120] equally. He with whom Abraham
has to do, always, and without exception, speaks as God Himself; while
the two with whom Lot has to do speak at first, as [Greek: leitourgika
pneumata], distinguishing 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
[Hebrew: advni].) 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 [Greek: kat' exochen], 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 A