THE DIVINE NATURE

73

by the idea, and that their sensuous minds, like the bulk of the lower orders in Catholic Christendom, demanded and welcomed some external object in order to bring before them the real existence of their God. The case of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha has been adduced in order to prove that the spirituality of Jahweh was not a doctrine of Mosaism originally, but only a development of it belonging to the eighth century, or the age of the literary prophets. But, in the first place, we have very imperfect accounts of these prophets, and the accounts we have are taken up with their conflict against a much more serious evil, namely, the profoundly immoral worship of Baal which the State authorities had introduced. That they contented themselves with contending against this, or that their contentions against minor evils should be overlooked in their great warfare against fundamental perversions of the theocratic idea, was not unnatural. We have no writings from these prophets, Elijah and Elisha; but the first writings that we possess contain strenuous protests against all images of Jehovah, the setting up of which is identified with idolatry, and the images themselves are called by the odious names of Baals.

III. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD-THE DIVINE NATURE.

1. The Knowledge of God.

The existence of God is not a doctrine of Scripture in the sense that Scripture directly teaches it. It is assumed there as a fact, and as an element in the thought of all men; as connate with man. If there be men who deny it, or do not know it, it is because by a long course of wilful wickedness they have banished the knowledge of it from their minds, and their state is not so much miserable as criminal. Even in their case, extreme as it is, the knowledge that God is is not finally darkened, but only

temporarily eclipsed; it is rather forgetfulness than final loss-they shall remember and turn unto the Lord.

It may seem hardly to be another thing, but rather something involved in the above, when we say that Scripture does not teach, but assumes, that God may be known. We do not mean known to be, but known, seeing that He is. Scripture does not teach that God may be known, but it teaches these things-in what ways He is known, and that He is known so far as He gives Himself to be known. But it always assumes as a thing undeniable that He may be known. The doctrine of Scripture on the knowability of God is much more extensive than its doctrine regarding His existence. Two things have to be considered here, namely, first, what Scripture teaches about the possibility of knowing God; and, second, what Scripture teaches about God thus known. In dealing with these questions it is not necessary to distinguish between what Scripture asserts and what it assumes, inasmuch as its assumptions may be considered its teaching even more than its direct affirmations. Now, regarding this doctrine of our knowledge of God, we find these four positions: (1) Scripture assumes that God may be and is known by men. (2) This knowledge of God on the part of men is man's fellowship with God. (3) The avenues through which this knowledge. reaches man's soul, or the regions within which man moving meets and knows God, are many-such as nature, the spiritual life of the soul, the redemptive history, prophecy, miracle, and so on. And (4) Scripture denies that God can be known by man. Perhaps Scripture is even more particular than what is here laid down. It may also be thought to state what element or organ of man it is that knows God immediately-whether the soul or the spirit. But if it do, that question need not be raised by us here, because, by whatever organ or side of his nature man knows God, it is not accurate to say that it is that organ or side that knows. It is man that knows through or by that organ or side; and we are concerned meantime with the possibility and reality of man's knowing God, not with

KNOWABILITY OF GOD ASSUMED

75

any question of what element of man it is by which he knows, which is a question concerning anthropology.

Now, first, it is hardly needful to prove that Scripture teaches or assumes that God may be known-i.e. not that God may be known to be, but that God who is may be known; not that He may be known as being or to be what He is, but that being what He is He may be known. If I say I know the king, I do not mean I know that the king is, or I know what the king is; but that the king being, and being all that he is in office and person, I know him-I, a person, know him personally. To know in Scripture is to be acquainted with, to have familiarity and acquaintance with whoever is known. The Bible certainly recognises all these four degrees of knowledge: (a) to know that God is; (b) to know what God is; (c) to know that a certain Being, or a Being who manifests Himself in a certain way, is God; and (d) to know God, who so manifests Himself. Thus Scripture says: "He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Heb. xi. 6); though I am not sure whether that text means to describe the attributes of a person who does come unto God, or the requisites of a person who shall come; whether it means to say: He who cometh unto God shows himself, by coming, to be possessed of a belief in God's existence and in His moral government; or to say: "If any one will come to God, he must, in order to come, believe in God's existence and in His moral government." But, in any case, the distinction between the idea that God is and what God is, is clearly recognised.

As to what God is, all that God is, this is generally embraced in Scripture under the expression the name of God.' That term embodies all His characteristics is the summary of what He is. Hence it is said, "they that know Thy name-what Thou art-will put their trust in Thee" (Ps. ix. 10); and "the name of the Lord is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe" (Prov. xviii. 10). And nothing is more

common in Scripture than the idea that certain acts, or words, or manifestations, show the Actor or Speaker to be God-"Be still, and know that I am God" (Ps. xlvi. 10); "Believe Me for the very works' sake" (John xiv. 11); "Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that Jehovah is God. Out of heaven He made thee to hear His voice; and upon earth He showed thee His great fire" (Deut. iv. 35). And it is said that God's wonders in Egypt brought both the Israelites and the Egyptians to know that the worker of them was God:-Israel shall know the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lordthe heathen shall know that I am the Lord. And that this Being, who is known by His works to be God, may Himself also be known, is manifest in every line of the Bible. Indeed, it is the object of the Bible to make Him known-the object of the Incarnation to declare Him— "that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent" (John xvii. 3). And while Scripture shows how all along history God made Himself known to men, it predicts that the time is at hand when all shall know Him-"they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them" (Jer. xxxi. 34).

Further, as to the second thing the Scripture was said to teach regarding this knowledge, namely, that it was fellowship with God, it may perhaps be questioned if that statement be strictly accurate. At least, if it be not accurate to say that Scripture identifies knowledge of God with fellowship with Him, it considers the two inseparable, and so allied that the one may be put for the other. Christ Himself says: to know Thee is eternal life (John xvii. 3), and calls this knowledge and life the object of His mission. And His apostle calls the object of his mission fellowship—" that ye may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John i. 3). But what I am concerned to say is that Scripture does not present God as an object of abstract contemplation, or anticipate His

THE UNSEEN BACKGROUND

77

being made such. He is always a historical Being, with a history, with a particular sphere of manifestations in specific relations, and exhibiting a certain character in these relations. No doubt there is a background, an unseen, but that is rarely before the eye of the saint or prophet. Occasionally, however, it is, and when it is, he can only speak of it in negatives like ourselves. God in that case cannot be made the subject of positive speech or thought: "Canst thou by searching find out God?' (Job xi. 7). "Who hath measured the Spirit of Jehovah?" (Isa. xl. 13). Scripture does recognise this distinction, which the Germans have made so much of, between immanent and economic; that is, God as in Himself He is, and God as in revelation He has shown Himself to us. But while many theologians and philosophers, in maintaining that distinction, have asserted either that God immanent is different from God economic (a singular position to assume, seeing the term economic must embrace the whole circuit of our knowledge of God), or have contented themselves with the position that we are unable to say whether He be the same or different, Scripture never contemplates the idea that He is different. He is the same as we know Him to be; only He is all that we know Him to be, heightened so as to exceed our reach of thinking.

It is rare, however, that Scripture deserts the region of revelation, the very idea of which implies that God can be known; or the region of spiritual experience, which is but another name for fellowship. The occasions when it does desert this empirical realm are chiefly two: first, when showing the absurdity of idolatry it holds up the Incomprehensible before the idol-maker, and asks if his idol be a proper presentation of Him; and second, in cases of religious desertion, or other awful and unwonted experience in the soul, when the spirit moving amidst mysteries is brought often to question the truth of its ideas of God, and always to recognise that, whether true or not, they go but a little way to express Him;—“ Verily,