§ 7. Of the Religious Knowledge of the Patriarchs On this subject there is, of course, little to be said. The life of the patriarchs in God was one of great directness: their faith was childlike. It is vain, therefore, to try to examine it in its separate doctrinal loci; just as useless as it would be to strive to point out in the germ the stem, branches, twigs, leaves, and blossoms; although they are actually present there. Only a few single points demand consideration. It is a very remarkable thing, that even in Genesis we find the distinction between a revealed and a hidden God which penetrates all the remaining writings of the Old Testament; and this is the case not only when the narrator speaks, but also when he introduces the patriarchs as speaking: so that the doctrine must be regarded as a constituent part of the patriarchal religion. We refer to the distinction between Jehovah and His Angel, מלאךיהוה; or מלאךהאלהים, where the reference of the hidden God to the world, which is the medium of communication with Him, is of a more universal nature, or the author wishes to describe it only in general terms. This Angel of Jehovah is very often placed on a level with the supreme God, called Elohim and Jehovah, and designated as the originator of divine works. In illustration of this, we shall only mention the narrative in Genesis 16, the first place where the Angel of the Lord appears. In Genesis 16:7 it is said that the Angel of the Lord found Hagar; in Genesis 16:10 this Angel attributes to himself a divine work, viz. the countless multiplying of Hagar’s descendants; in Genesis 16:11 he says, Jehovah has heard the affliction of Hagar, and therefore predicates of Jehovah what he had formerly predicated of himself; in Genesis 16:13, Hagar expresses her surprise that she has seen God and still remains alive. Again, in Genesis 31:11, the Angel of God appears to Jacob in a dream. In Genesis 31:13 he calls himself the God of Bethel, to whom Jacob made a vow, referring to the circumstance related in Genesis 28:11-22, where in a nightly vision Jacob sees a ladder, at the top of which stands Jehovah. The Angel of God is thus identified with Jehovah. We find the Angel of the Lord so represented throughout, in Genesis as well as in the other books of the Old Testament. Many ways have been taken to explain this apparent identification of the Angel of the Lord with the Lord Himself, and at the same time to preserve the distinction between them. (1.) It is very generally maintained that the Angel of the Lord is one of the lower angels, to whom divine names, deeds, and predicates are attributed only because he speaks and acts by God’s commission, and in His name. The principal defenders of this opinion are: Origen, Jerome, and Augustine among the church-fathers; among Jewish expositors, Abenezra; numerous Roman Catholic, Socinian, and Arminian scholars, especially Grotius, Clericus, and Calmet; among recent commentators, Gesenius, v. Hofmann (Weiss, and Schriftbeweis), who differs from the rest only in assuming that it has always been one and the same spirit who is the medium of communication between God and the chosen race; Baumgarten, Delitzsch, Steudel in. his Old Testament theology, and others. But there are weighty arguments which prove that the Angel of God was not an ordinary angel, but one exalted above all created angels. Thus, for example, the angels who accompany the Angel who represents Jehovah, Genesis 18, are throughout subordinate to him. And in Genesis 28:11-22 the Angel of God is also clearly distinguished from the lower angels. Jehovah, or as he is called in Genesis 31:11, the Angel of God, stands at the top of the ladder; angels ascend and descend on it. In Exodus 23:21 this Angel is characterized as having the name of God in him, i.e. as partaking of the divine essence and glory. In Joshua 5 he first calls himself the prince of angels, and attributes to himself divine honour. In Isaiah 43:9 he is called the Angel of the presence of the Lord, equivalent to the Angel who represents God in person. To follow v. Hofmann in giving such prominence to a created angel, is quite at variance with the position which the Old Testament throughout assigns to angels, and would have led to polytheism. In this case we should have to give up the Old Testament foundation so necessary for the prologue of John’s Gospel, and should lose the key to the explanation of the fact that Christ and Satan are at variance in the New Testament, just as the Angel of the Lord and Satan are opposed in the Old Testament: in the New Testament the Angel disappears almost without a trace. He is mentioned only in Revelation 12 under the name of Michael. This is inconceivable if he were distinct from Christ, the guardian of the church; for the Old Testament has much to say of the Angel of the Lord. But the principal argument is the following: “The Angel of the Lord constantly and without exception speaks and acts as if he were himself the creator and ruler of all things, and the covenant God of Israel; he never legitimizes his appearance and activity by appealing to a divine commission; we find him continually deciding the destinies of nations and individuals by his own might, appropriating divine power, honour, and dignity, and accepting sacrifice and worship, without a protest, as something due to him.” The assumption of a temporary interchange of the person of Jehovah is refuted by this exceptionless regularity. (2.) Others—as, for example, Rosenmüller, Sack, De Wette—try to make the Angel of Jehovah identical with Him, as the mere form in which He appears; “a passing transformation of God into the visible,” as Oehler expresses it, Proleg. p. 67. This hypothesis, however, is contradicted by those passages where the Angel of the Lord is expressly distinguished from the Lord Himself. Thus, for example, in Exodus 23:21, where Jehovah promises the Israelites that He will send before them the Angel in whom is His name; and in Joshua 5:13, etc., where the Angel calls himself the captain of the host of Jehovah, and is thus relatively subordinate to Him. The view is also at variance with Genesis 48:16, where Jacob says, “The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads,” where the Angel is spoken of as a permanent personality, and without any reference to a single appearance. Jacob traces all his preservation, and all the blessings he has received during his whole life, to this Angel; and claims his help for his grandchildren and their descendants. (3.) The only view remaining is this, that the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord contains the main features of a distinction between the concealed and the revealed God or the revealer of God. We find this in perfect development in the New Testament, which makes known to us not only the concealed, but also the revealed God, who is united with Him by unity of essence, viz. the Son or λόγος, who was the medium of communication between God and the world even before He became incarnate in Christ, and to whom in particular belonged the whole administration of the affairs of the kingdom of God, the entire guidance of Israel and their ancestors. This view is the only possible one besides the other two which we have already shown to be untenable; and moreover, it has in its favour, that in all passages where the Angel of the Lord is spoken of, the unanimous tradition of the Jews makes him the one mediator between God and the world, the originator of all revelation, to whom they give the name Metatron. It may be regarded as that which generally prevails in the Christian church. All the church-fathers, with the exception of those already named, were in favour of it; and it has been defended by almost all theologians of the two evangelical churches. Here arises the question, How does the doctrine of the Messenger of God related to Elohim and Jehovah, already belong to the patriarchal consciousness? At the first glance it seems as if God were related to His Messenger as Elohim to Jehovah. But on nearer consideration the difference becomes apparent. The distinction between Jehovah and Elohim has reference not to being, but to knowing: Elohim is the concealed Jehovah, Jehovah the revealed Elohim; whence it is evident that the use of Elohim preponderates only in Genesis, at the time of the gradual transition to a developed consciousness of God; and, on the other hand, falls completely into the background in the later books of the Pentateuch. The difference between Jehovah and Elohim has its basis solely and entirely in the distinction between the developed and the undeveloped God-consciousness. It contains no intimation of the doctrine of a diversity of persons in one divine substance. Elohim and Jehovah both refer to the whole divine essence. On the contrary, the doctrine of the מלאךיהוה or האלהים has reference to inner relations of the Godhead. It is the first step towards the distinction of a plurality of persons in the one divine nature; against which we cannot urge similarity of name to the created servants of God. For this common name has reference not to essence, but only to office. While the difference between Elohira and Jehovah gradually disappears, Elohim becoming more and more Jehovah, the difference between God and his Angel is by degrees more and more sharply defined, till at last it is definitely shown to be that of Father and Son. In this way it loses its fluctuating character, that of a mere difference of relations, which it always more or less maintained under the Old Testament, because the main thing there was to uphold the doctrine of the unity of God in opposition to polytheism, and because it was impossible to apprehend more deeply the relation existing between Father and Son till the incarnation of Christ. The existence of the revelation-trinity forms the necessary foundation for rightly understanding the trinity of essence. There is only one more fact to which we shall draw attention, viz. that in the book of Daniel, and in Revelation 12, the Angel of the Lord appears under the name of Michael. This name—who is like God, whose glory is represented in me—is an exact designation of the essence; a limitation of his sphere against that of all other angels. It rests upon Exodus 15:11, “Who is like unto Thee, Lord, among the gods?” and on Psalms 89:7-8. It denotes the εἶναιἴσαθεῷ which is predicated of Christ in John 5:18, Php 2:6. We shall now proceed to point out the causes which led to erroneous views respecting the Angel of the Lord. Among Catholic theologians, it was interest for the worship of Angels; among Socinians and Arminians, it was a disinclination to the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity; among many recent writers, it is due to an exaggerated aversion to the old identification of Old and New Testament doctrine.
How far the patriarchs associated this doctrine of the revealer of God with their Messianic views, cannot be accurately determined. The immediate was so predominant among them, that they must undoubtedly have guessed far more than they clearly understood. But before we can come to any decision respecting this combination, we must first give a sketch of the peerings into the future granted to the patriarchs. The first human pair, after their fall, received an indefinite promise of future restoration, of conquest over sin, and deliverance from the evil connected with it. How the burden of sin and evil impelled the better among the first men to cling to this promise, inscribing it on their hearts in ineffaceable characters, and how their longing was constantly directed to its fulfilment, is shown by the saying of Noah’s parents on his birth, Genesis 5:29. They hoped that the son who was given to them should be the instrument by which God would realize His promise of the blessing which was to follow the curse, if not in its full comprehension, yet in its beginning. And they were not deceived in this hope. In the grace which God showed to Noah and his race the promise certainly did not fail, but received a beginning of its fulfilment, which was at the same time a pledge and prediction of a far more glorious accomplishment. An indication of this was contained in the prophetic announcement of Noah, Genesis 9:26-27. God promises to enter into a close union with the race of Shem; and the descendants of the other son, Japhet, are also at some future time to participate in the fulness of this blessing. This was the extent of the glimpse into the future at the time when Abraham appeared. An entirely new basis was now given to the hope, even apart from the verbal renewal and more exact determination of the promise. In the leadings of the patriarchs, the living God manifested Himself in a way never anticipated before. The heavens which had been closed since the fall re-opened, and the angels of God again ascended and descended. What God promises for the future, gains significance only in proportion as He makes Himself known in the present. Promises heaped upon promises float in the air, and do not come nigh the heart. What God promised to the patriarchs, received its significance by that which God granted them.
These promises are closely connected with those which preceded them. The revelation of a closer union of God with the race of Shem is more nearly defined by the promise that among this race the posterity of Abraham should come into closer communion with God through Isaac, and the posterity of Isaac again through Jacob. God promises to give them the land of Canaan for a possession, to come forth more and more from His concealment, and to assume a more definite form. The promise that Japhet should dwell in the tents of Shem is also renewed. What God pledges Himself to do for a single people, has final reference to the whole human race. Through the posterity of the patriarchs all nations of the earth are to be blessed; through them the curse is to be removed which has rested upon the whole earth since the fall of the first man. In this particular the renewal is also a continuation. In Genesis 9, participation in the blessing is promised only to Shem and Japhet; in this connection, no prospect of a joyful future is opened out to Ham. In the promise to the patriarchs, on the contrary, the blessing is always extended to all nations of the earth. With reference to the manner of the blessing, a new disclosure was given in the blessing of the dying Jacob. From Judah’s stem a great dispenser of blessings is to go forth; and on Him, as the King of the whole earth, the nations will depend. As Genesis 3 is the first Gospel in a wide sense; so Genesis 49 is the first Gospel in a narrower sense: Shiloh is the first name of the Redeemer.
Let us now return to the question, In what relation do the expectations of the patriarchs respecting the future stand to their knowledge of the λόγος? All the graces bestowed on them by God they recognised as coming through the Angel of the Lord. It was he who entered Abraham’s tent; who allowed himself to be overcome by Jacob, by means of the power he himself had given him; whom Jacob, when near death, extolled as his deliverer from all need; and to whose guardianship, as the redeemer from all evil, he commended the sons of Joseph, Genesis 48:14-16. Since, therefore, the Angel of the Lord is expressly named in a series of announcements to the patriarchs; since Jacob, in another place, derives all the assurances which he has experienced from this Angel; since Hosea, in Hosea 12:5, represents Jacob as wrestling with the Angel, while in Genesis we are told of his encounter with Elohim; and since in Genesis 31:11 the Angel of God arrogates to himself that which in Genesis 28 is attributed to Jehovah,—we are fully justified in assuming that all revelations of God to the patriarchs were given through the medium of the Angel of the Lord; that wherever manifestations of Jehovah are spoken of, they must always be regarded as having taken place “in His Angel; “that Jehovah does not form the antithesis to the Angel of Jehovah, but is only the general designation of the divine essence, which is brought near by the Angel. If the Lord generally converses with His own through the medium of His Angel, He must do so always. For the reason why He does so generally can only lie in the fact that His nature requires this mediation; and if the Angel of the Lord had done such infinitely glorious things for believers in the present, why should they not also expect him to be the mediator of all future graces? To determine whether this mediation would concentrate itself in a personal appearance of the Angel of Jehovah, whether he would be bodily represented in the Prince of Peace from Judah’s stem, lay beyond the sphere of their lower knowledge. But in the meantime it formed a basis for that higher illumination which was vouchsafed to them in moments when they were filled with the Spirit of God. If the Angel of the Lord appeared to Abraham for an inferior aim, what might they not expect when the highest of all aims would be realized, and the whole earth freed from its curse? We do not find the clear and sharply defined knowledge of the mediation of the Messianic salvation through the Angel of the Lord until very late, in the post-exile prophets Zechariah and Malachi. Those passages, properly classic, are Zechariah 11 and Zechariah 13:7, and Malachi 3:1.
What has been said respecting the doctrine of the Messiah, holds good also of the doctrine of immortality and retribution, among the patriarchs. In their direct consciousness, the belief in immortality was given as certainly as they themselves had passed from death to life. Only he who has experienced this change has the certainty of a blessed immortality; and where this is the case, it exists without exception. All God’s dealings with the patriarchs were calculated to strengthen direct trust. In Matthew 22:23et seq., the Saviour shows, in opposition to the Sadducees, how all the Lord’s dealings with them were a prophecy of their resurrection. If man be only dust and ashes, how should God deign thus to accept him for His own? What lies at the basis of Abraham’s readiness to offer up his son, is the confidence that God was able even to raise him up from the dead (Hebrews 11:19), founded on a real, not a lifeless, knowledge of His unbounded omnipotence, which, when connected with a true perception of the divine love, must necessarily beget the hope of resurrection. In general, the patriarchs held aloof from all subtle inquiries on a subject respecting which God had not given them more definite disclosures. Their aim was to surrender themselves, body and soul, unconditionally to God, and quietly to await His will respecting them. Some have sought to find a definite expression of hope in the words of the dying Jacob, Genesis 49:18 : “I have waited for Thy salvation, O Lord.” But the context shows that this has reference rather to that salvation which God had promised to Jacob for his race, the salvation to which the whole blessing has reference. But it is significant that the account of Enoch’s translation, in consequence of his walk with God, must have come to Moses through the medium of the patriarchs. This circumstance showed them that there was an everlasting blessed life for the pious; and that the more closely they felt themselves united to God, the more able they would be to appropriate the actual promise thus given to them. These remarks have reference to the doctrine of eternal life; belief in mere immortality was common even to the lower knowledge of the patriarchs; as is shown by a whole host of passages, which we take for granted are well known. The idea of annihilation and the cessation of all individual life, is quite foreign to the Old Testament. The foreground, the sojourn in Sheol—derived from שאל, to ask, the ever-desiring, drawing all life to itself—is very clearly recognised even in the time of the patriarchs. But a veil rested on that which lies beyond Sheol. It was not yet clearly understood that Sheol was only an intermediate state. But the more the patriarchs had decidedly the disadvantage of us with regard to a clear knowledge of the future life—for in this respect they lacked all revelation of God—the more ought we to be edified by their living faith, which was ready for every sacrifice; the more deeply must they put us to shame, since we possess the solution of so many of the problems of this earthly life, of so many difficulties which interfere with a clear insight into the future life; to whom so glorious a prize is clearly presented; to whom “I am thine exceeding great reward “means far more than it could have meant to Abraham; to whom, therefore, it must be infinitely easier to rise above the sorrows of the present. It was not until long after the time of the patriarchs that the doctrine of eternal life was laid down as one of the fundamental dogmas of revelation, for reasons which we shall afterwards develop.
Faith is expressly designated in Genesis 15:6 as the subjective ground of the righteousness of the patriarchs before God, the soul of their religion: “And Abraham believed God, and God counted it to him for righteousness.” This faith, as an absolute trust in God’s word and power, notwithstanding all protests raised against it by the visible, is in essence perfectly identical with the faith of the New Testament, which accepts the word of reconciliation and the merit of Christ. The difference consists not in the position of the mind, but only in the object, in the meaning which God here and there gives to the word faith, in the expression of His power, which must be apprehended by faith. The motto of the patriarchs, like that of the New Testament believers, was: “Although the fainting heart deny, yet on Thy word I must rely.” Whoever, like Abraham, in firm confidence in the word and power of God, notwithstanding his dead body and Sarah’s, expects the promised son, is ready to offer up this son as a sacrifice, against the assurance of the flesh that no life can follow death, and considers the promised land his own although it is occupied by numerous and mighty nations; who ever, like Jacob, rises above his sins, and in strong faith exclaims, “Though our sins be many,” etc., is in such a position that the word of reconciliation has only to be offered, in order to be accepted by him.
