Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

of devotion, applies with increased force to all other pious exercises, to sacrifice or fasting. There is no connection between these practices and the ordinary affairs of human life. No degree of self-castigation can avert a calamity which is the inevitable result of a chain of events or of physical conditions. We must repeat once more to expect an effect without a corresponding cause, is superstition. Yet the Biblical narrative constantly introduces prayer, sacrifice, and the like, and attaches to them a profound and mysterious reality. Who will deny, that any ceremony, however unmeaning in itself, if performed in a spirit of earnestness and humility, may serve the best and holiest ends of religion, by rousing the soul and directing it to its highest duties? But here again, it is not the ceremonies which work so beneficially, but the frame of mind which they happen to call forth; however, this frame of mind, very different in different worshippers, might be produced in many other ways, and is, in fact, more surely engendered by means better consistent with the true. nature of man and his place in creation. Even the so-called good works, as charity and alms-giving, truly ennobling and beatifying if exercised from a consciousness of the obligations which man owes to man, and from a feeling of single-minded self-denial, are a noxious perversity, if performed in the selfish hope of obtaining the favour of the deity and thereby securing temporal or eternal happiness; not only do the good works thus lose their chief merit and grace, not only do they cease to be the brightest glory and most precious gem of man's life, they contribute to foster both egotism and superstition. We must advance even a step farther and weigh the value and force of penitence. If the destruction of a town as Nineveh is all but impending, and is yet averted by the repentance of its inhabitants, we are justified in asking, how such an effect can be wrought by such a cause?10 We are very far from undervaluing the transcendent merit and wonderful power of repentance, to be prized as the chief means of purification and peace of mind, because it is alone able to counterbalance our inherent weakness, or at least to mitigate its baneful operation: but we cannot attribute to it any other direct or outward influence; for the confession of sinful or wicked acts cannot make them undone; a deed cannot be effaced by a thought, but only by another deed, or by uncontrollable circumstances; on the contrary, experience and reflection teach us alike that no penitence, however sincere and unremitting, can wipe out a transgression; sin must be expiated by suffering; but the sufferer is upheld by the consolation

9

8 Comp., for instance, Luke XIV. 12— 14; see Feuerbach, Ursprung der Götter, pp. 392-399 (on “Self-love”).

8

9 Jonah III.

10 Comp. Jer. XXVI. 13, 19 ("the Lord will repent of the evil" etc.).

that, as his vice, his indolence, or his imprudence has plunged him into distress and sorrow, so his virtue, his energy, or his thoughtfulness can restore him to happiness and harmony of mind.

4. REVELATION.

The principles above laid down enable us to assign its due place to another group of notions affecting the very groundwork of the Scriptures revelation, inspiration, and prophecy.

1

2

The main precepts of the Pentateuch claim to be directly communicated by God to Moses; and both the earlier patriarchs and distinguished men of later times are represented as enjoying God's personal intercourse at decisive epochs of their lives. Let us examine the dogmatic foundations upon which such conceptions were built up. It is true that God's incorporeality is theoretically taught in the Pentateuch; yet He appears in human form, and is seen in the visions of the prophets; He speaks distinctly and intelligibly, and communicates His thoughts and designs to His elected mediators. From these views to the doctrine of incarnation there is but a natural step; and thus theology almost returns, as if by a circular movement, to the very point from which it started the notion of personal gods with human attributes. But how can a Spirit that pervades the universe, and which is accessible to our intellects by the works exclusively that fill the world, and by the laws that govern it, commune bodily or personally with man, and reveal to him commands or truths for the guidance of his life? The most Divine power of which we have knowledge and consciousness, is human reason, and it suffices to secure man's dignity and his happiness. Wise and good men intended to convey to their fellow-beings what they regarded as irrefutable truth; and they

1 See p. 400. The views with regard to the incorporeality of God evidently fluctuated for a long time; it is only necessary to refer to that remarkable and obscure account in Exodus where Moses desired to see the "glory" of God, and the latter replies, "Behold, there is a place by Me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock; and it shall come to pass, while My glory passes by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with My hand while I pass by; and then I will take away My hand, and thou shalt see My back, but My face cannot be seen" (Exod. XXXIII. 21-23; comp. also

;פה אל פה אדבר בו Num. XII. 6S (פנים אל פנים. 10 .Deut. XXXIV

a passage which has induced many to suppose that the Pentateuch does not at all teach the incorporeality of God (comp., f.i., Spinoza, Tract, theol.polit. I.17, nec lex Mosi revelata... unquam praecepit, ut credamus, Deum esse incorporeum etc.; comp. ibid. II. 36, 42, 43; XV. 16).

2 Gen. XVIII. 2, 17.

3 Isai. VI. 1 sqq. see infra.

4 See also Exod. XXXIII. 18-23; comp. Hirschfeld, Halachische Exegese, pp. 76, 77; De Wette, Dogmatik, II. § 24 a.

--

5

clothed their teaching in the form of a revelation, because this is the most impressive, and was therefore, for such purposes, the most usual and familiar mode of communication. Let us analyse a clear instance of revelation or theophany; we choose one distinguished by simplicity and grandeur, composed by Isaiah who is unquestionably to be counted among the noblest and most gifted of the ancient Hebrews. "In the year that king Uzziah died", he writes, "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lofty, and His train filled the Temple. Above Him stood seraphs; each one had six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly. And one cried to another and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory . . . Then said I, Woe to me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the king, the Lord of hosts" after which a seraph lays a live coal upon the prophet's lips, and God charges him with the mission of preaching to the Israelites. Has this narrative literal truth? Can it have reality? Isaiah sees God. Can God be seen? Would the prophet in sober earnestness admit the possibility? Can he then fear instantaneous death on that account? He sees God sitting on a throne. Can a spirit be so conceived, and is it tied to the conditions of space? The train of God () is noticed. How is this to be understood? And has He any form that admits of the contrast between above and below? The prophet observes that the train filled the Temple. Is God enclosed within the walls of an edifice? And in what manner can the garment of a spiritual being fill a circumscribed space? He sees, moreover, seraphs with six wings. What are seraphs? Are they not, like all angels, demons, and spirits, both good and evil, pure and impure, which are so prominent in all parts of the Bible and most so in the latest, are they not beings of eastern mythology, creatures of fancy, without possible reality?" Yet he sees them "standing above God" (15 bypo papy). What does it mean "above God"? What can there be above Him who fills the heaven and the heaven of heavens, and the whole universe? Then the seraphs speak, and God

5 Isai. VI. 1-13.

6 For the scene of the vision is obviously not in heaven, but in the Temple (ver. 2), as is evident from "the foundations of the threshold" (ver. 4) and the altar (ver. 6; comp. Jerem. XXIV. 1; Am. IX. 1; Ezek. VIII. 3; esp. X. 4, 5), the vail which separated the Holy from the Holy of Holies

8

[blocks in formation]

speaks, and Isaiah answers, and the angels perform a symbolical act. How is a communion between God and man possible by means of language? Does an incorporeal being utter articulate speech intelligible to man? Can an enlightened person expect a verbal reply in addressing God? Now in what light are we to look upon this vision of Isaiah? The idea of deception or imposition must be utterly discarded; the loftiness and purity of Isaiah's character at once banish such suspicion. Is it, then, the result of wild self-illusion and religious ecstasy? The usual calmness and clear-sighted penetration of the prophet would fainly make us abandon this alternative. Is it, therefore, purely and simply a poetical invention, a form of composition designed to describe interestingly his vocation as a teacher and his initiation as a prophet? The earnestness and depth of the writer forbid us to suppose frivolous playfulness in relating the holiest and most important event of his life. What view, then, remains? Though the narrative evinces prominently neither the fervour of religious enthusiasm, nor the design of beauty and effectiveness of diction, it appears to be a combination of both. Isaiah, in common with his time and people, believed the possibility of a direct revelation; and he had ardour enough to persuade himself that the powerful impulse which stimulated him to his great career, might be hallowed or confirmed by a solemn theophany.2 On the other hand, he could scarcely deceive himself so far as to imagine that he had actually received such revelation through the personal appearance and address of God; yet he might well describe his initiation under that form, which was familiar to his contemporaries, and which he was able to employ with clearness and impressiveness. The form of visions, generally adopted in eastern theology, and naturally varying according to the disposition and talent of the writers and the taste of their times," 1 Comp. Spinoza, Tract. theol. polit. que sine dubio Deum vidit, prout ipsum I. 9, verba vero et etiam figurae vel imaginari solebat. verae fuerunt et extra imaginationem prophetae audientis seu videntis, vel imaginariae quia nimirum prophetae imaginatio, etiam vigilando, ita disponebatur, ut sibi clare videretur verba audire aut aliquid videre; and with respect to Isaiah's vision he observes (ibid. §20), Esaiae etiam representatum est per figuras, Dei providentiam populum deserere, nempe imaginando Deum ter sanctum in throno altissimo etc.; or (II. 20) Esaias vidit Deum vestitum et in solio regis sedentem, Ezechiel autem instar ignis; uter

3

2 Comp. vers. 5, S.

3 Comp. Jer. I. 4-19; Ezek. II. 1-10. 4 Comp. Am. VII. 1-9; VII. 1, 2; Zech. I. 7-17; II. 1-9; III. 1—10; 1 Ki. XXII. 19-23; comp. also Spinoza, Tract. theol. polit. I. 46; II. 3; esp. 1223, 49-58, hinc sequitur signa pro opinionibus et capacitate prophetae data fuisse... Sic etiam ipsa revelatio variabat in unoquoque propheta pro dispositione temperamenti, corporis, imaginationis, et pro ratione opinionum quas antea amplexus fuerat... Haec facile ostendent, Deum nullum habere

grew more and more in favour among the Hebrews; it is found with increased frequency in the later writings, especially in the Book of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John, till it was overloaded with an exuberant, if not extravagant, admixture of symbolism or allegorical play. Narratives like that under examination, have, therefore, a very high psychological interest, but they can be fully understood and appreciated only, if viewed in relation to the age in which they were written, or to which they point. This applies pre-eminently to the most important of all revelations, those of the Pentateuch. The authors of these tales, living many centuries after the events they narrate, and imbued with the idea that God personally appears to His messengers to charge them with His commands, must needs have believed that Moses was above all other men deemed worthy of receiving Divine revelations; and that as his legation was more momentous than that of all his successors, so the personal manifestations of God were, in his case, more direct, more palpable, and more grandly communicated, than on any previous or later occasion. Eager to exalt this mission, they enlarged and, it may be, exaggerated the notions of their own time with regard to theophanies; and their narratives are, therefore, the combined result of conviction and of logical inference. Hence it is futile in the extreme to reduce all visions of the Bible to suggestions by dreams, as has been attempted by Maimonides and others. Much nearer the truth are those who refer them to the working of the imagination, a faculty which they require even more than superiority of mind."

8

stylum peculiarem dicendi, sed tantum pro eruditione et eapacitate prophetae eatenus esse elegantem, compendiosum, severum, rudem, prolixum et obscurum. 5 Comp. Ezek. I; IV; XII; Zech. I; IV; V; Dan. II; VII.

6 Comp. Num. XII. 6-8; Exod. XIX. 10-25; XX. 18-21. Yet the conception that God spoke to Moses "face to face", seems not to have been generally or consistently entertained; for even Moses was not permitted to see God (Exod. XXXIII. 20), and prophets like him were supposed to appear in later times (Deut. XVIII. 15, 18; comp. supra p. 438, note 1).

7 This opinion is denounced by Spinoza in almost vehement terms, "illi sane garriunt; nam nihil aliud curaverunt quam nugas Aristotelicas et sua

propria figmenta ex Scriptura extorquere; quo mihi quidem nihil magis absurdum videtur" (Tract. theol. polit. I. 19).

8 Spinoza, 1. c. § 25, asserimus... neminem nisi imaginationis ope, videlicet ope verborum aut imaginum, Dei revelata accepisse; § 41, quare aequali jure imaginatio prophetarum, quatenus peream Dei decreta revelabantur, mens Dei etiam vocari poterat, prophetaeque mentem Dei habuisse dici poterant; § 43, possumus jam igitur sine scrupulo affirmare, prophetas non nisi ope imaginationis Dei revelata percepisse, hoc est, mediantibus verbis vel imaginibus, iisque veris aut imaginariis.

9 L. c. § 25, adeo ad prophetizandum non esse opus perfectiore mente sed vividiore imaginatione; comp. II. 1.

« ElőzőTovább »