A similar question could be asked of Eccl 5:6 (Jewish 5:5)
אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך
Let not your lips deviate from your flesh
(otherwise: Let not your lips sin against your flesh)
ואל תאמר לפני המלאך
and should not say before the {מלאך MLAKh}
כי שגגה היא
that she/it is ignorant/erroneous
למה יקצף האלהים על קולך
why Elohim should anger upon your voice
וחבל את מעשה ידיך
and harm works of your hand
From Jewish Bible fundamentalist perspective (meaning reading the Hebrew as-is, without influence or respect to any other scriptures written post-Malakhi), there is no concept of "angels".
A {מלאך MLAKh} can be a human agent, a divine being, or according to Maimonides, an act of G'd or projection of the law/power of G'd, or even G'd Himself.
The {מלאך MLAKh} in Gen 48:16 is highly correlatable to Gen 31:11 and Gen 32:24-32 (Jewish 32:25-33).
The fundamental constraints and boundaries of the meaning of the word {מלאך} can be found in Genesis 2:2-3
Gen2:2
ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה
so completes Elohim on 7th day His {מלאכת MLAKheT} which He did
וישבת ביום השביעי מכל מלאכתו אשר עשה
and so He rests on 7th day from all His {מלאכת MLAKheT} which He did
Gen2:3
ויברך אלהים את יום השביעי ויקדש אתו
and so blesses Elohim the 7th day and sanctifies it
כי בו שבת מכל מלאכתו אשר ברא אלהים לעשות
because He rested in it from all His {מלאכת MLAKheT}
which Elohim began, in doing
*more precisely*:
because He rested in it from all His {מלאכת MLAKheT}
the beginning/creation of which Elohim did
Observe the word {מלאכת MLAKheT}, which the verses pointedly indicate were tasks that Elohim did/does.
Verse 3 is even more pointed, where His {מלאכת MLAKheT} was created/begun.
Abandon what Wikipedia says, or whatever Jewish or Christian Lexicon says, by just understanding the verse plainly by their context and structure, you should agree that the phrase {מלאכת MLAKheT} in Genesis 2 would in no way have the meaning of {message} or {messenger}.
Unless you add onto Philo's Hellenistically inspired abstract philosophy of Logos being the intermediary of creation, the 2nd person in the divine, where the 1st person is incapable of communion with creation.
Where you would somehow associate the {λογος} with {מלאכת MLAKheT}. AFAIK, there has been no one who has made this association. Perhaps Philo did implicate that equation. However, Philo's esoteric religious thought is not acceptable by Jewish standards. If his authoritativeness is accepted by Christianity, it would mean the John 1:1 is admittedly plagiarised from Philo.
That is, we all agree, that the lexical equation
{מלאכת MLAKheT} = {λογος}
is not acceptable.
Other examples,
The same word is used in Gen 39:11, where Joseph was to do his {מלאכת tasks/chores}.
The same word is used in 1 King 7:14, where king Solomon had a craftman do his workmanship {מלאכת}.
As well as in 2 Chron 16:5, where king of Israel ceased from his task {מלאכת}.
And in Nehe 4:15 (Jewish enum 4:9).
Etymological chain of the word {מלאכת MLAKheT}
Let us analyse the grammatical declension, the way we would any usual Hebrew root word.
- {לאך} = {task}
- {מלאך} = piel, intensive / weak-causative
- committed to a task, being given a task
- when used as a present participle = an agent who is given a task
- {מלאכת} = verbal-noun = state of having been committed to a task
- commitment/commission to a task
Even though the above declension analyses are somewhat approx, they get the point across. That in no way would the word {מלאך} mean {message} or {messenger}.
The meaning of {מלאכת MLAKheT} = {commission} is affirmed in Jonah 1:8, when his shipmates asked Jonah {מה מלאכתך}, "what is your {מלאכת commission/profession-work}?" before throwing him overboard. It would be silly and awkward to translate that as asking Jonah "what is your message?"
To translate {מלאך} as {messenger} you would have to ignore the existence of Genesis 2:2-3. And the existence of Gen 39:11, 1King 7:14, 2Chron 16:5 and Nehe 4:15/4:9, and Jonah 1:8.
But then one could, against all odds argue that {מלאכת} has nothing to do with {מלאך}.
- That is a grammatically untenable argument.
- That argument is also demolished by Nehe 6:3. Where the {מלאכים workers} sent by Nehemiah were to declare they had too much {מלאכה work} that they could not stop from their {מלאכה work}.
- As well as having to contend against Maimonides, who held the opinion that all {מלאכים} emanating from Hashem are actually laws and forces of the Universe each with its task and purpose. Such that when someone says, "a {מלאך} conceived a baby in her womb", would merely mean "the woman conceived by a law of nature created/tasked by Hashem."
No doubt that in most of the instances of {מלאך/מלאכים} found it the Bible, they did verbalize either a message or edict from the sender, but one cannot ignore the instances where the cited {מלאך/מלאכים} were obviously not message bearers. Otherwise that would be forcibly trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, just to satiate one's hunger for the doctrines of angelology.
- Josh 7:22: Joshua sent {מלאכים} to perform the task of retrieving some loot.
- Numbers 22:22: where a {מלאך} took on the task to be satan against Balaam. If by having a mere conversation with Balaam would ascribe specific purpose of being a "messenger", then every Hebrew word for any entity, king, servant who had a conversation would have to be ascribed the meaning of "messenger".
- 1Sam 19:11,14,15,16: Saul sent {מלאכים} as assassins, certainly not messengers, with a task of observing and assassinating David. What "messenger ?
- 1Sam 19:20,21: Saul again sent {מלאכים} to arrest David, but those {מלאכים} instead were arrested by the spirit of Elohim.
Also, across the whole Bible, the overwhelming majority instances of {מלאך/מלאכים} were clearly humans.
We cannot accept the authority of the septuagint simply because the septuagint was initiated, under the charter of a pagan king of Egypt, by a group of Hellenized Jews who were too ashamed of their primitive religious scriptures for being devoid of the abstract ideas and sophistry of Hellenism. The Septuagint was Jewish Hellenistic progressivism pandering to be "inclusive" and "ecumenical" to the pagan cultures that surrounded them. That is why it has whole phrases, concepts, principles and even mystical beings not found in the Hebrew masoret. An inclusiveness that unified all the pagan religious ideologies surrounding Israel, but rejected from the masoret.
One should also note that the term {angel} originated from pagan Greek mythology, which in turn was borrowed from Persian mythology of Persian messenger demigods. The very doctrine of ranking angelic beings were of Zoroastrian origins. A doctrine not found in the textual and literal fundamentals of the Hebrew of the Bible. A doctrine rejected by the Author of the Hebrew text of the Bible.
The whole doctrine of angelology and demonology was due to contention between ancient Persian and Hindu mythology calling each other's gods demons. To accept the doctrines of angelology and demonism is to buy into mythological ideas of ancient Persian and Hindu religions.
The word {מלאך/מלאכים} should have been translated as {commissioners, commission, tasking } in light of the word {לאך} and its declensions. There is no definiteness if any instance of {מלאך/מלאכים} in the Bible were human or non-human agents/vectors.
In conclusion
AS mentioned, the {מלאך MLAKh} in Gen 48:16 is highly correlatable to Gen 31:11 and Gen 32:24-32 (Jewish 32:25-33).
Gen 31:11: In the light of Gen 2, with G'd Himself being the MLAKh of the MLAKheT/task/work, and that the MLAKh of Gen 3:11 spoke personally as G'd, the MLAKh was the personal involvement of G'd in speaking to Jacob.
Just as the ruaX {רוח spirit} of G'd, found thro out the Hebrew of the Bible, is not a separate person, but a personal effect and projection of G'd.
In Gen 32, the {איש} is also another projection of G'd.
{איש} does not need to be specifically a human. Rather it means "someone", a "person" or "personality". The term for human is {אנוש}.
In Hosea 2:16 (Jewish 2:18): Hashem expresses the ultimate desire of being one and equal with humankind:
והיה ביום ההוא נאם יי
And shall be on that day declares Hashem
תקראי אישי
shall you call Me my-person/my-peer-husband
ולא תקראי לי עוד בעלי
and not call Me any longer my-master/my-master-husband
In Genesis 32, a {איש} raised dust (by implication "struggled") with Jacob. The same {איש} Person in Hosea 2 wanting to be in unity with humankind.
Therefore, Gen 48:16 the {מלאך MLAKh} Jacob refers to, for all intents and motivations, is Elohim Himself.
