OF PROPHETS AND PROPHECY[4]
I
Prophecy, or revelation, is sure knowledge revealed by God to man. A
prophet is one who interprets the revelations of God to those who are
unable to attain to sure knowledge of the matters revealed, and
therefore can only apprehend them by simple faith.
The Hebrew word for prophet is "_nabi_," _i.e._, speaker or interpreter,
but in Scripture its meaning is restricted to interpreter of God, as we
may learn from Exodus vii. 1, where God says to Moses, "See, I have made
thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet;"
implying that, since in interpreting Moses' words to Pharaoh, Aaron
acted the part of a prophet, Moses would be to Pharaoh as a god, or in
the attitude of a god....
Now it is evident, from the definition above given, that prophecy really
includes ordinary knowledge; for the knowledge which we acquire by our
natural faculties depends on our knowledge of God and His eternal laws;
but ordinary knowledge is common to all men as men, and rests on
foundations which all share, whereas the multitude always strains after
rarities and exceptions, and thinks little of the gifts of nature; so
that, when prophecy is talked of, ordinary knowledge is not supposed to
be included. Nevertheless it has as much right as any other to be called
Divine, for God's nature, in so far as we share therein, and God's laws,
dictate it to us; nor does it suffer from that to which we give the
preeminence, except in so far as the latter transcends its limits and
cannot be accounted for by natural laws taken in themselves. In respect
to the certainty it involves, and the source from which it is derived,
_i.e._, God, ordinary knowledge is no whit inferior to prophetic, unless
indeed we believe, or rather dream, that the prophets had human bodies
but superhuman minds, and therefore that their sensations and
consciousness were entirely different from our own.
But, although ordinary knowledge is Divine, its professors cannot be
called prophets, for they teach what the rest of mankind could perceive
and apprehend, not merely by simple faith, but as surely and honorably
as themselves.
Seeing then that our mind subjectively contains in itself and partakes
of the nature of God, and solely from this cause is enabled to form
notions explaining natural phenomena and inculcating morality, it
follows that we may rightly assert the nature of the human mind (in so
far as it is thus conceived) to be a primary cause of Divine revelation.
All that we clearly and distinctly understand is dictated to us, as I
have just pointed out, by the idea and nature of God; not indeed through
words, but in a way far more excellent and agreeing perfectly with the
nature of the mind, as all who have enjoyed intellectual certainty will
doubtless attest. Here, however, my chief purpose is to speak of
matters having reference to Scripture, so these few words on the light
of reason will suffice.
I will now pass on to, and treat more fully, the other ways and means by
which God makes revelations to mankind, both of that which transcends
ordinary knowledge and of that within its scope; for there is no reason
why God should not employ other means to communicate what we know
already by the power of reason.
Our conclusions on the subject must be drawn solely from Scripture; for
what can we affirm about matters transcending our knowledge except what
is told us by the words or writings of prophets? And since there are, so
far as I know, no prophets now alive, we have no alternative but to read
the books of prophets departed, taking care the while not to reason from
metaphor or to ascribe anything to our authors which they do not
themselves distinctly state. I must further premise that the Jews never
make any mention or account of secondary, or particular causes, but in a
spirit of religion, piety, and what is commonly called godliness, refer
all things directly to the Deity. For instance, if they make money by a
transaction, they say God gave it to them; if they desire anything, they
say God has disposed their hearts towards it; if they think anything,
they say God told them. Hence we must not suppose that everything is
prophecy or revelation which is described in Scripture as told by God to
any one, but only such things as are expressly announced as prophecy or
revelation, or are plainly pointed to as such by the context.
A perusal of the sacred books will show us that all God's revelations to
the prophets were made through words or appearances, or a combination of
the two. These words and appearances were of two kinds; (1) _real_ when
external to the mind of the prophet who heard or saw them, (2)
_imaginary_ when the imagination of the prophet was in a state which led
him distinctly to suppose that he heard or saw them.
With a real voice God revealed to Moses the laws which He wished to be
transmitted to the Hebrews, as we may see from Exodus xxv. 22, where God
says, "And there I will meet with thee and I will commune with thee from
the mercy seat which is between the Cherubim." Some sort of real voice
must necessarily have been employed, for Moses found God ready to
commune with him at any time. This is the only instance of a real voice.
... Some of the Jews believe that the actual words of the Decalogue were
not spoken by God, but that the Israelites heard a noise only, without
any distinct words, and during its continuance apprehend the Ten
Commandments by pure intuition; to this opinion I myself once inclined,
seeing that the words of the Decalogue in Exodus are different from the
words of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy, for the discrepancy seemed to
imply (since God only spoke once) that the Ten Commandments were not
intended to convey the actual words of the Lord, but only His meaning.
However, unless we would do violence to Scripture, we must certainly
admit that the Israelites heard a real voice, for Scripture expressly
says (Deut. v. 4), "God spake with you face to face," _i.e._, as two men
ordinarily interchange ideas through the instrumentality of their two
bodies; and therefore it seems more consonant with Holy Writ to suppose
that God really did create a voice of some kind with which the Decalogue
was revealed....
Yet not even thus is all difficulty removed, for it seems scarcely
reasonable to affirm that a created thing, depending on God in the same
manner as other created things, would be able to express or explain the
nature of God either verbally or really by means of its individual
organism: for instance, by declaring in the first person, "I am the Lord
your God."
Certainly when any one says his mouth, "I understand," we do not
attribute the understanding to the mouth, but to the mind of the
speaker; yet this is because the mouth is the natural organ of a man
speaking, and the hearer, knowing what understanding is, easily
comprehends, by a comparison with himself, that the speaker's mind is
meant; but if we knew nothing of God beyond the mere name and wished to
commune with Him, and be assured of His existence, I fail to see how our
wish would be satisfied by the declaration of a created thing (depending
on God neither more nor less than ourselves), "I am the Lord." If God
contorted the lips of Moses, or, I will not say Moses, but some beast,
till they pronounced the words, "I am the Lord," should we apprehend the
Lord's existence therefrom?
Scripture seems clearly to point to the belief that God spoke Himself,
having descended from heaven to Mount Sinai for the purpose--and not
only that the Israelites heard Him speaking, but that their chief men
beheld Him (Ex. xxiv.). Further, the laws of Moses which might neither
be added to nor curtailed, and which was set up as a national standard
of right, nowhere prescribed the belief that God is without body, or
even without form or figure, but only ordained that the Jews should
believe in His existence and worship Him alone: it forbade them to
invent or fashion any likeness of the Deity, but this was to insure
purity of service; because, never having seen God, they could not by
means of images recall the likeness of God, but only the likeness of
some created thing which might thus gradually take the place of God as
the object of their adoration. Nevertheless, the Bible clearly implies
that God has a form, and that Moses when he heard God speaking was
permitted to behold it, or at least its hinder parts.
Doubtless some mystery lurks in this question which we will discuss more
fully below. For the present I will call attention to the passages in
Scripture indicating the means by which God has revealed His laws to
man.
Revelation may be through figures only (as in 1 Chron. xxii.), where God
displays his anger to David by means of an angel bearing a sword, and
also in the story of Balaam.
Maimonides and others do indeed maintain that these and every other
instance of angelic apparitions (_e.g._, to Manoah and to Abraham
offering up Isaac) occurred during sleep, for that no one with his eyes
open ever could see an angel, but this is mere nonsense. The sole object
of such commentators seemed to be to extort from Scripture confirmations
of Aristotelian quibbles and their own inventions, a proceeding which I
regard as the acme of absurdity.
In figures, not real but existing only in the prophet's imagination, God
revealed to Joseph his future lordship, and in words and figures He
revealed to Joshua that He would fight for the Hebrews, causing to
appear an angel, as it were the captain of the Lord's host, bearing a
sword, and by this means communicating verbally. The forsaking of Israel
by Providence was portrayed to Isaiah by a vision of the Lord, the
thrice Holy, sitting on a very lofty throne, and the Hebrews, stained
with the mire of their sins, sunk, as it were, in uncleanness, and thus
as far as possible distant from God. The wretchedness of the people at
the time was thus revealed, while future calamities were foretold in
words. I could cite from Holy Writ many similar examples, but I think
they are sufficiently well known already....
We may be able quite to comprehend that God can communicate immediately
with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates
to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition
comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the
foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind
far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have
been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to
salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God
manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He
formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the
voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the
voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (_i.e._, wisdom
more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that
Christ was the way of salvation. I must at this juncture declare that
those doctrines which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I
neither affirm nor deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand
them. What I have just stated I gather from Scripture, where I never
read that God appeared to Christ, or spoke to Christ, but that God was
revealed to the Apostles through Christ; that Christ was the Way of
Life, and that the old law was given through an angel, and not
immediately by God; whence it follows that if Moses spoke with God face
to face as a man speaks with his friend (_i.e._, by means of their two
bodies) Christ communed with God mind to mind.[5]
Thus we may conclude that no one except Christ received the revelations
of God without the aid of imagination, whether in words or vision.
Therefore the power of prophecy implies not a peculiarly perfect mind,
but a peculiarly vivid imagination....
If the Jews were at a loss to understand any phenomenon, or were
ignorant of its cause, they referred it to God. Thus a storm was termed
the chiding of God, thunder and lightning the arrows of God, for it was
thought that God kept the winds confined in caves, His treasuries; thus
differing merely in name from the Greek wind-god Eolus. In like manner
miracles were called works of God, as being especially marvelous; though
in reality, of course, all natural events are the works of God, and take
place solely by His power. The Psalmist calls the miracles in Egypt the
works of God, because the Hebrews found in them a way of safety which
they had not looked for, and therefore especially marveled at.
As, then, unusual natural phenomena are called works of God, and trees
of unusual size are called trees of God, we cannot wonder that very
strong and tall men, though impious robbers and whoremongers, are in
Genesis called sons of God.
This reference of things wonderful to God was not peculiar to the Jews.
Pharaoh, on hearing the interpretation of his dream, exclaimed that the
mind of the gods was in Joseph. Nebuchadnezzar told Daniel that he
possessed the mind of the holy gods; so also in Latin anything well made
is often said to be wrought with Divine hands, which is equivalent to
the Hebrew phrase, wrought with the hand of God.
... We find that the Scriptural phrases, "The Spirit of the Lord was
upon a prophet," "The Lord breathed His Spirit into men," "Men were
filled with the Spirit of God, with the Holy Spirit," etc., are quite
clear to us, and mean that the prophets were endowed with a peculiar and
extraordinary power, and devoted themselves to piety with especial
constancy; that thus they perceived the mind or the thought of God, for
we have shown [elsewhere] that God's spirit signifies in Hebrew God's
mind or thought, and that the law which shows His mind and thought is
called His Spirit; hence that the imagination of the prophets, inasmuch
as through it were revealed the decrees of God, may equally be called
the mind of God, and the prophets be said to have possessed the mind of
God. On our minds also the mind of God and His eternal thoughts are
impressed; but this being the same for all men is less taken into
account, especially by the Hebrews, who claimed a preeminence, and
despised other men and other men's knowledge.
[Also] the prophets were said to possess the Spirit of God because men
knew not the cause of prophetic knowledge, and in their wonder referred
it with other marvels directly to the Deity, styling it Divine
knowledge.
We need no longer scruple to affirm that the prophets only perceived
God's revelation by the aid of imagination, that is, by words and
figures either real or imaginary. We find no other means mentioned in
Scripture, and therefore must not invent any. As to the particular law
of Nature by which the communications took place, I confess my
ignorance. I might, indeed, say as others do, that they took place by
the power of God; but this would be mere trifling, and no better than
explaining some unique specimen by a transcendental term. Everything
takes place by the power of God. Nature herself is the power of God
under another name, and our ignorance of the power of God is
co-extensive with our ignorance of Nature. It is absolutely folly,
therefore, to ascribe an event to the power of God when we know not its
natural cause, which is the power of God.
However, we are not now inquiring into the causes of prophetic
knowledge. We are only attempting, as I have said, to examine the
Scriptural documents, and to draw our conclusions from them as from
ultimate natural facts; the causes of the documents do not concern us.
As the prophets perceived the revelations of God by the aid of
imagination, they could indisputably perceive much that is beyond the
boundary of the intellect, for many more ideas can be constructed from
words and figures than from the principles and notions on which the
whole fabric of reasoned knowledge is reared.
Thus we have a clue to the fact that the prophets perceived nearly
everything in parables and allegories, and clothed spiritual truths in
bodily forms, for such is the usual method of imagination. We need no
longer wonder that Scripture and the prophets speak so strangely and
obscurely of God's Spirit or Mind (cf. Numbers xi. 17, 1 Kings xxii, 21,
etc.), that the Lord was seen by Micah as sitting, by Daniel as an old
man clothed in white, by Ezekiel as a fire, that the Holy Spirit
appeared to those with Christ as a descending dove, to the apostles as
fiery tongues, to Paul on his conversion as a great light. All these
expressions are plainly in harmony with the current ideas of God and
spirits.
Inasmuch as imagination is fleeting and inconstant, we find that the
power of prophecy did not remain with a prophet for long, nor manifest
itself frequently, but was very rare; manifesting itself only in a few
men, and in them not often.
We must necessarily inquire how the prophets became assured of the truth
of what they perceived by imagination, and not by sure mental laws; but
our investigation must be confined to Scripture, for the subject is one
on which we cannot acquire certain knowledge, and which we cannot
explain by the immediate causes.
II
... As I have said, the prophets were endowed with unusually vivid
imaginations, and not with unusually perfect minds. This conclusion is
amply sustained by Scripture, for we are told that Solomon was the
wisest of men, but had no special faculty of prophecy. Heman, Calcol,
and Dara, though men of great talent, were not prophets, whereas
uneducated countrymen, nay, even women, such as Hagar, Abraham's
handmaid, were thus gifted. Nor is this contrary to ordinary experience
and reason. Men of great imaginative power are less fitted for abstract
reasoning, whereas those who excel in intellect and its use keep their
imagination more restrained and controlled, holding it in subjection, so
to speak, lest it should usurp the place of reason.
Thus to suppose that knowledge of natural and spiritual phenomena can be
gained from the prophetic books, is an utter mistake, which I shall
endeavor to expose, as I think philosophy, the age, and the question
itself demand. I care not for the girdings of superstition, for
superstition is the bitter enemy of all true knowledge and true
morality. Yes; it has come to this! Men who openly confess that they can
form no idea of God, and only know Him through created things, of which
they know not the causes, can unblushingly accuse philosophers of
Atheism.
Treating the question methodically, I will show that prophecies varied,
not only according to the imagination and physical temperament of the
prophet, but also according to his particular opinions; and further that
prophecy never rendered the prophet wiser than he was before. But I will
first discuss the assurance of truth which the prophets received, for
this is akin to the subject-matter of the chapter, and will serve to
elucidate somewhat our present point.
Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any certainty of truth,
such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires some
extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence prophecy
cannot afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's
revelation by some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may
see from Abraham, who, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a
sign, not because he did not believe in God but because he wished to be
sure that it was God Who made the promise. The fact is still more
evident in the case of Gideon: "Show me," he says to God, "show me a
sign, that I may know that it is Thou that talkest with me." God also
says to Moses: "And let this be a sign that I have sent thee." Hezekiah,
though he had long known Isaiah to be a prophet, none the less demanded
a sign of the cure which he predicted. It is thus quite evident that the
prophets always received some sign to certify them of their prophetic
imaginings; and for this reason Moses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask
of the prophets a sign, namely, the prediction of some coming event. In
this respect, prophetic knowledge is inferior to natural knowledge,
which needs no sign, and in itself implies certitude. Moreover,
Scripture warrants the statement that the certitude of the prophets was
not mathematical, but moral. Moses lays down the punishment of death for
the prophet who preaches new gods, even though he confirm his doctrine
by signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he says, "the Lord also
worketh signs and wonders to try His people." And Jesus Christ warns His
disciples of the same thing (Matt. xxiv. 24). Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv.
9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives men with false
revelations; and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of the prophets
of Ahab.
Although these instances go to prove that revelation is open to doubt,
it nevertheless contains, as we have said, a considerable element of
certainty, for God never deceives the good, nor His chosen, but
(according to the ancient proverb and as appears in the history of
Abigail and her speech), God uses the good as instruments of goodness,
and the wicked as means to execute His wrath. This may be seen from the
cases of Micaiah above quoted; for although God had determined to
deceive Ahab, through prophets, He made use of lying prophets; to the
good prophet He revealed the truth, and did not forbid his proclaiming
it.
Still the certitude of prophecy remains, as I have said, merely moral;
for no one can justify himself before God, nor boast that he is an
instrument for God's goodness. Scripture itself teaches and shows that
God led away David to number the people, though it bears ample witness
to David's piety.
The whole question of the certitude of prophecy was based on these three
considerations:--
1. That the things revealed were imagined very vividly, affecting the
prophets in the same way as things seen when awake;
2. The presence of a sign;
3. Lastly and chiefly, that the mind of the prophet was given wholly to
what was right and good.
Although Scripture does not always make mention of a sign, we must
nevertheless suppose that a sign was always vouchsafed; for Scripture
does not always relate every condition and circumstance (as many have
remarked), but rather takes them for granted. We may, however, admit
that no sign was needed when the prophecy declared nothing that was not
already contained in the law of Moses, because it was confirmed by that
law. For instance, Jeremiah's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem
was confirmed by the prophecies of other prophets, and by the threats in
the law, and therefore it needed no sign; whereas Hananiah, who,
contrary to all the prophets, foretold the speedy restoration of the
state, stood in need of a sign, or he would have been in doubt as to the
truth of his prophecy, until it was confirmed by facts. "The prophet
which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to
pass, then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent
him."
As, then, the certitude afforded to the prophet by signs was not
mathematical (_i.e._, did not necessarily follow from the perception of
the thing perceived or seen), but only moral, and as the signs were only
given to convince the prophet, it follows that such signs were given
according to the opinions and capacity of each prophet, so that a sign
which would convince one prophet would fall far short of convincing
another who was imbued with different opinions. Therefore the signs
varied according to the individual prophet.
So also did the revelation vary, as we have stated, according to
individual disposition and temperament, and according to the opinions
previously held.
It varied according to disposition, in this way: if a prophet was
cheerful, victories, peace, and events which make men glad, were
revealed to him; in that he was naturally more likely to imagine such
things. If, on the contrary, he was melancholy, wars, massacres, and
calamities were revealed; and so, according as a prophet was merciful,
gentle, quick to anger, or severe, he was more fitted for one kind of
revelation than another. It varied according to the temper of
imagination in this way: if a prophet was cultivated he perceived the
mind of God in a cultivated way, if he was confused he perceived it
confusedly. And so with revelations perceived through visions. If a
prophet was a countryman he saw visions of oxen, cows, and the like; if
he was a soldier, he saw generals and armies; if a courtier, a royal
throne, and so on.
Lastly, prophecy varied according to the opinions held by the prophets;
for instance, to the Magi, who believed in the follies of astrology, the
birth of Christ was revealed through the vision of a star in the East.
To the augurs of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem was
revealed through entrails, whereas the king himself inferred it from
oracles and the direction of arrows which he shot into the air. To
prophets who believed that man acts from free choice and by his own
power, God was revealed as standing apart from and ignorant of future
human actions. All of which we will illustrate from Scripture....
The style of the prophecy also varied according to the eloquence of the
individual prophet. The prophecies of Ezekiel and Amos are not written
in a cultivated style like those of Isaiah and Nahum, but more rudely.
Any Hebrew scholar who wishes to inquire into this point more closely,
and compares chapters of the different prophets treating of the same
subject, will find that God has no particular style in speaking, but,
according to the learning and capacity of the prophet, is cultivated,
compressed, severe, untutored, prolixed or obscure....
Every one has been strangely hasty in affirming that the prophets knew
everything within the scope of human intellect; and, although certain
passages of Scripture plainly affirm that the prophets were in certain
respects ignorant, such persons would rather say that they do not
understand the passages than admit that there was anything which the
prophets did not know; or else they try to wrest the Scriptural words
away from their evident meaning.
If either of these proceedings is allowable we may as well shut our
Bibles, for vainly shall we attempt to prove anything from them if their
plainest passages may be classed among obscure and impenetrable
mysteries, or if we may put any interpretation on them which we fancy.
For instance, nothing is more clear in the Bible than that Joshua, and
perhaps also the author who wrote his history, thought that the sun
revolves round the earth, and that the earth is fixed, and further that
the sun for a certain period remained still. Many, who will not admit
any movement in the heavenly bodies, explain away the passage till it
seems to mean something quite different; others, who have learned to
philosophize more correctly, and understand that the earth moves while
the sun is still, or at any rate does not revolve round the earth, try
with all their might to wrest this meaning from Scripture, though
plainly nothing of the sort is intended. Such quibblers excite my
wonder! Are we, forsooth, bound to believe that Joshua the soldier was a
learned astronomer? or that a miracle could not be revealed to him, or
that the light of the sun could not remain longer than usual above the
horizon, without his knowing the cause? To me both alternatives appear
ridiculous, and therefore I would rather say that Joshua was ignorant of
the true cause of the lengthened day, and that he and the whole host
with him thought that the sun moved round the earth every day, and that
on that particular occasion it stood still for a time, thus causing the
light to remain longer; and I would say that they did not conjecture
that, from the amount of snow in the air (see Josh. x. 11), the
refraction may have been greater than usual, or that there may have been
some other cause which we will not now inquire into.
So also the sign of the shadow going back was revealed to Isaiah
according to his understanding; that is, as proceeding from a going
backwards of the sun; for he, too, thought that the sun moves and that
the earth is still; of parhelia he perhaps never even dreamed. We may
arrive at this conclusion without any scruple, for the sign could really
have come to pass, and have been predicted by Isaiah to the king,
without the prophet being aware of the real cause.
With regard to the building of the Temple by Solomon, if it was really
dictated by God we must maintain the same doctrine: namely, that all the
measurements were revealed according to the opinions and understanding
of the king; for as we are not bound to believe that Solomon was a
mathematician, we may affirm that he was ignorant of the true ratio
between the circumference and the diameter of a circle, and that, like
the generality of workmen, he thought that it was as three to one. But
if it is allowable to declare that we do not understand the passage, in
good sooth I know nothing in the Bible that we can understand; for the
process of building is there narrated simply and as a mere matter of
history. If, again, it is permitted to pretend that the passage has
another meaning, and was written as it is from some reason unknown to
us, this is no less than a complete subversal of the Bible; for every
absurd and evil invention of human perversity could thus, without
detriment to Scriptural authority, be defended and fostered. Our
conclusion is in no wise impious, for though Solomon, Isaiah, Joshua,
etc., were prophets, they were none the less men, and as such not exempt
from human shortcomings.
According to the understanding of Noah it was revealed to him that God
was about to destroy the whole human race, for Noah thought that beyond
the limits of Palestine the world was not inhabited.
Not only in matters of this kind, but in others more important, the
prophets could be, and in fact were, ignorant; for they taught nothing
special about the Divine attributes, but held quite ordinary notions
about God, and to these notions their revelations were adapted, as I
will demonstrate by ample Scriptural testimony; from all which one may
easily see that they were praised and commended, not so much for the
sublimity and eminence of their intellect as for their piety and
faithfulness.
Adam, the first man to whom God was revealed, did not know that He is
omnipotent and omniscient; for he hid himself from Him, and attempted to
make excuses for his fault before God, as though he had had to do with
a man; therefore to him also was God revealed according to his
understanding--that is, as being unaware of his situation or his sin,
for Adam heard, or seemed to hear, the Lord walking in the garden,
calling him and asking him where he was; and then, on seeing his
shamefacedness, asking him whether he had eaten of the forbidden fruit.
Adam evidently only knew the Deity as the Creator of all things. To Cain
also God was revealed, according to his understanding, as ignorant of
human affairs, nor was a higher conception of the Deity required for
repentance of his sin.
To Laban the Lord revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, because Laban
believed that each nation had its own special divinity (see Gen. xxxi.
29). Abraham also knew not that God is omnipresent, and has
foreknowledge of all things; for when he heard the sentence against the
inhabitants of Sodom, he prayed that the Lord should not execute it till
He had ascertained whether they all merited such punishment; for he said
(see Gen. xviii. 24), "Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the
city," and in accordance with this belief God was revealed to him; as
Abraham imagined, He spake thus: "I will go down now, and see whether
they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto
Me; and if not I will know." Further, the Divine testimony concerning
Abraham asserts nothing but that he was obedient, and that he "commanded
his household after him that they should keep the way of the Lord" (Gen.
xviii. 19); it does not state that he held sublime conceptions of the
Deity.
Moses, also, was not sufficiently aware that God is omniscient, and
directs human actions by His sole decree, for although God himself says
that the Israelites should hearken to Him, Moses still considered the
matter doubtful and repeated, "But if they will not believe me, nor
hearken unto my voice." To him in like manner God was revealed as taking
no part in, and as being ignorant of, future human actions: the Lord
gave him two signs and said, "And it shall come to pass that if they
will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign,
that they will believe the voice of the latter sign; but if not, thou
shalt take of the water of the river," etc. Indeed, if any one considers
without prejudice the recorded opinions of Moses, he will plainly see
that Moses conceived the Deity as a Being Who has always existed, does
exist, and always will exist, and for this cause he calls Him by the
name Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies these three phases of existence:
as to His nature, Moses only taught that He is merciful, gracious, and
exceeding jealous, as appears from many passages in the Pentateuch.
Lastly, he believed and taught that this Being was so different from all
other beings, that He could not be expressed by the image of any visible
thing; also, that He could not be looked upon, and that not so much from
inherent impossibility as from human infirmity; further, that by reason
of His power He was without equal and unique. Moses admitted, indeed,
that there were beings (doubtless by the plan and command of the Lord)
who acted as God's vicegerents--that is, beings to whom God had given
the right, authority, and power to direct nations, and to provide and
care for them; but he taught that this Being Whom they were bound to
obey was the highest and Supreme God, (or to use the Hebrew phrase) God
of gods, and thus in the song (Exod. xv. 11) he exclaims, "Who is like
unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods?" and Jethro says (Exod. xviii. 11),
"Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods." That is to say, "I
am at length compelled to admit to Moses that Jehovah is greater than
all gods, and that His power is unrivalled." We must remain in doubt
whether Moses thought that these beings who acted as God's vicegerents
were created by Him, for he has stated nothing, so far as we know, about
their creation and origin. He further taught that this Being had brought
the visible world into order from Chaos, and had given Nature her germs,
and therefore that He possesses supreme right and power over all things;
further, that by reason of this supreme right and power He had chosen
for Himself alone the Hebrew nation and a certain strip of territory,
and had handed over to the care of other gods substituted by Himself the
rest of the nations and territories, and that therefore He was called
the God of Israel and the God of Jerusalem, whereas the other gods were
called the gods of the Gentiles. For this reason the Jews believed that
the strip of territory which God had chosen for Himself, demanded a
Divine worship quite apart and different from the worship which obtained
elsewhere, and that the Lord would not suffer the worship of other gods
adapted to other countries. Thus they thought that the people whom the
king of Assyria had brought into Judaea were torn in pieces by lions
because they knew not the worship of the National Divinity (2 Kings
xvii. 25)....
If we now examine the revelations to Moses, we shall find that they were
accommodated to these opinions; as he believed that the Divine Nature
was subject to the conditions of mercy, graciousness, etc., so God was
revealed to him in accordance with his idea and under these attributes
(see Exodus xxxiv. 6, 7, and the second commandment). Further it is
related (Ex. xxxiii. 18) that Moses asked of God that he might behold
Him, but as Moses (as we have said) had formed no mental image of God,
and God (as I have shown) only revealed Himself to the prophets in
accordance with the disposition of their imagination, He did not reveal
Himself in any form. This, I repeat, was because the imagination of
Moses was unsuitable, for other prophets bear witness that they saw the
Lord; for instance, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. For this reason God
answered Moses, "Thou canst not see My face;" and inasmuch as Moses
believed that God can be looked upon--that is, that no contradiction of
the Divine nature is therein involved (for otherwise he would never have
preferred his request)--it is added, "For no one shall look on Me and
live," thus giving a reason in accordance with Moses' idea, for it is
not stated that a contradiction of the Divine nature would be involved,
as was really the case, but that the thing would not come to pass
because of human infirmity....
Lastly, as Moses believed that God dwelt in the heavens, God was
revealed to him as coming down from heaven on to a mountain, and in
order to talk with the Lord Moses went up the mountain, which he
certainly need not have done if he could have conceived of God as
omnipresent.
The Israelites knew scarcely anything of God, although He was revealed
to them; and this is abundantly evident from their transferring, a few
days afterwards, the honor and worship due to Him to a calf, which they
believed to be the god who had brought them out of Egypt. In truth, it
is hardly likely that men accustomed to the superstitions of Egypt,
uncultivated and sunk in most abject slavery, should have held any sound
notions about the Deity, or that Moses should have taught them anything
beyond a rule of right living; inculcating it not like a philosopher, as
the result of freedom, but like a lawgiver compelling them to be moral
by legal authority. Thus the rule of right living, the worship and love
of God, was to them rather a bondage than the true liberty, the gift and
grace of the Deity. Moses bid them love God and keep His law, because
they had in the past received benefits from Him (such as the deliverance
from slavery in Egypt), and further terrified them with threats if they
transgressed His commands, holding out many promises of good if they
should observe them; thus treating them as parents treat irrational
children. It is, therefore, certain that they knew not the excellence of
virtue and the true happiness.
Jonah thought that he was fleeing from the sight of God, which seems to
show that he too held that God had entrusted the care of the nations
outside Judaea to other substituted powers. No one in the whole of the
Old Testament speaks more rationally of God than Solomon, who in fact
surpassed all the men of his time in natural ability. Yet he considered
himself above the law (esteeming it only to have been given for men
without reasonable and intellectual grounds for their actions), and made
small account of the laws concerning kings, which are mainly three: nay,
he openly violated them (in this he did wrong, and acted in a manner
unworthy of a philosopher, by indulging in sensual pleasure), and taught
that all Fortune's favors to mankind are vanity, that humanity has no
nobler gift than wisdom, and no greater punishment than folly. (See
Proverbs xvi. 22, 23.)
... God adapted revelations to the understanding and opinions of the
prophets, and ... in matters of theory without bearing on charity or
morality, the prophets could be, and, in fact, were ignorant, and held
conflicting opinions. It therefore follows that we must by no means go
to the prophets for knowledge, either of natural or of spiritual
phenomena.
We have determined, then, that we are only bound to believe in the
prophetic writings, the object and substance of the revelation; with
regard to the details, every one may believe or not, as he likes.
For instance, the revelation to Cain only teaches us that God admonished
him to lead the true life, for such alone is the object and substance of
the revelation, not doctrines concerning free will and philosophy.
Hence, though the freedom of the will is clearly implied in the words of
the admonition, we are at liberty to hold a contrary opinion, since the
words and reasons were adapted to the understanding of Cain.
So, too, the revelation to Micaiah would only teach that God revealed to
him the true issue of the battle between Ahab and Aram; and this is all
we are bound to believe. Whatever else is contained in the revelation
concerning the true and the false Spirit of God, the army of heaven
standing on the right hand and on the left, and all the other details,
does not affect us at all. Every one may believe as much of it as his
reason allows.
The reasonings by which the Lord displayed His power to Job (if they
really were a revelation, and the author of the history is narrating,
and not merely, as some suppose, rhetorically adorning his own
conceptions), would come under the same category--that is, they were
adapted to Job's understanding, for the purpose of convincing him, and
are not universal, or for the convincing of all men.
We can come to no different conclusion with respect to the reasonings of
Christ, by which He convicted the Pharisees of pride and ignorance, and
exhorted His disciples to lead the true life. He adapted them to each
man's opinions and principles. For instance, when He said to the
Pharisees (Matt. xii. 26), "And if Satan cast out devils, his house is
divided against itself, how then shall his kingdom stand?" He only
wished to convince the Pharisees according to their own principles, not
to teach that there are devils, or any kingdom of devils. So, too, when
He said to His disciples (Matt. viii. 10), "See that ye despise not one
of these little ones, for I say unto you that their angels," etc., He
merely desired to warn them against pride and despising any of their
fellows, not to insist on the actual reason given, which was simply
adopted in order to persuade them more easily.
Lastly, we should say exactly the same of the apostolic signs and
reasonings, but there is no need to go further into the subject. If I
were to enumerate all the passages of Scripture addressed only to
individuals, or to a particular man's understanding, and which cannot,
without great danger to philosophy, be defended as Divine doctrines, I
should go far beyond the brevity at which I aim. Let it suffice then, to
have indicated a few instances of general application, and let the
curious reader consider others by himself. Although the points we have
just raised concerning prophets and prophecy are the only ones which
have any direct bearing on the end in view, namely, the separation of
Philosophy from Theology, still, as I have touched on the general
question, I may here inquire whether the gift of prophecy was peculiar
to the Hebrews, or whether it was common to all nations. I must then
come to a conclusion about the vocation of the Hebrews, all of which I
shall do in the ensuing chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[4] From the _Tr. Th.-P._ ch. i _Of Prophecy_; and ch. ii of _Of
Prophets_.
[5] ... I will tell you that I do not think it necessary for salvation
to know Christ according to the flesh; but with regard to the Eternal
Son of God, that is the Eternal Wisdom of God, which has manifested
itself in all things and especially in the human mind, and above all in
Christ Jesus, the case is far otherwise. For without this no one can
come to a state of blessedness, inasmuch as it alone teaches what is
true or false, good or evil. And, inasmuch as this wisdom was made
especially manifest through Jesus Christ, as I have said, His disciples
preached it, in so far as it was revealed to them through Him, and thus
showed that they could rejoice in that spirit of Christ more than the
rest of mankind. The doctrines added by certain churches, such as that
God took upon Himself human nature, I have expressly said that I do not
understand. In fact, to speak the truth, they seem to me no less absurd
than would a statement that a circle had taken upon itself the nature of
a square. This I think will be sufficient explanation of my opinion....
Whether it will be satisfactory to Christians you will know better than
I. Farewell. _From a letter to Henry Oldenburg_ (Nov. 1675).
... For the rest, I accept Christ's passion, death, and burial
literally, as you do, but His resurrection I understand allegorically. I
admit, that it is related by the Evangelists in such detail that we
cannot deny that they themselves believed Christ's body to have risen
from the dead and ascended to heaven in order to sit at the right hand
of God, or that they believed that Christ might have been seen by
unbelievers, if they had happened to be at hand, in the places where He
appeared to His disciples; but in these matters they might, without
injury to Gospel teaching, have been deceived, as was the case with
other prophets.... But Paul, to whom Christ afterwards appeared,
rejoices that he knew Christ, not after the flesh, but after the spirit.
_From a letter to Henry Oldenburg_ (Jan. 1676).