The notion of the existence of God, of an invisible power which
exercises its influence in everything that is going on in nature, is
widespread, and common to almost the whole human race. It is found
among all civilised nations and many uncivilised tribes. The existence
of God may be regarded as an innate idea, which we possess from our
earliest days. This is the origin of Natural Religion. Thinkers of all
ages and nations have attempted to confirm this innate idea by
convincing arguments. Prophets and divine poets have frequently
directed the attention of those whom they addressed to the marvels of
nature in order to inspire them with the idea of an All-wise and
All-powerful Creator.
“Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these? Who is
He who bringeth them forth by number? All of them He calleth by name,
by the greatness of His might, and for that He is strong in power, not
one is lacking” (Isa. xl. 26). “The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the firmament sheweth His handywork” (Ps. xix. 2).
The regularity in the rising and setting of the heavenly bodies, which
enables us to foretell the exact time and duration of an eclipse of the
sun or the moon, is certainly a strong argument for the belief that
there is a mighty and wise Creator who fixed the laws in accordance
with which these luminaries move.
“Beautiful are the luminaries which our God has created. He has formed
them with knowledge, reason, and understanding; He endowed them with
power and strength to rule in the midst of the world. Full of splendour
and beaming with light, they illumine the whole world; they rejoice
when they rise, they are glad when they set, doing in reverence the
will of their Master” (Sabbath Morning Service).
A similar regularity we notice when looking on the face of the earth.
The various seasons of the year, each with its peculiar aspect and
influence, the sequence of day and night at regular intervals, the
gradual and systematic development of vegetable and animal life—all
point forcibly to the fact that these things do not owe their existence
to chance, but to the will of an Almighty and All-wise Creator.
Again, if we consider the structure of a single plant, or of a single
animal, we find that every one of the members and parts of which it is
composed has its peculiar function or purpose in the economy of the
whole plant or the whole animal. Let one of these component parts
refuse its function or cease to fulfil its purpose and the whole is
disorganised. Certainly there must be a Being who makes the different
members of an organism co-operate for the development and advantage of
the whole. The idea of purpose which regulates this co-operation cannot
have originated in the parts nor in the whole, but in the conception of
Him by whose Will these were created.
“The finger of God” is further recognised in the important events of
the life of the individual as well as in the history of whole nations.
We are frequently reminded of the lesson, “The heart of man deviseth
his way, but the Lord directeth his step” (Prov. xvi. 9). “Salvation is
the Lord’s, and on Thy people it is incumbent to bless Thee” (Ps. iii.
9).
Another argument in support of the belief in the existence of God is
taken from the moral consciousness which every human being possesses.
This points to the existence of a higher Being, perfect in goodness, as
the origin and cause of the moral consciousness in our own heart.
These and similar arguments are employed to strengthen and purify our
belief in God. The question, however, arises, are these arguments alone
sufficient to convince us? Are they strong enough to resist the attacks
of scepticism?
On examining them thoroughly we shall find them of excellent service to
the believer. His belief is strengthened against many doubts by which
he may be assailed; and scepticism will be kept at bay by these
arguments. But of themselves and unsupported they may not always
suffice to establish belief in God; and if they carry conviction with
them for the moment, we are not sure whether fresh arguments of
opponents might not again unsettle the mind. Another method was
therefore chosen by the Almighty, by which certainty is attained, and a
sure guide is given for our moral and religious life. It is Revelation.
Of this we shall speak later on.
The principal forms of religion or worship that sprang from the natural
belief in God are Polytheism, Pantheism, Atheism, Theism, and Deism.
1. The first form of Divine worship of which history and archæology
give us information is Polytheism. The creating and ruling power of
some invisible Being was noticed everywhere. Every manifestation of
such influence was ascribed to its peculiar deity, which was worshipped
according to the peculiar conception of the deity in the mind of the
individual person, family, or nation. This is chiefly the kind of
idolatry mentioned in the Bible and combated by the prophets.
A very general object of worship were the stars. Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi,
in Kuzari iv. 1, in trying to explain the origin of this practice, says
as follows:—“The spheres of the sun and the moon do not move in the
same way. A separate cause or god was therefore assumed for each, and
people did not think that there was a higher force on which all these
causes depended.” The ancient monuments and the treasures stored up in
our museums show how great was the variety of forms which idolatry
took, and to how great an extent people adhered, and still adhere, to
this kind of worship. But there have been thinkers and philosophers
even among the idolatrous nations who sought a unity in the
construction and working of the universe, and early arrived at the idea
of a First Cause as the sole source of all that exists.
2. The fact that the influence of the Divine power makes itself
perceptible to the observing eye of man everywhere produced another
kind of human error: Pantheism (All-God). Modern Pantheism dates from
Spinoza; but long before Spinoza, when the secret forces at work in the
changes noticed by us in all material objects were recognised as
properties inherent in the substance of things, these forces were
considered as the sole independent causes of the existing universe, and
the combination of these forces, called Nature, was considered to be
the First Cause, or God. A modification of this theory is contained in
the philosophy of Spinoza. According to this great philosopher’s
system, the universe in its entirety has the attributes of the Deity:
there exists nothing but the Substance (God), its attributes, and the
various ways in which these attributes become perceptible to man.
Spinoza tried to defend himself from the reproach of describing God as
corporeal, but he did not succeed. The attribute of extension or space
which God possesses, according to Spinoza, is only conceivable in
relation to corporeal things. The philosophy of Spinoza is in this
dilemma: either God is corporeal, or the corporeal world does not
exist. Both assumptions are equally absurd. It is true, in one of his
letters he complains that he has been misrepresented, as if he believed
God to consist of a certain corporeal mass. But we cannot help assuming
the existence of a certain corporeal mass, and if this is not God, we
must distinguish in our mind God and something that is not God,
contrary to the fundamental doctrine of Pantheism. Besides, there are
many incongruities and improbabilities involved in this theory. It has
no foundation for a moral consciousness. The wicked and the good are
alike inseparable from God. They both result with necessity from the
attributes of God, and they cannot be otherwise than they actually are.
If we, by the consideration that injury done to us by our fellow-man
was not done by that person alone, but by a series of predetermined
necessary causes, may be induced to conquer hatred against the apparent
cause of our injury, we may equally be induced by the same reasoning to
consider the kindness and benefits of our friends not worthy of
gratitude, believing that they were compelled to act in this manner,
and could not act otherwise.
3. Pantheism, by teaching All in One and One in All, is opposed to the
theory of man’s responsibility to a higher Being, denies the existence
of God in the ordinary sense of the word, and is, in its relation to
true religion, equal to atheism.
In the Bible atheism is stigmatised as the source of all evils. Thus
the patriarch Abraham suspected the people of Gerar, that there was “no
fear of God” in the place, and was afraid “they might slay him” (Gen.
xx. 11); whilst Joseph persuaded his brothers to have confidence in him
by the assertion, “I fear God” (Ib. xlii. 18). The first instance of an
atheist we meet in Pharaoh, king of Egypt, when he defiantly said, “I
know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go” (Exod. v. 2). Another
form of atheism is warned against in the words of Moses: “Lest thou
sayest in thine heart, My strength and the power of my hand has got for
me all this wealth” (Deut. viii. 17); and “Lest they say, Our hand is
high, and it is not the Lord that hath done all this” (Ib. xxxii. 27).
The prophets likewise rebuke the people for want of belief in God. In
the Psalms, the crimes and evil designs of oppressors are traced to
godlessness. “The wicked says in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. xiv.
1). But this atheism of the Bible is not a theoretical or dogmatic one;
it is not the result of thought, or of deep inquiry into the causes of
things, but merely the voice of an evil inclination which tempts man to
act contrary to the command of God, and assures him of immunity, under
the impression that his actions are not watched by a higher authority.
In post-Biblical literature we meet with the phrase, לית דִּין ולית דַּיָּן
“There is no judgment, and there is no judge,” as the basis of atheism.
4. Although the conviction of man’s responsibility to a higher
authority is the essential element in the belief in God, yet the notion
of godlessness was so intimately connected with crime and wickedness,
that those who rejected the authority and mastership of the Deity
refused to be called godless or atheists. Many philosophers retained
the name “God” (theos, deus) for their “First Cause” of the universe,
although it is deprived of the chief attributes of God. Thus we have as
the principal religious theories resulting from philosophical
investigations, Theism and Deism. Literally these two terms denote,
Theory of God, or Belief in God; the one word being derived from the
Greek theos, the other from the Latin deus, both meaning “God.”
There is, however, an essential difference between the two theories.
Theism and Deism have this in common, that both assume a spiritual
power, a divine being, as the cause and source of everything that
exists. They differ in this: to Theism this power is immanent in us and
the things round us; Deism considers this power as separate from the
things. Revelation or prophecy is altogether denied by the Deists,
whilst the Theists would accept it after their own fashion and
rationalise it.
All these various systems of religion have this in common, that they
attempt to remove from religion everything that cannot be comprehended
by human reason. But all attempts to substitute human reason for Divine
authority have failed. A limit has been set to human reason, and that
cannot be overcome. In every system of religion—the natural and the
rational included—there is a mystic element, which may be enveloped in
a mist of phrases, but remains unexplained. Whether we call the Creator
and Ruler of the universe God, Deus, or Theos, His relation to the
universe, and to man in particular, cannot be determined by the laws
which determine the natural phenomena in the universe, created by His
Will.
What is our conception of the Deity? The fundamental idea, from which
all our notions concerning God are derived, and which we have in common
with all other believers in God, is that He is the First Cause, the
Creator of the universe. This idea expressed in the term הבורא יתברך
שמו forms the basis of our creed. It is the Creator that is described
in it. Seven of the articles begin, “I believe with a perfect faith
that the Creator, blessed be His name,” &c.
We do not use the term “First Cause,” because it is too narrow; it only
expresses part of the truth, not the whole of it. By “First Cause” some
understand the cause of the gradual development of the primitive matter
into the innumerable variety of things contained in the universe; the
development of the original chaos into system and order. It is true
that the Creator is the cause of all this; but He is more than this: He
is the cause of the primitive matter, and of the original chaos. For He
has created the world out of nothing. The first verse of the Bible
teaches us creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo): “In the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. i. 1); that is, the whole
universe. It is true that there were men who explained the meaning of
the Hebrew root ברא in a different manner, and desired to assign to
it the meaning: cutting out, forming out of a given material. But they
certainly misunderstood the spirit of the Scriptures. The eternal
coexistence of God and matter would imply a dualism utterly
incompatible with the teaching of the Bible. The frequently repeated
declaration, “He is our God; there is none besides” (אין עוד),
clearly excludes every form of dualism. Those who assert that the
universe could not come from nothing belong to the class of people of
whom the Psalmist says, “And they returned and tempted God, and set
limits to the Holy One of Israel” (Ps. lxxviii. 41).
If we cannot understand the act of the Creation, it is our own
intellect that is limited; and if we were to persuade ourselves that we
understand better the eternity of matter, we should deceive ourselves.
We cannot conceive matter without form as existing in reality, nor can
we have a clear notion of anything infinite. We are human beings,
endowed by the will and wisdom of the Creator with limited physical and
intellectual faculties, and in things that surpass our powers we cannot
do better than follow the guidance of the Divine Word. If we do so we
may be sure that we shall be on the right way to truth.
The first principle declared in our creed is this: God is not only the
Creator of the heavens and the earth, with all their hosts; He is also
the constant ruler of all created beings; He is בורא ומנהיג. We
therefore praise Him in our daily Morning prayer as “Doing wonders;
renewing in His goodness the work of the creation every day.” When we
observe the ordinary phenomena in nature, occurring in accordance with
certain fixed laws which have been discovered and described by man, we
see in them the greatness of the Creator by whose will these laws are
still in force, and by whose will any or all of these laws may one day
cease to continue.
It has been asserted that any interruption or change of these fixed
laws would indicate a weakness and want of foresight on the part of the
Creator, and a fault in the plan of the Creation. This notion has led
people either to deny the truth of the Biblical accounts concerning the
miracles wrought by the Almighty, or to admit the correctness of the
facts while denying their miraculous character, or to consider the
fixed laws of nature, together with their exceptions, as designed in
the original plan of the Creation. How short-sighted is man! He cannot
even fully comprehend his own short-sightedness! God made him ruler
over the works of His hands, and he presumes to be the ruler of God
Himself! When we learn from numerous observations and experiments the
law that seems to regulate certain recurring phenomena, have we then
fathomed the infinite wisdom of God in the Creation? Do we know the
reason which led Him to produce certain things according to certain
laws, and not otherwise? Have we in discovering a law of nature
obtained the power of prescribing the same law to God, and disallowing
Him to deviate therefrom? Far be it from us human beings, dust and
ashes, to arrogate to ourselves such a right! It may even be one of the
objects with which miracles were wrought to teach us that we do not yet
know all things, that events may happen which we are unable to foresee,
that phenomena may appear which we are unable to explain according to
the laws hitherto discovered; in short, that our knowledge and wisdom
are limited.
The fact that God has created the universe ex nihilo has been expressed
by Jewish philosophers as follows:—God is the only Being who demands no
cause for His existence; the very idea of God implies existence, and
cannot be conceived without it. All other beings owe their existence to
certain causes, in the absence of which they would not exist. God alone
is therefore only active, without ever being passive, only cause
without ever being effect, whilst every other being is both active and
passive, cause and effect; it has been produced by certain causes, and
is in its turn the cause of the existence of other beings. In the first
article a phrase expressing this idea has been added: “And He alone is
the active cause of all things, whether past, present, or future.” By
the addition of this sentence it was intended to deny the Eternity of
matter (קדמות העולם). The reference to past, present, and future is
to emphasise the constant action of the Creator, and the dependence of
the natural forces on His Will. The first principle has, therefore, the
following form:—
“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is both
Creator and Ruler of all created beings, and that He alone is the
active cause of ALL things, whether past, present, or future.” [3]
Before passing on to the second principle concerning God, let us
briefly answer a question that has frequently been asked: What is the
relation between the theory of evolution, or in general the results of
modern science, and the history of the creation as related in the
Bible? In the Biblical account of the creation the various kinds of
plants and animals are described as the result or different and
distinct acts of the Creator, whilst according to the theory of
Evolution one creative act sufficed, and the great variety of creatures
is the result of gradual development according to certain laws inherent
in the things created. The Bible tells us of six days of the creation,
whilst according to the theory of evolution it must have taken millions
of years before the various species could have developed the one from
the other. Whilst the Biblical account describes the earth as the
centre of the universe, astronomy shows that the earth is one of the
most insignificant of the bodies that fill the infinite space of the
universe. According to astronomy and geology, the age of the earth
numbers millions of years; from the Biblical account we infer that the
earth is comparatively young. In the Bible man is described as the aim
and end of the whole creation; natural history and the theory of
evolution consider man simply as one of the forms resulting from a
natural development of the animal world. What shall be our decision in
this discrepancy? Shall we shut our eyes to the results of modern
science in our firm belief in the truth of the Bible? Or shall we
accept the former and abandon the latter?
We should adopt neither of these alternatives. We have great confidence
in our reasoning power, and in the results of science based on reason,
but we have still greater confidence in the truthfulness of Divine
teaching. The conflict is not a modern product; it existed in former
times as well. When the Jews first became acquainted with Greek
literature and philosophy, faith was shaken in the heart of many a Jew
that was led away by the attractive language and the persuasive
arguments of the Greek. Such was the case with the Jews in Alexandria,
who were almost more Greek than Jewish. Feeling that their faith in
their old traditions was beginning to give way, they looked about them
for the means of reconciling faith and philosophy. Where the literal
sense of Holy Writ was awkward, the allegorical interpretation was
substituted for it; but the authority of the Bible was recognised.
Later on, in the Middle Ages, when Aristotle, as understood and
interpreted in the Arabic schools, was infallible, perplexity again
became general, among the educated and learned, as to the course to be
pursued in case of a conflict; whether to remain true to the Bible or
to join the banner of Aristotle. The most prominent amongst the Jewish
theologians who sought the way of reconciliation was Moses Maimonides.
This philosopher wrote his famous work, “Guide of the Perplexed,”
expressly for those scholars who, whilst firmly adhering to the
inherited faith, had been trained in the study of philosophy, and were
unwilling to abandon either. Maimonides shows the way how to explain
Biblical passages implying statements contrary to philosophical
teachings, and how to reconcile theology and philosophy. A similar task
was undertaken in modern times by Moses Mendelssohn in his “Jerusalem”
and “Morgenstunden,” in order to show that strict adherence to the
Jewish religion is quite compatible with the teaching of philosophy.
The various systems of philosophy in Alexandria, in the Mohammedan
countries in the Middle Ages, and in Germany in the last century, which
threatened to endanger our religion, have lived their time and have
gone to their fathers, giving way to new systems and new ideas, whilst
the authority of the Word of God has maintained its place. This having
been the case in former days, there is no reason why we should not in
the present conflict assume, primâ facie, that the scientific and
philosophical dogmas now in favour, alike with Jews and non-Jews, will
have their time, and will ultimately give way to other theories, and
the present conflict will then likewise terminate, dying a natural
death. This reflection should put us on our guard lest we be persuaded
by the plausibility of the modern philosophical and scientific dogmas,
and throw aside our religious faith and traditions. We ought to bear in
mind that, however correct the conclusions of modern science may appear
that can be tested by our senses, theories which are not subject to
such tests are in reality nothing but hypotheses to which a greater or
lesser degree of probability attaches.
Suppose now—always bearing in mind the imperfect character of our
powers of observation—we were to observe that certain plants or species
of animals developed by training and circumstances into new species, or
to see plants being transformed into animals, or even to notice
literally “the foal of a wild ass born a man,” what would all this
prove? That the Creator endowed the species of plants and animals with
such properties as would enable them to transform into new species, or
into any other of the species already in existence; but it does not
follow that the Creator must have adopted the same method in the act of
creation. He created as many species as His wisdom determined, although
they might all have been able to develop from one single species.
Suppose the problem which the Alchymists of the Middle Ages proposed to
themselves, viz., to produce an animal being by mere chemical
combination, had actually been solved, would any one have believed that
all animals had been produced in that way? Or does the success of
artificial hatching of eggs convince any person that all birds have
sprung from artificially hatched eggs? The same argument applies to the
geological formation of the earth. We notice changes brought about
through natural forces, and mark the amount of change effected in a
certain period; we are then able to calculate what time would be
required for such or such a change—provided that only those laws be in
force which we have noticed in our calculation. Is it reasonable or
logical to apply to the act of creation the laws which have been
brought into force through this very act? “He said, and it was: He
commanded, and they were created” (Ps. xxxiii. 9). The word of God
produced in a moment what the natural forces established by the Creator
would effect by gradual development in millions of years.
It is true that the earth is one of the most insignificant bodies in
the universe, and man is a small portion of the creatures on earth, and
yet it is neither impossible nor unreasonable to believe that the
benefits which man derives from the various parts of the creation, from
the sun, the moon, and the stars, were essential elements in the scheme
of the All-wise Creator.
Attempts have frequently been made to interpret the Biblical account of
the creation in such a manner as to reconcile it with the scientific
theories of the time. Thus it has been argued that the period between
the creation of “heaven and earth” and the creation of “the light” is
not described in the Bible, and may have been millions of millions of
years. It has likewise been suggested that the term “day” is to be
understood in the sense of “period.” It has further been pointed out
that the account of the creation of animals indicates a process of
development rather than a creatio ex nihilo; for it says, “And God
said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly living beings,” &c. (Gen.
i. 20). “Let the earth bring forth living beings,” &c. (Ibid. 24).
These interpretations may be true, and may suffice temporarily to check
sceptical ideas that rise in our mind; but without the firm belief in
the Word of God, and the consciousness of the insufficiency of human
reason thoroughly to understand the plans and ways of God, our faith
can never be safe. Supported by this belief we shall always be able to
brave the ever-recurring billows of scepticism.
2. The next principle contained in our Creed concerning God is the
Unity of God.
“I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out from the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage: thou shalt have no other gods before me”
(Exod. xx. 2–3). This is the first lesson the Israelites were taught
when God revealed Himself to them on Mount Sinai. The words, “Hear, O
Israel; the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deut. vi. 4), are
proclaimed by us thrice every day; we recite them when we rise; keep
them in memory during the day, and repeat them in the evening before we
go to rest; they form our watchword throughout our life, and with these
words upon our lips we end our earthly existence. The Unity of God is
the doctrine that distinguishes the Jews from other religious sects, in
so far as the Jews were the first nation of Monotheists. From them
Monotheism has spread among other peoples, who, however, did not always
receive or preserve it in its original purity. We not only proclaim God
as One, refusing to recognise as divine any power beside Him, but
refrain also from attributing to God anything that might directly or
indirectly involve any notion contrary to the Unity of God.
For this reason certain Jewish philosophers considered it unlawful to
assign to God any positive attribute. They feared this might lead to
dualism, to believe in God and in His attribute as two distinct beings,
because attributes are so easily personified and addressed as separate
deities. Some theologians even were of opinion that the admission of
God’s attributes is itself a form of dualism which must be excluded
from our faith. Nevertheless, attributes are assigned to God both in
the Scriptures and in our Prayers. We must not, however, forget that
such attributes do not describe anything inherent in the Divine Being,
but only God’s relation to man and His actions in such terms as are
intelligible to human beings. Most of the attributes are interpreted as
being of a negative character, indicating what we must not say of God.
When we speak of the Will, Wisdom, and Spirit of God, we do not speak
of anything separate from the Divine Being, but of the Divine Being
Himself. The Jewish doctrine of the Unity of God does not admit any
kind of dualism in the Divine Being, and therefore rejects the
existence of Divine Attributes as distinct from God Himself. He is One,
simple and indivisible. Even this property of being One seemed to some
theologians to be contrary to strict unity, and we are therefore taught
that we must not understand it in the sense of a numerical unit, in
which sense the term is used when applied to created beings. The second
article therefore declares: “The Creator is One, and there is no
Oneness like His in any way.”
The Unity of God is the creed which the Jews have always proclaimed by
word of mouth, to which they have given expression throughout their
literature, and for which they have willingly sacrificed their lives as
martyrs. When persecuted by Mohammedans or Christians the Jews were
frequently forced to break the Sabbath, to ignore the dietary laws, and
to neglect Divine worship. They bore all this patiently when under
pressure of persecution, but when they were asked to renounce the
belief in God’s Unity they did not doubt for a moment as to what their
duty was; they adhered firmly to יחוד השם “the belief in God’s
Unity,” and sacrificed their lives for קדוש השם “the sanctification
of God’s name.”
The Jews have been victorious. In spite of persecution and oppression
they have maintained their faith. The doctrine of the Unity of God, for
which they had to suffer so much in past centuries, is now admitted as
true by most of their former persecutors.
In order to make clear what we mean by unity, and to express that God
could not be conceived as existing at any time in a double form, we add
the words: “And He alone was, is, and will be our God.” The second
article runs therefore as follows:—
“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is One; that
there is no Oneness like His, in any way, and that He alone was, is,
and will be our God.”
3. The strict Unity of God, in the sense explained above, implies His
Incorporeality, which forms the subject of the third article.
Corporeality implies substance and form, a dualism which must be
rigidly excluded from God. It would not have been necessary to
formulate a special article for the exclusion of corporeality from the
idea of God but for the fact that many erroneous notions have been
entertained on the subject. Besides the fact that the corporeality of
God was assumed by certain religious sects, there have been scholars
among the Jews who defended the literal sense of anthropomorphic
phrases in the Scriptures.
In the Bible anthropomorphic expressions are employed in order to
illustrate the different acts of Divine Providence in such a way as to
render them more intelligible to us human beings. We consist of body
and soul, and we produce an impression or exercise an influence on
others by means of our body and by the activity of our bodily organs.
How an incorporeal being acts upon the corporeal world we are unable
fully to comprehend, much less to describe. If we desire to picture to
ourselves or to others the fact that through Divine Providence
something has been produced on earth, we must employ the same phrases
which we use in describing human acts which effect a similar result. In
reality, however, there is no comparison or similarity between God and
corporeal beings, between His actions and ours.
When we therefore speak of the house of God we mean the house which we
devote to our prayers, in which we feel the omnipresence of the
Almighty more than in any other place. The heaven is called the throne
of God and the earth His footstool only to express the idea that the
majesty of God is far beyond comparison with that of any earthly ruler,
and that the house of God built by human hands is not intended to
satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Being but those of man. We call
Him our Father and He calls us His children, because we love Him as we
love our father, and He loves us as a father loves his children. In the
same sense the Psalmist (ii. 7) repeats the words of God to him, “Thou
art my son; I have this day begotten thee.” Such expressions as these
are anthropomorphic.
The Bible frequently exhorts us not to imagine or ascribe to God any
form or likeness. Comp. Deut. iv. 15, “Take ye therefore good heed unto
yourselves; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the Lord spake
unto you in Horeb out of the midst of fire.” In the same sense the
prophet asks in the name of God (Isa. xl. 18), “To whom then will you
liken God, or what likeness will you compare unto Him?” “To whom then
will you liken Me, that I should be equal to Him? saith the Holy One”
(Ibid. 25).