rity, and enforces his commands by divine sanctions, " for my name [i.e., the compass of my revealed qualities] is in him." The question naturally arises, how the angel who possesses these high predicates stands related to angels who elsewhere appear not representing the whole self- manifestation of God to his people, but discharging isolated commissions. The Biblical data for the solution of this question are very scanty. An essential distinction between the " angel of the Lord," who speaks in all things with full divine authority, and subordinate angels, is sought mainly in Gen. xviii. and in Exod. xxxii. 30, /., xxxiii. compared with Isaiah Ixiii. 9. In the former case, though two of the three angels leave Abraham, Jehovah goes his way only on the departure of the third. Yet the two angels when they come to Lot are apparently as direct a manifestation of God to him as the third was to Abraham (xix. IS,./) And in the other passage it has not been clearly made out that there is really a distinction drawn between an angel Avho represents God s presence and an angel of a lower kind who does not do so. The notion (long current in dogmatic theology, and which goes back to the earliest controversies between Jews and Christians) that " the angel of the Lord," as contradistinguished from created angels, is the Logos the second person of the Trinity has found defenders down to the present day (Hengstenberg, Keil, &c.), but certainly does not express the sense of the Old Testament writers. And it seems equally unprofitable to base on such passages as we have cited, a controversy whether " the angel of Jehovah" is one special angel charged throughout history with special func tions towards the covenant people, or is any angel who from time to time has a special commission, or is to be viewed, at least in some cases, not as a hypostatic being, but simply as a momentary sinking of the invisible God into the sphere of visibility. The function of the angel so entirely overshadows his personality, that the Old Testa ment does not ask who or what this angel is, but what he does. And the answer to this last question is, that he represents God to man so directly and fully, that when he speaks or acts God himself is felt to speak or act. The
strongest passage perhaps is Gen. xlviii. 15, f.The disposition to look away from the personality of the angels and concentrate attention on their ministry, runs more or less through the whole Old Testament angel- ology. It is indeed certain, to pass to the second side of the doctrine, that the angelic figures of the Bible narra tive are not mere allegories of divine providence, but were regarded as possessing a certain superhuman reality. But this reality is matter of assumption rather than of direct teach ing. Nowhere do we find a clear statement as to the crea tion of the angels [Gen. ii. 1 is ambiguous, and it is scarcely legitimate in Psalm cxlviii. to connect vcr. 2 with ver. 5]. That they are endowed with special goodness and insight, analogous to human qualities, appears as a popular assump tion, not as a doctrine of revelation (1 Sam. xxix. 9 ; 2 Sam. xiv. 17, xix. 27). Most characteristic for the nature of the angels is the poetical title " sons of God" (Ene, Elohim, or, with a slight modification, Bne Elim, in English version incorrectly " mighty," " sons of the mighty," Ps. xxix. 1, Ixxxix. 6), which, in accordance with the idiomatic force of the word sons, may be paraphrased, " Beings who in a subordinate way share something of divine majesty." Perhaps in Psalm Ixxxii. the name Elohim itself varies with ihe more usual "sons of Elohim."
Taken collectively, the angels form the hosts of Jehovah (Ps. ciii. 21, &c.), or the host of heaven (1 Kings xxii. 19), names correlative to the new title of God which springs up at the close of the period of the Judges, " Jehovah [God of] hosts." The notion of angels as divine armies is not like that of the individual "messenger" closely connected with the theophanic history (yet compare Gen. xxxii. 1, 2; Joshua v. 13, sqq.}, but belongs rather to the delineation of the majesty of God in poetry and prophecy. As the whole conception of the heavenly palace and throne is obviously symbolical, we must allow for conscious poetic art when the angels are represented surrounding God s throne in the form of an assembly or privy council of holy ones (conse crated servants), praising his name, or receiving his com mands, and reporting their execution (Ps. xxix., Ixxxix. 6-8; 1 Kings xxii. 19,^.; Job i.) Similarly much must be allowed for the free play of fancy when in the last judgment against the enemies of his people, Jehovah descends to battle with his heroes (Joel iv. 11), his holy ones (Zech. xiv. 5), or when he triumphantly enters Zion amidst myriads of heavenly war chariots (Ps. Ixviii. 17). Compare Isa. Ixvi. 15, Hab. iii., which show how closely such imagery is connected with the physical phenomena of the thunderstorm.
With, the development of the idea of countless hosts of divine ministers is naturally associated, in place of the old angelic theophany, the conception of an invisible agency of angels, who are henceforth seen only in vision or to eyes specially opened (Num. xxii. 31; 2 Kings vi. 17). To the guidance of Israel by the angel of Jehovah succeeds the belief in angelic guidance of individuals (Ps. xxxiv. 7), more or less poetically worked out (Ps. xci. 11). Con versely, pestilence and other judgments are angelic visita tions (2 Sam. xxiv. ; 2 Kings xix. 35 ; Ps. Ixxviii. 49, where the "evil angels" of the English version are not wicked angels, but angels of evil). At length this is carried so far that all natural forces that serve God are viewed as his messengers, Ps. civ. 4 : " He makes winds his messengers, flaming fire his ministers." This passage clearly shows the elasticity of the whole conception. Similar is the way in which the stars, which share with the angels the name " host of heaven," appear associated with the latter (Job xxxviii. 7). Hence the later elemental angels.
Angelic interpretation between God and man reappears in Job xxxiii. 23 (cf. iv. 13,/".), and converse with angels forms a large part of the visionary setting of the later prophetical books (Ezekiel, Zechariah). But these visions, to which the prophets do not ascribe objective reality, illustrate rather the religious imagination than the theology of the period.
The idea of ranks and classes of angels, though naturally suggested by the conception of a host (cf. Joshua v. 1 3, sqq.), was up to this time undeveloped; for neither the purely symbolical cherubim, nor the unique and obscure seraphim of Isaiah vi., have in the Old Testament the meaning later conferred on them of distinct classes of angels. But the angels of Zechariah present something of a systematic scheme, though it seems unsafe, with Ewald and others, to see in the seven eyes of Jehovah (iii. 9, iv. 10) a developed doctrine of seven chief angels (as in Tobit xii. 15; Rev. viii. 2), parallel to and influenced by the Amesha-ppentas of the Eranian mythology. The book of Daniel shows a much fuller development in a similar line. Israel, Persia, &c., have special angels (princes), whose contests represent those of human history (chaps. x., xii., cf. Isa. xxiv. 21,/.) "The great prince who pre sides over " Israel is named Michael (who is like God ?), and the anyelus interpres is called Gabriel (man of God). The analogy of these notions to those of Zarathustrism is less decided than has often been supposed; but the freedom which Old Testament writers allow themselves in matters of imaginative representation, to which these conceptions mainly belong, is such as to render foreign influence quite credible.
topic of post-canonical, and especially of Apocalyptic litera ture. In the book of Enoch, cherubim, seraphim, and
even the wheels of Ezekiel s vision, become distinct classes