Summary.—Let us sum up in a few words the arguments of this article. Man is by necessity of his nature religious. Religion implies revelation ; man’s approach to God is in response to God’s approach toman. As religion is, so is revelation universal; but its quality varies with human capacity and development. It is in accord with God’s method that He should through one nation bless all mankind. In the history of the Hebrew people there can be traced a progressive revelation, the record of which is in the OT. This culminates in Christ, in whom the ideal of religion is realized, and the perfect revelation is given. To secure full historic reality to this revelation, the image of His person and the influence of His work must be perpetuated and diffused, as is done by means of the NT. The Holy Scriptures as the literature of revelation offer us a doctrine of its range, method, and purpose. The bearers of the revelation bear a witness to their own qualifications and authority, which is confirmed both by their characters and the contents of their message. This evidence is further strengthened by the recognition of the worth of the OT in the Jewish Church and of the NT in the Christian Church. But the full evidence of revelation is not possessed until its purpose has been fulfilled and its effect realized in the experience of the Christian, saved from sin and death and doom by the love of the Father in the grace of the Son through the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.
THEOCRACY
LITERATURE.—The special articles referred to may be consulted for the Literature relating to their respective subjects. For the more general literature, the note at the end of the article BIBLE in vol. i, may be referred to. To the books there mentioned may be added Caird’s, Pfleiderer’s, and Sabatier’s Philosophy of Re- ligion ;, Fairbairn’s The Philosophy of the Christian Religion ; and Illingworth’s Reason and Revelation. Bruce’s Apologetics deals with many of the topics touched on, and his Chief End of Revelation is still worth consulting. Herrmann’s Communion of the Christian with God offers an original and suggestive treat- ment of the subject of Revelation.
ALFRED E. GARVIE.
THEOCRACY.—The terms ‘ theocracy’ and ‘ theo- cratic’ have been used somewhat freely in connexion with the history of Israel, but it is not altogether easy to determine with precision what ideas should be attached to them. It may seem that, if these words are to denote an actual constitution of human society, they must imply the absorption of the State in the Church, or at least the supremacy of the Church over the State. When applied, as they are, to the form and aims of the medizxval Papacy, they have this meaning ; and so taken they ould be true only of the period, or periods, of Jewish history when the people were under a hierarchy, with the high priest at its head. Wellhausen and other critics of his school do, in fact, restrict the notion of the Theocracy thus, and consequently hold, in accordance with their view of the docu- ments, that it was realized only after the Exile. The question of the best use of the term must not, however, be identified with that of the date of the Priestly Code. Readers of the Bible, generally, taking the Pentateuch as it stands, and believing the constitution therein described to have been given and actually established by Moses, have regarded those early days as ideal ones for the Theocracy. But it may be doubted whether they have derived the impression that its essence lay in priestly rule, or whether this is in reality sug- gested in the Bible ; while a more elastic concep- tion must certainly be formed if justice is to be done to the teaching of the OT as a whole.
i. The use of the term by Josephus.—The term ‘theocracy ’ was coined by Josephus on the model of others expressive of various kinds of political constitution, in order to explain to Gentile readers the distinctive characteristics of the national life of Israel. He uses it but once, and then with an apology. Inc. Ap. ii. 16, after referring to differ- ences between States in respect to the seat of power—a, single sovereign, a few, the multitude— fe proceeds: 6 & iuérepos vowobérns els perv rovrwy ovdortovy ametder, ws 6° dv Tis elror Biacdmevos Tov Nbyor, Geoxparlay amédeke 7d moNlrevpa, Jew Tiny apxhv Kal Td Kpdros dvabels. ‘ Our lawgiver had an eye to none of these; but, as one might say, using a strained expression, he set forth the national polity as a theocracy, referring the rule and might to God.’ As Josephus introduced the term, it may be worth while to consider a little more fully what he intended to convey by it; and this may help us to clear our own minds. There is the more reason for doing so, because statements in regard to his mean- ing, which the present writer believes to be in diferent ways misleading, have been made by such writers as Stanley, Jewish Church, Lecture 18 init., and Wellhausen, Proleg. to Hist. of Israel, Eng. tr. p. 411, 8rd German ed. i. p. 436.
In the sequel to the words just quoted, Josephus says, by way of explanation or expansion of them, that Moses led the Israelites to recognize God as the source both of the good things bestowed on all mankind, and of deliverances granted to them- selves in their distresses in answer to their prayers ; that to the whole people he imparted a knowledge of God such as at most a philosopher here and there among other nations had attained to; and that he gave them Divine laws and customs to mould and train their national character.—A