The Angel of the Lord

Is the Angel of YHWH an angel or God?

Most of the time when an angel is referred to in Scripture, he is just called “an angel.”  But there are 65 times when one of them is called “the (or an) angel of the Lord” (Hebrew: angel of the Yahweh, Greek angel of the Lord). Since very often it’s “the angel of the Lord,” it seems as though this is one particular individual.  

The very first time the Angel of the Lord appears in the Bible is when he appears to Hagar.

Gn.16:9-10 Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." 10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count." 

The angel speaks the words of God in the first person (instead of saying “God will…” he says “I will…”). Other times those who have seen the angel of the Lord say they have seen God (Gn.32:30 “I saw God face to face”). Passages like that have driven some people to conclude that the Angel of the Lord is not an angel at all – it’s God. Some have suggested it’s Jesus.

The problem with that view is the angel of the Lord is frequently called called an angel (1 Ki.19:5,7,35, Acts 7:30,35, 2Sa 24:16, 1Ch 21:14-15, Ac 12:7-8, 2Ch 32:21, Zec 1:12-13, Mt 28:2)

In Ex.2:2 we learn that it was the angel of the Lord who appeared in the burning bush, and yet out of that angel’s mouth came the words of God Himself (see vv.3-6). So should we conclude that it was God, or an angel representing God? Luke, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chooses the latter. It was an angel.

Acts 7:30-32 "After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai. 31 When he saw this, he was amazed at the sight. As he went over to look more closely, he heard the Lord's voice: 32'I am the God of your fathers

So it was an angel.  But the angel so represented God that he actually spoke with the voice of God.

That wasn’t a foreign concept in ancient times at all.  It was very common for someone to send a representative (especially a king) in his place to speak for him.  And when that emissary spoke, and said “I will do this” or “I have done that,” it was understood that it was the king talking, not the messenger. So since the word “angel” means “messenger,” and since the messenger of the Lord is sometimes called “the messenger of the Lord” and sometimes just called “a messenger,” there is no difficulty at all in understanding him to be a messenger (an angel) who represents God and speaks for God. That makes perfect sense.  What doesn’t make any sense is why he would be called an angel if it were God Himself. It was common for a messenger of a dignitary to be referred to as the dignitary himself, and to speak the words of the dignitary in the first person. However the dignitary was never called his messenger. It is much easier to explain why an angel (literally “messenger”) representing the Lord would be referred to as the Lord. But it is not easy to explain why the Lord would be called His messenger. 

And as for the idea that the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Christ, that view runs aground on the accounts of Jesus’ birth, which was announced by the angel of the Lord. How could the angel of the Lord be the pre-incarnate Christ if he appears to the shepherds after Jesus was incarnated and had been born? The fact is, Luke tells us who the angel of the Lord is. He is Gabriel. 

Luke 1:11-12 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear…19 The angel answered, "I am Gabriel. 

Is it possible that the angel of the Lord in Luke is a different angel than the one in Exodus? Yes, but not likely. Luke seems to go out of his way to make it sound like the same angel. He quotes the Greek version of Ex.3:2 exactly.

Lk.1:11      ophthe de           outo      aggelos     kuriou
Ex.3:2        ophthe de           outo      aggelos     kuriou
              And he appeared   to him   an angel   of the Lord

Luke quotes Ex.3 with identical wording.  At the very least, Luke is wanting to call to the reader’s attention the famous incident with the burning bush.