1. The OT position.—While the general idea of God is everywhere expressed in the OT by the name El (also Eloah, Elohim), the earliest concep- tion of the Divine nature within the sphere of revelation is that conveyed in the name El Shaddai=(?) ‘God Almighty.’ Although probably of pre-Mosaic origin, it was only at a later stage of revelation (Ex 3 6%) that the name Jahweh came to be apprehended in its essential significance as the absolutely independent, faithful, and immut- able covenant God of Israel. God was next con- ceived as the Holy One (Ex 15"),—just (Dt 32%, Ps 36%), and jealous (Ex 34%), but also merciful and gracious (Ex 34°), In the prophetic writings He is further designated as the Lord of Hosts (Is 1% 22, Jer 10, Hab 2" etc.), and in the Hokhma literature as the all-wise (Job 35°, Ps 147°, Pr 2°, Sir 2°), See, further, art. Gop (in OT) in vol. ii.
Precisely the same conception of the Divine Being predominates in the Apocrypha. The only point about which there could be any difficulty in maintaining this identity is the spirituality of God; and with regard to this we hope to show that in the Apocr. there is something that may not unfairly be described as intermediate between the perfect revelation of the NT and the more material- istic view of the OT. While the fundamental con- ception of God remains unchanged from that of the OT Canon, there is at the same time a decided movement towards a more spiritual conception of the Supreme Being.
2. The position of this doctrine in Jewish writ- ings of the Apocryphal period. —(1) Of the Pal. books the most important here, and the oldest, is Sirach. This book (written in Heb. ¢. 180 B.c., translated into Greek B.C. 132) has much to say about God, especially about His relation to the world physical and moral. The fullest statement of God’s relation to the material universe is found
* Camb. Bible for Schools, 1 Mac., Introd. p. 14.
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
in 421_43°8 ; and what is distinctive of the writer’s view as here expressed is his assertion that the mighty works of God’s wisdom are beyond the power of His saints to declare (42!”). He is above all human praise (43°). ‘Who hath seen him, that he may declare him? And who shall magnify him as he is?’ (43%), There is no doubt that this re- presents a distinct step in the development of the doctrine of God. ‘From the point of view of Ecclesiasticus,’ says Nicolas, ‘it is not only anthro- pomorphie representations which give false ideas of deity ; not even the most elevated conceptions of the human spirit can declare it as itis. No feat of imagination, no effort of intelligence can reach it. Jesus, son of Sirach, has pronounced the word : the Eternal is incomprehensible in His essence by the limited faculties of man.’ * The book also con- tains many statements regarding God’s relationship to the moral world. There is a beneficent design in creation, ‘for all things are created for their uses’ (3921). ‘In the hand of the Lord is the authority of the earth,’ and also ‘the prosperity of a man’ (104). ‘Poverty and riches are from the Lord’ (1144), and ‘he hath not given any man licence to sin’ (152°). God is represented as ‘ visit- ing’ men; but ‘as his majesty is, so also is his mercy’ (2'8), Sometimes the contrast is drawn from the opposite side, as in 16" ‘As his mercy is great, so is his correction also; he judgeth a man according to his works.’ As judge, there is with Him no respect of persons (35”). In the assertion that ‘the Most High also hateth sinners’ (12°) we have a deviation from the true biblical position that while hating sin God loves the sinner. The writer addresses God as ‘ Father and Master of my life’ (23%), and recognizes Him as the hearer of prayer (21° 3516 38° etc.). A gracious Providence watches over the godly (341%), but the sacrifices of the wicked are vain (341%). God is regarded as specially the God of the Jews, but yet as the God of all, and loving all (36/17 18%), The relation of God to evil is thus laid down: ‘Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away ; for thou shalt not do the things that he hateth. Say not thou, It is he that caused me to err; for he hath no need of a sinful man’ (15). This passage is one of several in this book, the tenor of which is practically repeated in the Epistle of St. James (13), Except in the two particulars noted above, there is nothing in all this either in advance of, or at variance with, what is met with in the Canonical books of the OT upon the subject of the nature and character of the Supreme Being. The con- servative instincts of the writer have even brought upon him the charge of adhering to ‘a not so much untrue as antiquated form of religious belief.’ + ,
In the various sections of Enoch the conception of God is practically that of the OT, although occa- sional divergences occur. .g. the idea of God rejoicing over the destruction of the wicked (941°) is quite foreign to the OT (cf. Ezk 1g S33"). This book employs a great multiplicity of titles for God. Of these, which are collected in the Index to Charles’s edition, some of the most striking are, ‘eternal Lord of glory’ (75°), ‘God_of the whole world’ (842), ‘Head of Days’ (46°), ‘Honoured and Glorious One’ (142), ‘Lord of the sheep’ (89"°), ‘Lord of spirits’ (37), ‘Lord of the whole creation of the heaven’ (84”). ’