of a primary angelic figure, as we
already find in Qumran texts or in the later Enoch/Metatron tradition, is quite
uncommon already in the earliest Christology because Christ is much nearer to God,
his father, than the angels. From the very beginning Christ sits to God’s right,
4Cf. above pp. 305-310, 341-343, 376-378, 398, n. 325.

■’In addition to the references to Dodd and others in n. 15 of Chapter 1 above,
see also Bauckham, ed., The Gospel fo r All Christians, a work which might better have
been titled. The Emperor’s New Community. Cf. also J. R. R. Tolkien, "On Fairy
Stories," chap. in Tree and Leaf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965 [1938]), 72 [art. =3-
84], who refers to this kind of first-order creativity as "Primary Art," the rejection of
which leads either to sadness or wrath.
413
exalted above all the angels. . . . In the oldest and christologically most significant
texts in the New Testament we find no traces of an angel christology.
This goes a great way toward explaining why Christ is never called "angel" in the NT
and also why, which is to say the same thing, he is never called "the/an angel of the
Lord." The term "angel (of the Lord)," like the term "Messiah,” had acquired
unacceptable connotations in the intertestamental period. If in accepted usage Messiahs
were political figures, so in accepted usage were angels created beings.7 But Jesus was
not the Messiah of popular expectation—he broke the mold!8 And he was likewise not
the angel of common (i.e., intertestamental) parlance-he created the mold! Jesus is not a
glorious but created angel like Eremiel or Gabriel or Iaoel or Michael or Raphael or
^M. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, xiv, 221; cf. Dunn, Christology in the
Making, 149-159, 259; W. Michaelis, Zur Engelchristologie im Urchristentum: Abbau
der Konstruktion Martin Werners (Basel: Heinrich Majer, 1942), 187 and passim. The
only real exception to this appears to be Rev 1:12-18 where the primary OT subtext is
arguably Dan 10:5-6 (cf. Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 129-174; and, more recently,
A. D. Hultberg, "Messianic Exegesis in the Apocalypse: The Significance of the Old
Testament for the Christology of Revelation" (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, 2001], 114-243). But even here an angel Christology proper, i.e., a Christology
that views Christ as an angel, is highly unlikely. The most one can speak of is an
angelomorphic Christology, i.e., a Christology that portrays Christ in angelic form or by
means of angelic imagery. There was a limited fund of imagery available to describe
exalted beings. As a result, the same basic imagery used to describe God (e.g., Dan 7:9;
Ezek 1:26-28) was elsewhere used to describe principal angels and exalted patriarchs.
From the imagery alone it is not possible to determine which of these exalted beings
Jesus is or is being modelled after. Such a determination requires other more reliable
criteria such as worship, the presence of Christ on or at the right of God’s throne, the
exercise of divine prerogatives such as creation, rule over the cosmos, final judgment,
and, not least, the application to Christ of OT Angel of the LORD texts and OT YHWH
texts (e.g., Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7; and Isa 44:6; 48:12 in Rev 1:17; 22:13).
7Cf. Hannah, Michael and Christ, 147.
o
°"Jesus’ actions and words burst the bounds of all messianic expectations"
(E. Schweizer, Jesus [Richmond, Va.; John Knox, 1971], 14; cf. Hofius, "1st Jesus der
Messias?" 128-129).
414
Uriel, etc. He is the glorious Creator of angels like Eremiel, Gabriel, Iaoel, Michael,
Raphael, Uriel, etc.9 This leads somewhat ironically to the denial of an angel
Christology in the NT but the affirmation of an Angel of the LORD Christology, so long
as by this is understood a divine agency Christology.
Does this mean, then, that Jesus is the Angel of the LORD and that the Angel of
the LORD was the preincarnate Christ? Every attempt has been made thus far to avoid
this thorny question for fear of reading, or giving the appearance of reading, the orthodox
trinitarian distinctions of Nicea into OT texts where such distinctions cannot be found.
Does the highway prepared in the desert for our God terminate not in Jerusalem or Zion
but a bit further North and West? If it does it can only be because there has been
considerable additional construction. Christological developments in the NT intersect with
9Cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2, 10-14. It is in this light that the
"angel(s) of the Lord" who appear in the NT must be viewed (cf. Matt 1:20, 24; 3:13,
19; 28:2; Luke 1:11; 2:9; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 10:3; 12:7, 23; 27:23). These angels are
indistinguishable from created intertestamental angels and they cluster in two distinct
groupings in the NT. Their uniquely Christological significance lies, first, in the implicit
contrast between their non-theophanic appearances at the annunciation scenes and the
theophany that is quietly incarnating itself elsewhere, namely, in Jesus Christ. The
annunciations in the OT were made by the Angel of the LORD whose appearances to
Hagar, Abraham and Sarah, and Manoah and his wife were theophanies. The
annunciations in the NT are made by an angel of the Lord whose appearances to
Elizabeth, Zechariah, Mary, and Joseph are not theophanies. Where, asks the informed
canonical reader, is the theophany? The shift of identity from divine agent (OT) to non
divine angels (NT) creates an expectational dissonance that is creatively resolved in the
delayed realization that the God who works wonders is in the process of working the
greatest conceivable wonder. Second, the uniquely Christological significance of these
angels lies in the fact that they are Christ’s angels (cf., Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 51,
though he puts the observation to slightly different use). The fact that Christ is called "the
Lord," and that these angels are called "angels of the Lord," suggests that in the NT
Christ stands over against them in the same way that God stands over against the created
angels in the intertestamental literature (cf. Matt 13:41; Rev 22:6, 16). These angels are
God’s servants; it is only fitting that they should be pressed into the service Christ.
415
trajectories mapped out in the OT and do lead directly to Nicea;10 but these
developments cannot be seen from the vantage point of the OT. Those inclined to reason
canonically and deductively, and especially those inclined to survey the OT through a
Christological lens, will no doubt continue to find the conclusion that the Angel of the
LORD is the preexistent Christ irresistible. It certainly is an economical explanation, in
more ways than one, of the full-orbed canonical witness. The Son of God is preexistent,
so he would have been available to appear in the OT;11 and he is the image and
revealer of the invisible God, so such OT appearances, had he made them, would have
been consistent with his role and identity in the NT.12 When, in addition to this, it is
understood than no one has ever seen God (i.e., the Father);13 when it is understood
that Lord and Son of God (cf. Logos and Apostle) are functional equivalents of Angel of
the LORD;14 and when it is understood that the simplest way for Christ to be the
eschatological fulfillment of OT Angel of the LORD texts (e.g., Mai 3:1) is for him to be
the Angel of the LORD, then perhaps the identification is not a completely alien
imposition.
10Bauckham, God Crucified, 77-79; cf. Hurtado, One God, 127-128.

1*Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, "Some Comments on Professor J. D. G. Dunn’s
Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins o f the Incarnation,
with Special Reference to the Evidence of the Epistle to the Romans," in The Glory o f
Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory o f George Bradford
Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 267-280;
J. Habermann, Praexistenzaussagen im Neuen Testament (Europaische Hochschulschriften
362; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1990); contra Dunn, Christology in the Making,
passim.
12Cf. John 1:18; 14:9; Col 1:15-17; Heb 1:3.
13Cf. John 1:18; 5:37; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 6:16.
14cf. n. 34 in Chapter 1 above.
416
That said, however, the primary intent of the NT use of OT Angel of the LORD
texts is not to solve the mystery of God’s mysterious OT manifestations. The primary
intent of the NT is not to identify a preexistent person but to invoke a preexistent
paradigm—the divine agency p a r a d ig m .Christ, like the Angel of the LORD, is God
manifest as an agent. But Christ, very unlike the Angel of the LORD, is hilly human.
Thus it is not the appearance of a divine agent that stands in need of explanation so much
as it is the incarnation and the distinction of persons within the unique divine identity.
Clearly one cannot speak of an incarnation with reference to the OT. God in the
OT enters space and time, the created realm, in what are properly called theophanies (see
Figure 9 below).16 But his appearances are without exception temporary and
mysterious in spite of the fact that one such appearance lasted the better part of forty
years. God may temporally take up a form, and the form may typically be angelic (i.e.,
human), but God is not permanently bound to or associated with a particular form.
15It seems easier on this basis to account for several no/i-Christological citations
of OT Angel of the LORD texts in the NT. That is, the NT seems to treat OT Angel of
the LORD texts as a subset of OT YHWH texts. As such, the texts may be applied to
God the Father, to Jesus, or to both (cp. the theological use of Isa 45:23 in Rom 14:11
with the Christological use in Phil 2:9-11). It is sufficient in a number of texts that the
Angel of the LORD is deity (e.g., Mark 12:26-27; Heb 6:13-14). Further personal
distinctions are unnecessary and, in several instances, would be positively
counterproductive. For example, with reference to Gen 22:2, 12, 16, an identification of
Jesus with the Angel of the LORD in Mark 1:11 or Heb 11:17-19 would obscure the
underlying Isaac-Christ typology; while with reference Exodus 3 an identification of
Christ with the Angel of the LORD in Acts 7 would obliterate the underlying Moses-
Christ typology. The NT use of the OT is variegated and richly textured. One typology
need not exclude another; and multiple typologies need not exclude an underlying
Christology of divine agency.
16Cf. the definition of theophany given in Chapter 1 above.
417
God
Theophany
e.g., Gen 16:7-13 Exod 13:21ff
Figure 9. Old Testament Theophany Paradigm
In distinction from the OT and its theophany paradigm, one can speak of an
incarnation with reference to the NT. God is revealed in the NT as having voluntarily and
permanently taken on human form. He does not send an agent, in this case a Messiah, he
comes as his own agent just as he had come as his own agent in the OT. Now, however,
he does not simply appear as a fully formed adult human being; and his appearance is not
merely an anthropomorphic Erscheinungsform—not even a permanent one. Instead his
humanity (agency) is assumed in much the same way that all true humanity is assumed:
through conception and birth. For this reason God’s union with human nature is, and is
properly called, an incarnation. Because the union is permanent, as attested not least by
the resurrection and ascension, the human form is not dispensed with at the conclusion of
the theophany but forever remains integral to the unique divine identity.17 Two
seemingly distinct streams of prophecy and tradition, one that speaks of the coming of
YHWH or the Angel of the LORD on the Day of the LORD and another that speaks of
the eschatological coming of a Davidic King or Messiah (e.g., Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23-24;
37:24-25; Hos 3:5), are thus creatively brought together in the NT. ”[T]he tension
between Yahweh as the sole king and the promise of a perfect ruler from David’s line is
resolved in Jesus Christ, who as Son of God fills the eschatological role of Yahweh and
17Cf. Bauckham, God Crucified, 45-77.
418
as Son of David fulfills the role of the Davidic king."18 This blending of traditions
(see Figure 10 below) has its ultimate origin not in the primitive Church, and certainly
not in any Gentile Church, but in the mind of Christ, that is, in the mind of God.
God
Theophany
•’David"
Incarnation Ascension
Figure 10. New Testament Theophany Paradigm
The NT identifies Jesus not only as the Davidic Messiah but as the God of the OT whose
presence, in spite of the fact that his divine nature and glory are veiled, is a
theophany.19 But God’s theophanic presence was often similarly veiled in the OT. It
was often veiled to such an extent that the Angel of the LORD went completely
unrecognized, at least for a time, by those to whom he appeared (cf. Genesis 18; Josh
5:13-15; Judges 6; 13). A divine Messiah is a remarkable notion, to say the least.
Nevertheless, there are OT antecedents (see Chapter 2 above) for the kind of divine
agency revealed in the NT. In this way the OT itself provides the point of connection for
uniting these two important streams of prophecy and tradition that come together in the
18Gundry, Use o f the Old Testament, 224-225. Cp. Bauckham, God Crucified,
49-69, esp. 49-51, who ties the incarnation to the humiliation of the Suffering Servant
(Isa 52:13) and his exaltation to divine status (cf. Isa 6:1; 57:15).
19Cf., however, the Transfiguration where Christ’s preexistent glory breaks
forth if only briefly.
419
NT. The OT, in other words, lays the foundation for the towering Christological
superstructure of the NT.
The intertestamental agency paradigm, on the other hand, stands in fairly marked
contrast to both the OT theophany paradigm and the NT theophany paradigm. God has
many agents through whom he reveals himself and effects his will in the world. He may
even chose one (e.g., a principal angel) to be his primary delegate and means of self
revelation. Is Christ such an agent? Is it possible to make sense of the high Christology
of the NT within a paradigm that provides no real precedent for his incarnation20 and
no possibility for his divinity? Clearly within such a paradigm Jesus could not be God
and God could not be Jesus. The very notion is "absurd."21 As an agent Jesus could
certainly be glorified and exalted beyond all other creatures; but he could never be
identified as the transcendent Jewish God who had sent him into the world (see Figure 11
below).22
20Dunn, Christology in the Making, 253. This is confirmed by the recurring

topos that angels cannot eat material food (e.g., Ant. 1.196-197; Tob 12:19; T. Abr. 4:9-
10).
21Blackburn, Theios Aner, 179.

22Those familiar with Church history will immediately recognize this paradigm
as what would later, with slight modifications, go by the name of Arianism:
Of special interest in the Arian vocabulary about the relation of the Son of God as
creature to God the Creator was their use of the title ‘angel. ’ This title could claim a
distinguished lineage in the liturgical, exegetical, and apologetic usage of the chinch.
It was also well suited to the needs of Arian theology. . . . [W]e may recognize in
the Arian picture of this Logos-Son, who was less than God but more than man, a
soteriological as well as a cosmological intermediary. . . . The ultimate outcome of
the Arian system was a Christ suspended between man and God, identical with
neither but related to both: God was interpreted deistically, man moralistically, and
Christ mythologically.
Whether angel or Son of God, the Arian Logos, though subordinate to the Father
and not of the same ousia with him, was nevertheless worthy of worship (J. Pelikan,
The Christian Tradition: A History o f the Development o f Doctrine, vol. 1, The
420
God
Agent
Non-
Theophany
Descent Ascent
Figure II. Intertestamental Agency Paradigm
A problem immediately arises, however, for anyone who attempts to explain the
high Christology of the NT within this intertestamental agency paradigm—that is, within
the framework o f early but non-canonical Jewish sources. The problem is that the
* y\
Christology of the NT is consistently higher than this paradigm allows. If this
paradigm is correct in its basic outline, and if Jesus is indeed a created agent or has been
modelled after created agents, then any talk of the legitimate worship of Christ or of the
actual deity of Christ is premature if not finally contradictory. No amount of mutation
can legitimate the worship of a creature or turn an agent into deity. Likewise, no amount
of mutation can change an agency paradigm into a theophany paradigm. The difference
between agency and deity, between non-divinity and divinity, is qualitative and not
merely quantitative. God differs in kind and not just in degree from all that he has
created.24 But if Jesus is legitimately worshipped, and if he is actually deity,25
Emergence o f the Catholic Tradition (100-600) [Chicago: Chicago University Press,

1971], 197-198; cf. 191-200).
23Cf. Bauckham, God Crucified, 26-27 and passim, along with the references
cited in nn. 22, 31 of Chapter 1 above.
24Cf. nn. 40-41 of Chapter 1 above.
421
then the intertestamental agency paradigm is inadequate and a more adequate paradigm
must be sought. The new paradigm must be able to accommodate agency and deity, that
is, it must be able to accommodate all of the relevant canonical data.
It must first be said that two features of the intertestamental agency paradigm do
find parallels in the NT. Jesus does function as an agent; and the NT does posit a God
(not shown in Figure 10 above) who remains transcendent over against him. It is possible
that the NT borrows these features from the intertestamental literature and uses them in
distinctive new ways. But it is intrinsically more likely that the NT derives both features
directly from the OT without the intertestamental literature serving as intermediary. God
manifests himself in the OT as an agent while at the same time continuing to maintaining
his transcendence. He can even speak of sending his "angel" (i.e., his personal presence)
to redeem his people from evil, to dwell in their midst, and to lead them out of slavery
and into the promised land. By combining the salient features of the preceding paradigms
one is able to arrive at a more complete picture of the canonical evidence (see Figure 12
below).
God
(Father)
Theophany
"David”
Incarnation Ascension
Figure 12. New Testament "Divine Agency" Paradigm
25I.e., worship is not only the "acid test" for deity but for idolatry. The
legitimacy of worship depends entirely on its object.
422
Both the Father and the Son are divine in the strongest possible sense (actually in
the only possible sense). Both may legitimately be worshipped and both may legitimately
be referred to as God and YHWH, that is, as the deity who manifested himself in the OT
and whose eschatological coming and presence were prophesied in the OT. It is this deity
who not only condescended to appear in human history as the Angel of the LORD but
who has condescended to appear as a historical human being: Jesus of Nazareth. There is
no need to pit agency against deity in a false dichotomy and no need to assume that
agency is more primitive, or more Jewish, than deity.26 The one God of Judaism is
able, and has always been able, to appear in human history as an agent. He was
worshipped as such by Jews in the OT and he was worshipped as such by Jews in the
NT. What is new in the NT is not the divinity of an agent per se but the incarnation and
the revelation, given by the incarnate God himself, that the one Jewish God is complex.
The one Jewish God is not a simple unity but a complex unity; he is multi-personal rather
than strictly Unitarian.27 The Christological monotheism of the NT is thus founded
upon the distinction of persons reflected in the intimate personal relationship between the
Father and the Son. But it is equally founded upon a primitive Jewish divine agency
paradigm.
Christological monotheism is not by any stretch of the imagination the creation of
Paul, emboldened as he is to find it in the Shema, or of John, who finds it in the first
26Cf. Cullmann, Christology, 213-214, where he rightly points out that the
formula Maranatha, i.e., "the cultic veneration of Christ by the original Aramaic
speaking Church," is "the ‘Achilles heel’ of Bousset’s whole thesis."
27Cf. S. T. Davis, D. Kendall, and G. O ’Collins, eds., The Trinity: An
Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999);
C. E. Gunton, The Promise o f Trinitarian Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991);
C. Schwobel and C. E. Gunton, eds., Persons, Divine and Human: King’s College
Essays in Theological Anthropology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991).
423
verse of the OT.28 It is not the creation of any NT author. It is the creation of Christ,
who based it at least in part on OT Angel of the LORD texts. This Christology of divine
agency was subsequently adopted and adapted by the early Church, again based at least in
part on OT Angel of the LORD texts, not because the early Church created it but because
the early Church received it on divine authority. On no less authority could a
modification of monotheism be justified; and on no less authority was it given. This is
what it meant for first-century Jews to call the man Jesus, a crucified agent, Lord and
Son of God.
28Paul’s use of Deut 6:5 in 1 Cor 8:6 has already been noted. Equally
remarkable is the way in which John unpacks Gen 1:1 in John 1:1-3 (cf. Carson, John,
113-114, 118; cf. Evans, Word and Glory, 77-79). The first verse in the OT had
originally read, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ” But John
unpacks it Christologically to read, if one may paraphrase, "In the beginning was the
Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God, . . . and the Logos created
the heavens and the earth."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abegg, M. G., and C. A. Evans. "Messianic Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls." In Qumran-
Messiartism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H.
Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema, 191-203. Tubingen: Mohr, 1998.
Abel, F. M. "L’apparition du chef de l’armee de Yahveh a Josue (Jos. V, 13-15)." In
Miscellanea Biblica et Orientalia, ed. A. Metzinger, 109-113. Studia Anselmiana 27-28;
Rome: Herder, 1951.
Achtemeier, E. Nahum—Malachi. Atlanta: John Knox, 1986.
___________. Review of Malachi: The Divine Messenger by Glazier-McDonald. CBQ 51
(1989): 517-518.
Ackroyd, P. R. "Hosea and Jacob." VT 13 (1963): 245-259.
Adler, M. J. The Difference o f Man and the Difference It Makes (New York: Fordham
University Press, 1993.
Aejmelaeus, A. "Function and Interpretation of 'O in Biblical Hebrew." JBL 105 (1986):
193-209.
Albertz, R. "*6b." THAT 2:413-420.
Albright, W. F. "The Oracles of Balaam." JBL 63 (1944): 207-233.
Albright, W. F., and C. S. Mann. Matthew. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1971.
Alexander, P. S. "Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament." ZN W 74 (1983): 237-246.
Alexander, T. D. "The Hagar Traditions in Genesis XVI and XXI." In Studies in the
Pentateuch, ed. J. A. Emerton, 131-148. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990.
___________. Abraham in the Negev: A Source-Critical Investigation o f Genesis 20:1-22:19.
Carlisle, Cumbria, U. K.: Paternoster, 1997.
Alexander, T. D., B. S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and G. Goldsworthy, eds. New Dictionary of
Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity and Diversity o f Scripture. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2000.
Allegro, J. M. "The Meaning of the Phrase ietOm ha ’ayin in Num. XXIV 3, 15." VT 3
(1953): 78-79.
424
425
Allison, D. C. "Elijah Must Come First." JBL 103 (1984): 256-258.
__________ . The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
__________ . The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press
International, 2000.
Alter, R. The Art o f Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic, 1981.
___________. The Art o f Biblical Poetry. N.p.: Basic, 1985.
Amir, Y. Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien. Forschungen
zum judisch-christlichen Dialog 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983.
__________ . The Book o f Judges: The Art o f Editing. Biblical Interpretation Series 38.
Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Anderson, H. The Gospel o f Mark. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1976.
Anderson, F. I., and D. N. Freedman. Hosea. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980.
Arens, E. The HA60N-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition: A Historico-Critical Investigation.
OBO 10. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
Arnold, G. "Mk 1,1 und Eroffnungswendungen in griechischen und lateinischen Schriften."
ZNW 68 (1977): 123-127.
Aschim, A. "Melchizedek the Liberator: An Early Interpretation of Genesis 14?" SBLSP 35
(1996), 243-258.
__________ . "The Genre of 1lQMelchizedek." In Qumran between the Old and New
Testaments, ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson, 17-31. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
__________ . "Melchizedek and Jesus: 1lQMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews." In
The Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews
Converence on the Historical Origins o f the Worship o f Jesus, ed. C. C. Newman, J. R.
Davila, and G. S. Lewis, 129-147. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Ashley, T. R. Numbers. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Ashton, J. Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Attridge, H. W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae o f Flavius
Josephus. HDR 7. Missoula: Scholars, 1976.
__________ . Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.
Auerbach, E. Moses. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1975.
426
Aune, D. E. "Note on Jesus’ Messianic Consciousness and 11 HQ [sic] Melchizedek.” EvQ
45 (1973): 161-165.
__________ . "Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity." In The
Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A.
Evans, 126-150. JSPSup 14. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
___________. "Worship, Early Christian." ABD, 6:973-989.
Ausloos, Ii. "The Need for Linguistic Criteria in Characterising Biblical Pericopes as
Deuteronomistic: A Critical Note to Erhard Blum’s Methodology." JNSL 23.2 (1997):
47-56.
___________. "The Need for a ‘Controlling Framework’ in Determining the Relationship
Between Genesis-Numbers and the So-Called Deuteronomistic Literature." JNSL 24.2
(1998): 77-89.
___________. "The Risks of Rash Textual Criticism Illustrated on the Basis of the
Numeruswechsel in Exod 23,20-33." BN 97 (1999): 5-12.
Baker, D. W. "Further Examples of the WOw Explicativum.” VT30 (1980): 129-136.
Baldwin, J. G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. TOTC. London: Inter-Varsity, 1975.
Ball, D. M. "/ A m ” in John’s Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological
Implications. JSNTSup 124. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Barker, M. "The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus." In The Jewish Roots o f
Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Converence on the Historical
Origins o f the Worship o f Jesus, ed. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis, 93-
111. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Barnett, P. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Barr, J. "Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament." In Congress Volume:
Oxford 1959, ed. G. W. Anderson, P. A. H. de Boer, G. R. Castellino, et al., 31-38.
VTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960.
. "Hypostatization of Linquistic Phenomena in Modem Theological
Interpretation." J S S 1 (1962): 85-94.
___________. "The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament." BJRL 52 (1969): 11-29.
___________. Old and New in Interpretation: A Study o f the Two Testaments. 2d ed.
London: SCM, 1982 [1966].
Barrett, C. K. "The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves." In Jesus und Paulus:
Festschrift fu r Werner Georg Kiimmel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. E. Ellis and
E. Grafier, 13-20. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975.
427
___________. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1973.
___________. The Gospel According to St. John. London: SPCK, 1955.
___________. The Gospel According to St. John. 2d. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.
Barth£lemy, D. "Les Tiqqung Sopherim et la critique textuelle de 1’Ancien Testament." In
Congress Volume, 1962, ed. G. W. Anderson, et al., 285-304. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill,
1963. Repr. in OBO 21 (1978): 91-110.
___________. Critique textuelle de VAncien Testament. OBO 50. 2 vols. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982-1986.
Bascom, R. A. "Preparing the Way—Midrash in the Bible. ” In Issues in Bible Translation,
ed. P. C. Stine, 221-246. UBSMS 3. London: UBS, 1988.
Batdorf, I. W. "Hebrews and Qumran: Old Methods and New Directions." In Festschrift to
Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich: Lexicographer, Scholar, Teacher, and Committed Christian
Layman, ed. E. H. Barth and R. W. Cocroft, 16-35. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Bauckham, R. The Climax o f Prophecy: Studies on the Book o f Revelation. Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1993.
___________. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
___________. "The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus."In 7he Jewish Roots o f
Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical
___________. "Jesus, Worship of." ABD, 3:812-819.
Bauer, U. F. W. (nbKn *70) All these Worte: Impulse zur Schriftauslegung aus
Amsterdam: Expliziert an der Schilfrneererzahlung in Exodus 13,17-14,31. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 1991.
Baumgartner, W. "Zum Problem des ‘Jahwe-Engels’. " Chap. in Zum Alten Testament und
seiner Umwelt: Ausgewdhlte Aufsatze, 240-246. Leiden: Brill, 1959.
Beale, G. K. John's Use o f the Old Testament in Revelation. JSNTSup 166. Sheffield:
Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. WBC. Waco: Word, 1987.
Becker, J. Johannes der Taufer und Jesus von Nazareth. BibS 63. Neukirchen: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1972.
428
Beek, M. A. "Das Mit-Leiden Gottes: Eine massoretische Interpretation von Jes. 63.9." In
Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae: Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Bohl
Dedicatae, ed. M. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman, C. Nijland, J. Ryckmans, 23-30. Leiden:
Brill, 1973.
Begg, C. Josephus’ Account o f the Divided Monarchy ( AJ 8,212-420): Rewriting the Bible.
BETL 108. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993.
Behm, J. "napdKXiico^." TDNT, 5:800-814.
Bentzen, A. "The Weeping of Jacob, Hos XII 5A." VT 1 (1951): 58-59.
Berchman, R. M. From Philo to Origen: Middle Platonism in Transition. BJS 69. Chico:
Scholars, 1984.
___________. "The Categories of Being in Middle Platonism: Philo, Clement, and Origen of
Alexandria." In The School o f Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion in
Memory o f Horst R. Moehring, ed. J. P. Kenney, 98-140. Studia Philonica
Monographs 1. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995.
Berder, M. "Lapierre rejeteepar les batisseurs”: Psaume 118,22-23 et son emploi dans les
traditions juives et dans le Nouveau Testament. Ebib. Paris: Gabalda, 1996.
Berlin, A. The Dynamics o f Biblical Parallelism. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,
1985.
___________. "Parallelism." In ABD, 5:155-162.
Bernard, J. H. The Gospel According to St. John. ICC. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1928.
Best, E. The Temptation and the Passion: The Markon Soteriology. SNTSMS 2. 2d. ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Beyer, H. W. "tauncgircoiiai, ktJL " TDNT, 2:599-622.
Beyer, K. Die aramaischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Samt den Inschriften aus Paldstina, dem
Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen
Zitaten. 2 vols. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984-1994.
Beyerlin, W. "Geschichte und heilsgeschichtliche Traditionsbildung im Alten Testament: Ein
Beitrag zur Traditionsgeschichte von Richter VI-VIII." VT 13 (1963): 1-25.
Beyreuther, E. "dyaXJUdofun." NIDNTT, 2:352-354.
Bietenhard, H. "Name." NIDNTT, 2:648-656.
___________. "ftvopa, mX." TDNT, 5:242-283.
429
Birabaum, E. "What Does Philo Mean by ‘Seeing God’? Some Methodological
Considerations." SBLSP 34 (1995), 535-552.
Black, M. "Die Apotheose Israels: Eine neue Interpretation des danielischen
‘Menschensohns’." In Jesus und der Menschensohn: Fur Anton Vogtie, ed. R. Pesch,
R. Schnackenburg, and O. Kaiser, 92-99. Freiberg: Herder, 1975.
___________. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon,
1967.
Blackburn, B. Theios AnSr and the Markon Miracle Traditions: A Critique o f the Theios
AnSr Concept as an Interpretative Background o f the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark.
WUNT 2.40. Tubingen: Mohr, 1991.
Blonnigen, C. Der griechische Ursprung der jiidisch-hellenistischen Allegorese und ihre
Rezeption in der alexandrinischen Patristik. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992.
Bluedom, W. "Yahweh versus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the Gideon-Abimelech
Narrative." Ph.D. diss., Cheltenham, 1999. (Forthcoming in JSOTSup.)
Blum, E. Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte. WMANT 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1984.
___________. "Die kompositionelle Knoten am Ubergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein
Entflechtungsvorschlag." In Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H.
W. Brekelmans, ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust, 181-212. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven
Blum, E., and R. Blum. "Zipporah und ihr 0*01 ]Tin." In Die Hebraische Bibel und ihre
zweifache nachgeschichte: Festschrift fu r Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed.
E. Blum, C. Macholz, E. Stegemann, 41-54. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990.
Boccaccini, G. "Middle Judaism and its Contemporary Interpreters: Methodological
Foundations for the Study of Judaisms, 300bce to 200ce." Henoch 15 (1993): 207-233.
Bock, D. L. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology.
JSNTSup 12. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.
___________. Luke. BECNT. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994-1996.
Bockmuehl, M. N. A. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity.
Boehmer, J. "Gottes Angesicht." BFCT 12.4. Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1908.
Bohme, W. "Die alteste Darstellung in Richt. 6,11-24 und 13,2-24 und ihre Verwandtschaft
mit der Jahveurkunde des Pentateuchs. ” ZAW 5 (1885): 251-274.
Boismard, M.-E. Le Prologue de Saint Jean. LD 11. Paris: Cerf, 1953.
430
__________ . Jesus or Moses: An Essay in Johannine Christology. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993.
Boling, R. G. Judges. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1975.
__________ . Joshua. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1982.
Bonnard, P. L ’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu. 2d ed. Geneve: Labor et Fides, 1982.
Bonnard, P.-E. Le Second Isai'e, son disciple et leurs editeurs: Isai'e 40-66. Ebib. Paris:
Gabalda, 1972.
Booij, T. "Hagar’s Words in Genesis 16:13b." VT30 (1980): 1-7.
Borgen, P. Philo o f Alexandria: An Exegete fo r His Time. NovTSup 86. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Boring, M. E. "Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel." Semeia 52 (1990): 43-81.
Boucher, M. The Mysterious Parable: A Literary Study. CBQMS 6. Washington, D.C.:
Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1977.
Bousset, W. Kyrios Christos: A History o f the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings o f
Christianity to Irenaeus. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970 [1913].
Bowker, J. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations
o f Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Bretscher, P. G. "‘Whose Sandals’? (Matt 3:11)." JBL 86 (1967): 81-87.
Brewer, D. I. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE. TSAJ 30.
Tubingen: Mohr, 1992.
__________ . "Review Article: The Use of Rabbinic Sources in Gospel Studies." TynBul 50
(1999): 281-298.
Brichto, H. C. The Problem o f "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible. JBLMS 13. Philadelphia: SBL,
1968.
________ . "mpna rsvbn (Taking-off of the Shoes in the Bible)." In
Proceedings o f the Fifth World Congress, ed. P. Peli, 1:27-30, 225-226. 2 vols.
Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1969.
__________ . Toward a Grammar o f Biblical Poetics: Tales o f the Prophets. Oxford: Oxford
Broadhead, E. K. Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel o f Mark. JSNTSup 175.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Brongers, H. A. "Merismus, Synekdoche und Hendiadys in der Bibel-Hebraischen Sprache."
OTS 14 (1965): 100-114.
431
Brongers, H. A. "Die Wendung I f Jem jhwh im Alten Testament." ZAW 77 (1965): 1-20.
___________ . "Alternative Interpretationen des sogennanten Waw copulativum." ZAW 90
(1978): 273-277.
Brooke, G. J. "Melchizedek (HQMelch)." In ABD 4:687-688.
Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John (i-xii). AB. Garden City: New York, 1965.
___________ . The Birth o f the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in
Matthew and Luke. New York: Doubleday, 1977.
Bruce, F. F. "Scripture and Tradition in the New Testament." In Holy Book and Holy
Tradition: International Colloquium Held in the Faculty o f Theology University o f
Manchester, ed. F. F. Bruce and E. G. Rupp, 68-93. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
___________ . I and 2 Corinthians. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1971.
Brueggemann, W. Genesis. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.
Buchanan, G. W. "The Use of Rabbinic Literature for New Testament Research." BTB 7
(1977): 110-120.
Buchsel, F. "eUrt,66v." TDNT, 2:399.
Buckwalter, H. D. "The Divine Saviour." In Witness to the Gospel: The Theology o f Acts,
ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson, 107-123. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Budd, P. J. Numbers. WBC. Waco: Word, 1984.
Budde, K. "Das Buch Jesaia.” In E. Kautzsch, trans., Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments, ed. A. Bertholet. 4th ed. 2 vols. Tubingen: Mohr, 1922-1923.
Bulmerincq, A. von. Der Prophet Maleachi. Vol. 2, Kommentar zum Buche des Propheten
Maleachi. Tartu: Kruger, 1932.
Bultmann, R. Theology o f the New Testament. 2 vols. New York: Scribner’s, 1951 [1948].
___________ . Der zweite Brief an die Korinther. KEK. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1976.
___________ . "AyaXXidopca, KtX." TDNT, 1:19-21.
Burge, G. M. "‘I Am’ Sayings.” DJG, 354-356.
Burkill, T. A. "Strain on the Secret: An Examination of Mark 11:1-13:37.” ZNW 51 (1960):
31-46.
___________ . Mysterious Revelation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1963.
432
Burney, C. F. The Book o f Judges. New York: KTAV, 1970.
Burridge, R. A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography.
SNTSMS 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
___________. "About People, by People, for People: Gospel Genre and Audiences." In The
Gospels fo r All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed. R. Bauckham, 113-145.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Burrows, M. More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Scrolls and New Interpretations.
New York: Viking, 1958.
Butler, T. C. Joshua. WBC. Waco: Word, 1983.
Caird, G. B. "The Transfiguration." ExpTim 67 (1956): 291-294.
___________. New Testament Theology. Comp, and ed. L. D. Hurst. Oxford: Clarendon,
1995.
Campbell, A. F ., and M. A. O’Brien, eds. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins,
Upgrades, Present Text. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.
Capes, D. B. Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul's Christology. WUNT 2.47. Tubingen:
Mohr, 1992.
Carlson, D. C. "Vengeance and Angelic Mediation in Testament o f Moses 9 and 10." JBL
101 (1982): 85-95.
Carlston, C. E., and D. A. Norlin. "Once More—Statistics and Q." HTR 64 (1971): 59-78.
__________ . "Statistics and Q—Some Further Observations." N ovT41 (1999): 108-123.
Carmignac, J. "Le document de Qumran sur Melchisedeq." RevQ 7 (1970): 343-378.
Carrell, P. R. Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology o f the Apocalypse o f
John. SNTSMS 95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Carson, D. A. "Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel." TynBul 33 (1982):
59-91.
___________. Matthew. EBC 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
__________ . The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
__________ . "Do the Prophets and the Law Quit Prophesying before John? A Note on
Matthew 11.12." In The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and
W. R. Stegner, 179-194. JSNTSup 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
433
___________ . "Matthew ll:19b/Luke 7:35: A Test Case for the Bearing of Q Christology
on the Synoptic Problem." In Jesus o f Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the
Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. J. B. Green and M. Turner, 128-
146. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Carson, D. A ., and H. G. M. Williamson, eds. It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture:
Essays in Honour o f Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988.
Casey, P. M. From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development o f New
Testament Christology. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991.
___________ . "The Deification of Jesus." SBLSP 33 (1994), 697-714.
___________ . "Culture and Historicity: The Cleansing of the Temple." CBQ 59 (1997): 306-
332.
___________ . "Monotheism, Worship and Christological Development in the Pauline
Churches." In The Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St.
Andrews Converence on the Historical Origins o f the Worship o f Jesus, ed. C. C.
Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis, 214-233. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
___________ . "Christology and the Legitimating Use o f the Old Testament in the New
Testament." In The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour o f J. L.
North, ed. S. Moyise, 42-64. JSNTSup 189. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book o f Exodus. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967.
___________ . "The Prophet Hosea and the Books of the Pentateuch." Chap. in Biblical and
Oriental Studies, 79-100. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973.
Catchpole, D. R. The Quest fo r Q. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993.
Cerfaux, L. "‘Kyrios’ dans les citations pauliniennes de l’Ancien Testament." Chap. in
Recueil Lucien Cerfaux: Etudes d ’Exegese et d ’H istoire Religieuse de Monseigneur
Cerfaux, 173-188. BETL 6. Gembloux: Duculot, 1954.
Chapman, S. B. The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation.
FAT 27. Tubingen: Mohr, 2000.
Charlesworth, J. H. "A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in IQS III, 13-IV,26 and the
‘Dualism’ Contained in the Fourth Gospel." NTS 15 (1968-69): 389-418.
__________ _. "The Beth Essentiae and the Permissive Meaning of the Hiphil (Aphal)." In O f
Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and
Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion o f his Sixtieth Birthday,
ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and T. H. Tobin, 67-78. Lanham: University Press of
America, 1990.
Chary, T. Aggee, Zacharie, M alachie. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1969.
434
Chester, A. D ivine Revelation and D ivine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim. TSAJ 14.
___________. "Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and Pauline
Christology." In Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. M. Hengel and U. Heckel, 17-89.
Cheyne, T. K. The Prophecies o f Isaiah. 4th ed. 2 vols. New York: Whittaker, 1886.
Childs, B. S. The Book o f Exodus. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974.
___________. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
Chilton, B. "Reference to the Targumim in the Exegesis of the New Testament." SBLSP 34
(1995), 77-81.
___________. "(The) Son of (the) Man, and Jesus." In Authenticating the Words o f Jesus,
ed. B. chilton and C. A. Evans, 259-287. New Testament Tools and Studies 28.1.
Christiansen, I. D ie Technik der allegorischen Auslegungswissenschqft bei Philon von
Alexandrien. Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Hermeneutik 7. Tubingen: Mohr,
1969.
Clamer, A. "L’Exode." In vol. 1 of La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot and A. Clamer. 12 vols.
Paris: Letouzey et And, 1946-1961.
___________. "Les Nombres." In vol. 2 of La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot and A. Clamer. 12
vols. Paris: Letouzey et And, 1946-1961.
Clark, G. R. The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 157. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993.
Clendenen, E. R. "The Structure of Malachi: A Textlinguistic Study." Criswell Theological
Review 2 (1987): 3-17.
__________ . "Old Testament Prophecy as Hortatory Text: Examples from Malachi."
Journal o f Translation and Textlinguistics 6 (1993): 336-353.
Clifford, R. J. "Narrative and Lament in Isaiah 63:7-64:14." In To Touch the Text: Biblical
and Related Studies in Honor o f Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed. M. P. Horgan and P. J.
Kobelski, 93-102. New York: Crossroad, 1989.
Clines, D. J. A. "The Parallelism of Greater Precision: Notes from Isaiah 40 for a Theory of
Hebrew Poetry." In Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. E. R. Follis, 77-100.
JSOTSup 40. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.
___________. "The Old Testament Histories: A Reader’s Guide." Chap. in What Does Eve
Do to Help? And Other Readerty Questions to the Old Testament, 85-105. JSOTSup 94.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
435
Coats, G. W. The Moses Tradition. JSOTSup 161. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Coggins, R. J. "What Does ‘Deuteronomistic’ Mean?" In Words Remembered, Texts
Renewed: Essays in Honour o f John F. A. Sawyer, ed. J. Davies, G. Harvey, and
W. G. E. Watson, 135-148. JSOTSup 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Cohen, N. G. Philo Judaeus: His Universe o f Discourse. BEATAJ 24. Frankfurt am Main:
Lang, 1995.
Cohen, S. J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian.
Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Collins, A. Yarbro. "Composition and Redaction of the Testament of Moses 10." HTR 69
(1976): 179-186.
___________ . "Rulers, Divine Men, and Walking on the Water (Mark 6:45-52)." In
Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays
Honouring Dieter Georgi, ed. L. Bormann, K. Del Tredici, and A. Standhartinger, 207-
227. NovTSup 74. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
___________ . "The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial C ult." In The Jewish Roots o f
Origins o f the Worship o f Jesus, ed. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis,
234-257. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Collins, J. J. The Sybylline Oracles o f Egyptian Judaism. SBLDS 13. Missoula: Scholars,
1974.
___________. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix o f
Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1987.
___________. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
___________. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other
Ancient Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1995.
___________. "A Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61:1-3 and Its Actualization in the Dead
Sea Scrolls." In The Quest fo r Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in
Honor o f James A. Sanders, ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon, 225-240. BIS 28. Leiden:
Brill, 1997.
___________. "Jewish Monotheism and Christian Theology." In Aspects o f Monotheism:
How God is One, ed. H. Shanks and J. Meinhardt, 81-105, 129-131. Washington, D.C.:
Biblical Archaeology Society, 1997.
___________. "Powers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls." In
Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. J. Colins and R. A. Kugler, 9-28. Studies in the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
___________. "4QPrayer of Nabonidus ar." DJD, 22:83-93.
436
Collins, J. N. Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1990.
Collins, T. Line-forms in Hebrew Poetry. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.
Colpe, C. "6 uidq too dcvOpdwcou." TDNT 8:400-477.
Conrad, J. "**»." TDOT 11:533-546.
Cook, J. "The Orthography of Some Verbal Forms in lQISAa." In New Qumran Texts and
Studies, ed. G. J. Brooke with F. Garcia Martinez, 133-147. STDJ IS. Leiden: Brill,
1994.
Coote, R. B. "Hosea XH." VT21 (1971): 389-402.
___________. "The Book of Joshua." NIB, 2:555-719.
Coppes, L. J. "T ip (qadad)." TWOT, 2:784-785.
Craig, K. M. "The Corrections of the Scribes." Perspectives in Religious Studies 17 (1990):
155-165.
Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1963.
___________. "Some Comments on Professor J. D. G. Dunn’s Christology in the Making: A
New Testament Inquiry into the Origins o f the Incarnation, with Special Reference to the
Evidence of the Epistle to the Romans." In The Glory o f Christ in the New Testament:
Studies in Christology in Memory o f George Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T.
Wright, 267-280. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
Cross, F. M. "The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah." JNES 12 (1953): 274-277.
___________. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History o f the Religion o f
Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
___________. "Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus." IEJ 34 (1984): 260-264.
Cullmann, O. Baptism in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1950.
___________. Early Christian Worship. SBT. Naperville, 111.: Allenson, 1953.
___________. The Christology o f the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959
[1957].
Cundall, A. E. Judges: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity,
1968.
D’Angelo, M. R. Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. SBLDS 42. Missoula: Scholars, 1979.
437
Dahl, N. A. "The Johannine Church and History." In Current Issues in New Testament
Interpretation: Essays in Honor o f Otto A. Piper, ed. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder,
124-142. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.
Dahood, M. "Northwest Semitic Notes on Genesis." Bib 55 (1974): 76-82.
Dailey, S. "Nergal and Ereshkigal.” In The Context o f Scripture. Vol. 1, Canonical
Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, Jr., 384-
390. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Daniels, D. R. Hosea and Salvation History: The Early Traditions o f Israel in the Prophecy
o f Hosea. BZAW 191. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.
Danker, F. W. Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. Rev. ed.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Daube, D. "Jacob and Laban." Chap. in The Exodus Pattern in the Bible, 62-72. London:
Faber and Faber, 1963.
__________ . The Sudden in the Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
Dautzenberg, G. "Elija im Markusevangelium." In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans
Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, J. Verheyden, 1077-
1094. BETL 100. 3 vols. Leuven: Leuven University Press,, 1992.
Davidson, M. J. Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study o f I Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and
Sectarian Writings from Qumran. JSPSup 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
Davies, E. W. Numbers. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Davies, G. I. Hosea. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Davies, M. Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel. JSNTSup 69. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1992.
Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology.
4th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980 [1948].
Davies, W. D ., and D. C. Allison. The Gospel o f Saint Matthew. ICC. 3 vols. Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1988-1997.
Davila, J. R. "The Name of God at Moriah: An Unpublished Fragment from 4QGenExoda."
JBL 110 (1991): 577-582.
__________ . "Melchizedek, Michael, and War in Heaven." SBLSP 35 (1996), 259-272.
438
___________. "Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on
Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus. ” In The Jewish Roots o f
___________. "Moriah." In ABD, 4:904.
Davis, C. J. The Name and Way o f the Lord: Old Testamem Themes, New Testament
Christology. JSNTSup 129. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Davis, P. G. "Divine Agents, Mediators, and New Testament Christology." JTS 45 (1994):
479-503.
Davis, S. T ., D. Kendall, and G. O’Collins, eds. The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary
Symposium on the Trinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Dechameux, B. "Anges, demons et logos dans 1’oeuvre de Philon d’Alexandrie." In Anges et
demons: Actes du Colloque de Liege et a Louvain-la-Neuve, 25-26 nov. 1987, ed. J. Ries
and H. limet, 147-175. Homo religiosus 14. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Centre
d’histoire des religions, 1989.
___________. L ’ange, le devin et leprophete: Chemins de la parole dans I ’oeuvre de Philon
d ’Alexandrie dit ‘le Ju if’". Brussels, Belgium: Editions de l’Universite de Bruxelles,
1994.
Deissler, A. "Osee." In vol. 8 of La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot and A. Clamer. 12 vols.
Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1946-1961.
___________. Zw olf Propheten III: Zefanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. Wurzburg: Echter,
1988.
De Kruijf, T. Der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes: Ein Beitrag zur Christologie des
Matthausevangeliums. AnBib 16. Rome: Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 1962.
Delcor, M. "Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the
Hebrews." /S7 2 (1971): 115-135.
Delitzsch, F. Biblischer Commentar iiber den Prophet Jesaia. Leipzig: Dorffling und Franke,
1866.
___________. The Prophecies o f Isaiah. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1892.
Delling, G. "Josephus und das Wunderbare." NovT 2 (1958): 291-309.
Denis, A.-M. "La marche de Jesus sur les eaux: Contribution a l’histoire de la pericope dans
la tradition 6vang61ique." In De Jesus aux Evangiles: Tradition et redaction dans les
Evangiles synoptiques, ed. I. de la Potterie, et al., 233-247. BETL 25.2. Gembloux:
Duculot, 1967.
439
DeYoung, J. B. "The Function of Malachi 3.1 in Matthew 11.10: Kingdom Reality as the
Hermeneutic of Jesus." In The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and
W. R. Stegner, 66-91. JSNTSup 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Diedrich, F. Die Anspielungen a u f die Jakob-Tradition in Hosea 12,1-13,3: Ein
literaturwissenschaftlicher Beitrag zur Exegese friiher Prophetentexte. Forschung zur
Bibel 27. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977.
Diez Merino, L. "Los Tiqqune Soferim en la Tradicidn Targumica." In Tradition o f the Text:
Studies offered to Dominique Barthelemy in Celebration o f his 70th Birthday, ed., G. J.
Norton and S. Pisano, 18-44. OBO 109. Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.
Dillmann, A. Der Prophet Jesaia. 5th ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1890.
Dillon, J. The Middle Platonists: 80 B. C. to A.D. 220. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1977.
___________ . "The Formal Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Exegesis." In Two Treatises o f
Philo o f Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis,
ed. D. Winston and J. Dillon, 77-87. BJS 25. Chico: Scholars, 1983.
___________ . "The Nature of God in the ‘Quod D eus'." In Two Treatises o f Philo o f
Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, ed.
D. Winston and J. Dillon, 217-227. BJS 25. Chico: Scholars, 1983.
___________ . "Philo’s Doctrine of Angels." In Two Treatises o f Philo o f Alexandria: A
Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, ed. D. Winston and
J. Dillon, 197-205. BJS 25. Chico: Scholars, 1983.
___________. "Philo and the Greek Tradition of Allegorical Exegesis." SBLSP 33 (1994),
69-80.
___________. "The Pleasures and Perils of Soul-Gardening." In Wisdom and Logos: Studies
in Jewish Thought in Honor o f David Winston, ed. D. T. Runia and G. E. Sterling, 190-
197. Studia Philonica Annual 9. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.
Dimant, D. "Dualism at Qumran: New Perspectives." In Caves o f Enlightenment:
Proceedings o f the American Schools o f Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee
Symposium (1947-1997), ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 55-73. North Richland Hills, Tex.:
BIBAL, 1998.
Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Substructure o f New Testament Theology.
London: Nisbet, 1952.
___________ . The Interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1953.
___________. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1963.
440
Doeve, J. W. "Purification du temple et dess&hement du figuier: Sur la structure du 21*me
chapitre de Matthieu et paralleles (Marc xi. i-xii. 12, Luc xix. 28-xx. 19)." NTS 1
(1954-55): 297-308.
Donaldson, T. L. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. JSNTSup 8.
Donaldson, T. L. "Thomas Kuhn, Convictional Worlds, and Paul." In Origins and Method:
Towards a New Understanding o f Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honour o f John C.
Hurd, ed. B. H. McLean, 190-198. JSNTSup 86. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Dozeman, T. B. "The Wilderness and Salvation History in the Hagar Story." JBL 117
(1998): 23-43.
__________ . "The Book of Numbers." NIB, 2:1-268.
Driver, S. R. The M inor Prophets: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi. Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1906.
___________. Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911.
___________. The Book o f Genesis. 12th ed. London: Methuen, 1926.
Duhaime, J. L. "La redaction de 1 QM XIII et revolution du dualisme a Qumran." RB 84
(1977): 210-238.
Duhm, B. Das Buch Jesaia. HKAT. 5th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968
[1892].
Dumbrell, W. J. "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms." RTR 35 (1976): 42-52.
___________. "Grace and Truth: The Progress of the Argument of the Prologue of John’s
Gospel." In Doing Theology fo r the People o f God: Studies in Honor o f J. I. Packer, ed.
D. Lewis and A. McGrath, 105-121. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.
Dunn, J. D. G. "2 Corinthians m .l7 ~ ‘The Lord is the Spirit’." JTS 21 (1970): 309-320.
__________ . "Was Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning?" SJT 35 (1982):
303-336.
__________ . The Partings o f the Ways Between Judaism and Christianity and their
Significance fo r the Character o f Christianity. London: SCM, 1991.
___________. "John the Baptist’s Use of Scripture." In The Gospels and the Scriptures o f
Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner, 42-54. JSNTSup 104. Sheffield: Sheffield
441
___________ . "Historical Text as Historical Text: Some Basic Hermeneutical Reflections in
Relation to the New Testament." In Words Remembered: Texts Renewed: Essays in
Honour o f John F. A. Sawyer, ed. J. Davies, G. Harvey, and W. G. E. Watson, 340-
359. JSOTSup 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
___________. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins o f the
Doctrine o f the Incarnation. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Dupont, J. "Le paralytique pardonne (Mt 9, 1-8)." NRT 82 (1960): 940-958.
___________ . "L’ambassade de Jean-Baptiste (Matthieu 11, 2-6; Luc 7, 18-23)." NRT 83
(1961): 805-821, 943-959.
Dupont-Sommer, A. The Essene Writings from Qumran. Cleveland: Meridian, 1962.
Durham, J. I. and the Presence of God." In Proclamation and Presence: Old

Testament Essays in Honour o f Gwynne Henton Davies, ed. J. I. Durham and J. R.
Porter, 272-293. London: SCM, 1970.
___________. Exodus. WBC. Waco: Word, 1997.
Dus, J. "Herabfahrung Jahwes auf die Lade und Entziehung der Feuerwolke." VT 19 (1969):
290-311.
Eaton, J. H. "The Origin of the Book of Isaiah." VT9 (1959): 138-157.
Edwards, J. R. "Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan
Narratives." NovT 31 (1989): 193-216.
Edwards, M. J. "‘Not Yet Fifty Years Old’: John 8.57." N T S40 (1994): 449-454.
Ehrman, B. D. "The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox." LQ 5 (1991): 143-156.
Eichrodt, W. Theology o f the Old Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.
Elliger, K. Das Buch der zwolfkleinen Propheten. Vol. 2, Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk,
Zephanja, Haggai, Zacharja, Maleachi. ATD. 6th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1967.
___________. Deuterojesaja. Vol. 1, Jesaja 40,1-45,7. BKAT. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1978.
Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Ellis, E. E. Paul’s Use o f the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
___________. The Gospel o f Luke. NCB. London: Nelson, 1966.
___________. "How the New Testament Uses the Old." Chap. in Prophecy and Hermeneutic
in Early Christianity, 147-172. WUNT 2.18. Tubingen: Mohr, 1978.
442
___________ . The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the
Light o f Modem Research. WUNT 2.54. Tubingen: Mohr, 1991.
Emmerson, G. I. Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspecive. JSOTSup 28. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1984.
Enns, P. Exodus Retold: Ancient Exegesis o f the Departure from Egypt in Wis 15-21 and
19:1-9. HSM 57. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.
Erlandsson, S. "Nigra exempel p i Waw Explicativum." SEA 41-42 (1977): 69-76.
Ernst, J. Johannes der Tdufer: Interpretation—Geschichte—Wirkungsgeschichte. BZNW 53.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989.
___________ . "War Jesus ein Schuler Johannes’ des Taufers?" In Vom Urchristentum zu
Jesus: Fur Joachim GniUca, ed. H. Frankemdlle and K. Kertelge, 13-33. Freiberg:
Herder, 1989.
Eslinger, L. M. "Hosea 12:5a and Genesis 32:39: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis." JSOT
18 (1980): 91-99.
Evans, C. A. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background o f John’s
Prologue. JSNTSup 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
___________ . "Early Rabbinic Sources and Jesus Research." SBLSP 34 (1995), 53-76.
___________ . "Jesus Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?" In Jesus
in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration, by C. A. Evans and B. D. Chilton, 395-
439. AGAJU 39. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
___________ . "Jesus’ Self-Designation ‘The Son of Man’ and the Recognition o f His
Divinity." In The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, ed. S. T.
Davis, D. Kendall, and G. O’Collins, 29-47. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Evans, C. A ., and J. A. Sanders, eds. Paul and the Scriptures o f Israel. JSNTSup 83.
. Early Christian Interpretation o f the Scriptures o f Israel: Investigations and
Proposals. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Exum, J. C. "Promise and Fulfillment: Narrative Art in Judges 13." JBL 99 (1980): 43-59.
. "The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges." CBQ
52 (1990): 410-431.
Faierstein, M. M. "Why Do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come First." JBL 100 (1981):
75-86.
Farrer, A. M. "On Dispensing with Q ." In Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory o f
R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham, 55-88. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.
443
Fatehi, M. The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination o f Its
Christological Im plications. WUNT 2.128. Tubingen: Mohr, 2000.
Feldman, L. H. "Josephus’ Version of Samson." JSJ 19 (1988): 171-214.
___________. "Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus." In
Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation o f the Hebrew Bible in Ancient
Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder, 4SS-S18. CRINT 2.1. Assen: Van
Gorcum, 1988.
___________. "Josephus’ Portrait of Balaam." In The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in
Hellenistic Judaism, ed. D. T. Runia, 48-83. Studia Philonica Annual S. Atlanta:
Scholars, 1993.
___________. Josephus’s Interpretation o f the Bible. Hellenistic Culture and Society 27.
Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1998.
___________. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. JSJSup 58. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
___________. "Rearrangement of Biblical Material in Josephus’ Antiquities, Book 1." SBLSP
38 (1999), 246-263.
___________. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Vol. 3, Judean Antiquities 1-
4, ed. S. Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Fenton, J. C. "Matthew and the Divinity of Jesus: Three Questions Concerning Matthew
1:20-23." In Studia Biblica 1978: II. Papers on the Gospels, ed. E. A. Livingstone, 79-
82. JSNTSup 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980.
Feuillet, A. "Les Ego Eim i christologiques du quatrieme Evangile: La revelation enigmatique
de l’etre divine de Jesus dans Jean et les Synoptiques." RSR 54 (1966): 5-22, 213-240.
Fischer, G. Jahwe unser Gott: Sprache, Aufbau und Erzdhltechnik in der Berufung des Mose
(Ex 3-4). OBO 91. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.
Fischer, I. Wo ist Jahwe? Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7-64,11 als Ausdruck des Ringens um
eine gebrochene Beziehung. SBB 19. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989.
Fischer, R. W. "The Herald of Good News in Second Isaiah." In Rhetorical Criticism:
Essays in Honor o f James Muilenburg, ed. J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler, 117-132.
Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974.
Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Clarendon: Oxford, 1985.
Fitzmyer, J. A. Review o f An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts by M. Black. CBQ
30 (1968): 417-428.
___________. Review o f The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch
by M. McNamara. TS 29 (1968): 322-326.
444
___________ . "The Priority of Mark and the ‘Q ’ Source in Luke." Chap. in To Advance the
Gospel: New Testament Studies, 3-40. New York: Crossroad, 1981.
___________ . The Gospel According to Luke. AB. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1981-
1985.
___________. "More about Elijah Coming First." JBL 104 (1985): 295-296.
___________. "The Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran Cave 4." Chap. in Essays on
the Semitic Background o f the New Testament, 127-160. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
___________ . A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997.
___________ . "Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11." In Essays on the
Semitic Background o f the New Testament, 245-267. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Originally published in JBL 86 (1967): 25-41.
Fitzmyer, J. A., and D. J. Harrington. A Manual o f Palestinian Aramaic Texts (second
century B.C.-second century A.D .). BibOr 34. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.
Fleddermann, H. "‘And He Wanted to Pass by Them’ (Mark 6:48c)." CBQ 45 (1983): 389-
395.
Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. WUNT 2.94.
___________ . "The Worship of Divine Humanity as God’s Image and the Worship of
Jesus." In The Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews
Converence on the Historical Origins o f the Worship o f Jesus, ed. C. C. Newman, J. R.
Davila, and G. S. Lewis, 112-128. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Flint, P. W. "The Daniel Tradition at Qumran." In Eschatology, Messianism and the Dead
Sea Scrolls, ed. C. A. Evans and P. W. Flint, 41-60. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls
and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Flusser, D. "Melchizedek and the Son of Man." Christian News from Israel 17 (1966): 23-
29.
___________ . Review of Melchizedek and MelchireSac by P. J.Kobelski. JQR 73 (1983):
294-296.
Foerster, W. ”<torr|p, doxpov." TDNT, 1:503-505.
___________ . Hhiooi*;." TDNT, 3:284-293.
___________ . "icupioq, ictiL" TDNT, 3:1039-1098.
Fohrer, G ., E. Lohse, E. Schweizer, et al. "u(6^, uioteoux." TDNT,8:334-397.
445
Fokkelman, J. P. "Exodus." In The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and
F. Kermode, 56-65. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1987.
Fossum, J. The Name o f God and the Angel o f the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts o f
Intermediation and the Origin o f Gnosticism. WUNT 2.36. Tubingen: Mohr, 1985.
___________. "The New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule: The Quest for Jewish Christology."
SBLSP 30 (1991), 638-646.
France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application o f Old Testament Passages to
Him self and His Mission. London: Tyndale, 1971.
___________. "The Worship of Jesus: A Neglected Factor in Christological Debate?" In
Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. H. H. Rowdon,
17-36. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1982.
___________. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.
___________. "The Beginning of Mark." Reformed Theological Review 49 (1990): 11-19.
___________. "Jesus the Baptist?” In Jesus o f Nazareth: Lard and Christ: Essays on the
Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. J. B. Green and M. Turner, 94-
111. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Franxman, T. W. Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities " o f Flavius Josephus. BibOr 35.
Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979.
Freed, E. D. "Jn 1,19-27 in Light of Related Passages in John, the Synoptics, and Acts." In
The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M.
Tuckett, G. Van Belle, J. Verheyden, 2:1943-1961. BETL 100. 3 vols. Leuven: Leuven
Freedman, D. N. "Pentateuch." In IDB (1962), 3:711-727.
___________. "The Law and the Prophets." In Congress Volume: Bonn (1962), ed. G. W.
Anderson, P. A. H. de Boer, G. R. Castellino, et al., 250-265. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill,
1963.
___________. "‘Son of Man, Can These Bones Live?’" Int 29 (1975): 171-186.
___________. "Deuteronomic History." IDBSup (1976), 226-228.
___________. "Prose Particles in the Poetry of the Primary History." In Biblical and Related
Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauser, 49-62. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985.
___________. "The Earliest Bible." In Backgrounds fo r the Bible, ed. M. P. O’Connor and
D. N. Freedman, 29-37. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987.
446
___________. "Problems o f Textual Criticism in the Book of Hosea.” In D ivine Commitment
and Human Obligation: Selected Writings o f D avid Noel Freedman, vol. 1, History and
Religion, ed. J. R. Huddlestun, 314-329. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Frenschkowski, M. Offenbarung und Epiphanie. Vol. 1, Grundlagen des spatantiken und
fruhchristlichen Offenbarungsglaubens\ vol. 2, D ie verborgene Epiphanie in Spatantike
und fruhem Christentum. WUNT 2.79-80; Tubingen: Mohr, 1995-1997.
Frey, J. "Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on
Their Background and History." In Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings o f the
Second Meeting o f the International Organization fo r Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995:
Published in Honour o f Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. M. Bernstein, F. Garcia Martinez,
and J. Kampen, 275-335. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Friedman, R. E. "From Egypt to Egypt: Dtrl and D ti2." In Traditions in Transformation:
Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levinson, 167-192. Winona
Fritz, V. Das Buch Josua. HAT 7. Tubingen: Mohr, 1994.
Friichtel, U. D ie Kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandrien: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der Genesisexegese. ALGHJ 2. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Fuillet, A. "Le Fils de l’homme de Daniel et la tradition biblique." RB 60 (1953): 170-202,
321-346.
___________. "Une triple preparation du sacerdoce du Christ dans l’Ancien Testament.
(Melchis6dek, le Messie du Ps 110, le Serviteur d’Is 53). Introduction a la doctrine
sacerdotale de l’Epitre aux Hebreux." Divinitas 28 (1984): 103-136.
Furnish, V. P. II Corinthians. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1984.
Garcia Martinez, F. "The Prayer of Nabonidus: A New Sythesis." Chap. in Qumran and
Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran, 116-136. STDJ 9. Leiden:
Brill, 1992.
___________. "Messianische Erwartungen in den Qumranschriften." In Der M essias, ed.
I. Baldermann, E. Dassmann, O. Fuchs, et al., 171-208. Jahrbuch fur biblische
Theologie 8. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993.
Garcia Martinez, F ., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols.
Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998.
Gartner, B. John 6 and the Jewish Passover. ConNT 17. Lund: Gleerup, 1959.
Gaster, T. H. Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament: A Comparative Study with
Chapters from Sir James G. Frazer’s Folklore in the Old Testament. New York: Harper
& Row, 1969.
447
Geiger, G. "Falsche Zitate bei Matthaus und Lukas." In The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed.
C. M. Tucket, 479-486. BETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997.
Gelin, A. "Josu6." In vol. 3 of La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot and A. Clamer. 12 vols. Paris:
Letouzey et An£, 1946-1961.
Gench, F. T. Wisdom in the Christology o f Matthew. Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America, 1997.
Gertner, M. "The Masorah and the Levites: An Essay in the History of a Concept." VT 10
(1960): 241-284.
Gese, H. "Jakob und Mose: Hosea 12:3-14 als einheitlicher Text." In Tradition and Re-
Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour o f Jurgen C.
H. Lebram, ed. J. W. van Henten, et al., 38-47. SPB 36. Leiden: Brill, 1986.
Gianotto, C. M elchisedek e la sua tipologia: Tradizioni giudaiche, cristiane e gnostiche
(sec.IIa .C .-sec.IIId .C .). RivB 12. Brescia: Paideia, 1984.
Gibson, A. Biblical Semantic Logic. New York: St. Martin’s, 1981.
Gieschen, C. A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. AGJU 42.
Gillingham, S. E. The Poems and Psalms o f the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1994.
Ginsberg, H. L. "Hosea’s Ephraim, More Fool than Knave: A New Interpretation of Hosea
12:1-14." JBL 80 (1961): 339-347.
Glazier-McDoiuUd, B. Malachi: The Divine Messenger. SBLDS 98. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987.
Globe, A. "The Caesarean Omission of the Phrase ‘Son of God’ in Mark 1:1." HTR 75
(1982): 209-218.
Gnilka, J. "Das Elend vor dem Menschensohn (Mk 2,1-12)." In Jesus und der
Menschensohn: Fur Anton Vogtle, ed. R. Pesch, R. Schnackenburg, O. Kaiser, 196-209.
Freiburg: Herder, 1975.
___________. Das Evangelium nach Markus. EKK. 2 vols. Zurich: Neukirchener Verlag,
1978-1979.
___________. Das Matthausevangelium. HTKNT. Vol. 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1988.
___________. "Not by Means of an Angel and Not by Means of a Messenger." In Religions
in Antiquity: Essays in Memory o f Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner, 412-
Goldingay, J. "The Old Testament and Christian Faith: Jesus and the Old Testament in
Matthew 1-5 (Part 1)." Themelios 8 (1982): 4-10.
448
__________ . Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Rev. ed. Downers Grove: Inter-
Varsity, 1990.
Good, E. M. "Hosea and the Jacob Tradition." VT 16 (1966): 137-151.
Goodenough, E. R. Light by Light: The M ystic Gospel o f Hellenistic Judaism. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1935.
__________ . An Introduction to Philo Judaeus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940.
Goppelt, L. Theology o f the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
__________ . Typos: The Typological Interpretation o f the Old Testament in the New. repr.;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982 [1939].
Gordon, C. "‘In’ of Predication or Equivalence." JBL 100 (1981): 612-613.
Gorg, M. Josua. Wurzburg: Echter, 1991.
Gourgues, M. A la droite de Dieu: Resurrection de Jesus et actualisation du Psaume 110,1
dans le Nouveau Testament. Ebib. Paris: Gabalda, 1978.
Gray, G. B. Numbers. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903.
Gray, J. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Green, H. B. The Gospel According to Matthew. New Clarendon Bible. Oxford: Oxford
Green, J. B. The Gospel o f Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Greene, J. T. Balaam and His Interpreters: A Hermeneutical History o f the Balaam
Traditions. BJS 244. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.
__________ . The Role o f the Messenger and Message in the Ancient Near East: Oral and
Written Communication in the Ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Scriptures:
Communicators and Communiques in Context. BJS 169. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989.
Greene, M. "Enigma Variations: Aspects of the Sampson Story (Judges 13-16)." Vox
Evangelica 21 (1991): 53-79.
Grelot, P. "La priere de Nabonide (4 Q Or Nab)." RevQ 9 (1978): 483-495.
Grobel, K. "‘He that Cometh after Me’." JBL 60 (1941): 397-401.
Gross, W. Bileam: Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num 22-24. SANT
38. Munchen: Kosel, 1974.
Gruen, E. S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention o f Jewish Tradition. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1998.
449
Grundmann, W. Das Evangelium nach Markus. THKNT. 3d ed. Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1968.
___________. Das Evangelium nach Markus. THKNT. 8th ed. Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1980.
___________. "ioxwo, loxupdq." TDNT, 3:397-402.
Guelich, R. A. "‘The Beginning of the Gospel’ Mark 1:1-15." Biblical Research 27 (1982):
5-15.
___________. M ark 1-8:26. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1989.
___________. "The ‘Christ’ of the Gospel: A Lesson from Mark’s Christology." In
Perspectives on Christology: Essays in Honor o f Paul K. Jewett, ed. M. Shuster and
R. Muller, 3-17. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Gundry, R. H. The Use o f the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special
Reference to the Messianic Hope. NovTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
___________. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology fo r the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1993.
___________. "Angelomorphic Christology in the Book of Revelation." SBLSP 33 (1994),
662-678.
___________. Matthew: A Commentary on H is Handbook fo r a Mixed Church under
Persecution. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Gunkel, H. Genesis. 6th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.
Gunn, D. M. "Reading Right: Reliable and Omniscient Narrator, Omniscient God, and
Foolproof Composition in the Hebrew Bible." In The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays
in Celebration o f Forty Years o f Biblical Studies at the University o f Sheffield, ed.
D. J. A. Clines, S. E. Fowl, and S. E. Porter, 53-64. JSOTSup 87. Sheffield: Sheffield
Gunton, C. E. The Promise o f Trinitarian Theology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991.
Gurney, O. R. "The Sultantepe Tablets: VII, Nergal and Ereshkigal." Anatolian Studies 10
(1960): 105-131.
Guthe, H. "Hosea." In E. Kautzsch, trans., D ie Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, ed.
A. Bertholet. 4th ed. 2 vols. Tubingen: Mohr, 1922-1923.
Habel, N. "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives." ZAW 11 (1965): 297-323.
Haenchen, E. D er Weg Jesu: Eine Erklarung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen
Parallelen. 2d ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968.
450
Hagner, D. A. "Paul’s Christology and Jewish Monotheism." In Perspectives on Christology:
Essays in Honor o f Paul K. Jewett, ed. M. Shuster and R. Muller, 19-38. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1990.
___________ . Matthew 1-13. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1993.
Hahn, F. The Worship o f the Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973.
Hamid-Khani, S. Revelation and Concealment o f Christ: A Theological Inquiry into the
Elusive Language o f the Fourth Gospel. WUNT 2.120. Tubingen: Mohr, 2000.
Hamilton, V. P. The Book o f Genesis. NICOT. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-95.
Hannah, D. D. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early
Christianity. WUNT 2.109. Tubingen: Mohr, 1999.
Hanson, A. T. Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. London: SPCK, 1965.
___________ . Grace and Truth: A Study in the Doctrine o f the Incarnation. London: SPCK,
1975.
___________ . "Jn 1,14-18 and Exodus 34." NTS 23 (1976): 90-101.
___________ . "The Midrash in H Corinthians 3: A Reconsideration." JSN T9 (1980): 2-28.
___________ . The New Testament Interpretation o f Scripture. London: SPCK, 1980.
___________ . The Living Utterances o f God: The New Testament Exegesis o f the Old.
London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983.
Hamer, P. B. The "I Am" o f the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.
Harper, W. R. Amos and Hosea. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905.
Harris, M. J. 2 Corinthians. EBC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
___________ . Jesus as God: The New Testament Use o f Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Harrison, R. K. Numbers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints o f History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.
___________ . "Christ as Agent." In The Glory o f Christ in the New Testament: Studies in
Christology in Memory o f George Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright,
239-250. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
Hay, D. M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18.
Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.
451
___________. "Defining Allegory in Philo’s Exegetical World." SBLSP 33 (1994), 55-68.
Hays, R. B. Echoes o f Scripture in the Letters o f Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989.
Head, P. M. "A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1: ‘The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ’." NTS 37 (1991): 621-629.
Heidt, W. G. Angelology o f the Old Testament: A Study in Biblical Theology. Washington:
Catholic University of America Press, 1949.
Heil, J. P. Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions o f M att 14:22-33, Mark
6:45-52 and John 6:15b-21. AnBib 87. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981.
___________. "A Note on ‘Elijah with Moses’ in Mark 9:4." Bib 80 (1999): 115.
Heinemann, I. Philons griechische und jiidische Bildung: Kulturvergleichende
Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der judischen Gesetze. Breslau: Marcus, 1932.
Heinisch, P. Personifikationen und Hypostasen im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient.
Munster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1921.
___________. Das Buch Genesis. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1930.
___________. Das Buch Exodus. Bonn: Hanstein, 1934.
___________. Theology o f the Old Testament. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1950.
___________. Christus, der Erldser im alten Testament. Graz: Styria, 1955.
Hendel, R. S. The Epic o f the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions o f
Canaan and Israel. HSM 42. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987.
Hengel, M. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early
Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
___________. The Son o f God: The Origin o f Christology and the History o f Jewish-
Hellenistic Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.
___________. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly o f the Message o f the Cross.
___________. The "H ellenization" o f Judaea in the First Century after Christ. London:
SCM, 1989.
___________. "Christological Titles in Early Christianity." Chap. in Studies in Early
Christology, 359-389. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994.
___________. "Jesus as Messianic Teacher of Wisdom and the Beginnings of Christology."
Chap. in Studies in Early Christology, 73-117. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994.
452
__________ . "The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel." In The Gospels and the Scriptures
o f Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner, 380-395. JSNTSup 104. Sheffield:
__________ . "‘Sit at My Right Hand!’ The Enthronement of Christ at the Right Hand of
God and Psalm 110:1.” Chap. in Studies in Early Christology, 119-225. Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1994. Originally published as "‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!’ Die
Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110,1." In Le Trdne de Dieu, ed.
M. Philonenko, 108-194. WUNT 2.69. Tubingen: Mohr, 1993.
Hermann, I. Kyrios und Pneuma: Studien zur Christologie der paulinische Hauptbriefe.
SANT 2. Munchen: Kosel, 1961.
Hefiler, E. Das Heilsdrama: Der Weg zur Weltherrschaft Jahwes (Jes. 40-55).
Religionswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1988.
Hess, R. S. Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1996.
Hiers, R. H. "Purification of the Temple: Preparation for the Kingdom of God." JBL 90
(1971): 82-90.
Hill, A. E. M alachi. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1998.
Hill, D. The Gospel o f Matthew. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
Hirsch, E. D. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.
Hirth, V. Gottes Boten im Alten Testament: Die alttestamentliche MaVak-Vorstellung unter
besonderer Berucksichtigung des Mal’ak-Jahwe-Problems. Theologische Arbeiten 32.
Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1975.
Hofius, O. "Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage: Mk 2,1-12 und das Problem
priesterlicher Absolution im antiken Judentum." In Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann?’
Aufsdtze fu r Hans-Joachim Kraus zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. H.-G. Geyer, J. M. Schmidt,
W. Schneider, M. Weinrich, 115-127. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983.
__________ . "1st Jesus der Messias? Thesen." In Der Messias, ed. I. Baldermann,
E. Dassmann, O. Fuchs, et al., 103-129. Jahrbuch fur biblische Theologie 8.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993.
Hogan, L. P. Healing in the Second Temple Period. NTOA 21. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1992.
Holladay, C. H. Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique o f the Use o f This Category
in New Testament Christology. SBLDS 40. Missoula: Scholars, 1977.
Holladay, W. L. "Chiasmus, the Key to Hosea XH 3-6." VT 16 (1966): 53-64.
Holt, E. K. Prophesying the Past: The Use o f Israel’s History in the Book o f Hosea.
JSOTSup 194. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
453
Holtz, T. Untersuchungen iiber die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas. TU 104. Berlin:
Academie Verlag, 1968.
Holzinger, H. "Genesis." In E. Kautzsch, trans., Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments,
ed. A. Bartholet. 4th ed. 2 vols. Tubingen: Mohr, 1922-1923.
Honeyman, A. M. "Merismus in Biblical Hebrew." JBL 71 (1952): 11-18.
Hooker, M. D. "The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret." NTS 21 (1974): 40-58.
___________ . "‘What Doest Thou Here, Elijah?’ A Look at St Mark’s Account of the
Transfiguration." In The Glory o f Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in
Memory o f George Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright, 59-70. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1987.
___________ . "Traditions about the Temple in the Sayings of Jesus." BJRL 70 (1988): 7-19.
___________ . The Gospel According to Saint Mark. BNTC. London: Black, 1991.
Hoonacker, A. van. Les Douze Petites Prophetes. Ebib. Paris: Gabalda, 1908.
Horbury, W. "Keeping up with Recent Studies: 5. Rabbinics." E xpT 91 (1979-80): 233-240.
___________ . Jewish Messianism and the Cult o f Christ. London: SCM, 1998.
Horton, F.L. The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination o f the Sources to the Fifth
Century A.D . and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SNTSMS 30. Cambridge: Cambridge
Houtman, C. "What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel? Some Remarks on Genesis
xxviii 10-22." VT 27 (1977): 337-351.
___________ . "Exodus 4:24-26 and its Interpretation." JNSL 11 (1983): 81-105.
___________ . Exodus. Vol. 1. Kampen: Kok, 1993.
Howton, J. "‘Son of God’ in the Fourth Gospel." NTS 10 (1963-64): 227-237.
Hubbard, D. A. Hosea: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1989.
Hughes, J. "John the Baptist: The Forerunner of God Himself." NovT 14 (1972): 191-218.
Hughes, P. E. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1962.
Hultg&rd, A. "The Ideal ‘Levite,’ the Davidic Messiah, and the Saviour Priest in the
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs." In Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and
Paradigms, ed. J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 93-110. Chico: Scholars, 1980.
454
Hurtado, L. W. "New Testament Christology: A Critique of Bousset’s Influence." TS 40
(1979): 306-317.
___________ . Mark. NIBC. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1983.
___________ . "New Testament Christology: Retrospect and Prospect." Semeia 30 (1984):
15-27.
___________ . One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish
Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
___________ . "What Do We Mean by ‘First Century Jewish Monotheism’?" SBLSP 32
(1993), 348-368.
___________ . "First-Century Jewish Monotheism." JSN T71 (1998): 3-23.
___________ . "The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship." In The Jewish Roots o f
Origins o f the Worship o f Jesus, ed. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis,
187-213. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Iersel, B. M. F. van. "KAIH0EAEN IIAPEA0EIN ATTOYZ: Another Look at Mark 6,48d."
In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M.
Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden, 2:1065-1076. BETL 100. 3 vols. Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 1992.
Irvin, D. Mytharion: The Comparison o f Tales from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near
East. AOAT 32. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978.
Jacob, E. "Une theophanie mysterieuse: Josue 5, 13-15.” In Ce Dieu qui vient: Etudes sur
VAncien et le Nouveau Testament offertes au Professeur Bernard Renaud a Toccasion de
son soixante-cinquieme arutiversaire, ed. R. Kuntzmann, 131-135. LD 159; Paris: Cerf,
1995.
Jenni, E. "DV jom Tag." THAT 1:707-726.

Jeremias, J. Neutestamentliche Theologie. Vol. 1, Die Verkiindigung Jesu. Giitersloh: Gerd
Mohn, 1971.
Jeremias, Jorg. Theophanie: D ie Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gatting. WMANT 10.
2d ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977.
___________ . Hosea. ATD. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.
Jobling, D. The Sense o f Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses o f the Hebrew Bible II.
JSOTSup 39. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.
Johnson, A. R. "Aspects of the Use of the Term Q*3B in the Old Testament." In Festschrift
Otto Eissfeldt mm 60. Geburtstag, ed. J. Fuck, 155-159. Halle: Niemeyer, 1947.
455
Jonge, M. de, and A. S. van der Woude. "11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament." NTS
12 (1965-66): 301-326.
Jongeling, B., C. J. Labuschagne, and A. S. van der Woude. Aramaic Texts from Qumran.
Semitic Study Series 4. Leiden: Brill, 1976.
Joiion, P. "Une serie de Beth essentiae meconnus." Bib 4 (1923): 318-320.
Joynes, C. E. "A Question of Identity: ‘Who Do People Say that I Am?’ Elijah, John the
Baptist and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel." In Understanding, Studying and Reading: New
Testament Essays in Honour o f John Ashton, ed. C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-
Louis, 15-29. JSNTSup 153. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Juel, D. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation o f the Old Testament in Early
Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Junker, H. Die Zwolf Kleinen Propheten. Vol. 2, Nahum, Habakuk, Sophonias, Aggaus,
Zacharias, Malachias. Bonn: Hanstein, 1938.
Kalt, E. Das Buch Isaias. Herders Bibelkommentar. Vol. 8. Freiburg: Herder, 1938.
Kamesar, A. "The Literary Genres of the Pentateuch as Seen From the Greek Perspective:
The Testimony of Philo of Alexandria." In Wisdom and Logos: Studies in Jewish
Thought in Honor o f David Winston, ed. D. T. Runia and G. E. Sterling, 143-189.
Studia Philonica Annual 9. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.
Kang, S.-M. Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. BZAW 177.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989.
Katz, P. "Jesus als Vorlaufer des Christus: Mogliche Hinweise in den Evangelien auf Elia als
den ‘Typos’ Jesu." TZ 52 (1996): 225-235.
Kaufman, S. A. "Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study
of First Century Texts." In The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, ed.
D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara, 118-141. JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield
Kautzsch, E., trans. Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, ed. A. Bertholet. 4th ed.
2 vols. Tubingen: Mohr, 1922-1923.
Kee, H. C. "The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphany or Apocalyptic Vision?" In
Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in honor o f Morton S. Enslin on the Hebrew
Bible and Christian Beginnings, ed. J. Reumann, 135-152. Valley Forge, Pa.; Judson
Press, 1972.
___________. "The Function of Scriptural Citations and Allusions in Mark 11-16." In Jesus
und Paulus: Festschrift fu r Werner Georg Kummel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. E. Ellis
and E. Grasser, 165-185. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975.
456
Keesmaat, S. C. Paul and His Story: (Reinterpreting the Exodus. JSNTSup 181. Sheffield:
Keil, C. F. Die zw olf kleinen Propheten. 3d ed. Giessen: Brunnen Verlag, 1985 [1888].
Keil, C. F ., and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes. Repr.;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Kertelge, K. Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung. SANT 23. Munchen: Kosel-Verlag, 1970.
Kiesow, K. Exodustexte im Jesajabuch: Literarkritische und M otivgeschichtliche Analysen.
OBO 24. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.
Kilian, R. Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsuberlieferungen: Literarkritisch und
traditionsgeschichtlich uruersucht. BBB 24. Bonn: Hanstein, 1966.
___________ . "‘Baut eine StraBe fur unseren Gott!’ Uberlegungen zu Jes 40, 3-5." In
Kiinder des Wortes: Beitrage zur Theologie der Propheten, ed. L. Ruppert, P. Weimar,
and E. Zenger, 53-60. Wurzburg: Echter, 1982.
Kim, J. The Structure o f the Sampson Cycle. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993.
Kim, S. "Jesus-The Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant: The Role of
Zechariah in the Self-Identification of Jesus." In Tradition and Interpretation in the New
Testament: Essays in Honor ofE . Earle E llis fo r His 60th Birthday, ed. G. F.
Hawthorne and O. Betz, 134-148. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Kimball, C. A. Jesus Exposition o f the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel. JSNTSup 94.
Kingsbury, J. D. Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1975.
___________. The Christology o f Mark’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Kinman, B. Jesus Entry into Jerusalem: In the Context o f Lukan Theology and the Politics o f
His Day. AGAJU 28. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Kissling, P. J. Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles o f Moses, Joshua, Elijah
and Elisha. JSOTSup 224. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Klauck, H.-J. "Die Frage der Sundenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des
Gelahmten (Mk 2,1-12 parr.)." BZ 25 (1981): 223-248.
___________. "Accuser, Judge and Paraclete: On Conscience in Philo of Alexandria." Skrif
en Kerk 20 (1999): 107-118.
Klein, L. R. The Triumph o f Irony in the Book o f Judges. JSOTSup 68. Sheffield: Almond,
1988.
457
Klingbeil, M. Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God o f Heaven in the
Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography. OBO 169. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.
Knierim, R. "Offenbanmg im Alten Testament." In Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard
von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. W. Wolff, 206-235. Miinchen: Kaiser, 1971.
Knoppers, G. N ., and J. G. McConville, eds. Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent
Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. SBTS 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Kobelski, P. J. Melchizedek and MelchireSac. CBQMS 10. Washington, D .C.: Catholic
Biblical Association of America, 1981.
Koch, D.-A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zjur Verwendung und
zum Verstandnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tubingen: Mohr, 1986.
___________. "Der Taufer als Zeuge des Offenbarers: Das Tauferbild von Joh 1,19-34 auf
dem Hintergrund von Mk 1,2-11." In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans
Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, J. Verheyden, 2:1963-
1984. BETL 100. 3 vols. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
Koenen, K. "Wer sieht Wen? Zur Textgeschichte von Genesis 16:13." VT 30 (1988): 468-
474.
Kooij, A. van der "‘And I also Said’: A New Interpretation of Judges II 3." VT 45 (1995):
294-306.
Koole, J. L. "Zu Jesaja 40,3." In Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift jiir Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr.
J. P. M. van der Ploeg O. P. zur Vollendung das siebzigsten Legensjahres am 4. Juli
1979, ed. W. C. Delsman, et al., 137-142. AOAT 211. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1982.
___________ . Isaiah. HCOT. 3 vols. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997.
Kosmala, H. "The ‘Bloody Husband’." VT 12 (1962): 14-28.
Kraetzschmar, R. Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament in ihrer geschichtlichen
Entwicklung. Marburg: Elwert, 1896.
Krause, D. "Narrated Prophecy in Mark 11.12-21: The Divine Authorization o f Judgment."
In The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner, 235-
248. JSNTSup 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Kreitzer, L. J. Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology. JSNTSup 19. Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1987.
___________ . "The Temple Incident of John 2.13-25: A Preview of What is to Come." In
ed. C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, 93-101. JSNTSup 153. Sheffield: Sheffield
458
Kubel, P. "Epiphanie und Altarbau." ZAW 83 (1971): 225-231.
Kugel, J. L. The Idea o f Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History. New Haven: Yale
Kuhn, P. Gottes Selbstemiedrigung in der Theologie der Rabbinen. SANT 17. Mtinchen:
Kosel, 1968.
Kuhn, T. L. The Structure o f Scientific Revolutions. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1970 [1962].
___________. The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Kummel, W. G. Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message o f Jesus. SBT 23.
London: SCM, 1957.
Kiimpel, R. "Die Berufung Israels: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Hosea." D iss.,
Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhems-Universitat, Bonn, 1973.
Kung, H ., and D. Tracy, eds. Paradigm Change in Theology: A Symposium fo r the Future.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989.
Kuntz, K. "Recent Perspectives on Biblical Poetry." Religious Studies Review 19 (1993):
321-327.
Kuntz, J. K. The Self-revelation o f God. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.
Kupp, D. D. M atthew’s Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God’s People in the First Gospel.
SNTSMS 90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Kutsch, E. "Gideons Berufung und Altarbau Jdc 6,11-24." ThLZ 81 (1956): 75-84.
Laansma, J. 7 Will Give You Rest”: The Rest M otif in the New Testament with Special
Reference to M t 11 and Heb 3-4. WUNT 2.98. Tubingen: Mohr, 1997.
Labuschagne, C. J. "The Emphasizing Particle Gam and its Connotations." In Studio Biblica
et Semitica, 200-203. Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen, 1966.
Lacey, D. R. de. "Jesus as Mediator." JSN T29 (1987): 101-121.
Lagrange, M.-J. "L’Ange de Iahv6." RB 12 (1903): 212-225.
___________. Evangile selon Saint Matthieu. Ebib. 8th ed. Paris: Gabalda, 1948.
___________. Evangile selon Saint Marc. Ebib. Paris: Gabalda, 1966.
Lamarche, P. Zacharie IX-XIV: Structure litteraire et messianisme. Ebib. Paris: Gabalda,
1961.
459
___________. " ‘Commencement de l’gvangile de J6sus, Christ, Fils deDieu’ (Me 1,1) ”NRT
90 (1970): 1024-1036.
Lambdin, T. O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971.
Lane, W. L. The Gospel According to M ark. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
___________. "Theios AnSr Christology and the Gospel of Mark." In New Dimensions in
New Testament Study, ed. R. Longenecker and M. Tenney, 144-161. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1974.
___________. Hebrews. WBC. Vol. 1. Dallas: Word, 1991.
Larson, E. "4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation of King Zedekiah." DSD 1 (1994): 210-
228.
Larson, E., L. H. Shiftman, and J. Strugnell, "4Q470, Preliminary Publication of a
Fragment Mentioning Zedekiah.” RevQ 16 (1994): 335-349.
Laubscher, F. du Toit. "God’s Angel of Truth and Melchizedek: A Note on 1lQMelch 13b. ”
JSJ 3 (1972): 46-51.
L6gasse, S. L Evangile de Marc. Lectio Divina Commentaires. 2 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1997.
Lelli, F. "Stars." I n DDD, 1530-1540.
Leroy, H. Rdtsel und Missverstdndnis: Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des
Johannesevangeliunts. BBB 30. Bonn: Hanstein, 1968.
Lescow, T. "Ex 4,24-26: Ein archaischer Bundesschlufiritus." VT 105 (1993): 19-26.
__________ . Das Buch Maleachi: Texttheorie - Auslegung - Kanontheorie. Arbeiten zur
Theologie 75. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1993.
Letellier, R. I. Day in Mamre, Night in Sodom: Abraham and Lot in Genesis 18 and 19.
Biblical Interpretation Series 10. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Levine, B. A. Numbers 1-20. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
Levison, J. R. "The Debut of the Divine Spirit in Josephus’s Antiquities.” HTR 87 (1994):
123-138.
___________. "The Angelic Spirit in Early Judaism." SBLSP 34 (1995), 464-493.
__________ . "Josephus’ Interpretation o f the Divine Spirit." JJS 47 (1996): 234-255.
Liefeld, W. "Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative." In New Dimensions in
New Testament Study, ed. R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney, 162-179. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.
460
Lightfoot, R. H. St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956.
Lim, T. H. "llQ M elch, Luke 4 and the Dying Messiah." JJS 43 (1992): 90-92.
Lind, M. C. Yahweh is a Warrior: The Theology o f Warfare in Ancient Israel. Scottdale,
Pa.: Herald, 1980.
Lindars, B. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance o f the Old Testament
Quotations. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.
___________. Behind the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Creative Criticism. London: SPCK,
1971.
___________. The Gospel o f John. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981 [1972].
___________. Judges 1-5: A New Translation and Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1995.
Lindbeck, G. A. "Postcritical Canonical Interpretation: Three Modes of Retrieval." In
Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor o f Brevard S. Childs, ed. C. Seitz and
K. Greene-McCreight, 26-51. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Lindblom, J. Hosea literarisch untersucht. Abo: Abo Akademi, 1928.
___________. "Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion." HUCA 32 (1961): 91-106.
___________. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962.
Lints, R. The Fabric o f Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993.
Lippi, J. D ie Zw olf Kleinen Propheten. Vol. 1. Bonn: Hanstein, 1937.
Lohmeyer, E. "‘Und Jesus ging voriiber’: Eine exegetische Betrachtung." Chap. in
Urchristliche M ystik: Neutestamentliche Studien, 57-79. Darmstadt: Gentner, 1956.
___________. Das Evangelium des Markus. KEK. 17th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1967.
Lona, H. E. Abraham in Johannes 8: Ein Beitrag zur Methodenfrage. Europaische
Hochschulschriften 65. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, 1976.
Long, V. P ., ed. Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite
Historiography. SBTS 7. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Longenecker, R. N. Galatians. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1990.
___________. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1992 [1975].
461
Longman, T .and, D. G. Reid. God is a Warrior. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Lovejoy, A. O. The Great Chain o f Being: A Study o f the History o f an Idea. Cambridge,
M ass.: Harvard University Press, 1936.
Luzarraga, J. Las tradiciones de la nube en la biblia y en el judaismo primitivo. AnBib 54.
Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973.
Macintosh, A. A. Hosea. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997.
MacRae, G. "Miracle in the Antiquities of Josephus." In Miracles: Cambridge Studies in
Their Philosophy and History, ed. C. F. D. Moule, 127-147. London: Mowbray, 1965.
Malbon, E. S. "The Jesus of Mark and the Sea of Galilee." JBL 103 (1984): 363-377.
Malchow, B. V. "The Messenger of the Covenant in Mai 3:1." JBL 103 (1984): 252-255.
Mann, C. S. Mark. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1986.
Mann, J. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue. Vol. 1, The Palestinian
Triennial Cycle: Genesis and Exodus. New York: KTAV, 1971 [1940].
Mann, T. W. "The Pillar of Cloud in the Red Sea Narrative." JBL 90 (1971): 15-30.
Manross, L. N. "Beth Essentiae." JBL 73 (1954): 238-239.
Manzi, F. Melchisedek e I ’angelologia nell’Epistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran. AnBib 136.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1997.
Marais, J. Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts. Biblical Interpretation Series 36.
Marcus, J. The Way o f the Lord: Christological Exegesis o f the Old Testament in the Gospel
o f Mark. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.
___________ . "Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth: The Shema in the Gospel of Mark"
in The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner, 196-
211. JSNTSup 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
___________ . Mark. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Marshall, I. H. The Gospel o f Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
___________ . "An Assessment of Recent Developments." In It is Written: Scripture Citing
Scripture: Essays in Honour o f Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M.
Williamson, 1-21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
___________ . Review of One God, One Lord [2d ed.] by Larry W. Hurtado. IJS T 1 (1999):
227-228.
462
Marti, K. Das Dodekapropheton. Tubingen: Mohr, 1904.
__________ . "Der Prophet Maleachi." In E. Kautzsch, trans., DieHeilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments, ed. A. Bertholet. 4th ed. 2 vols. Tubingen: Mohr, 1922-1923.
Martin, R. P. Worship in the Early Church. Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1964.
__________ . 2 Corinthians. WBC. Waco: Word, 1986.
__________ . "Worship." In DPL, 982-991.
Mason, R. The Books ofH aggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1977.
Matera, F. J. The Kingship o f Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15. SBLDS 66.
Chico: Scholars, 1982.
__________ . "The Prologue as the Interpretative Key to Mark’sGospel." JSNT 34 (1988):
3-20.
Matson, M. A. "The Contribution of the Temple Cleansing by the Fourth Gospel." SBLSP
31 (1992), 489-506.
Mauchline, J. "Hosea." In IB 6:551-725.
Mauser, U. Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and its
Basis in the Biblical Tradition. SBT. Naperville, 111.: Allenson, 1963.
Mays, J. L. Hosea: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969.
McCarthy, C. The Tuqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic
Text o f the Old Testament. OBO 36. Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.
McComiskey, T. E. The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary.
Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
McConville, J. G. "The Old Testament Historical Books in Modem Scholarship." Themelios
22 (1997): 3-13.
McCullough, J. C. "Melchizedek’s Varied Role in Early Exegetical Tradition." Theological
Review 1.2 (1978): 52-66.
McEvenue, S. E. "The Elohist at Work." ZA W 96 (1984): 315-332.
McKay, K. L. "‘I am’ in John’s Gospel." ExpTim 107 (1995-96): 302-303.
McKenzie, S. L. "The Jacob Tradition in Hosea XH 4-5." VT36 (1986): 311-322.
McKenzie, S. L ., and M. P. Graham, eds. The History o f Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage
o f Martin Noth. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
463
Meeks, W. A. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup
___________ . "Moses as God and King." In Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory o f
Erwin Ransdell Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner, 354-371. Studies in the History of
Religions 14. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Meier, J. P. The Vision o f Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel. New
York: Paulist, 1979.
___________ . "John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel." JBL 99 (1980): 383-405.
Meier, S. A. The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. HSM 45. Atlanta: Scholars,
1988.
___________ . Speaking o f Speaking: Marking D irect Discourse in the Hebrew Bible. VTSup
___________ . "Angel." I n DDD, 81-90.
___________. "Angel of Yahweh." In DDD, 96-108.
Melugin, R. F. The Formation o f Isaiah 40-55. BZAW 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976.
Mendenhall, G. E. The Tenth Generation: The Origins o f the Biblical Tradition. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.
Menken, M. J. J. Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form.
CBET 15. Kampen: Kok, 1996.
___________. "The Use of the Septuagint in Three Quotations in John: Jn 10,34; 12,38;
19,24." In The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. C. M. Tucket, 367-393. BETL 131;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997.
Merendino, R. P. D er Erste und der Letzle: Eine Untersuchung von Jes 40-48. VTSup 31.
Merwe, C. H. J. van der. The Old Hebrew Particle Gam: A Syntactic-Semantic Description
o f Gam in G n-2Kg. ATAT 34. St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlag, 1990.
Metzger, B. M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume
to the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament (Third Edition). Stuttgart: UBS,
1975.
Meyer, B. F. The Aims o f Jesus. London: SCM, 1979.
Meyer, H. A. W. Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Corinthians. New
York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884.
464
Meyer, R. Das Gebet des Nabonid: Eine in den Qumran-Handschriften wiederentdeckte
Weisheitserzdhlung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1962.
Meyers, C. L ., and E. M. Meyers. Zechariah 9-14. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
Michaelis, W. "666q, kz X . " TDNT, 5:42-114.
Michaels, J. R. John. NIBC. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984.
M iler, J. Les citations d ’accomplissement dans I ’Evangile de Matthieu: Quand Dieu se rend
present en toute humanite. AnBib 140. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1999.
Milgrom, J. The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers. JPS Torah. Philadelphia: JPS, 1990.
M ilik, J. T. Recherches d ’epigraphie proche-orientale. Vol. 1, Dedicaces faites par des
dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases semitiques a I’epoque romaine. Paris: Paul
Geuthner, 1972.
___________ . "Milki-sedeq et Milki-reSac dans les anciens ecrits juifs et chretiens." JJS 23
(1972): 95-144.
___________ . "‘Pridre de Nabonide’ et autres Merits d’un cycle de Daniel: Fragments
Aram6ens de Qumran.” RB 63 (1956): 407-415.
Millard, A. R. "The Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven (Genesis xxviii. 12, 17)."
ExpT 78 (1966-67): 86-87.
M iller, E. L. Salvation-History in the Prologue o f John: The Significance o f John 1:3/4.
NovTSup 60. Leiden: Brill, 1989.
Miller, M. P. "The Function of Isa 61 1-2 in 11Q Melchizedek." JBL 88 (1969): 467-469.
M iller, P. D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. HSM 5. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
___________ . "Meter, Parallelism and Tropes: The Search for Poetic Style." JSO T 28
(1984): 99-106.
Miner, D. F. "A Suggested Reading for 11Q Melchizedek 17." JSJ 2 (1971): 144-148.
Miscall, P. D. 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.
Mitchell, G. Together in the Land: A Reading o f the Book o f Joshua. JSOTSup 134.
Moberly, R. W. L. At the Mountain o f God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34. JSOTSup
22. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983.
465
___________. The Old Testament o f the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic
Yahwism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Moehring, H. R. "Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss.,
University of Chicago, 1957.
___________. "Rationalization of Miracles in the Writings o f Flavius Josephus." In Studia
Evangelical, vol. 6, Papers Presented to the Fourth International Congress on New
Testament Studies Held at Oxford, 1969, ed. E. A. Livingstone, 376-383. TU 112.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973.
Molina, D. N ., ed. On Literary Intention. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1976.
Montefiore, H. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. HNTC. New York: Harper &
Row, 1964.
Montgomery, J. A. "Hebrew Hesed and Greek Chans.” HTR 32 (1939): 97-102.
Moo, D. J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond, 1983.
Moore, G.F. Judges. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895.
___________. Judaism in the First Centuries o f the Christian Era: The Age o f theTannaim.
2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927-1930.
Moore, M. S. The Balaam Traditions: Their Character and Development. SBLDS 113.
Atlanta: Scholars, 1990.
Morgenstem, J. "The Oldest Document of the Hexateuch." HUCA 4 (1927): 1-138.
__________ . "Isaiah 63, 7-14." HUCA 23.1 (1950-1951): 185-203.
Morris, G. Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea. JSOTSup 219. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1996.
Morris, L. "The Emergence of the Doctrine of the Incarnation: Review Article." Themelios
8.1 (1982): 15-19.
__________ . The Gospel according to John. NICOT. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995.
Moses, A. D. A. Matthew’s Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy.
JSNTSup 122. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Motyer, J. A. The Revelation o f the Divine Name. London: Tyndale, 1959.
__________ . The Prophecy o f Isaiah. Downers Grove: InverVarsity, 1993.
Motyer, S. Your Father the D evil? A New Approach to John and ‘the Jews’. Carlisle, U.K.:
Paternoster, 1997.
466
Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book o f New Testament Greek. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
___________. Worship in the New Testament. Richmond, Va.: Knox, 1961.
Mowvley, H. "John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35." ExpTim 95 (1984): 135-
137.
Moyise, S. "Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament." In
The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour o f J. L. North, ed.
S. Moyise, 14-41. JSNTSup 189. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Muilenberg, J. "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66." IB 5:381-773.
___________. "A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style." In Congress Volume:
Copenhagen 1953, ed. G. W. Anderson, et al., 97-111. VTSup 1. Leiden: Brill, 1953.
___________. "The Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages of the Particle "O in the Old
Testament." HUCA 32 (1961): 135-160.
___________. "The Intercession of the Covanent Mediator (Exodus 33:1a, 12-17)." In Words
and Meanings, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars, 159-181. Cambridge: Cambridge
Mullen, E. T. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. HSM 24.
Chico: Scholars, 1980.
Muller, K. "Zur Datierung rabbinischer Aussagen." In Neues Testament und Ethik: Fur
Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed. H. Merklein, 551-587. Freiburg: Herder, 1989.
Muller, M. "Salvation-History in the Gospel of Matthew: An Example of Biblical
Theology." In New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers o f the Aarhus Conference,
16-19 September 1992, ed. S. Pedersen, 58-76. NovTSup 76. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
___________. The First Bible o f the Church: A Plea fo r the Septuagint. JSOTSup 206.
Muraoka, T. "On the So-called Dativus Ethicus in Hebrew." JTS 29 (1978): 495-498.
Murphy-O’Connor, J. "Qumran and the New Testament." In The New Testament and Its
Modem Interpreters, ed. E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae, 55-71. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989.
Neef, H.-D. Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verkiindigung des Propheten Hosea. BZAW
169. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987.
___________. "Tch selber bin in ihm’ (Ex 23,21)." Biblische Zeitschrift 39 (1995): 54-75.
___________. "Meroz: Jdc 5,23a." ZAW 107 (1995): 118-122.
467
Neill, S., and N. T. Wright. The Interpretation o f the New Testament, 1861-1986. 2d ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Nelson, R. D. Joshua. OTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1997.
Neusner, J. The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees before 70. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill,
1971.
___________. Review of Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E. P. Sanders. HR 18 (1978):
177-191.
___________. "The Use of the Later Rabbinic Evidence for the Study of First-Century
Pharisaism." In Approaches to Ancient Judaism, vol. 1, Theory and Practice, ed. W. S.
Green, 215-228. BJS 1; Missoula: Scholars, 1978.
___________. "The Use of Rabbinic Sources for the Study of Ancient Judaism." In
Approaches to Ancient Judaism, vol. 2, Text as Context in Early Rabbinic Literature, ed.
W. S. Green, 1-17. BJS 11; Chico: Scholars, 1981.
___________. Review of Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People by E. P. Sanders. Chap. in
Ancient Judaism: Debates and Disputes, 195-203. BJS 64; Chico: Scholars, 1984.
___________. The Systemic Analysis o f Judaism. BJS 137. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988.
___________. "Fifteen Years After Judaism: The Evidence o f the M ishnah." Chap. in
Approaches to Ancient Judaism, 21-54. Vol. 10 [SFSHJ 142]. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.
Newman, C. C. P aul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric. NovTSup 69. Leiden:
Brill, 1992.
Newman, John Henry Cardinal. Apologia Pro Vita Sua. New York: Doubleday/Image
Books, 1956.
Newsom, C. Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. HSS 27. Atlanta: Scholars,
1985.
___________. "Angels (OT)." In ABD, 1:248-253.
Neyrey, J. H. "The Jacob Allusions in John 1:51." CBQ 44 (1982): 586-605.
___________. "Jesus the Judge: Forensic Process in John 8,21-59." Bib 68 (1987): 509-542.
Nickelsburg, G. W. E. "Prayer of Nabonidus." In Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple
Period: Apocalyptic, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed.
M. E. Stone, 35-37. CRINT 2:2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984.
___________. "Son of Man." DDD, 1510-1520.
Niehoff, M. R. "Two Examples of Josephus’ Narrative Technique in His ’Rewritten Bible’."
JSJ 27 (1996): 31-45.
468
Niehr, H. "Ttf." TWAT 7:855-879.
Nikiprowetzky, V. Le commentaire de TEcriture chez Philon d ’Alexandrie: Son caractere et
saportee: Observations philologiques. ALGHJ 11. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
___________. "Sur un lecture demonologique de Philon d’Alexandrie, De Gigantibus 6-18."
In Hommage a Georges Vajda: Etudes d ’histoire et de pensee juives, ed. G. Nahon and
C. Touati, 43-71. Louvain: Peeters, 1980.
___________. "L’ex6g6se de Philon d’Alexandrie." Chap. in Etudes philoniennes, 111-131.
Paris: Cerf, 1996.
Nineham, D. E. The Gospel o f St Mark. Pelican New Testament Commentaries. Baltimore:
Penguin, 1963.
Nodet, E. "Flavius Josephe: Creation et histoire." RB 100 (1993): 5-40.
___________. "Josephus and the Pentateuch." JSJ 28 (1997): 154-194.
Nogalski, J. D. "The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve." SBLSP 38 (1999), 617-
642.
Nolland, J. Luke 1-9:20. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1989.
___________. "Salvation-Histoiy and Eschatology." In Witness to the Gospel: The Theology
o f Acts, ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson, 63-81. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Noordtzij, A. Het Boek Numeri. Kampen: Kok, 1957.
North, R. The Second Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1964.
___________. "Separated Spiritual Substances in the Old Testament." CBQ (1967): 419-449.
___________. "Angel-Prophet or Satan-Prophet?" ZAW 82 (1970): 31-67.
Noth, M. Exodus: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962.
___________. Numbers: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.
Notscher, F. "Das Angesicht Gottes schauen " nach biblischer und babylonischer Auffassung.
2d corrected ed. with an appendix. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969
[1924].
Niitzel, J. M. Die Verklarungserzdhlung im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung. FB 6. Wurzburg: Echter, 1973.
Nyberg, H. S. Studien zum Hoseabuche: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Klarung des Problems der
Alttestamentlichen Textkritik. UUA 6. Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1935.
O’Brien, J. M. Priest and Levite in Malachi. SBLDS 121. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990.
469
O’Brien, M. A. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment. OBO 92.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.
O’Connell, R. H. The Rhetoric o f the Book o f Judges. VTSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
O’Connor, M. P. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
O’Day, G. R. "John 6:15-21: Jesus Walking on Water as Narrative Embodiment of
Johannine Christology." In Critical Readings o f John 6, ed. R. A. Culpepper, 149-159.
Biblical Interpretation Series 22. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Oepke, A. "vetfkti, ” TDNT, 4:902-910.
Ohler, M. "Die Verklaning (Mk 9:1-8): Die Ankunft der Herrschaft Gottes auf der Erde."
NovT 38 (1996): 197-217.
Ollenburger, B. C. "The Book of Zechariah.” NIB 7:733-840.
Olofsson, S. God is My Rock: A Study o f Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in
the Septuagint. ConBib 31. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990.
___________. The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique o f the Septuagint.
ConBib 30. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1990.
Olofsson, S., and S. P. Brock. "Translating the Old Testament." In It is Written: Scripture
Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour o f Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. D. A. Carson and H.
G. M. Williamson, 87-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Olyan, S. M. A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming o f Angels in
Ancient Judaism. TSAJ 36. Tubingen: Mohr, 1993.
Osten-Sacken, P. von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum
Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1969.
Oswalt, J. N. The Book o f Isaiah: Chapters 40-66. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Otzen, B. Studien iiber Deuterosacharja. Acta Theologica Danica 6. Copenhagen:
Munksgaard, 1964.
Pao, D. W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. WUNT 2.130. Tubingen: Mohr, 2000.
Patte, D. The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on M atthew’s Faith.
Pauritsch, K. Die neue Gemeinde: Gott sammelt Ausgestossene und Arme (Jesaia 56-66).
AnBib 47. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971.
Pax, E. EIHftANEIA: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Biblischen Theologie.
Munchener Theologische Studien 1.10. Munchen: Karl Zink, 1955.
470
Pelikan, J. The Christian Tradition: A History o f the Development o f Doctrine. Vol. 1, The
Emergence o f the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago: Chicago University Press,
1971.
Pennant, D. F. "Genesis 32: Lighten our Darkness, Lord, We Pray." In He Swore an Oath:
Biblical Themes from Genesis 12-50, ed. R. S. Hess, G. J. Wenham, and P. E.
Satterthwaite, 175-183. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.
Pesce, M. D io senza mediatori: Una tradizione teologica dal giudaismo al cristianesimo.
Brescia: Paideia, 1979.
Pesch, R. Das Markusevangelium. HTKNT. 2 vols. Freiberg: Herder, 1977.
Petersen, D. L. Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in
Chronicles. SBLMS 23. Missoula: Scholars, 1977.
Pfeiffer, E. "Die Disputationsworte im Buche Maleachi: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen
Struktur." EvT 19 (1959): 546-568.
Pfeifer, G. Ursprung und Wesen der Hypostasenvorstellungen im Judentum. Arbeiten zur
Theologie 31. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1967.
Philonenko, M. Joseph et Aseneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes. SPB 13.
Plummer, A. The Second Epistle o f St Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1915.
Polag, A. Die Christologie der Logienquelle. WMANT 45. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1977.
Polak, F. "Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus." In
Studies in the Book o f Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation, ed. M. Vervenne,
113-147. BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996.
Polzin, R. "Criticism and Crisis Within Biblical Studies." Chap. in Moses and the
Deuteronomist, 1-24. New York: Seabury, 1980.
___________. Samuel and the Deuteronomist. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.
Porter, S. E. "Can Traditional Exegesis Enlighten Literary Analysis of the Fourth Gospel?
An Examination of the Old Testament Fulfillment Motif and the Passover Theme." In
The Gospels and the Scriptures o f Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner, 396-428.
Poythress, V. S. Implications o f Scientific Method fo r Biblical Interpretation. Foundations of
Contemporary Interpretation 6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.
Price, B. F. "Questions and Answers." Bible Translator 16 (1965): 123-127.
471
Priest, J. "Some Reflections on the Assumption of Moses." Perspectives in Religious Studies
4 (1977): 92-111.
Procksch, O. D ie Genesis. 3d ed. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1924.
___________ . "Xwo." TDNT, 4:328-335.
Propp, W. H. C. "That Bloody Bridegroom (Exodus iv 24-6)." VT 43 (1993): 495-518.
___________ . Exodus 1-18. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
Puech, E. "Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQMelklsedeq." RevQ 12 (1987): 483-513.
___________ . La croyance des Esseniens en la vie future: Immortalite, resurrection, vie
etem elle? Histoire d ’une croyance dans le Judai'sme ancien. Vol. 2, Les donnees
qumraniennes et classiques. EBib 22. Paris: Gabalda, 1993.
___________. "La priere de Nabonide (4Q242)." In Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays
in Honour o f Martin McNamara, ed. K. J. Cathcart and M. Maher, 208-227. JSOTSup
230. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Puiy, A. de. "Le cycle de Jacob comme legende autonome des origines d’Israel." In
Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989, ed. J. A. Emerton, 78-96. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill,
1991.
Pury, A. de, T. C. Romer, and J.-D. Macchi, eds. Israel Constructs its History:
Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield
Rabinowitz, I. "! dz Followed by Imperfect Verb-Form in Preterite Contexts: A Redactional
Device in Biblical Hebrew." VT 34 (1984): 53-62.
Rad, G. von. Genesis: A Commentary. OTL. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972.
___________ . Holy War in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
___________ . "ftyyeXoq, icrt.." TWNT 1:74-87.
Rainbow, P. A. "Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians 8.4-6." D.Phil. thesis,
Oxford, 1987.
___________. "Jewish Monotheism as the Matrix for New Testament Christology: A Review
Article." NovT33 (1991): 78-91.
___________ . "Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran." BBR 7 (1997): 179-194.
Redditt, P. L. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Reim, G. Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums. SNTMS 22.
472
Reindl, J. Das Angesicht Gottes im Sprachgebrauch des Alten Testaments. Erfurter
Theologische Studien 25. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1970.
Reinhartz, A. "Samson’s Mother: An Unnamed Protagonist.” JSO T55 (1992): 25-37.
Rendtorff, R. "Traditio-Historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis. ” In Proceedings
o f the Fifth World Congress o f Jewish Studies, ed. P. Peli, 1:5-11. 2 vols. Jerusalem:
World Union of Jewish Studies, 1969.
___________. The Problem o f the Process o f Transmission in the Pentateuch. JSOTSup 89.
___________. "Alas for the Day! The ‘Day of the LORD’ in the Book of the Twelve." In
God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal, 186-
197. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.
___________. "Emergence and Intention of Canonical Criticism." In The Bible and Its
World: Proceedings o f the Twelfth World Congres o f Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29 -
August 5, 1997, ed. R. Margolin, 13-19. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies,
1999.
Renker, A. Die Tora bei Maleachi: Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von tord im Alten
Testament. Freiburger Theologische Studien 112. Freiburg: Herder, 1979.
Reventlow, H. Graf. D ie Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi. ATD. 9th ed.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
Richardson, N. Paul’s Language About God. JSNTSup 99. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1994.
Richter, H.-F. "Gab es einen ‘Blutbrautigam’? Erwagungen zu Ex 4,24-26." In Studies in the
Book o f Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation, ed. M. Vervenne, 433-441. BETL
126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996.
Richter, W. Die sogenannten vorprophetischen Berufungsberichte: Eine
literaturwissenschaftliche Studie zu 1 Sam 9,1-10,16, Ex 3f. und Ri 6,1 lb-17. FRLANT
101. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970.
Ringgren, H. "ETt6r." TDOT, 1:267-284.
Ritt, H. "Der ‘Seewandel Jesu’ (Mk 6,45-52 par): Literarische und theologische Aspekte."
BZ 23 (1979): 71-84.
Robinson, B. P. "Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus iv 24-6." VT 36
(1986): 447-461.
Robinson, J. A. The Historical Character o f St. John’s Gospel. 2d ed. London: Longmans,
Green and Co., 1929.
Robinson, J. A. T. The Priority o f John. Oak Park, 111.: Meyer-Stone, 1985.
473
__________ . "Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection." NTS 4 (1957-58): 263-281.
Robinson, T. H. D ie ZwolfKleinen Propheten. HAT. 3d ed. Tubingen: Mohr, 1964.
Rof£, A. "Isaiah 59:19 and Trito-Isaiah’s Vision of Redemption." In The Book o f Isaiah—Le
Livre d ’lsaie. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unite et complexite de Touvrage, ed.
J. Vermeylen, 407-410. BETL 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989.
Romer, T. C. "Transformations in Deutronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘Book-
Finding’ and ether Literary Strategies." ZAW 109 (1997): 1-11.
Ross, J. F. "The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger." In Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in
Honor o f James Muilenburg, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson, 98-107. New
York: Harper, 1962.
Roth, C. "The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah xiv 21." NovT 4 (1960): 174-181.
Rouillard, H. La Pericope de Balaam (Nombres 22-24). EBib 4. Paris: Gabalda, 1985.
___________. "Les feintes questions divines dans la Bible." V T34 (1984), 237-242.
Rowland, C. The Open Heaven: A Study o f Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity.
New York: Crossroad, 1982.
__________ . "A Man Clothed in Linen: Daniel 10:6ff. and Jewish Angelology." JSNT 24
(1985): 99-110.
__________ . Christian Origins: From M essianic Movement to Christian Religion.
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985.
Ruck-Schroder, A. Der Name Gottes und der Name Jesu: Eine neutestamentliche Studie.
WMANT 80. Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener, 1999.
Rudolf, W. "Textkritische Anmerkungen zum Richterbuch." In Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zum
60. Geburtstag, ed. J. Fuck, 199-212. Halle: Niemeyer, 1947.
__________ . Hosea. KAT. Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1966.
__________ . Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi. KAT. Giitersloh: Gerd
Mohn, 1976.
Runia, D. T. "How to Read Philo." N edlTs 40 (1986): 185-198.
__________ . Philo o f Alexandria and the Timaeus o f Plato. Philosophia Antiqua 44.
__________ . "Philo, Alexandrian and Jew ." Chap. in Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on
Philo o f Alexandria, 1-18. Collected Studies Series 332. Aldershot, Hampshire, G.B.:
Variorum, 1990.
474
Ruppert, L. "Herkunft und Bedeuting der Jakob-Tradition bei Hosea." Bib 52 (1971): 488-
504.
Ryken, L. How to Read the Bible as Literature. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Sabourin, L. "The Biblical Cloud: Terminology and Traditions. ” Biblical Theology Bulletin 4
(1974): 290-311.
___________. L ’Evangile de Luc: Introduction et commentaire. Rome: Editrice Pontificia
University Gregoriana, 1985.
Sacchi, P. "Esquisse du Developpement du Messianisme Juif a la Lumi&re du Texte
Qumranien 11 Q Melch." ZAW 100 Supp. (1988): 202-214.
___________. Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History. JSPSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1990.
Saldarini, A. J. Review of Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E. P. Sanders. JBL 98 (1979):
299-303.
___________. "Judaism and the New Testament." In The New Testament and Its Modem
Interpreters, ed. E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae, 27-54. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison o f Patterns o f Religion.
___________. Jesus and Jerusalem. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
___________. Judaism: Practice and B elief 63 BCD 66 CE. London: SCM, 1992.
Sanders, J. A. "The Old Testament in 1lQMelchizedek." JANES 5 (1973): 373-382.
Sanders, J. T. "The Prophetic Use of the Scriptures in Luke-Acts." In Early Jewish and
Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory o f William Hugh Brownlee, ed. C. A. Evans and
W. F. Stinespring, 191-198. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987.
Sandmel, S. P hilo’s Place in Judaism: A Study o f Conceptions o f Abraham in Jewish
Literature. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956.
___________. "Parallelomania." JBL 81 (1962): 1-13.
___________. Judaism and Christian Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press,
1978.
Sarna, N. Genesis. JPS Torah. Philadelphia: JPS, 1989.
___________. Exodus. JPS Torah. Philadelphia: JPS, 1991.
Schaberg, J. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: The Triadic Phrase in Matt 28:19b.
SBLDS 61. Chico: Scholars, 1981.
475
Schafer, P. "Der vorrabbinische Pharisaismus." In Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. M.
Hengel and U. Heckel, 125-175. Tubingen: Mohr, 1991.
Schafer-Lichtenberger, C. Josua und Salomo: Eine Studie zu Autoritdt und L egitim ist des
Nachfolgers im Alten Testament. VTSup 58. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Schearing, L. S., and S. L. McKenzie, eds. Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon
o f Pan-Deuteronomism. JSOTSup. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Schenk, W. "Gefangenschaft und Tod des Taufers: Erwagungen zur Chronologie und ihren
Konsequenzen." NTS 29 (1983): 453-483.
Schlatter, A. Der Evangelist Matthaus: Seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine Selbstdndigkeit.
Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948.
___________ . "Wie sprach Josephus von Gott?" In Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus,
ed. K. H. Rengstorf, 65-142. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970.
Schmidt, N. "The Numen of Penuel." JBL 45 (1926): 260-279.
Schmitt, H.-C. "Das sogenannte vorprophetische Berufungsschema: Zur ‘geistigen Heimat’
des Berufungsformulars von Ex 3,9-12; Jdc 6,11-24 und 1 Sam 9,1-10,16." ZAW 104
(1992): 202-216.
Schnackenburg, R. Das Johannesevangelium. HTKNT. Vol. 1. 4th ed. Freiburg: Herder,
1979.
___________. Das Johannesevangelium. HTKNT. Vol. 2. 2d ed. Freiburg: Herder, 1977.
Schneck, R. Isaiah in the Gospel o f Mark I-VIII. Vallejo, Calif.: BIBAL, 1994.
Schneider, J. "Spxopai, kxX. " TDNT, 2:666-684.
Schniewind, J. "dy/EMa, kA. " TDNT, 1:56-73.
Schnutenhaus, F. "Das kommen und erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament." ZAW 76
(1964): 1-22.
Schoors, A. "The Particle "O." In Remembering all the Way . . . : A Collection o f Old
Testament Studies, ed. B. Albrektson, et al., 240-276. OTS 21. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
___________. "A tiqqun sopherim in Genesis 16:13b?" VT 32 (1982): 494-495.
Schramm, B. The Opponents o f Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History o f the
Restoration. JSOTSup 193. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Schuller, E. M. "Malachi." NIB, 7:841-877.
Schurmann, H. Das Lukasevangelium. HTKNT. Vol. 1. Freiberg: Herder, 1969.
476
Schweizer, E. "xveupa, mJL” TDNT, 6:332-455.
___________. "ut6q,vto0etrfa." TDNT, 8:334-399.
Schwdbel, C., and C. E. Gunton, eds. Persons, Divine and Human: King’s College Essays
in Theological Anthropology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991.
Scott, R. Y. B. "Secondary Meanings of "WTH, After, Behind." JTS 50 (1949): 178-179.
Seebas, H. "Zum Text von Gen. 16:13b." VT21 (1971): 254-256.
___________ . "Zur literarischen Gestalt der Bileam-Perikope." ZAW 107 (1995): 409-19.
Seeligmann, I. L. The Septuagint Version o f Isaiah: A Discussion o f its Problems. Leiden:
Brill, 1948.
Seesemann, H. "bictato, 6 k io 6 e v . " TDNT, 5:289-292.
Segal, A. F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and
Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
___________. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy o f Saul the Pharisee. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.
Seidl, T. "Offene Stellen in Jesaja 40, 1-8: Ein methodenkritischer Vergleich." In Goldene
Apfel in silbemen Schalen: Collected Communications to the XHIth Congress o f the
International Organization fo r the Study o f the Old Testament, Leuven 1989, ed. K.-D.
Schunck and M. Augustin, 49-56. BEATAJ 20. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992.
Seitz, C. R. "The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of
Isaiah." JBL 109 (1990): 229-247.
Sellin, E. Das Zwoljprophetenbuch. Part 1, Hosea-Micha. KAT. 3d ed. Leipzig: Deichert,
1929.
Shedinger, R. F. "Kuhnian Paradigms and Biblical Scholarship: Is Biblical Studies a
Science?" JBL 119 (2000): 453-471.
Sickenberger, J. Die Briefe des heiligen Paulus an die Korinther und Romer. Bonn:
Hanstein, 1932.
Ska, J. L. Le passage de la mer: Etude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d ’Ex
14,1-31. AnBib 109. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986.
Skehan, P. W. "A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran." BASOR 136
(1954): 12-15.
Skinner, J. Genesis. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910.
Am
. The Book o f the Prophet Isaiah (Chapters XL-LXVI). Cambridge: Cambridge
_
University Press, 1954 [1898].
Slomp, J. "Are the Words ‘Son of God’ in Mark 1:1 Original?" Bible Translator 28 (1977):
143-150.
Slotki, I. W. Isaiah. London: Soncino, 1949.
Smalley, S. S. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. 2d ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998.
Smend, R. "Das Gesetz und die Volker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen
Redaktionsgeschichte." In Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70.
Geburtstag, ed. H. W. Wolff, 494-509. Mtinchen: Kaiser, 1971.
Smith, J. M. P. Malachi. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.
Smith, R. L. Micah-Malachi. WBC 32. Waco: Word, 1984.
Snaith, N. H. Leviticus and Numbers. NCB. London: Thomas Nelson, 1967.
Snodgrass, K. R. "The Christological Stone Testimonia in the New Testament." Ph.D. Diss.,
University of St. Andrews, 1973.
___________ . "Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40:1-5 and Their Adaptation in
the New Testament." JSNT 8 (1980): 24-45.
___________ . "The Use of the Old Testament in the New." In New Testament Criticism and
Interpretation, ed. D. A. Black and D. S. Dockery, 407-434. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1991.
Snoy, T. "Marc 6,48: * . . . et il voulait les depasser. ’ Proposition pour la solution d’une
enigme." In L ’Evangile selon Marc: Tradition et redaction, ed. M. Sabbe, et al., 347-
363. BETL 34. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974.
Soggin, J. A. Joshua: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972.
___________ . "The Negation in Joshua 5,14 (EmphaticLamed).” Chap. in Old Testament
and Oriental Studies, 219-220. BibOr 29. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975.
___________ . Judges: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981.
Sommer, B. D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66. Stanford: Stanford
Sparks, H. F. D. "The Semitisms of St. Luke’s Gospel." JTS 44 (1943): 129-138.
Speiser, E. A. "The Biblical Idiom pSnlm h d l^ m ." In The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary
Volume o f the Jewish Quarterly Review, ed. A. A. Neuman and S. Zeitlin, 515-517.
Philadelphia: Jewish Quarterly Review, 1967.
478
___________ . Genesis. AB. 3d ed. Garden City: Doubleday, 1987.
Spillsbury, P. "Contra Apionem and Antiquitates Judaicae: Points of Contact." In Josephus’
Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character with a Latin Concordance to the Portions
M issing in Greek, ed. L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levison, 348-368. AGJU 34. Leiden:
Brill, 1996.
Spina, F. A. "The ‘Face of God’: Esau in Canonical Context." In The Quest fo r Context and
Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor o fJ . A. Sanders, ed. C. A. Evans
and S. Talmon, 3-25. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Sprinkle, J. M. "The Book o f the Covenant”: A Literary Approach. JSOTSup 174. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1994.
Stanley, C. D. Paul and the Language o f Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline
Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992.
Stauffer, E. Jesus and His Story. New York: Knopf, 1960.
___________ . "iytb." TDNT, 2:343-362.
____________. "0e6<;, ksJL" TDNT, 3:65-123.
Stegner, W. R. "Jesus’ Walking on the Water:Mark 6.45-52."In TheGospels and the

Scriptures o f Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner, 212-234. JSNTSup 104.
___________ . "The Use of Scripture in Two Narrativesof Early Jewish Christianity
(Matthew 4.1-11; Mark 9.2-8)." In Early Christian Interpretation o f the Scriptures o f
Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, 98-120.
Stein, B. "Der Engel des Auszugs." Bib 19 (1938): 286-307.
Stein, R. H. The Method and Message o f Jesus’ Teachings. Rev. ed. Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox, 1994.
Stendahl, K. The School o f St. Matthew and Its Use o f the Old Testament. 2d ed.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968 [1954].
Sterling, G. E. "Philo’s Quaestiones: Prolegomena or Afterthought?" In Both Literal and
Allegorical: Studies in Philo o f Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and
Exodus, ed. D. M. Hay, 99-123. BJS 232. Atlanta: Scholars, 1991.
___________ . Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos [sic], Luke-Acts and Apologetic
Historiography. NovTSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Sternberg, M. The Poetics o f Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama o f
Reading. Bloomington, Ind.: University of Indiana Press, 1985.
479
Stier, F. Gott und sein Engel im Alten Testament. Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 12.2.
Munster: Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934.
Stockhausen, C. K. M oses’ Veil and the Glory o f Christ. AnBib 116. Rome: Editrice
Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1989.
Stoebe, H. J. "Uberlegungen zu Jesaja 40,1-11: Zugleich der Versuch eines Beitrages zur
Gottesknechtfrage." TZ 40 (1984): 104-113.
Stricken, F. "Philo on the Cherubim." In The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic
Judaism, ed. D. T. Runia, 40-57. Studia Philonica Annual 8. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996.
Strugnell, J. "The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran." In Congress Volume: Oxford 1959, 318-345.
VTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960.
Stuari, D. Hosea-Jonah. WBC. Waco: Word, 1987.
Stuckenbruck, L. T. "An Angelic Refusal of Worship: The Tradition and Its Function in the
Apocalypse of John." SBLSP 33 (1994), 679-696.
__________ . Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the
Christology o f the Apocalypse o f John. WUNT 2.70. Tubingen: Mohr, 1995.
Stuhlmueller, C. "Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions in the Prophet’s Theology and in
Contemporary Scholarship." CBQ 42 (1980): 1-29.
Sturdy, J. Numbers. Cambridge: CUP, 1976.
Suggs, M. J. Wtsdom, Christology and Law in M atthew’s Gospel. Cambridge: Harvard
Suhl, A. Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium.
Giitersloh: Mohn, 1965.
Sweeney, J. P. "Jesus’ Temple Action (Mark 11:15-18) in Recent Discussion: An
Examination of its Character, Meaning, and Role in Jesus’ Death.” Ph.D. diss., Trinity
International University, 2000. Forthcoming as vol. in WUNT series.
Swete, H. B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. 2d ed. New York: KTAV,
1968 [1900].
Talbert, C. H. "The Christology of the Apocalypse,” in Who Do You Say That I Am? Essays
on Christology, ed. M. A. Powell and D. R. Bauer, 166-184. Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox, 1999.
Talmon, S. "Revelation in Biblical Times." HS 26 (1980): 53-70.
480
___________. "The Signification of ofatf and its Semantic Field in the Hebrew Bible." In
The Quest fo r Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor o f James
A. Sanders, ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon, 75-115. Biblical Interpretation Series 28.
Tamisier, R. "Le Livre des Juges." In vol. 3 of La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot and A. Clamer.
12 vols. Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1946-1961.
Taylor, J. "The Coming of Elijah, M t 17:10-13 and Mk 9:11-13: The Development of the
Texts." RB 98 (1991): 107-119.
Taylor, V. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2d ed. London: Macmillan, 1966.
Telford, W. R. The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis o f
the Cursing o f the Fig-Tree Pericope in M ark's Gospel and its Relation to the Cleansing
o f the Temple Tradition. JSNTSup 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.
Terrien, S. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. San Francisco: Harper
& Row, 1978.
Thiselton, A. C. New Horizons in Biblical Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice o f
Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Thomas, K. J. "The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews." NTS 11 (1964-65): 303-325.
Thompson, J. W. "The Conceptual Background and Purpose of the Midrash in Hebrews
VH." NovT 19 (1977): 209-223.
Thompson, M. Clothed With Christ: The Example and Teaching o f Jesus in Romans 12.1-
15.13. JSNTSup 59. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
Thompson, T. L. "The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism
in Persian Period Palestine." In The Triumph o f Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms,
ed. D. V. Edelman, 107-124. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Thrall, M. E. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. ICC. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1994.
Tobin, T. H. The Creation o f Man: Philo and the History o f Interpretation. CBQMS 14.
Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983.
Tolbert, M. A. Sowing the Gospel: M ark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
Tov, E. "Midrash-Type Exegesis in the LXX of Joshua." RB 85 (1978): 50-61.
Trible, P. "The Other Woman: A literary and Theological Study of the Hagar Narratives."
In Understanding the Word: Essays in Honour o f Bernhard W. Anderson, ed. J. T.
Butler, E. W. Conrad, and B. C. Ollenburger, 221-246. JSOTSup 37. Sheffield: JSOT,
1985.
481
Trimaille, M. "Le recit de la Transfiguration comme rgcit interprgtatif: Marc 9, 1-13." In La
temps de la lecture: Exegese biblique et semiotique: Recueil d ’hommages pour Jean
Delorme, ed. L. Panier, 163-172. LD 155. Paris: Cerf, 1993.
Trocmg, E. "Jean et les Synoptiques: L’exemple de Jn 1,15-34." In The Four Gospels 1992:
Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle,
J. Verheyden, 2:1935-1941. BETL 100. 3 vols. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
___________. L ’Evangile selon Saint Marc. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament. Geneve:
Labor et Fides, 2000.
Tromp, J. The Assumption o f Moses: A Critical Edition With Commentary. SVTP 10.
Trumblower, J. A. "The Role of Malachi in the Career o f John the Baptist." In The Gospels
and the Scriptures o f Israel* ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner, 28-41. JSNTSup 104.
Tsevat, M. "Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael." Chap. in The Meaning o f the Book o f Job and
other Biblical Studies: Essays on the Literature and Religion o f the Hebrew Bible, 53-76.
New York: KTAV, 1980.
Tuckett, C. M. "The Present Son of Man." JSNT 14 (1982): 58-81.
___________. Q and the History o f Early Christianity: Studies on Q. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1996.
___________. "Q (Gospel Source)." InABD 5:576-572.
Turner, M. M. B. "The Spirit of Christ and Christology." In Christ the Lord: Studies in
Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. H. H. Rowdon, 168-190. Leicester: Inter-
Varsity, 1982.
Turner, M. M. B. "The Spirit of Christ and ‘Divine’ Christology." In Jesus o f Nazareth:
Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed.
J. B. Green and M. Turner, 413-436. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Turner, N. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965.
Urban, L ., and P. Henry. "‘Before Abraham was I am’: Does Philo Explain John 8:56-58?"
Studia Philonica 6 (1979-80): 157-195.
Utzschneider, H. Hosea, Prophet vor dem Ende: TUun Verhdltnis von Geschichte und
Institution in der alttestamentlichen Prophetie. OBO 31. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1980.
Van Gelderen, C ., and W. H. Gispen. HetBoek Hosea. Kampen: Kok, 1953.
Van Seters, J. In Search o f History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins o f
Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
482
___________. "The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch." In Congress
Volume: Leuven, 1989, ed. J. A. Emerton, 58-77. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
Vanhoozer, K. J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality
o f Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Vaulx, J. de. Les Nombres. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1972.
Vaux, R. de. "’Le lieu qui Yahve a choisi pour y etablir son nom’." In Das Fem e und Nahe
Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost, ed. F. Maass, 219-228. BZAW 105. Berlin:
Topelmann, 1967.
Vawter, B. On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.
Verhoef, P. A. The Books ofHaggai and M alachi. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Vermes, G. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin, 1998.
Verseput, D. The Rejection o f the Humble M essianic King: A Study o f the Composition o f
Matthew 11-12. European University Studies 291. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1986.
Vervenne, M. "Exodus Expulsion and Exodus Flight: The Interpretation of a Crux Critically
Re-assessed." JNSL 22/2 (1996): 45-58.
Vervenne, M., and J. Lust, eds. Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.
H. W. Brekelmans. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997.
Villalba i Varneda, P. The Historical Method o f Flavius Josephus. ALGHJ 19. Leiden: Brill,
1986.
Vollmer, J. Geschichtliche Ruckblicke und M otive in der Prophetie des Amos, Hosea und
Jesaja. BZAW 119. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971.
Volz, P. Jesaia II: Ubersetzt und erklart. KAT. Leipzig: Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1932.
Waard, J. de. A Comparative Study o f the Old Testament Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls and
in the New Testament. STDJ 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1966.
___________. A Handbook on Isaiah. Textual Criticism and the Translator 1. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Wade, G. W. Isaiah. London: Methuen, 1911.
Wallis, G. "Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis." In Das Feme und Nahe Wort:
Festschrift Leonhard Rost, ed. F. Maass, 229-237. BZAW 105; Berlin: Topelmann,
1967.
483
Wallis, R. T. The Idea o f Conscience in Philo o f Alexandria: Protocol o f the Thirteenth
Colloquy, 12 January 1975. Protocol Series of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in
Hellenistic and Modem Culture 13. Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 197S.
___________ . "The Idea of Conscience in Philo of Alexandria." In Two Treatises o f Philo o f
Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, ed.
D. Winston and J. Dillon, 207-216. BJS 25. Chico: Scholars, 1983.
Waltke, B. K ., and M. P. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona
Watson, W. G. E. Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse. JSOTSup 170.
___________ . Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. 2d ed. JSOTSup 26.
Watts, J. D. W. Isaiah 34-66. WBC. Waco: Woid, 1987.
Watts, R. Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark. WUNT 2.88. Tubingen: Mohr, 1997.
Watty, W. W. "Jesus and the Temple—Cleansing or Cursing?" ExpTim 93 (1981-82): 235-
239.
Webb, B. G. The Book o f Judges: An Integrated Reading. JSOTSup 46. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1987.
Webb, R. L. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study. JSNTSup 62.
Weinandy, T. G. Does God Suffer?. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000.
Weinfeld, M. "The Period of the Conquest and of the Judges as Seen by Earlier and Later
Sources." VT 17 (1967): 93-113.
Weingreen, J. "The Construct-Genitive Relation in Hebrew Syntax." VT 4 (1954): 50-59.
Weippert, H. "Das deuteronomische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren
Forschung." TRu 50 (1985): 213-249.
___________ . "Geschichten und Geschichte: Verheifiung und Erfullung im
Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk." In Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989, ed. J. A.
Emerton, 116-131. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
Weippert, M. "The Balaam Text From Deir ’Alla and the Study of the Old Testament." In
The Balaam Text From Deir ’A lla Re-evaluated: Proceedings o f the International
Symposium Held at Leiden 21-24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij,
151-184. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
484
Weiser, A. Das Buck der zw olf kleinen Propheten. Vol. 1, Die Propheten Hosea, Joel,
Amos, Obadja, Jorta, M icha. ATD. 6th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974.
Wellhausen, J. Prolegomena ziur Geschichte Israels. 3d ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1886.
___________. Die Kleinen Propheten. 3d ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1898.
__________ . Die composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten
Testaments. 4th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963.
Wendland, E. "Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi." BT 36 (1985): 108-121.
Wendland, H.-D. D ie Briefe and die Korinther. NTD. 13th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1972.
Wenham, D. Paul: Follower o f Jesus or Founder o f Christianity?. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995.
___________. "The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel: Another Look." In Understanding,
Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour o f John Ashton, ed. C. Rowland
and C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, 102-128. JSNTSup 153. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998.
Wenham, G. J. Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Downers Grove: Inter-
Varsity, 1981.
___________. Genesis. WBC. 2 vols. Waco: Word, 1987-94.
__________ . "Pentateuchal Studies Today." Themelios 22.1 (1996): 3-13.
Westcott, B. F. The Gospel According to St. John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950 [1881].
Westermann, C. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981.
___________. Genesis. 3 vols. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984-86.
__________ . Die Geschichtsbucher des Alten Testaments: Gab es ein deuteronomistisches
Geschichtswerk?. TBti 87. Gutersloh: Kaiser, 1994.
Wevers, J. W. Notes on the Greek Text o f Exodus. SBLSCSS 30. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990.
___________. Notes on the Greek Text o f Genesis. SBLSCSS 35. Atlanta: Scholars, 1993.
___________. Notes on the Greek Text o f Numbers. SBLSCSS 46. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998.
White, H. C. "The Initiation Legend of Ishmael." Z4W 87 (1975): 267-306.
White, S. L. "Angel of the LORD: Messenger or Euphemism? TynBul 50 (1999): 299-305.
485
Whitt, W. D. "The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and their Relation to Genesis." ZAW 103
(1991): 18-43.
Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40-66. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
___________. The Making o f the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53.
Wiefel, W. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. THKNT. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1988.
Wilckens, U. "oafria, icxX." TDNT, 7:465-528.
Williams, C. I am He: The Interpretation o f ’Ani Hu’ in Jewish and Early Christian
Literature. WUNT 2.113. Tubingen: Mohr, 2000.
Wilson, I. Out o f the Midst o f Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy. SBLDS 151. Atlanta:
Scholars, 1995.
Wilson, R. R. "The Community of the Second Isaiah." In Reading and Preaching the Book
o f Isaiah, ed. C. R. Seitz, 53-70. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Windisch, H. Der zweite Korintherbrief. KEK. 9th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1924.
Wink, W. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. SNTSMS 7. Cambridge: Cambridge
Winston, D. Logos and M ystical Theology in Philo o f Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union
College Press, 1985.
___________. "Philo’s Conception of the Divine Nature." In Neoplatonism and Jewish
Thought, ed. L. E. Goodman, 21-42. Studies in Neoplatonism 7. Albany, N.Y.: State
University of New York Press, 1992.
___________. "Response to David Runia and Greg Sterling." In The Studia Philonica
Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, ed. D. T. Runia, 141-146. Studia Philonica
Annual 5. Atlanta: Scholars, 1993.
Winter, P. "OT AIA XHP nPEZBEQL OTAE AIA XEEP ZEPAO OTAE ALA XEIP ATTEAOT:
Isa lxiii 9 (Gk) and the Passover Haggadah.” VT 4 (1954): 439-441.
Witherington, B. "Lord." In DJG, 484-492.
Wolff, H. W. Dodekapropheton 1: Hosea. BKAT. 3d ed .. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1976.
Wolfson, H. A. Philo: Foundations o f Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948.
486
Wolterstorff, N. Divine Discourse: Philosphical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks.
Woude, A. S. van der. "Melchisedek als himmlische Erldsergestalt in den neugefundenen
eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Hohle XI." In ro (1940-1965), ed. P. A. H.
de Boer, 354-373. OTS 14. Leiden: Brill, 1965.
___________. "Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonides (4Q or Nab)." In Qumran: Sapiete,
sa theologie et son milieu, ed. M. Delcor, 121-129. BETL 46. Leuven: Leuven
___________. "Der Engel des Bundes: Bemerkungen zu Maleachi 3,1c und seinem Kontext."
In Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fu r Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag,
ed. Jorg Jeremias and L. Perlitt, 289-300. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981.
___________. "Funfzehn Jahre Qumranforschung (1974-1988)." TRu 57 (1992): 1-57.
___________ . "B*3D pdnim Angesicht." THAT 2:432-460.
Woudstra, M. H. Joshua. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Wright, G. E. "Introduction." In R. G. Boling, Joshua, 3-88. AB. New York: Doubleday,
1982.
Wright, N. T. "‘Constraints’ and the Jesus of History." S JT 39 (1986): 189-210.
___________. Christian Origins and the Question o f God. Vol. 1, The New Testament and
the People o f God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
___________. The Climax o f the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Yadin, Y. The Scroll o f the War o f the Sons o f Light against the Sons o f Darkness. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1962.
___________. "A Note on Melchizedek and Qumran." IEJ 15 (1965): 152-154.
Yamasaki, G. John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism o f Matthew’s
Narrative. JSNTSup 167. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Yee, G. A. Composition and Tradition in the Book o f Hosea: A Redaction Critical
Investigation. SBLDS 102. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987.
___________. "Hosea." In NIB 7:195-297.
Young, E. J. The Book o f Isaiah. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
Zahn, T. Das Evangelium des Matthaus. 4th ed. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 1984
[1922].
487
Zeller, D. "La metamorphose de J6sus comme epiphanie (Me 9,2-8)." In L ’evangile explore:
Melanges offerts a Simon Legasse a Voccasion de ses soixante-dix arts, ed.
A. Marchadour, 167-186. LD 166. Paris: Cerf, 1996.
___________. "Bedeutung und religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund der Verwandlung Jesu
(Markus 9:2-8)." In Authenticating the Activities o f Jesus, ed. B. Chilton and C. A.
Evans, 303-321. New Testament Tools and Studies 28.2. [L]eiden: Brill, 1999.
Zimmermann, H. "Das absolute TiTti) d p t als die neutestamentliche Offenbarungsformel." BZ
4 (1960): 54-69, 266-276.

Jesus and Angel of The Lord

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jesus and Angel of The Lord

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of th is reproduction is d e p en d e n t upon the quality o f th e

Oversize materials (e.g.. maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

ProQ uest Information and Learning

B.A., University of California, Davis, 1986

Submitted to the faculty

ProQ uest Information and Learning Company

Against the backdrop of the new "Religionsgeschichtliche Schule" and its

following thesis is asserted: a Jewish agent o f considerable, perhaps even maximal,

most important angel in the OT where, in a number of passages, he appears as a

manifestation of YHWH himself. The OT describes YHWH as appearing in the form of

simply an agent but a divine agent.

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................... ix

LIST OF................... FIG U RES...................................................................................... x

1.INTROD U CTION ................................................................................................ 1

Delimitation of Concepts and S ou rces...................................................... 3

2.THE OLD TESTAMENT..................................................................................... 32

EXCURSUS: Third Person References by YHWH to

Genesis 21:14-21 ...................................................................................... 49

EXCURSUS: The Angel in Genesis 24:7, 40 ................................... 59

Genesis 31:10-13 (cf. Gen 28:10-22) ..................................................... 60

Genesis 48:15-16 ...................................................................................... 64

Exodus 23:20, 23; 32:34; 3 3 : 2 ................................................................ 83

Numbers 22:22-35 ...................................................................................... 106

Joshua 5:13-15.............................................................................................. 113

Judges 2:1-5 .................................................................................................117

EXCURSUS: The Deuteronom(ist)ic and Primary

Judges 6:11-24.............................................................................................. 126

Judges 13:1-23.............................................................................................. 133

Isaiah 6 3 : 9 ................................................................................................... 140

Malachi 3 :1 ................................................................................................... 163

Conclusion to the Old Testam ent.................................................................186

3. THE INTERTESTAMENTAL P E R IO D ........................................................... 190

Exodus 13:21; 14:19 ........................................................................... 197

Exodus 23:20-23 ................................................................................. 198

Numbers 22:34; 24:3-4, 15-17 ........................................................... 199

Judges 2:1-5........................................................................................... 200

Judges 6:14, 1 6 ...................................................................................... 200

Judges 13:19 ........................................................................................ 201

Isaiah 9:5 ..............................................................................................202

Conclusion to the L X X ........................................................................ 205

EXCURSUS: Melchizedek at Q um ran............................................... 236

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha................................................................... 247

2 Maccabees ......................................................................................... 250

Apocalypse o f A braham ........................................................................ 260

Testaments o f the Twelve P a tria rch s................................................... 264

Testament o f A braham ........................................................................... 266

Joseph and Aseneth ..............................................................................271

Life o f Adam and E v e ........................................................................... 273

Ladder o f Jacob ................................................................................... 276

Prayer o f J o se p h ................................................................................... 277

NT Citations of OT Angel of the LORD T e x ts ......................................... 285

The Identity of "the Christ" (Matthew 11:2-14) .................................286

The Identity of "the Son of God" (Mark 1:1-3) .................................312

NT Allusions to OT Angel of the LORD T e x ts ......................................... 326

The Forerunner and His ‘Follower’ (Mark 1: 4 - 8 ) .............................. 327

The Son of Man’s Forgiveness of Sins (Mark 2:1-12) ...................... 335

EXCURSUS: The Prayer of Nabonidus ...................................... 336

The Sea-Rescue Theophany (Mark 6:45-52) ................................... 345

The Transfiguration of "the Son" (Mark 9 :1 -1 3 ).................................358

EXCURSUS: The Christological Use of

The Lord’s Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 1 1 :1 5 -1 9 )...................... 383

* EXCURSUS: Third Person References by YHWH to Himself *