Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Genesis 12:1 - 12:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
——————
ABRAHAM, THE FRIEND OF GOD, AND HIS ACTS OF FAITH. Gen_12:1 to Gen_25:10
FIRST SECTION
The call of Abram. The emigration to Canaan. The first promise of God. His companionship with Lot. The first manifestation of God in Canaan, and the first homeless alienage in the land of promise. Abram in Egypt and Pharaoh
Gen_12:1-20
6And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem [shoulder, ridge or water-shed] unto the plain [grove] of Moreh [teacher, owner]. And [Although] the Canaanite was then [already] in the land. 7And the Lord appeared unto Abram and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land; and there builded he an altar unto the Lord who appeared unto him. 8And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel [house of God] and pitched his tent, having Bethel [now Beitin] on the west [seawards], and Hai [heaps] on the east; and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord. 9And Abram journeyed, going on still [gradually further and further] toward the south. 10And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land. 11And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon [or of fair appearance]: 12Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. 13Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.
14And it came to pass, that when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. 15The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh [Fürst, ôֶøַò ]: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. 16And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep [small cattle] and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses and camels. 17And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house because of Sarai, Abram’s wife. 18And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? Why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife; now, therefore, behold thy wife, take her and go thy way. 20And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.
2. The Biblework will treat more fully of the land of Canaan in the division, “Book of Joshua.” We refer in passing to the Bible-dictionaries, the geographies, and journals of travellers. See also Zahn: “The Kingdom of God,” i. p. 105. In this section we notice especially Sichem, Bethel, Ai, and the central part of Palestine; the South, especially the vicinity of Hebron and Sichem (now Nablous) lying between Gerizim and Ebal, about eighteen hours from Jerusalem and sixteen from Nazareth, marks the northern principal residence of the patriarchs. Hebron (also Kirjath-Arba, from the giant Arba, now El Kalil, i. e., friend, beloved, in honor of Abram), southerly about eight hours from Jerusalem, a very old city, the city of Abram and David, lying in a blooming and beautiful region, was their principal dwelling-place in the south. Their central residence is the region of Bethel (the name is here anticipated—originally Luz, Gen_28:19, now the ruins of Beitin), and Ai (the old Canaanitish royal city, Jos_7:2, two hours easterly from Beitin, northerly from Jerusalem, now Medineh), an elevated rich pasture-ground.
3. The nomadic life forms the natural basis of the patriarchal society. The Greek term nomad ( íïìÜò from íïìüò pasture-ground) designates the herdsman in a specific sense, as one who roams with his herds over uncultivated tracts, which as commons are in one aspect wastes, in another pasture-grounds. The nomads are thus pastoral tribes and nations which have no fixed dwelling-place. According to the Conversations-lexicon, “they stand higher in the scale of human society than the tribes who live by hunting and fishing, and lower than those who follow agriculture and trade, and belong essentially to the grade of barbarians.” But as an original form of human life, and indeed as the form of the most quiet and retired life, the nomadic state is the basis upon which both the highest human culture and the most extreme savage wildness rest. Original thoughtful minds grew up to be the spiritual princes of humanity in the quietude of the nomadic life; mere common natures grew wild and savage under the same influences. The nomadic state still covers large portions of the race. “In Europe we find only weak nomadic tribes on the great steppes skirting the Black sea, and in the high uncultivated northern latitudes, there Tartar and Turkish, here Finnish tribes. Asia and Africa are the congenial homes of the nomadic life. Nearly all the Finnish, Mongolian, and Turkish tribes, and the mixed tribes which have sprung from them, in the steppes and wastes in the northern, central, and border Asia are nomads; so also the Kurds and Bedouin Arabs of border Asia and North Africa, and nearly all the tribes of Southern Africa, Caffres, Betschuanas, Koranas, and the Hottentots. In South America the Gauchos, and in many respects some Indian tribes, are to be regarded as nomads.” For the nomadic tribes of the East see Schröder, p. 273, Kohlrausch, a description of the Caravan March, p. 282. For the shepherd, headsman, wilderness, tents, see the articles in Winer [Kitto, Smith, Bible dictionaries.—A. G.]
4. The Period of the Patriarchal Religion, and Form of Religion. “In the New Testament the term ðáôñéÜñ÷çò is applied to Abraham, Heb_7:4, to the twelve sons of Jacob, Act_7:8 f., and to David, Act_2:29. Generally it designates the sacred ancestors of the early periods of the Israelites (Tob. 6:21, Vulgate) whom Paul, Rom_9:5; Rom_11:28, calls ïἱ ðáôÝñåò . Hence it has become customary even in historical language to call all the fathers of the early human races, and especially of the Israelitish people (including the twelve sons of Jacob), who are referred to and distinguished in biblical history, Patriarchs (German Erzvater). Its history, from the old theological point of view, is given by J. H. Heidegger, exercitat. select. de historia sacra patriarchar. (Amsterdam, 1667–8, Zürich, 1729), and is, perhaps, more critically treated by J. Jak. Hess: “History of the Patriarchs” (Zürich, 1776). Winer. The patriarch is the beginner or founder of a race or family (the word is formed from ἄñ÷ù and ðáôñéÜ ). The Hebrew designation øֹàùׁ àָáåֹú , which the Septuagint translates ἄñ÷ïíôåò ôῶí ðáôñéῶí (1Ch_9:9; 1Ch_24:31), but in 1Ch_27:22, where the Hebrew term is ùָׂøֵé ùִׁáְèֵé éִùְׂøָàֵì , and 2Ch_19:8, ὁ ðáôñéÜñ÷çò , does not refer to our patriarchs (which Bretschneider labors in his lexicon to authorize), but to the heads of individual branches of the tribes of Israel. Even in the New Testament, as is clear from Act_2:29, the word has a more comprehensive meaning. In Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedia, article Patriarchs, there is a threefold distinction drawn between the biblical and theological, the Jewish usage as to the synagogue officers, and the churchly and official idea of the word. The Jews, e. g., even after the destruction of Jerusalem, call the presidents of the two schools at Tiberias and Babylon, patriarchs. In the Christian Church all bishops were originally termed patriarchs, but the council of Chalcedon limited the name to those renowned bishops who had raised themselves above bishops, and metropolitans. Here we are dealing only with the biblical and theological meaning of the term. In this relation we must distinguish the general, the narrower, and the most restricted idea of the word. In the general and widest sense, all the theocratic ancestors are included in the term, since the patriarchal faith, as the faith of salvation, forms the highest unity running through the Old and New Testaments. In the wider, earlier usual acceptation, the patriarchal period is viewed as including the pious ancestors of biblical history, from Adam to the twelve sons of Jacob, or to the Mosaic era. See Winer, the article in question, the work of Heidegger above referred to, and Hase’s Hutterus redivivus (Religio patriarchalis antediluviana et postdiluviana). Still, Hess, in his history of the patriarchs, has correctly placed the patriarchs before Abram in an introductory history, and begins the history itself with Abram. The earlier division of the Old Testament revelation into patriarchal, Mosaic, and prophetic religion (i. e., form of religion) is not now at all satisfactory. This division must be completed in one direction through the period of the national Israelitish piety or religiousness (from Malachi to Christ), and in the other through the period of the symbolic original monotheism from Adam to Abram, which may be again divided into the two halves of the antediluvian and postdiluvian primitive history. The symbolic monotheism is distinguished from the patriarchal period both as to form and essence. As to the form of the revelation, the symbol has there the first place, the explanatory word the second (paradise and the paradisaic word, the rainbow and the covenant with Noah); but in the history of the patriarchs the word of revelation holds the first rank, and the signs of the theophany enter in a second line, as its confirmation. Thus also the patriarchal religion stands in a relation of opposition and coherence with the Mosaic system. “The Mosaic system is a remoulding of the patriarchal religion so far as Israel, grown into a people in Egypt, may require a preparatory, and thus a legal and symbolic instruction as to the nature of the faith of Abram and to receive that faith; it is a lower form of that religion so far as the religious life, which already in the patriarchs began to be viewed as an inward life, is here set before the people, who are strangers to it, as an external law; but is also a higher form of that religion so far as the ideas of the religion of promise are unfolded in the law, and in this explicit form are introduced into the life of the people. The law, however, is not the fundamental type of the Old Testament, but the faith of Abram. In the patriarchal religion the word of God is prominent, the symbol is subordinate; the Mosaic system, as also the primitive religion, brings the symbol into prominence (although the symbol as an institution). In Abram the divine promise occupies the foreground, the divine command rests upon it; in the legal period, as to the outward appearance the relation is just the reverse. Evidently the patriarchal religion, as also the prophetic period succeeding to the Mosaic system, regarded in a narrower sense, bears a marked resemblance to Protestantism, while the Mosaic system appears as the primitive type of the Mediæval Catholic Church.” (See Herzog’s Encyclopedia, article Patriarchs.)
As to its nature, the faith of Abram is distinguished from the faith of the pious ancestors in this, that he obtains and holds the promise of salvation, not only for himself, but for his family; and from the Mosaic system, by the fact that it expressly holds the promised blessing, in the seed of Abram, as a blessing for all people. In reference to the first, there were earlier lines of the promise: the line of Seth in contrast to that of Cain, the line of Shem in opposition to those of Japheth and Ham. But the line of Seth, through its corruption, is gradually lost in the line of Cain, and the line of Shem forms no well-defined opposition to the one all-prevailing heathenism. It is gradually infected with the taint of heathenism, while on the other hand pious believing lives appear in the descendants of Japheth and Ham. Melchisedec, with his eminent piety, belongs to the Canaanitish people, and thus to the family of Ham. During the whole period of the symbolic primitive religion, the theocratic and heathen elements are mingled together. The dark aspect of this religion is a mythological, ever-growing heathenism; its light side the symbolical, ever-waning, primeval monotheism. Heathenism gathers gradually, as a general twilight, through which glimmer the men of God, as individual stars. Thus Melchisedec stands in the surrounding heathenism. In a religious point of view he is ἀðÜôùñ , ἀìÞôùñ , ἀãåíåáëüãçôïò . And he is so far greater than Abram, as he stands as the last shining representative in the Old Testament of the primitive religion looking backwards to the lost paradise (which, however, did not entirely cease in the whole Old Testament period, and is not absolutely extinguished even in later periods of the world); while Abram stands as the first representative of the decided religion of the future, who, as such, has already the promise, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, who is neither ἀãåíåáëüãçôïò nor ἀðÜôùñ , since the beginning of his calling appears already in his father, Terah. But the old religion develops itself more definitely into the religion of the future at every step, when the corruption for the time has reached such a degree, that faith, looking out beyond the present and the judgment resting upon it, must fix in its eye a new beginning of salvation. Thus it was in Noah, thus also later in the Messianic prophets. But while Noah out of the flood of waters saved a new race of men, Abram has, through the overflowing flood of heathenism, to found a new particular people of faith, who should be a blessing for all. The blessing is already a very advanced idea of the salvation. For Eve the salvation assumes the idea of victory, for Lamech, rest, for Noah, the preservation of the divine name and the human race; for Abram, it forms the opposition to the curse. For as the curse is the endless, mysterious, progressive destruction of life, so the blessing is the endless, mysterious, progressive enriching and conservation of life. As the condition, indeed, Abram must go out from the heathen world. It is only as in opposition to it, that he can introduce the blessing which is promised in his seed. The pious forefathers had indeed already taken the first step of faith (Hebrews 11). They have, by faith in the creation of the world, uttered the denial of the independence of matter, the fundamental dogma of heathenism (Heb_11:3). Abel has taken the second step of faith; he has introduced the sacrifice of faith into the world, and on account of it sacrificed his own life. Enoch has taken the third; he sealed the faith in the new life and rewards beyond the present. Noah carried faith on to the salvation of God in the divine judgments. Abram, through the required renunciation of the world, introduced the Israelitish faith of the future, the hope for the eternal inheritance of God, and its introduction through the inheritance of his blessing. It was the legitimate result of his renunciation of the world that he sealed it through the sacrifice of Isaac. The succeeding patriarchs have developed this faith more fully, each in his own way. Isaac learned to prefer the first-born of the spirit before the first-born of blood; Jacob pointed out Judah as the central line of blessing within the blessings of his sons; Joseph proved his fidelity to the promise until his death. Thus was prepared the renunciation and the calling of Moses. (Taken from Lange’s article in Herzog’s Encyclopedia.)
With the introduction of the Abrahamic religion (see the foregoing section) correspond its mild nature and form, and its rich development. As to the first, it must be observed that Abram, notwithstanding the decisive character of his separation from heathenism, still opposes himself to the heathen without any fanaticism. Hence it is said indeed, “Get thee out!” but the second word follows immediately: “thou shalt be a blessing, and in thee shall be blessed, or shall bless themselves, all the families of the earth.” Hence the patriarchs stand upon a friendly footing with the princes of Canaan. In the point of marriage alone, warned by the history of the Sethites, they dreaded theocratic misalliances (Gen_24:3; Gen_27:46). In the fourth generation the first historical characteristic type of fanaticism appears in the deed of Simeon and Levi (Genesis 34). The judicial and solemn disapproval of this deed by Jacob (Gen_49:5) marks the true spirit of the Israelitish religion; the bold commendation of this deed in the book Judith (Gen_9:2) reveals the later pharisaic Judaism. Even the mixed marriage is legal except in the case of the proscribed Canaanites; and to the questionable and unhappy connections, e. g. of Esau, there are opposed the blessed connections of Joseph and Moses. The only matter of question is whether there is such a certainty of faith that the believing party may raise the unbelieving into the sphere of faith. This was precisely that which modified the crime of Thamar; her fanatical attachment to the house of Jacob, or the tribe of Judah. Mild as was this patriarchal spirit of separation (because it was actually spirit) it was just as strict in the other aspect. Hence there are relative distinctions of the elect from those who are less strictly the chosen, running down through the family of Abram, first in the opposition between Isaac and Ishmael, then in that between Jacob and Esau, finally in the sharp distinctions in the blessings of Jacob. (From the same article.)
As to the development of faith in the patriarchal period, it proceeds from the acts of faith in the life of Abram, through the endurance (or patience) of faith in the life of Isaac, to the conflicts of faith in the life of Jacob; but in the life of Joseph the opposition between the sufferings and the glory on account of faith, comes into clear and distinct relief. The promise also unfolds itself more and more widely. The blessing of the descendants of Abram, who should inherit Palestine, divides itself already in the blessing of Isaac upon Jacob, into a blessing of the heavens and the earth, and Jacob’s authority to rule announces more definitely the theocratic kingdom. But in the blessing of Jacob upon Judah, the Shiloh is designated, as the prince of war and peace, to whom the people should be gathered (a further extract from the article in question, p. 199). For the periods of the history of the covenant, see Kurtz, p. 135. For the nature of the patriarchal history, Delitzsch, p. 241–249; [also Baumgarten, Commentary, p. 165–168: Keil, p. 123–125.—A. G.]
[Kurtz arranges the history of the covenant under the following periods or stages: the period of the family, including the triad of patriarchs with the twelve sons of Jacob; the period of the people, having its starting point in the twelve sons of Jacob, and running through the Judges; the period of the kingdom; the period of the exile and restoration; the period of expectancy; and the period of the fulfilment.—A. G.]
[Delitzsch holds, as we may abridge and condense his views, that the patriarchal history is introductory to the history of Israel, and is completed in three parts—the histories of the three patriarchs. The personal history of the patriarchs revolves around the promise as to Israel, and Canaan its inheritance. The characteristic trait of the patriarchs is faith. This faith shows itself in the whole mighty fulness of its particular elements in Abram; ceaselessly struggling, resolutely patient and enduring, overcoming the world. He is the type of the conflicts, obedience, and victory of faith— ðáôὴñ ðÜíôùí ôῶí ðéóôåõüíôùí . His loving endurance repeats itself in Isaac, his hopeful wrestlings in Jacob. ’ Åð ’ ἐëðßäé ðáñ ’ ἐëðßäá is their motto. The promise and faith are the two correlated factors of the people of God. Renouncing the present, and in the midst of trials, its life passes in hope. Hope is its true life, impulse, and affection. Desire is Israel’s element.
Viewing the patriarchal history from the central point of that history, the incarnation of God in the fulness of time, its position in the history of salvation may be thus defined. There are seven stages in this history: 1. The antediluvian time, both paradisaic and after paradise, during which God was personally and visibly present with men, closing with the flood, when he retires into the heavens and from thence exercises his judicial and sovereign providence. The goal of history is thenceforward the restoration of this dwelling of God with men. The history has ever tended towards this goal. 2. The patriarchal time during which God manifested himself personally and even visibly upon the earth, but only at times and only to a few holy men, the patriarchs, at important points in the history of salvation; and even these revelations cease from Jacob to Moses. The revelation of God in the name éäåä , i. e. as the one coming down into history, and revealing himself in it, belongs to this time of the completed creation, of the opening redemption of Israel, His peculiar people. 3. The Israelitish period prior to the exile, during which God did not reveal himself personally and visibly as in the patriarchal period to a few, and to these only at times, but to a whole people and permanently, but still only to a people and not to mankind. There are two distinguishable epochs in this period. In the first Israel is led by the Angel of Jehovah in the pillar of cloud and fire—the glorious and gracious presence of God, visible for the whole people. The second is that of the presence of God in the temple and in the word; in the temple for Israel, but only through the mediation of priests, in the word, but only through the mediation of prophets. But even this lower, less accessible temple-presence ceases when Israel filled up the measure of its iniquities. The glory of Jehovah departed from the temple. As God at first withdrew his manifested presence from the race and destroyed it with the flood, so now from the Jewish people, and abandons Jerusalem to destruction. As the first stage of the history closes with a judgment from the ascended God, and the second in the long profound silence from Jacob to Moses, so the third again ends like the first. 4. The time succeeding the exile, at its commencement not essentially different from the close of the third period. God was present in the word, but the ark of the covenant, the covering, the cherubim, the Urim and Thummim, and, more than all, the Shechinah, the visible symbol of the presence of Jehovah, were wanting in the temple. But prophecy itself grew speechless with Malachi and Daniel. The people complain, We see not our signs, there is no more any prophet (Psa_74:9). They named Simon the brother of the Maccabeean Jonathan the ἡãïýìåíïò êáὶ ἀñ÷éåñåὺò åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá , but it was ἕùò ôïῦ ἀíáóôῆíáé ðñïöÞôçí ðéóôüí . Thus forsaken of God, and conscious of its forsaken state, the true Israel passed through this fourth stage of the history, a school of desire for believers waiting and longing for the new unveiling of the divine countenance. Then at last the dawn broke, Jehovah visited his people, and in the mystery now unveiling itself èåὸò ἐöáíåñþèç ἐí óáñêß completes in far-surpassing glory the antitype of Paradise. 5. The time of the life of Christ in the flesh. It is now true in the most literal and real sense, ἐóêÞíùóåí ἐí ἡìῖí . But at first Israel alone saw him. The rays of his glorious grace reach the heathen only as an exception. But his own received him not. They nailed the manifested in the flesh to the cross. But he who ἐî ἀóèåíåßáò died, rose, ἐê äõíÜìåùò èåïῦ , and ascended into heaven. He withdrew himself from the people who had despised him. But as Jehovah, after he had seated himself upon his heavenly throne, sent down at the close of the first stage the judgment of the flood, at the close of the third works the destruction of Jerusalem, so now the God-man ascended into heaven abandons Jerusalem to destruction and Judah to an exile which still endures. For Israel he will come again, but in the fire of judgment; and for believers he will also come again, but not visibly nor in the fire of judgment, but in the fire of the Spirit. 6. The stillenduring present, the time of the spiritual presence of the incarnate God in his church. This presence is both more than the visible presence of Christ in the days of his flesh, and less than the visible presence of the exalted one in which it reaches its enlargement and completion. We must not forget that the Spirit sent upon us from the glorified Son of Man is so far the ðáñÜêëçôïò as he comforts us on account of his absence; that all the desire of the Christian is to be at home with Christ; and that the hope of the whole church is embraced in the hope for the revelation of Christ. Without sharing in the exaggerated estimate of the miraculous gifts by the Irvingites, it cannot be denied that our time resembles the second part of the post-exile period, and that the church now, as believers then, desires the return of the wonderful intensity and gracious fulness of the spiritual presence in the primitive church. This desire will receive its fulfilment in the glorious time of the church upon the earth. 7. But the seventh stage of the history of salvation, which endures through the Æons of Æons, will first give full satisfaction to all the desires of all believers, and bring that glorious, transcendent restoration of the paradisaical communion with God in the incarnation, to its final perfection. The new Jerusalem (Rev_21:8) is the antitype of Paradise. The communion of God with the first man to be redeemed, has now become his communion with the finally redeemed humanity. His presence is no longer a transitory alternating, now appearing then vanishing, but enduring, ever the same, and endless; not limited to individuals nor bound to localities, but to all, and all-pervading; not merely divine, but divine and human; not invisible, but visible; not in the form of a servant, but in unveiled glory. God ascends no more, for sin is for ever judged and the earth has become as heaven. He descends no more, for the work of redemption is complete, the whole creation keeps its solemn sabbath, God rests in it, and it rests in God; Jehovah has finished his work, and Elohim is now all in all, ðÜíôá ἐí ðᾶóéí . See Delitzsch, p. 239–249.—A. G.]
5. The fundamental form of divine revelation, particularly of the revelation of the old covenant, and still more particularly of the patriarchal period (see p. 48, Introd.). The historically-completed fundamental form of the divine revelation of salvation, is the revelation of God in Christ, the God-man, i. e. in one distinct, unique life, wherein the divine self-communication and revelation, and the human intuition of God, are perfectly united in one, while yet as elements of life they are clearly distinguished from each other. The progressive revelation must correspond in its outline and characteristic features to this goal to which it tends. In its objective aspect it must be through theophanies, in its subjective the vision of the revelation of God, in its plan, tendency, and development, Christophanies; the chief points in the interchange between God manifesting himself personally and the receptive human spirits in the pre-figurations of the future advent of Christ. The individual phases in the development of this form of revelation are these: (1) The revelation of God through the symbolism of heaven and earth; visibly for the paradisaic spiritual and natural clear-sighted vision; and coming out in particular words and representations of God, addressed to the ear and eye, promptly, according to the necessities of human development, and according to the energy of the Spirit of God, who translates the signs into words. The form of the primitive religion. (2) The self-revelation of God in the form of an angelic appearance, distinct from his being; the pre-announcement of the future Christ, or the Angel of Jehovah in reciprocal relation and action with the unconscious seeing, as in vision, resting upon the unconscious ecstasies of believers, manifesting himself first through the miraculous report or voice, then through miraculous vision, i. e. first through the word, then through the figurative appearance. The form of the patriarchal religion. (3) The revelation of God, distinguishing his face, i. e. his gradual incarnation, from his being, or nature, or the angel of his presence in reciprocal relation and action, with the conscious visions, based upon unconscious ecstasies. The Angel of his face, or the face. The fundamental form of the Mosaic system. (4) The appearance of Jehovah himself in his glory, in the brightness of his glory, surrounded by angelic forms, in reciprocal relation with the conscious visions, resting upon the conscious ecstasy of the prophets, or Jehovah appearing in his divine Archangel and with his angel-bands over against the prophets overwhelmed and trembling, drawing gradually nearer to the incarnate angel of the covenant (Mal_3:1). The fundamental form of the prophetic period. (5) The hidden preparation for the advent of the angel of the covenant, in the period of national religiousness; his work in the depths of human nature. (6) Christ the Angel of the Covenant, the unity of the divine revelation and the human intuition of God, and therefore also upon the divine side the unity of God and his Angel, and upon the human side the unity of the spiritual intuitions and the natural vision of Christ.
We have already, in what we have thus said, as indeed elsewhere (Leben Jesu, p. 46; Dogmatik, p. 586; Herzog, “Encyclopedia,” The Patriarchs of the Old Testament), stated our view of the Angel of the Lord; but we must here repeat that in our conviction the exegetical prejudice, ever coming into greater prominence, that the Angel of the Lord is a creature-angel, as also the prejudice in reference to the supposed angels (Genesis 6), burdens, obscures, and confuses in a fatal way, Old Testament theology, and leaves no room for a clear psychology of the faith of revelation, an intuitive Christology, or an organic unity of biblical theology.
In regard to this point, Kurtz has undertaken with great zeal the defence of the erroneous interpretation, although he had earlier defended the true one, “History of the Old Covenant,” p. 144, 2d ed. We introduce here his reference to the state of the question before we enter upon its discussion. “The views of interpreters, as to the nature and being of the Angel of the Lord ( îַìְàַêְ éְäåָֹä , also called îַìְàַêְ äָàֱìֹäִéí ) who appears first in the patriarchal history, have been divided into two classes. The one sees in him a representation of the deity, entering perceptibly the world of sense, in a human form, and thus is to be regarded as the prefiguration of the incarnation of God in Christ; the other sees in him an angel, like other angels, but who, because he appears in name and mission as a representative of Jehovah, is even introduced and spoken of as Jehovah; indeed, himself speaks and acts as Jehovah. The first view has already made a beaten path for itself in the oldest theology of the synagogue, and in the theological doctrine of the Metatron, of that, from God emanating, godlike revealer of the divine nature, has assumed a definite shape and form, although embracing foreign elements (comp. Hengstenberg: ‘Christology,’ iii. 2. pp. 31–86). It was adhered to by most of the Fathers (Hengstenberg, as above), and with these must be counted the old churchly Protestant theologians. In recent times it has been defended most decidedly and fully by Hengstenberg (i. pp. 125–142, 2d ed.; and iii. 2. pp. 31–86), who, with the Fathers and the old Protestant theologians, recognizes in the angel of the Lord the manifested God, the logos of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and holds this view to be so widely developed in the history of the Old Testament revelation, that it lays the foundation for the doctrine of the logos in the Gospel by John (compare his ‘Commentary on the book of Revelation,’ i. p. 613). Sack (Comment. theol., Bonn, 1821), had already discussed the question, and reached the conclusion, that the angel of the Lord is identical with Jehovah, but that the term does not designate a person distinct from him, but merely a form of manifestation, on which account he prefers to render îַìְàַêְ ‘the commission’ rather than ‘the sent’ (comp. his Apologetik, 2d ed. p. 172). In the footsteps of these two last-named persons, the writer of this [Kurtz] sought to prove, in Tholuck’s Anzeiger, 1846, No. 11–14, that the Maleach Jehovah is God, as presented in the authors of the Old Testament; appearing, revealed, entering into the limitations of space and time, as perceptible by the senses, distinguished from the invisible God, in his exalted and therefore imperceptible existence, above the world of sense, and removed from all the limitations of space and time; still without bringing it to a full, distinct consciousness, whether this distinction was merely ideal or essential, whether it was to be regarded as supposed for the moment, or grounded in the very nature of God. The most important parts of this essay were included in the first edition of this work. Delitzsch: ‘Biblical and Prophetical Theology,’ p. 289; Nitzsch: ‘System;’ T. Beck: ‘Christian Science of Doctrine;’ Keil: ‘Book of Joshua,’ p. 87; Hävernick: ‘Old Testament Theology,’ p. 73; Ebrard: ‘Christian Dogmatics,’ vol. i.; J. P. Lange: ‘Positive Dogmatics,’ p. 586; Stier: ‘Isaiah, not Pseudo Isaiah,’ p. 758, and others, all agree in the same exhibition of this theological question.
“The other view has found a defender in Augustin: De Trinitate, 11. 3, and meets the approval of the Catholic theologians under the influence of their view of the adoration of angels; and of the Socinians, Arminians, and Rationalists, from their opposition to the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity. In more recent times, however, some eminent persons, who are entirely free from these interested motives, have adopted this view, viz., Steudel, in his Pfingstprogramme for 1830, and in his ‘Old Testament Theology,’ p. 252 ff.; Hofmann: Weissagung und Erfüllung, i. p. 127, and Schriftbeweis, pp. 154–159 and 321–340; Baumgarten: ‘Com.’ p. 195; Tholuck: ‘Gospel by John,’ 6th ed. p. 52; Pelt: ‘Theological Encyclopedia,’ p. 241; and still more recently, Delitzsch, renouncing his earlier view, and adopting that of Hofmann: ‘Com. on Genesis,’ p. 249. Between Steudel and Hofmann there is, however, this difference, that the former sees in the Maleach Jehovah an angel especially commissioned by God for each particular case—it being left undetermined whether it is one and the same or not, while, in Hofmann’s view, it is one and the same angel-prince, who here, as the Maleach Jehovah, later as the captain of the hosts of the Lord (Jos_5:14), as the angel of his face (Isa_63:9), under the personal name of Michael (Dan_10:13; Dan_10:21; Dan_12:1), as the representative of Jehovah, controls the commonwealth and history of Israel (Weissagung und Erfüllung, pp. 131, 132). In his later work, however, Hofmann has modified his view so far, that the angel who performs this or that work is ever a definite angel, but the same one is not destined for all time, while it is still true that Israel has his prince, his special angel, who is named Michael (Schriftbeweis, p. 157).
“Barth has in a most peculiar way attempted to unite the views of Hengstenberg and Hofmann: ‘The Angel of the Covenant. A Contribution to Christology. A Letter to Schelling.’ Leipzig, 1845. He holds, with Hengstenberg, the divine personality, and with Hofmann, the angelic created nature of the Maleach Jehovah, and unites the two views through the assertion of a past assumption of the angelic nature of the logos, analogous to his later incarnation. We leave this view unexamined, as utterly baseless.”
Kurtz closes his reference (in the 2d ed.) with the explanation, that he finds himself in the same position as Delitzsch, constrained by his conviction to adopt the view of Hofmann.
According to the view of the old ecclesiastical theology, the (First) argument in favor of the self-revelation of God, in the Angel of the Lord, is the personal and real identity in which this Angel-name always appears. If Maleach Jehovah, Maleach Elohim, may designate, some one angel of the Lord, in a peculiar appearance, still it must be kept in view here, that from Genesis 16 onwards this name, with slight and easily explained modifications, is a standing, permanent figure. Hofmann replies: Maleach Hamelech is not the king himself, but the king’s messenger. So also Maleach Jehovah is not Jehovah himself. Certainly! so also the king’s son is not the king himself. According to Hofmann’s view, therefore, it must follow that the Son of God is not God. The nature of God in his self-distinction is exalted far above that of earthly kings.
Secondly. The Angel of Jehovah identifies himself with Jehovah. He ascribes to himself divine honors, divine determinations (Gen_16:10-11; Gen_18:10; Gen_18:13-14; Gen_18:20; Gen_22:12; Gen_22:15-16 , etc., etc.). Some one objects: The prophets also identify themselves in a similar way with Jehovah. This is simply an incorrect assertion. There is no authentic passage in which the prophet, in the immediate announcement of the word of God, does not in some way make a clear distinction between his person and the person of Jehovah. The examples which Delitzsch quotes, that ambassadors have identified themselves with their kings, rest upon the political rights and style of ambassadors, and are as little applicable to the style of a creature-angel as to that of apostles and prophets.
Thirdly. The writers of the history, and the biblical persons, use promiscuously the names Angel of Jehovah, and Jehovah, and render to this angel divine honor, in worship and sacrifice (Gen_16:13; Gen_18:1-2; Gen_21:17-19; Gen_22:14; Gen_48:15-16, etc.). Our opponents answer: It is not high treason when an officer, in the name and commission of the king, as the representative of the person of the king, receives the homage of the subjects. It is not his own person, but the person of the king, whom in this case he represents, which comes into strong relief. With this halting, limping comparison, they seek to justify the conduct of the men of faith in the Old Testament, who, in their view, rendered freely and without reproof divine honor to a creature-angel, and did this constantly, whenever this angel appears, notwithstanding the Old Testament abhors and condemns the deifying of the creature, and that here the express divine watchword is: “My glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images” (Isa_42:8).
The following reasons are urged in favor of the supposition of a creature-angel:
a. The name angel designates, throughout, a certain class of spiritual beings. Kurtz formerly replied to this that the name angel is not one of nature but of office (Mal_2:7; Hag_1:13). Although the name angel now indeed points in many cases to a certain class of spiritual beings, still the fact that there are symbolic angel-forms is a sufficient proof that the Angel of the Lord need not necessarily be regarded as a being of that class of spirits.
b. Hofmann urges that since the advent of Christ the New Testament speaks of the ἄããåëïò êõñßïí (Mat_1:20; Luk_2:9; Act_12:7). Kurtz has answered that in the places quoted the expression designates a different person from the Maleach Jehovah of the Old Testament, or even of the speech of Stephen (Act_7:30). He recalls this reply, however, with the remark that if Matthew and Luke had even had a suspicion that the ἄããåëïò êõñßïõ in the Old Testament always designated the Son of God, who has since become man in Christ, they would never have used this expression even once in reference to a creature-angel. With this conception of angelic appearances the transition to Hofmann’s view was surely possible and easy. To his objection (p. 120) we reply, that the incarnate Christ at Bethlehem could just as well be made by God to assume an angelic form, near at hand and remote, as the Logos of God in the preparatory steps to his incarnation. To Kurtz this wonderful manifestation of the “ubiquity” of Christ is only a “pure idea” or fancy. But just as (Gen_18:19) the two angels who went to Sodom are distinguished from the Angel of Jehovah before whom Abraham stood with his intercessory prayer, and as Paul (Gal_3:19) suggests the distinction between the angel giving the law at Sinai and the Angel of his face, who was the Christ of the Old Testament (1Co_10:4), so we can distinguish in the New Testament between the two men or the two angels at the grave of the risen one (Luk_24:4; Joh_20:12), or the two men upon the Mount of Olives (Act_1:10) on the one side, and the angel who announces the birth of Christ on the other. Only Matthew, in his solemn and festive expression, has embraced these two angels in one symbolic form of the Angel of the Lord, and this indeed upon good grounds, since in the resurrection or the second birth of Christ the Logos was active, as in his birth at Bethlehem.
c. Baumgarten urges: Why should the Angel of the Lord first appear to the Egyptian bondwoman, Genesis 16? Kurtz and Delitzsch have, in their earlier works, given various replies to this question. We answer with another question: Why should the risen Christ first appear to Mary Magdalene, and not to his mother or John? We think, according to the simple law, that the Lord reveals himself first to the poorest, most distressed and receptive hearts. It is, besides, a mere supposition that the Angel of the Lord has first appeared here, where he is first named with this name, as we shall see further below.
d. Kurtz urges again: It lies against the idea of a continuous development of the knowledge of the historical salvation, in the Holy Scriptures, if there is actually in the very beginning of the Old-Testament history so clear a consciousness of the distinction between the unrevealed and revealed God, and this consciousness is ever becoming more obscure in the progress of the Old Testament, but has vanished entirely and forever in the New Testament. But this is all as manifestly a pure supposition as when Hofmann thinks the Old Testament cannot speak of the self-distinction of God because in that case it would anticipate the doctrine of the Trinity. That indeed is the organic development of revelation from the Old to the New Testament, that the revelation of the Trinity in the divine being was introduced through the revelation of the duality. But when the form of the Angel of the Lord in Genesis, passes to the Angel of his face, or the personified face of Jehovah himself in Exodus, then to the prince over the armies of God in Joshua, and finally to the Archangel, the Angel of the Covenant of the later prophets, the organic development of the doctrine in question is manifest.
e. Kurtz remarks again the fact that in the New Testament the law is said to be ordained by angels or spoken by the angel (Act_7:53; Gal_3:19; Heb_2:2), as in favor of the doctrine of the created angel. Here he plainly refutes himself. For Paul (Gal_3:19) clearly refers to this feature of the law, that it was ordained by the angel, in order to show that the law was subordinate to the promise given to Abram. But if the mediation through angels is a mark of the imperfection of the law, it follows that Abram could not have received the promise through such a mediation of a created angel. To this end he presses especially the appeal to (Heb_2:2) “the great superiority of the promise to the law is derived from this, that the law was announced äé ’ ἀããÝëùí but the gospel äéὰ ôïῦ êõñßïõ .” For the answer see Romans 4 where the promise to which the law is subordinated appears as the yet undeveloped gospel of the old covenant.
f. Heb_13:2 refers to the three men who appeared to Abram in the plains of Mamre (Genesis 18). But why not to the two angels whom Lot received (Genesis 19)? The words can refer only to a peculiar kind of hospitality, Abram knew, however, that the men who were his guests were of a higher order, while Lot appears not to have known it at the beginning.
g. The angel-prince Michael (Dan_10:13; Dan_10:21; Dan_12:1) has the same position which the Maleach Jehovah has in the historical books. But that Michael cannot be the Logos is clear, since he is not the only ùׂø âãåì . Gabriel appears as a second archangel (Dan_8:16; Dan_9:21), (Tob_12:15), adds Raphael and (4 Ezr_4:1) still further Uriel. When I now, from the identity of Gabriel or Michael with the appearing figure in Revelation 1, draw the conclusion,—Gabriel or Michael are symbolical manifested images of Christ (as the old Jewish theology saw in Michael the manifested image of Jehovah), and thus the one symbolical angel-form of the Angel of the Lord or angel-prince has branched itself into the seven archangel forms of the coming Christ. Kurtz finds in these forms “pure ideas” or fancies. But I call them the veiled angelic modes of the revelation and energy of Christ, in the foundation, limits, and life of humanity and history. But Michael had need of help (Dan_11:1). Indeed! that can in no case be said of the Logos (Luk_22:43).
h. Zec_1:12, the Angel of the Lord was subordinated to Jehovah. The Angel of Jehovah as the intercessor for Israel prays to Jehovah of hosts (compare the high-priestly prayer John 17).
i. Mal_3:1, the Messiah was named the Angel of the Covenant. “But,” Kurtz argues, “if Malachi had intended by the Angel of the Covenant the Angel of Jehovah, he would certainly so have named him.” Then Moses could not have meant the Angel of the Lord when he speaks of the Angel of his face. Certainly it is true that in the Angel of the Covenant the union of the divine form of the Angel of Jehovah and of the human Son of David, as the divine-human founder of the New Testament, is prophetically consummated.
k. The Angel of his face (Exo_23:20), of whom Jehovah says, My name is in him (Exo_32:34; Exo_33:15; Isa_63:9), is according to Kurtz the same with the Angel of Jehovah in Genesis. But now (Exo_32:34) Jehovah appears so to distinguish this angel from himself that we cannot think of him as one with Jehovah. We cannot indeed freely use the ingenious answer to this difficulty by Hengstenberg, which Kurtz contests (see p. 154). But the opposition here is not this, that either a created angel goes with Israel, or the Logos-angel, but this, that he would not longer himself be present in the camp of Israel (Exo_33:5), but beyond it (Gen_12:7), that thus a stricter distinction and separation should be made between the impure people and his sanctuary.
l. In the history of the three angels who visit Abram in the plains (the oaks) of Mamre (Gen_18:19), not only the one angel who remains with Abram enters as Jehovah, but the two others, so soon as they were recognized by Lot in their super-earthly being, were addressed by him with the names of God, Adonai, etc. Kurtz, overlooks here the change of persons which appears in the narrative (Gen_19:17-19). The peculiar work of the two angels continues until Gen_12:16. They lead Lot out of the city and set him without (before) the city. The angels now retire to the background, and Jehovah comes into view and says, “Escape for thy life.” That Jehovah had gone up from Abram into heaven, and here again stands before Lot, can only be a source of error to the literal conception, which attributes to Jehovah a gross corporeal form, and in the same measure the local changes in space. We do not wonder now that Lot clings to the vanishing angel-forms with the cry, Adonai. Now the one unique appearance presents itself clearly before him (Gen_19:21). Then (Gen_19:24) Jehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven. Without a perception of the change of different voices and visions, and the corresponding change of different revelations, any one will have great difficulty in finding his way through this statement of the struggles of Lot.
We now bring into view the gradual development of the specific revelation of God, which begins with the call of Abram. Hofmann asks: Ought we not to expect that the manifestations of God, so far as they form a preparation for the coming of Christ, should from the very beginning of the history of salvation, and not first from Abram, be described as manifestations of the Maleach Jehovah? The whole distinction between the primitive and patriarchal religion is thus overlooked. The faith of salvation first takes on the form of a definite religion of the future and becomes a more definite preparation for the incarnation of Christ, in the faith of Abram. Hofmann himself, as he in other places admits that the Maleach Jehovah is the one only form of theophany in the history of the old covenant, notwithstanding the numerous changes in the designation of the revelation: e. g. “Jehovah appeared,” etc., deprives the implied objection in the above question of any force. Indeed, the appearance of the Maleach Jehovah is announced with the patriarchal revelation. It is recorded (Gen_12:1), And Jehovah said to Abram. Starke holds, agreeing with the older theologians, that the Angel of the Lord (see Gal_3:16) is the Son of God himself. But Stephen (Act_7:2) says the God of glory ( äüîá ) appeared to our father Abram when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran. The question meets us here therefore: In what relation does the Maleach Jehovah stand to the äüîá or ëָּáåֹã ý of Jehovah? In Luk_2:9 there is a very significant parallelism— ἄããåëïò êõñßïõ ἐðÝóôç áὐôïῖò , êáὶ äüîá êõñßïõ ðåñéÝëáìøåí áὐôïýò , i. e. both ideas are bound together in the closest manner and by an inward tie. In Exo_24:16, Exo_40:34, the äüîá of Jehovah is in the same way intimately connected with Jehovah. But in Genesis 33 the äüîá of Jehovah, Gen_12:18, is fully identified with the face of Jehovah, Gen_12:20. According to Gen_12:14 (compared with Gen_12:2 and Isa_63:9), the face of Jehovah is identical with the Angel of his face. The Angel of Jehovah is thus the manifested figure of Jehovah, in the same way as his äïîá . The glory fills the holy of holies, and Jehovah appears in the holy of holies (Exo_40:34 and other passages). According to Isa_6:3 the revelation of the äüîá of Jehovah shall fill the whole earth (compare Eze_1:28; Eze_3:12, etc.). In Tit_2:13 Christ who comes to judgment is described as the äüîá (glorious) appearing of the great God, and in Heb_1:3 he is styled ἀðáýãáóìá ôῆò äüîçò èåïῦ . It is certain that the word äüîá has a manifold signification, and that when used to designate the theophany it points rather to the manifested splendor of the Spirit, than to the spirit of this glorious appearance. (Hence it is closely connected with the pillar of cloud and of fire.) But so much is clearly proved, that the äüîá of Jehovah can properly be personally united with Jehovah himself, with Christ, but not with any creature-angel. It is now in accordance with the course of development, as it is with the character of the patriarchal theophany, that it should begin with the miraculous report or voice, the word (Gen_12:1), and advance to the miraculous vision or manifestation (Gen_12:7). For the word of Jehovah is in the first place the primary form of revelation in the time of the patriarchs, and in regard to the vision, it is the more interior (subjective) event, which appears already in a lower stage or grade of the development in the line of visions. After the separation of Abram from Lot (Gen_13:14) he receives again the word of Jehovah, which blesses him for his generous course, and in a way corresponding with it. So also after his expedition (Gen_15:1). The blessings in both cases correspond to his well-doing: to his renunciation of the better portions of the land, the promise of the whole land is given, and to the pious man of war, God gives himself as a shield and reward. In the important act of the justification of Abram (Genesis 15), the miraculous appearance enters with the word of Jehovah. The word of the Lord came to him in vision. If now the Angel of the Lord first appears under this name in the history of Hagar (Gen_16:9), we have the reason clearly given. Hagar had learned faith in the house of Abram, and its power to behold as an organ of vision was developed in accordance with her necessities. But the Angel of Jehovah, as the Christ who was to come through Isaac, had a peculiar reason for assisting Hagar, since she for the sake of the future Christ is involved in this sorrow. Besides, there is no increase of the divine revelation in this appearance; Abram saw Jehovah himself in the Angel of Jehovah, and Sarah also in the manifestation of Jehovah sees above all the Angel.
Between Abram’s connection with Hagar and the next manifestation of Jehovah there are full thirteen years. But then his faith is strengthened again, and Jehovah appears to him (Gen_17:1). The most prominent and important theophany in the life of Abram is the appearance of the three men (Genesis 18). But this appearance wears its prevailing angelic form, because it is a collective appearance for Abram and Lot, and at the same time refers to the judgment upon Sodom. Hence the two angels are related to