Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume I Part 7

???as?? ?? p?ste?ete, p?? t??? ???? ??as? p?ste?sete;--It is clear that the Lord must here have had in view a distinct pa.s.sage of the Pentateuch,--a clear and definite declaration of Moses. Dexterous explanations (_Bengel_: _Nunquam non_; _Tholuck_: The prophetical and typical element implied in the whole form of wors.h.i.+p) are of no apologetic value, and it is not possible summarily, on such grounds, to call the enemies before the judgment-seat of G.o.d. It was not enough to allude, in a way so general, to what could not be at once perceptible; greater distinctness and particularity would have been required. But if a single declaration--a direct Messianic prophecy--form the question at issue, our pa.s.sage only can be meant; for it is the only prophecy of Christ which Moses, on whose person great stress is laid, uttered in his own name. Moreover, Christ would more readily expect that the Jews would acknowledge our prophecy to be fulfilled in Him, than the prophecy in Gen. xlix., which refers rather to the Messiah in glory.

The preceding words of Jesus likewise contain references to the pa.s.sage now under consideration. Ver. 38--"And ye have not His word abiding in you; for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not,"--contains an allusion to Deut. xviii. 18: "And I will put My words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him;" so that whosoever rejects the Amba.s.sador of G.o.d, rejects His word at the same time. John v. 43--"I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not,"--acquires both its significance and earnestness from its reference to ver. 19 of our pa.s.sage: "Whosoever will not hearken unto My words, which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him."

_Further_,--The point at issue in this discourse of Christ is an accusation of the Jews against Christ, [Pg 108] that He had violated the Mosaic law. (Compare John v. 10-16, and v. 18, which states the second apparent violation of the law.) It was thus highly appropriate that Jesus should throw back upon the Jews the charge which they brought against Him, and should prove to them that it was just they who were in fatal opposition to the enactments of the Mosaic law.

_Finally_,--It is this same Moses in whom they trusted, whom they considered as their patron, and whom to please the more, they were so zealous for his law against Jesus,--it is this same Moses whom Jesus represents as their accuser. And he is such an accuser as renders every other superfluous, so that Christ did not need specially to come forward in such a character. The accusation of Moses must, then, according to this declaration, and in accordance with what follows, refer to the cause of Christ. But the pa.s.sage under review is the only Messianic prophecy of a _threatening character_ which the Pentateuch contains,--the only one in which divine judgments are threatened to the despisers of the Messiah,--the only Mosaic foundation for the denunciation: "Woe to the people that despiseth thee." If it be denied that Christ refers to it,--if its Messianic character be not acknowledged, the first words of Christ are dest.i.tute of foundation.

But if it be thus undeniable that Christ declared Himself to be the prophet of our pa.s.sage, it must be considered an indirect attack upon His divinity to say, as _Dr Lucke_ does, that Christ did so by way of "adaptation to the interpretation of that time." It is just this appeal which forms the pith of Christ's discourse; it is the real death-blow inflicted by Him upon His adversaries. If this blow was a mere feint, His honour is endangered,--which may G.o.d forbid!--The Lord further marks Himself out as the prophet announced by Moses, and that, too, in a very distinct manner, in John xii. 48-50,--a pa.s.sage which is evidently based upon vers. 18 and 19 of the text under review. (Compare John xiv. 24-31.)--To this we may add, further, that, according to St Luke xxiv. 44, the Lord Himself explains to His disciples the prophecies in the Pentateuch concerning Him; and we cannot well expect that Christ should have made no reference to a pa.s.sage which one of the Apostles points out as being of greater weight than all others. This is done by Peter in Acts iii. 22, 23. The manner in which he quotes it, entirely excludes the notion that Moses was [Pg 109] speaking of Christ, only in so far as He belonged to the collective body of the prophets. Peter says expressly, that Moses and the later prophets foretold t?? ???a? ta?ta?; and the words, t?? p??f?t?? ??e????, show that he did not understand the singular in a collective sense. The circ.u.mstance that Stephen, in Acts vii. 37, likewise refers the pa.s.sage to Christ, would not be, in itself, conclusive, because Stephen's case is different from that of the Apostles. But we must not overlook the pa.s.sage Matt. xvii. 5, according to which, at Christ's transfiguration, a voice was heard from heaven which said: ??t?? ?st?? ? ???? ?? ?

??ap?t??, ?? ? e?d???sa? a?t?? ????ete. As the first part of this declaration is taken from the Messianic prediction in Is. xlii., so is the second from the pa.s.sage under consideration; and, by this use of its words, the sense is clearly shown. It is a very significant fact, that our pa.s.sage is thus connected just with Is. xlii.--the first prophetic announcement in which it is specially resumed, and in which the prophetic order itself is the proclaimer of _the_ Prophet. And it is not less significant that this reference to our text, with which all the other announcements by Isaiah concerning the Great Prophet to come are so immediately connected, should precede chapters xlix., l., and lxi. It thus serves as a commentary upon the declaration of Moses. The beginning and the outlines receive light from the progress and completion.

He, however, who believes in Christ, will, after these details, expect that internal reasons also should prove the reference to Christ; and this expectation is fully confirmed.

That Moses did not intend by the word ???? "prophet," to designate a collective body merely, but that he had at least some special individual in view, appears, partly, from the word itself being constantly in the singular, and, partly, from the constant use of the singular suffixes in reference to it; while, in the case of collective nouns, it is usual to interchange the singular with the plural. The force of this argument is abundantly evident in the fact, that not a few of even non-Messianic interpreters have been thereby compelled to make some single individual the subject of this prophecy. But we must hesitate the more to adopt the opinion that ???? stands here simply in the singular instead of the plural, because neither does this word anywhere else occur as a collective noun, nor is the prophetic order ever [Pg 110] spoken of in the manner alleged. The expectation of a Messiah was already at that time current among the people. In what way, then, could they understand a promise, in which one individual only was spoken of, except by referring it, at least chiefly, to the one whom they expected?--_Hofmann_ (_Weissagung und Erfullung_ i. S. 253) objects that the prophet here spoken of was, in no respect, different from the _king_ in Deut. xvii. 14-20. But the king mentioned there is no collective noun. An individual who, in future times, should first attain to royal dignity, forms there the subject throughout. This appears especially from ver. 20, where he and his _sons_ are spoken of.

The first king is held up as an example, to show in him what was applicable to the royal dignity in general. On the other hand, it is in favour of our view, that, in the verses immediately preceding (vers.

8-13), the priests are, at first, spoken of only in the plural, although the priestly order had much more of the character of a collective body than the prophetic order.

A comparison between this prophecy and that of the s.h.i.+loh in Gen. xlix.

10 is likewise in favour of the Messianic interpretation. Even there.

His prophetic office is alluded to in the kingly office. The ruler out of Judah is the Peaceful One, to whom the nations yield a spontaneous obedience, an obedience flowing from a pious source,--and He rules not by compulsion, but by the word.

The prophet is moreover contrasted with a single individual--with Moses; and this compels us to refer the prophecy to some distinguished individual. In ver. 15, Moses promises to the people a prophet _like unto himself_; and thus also does the Lord say, in ver. 18: "A prophet _like unto thee_ I will raise up." We cannot for a moment suppose that this likeness should refer to the prophetic calling only,--to the words: "I will put My words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." It must at the same time be implied in it, that the future prophet shall be as thoroughly competent for his work, as Moses was for that which was committed to him. If it were not so, the promise would be deficient in that consolatory and elevating character which, according to the context, it is evidently intended to possess. If we were to paraphrase thus, "The Lord will raise up a prophet, inferior, indeed, to myself, [Pg 111] but yet the bearer of divine revelations," we should at once perceive how unsuitable it were.

_Further_,--It is quite evident that the "Prophet" here is the main instrument of divine agency among the Covenant-people of the future,--that He is the real support and anchor of the kingdom of G.o.d.

But now the difficulties of the future were, as Moses himself saw, so great, that gifts in any way short of those of Moses would by no means have been sufficient. Moses foresees that the spirit of apostasy, which, even in his time, began to manifest itself, would, in future times, increase to a fearful extent. (Compare especially Deut. x.x.xii.) Against this, ordinary gifts and powers would be of no avail. A successful and enduring reaction could be brought about only by one who should be, for the more difficult circ.u.mstances of the future, such as Moses was for his times. But--and this circ.u.mstance is of still greater weight--it forms the task of the future to translate the whole heathen world into the kingdom of G.o.d. In it, j.a.pheth is to dwell in the tents of Shem; all the nations of the earth are to become partakers in the blessing resting on Abraham. In the view of such a task, a prophet of ordinary dimensions, as well as the collective body of such, would dwindle down to the appearance of a dwarf. They would have been less than Moses. In Deut. x.x.xiv. 10, it is said, "There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face;"--a pa.s.sage which not only plainly refers to the experience acquired at that time, but which expresses also what might be expected of that portion of the future which was more immediately at hand. When Miriam and Aaron said, "Doth the Lord indeed speak only by Moses, doth He not speak by us also?" the Lord immediately, Num. xii. 6-8, reproves their presumption of thinking themselves _like unto Moses_, as respects the prophetical gift, in these words: "If some one be your prophet,"--_i.e._, if some one be a prophet according to your way, with prophets of your cla.s.s,--"I, the Lord, make myself known unto him in a vision, in a dream I speak unto him. Not so my servant Moses; in all My house he is faithful. Mouth to mouth I speak to him, and face to face, and not in dark speeches; and the appearance of the Lord he beholds." Moses, as a prophet, is here contrasted with the whole order of prophets of ordinary gifts. A higher dignity among them is claimed for him on the ground that not some special mission, [Pg 112] but the care of the whole economy of the Old Testament, was entrusted to him; compare Heb. iii. 5. His is a specially close relation to the Lord, a specially high degree of illumination. The collective body of ordinary prophets cannot, therefore, by any possibility be the "prophet" who is _like unto Moses_, as completely equal to the task of the future as Moses was for that of his day. But the greater the work of the future, the more necessary is it that the prophet of the future, in order to be _like unto Moses_, should, in his whole individuality, and in all his gifts, be far superior to him; compare Heb. iii. 6.

_Finally_,--The common prophetic order itself refuses the honour of being the prophet like unto Moses. The prophecies of Isaiah, in chapters xlii., xlix., l., and lxi., are based upon our pa.s.sage, and in all of them the Messiah appears as the prophet ?at? ??????. It is to Him that the mission is entrusted of being the restorer of Jacob, and the salvation of the Lord, even unto the end of the world.

Whilst these reasons demand the reference of this prophecy to Christ, there are, on the other hand, weighty considerations which make it appear that a reference to the prophetic order of the Old Testament cannot be excluded. These considerations are, 1. The wider context.

Deuteronomy is distinguished from the preceding books by this, that provisions are made in it for the time subsequent to the death of Moses, which was now at hand. From chap. xvii. 8, the magistrates and powers--the superiors, to whose authority in secular and spiritual affairs the people shall submit--are introduced. First, the civil magistrates are brought before them, xvii. 8-20; and then the ecclesiastical superiors, chap. xviii. Vers. 1-8 treat of the priests as the ordinary servants of the Lord in spiritual things. Everywhere else, offices, inst.i.tutions, orders, are spoken of. In such a connection, it is not probable that _the prophet_ should be only an individual; and the less so, because evidently the prophet, as the organ of the immediate revelation of G.o.d, is placed by the side of the priests, the teachers of the law (compare xvii. 10, 11, 18; x.x.xiv. 10), as their corrective, as a thorn in their flesh, to make up for their inability. It is true that this wider connection is also against those who would here _exclude_ Christ. If it be certain that Moses already knew the Messianic promises (compare the remarks on Gen. xlix.), then, just in this context, the reference [Pg 113] to Christ, the head of the authorities of the future, could not be wanting.

2. An exclusive reference to Christ is opposed by the more immediate context. This connection is twofold. In ver. 15, Moses first utters the promise in his own name, and here it stands connected with what precedes. Moses had forbidden to the people the use of all the means by which those who were given to idolatry endeavoured to penetrate the boundaries of human knowledge: "Thou shalt not do so," is his language; for that which these are vainly seeking after in this sinful manner, shall, in reality, be granted to thee by thy G.o.d. Here, it was not only appropriate to remind them of the Messiah, inasmuch as His appearance, as being the most perfect revelation of G.o.d, satisfies most perfectly the desire after higher communications; but it would have been very strange if here, where so suitable an opportunity presented itself, the founder of the Old Economy had omitted all reference to the founder of the New Economy, and had limited himself to the intervening, more imperfect divine communications. But, on the other hand, it would have been as strange if Moses had taken no notice of them at all,--if, supposing that a series of false prophets would appear, he had been satisfied to lay down in chap. xiii. 2 sqq. the distinctive marks of true and false prophets, and had then, in the pa.s.sage under review, referred to the divine revelations to be expected in the distant future, without noticing those to be expected in the more immediate future,--thus neglecting to employ means peculiarly fitted for gaining admission for his exhortations. The word ??? in ver. 14 is especially opposed to such a view. "And thou (shalt) not (do) so, Jehovah thy G.o.d gave thee." _J. D. Michaelis_ says: "What He gave to the Israelites is specified in vers. 15 and 18." The past tense suggests the idea of a gift which had already taken its beginning in the present.--The promise stands in a different connection in ver. 18. Moses had already given it in his own name in ver. 15. In order to give it greater authority, he reports, in the following verses, when and how he had received it from G.o.d. It was delivered to him on Sinai, where G.o.d had directly revealed Himself to the people at the promulgation of the Law, partly in order to strengthen their confidence in Moses the mediator, and [Pg 114]

partly to show them the folly of their desiring any other mode of divine communication. But the people were seized with terror before the dreadful majesty of G.o.d, and prayed that G.o.d would no longer speak to them directly, but through a mediator, as He had hitherto done; compare Exod. xx.; Deut. v. The Lord then said to Moses, "They have well spoken; a prophet," etc. The words here, in ver. 17, agree very well with Deut. v. 28. The agreement in the words indicates that _here_ we have an addition to that which is _there_ communicated regarding what was spoken by G.o.d on that occasion. _There_, we are told only what had an immediate reference to the present--viz., the appointment of Moses as mediator; _here_, we are told what was at that time fixed in reference to the future of the people. We cannot fail to perceive that _here_, if ever, a divine revelation was appropriate concerning the coming of Christ, who, as the Mediator between G.o.d and man, veiled His G.o.dhead, and in human form, brought G.o.d nearer to man. But we should, at the same time, expect here an allusion to the inferior messengers of G.o.d, who were to precede Him.

3. The exclusive reference to the Messiah is inconsistent with vers.

20-22. The marks of a false prophet are given in them. If, however, that which precedes had no reference at all to true prophets, it would be almost impossible to trace any suitable connection of the thoughts.

4. If the pa.s.sage were referred to Christ exclusively, the prophetic inst.i.tution would then be without any legitimate authority; and from the whole character of the Mosaic legislation, as laying the foundation for the future progress and development of the Theocracy, we could not well conceive that so important an inst.i.tution should be deficient in this point. Moreover, the whole historical existence of the prophetic order necessarily presupposes such a foundation. Deut. xiii. 2 sq. was not fitted to afford such a foundation, as it refers, only indirectly and by implication, to true prophets.

5. _Finally_,--There are not wanting slight hints in the New Testament that the reference to Christ is not an exclusive one. These are found in Luke xi. 50, 51: ??a ????t??? t? a?a p??t?? t?? p??f?t?? ... ?p?

t?? ?e?e?? ta?t?? ... ?a? ???? ??? ????t???seta? ?p? t?? ?e?e??

ta?t??. The emphatic repet.i.tion of ????te?? in that pa.s.sage shows plainly its connection [Pg 115] with the words, "I will require it of him," in the pa.s.sage under review; just as the ????, which, according to 2 Chron. xxiv. 22, the prophet Zechariah, who was unjustly slain, uttered when dying, alludes not only to Gen. ix. 5, but to our pa.s.sage also. But here we must remark that, in consequence of the sin committed against the Prophet ?at? ??????--Christ--vengeance for the crimes committed against the inferior prophets is executed at the same time, so that, in the first instance, _His_ blood is required, and, on this occasion, all the blood also which was formerly shed.

But how can these two facts be reconciled:--that Moses had, undeniably, the Messiah in view, and that, notwithstanding, there seems at the same time to be a reference to the prophets in general? The simplest mode of reconciling them is the following. The prophet here is an _ideal_ person, comprehending all the true prophets who had appeared from Moses to Christ, including the latter. But Moses does not here speak of the prophets as a collective body, to which, at the close, Christ also belonged, as it were, incidentally, and as one among the many,--as _Calvin_ and other interpreters mentioned above suppose; but rather, the plurality of prophets is, for this reason only, comprehended by Moses in an _ideal_ unity, that, on the authority of Gen. xlix. 10, and by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, he knew that the prophetical order would, at some future time, centre in a real person,--in Christ.

But there is so much the more of truth in thus viewing the prophetic order as a whole, since, according to 1 Peter i. 11, the Spirit of Christ spoke in the prophets. Thus, in a certain sense, Christ is the only Prophet.

Footnote 1: _Lampe_ says: He has preserved to us not only what, in Paradise, and afterwards to and through the Patriarchs, had been told about this Redeemer; but he himself, under divine inspiration, has prophesied of Him,--especially in Deut. xviii. 15-18.

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN THE PENTATEUCH, AND THE BOOK OF JOSHUA.

The New Testament distinguishes between the hidden G.o.d and the revealed G.o.d--the Son or Logos--who is connected with the former by oneness of nature, and who from everlasting, and even at the creation itself, filled up the immeasurable distance between the Creator and the creation;--who has been the Mediator in all G.o.d's relations to the world;--who at all times, and even before He became man in Christ, has been the light of [Pg 116] the world,--and to whom, specially, was committed the direction of the economy of the Old Covenant.

It is evident that this doctrine stands in the closest connection with the Christology,--that it forms, indeed, its theological foundation and ground-work. Until the Christology has attained to a knowledge of the true divinity of the Saviour, its results cannot be otherwise than very meagre and unsatisfactory. Wheresoever the true state of human nature is seen in the light of Holy Scripture, no high expectations can be entertained from a merely human Saviour, although he were endowed even with as full a measure of the gifts of the Spirit of G.o.d as human nature, in its finite and sinful condition, is able to bear. But unless there exist in the one divine Being itself, such a distinction of persons, the divinity of the Saviour cannot be acknowledged, without endangering the unity of G.o.d which the Scriptures so emphatically teach. If, however, there be such a distinction,--if the Word be indeed with G.o.d, we cannot avoid ascribing to G.o.d the desire of revealing Himself; nor, in such a case, can we conceive that He should content Himself with inferior forms of revelation, with merely transitory manifestations. We can recognise in these only preparations, and preludes of the highest and truest revelation.

The question then is, whether any insight into this doctrine is to be found as early as in the Books of the Old Testament. Sound Christian Theology has discovered the outlines of such a distinction betwixt the hidden and the revealed G.o.d, in many pa.s.sages of the Old Testament, in which mention is made of the Angel or Messenger of G.o.d. The general tenor of these pa.s.sages will be best exemplified by the first among them,--the narrative of Hagar in Gen. xvi. In ver. 7, we are told that the Angel of Jehovah found Hagar. In ver. 10, this Angel ascribes to Himself a divine work, viz., the innumerable increase of Hagar's posterity. In ver. 11, He says that Jehovah had heard her distress. He thus a.s.serts of Jehovah what, shortly before. He had said of Himself.

Moreover, in ver. 13, Hagar expresses her astonishment that she had seen G.o.d, and yet had remained alive.--The opinion that these pa.s.sages form the Old Testament foundation for the Proemium of St John's Gospel, has not remained uncontroverted. From the very times of the Church-fathers it has been a.s.serted by many, that where the [Pg 117]

Angel of the Lord is spoken of, we must not think of a person connected with G.o.d by unity of nature, but of a lower angel, by whom G.o.d executes His commands, and through whom He acts and speaks. The latest defenders of the view are _Hofmann_ in "_Weissagung und Erfullung_" and in the "_Schriftbeweis_" and _Delitzsch_ in his commentary on Genesis.--Others are of opinion, that the Angel of Jehovah is identical with Jehovah Himself,--not denoting a person distinct from Him, but only the form in which He manifests Himself. We shall not here discuss the question in its whole extent; we shall, in the meantime, consider only what the princ.i.p.al pa.s.sages of the Pentateuch and of the adjacent Book of Joshua teach upon this point, and how far their teaching coincides with, or is in opposition to, these various views. For it is only to this extent that the inquiry belongs to our present object.

In Gen. xvi. 13, these words are of special importance: "_And she called the name of the Lord who spoke unto her, Thou art a G.o.d of sight: for she said, Do I now_ (properly _here_, in the place where such a sight was vouchsafed to me) _still see after my seeing?_" "Do I see" is equivalent to, "Do I live," because death threatened, as it were, to enter through the eyes. (Compare the expression, "Mine eyes have seen," in Is. vi.) ????? is the pausal form for ?????; see Job x.x.xiii. 21, where, however, the accent is on the penultimate. Then follows ver. 14: _They called the well_, "_Well of the living sight_;"

_i.e._, where a person had a sight of G.o.d, and remained alive.

Hagar must have been convinced that she had seen G.o.d without the mediation of a created angel; for, otherwise, she could not have wondered that her life was preserved. Man, entangled by the visible world, is terrified when he comes in contact with the invisible world, even with angels. (Compare Dan. viii. 17, 18; Luke ii. 9.) But this terror rises to fear of death only when man comes into contact with the Lord Himself. (Compare the remarks on Rev. i. 17.) In Gen. x.x.xii. 31--a pa.s.sage which bears the closest resemblance to the one now under review, and from which it receives its explanation--it is said: "And Jacob called the name of the place _Peniel_, for I have seen G.o.d face to face, and my life has been preserved." In Exod. xx. 19, the children of Israel said to Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear; and let not G.o.d speak with us, [Pg 118] lest we die;" compared with Deut. v.

21: "Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our G.o.d any more, then we shall die." (Compare also Deut. xviii. 16.) And it is Jehovah who, in Exod.

x.x.xiii. 20, says, "There shall no man see Me and live." Israel's Lord and G.o.d is, in the absolute energy of His nature, a "consuming fire,"

Deut. iv. 24. (Compare Deut. ix. 3; Is. x.x.xiii. 14: "Who among us would dwell with the devouring fire? who among us would dwell with everlasting burning?" Heb. xii. 29.) It is not the reflected light, even in the most exalted creatures, nor the sight of the saints of whom it is said, "Behold, He puts no trust in His servants, and His angels He chargeth with folly,"--but the sight of the thrice Holy One, which makes Isaiah exclaim, "Woe is me, for I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."

So much then is clear,--that the opinion which considers the Angel of the Lord to be a created angel is overthrown by the first pa.s.sage where that angel is mentioned, if the exposition which we have given of vers.

13, 14--an exposition which is now generally received, and which was last advanced by _k.n.o.bel_--be correct. But _Delitzsch_ gives another exposition: "Thou art a G.o.d of sight, _i.e._, one whose all-seeing eye does not overlook the helpless and dest.i.tute, even in the remotest corner of the wilderness." Against this we remark, that ??? never denotes the act of seeing, but the sight itself. "Have I not even here (even in the desert land of dest.i.tution) looked after Him who saw me?"

"Well of the living one who seeth me," _i.e._, of the omnipresent divine providence. In opposition to this exposition, however, we must remark, that G.o.d is nowhere else in Genesis called the Living One. But our chief objection is, that these expositions destroy the connection which so evidently exists between our pa.s.sage and those already quoted,--especially Gen. x.x.xii. 31; Exod. x.x.xiii. 20. (Compare, moreover, Jud. xiii. 22: "And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen G.o.d.")

It has been asked. Why should the Logos have appeared first to the Egyptian maid? But the low condition of Hagar cannot here come into consideration; for the appearance is in reality intended, not for her, but for Abraham. Immediately [Pg 119] before, in chap. xii. 7, it is said, "And the Lord appeared unto Abraham;" and immediately after, in chap. xvii. 1, "And when Abraham was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to him;" the appearance of the Lord Himself is mentioned in order that every thought of a lower angel may be warded off. The pa.s.sage under consideration, then, contains the indication, that such appearances must only be conceived of as manifestations of the Deity Himself to the world. Just as our pa.s.sage is preserved from erroneous interpretations by such pa.s.sages as Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 1, so these receive from ours, in return, their most distinct definition. We learn from this, that wherever appearances of Jehovah are mentioned, we must conceive of them as effected by the mediation of His Angel. There is no substantial difference betwixt the pa.s.sages in which Jehovah Himself is mentioned, and those in which the Angel of Jehovah is spoken of. They serve to supplement and to explain one another. The words, "In His Angel," in chap. xvi. 7, furnish us with the supplement to the succeeding statement, "And _Jehovah_ appeared to him" (so, _e.g._, also in chap. xviii. 1), just as the writer in Gen. chap. ii. iii. makes use of the name Jehovah-Elohim, in order that henceforth every one may understand that where only Jehovah is spoken of. He is yet personally identical with Elohim.

Let us now turn to Gen. xviii. xix. According to _Delitzsch_. all the three men who appeared to Abraham were "finite spirits made visible."

_Hofmann_ (_Schriftb._ S. 87) says: "Jehovah is present on earth in His angels, in the two with Lot, as in the three with Abraham." We, however, hold fast by the view of the ancient Church, that in chap.

xviii. the Logos appeared accompanied by two inferior angels.

Abraham's regards are, from the very first, involuntarily directed to one from among the three, and whom he addresses by ????????, O Lord (xviii. 3); the two others are considered by him as companions only.

But Lot has to do with both equally, and addresses them first by ????????, my Lords.--In chap. xviii., it is always one only of the three who speaks; the two others are mute;[1] while in chap. xix. everything comes from the two [Pg 120] equally. He with whom Abraham has to do, always, and without exception, speaks as G.o.d Himself; while the two with whom Lot has to do speak at first, as ?e?t??????? p?e?ata, distinguis.h.i.+ng themselves from the Lord who sent them (compare ver.

13); and it is only after they have thus drawn the line of separation between themselves and Jehovah, that they appear, in vers. 21, 22, as speaking in His name. They do so, moreover, only after Lot, in the anxiety of his heart and in his excitement, had previously addressed, in them, Him who sent them, and with whom he desired to have to do as immediately as possible. The scene bears, throughout, a character of excitement, and is not fitted to afford data for general conclusions.

We cannot infer from it that it was, in general, customary to address, in the angels, the Lord who sent them, or that the angels acted in the name of the Lord. In chap. xviii., from ver. 1, where the narrative begins with the words, "And Jehovah appeared unto him," Moses always speaks of him with whom Abraham had to do as Jehovah only, excepting where he introduces the three men. (He with whom Abraham has to do is called, not fewer than eight times, Jehovah, and six times ????????.) But in chap. xix., Jehovah, who is concealed behind the two angels, appears only twice in the expression, "And He said," in vers. 17, 21, for which ver. 13 suggests the supplement: "through His two angels."--Even in ver. 16, the narrative distinguishes Jehovah from the two men,--and all this in an exciting scene which must have influenced even the narrator.

If he who spoke to Abraham was an angel like the other two, we could scarcely perceive any reason why he should not have taken part in the mission to Sodom; but if he was the Angel of the Lord ?at? ??????, the reason is quite obvious; it would have been inconsistent with divine propriety.--In chap. xviii. Moses speaks of three men; it is evidently on [Pg 121] purpose that he avoids speaking of three angels. In chap.

xix. 1, on the contrary, we are at once told: "And there came the two angels." (Compare ver. 15.) The reason why in chap. xviii. the use of the name _angels_ is avoided can only be, because it might easily have led to a misunderstanding, if the Angel of the Lord had been comprehended in that one designation along with the two inferior angels, although it would not, in itself, have been inadmissible.--If we suppose that he, with whom Abraham had to do, was some created angel, we cannot well understand how, in chap. xviii. 17 seq., the judgment over Sodom could, throughout, be ascribed to him. _He_ could not, in the name of the Lord, speak of that judgment, as not he, but the two other angels who went to Sodom, were the instruments of its execution. Hence it only remains to ascribe the judgment to him as the _causa princ.i.p.alis_.--If the three angels were equals, it would be impossible to explain the adversative clause in chap. xviii. 22: "And the men turned from thence and went to Sodom; _but Abraham stood yet before the Lord._" Jehovah and the two angels are here contrasted. It is true that, in the two angels also, it is Jehovah who acts. This is evident from xviii. 21: "I will go down and see"--where the going down does not refer to descending to the valley of Jordan, the position of which was lower (thus _Delitzsch_); but, according to xi. 7, it refers to a descent from heaven to earth. That Jehovah, though on earth, should declare His resolution to go down, as in xi. 7, may be explained from the ? ?? ?? t? ???a?? in John iii. 13. G.o.d, even when He is on earth, remains in heaven, and it is thence that He manifests Himself.

Moreover, the words immediately following show in what sense this going down is to be understood,--that it is not in His own person, but through the medium of His messengers. The resolution, "I will go down,"

is carried into effect by the going down of the angels to Sodom.

By the Jehovah who, from Jehovah out of heaven, caused brimstone and fire to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah (xix. 24), we are not at liberty to understand the two angels only,[2] but, [Pg 122] agreeably to the views of sound Christian expositors generally, Christ,--with this modification, however, that the two angels are to be considered as His servants, and that what they do is His work also. It is true that the angels say, in xix. 13, "We will destroy," etc.; but much more emphatically and frequently does he with whom Abraham has to do, ascribe the work of destruction to himself. (Compare xviii. 17, where Jehovah says, "How can I hide from Abraham that thing which I am doing?" vers. 24-28, etc.) If in xix. 24 there be involved the contrast between, so to speak, the heavenly and earthly Jehovah,--between the hidden G.o.d and Him who manifests Himself on earth,--then so much the more must we seek the latter in chap. xviii., as in ver. 22, compared with ver. 21, the angels are distinctly pointed out as His Messengers.

_Delitzsch_ a.s.serts that in Heb. xiii. 2, the words, ??a??? t??e?

?e??sa?te? ????????, clearly indicate that "all three were finite spirits made visible." This a.s.sertion, however, which was long before made by the Socinian _Crellius_, has been sufficiently refuted by _Ode de Angelis_, p. 1001. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews intends to connect the events which happened to Abraham and Lot equally--t??e?; and for this reason he did not go beyond what was common to them both.

Moreover, the Angel of the Lord is likewise comprehended in the appellation "_angels_," for the name has no reference to the nature, but to the mission.

Footnote 1: The words in ver. 9, "And they said to him," are to be understood only thus:--that one spoke at the same time in the name of the others; in the question thus put, it is, in the first instance, only the general relation of the guests to the hostess that comes into consideration. That such is the case, appears from ver. 10, where the use of the plural could not be continued, because a work was on hand which was peculiar to the one among them, and in which the others were not equally concerned. If the words in ver. 9 were spoken by all the three, then the one in ver. 10 ought to have been singled out thus: "And one from among them thus spoke." On account of the suffix in ?????, "And the door was behind _him_," the ????? in ver. 10 can be referred only to the one, and not to the Jehovah concealed behind all the three. This shows how the preceding, "And they said," is to be understood.

Footnote 2: _Delitzsch_ says: "As the two are really sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, it is evident that Jehovah, in ver. 24, who causes brimstone and fire to rain from Jehovah out of heaven, is viewed as being present in the two on earth, but in such a manner that, nevertheless, His real judicial throne is in heaven."

Of no less importance and significance is the pa.s.sage Gen. x.x.xi. 11 seq. According to ver. 11, the Angel of G.o.d, ???? ??????, appears to Jacob in a dream. In ver. 13, the same person calls himself the G.o.d of Bethel, with reference to the event recorded in chap. xxviii. 11-22. It cannot be supposed that in chap xxviii. the mediation of a common angel took place, who, however, had not been expressly mentioned; for Jehovah is there contrasted with the angels. In ver. 12, we read: "And behold the angels of G.o.d ascending and descending on it." In ver. 13, there is another sight: "And behold Jehovah stood by him and said, I am Jehovah, the G.o.d of Abraham thy father, and the G.o.d of Isaac; the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed."