a vintage-knife.", therefore, is the person through whom anything is effected, quo opus efficitur. The restriction to one who is sent is not attributable to the derivation, but to the usages of speech.1

It cannot but be pronounced a hasty assertion on the part of Hofmann, that it necessarily follows from the word itself, that reference is made to an inferior angel, and cannot possibly be made to one who is connected with God by unity of nature. "What can be more obvious," he says, " than that SD

-him יהוה מלאך יהוה himself, nor המלך cannot be המלך

self, but a being distinct from him, and therefore not God the son, but a created being, a finite spirit, through whom and in whom the eternal God makes himself known ?" A distinction is undoubtedly involved in the name, but it is not correct, that it must necessarily be the distinction between finite and infinite. The messenger may be of the same nature as the sender. The king may certainly send his son as a messenger (Matt. xxi. 37). According to Hofmann's premises, Christ himself must be "a created being, a finite spirit," on account of the numerous passages in the gospel of John, in which he is spoken of as sent by God.

necessarily mean the מלאך יהוה מלאך האלהים Must

To this we reply that the

angel of God, the angel of the Lord, or may they also mean an angel of God, an angel of the Lord? former alone is correct.

an angel of God, just as

God, and

מחנה

might certainly mean,

may mean a camp of

a house of God. For it is evident that had originally an appellative character, from the frequency with which it takes the article. At the same time, according to ordinary usage, the word Elohim has generally the force of a proper noun, whilst is a proper noun in the fullest sense of the word. So far as an ab is concerned, the rule is applicable in this case, that "when two nouns are each of them definite, the article is merely prefixed to the

יהוה

מלאך

1 Thus Gousset also explains it: " inter omnes operationes et occupationes illam nuntií specifice designat." He calls attention to the fact

inter omnes et מלאכים

משרת but with שליח is construed not with מלאך 4.that in Ps. civ

2 Weissagung und Erfüllung i. p. 127.

second" (Ewald § 290 a); to

the rule applies, that

"when a proper name or pronoun stands as the second noun, it has the same force as a noun with the article; e.g., in

בֶן הָאִישׁ

בן ישי

the son of Jesse, the first noun is rendered definite through the influence of the second, quite as much as in the son of the man" (Ewald 290 b). Ewald asserts (§ 290 a) that under certain circumstances an individual member of a species may be connected, in the construct state, with a noun with the article prefixed, or with a proper noun. "If the first noun," he says, "is to be regarded as indefinite, whilst the second is necessarily definite, the first may stand even before the article in the construct state, provided no ambiguity can arise,

but if this would be the case, seeing that in the first word the individual would of necessity be described in the species, the first word must not be written in the construct state." (According to § 292 the genitive is indicated by, "whenever the second noun is definite, and requires to be separated from the first, in order that the latter may retain its indefinite character"). We have some doubts, as to the possibility of establishing this limitation. The facts which appear to speak in its favour admit of a different explanation. But we have no interest in entering into any further proofs of this; for the one case, which Ewald singles out as an exception, is not the one with which we have to do here. In the present instance ambiguity would certainly arise. The passages brought forward by Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfüllung i. 129), and others, for the purpose of upsetting the rule altogether, will not bear a closer examination. In Mal. ii. 7 the priest is not described as a messenger of Jehovah ; but Hitzig has quite correctly translated and explained it as meaning "for he is the messenger, &c.-As the expounder of the law, the revealer of the will of God, he is the constant and ordinary messenger of Jehovah." In Haggai i. 13, it is not an angel of the Lord that is intended, but Haggai is called the angel of the Lord, as distinguished from others of the same name, but different vocation. In 1 Sam. xvii. 58, David replies to the question put to him by Saul, "whose son art thou ?" not a son, but the son of thy servant Jesse. The son of Jesse is opposed to the sons of other fathers. Whether he had any brothers or not, was not a

point in consideration at the time. In 1 Sam. xix. 9, the proper rendering is not "an evil spirit of the Lord," but "the spirit of the Lord as an evil one." That is the angel of the Lord is very obvious from 1 Kings xix. 5, " and behold an angel, , touched him;" compare ver. 7, "and the angel of the Lord touched him a second time,”-first an angel, then the angel who is already known from what has been mentioned before. In 1 Chr. xxi. 15 we find, first of all," and God sent an angel to Jerusalem, to destroy it ;" and then in vers. 15, 16,

, the angel of the Lord, is mentioned.-There is no force in Steudel's objection (bibl. Theol. p. 259): "In the very passage to which Hengstenberg refers, as speaking of the angel xar' èçoxýv, viz., Ex. xxxiii. 20, is written without the article, just as in chap. xxxiii. 2, where he supposes a different angel from the angel of Jehovah to be intended." The angel is certainly also an angel. We have first of all a general term, and then a more particular description, from which we may see, that it is not an ordinary angel that is spoken of, but one of exalted dignity and a superior nature.

מלאך יהוה

But, however certain it is, that can only mean the angel of the Lord, it would be wrong to assert, that the grammatical reason is sufficient to prove, that in every case, in which the is mentioned, without an angel being spoken of before as in 1 Kings xix. 5-7, the Logos must necessarily be intended. The angel might also be an ideal person, and denote an actual plurality. In this sense the priest occurs in the passage quoted from Malachi, where the priests are addressed immediately afterwards in the plural, (ver. 8); and so again the fugitive is mentioned in Gen. xiv. 13, whilst it is left uncertain, whether one individual is intended or several. It is probably in the same sense, viz., as an ideal person, that the angel is spoken of in Gen. xxiv. 7, "he will send his angel before thy face," the actual meaning being "his angel," or "an angel." an angel." Among the is mentioned, there are in fact some, in which this explanation in a very obvious one, e.g., Ps. xxxiv. 8; 2 Sam. xxiv. 16; and 2 Kings xix. 35. But to explain in this manner all the passages, which speak of the angel of the Lord, is by no means admissible, altogether apart from

passages in which the

the fact that, in the great majority of cases, there is a distinct allusion made to a personal angel, and on the general ground, that the figure of speech is of so singular and extraordinary a nature, that it would be entirely opposed to every analogy, to imagine its ramifications to be as extensive as this. Moreover, even this would fail to explain the fact, that in the passages in which the names of God alternate with, and also in those, in which divine attributes are imputed to the, he is usually called the angel of the Lord from the very first; whereas, on the other hand, in passages, in which unmistakeable reference is made to ordinary angels, an angel is spoken of first, and it is only after he is known to the reader, that he is called the angel at all.

We will now proceed, in continuation of our discussion in the first volume, to examine the various passages, in which the angel of the Lord is mentioned. In addition to those already noticed in the books of Moses, there is a passage in Ex. iii., which deserves especial consideration. In ver. 2 the angel of Jehovah is said to have appeared to Moses in the fiery flame of a thornbush. In ver. 4 we read, "Jehovun saw that he drew near to look, and Elohim called to him out of the thorn-bush." In vers. 6, and 14-16, the angel of Jehovah assumes to himself all the attributes of the true God, calls himself the Eternal One, the God of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and promises to deliver the children of Israel out of Egypt, and inflict severe punishment upon the Egyptians. In ver. 5 Moses is commanded to take off his shoes from off his feet, because the place where he stands is holy ground. And in ver. 6 he is said to have hidden his face, because he was afraid to look upon God.

Those who maintain, that by the angel of the Lord we are always to understand an inferior and ordinary angel, dispose of this and similar passages by the simple remark, that the messenger represents the person of the sender, the angels speaking and acting in the name of God, and being addressed and treated as God. We cannot pronounce this supposition absolutely untenable, as many do.1 There is one unquestionable instance in the

1 For example, J. D. Michaelis, who says (supplem. p. 1395) "what ambassador of our own sovereign would reply to the enquiry, who art thou? 'I am George the Third, King of Great Britain, this is my name for ever ?'

VOL. IV.

T

In

Old Testament of ordinary angels appearing in the name of the Lord; and in this case the Lord is also addressed in them. Gen. xix. 18 Lot addresses the two angels by the name, which belongs to God alone, and from the words which follow, "thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast showed in saving my life," &c., it is evident that, whilst addressing the messengers, he has the sender in his mind. The angels, again, in the same manner, reply in Jehovah's name, not in their own, "see, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also," &c. The notion expressed by Justin Martyr in the dialogue with Trypho, that Jehovah suddenly returned, after the two angels had been engaged for some time in conversation with Lot, is evidently nothing but a loophole. For there is not the slightest ground for any such supposition in the text itself, but, on the contrary, it is overthrown by the fact that in ver. 18 it is stated that "Lot spake to them," evidently to the same persons, who are represented in ver. 17 as having conducted him out of the city, and instructed him to flee to the mountains. At the same time, neither this passage nor Rev. xxii. 7, which is generally classed along with it, is fitted to counteract the blow inflicted upon the hypothesis, respecting the ordinary angel, by Ex. iii. and the parallel passages. If these passages prove, on the one hand, that the personation of the sender by the messenger sent is not absolutely inadmissible, yet, on the other hand, their very isolation proves that it was anything but customary, to employ such a mode of address as this. The fact requiring explanation is not, that in one particular instance, in which the angel of the Lord is mentioned, the Lord himself is spoken of immediately afterwards, but that as a Nor is there any greater force in the reasoning of those who appeal to the example of the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, who reads the royal speech, addressed to the Housos of Parliament, in the first person. For it is one thing to read, and another to speak.

1 "Although he sees two, he directs his words to one: from which we may infer that the mind of Lot does not rest upon the angels, for he is fully persuaded that they do not possess supreme power, and that his safety is not in their hands. He uses their faces as a mirror in which to contemplate the face of God." Calvin.

2 The other passages adduced by Clericus (on Gen. xvi. 13), viz. 1 Kings v. 3 and Luke vii. 6 (Quinctilian. inst. orat. iv. 4), are not conclusive, for here the sender is mentioned first, and the messengers show at the very outset that they are not speaking in their own name, but in that of the person by whom they have been cmployed.