“The East bowed low before the blast In patient, deep disdain; She let the legions thunder past, And plunged in thought again.”
But the Christian Church is mistress of a more compelling magic than even Eastern patience and tenacity: out of the storms that threaten her, she draws new energies for service, and learns a more expressive language in which to declare the glory of God.
Let us glance for a moment at the meanings of the group of Divine names given above. We have said that, in addition to _Melech_ in _Malchi-_, _Abi_, _Ahi_, and _Ammi_ are to be regarded as Divine names. One reason for this is that their use as prefixes is strictly analogous to that of _El_ and _Jeho-_. We have _Abijah_ and _Ahijah_ as well as _Elijah_, _Abiel_ and _Ammiel_ as well as _Eliel_, _Abiram_ and _Ahiram_ as well as _Jehoram_; _Ammishaddai_ compares with _Zurishaddai_, and _Ammizabad_ with _Jehozabad_, nor would it be difficult to add many other examples. If this view be correct, _Ammi_ will have nothing to do with the Hebrew word for “people,” but will rather be connected with the corresponding Arabic word for “uncle.”(55) As the use of such terms as “brother” and “uncle” for Divine names is not consonant with Hebrew theology in its historic period, the names which contain these prefixes must have come down from earlier ages, and were used in later times without any consciousness of their original sense. Probably they were explained by new etymologies more in harmony with the spirit of the times; compare the etymology “father of a multitude of nations” given to Abraham. Even _Abi-_, father, in the early times to which its use as a prefix must be referred, cannot have had the full spiritual meaning which now attaches to it as a Divine title. It probably only signified the ultimate source of life. The disappearance of these religious terms from the common vocabulary and their use in names long after their significance had been forgotten are ordinary phenomena in the development of language and religion. How many of the millions who use our English names for the days of the week ever give a thought to Thor or Freya? Such phenomena have more than an antiquarian interest. They remind us that religious terms, and phrases, and formulæ derive their influence and value from their adaptation to the age which accepts them; and therefore many of them will become unintelligible or even misleading to later generations. Language varies continuously, circumstances change, experience widens, and every age has a right to demand that Divine truth shall be presented in the words and metaphors that give it the clearest and most forcible expression. Many of the simple truths that are most essential to salvation admit of being stated once for all; but dogmatic theology fossilises fast, and the bread of one generation may become a stone to the next.
The history of these names illustrates yet another phenomenon. In some narrow and imperfect sense the early Semitic peoples seem to have called God “Father” and “Brother.” Because the terms were limited to a narrow sense, the Israelites grew to a level of religious truth at which they could no longer use them; but as they made yet further progress they came to know more of what was meant by fatherhood and brotherhood, and gained also a deeper knowledge of God. At length the Church resumed these ancient Semitic terms; and Christians call God “Abba, Father,” and speak of the Eternal Son as their elder Brother. And thus sometimes, but not always, an antique phrase may for a time seem unsuitable and misleading, and then again may prove to be the best expression for the newest and fullest truth. Our criticism of a religious formula may simply reveal our failure to grasp the wealth of meaning which its words and symbols can contain.
Turning from these obsolete names to those in common use—_El_; _Jehovah_; _Shaddai_; _Zur_; _Melech_—probably the prevailing idea popularly associated with them all was that of strength: _El_, strength in the abstract; _Jehovah_, strength shown in permanence and independence; _Shaddai_, the strength that causes terror, the Almighty from whom cometh destruction(56); _Zur_, rock, the material symbol of strength, _Melech_, king, the possessor of authority. In early times the first and most essential attribute of Deity is power, but with this idea of strength a certain attribute of beneficence is soon associated. The strong God is the Ally of His people; His permanence is the guarantee of their national existence; He destroys their enemies. The rock is a place of refuge; and, again, Jehovah’s people may rejoice in the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. The King leads them to battle, and gives them their enemies for a spoil.