conflict, of less or greater violence, between grace and nature, submissive faith and resisting unbelief, they were entirely subdued. They showed themselves more decidedly in Jacob's sons, since with them the selfishness of nature was no longer under the immediate and express control of God, but had to submit to one who was himself a recipient, as well as a mediator of the divine mercy, one who was naturally their equal, but, according to the hidden and marvellous wisdom of God, was destined to be their deliverer and redeemer. Yet even in this instance the power of forgiving love, displayed by Joseph, triumphed over the obstinacy of selfishness in the hearts of his brethren.

This then being the leading principle, on which the course of salvation in the kingdom of God depends, that its victory over the evils existing in human nature shall be gained by godlike love, submission, and self-sacrifice, it is a fundamental law of the whole of the sacred history, till its ultimate completion, that the way of salvation leads through abasement to exaltation, through serving to ruling, through sacrifice to possession, through suffering to glory. And this fundamental law, of which the highest and most perfect manifestation is seen in the life of the Redeemer, was first displayed in a definite and concrete form in the life of Joseph.

The typical character of the life of Joseph, then, consists in this, that he, the first temporary deliverer of Israel, who brought the first stage of its history to a close, like the perfect Saviour of Israel, in whom its entire history terminated, was slighted, despised, persecuted, and betrayed by "his own;" that, like Him, he passed through abasement, service, and suffering, to exaltation and glory, and also that, like him, he succeeded at length in softening their hardened hearts by the fulness of his forgiving love, and in raising his own to the enjoyment of the benefits which he had secured for them. If, in addition to this, there is often a striking resemblance between particular incidents and the accidental circumstances, we cannot lay any very great stress upon this, though we regard it as a mark of that prophetic spirit, by which the history was directed and controlled.

(97)

GENERAL SURVEY OF THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.

REVELATION, RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE IN THE TIME OF THE PATRIARCHS.

§ 5. We have already seen (Vol. i. § 12. 13), that in order to determine to what extent the consciousness of God was developed under the Old Testament economy, it is essentially necessary to make a twofold distinction in the process of divine revelation; that is to say, it is necessary to distinguish the preservation and government of the world in general, from the more special operations connected with the introduction and working out of the plan of salvation. We have also seen that this distinction was exhibited to the religious consciousness of the chosen people, in the two names by which God was known, Elohim and Jehovah. The only questions remaining for discussion at present are, whether there was any distinct apprehension in the patriarchal age, of the difference between these two manifestations of God? and if so, whether it was expressed by the two different names of God at that early age? Some have thought that a negative answer to these questions is rendered necessary by Ex. vi. 3; but this is not the case. For, on the one hand, the explanation of the passage on which this answer is founded is an erroneous one (1), and on the other, whatever opinion may be entertained respecting the composition of the book of Genesis (Vol. i. § 20. 2), such a reply is decidedly at variance with the contents of that book (2).

VOL. II.

(1). On the ground of Ex. vi. 3 (where Elohim says to Moses: "I am Jehovah, and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, but by my name was I not known to them"), it has been very confidently maintained by modern critics, that the name was not in existence before the time of Moses, but was first introduced by him in connexion with his peculiar instruction respecting the nature of God. But in my work Einheit der Genesis (p. xxii.—xxxii.) I have proved at length that this is an erroneous explanation of the passage. We shall therefore content ourselves with giving the correct explanation here, and for a fuller discussion of the question refer to the work just named, vid. also Keil, in the Luth. Zeitschrift 1851, i. p. 225 seq.; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, i. 82 seq.; Delitzsch, Auslegung der Genesis, p. 26).

For a correct understanding of these words of God, it is indispensable that we should first determine whether the word ny, "I was known," is to be regarded as emphatic or not. The whole tenor and connexion of the passage, its peculiar mode of construction and expression, the remarkable importance of its contents, and the great solemnity with which the words were uttered, compel us to take the word as emphatic, and to seek the meaning of the solemn address of God in this word alone; and doing so, it is necessary to take into account all the depth and fulness of meaning of which the verb is capable. Now it is well known, how deep and comprehensive a meaning this verb is capable of, and, where it is used emphatically, must necessarily have. In such a case it denotes a thorough insight into, and grasp of any object, even in its inmost essence. Perception in its primary and peculiar sense is by no means merely a superficial knowledge, which only touches the shell, and is content with the external and accidental appearance of an object; on the contrary it is the reception of an object into one's own spiritual life as the result of actual personal experience. It presupposes a close and intimate communion between the subject and the object, the perceiving mind and the object of perception. Hence it appears to us to be by no means a forced explanation, but a very natural one, and one which suits the words as well as the circumstances, and does full justice to the history contained in the book of Genesis, as well as to the expression itself, if we suppose the meaning intended to be conveyed to be this: that

It

the Israelites were to be made fully conscious, that they would immediately receive such a glorious manifestation of the operations of God, as even their celebrated ancestors had not been permitted to see. The latter had never witnessed, known, or experienced the whole extent of the fulness and glory of the divine operations, expressed by the name Jehovah, but these were now shortly to be displayed. El-Shaddai is the Almighty God, who, by his creative omnipotence, prepared the natural conditions and vital agencies required for the development of salvation, and hence the word sets forth one view of the Elohistic existence of God, on which it was necessary that peculiar stress should be laid (see Einheit der Genesis, p. 124). Jehovah, on the other hand, is the God engaged in the development of salvation, who enters into it himself, manifests himself in it and with it, and therefore conducts it with absolute certainty to the desired result. Jehovah had already ruled and worked in the history of the patriarchs. Their history commenced with Jehovah. was by Jehovah that Abraham was chosen and called; and He appointed him to be the father of the chosen people, the channel of blessings to the nations. But to accomplish this result, Jehovah had to become Elohim, El-Shaddai, that as creator he might produce the promised seed from an unfruitful body, and make of it a numerous people. And therefore that which was actually accomplished in the patriarchal age, that which the patriarchs (not merely hoped for and believed, but) saw and experienced as a fact fulfilled, was the work, not of Jehovah, but of EL-SHADDAI. All that Jehovah had performed, in connexion with the patriarchal history, was limited to the election and call of individuals, to the communication of directions and promises, and the fostering of faith in the directions and promises given. Hitherto, there had been no embodiment in fact; there had been merely the introduction of an idea, which was to be realized and embodied for the first time at Sinai. Hence the patriarchs could only grasp the operations of Jehovah in faith and hope; they could not see them; they did not feel and know them as something actually accomplished and fulfilled. This was reserved for their descendants, to whom Moses was sent with the message that it was now about to happen. This then, and this alone, is the meaning of the words of God: "They have known me, my nature, and my operations, as El-Shaddai,

but not as Jehovah; you, however, shall soon know me as Jehovah also."

(2). It is a fact that the name Jehovah occurs all through the book of Genesis, quite as frequently as the name Elohim, not only in the objective narration of the author, but also in the mouth of God and of the patriarchs. Various suggestions have been made, for reconciling this fact with the words of God in Ex. vi. 3. De Wette, Tuch, Stähelin, Lengerke, and many others suppose the meaning of these words to be, that the name Jehovah was not in existence before the time of Moses; and on this supposition they deny the unity of Genesis, and assume that such passages of that book, as do not contain the name Jehovah, form together a complete work (the so-called groundwork), whose author intentionally and consistently avoided using that name in consequence of the statement made in Ex. vi. 3. A subsequent interpolator or finisher extended this groundwork, and, overlooking the statement contained in that passage, either used the two names promiscuously in his additions, or with special reference to their different significations. On the other hand Hävernick, Hengstenberg, Drechsler, Keil, and many others, oppose this interpretation of the verse in Exodus, and defend the unity of the book of Genesis. The interchange of the names of God in that book, they explain entirely on the ground of the different notions conveyed by the two names. Ebrard (das Alter des Jehovahnamens: hist. theol. Zeitschrift v. Niedner, 1849. iv.), and Delitzsch, in his exposition of Genesis, endeavour to find a via media between the two, but seek it in opposite directions. For whilst Ebrard adopts Tuch's explanation of Ex. vi. 3, and yet wishes to maintain the unity of Genesis, Delitzsch gives up the unity of the book of Genesis, but yet adopts Hengstenberg's explanation of the passage in Exodus (Vol. i. § 20. 2).

We have already given our opinion as to the meaning of Ex. vi. 3; and all that we have still to do, is to say whether we give in our adhesion to the views of Hengstenberg or of Delitzsch. But this question has little connexion with our present topic, and, therefore, we shall defer the discussion of it to a more fitting occasion (see, in the meantime, Vol. i. § 20. 2). The only point of importance here is whether the name Jehovah, and the consciousness of the difference in the manifestations of God