Genesis 18:1. YHVH appears to Abraham in his tent.
Yes. And after verse one comes verse two, when the three men appear. First G-d appeared, then the three men. Verse one and verse two.
Genesis 18:9-15 and Genesis 18:16-17
1. This is not just a vision to Abraham.
YHVH spoke to Sarah as part of the same conversation.
YHVH contextually appears to speak to the whole group, asking if He should hide what He will do from Abraham.
Verse 1 - G-d appears on scene.
Verse 2 - Three men appear on scene.
Verse 3 - Abraham runs to greet the three men.
Verses 4, 5 - Abraham offers some Middle Eastern hospitality. The three men accept.
Verses 6-8 - Abraham gathers the team together to start the meal.
Verse 9 - The three men ask Abraham about the whereabouts of his wife. Abraham responds.
Verse 10 - One man says that he will return next year for the birth of the new baby
Verse 11 - Narrator tells us that Abraham and Sara were passed childbearing age.
Verse 12 - Sarah has a laughing fit.
Verse 13, 14 - G-d asks why Sarah is laughing.
Verse 15 - Sarah denies it. G-d disagrees.
Verse 16 - The men leave.
Verse 17 - G-d begins a new conversation
2. One of the men say that they will return in a years time and Sarah and will have a child.
Then YHVH says as part of the same conversation that He will return in a year and they will have a child.
It can be read as confirmation that this is the same man.
No. G-d doesn't say this. One of the men says this. The men are obviously angels (who are described as men in other places) speaking on behalf of G-d. So when Sarah laughs at what one of them says, G-d immediately asks why Sarah doesn't believe His messenger.
The, finally, we see Genesis 18:22 and Genesis 19:1
This clearly gives an indication that the third man was God, otherwise we would expect to see a third angel visiting Sodom.
These two verse prove that the three and G-d are not the same. When the verses speaks about all three angels together it says, "they" or "the men". When it wants to describe an action taken by only two of the angels, it says "and the two angels". It
doesn't say "and the two men/angels got up from there (16)/ turned from there (22)" It says "and the men..." Because that's how it describes all three angels. The reason why there are only two angels visiting Sodom, is because the extra angel had already fulfilled his job by Abraham (1). The other two would now go onto save Lot (1) and destroy Sodom (1).
They saw a metaphor for G-d in His administration as G-d of Israel.
This is a metaphor for the ease with which Moses spoke to G-d as opposed to other prophets who had their prophecy through visions and dreams. Moses could speak to G-d at any time without requiring a visit from someone who isn't right by his face.
This is a reference to Ex. 33:23. Where again Moses doesn't see G-d, but His administration called "G-d's back". This is a metaphor for a less clear understanding of G-d's administration, just as when one speaks to another face to face, one can see his facial expression which presents a clearer understanding of the other. As opposed to hearing someone whose back is turned, where you can still understand the person, but not as deeply.
Judges 13:3, Judges 13:17-18, Judges 13:21-23
These are angels.
This means, in prophecy.
This is an angel.
Genesis 16:7, Genesis 16:13
So are these.
In a dream. Not with a body.
G-d's presence.
This is an angel.
In prophecy. His presence.
You have to dismiss a lot of instances in the Bible as metaphorical to claim no one has had a face to face encounter with God.
Nothing is dismissed. Everything is explained.
Some are more clear than others as being more than just visions, as they involve physical interaction.
None.
Notice how there is an expectation among people that they cannot see God and live, yet they know they have seen God.
When they see an incredibly spiritual sight, they assume that they will die. In all three cases they are wrong, because they aren't seeing G-d, but a vision that G-d intends for them to see that is not G-d, yet still very spiritual.
This is consistent with what we see in the New Testament, where Jesus reveals to the Father to us, and is the Word of God made flesh.
This statement makes no sense.
You'd have to explain what you mean by that.
Does G-d have a long nose (Ex. 34:6)? Does He carry a rucksack filled with sins on His back (34:7)? Is the cure for the Israelites a hot compress to the neck (Ex. 32:9)? Is G-d's finger made of lice (Ex. 8:15) and did the magicians actually see a big licey finger descend from heaven? etc. etc.
Claiming that all appearances of God in the Bible are just abstract visions is different from claiming that accounts of men meeting with God are merely metaphors. The later implies that there is no historicity to the accounts, but they are just fables meant to illustrate spiritual principles. The later is not a position I've ever seen an Orthodox Jew take concerning the Scripture.
I did not claim that the accounts of men having visions are metaphors, but what the men perceived were metaphors.
