3 Another weighty question connected with the conception of the Deity is this : Are there to be discovered, even in the pre-Prophetic period, tend- encies towards overcoming the initial crass concep- tion of the bodily form of God, or, in other words, a disposition to free the Divine being from the realm of the visible and sensible, and thus to spiritualize it? Now, it is an undeniable fact that the clothing of Jahweh with a body is a practice that still extends into this period. This is proved by the Jahwistic passages Gn 3° and
ee ee
638 RELIGION OF ISRAEL
18!#.* Nevertheless, the answer to the above question must be a decided affirmative, and there are even various methods of distinguishing between the transcendent, unapproachable, real being of Jahweh and the passing appearances which do not completely exhaust His being.
(a) To this category certainly belongs the mal’akh Jahweh or ‘angel of Jahweh’ } in the original sense of that term. This sense could never have been mistaken if men had not obstinately persisted in demanding that this theologwmenon should have the same sense throughout the whole of the Old Testament—a course to which they were driven
on the ground of a mechanical doctrine of inspira-.
tion. Since, now, in certain late passages the ‘angel of Jahweh’ is undoubtedly, as a creature angel, clearly distinguished from Jahweh, it was thought that he could be also so distinguished in all the earlier passages.t In reality the ‘angel of Jahweh’ is originally a form of appearance of Jahweh Himself, ‘a temporary descent of the latter to visibility,’ distinguishable from Himself only in so far as it does not represent the full and complete majesty of His being. The circumstance, which has been felt to be very strange, that the expression ‘angel of Jahweh’ is not infrequently suddenly exchanged for the simple ‘Jahweh,’ is very simply explained. The designation ‘angel of Jahweh’ is necessary wherever he comes (par- ticularly in conversation) into direct contact with men, whereas the simple ‘Jahweh’ is sufficient when God is to be thought of as if by Himself, separate from men or at least unseen by them. Although in some passages this condition of things is obscured by touches of the redactor’s hand, there are others where it is readily recognizable.§ So in Jg 5% ‘Curse Meroz, said the angel of Jahweh [addressing Israel], because they came not to the help of [the invisibly present] Jahweh.’ In like manner, in Gn 16" the God who speaks to Hagar is always called mal’akh Jahweh, whereas, accord- ing to y.", Jahweh Himself has heard her affliction, this being a function for which He did not require a personal meeting with her. In any case, it is quite in the spirit of the narrator when in v.23 Hagar discovers in Him who has spoken with her Jahweh Himself. Again, in Gn 2117. (the Elo- histic parallel to the Jahwistic narrative of ch. 16) it is God that hears the voice of the lad, but the angel of God that calls to Hagar out of heaven, ete. And if in v.¥ it is God that opens her eyes, so that she sees the well of water, this required no personal, mechanical operation. On the contrary, it might be accomplished by an act of the Divine will working from afar, and this is plainly the meaning of the narrator. But it is to be observed how here in E a marked spiritualizing of the
*In Gn 181f there are now, indeed, as has been shown by Kraetzschmar (ZAT'W, 1897, p. 81 ff.), two recensions of the same narrative combined. According to the earlier of these, Jahweh Himself appears, accompanied by two angels; accord- ing to the later (the ‘plural source *) three angels are sent by Jahweh, who Himself abides in heaven (cf. esp. 1924),
t The i source of the Pentateuch remains even here true to its principle of avoiding the name ‘Jahweh,’ and says (but in quite the same sense) mal’akh ’Elohim (Gn 2117) or malakh ha- Elohim, ‘angel of God’ (Gn 3111, Ex 1419),
¢ The monographs on the mal’akh Jahweh from this stand- point have, of course, now ceased to possess interest. The correct view is represented especially by Kosters (art. ‘De mal’ach Jahve’ in Theol. Tijdschrift, 1875, p. 367ff.). Only, he
oes too far in seeking to explain all appearances of angels tia in the plural, as Gn 2812 322(1)) in pre-exilic passages as self-manifestations of God.
§ This frequent interchange of ‘ Jahweh’ and ‘mal’akh Jahweh’ shatters the (at first sight very plausible) theory that the motion of the ‘angel of Jahweh’ is the necessary conse- quence of Jahweh Himself being supposed to have His dwelling- place at Sinai. Enthroned there, He might be supposed incap- able of appearing elsewhere at the same time. But this is a false assumption. On the contrary, where the angel of Jahweh appears, there is Jahweh also active, but it is only His form of manifestation that is visible and audible.
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
ancient theologumenon has already taken place. In J the angel of Jahweh evidently meets Hagar at the well personally and in human form; in E, on the other hand, he calls to her ‘from heaven.’ The thought of a human body pertaining to Jahweh is thus, if not exactly dropped, forced into the background. The same is true of Gn 22 [where mal’akh Jahweh, occurring in what is otherwise an uninterrupted Elohistic narrative, can be only a variant for mal’akh ’Elohim, due to