The OT as little thinks of arguing or proving that (Jod may be known as it thinks of arguing that lie exists. Its position is here again, so to sneak, far in front of such an argument. How should men think of argumg that God could be known when they were persuaded they knew Ilini, when they felt they were in fellowship with Him, when their whole mind was lilled and aglow with the tliought of Him, and when His Spirit was within them ? The peculiarity, however, of the OT comes out when the question is raised. How is God known? And here the characteristic concep- tion of the OT is that of Revelation— if men know God, it is because He lias made Himself known to them. The idea of man reaching to knowledge or fellowahii) of (iod through liis own efforts is foreign to tlie O'l. God speaks. He appears: man listens and beholds. God brings Himself near to men. He enters into a covenant with them. He lays commands on them : they receive Him when He approaclies, accept His will and obey His behests. Moses and the prophets are nowhere represented as llioughtful minds, reflecting on the Unseen and ascending to elevated conceptions of Godhead : the Unseen manifests itself to tliem, and they know it. God reveals Himself to the patriarchs in angelic forms, to Moses in the bush and on the mount, to tho prophets in the spiritual intuitions of their omi minds. The form of manifestation may change, but the reality remains the same. The conviction in the mind of the prophet, that God revealed Himself and His word to liim when the truth broke upon his mind, was not less vivid than that of the patriarch who was visited liy angelic messengers when sitting at the door of his tent, or that of Jtoses who saw the God of Israel in the mount. This view of God's self-manifesta- tion, and that He takes the initiative, is the charac- teristic conception of the OT. The view may not be peculiar to Israel, for increa.sing knowledge of the Semitic peoples tends to show that on gener.al questions about Deity, such as His relation to the world and to men's actions, they all thought very much alike ; the supremacy of Israel lay, not in these points, bnt in the ethical nature which they ascribed to their God, and in the redemptive hopes for niankincl and the world which flowed from tliis conception of His nature. Interesting psychologi- cal questions are raised by such visions as that of Aloses at the bush (Ex .S), that of .Jacob at Jabbok (Gn a-^-""-), and that of Isaiah in the temple (Is G). Such questions may never be answered, but there are two points not to be lost sight of in estimating the OT conception of Revelation. First, though it is the OT manner throughout to signalize the divine operation alone, and to pa.ss over in silence any preparation or co-operation in the mind of man, we are entitled and comiielled to throw back into these ancient histories sometiiingof our know- ledge of how men's minds operate now when (iod is movin" them. Isaiah's vision was no doubt pre- ceded by reflection on the nature of J ' and on the state of' the nation, and the inevitable i.ssne fore- cast. And simil.ir reflections must have occupied the mind of -Moses, along with nsiiirations in regard to himself and his people. These revela- tions of God to men were never mere objective calls to take a certain place or do a certain duty, there was always a personal element in them, they ■were a crisis in the individual religious life, ft was this new personal relation to God, which wn.s a-s real in the case of Moses as in that of Isaiah, that was the source of the power which such men wielded over the masses of their fellow-men. More
than one commentator has said that Isaiah, in ollering a signi to Ahaz in the heavens above or the depth beneath (Is 7"), was playing a dangerous game, and migdit have been left in the lurch. It is sufficient prelimin.ary answer to say that Is.iiah did not think so. But it may be added that tiiere was in Isaiah something of that same con.scionsness which expressed itself in Christ when He said, ' I know that thou hearest me always.' Therefore, sccondhj, the reality of the divine influence most be upheld also. The idea of Revelation cannot be regarded as a mere Hebrew conception which, translated into modern thought, me.ans nothing but the natural operations of the mind in the sphere of religion. Such a view leaves unexplained the consciousness of the prophets, the contents of their prophecies, and the religious life which they manifested. But, of course, however much the OT reposes on the ground that all knowledge of God comes from His revealing Himself, and that there is such a revelation, it is far from implying that this revelation of God is a full display of Him as He really is. An exhaustive communication of Go<l cannot be made, because the creature cannot take it in (Job 11'"-). At the same time there is no trace in the (JT of the idea that God as revealed to men is not God as He really is in Himself, or that His revelation of Himself is meant merely to be regulative of human life, while what He is in truth remains far away in a transcendental back- ground out of which it is impossible for it to ad- vance, or into which it is impossible for men to penetrate. The revelation God gives of Himself is a revelation of Himself as He is in truth, though it maj- be impossible to reveal Himself fully to men. The OT conception of God is that of a Person with ethical attributes ; it nowhere specu- lates on His physical essence. God is nowhere called spirit in tlie OT ; like men. He has a spirit ; but spirit never denotes substance, but always connotes energy and power, especially life-giving power.